Scott Ritter Explains Why Israel is Losing Opportunity to Beat Hamas, by Svetlana EkimenkoNovember 6, 2023
“Israel is committing SUICIDE if they do this in Egypt”: Scott RitterOctober 31, 2023Liked by 1 person
Scott Ritter: Israeli Assault on Gaza is Doomed to FailOctober 12, 2023
Scott Ritter: Israel is being WIPED OUT and the IDF is Losing Big on All Fronts
The draft is involuntary servitude of the first order and slave masters in Congress are pounding the drums. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. at lewrockwell.com:
Last week, a most disturbing development took place that should concern all those who value liberty. The House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act and included in it a provision requiring the automatic enrollment of men from 18 to 26 years old for the draft. Before that, men were required to register for the draft when they turned eighteen, but whether to do that was up to them. Many of them didn’t, even though failing to register subjected them to criminal penalties. But the choice was theirs to make, and now, they won’t have it.
No one has actually been drafted yet, but calls for “national service” are in the air. This is an excellent time, then, to go over what is wrong with drafting people into the armed services, and this is what I’m going to do in this week’s article.
The fundamental point is easy to grasp. In a free society, everyone owns himself and his legitimately acquired property. Slavery is the greatest possible violation of your right to own yourself, and making the “state” your enslavers (actually the politicians who run the state) does not make things better. It makes them worse. As the great Murray Rothbard puts it in For a New Liberty, “Surely, for one example, there can be no more blatant case of involuntary servitude than our entire system of conscription. Every youth is forced to register with the selective service system when he turns eighteen. He is compelled to carry his draft card at all times, and, at whatever time the federal government deems fit, he is seized by the authorities and inducted into the armed forces. There his body and will are no longer his own; he is subject to the dictates of the government; and he can be forced to kill and to place his own life in jeopardy if the authorities so decree. What else is involuntary servitude if not the draft?”
By Peter Koenig
The official Swiss-sponsored “Ukraine Peace Conference” took place on the lush Swiss Burgenstock Resort on the Lake of Lucerne, to which deliberately Russia, one of the two most important “players” was not invited. That is unforgivable.
Indeed, the result was a total failure. Two days after the Burgenstock Meet, the media were silenced – not a word anymore about the Burgenstock event.
Switzerland was warned about not inviting Russia by several influential countries, and their leaders, including Brazil’s President Lula da Silva and Saudi’s de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman – and others – that they would not attend the Swiss event, since nothing constructive could come of it, without Russia being at the table.
On 12 June, three days before the start of the official Summit, we, a group of friends and peace activists, friends of Real Peace, organized an informal but REAL Peace Conference in Flühli, Switzerland. We called it “Mutual Peace Engagement – Conference” (MPEC).
In the MPEC participated international experts with ample experience on the ground in Ukraine, as well as in Russia. They included a Russian-Swiss Journalist, representing Russian interests; a former US CIA agent, with decades of international experience and representing US interests, as well as retired high-level Swiss and German army officers, who had years of on-the-ground knowledge, in the region, especially in Ukraine and Russia.
Interestingly, the MPEC participants attempted to invite also a representative from Ukraine, but were unlucky. All potential candidates declined, answering almost unanimously: Too dangerous for potentially expressing an opinion which may not be in line with the Zelenskyy policy. They mentioned possible reprisals against themselves and / or their families.
The participants at the MPEC also were aware of history, what led to the Maidan Coup in 2014, who orchestrated it – and that, indeed, the war started already in 2014, what Mr. Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General said on several occasions, thereby admitting that it was not Russia’s interference – NOT invasion – in the Donbass Region of Ukraine, that prompted the current war.
This historic point was clearly made by the US representative who spoke to the Conference by Zoom from the United States.
This sort of momentous perspective was not even discussed at the official Swiss-sponsored conference, let alone taken into account, in the summits conclusions.
*
The MPEC does not pretend having the perfect solution. Such may never exist, but the MPEC worked towards a proposal that may come close enough that with compromises a Peace Accord could be achieved.
For example, in April 2022, Turkey sponsored a Peace Conference at which all parties were present, including Ukraine, represented by President Zelenskyy, a potential Peace Agreement was reached, where all parties were ready to sign, including President Putin and President Zelenskyy. In a last-minute intervention, Boris Johnson, then PM of the UK, called Zelenskyy not to sign the accord.
It was then clear; the West was not interested in Peace, and President Zelenskyy was not autonomous, was not leading a sovereign country.
The same today – the West is not interested in Peace. The West wants to continue what they believe and wish, weakening Russia, for eventually taking over the largest (surface) and richest (resources) country of the world. Ukraine is the perfect platform for this proxy-war of the US against Russia.
Maybe more important, or equally important, is this:
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” —quote from a 1935 speech by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient.
This is as true today as it was then. Killing is the most profitable business, just ahead of drug trading and human trafficking.
During the recent SPIEF (St. Petersburg International Economic Forum) Conference in St. Petersburg, a journalist asked President Putin, what it would take to come to a Peace Agreement in Ukraine. Mr. Putin replied something to the effect that the agreement reached in April 2022 in Istanbul, boycotted by Boris Johnson, would be a good basis; of course, many things have happened since then, and a potential agreement would have to be updated accordingly.
Part of the update might probably include the four Russian / Russian-speaking territories currently under Russia’s protective control. Let us not forget, since the Maidan Coup on 22 February 2014, Kiev’s Azov battalions, also called the “Right Sector”, have killed about 14,000 to 17,000 Russians (17,000 is the latest Russian figure) in these areas, mostly women and children.
See this 12 minute-video composite summary of the most crucial points made at the MPEC meeting in Flühli.
The MPEC looked at the 2022 Istanbul draft agreement and conditions, which were found quite reasonable by all participants, including representatives of Russia and the US. The MPEC then came up with the following key points be necessary to achieve Peace:
1. An immediate Ceasefire – along the current frontier lines – towards a lasting Peace Agreement. The latter could be brokered by a neutral country – China has offered her diplomatic services. Other alternatives, might include, Hungary, Serbia, the Check Republic, others….or a committee of a combination of several countries.
2. Establishment of a buffer zone along the Russian – Ukraine border.
3. Autonomy of the new Russian-controlled territories, possibly incorporation into the Russian Federation for Donbas Region, as well as newly gained predominantly Russian / Russian-speaking territories; possibly another referendum of the people of these territories.
