Was Vietnam a Holocaust for Zion?

April 7, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

[…]In this article, I am not going to demonstrate, but simply hypothesize, that the leaking and revelation of the Pentagon Papers, and more broadly the role of the media establishment in the anti-Vietnam movement, were in the interest of Israel. At that moment Israel was starting to face a unified international front against its illegal occupation. There was a real threat that the US would force Israel to withdraw, as required by UN Resolution 242. But I will go further and suggest that the Vietnam War itself, not just the protest against it, served the interests of Israel, regardless of other factors that motivated it. There is, of course, no contradiction between these two theses, since the anti-Vietnam-war movement presupposes the Vietnam war. Significantly, until around 1969, the Washington Post’s editorials were unequivocally pro-war.

Johnson and the Vietnam War

As I wrote in JFK-9/11 and again in From Yahweh to Zion, if John Kennedy had not been assassinated, the very expression “Vietnam War” would not exist in school textbooks. Under his presidency, US military deployment amounted officially to a mere 15,000 “military advisors.” At the end of 1963, Kennedy had taken the decision to withdraw from Vietnam. On November 11, he signed directive NSAM-263 for the removal of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963,” in anticipation for withdrawing “by the end of 1965 […] the bulk of U.S. personnel.”[1] On November 21, the day before his fatal visit to Texas, he expressed his resolution to his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, after reading a report on the latest casualties: “After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”[2]

But on November 26, the day after Kennedy’s funeral, Johnson buried NSAM-263 and replaced it with NSAM-273, which required the military to develop a plan “for the United States to begin carrying the war north,” including “different levels of possible increased activity,” and “military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos”—which violated the 1962 Geneva Accords on the neutrality of Laos.[3] Johnson’s decision regarding Vietnam was a clear betrayal of Kennedy’s earlier policy, and the amazing expediency of his change of policy suggests premeditation. All ambiguities cleverly laid out in NSAM-273 would be lifted by another memo signed on January, 1964 by General Maxwell Taylor, which said: “National Security Action Memorandum n° 273 makes clear the resolve of the President to ensure victory over the externally directed and supported communist insurgency in South Vietnam […]. To do this, we must prepare for whatever level of activity may be required.” It is no longer a question of stopping the war, but rather winnings at any cost. Robert McNamara, continuing as Secretary of Defense, acceded to Johnson’s agenda, recommending the mobilization of 50,000 soldiers and a program of “graduated overt military pressure” against North Vietnam, a policy which Johnson rubberstamped in March 1964 by memorandum NSAM-288.[4]

A suitable pretext was still needed for aggression. It came in Gulf of Tonkin on the 2nd and 4th of August 1964, when torpedoes were allegedly launched by the North Vietnamese against American destroyers. It is now known that the second attack, if not the first, was imaginary, made up out of falsified NSA data.[5] With that faked event, Johnson could announce on national television a “retaliatory” bombing of the North Vietnamese navy, and push through Congress on August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave him full powers to send up to 500,000 soldiers into North Vietnam. With that, Johnson plunged the Vietnamese people into a decade of unspeakable suffering, taking the lives of more than a million civilians. From 1965 to 1968, as part of Operation Rolling Thunder, 643,000 tons of bombs were dropped—three times more than during the entire Second World War—on a mostly rural country, and about 500,000 American soldiers were sent to Vietnam, where 50,000 perished. 19 million gallons of toxic chemicals were sprayed from the air to destroy approximately 40 percent of the South’s forests, one-third of its valuable mangrove swamps, and large areas of prime cropland. The chemicals are also suspected of causing widespread health problems, including cancer and birth defects. An estimated 3.5 million Vietnamese were killed directly in the war. One-third of the South’s population became “internal refugees”, their way of life destroyed, forced to live for years in the misery of refugee camps and overfull cities, with prostitution and other social problems as a result. Since the war ended for the US in 1975, nearly 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by residual explosives, including an estimated 3.5 million land mines. Many more have been crippled for life. A decade after the war, over 13 percent of Vietnam’s population were still suffering from some war-related injury.[6]

Johnson and the Six Day War

It was during that period that Israel chose to launch its operation to annex Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories, by creating the illusion that it was acting in self-defense. Johnson had given Israel a green light in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, dated June 3: “I want to protect the territorial integrity of Israel […] and will provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and of the area.”[7] Johnson also asked the CIA to transmit to the Israeli army the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases to be destroyed.

Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its objectives. It was then that, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, an unarmed NSA spy ship, was bombed, strafed, and torpedoed for 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and torpedo boats. The Israelis obviously intended to sink it without leaving any survivors (even the lifeboats were machine-gunned), while Johnson personally prohibited the nearby Sixth Fleet from coming to its rescue. Had the USS Liberty been successfully sunk, the attack would have been blamed on the Egyptians, and would have given Johnson the pretext to intervene militarily alongside Israel, probably forcing the USSR to go to war.[8]

But it failed. The affair was successfully smothered by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II (father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). The survivors received a medal in an unadvertised ceremony, accompanied by a formal order never to mention the incident. Only recently have some broken the silence.[9]Johnson accepted Israel’s spurious “targeting error” explanation, and rewarded the unprovoked attack by lifting the embargo on the sale of offensive military equipment to Israel.

The USS Liberty failed false flag attack is proof of Johnson’s secret complicity with Israel, and of his high treason against the country he had sworn to protect. But Johnson had in fact always been Israel’s man. As early as 1948, his campaign for a Senate seat had been financed by Abraham Feinberg, president of Americans for Haganah Incorporated and financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[10] In 2013, the Associated Press reported on newly released tapes from Johnson’s White House office showing LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The tapes showed that during the Johnson presidency, “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.” An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times“Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?” recalls Johnson’s continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: “President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction.” The article also mentions that, “research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America.” And, in an additional note: “The facts indicate that both of Lyndon Johnson’s great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish. […] The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”[11]

It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965) that it was in fact Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post, both strong supporters of Israel, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson on his ticket, in a closed door conversation.[12] Schlesinger doesn’t reveal Graham and Alsop’s arguments, and states that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for a historian so well informed, which can only be explained by Schlesinger’s refusal throughout his 872 pages to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism. Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert a huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[13]

The Vietnam Holocaust

Is there a connection between those two wars, each waged or supported by Lyndon Johnson? In my book JFK-9/11, I suggested that Johnson escalated the Vietnam War as a substitute for the invasion of Cuba that the CIA and Pentagon hawks involved in the plot to assassinate JFK had been led to believe that they could start by blaming the assassination on a communist plot. “In lieu of invasion,” I wrote, “Johnson offered to the generals the Vietnam War.” That was a grossly insufficient explanation. There is little evidence that Pentagon generals, let alone CIA officers, needed a war, any war, at all cost. But I could think of no other explanation, short of the unlimited greed of war profiteers, of whom Johnson was a highly representative specimen. (In the weeks preceding the Kennedy assassination, he had invested in the Dallas aircraft manufacturer Ling-Temco-Vought, which was to become one of the Pentagon’s biggest arms suppliers for the Vietnam War.[14] Johnson also owned stocks in Bell Helicopter, to which he transferred illegally a contract for 220 helicopters that had been signed in 1963 with its rival Kaman Aircraft.[15])

Only recently did the idea come to me of a hidden link between the Vietnam War and the Six-Day War. I could not conceive it before because I had not yet taken the full measure of the perversity of the Israeli leadership, whose collective psychopathy resonated deeply with Johnson’s personal psychopathy. Having now studied the deep thinking of those ultra-Machiavellian crypto-Likudniks whom we call neoconservatives, I have acquired the conviction that the tragedy of the world for the last hundred years is only comprehensible once we admit that Israel (before and after 1947) acts on the international scene in a biblical way, that is, with the same indifference and cruelty toward non-Jewish nations that Yahweh demanded of his people in the Bible. In their eyes, these populations are no more worthy than livestock, and their suffering is irrelevant (unless, of course, it can be exploited). There is absolutely no moral limit to the determination of Israel to pave its way toward hegemony through the ruin of whole nations. Absolutely none. This is what I meant when calling Israel the “psychopathic nation”.

