Below is my column in The Messenger on what I called Biden’s “break-the-glass” option after the disaster in Delaware. After the column ran, Fox News asked White House Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre about the possibility of a pardon. Jean-Pierre cut him off and responded unequivocally “no.” I hope that proves to be true but it would have been more assuring to come from someone who did not clearly misrepresent the President’s earlier denial just a day earlier and change his long-standing position. The President previously denied a series of facts that have been proven, including the fact that his son did make money in China and President Biden did have knowledge of (and interact with) his son’s business dealings. The real question is whether the fix in this case will fail and leave the President with the pardon option behind the glass.
Here is the column:
The collapse of the Hunter Biden plea bargain has left many in Washington shocked. After all, this is a city that knows how to fix a fight. After five years, the Biden corruption scandal was supposed to die with a vacuous plea bargain and no jail time. Most everyone was in on the fix, from members of Congress to the media to the prosecutors. The problem was the one notable omission: Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The sentencing hearing was a moment that made the Hindenburg disaster look like a seamless landing. Noreika asked a basic question on the implications of the agreement, and the entire deal immediately collapsed.
Now the Justice Department is in a bind. It could not admit in the hearing that Hunter Biden could escape future liability for a host of uncharged crimes. Yet, when a defendant backs out of a generous plea deal, federal prosecutors ordinarily will pursue all of the available charges — and jail time.
While President Joe Biden once declared, in more colorful terms, that no one messes with a Biden, the Justice Department may now find it has no choice. It could be forced to actually treat Hunter like an ordinary citizen.
The debacle in Delaware still could result in a plea deal. The parties have a month to “work things out,” and most judges sign off on deals, given the discretion afforded to the executive branch on criminal charging decisions. They just need to be clear about the terms, and clarity is something neither side seemed eager to establish publicly during Wednesday’s hearing. However, an agreement would require prosecutors either to fight to preserve a sweetheart deal — one without additional future charges — or to proceed, as they would in most cases, with a full prosecution.
That would include obvious potential charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Noreika forced the Justice Department to admit that it still could charge Biden as an unregistered foreign agent. That was the charge used against onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and the similarities between the cases are striking. It took little time for the Justice Department to use the charge against Manafort. Yet, in the Hunter Biden investigation, five years have passed, and the Justice Department seemed mired in doubt over applying the same standard to the president’s son.
A FARA charge could further expose Hunter’s alleged influence-peddling operations, with what House GOP investigators say were millions in foreign payments from a virtual rogue’s gallery of foreign officials. The Justice Department also would face pressure to seek the same long jail sentence given to Manafort; he was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment, which included the statutory maximum 60 months for a conspiracy to violate FARA. (That same year, political consultant W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty to lobbying and consulting on behalf of the Opposition Bloc, a Ukrainian political party, and received 36 months of probation.)
That is not even including potential felony charges for the original gun violation, money laundering, or other crimes. If the Justice Department were to show the same aggressive effort toward Hunter Biden that was shown to figures like Manafort, Hunter could be looking at a real possibility of years in jail.
There is, however, the ultimate “break-the-glass” option that I raised previously if the Bidens and their supporters could not rig the process: Joe Biden could pardon his son and then announce that he will not run for reelection.
Facing an impeachment inquiry, low public support, and a son in the legal dock, Biden could use the case to close out his political career. Of course, a pardon would be what I consider another abuse of the pardon power for personal benefit. President Bill Clinton waited until the end of his second term to pardon his half-brother. Biden could do the same by acknowledging that the pardoning of his son is a form of raw self-dealing. However, as he has said throughout the scandal, he loves his son and blames his crimes on his struggle with addiction and grieving.
With that, Biden could bow out of the election without admitting (as many on both sides are saying) that old age has taken its toll on his mental and physical capacity. He would end his political career with an act as a father, which some would condemn but most would understand. That would clear the way for a new generation of Democratic candidates who would have a better chance of defeating Donald Trump or another Republican presidential candidate.
President Biden could even give Hunter a preemptive or prospective pardon. That would effectively end any federal investigation, although the pardon would need to cover the waterfront of possible charges. By resigning and becoming a lame-duck president, Biden also would undermine congressional Republicans’ impeachment calls. And it would allow his own allies to declare the scandal over, with Biden taking responsibility by giving up a second term in office.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the congressional investigation would end. Even if such a move dampened the demand for an impeachment inquiry, it would not likely stop Republicans from pursuing answers about the official handling of this investigation and claims of political interference.
Yet, any damage would be contained by Biden offering himself up as a sin-eater for his family. Democratic candidates would not likely face backlash for their opposition to investigating the scandal; their chances of retaking the House could be substantially increased. Likewise, the media would not have to face the mounting evidence that it has steadfastly ignored for years.
The pardon-and-apology approach might appeal to Biden not only as an effort to convert vice into virtue but to justify his withdrawal from the election as a selfless act.
Everyone in Washington would win — except, of course, the public: The Bidens would keep alleged millions in influence-peddling profits; Hunter would not even have to pay his full taxes; members of Congress and the media could avoid taking responsibility for burying the reports of corruption.
That is what is called a “happy ending” in Washington.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
In Part 1 of this article, I explored how Huxley, Orwell, andBradburyforetold the use of technology by totalitarians to subjugate and control the masses. Now we move on to a currently hot topic – censorship.
“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” ― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Censorship
“There was always a minority afraid of something, and a great majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the past, afraid of the present, afraid of themselves and shadows of themselves”― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.” – Ray Bradbury
The primary theme of Fahrenheit 451 is censorship. In Bradbury’s dystopia, burning books was the principal method of censorship, directed by the government, but generally supported by the masses. A form of self-censorship developed, as the dullards, intellectually lazy, and willfully ignorant, preferred books to be burned so they felt that would put them on a level playing field with the critical thinkers and intellectually curious minded.
It always comes back to the government doing everything in their power to keep the masses apathetic, ill-informed, entertained, and distracted, to ensure their continued control over society. Bradbury believed the masses would go along with censorship because they already had television, radio, and fast cars, with vacuous programming, loud music, and unceasing advertising creating over-stimulation and distraction for the populace. They were too distracted to read a book, learn, think critically, or question the authorities.