4. No further discussion about Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol. They voted in March 2014 overwhelmingly (over 90%) to become part of the Russian Federation which the Duma (Russian Parliament) ratified.
5. No NATO or other foreign troops in Ukraine.
6. Demilitarization of Ukraine – no more Western weapon deliveries.
7. No nuclear war heads in Ukraine, ever.
8. Denazification of Ukraine – Azov and related “Bandera-type” groups, the “Right Sector”, are to be forbidden. Just as a reminder, Ukraine Nazi troops fought with Hitler during WWII against Russia and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of Russian deaths.
9. No “land-grabbing” by Western corporations, so that Ukraine, once free and autonomous from any occupation, will be a sovereign Ukraine for sovereign Ukrainian people.
10. Neutrality for Ukraine – a sovereign state, free to deal and have relations with East and West.
11. Bringing war crimes / criminals to justice.
12. Establishment of a multi-national supervisory commission – suggested 5 years, renewable, if necessary.
13. Creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission – for the people to be sociologically and psychologically able to deal with the damages of the conflict.
The MPEC suggests on purpose NOT to engage the political UN in matters of Peace Agreement and / or its supervision, as the UN is, at present, not neutral, but in the hands of Big Finance and in an alliance with the WEF – which is in turn controlled by Big Finance and elite billionaire oligarchs.
*
In addition, the MPEC formulated suggestions for long-term Peace enhancement.
Preamble: All political big shots, financial oligarchs and other power-brokers calling for war – should first, before anybody else – go to the front and fight as soldiers – taking and experiencing the risk of being maimed or killed. That rule might stop ALL WARS for good.
i) An immediate and supervised Ceasefire is precondition for a lasting “Mutual Peace Agreement”.
ii) Internationally observed ban of weapon deliveries to warrying parties – worldwide; enhancement of Rule 70, of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which is part of international law; the body of rules governing relations between Nation States.
iii) War propaganda must be banned – EVERWHERE – schools, media, governments…under application of existing international laws (1992).
iv) UN-organized (type UNWRA) food and medical assistance to war-suffering populations, as well as UNHCR-facilitated repatriation of refugees.
v) Lifting of and banning ALL sanctions worldwide. Sanctions are weaponized trade and travel restrictions. Sanctions violate the rules of International Law (see 1, above).
vi) (a) Setting up a War Crimes Tribunal for prosecuting war criminals, and (b) no immunity for war crimes for ANYBODY, including politicians.
vii) Establishment of a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” – like others created in conflict areas, to reconcile grievances.
viii) Abolish NATO and its sub-organizations. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949 in Washington DC, with the US, Canada, and several European countries to provide collective security against the Western “perceived” threat from the Soviet Union. At best, NATO could be justified during the post-WWII, as counterpart of the USSR-established Warshaw Pact, until 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsed, and the Warshaw Pact dissolved.
After this date, the continuation of NATO cannot be justified by any means. Therefore, NATO has become and acts like a Western war-driving machine, an aggressor, not a defense organization. NATO has long ago trespassed its transatlantic borders, as it creates conflicts and aggression around the world with impunity.
ix) Working out an economic- and monetary system, which enhances PEACE instead of WARS. Remember – “WAR is a racket.” – see above, by Smedley D. Butler.
x) [Foreign] land grabbing must be prohibited. A new sovereign Ukraine belongs to the free and sovereign Ukrainian population.
xi) Environmental protection: The 2015 Paris Environment / Climate Accord, in a semi-clandestine rule, exempts CO2 exhausts and other pollutants from military (and four other economic sectors) to be considered in the Accord’s targets. War and other military / conflict activities are arguably by far the largest the world’s polluters and creators of greenhouse gases. So, this rule must be brought to light and abandoned.
If the thus revised environment and climate rules would apply, wars would disappear.
xii) Germany and most European countries are by their Constitution prohibited to associate with NAZI-Regimes. Germany, as of this date, has no Peace Agreement with the Allies after WWII, but is still an occupied country under an Armistice Agreement. Germany has therefore no Constitution per se, but a “Grundgesetz” – a national Basic Law which bans Germany from associating locally and internationally with Nazism.
*
This list of suggestions for enhancement of lasting Peace, may not be complete, and the items may not appear in order of priority. Some of them appear as repetitions of points mentioned for a Ukraine-Russia Peace Agreement. They are merely an enhancement of these Peace conditions.
It is the Mutual Peace Engagement – Conference’s believe that adhering to the Peace Agreement Conditions, and the suggested enhancement rules – might lead to a lasting Peace.
*
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.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image source
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2024
https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-russia-peace-agreement/5860694
By Drago Bosnic
As NATO and its Neo-Nazi proxies coordinate their long-range strikes with terrorist attacks deeper within Russia (a threat they’ve already made on several occasions and are now fulfilling, as evidenced by the latest events in Dagestan), the belligerent alliance’s eastern member states are preparing to effectively enter the conflict, albeit not officially. Namely, just like NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets are used for long-range attacks on the Russian military in an “unofficial” capacity, the political West is hoping to get the chance to use F-16 fighter jets from airbases in Eastern Europe, where they would be “safe” from Russian counterattacks. In theory, of course, because nobody can really guarantee that Moscow will tolerate such actions. And yet, nobody in Europe is asking the most obvious question – what happens when the Kremlin does react?
Many NATO countries have F-16s in their inventories, but of all operators of the US-made jet,
Poland and Romania are the closest to Ukraine. They also have the largest territories and the most important NATO installations in Eastern Europe. Along with a strong pro-US (geo)political stance, the combination of these factors makes them the most logical candidates for the basing of the Kiev regime’s F-16s. Poland has two major airbases housing these US-made jets – the 31st and 32nd, located in Poznan and Lask, respectively. These areas are in western and central Poland, both crucial for the country. Allowing the Neo-Nazi junta to operate F-16s from there would make both cities prime targets for retaliation by the Russian military, putting civilians in those areas in harm’s way. This is particularly true for Poznan, the fifth largest city in Poland, with a population of at least half a million.