And so my hypothesis is that one of the purposes of the Vietnam War desired by Johnson and his masters was to create a diversion while Israel was engaging in the decisive stage of its expansion. Let us imagine for a moment that there had been no Vietnam War, in 1967 and thereafter, to mobilize Americans’ limited attention on world affairs, and to divert their indignation. Could the Washington Post and the New York Times have managed to hide from the public the scandal of that war of aggression and illegal annexation? Even more importantly, Israel’s strategists surely understood that the legitimacy of the US state to condemn Israel’s crimes would be much diminished if the US could be blamed for even worse crimes.

French President Charles De Gaulle actually understood that the Vietnam War was preventing a peaceful solution in Palestine. In a press conference on November 27, 1967, after condemning Israel’s aggression and famously qualifying the Jews as “an elite people, self-confident and dominating,” he called for the four great powers to enforce an international settlement on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, and added:

“But one cannot see how such an agreement could be reached as long as one of the greatest among the four will not withdraw from the heinous war that they are waging elsewhere. Without the tragedy of Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs would not have become what it has become. And if South-East Asia could experience a renewal of peace, the Middle-East would also find its way to peace, in the climate of détente which would follow such an event.”[16]

Soon after that press conference, De Gaulle’s government became the target of a major student protest that culminated in May 1968, ultimately forcing De Gaulle to resign. These students, led by predominantly Jewish Trotskyist activists,[17] were not protesting against the US aggression against Vietnam, nor against Israel’s aggression against its Arab neighbors, but against bourgeois society.

It is not an exaggeration to qualify the Vietnam War as a “holocaust”, as did the 2008 documentary film Vietnam: American Holocaust.[18] In the Bible, a holocaust designates an animal offering completely consumed by fire, producing an “enjoyable smell” for Yahweh (Genesis 8:20-21; Exodus 29:25). According to the Book of Ezra, a gigantic holocaust was offered “to the God of Israel who resides in Jerusalem” by the Judeo-Babylonians who (re)colonized Palestine, in preparation for the (re)building of the Temple (7:12–15).

Strangely, it is during the Vietnam War that the term “Holocaust” became the common designation of the killing of Jews during World War II. Unless we consider that Hitler was working for the glory of Yahweh, that expression seems absurd. Surely, the anti-Zionist rabbi Moshe Shonfeld believes that “The Zionist leaders saw the spilt Jewish blood of the Holocaust as grease for the wheels of the Jewish national state.”[19] But the term logically applies much better to the Vietnam War if we consider that by focusing the attention of the American public, then the protests of American youths and liberal intellectuals, it left the field wide open for Israel’s conquest of Palestinian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories. After all, the Vietnamese plight was greater than the Palestinians’. This, I believe, provides a plausible answer to the question: Why did Johnson, who did not satisfy the CIA hawks on Cuba, draw the US into the Vietnam inferno? The strongest Johnson administration advocate for a deepening commitment in Vietnam was National Security Advisor Walt Rostow, whose brother Eugene was Under-Secretary of State. They happened to be sons of Jewish immigrants. The historian David Milne has called Rostow “America’s Rasputin.”

Two months after his election in 1968, Nixon secretly and illegally expanded the war into Cambodia, ordering a massive bombardment under the codename Breakfast, followed by Lunch, Dessert, Snack, Dinner and Supper—all of which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, an exceptionally bloody, tyrannical regime responsible for the extermination of one third of the Cambodian population. The man who pushed him in that direction was National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, also acting as Secretary of State. Like the Rostows, Kissinger happens to be Jewish.

Many of the leading figures of the anti-war movement were also Jewish. But soon after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, with the help of Anthony Russo, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (all Jewish by birth), other liberal Jewish intellectuals made a 180-degree turn and became leading advocate of the war: they called themselves “neoconservatives”. We have here a fine example of dialectical engineering of history: as Jewish leftists like Noam Chomsky started to protest against the war, former Jewish leftists like Irving Kristol started to protest against the protesters. Meanwhile, Israel could be pushed out of the headlines. Kristol wrote in the magazine of the American Jewish Congress in 1972 that it was necessary to fight against George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. […] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. […] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”[20]

Against McGovern’s demand for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kristol could have added: “American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to withdraw from Vietnam, it is important to pursue the genocide of the Vietnamese, so that America’s youthful idealists will protest against their own government rather than against Israel’s violation of international law.”

References

[1] On JFK Library, http://www.jfklibrary.org/

[2] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 638.

[3] LBJ Library: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/nsams/nsam273.asp.

[4] LBJ Library: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/nsams/nsam288.asp

[5] Scott Shane, “Vietnam Study, Casting Doubts, Remain Secret”, New York Times, October 31, 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/31war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[6] Figures taken from “Vietnam Holocaust, 140 years of pillage, slaughter & persecution,” ã Föreningen Levande Framtid, Sweden, 2001: http://www.nnn.se/vietnam/holocaust.pdf

[7] State Department Archive: http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix /28057.htm.

[8] Robert Allen, Beyond Treason: Reflections on the Cover-up of the June 1967 Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, an American Spy Ship, CreateSpace, 2012.

[9] Watch the 2014 Al-Jazeera documentary The Day Israel Attacked America.

[10] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 250.

[11] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

[12] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56.

[13] Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2: op. cit., p. 257.

[14] Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007.

[15] Charles Kaman, “Politics had reared its ugly head in a very certain way,” on http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=633

; text on http://akadem.org/medias/documents/3-conference-degaulle.pdf

[17] On the Jewish-led student uprising in Paris in 1968, read Yair Auron, Les Juifs d’extrême gauche en Mai 68, Albin Michel, 1998.

[19] Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony of Jewish War Criminals, Bnei Yeshivos, 1977 (http://netureikartaru.com/Holocaust_Victims_Accuse.pdf), pp. 28, 24.

[20] Philip Weiss, “30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views,” May 23, 2007: http://mondoweiss.net/2007/05/30_years_ago_ne/.

Western Hegemony's Collapse

Is This What The US Really Wants From Russia?

April 6, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

The US’ recent multidimensional asymmetric offensive against all manner of Russian interests isn’t the random symptom of psychotic Russophobia that it’s being presented as, but is part of a comprehensive strategy for pressuring Moscow to abandon its close cooperation with China & Iran in exchange for a “New Détente”, a scenario that shouldn’t be ruled out if Trump gets his way during the upcoming meeting with President Putin.

Many people are struggling to find any rhyme or reason behind the US’ anti-Russian moves over the past couple of years, especially the ones that Trump was supposedly forced into by the “deep state” out of the mistaken belief that it would relieve the fake news-driven Russiagate pressure on his administration, but the answer to it all is a lot simpler than it appears. The fact of the matter is that everything that’s happening is intentional and part of a comprehensive strategy for getting Russia to abandon its close cooperation with China & Iran in response to the US’ multidimensional asymmetric offensive against its interests, although it’s proven itself to be a failed plan that requires urgent reform. Whether it’s the West’s “Russian propaganda” witch hunt or the Skripal chemical weapons false flag scandal, every single anti-Russian move that’s been undertaken in the last few years is designed to advance this objective.

