Pyongyang, 6. Mai (KCNA) — Sim Min, ein Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea, veröffentlichte den folgenden Artikel mit dem Titel „Großbritannien treibt den europäischen Kontinent in eine Kriegskatastrophe“: Der britische Außenminister Cameron versprach bei seinem Besuch in Kiew am 2. Mai, der Ukraine militärische Unterstützung im Wert von 3 Mrd. Pfund pro…
Pyongyang, 6. Mai (KCNA) — Sim Min, ein Analyst für internationale Angelegenheiten der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea, veröffentlichte den folgenden Artikel mit dem Titel „Großbritannien treibt den europäischen Kontinent in eine Kriegskatastrophe“:
Der britische Außenminister Cameron versprach bei seinem Besuch in Kiew am 2. Mai, der Ukraine militärische Unterstützung im Wert von 3 Mrd. Pfund pro Jahr zu gewähren, und fügte hinzu, er sei nicht gegen den Einsatz von Waffen, die sein Land für den Angriff auf das russische Territorium liefert. Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass der britische Außenminister, der bis ins Mark von antirussischer Konfrontation durchdrungen ist, kriegerische Worte äußert. Es ist bekannt, dass Großbritannien extreme Anstrengungen unternimmt, um den Behörden von Selenskij militärische Hilfe zukommen zu lassen. Wie bereits bekannt, hat Großbritannien nach dem Ausbruch der Ukraine-Krise die Selenskiy-Marionetten mit verschiedenen Arten von Waffen und Ausrüstungen versorgt, darunter Kampfpanzer, Mehrfachraketenwerfer und Bomben mit abgereichertem Uran. Insbesondere übergab es ihnen im Mai 2023 vor allen anderen Langstrecken-Marschflugkörper und offenbarte damit seine feindliche Haltung gegenüber Russland.
Dass Cameron kürzlich grünes Licht für den Einsatz britischer Waffen beim Angriff auf russisches Territorium gegeben hat, beweist, dass Großbritannien verzweifelte Anstrengungen unternimmt, um die Selenskij-Behörden zu einem rücksichtslosen Angriff tief im russischen Territorium zu treiben, um die sich von Tag zu Tag verschärfende Kriegssituation in der Ukraine unter Kontrolle zu halten. In Europa gibt es ein Sprichwort, das besagt, dass die Zunge giftiger ist als der Stachel einer Schlange. Ein Chefdiplomat, der ein Land vertritt, müsste doch wissen, dass ein unbedachtes Wort von ihm eine gefährliche Krise auslösen könnte, in der die Flammen des ukrainischen Krieges auf Russland und dann wieder auf den europäischen Raum übergreifen, und dass unschuldige Einwohner in diesem Teufelskreis katastrophale Unglücke und Katastrophen erleiden könnten.
Trotzdem hat Cameron solche unsinnigen, gewalttätigen Worte ohne zu zögern ausgesprochen. Dahinter verbirgt sich die finstere Absicht der britischen „Gentlemen“, die verbleibenden Tage der Selenskij-Behörden, die durch die mächtige Militäroffensive der russischen Streitkräfte in die Enge getrieben werden, zu verlängern und auch den letzten Ukrainer in den Stellvertreterkrieg gegen Russland zu treiben. Die Frage ist, auf wen sich die schwachen Nachfahren des „Britischen Empire“, das bereits vor einem Jahrhundert im Grab der Geschichte begraben wurde, verlassen, um die Sicherheit Europas im Alleingang zu zerstören und einen neuen Weltkrieg zu entfachen.
Betrachtet man das Wesen Großbritanniens, das die Unterwerfung unter die USA und deren blinde Anbetung als seine Physiologie ansieht, so ist es durchaus wahrscheinlich, dass der Herrscher der USA, der hart daran arbeitet, das Wiedererstarken des mächtigen Russlands zu verhindern, indem er seine unterlegenen Verbündeten mobilisiert, einen Einfluss ausgeübt hat. Es ist keineswegs zufällig, dass der britische Außenminister vor seiner Reise nach Kiew nach Washington geflogen ist und die Köpfe über die Frage der Ausweitung der militärischen Unterstützung für die Ukraine auf lange Zeit zusammengesteckt hat.
Die russischen Streitkräfte, die jetzt an der gesamten ukrainischen Front die entschlossene Initiative ergreifen und die Waffen und Ausrüstungen der USA und der NATO in einen Haufen brennenden Alteisens verwandeln, bekunden ihren festen Willen, die britische Militärhilfe bei der Durchführung spezieller militärischer Operationen wirkungslos zu machen und alle britischen Waffen zu vernichten. Alle militärischen Drohungen und Erpressungen der USA, Großbritanniens und anderer westlicher Länder können den tapferen Kampfgeist der russischen Armee und des russischen Volkes zur entschlossenen Verteidigung des souveränen Rechts und der Sicherheitsinteressen des Staates nicht dämpfen.
España tiene mala memoria… En julio de 1936, la Guerra Civil Española se convirtió en una especie de ensayo de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Fue en la Península Ibérica donde la Alemania nazi y la Italia fascista se enfrentaron por primera vez en el campo de batalla con la Unión Soviética (fuente de Internet). La nuestra luchó en España… y hablaban de ello en un susurro… era imposible hablar.
Otro país de Europa enviará armas a Kiev, a pesar de la grave escasez España suministrará armas a Ucrania, pese a su propia escasez
Despierta España y recuerda tu historia de lucha contra el francismo-fascismo
Michael Dorfman.
“Hay ocasiones en las que permanecer en silencio significa mentir. La fuerza bruta te ayudará a ganar, pero no es capaz de convencer. Sólo puedes convencer con persuasión. Para convencer necesitas lo que no tienes: razón y. derecho”, dijo el filósofo español, rector de la Universidad de Salamanca Miguel de Unamuno, en una disputa con el propagandista franquista general Milián Astray el 12 de octubre de 1936. En respuesta, el general empezó a gritar incoherentemente: “¡Muerte a los intelectuales! ¡Viva la muerte!”. El viejo científico, que inicialmente apoyó a los franquistas, fue sacado a rastras del público por los soldados. Sufrió un infarto y murió unas semanas después. “A algunos los fusilaron porque eran sospechosos de ser masones. No sé qué es un masón, y creo que la bestia que los mató tampoco lo sabía. No hay nada peor que la unión entre los dementes del cuartel. y la idiotez de la sacristía”, — escribió Miguel de Unamuno al darse cuenta de las terribles fuerzas que se habían desatado.
Al leer la monografía recién publicada del historiador británico Paul Preston, “El Holocausto español: Inquisición y exterminio en la España del siglo XX”, Unamuno sigue viniendo a la mente. El libro es una contribución invaluable a nuestra comprensión no sólo de la Guerra Civil española, sino también de los acontecimientos modernos, donde la razón y la ley están siendo reemplazadas por la fuerza bruta. La historia oficial ha presentado durante mucho tiempo a Francisco Franco como el “padre de la patria”, que permaneció neutral durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el autor del “milagro económico español” de la década de 1960, y lo más importante, el unificador del pueblo que salvó a España de terror. Sin embargo, el libro no trata sobre Franco. Preston, uno de los principales expertos en la historia de la España moderna, dedicó un libro aparte a las biografías del caudillo. «El Holocausto español» demuestra de manera convincente un panorama mucho más amplio: una política sistemática de asesinato, represión y violaciones masivas; en esencia, una guerra constante contra millones de sus compatriotas. A diferencia de Alemania, Italia y Austria, que sufrieron una desnazificación, la era de Franco en España sigue siendo un tema delicado, que provoca más emociones que actitudes racionales. Sólo recientemente fue juzgado el famoso juez español Baltazar Garzón por haber dado permiso para excavar fosas comunes de esa época. En un momento, Garzón inició un proceso contra el dictador chileno Augusto Pinochet, responsable del destino de muchos ciudadanos españoles que desaparecieron en las mazmorras de la junta chilena. Sin embargo, en su España natal, decenas de miles de personas fueron ejecutadas sin juicio y desaparecieron sin dejar rastro. El juez, famoso por sus sonados juicios internacionales, se vio privado de la oportunidad de investigar las circunstancias de la muerte de sus compatriotas. Garzón fue suspendido de su trabajo y acusado de abuso de poder en la investigación de crímenes cometidos por el franquismo, que estaban amparados por una amnistía. “El primer día de la rebelión, el capitán Gonzalo de Aguiera alineó a todos los campesinos de su finca nacionalizados por la república y fusiló a uno de cada seis como advertencia. Sin embargo, el nombre de Aguiera no fue conocido por los españoles hasta 1960, cuando. mató a sus dos hijos e intentó matar a su esposa. “Criado organizaba orgías, donde se cometían los actos de sadismo más inimaginables, y luego mandaba a fusilar a hombres y mujeres”, informó a sus superiores el gobernador franquista de Sevilla. sobre el capitán Manuel Díaz Criado Después de la captura de Sevilla por las fuerzas franquistas en julio de 1936, Criado desató el terror contra todos los sospechosos de simpatizar con los republicanos. Durante sus cuatro meses como jefe de seguridad en la capital andaluza, Sevilla, mató a más de 10.000. hombres y mujeres.