How F-16s for Kiev Regime Could Spark Wider NATO-Russia War
It’s not impossible that some other, less important airfields in eastern Poland could be used instead, but that still doesn’t remove the danger of a direct NATO-Russia clash, because Moscow will not tolerate the usage of airbases outside Ukraine for strikes on the Russian military. The same goes for Romania, another F-16 operator in Eastern Europe. Bucharest operates its US-made jets from the town of Fetesti in southeastern Romania, where the country’s 86th Air Base is located. This NATO airbase with F-16s is the closest to Ukraine and could be used as the staging ground for operations against Russian forces in the southern Kherson oblast (region) and Crimea. This is a particularly dangerous prospect, as these areas have been under near-constant joint long-range drone and missile strikes by the Neo-Nazi junta forces and NATO, with both Russian air defense assets and airbases being the primary targets.
It’s only logical to assume that such attacks are meant to weaken Russian defenses in Crimea, particularly the SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, possibly opening the way for F-16s to strike targets deeper within Russia. Obviously, on their own, these jets have little chance of survival. However, if Moscow’s world-class air superiority fighter jets and long-range air defenses are neutralized by drones and missiles first, F-16s could then be used to launch strikes virtually unopposed. Once again, this is all in theory, as the political West is counting on the Kremlin to budge and eventually fold under pressure. However, this dangerous gambit could spark the fuse of something far bigger and far deadlier. Russia has repeatedly warned against such escalation, but nobody in the political West seems to be listening. In much simpler terms, there are countless ways in which all this could go sideways.
This is particularly dangerous as some of the F-16 donors are countries with nuclear capabilities. If such jets appear in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, what is Moscow supposed to make of it? What message is being sent in that case? As previously mentioned, recent threats of escalating terrorist attacks in Russia are being executed in very close coordination with the aforementioned long-range strikes on Crimea and elsewhere in the country. The only logical conclusion for the Kremlin (or anyone with two half-functioning brain cells) is that all this is planned and executed by the same people. The frustration and anger are building up in Russia (and rightfully so, because nobody sane would react otherwise). A moment will come when Moscow will simply be left with no choice but to strike back. And when it happens, it will be quite painful for everyone on the receiving end, whoever that may be.
The populace in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, is extremely worried about this prospect (and understandably so). The consequences of Russian retaliation will be felt all across the increasingly volatile region, regardless of whether the affected country houses the Kiev regime’s jets. The disruption to normal economic activity alone would be a disaster for them, let alone a direct confrontation between military superpowers. It’s very difficult for most people to even grasp the sheer speed of modern warfare. A previously peaceful situation could turn into a bloodbath in mere hours, with entire areas becoming unrecognizable virtually overnight. Those who support such escalation should be treated as nothing less than unadulterated war criminals. Unfortunately, the political West’s vaunted “democracy” is a myth, meaning there are little to no control mechanisms to stop them.
Recent seemingly tectonic changes on the European Union’s political scene cannot be counted on to reset its collision course with Russia, as the creators of foreign policy in Western countries are quite resilient to any political shifts. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is a good example of this. While she came to power as a supposed “anti-establishment” candidate, it turned out she’s anything but. Worse yet, she’s now threatening Russia, a country that sees Italy as nothing more than a speck in its global military strategy. The danger of similar right-wing governments continuing the same or similar foreign policy toward Russia is present everywhere in Europe. This means that Moscow is left with virtually nobody to talk to in the political West. If this situation persists, what is the alternative? If a country with around 6000 thermonuclear warheads is pushed to the edge, what could we possibly expect?
*
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.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Drago Bosnic, Global Research, 2024
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neo-nazi-junta-f-16-nato-countries-ww3/5860780
How did we get from “the world can’t afford a nuclear war” narrative of 40 years ago to the present nail-biting edge of the abyss as of today?
The SIPRI report is a grim read. All of the world’s nuclear powers are modernising and /or increasing their missiles. But how did we get from “the world can’t afford a nuclear war” narrative of 40 years ago to the present nail-biting edge of the abyss as of today? A lot has changed in those years, but here are the chief factors which we need to face to understand why 12,000 nuclear warheads are out there and perhaps more are going to be added to that number.
Governance in western countries. We, in the West, have never been poorer in this respect. Western leaders no longer have the courage to formulate bold policies based on their beliefs, if they have any which explains the political crisis currently in the UK and a huge protest vote in the EU elections recently which gave a quarter of the entire European Parliament to far-right groups. Typically western elites continue to perniciously steer away from being associated with the state of the economy, environment, state of health care sector, small business and increasingly hide behind opaqueness while using media more and more for their own gains. In this environment, they relish the idea of cultivating fear with phoney wars on the horizon so to allow them to confuse the voters with saving the country from an external threat rather than tackle head on the country’s domestic challenges. Of course within this area of “we must spend more on defence” comes the more salient threat of the erosion of civil liberties. Spend big on defence, keep the fear alive. Nukes.
BRICS and new world order. Of course, part of the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war is the emergence of BRICS which threatens the old guard and U.S. hegemony which, under the Biden administration, appears to be in sharp demise with more reports each day of dollar dumping around the world. BRICS countries naturally create a basis for western elites to continue with “the Russians are coming” narrative which then naturally has its own momentum which encourages those same countries to spend more on nukes like China, India, North Korea, Pakistan and of course Russia. As the U.S. loses its former grip around the world, its natural inclination is to spend more on nukes and defence in general.
Poor nuclear diplomacy. Again this comes back to Ukraine and Gaza. Before both of these conflicts the U.S. had good relations with Russia on nukes as both parties were signed up members of a test ban treaty. Russia has of course pulled out of its obligations and is now wild card, with no communication or diplomacy open with the U.S. As the SIPRI report states, the U.S. hasn’t actually kept its part of the bargain since 1996 which raises another aspect to nuclear diplomacy, which is that it makes the case for the old adage “contracts are only as good as the people who sign them”. Similarly, the U.S. had cordial relations in the field of nuclear diplomacy with Iran right up until October 7th 2023 when Hamas launched its horrific attacks in Israel. All bets off after this point as even though it is believed that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons itself, if certainly is much closer to making them since Trump tore up Obama’s so-called Iran Deal. Nuclear diplomacy was always poor but at least it kept countries talking. Now the radio silence presents its own catalyst to a growing threat.