Taking Apart The Multipolar Triangle

Iran:

There was right after Trump’s 2016 victory that his administration would try to split the Russian-Chinese-Iranian multipolar triangle in Eurasia, and that’s exactly what the President and his team are trying to do, albeit in a different fashion than what people might have expected. Trump rightly calculated that Obama’s unprecedented outreach to Iran through the 2015 nuclear deal was being taken advantage of by Tehran and that the Islamic Republic never had any serious intentions in agreeing to the tacit quid-pro-quo being offered at the time to replace Saudi Arabia as America’s preferred regional partner. Accordingly, he decided to pivot away from his predecessor’s policy and use nothing but “muscular means” to coerce Iran into submitting to the US’ military might, which is a work in progress and one that will certainly be made all the more difficult by Tehran’s mastery of asymmetrical responses.

China:

As for China, Trump also learned from the mistake of his predecessor who at one time offered the People’s Republic a global partnership through the so-called “G-2” or “Chimerica” concept but was rebuffed by a Beijing that’s both too proud to share world leadership with America and also reluctant into being tricked to take on responsibilities that it didn’t agree to or anticipate at the time. It wasn’t coincidental that the G-2’s failure was soon thereafter followed up by China’s announcement of its One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity in order to economically reform the structural basis for the “Washington Conesus” and consequently facilitate the emerging Multipolar World Order. Trump’s Kraken-like answer to this challenge was to continue with Obama’s Hybrid War policy in targeting the most vulnerable “Global South” transit states for China’s transnational infrastructure megaprojects simultaneously with the commencement of a trade war against the People’s Republic.

Russia:

Iran’s full-blown ideological resistance to striking a “deal with the devil” and China’s unflinching commitment to challenging the US’ unipolar dominance of the world mean that there’s no realistic chance that either of them will budge from their previous refusals to abandon the other in exchange for an alleviation of American pressure on their countries, thereby pointing Trump in Russia’s direction because he considers it to be the “weakest link” in this multipolar arrangement. After all, Russia has always insisted with total sincerity that it wants nothing more than an equal relationship with what it still continues to call its “Western partners”, which logically entails them respecting the country’s so-called “sphere of influence” in the former Soviet space. Previous US administrations smacked away Russia’s olive branch every time it was offered, but Trump seemed to actually be interested in cutting a deal with Moscow before the “deep state” intervened to stop him.

The “Deep State’s” Folly

Ironically, that move might go down in history as the last possible chance that the US had to realistically bring Russia back into the “Washington Consensus” by peaceful means, as Moscow signaled that it was prepared to enter into a so-called “New Détente” with Washington that would have obviously involved mutual “concessions/compromises”. That “lost opportunity” might never be regained because Russia’s resolve has since hardened after feeling betrayed by Trump and subject to his administration’s humiliating punishments for not submitting to America without any preconditions (“mutual concessions/compromises”), which is what the “deep state” wanted after making the massive error of judgement in convincing themselves through “groupthink” that President Putin would follow in Yeltsin’s footsteps and surrender if the powerful “oligarchic” class put enough pressure on him to do so in exchange for lifting the sanctions. That ship has sailed and what’s happening now is a combination of scorn and strategy.

The US will never forgive President Putin for refusing to bow down to the Obama-era liberal-globalist “deep state” that sabotaged Trump’s outreach plan, which is why it’s getting so nasty in carrying out witch hunts against Russian media and expelling the country’s diplomats on unproven pretexts. For the “deep state”, this is “personal”, though while Trump seems to understand the “effectiveness” of “playing dirty” as a form of psychological warfare against the Russian leadership, he’s never publicly swayed from his campaign pledge to cut a deal with Russia if it was possible (i.e. the “deep state” lets him or he goes around their backs). It’s with this backdrop in mind that Trump invited President Putin to the White House for a forthcoming meeting that will presumably be about “ironing out their differences” and advancing the presumably mutual goal of a so-called “New Détente”, albeit not on the one-sided unconditional terms that the “deep state” is obsessed with.

Describing The “New Détente”

Trump realized that Russia is digging in its heels by deepening its partnerships with China and Iran in response to the “deep state’s” multidimensional asymmetric aggression and that this policy has been nothing but counterproductive to America’s predominant New Cold War interest in “containing” China. Furthermore, the President seems to have convinced the “patriotic” and “pragmatic” elements of the “deep state” that this is the case and that it’s impossible for America to make any tangible progress in stopping the Silk Road if it has to multitask between “containing” China, Iran, and Russia in vastly different theaters and with completely different methods. It’s much better, the billionaire businessman likely reckoned, to walk back some of his administration’s unnecessarily aggressive moves in Europe and perhaps elsewhere as part of his country’s “mutual concessions/compromises” with Russia for a “New Détente” than to continue with this completely failed policy of pressure.

What the US wants from Russia in exchange is simple, and it’s that it expects Moscow to scale back its strategic partnerships with Tehran & Beijing and to not interfere with Washington’s “containment” campaigns against both of them. Russia is already passively allowing the US and its allies to “contain” Iran in Syria out of self-interested prudence in preventing World War III, but it has yet to pull back from its Silk Road relationship with China. It’s unclear exactly how the US envisions Russia doing this in a “plausibly deniable” way that mirrors the Iranian approach and avoids provoking a hostile reaction from China, but whatever it is that Washington has in mind, it hopes that Moscow will agree to it so that President Putin can forget about international drama and completely focus on fulfilling the comprehensive domestic reform agenda that he plans to carry out during his fourth and final term.

It’s impossible to speculate on whether Russia is even interested in such a scenario at this point in time given all that’s transpired between it and the West in the past year alone, but playing “devil’s advocate” for a moment, there might be another enticing reason aside from the domestic one why Moscow might decide to “play ball”. The increasing polarization of the world economic system into globalization-spreading China and protectionist-espousing America is broadly returning International Relations to its Old Cold War-era bipolarity in advance of its eventual transition to multipolarity, and it’s here where Russia could play a pivotal role in leading a new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that helps other countries “balance” their relations with both superpowers. The US might begrudgingly be forced under the current circumstances and the objective limits of its power to accept the relative curtailment of its influence over some countries by Russia so long as Moscow fulfills a similar role vis-à-vis them and China.

The Great Unknown

It’s a risky gamble because a Russian-led Neo-NAM could just as easily tilt the strategic balance of global influence in the New Cold War towards China as it could towards America, but Washington is wagering that Moscow might conclude that its self-interest could best be protected by maintaining “harmony” between the two superpowers in Eurasia, thus enabling the US to focus more on destabilizing the Silk Road through Hybrid Wars in Africa and the parts of the supercontinent not covered by this “balancing bloc”. Russia’s low-cost but high-impact “balancing” investments could yield enormous dividends for its influence, while any prospective de-escalation in Europe due to the “New Détente” would free up the country’s resources to focus more on carrying out President Putin’s ambitious domestic reform agenda and delivering on the campaign promises that he made his countrymen in order to sustainably guarantee his legacy.

Concluding Thoughts

To reiterate what was just written, there is no way to know for certain whether the US’ latest gambit in trying to reach a “New Détente” with Russia will succeed or not, but it needs to be recognized that the multidimensional asymmetric aggressions that it’s waged against its rival’s interests will eventually take their financial toll and that President Putin might find it increasingly challenging to execute his comprehensive reform agenda on the home front unless he cuts some kind of deal. This doesn’t imply that Russia is at risk of “selling out” to the US, but just that President Putin is accountable first and foremost to his people and then only secondly to his country’s international partners.

If the Kremlin concludes that Russia’s interests would best be advanced through engaging in a series of “mutual concessions/compromises” with the US as part of a “New Détente”, then it won’t hesitate to make that move; likewise, if the savvy Russian leader recognizes that he’s being “taken for a ride” by Trump and that his “counterpart” is offering him a lopsided deal that’s doomed to make his country America’s “junior partner” in Eurasia, then he won’t think twice about walking away with no “deal”. Ultimately, everything depends on whatever deal Trump puts on the table and whether he can convince President Putin that his newfound truce with the neoconservatives translates into being able to get the “deep state” to abide by the terms of any prospective agreement.

