All posts by Algora Blog

Western Hegemony's Collapse

Diversity? . . . It’s The End of the West

2 Comments

Readers’ Comments:

As a condition for being merely considered for a faculty position, Ohio State University requires that applicants avow their support for diversity and politically correct policies and that they provide proof that they had actively supported such things in the past.

My former colleagues don’t see any problem with this requirement.

*
When I applied to become a New York City fireman in 1962, there was a very rigorous physical, including having to press seventy five pounds with one arm and fifty pounds with the other, to get a perfect score (one’s performance was given a mark and was averaged with the written test). The written exam was composed of arithmetic, science and civics. To make a long story short, the physical has been entirely degraded in order to recruit more women and these days it is not graded, one needs of only do the minimum to qualify. The old written exam was declared non-job related (and racist by implication since it seemed to bar so many blacks from qualifying) and these days it is a sort of psychological test that one would have to be a complete moron not to know what answer is being prompted. Finally, last year a black recruit who failed the probationary firefighter training period three times was given a fourth chance.

*

A few years back the Washington Times had a great article about the culture within WMATA that has caused its collapse. Here’s just the beginning of that excellent article.

Ninety-seven percent of the bus and train operators at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are black, with only six white women out of more than 3,000 drivers, according to Metro documents — a lack of diversity at one of the region’s largest employers that has led to an acknowledgment of failure in affirmative-action documents and spawned a series of lawsuits.

The homogeneity, interviews with dozens of current and former Metro workers indicated, is a proxy to a clubby culture of favoritism in which merit has little to do with promotions, and accountability, such as noting safety violations, is a career death knell. In typical examples, court and Metro records show, a black man who spent eight years in prison for dealing PCP was promoted to a high-level management position soon after his release, and whites in the same positions as blacks with far less seniority are inexplicably paid less.

With Metro’s budget chronically strained and reports of mismanagement coming more regularly than trains, interviews and internal records depict a likely root: an environment in which hardworking employees are actively excluded and those who rise are those willing to do the bare minimum — never causing a stir by flagging rampant safety violations, reporting malfeasance or proposing improvements.

“When the accident happened in 2009, I called a supervisor and said, ‘Is this the one we all dreaded?’ The way workers do their jobs, we all knew it was a matter of time. … The inept get promoted, and the capable get buried. Smart people were put in the corner, ostracized and given nothing to do,” said Christine Townsend, who sued Metro for discrimination and won.

It is a culture in which a white male engineer near completion of a Ph.D. was passed over for a management position in favor of a black man who was barely literate, multiple staffers said.

“The average rider wouldn’t believe the things that go on. There are so many easy things we could do to make the system better,” a station manager said. “But they’d never put me in charge because they know I’d make sure others actually did their jobs. They don’t want change. It’s go along to get along.”

Metro is a quasi-public agency that receives funding from the federal government, Maryland, Virginia and local jurisdictions to operate a regional bus and rail transportation system in the national capital area, but is not beholden to rules that apply to fully governmental entities. With a $2.5 billion operating and capital budget for fiscal 2012, Metrorail serves 86 stations and has 106 miles of track, while Metrobus serves the nation’s capital with 1,500 buses.

Metro’s affirmative-action plan notes that the 1.4 percent of its bus and train operators who are Hispanic and the 25 percent who are female of any race are “less than reasonably expected.” It does not make note of the 1.5 percent who are white.

Even in entry-level occupations typically dominated by Hispanics, there are virtually none at Metro. Only one laborer out of 67 is Hispanic; of 540 landscapers, carpenters and cleaners, only 22 are Hispanic. In the national capital region, Hispanics make up 13 percent of adults and blacks comprise 25 percent; white women constitute 29 percent.

“The odds of such a disparity occurring by chance are statistically infinitesimal,” Ronald A. Schmidt, a lawyer representing 12 white women exploring a class-action lawsuit, wrote in a 2003 letter. “There appears to be an entrenched network of African-American employees at WMATA that is able to steer jobs, promotion, training and other career enhancing benefit to persons of their own racial or ethnic group.”

The average Metro worker had a $60,000 salary, which rises to $69,000 including overtime. That is more than 71 percent of area residents who had an income in 2010, including 62 percent of whites, census records show.

White and Hispanic employees who allege discrimination have found a deaf ear at Metro’s civil rights office, whose 17 employees are black. Until at least 1999, that office tracked complaints via a handwritten ledger on a series of taped-together sheets of paper, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. The system “made determining statistics impossible,” said a civil rights employee from the time.

In recent months, such antiquated record keeping has allowed employees to steal thousands of dollars that electronic systems easily could have detected — and in more than one case, a culture of complicity has kept prosecutors from trying those who were caught because they feared no clean witness or proper records could be found.

“There’s a strong sense of nepotism, and it is the culture of Metro,” the civil rights employee said. “It was more of a buddy system than it was merit-based.”

Metro did not respond to requests for information about workforce demographics.

*
My understanding is that the NYC transit union is a militant Caribbean affair. In DC, 97% of the bus and train operators are blacks and marginal black engineers are promoted over whites with PhDs. This has resulted in a predictable outcome. The deteroration of Metro.

*

This reminds me of something similar I experienced in Houston. At the time I employed programmers for contract work. I was contacted by a Nigerian who offered to broker two million dollars in City of Houston contracts to upgrade its computer systems. Altho I had an established and experienced organization, I could not apply to obtain such contracts myself due to the racial preference system. The Nigerian had no organization, no employees, no experience, and no citizenship. But he had a PhD in computer science, which he told me he had obtained online “for life experience” in exchange for $1500. This qualified him, a recent immigrant, to go to the top of the list of MBE applicants and be awarded exclusive rights to these city contracts. The subcontract deal he proposed was no surprise: my programmers would do all the work at minimum wage while he would collect all the payments from Houston at full professional rates while he himself contributed nothing.

I think this situation, which springs from the MBE scam (thank you SCOTUS for creating the scam) coupled with the Tammany Hall like strangle-hold that race-conscious blacks maintain over Houston’s city government, pretty well matches the increasing number of businesses in Houston that I see hiring Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, etc., in short anyone with melanin and preferably a recent immigrant–but never whites. The people in these businesses, including some multinationals, in defense of this discriminatory employment policy against whites, reply “diversity”. This too I’ve been told personally.