Nanny state thinking. Many western countries like the UK for example, which has 225 warheads have since WWII taken a “zero casualties” approach to conflict, particularly noticeable in the last 20 years. The thinking is that new wars can be fought at a distance and with technology and that infantry fighting should be a thing of the past. In Somalia in 1993, a failed military operation by U.S. rangers in Mogadishu led to 18 servicemen killed and one having his body dragged through the streets of the capital attached to a vehicle. This event was enough to dramatically change U.S. foreign policy in Africa under Clinton and as Osama Bin Laden observed, it showed how vulnerable western countries are to body bags. The Mogadishu incident called Black Hawk Down resulted ultimately in the 9/11 attacks. Such vulnerability feeds the nuclear argument for western countries in particular who operate on a Nanny State basis without consulting voters and using nukes as a way of fooling a gullible public they (the citizens) need the nukes, whereas in reality it’s the elites who need them more as they have no political stamina for body bags, not even a handful.
New enemies. This was briefly touched upon in the report also. As the world changes new friendships emerge, or perhaps new partnerships. These new alliances in the east are untested and so, while Pakistan and India almost have an identical number of warheads, India’s are increasingly reaching longer distances way beyond Pakistan’s footprint, suggesting that countries need a fallback plan for when regimes change and a new political dynamic takes place. In India’s case, China might one day become a foe. Israel’s stockpile, the worst kept secret in the Middle East, might come in handy one day if the Arab world threatened the Zionist regime. Unfortunately it only makes the case stronger for Iran to continue to refine uranium and one day perhaps make its first nuclear missile. Who would stop them?
War in the East will escalate and bring irreversible consequences for European countries if the EU continues to follow a subservient policy of obedience to NATO.
Since the start of NATO’s proxy war against Russia, Europe still appears to have not understood its role in the conflict. By irrationally adhering to all measures imposed by the U.S., such as unilateral sanctions and unrestricted arms shipments to the Kiev regime, the EU appears increasingly closer to a true collapse, given the negative social circumstances and high security risks. In the end, the European bloc, like Ukraine, is just another proxy in this war.
For obvious reasons, Europe has always been dependent on good relations with Russia to maintain its economic and social well-being and the balance of its regional security architecture. However, European countries seem to have forgotten the basic principles of geopolitics, betting on a futile attempt to “isolate” Russia through irrational sanctions that only harm Europe itself – without generating any impact on the Russian economy.
Without Russian gas, Europe has rapidly deindustrialized, increasing levels of poverty, unemployment and inflation. The most rational thing to do in this type of situation would be to avoid unnecessary spending and invest heavily in economic recovery projects – but, apparently, no European attitude is based on rationality. Instead of acting strategically in pursuit of the best for their people, European decision-makers committed themselves to a policy of systematically supplying weapons to the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime, spending billions of euros on manufacturing and exporting weapons for the war against Russia.
Obviously, the European people are dissatisfied with so many harmful policies, which is why in the last European elections voters reacted by voting massively for right-wing politicians and parties, trying to find an alternative against the unpopular Russophobic madness of liberal regimes. Retaliating against the popular will, liberal governments are already beginning to take authoritarian measures, such as President Emmanuel Macron, who decided to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections. It is possible that many more similar dictatorial measures will be taken in the near future, which will only further worsen the serious legitimacy crisis of EU member countries.
To make matters worse, some of these European governments are even thinking about going a step further in their support for Ukraine, with advanced discussions about sending troops on the ground. Apparently, European nations have lost their fear of escalating the war into a global, nuclear conflict, during which they would be easy targets for powerful Russian strategic weapons.
In parallel, in the U.S. there is great instability in the electoral scenario. Donald Trump promises to end the war, but the liberal establishment wants to prevent him from running. Biden promises to continue the conflict with Russia, which will certainly also be the guideline of the Republican candidate who replaces Trump. However, both domestic politics and the international scenario are extremely complicated for Washington. Having to deal with a pre-civil war atmosphere, social polarization, Texas separatism and mass migration, in addition to a severe economic crisis, there are many domestic priorities for the U.S. that make Ukraine increasingly less important.
Furthermore, in the Middle East, Israel is in a delicate situation. Having failed to achieve its interests in Gaza – despite the genocide –, Tel Aviv is now seeing a new front emerge in the north, where Hezbollah is reaching more and more distant targets, creating danger for the very existence of Israel as a state. To survive, the Zionist project will need massive military support from the U.S., which is why it is inevitable that there will be a significant decrease in the number of weapons, equipment, money and mercenaries sent to support Ukraine.
In fact, regardless of who wins the U.S. elections, the burden of supporting Kiev will inevitably be transferred to the U.S.’ European “partners”. Washington will force its “allies” to send even more weapons to the Kiev regime, thus reducing the burden on the American defense industry so that support for Israel becomes viable. This is the only way in which the U.S. will be able to maintain its policy of unrestricted support for the Zionist state.
Obviously, Europe does not have the necessary means to finance a war against Russia on its own. But the EU voluntarily places itself in a position of strategic subservience to NATO, obeying every order coming from the U.S. The result will be an unprecedented worsening of the current social and economic crisis, resulting in the collective collapse of European countries. In the worst-case scenario, the situation could go beyond the economy, also generating direct European military involvement in the conflict, as NATO bases in the EU tend to be used for in-depth attacks against the Russian Federation, which is a casus belli and legitimizes any retaliation from Moscow if Russian patience runs out.
For decades, experts have said that World War III would bring about the end of the world, which is certainly a possibility if the current proxy conflict enters an open phase. However, regardless of what happens to “the world”, Europe undoubtedly already seems very close to a tragic end.
Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Zelensky’s Ukraine all show us that people will either believe any bullshit they are presented with, or play along with it for one grimy reason or another.
Consider this Wikipedia entry for today’s Russo-Ukraine war, where it lists the commanders and leaders of “both” sides. Forget Putin, Shoigu, Gerasimov and the others captaining Team Russia. Will anybody seriously argue that Zelensky, Poroshenko and the other bums being listed as captains of the Ukrainian side are skippers of their own ship? Who, in their right minds, would want to fight for Ukraine with that cross-dressing idiot at the helm? I, for one, would not.
