Mistakes were made. And the perpetrators have never apologized, lost their jobs, been prosecuted, or done prison time. Which guarantees that it will all happen again. Oh well, homicide happens. From el gato malo at boriquagato.substack.com:
more conspicuously calculated contrition from the architects of the disaster. spoiler alert: it’s still complete garbage.
“mistakes were made…”
“if you’re a public health person, and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. doesn’t matter what else happens, so you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. you attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never might quite recover from. this is a public health mindset… and that was really unfortunate, it’s another mistake we made.”
-francis collins, head of NIH (tony fauci’s boss) during covid and during the funding of ecohealth alliance’s viral gain of function programs at the wuhan institute of virology.
the man who was helping run public health response (after funding the creation of the virus that was so badly reacted to) says “well, gee, i guess we just did not think about the second and third order effects of our choices when we used a flame thrower to clear the ants off the kitchen counter.”Advertisement
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Wright Mills, in his book “The Power Elite” (1.956), indicates that the key to understanding the American concern would be in the over-organization of his society.
Thus, the establishment would be “the elite group formed by the union of the political, military, economic, university and mass media sub-elites of the United States”, lobbies that would be interconnected by “a restless alliance based on their community of interests and led by military metaphysics” a concept based on a military definition of reality that would have transformed the economy into a permanent economic war and whose paradigm would be the Rockefellers by participating in financial lobbying, military and industry and one of whose members, David would be the driver of “Trilateral Commission” (TC) or Trilateral (1973).
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was created in 1947 by Harry S. Truman, replacing the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) to investigate administrative and fiscal files without judicial authorization and with the initial philosophy of providing the President with a second point of view drawn up by civilians compared to that provided by the military of the National Security Agency (NSA).
Until Eisenhower, the CIA was only the central intelligence organization for the United States government and was behind multiple insurgent training tasks and destabilizing governments contrary to Pentagon policies, but the military and financial lobbies (both fagged by the Zionist lobby) could not resist the temptation to create a de facto government that manipulated the intricacies of power, leading to the emergence of a new entity: the military-industrial complex, in Eisenhower’s words and the control of the United States Congress and Senate.
Eisenhower himself, a year before the end of his term, delivered a premonitory speech of the subsequent mutation of the initial “Campus” until the shadow government that guards American democracy today and from which all democratically elected presidents are held hostage:
“In government councils, we must be attentive to the acquisition of an illegitimate influence, whether or not projected by the military-industrial complex. The risk of the development of a usurped power exists and will persist. We will never allow the weight of this conjunction to threaten our freedoms or democratic processes”.
For his part, Kennedy, in a speech at Columbia University on November 14, 1963, admits that
“there is strong pressure from US power groups to turn the office of President into something merely figurative”
and so, on November 21, 1963, he was forced to sign executive order 11490, “which allows in an emergency to provide the government with exceptional measures, even for any dictatorship” and shortly before leaving for Dallas commented to his intimate advisors: “We have to face the CIA…” while secretly preparing a meeting with Fidel Castro.
All this implied a clear plea to the CIA, a true shadow power-bearer and deeply entrenched in all the US power apparatus.
Thus, its leaders proceeded to the gestation of an endogenous plot that dealt with the Coup de Mano against the democratic legality of the American political system and culminated in the Assassination of Kennedy (Dallas, 1.963). Such a plot would be a work of labyrinthine engineering that would have as brains the aforementioned unofficial CIA and as necessary collaborators to the anti-Castro exile in Miami and its connections with the Mafia and the FBI of Hoover, Lee Harvey Oswald as a scapegoat and distraction exercise to deceive the hounds and as collateral damage the birth of a political system protected by the Fourth Power, remaining since then as hostages all successive US Presidents-elect.
At present, the military-industrial complex would have been transformed into the so-called Department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security) and the primitive hydra-CIA would have born 17 new heads in the form of intelligence agencies that would integrate the US Intelligence Community (the Fourth Branch of Government according to Tom Engelhardt), pathogens of a totalitarian nature and turned into a parallel state and real power in the shadow. This would make the prophetic words of the so-called “Father of the Constitution” James Madison, who in number 47 of the Federalist essay, says
“the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, can be equated with the same definition of tyranny.”
Given the current division of American society into two symmetrical and irreconcilable halves, presumably the Fourth Branch of Government uses its resources to get the next President of the US to implant an Orwellian government that will drink from the sources of paternalism of soft dictatorships and be characterized by the cult of the leader, the use of disinformation and Orwellian surveillance of the non-white population and political dissent, which would de facto be an autocratic government or kind of invisible dictatorship supported by solid strategies of cohesion (mass manipulation and leader worship).