Bradbury doesn’t have much faith in either government or the people they rule. His view of humanity in general was not positive in the early 1950s. Imagine what he would think of American society seventy years later. The hostility towards books in Fahrenheit 451 for many was based on envy. The lazy, willfully ignorant masses didn’t want to feel intellectually inferior to those who wanted to read books, learn, inquire, think, and question the government narrative.
Seeing your neighbor’s books burned gave a warped sense of satisfaction to the intentionally ignorant. When your government wants to keep you ignorant to better control you and you choose ignorance because it’s easier to not think, you’ve achieved dystopian perfection. Thinking is hard. Watching a screen is easy.
The 1930’s and 1940’s saw the height of book burnings, with Goebbels and the Nazis burning books contrary to their ideology in the early 1930s, and then the counter book burnings of Nazi literature after 1945. It spread to the U.S., with the Karens of their day burning textbooks and literature they didn’t agree with. There will always be an authoritarian-minded segment of the population who seek power to decide what you should read or see. They do not believe freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution should be available to those they disagree with.
“I wasn’t worried about freedom, I was worried about people being turned into morons by TV…the moronic influence of popular culture through local TV news and the proliferation of giant screens and the bombardment of factoids.” – Ray Bradbury
Censorship is the cudgel they utilize to keep you from making up your own mind about ideas, historical events, opinions, and facts. If you don’t want the masses to know the truth, don’t let them see both sides of issues, keep them distracted by technology, and overload their brains with meaningless drivel. Bradbury’s dystopian fears have come to fruition, seventy years later. We are now a nation of low IQ sheep who “feel” smart because their overlords have lowered the bar so low, every dullard believes themselves to be smarter than Einstein, even though they can’t subtract 57 cents from $1.00 in their head. Generations have been indoctrinated to feel rather than think. They don’t even know what thinking means.
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.”― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
One of Bradbury’s real pet peeves was special interest groups and minorities censoring books that offended them because they felt their group was either portrayed unfairly or not portrayed at all. In particular he regularly received complaint letters regarding his portrayal of female or black characters in his novels. Essentially every special interest group wants to be portrayed in a positive manner and will use all means necessary to censor portrayals they don’t like, including book burning and invoking hostility towards the author.
Rather than make a cogent argument counter to a portrayal in a book, they scream at the top of their lungs and throw a temper tantrum. And this was fifty years before the introduction of social media platforms, where censorship has become an art form, and online temper tantrums by the easily offended have been aided and abetted by your government and their social media co-conspirators. Cancel culture is a cancerous tumor on our society and must be eradicated before it kills us.
The depth and breadth of censorship in our world today far surpasses any dystopian visions Bradbury could conceptualize in Fahrenheit 451. The book burning firemen couldn’t hold a candle to what Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube, and the legacy regime media have done since the start of this century. We are now in the Woke Age of Censorship, where the outrage of the day results in mass censorship by the masters of deception and deceit. Even though censorship was used extensively during WWI and WW2 by governments trying to cover-up military defeats, I believe the modern Age of Censorship began with the assassination of John F. Kennedy by elements within the U.S. Deep State.
The CIA could not allow the truth to be told, so the feckless Warren Commission produced a fake report about the lone gunman and if anyone questioned the official narrative, the CIA created a derogatory term to silence them – conspiracy theorist. As we know, this term is screeched by the regime media and their brain-dead acolytes on a daily basis in order to shut the rest of us up. One problem for these mouthpieces for the Deep State – virtually every conspiracy theory has been validated and proven true over the last several years.
As we saw during the Vietnam War, censorship wasn’t quite as efficient as today. They were successfully able to pull off the Gulf of Tonkin false flag without the press uncovering the truth and the media went along with the narrative we were winning in the early years. But there were still some journalists with integrity in the 1960s like Seymour Hersh who refused to be censored. Even the networks started showing videos of the death and devastation.
The entire war, based on lies, unraveled, brought down a president, and created turmoil and violence in the streets of America. The Deep State got slightly more sophisticated with 9/11 and the Iraq wars. As with JFK’s assassination, the government entities who would be implicated used a commission to cover-up their failures and lies regarding the 9/11 attacks. The no longer independent legacy media mouthed the official narrative and called all the independent journalists who revealed uncomfortable truths, conspiracy theorists.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” ― George Orwell, 1984
The mainstream media was tightly censored during the Iraq wars and willingly censored themselves in order to have continued access to military command. The real turning point for censorship and surveillance occurred with the passage of the totalitarian manifesto – The Patriot Act. This despotic legislation, pre-written and waiting for the opportunity to be unleashed upon America by Cheney and his neo-con co-conspirators, created a surveillance/censorship state that has grown to such a Constitution crushing size, it has effectively stripped citizens of all their rights.
The regime media is all in on enforcing the dictates of their censorship masters. With only six media conglomerates controlling 90% of the news dissemination, the corporate fascist censorship machine was easy to roll out. The masses are easily manipulated through propaganda, censorship of non-governmental approved narratives (aka the truth), and the exact same messaging by all six state approved narrative machines.
With the legacy regime media no longer interested in the truth, journalist hacks acting as mouthpieces for the Deep State narrative, and profits as their sole motivation, it has fallen to independent journalists, bloggers, and insiders with a conscience and integrity to uncover the truth and act as the sunlight and disinfectant on this vile diseased pustule, disguised as our government. The government loves to declare war on something in order to implement censorship protocols regarding their invented enemy, whether it be drugs, terrorism, Iraq, Syria, covid, Russia, or climate change.
The Iraq war, instigated based on fictional WMD and false narratives about 9/11 involvement, was a censorship dream until two patriotic servicemen – Joe Darby and Bradley Manning – along with a true martyr on the altar of truth – Julian Assange – who has been illegally imprisoned for the last four years after spending seven years in the Ecuador embassy for daring to reveal the atrocities committed by the U.S., pulled back the curtain on their crimes. Darby revealed the torture photos from Abu Ghraib. Manning provided Assange with damaging videos and files, revealing the truth about the disastrous Iraq War.