*

Likewise, an illiterate illegal can cross over, from a Latin American country that has ZERO connection to the culture or history of the United States–never suffered ANYTHING, and he or she is automatically given preference once “in the system” (including college entrances). That’s what the democrats are selling to white women. And white women are totally ok with that.

That’s totally cool with blacks, I get that–they don’t care and aren’t thinking about the future (or seeing it). But white women(?), they sit back and vote for this and agree with this. Their own kids will take a backseat in everything from hiring preferences, to college, to other federal, local and state benefits.

*

Indians are not here to “save” America or even our tech industry. They are parasites here to turn the US into another shithole like India. If Indians were that smart, why is India such a shithole, did you ever think about that? Per the WSJ there are already at least 500,000 Indians in the US illegally. Search for “Microsoft tech support” on Google and call those mysterious 1-877-xxx-xxxx numbers all over Google search, 9 out of 10 are fecking Indian scammers pretending to be Microsoft tech support trying to download crap on to your machine to scam you. The more Indians we import, the quicker we’ll turn into another India. Go see for yourself what a shithole India is, then come back and tell us it’s a good idea to import more of these shit parasites to the US. “Best and brightest” my eye. It’s exactly because of clueless Americans like you that we are going down in flames.

*

Southern farmers didn’t live with other Whites. They lived with their black slaves. Nowadays White farmers live surrounded by illegal Hispanic Indian workers and their families on welfare.

They send their White children to schools that are 70 to 80 percent 80 IQ Hispanic Indian.

Cheap labor rules over ethnicity and even their children’s schools.

And there are almost no Jewish farmers in this country.

*

Actually, Whites did this. The 1968, the Affirmative Action Civil Rights Act was made law by a White male Senate and more than 90 percent White male Congress.

An all White male Supreme Court ruled against hiring of qualified Whites in favor of extremely unqualified Blacks in the Griggs vs Duke Power and Kaiser vs Weber cases.

Kaiser vs Weber was about the fact that Kaiser Steel mills required that applicants for foremen have a high school diploma.

All White male Supreme Court ruled against merit hiring in favor of unqualified non White hiring

It was a White male Government that did it. There were very few, almost no White women senators, cabinet members, judges, congress critters or even attorneys between 1968 to 1973 when affirmative action was implemented.

Blame your fathers and grandfathers generation, sometimes known as the Greatest Generation because it won WW2.

Anglozionism

Boris Johnson’s Chutzpah and ‘Deluge of Lies’ (20 in 2 Minutes)

Leave a comment

It’s time to take a stand

crosstalk_battling_narratives_youtube.png?itok=mlHiElPiCharles Bausman

Mr. Johnson is the gift that keeps on giving. Last week I reprinted an article by him from the Telegraph, with a few pointed words of introduction, and it was enough to expose him as a miserable liar. Well now he’s at it again.

Enough already!

Truth be told, I’m not sure Johnson even writes his own material. It has that ring to it of the recent Oxbridge grad, the recent hire at the Economist. They are so thoroughly mendacious that it is a little hard imagining him sitting there lying so shamelessly. It’s more like the kind of thing you have a pro write up, and then force old BoJo to sign with a gun to his head. I wonder what Kompromat they have on the old boy.

This past Tuesday in the Times of London, there appeared just such an article, all of 450 words. I timed myself reading it slowly, and came in at just under two minutes. Full text of his rabid effrontery follows below.

What struck me was what a magnficent number of lies the man (or somebody) managed to pack in to so few words.

He squeezed in: poisoning the Skripals, gassing the Syrians, illegally seizing Crimea, starting the Donbas war, hacking the Bundestag, supporting a genocidal war against the Syrian people, threatening European values and security, interfering in elections (plural), harboring ‘reckless ambition’, and that is just the first minute!

It so happens that none of these things are true, not in the least, which Mr. Johnson, and anyone paying attention knows very well.

The other thing that jumped out was the pot / kettle routine, falsely accusing the Russians of doing something unspeakably vile, while doing exactly that yourself. This is a deliberate technique, common in Jewish rhetoric. The effect is to momentarily, at least, confuse an honest person who has trouble imagining that someone could be so cynically, impudently, dishonest. Jews have a word for it: ‘Chutzpah’. No such word exists in other languages, for no other people engage in this sort of thing reflexively.

Johnson accuses the Kremlin of a ‘deluge of lies’, when it is precisely Mr. Johnson and the media (mostly Jewish owned) who back him who have launched such a deluge. He says ‘the cynicism of the (Russian) propaganda machine was exposed for all to see’, when in fact it is the cynicism and lying, the ‘Chutzpah’, one might say, of the Jewish media and Mr. Johnson which leaves one speechless. Mr. Johnson employs ‘Chutzpah’ in talking about ‘Chutzpah’, – it certainly does befuddle for a moment or two.

Johnson then ridicules the idea that the Skripal poisoning was a false flag, when in fact it is patently obvious that it was, and it is entirely obvious that Mr. Johnson was involved in its manufacture, judging from all the wild lies he immediately began trumpeting about the whole affair, clearly premeditated, and clearly on que. More remarkable ‘Chutzpah’.

Mr. Johnson is right, there was a time when this sort of thing was effective, but we live in an age of greater information transparency than those unfortunate times. Mr. Johnson is trying to pull a Tony Blair, a Colin Powell, an ‘Iraq’, but is not smart enough to realize that this just won’t work anymore, because he will immediately have a 100 people like me with substantial audiences hooting and heckling and ridiculing him, and social media in the millions lambasting him.

He must be particularly dense not to understand this.

Gentlemen, it is time we take action. The more these scoundrels are exposed by the transparency of our age, paradoxically, the more desperate their ploys, and the more extreme their lies. They remind one of enormous reptiles, overtaken by a changing world, unable to adapt, writhing in their misery as they go extinct, yet armed with nuclear codes and capable of doing a huge amount of violence, and spending vast amounts of OUR money. We live in fantastically dangerous times. Many observers have noted that strangely, this new, fake Cold War, is actually more dangerous than the old one, which was pretty awful.