This is not to dismiss Zelensky out of hand for the crotch-writhing nobody that he is, but to ask why NATO has left the fate of millions of Ukrainians in the hands of such a desultory bum. Though Zelensky, like Charlie Chaplin doppelgänger Adolf Hitler before him, is far too easy to laugh at, Zelensky is also a ruthless dictator, not only by the letter of the law but by his deeds as well. Fail to click your heels and give a Nazi salute and it is the meat grinder or Gonzo Lira’s fate for you.
Lira’s is an interesting case as Zelensky’s Western cheerleaders are still dancing on the grave of this Chilean-American dumpling almost six months after Zelensky offed him. Much the same goes for Irish MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, who both lost their seats in the recent European elections. There are a very large number of outwardly well-adjusted people, who take perverse delights in such events and, though their significance pales in comparison to those manning the Borderlands’ ramparts, these freaks will remain a source of wonder for psychiatrists and students of sociopathy for very many generations to come.
If war was a simple accounting ledger problem, where the stronger side prevailed, it would be much simpler to keep count. But because lunatics like Zelensky, Hitler and Mussolini complicate things to the nth degree, the psychiatrist’s couch, rather than the accountant’s abacus, is a surer tool of analysis.
Before returning to the Kiev Kaiser, look back to those earlier dictators, who inspired him. Why did Mussolini invade Egypt and Greece, and thereby fatally throw Operation Barbarossa behind schedule? Why did no one tell the cannoli kid his thugs were going to have their asses handed to them in Egypt and in Greece as well? Who did he think he was, Caesar or Napoleon? Although every well-stocked lunatic asylum always houses a Napoleon or two, few of them get to lead Italy and fewer still of them get to lead Italy to disaster.
Consider Hitler, Mussolini’s German mate. This is the geezer, who declared war on the United States, when his troops were bogged down in the battle for Moscow. When we watch Hitler make that declaration, we can clearly see the jaws of the German generals, who were already overwhelmed with the Balkans and Barbarossa, drop. Though they could see the writing on the wall even then, none of them dared call for a stop to their roller coaster of doom.
The surest way to explain the fortunes of Hitler, Mussolini and Zelensky is by psychiatry, and by the Pied Piper madnesses of people and of crowds who get caught up in the sociopathic fantasies of their Charlie Chaplin leaders.
Consider the Fall of France and the delirious welcome that awaited Hitler’s legions when they returned triumphantly to glittering Berlin. Compare Berlin in summer 1940 to Berlin’s hangover in summer 1945 and wonder what had happened to their dreams of conquest in the interim.
In my earlier piece using the South Armagh IRA on how to write history, I made a deliberate point of referencing Robert Stuart’s excellent work on NATO’s false flag chemical attacks in Syria. When we try to google up this reference, we see that Stuart’s work has been overtaken in the rankings by NATO’s ill-founded criticisms of it. This means that the casual browser will be hoodwinked by NATO’s version of those events and that Stuart will be labeled a kook, and those like Daly and Wallace, who approach matters with an open mind, will get the full menagerie of NATO’s corgis barking at their heels.
This slide into the abyss is wonderfully displayed in the movie Cabaret, the screen version of Christopher Usherwood’s Goodbye to Berlin, which is set in the Weimar Republic’s dying days. Part of its brilliance is that it portrays the changing attitudes of ordinary Germans towards the Jews and the hidings folk like Isherwood get for not seeing the Jews through the eyes of Germany’s emerging Nazis masters.
The Nazis were, as our Israeli friends would put it, establishing new facts on the ground and anyone, who disagreed, could expect an all expenses paid trip to a concentration camp until they accepted the new Nazi reality. In that regard, it should be noted that most Communists, who ended up in Nazi concentration camps, later went on to fight in the Wehrmacht, just as, at war’s end, East Germany’s army was led by former generals of that same Wehrmacht.
Though such are the facts, if facts were all they were cracked up to be, then telephone books would be best sellers and the forensic evidence of Stuart and countless others would get a fair hearing. But that is not how it works. Instead, we have Simon Harris, Ireland’s unelected leader, rant about all those little Ukrainian children the blackguard Putin abducted from the Borderlands’ killing fields.
Harris exclaims that “We estimate that around 20,000 children have been snatched from their families, from their communities, their country and been moved to Russia or occupied territories within Ukraine.” Leaving aside that my previous articles previous debunked those politically motivated allegations, as Harris and his regime have absolutely no way of estimating if any children were abducted, he is either spoofing once again, or being used as a ventriloquist’s dummy for Genocide Joe, von der Leyen or some similar creep on the make. This is, after all, the same moron who, as Minister for Health, claimed that COVID 19 was the 19th iteration of that infection. Just so you understand that, Harris, as Irish Minister for Health, had not a clue why Covid19 was so named and he got a pass for that from Ireland’s compliant media, whose uninformed hacks, if they could be bothered, are probably keeping him in the dark on Ukraine as well.
But Harris, like the utterly corrupt Ursula von der Leyen and all of NATO’s other shills, is not paid to know or tell the truth. His job is to rave and rant against Putin, Assad, Xi and whoever else is in NATO’s bad books. That is fair enough and it pays well but there is a downside, the sort of downside displayed in Der Untergang (Downfall), the truly brilliant German movie about Hitler’s last days in his Berlin bunker.
Consider this scene where Hitler, Goebbels and their long suffering secretaries sit down to dinner with the famous test pilot Hanna Reitsch and Robert Ritter von Greim, who have flown into Berlin to rescue the madman from the Russkies, who are by then only a couple of blocks away. One of the most amazing things about that scene is that both Reitsch and von Greim, who was there and then promoted to head of the Luftwaffe, believed Hitler’s bullshit that he was about to turn the tide of the war.
Von Greim’s delusions were not to outlive Hitler by very long. When he surrendered to the Americans on 8th May, he declared “I am the head of the Luftwaffe, but I have no Luftwaffe”. Luftwaffe (and Jewish) Field Marshal Erhard Milch had a similarly bumpy landing when he surrendered to Britain’s sticky-fingered Commandos. Milch has the singular honour of being history’s only field marshal to be beaten black and blue, with his own field marshal’s baton, whilst in the formal act of surrendering. Though the commandos robbed him and his retinue as well, that is pretty much what British soldiers do and is, for our purposes, secondary to the fact that Milch’s earlier Zelensky-like dreams of a 1,000 year Reich had come to a shuddering and grimy end with that ignominious beating.