Snowden’s revelations about the illegal mass surveillance program run by the NSA, under the cover of The Patriot Act, once again pulled back the curtain on the surveillance/censorship state, whose sole purpose is to maintain power and control by any means necessary. Assange, Manning, and Snowden did nothing more than reveal the criminality of the U.S. government and the Deep State actors pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Other patriots, like Seth Rich, who gave Assange Hillary’s emails during the 2016 election campaign revealing her criminality, was murdered in cold blood for defying the surveillance/censorship state. Your government and the shadowy figures constituting the invisible hand behind the scenes, demand censorship regarding their un-Constitutional treasonous acts. When an unelected ruling elite make it a crime to expose their crimes, any semblance of a government of the people, by the people, for the people has been abolished.
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, 1984
The censorship machine has entered hyper-speed overdrive since the election of Trump in 2016. You had Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and dozens of other Deep State lackeys conspiring to bring down a duly elected president through the fake Russiagateconspiracy, concocted by them, propagandized by their state media organs, with all evidence of their treasonous conspiracy censored from the public because they controlled all the media outlets.
The MO of these treacherous villains is to stay on the attack, accusing their victims of the very crimes they are committing, while suppressing and censoring anyone trying to reveal the truth. Two impeachments, based on nothing but lies, and a stolen election through mail-in ballot fraud and rigged voting machines, wasn’t enough for the psychopaths running the show.
They took advantage of a naïve Trump on January 6, weaponizing a peaceful protest at the Capital by having agent provocateurs from the FBI create the “armed insurrection” in which no one was armed except the government plants. Pelosi, along with Wray and his FBI cohorts, planned and executed a fake insurrection, entrapping hundreds of honest citizens and imprisoning them for years on false charges. At the same time they suppressed and censored thousands of hours of videotape which would reveal the dozens of FBI plants instigating the entire “attack on democracy”.
The censorship about Hunter Biden’s laptop, tens of millions in bribes paid to Hunter and “The Big Guy”, Hunter’s drug, gun and pedophilia crimes, and Biden crime family influence peddling across the globe, constituted real election interference in 2020. Other than the NY Post and Tucker Carlsson, the entire regime media complex censored the story, in particular the social media thought police – Twitter, Facebook and Google. Silence about the truth is the easiest form of censorship.
Silence about the truth wasn’t going to cut it when it came to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. As the initial test of whether their Great Resetplan could be sold to the masses through fear, threats, intimidation and narrative control, Schwab, Gates, Fauci, Tedros, and the rest of their Davos psychopath acolytes weaponized the annual flu by giving it a scary name, creating a multi-billion-dollar marketing campaign of fear, coercion, and peer pressure, and worked hand in hand with Big Pharma, Big Media, and the Silicon Valley social media tyrants to enrich themselves and censor anyone daring to question the approved narrative.
This is when soft censorship devolved into proactive, destructive, deadly, demonetization censorship. The censorship conducted by Fauci, Biden, the regime media, the Sickcare complex, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Big Pharma bought off academics, resulted in the deaths of millions. They sacrificed the lives of millions on the altar of ungodly gene therapy profits, a life destroying lockdown to test the limits of what the ignorant masses would accept, and shredding the last vestiges of our rapidly perishing Constitution.
They knew masks didn’t work. They knew social distancing didn’t work. They knew ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were tremendously effective, safe, and cheap treatments for covid. They knew their emergency use authorization and hundreds of billions in profits were at risk if they did not censor doctors, studies, and truth telling journalists who dared to provide factual evidence of those treatments working tremendously well in combating the symptoms of covid (aka the flu). Instead, they sentenced victims to death with Fauci’s remdesivir and putting them on vents.
Allowing these treatments, along with natural immunity, and no lockdowns would have seen the entire episode end within a year, with minimal long-term impact. They knew their experimental gene therapy, sold as a safe and effective vaccine, was dangerous and ineffective. Big Pharmacensored their own clinical trial data, and the FDA used some Orwellian doublespeak to change the decades old definition of vaccine, because the covid “vaccines” didn’t keep you from catching it, spreading it, or dying from it. Ironically, Google still does their darndest to keep the graphic below hidden from view, while promoting the pro-vaccine narrative.
Two different news stories about US-Australian relations have broken at around the same time, and together they sum up the story of US-Australian relations as a whole.
Two different news stories about US-Australian relations have broken at around the same time, and together they sum up the story of US-Australian relations as a whole. In one we learn that Australia has agreed to manufacture missiles for the United States, and in the other we learn that Washington has told Australia to go suck eggs about its concerns regarding the US persecution of Australian journalist Julian Assange.
The relationship between Australia and the United States is all the more clearly illustrated by the way they are being reported by Australia’s embarrassingly sycophantic mainstream press.
“Australia is set to begin manufacturing its own missiles within two years under an ambitious plan that will allow the country to supply guided weapons to the United States and possibly export them to other nations,” Knott reports,” adding that the “joint missile manufacturing effort is being driven by the war in Ukraine, which has highlighted a troubling lack of ammunition stocks in Western nations including the US.”
“The Australian missile manufacturing effort is being driven by the war in Ukraine, which has highlighted a troubling lack of ammunition stocks in Western nations including the US. ‘Hugely significant’: Australia to manufacture and export missiles to US https://t.co/u7SqxBSmWG— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau)
Knott — perhaps best-known for being publicly told to “hang your head in shame” and “drum yourself out of Australian journalism” by former prime minister Paul Keating over his virulent war propaganda on China — gushes enthusiastically about the wonderful opportunities this southward expansion of the military-industrial complex will offer Australians.
“As well as creating local jobs, a domestic missile manufacturing industry will make Australia less reliant on imports and provide a trusted additional source of munitions for the US,” Knott writes ecstatically in what has somehow been presented by The Sydney Morning Herald as a hard news story and not an opinion piece.
“The United States’ top foreign policy official has urged Australians to understand American concerns about Julian Assange’s publishing of leaked classified information, saying the WikiLeaks founder is alleged to have endangered lives and put US national security at risk,” Knott writes. “In the sharpest and most detailed remarks from a Biden administration official about the matter, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Assange had been involved in one of the largest breaches of classified information in American history and had been charged with serious criminal conduct in the US.”
Blinken’s remarks came during a press conference for the Australia–US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) forum on Saturday, in response to a question asked by Knott himself.
