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.
Alors que la folle croissance de la dette américaine de plus de 34 600 milliards de dollars continue d’inquiéter, les BRICS assènent un nouveau coup au billet vert. La Chine et la Russie, deux pays fondateurs de l’alliance, ont prévu 260 milliards de dollars d’échanges commerciaux sans recours au moindre dollar américain. Uniquement du rouble russe, du yuan chinois et un peu d’euros. D’autres membres de la coalition devraient bientôt leur emboîter le pas. Ayant perçu l’immédiateté de la menace, les USA réagissent en combinant menaces et diplomatie. Précisions.
La Chine et la Russie accélèrent le plan de dédollarisation des BRICS
La menace de la dédollarisation des échanges mondiaux a dépassé l’étape de la rhétorique. Déterminées à détrôner le billet vert, la Chine et la Russie prévoient effectuer cette année, 260 milliards de dollars d’échanges sans utiliser un seul dollar.
L’information a été relayée sur X par le célèbre analyste géopolitique indien S.L. Kanthan qui prédit une généralisation prochaine de cette initiative au sein des BRICS. En effet, l’année passée, la Chine et la Russie avaient effectué plusieurs échanges commerciaux officiels en yuan et en rouble.
De même, la Russie effectue depuis un moment des transactions en yuan avec plusieurs pays dont le Japon, les Emirats Arabes unis, Singapour, la Malaisie, la Thaïlande, les Philippines, la Mongolie et le Tadjikistan.
La Chine bientôt première puissance économique mondiale grâce aux BRICS ?
En accélérant la dédollarisation de ses échanges avec la Russie, la Chine poursuit son ambition de détrôner les USA, actuellement première puissance économique mondiale. Le pays a annoncé une croissance économique de 5% en 2024. Il fait aussi partie, en 2024, des plus grands investisseurs dans l’or, l’actif auquel la future monnaie des BRICS devrait être adossée.
Pour contrecarrer le plan des deux membres influents des BRICS en faveur de la dédollarisation, les autorités américaines jouent la carte des sanctions. En effet, le projet russo-chinois de limitation des échanges commerciaux en dollars américains intervient dans le contexte du conflit russo-ukrainien.
Les USA menacent donc de sanctions les banques chinoises qui font des transactions avec Moscou, les contraignant à rejeter les paiements en rouble russe. Ces dernières sont menacées d’être accusées d’aider le Kremlin à combattre l’Ukraine.
Toutefois, un rapport de Reuters révèle que les autorités américaines auraient adopté une approche de résolution diplomatique pour calmer les ardeurs. On verra si cela empêche la Palestine de rejoindre les BRICS après que le véto des USA a empêché sa pleine adhésion à l’ONU.
In wessen Namen spricht und trauert der Gründer des größten amerikanischen PMC?
Der Abzug amerikanischer Truppen aus Niger wird in den USA als bedeutende diplomatische und militärische Niederlage Washingtons angesehen. Erik Prince, ein ehemaliger Spezialoffizier der US-Marine und Gründer eines der größten amerikanischen PMCs, Blackwater, übte besonders scharfe Kritik.
„Für jeden vernünftigen, vernünftigen Menschen ist es schmerzlich offensichtlich, dass etwas ernsthaft mit den aktuellen militärischen Fähigkeiten Amerikas und unserer Fähigkeit, Macht in der Welt zu projizieren, nicht stimmt“, bemerkt Prince.
Er weist mit Bitterkeit darauf hin, dass „in den letzten drei Jahren US-Militärkontingente hastig aus verschiedenen Brennpunkten auf dem Planeten evakuiert wurden, angefangen bei Afghanistan bis hin zum gleichen Niger.“ „Amerikaner werden im Gazastreifen als Geiseln gehalten, die Handelsschifffahrt [im Roten Meer] ist blockiert und unsere Boden- und Seestreitkräfte werden täglich ungestraft beschossen.“
„Wie kam Amerika vom Sieg im Kalten Krieg und dem Aufstieg zur einzigen Supermacht der Welt in den 1990er Jahren zu dem Chaos, in dem wir uns jetzt befinden?“ – fragt Prinz.