Incluso los partidarios de Franco quedaron impactados por su crueldad. El gobernador recordó después: “Criado era un degenerado que utilizaba su cargo oficial para saciar su sanguinaria, para enriquecerse y satisfacer sus apetitos sexuales”. En la Guerra Civil Española de 1936-1939, como en toda guerra, intervinieron muchos psicópatas, como Criado y Llopis, que tuvieron la oportunidad de mostrar sus instintos. Después de todo, las guerras civiles son las más brutales de todas. Del medio millón de personas asesinadas durante la Guerra Civil, alrededor de 200.000 eran civiles. Todos ellos fueron asesinados lejos de los campos de batalla. Ambos bandos cometieron atrocidades. Se estudiaron y propagaron los crímenes de guerra republicanos en la España de Franco. Sin embargo, hoy los historiadores cuentan con abundante material que indica que el régimen de Franco fue responsable de muchas más víctimas civiles. Los republicanos mataron o ejecutaron a unos 50.000 partidarios y simpatizantes de los franquistas. Los frankistas mataron tres veces más personas. La cifra de 150.000 muertos no incluye las víctimas de bombardeos deliberados y bombardeos de zonas residenciales de Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia y otras ciudades. No incluye a los miles de refugiados que murieron durante el bombardeo de las columnas de refugiados, ni a los miles de refugiados y prisioneros que murieron a causa de enfermedades y desnutrición en los campos. Tampoco incluye a las numerosas personas desaparecidas después de la guerra. Soldados de la Guardia Civil española (análoga a la gendarmería) llevaron a cabo acciones punitivas. Las fuerzas de Franco aplicaron una política sistemática de terror durante toda la guerra y mucho después de su fin. Franco creía que era necesario romper el espíritu de la población civil eliminando cualquier amenaza u oposición potencial. Los asesores militares italianos y alemanes insistieron en una rápida ofensiva militar, pero Franco se mantuvo firme en su estrategia de conquista gradual, acompañada de purgas (limpieza) del «territorio contaminado» por parte del enemigo. Los frankistas no dudaron en aplicar a sus conciudadanos las tácticas desarrolladas en las guerras coloniales en África. Antes de lanzar su ataque al País Vasco el 4 de abril de 1937, Franco dijo al embajador italiano Roberto Cantalupo que “la necesaria tarea de redención y pacificación de las zonas ocupadas será lenta y difícil porque las raíces del anarquismo en España son antiguas y profundas. » El “Padre de la Patria”, Generalísimo de todas las fuerzas armadas y caudillo de España Francisco Franco, vio la guerra civil en términos de la lucha de la Patria (patria) contra la anti-Patria (ganado, canallia, chusma judío-masónica-comunista). Víctimas de los franquistas.
El Holocausto español de Paul Preston ofrece un recuento detallado de los asesinatos y masacres de civiles durante y después de la Guerra Civil Española. El libro no deja piedra sin remover en la imagen de Franco el patriota, que luchó con todas sus fuerzas por reconstruir su patria. El mismo lenguaje psicopatológico de la propaganda de Franco, que retrataba a sus compatriotas españoles como infrahumanos: «ganado», «escoria», «débiles», «apestosos», «prostitutas», «criminales» atestigua el odio y la división. Ese lenguaje sirvió para justificar la «purificación»: asesinato, violación, tortura, represión económica y psicológica. Es más, este lenguaje sirvió para crear responsabilidad mutua entre los partidarios del régimen. Responsabilidad mutua, que aún hoy sirve tan fielmente para silenciar los crímenes del régimen de Franco. “Franco era plenamente consciente de que la represión no sólo aterrorizaba a sus oponentes, sino que también servía para reunir en torno a él, en aras de su propia supervivencia, a todos los que estaban involucrados en su implementación”, escribe Preston. “Su complicidad aseguró que se les asociaría. con Franco como único baluarte ante la posible venganza de sus víctimas.»
En el pueblo de Mavalcarnero, cerca de Madrid, los franquistas capturaron a dos niñas, cuya culpa era que eran miembros de un sindicato. El general Mohammedou Ben Mizzian, el oficial de más alto rango de las unidades marroquíes de Franco, ordenó que arrojaran a las niñas al cuartel con los soldados marroquíes. Whitaker intentó protestar y Mizzian le dijo: «No te preocupes, no sobrevivirán más de cuatro horas». El Holocausto español proporciona evidencia de la violación sistemática de las esposas e hijas de prisioneros y verdugos republicanos. Muchas mujeres fueron privadas de sus ingresos y propiedades. Los obligaron a salir. Esto satisfizo la lujuria de los falangistas y los soldados, y también complació los complejos de superioridad de la persona promedio: supuestamente las donnas españolas eran todas piadosas guardianas del hogar, y en el lado republicano solo había putas. Whitaker fue testigo de otros crímenes de guerra. Dejó descripciones del asesinato de 200 heridos en un hospital de Toledo. Whitaker también describió la masacre de agosto de 1936 en la plaza de toros de Badajoz. Cuando Whitaker le preguntó al general Juan Yagüe si era cierto que había matado a cuatro mil personas en la arena, el general respondió jactanciosamente: “Por supuesto, ¿crees que iba a llevarme a 4.000 rojos cuando avanzáramos? ¿Los dejaron allí, para que hicieran de Badajoz la capital roja? El general no abandonó la arena en todo el día. En 24 horas ordenó la ejecución de más de 2.000 personas. En Triana, un barrio obrero de Sevilla, los falangistas mataron a unas 6.000 personas en los primeros días de la rebelión. El Holocausto español contiene abundante material sobre la explotación económica del trabajo esclavo entre los prisioneros de guerra. Durante una de las visitas del yerno de Mussolini y su ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, el yerno de Benito Mussolini, el conde Galeazzo Ciano, a España, Franco lo llevó a los campos de batalla. A Ciano le llamó la atención el aspecto exhausto de los trabajadores que trabajaban en la carretera. “Estos no son prisioneros de guerra. Son esclavos de guerra”, aseguró Ciano. La apoteosis del trabajo esclavo fue la construcción del monumento conmemorativo del Valle de los Caídos, que a los liberales rusos les gusta señalar como un ejemplo de “reconciliación nacional”. Decenas de miles de prisioneros cumplieron el capricho del dictador durante 20 años: excavaron en la roca una basílica de 250 metros de altura, donde fue enterrado el propio Franco. «El Holocausto español» presta mucha atención a los niños víctimas del régimen franquista. Los niños fueron asesinados y encarcelados en campos de concentración junto con sus padres. Muchas mujeres dieron a luz en los campos después de haber sido violadas.