If Russia is swayed by the carrot-and-stick combination of the Trump Administration’s possibly sincere commitment to a “New Détente” in exchange for an alleviation of multisided and sometimes humiliating pressure against it, then the geopolitical implications would be profound since Moscow would be ascending into the perfect position for “balancing” Eurasian affairs. It wouldn’t just have China’s tacit support for this initiative but America’s too because each superpower would appreciate Moscow becoming a “balancing” force vis-à-vis the other and freeing them up to focus on their rival in other areas of concern, mostly in Africa. As such, Russia could count on being courted by both of them and finally fulfilling its grand strategic goal to “balance” Eurasia, though provided that this speculative deal goes through in the first place and is actually respected by the US afterwards.

Western Hegemony's Collapse

Diversity? . . . It’s The End of the West

April 5, 2018 Algora Blog 2 Comments

Readers’ Comments:

As a condition for being merely considered for a faculty position, Ohio State University requires that applicants avow their support for diversity and politically correct policies and that they provide proof that they had actively supported such things in the past.

My former colleagues don’t see any problem with this requirement.

*
When I applied to become a New York City fireman in 1962, there was a very rigorous physical, including having to press seventy five pounds with one arm and fifty pounds with the other, to get a perfect score (one’s performance was given a mark and was averaged with the written test). The written exam was composed of arithmetic, science and civics. To make a long story short, the physical has been entirely degraded in order to recruit more women and these days it is not graded, one needs of only do the minimum to qualify. The old written exam was declared non-job related (and racist by implication since it seemed to bar so many blacks from qualifying) and these days it is a sort of psychological test that one would have to be a complete moron not to know what answer is being prompted. Finally, last year a black recruit who failed the probationary firefighter training period three times was given a fourth chance.

A few years back the Washington Times had a great article about the culture within WMATA that has caused its collapse. Here’s just the beginning of that excellent article.

Ninety-seven percent of the bus and train operators at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are black, with only six white women out of more than 3,000 drivers, according to Metro documents — a lack of diversity at one of the region’s largest employers that has led to an acknowledgment of failure in affirmative-action documents and spawned a series of lawsuits.

The homogeneity, interviews with dozens of current and former Metro workers indicated, is a proxy to a clubby culture of favoritism in which merit has little to do with promotions, and accountability, such as noting safety violations, is a career death knell. In typical examples, court and Metro records show, a black man who spent eight years in prison for dealing PCP was promoted to a high-level management position soon after his release, and whites in the same positions as blacks with far less seniority are inexplicably paid less.

With Metro’s budget chronically strained and reports of mismanagement coming more regularly than trains, interviews and internal records depict a likely root: an environment in which hardworking employees are actively excluded and those who rise are those willing to do the bare minimum — never causing a stir by flagging rampant safety violations, reporting malfeasance or proposing improvements.

“When the accident happened in 2009, I called a supervisor and said, ‘Is this the one we all dreaded?’ The way workers do their jobs, we all knew it was a matter of time. … The inept get promoted, and the capable get buried. Smart people were put in the corner, ostracized and given nothing to do,” said Christine Townsend, who sued Metro for discrimination and won.

It is a culture in which a white male engineer near completion of a Ph.D. was passed over for a management position in favor of a black man who was barely literate, multiple staffers said.

“The average rider wouldn’t believe the things that go on. There are so many easy things we could do to make the system better,” a station manager said. “But they’d never put me in charge because they know I’d make sure others actually did their jobs. They don’t want change. It’s go along to get along.”

Metro is a quasi-public agency that receives funding from the federal government, Maryland, Virginia and local jurisdictions to operate a regional bus and rail transportation system in the national capital area, but is not beholden to rules that apply to fully governmental entities. With a $2.5 billion operating and capital budget for fiscal 2012, Metrorail serves 86 stations and has 106 miles of track, while Metrobus serves the nation’s capital with 1,500 buses.

Metro’s affirmative-action plan notes that the 1.4 percent of its bus and train operators who are Hispanic and the 25 percent who are female of any race are “less than reasonably expected.” It does not make note of the 1.5 percent who are white.

Even in entry-level occupations typically dominated by Hispanics, there are virtually none at Metro. Only one laborer out of 67 is Hispanic; of 540 landscapers, carpenters and cleaners, only 22 are Hispanic. In the national capital region, Hispanics make up 13 percent of adults and blacks comprise 25 percent; white women constitute 29 percent.

“The odds of such a disparity occurring by chance are statistically infinitesimal,” Ronald A. Schmidt, a lawyer representing 12 white women exploring a class-action lawsuit, wrote in a 2003 letter. “There appears to be an entrenched network of African-American employees at WMATA that is able to steer jobs, promotion, training and other career enhancing benefit to persons of their own racial or ethnic group.”

The average Metro worker had a $60,000 salary, which rises to $69,000 including overtime. That is more than 71 percent of area residents who had an income in 2010, including 62 percent of whites, census records show.

White and Hispanic employees who allege discrimination have found a deaf ear at Metro’s civil rights office, whose 17 employees are black. Until at least 1999, that office tracked complaints via a handwritten ledger on a series of taped-together sheets of paper, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. The system “made determining statistics impossible,” said a civil rights employee from the time.

In recent months, such antiquated record keeping has allowed employees to steal thousands of dollars that electronic systems easily could have detected — and in more than one case, a culture of complicity has kept prosecutors from trying those who were caught because they feared no clean witness or proper records could be found.

“There’s a strong sense of nepotism, and it is the culture of Metro,” the civil rights employee said. “It was more of a buddy system than it was merit-based.”

Metro did not respond to requests for information about workforce demographics.

*
My understanding is that the NYC transit union is a militant Caribbean affair. In DC, 97% of the bus and train operators are blacks and marginal black engineers are promoted over whites with PhDs. This has resulted in a predictable outcome. The deteroration of Metro.

This reminds me of something similar I experienced in Houston. At the time I employed programmers for contract work. I was contacted by a Nigerian who offered to broker two million dollars in City of Houston contracts to upgrade its computer systems. Altho I had an established and experienced organization, I could not apply to obtain such contracts myself due to the racial preference system. The Nigerian had no organization, no employees, no experience, and no citizenship. But he had a PhD in computer science, which he told me he had obtained online “for life experience” in exchange for $1500. This qualified him, a recent immigrant, to go to the top of the list of MBE applicants and be awarded exclusive rights to these city contracts. The subcontract deal he proposed was no surprise: my programmers would do all the work at minimum wage while he would collect all the payments from Houston at full professional rates while he himself contributed nothing.

I think this situation, which springs from the MBE scam (thank you SCOTUS for creating the scam) coupled with the Tammany Hall like strangle-hold that race-conscious blacks maintain over Houston’s city government, pretty well matches the increasing number of businesses in Houston that I see hiring Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, etc., in short anyone with melanin and preferably a recent immigrant–but never whites. The people in these businesses, including some multinationals, in defense of this discriminatory employment policy against whites, reply “diversity”. This too I’ve been told personally.

Likewise, an illiterate illegal can cross over, from a Latin American country that has ZERO connection to the culture or history of the United States–never suffered ANYTHING, and he or she is automatically given preference once “in the system” (including college entrances). That’s what the democrats are selling to white women. And white women are totally ok with that.

That’s totally cool with blacks, I get that–they don’t care and aren’t thinking about the future (or seeing it). But white women(?), they sit back and vote for this and agree with this. Their own kids will take a backseat in everything from hiring preferences, to college, to other federal, local and state benefits.