And, as Derek S. Zumbro’s Battle for the Ruhr: The German Army’s Final defeat in the West explains, the brilliant field marshal Walter Model had a no less shabby end; Winrich Behr and Günther Reichhelm, Model’s close staff officers, explained to the author why, deprived of his army and being eaten alive by mosquitoes, this brilliant general blew his own brains out.
Although Model’s assertion that “German Field Marshals don’t surrender” may have had some validity to it, Ukrainian can can dancers should be made surrender. Zelensky is not fit to lead a troupe of Moulin Rouge can can dancers, never mind a country like Ukraine, and Harris and those other NATO shills, who lie otherwise, should likewise be held to account in the same ways that Hitler’s cheerleaders were.
Although there are many similarities between Hitler’s Reich and Zelensky’s rump Reich, amongst the most important are their false expectations for the future and the rampant corruption at their heart. Cabaret’s brilliant Tomorrow belongs to me tavern scene captures the seething resentment and unrealistic dreams of conquest to a tee and the fate of Henriette von Shirach, the daughter of Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler’s photographer, more than amply captures the corruption. That both Hoffmann and his daughter could accumulate such mind-boggling wealth is beyond the imagination of any of us not familiar with how scams like Zelensky’s work.
But most people don’t care. Like all those German bit actors before us, we are caught up in the moment and those moments, like NATO’s millions of nameless victims, pass by in a blink. The high and mighty flock to lay gold, frankincense and myrrh at the feet of Zelensky, like he is the Second Coming of Christ, rather than the g string wearing Führer of the Borderlands that he is.
The European Conservative tells us we lack guts because our culture is in decay and the High Command of the British Army, who are as mad as March hares, believe the Chinese Secret Service have their badge caps bugged.
The Book of Giants is an apocryphal book, which explains why God had to whack all the sinners as well as all those animals, who were too slow to book their passage to safety on Noah’s Ark. Compared to the whack jobs of today’s British Army and the wholesale fraud that is going on in Zelensky’s Reich, the Book of Giants is a model of common sense.
As, of course, is the Harry Potter series, as long as no one takes all its childish buffoonery on board. But Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Zelensky’s Ukraine all show us that people will either believe any bullshit they are presented with, or play along with it for one grimy reason or another.
And, though in some alternative universe, that might be fine and dandy, in this universe, the cost in lost lives does not warrant indulging their psychoses. I don’t know if Zelensky will end up, as Mussolini did, dangling upside down at the end of a rope in a Kiev brothel or, as many presume, he will flee abroad to one or other of his American mansions, but I do know this: lunatics like Mussolini and Zelensky belong either at the end of a rope or in padded cell in a secure lunatic asylum, along with all the other would-be Napoleons and Caesars, who pass themselves off as NATO leaders. Give me Harry Potter, the Book of Giants or any other telephone book any day to the sociopathic nightmare NATO has scripted for its millions of victims in Ukraine, in Gaza and everywhere else NATO has placed its cloven hoof.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Tags:
HitlerNazismUkraineVolodymyr Zelensky
It is only by understanding and taking the Russian nuclear warnings seriously that we may exclude the risk of nuclear weapons coming into play.
The G7 and the subsequent Swiss ‘Bürgenstock Conference’ can – in retrospect – be understood as preparation for a prolonged Ukraine war. The three centrepiece announcements emerging from the G7 – the 10 year Ukraine security pact; the $50 ‘billion Ukraine loan’; and the seizing of interest on Russian frozen funds – make the point. The war is about to escalate.
These stances were intended as preparation of the western public ahead of events. And in case of any doubts, the blistering belligerency towards Russia emerging from the European election leaders was plain enough: They sought to convey a clear impression of Europe preparing for war.
What then lies ahead? According to White House Spokesman John Kirby: “Washington’s position on Kiev is “absolutely clear”:
“First, they’ve got to win this war”.
“They gotta win the war first. So, number one: We’re doing everything we can to make sure they can do that. Then when the war’s over … Washington will assist in building up Ukraine’s military industrial base”.
If that was not plain, the U.S. intent to prolong and take the war deep into Russia was underlined by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: “Authorization for Ukrainian use of American weapons for cross-border attacks extends to anywhere [from which] Russian forces are coming across the border”. He affirmed, too, that Ukraine can use F-16s to attack Russia and use U.S. supplied air defence systems “to take down Russian planes – even if in Russian airspace – if they’re about to fire into Ukrainian airspace”.
Ukrainian pilots have the latitude to judge ‘the intent’ of Russian fighter aircraft? Expect the parameters of this ‘authorisation’ to widen quickly – deeper to air bases from which Russian fighter bombers launch.
Understanding that the war is about to transform radically – and extremely dangerously – President Putin (in his speech to the Foreign Ministry Board) detailed just how the world had arrived at this pivotal juncture – one which could extend to nuclear exchanges.
The gravity of the situation itself demanded the making of one ‘last chance’ offer to the West, which Putin emphatically said was “no temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor was it about freezing the conflict”; but rather, his proposals were about the war’s final completion.
“If, as before, Kiev and western capitals refuse it – then at the end, that’s their business”, Putin said.
Just to be clear, Putin almost certainly never expected the proposals to be received in the West other than by the scorn and derision with which they, in fact, were met. Nor would Putin trust – for a moment – the West not to renege on an agreement, were some arrangement to be reached on these lines.
If so, why then did President Putin make such a proposal last weekend, if the West cannot be trusted and its reaction was so predictable?
Well, maybe we need to search for the nesting inner Matryoshka doll, rather than fix on the outer casing: Putin’s ‘final completion’ likely will not credibly be achieved through some itinerant peace broker. In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin dismisses devices such as ‘ceasefires’ or ‘freezes’. He is seeking something permanent: An arrangement that has ‘solid legs’; one that has durability.
Such a solution – as Putin before has hinted – requires a new world security architecture to come into being; and were that to happen, then a complete solution for Ukraine would flow as an implicit part to a new world order. That is to say, with the microcosm of a Ukraine solution flowing implicitly from the macrocosm agreement between the U.S. and the ‘Heartland’ powers – settling the borders to their respective security interests.