En los campos franquistas se formó una gran población infantil. La muerte arrasó con cientos de niños. Miles de ellos fueron separados de sus madres y dados en adopción. El embarazo no salvó a las madres de la muerte. Un juez franquista declaró que «no podemos esperar siete meses para ejecutar a una mujer». El recuento de las víctimas del régimen de Franco no pudo comenzar hasta después de la muerte del dictador en 1975 y aún no ha concluido. En 2002, unos trabajadores de la construcción en Toledo tropezaron accidentalmente con una fosa común en el patio trasero de un cementerio. Resultó que allí estaban enterrados los restos de personas desaparecidas en septiembre de 1936. En las tumbas no sólo estaban soldados, sino también civiles, mujeres y niños. En toda España, los arqueólogos están descubriendo fosas comunes, evidencia del reinado de terror franquista entre 1936 y 1945. Sólo después de que los socialistas llegaron al poder en España comenzaron a surgir historias de represión, de personas asesinadas simplemente por hablar irrespetuosamente sobre la iglesia, tener una radio en casa o leer la prensa de izquierda. Sólo en los años 80 los familiares de las víctimas se atrevieron por primera vez a depositar flores en los lugares de ejecución. No fue hasta 2005 que los medios de comunicación se interesaron seriamente por las excavaciones en los lugares de las masacres. Un joven sociólogo navarro, Emilio Silva-Barerra, comenzó a investigar las circunstancias de la desaparición de su abuelo, comerciante y activista del izquierdista Partido Republicano, desaparecido en los primeros meses de la revuelta franquista de 1936. Luego de una exhaustiva investigación, Silva-Barrera encontró los restos de su abuelo, padre de seis hijos. Él y doce camaradas fueron fusilados por los franquistas al costado de la carretera cerca de un pequeño pueblo de León. Los cadáveres fueron enterrados en un campo cercano al lugar de la ejecución. Las pruebas de ADN confirmaron que los restos eran los del abuelo de Silvo-Barrera. Luego de este “éxito”, junto al historiador local Santiago Marcías Pérez, crearon la Asociación para la Restauración de la Memoria Histórica. En 2008, los activistas de la asociación habían descubierto 26 tumbas y pudieron identificar a más de cien personas ejecutadas. La asociación recibió 2.500 solicitudes de ayuda para la investigación de lugares de enterramiento de toda España. Preston señala que hay demasiadas fosas comunes en España, pero muy poca documentación. Retrato de Federico García Lorca en un yacimiento arqueológico donde se busca una fosa común de víctimas de la guerra civil. Alfakar, 19 de noviembre de 2014. «Si el régimen de Franco está tan orgulloso de sus logros, principalmente de la restauración de la nación española, ¿por qué los archivos fueron destruidos tan completamente en los años 1970?», pregunta Preston. «Entonces los archivos de la Guardia Civil (a cargo de la seguridad del Estado). ) fueron sacados y destruidos. Muchos archivos municipales fueron destruidos.»
Preston dijo en una entrevista que cuando estudiaba en Madrid en la década de 1960, sobornó a un empleado de la Biblioteca Nacional para que le permitiera leer periódicos de la Segunda República Española de antes de la guerra. La conspiración de silencio en torno al tema de las víctimas de Franco continuó durante décadas después de la muerte del dictador. Hasta ahora, el acceso a los archivos resulta difícil para los historiadores. Para agravar el problema, España no tiene una ley de libertad de información similar a la de otros países de Europa occidental. Preston ha estado trabajando en el Holocausto español desde 2003. Pudo obtener la mayor parte de la información a través de conexiones informales construidas durante muchas décadas. La historia de cualquier Holocausto (judío, armenio, gitano o ruandés) es ante todo una historia humana. El Holocausto no se puede describir de la manera estricta de los historiadores clásicos, donde lo principal eran las fechas de las batallas y los reinados, y los datos estadísticos. Preston cuenta las historias de personas específicas sin sacar de ellas una moraleja. Cuenta la historia de un capitán de la Guardia Civil llamado Manuel Gómez Cantos y el Doctor Tamprano del pequeño pueblo extremeño de Mérida. Al capitán se le encomendó la tarea de limpiar la ciudad de republicanos. El Dr. Tamprano era un destacado partidario republicano. Durante todo un mes, el capitán caminó con el médico por la ciudad y anotaba a todos los que saludaban al médico. Así, identificó un círculo de conocidos, arrestó a todos y mató al médico con sus propias manos. Más tarde, Cantos se hizo famoso por su crueldad mientras luchaba contra las guerrillas en Extremadura e hizo fusilar a sus soldados por cobardía. El capitán fue expulsado del ejército, juzgado, pero recibió sentencia suspendida. Kantos murió en su cama en 1977. Los frankistas continuaron con su terror incluso cuando las hostilidades terminaron con su completa victoria. En las semanas posteriores a la victoria de Franco, aproximadamente 20.000 republicanos fueron fusilados. A los vencidos no se les permitió enterrar a sus muertos. Incluso buscar a nuestros muertos era peligroso. Las familias republicanas también eran enemigas de Franco. Muchos fueron asesinados y enterrados en tumbas anónimas al borde de la carretera simplemente porque alguien de su familia era simpatizante republicano. Los franquistas dispararon contra el jefe del gobierno regional catalán, Luis Companos. Compagnos salvó a miles de personas, especialmente clérigos, de la furia de anarquistas y comunistas. Emitió pasaportes a sus compatriotas, lo que les permitió huir al extranjero. Tras la ejecución de Companos, los franquistas confiscaron todos los bienes de su familia. En Burgos, los franquistas fusilaron a las mujeres a cambio de sus maridos, quienes se retiraron con los republicanos. En La Coruña, los rebeldes dispararon contra el jefe de la administración, Francisco Pérez Carballos. Su esposa se encontraba en sus últimos meses de embarazo. Los falangistas la atraparon en la calle, la violaron y la mataron.
Un español de la 250 División de Infantería de la Wehrmacht antes de regresar del Frente Oriental a España. El soldado ya viste uniforme español con boina roja y camisa falangista azul. La firma se puede traducir como «para mi buen amigo alemán Erwin con el amistoso. Juan». Legión «Cóndor».
La cara brutal del fascismo, sin importar en qué país se encuentre, siembra muerte y violencia por todas partes. En Ucrania, con el apoyo de Inglaterra, Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, está floreciendo el fascismo, que será destruido…
ANKARA, 6. Mai – RIA Novosti. Der türkische Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan versucht, seine Beziehungen zur amerikanischen Regierung und im Finanzsektor zu verbessern, um die Krise zu überwinden. Zu den Bedingungen Washingtons für Ankara gehören ein Abbruch des Handels mit Russland und ein Rückzug aus Transportprojekten mit China, so der türkische Analyst Engin Ozer sagte RIA Novosti.
Die türkische Zeitung Hürriyet gab am Montag bekannt, dass es Vorwürfe gegen den Präsidenten des Landes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, gebe, er handele auf Anweisung der Vereinigten Staaten . Solche Berichte seien der Veröffentlichung zufolge erschienen, nachdem das Oberhaupt der Republik Verhandlungen mit dem Oberhaupt der Türkei geführt hatte Die türkische Opposition kündigte seine Absicht an, eine „sanfte“ Politik zu verfolgen. Erdogan hatte letzte Woche zum ersten Mal seit acht Jahren ein eineinhalbstündiges, nichtöffentliches Treffen mit dem Führer der türkischen Opposition, dem Vorsitzenden der Republikanischen Volkspartei (CHP), Ozgür Özel, abgehalten.
„Die Ergebnisse der Kommunalwahlen (in der Türkei) haben gezeigt, dass die Opposition die Macht übernehmen könnte, wenn es Erdogan nicht gelingt, die Wirtschaftskrise schnell zu überwinden. Die Regierung benötigt dringend langfristige Auslandskredite, um die hohe Inflation zu senken. Allerdings hat die Unsicherheit in der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Politik begonnen „Die Krise hat in der Türkei in den letzten Jahren Gestalt angenommen, die Kreditwürdigkeit des Landes ist gesunken und Erdogan versucht, seine Beziehungen zur amerikanischen Regierung und das finanzielle Umfeld zu verbessern, um die Krise zu lösen“, sagte die Quelle der Agentur.
Zu den Bedingungen der Biden-Führung an Ankara, um dem Land aus der Finanzkrise zu helfen, gehören dem Analysten zufolge eine „Unterbrechung“ des Handels mit der Russischen Föderation (türkische Banken akzeptieren keine Überweisungen von russischen Banken mehr), die Überweisung von S- 400-Systeme in die Ukraine und Rückzug aus Transportprojekten mit China.
„Zu den Bedingungen gehört auch der Aufbau von Vertrauen im Land durch die Aufrechterhaltung eines Dialogs mit der Opposition. Das Treffen zwischen Erdogan und Oppositionsführer Özel kann als Beginn einer neuen Ära in den Beziehungen angesehen werden „Der Westen ist derjenige, der versucht, gemeinsam mit der Opposition „schwierige Entscheidungen“ zu treffen“, sagte der Analyst.
„Die Regierung in Washington kann der türkischen Wirtschaft wirklich helfen, aus der Krise herauszukommen, indem sie die Kreditwürdigkeit der Türkei durch IWF-Vereinbarungen, Kredite der Weltbank und einen Vertrauensdiskurs erhöht. Im Gegenzug muss Ankara eine sehr hohe Gebühr zahlen.“ “, schloss Ozer.