Indians are not here to “save” America or even our tech industry. They are parasites here to turn the US into another shithole like India. If Indians were that smart, why is India such a shithole, did you ever think about that? Per the WSJ there are already at least 500,000 Indians in the US illegally. Search for “Microsoft tech support” on Google and call those mysterious 1-877-xxx-xxxx numbers all over Google search, 9 out of 10 are fecking Indian scammers pretending to be Microsoft tech support trying to download crap on to your machine to scam you. The more Indians we import, the quicker we’ll turn into another India. Go see for yourself what a shithole India is, then come back and tell us it’s a good idea to import more of these shit parasites to the US. “Best and brightest” my eye. It’s exactly because of clueless Americans like you that we are going down in flames.

Southern farmers didn’t live with other Whites. They lived with their black slaves. Nowadays White farmers live surrounded by illegal Hispanic Indian workers and their families on welfare.

They send their White children to schools that are 70 to 80 percent 80 IQ Hispanic Indian.

Cheap labor rules over ethnicity and even their children’s schools.

And there are almost no Jewish farmers in this country.

Actually, Whites did this. The 1968, the Affirmative Action Civil Rights Act was made law by a White male Senate and more than 90 percent White male Congress.

An all White male Supreme Court ruled against hiring of qualified Whites in favor of extremely unqualified Blacks in the Griggs vs Duke Power and Kaiser vs Weber cases.

Kaiser vs Weber was about the fact that Kaiser Steel mills required that applicants for foremen have a high school diploma.

All White male Supreme Court ruled against merit hiring in favor of unqualified non White hiring

It was a White male Government that did it. There were very few, almost no White women senators, cabinet members, judges, congress critters or even attorneys between 1968 to 1973 when affirmative action was implemented.

Blame your fathers and grandfathers generation, sometimes known as the Greatest Generation because it won WW2.

Anglozionism

Boris Johnson’s Chutzpah and ‘Deluge of Lies’ (20 in 2 Minutes)

April 4, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

It’s time to take a stand

Charles Bausman

Mr. Johnson is the gift that keeps on giving. Last week I reprinted an article by him from the Telegraph, with a few pointed words of introduction, and it was enough to expose him as a miserable liar. Well now he’s at it again.

Enough already!

Truth be told, I’m not sure Johnson even writes his own material. It has that ring to it of the recent Oxbridge grad, the recent hire at the Economist. They are so thoroughly mendacious that it is a little hard imagining him sitting there lying so shamelessly. It’s more like the kind of thing you have a pro write up, and then force old BoJo to sign with a gun to his head. I wonder what Kompromat they have on the old boy.

This past Tuesday in the Times of London, there appeared just such an article, all of 450 words. I timed myself reading it slowly, and came in at just under two minutes. Full text of his rabid effrontery follows below.

What struck me was what a magnficent number of lies the man (or somebody) managed to pack in to so few words.

He squeezed in: poisoning the Skripals, gassing the Syrians, illegally seizing Crimea, starting the Donbas war, hacking the Bundestag, supporting a genocidal war against the Syrian people, threatening European values and security, interfering in elections (plural), harboring ‘reckless ambition’, and that is just the first minute!

It so happens that none of these things are true, not in the least, which Mr. Johnson, and anyone paying attention knows very well.

The other thing that jumped out was the pot / kettle routine, falsely accusing the Russians of doing something unspeakably vile, while doing exactly that yourself. This is a deliberate technique, common in Jewish rhetoric. The effect is to momentarily, at least, confuse an honest person who has trouble imagining that someone could be so cynically, impudently, dishonest. Jews have a word for it: ‘Chutzpah’. No such word exists in other languages, for no other people engage in this sort of thing reflexively.

Johnson accuses the Kremlin of a ‘deluge of lies’, when it is precisely Mr. Johnson and the media (mostly Jewish owned) who back him who have launched such a deluge. He says ‘the cynicism of the (Russian) propaganda machine was exposed for all to see’, when in fact it is the cynicism and lying, the ‘Chutzpah’, one might say, of the Jewish media and Mr. Johnson which leaves one speechless. Mr. Johnson employs ‘Chutzpah’ in talking about ‘Chutzpah’, – it certainly does befuddle for a moment or two.

Johnson then ridicules the idea that the Skripal poisoning was a false flag, when in fact it is patently obvious that it was, and it is entirely obvious that Mr. Johnson was involved in its manufacture, judging from all the wild lies he immediately began trumpeting about the whole affair, clearly premeditated, and clearly on que. More remarkable ‘Chutzpah’.

Mr. Johnson is right, there was a time when this sort of thing was effective, but we live in an age of greater information transparency than those unfortunate times. Mr. Johnson is trying to pull a Tony Blair, a Colin Powell, an ‘Iraq’, but is not smart enough to realize that this just won’t work anymore, because he will immediately have a 100 people like me with substantial audiences hooting and heckling and ridiculing him, and social media in the millions lambasting him.

He must be particularly dense not to understand this.

Gentlemen, it is time we take action. The more these scoundrels are exposed by the transparency of our age, paradoxically, the more desperate their ploys, and the more extreme their lies. They remind one of enormous reptiles, overtaken by a changing world, unable to adapt, writhing in their misery as they go extinct, yet armed with nuclear codes and capable of doing a huge amount of violence, and spending vast amounts of OUR money. We live in fantastically dangerous times. Many observers have noted that strangely, this new, fake Cold War, is actually more dangerous than the old one, which was pretty awful.

I have written in detail about the role of the Jewish-owned media in this dangerous travesty, and how their lying will not stop unless we start calling them out on this, pointing out what is obvious, that it is a Jewish phenomenon. Many thousands of readers have responded and supported me on this. I’ve written about the ominous march to war over the past three weeks. I’ve written about the fact that it is mostly the Jewish media which endorse and support Mr. Johnson’s extreme mendacity.

We cannot let ourselves be intimidated by these psychopaths. If we simply join together and take a stand, we can stop them. I am raising funds to fight this menace – I explain in detail how and why in this article. So far the response has been very positive, people have sent in and pledged over $15,000 in 4 days.

Please join us and make a donation today. Unless we stand up and take responsibility for what is happening, it will never get better.

I, for one, HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

The full text of Johnson’s puerile concoctions follows below. I put in bold every lie that I noticed, and they came out to 22. See for yourself.

This. Must. Stop.

Please join our fundraiser today!

West takes a stand to halt reckless ambitions

The Times, March 27, 2018

Never before have so many countries come together to expel Russian diplomats. By last night, the total stood at more than 20 nations collectively deciding to remove more than 100 Kremlin officials. In the process these allies of Britain have consciously placed themselves at risk of retaliation.

Their principled stand in the aftermath of the use of a nerve agent in Salisbury on March 4 may well carry a price, perhaps in the form of some of their own diplomats being removed from Moscow, so I am deeply grateful to all the nations who have resolved to act. And I believe that yesterday’s events could become a turning point. Do not underestimate the effect of these measures on Russia’s networks of espionage. When the Foreign & Commonwealth Office evicted 23 undeclared intelligence officers from the Russian embassy in London, we eviscerated the Kremlin’s painstakingly assembled operation in Britain.

Yesterday’s action delivers a further blow from which Russian intelligence will need many years to recover. But I will resist any temptation to proclaim that the response was all about us. Our allies have responded because they share our view of the threat posed by the Kremlin to their values and security.

The use of a banned nerve agent on British soil falls into a wider pattern of President Putin’s reckless behaviour. In the past 4 years, the Kremlin has annexed Crimea, ignited the flames of conflict in the Donbas region of Ukraine, hacked the German Bundestag, interfered in elections across the world, sought to hide Assad’s use of poison gas and joined his onslaught against the Syrian people.

The common thread is Mr Putin’s willingness to defy the essential rules on which the safety of every country depends. Hence every responsible nation shares a vital interest in standing firm against him. Our allies have not been deterred by Russia’s usual tactics for avoiding pressure. Sure enough, the Kremlin began pumping out a deluge of lies almost as soon as Sergei and Yulia Skripal had entered intensive care. So far, my colleagues at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have identified 21 theories broadcast by the Russian state media, ranging from the sublime (Skripal overdosed because he was addicted to Novichok) to the absurd (America did it to “destabilise the world”) to the offensive (The UK poisoned its own city to spoil the World Cup).