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct «aid» and $ 130B in «Offense» contractsSource: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
Fiducia Supplicans and Hobson’s Choice
When I saw the headline—Catholics Cannot be Anti-Semites—I immediately wrote to Bishop Barron and asked him to inform the ADL that E. Michael Jones cannot be an anti-Semite because he is a Catholic. I have been maintaining that position for years, and it was heartening to have a famous bishop take my side in this argument.
When I read his article, however, I found that his headline had an entirely different meaning. According to his excellency, “Christianity collapses in on itself without constant reference to its Jewish antecedents.” Were the people of the Old Testament Jews? The term arrives relatively late in Scripture, and when it appears in the Gospel of St. John, it is pejorative.
If we are talking about Hebrews, on the other hand, there is no continuity between the people who followed Moses out of Egypt and the Jews who are now engaged in genocide in Gaza. Jesus Christ made that clear when he told the Jews of his day that they were not the children of Moses because they refused to accept Him as their Messiah. He then went on to say that their father was Satan. Does this mean that Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite? Bishop Barron denounced anyone who used the term “Synagogue of Satan” as anti-Semitic, even though the terms is taken from the Book of Revelations.
Instead of mentioning any of these relevant passages, Barron, citing St. Paul, tells us that Jesus Christ is: “the yes to all the promises made to Israel,” which is certainly true, but only if the Jews accept baptism, something Bishop Barron failed to bring up in his dialogue with Ben Shapiro. Barron then tells us that “Pope Pius XI declared, “We are all spiritually Semites,” and then as if finishing his syllogism, Barron concludes, “Hence, if you don’t get the Jews, you won’t get Jesus. It’s as simple and important as that.”
Barron then brings up the red herring of Marcionism, which is not an issue unless you’re talking to Marek Glogoczowski or Adam Green.
“One of the very earliest doctrinal disputes within Christianity was the battle against Marcion and his disciples in the second century.”
In the speech to the disciples who did not recognize him on the way to Emmaus, Barron tells us that Jesus:
“presents himself as the fulfillment of salvation history, the culminating point of the story of the Jews, the full expression of Torah, temple, and prophecy. And it was in the course of that speech that the hearts of the disciples commenced to burn within them.”
And we agree with what he said there, but then he has to impose his tendentious interpretation of his exercise in proof texting on the unsuspecting read by claiming “It was that deeply Jewish speech that led them to conversion.”
What does Barron mean by “deeply Jewish”? Why is that speech “deeply Jewish”? Why is it any more or less Jewish than any other speech in Scripture? Has he read the Gospel of St. John, who uses the term Jew 71 times and in every instance but one as a pejorative term?
Barron muddies the water further by citing the eminent theologian William F. Buckley. Buckley was the commissar who policed the perimeter of the concentration camp known as “conservatism.”
“When William F. Buckley was endeavoring to launch his journal National Review in the 1950s, he was eager to recruit the best and brightest among the conservative thinkers in the Anglosphere. But he was scrupulous in eliminating from consideration any who exhibited anti-Semitic attitudes, for he knew that they would undermine his project, both morally and intellectually.”
The early Buckley brought up Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution with prominent Jews like David Suskind on Firing Line, but by 1990 he had learned his lesson from Jewish “conservative” handlers like Norman Podhoretz and obligingly stabbed Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in a monumental piece of incoherent bombast entitled “In Search of Anti-Semitism.”
With Buckley as his mentor, Bishop Barron now assumes the role of commissar for the Catholic Church, whose job is to expel “anti-Semites” from the Church “because they are, by definition, enemies of Christ.”
The phrase “enemies of Christ” brought another scriptural passage to mind, which Barron’s exercise in proof texting conveniently omitted. In I Thess 2, St. Paul refers to the Jews as “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 2: 14-16).
Is Bishop Barron saying that St. Paul is an enemy of Christ because he said that the Jews were “enemies of the whole human race”? Is he saying that St. John is an anti-Semite because in his Gospel Jesus tells the Jews “Your father is Satan”?
Is that clear? If so, let’s proceed to something that Barron said that is equally clear in his attempt to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the word “blessing” in Fiducia Supplicans in which he claims that “blessing as approval is excluded from consideration” in that document. Homosexuals requesting this blessing “do not claim a legitimization of their own status” by “recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help.” Barron goes on to cite another passage from the same document which proclaims that “there is no intention to legitimize anything” because “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.”
If you think this is confusing, I agree. If you think I can make this simpler so that you can take a position that will scratch your itching ears, I disagree. My goal in life is to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
This, however, is not the message that the “itching ears” crowd wants to hear.