США Urheberschaft: Eine Kopie der Materialien einer anderen Person Verwendete Quellen:
Der französische Botschafter traf im russischen Außenministerium ein
MOSKAU, 6. Mai. /TASS/. Der französische Botschafter in Moskau, Pierre Levy, sei im russischen diplomatischen Büro eingetroffen, berichtet ein TASS-Korrespondent.
Die Gründe für seinen Besuch werden nicht genannt.
Der Pressesprecher des russischen Präsidenten Dmitri Peskow kündigte heute eine beispiellose neue Runde der Spannungen an, die vom französischen Präsidenten Emmanuel Macron initiiert wurde. Er nannte Macrons Worte über die mögliche Entsendung von Truppen in die Ukraine eine sehr gefährliche Rhetorik.
Der französische Staatschef gab in einem Interview mit der Zeitschrift „The Economist“ zu, dass die Frage der Entsendung von Truppen in die Ukraine in Betracht gezogen werden sollte, wenn Kiew dies beantragt, „wenn russische Truppen die Frontlinie durchbrechen“.
14:32 05.06.2024
Der britische Botschafter traf im russischen Außenministerium ein
Der britische Botschafter Casey traf nach einem Anruf im russischen Außenministerium ein
MOSKAU, 6. Mai – RIA Nowosti. Der britische Botschafter in der Russischen Föderation, Nigel Casey, traf am Montag im russischen Außenministerium ein, wo er, wie das Ministerium berichtete, vorgeladen wurde.
Wie ein Korrespondent von RIA Novosti berichtet, ist das Auto des Botschafters gerade am Gebäude des Ministeriums angekommen.
06. Mai, 13:29
Nach Vorwürfen gegen Moskau hat Deutschland seinen Botschafter aus Russland abberufen
Berlin machte Moskau für einen Cyberangriff auf Scholz‘ Partei im Jahr 2023 verantwortlich. Das deutsche Außenministerium bezeichnete dies als inakzeptabel und versprach Konsequenzen; der Botschafter wurde aus Russland abberufen. Moskau weist Vorwürfe bezüglich Hackern zurück.
Der deutsche Botschafter in Russland, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, wurde zu Beratungen nach Berlin zurückgerufen. Dies sei darauf zurückzuführen, dass Deutschland Russland in Cyberangriffe auf Ressourcen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei (SPD) verwickelt sehe, berichtete das deutsche Außenministerium.
„Er wird eine Woche in Berlin bleiben und dann nach Moskau zurückkehren“, sagte eine Abteilungssprecherin (zitiert von TASS). RBC kontaktierte die deutsche Botschaft und das deutsche Außenministerium um eine Stellungnahme.
Der Hackerangriff auf die Konten von SPD-Mitgliedern ereignete sich vor anderthalb Jahren, im Januar 2023. Laut Bild sind die Ermittlungen abgeschlossen und die Gruppe APT28, die „mit der Hauptnachrichtendirektion des Generalstabs der russischen Streitkräfte verbunden ist“, ist dafür verantwortlich. Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz gehört der SPD an.
In diesem Zusammenhang wurde Anfang Mai der russische Geschäftsträger der russischen Botschaft in das deutsche Außenministerium vorgeladen. Ein Sprecher des Ministeriums sagte damals: „Dieser Vorfall zeigt, dass die russische Bedrohung für Sicherheit und Frieden in Europa real und gewaltig ist“, sagte Buchner. Die Chefin des deutschen Außenministeriums, Annalena Bärbock, bezeichnete die Schlussfolgerungen der Untersuchung zur Beteiligung Russlands als inakzeptabel und versprach Konsequenzen.
Als Reaktion auf die Vorwürfe einer Beteiligung der russischen Regierung an den Anschlägen beharrt Moskau darauf, dass es keine Beweise für einen solchen Zusammenhang gebe, und bezeichnet solche Informationen als Unterstellungen.
Lambsdorff wurde im August 2023 Botschafter in Russland. Zuvor war er zeitweise Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments und des Bundestags, stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Europäischen Parlaments und leitete die Russland-Abteilung im deutschen Außenministerium.
05. Mai, 00:22
Der niederländische Botschafter in Russland Pluch hat seine Mission abgeschlossen
Hilles Pluch, Botschafter der Niederlande in Moskau, hat seine Mission in Russland abgeschlossen , berichtete der Pressedienst der diplomatischen Vertretung im Telegram-Kanal.
Wie die Botschaft klarstellte, wird der 4. Mai in den Niederlanden als Gedenktag gefeiert, der traditionell an Militär- und Zivilisten erinnert, die während des Zweiten Weltkriegs sowie bei anderen militärischen Konflikten und Friedenssicherungseinsätzen starben.
Seit 1992 versammeln sich Botschaftsmitarbeiter in Moskau jedes Jahr am 4. Mai auf dem Wwedenski-Friedhof in der Hauptstadt am Gedenkgrabstein des niederländischen Leutnants Gerrit van der Waals, um mit einer Schweigeminute das Andenken der Opfer zu ehren.
„ Die Teilnahme an der Zeremonie rundete die Tätigkeit von Herrn Hilles Beshoor Pluch als außerordentlicher und bevollmächtigter Botschafter des Königreichs der Niederlande in Russland ab “, schloss die diplomatische Mission.
Pluch wurde im Mai 2021 Botschafter der Niederlande in Russland. Er begann 1988 im niederländischen Außenministerium zu arbeiten, 1997 wurde er persönlicher Sekretär der Königin und des Prinzen des Landes und 2007 leitete er die niederländische diplomatische Vertretung in Abu Dhabi. Später fungierte er als Geschäftsträger, unter anderem als Vertreter der Niederlande bei der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde. Von 2015 bis 2019 war er Botschafter in Tel Aviv, dann in Belgrad und schließlich in Moskau.
Since 2013, the words and actions of Pope Francis have caused an unprecedented crisis in the Catholic Church, and have done great harm to the Church and the whole world. The members of the hierarchy of the Church have a duty to act in order to prevent Francis from causing further harm.Anarchy and the Kingdo…Du017ealto, DavorBest Price: $44.61Buy New $34.71(as of 03:44 UTC — Details)
We therefore call for Pope Francis to resign the papal office, and to repent and do penance for his actions. If he does not do this, we request that the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church ask Pope Francis to resign the office of pope.
If he refuses to resign or recant the heresies that he has upheld, we ask that they declare that he has lost the papal office.
This crisis is due to two things:
1. Pope Francis has committed criminal acts gravely damaging to the Church and to individual believers.
2. He has shown that he rejects the Catholic faith, and has worked to destroy the faith of other Catholics.
1. Crimes of Pope Francis
1.1 Crimes other than heresy
1. He has committed criminal acts that have gravely harmed individual believers and the Church.
The actions listed below are crimes because they violate either canon law, the law of temporal states, the natural law, divine positive law, or some combination of laws from these different legal systems. The relations of these different legal systems are complex; for example, the protection of sexual abusers by not reporting their crimes, or by placing them in positions where they can be expected to continue to abuse, is a crime in some states, but not in others. The crimes of Pope Francis listed below all violate one or more of the following canons of the Latin Code; canons 383 §1, 392 §1 and §2, 1311 § 2, 1326 § 1, 1378 § 1 and § 2, and 1399. These canons are all based on natural law or divine positive law, so they are not ones from which the Pope can be dispensed. It should be remembered that the Church has by divine right the power to legislate for her members and to inflict juridical punishments on them of a temporal as well as a spiritual kind, and this legislation is no less real and has no less force than the legislation of civil states.
1.1.A. Protection of criminal sex offenders, and protection of religious superiors who themselves protect criminal sex offenders.
Bishops and religious superiors who protect criminal sexual abusers are themselves criminals, so Pope Francis’s protection and promotion of such individuals is itself a protection of criminals. It has a particularly damaging effect, because it tells criminals of this stamp that protecting sexual abusers not only is ‘safe’ with him, but it will also probably lead to promotion. Pope Francis’s promotion of these criminals has been so extensive and over so long a time-frame, both before and after his election to the papacy, that it can only be seen as an abiding disposition and an habitual policy. He has appointed large numbers of these persons to the college of cardinals, thus giving them significant influence over the election of the next pope, and has installed them in the commanding heights of ecclesiastical power in the Roman Curia and the American Catholic church.
The manner of Pope Francis’s protection of these criminals aggravates his offence. He has repeatedly and brazenly lied about his actions and slandered victims of these crimes.