I have written in detail about the role of the Jewish-owned media in this dangerous travesty, and how their lying will not stop unless we start calling them out on this, pointing out what is obvious, that it is a Jewish phenomenon. Many thousands of readers have responded and supported me on this. I’ve written about the ominous march to war over the past three weeks. I’ve written about the fact that it is mostly the Jewish media which endorse and support Mr. Johnson’s extreme mendacity.

We cannot let ourselves be intimidated by these psychopaths. If we simply join together and take a stand, we can stop them. I am raising funds to fight this menace – I explain in detail how and why in this article. So far the response has been very positive, people have sent in and pledged over $15,000 in 4 days.

Please join us and make a donation today. Unless we stand up and take responsibility for what is happening, it will never get better.

I, for one, HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

The full text of Johnson’s puerile concoctions follows below. I put in bold every lie that I noticed, and they came out to 22. See for yourself.

This. Must. Stop.

Please join our fundraiser today!

West takes a stand to halt reckless ambitions

The Times, March 27, 2018

Never before have so many countries come together to expel Russian diplomats. By last night, the total stood at more than 20 nations collectively deciding to remove more than 100 Kremlin officials. In the process these allies of Britain have consciously placed themselves at risk of retaliation.

Their principled stand in the aftermath of the use of a nerve agent in Salisbury on March 4 may well carry a price, perhaps in the form of some of their own diplomats being removed from Moscow, so I am deeply grateful to all the nations who have resolved to act. And I believe that yesterday’s events could become a turning point. Do not underestimate the effect of these measures on Russia’s networks of espionage. When the Foreign & Commonwealth Office evicted 23 undeclared intelligence officers from the Russian embassy in London, we eviscerated the Kremlin’s painstakingly assembled operation in Britain.

Yesterday’s action delivers a further blow from which Russian intelligence will need many years to recover. But I will resist any temptation to proclaim that the response was all about us. Our allies have responded because they share our view of the threat posed by the Kremlin to their values and security.

The use of a banned nerve agent on British soil falls into a wider pattern of President Putin’s reckless behaviour. In the past 4 years, the Kremlin has annexed Crimea, ignited the flames of conflict in the Donbas region of Ukraine, hacked the German Bundestag, interfered in elections across the world, sought to hide Assad’s use of poison gas and joined his onslaught against the Syrian people.

The common thread is Mr Putin’s willingness to defy the essential rules on which the safety of every country depends. Hence every responsible nation shares a vital interest in standing firm against him. Our allies have not been deterred by Russia’s usual tactics for avoiding pressure. Sure enough, the Kremlin began pumping out a deluge of lies almost as soon as Sergei and Yulia Skripal had entered intensive care. So far, my colleagues at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have identified 21 theories broadcast by the Russian state media, ranging from the sublime (Skripal overdosed because he was addicted to Novichok) to the absurd (America did it to “destabilise the world”) to the offensive (The UK poisoned its own city to spoil the World Cup).

There was a time when this tactic of sowing doubt might have been effective, but no one is fooled anymore. I believe yesterday was a moment when the cynicism of the propaganda machine was exposed for all to see. The western alliance took decisive action and Britain’s partners came together against the Kremlin’s reckless ambitions.

Eastern Europe Awakening

More Details about the Romanian Counter-Revolution – December 1989

Leave a comment

General Prosecutor Augustin Lazar handed over to President Klaus Iohannis the request for criminal prosecution in the Revolution dossier in connection with crimes against humanity against Ion Iliescu, Petre Roman and Gelu Voican Voiculescu, PÎCCJ reported on Monday.

“The Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice addressed to the President of Romania a request for the exercise of the constitutional and legal prerogatives regarding the request for criminal prosecution in connection with the commission of the offense against humanity, according to Article 439 para. ) a, g, i and k Criminal Code with the application of Article 5 of the Criminal Code to: Iliescu Ion, member and president of the Council of the National Salvation Front (dated December 22, 1989), de facto exerted executive power and the Central Legislature, behaving as a Government until the Decree-Law No. 2 of December 27, 1989, when the president of the council was given the role of a head of state, and the legislative powers of the council were separated from those of the executive, requiring authorization between December 22 and 27, 1989. Roman Petre, member of the Council of the National Salvation Front, dated December 22, 1989, officially named Prim Minister of the Government of Romania by Decree no. 1 of 26 December 1989 requiring authorization for the period 22 to 31 December 1989; Gelu Voican Voiculescu, member of the National Salvation Front Council of December 22, 1989, officially appointed Deputy Prime Minister of the Romanian Government by Decree no. 5 of December 28, 1989, which requires authorization for the period 22 – 31 December 1989 “, the communiqué of the General Prosecutor’s Office states.

On December 18, 2017, the Military Prosecutor’s Office announced that following the filing of evidence in the “Revolution” dossier, the investigators’ conclusion was that in December 1989 there was no power vacuum.

Military prosecutor Marian Lazar said at a press conference that there had been a military diversion since the evening of December 22, 1989, which was the main cause of numerous deaths, injuries and destructions.

Additionally, prosecutors have identified, including by testimonial evidence, the source of panic sound (issued on December 21, 1989, during Nicolae Ceausescu’s speech), which contributed alongside other elements to the disorganization of the Palace Square and triggering protests in Bucharest.

At the same time, prosecutors argued that there were pressures exerted on the commanders of UM 01417 Targoviste, the place where the Ceausescu couple was, but also orders from the top of the military hierarchy regarding the physical elimination of the presidential couple.

“It is undoubtedly the fact that the pressure existed, manifested itself on several levels, being the main cause of the numerous deaths, bodily injuries and destructions. The administered evidence highlighted the mechanisms of constant misinformation, with particularly serious consequences, launched through TVR, Radio Broadcasting and the military means of communication, thus being created, at national level, the well-known terrorist psychosis, as well as the way in which a series of diversionary military orders were transmitted, with particularly serious consequences. shows that in 1987 the armed forces of Romania imported two types of military firearms sound imitators, namely imitators for infantry weapons of the sound of fire at the barrel of the gun, and imitators of the parachute whistle, as well as a better understanding of the administered evidence.

At the same time, it was clarified the succession of events at UM 01417 Targoviste, the location where the Ceausescu couple was from the afternoon of December 22, 1989. The evidence revealed a constant pressure exerted on the commanders of this unit as well as the existence of orders from the top of the military hierarchy regarding the physical elimination of the Ceausescu couple, “said then prosecutor Marian Lazar. In addition, until the execution of the two, on December 25, 1989, three attempts were made for their physical liquidation.