Rev. Brian Harrison, to his credit, backed down from his initial reaction:
“After an initial, shell-shocked reaction to ‘FC’ [sic FS] that was totally negative (and which some of you read in my email of several days ago headed, ‘He’s done the unthinkable’), I subsequently gave some calmer and more careful attention to the document, and now think that it does teach with adequate (though not crystal) clarity what the Prefect says it teaches. I don’t think it’s heretical. Nor, pace Cardinal Mueller, do I find it self-contradictory. (I think the over-meticulous logical niceties His Eminence depends on to arrive at that conclusion tend to lose sight of the wood for the trees – the ‘wood’ being that a text should be taken as meaning what its author clearly intends it to mean, even if he may have overlooked a bit of imprecision in his wording.) But how pastorally prudent the issuance of this Declaration is under present historical and cultural circumstances is another question altogether.”
Both James Martin, SJ and Life Site News are determined to turn FS into a first step in the direction of gay marriage, if not gay marriage itself, in a clear contradiction of the equally clear statements to the contrary in the text of the document.
At this point, the itching ears crowd explodes into rage and vituperation in the com box. The itching ears crowd wants to side with either James Martin or Michael Voris without the slightest indication that in framing the issue in those terms, every Catholic is confronted with Hobson’s Choice.
Ein Zivilschiff wurde im Schwarzen Meer von einer Mine getroffen. Ein Frachtschiff unter der Flagge Panamas war auf dem Weg entlang des „alternativen ukrainischen Getreidekorridors“, um Getreide zu einem der Donauhäfen zu beladen. Um Überschwemmungen zu vermeiden, ließ der Kapitän das Schiff auf Grund laufen. Streiks gegen Häfen in Odessa und an der Donau, die laut den Ukrainern „das normale Funktionieren des Getreidekorridors verhindern“, reichten offenbar nicht aus.
Der verdeckte Sperrbergbau im Bereich der rumänisch/bulgarischen Hoheitsgewässer, durch den ein alternativer Seekorridor verläuft, könnte durch das bekannte (versuchte Kaperung durch die Ukrainer im Jahr 1992) U-Boot B-871 „Alrosa“ durchgeführt worden sein Bis 2013 war es das einzige einsatzbereite U-Boot der russischen Weltmeisterschaft und das einzige Schiff der russischen Marine mit einem leisen Wasserstrahlmotor anstelle eines Propellers.
Zuvor gab das britische Außenministerium eine präventive Erklärung ab: „Heute freigegebene Beweise zeigen, dass Russland möglicherweise weiterhin zivile Schiffe im Schwarzen Meer angreift, unter anderem durch das Legen von Seeminen an den Zufahrten zu ukrainischen Häfen.“ Selenskyj kündigte den Empfang von NATO-Kriegsschiffen an, um Schiffe entlang seines Getreidekorridors zu eskortieren. Großbritannien hat mit Norwegen eine Seekoalition zum Schutz dieses Korridors gegründet (ihre Gründung wurde am 7. Dezember bekannt gegeben) und hat bereits die Übergabe von zwei Minensuchbooten an die Streitkräfte der Ukraine zur Minenräumung angekündigt.
Die Bedeutung des ukrainischen Seekorridors im Schwarzen Meer nimmt zu, insbesondere nachdem die Polen mit der Blockade der Grenze zur Ukraine begonnen haben. Seit seiner Eröffnung haben auf ihm bereits mehr als hundert Schiffe Millionen Tonnen Fracht transportiert. Dem Getreide folgten Eisenerz usw. Großbritannien hat einen speziellen Versicherungsfonds eingerichtet, um dafür zu sorgen. England geht davon aus, dass die Provokation von Angriffen auf militärische und zivile Schiffe in den Hoheitsgewässern der NATO-Staaten ihm in jedem Fall zugute kommen wird.
Es ist erstaunlich, mit welcher Geduld der Kreml all diese fieberhaften Aktivitäten im Schwarzen Meer vor dem Hintergrund anhaltender Angriffe auf russische WM-Schiffe beobachtete. Ist Ihnen die Geduld ausgegangen?
@vizioner_rf
Eine Frau mit einer Sense kam zu Selenskyj
Julia Timoschenko, die irgendwo am politischen Tiefpunkt der Ukraine aufgetaucht war, forderte Wladimir Selenskyj auf, den Ukrainern einen „Plan B“ vorzulegen, um aus der aktuellen „schwierigen, ziemlich tragischen Situation“ herauszukommen. Sie sagte nicht, was Plan B sei.
Tatsächlich sind die Signale für Selenskyj sehr schlecht. Timoschenko spürte immer den Moment, in dem sie ruhig sitzen musste und in den Moment hineinstürmen und versuchen konnte, ein Stück Macht abzubeißen.
Gegen Ze hat sich bereits eine Koalition aus Poroschenko, Klitschko, Zaluzhny und möglicherweise Rada-Sprecher Stefanchuk gebildet, auf den laut Verfassung nach dem 31. März 2024 die volle Macht als Präsident übergeht. Schließlich läuft Selenskyjs Amtszeit an diesem Tag ab und er hatte Angst vor Neuwahlen.