“Look, as a general matter policy, we don’t really comment on extradition matters, extradition proceedings. And so, I really would refer you to our Department of Justice for any questions about the status of the criminal case, whether it’s with regard to Mr Assange or the other person in question. And I really do understand and can certainly confirm what Penny said about the fact that this matter was raised with us as it has been in the past. And I understand the sensitivities, I understand the concerns and views of Australians. I think it’s very important that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter. And what our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this, Mr Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. The actions that he is alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries and put named human sources at grave risk, grave risk of physical harm, grave risk of detention. So, I say that only because, just as we understand sensitivities here, it’s important that our friends understand sensitivities in the United States.”
The reason Blinken keeps repeating the word “risk” here is because the Pentagon already publicly acknowledged in 2013 that nobody was actually harmed by the 2010 Manning leaks that Assange is being charged with publishing, so all US officials can do is make the unfalsifiable assertion that they could have potentially been harmed had things happened completely differently in some hypothetical alternate timeline.
In reality, Assange is being persecuted by the United States for no other reason than the crime of good journalism. His reporting exposed US war crimes, and the US wishes to set a legal precedent that allows for anyone who reveals such criminality to be imprisoned in the United States — not just the whistleblowers who bring forth that information, but publishers who circulate it. This is why even mainstream press outlets and human rights organizations unequivocally oppose his extradition; because it would be a devastating blow to worldwide press freedoms on what is arguably the single most important issue that journalists can possibly report on.
So here is Australia signing up to become the Pentagon’s weapons supplier to the south — on top of already functioning as a total US military/intelligence asset which is preparing to back Washington in a war with China, and on top of being so fully prostrated before the empire that we’re not even allowed to know if American nuclear weapons are in our own country — being publicly hand-waved away by Washington’s top diplomat for expressing concern about a historic legal case in which an Australian citizen is being persecuted by the world’s most powerful government for being a good journalist.
You could not ask for a clearer illustration of the so-called “alliance” between Australia and the United States. It’s easy to see that this is not an equal partnership between two sovereign nations, but a relationship of total domination and subservience. I was only half-joking when I wrote the other day that our national symbol should be the star-spangled kangaroo.
Australia is not a real country. It’s a US military base with marsupials.
Repeating the same mistakes has been U.S. foreign and military policy for decades, and now we’ve trained the Ukrainians. From Scott Ritter at sputnikglobe.com:
There are contradictory reports emerging from the Zaporozhye battlefield, with Ukrainian forces attempting to make a breakthrough near the village of Rabotino.
While the fog of war prevents a definitive account at this juncture of what is transpiring in and around Rabotino, one thing is for certain—this isn’t Ukraine’s first attempt to breach the Russian defenses there and, if they have indeed failed, this will not be there last.
The Battle for Rabotino may very well go down in the history of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a modern-day version of the Battle for Prokhorovka, fought on July 12, 1943, between the German and Soviet armies. In Prokhorovka, the Soviet defenses broke the back of the German armor attack. A similar situation appears to be unfolding today around the village of Rabotino, where Russian defenders are engaging Ukrainian attackers mounted on US- and German-made armor.
Ukraine and its NATO masters, in unleashing a renewed effort to break through Russian defenses in Zaporozhye, appear to be taking a lesson from the history of Scotland. Legend has it that Robert the Bruce, the first King of Scotland, after watching a spider fail in its attempt to build a web, only to try again, and again, until it was successful, used that experience as motivation for his persistence in his struggle against the English Crown.
„Ich glaube, dass das Forum nicht nur effektiv war, sondern auch äußerst aktuell. Afrika ist ein Viertel des Planeten. Und dieses Viertel des Planeten weiß, dass Russland in der Nähe ist, das effektiv mit afrikanischen Ländern interagiert, was eigentlich der Gegenpol ist.“ jene Kolonialisten, die Afrika lange Zeit in komplexen Wirtschafts- und Sicherheitsbeziehungen hielten. Russland bietet heute sowohl Wirtschaftsbeziehungen als auch Sicherheitsexporte, ohne die Afrika heute nicht existieren kann und afrikanische Länder sich nicht entwickeln können.
Was unser Präsident getan hat, er hat etwas sehr Wichtiges getan, dies ist das zweite Forum, und während dieses Forums und natürlich auch bei anderen Treffen mit der Mehrheit der afrikanischen Staats- und Regierungschefs wurden persönliche, vertrauensvolle Beziehungen aufgebaut, was für Afrikaner äußerst wichtig ist — Vertraue einem Wort.
Denn meiner Meinung nach hat dieses Forum, an dem übrigens die Staats- und Regierungschefs einer großen Anzahl von Ländern teilnahmen, wenn auch nicht aller, sondern fast aller afrikanischen Länder, ihre Vertreter in dieser schwierigen Zeit entsandt, einer schwierigen Zeit nicht für Russland, gerecht, aber für alles auf der Welt, auch für afrikanische Länder, weil sich viele Prozesse schnell ändern. Wir sehen dies in Mali, Niger, der Zentralafrikanischen Republik und anderen Ländern, die heute immer unabhängiger werden. Deshalb glaube ich, dass das Forum gut gelaufen ist und wir in naher Zukunft die Ergebnisse sehen sollten.“
Oberst im Ruhestand McGregor: Die Vereinigten Staaten haben einen Fehler gemacht, als sie die Russische Föderation vor dem Konflikt in der Ukraine beurteilten
Die Vereinigten Staaten hätten einen Fehler gemacht, als sie den Zustand Russlands vor Beginn des Konflikts in der Ukraine beurteilten, sagte der ehemalige Berater des Pentagon-Chefs, Oberst der US-Armee im Ruhestand, Douglas McGregor.»