There was a time when this tactic of sowing doubt might have been effective, but no one is fooled anymore. I believe yesterday was a moment when the cynicism of the propaganda machine was exposed for all to see. The western alliance took decisive action and Britain’s partners came together against the Kremlin’s reckless ambitions.

Eastern Europe Awakening

More Details about the Romanian Counter-Revolution – December 1989

April 2, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

General Prosecutor Augustin Lazar handed over to President Klaus Iohannis the request for criminal prosecution in the Revolution dossier in connection with crimes against humanity against Ion Iliescu, Petre Roman and Gelu Voican Voiculescu, PÎCCJ reported on Monday.

“The Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice addressed to the President of Romania a request for the exercise of the constitutional and legal prerogatives regarding the request for criminal prosecution in connection with the commission of the offense against humanity, according to Article 439 para. ) a, g, i and k Criminal Code with the application of Article 5 of the Criminal Code to: Iliescu Ion, member and president of the Council of the National Salvation Front (dated December 22, 1989), de facto exerted executive power and the Central Legislature, behaving as a Government until the Decree-Law No. 2 of December 27, 1989, when the president of the council was given the role of a head of state, and the legislative powers of the council were separated from those of the executive, requiring authorization between December 22 and 27, 1989. Roman Petre, member of the Council of the National Salvation Front, dated December 22, 1989, officially named Prim Minister of the Government of Romania by Decree no. 1 of 26 December 1989 requiring authorization for the period 22 to 31 December 1989; Gelu Voican Voiculescu, member of the National Salvation Front Council of December 22, 1989, officially appointed Deputy Prime Minister of the Romanian Government by Decree no. 5 of December 28, 1989, which requires authorization for the period 22 – 31 December 1989 “, the communiqué of the General Prosecutor’s Office states.

On December 18, 2017, the Military Prosecutor’s Office announced that following the filing of evidence in the “Revolution” dossier, the investigators’ conclusion was that in December 1989 there was no power vacuum.

Military prosecutor Marian Lazar said at a press conference that there had been a military diversion since the evening of December 22, 1989, which was the main cause of numerous deaths, injuries and destructions.

Additionally, prosecutors have identified, including by testimonial evidence, the source of panic sound (issued on December 21, 1989, during Nicolae Ceausescu’s speech), which contributed alongside other elements to the disorganization of the Palace Square and triggering protests in Bucharest.

At the same time, prosecutors argued that there were pressures exerted on the commanders of UM 01417 Targoviste, the place where the Ceausescu couple was, but also orders from the top of the military hierarchy regarding the physical elimination of the presidential couple.

“It is undoubtedly the fact that the pressure existed, manifested itself on several levels, being the main cause of the numerous deaths, bodily injuries and destructions. The administered evidence highlighted the mechanisms of constant misinformation, with particularly serious consequences, launched through TVR, Radio Broadcasting and the military means of communication, thus being created, at national level, the well-known terrorist psychosis, as well as the way in which a series of diversionary military orders were transmitted, with particularly serious consequences. shows that in 1987 the armed forces of Romania imported two types of military firearms sound imitators, namely imitators for infantry weapons of the sound of fire at the barrel of the gun, and imitators of the parachute whistle, as well as a better understanding of the administered evidence.

At the same time, it was clarified the succession of events at UM 01417 Targoviste, the location where the Ceausescu couple was from the afternoon of December 22, 1989. The evidence revealed a constant pressure exerted on the commanders of this unit as well as the existence of orders from the top of the military hierarchy regarding the physical elimination of the Ceausescu couple, “said then prosecutor Marian Lazar. In addition, until the execution of the two, on December 25, 1989, three attempts were made for their physical liquidation.

The investigators stated that there is a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the emergency hearing of the former president and his wife, the actual trial, the real motivations behind this action and, subsequently, the execution of the Ceausescu spouses.

Former Prime Minister Petre Roman considers it “revolting” and ”extremely surprising” that the General Prosecutor, Augustin Lazar, has asked for a criminal prosecution to be conducted in his case in the Revolution file, arguing that during the period invoked he was in no position to influence military actions.

“First and foremost I have a feeling of revolt and total surprise, because I have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. If there were military actions in those days, in what capacity could I have influenced such military actions? I was a nobody at that time, I did not have any kind of official function, only on December 27, I became Prime Minister of Romania, this is the first point. Second, there were military actions and I was, for example, on the evening of December 21, one of those who survived certain military actions of repression: 39 comrades in the University Square area were killed, and there were also all those military operations in Timisoara, in which I could have lost my life, as How can I be in one way or another correlated with what is said in this criminal prosecution claim? That’s why I say it is totally and altogether revolting and even absurd, unless there’s a great deal of manipulation going on, because I was in no way qualified to get involved in any way with what the military orders were, those that led to the misery, the tragedy of the dead, especially those before December 22 and December 22 1989. I do not see any reference to any criminal investigation regarding those within the military units who gave the orders that led to the military actions. I personally did not have any position. Who was paying attention, in those days, to whom? One of those who participated in the Revolution? I insist and say that this is a demand that I categorically reject and which I consider extremely surprising, not to say very dubious from the point of view of its motivations,” Petre Roman told AGERPRES.

He pointed out that he had no capacity to give orders at that time.

“Do you know how many members the Council of the National Salvation Front there were (…) There were about 37, and anyway, the Council of the National Salvation Front was not in a position at the time to give orders.” The orders were from the institutions – The Ministry of Defense in the first place or the Ministry of the Interior, or what other institutions I do not know. “What was my connection with these institutions? None. What capacity did I have to influence them? Absolutely none,” he said. Petre Roman recalled that he was twice at the Military Prosecutor’s Office and testified. “I spent long hours there and told them what happened. I thought things were perfectly clear from the point of view of my participation, and now I see this demand, which I think is very surprising at best, but in any case misconduct is inappropriate with what I have experienced, never mind what I did in those days, and I’m talking about the period December 21 to December 26, 1989,” the former PM said.

The former prime minister did not want to comment on the fact that the prosecutor’s request also concerns Ion Iliescu and Gelu Voican Voiculescu.

“I have nothing to say about them, in this matter, because when a matter comes to justice every one … here, we are not talking about history. If you want to know what I think about what happened then you can consult a recently published volume called ‘About Passion in Time of Freedom’ in which I tell what I experienced at that time,” said Petre Roman. AGERPRES / (Autor:

Eastern Europe Awakening

Romania’s Tăriceanu unmasks Western puppet President Iohannis

April 2, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

The president of the Romanian Senate, Calin Popescu-Tăriceanu, promises to the Romanian head of state, Klaus Johannis, in an open letter, that he will fight, together with all people of good faith, to “disrupt ‘the parallel’ state”, to find out the truth about the workings of this system and how the participants “usurp” the power designated by democratic elections.

“I promise you, Mr. President, that not only I don’t help the policy promoted by you, I’ll be fighting together with all the people of good faith, for the disruption of ‘the parallel state’, and to find out the truth about the mechanisms of this system and of the participants in the usurpation of the democratically elected Government”, – it is stated in the open letter addressed by Tăriceanu to Iohannis.

Tăriceanu said he is not afraid of the dossiers “made to order” by Codruta Kovesi [Chief Prosecutor at Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie] and by any other tools used by “the parallel state” for the apprehension, compromise, condemnation or removal from public life of political opponents.