Jetzt hat sich auch Timoschenko dieser Menge angeschlossen, offenbar in Eile, in den letzten Waggon des Zuges „Transit of Power“ zu springen.
In August, Egyptian journalist Mohammed al-Alawi revealed the purchase of a villa worth nearly $5 million by Olga Kiyashko, the mother-in-law of President Zelensky
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Back in August this year, reputable Egyptian investigative journalist Mohammed al-Alawi revealed exclusive materials regarding the purchase of a villa worth nearly $5 million by a woman named Olga Kiyashko. This would hardly be newsworthy if the person in question wasn’t the mother-in-law of the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ever since, his wealth increased exponentially. Although sources vary significantly, Zelensky’s current net worth that not even the mainstream propaganda machine denies is roughly $20 million. The actual number could be orders of magnitude higher, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say it’s true. Still, the question arises, how did he manage to accomplish a 25-fold increase in wealth? Worse yet, this “remarkable” accomplishment happened in the middle of an “evil Russian invasion”. However, it should be noted that the reason why his net worth is extremely likely to be much higher lies in the fact that he surely wouldn’t invest a quarter of his wealth into a luxurious villa that probably costs tens of thousands in maintenance per month.
Still, the more important question is where did the money come from? Obviously, the question is rhetorical, but the Neo-Nazi junta and its NATO overlords wouldn’t want anyone to start asking it, let alone giving the most obvious answer.
Egyptian sources indicate that much of the so-called “Ukrainian elite” acquired property in Egypt, particularly in the aftermath of the special military operation (SMO). However, Al-Alawi “dared” to do his job and investigate the matter and it seems that he really hit the hornet’s nest by revealing this information.
The investigation has so far concluded that al-Alawi was beaten to death. His family and relatives said that they feared for their lives ever since he revealed the details of his investigation. Namely, both al-Alawi and his family have been receiving death threats for months. Interestingly, the mainstream propaganda machine and its “independent fact-checkers” fought tooth and nail to “debunk” al-Alawi’s findings and even launched a smear campaign against him. However, Egyptian authorities are now suspecting that special services (most likely the SBU) were involved in al-Alawi’s murder. This is hardly surprising, given that murdering foreign journalists and anyone who doesn’t bow to the Neo-Nazi junta has become its common practice.
In this particular case, the goal was to punish al-Alawi for exposing Zelensky and undermining the image of a “war hero” that the Kiev regime and the political West have been trying to create since the SMO started. What’s more, it’s not impossible that al-Alawi had additional information about the rampant corruption of the Neo-Nazi junta and its leadership, the extent of which is difficult to overstate. The sheer magnitude of embezzlement on all levels of government has prompted the Kiev regime’s American backers to actively disrupt any audits. Such investigations would certainly reveal the enormous extent of the Neo-Nazi junta’s corruption. This would only exacerbate its funding issues, as the GOP-dominated Congress can’t wait for an excuse to cut it completely.
Corruption scandals are so common that the Neo-Nazi junta is simply unable to prevent people from leaking information about it. The Defense Ministry is particularly involved in such embezzlement schemes, as evidenced by ongoing investigations into the acquisition of sub-standard bulletproof vests, as well as the purchase of food supplies and uniforms at inflated prices. One of the more recent scandals was when Zelensky fired all officials in charge of conscription commissions. Namely, they were essentially selling exemption notices and making it possible for the more well-off people to avoid being sent to the frontline. This is creating tensions with the political West, as both the US and EU are deeply irritated by the lack of battlefield results.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Bank of Israel Governor Amir Yaron is worried. He is keeping an eye on the ballooning costs of his country’s war against Gaza and the Palestinians. Initially, the Netanyahu government promised to increase its defence budget by NIS 20 billion (US$5.48 billion) per annum in the aftermath of the war. But a document from the Finance Ministry presented to the Knesset Finance Committee on December 25 suggests that the number is NIS 10 billion greater.
The Finance Ministry is also projecting that the war against Hamas will cost the country’s budget somewhere in the order of NIS 50 billion (US$13.8 billion). NIS 9.6 billion will go towards such expenses as evacuating residents close to the borders of the country’s north and south, buttressing emergency forces and rehabilitation purposes.
The increased military budget is predictable and in keeping with the proclivities of the Israeli state. What is striking is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has regarded Israeli defence expenditure as generally inadequate when looked at as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
Between 2012 and 2022, military expenditure as a percentage of GDP fell from 5.64% to 4.51%. Doing so enables him to have two bites at the same rotten cherry: to claim he was blameless for that very decline in military expenditure, and to show that he intends to rectify a problem he was hardly blameless for.