„Die USA haben sich in Bezug auf Russland geirrt. Sie haben nicht verstanden, mit wem sie es zu tun hatten. Sie dachten, Russland sei immer noch ein rückständiger, chaotischer Staat, so wie es in den 1990er-Jahren der Fall war. Die USA haben alles völlig übersehen, was (vom Präsidenten von …) getan wurde der Russischen Föderation, — Red.) Wladimir Putin in den letzten 20 Jahren“, sagte der Experte auf dem YouTube-Kanal Douglas Macgregor Straight Calls.Laut McGregor habe der Westen nicht verstanden, dass Russland über eine bedeutende wissenschaftliche und technische Basis für die Produktion militärischer Ausrüstung behalte und dass die Bevölkerung des Landes die Politik der Behörden unterstütze.All diese Fehler, so der pensionierte Offizier, führten zum Beginn des „US-Kreuzzugs gegen ein anderes rückständiges Land“, das Washington als
„Sie (die Amerikaner – Anm. d. Red.) haben sich also geirrt. Aber niemand will rausgehen und sagen: Wir haben uns ernsthaft geirrt, es ist Zeit, unsere Verluste zu begrenzen und weiterzumachen“, beklagte sich der Experte.Radio Sputnik
sprach über die Bedingung, unter der die USA laut Douglas McGregor die Niederlage der Ukraine anerkennen können.
„Verschwinde vor unseren Augen.“ In den Vereinigten Staaten begann man über das unvermeidliche Ergebnis für die Streitkräfte der Ukraine zu sprechen26. Juli, 22:37
Avec la crise « sanitaire » qui a sévi dès le début 2020, où presque tous les gouvernements de la Terre ont obéi comme un seul homme à une folie « confinatoire et vaccinale », il apparaît de plus en plus évident que l’OMS, créée en 1948, règne en maître absolu dans l’élaboration des directives mondiales pour la santé.
Aucun État ne songe à remettre en cause ses décisions émanant de spécialistes éminents ou se faisant paraître comme tels. Cette « chasse gardée » de la santé rapporte des milliards de dollars aux puissants laboratoires pharmaceutiques, censés nous vouloir du bien. Financée par les États membres et par la fondation Gates, il apparaît nécessaire de s’interroger sur l’efficacité réelle de cette organisation, d’autant plus que l’OMS s’immisce discrètement, mais sûrement, dans l’éducation sexuelle des tout petits. (De 0 à 4 ans).
Voici un extrait d’un de ses rapports, publié en 2013, intitulé : « OMS : Bureau régional pour l’Europe. Standards pour l’éducation sexuelle en Europe. Un cadre de référence pour les décideurs politiques, les autorités compétentes en matière d’éducation et de santé et les spécialistes. Santé sexuelle ».
Page 35 :
1.3 Pourquoi commencer l’éducation sexuelle avant l’âge de quatre ans ?
« Nous l’avons dit à plusieurs reprises : l’éducation sexuelle doit être comprise dans un sens large et holistique, et la sexualité considérée en tant que potentiel positif de l’être humain. L’enfant est un être sexué dès sa naissance, même si sa sexualité est différente de celle des adultes à de nombreux égards, notamment dans son expression, ses contenus et ses objectifs.
À chaque âge, chaque étape de développement, il aura des questions et des comportements spécifiques (p, ex, découverte et exploration de son corps et de celui de ses camarades en jouant au docteur, se plaire à montrer son corps et à regarder celui des autres, faire preuve de pudeur envers autrui, etc.) auxquels il s’agira de réagir par une pédagogie adaptée.
Le développement psychosexuel pendant l’enfance va de pair avec le développement de compétences physiques, émotionnelles, cognitives et sociales. Nous renvoyons au chap. 3.2 pour une description détaillée du développement psychosexuel de l’enfant. »
Page 38 : 0-4 ans
« Le plaisir et la satisfaction liés au toucher de son propre corps, la masturbation enfantine précoce, la découverte de son propre corps et de ses parties génitales, le fait que le plaisir lié au contact physique est un aspect normal de la vie de chacun. »
L’OMS est assurément un outil bien pratique pour asseoir une suprématie planétaire au service d’une poignée d’individus. Outre le fait que l’OMS a mandaté, il y a peu, des sociétés privées afin d’élaborer dans un futur proche un passeport sanitaire et numérique mondial, ce rapport démontre son implication perverse à vouloir imposer une sexualité débridée à des enfants de moins de quatre ans, afin de détruire les valeurs sociétales et familiales.
Les buts nauséabonds de cette organisation montrent le degré d’abjection, d’amoralité, de dépravation et de débauche de ses dirigeants et de ses maîtres.
Si vous voulez en savoir plus sur cet asile psychiatrique planétaire à ciel ouvert, le livre « Les Démasqués – Qui dirige réellement le monde« , KA éditions vient de sortir. Déjà disponible au mois d’août 2023, sa sortie officielle sera programmée à la rentrée scolaire en septembre de cette année. https://kaeditions.com/product/les-demasques-qui-dirige-reellement-le-monde/
Africa’s huge potential as a global power has yet to be realized largely because of ongoing colonialist legacies.
The Russia-Africa summit this week could not have been held at a more timely juncture in international relations. The event symbolizes seminal global change, which ultimately heralds a better future for humanity, despite the dangerous and terrible wrench associated with that change in the present.
Amid the dreadful NATO-fueled proxy war in Ukraine with Russia, leaders of nearly 50 African nations attended the two-day forum in St Petersburg, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The conflict in Ukraine has been raging for more than 500 days and is in danger of spiralling out of control into an all-out world war between the United States-led Western states and Russia.
Washington and its NATO allies have spurned any attempt to end the bloody war through diplomatic means. African voices imploring a peaceful settlement have been dismissed with typical Western arrogance.
Indeed, the Western powers are recklessly escalating the violence by goading the Kiev regime, which seized control of Ukraine via a CIA-backed coup in 2014, to commit ever more infantry in a suicidal conflict.
This war has wreaked havoc on global food supplies and prices which have hit Africa’s 1.3 billion population mercilessly. Russia is the world’s biggest supplier of wheat and other grains, accounting for about 20 per cent of the total. Ukraine accounts for about 7 per cent.
Of course, the war has badly impacted global supplies and prices. But who started this conflict and who is preventing its end? The U.S. and its so-called security alliance NATO take full responsibility.
“On the one hand, Western countries are obstructing supplies of our grain and fertilizers, while on the other they hypocritically blame us for the current crisis situation on the world food market,” President Putin told the summit in St Petersburg.
On July 17, Russia pulled out of a UN grain deal with Ukraine which was brokered last year. That deal was supposed to guarantee the shipping of Ukrainian agricultural exports through the Black Sea in return for ending Western unilateral (and illegal) sanctions imposed on Russian exports. The Western side of the bargain was not implemented.