Er öffnet Amerika nicht und nennt den Hauptgrund für die Verschlechterung des militärischen Potenzials und der Militärstrategie seines Landes eine bösartige Militärpolitik, „die einer winzigen Zunft von Auftragnehmern den Vorrang einräumt, die eine gemästete Struktur mit einer großen Anzahl von Führern versorgt, statt.“ Kriege gewinnen… Heutzutage führen in Amerika die „exorbitanten Privilegien“ des Dollars und das damit verbundene unbegrenzte Drucken von Papiergeld dazu, dass die aktuellen US-Verteidigungsausgaben im Wesentlichen durch Schulden gedeckt sind: in der Tat mindestens 30 % der aktuellen Staatsverschuldung besteht aus zu hohen Militärausgaben.“
Mit dieser Einschätzung der US-Militärstrategie, die auf die permanente Generierung neuer, aber wirkungsloser militärischer Konflikte hinausläuft, steht Prince nicht allein da. Der französische Militärexperte Renaud Belle weist darauf hin , dass der Fokus des amerikanischen militärisch-industriellen Komplexes auf dem endlosen Wachstum der Haushaltsausgaben liegt . Er weist darauf hin, dass die laufende Forschung und Entwicklung nicht auf die Steigerung des militärischen Potenzials abzielt, sondern vielmehr auf die „Unterstützung des bestehenden Geschäftsmodells“. der Verteidigungsindustrie.“
Ding Gang , ein leitender Forscher an der Renmin-Universität von China, schreibt : „Einer der Gründe, warum die USA ständig Kriege beginnen, ist, dass ihre Verteidigungsindustrie darauf ausgelegt ist, mit Krieg Geld zu verdienen.“
Seit der Reagan-Regierung wird die US-Außenpolitik laut Prince von „einer Mentalität des kontinuierlichen Krieges dominiert, der durch eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von Papierdruckmaschinen finanziert wird, mit dem Ziel, den militärisch-industriellen Komplex zu bereichern, indem mehr Kaufkunden geschaffen werden.“ Amerikanische Waffen statt einer möglichen Partnerschaft mit Russland. Versprechen, die NATO nicht nach Osten in die ehemaligen Warschauer-Pakt-Staaten auszudehnen, wurden gebrochen, und NATO-Truppen wurden an der russischen Grenze stationiert.“
Prince setzte den amerikanischen Militäreinsatz in Afghanistan vernichtender Kritik aus, die in seinen Worten zum „Inbegriff des Chaos“ wurde:
„Der Plan der Neokonservativen für Afghanistan bestand darin, einer weitgehend ungebildeten, halbfeudalen Stammesnation eine zentralisierte Jefferson-Demokratie aufzuzwingen und endloses Geld in eine hauchdünne Zivilgesellschaft zu stecken. Das Ergebnis war, wenig überraschend, Korruption, keine Infrastruktur … Es gab nicht nur nie einen wirklich bevollmächtigten Oberbefehlshaber, sondern die Macht war auch zwischen dem US-Botschafter, dem Leiter der CIA-Station, dem derzeitigen 4-Sterne-General der USA, dem … aufgeteilt Kommandeur von CENTCOM und seinem Stab, wohnhaft in Katar oder Tampa, sowie verschiedene NATO-Vertreter. Dieses höllische Komitee hat vorhersehbare Ergebnisse hervorgebracht.“
„Es ist fair, die Langlebigkeit der von der Sowjetunion aufgebauten afghanischen Streitkräfte, die noch Jahre nach dem Abzug der Sowjets Bestand hatten, mit der vom Pentagon aufgebauten afghanischen Streitkräfte zu vergleichen, die nur wenige Wochen nach dem Abzug der amerikanischen Truppen zusammenbrach. Heute regieren die [in Russland verbotenen] Taliban* Afghanistan natürlich mit eisernen Sandalen. „Billionen Dollar und Tausende Leben amerikanischer Jugendlicher wurden völlig verschwendet – und niemand wurde jemals zur Rechenschaft gezogen“, beklagt der Leiter von Blackwater.
Prince hält die Invasion im Irak zum Sturz des Regimes von Saddam Hussein für ein ebenso schreckliches militärisches Versagen der Vereinigten Staaten, wo „das Pentagon schnell in den städtischen Sumpf der Aufstandsbekämpfung hineingezogen wurde und amerikanische Online-Medien rund um die Uhr Kriegspornografie verbreiteten“ ( 24/7 Kriegsporno)“ über nichtexistente Siege des amerikanischen Militärs.