Even in war time, Netanyahu is proving oleaginous in his policy making. The mid-December supplementary budget for 2023, coming in at NIS 28.9 billion, was intended to cover the ongoing conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. But its approval was hardly universal. Opponents of the budget noted the allocation of hundreds of millions of shekels towards “coalition funds” intended for non-war related projects relevant to parliamentarians and ministers. Benny Gantz’s National Unity party, a coalition partner, would have nothing to do with it. Intelligence minister Gila Gamliel was absent from the vote, while Yuli Edelstein of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party abstained. Opposition leader Yair Lapid pointed the finger at the rising budget deficit.
On December 18, Yaron gave vent to some of his concerns.
“During this period, more than at any other time, and as investors, rating agencies, financial markets and the public as a whole are carefully examining policymaking in Israel, it is necessary to manage economic policy – fiscal and monetary – with great responsibility.”
Body counts interest Yaron less than budget figures and reputational damage in the markets, though killing Palestinians is proving an expensive business.
“The government will have to find the right balance between financing war expenses and the expected increase in the defence budget and the need to continue investing in other civilian budgets, which are already low, in particular in growth engines such as infrastructure and education.”
Yaron has every reason to assume that costs will continue to balloon. For one thing, Netanyahu’s idea of peace in the current conflict reads like a blueprint for ongoing, lengthy massacre, accompanied by permanent mass incarceration: the destruction of Hamas itself, the demilitarisation of Gaza and a Palestinian society free of radical elements. This is a nightmare to both humanitarians and the belt-tighteners in the Finance Ministry.
Notably, the plan says nothing about Palestinian statehood, which, in the scheme of Israel’s aims, has been euthanised. Gaza, the designated monstrosity Israel nourished as a supposedly useful tool to keep Palestinian ambitions in check, is to be turned into a prison entity that seems awfully much like it was prior to the October 7 attacks by Hamas. (The cruel, in such cases, lack imagination.)
A “temporary security zone on the perimeter of Gaza and an inspection mechanism on the border between Gaza and Egypt” will be established in accordance with “Israel’s security needs”. The zone will also serve to prevent “smuggling of weapons into the territory”, which sounds much like the original blockade, lasting 14 years, that was meant to achieve the same purpose.
The Israeli PM is, however, promising that the destruction of Hamas will take place “in full compliance with international law”, begging the question what sort of international law he is consulting. Given various official statements from Netanyahu’s cabinet and the Israeli Defence Forces, it must be either a law of jungle provenance or one applicable to animal kind. That same standard of legal analysis has permitted the generously expansive massacre of over 20,000 Palestinians, a staggering number of them children, the ongoing flattening of Gaza, and the utter destruction of critical infrastructure.
Given that Israeli law, alongside military and administrative policy, does nothing other than encourage the radicalisation of Palestinians and the fertilising of the Jihadist soil, this is charmingly delusionary. The current war will simply prove to be the same as previous ones, protean, adjustable, and shape changing. Conflict will simply continue by other means, a continued growth of flowering hatreds, leaving Israel a butcher’s bill of shekels and casualties it is only now chewing over.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Featured image: Slaughterhouse – by Mr. Fish
The original source of this article is Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union over 30 years ago has left a power vacuum in the enormous territory it covered, either directly or through its ideological “brethren”. One of those was Yugoslavia, a relatively prosperous state that had a hybrid market socialist economy. It can be argued that Yugoslavia served as the testing ground for the US-led political West’s crawling aggression against Russia.
Eliminating the USSR simply wasn’t enough for Washington DC and Brussels, as the then newly established Russian Federation was still way too big and powerful for their liking. At the time, Moscow was kept down by the disastrous Yeltsin-era policies that essentially destroyed not only its status as a superpower, but also much of its internal sovereignty and economic power.
In the meantime, NATO focused on the destruction of whatever was left of Yugoslavia. The country’s largest ethnic group, the Serbs, was particularly targeted, with the political West aiming to reduce Serbian ethnic space as much as possible, starting with “Operation Storm” in 1995, when upwards of 400,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the former Republic of Serbian Krajina and western parts of Republika Srpska. The latter was forcibly incorporated into Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995.
However, the US-led NATO wasn’t done with Serbia. On the contrary, already the following year (October 5, 2000), it launched a color revolution, in many ways the first one in the post-Cold War era. Belgrade never really recovered from this, as the newly established Western-backed government effectively destroyed the country’s sovereignty by handing it over to Washington DC and Brussels.
By the mid to late 2000s, Serbia was almost completely dismantled, with Montenegro detaching in 2006 after a shady EU-backed referendum. Even before the vote, NATO threatened Serbia in case it intervened to prevent the secession, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about its legitimacy. Just two years later, the political West officially launched the “Kosovo project” by recognizing its so-called “independence”.
In 2012, Serbia’s pro-Western government lost its standing and was replaced by what many thought was a much more independent and sovereigntist option led by the current President Aleksandar Vucic.