“I start by expressing my regret about the attack that you launched today at my address as President of the Senate, totally unsuitable to the dignity of a President of the country, both in its language and in its argumentation. This manner of public expression reveals your state of nervousness which I can understand, but I can’t accept, a state generated by a series of truths about you that you might not agree, but which have become notorious and which I reiterated in public the other day. There are truths that not many dare to present in public for fear of retaliation by those using dossiers and handcuffs. Well, I’m not afraid of any fabricated dossiers at the command of your assiduous collaborator, Codruta Kovesi, or of any other tools used by ‘the parallel state’ for the arrest, compromising, even the conviction or removal from public life of your political opponents, said Tăriceanu, to the head of state.

The president of the Senate believes that the head of the state is “the product of occult forces”, with the role to execute the plans of the “parallel state”.

“[The evidence] is concrete. You said today that in Romania there are no occult forces, no forces of the underground and no ‘parallel state’. Yes, there are, Mr. President, and you are the product of these forces, having the role to execute exactly and on time the occult plans of the ‘parallel state’. Just don’t imagine that you won the 2014 elections for your non-existent political merits or for the illegalities you committed as Mayor of Sibiu! No. You have been chosen by ‘the parallel state’ to win elections because you are blackmail-able with your own criminal dossiers and, therefore, easy to be handled by those who really controls ‘the parallel state’. When it comes to political opponents, your favorite meme is: ‘criminal’. What adjective do you think would suit you, after you proved that your family obtained by forgery and use of forgery valuable residential properties in Sibiu in the period when you were Mayor?”, added Tăriceanu.

He supports his claim concerning the existence of the “state parallel” on the basis of the disclosures made in the parliamentary committees.

“My assertion that ‘the parallel state’ exists is based on the very many extremely concrete revelations, with subject and predicate, made by persons who have known the inner workings of the evil system. The revelations were made during hearings in the legitimate parliamentary committees and have become notorious through the media. For lack of arguments and not wanting the public to find out more, you have chosen the method of mindless denial of evidence and, in addition, you have also declined, as the head of the CSAT, to take remedies that would address the hardcore facts presented to the Parliament, although you had an obligation to do just that,” explained Tăriceanu in the open letter.

The president of the Senate says that “the parallel state” tried to reduce the Parliament to silence, but “failed”.

“You said about me that I’m obsessed with respect to ‘the parallel state’, which obsession appeared after the prosecutors brought me to the attention of the justice. In reality, things are exactly the opposite. My criticism is consistent with regard to the abusive practices of the DNA and SRI in the period under Maior — Coldea, in a word of the ‘parallel state’, and that criticism is the cause – and not the effect – of a dossier being produced against me. In addition, I remind you that I’ve been making these public criticisms for a long time, about 3 years. ‘The parallel state’, which keeps the President under its patronage, tried as in other cases to silence me, but what you see is that the prescription has failed,” said Tăriceanu.

He accuses Johannis of not wanting an independent Judiciary but one that would support the perpetuation of the mechanisms of the “parallel state”.

“With reference to my person, you said that I don’t ‘serve too well politically’. You’re right, I don’t serve too well the policy promoted by you. You have the right to express a point of view, but by the same token so do I. As a result, because the laws regarding the judiciary just happen to be on the Parliament’s agenda, I’ll share my opinion on this topic, to see who does not serve well politically. Mr. President, your desire, clearly expressed in official statements, is for the laws to remain as they are now. Are you satisfied with the work of DEA under the leadership of Laura Kovesi? You don’t mind all the proven abuses, you don’t mind brutal violation of human rights etc., you still want to be the one who nominates the heads of major Prosecutor Offices and the HCCJ, as this way you can control the Justice. This is in spite of the declarations by which you claim that you want a Justice system independent of politics. Your position on this issue is the most convincing evidence that you do not want an independent Judiciary, but one controlled by your lordship in support of the perpetuation of the mechanisms of ‘the parallel state’. Without this ‘parallel state’, you have no chance to survive politically,” believes the president of the Senate.

Tăriceanu recalled that, in February 2016, he submitted to Parliament a bill which proposed that the heads of the major Prosecutor Offices and the HCCJ should be appointed by the CSM and not by any political factor, such as is the President of Romania.

“Through this bill I wanted a real independence of Justice, but you have resisted the public will. On the one hand you declare that you have confidence in the CSM, but, on the other hand, you don’t want to give up control over the Judiciary. This sleight of hand makes bad policy. Last but not least, I draw attention to one of the other statements that you made today, by which you publicly came out against a decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the introduction of a threshold of monetary value for embezzlement charges [in conformity with EU Legislation] when prosecuting fraud under the article of ‘abuse of office’. In recent years it has been a custom required of political leaders not to politicize the decisions of the RCC by making public criticism of such decisions. It is a custom that I respected, for I respect the Constitution. You broke it and, even worse, you feed a so-called public opinion according to which the decisions of the RCC and the Constitution itself are respected only when they serve your own interests. It induces thus the perception that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are not binding, that they can be questioned and, therefore, that the fundamental Law of the State can be questioned”, said Tariceanu.

President Klaus Iohannis said on Thursday that in Romania there are no occult forces, no underground forces, and claimed that the president of the Senate, Calin Popescu-Tăriceanu, creates the impression sometimes that he is “a little obsessed”.

“In Romania there are no occult forces, no underground forces and with certainty there is no parallel state in Romania. (…) For a while I’ve followed the statements of the gentleman mentioned by you [i.e., Senate President, Mr. Tăriceanu], who was once even prime minister. He has said interesting things a few times, but for quite a while now, believe me, I don’t follow his statements, because he has become increasingly weird. Sometimes he creates the impression that he is a little obsessed. However, people who are a little bit obsessed do not make good policy, and, ironically, this behavior has been showing up more and more since the prosecutors have brought this gentleman to justice,” said Iohannis at the Cotroceni Palace.

AGERPRES/(AS — author: Livia Popescu, editor: Georgiana Tanasescu, online editor: Gabriela Badea)
Translated by Algora

Military Affairs, Western Hegemony's Collapse

Endgame in Syria: Trump Signals Withdrawal of US Troops

April 1, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

By Nauman Sadiq for VT

In a momentous announcement at an event in Ohio on Thursday, Donald Trump said, “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now.”

What lends credence to the statement that the Trump administration will soon be pulling 2,000 US troops out of Syria – mostly Special Forces assisting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces – is that President Trump had recently announced to sack the National Security Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

McMaster represented the institutional logic of the deep state in the Trump administration and was instrumental in advising Donald Trump to escalate the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria. He had advised President Trump to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 8,400 to 15,000. And in Syria, he was in favor of the Pentagon’s policy of training and arming 30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

Both the decisions have spectacularly backfired on the Trump administration. The decision to train and arm 30,000 Kurdish border guards had annoyed the Erdogan administration to an extent that Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in Syria’s northwest on January 20.

After capturing Afrin on March 18, the Turkish armed forces and their Free Syria Army proxies have now cast their eyes further east on Manbij where the US Special Forces are closely cooperating with the Kurdish YPG militia, in line with the long-held Turkish military doctrine of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory west of River Euphrates.

More significantly, however, the US bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor on February 7 that reportedly killed and wounded dozens of Russian military contractors working for the private security firm, the Wagner group.

In order to understand the reason why the US brazenly attacked the Russian contractors, we need to keep the backdrop of seven-year-long Syrian conflict in mind. Washington has failed to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. After the Russian intervention in September 2015, the momentum of the battle has shifted in favor of the Syrian government and Washington’s proxies are on the receiving end in the conflict.

Washington’s policy of nurturing militants against the Syrian government has given birth to the Islamic State and myriads of jihadist groups that have carried out audacious terror attacks in Europe during the last three years. Out of necessity, Washington had to make the Kurds the centerpiece of its policy in Syria. But on January 20, its NATO-ally Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch against the Kurds in the northwestern Syrian canton of Afrin.