This clearly is impossible now, with the U.S. in its psychological mindset stuck in the Cold War era of the 1970s and 1980s. The end to that war – the seeming U.S. victory – set the foundation to the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine which underscored American supremacy at all costs in a post-Soviet world, together with “stamping out rivals, wherever they may emerge”.
“In conjunction with this, the Wolfowitz Doctrine stipulated that the U.S. would … [inaugurate] a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic zone of peace”. Russia, on the other hand, was dealt with differently—the country fell off the radar. It became insignificant as a geopolitical competitor in the eyes of the West, as its gestures of peaceful offerings were rebuffed – and guarantees given to it regarding NATO’s expansion forfeited”.
“Moscow could do nothing to prevent such an endeavour. The successor state of the mighty Soviet Union was not its equal, and thus not considered important enough to be involved in global decision-making. Yet, despite its reduced size and sphere of influence, Russia has persisted in being considered a key player in international affairs”.
Russia today is a preeminent global actor in both the economic and political spheres. Yet for the Ruling Strata in the U.S., equal status between Moscow and Washington is out of the question. The Cold War mentality still infuses the Beltway with the unwarranted confidence that the Ukraine conflict might somehow result in Russian collapse and dismemberment.
Putin in his address, by contrast, looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system – and of a new architecture emerging. “The world will never be the same again”, Putin said.
Implicitly, he hints that such a radical shift would be the only way credibly to end the Ukraine war. An agreement emerging from the wider framework of consensus on the division of interests between the Rimland and the Heartland (in Mackinder-esque language) would reflect the security interests of each party – and not be achieved at the expense of others’ security.
And to be clear: If this analysis is correct, Russia may not be in such a hurry to conclude matters in Ukraine. The prospect of such a ‘global’ negotiation between Russia-China and the U.S. is still far off.
The point here is that the collective western psyche has not been transformed sufficiently. Treating Moscow with equal esteem remains out of the question for Washington.
The new American narrative is no negotiations with Moscow now, but maybe it will become possible sometime early in the new year – after the U.S. elections.
Well, Putin might surprise again – by not jumping at the prospect, but rebuffing it; assessing that the Americans still are not ready for negotiations for a ‘complete end’ to the war – especially as this latest narrative runs concurrently with talk of a new Ukraine offensive shaping up for 2025. Of course, much is likely to change over the coming year.
The documents outlining a putative new security order however, were already drafted by Russia in 2021 – and duly ignored in the West. Russia perhaps can afford to wait out military events in Ukraine, in Israel, and in the financial sphere.
They are all, in any event, trending Putin’s way. They are all inter-connected and have the potential for wide metamorphosis.
Put plainly: Putin is waiting on the shaping of the American Zeitgeist. He seemed very confident both at St Petersburg and last week at the Foreign Ministry.
The backdrop to the G7’s Ukraine preoccupation seemed to be more U.S. elections-related, than real: This implies that the priority in Italy was election optics, rather than a desire to start a full-blown hot war. But this may be wrong.
Russian speakers during these recent gatherings – notably Sergei Lavrov – hinted broadly that the order already had come down for war with Russia. Europe seems, however improbably, to be gearing up for war – with much chatter about military conscription.
Will it all blow away with the passing of a hot summer of elections? Maybe.
The coming phase seems likely to entail western escalation, with provocations occurring inside Russia. The latter will react strongly to any crossing of (real) red lines by NATO, or any false flag provocation (now widely expected by Russiam military bloggers).
And herein lies the greatest danger: In the context of escalation, American disdain for Russia poses the greatest danger. The West now says it treats notions of putative nuclear exchange as Putin’s ‘bluff’. The Financial Times tells us that Russia’s nuclear warnings are ‘wearing thin’ in the West.
If this is true, western officials utterly misconceive the reality. It is only by understanding and taking the Russian nuclear warnings seriously that we may exclude the risk of nuclear weapons coming into play, as we move up the escalatory ladder with tit-for-tat measures.
Even though they say they believe them to be bluff, U.S. figures nonetheless hype the risk of a nuclear exchange. If they think it to be a bluff, it appears to be based on the presumption that Russia has few other options.
This would be wrong: There are several escalatory steps that Russia can take up the ladder, before reaching the tactical nuclear weapon stage: Trade and financial counter-attack; symmetrical provision of advanced weaponry to western adversaries (corresponding to U.S. supplies to Ukraine); cutting the electricity branch distribution coming from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania; strikes on border munition crossings; and taking a leaf from the Houthis who have knocked down several sophisticated and costly U.S. drones, disabling America’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) infrastructure.
Quelques lecteurs avertis ont relevé que le tableau du bureau du président du Rassemblement National (derrière lui, contre la vitre) était le même que celui qu’Emmanuel Macron affiche dans son bureau :
Les réseaux sociaux s’emparent de cette affaire et d’innombrables internautes y voient la preuve que Macron et Bardella sont de connivence.
Or ce tableau n’est pas anodin, et s’il se retrouve dans le bureau de notre très progressiste Président, ce n’est pas un hasard. Alors pourquoi se retrouve-t-il aussi dans le bureau de Jordan Bardella ?
Son créateur, Shepard Fairey, a bien compris comment fonctionne l’art dans le monde d’aujourd’hui et où se trouve l’argent(1). Il se glisse dans le Politiquement Correct, qu’il décline à l’envi et ça marche.
La mairie de Paris fait appel à Shepard Fairey, qui propose de manière très peu originale une fresque stylée Art nouveau, en référence à la décoration des premières stations du métropolitain parisien. L’artiste reprend les volutes Art nouveau dans la colonne de gauche qu’il ose enrichir du logo « Peace & Love ». Quelle audace !
À travers son œuvre, l’artiste Bien Pensant dit « vouloir rendre rend hommage aux victimes du 13 novembre ». Comprenne qui pourra. D’autant qu’il intitule son œuvre de manière originale « Liberté Égalité Fraternité ». Puis sa fresque s’appellera Marianne.
La mairie de Paris a bien choisi, puisque, dit-elle, « Shepard Fairey est particulièrement actif sur les questions écologiques et de justice sociale » (sic !).
Elle s’inscrit parfaitement dans l’iconographie des régimes totalitaires.