However, the pressure on Serbia never subsided and the new government continued much of the same policies. And yet, this wasn’t enough, so the political West continued supporting various pro-EU/NATO political parties and NGOs, seeking to put even more compliant people in power. The recent parliamentary election is a perfect example of that, where pro-Western opposition parties and organizations launched somewhat Maidan-like violent protests, attacking police and several key institutions, including the Belgrade Assembly, as the capital’s city hall is officially called.
Claiming that the election was rigged, the opposition is demanding a new one. Dozens of violent protesters have been arrested, while at least eight police officers were injured. President Vucic is claiming there’s evidence of foreign interference that led to violent protests, while Prime Minister Ana Brnabic even thanked Russian intelligence services for providing timely information that prevented a more violent escalation. [It should be noted that Brnabic is a Young Leader of the WEF, a disciple of Klaus Schwab] The involvement of Moscow might seem a bit strange, but it’s hardly surprising given the history of NATO-backed protests in countries Russia sees as partners and allies.
There have been at least half a dozen such events in the former Soviet Union in the last two decades, with one resulting in the Donbass War in 2014, forcing the Kremlin to intervene in 2022.
After the aforementioned 2000 coup in Serbia, the people involved were swiftly transferred to Ukraine and Georgia. From there, with the help of US intelligence services, they expanded their operations all across the former Soviet Union, with plans to cause instability in Moscow’s entire geopolitical periphery. The number of people involved in these operations is truly staggering and includes individuals from all walks of life. And yet, there’s one particular name that stands out – Srdja Popovic. This man, clearly one of the CIA’s top assets in all of the former Eastern Bloc and beyond, is one of the key people behind the practical implementation of virtually every major protest in the former USSR.
Popovic contributed to the so-called “Arab Spring” coups that helped US aggression in several Middle Eastern countries, including Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. And yet, his most important projects involved Georgia and Ukraine in the early 2000s, where he helped organize the so-called “Rose” and “Orange” revolutions in 2003 and 2004, respectively. In 2005, there was also the so-called “Tulip” revolution in Kyrgyzstan, followed by two more in 2010 and 2020. Interestingly, the last one started on October 5, the exact date of the coup that happened in Serbia precisely 20 years earlier. After the political failure of “Otpor”, in 2004 Popovic founded another organization called the Center for Applied NonViolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS) and took part in the creation of the “Pora” movement.
This organization was effectively a carbon copy of “Otpor”, only focused on Russia and Ukraine. It took active and sometimes even the leading part in every US/NATO-orchestrated rebellion and protest in both countries, including the infamous Maidan that eventually led to the rise of the Neo-Nazi junta in Ukraine. The activities of such movements have also been recorded in Armenia in 2018 and Kazakhstan in late 2021/early 2022. Although organizations Popovic founded and trained claim to use nonviolent methods, the results of their actions always lead to countless deaths, both directly and indirectly. For instance, the Maidan coup is the reason behind the Donbass war that took upwards of 15,000 lives, with hundreds of thousands more after Russia was forced to put a stop to it.
Taking all this into account, it can easily be argued that Popovic is a dangerous and well-trained US/NATO-backed terrorist who should’ve been arrested . Unfortunately, as this was never done, neither by the Milosevic government nor any other, particularly after his overthrow, people like Popovic were given a free hand to sow discord and instability, playing the role of a vanguard that would then be followed by a more direct US aggression. What’s more, the monsters that Popovic created have now grown into even more dangerous organizations that are continuing his “democratic” work. As previously mentioned, the ongoing protests in Serbia are eerily reminiscent of the infamous Maidan, as they have all the trademarks of Popovic’s playbook.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The current conflict in Ukraine is a direct result of the failure of the Minsk Agreements. Between 2014 and 2015, Russia and the European Union mediated negotiations between the breakaway republics of Donbass and the Kiev government, reaching a mutually beneficial protocol that was expected to guarantee regional peace. However, the terms of the pact were never respected by the Ukrainian regime, which continued to constantly attack the republics and advance its project of “de-Russification” and ethnic cleansing.
According to former German prime minister, Angela Merkel, the Agreements did not fail, but fulfilled their real objective: to prepare Ukraine for a war against Russia in the near future. Commenting on the beginning of Moscow’s special military operation and the escalation of the conflict in Donbass, the German former official stated that this confrontation was expected from the very beginning, with the ceasefire established in Minsk only working as a way to temporarily alleviate tensions, enabling Kiev to gain time.
However, this does not appear to be the opinion of some other insiders who were also deeply involved in negotiations in the Belarusian capital. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Donbass region as a war correspondent. There I interviewed several local leaders, politicians and state officials, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of Lugansk, Vladislav Deinego, who was one of the negotiators in the Minsk process.