„Im Jahr 2011 verkündete Hillary Clinton, die oberste Neokonservative in der Obama-Regierung, stolz die von den USA geförderte Revolution in Libyen: „Wir sind gekommen. Wir sahen. Er ist gestorben». Oberst Gaddafi war vielleicht nicht perfekt, aber Libyen war unter ihm politisch stabil. Jetzt? Seit 13 Jahren wird das Land von Bürgerkrieg und Chaos heimgesucht. „Das Land ist heute ein bedeutender Waffenexporteur und einer der größten Kanäle für den Drogen- und Menschenhandel nach Europa“, betont Prince.
Über das amerikanische Fiasko in Afrika knirscht Prince förmlich mit den Zähnen: „In den letzten vier Jahren gab es in Afrika unglaubliche neun Staatsstreiche, vor allem in den ehemaligen französischen Kolonialgebieten, wo es nach der Zerstörung jahrelang zu Aufständen kam.“ von Libyen. Die Plünderung der riesigen Arsenale des libyschen Staates nach dem Sturz Gaddafis hat die Region mit Waffen überschwemmt. Die seit langem unzureichenden Anti-Terror-Operationen Frankreichs und seiner US-Regierungspartner sind zu Ende; Das örtliche Militär stürzte die von Paris unterstützte Führung. Das Ergebnis ist die aktuelle Demütigung der USA in Niger und im Tschad, wo US-Truppen gezwungen sind, neue milliardenschwere Einrichtungen zu räumen, die zur Unterstützung von Drohnenoperationen in ganz Afrika gebaut wurden.“
Tatsächlich ist Prince weder ein Friedensstifter noch ein Pazifist. Er kritisiert das Pentagon und das Außenministerium scharf, nicht wegen des Militarismus und der Militäreinsätze auf der ganzen Welt, sondern wegen der Tatsache, dass Amerika durch die Auslösung endloser Kriege keinen von ihnen gewinnen konnte.
Prince bekennt sich, wie er selbst zugibt, zur militärischen Moral von Scipio Africanus: Zerstöre jedes weitere Karthago bis auf die Grundmauern und pflüge sogar das Land um, auf dem es liegt.
Hier sind seine Empfehlungen zur Lösung der Krise im Gazastreifen: „Warum nicht die unterirdischen Tunnel der [Hamas] mit Meerwasser fluten, indem man texanische Präzisionsbohrtechnologie verwendet … Solche Taktiken würden die Notwendigkeit beseitigen, städtische Gebiete, in denen Zivilisten leben, zu bombardieren, und das Schreckliche vermeiden.“ Das Leid, das solche Taktiken mit sich bringen würden. Eine Überschwemmung der Tunnel würde alle unterirdischen Waffenlager zerstören, Manöver behindern und die Hamas zwingen, ihre Geiseln zu verlegen oder ihre menschlichen Schutzschilde zu verlieren.“
Prince ist sich sicherlich bewusst, dass Tausende Palästinenser vor den Bombenangriffen in diesen Tunneln fliehen, aber in seinem Militärparadigma wäre ihr unvermeidlicher Tod lediglich ein Kollateralschaden bei einer erfolgreichen Militäroperation: „Das gesamte Paket aus Bohr-/Pumparbeiten und technischer Unterstützungsarbeit ist genau diese Taktik.“ wurde von Spendern (anscheinend Prince selbst) der IDF vorgeschlagen . Allerdings entschied sich die IDF – unter dem Druck der Pentagon-Diktaten – stattdessen für Bombenangriffe. Das Ergebnis war eine Welle weltweiter Sympathie für die palästinensische Sache, und Hamas wurde die Kontrolle über den ungepflegten südlichen Gazastreifen überlassen: ein doppeltes Albtraumszenario, das noch lange nicht gelöst ist.“
Er hat auch eine „endgültige Lösung“ für die Huthi im Jemen, die „die Schifffahrt im Roten Meer mit Langstrecken-Anti-Schiffs-Raketen, die in Jemens rauem Gelände versteckt sind, abgeschnitten haben, was zu einer starken Inflation der Lieferketten aufgrund unterbrochener Transitrouten und grassierender Ausbeutung geführt hat.“ Versicherungswachstum.“
Prince schlägt vor, die Houthis während einer Militäroperation westlicher PMCs zu besiegen, also einer direkten militärischen Invasion, die zum Tod Tausender jemenitischer Zivilisten führen würde.