The investigators stated that there is a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the emergency hearing of the former president and his wife, the actual trial, the real motivations behind this action and, subsequently, the execution of the Ceausescu spouses.

Former Prime Minister Petre Roman considers it “revolting” and ”extremely surprising” that the General Prosecutor, Augustin Lazar, has asked for a criminal prosecution to be conducted in his case in the Revolution file, arguing that during the period invoked he was in no position to influence military actions.

“First and foremost I have a feeling of revolt and total surprise, because I have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. If there were military actions in those days, in what capacity could I have influenced such military actions? I was a nobody at that time, I did not have any kind of official function, only on December 27, I became Prime Minister of Romania, this is the first point. Second, there were military actions and I was, for example, on the evening of December 21, one of those who survived certain military actions of repression: 39 comrades in the University Square area were killed, and there were also all those military operations in Timisoara, in which I could have lost my life, as How can I be in one way or another correlated with what is said in this criminal prosecution claim? That’s why I say it is totally and altogether revolting and even absurd, unless there’s a great deal of manipulation going on, because I was in no way qualified to get involved in any way with what the military orders were, those that led to the misery, the tragedy of the dead, especially those before December 22 and December 22 1989. I do not see any reference to any criminal investigation regarding those within the military units who gave the orders that led to the military actions. I personally did not have any position. Who was paying attention, in those days, to whom? One of those who participated in the Revolution? I insist and say that this is a demand that I categorically reject and which I consider extremely surprising, not to say very dubious from the point of view of its motivations,” Petre Roman told AGERPRES.

He pointed out that he had no capacity to give orders at that time.

“Do you know how many members the Council of the National Salvation Front there were (…) There were about 37, and anyway, the Council of the National Salvation Front was not in a position at the time to give orders.” The orders were from the institutions – The Ministry of Defense in the first place or the Ministry of the Interior, or what other institutions I do not know. “What was my connection with these institutions? None. What capacity did I have to influence them? Absolutely none,” he said. Petre Roman recalled that he was twice at the Military Prosecutor’s Office and testified. “I spent long hours there and told them what happened. I thought things were perfectly clear from the point of view of my participation, and now I see this demand, which I think is very surprising at best, but in any case misconduct is inappropriate with what I have experienced, never mind what I did in those days, and I’m talking about the period December 21 to December 26, 1989,” the former PM said.

The former prime minister did not want to comment on the fact that the prosecutor’s request also concerns Ion Iliescu and Gelu Voican Voiculescu.

“I have nothing to say about them, in this matter, because when a matter comes to justice every one … here, we are not talking about history. If you want to know what I think about what happened then you can consult a recently published volume called ‘About Passion in Time of Freedom’ in which I tell what I experienced at that time,” said Petre Roman. AGERPRES / (Autor:

Eastern Europe Awakening

Romania’s Tăriceanu unmasks Western puppet President Iohannis

Leave a comment

The president of the Romanian Senate, Calin Popescu-Tăriceanu, promises to the Romanian head of state, Klaus Johannis, in an open letter, that he will fight, together with all people of good faith, to “disrupt ‘the parallel’ state”, to find out the truth about the workings of this system and how the participants “usurp” the power designated by democratic elections.

“I promise you, Mr. President, that not only I don’t help the policy promoted by you, I’ll be fighting together with all the people of good faith, for the disruption of ‘the parallel state’, and to find out the truth about the mechanisms of this system and of the participants in the usurpation of the democratically elected Government”, – it is stated in the open letter addressed by Tăriceanu to Iohannis.

Tăriceanu said he is not afraid of the dossiers “made to order” by Codruta Kovesi [Chief Prosecutor at Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie] and by any other tools used by “the parallel state” for the apprehension, compromise, condemnation or removal from public life of political opponents.

“I start by expressing my regret about the attack that you launched today at my address as President of the Senate, totally unsuitable to the dignity of a President of the country, both in its language and in its argumentation. This manner of public expression reveals your state of nervousness which I can understand, but I can’t accept, a state generated by a series of truths about you that you might not agree, but which have become notorious and which I reiterated in public the other day. There are truths that not many dare to present in public for fear of retaliation by those using dossiers and handcuffs. Well, I’m not afraid of any fabricated dossiers at the command of your assiduous collaborator, Codruta Kovesi, or of any other tools used by ‘the parallel state’ for the arrest, compromising, even the conviction or removal from public life of your political opponents, said Tăriceanu, to the head of state.

The president of the Senate believes that the head of the state is “the product of occult forces”, with the role to execute the plans of the “parallel state”.

“[The evidence] is concrete. You said today that in Romania there are no occult forces, no forces of the underground and no ‘parallel state’. Yes, there are, Mr. President, and you are the product of these forces, having the role to execute exactly and on time the occult plans of the ‘parallel state’. Just don’t imagine that you won the 2014 elections for your non-existent political merits or for the illegalities you committed as Mayor of Sibiu! No. You have been chosen by ‘the parallel state’ to win elections because you are blackmail-able with your own criminal dossiers and, therefore, easy to be handled by those who really controls ‘the parallel state’. When it comes to political opponents, your favorite meme is: ‘criminal’. What adjective do you think would suit you, after you proved that your family obtained by forgery and use of forgery valuable residential properties in Sibiu in the period when you were Mayor?”, added Tăriceanu.

He supports his claim concerning the existence of the “state parallel” on the basis of the disclosures made in the parliamentary committees.

“My assertion that ‘the parallel state’ exists is based on the very many extremely concrete revelations, with subject and predicate, made by persons who have known the inner workings of the evil system. The revelations were made during hearings in the legitimate parliamentary committees and have become notorious through the media. For lack of arguments and not wanting the public to find out more, you have chosen the method of mindless denial of evidence and, in addition, you have also declined, as the head of the CSAT, to take remedies that would address the hardcore facts presented to the Parliament, although you had an obligation to do just that,” explained Tăriceanu in the open letter.

The president of the Senate says that “the parallel state” tried to reduce the Parliament to silence, but “failed”.