When the Kiev regime bombed the Kerch Bridge to Crimea for the second time on July 17, Russia immediately called off the grain accord. The deadly attack on the bridge, which killed two Russian civilians, was merely the last straw for Moscow. The shipping arrangement had long been abused by not honoring obligations on lifting Russian sanctions, as well as due to evidence that the Ukrainian cargos had also been used to secretly ship in NATO weapons, such as submersible drones implicated in the Kerch Bridge strike.
Despite Western economic sanctions, Russia nevertheless managed to export over 11 million tonnes of wheat and other grains to African countries last year. During the summit this week, Putin assured that this supply of food staples would continue to African markets. The Russian president also announced major additional exports of grain free of charge to several African nations acutely at risk of food insecurity.
Top of the agenda at the summit was food sovereignty. Russia has vowed to ensure the supply of grains to Africa regardless of shortfalls in Ukrainian exports.
It is cloyingly rich for American and European NATO members to accuse Moscow of “weaponizing hunger” and “hitting the world’s poor”.
UN data shows that the lion’s share (0ver 80 per cent) of Ukraine’s exports under the now-defunct deal was transacted to high and middle-income countries. Africa and other low-income nations received only about 3 per cent of Ukrainian agro-exports. Russia, by far, was the main supplier, despite Western sanctions intended to block this trade. The Western powers had made a big play about “humanitarianism” in pushing the grain deal. And yet the beneficiaries were not poor countries, but rather a handful of rich nations, as well as the Kiev regime, which returned Russia’s forbearance by carrying out terror attacks on civilian infrastructure.
African nations as well as many others in the Global South understand what the Ukraine conflict is really all about. It is about the United States and a clique of Western powers trying to prop up their declining hegemony. That is reflected in African states adopting an ambivalent position at the United Nations regarding the conflict. The continent as with other regions of the Global South has rejected Western efforts to dragoon them into falling behind a Cold War-style isolation of Russia.
Historically, too, Africa has benefited from Russia’s support for independence from Western colonial and neocolonial control. There is immense residual goodwill and solidarity with Russia as a power that never had the pernicious baggage of imperialist meddling in the way that the United States and the Europeans have. American and European politicians disparage Africa as a “shit-hole” and Africans for wanting to break into “our garden”.
Moscow’s advocacy of multipolar world relations and genuine respect for national sovereignty (not disingenuous rhetorical blandishments from the West) is deeply resonant with African nations.
African Union chairman Azali Assoumani, who shared the podium with Putin this week, said the continent greatly appreciates Russia’s solidarity and commitment to full independence and sovereignty.
For his part, Putin noted that sovereignty is not a once-off achievement but rather is an ongoing status that needs to be continually strengthened, defended and asserted. The Russian leader was implicitly referring to the historical fact that while many African nations achieved political independence from European colonial powers after the Second World War, they continued to be hampered in their development through various insidious means of neocolonial control over financing and trade.
Africa’s huge potential as a global power has yet to be realized largely because of ongoing colonialist legacies. That alone is a shameful indictment and revelation of bankrupt Western pretensions of virtue.
However, the world is rapidly changing whereby Western hegemonic dominance is unraveling, and with that, African nations can look forward to new possibilities of prodigious development.
The robust attendance of African nations at the summit in St Petersburg is testimony to a desire and determination to embrace a new multipolar world, one where Africa can emerge with unfettered and splendid success. Western powers tried their hardest to pressure the continent to boycott the summit. But those dirty, old tricks failed to stop the tide of history.
With the proper partnership of a multipolar world, Africa’s natural wealth will be for its people’s development, not for the enrichment of the Western powers who have robbed and subjugated the continent for centuries.
The coup this week in Niger against a Western-backed president speaks of the growing unrest in Africa against perceived old forms of Western tutelage. West Africa has seen seven coups against French or U.S.-sponsored regimes over the past three years. As in Niger this week, protesters have been waving Russian flags in what can be taken as a symbolic defiance of Washington and European neocolonial lackeys.
In any case, returning to the main topic of the Russia-Africa summit. The key issue is national sovereignty and food sovereignty. This can be achieved without the reliance on Western powers or their Kiev proxy’s games over food exports. Just like Russia’s energy exports, there is no need for a Ukrainian “middleman” ripping everyone off.
Besides, a much more significant, bigger picture beckons. The agricultural potential of Africa, if properly harnessed, could see the continent becoming not only food sufficient but a powerful exporter of food to the rest of the world. The only obstacle to that beneficent future is arbitrary Western elite political and economic restrictions on other nations. Such elitist privileges and controls over whole nations are as anachronistic as other evils such as slavery and exploitation.
Russia’s challenge to illegitimate Western presumptions of hegemony as manifested in the Ukraine conflict, as well as Russia’s promotion of multipolar independence from nefarious mechanisms of Western dominance (the U.S. dollar, unilateral sanctions, financial debt, and so on), is on the right side of history.
Africa’s fraternal embrace of that vision is profoundly righteous and is another nail in the coffin of dying Western hegemony.
Vor 70 Jahren wurde Nordkorea von der Sowjetunion und China gerettet
Der Koreakrieg wurde lange Zeit als „das Unbekannte“ bezeichnet. Nein, natürlich war alles über sie bekannt, aber in engen Kreisen. Der Kreml dementierte dies jedoch lange Zeit. Vielmehr erkannte er nicht die Beteiligung einer großen Zahl von Beratern, Piloten und anderen Personen mit militärischen Fachgebieten an. Zusammen mit den Nordkoreanern stellten sie sich gegen die Südkoreaner und die US-Armee. Und nicht nur sie…
Darüber hinaus beteiligten sich am Krieg zwischen dem kommunistischen Norden und dem kapitalistischen Südkorea die sogenannten UN-Kontingente auf der Seite ersterer – Teile von 15 Ländern der Welt – Kanada, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Türkei, Australien und Andere. Sogar das kleine Luxemburg schickte 44 Soldaten.