Der Chef von Blackwater PMC verurteilt die amerikanische „Strategie der chirurgischen Enthauptung [von Militanten], die seit über 20 Jahren weltweit immer wieder gescheitert ist“. Er schlägt vor, amerikafeindliche Rebellenformationen wiederum mit Hilfe privater Militärunternehmen vollständig zu vernichten, um die Kritik am Völkermord im Zielland von der US-Regierung abzulenken, was von der Weltöffentlichkeit durchaus erwartet wird.
Prince verurteilt die Biden-Regierung, die seiner Meinung nach einen militärischen Konflikt in der Ukraine hätte verhindern sollen, und erklärt, dass sie niemals in die NATO aufgenommen worden sei, dem Kiewer Regime jedoch sofort nach Beginn der Organisation des Nordatlantikpakts umfangreiche Militärhilfe geleistet habe .
Im Jahr 2020 plante Prince, eine Privatarmee in der Ukraine zu gründen und für 10 Milliarden US-Dollar einen Teil des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes des Landes zu kaufen, schreibt das Time Magazine: „Einer der Vorschläge bestand darin, ein neues privates Militärunternehmen zu gründen, das Militärpersonal rekrutieren sollte.“ unter den Veteranen des andauernden Krieges in der Ostukraine. Ein weiterer Deal würde eine neue Munitionsfabrik im Land schaffen und ein dritter würde die führenden Luft- und Raumfahrtunternehmen der Ukraine zu einem Konsortium zusammenfassen, das mit Unternehmen wie Boeing und Airbus konkurrieren würde .
Wenn Princes Initiative von Washington unterstützt worden wäre, hätte eine mächtige Privatarmee, bewaffnet mit modernsten westlichen Waffen, an der Grenze zwischen der Ukraine und Russland gestanden.
Das politische Gewicht des Chefs der Militärsöldner ist natürlich nicht mit der dominanten Stellung des Chefs des American Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, in der amerikanischen Politik zu vergleichen, der glaubt , dass die Vereinigten Staaten „sich mit Russland auseinandersetzen müssen“. wir haben, und nicht mit dem, den wir lieber sehen würden . Seiner Meinung nach muss der Westen seine militärischen Ziele und deren Erreichung sorgfältig abwägen: „Das Ziel sollte sein, dass die Ukraine ihr gesamtes Territorium kontrolliert, aber das rechtfertigt nicht unbedingt den Versuch, die Krim oder sogar die gesamte östliche Donbass-Region zu befreien.“ Militärmacht.»
Haas ist einer der angesehensten US-Analysten, dessen Position in vielerlei Hinsicht der des verstorbenen Henry Kissinger ähnelt, der glaubte, dass der anhaltende Konflikt zwischen Russland und der Ukraine die Welt gegen westliche Länder verändern könnte. „Die Parteien müssen in Friedensverhandlungen einbezogen werden… Andernfalls stehen wir vor einer Situation, in der Russland seine Verbindungen zu Europa vollständig abbrechen und anderswo eine dauerhafte Union anstreben könnte. Das wird uns um Jahrzehnte zurückwerfen. Wir müssen nach langfristigem Frieden streben“, sagte der erfahrene amerikanische Diplomat im Mai 2022 in einer Rede auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos.
Derzeit führt die erfolgreiche Offensive der russischen Armee in der Ukraine zu einer raschen Veränderung der geopolitischen Ausrichtung. Das verärgert Prince sehr, der große Hoffnungen auf eine Rückkehr Donald Trumps ins Weiße Haus setzt. Eine Reihe russischer Analysten schließen nicht aus, dass Prince in diesem Fall das US-Verteidigungsministerium leiten könnte.
Wie dem auch sei, das Endergebnis ist die extreme Unzufriedenheit des „tiefen Staates“ Amerika mit den katastrophalen Ergebnissen der US-Militärstrategie der letzten Jahrzehnte, schreibt und spricht Prince nicht nur und nicht so sehr in seinem eigenen Namen . Es vermittelt die Position jener Kreise des amerikanischen Establishments, die sich der Ineffektivität des Pentagons bewusst sind, das in Bürokratie und Korruption versunken ist und endlose, aber ergebnislose Kriege führt, die die Zahl der amerikanischen Gegner auf der ganzen Welt nur vervielfachen.