“You said about me that I’m obsessed with respect to ‘the parallel state’, which obsession appeared after the prosecutors brought me to the attention of the justice. In reality, things are exactly the opposite. My criticism is consistent with regard to the abusive practices of the DNA and SRI in the period under Maior — Coldea, in a word of the ‘parallel state’, and that criticism is the cause – and not the effect – of a dossier being produced against me. In addition, I remind you that I’ve been making these public criticisms for a long time, about 3 years. ‘The parallel state’, which keeps the President under its patronage, tried as in other cases to silence me, but what you see is that the prescription has failed,” said Tăriceanu.

He accuses Johannis of not wanting an independent Judiciary but one that would support the perpetuation of the mechanisms of the “parallel state”.

“With reference to my person, you said that I don’t ‘serve too well politically’. You’re right, I don’t serve too well the policy promoted by you. You have the right to express a point of view, but by the same token so do I. As a result, because the laws regarding the judiciary just happen to be on the Parliament’s agenda, I’ll share my opinion on this topic, to see who does not serve well politically. Mr. President, your desire, clearly expressed in official statements, is for the laws to remain as they are now. Are you satisfied with the work of DEA under the leadership of Laura Kovesi? You don’t mind all the proven abuses, you don’t mind brutal violation of human rights etc., you still want to be the one who nominates the heads of major Prosecutor Offices and the HCCJ, as this way you can control the Justice. This is in spite of the declarations by which you claim that you want a Justice system independent of politics. Your position on this issue is the most convincing evidence that you do not want an independent Judiciary, but one controlled by your lordship in support of the perpetuation of the mechanisms of ‘the parallel state’. Without this ‘parallel state’, you have no chance to survive politically,” believes the president of the Senate.

Tăriceanu recalled that, in February 2016, he submitted to Parliament a bill which proposed that the heads of the major Prosecutor Offices and the HCCJ should be appointed by the CSM and not by any political factor, such as is the President of Romania.

“Through this bill I wanted a real independence of Justice, but you have resisted the public will. On the one hand you declare that you have confidence in the CSM, but, on the other hand, you don’t want to give up control over the Judiciary. This sleight of hand makes bad policy. Last but not least, I draw attention to one of the other statements that you made today, by which you publicly came out against a decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the introduction of a threshold of monetary value for embezzlement charges [in conformity with EU Legislation] when prosecuting fraud under the article of ‘abuse of office’. In recent years it has been a custom required of political leaders not to politicize the decisions of the RCC by making public criticism of such decisions. It is a custom that I respected, for I respect the Constitution. You broke it and, even worse, you feed a so-called public opinion according to which the decisions of the RCC and the Constitution itself are respected only when they serve your own interests. It induces thus the perception that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are not binding, that they can be questioned and, therefore, that the fundamental Law of the State can be questioned”, said Tariceanu.

President Klaus Iohannis said on Thursday that in Romania there are no occult forces, no underground forces, and claimed that the president of the Senate, Calin Popescu-Tăriceanu, creates the impression sometimes that he is “a little obsessed”.

“In Romania there are no occult forces, no underground forces and with certainty there is no parallel state in Romania. (…) For a while I’ve followed the statements of the gentleman mentioned by you [i.e., Senate President, Mr. Tăriceanu], who was once even prime minister. He has said interesting things a few times, but for quite a while now, believe me, I don’t follow his statements, because he has become increasingly weird. Sometimes he creates the impression that he is a little obsessed. However, people who are a little bit obsessed do not make good policy, and, ironically, this behavior has been showing up more and more since the prosecutors have brought this gentleman to justice,” said Iohannis at the Cotroceni Palace.

AGERPRES/(AS — author: Livia Popescu, editor: Georgiana Tanasescu, online editor: Gabriela Badea)
Translated by Algora

Military Affairs, Western Hegemony's Collapse

Endgame in Syria: Trump Signals Withdrawal of US Troops

Leave a comment

By Nauman Sadiq for VT

In a momentous announcement at an event in Ohio on Thursday, Donald Trump said, “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now.”

What lends credence to the statement that the Trump administration will soon be pulling 2,000 US troops out of Syria – mostly Special Forces assisting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces – is that President Trump had recently announced to sack the National Security Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

McMaster represented the institutional logic of the deep state in the Trump administration and was instrumental in advising Donald Trump to escalate the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria. He had advised President Trump to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 8,400 to 15,000. And in Syria, he was in favor of the Pentagon’s policy of training and arming 30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

Both the decisions have spectacularly backfired on the Trump administration. The decision to train and arm 30,000 Kurdish border guards had annoyed the Erdogan administration to an extent that Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in Syria’s northwest on January 20.

After capturing Afrin on March 18, the Turkish armed forces and their Free Syria Army proxies have now cast their eyes further east on Manbij where the US Special Forces are closely cooperating with the Kurdish YPG militia, in line with the long-held Turkish military doctrine of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory west of River Euphrates.

More significantly, however, the US bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor on February 7 that reportedly killed and wounded dozens of Russian military contractors working for the private security firm, the Wagner group.

In order to understand the reason why the US brazenly attacked the Russian contractors, we need to keep the backdrop of seven-year-long Syrian conflict in mind. Washington has failed to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. After the Russian intervention in September 2015, the momentum of the battle has shifted in favor of the Syrian government and Washington’s proxies are on the receiving end in the conflict.

Washington’s policy of nurturing militants against the Syrian government has given birth to the Islamic State and myriads of jihadist groups that have carried out audacious terror attacks in Europe during the last three years. Out of necessity, Washington had to make the Kurds the centerpiece of its policy in Syria. But on January 20, its NATO-ally Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch against the Kurds in the northwestern Syrian canton of Afrin.

In order to save its reputation as a global power, Washington could have confronted Turkey and pressured it to desist from invading Afrin. But it chose the easier path and vented its frustration on the Syrian government forces in Deir al-Zor which led to the casualties of scores of Russian military contractors hired by the Syrian government.

Another reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working in Syria was that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which are mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of Turkish armed forces and allied Free Syria Army (FSA) militias.

Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor. The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian troops and Russian military contractors, consequently causing a massacre in which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives.

It would be pertinent to note here that regarding the Syria policy, there is a schism between the White House and the American deep state led by the Pentagon. After Donald Trump’s inauguration as the US president, he has delegated operational-level decisions in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to the Pentagon.