Shepard Fairey, alias Obey | ||
| Époque stalinienne | Époque maoiste | Époque moderne |
Dans son tableau ci-dessus à droite, Shepard Fairey, qui se fait dorénavant appeler Obey, écrit : « Obéis. Ne crois jamais ce que tu vois, crois ce qu’on te dit ». Son tableau est directement inspiré de la couverture de l’édition originale de George Orwell : 1984 (ci-contre).
Il est difficile de discerner si l’artiste nous invite à obéir, et donc à croire ce que l’on nous dit, ou bien s’il condamne cette situation oppressante. Mais alors pourquoi fait-il partie des artistes du Système ? qui ont réussi et qui gagnent beaucoup d’argent avec des budgets publics.
Shepard Fairey est dans le Système et il donne des gages d’allégeance. Voilà pourquoi il insère dans ses tableaux des signes d’appartenance. Il place au centre de l’œil inquisiteur de Big Brother un pentagramme rouge et noir d’inspiration sataniste (voir ci-contre).
On retrouve ce même signe d’appartenance sataniste dans la plupart des créations d’Obey, et bien entendu sur la fresque parisienne !
Le Diable se cache dans les détails.
« Make art, not war ». Ça, c’est du nouveau ! Shepard Fairey, alias Obey, en bon écolo qu’il est, recycle dans sa fresque parisienne ce dessin de femme qui devient « Marianne ». Il y remplace « Make art, not war » par « Liberté Égalité Fraternité »(2), et le tour est joué. La bonne affaire !
Le « street artist » en vogue recycle également le pinceau que le parti communiste nord-coréen place entre la faucille et le marteau.
Il recycle également bien entendu le macaron d’inspiration sataniste. L’artiste inscrit explicitement dans ses œuvres un pentagramme au cœur d’un hexagramme étoilé.
Quelques mots d’explication :
L’hexagramme est un polygone de 6 côtés, que l’on peut imaginer issu de deux triangles équilatéraux juxtaposés. On le nomme l’Étoile de David ou le Sceau de Salomon. L’État d’Israël en a fait son emblème. Pour autant l’hexagramme est présent dans toutes les cultures, dans l’hindouisme et la chrétienté, comme sur le billet de un dollar américain.
La France, communément appelée l’hexagone, s’inscrit parfaitement dans un hexagramme.
Le chakra anahata, au centre de couleur verte, représente un double hexagramme avec un pentagramme. Il symbolise la force du cœur.
Le pentagramme (5 côtés) avec une pointe en haut symbolise l’harmonie et l’équilibre du corps humain. On doit ce symbole (gravure tirée d’un traité, La Magie Naturelle, au célèbre ésotériste allemand Cornelius Agrippa (1486−1535), auteur de travaux sur une possible théosophie chrétienne. Mais bizarrement l’artiste a remplacé cette silhouette harmonieuse par un visage démoniaque. Ici le démon investit l’Homme.
Les commentaires dénoncent la complicité masquée entre les deux hommes. Beaucoup y voient la preuve d’un plan concocté dans quelques loges satanistes qui hissent le jeune président du Rassemblement National au poste de Premier ministre.
À y regarder de plus près, le tableau n’affiche pas le pentagramme de Satan, mais une croix chrétienne. Ce qui ne manque pas d’interpeller, à partir du moment où on l’a remarqué.
Ici pas de Satan ! Mais au contraire une croix blanche au cœur de l’hexagramme étoilé. Peut-on imaginer que cette croix blanche au niveau du cœur représente le Sacré Cœur qui surplombe Paris ? Comme pour faire écho à la façade de l’immeuble du 13e arrondissement en contre-bas.
C’est clair, c’est un message. Jordan Bardella se moque de la Bien Pensance en signifiant qu’il a compris ses codes et les transcende.
Jordan Bardella savait qu’il allait provoquer l’artiste qui est tombé dans le panneau, en reprenant le même vocabulaire que la Police de la Pensée, à laquelle Obey obéit s’il veut garder ses marchés. Le vecteur de celle-ci le cite : « L’extrême droite détourne de son sens une image qui symbolise la fraternité et le vivre-ensemble, pour lui faire dire tout autre chose, le repli nationaliste. »
• L’artiste américain n’hésite pas à reprendre l’expression surannée « extrême droite ».
• Il revendique « une image qui symbolise la fraternité et le vivre-ensemble » : Ah bon ? Avec un clin d’œil appuyé au diable !
• Pour lui, bien entendu, la croix chrétienne symbolise « le repli nationaliste ».
Ces arguments sont révélateurs d’une gauche bobo en déperdition.
Am Rande der „West Pride“ im schwedischen Göteborg soll es auch Vorschul- und Kindergarten-Pride-Paraden gegeben haben. Kinder werden in Schweden für das Thema LGBTQ das ganze Jahr über sensibilisiert.
Redaktion24. Juni 2024
Zwischen dem 10. und 16. Juni fand in Göteborg die “West Pride” statt. An dieser beteiligte sich auch die Vorschulverwaltung. Mehr noch: Auch viele Kindergärten der Stadt waren in die Pride involviert. Dies berichtet das Portal Samnytt.se.
Die Vorschulverwaltung Göteborgs teilte auf Facebook mit, dass einige „Vorschulen eine eigene Pride-Parade veranstaltet haben“. Auf diesen seien sie zur “West Pride” gelangt, die nur unweit davon stattfand. „Vor dem Umzug haben die Kinder unter anderem Flaggen bemalt und deren Bedeutung diskutiert.“ Bilder von Kindern kursierten, die etwa die Trans- oder Lesbenflagge schwenkten.
Für die Kinder sei es verpflichtend gewesen, an der Pride teilzunehmen. In den Kindergärten Göteborgs seien LGBTQ-Themen das ganze Jahr über an der Tagesordnung – wie in ganz Schweden. Vor diesem Hintergrund verwundert es daher kaum, dass am Rande der “West Pride” auch eigene Kindergarten-Pride-Paraden organisiert wurden. Ein Kind aus dem Kindergarten Lennart Torstenssonsgatan wurde wie folgt zitiert: „Wir werden an der Pride-Parade teilnehmen! Das bedeutet, dass wir Sprüche und Lieder singen. Auch sollen wird mit den Flaggen wedeln.“
https://exxpress.at/gender-bewegung-kindergartenkinder-marschieren-bei-pride-mit/
Absichtliche Zerstörung der Psyche von Kindern
Der Friedensstifter