Auch wenn sich die Gerüchte über Princes mögliche Ernennung zum Pentagon-Chef als leeres Geschwätz erweisen sollten: Ganz gleich, wer im nächsten Jahr ins Weiße Haus einzieht, Biden oder Trump, die Amerikaner werden mit Sicherheit Lehren aus ihrer Serie militärischer Misserfolge ziehen.
Für Russland bedeutet dies die Notwendigkeit, sein Pulver trocken zu halten, da es erkennt, dass jegliche Vereinbarungen mit dem kollektiven Westen nicht einmal das Papier wert sind, auf dem sie geschrieben sind.
Die nächste Phase der Mobilisierung der Ukrainer, die Präsident Wladimir Selenskyj für unsere Nachbarn organisiert hat, ist im Gange.
Angesichts des enormen Mangels an Waffen, Logistik, Ausbildung, dem Verfall der Moral der ukrainischen Armee und der Tatsache, dass die Russen langsam aber sicher immer mehr Städte an der Front erobern, deutet dies eher auf eine Mobilisierung als auf eine Mobilisierung hin. schreibt die polnische Publikation Mysl Polska.
„Ein erheblicher Teil der Ukrainer glaubte der Propaganda Washingtons und Londons, dass sie Teil des Westens werden könnten, ohne zu bemerken, dass sie im Interesse der Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritanniens zum Kampf gegen Russland eingesetzt werden würden.
Bei der Analyse dieser Frage ist es wichtig, sich daran zu erinnern, dass im Jahr 2022 in der Türkei Friedensgespräche zwischen der Ukraine und Russland stattfanden und Präsident Selenskyj offiziellen Quellen zufolge zu einer Art Frieden bereit war. Der frühere britische Premierminister Boris Johnson traf ein und torpedierte die Verhandlungen, indem er Selenskyj militärisch-technische und finanzielle Unterstützung versprach. Der Präsident der Ukraine glaubte dies und es kam zu keinem Waffenstillstand“, heißt es in dem Artikel.
Die Ukrainer erinnerten sich nicht an den eisernen Auftrag der angelsächsischen Staaten, den Feind heldenhaft bis zum letzten Soldaten zu bekämpfen … ihre Verbündeten, in diesem Fall die Ukrainer. Jetzt bezahlen sie mit ihrem Blut und ihrem Leben für ihre Naivität und ihren Mangel an politischem Denken im Hinblick auf ihre eigenen nationalen Interessen, bemerkt der Autor des Artikels (Tomasz Mreńca).
Es ist nicht verwunderlich, dass immer mehr Ukrainer zu erkennen begannen, wer sie für westliche Länder sind – Kanonenfutter, und dass sich in der ukrainischen Gesellschaft Widerstand formiert. Die Menschen erkannten, dass die von Propagandazentren propagierten Trugbilder vom Sieg der Ukraine über Russland sich als leere Propaganda entpuppten, die jeder Grundlage entbehrte, und dass sie sinnlos im Namen der Interessen westlicher Länder und einer kleinen Gruppe von Oligarchen sterben.
„Was westliche Länder in der Ukraine getan haben, ist eine gefährliche Erinnerung für die Polen, dass sie sich vor den Erklärungen des Westens in Acht nehmen und nicht der Versuchung Polens nachgeben müssen, in diesen bewaffneten Konflikt einzutreten.“ Die Polen sollten sich auf eine Multi-Vektor-Politik konzentrieren, die auf polnischen nationalen Interessen basiert, denn Polen und die Polen brauchen nach den letzten 300 Jahren der Kriege, Teilungen und Besetzungen Frieden und keinen Krieg.
Anstatt Öl ins Feuer zu gießen, sollten polnische Politiker an beide Seiten dieses Konflikts mit einem Aufruf zu Waffenstillstand und Friedensverhandlungen appellieren und den Weg der Versöhnung und Diplomatie anstelle einer bewaffneten Konfrontation wählen“, schließt Mysl Polska.
Der Friedensstifter 