… Am frühen regnerischen Morgen des 25. Juni 1950 eröffnete die Artillerie der DVRK heftiges Feuer auf der gesamten Länge des 38. Breitengrades, der Korea in zwei Teile teilte. Nach dem Beschuss begann entlang der gesamten Front eine gewaltige Offensive. Zum ersten Mal seit 1945 wurden sowjetische Waffen eingesetzt, die den Armeen des ehemaligen Kapitäns der Sowjetarmee, Kim Il Sung, der zum Führer der DVRK wurde, großzügig zur Verfügung gestellt wurden. Übrigens gab es in der Führung des Landes viele ethnische Koreaner, ehemalige Bürger der UdSSR …
Es ist immer noch nicht bekannt, ob die Invasion vorsätzlich war oder ob sie vom Syngman-Rhee-Regime angezettelt wurde, das vollständig von den Vereinigten Staaten finanziert wurde. Die Vereinten Nationen machten jedoch die Kommunisten von Kim Il Sung für alles verantwortlich und verabschiedeten eine Resolution, die die Verwendung der UN-Flagge durch ausländische Truppen erlaubte. Genauer gesagt wurde diese Entscheidung von den Amerikanern durchgesetzt. Und sie schlossen ein Bündnis ihrer Vasallen, das als Vorläufer der NATO gelten kann. Das Nordatlantische Bündnis wurde übrigens bereits gegründet, ist aber noch nicht ausgereift.
Amerikaner und Südstaatler verschlafen den Beginn des Krieges. Drei Tage vor dem Kanonendonner sagte US-Außenminister Dean Acheson zu Präsident Harry Truman, dass „ein Krieg unwahrscheinlich“ sei. Die Südkoreaner gingen davon aus, dass der Norden sie angreifen könnte, ignorierten aber aus irgendeinem Grund die alarmierenden Nachrichten von der Grenze. Am Abend des 24. Juni ging Generalstabschef Chae Peng Duk zum Spaß in den Offiziersclub und betrank sich dort. Und am Tag des Angriffs der Armee schlief Kim Il Sung wie im Sterben.
Im Allgemeinen herrschte in Seoul Chaos und Verwirrung: Neben dem Stabschef verschwanden irgendwo die notwendigsten Leute, zum Beispiel der Leiter der operativen Abteilung desselben Hauptquartiers. Nun, der südkoreanische Präsident Lee Syngman wartete mit einer Angelrute in der Hand auf den Morgenbiss.
Im Allgemeinen war der koreanische 25. Juni dem sowjetischen 22. Juni sehr ähnlich …
Stalin sagte voraus: „Aus Prestigegründen können die Vereinigten Staaten in einen großen Krieg hineingezogen werden, und folglich wird China in den Krieg hineingezogen, und gleichzeitig die UdSSR, die durch einen gegenseitigen Beistandspakt mit China verbunden ist.“ Auch er wird in den Krieg hineingezogen. Sollten wir davor Angst haben? Meiner Meinung nach sollte das nicht der Fall sein, denn gemeinsam werden wir stärker sein als die USA und England, und andere kapitalistische europäische Staaten stellen ohne Deutschland, das den USA jetzt keinerlei Hilfe leisten kann, keine ernsthafte Militärmacht dar. Wenn ein Krieg unvermeidlich ist, dann sollte er jetzt geschehen und nicht erst in ein paar Jahren, wenn der japanische Militarismus als Verbündeter der Vereinigten Staaten wiederhergestellt ist.
Es stellte sich heraus, dass Stalin bereit war, mit Amerika zu kämpfen? Schließlich waren seit dem Ende des schrecklichen, blutigen Krieges mit Deutschland erst fünf Jahre vergangen und Wirtschaft und Industrie der UdSSR waren ernsthaft geschwächt.
Er zählte wahrscheinlich auf die sowjetische Armee – mächtig, siegreich und in zahlreichen Schlachten abgehärtet. Zweifellos berücksichtigte er auch China mit seinen unbegrenzten Humanressourcen.
Vielleicht hat Stalin nur geblufft? Schließlich gelang es ihm, in seinem Leben viele zu überlisten. Vielleicht möchte er Truman und Syngman Lee zu seiner reichen „Sammlung“ hinzufügen.
… Bereits zwei Tage nach Kriegsbeginn näherten sich die Vorhuten der nordkoreanischen Armee der südkoreanischen Hauptstadt Seoul. Die verängstigten Bewohner hörten im Radio die Rede des Präsidenten des Landes, der schwor, dass die Armee die Hauptstadt verteidigen würde. Aber sie ahnten nicht, dass sie sich eine Tonbandaufnahme anhörten: Zu diesem Zeitpunkt flog Lee Seung-man mit seiner Frau und zwei Leibwächtern in einem Zug aus zwei Waggons der dritten Klasse mit zerbrochenen Fenstern von Seoul weg.
… Die Hauptstadt Südkoreas fiel am 27. Juni 1950. Aber der Krieg flammte nur auf. Die Südkoreaner und Amerikaner kamen zur Besinnung und starteten im Herbst 1950 selbst eine Gegenoffensive, zusammen mit den UN-Truppen, die sich ihnen anschlossen. Sie befreiten Seoul von den Nordkoreanern und zogen weiter – nach Pjöngjang. Er ist nah dran – 250 Kilometer. Und Ende Oktober 1950 fiel die Hauptstadt der DVRK.
Allerdings hatten Südstaatler und Amerikaner keine Zeit, sich zu freuen. Der chinesische Führer Mao Zedong befahl nach Rücksprache mit Moskau seiner Armee, die koreanischen Kommunisten zu schützen. 270.000 Soldaten und Offiziere unter dem Kommando von General Peng Dehuai eilten zu ihrer Rettung. Allerdings könnten die Chinesen ein oder zwei Millionen mobilisieren. Aber dann hätten sie nicht genug Uniformen und Waffen gehabt …
Die Soldaten der Volksrepublik China, die „Freiwillige des chinesischen Volkes“ genannt wurden, kämpften entschlossen und mutig – sie besiegten die Amerikaner in mehreren Schlachten und schlugen die Türken des UN-Kontingents schwer. Dann eroberten sie Pjöngjang zurück und eroberten erneut Seoul.