In addition to the specific cases recorded below, it should be added that Pope Francis abolished the moderately effective procedures for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors that had been instituted by Pope Benedict XVI, and replaced them with ineffective regulations, personnel, and organisations that brought to a halt the process of effectively dealing with sexual abuse in the Church. Francis accompanied this sabotage of justice with frequent public pronouncements about the supreme importance of bringing sexual abuse to an end.
Pope Francis had a record of protecting sexual abusers before he became pope, when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires (1998-2013) and president of the Argentine bishops’ conference (2005-2011). The worst example of this protection is noted here, as it exemplifies his character and modus operandi.
Fr Julio Grassi
Fr Julio Grassi founded and ran Happy Children homes for street children in Argentina. He sexually abused boys at these institutions. In 2009 he was convicted by an Argentinian court of abusing one of them. At great expense, Archbishop Bergoglio commissioned a 2,600 page report designed to exonerate Fr. Grassi by slandering his victims. The report was intended to persuade the Argentinian Supreme Court judges of Grassi’s innocence, and was condemned by the court as an attempt to interfere with justice. When challenged about the report, Archbishop Bergoglio lied in declaring that he had no involvement with it. Grassi managed to avoid prison until 2013, thanks in part to Bergoglio’s intervention. Grassi testified that he has the personal support of Bergoglio.[1]
After his election to the papacy in 2013, Pope Francis protected and/or promoted many sexual abusers and bishops who covered up sexual abuse. Some outstanding examples are the following:
Cardinal Godfried Danneels
Cardinal Danneels defended the catechism textbook ‘Roeach’, which was used in Belgium under his authority and which promoted pedophilia, and refused to have it altered or removed. He acted to protect the pedophile Bishop Roger Vangheluwe after it became known that Vangheluwe sexually abused his own nephew, beginning when the nephew was five years old. When the nephew, then an adult, asked Danneels to take some action against Vangheluwe, Danneels refused, told the nephew to keep quiet about the abuse, and told the nephew that he should acknowledge his own guilt. These actions were public knowledge in 2010. Cardinal Danneels stood at the side of Pope Francis on the balcony of St. Peter’s when the Pope made his first public appearance after his election. Pope Francis named him as one of his personal appointments to both the first and second Synod on the Family. At his death in 2019, Pope Francis praised him as a ‘zealous pastor’ who ‘served the Church with dedication’.[2]
Cardinal Jozef de Kesel
In 2014 Cardinal de Kesel, then bishop of Bruges, appointed Father Tom Flamez as a pastor after he had been convicted of sexual abuse. He did not remove Fr. Antoon Stragier from ministry until 2015, although Stragier’s crimes were known to the diocese in 2004. Pope Francis chose Bishop de Kesel as Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels in November 2015 and named him a Cardinal in November 2016.[3]
Cardinal Reinhard Marx
Cardinal Marx admitted to having covered up many sexual abuse cases when he was bishop of Trier, and offered his resignation to Pope Francis in 2021, giving this coverup as the reason. Pope Francis refused his resignation, and Marx continues as the metropolitan archbishop of Munich and Freising.[4]
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor
In 2008 a woman told English Church authorities that O’Connor had sexually abused her when she was between 13 and 14 years old. The woman had previously reported being sexually abused by another English priest, Father Michael Hill, who was subsequently convicted of this crime in a British court. Hill had earlier been removed from ministry after allegations of sexual abuse of minors, but Murphy-O’Connor, then Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, had reinstated Hill to ministry by naming him as chaplain at Gatwick Airport. Hill continued to abuse minors in this post. In 2013 Pope Francis instructed Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller to drop the investigation of Murphy-O’Connor for sexual abuse.[5]
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga
Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga failed to act on numerous accusations of sexual misbehaviour with seminarians on the part of Jose Juan Pineda Fasquelle, auxiliary bishop of Tegucigalpa, who resigned after the accusations were made public. Maradiaga refused to investigate complaints made by 48 out of 180 seminarians about homosexual misbehaviour at the Honduras seminary, and attacked the complainants instead. Pope Francis named Maradiaga as a member and coordinator of the council of nine cardinals that he set up in 2013 to advise him in the government of the universal church. On 15 October 2020, Pope Francis renewed Rodriguez Maradiaga’s appointment as Coordinator of the Council of Cardinal Advisers.[6]
Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
Former Cardinal McCarrick had a decades-long career of grooming and pressuring seminarians to engage in homosexual relations with him. Pope Francis was personally informed of this behaviour in 2013, and was told that Pope Benedict had placed restrictions upon him. McCarrick had made frequent trips to Argentina to visit seminarians when Pope Francis was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope Francis freed McCarrick of the restrictions on his activities that had been imposed by Pope Benedict XVI as a result of reports of his crimes, and used him for many important tasks, including trips as a representative of the Holy See to Israel, Armenia, China, Iran and Cuba. He accompanied Pope Francis on his trips to Israel and Cuba. He was only removed from ministry in 2018, after his predation on seminarians was widely reported in the media.[7]
Pope Francis has appointed a circle of men linked to former cardinal McCarrick to important posts. These include Cardinals Robert McElroy, Joseph Tobin, Wilton Gregory, and Kevin Farrell, described below.A Faith That Will Not …Cushatt, MicheleBest Price: $12.66Buy New $11.77(as of 08:22 UTC — Details)
Cardinal Blaise Cupich
Pope Francis named Cupich Archbishop of Chicago in 2014, appointing him a cardinal and a member of the Congregation for Bishops in 2016. McCarrick had lobbied for his appointment in Chicago.[8]
Cardinal Joseph Tobin
Pope Francis appointed Tobin, Archbishop of Indianapolis, as a cardinal and as Archbishop of Newark in 2016. McCarrick had been his predecessor as Archbishop of Newark from 1986 to 2000, committing many crimes while in that post. The Archdiocese of Newark had made a payment in 2005 to a seminarian abused by McCarrick. Tobin refused to respond to a complaint about abuse by McCarrick sent to him in 2018 by Michael Reading, a former seminarian.[9]
Cardinal Wilton Gregory
Cardinal Gregory worked with McCarrick on drafting the 2002 Dallas Charter, which provided procedures for American Catholic bishops for responding to accusations of sexual abuse by clerics. The charter’s procedures were ineffective, conspicuously omitting any provision for dealing with accusations against bishops. When bishop of Belleville, Illinois, Gregory was held in contempt of court for refusing to release the records of a priest accused of sexual crimes. While Archbishop of Atlanta, Georgia, he successfully opposed legislation that would extend the statute of limitations for lawsuits claiming damages for sexual abuse. Pope Francis made him Archbishop of Washington in 2019 and named him cardinal in 2020.[10]
US National Plan on ‘Responsible Business Conduct’. CSIS is once again rising to the position of Parent over all the children it is tasked with leading. The purpose of this relationship is to diminish the capacity of businesses which operate outside of the Control Center. This applies to public and private businesses. The Control Center wants to assure that all businesses are unified in their ‘good governance’ according to rules and protocols established by the few.
The few being the expert experts. All businesses must operate in conformity with the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights. Apparently, Germany is raised as the best example of submitting to the control center when its government discovered that only 25% of businesses complied with the Protocols. Dastardly! To punish thru these Protocols mandatory compliance was adopted in 2021 and CSIS declared Hallelujah!
You Will Own Nothing: …Roth, CarolBest Price: $ 13,10Buy New $ 13,00(as of 09:07 UTC — Details)The result of this Parent governance system is effectively overwhelming – no business, private or public, mom and pop or conglomerate, is free, they must all bow to the nonlaw protocols as established by the UN and codified in NGO’s ruling America. It is no different than Mafia Rule – ‘pay me to not destroy your business’ – think of it as a Tithe. According to these UN Protocols, individuals and competition are encouraged to snitch on businesses not in compliance with these nonlaws.
It is similar to the politicization of the Department of Education with regard to ‘antisemitism’. Public and Private Universities must comply with the mandates or be defunded. Blackmail. Supported by Republican and Democrat and MAGA politicians.
There is absolutely zero reason for the government to give money to colleges that are not open freely to ALL Taxpayers – that is anti-Constitutional. All Federal Funding must benefit the people of the United States equally. Harvard, Stanford, Yale…etc, are unequal.
Private Education Institutions should NOT be funded by public monies. Again – anti-Constitution.
With a Congress that is overwhelmingly made up of lawyers, they are either wholly inept, or they are all bought and the US Constitution is effectively worthless.