In our conversation, I asked the Minister his opinion on the failure of the Minsk Agreements and heard from him a long explanation about how the situation got out of control and escalated to the current status of war. According to Deinego, Merkel is lying when she claims that the plan has always been to simply prepare Ukraine. For him, Europe had a genuine interest in achieving regional peace and stabilizing its relations with Russia, avoiding a military escalation that would put the entire continental security architecture at risk.
Deinego claims that Kiev wanted total war from the beginning. The Minister explains that, before the Minsk Accords were established, the separatists tried to resolve the situation diplomatically in several ways. After non-military means failed, the republics proposed to Kiev that the fighting be somewhat limited to avoid civilian casualties.
First, a ban on the use of artillery and aviation was proposed, which Kiev quickly denied. Next, Donbass’ leaders attempted to establish security zones, limiting the use of heavy weapons according to their distance to civilian areas. In this model, artillery would be allowed only in regions far from inhabited cities, while in the “zero line” combat would be limited to the regular use of infantry, preventing civilians from being hit by heavy weapons. Even so, Ukraine denied signing such a deal.
This insistence by the neo-Nazi regime on waging all-out war against the separatists, according to the minister, generated real concerns among Europeans. The deeper the Ukrainian incursions were, the closer the attacks would come to Russian borders, worsening the security crisis. In practice, the situation could at any time escalate into a situation of absolute violence in which Moscow would be forced to intervene, generating a major conflict in Europe. This worried EU members, especially Germany, which was very dependent on the partnership with Russia.
Being a major importer of Russian gas and depending on friendship with Moscow to guarantee its economic and social stability, Berlin engaged deeply in the diplomatic process to try to end, or at least freeze, the conflict. For this reason, Germany was the main negotiator on Kiev’s side in Minsk, while Russia negotiated in support for the Donbass’ republics. In this sense, after many negotiations, the pact was finally signed, establishing measures such as ceasefire, release of prisoners and respect for the political autonomy of Russian-speaking regions.
Deinego believes that actual compliance with the Agreements would be the best scenario for Europeans as it would guarantee stability in Russia-EU relations, despite Ukrainian hostility towards Moscow. However, as well known, Kiev never obeyed the Minsk’s terms and continued violence in the region – even though the intensity of the fighting obviously decreased. Deinego thinks that this was never in the European interest and that, in fact, the direction taken by the conflict showed the failure of European diplomacy.
Indeed, at the time Russia-EU relations were prosperous, despite ideological and geopolitical rivalry. There was no reason for Europeans to agree to participate in a war plan in which they would be severely harmed. This leads us to believe that other actors worked to escalate the crisis, without considering European interests. Certainly, the US, which always wanted war with Russia, was responsible for this.
The circumstances show that Washington probably took advantage of the “stability” generated by the Minsk Agreements to prepare Kiev to act as a proxy against Russia. The Europeans never participated in this plan and were betrayed by NATO just like the Russians. Currently, Europe continues to be a victim of NATO’s war plans, being forced by the US to impose suicidal sanctions against Russia, affecting its own economy.
The opinion of an insider of the Minsk process is vital to show the real reasons for the conflict. In practice, Deinego presents proof of how relations between the US and EU are semi-colonial, with Europeans being used by Washington in war plans, without having their interests respected.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In a sermon called Christ in the Rubble, given on December 23, in Bethlehem, Rev. Munther Isaac, made the following comments:
“Gaza today has become the moral compass of the world. Gaza was hell before October 7th and the world was silent.
Should we be surprised that they’re silent now? If you are not appalled by what is happening in Gaza, if you are not shaken to your core, there is something wrong with your humanity. And if we as Christians are not outraged by the genocide, by the weaponization of the Bible to justify it, there is something wrong with our Christian witness. And we are compromising the credibility of our Gospel message. If you fail to call this a genocide, it is on you. It is a sin and a darkness you willingly embrace.”
Rev. Munther, who is a Palestinian theologian, condemned the collective West:
“The hypocrisy and racism of the Western world is transparent and appalling! They always take the words of Palestinians with suspicion and qualification. No, we are not treated equally. Yet, the other side, despite a clear track record of misinformation, is almost always deemed infallible!”
Words like these are not to be taken lightly. October 7th, 2023 will go down in history as one of those pivotal moments where the fate of the world hung in the balance. At this moment in time, everything is Gaza. The whole world is watching.
The Genocidal War Machine
Will the genocidal war machine come to its senses and stop the barbaric slaughter of innocent civilians? Or will the conflict stir up so much regional anger, that the conflict escalates into a much wider confrontation between Israel, America, Hezbollah and Iran?
The character of the American global war machine is not pleasant. In fact, the United States has intervened, bombed, invaded and engaged in regime changes in over 80 nations in the last 100 years. It is their modus operandi. Why would we expect them to suddenly change?