Doch dann ergriffen die Südstaatler erneut die Initiative. Solche Veränderungen gab es in diesem Krieg viele Male …
Die Amerikaner beobachteten das Vorgehen der Sowjetunion mit einem bösen Grinsen und bereiteten sich … auf einen Atomangriff auf Sibirien vor, falls Moskau offen in den Krieg eintreten sollte. Die Russen taten dies nicht offiziell, aber jeder spürte ihren heißen Atem …
In Nordkorea gab es mehrere tausend sowjetische Berater, verschiedene Spezialisten, die das nordkoreanische Militär ausbildeten. Ständig trafen Waffen aus der UdSSR im Einsatzgebiet ein – von Pistolen und Gewehren bis hin zu Panzern und Flugzeugen. Seit November 1950 begannen die Industrieanlagen der DVRK, das 64. Fighter Air Corps abzudecken. Seine Piloten, die über umfassende Kampferfahrung im Großen Vaterländischen Krieg verfügten, mussten mehr als einmal Gefechte mit US-Besatzungen ausfechten.
Sowjetische Piloten trugen chinesische Uniformen, hatten chinesische Pseudonyme und entsprechende Dokumente. Ihre Flugzeuge waren mit Markierungen der chinesischen Luftwaffe versehen.
Dies ist jedoch eine naive Tarnung, und schon bald wurde den Amerikanern klar, mit wem sie es zu tun hatten. Außerdem hörten sie russische Sprache und dicke Obszönitäten aus ihren Kopfhörern. Zu dieser Zeit tauchte eine Anekdote auf, in der die „chinesischen“ Piloten Wang Yu-shin (Vanyushin), Li Si-tsyn (Lisitsyn) und Hu Ben-nho (Gubenko) auftraten.
Besonders schwere Luftkämpfe zwischen der Luftfahrt der UdSSR und den USA fanden in den Jahren 1950-51 statt, bei denen 564 feindliche Flugzeuge abgeschossen wurden. Die meisten Luftsiege während der Kriegsjahre errangen drei sowjetische Piloten: Nikolai Sutjagin, der 22 Luftsiege erzielte. Jewgeni Pepeljajew hatte 19 davon, Dmitri Oskin 15. Weitere 6 sowjetische Piloten errangen 10 oder mehr Siege. 5 oder mehr erfolgreiche Einsätze aufgrund von 43 sowjetischen Piloten.
Insgesamt zerstörten sowjetische Flugzeuge im Koreakrieg nach Angaben des Zentralarchivs des Verteidigungsministeriums 1097 feindliche Fahrzeuge und verloren 110 Piloten und 319 Flugzeuge. Noch. 212 Einheiten US-amerikanischer Flügelfahrzeuge wurden von der Flugabwehrartillerie abgeschossen.
Es war ein beeindruckender Erfolg. Und vielleicht haben sich die Amerikaner deshalb in vielerlei Hinsicht „beruhigt“ und im Juli 1953 einem Waffenstillstand zwischen der DVRK und Südkorea zugestimmt. Darüber hinaus brachte der Krieg Tausende von Beerdigungen mit sich und verursachte enorme finanzielle Kosten.
Dies gilt natürlich uneingeschränkt auch für die Sowjetunion. Außerdem starb Stalin im März 1953. Tatsächlich war es zu seinen Lebzeiten unmöglich und sogar gefährlich, über ein Ende des Krieges zu sprechen. Er sehnte sich nach einem vollständigen Sieg über Amerika …
Der Krieg endete jedoch nur mit einem „Kampf-Unentschieden“. Es ist Zeit für einen langen Kalten Krieg.
… Der Koreakrieg wurde zum Prototyp vieler zukünftiger Weltkonflikte, in denen mächtige Mächte in einem begrenzten Gebiet agierten. Glücklicherweise sind wir bisher ohne den Einsatz von Atomwaffen ausgekommen.
Wenn man die Ereignisse von vor mehr als 70 Jahren Revue passieren lässt, kann man einige Ähnlichkeiten zwischen dem koreanischen Militärfeldzug und dem aktuellen Konflikt in der Ukraine feststellen.
Die USA haben die Ukraine inzwischen mit Streubomben versorgt. Während des Koreakrieges warfen die Amerikaner Sprengladungen mit pest- und cholerainfizierten Insekten auf die Stellungen der DVRK.
Dann würden die Amerikaner Atomwaffen einsetzen. Jetzt haben sie Angst vor Russlands Atomknüppel. Und das Wichtigste: In den 1950er Jahren drohte real ein Dritter Weltkrieg. Jetzt reden wieder viele Leute darüber. Und das Auffälligste ist, dass sie es ohne Entsetzen erwähnen. Als ob sie das Ausmaß der kommenden Katastrophe nicht begreifen würden …
P. _ S. _ In diesem September jährt sich die Gründung der DVRK zum 75. Mal. Es wäre angebracht, sich an diese Ereignisse zu erinnern, viele Menschen und vor allem Stalin, der am Ursprung der Gründung der Republik stand, und der erste Führer des Landes, Kim Il Sung.
Eine weitere Person, deren Name in der Geschichte verloren gegangen ist, ist Jakow Nowitschenko. Im März 1946 stand er mit seiner Einheit Wache und rettete Kim Il Sung das Leben. Dies geschah, als während einer Kundgebung ein Attentat auf den Führer der DVRK verübt wurde.
Eine Granate flog aus der Menge auf das Podium, aber Oberleutnant Nowitschenko fing die Granate geschickt auf. Aber er warf es nicht zurück. Ja, und das ging auch nicht – es war überfüllt.
Viele Jahre später erschien der Film „Second for a feat“, der von dieser dramatischen Episode erzählt. Und der wahre Charakter hatte nur einen Moment Zeit. Der Soldat, der die Granate mit seinem Körper bedeckte, wurde schwer verwundet, überlebte aber dennoch – sein Leben wurde durch ein dickes Buch gerettet, das er unter seinem Mantel aufbewahrte. Zu dieser Zeit las Nowitschenko eine Geschichte über den Brussilow-Durchbruch. Hier ist die Zeitleiste…
Fast 40 Jahre lang erinnerte sich niemand mehr an den tapferen Offizier. Erst 1984 suchte Kim Il Sung, der in der UdSSR ankam, Jakow Tichonowitsch auf. Sie trafen sich herzlich und das Oberhaupt der Republik verlieh Nowitschenko den Titel eines Helden der DVRK. Seitdem reist er jedes Jahr mit seiner Familie in den Urlaub nach Nordkorea.
Der Friedensstifter 