The way the US officials are evading responsibility for the incident, it appears the decision to strike pro-government forces in Deir al-Zor that included Russian contractors was taken by the operational commander of the US forces in Syria and the White House was not informed until after the strike.

Notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that unlike dyed-in-the-wool globalists and “liberal interventionists,” like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of political establishments, it appears that the protectionist Donald Trump not only follows news from conservative mainstream outlets, like the Fox News, but he has also been familiar with alternative news perspectives, such as Breitbart’s, no matter how racist and xenophobic.

Thus, Donald Trump is fully aware that the conflict in Syria is a proxy war initiated by the Western political establishments and their regional Middle Eastern allies against the Syrian government. He is also mindful of the fact that militants have been funded, trained and armed in the training camps located in Turkey’s border regions to the north of Syria and in Jordan’s border regions to the south of Syria.

According to the last year’s March 31 article [1] for the New York Times by Michael Gordon, the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and the recently sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had stated on the record that defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq was the top priority of the Trump administration and the fate of Bashar al-Assad was of least concern to the new administration.

Under the previous Obama administration, the evident policy in Syria was regime change. The Trump administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different perspective because Donald Trump regards Islamic jihadists as a much bigger threat to the security of the US.

In order to allay the concerns of Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East, the Trump administration conducted a cruise missiles strike on al-Shayrat airfield in Homs governorate on April 6 last year after the chemical weapons strike in Khan Sheikhoun. But that isolated incident was nothing more than a show of force to bring home the point that the newly elected Donald Trump is an assertive and powerful president.

Finally, Karen De Young and Liz Sly made another startling revelation in the last year’s March 4 article [2] for the Washington Post: “Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him.”

Thus, the interests of all the major players in Syria have evidently converged on defeating Islamic jihadists, and the Obama-era policy of regime change has been put on the back burner. And after the recent announcement of complete withdrawal of US troops from Syria by President Trump, it appears that we are approaching the endgame in Syria, an event as momentous as the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which will mark a stellar military victory for Vladimir Putin.

Sources and links:

1- White House Accepts ‘Political Reality’ of Assad’s Grip on Power in Syria:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/trump-bashar-assad-syria.html?_r=0

2- Pentagon plan to seize Raqqa calls for significant increase in U.S. participation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-plan-to-seize-raqqa-calls-for-significant-increase-in-us-participation/2017/03/04/d3205386-00f3-11e7-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html

About the author:

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

Cold War

Russian diplomat expulsions signal crude side of Western intentions

Leave a comment

Source: editorial Global Times Published: 2018/3/27

On March 26, the US, Canada, and several European Union countries expelled Russian diplomats from their respective foreign embassies and consulates in retaliation against Russia’s alleged poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. As of this writing, 19 countries, including 15 EU member states, have shown their support to Great Britain by enforcing such measures.

On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were rushed to a hospital after they were found unconscious at a park in Salisbury. It was later reported the father and daughter had come into contact with an obscure nerve agent. UK government officials said the Skripals were attacked by “Novichok,” a powerful Soviet-era chemical nerve agent used by the military.

The British government did not provide evidence that linked Russia to the crime but was confident from the beginning there could be no other “reasonable explanation” for the attempted assassination. Great Britain was so convinced of their Russia theory, they wasted no time taking the lead in levying sanctions against the country by quickly expelling Russian diplomats from London. Shortly afterwards, UK capital officials reached out to NATO and their European allies who provided immediate support.

The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression “perhaps it’s true” to seize upon the desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts.

The UK government should have an independent investigation conducted into the Skripal poisoning by representatives from the international community. An effort such as this would provide results strong enough for those following the case to make up their minds on who should or shouldn’t be accused of the crime. Now, the majority of those who support Britain’s one-sided conclusion happen to be members of NATO and the EU, while others stood behind the UK due to long-standing relations.

The fact that major Western powers can gang up and “sentence” a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice.

Over the past few years the international standard has been falsified and manipulated in ways never seen before. The fundamental reason behind reducing global standards is rooted in post-Cold War power disparities. The US, along with their allies, jammed their ambitions into the international standards so their actions, which were supposed to follow a set of standardized procedures and protocol, were really nothing more than profit-seizing opportunities designed only for themselves. These same Western nations activated in full-force public opinion-shaping platforms and media agencies to defend and justify such privileges.

As of late, more foreign countries have been victimized by Western rhetoric and nonsensical diplomatic measures. In the end, the leaders of these nations are forced to wear a hat featuring slogans and words that read “oppressing their own people,” “authoritarian,” or “ethnic cleansing,” regardless of their innocence.

It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications, and come to value their own judgement abilities.

It’s already understood that to achieve such international collective efforts is easier said than done as they require foundational support before anything can happen. Until a new line of allies emerges, multi-national associations like BRICS, or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, need to provide value to those non-Western nations and actively create alliances with them.

What Russia is experiencing right now could serve as a reflection of how other non-Western nations can expect to be treated in the not-to-distant future. Expelling Russian diplomats simultaneously is hardly enough to deter Russia. Overall, it’s an intimidation tactic that has become emblematic of Western nations, and furthermore, such measures are not supported by international law and therefore unjustified. More importantly, the international community should have the tools and means to counterbalance such actions.

The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action. With the Skripal case, the general public does not know the truth, and the British government has yet to provide a shred of evidence justifying their allegations against Russia.

It is firmly believed that accusations levied by one country to another that are not the end results of a thorough and professional investigation should not be encouraged. Simultaneously expelling diplomats is a form of uncivilized behavior that needs to be abolished immediately.

Military Affairs

“Military Schengen” ?

Leave a comment

On 28 March 2018, the European Commission presented its plan for the creation of a “Military Schengen” [1].

Although the reference to Schengen free movement agreements suggests the contrary, this “military Schengen” is not a European project but something Nato wanted. The aim of this Military Schengen is not to give the armies of EU member states a free pass to roam about EU territory without red tape being put in their way, but to extend this privilege to all NATO armies (including US, Turkish armies or Canadian armies).