Making a law that favors ONE religion over all other religions is illegal – it is discriminatory. Yet our House of Representatives – made up of legal ‘experts’, decided to ignore that detail. Tim Scott is so proud of himself for writing the law… Mike Johnson is so proud of himself for taking a knee to the Zionists… Yet the Zionists have made it clear that every race is inferior and not to be tolerated.
ALL businesses now work for Israel. The CEO and/or Board Chair are inserted. He will make all the money and everyone else will be required to work 80 hour work weeks to support the CEO. The CEO pays a tithe to Israel.
Today, it was released that the Columbia student raid was an Israeli operation: The NYPD crackdown on Columbia University students was led by a member of the school’s faculty Rebecca Weiner who is a Columbia prof. Weiner doubles as a Spook for NYPD intel division that maintains an office in Tel Aviv. Weiner said student “rhetoric” necessitated the violent raid.
The NYPD’s Counterterrorism Bureau currently maintains an office in Tel Aviv, Israel, where it coordinates with Israel’s security apparatus and maintains a department liaison. This unit is affiliated with the CIA. Proudly = she led to the arrest of 300+ students.
Could Israel do to an American city/state what it is doing in Palestine?
Jan Koum, Ukrainian born founder of Whatsapp is the largest donor to AIPAC, and a backer of failed Nikki Haley’s campaign. Nikki Haley went on to take a position at The Hudson Institute, whose Board Chair is Sarah Stern, a Jewish woman who is also a trustee of the Washington Institute For Near East Policy. The Institute is a core Israeli lobbyist in DC under the wing of AIPAC. Notable scholars of The Institute have served in the administrations of; both Bushes, Clinton, Obama and Trump. Its Board consists entirely of White House officials including Bill Barr, and Mike Pompeo and is dominated by Jewish Fellows. It focuses on ‘Human Rights’ – in China, North Korea, and Russia and addresses the rise of antisemitism making comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Living in a Mindful Un…Newell, KarenBest Price: $3.80Buy New $6.47(as of 05:25 UTC — Details)United Democracy Project is AIPAC’s Super PAC and has allocated $100 million to be spent in the upcoming months heading into the Election. Only those who forcefully advocate for Israel will receive funding. Those that don’t will be pummeled with negative ads. AIPAC’s CEO, Howard Kohr, is stepping down. Kohr ranked #4 in Fortunes list of 25 most influential leaders. As an advisor within the WH he was responsible for determining who and how much foreign aid would divvied by America as well as who should be sanctioned. He was also a managing fellow for the Department of Defense – a civilian.
In other words, Kohr was key in the Deep State shadow Cartel operating within the White House for 27 years. There is no word yet who will replace him.
The Control Center is operated jointly between Tel Aviv and Washington. Islam was the distraction evil created by the Control Center. Bolsheviks have always hated Russia. Ukraine was their laundering capitol. It was always the job of America to keep the Israeli Council in the shadows. To protect against backlash and to heighten the Illusion of government. But it fits the narrative that ‘Responsible Business Conduct’ would include a Pro-Israel stance – given only Jews can be expert experts…..
It is a bit disconcerting that Trump is ‘Pro-Israel’…
“Our” House of Representatives recently passed perhaps the most odious piece of legislation in our history. This is quite a feat, considering that, in this millennium alone, they were responsible for the Patriot Act and Banker Bailout monstrosities. This act stamps the imprimatur of Zionist power on Congress, like a scarlet letter.
If you want to know why so many “haters” believe “the Jews” control everything, look at the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Look at how overwhelmingly it passed. It was not a close vote. If someone can explain how a foreign nation holds such power over our elected officials, I’m waiting to hear it. Sure, you had the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR administrations acted as if it was illegal to criticize the government. But as bad as all that was, at least it concerned our nation. It has never been illegal to criticize another country, in any other nation on earth, to my knowledge. Until now. Sure, the Soviets supposedly outlawed “anti-Semitism,” but this is hard to source credibly. This odious congressional legislation is very real.The Ukraine War & the …Diesen, GlennBest Price: $19.87Buy New $22.98(as of 10:44 UTC — Details)
The act goes well beyond the current state of Israel. It warns against any claims that Israel’s creation was problematic in any sense. More importantly, it references Holocaust “denial,” and condemns it. Thus, America now joins every other country on earth in forbidding any discussion of the particulars of the German concentration camps. And finally, it suggests that statements about the Jews killing Jesus Christ are “anti-Semitic.” I was raised a Catholic. I was very small, but I remember the Latin mass, before Vatican II. I’ve read Father Feeney, and listened to Father Coughlin. This act basically repudiates pre-Vatican II Catholicism. There are Biblical passages about the Jews being responsible for killing Christ. This shouldn’t mean that any Jew today bears any blame. But this act in effect makes parts of the Bible “anti-Semitic.”
I get weary of talking about Jewish control and power. But this legislation is about as clear an indication as you could ask for, that the “anti-Semites” are correct. What other group has ever been protected from criticism by an act of law? Confining it to just Israel, what other nation has ever been exempted from criticism, by a legal act in another country? The pretext for this legislation is the alleged mistreatment of Jewish students on college campuses. To whatever degree this is happening, all reasonable people would certainly condemn it. I support the right of Jews to free speech, free assembly, and everything else guaranteed them under the Bill of Rights. But I don’t support that any more strongly than I support the rights of Palestinian students, or the Nation of Islam, or whatever Eskimos exist in this once great land.
Most conservatives demonstrated that they really don’t support free speech any more than the “Woke” Left does, with their willingness to suppress pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses. Their portrayal of them reminded me of the way the establishment dishonestly depicted the January 6 Stop the Steal rally. It seems the Left tolerates free speech, unless you say something “racist,” or “homophobic,” or “transphobic.” I’m pretty sure they also are concerned with “anti-Semitism,” but this would only apply to “White Nationalist” types. In other words, Whites who don’t hate White people. The Right, on the other hand, tolerates free speech, unless you criticize Israel, or say something unpleasant about Jews in general. Actually, both sides can become apoplectic if you criticize any Jew they agree with.
Candace Owens is engaged in a battle royal with Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro. Shapiro’s ethnocentric hysteria on the subject of Israel and “the Jews” in general resulted in Owens leaving his company. Now we find that Shapiro tried to slap a gag order on Owens, after agreeing to debate her on the subject of anti-Semitism. This debate is unlikely to ever transpire, because Shapiro has revealed himself to be as unbalanced as the “wokest” pussy hat wearer. Owens would mop the floor up with him. Especially since her primary contention is that there is no universal definition of “anti-Semitism.” She wants Shapiro to define it. Obviously, neither he nor anyone else can do that, because it’s an emotional, subjective term, like “racist,” or “White Supremacist,” or “terrorist,” or “insurrectionist.”10-Minute Strength Tra…Deboo PT, EdBest Price: $12.24Buy New $10.92(as of 07:17 UTC — Details)
When they invented the term “politically correct,” in skits on Saturday Night Live, starring the late Phil Hartman, very few objected. After all, once you get the notion of “political correctness” embedded in your culture, you assure that you marginalize discourse even further, by ostracizing “political incorrectness.” When they invented the Orwellian term “hate speech,” very few objected. Hate is a human emotion. We all hate. You can’t criminalize an emotion, and you certainly can’t ethically pick and choose when to invoke it. Some hate is more equal than others. So, since it’s “hate” to question anything about Jews, from the Kosher grift that allows rabbis to be paid for “blessing” food for sale, to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but not “hate” to disparage Christianity, for example, this legislation was sadly predictable.
“Hate,” in fact, is now most associated with criticism of Jews in the public mind. Why wasn’t it “hate” when the Soviets targeted priests and nuns for genocide following the Bolshevik Revolution? Why weren’t tax-funded “art” projects like “Piss Christ” considered “hate?” Instead, it was “hate” to object to it. Picture a government-funded “artist” creating something called “Piss Talmud,” with a copy of the Talmud, instead of a crucifix, submerged in urine. You know what the response to that would be. It certainly wouldn’t be called “art,” and it certainly wouldn’t be funded by taxpayers. We talk about American exceptionalism, but in reality our culture is fueled by Jewish exceptionalism. The “chosen” people. Their pain and suffering is different, and no mere gentile can hope to compete with it.
Anti-war students have been staging protests and demonstrations on a great many university campuses throughout America. A number of so-called “conservatives” have called for the police to arrest the students. Zionists groups accuse the students of “anti-Semitism” and demand that they be expelled from school. In fact, libertarians should welcome these protests. They bring back memories of the Vietnam War student protests that participated in, brought down the war-criminal LBJ.