In order to save its reputation as a global power, Washington could have confronted Turkey and pressured it to desist from invading Afrin. But it chose the easier path and vented its frustration on the Syrian government forces in Deir al-Zor which led to the casualties of scores of Russian military contractors hired by the Syrian government.

Another reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working in Syria was that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which are mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of Turkish armed forces and allied Free Syria Army (FSA) militias.

Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor. The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian troops and Russian military contractors, consequently causing a massacre in which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives.

It would be pertinent to note here that regarding the Syria policy, there is a schism between the White House and the American deep state led by the Pentagon. After Donald Trump’s inauguration as the US president, he has delegated operational-level decisions in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to the Pentagon.

The way the US officials are evading responsibility for the incident, it appears the decision to strike pro-government forces in Deir al-Zor that included Russian contractors was taken by the operational commander of the US forces in Syria and the White House was not informed until after the strike.

Notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that unlike dyed-in-the-wool globalists and “liberal interventionists,” like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of political establishments, it appears that the protectionist Donald Trump not only follows news from conservative mainstream outlets, like the Fox News, but he has also been familiar with alternative news perspectives, such as Breitbart’s, no matter how racist and xenophobic.

Thus, Donald Trump is fully aware that the conflict in Syria is a proxy war initiated by the Western political establishments and their regional Middle Eastern allies against the Syrian government. He is also mindful of the fact that militants have been funded, trained and armed in the training camps located in Turkey’s border regions to the north of Syria and in Jordan’s border regions to the south of Syria.

According to the last year’s March 31 article [1] for the New York Times by Michael Gordon, the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and the recently sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had stated on the record that defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq was the top priority of the Trump administration and the fate of Bashar al-Assad was of least concern to the new administration.

Under the previous Obama administration, the evident policy in Syria was regime change. The Trump administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different perspective because Donald Trump regards Islamic jihadists as a much bigger threat to the security of the US.

In order to allay the concerns of Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East, the Trump administration conducted a cruise missiles strike on al-Shayrat airfield in Homs governorate on April 6 last year after the chemical weapons strike in Khan Sheikhoun. But that isolated incident was nothing more than a show of force to bring home the point that the newly elected Donald Trump is an assertive and powerful president.

Finally, Karen De Young and Liz Sly made another startling revelation in the last year’s March 4 article [2] for the Washington Post: “Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him.”

Thus, the interests of all the major players in Syria have evidently converged on defeating Islamic jihadists, and the Obama-era policy of regime change has been put on the back burner. And after the recent announcement of complete withdrawal of US troops from Syria by President Trump, it appears that we are approaching the endgame in Syria, an event as momentous as the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which will mark a stellar military victory for Vladimir Putin.

Sources and links:

1- White House Accepts ‘Political Reality’ of Assad’s Grip on Power in Syria:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/trump-bashar-assad-syria.html?_r=0

2- Pentagon plan to seize Raqqa calls for significant increase in U.S. participation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-plan-to-seize-raqqa-calls-for-significant-increase-in-us-participation/2017/03/04/d3205386-00f3-11e7-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html

About the author:

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

Cold War

Russian diplomat expulsions signal crude side of Western intentions

April 1, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

Source: editorial Global Times Published: 2018/3/27

On March 26, the US, Canada, and several European Union countries expelled Russian diplomats from their respective foreign embassies and consulates in retaliation against Russia’s alleged poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. As of this writing, 19 countries, including 15 EU member states, have shown their support to Great Britain by enforcing such measures.

On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were rushed to a hospital after they were found unconscious at a park in Salisbury. It was later reported the father and daughter had come into contact with an obscure nerve agent. UK government officials said the Skripals were attacked by “Novichok,” a powerful Soviet-era chemical nerve agent used by the military.

The British government did not provide evidence that linked Russia to the crime but was confident from the beginning there could be no other “reasonable explanation” for the attempted assassination. Great Britain was so convinced of their Russia theory, they wasted no time taking the lead in levying sanctions against the country by quickly expelling Russian diplomats from London. Shortly afterwards, UK capital officials reached out to NATO and their European allies who provided immediate support.

The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression “perhaps it’s true” to seize upon the desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts.

The UK government should have an independent investigation conducted into the Skripal poisoning by representatives from the international community. An effort such as this would provide results strong enough for those following the case to make up their minds on who should or shouldn’t be accused of the crime. Now, the majority of those who support Britain’s one-sided conclusion happen to be members of NATO and the EU, while others stood behind the UK due to long-standing relations.

The fact that major Western powers can gang up and “sentence” a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice.

Over the past few years the international standard has been falsified and manipulated in ways never seen before. The fundamental reason behind reducing global standards is rooted in post-Cold War power disparities. The US, along with their allies, jammed their ambitions into the international standards so their actions, which were supposed to follow a set of standardized procedures and protocol, were really nothing more than profit-seizing opportunities designed only for themselves. These same Western nations activated in full-force public opinion-shaping platforms and media agencies to defend and justify such privileges.

As of late, more foreign countries have been victimized by Western rhetoric and nonsensical diplomatic measures. In the end, the leaders of these nations are forced to wear a hat featuring slogans and words that read “oppressing their own people,” “authoritarian,” or “ethnic cleansing,” regardless of their innocence.

It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications, and come to value their own judgement abilities.

It’s already understood that to achieve such international collective efforts is easier said than done as they require foundational support before anything can happen. Until a new line of allies emerges, multi-national associations like BRICS, or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, need to provide value to those non-Western nations and actively create alliances with them.

What Russia is experiencing right now could serve as a reflection of how other non-Western nations can expect to be treated in the not-to-distant future. Expelling Russian diplomats simultaneously is hardly enough to deter Russia. Overall, it’s an intimidation tactic that has become emblematic of Western nations, and furthermore, such measures are not supported by international law and therefore unjustified. More importantly, the international community should have the tools and means to counterbalance such actions.

The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action. With the Skripal case, the general public does not know the truth, and the British government has yet to provide a shred of evidence justifying their allegations against Russia.

It is firmly believed that accusations levied by one country to another that are not the end results of a thorough and professional investigation should not be encouraged. Simultaneously expelling diplomats is a form of uncivilized behavior that needs to be abolished immediately.

Military Affairs

“Military Schengen” ?

April 1, 2018 Algora Blog Leave a comment

On 28 March 2018, the European Commission presented its plan for the creation of a “Military Schengen” [1].

Although the reference to Schengen free movement agreements suggests the contrary, this “military Schengen” is not a European project but something Nato wanted. The aim of this Military Schengen is not to give the armies of EU member states a free pass to roam about EU territory without red tape being put in their way, but to extend this privilege to all NATO armies (including US, Turkish armies or Canadian armies).

JPEG - 37.8 kb

This plan must not be interpreted as being some way connected to the Skripal matter, which everyone is talking about today. Nato conceived this plan two years ago. It was already mentioned in a report by the European Parliament in October 2016. According to internal Nato documents, it could be implemented in two hypos: first, in the event of a war against Russia and second, in the case of a popular rising in a Nato member state. Between the lines is perhaps a third hypo: to enabling US armies to carry out a fireman role and extinguish riots in the popular suburbs of Europe’s big cities.

25 of the 28 Member^ states have received instructions to hand over detailed maps of all their communication routes and to specify the necessary works that would be carried out on their roads, tunnels and bridges to make them fit for Nato’s purpose. These countries have also been requested to reach an agreement for granting the necessary exemptions to the laws and regulations in force that prohibit the transport of arms and military materials on their territory.

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa

[1] Joint Communication to the European Parlament and the Council on the Action Plan on Military Mobility, JOIN(2018) 5 final, March 28, 2018.

Algora Blog

Monthly Archives: April 2018

Was Vietnam a Holocaust for Zion?

Johnson and the Vietnam War

Johnson and the Six Day War

The Vietnam Holocaust

Like this:

Is This What The US Really Wants From Russia?