JPEG - 37.8 kb

This plan must not be interpreted as being some way connected to the Skripal matter, which everyone is talking about today. Nato conceived this plan two years ago. It was already mentioned in a report by the European Parliament in October 2016. According to internal Nato documents, it could be implemented in two hypos: first, in the event of a war against Russia and second, in the case of a popular rising in a Nato member state. Between the lines is perhaps a third hypo: to enabling US armies to carry out a fireman role and extinguish riots in the popular suburbs of Europe’s big cities.

25 of the 28 Member^ states have received instructions to hand over detailed maps of all their communication routes and to specify the necessary works that would be carried out on their roads, tunnels and bridges to make them fit for Nato’s purpose. These countries have also been requested to reach an agreement for granting the necessary exemptions to the laws and regulations in force that prohibit the transport of arms and military materials on their territory.

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa

[1] Joint Communication to the European Parlament and the Council on the Action Plan on Military Mobility, JOIN(2018) 5 final, March 28, 2018.

Military Affairs

Theresa May’s Foreign Policy

Leave a comment

by Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan pursues his study of national foreign policies. After having analysed the policy of France, he now turns to that of the United Kingdom. While the former is considered to be the « private domain » of the President of the Republic, and as such, escapes the democratic debate, the latter, even more so, is elaborated by an elite gathered around the monarch, outside of any form of popular control. Thus the elected Prime Minister can do no more than implement the choice of the hereditary Crown. Faced with the failure of the US project for a unipolar world, London is attempting to restore its erstwhile imperial power.

JPEG - 23.2 kb

Global Britain

On 13 November last, Theresa May seized the opportunity offered by the Prime Minister’s annual speech at Lord Mayor’s Banquet to give an overview of the new British strategy after the Brexit [1]. The United Kingdom intends to re-establish its Empire (Global Britain) by promoting international free exchange with the help of China [2] and ejecting Russia from international instances with the help of its military allies – the United States, France, Germany, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Retrospectively, all the elements we can see today were mentioned in this speech, even if we didn’t immediately understand it at the time.

Let’s take a step back. In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the Munich Security Conference. He noted that the unipolar world proposed by NATO was by essence anti-democratic, and he called upon the European states to dissociate themselves from this US fantasy [3]. Without responding to this essential comment about the absence of democracy in international relations, NATO denounced Russia’s desire to weaken the cohesion of the Alliance in order to threaten it more easily.

However, a British expert, Chris Donnelly, has since refined this rhetoric. In order to weaken the West, Russia is allegedly attempting to delegitimise its economic and social system, the foundation for its military power. That would be the hidden motive behind Russian criticism, particularly in the media. Let’s note that Donnelly does not respond any more than did NATO to the essential remark by Vladimir Putin, although why bother debating democracy with an individual who is suspected, a priori, of authoritarianism?

I believe that Donnelly is correct in his analysis, and that Russia is correct in its objective. Indeed, the United Kingdom and Russia are two diametrically opposite cultures.

The former is a class-based society with three levels of nationality fixed by law and mentioned on all identity papers, while the latter – like France – is a Nation created by law, where all citizens are « equal in rights » and where the British distinction between civil rights and political rights is unthinkable [4].

The aim of social organisation in the United Kingdom is the accumulation of wealth, while in Russia it is the construction of one’s own individual personality. Therefore in the United Kingdom, the ownership of land is massively concentrated in very few hands, unlike Russia, and especially France. It is almost impossible to buy an apartment in London. The best that one can do – as in Dubaï – is to sign a 99-year lease. For many centuries, almost all of the city has belonged to no more than four people. When a British citizen dies, he or she decides freely to whom they will bequeath their heritage, and not necessarily to their children. On the contrary, when a Russian citizen dies, History begins again at zero – his or her property is divided equally between all the children, whatever the wishes of the deceased may have been.

Yes, Russia is indeed attempting to delegitimise the Anglo-Saxon model, which is all the more easy to do since it is an exception which horrifies the rest of the world as soon as they understand it.

Let’s return to Theresa May. Two months after her speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, on 22 January 2018, Her Majesty’s Chief of Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, gave a very important speech which was entirely dedicated to the coming war with Russia, based on Donnelly’s theory [5]. Drawing the lessons from the Syrian experience, he described an enemy who possesses new, extremely powerful weaponry. (This was two months before President Putin revealed his new nuclear arsenal [6]). Sir Nick Carter confirmed the necessity of having many more ground troops, of developing the British arsenal, and of preparing for a war in which the images broadcast by the medias would be more important than victory on the ground.

The day after this shock conference at the Royal United Services Institute (the Defence think tank), the National Security Council announced the creation of a military unit to combat « Russian propaganda » [7].

How is the British project developing?

Although the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons has cast doubts on the reality of the Global Britain project [8], several of its points have moved ahead, despite a huge setback.

It is important to understand that Mrs. May is not attempting to change, but rather to reorganise her country’s policies. Over the last half century, the United Kingdom has been trying to integrate the European structure, progressively losing the advantages inherited from its former Empire. The question now is not to abandon everything that was achieved during this period, but to re-establish the former world hierarchy, in which Her Majesty’s officials and the gentry lived in clubs all over the world, waited on by the local populations.

- In her journey to China the week following Sir Nick Carter’s speech, Theresa May negotiated several commercial contracts, but entered into political conflict with her hosts. Beijing refused to distance itself from Moscow, and London refused to support the Silk Road project. Free exchange, yes, but not via communication routes controlled by China. Since 1941 and the Atlantic Charter, the United Kingdom shares the charge of the « common spaces » (both maritime and aerial) with the United States. Their two navies are designed to be complementary, even though the US Navy is much more powerful than that of the Admiralty.
Thereafter, the Crown activated the government of its Australian dominion in order to reconstitute the Quads, the anti-Chinese group which used to meet during Bush Jr’s mandate [9]. Apart from Australia, this group is composed of Japan, India and the United States.
Presently the Pentagon is working on ways to create trouble on both the maritime Pacific Silk Road and the land-based Silk Road.

- The announced military Alliance was constituted in the form of the very secret « Little Group » [10]. Germany was weathering a government crisis at the time and did not participate at first, but it seems that this late start was rectified at the beginning of March. All the members of this conspiracy coordinated their actions in Syria. Despite their efforts, they failed three times to organise a false-flag chemical attack in Western Ghouta, since the Syrian and Russian armies had seized their laboratories in Aftris and Chifonya [11]. However, they did manage to publish a common anti-Russian statement concerning the Skripal affair [12] and to mobilise both NATO [13] and the European Union against Russia [14].