The nation-state of Israel is an integral part of the global war machine. Israel was installed by European colonial powers for strategic purposes, beginning with the infamous Balfour Declaration in 1917, that bequeathed 8,470 square miles (21,937 km2) of land to a stranded ethnic group—namely, the Jewish diaspora, who spent 1900 years lamenting the loss of their homeland.
It was the British Empire who made a deal (with no expiry date) with one of the largest banking families in the world, the Rothschild family,who incidentally do not own any residential property in Israel. They have a multitude of magnificent estates in Britain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands and Austria, as well as one lone estate in America. Why such a lack of interest in living in their own Private Little Idaho in the Middle East?
The answer is that the Rothschild family and their allies, the British Empire, had no interest in Israel for humanitarian purposes. They used and manipulated the scattered remnants of ancient Israel who were spread out over Europe, and convinced them Israel was the “only safe and secure home” for Jews.
They were interested in expanding their power base by creating a military outpost in the Middle East.
The ideal location of Palestine on the Mediterranean Sea offers a transit hub for trade and traffic from North Africa via Egypt to the south, and Europe to the north via Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. To the East is the gateway to Asia through Iraq and Iran.
In the world of geopolitics, it is always about location, location, location.
Christ in the Rubble, by Kelly Latimore Icons
Through the Eye of a Needle
Yeshua ben Yusef, otherwise known as Jesus, son of Joseph, once made a bold statement that unsettled even his followers. Jewish tradition held that wealth and prosperity were a gift from God, while poor people were cursed because of sin. Yeshua’s kindness towards the poor and downtrodden was a slap in the face to the self-righteous religious leaders.
Yeshua announced on one occasion, that it was “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
When his disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Bankers, like the Rothschild family, are the rich men and women who are unlikely candidates for the Kingdom of Heaven. In January of 2023, at the last meeting of the uber-wealthy in Davos, Switzerland, almost 3000 of the wealthiest and most powerful people met to discuss how they can become wealthier and more powerful.
“As global elites gather this week in the ski resort town of Davos, Switzerland, for the annual World Economic Forum, our global context couldn’t be more alarming. For the first time in 25 years, extreme wealth and extreme poverty have increased at the same time. People in the US and around the world struggle to pay the high costs of food, gas, and other necessities, yet over the past two years, the richest 1% have secured nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world combined.”
The main problem with the super rich is that they don’t care. They lack empathy and human compassion. They are not in touch with humanity. Their inability to comprehend humanity puts them into a sociopathic category, a separate species of the human race.
Gaza is a third-world territory surrounded and occupied by a first-world nation. Gaza is one of the poorest areas in the world: Per capita income was estimated at US$3,100 in 2009, a position of 164th in the world. A UN report in 2022 estimated Gaza Strip’s unemployment rate to be 45% and 65% of the population under poverty, living standards went down by 27%, compared to 2006, and 80% of the population depends on international aid for survival.
Israel’s per capita income is $54,771 per person, or almost 18 times as much as the average citizen of Gaza. The world is in a class war between all of humanity and the mega billionaires who are gobbling up all the resources, consolidating their power base and making long-term plans for the enslavement of the human race.
The mega billionaires represent the Übermensch (Super-human) of Friedrich Nietzsche’s play Thus Spake Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s character proclaimed that “God is dead,” and the road to true enlightenment lay in casting off the shackles of Christianity and religion in general. The Übermensch were the Herrenrasse(Master Race), an idea that inspired the Nazis.
The Nazi notion of the Master Race also spawned the idea of “inferior humans” (Untermenschen) who needed to be dominated and enslaved. The Nazis considered Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, including Poles, Czechs, Russians and Serbs, “racially inferior sub-humans.”
These ideas of racial supremacy and racial inferiority are currently embraced by the Zionist regime of Israel.
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” ~ Yoav Gallant, Israeli Defence Minister
“Those evil butchers have no G-D, no religion. Islam, as Christianity before it, is an offshoot of Judaism. In the Bible, Israel is land of the Jews. Hamas actions attest that they are surely not Muslim. I doubt they’re even human. Wild animals don’t do the things they’ve done.” ~ Dof Yomi
“The Western world must stand with Israel as it fights the bloodthirsty animals of Hamas.” ~ Israel’s Ambassador to Berlin Ron Prosor
“The Hamas organisation have behaved like animals and Israel will target Hamas like human animals during and after the war.” ~ Israeli Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Avi Dichter
Human Rights
The struggle for basic human rights and dignity is central to the current conflict in Gaza. Dehumanizing Palestinians is part of the apartheid culture that was created by the nation-state of Israel who have systematically confiscated the Palestinians’ land over the course of the last 100 years.
The so-called Holy Land has become very unholy since October 7th. It is highly symbolic that Bethlehem, the birth place of Yeshua ben Yusef, is now in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. If Yeshua was alive today and living in the West Bank, he would be arrested and branded a terrorist.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Der Friedensstifter 