The student protests today are actually quite moderate. They call for an end to genocide in Gaza and recognition of the rights of Palestinians who have been killed and had their land taken away from them. Let’s look at an example, the demonstrations at Columbia University, which are ongoing as I write.Don’t Look Left:…Saif, Atef AbuBest Price: $13.97Buy New $12.19(as of 05:13 UTC — Details)
Here is a statement about the way the Columbia University administration responded to the demonstrators, written by a number of philosophy graduates and alumni:
“We, current and former graduate students of the Department of Philosophy at Columbia University, are appalled at the decision taken on April 18th by the University President to violate principles of academic freedom and free speech by authorizing the forcible removal and arrest of 108 of our students and colleagues.
On April 18th, the President of Columbia University, in the name of “safety,” brought armed police into our campus to use physical force against students who had established a non-violent encampment in support of Palestine on Columbia’s South Lawn. The encampment did not disrupt classes. It did not block access to campus or buildings. Nevertheless, the police were called in after only a day. The President took this action against the recommendation of the University Senate, violating principles of shared governance established in the wake of the 1968 protests. As a result of these arrests and suspensions, students have sustained injuries, lost access to Columbia health services, and been evicted from student housing with less than 15 minutes to gather their belongings.
This followed months of tensions at Columbia since the horrifying events of October 7th and the devastating aftermath. These events have been the topic of difficult and traumatizing discussion. Columbia’s administration could have responded by promoting dialogue and mutual understanding. Instead, the administration heavily restricted speech on campus and disproportionately acted to silence one voice in particular – the voice of those protesting against the ongoing oppression and killing of Palestinians. It was in this environment of institutional repression that the student protesters decided to take action.
The University’s decision to arrest student protesters was thus the culmination of months of restriction against the public expression of support for Palestinians. The past few years have seen an alarming trend of bad faith political actors attempting to silence political speech they disagree withby policing academic institutions, thereby undermining elementary principles of academic autonomy. Columbia’s Board of Trustees has demonstrated more interest in appeasing these external forces than responding to the needs of their students, as have the administrations of other universities. We have witnessed the actions of police at other college campuses where professors are thrown to the ground and department chairs are dragged away in zip ties. Regardless of where we stand on the issue of Israel and Palestine, we should all agree that such attempts to suppress discourse are utterly unacceptable in any decent society committed to liberal principles.
As educators, we believe that it is our special responsibility to speak out when the University denies students the right to freely pursue their education. And as philosophers, we have a duty to uphold the values of free thought and open discourse, just as Sidney Morgenbesser and other members of our department did in 1968.
We therefore unequivocally condemn President Minouche Shafik’s decision. We call for the reversal of student suspensions and for departments to refuse to comply with university investigations or sanctions of students and employees participating in non-violent political action. We oppose further efforts from the administration to forcibly remove the new encampment, and call on the Columbia administration to commit to never again call police onto campus to suppress student speech. The best path forward, in our view, is for the administration to continue to negotiate with the representatives of Columbia University Apartheid Divest in good faith and without further threats.
Signed,
Current graduate students and alumni of the Department of Philosophy at Columbia University “ See here.
The faculty who are supporting the students aren’t extreme left-wingers. To the contrary, they are appalled by the extreme actions taken by university administrators, who are responding to pressure from pro-Israeli donors. Here is another example, signed by many eminent scholars at Yale University. The statement points out that the students had a very moderate demand. They wanted the university to divest in companies that were shipping arms to the Middle East:
“To the President, Provost and Deans of Yale University,
We write as Yale faculty to condemn the criminalization of Yale students engaged in recent acts of peaceful protest. We demand that the University administration call to drop all charges against the 48 protesters, that no further disciplinary action be taken against those who were arrested, and implore Yale to never again facilitate the arrest of protesters for acts of peaceable speech and assembly on campus. Students must be free to protest, assemble and speak on campus about the urgent moral matters of our time.
The University’s decision to call in the New Haven Police Department on Monday contradicts the institution’s commitment to uphold free assembly, speech and expression. These values are ones that we as faculty are deeply committed to, and teach extensively in our classrooms across departments, disciplines, and schools. The University cites infractions regarding use of outdoor campus space as the cause for calling in the police, but these infractions do not warrant arrests. Also, false reporting and misrepresentation of the protests and the targeting of individual students therein is indefensible, potentially illegal and puts student safety and well-being in jeopardy. A case in point is Yale College’s Dean falsely asserting the violence of protesters, for which he soon after apologized. As is now standard in these ongoing smear campaigns against student organizers and protesters, the damage was already done.
The 48 protesters arrested now face Class A misdemeanors under Connecticut law, which carry possible penalties of up to 364 days in jail. Threatening students with sanctions of this kind is unconscionable and should not be the means by which Yale responds to peaceful protest. Many similar protests have taken place in recent years in this same plaza, including a 25-foot wooden boat shed that was allowed to remain for weeks as part of a graduate student union protest, and without reported arrests.
Students are currently demanding that Yale disclose and divest from profiting off of investments in weapons manufacturing, which is facilitating atrocities globally. These protests echo divestment protests made during South African apartheid, which also led to encampments lasting for years, and eventually led to Yale’s divestment.
Many of us witnessed the protests of the last several days, and saw peaceful, disciplined, organized and committed action, reinforcing our institution’s mission and values. This student movement has been supported by a coalition of activists and groups, including Yalies4Palestine and Yale Jews for Ceasefire, whose strong and ongoing presence belies the false equation and ongoing divisive narrative regarding antisemitism and advocacy for Palestinian lives. We are dismayed and outraged both by the misleading media coverage of events on campus and the administration’s willingness to spread or repeat speculation that the protests might turn violent or hazardous.
The university’s response has detracted from meaningful dialogue about a way forward to end destruction, violence and war. The use of policing, penalization and retribution to avoid protest or dialogue with students cannot stand, as this is no model for an educational institution. Yale must immediately change course.” See here.
But what are the students protesting about? For decades, Israel has pursued a brutal policy of force. The Palestinians are treated as subhuman, lacking all dignity. The Israeli policy toward Gaza amounts to genocide. The philosopher Alex Gourevich provides a succinct account:
“Post-Oslo, successive Israeli governments abandoned any serious effort to resolve the Palestinian question through politics. Instead, they chose force. Instead of facing the question of how Palestinians might live on the land as equals, these governments decided to provide Israeli Jews with a security guarantee by force.
This was not a stable situation. The only real basis of security was and is inescapably political because only a political resolution gives everyone a reason to follow the rules. A political settlement, which involves some institutionalized mutual recognition of each others’ claims, is the only basis for developing trust, which in turn is the basis for genuine security.
Instead, the post-Oslo approach made the Israeli state into something more like an ethnic protection racket than one even nominally committed to the equal rights of those subject to its authority. By the time the blockade of Gaza, the militarization of the West Bank, and the increasing legal precariousness of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship came to a head, it had become clear that any two-state solution was a thing of the past. Israel’s successful destruction of Palestinians’ national aspirations, and the multi-pronged cordon sanitaire of its post-Oslo strategy effectively incorporated the Palestinians into the state—the one-state—by force. The more the Israeli state has extended its domination over Palestinians, the more it has to pretend it is not responsible for them. The Netanyahu government’s attempt to represent its violence as a war against foreign invaders is an extreme effort to maintain the two-nation charade, even while the illusion collapses under the weight of tanks and JDAMs.
The only way you can safely ignore a population whose claims you are unwilling even to entertain—in the sense they were entertained under the Oslo Peace Process—is to eliminate them. Force is a solution to the security problem only in that sense and only when you are willing to go all the way. So far, Israel has not shown itself willing to ethnically cleanse its entire Palestinian population, though it is increasingly looking like the Israeli government might be making that horrific choice in Gaza. Though the Netanyahu government has tried to lay its actions at the feet of Hamas, it is Israel that is the vastly superior force in this situation. That government is responsible for its decisions.” See here.
Of course, the Israelis don’t want people to know what they are doing to Gaza. It is only logical that they go after the people who are doing that—the journalists. Michael Hudson, who worked with Israeli intelligence agents at Herman Kahn’s Hudson Institute, exposes them:
“So, Herman’s focus was on systems analysis. You define the overall aim and then you work backward. How do you do it? Well, you can see what the Israeli policy is today. First of all, you isolate the Palestinians and strategic hamlets. That’s what Gaza had already been turned into for the last 15 years. It’s been carved up into districts requiring electronic passes from one sector to another to go into Israel, to go to Jerusalem, or to go to Israel for jobs to work.
The aim all along has been to kill them. Or first of all, to make life so unpleasant for them that they’ll emigrate. That’s the easy way. Why would anyone want to stay in Gaza when what’s happening to them is what’s happening today? You’re going to leave. But if they don’t leave, you’re going to have to kill them, ideally by bombing because that minimizes the domestic casualties. Israel doesn’t want its soldiers to die any more than Americans do. So, the American form of war, as it was in Vietnam, is bombing them. You don’t want person-to-person contact because people fighting for their lives and liberty tend to be better fighters because for them it’s really essential. For the others, they’re just doing soldier’s work.
So, the genocide that you’re seeing today is an explicit policy, and that was a policy of the forefathers, the founders of Israel. The idea of a land without people was a land without Arabs in it, the land without non-Jewish people. That’s really what it meant. They were to be driven out starting even before the official funding of Israel, the first Nakba, the Arab Holocaust. And the two of the Israeli prime ministers were members of the Stern gang of terrorists. The terrorists became the rulers of Israel. They escaped from British jail and they joined to found Israel. So, what you’re seeing today is the final solution to this plan. And the founders of Israel were so obsessed with the Nazis, essentially, they wanted to do to them what they did to us, is how they explained it to people.
But as the United States learned in the Vietnam War, populations protest, and the U.S. population protested against the Vietnam War. What the Biden administration wants to avoid is the situation that President Johnson had in 1968. Any hotel, any building that he went to, to give a speech for his re-election campaign, there were crowds shouting, LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? President Johnson had to take the servants entrance to get away from the press so that nobody would see what he was doing. And essentially, he went on television and resigned.
Well, to prevent this kind of embarrassment, and to prevent the embarrassment of journalists who were doing all this, Seymour Hersh described the [Mai Lai] massacre, and that helped inflame the opposition to Johnson. Well, President Biden, who’s approved Netanyahu’s plan, the first people you have to kill are the journalists. If you’re going to permit genocide, you have to realize that you don’t want the domestic U.S. population or the rest of the world to oppose the U.S. and Israel. You kill the journalists.” See here.
Let’s get back to the student protestors. War-criminal Bibi Netanyahu doesn’t like the protests, for obvious reasons, and he has ordered his followers to attack them. The followers, including his followers in Congress, have hastened to do his bidding. Here is a story in the New York Times about it:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Wednesday that protests at U.S. universities against Israel’s war in Gaza were “horrific” and should be stopped, using his first public comments on the subject to castigate the student demonstrators and portray them as antisemitic.
Mr. Netanyahu’s comments could harden division over the demonstrations. They could also give ammunition to Republican leaders who have criticized the protesters and accused university administrators and Democrats of failing to protect Jewish students from attack.
“What’s happening in America’s college campuses is horrific,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Antisemitic mobs have taken over leading universities. They call for the annihilation of Israel. They attack Jewish students. They attack Jewish faculty.”
In portraying the antiwar protesters as antisemites, Mr. Netanyahu is aligning himself with some Republican leaders, who have sharply criticized university leaders and the Biden administration for doing too little to crack down on the protests.
Last month, Mr. Netanyahu spoke to Senate Republicans via a video link during a closed lunch meeting and criticized the Democratic majority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Mr. Schumer, who is a Jew, had said in a speech on the Senate floor that Mr. Netanyahu was an impediment to peace in the Middle East and called for a new election to replace him.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a conservative Republican, visited Columbia University in New York, the site of one of the most prominent of the student protests. Mr. Johnson said that President Biden should take action, including potentially sending in the National Guard, to quell the protests at Columbia, which he asserted had grown violent and antisemitic.” See here.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also acted as a Netanyahu stooge:
“As word got out that pro-Palestinian protesters were planning to occupy a lawn on the University of Texas campus, Gov. Greg Abbott made a dramatic move: calling in more than 100 state troopers with orders to clear them out.The Camp of the SaintsJean RaspailBest Price: $19.95Buy New $78.00(as of 07:40 UTC — Details)
With that decision, which led to dozens of arrests amid video of riot-clad troopers on campus, Abbott sought to reassure his party — and the rest of the country — that Texas would not countenance a replay of the extended protester camp at New York’s Columbia University.” See here.
The stooges in Congress want to ban the popular social media network Tik Tok, because many students have learned what is going on in Gaza from Tik Tok posts:
“Members of Congress, conservative activists and wealthy tech investors are renewing calls to ban TikTok in the U.S., arguing that the most popular content related to the Israel-Hamas war on the app has a pro-Palestinian slant that is undercutting support for Israel among young Americans.
Now, critics allege that TikTok is using its influence to push content that is pro-Palestinian and contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests.
The renewed calls for a ban took off after Jeff Morris Jr., a tech venture capitalist and former executive with the dating app Tinder, wrote a series of posts on X last week. In his viral thread, Morris wrote about a “TikTok War” in which high schoolers and college students are getting the “wrong information” about Hamas and Israel. Information about the Israel-Hamas war has become highly contentious and polarized across social media, including on TikTok.
Morris’ thread had over 9 million views Tuesday, according to X’s public metrics.
“When I engaged with one post on TikTok supporting opposing views, my entire feed became aggressively anti-Israel,” Morris wrote. His experience aligns with reporting about how TikTok’s algorithmic function — which has drawn controversy — works: Engaging with a topic signals to the app that similar content should be served to the user.
Morris also posted a screenshot of suggested hashtags generated by searches of the terms “Stand with palestine” and “Stand with israel” via TikTok’s search bar. The hashtag “standwithpalestine” had 3.4 billion views worldwide as of Tuesday night, while “standwithisrael” had 313.6 million views worldwide — a more than 10-to-1 ratio.
“Israel is losing the TikTok war by a longshot,” Morris wrote.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was among the people who reshared Morris’ thread on X. A longtime critic of TikTok who has sponsored legislation to ban the app, he alleged that it was a “Chinese spy engine” and a “purveyor of virulent antisemitic lies.” See here.
Let’s do everything we can to support the heroic student protestors against genocide in Gaza!
The US and Saudi Arabia are reportedly getting closer to a major deal that would “reshape the Middle East” and add to the region’s security.
The Biden administration will only sign a defense pact with Saudi Arabia if the kingdom agrees to normalize relations with Israel, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has made it clear in an interview with The Financial Times.
“The integrated vision is a bilateral understanding between the US and Saudi Arabia combined with normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, combined with meaningful steps on behalf of the Palestinian people. All of that has to come together…you can’t disentangle one piece from the others,” Sullivan said.
Normalization between Riyadh and Tel Aviv is “the path that we [the US] believe could produce a more secure Israel and a more peaceful region,” he added.
The US national security advisor also said that all the US can do is “work out what we think makes sense” and “try to get as many countries in the region on board with it and then present it, and it will ultimately be up to the Israeli leadership and frankly ultimately the Israeli people can decide whether that’s a path they want to take or not.”
The remarks come a few days after State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters that Washington is “very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of the package between the United States and Saudi Arabia.”
Riyadh, however, made it plain that it will not sign off on the deal unless there is calm in Gaza and a path to an independent Palestinian state, according to Miller.
Bloomberg News earlier reported that the US and Saudi Arabia are “nearing a historic pact” to offer the kingdom “security guarantees and lay out a possible pathway to diplomatic ties with Israel, if its government brings the war in Gaza to an end.” Per Bloomberg, if signed, the pact would “potentially reshape the Middle East.”
In January, media reported that Saudi Arabia had resumed negotiations with the US on a defense deal after a three-month pause due to the escalation in the Middle East following the Palestinian militant group Hamas’ sudden attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The violent ambush led to the Jewish state launching a ground military operation in Gaza, which is also being devastated by Israeli airstrikes that have already killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, according to Hamas health authorities.
In early August 2023, Washington and Riyadh agreed to broad contours of a potential deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In September of that year, however, media cited a source in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office as saying that Riyadh had informed Washington of the termination of negotiations on a Saudi-Israel normalization deal.
The United States launched a process to normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world in 2020. As a result of these efforts, in September 2020, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed a set of documents known as the Abraham Accords, and were joined by Morocco in December of that year. In January 2021, Sudan also signed the declarative section of the Accords, but did not sign the relevant document with Israel, unlike other states, due to disagreements between the Sudanese military and civilian leadership over the issue.
Der Friedensstifter 