How might this situation evolve?

It is obviously strange to see both France and Germany support a project which was specifically designed against them: Global Britain, insofar as the Brexit is not a retreat from the federal bureaucracy of the European Union, but an act of rivalry.

In any case, Global Britain today may be defined as follows :
- the promotion of international free exchange, but exclusively in the thalassocratic context, in other words with the United States against the Chinese communication routes;
- and the attempt to exclude Russia from the Security Council and cut the world in two, which implies the on-going manipulation with chemical weapons in Syria, and the Skripal affair.

We may anticipate several incidental consequences of this programme:

- The current crisis is a reshuffle of the elements from the end of Obama’s mandate, except that London is now at the centre of the game rather than Washington. The United Kingdom, which can now no longer count on the support of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, will turn to the new US National Security Advisor, John Bolton [15]. Contrary to the allegations of the US Press, Bolton is absolutely not a neo-conservative, but a close friend of Steve Bannon. He refuses the idea that his country could be submitted to international law, and howls at Communists and Muslims, but in reality he has no intention of launching any new wars, and desires only to live at peace in his own home. He will not fail to sign all the declarations proposed to him against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. London will be unable to manipulate him to exclude Moscow from the Security Council, because his personal objective is not to reform the UN, but to get rid of it altogether. He will however be a faithful ally concerning the the conservation of the « common spaces » and the opposition to the Chinese « Silk Road », particularly since he was the initiator of the Proliferation Security Initiative – PSI in 2003. We should therefore begin to notice the outbreak, here and there, along the traces of the Chinese routes, of new pseudo civil wars nourished by the Anglo-Saxons.

- Saudi Arabia is preparing the creation of the « Neom », a new fiscal paradise in the Sinaï and the Red Sea. It should replace Beyrouth and Dubaï, but not Tel-Aviv. London will connect it with the Crown’s different fiscal paradises – including the City of London, which is not English, but depends directly from Queen Elisabeth – in order to guarantee the opacity of international commerce.

- The multitude of jihadist organisations which flows out of the Levant is still controlled by MI6, via the Muslim Brotherhood and the Order of the Naqshbandis. These troops may well be redeployed for use, mainly against Russia – and not against China or in the Caribbean, which is the option currently being studied.

After the Second World War, we were witness to the decolonisation of the European empires, and then, after the Vietnam war, we saw the financialisation of the world economy by the Anglo-Saxons, and finally, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we saw the solitary attempt at world domination by the United States. Today, with the powerful rise of modern Russia and China, the fantasy of a culturally globalised world governed in unipolar fashion is fading away, while the Western powers – and particularly the United Kingdom – are falling back on their own imperial dreams. Of course, the high level of current education in the old colonies is forcing them to rethink their models of domination.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] “Theresa May speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet 2017”, by Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 13 November 2017.

[2] By doing so, Mrs. May confirms the prognosis I published just after the Brexit, sixteen months earlier : “The new British Foreign Policy”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 4 July 2016. However, as I shall explain in the follow-up to this article, this vision was quickly confronted by the Russo-Chinese alliance.

[3] “The unipolar governance is illegal and immoral”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 11 February 2007.

[4] This is a fundamental question which was debated in depth by Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. It is is this irreconcilable difference that opposes the Anglo-Saxon concept of Human Rights (defined by the Declaration of Mary II of England in 1689) and the resulting system of parliamentary monarchy, on the one hand, and on the other, the French concept of Human Rights (defined by the Declaration of the National Constituent Assembly of 1789) which put an end to the three orders of the Ancien Régime.

[5] “Dynamic Security Threats and the British Army”, by General Sir Nick Carter, Voltaire Network, 22 January 2018.

[6] “Vladimir Putin Address to the Russian Federal Assembly”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 1 March 2018.

[7] “British army to create a unit against Russian propaganda”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 6 February 2018.

[8] “Global Britain inquiry”, Foreign Affairs Committee, UK House of Commons.

[9] “Stealing China’s thunder: the Quads’ counter project to the Silk route”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 23 February 2018.

[10] « Syrieleaks : un câble diplomatique britannique dévoile la “stratégie occidentale” », par Richard Labévière, Observatoire géostratégique, Proche&Moyen-Orient.ch, 17 février 2018.

[11] “Discovered: two laboratories of chemical weapons of “moderate” Syrian rebels”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 16 March 2018.

[12] “Salisbury attack: Joint statement from the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom”, Voltaire Network, 15 March 2018.

[13] “Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the use of a nerve agent in Salisbury”, Voltaire Network, 14 March 2018.

[14] “European Council conclusions on the Salisbury attack”, Voltaire Network, 22 March 2018.

[15] “John Bolton and Disarmament through War”, Voltaire Network, 30 November 2004.

Eastern Europe Awakening

Secret Protocol of the Romanian “parallel state” published

Leave a comment

The publication of the secret Protocol agreement between SRI (Serviciu Român de Informatii) and the General Prosecutor’s office reveals in large part the ugliness of the “Parallel State”, says Codrin Stefanescu, deputy secretary general of the PSD (Partidul Social Democrat).

“The publication of the secret Protocol agreement between SRI and the General Prosecutor’s office reveals the hideousness of what we call today “the Parallel State”. And that’s because the document demonstrates clearly and unequivocally the way in which the unhindered occult power worked, that constantly arrogated to itself the powers of the Romanian Parliament – I mean the legislative power, representing the popular vote, at the same time trampling the rights and freedoms won in December 1989: we have proof of how abuses were committed and are still being committed today on an unimaginable scale, demolishing the right to privacy: monitoring the private life of Romanians – going after any man against whom a criminal case has been opened, after his family, friends and everyone he knows; installing microphones even in the bedroom – right up to the point of making it into a job obligation to offer denunciations; we show that SRI conferred attributions in the criminal investigation, which are not its responsibilities according to either the laws governing the SRI or the Criminal Code”, Ştefănescu said in a press release sent on Friday to AGERPRES.

He argues that “the document shows that SRI provided the prosecution with the transcript of any intercepts they considered “relevant” to the case, and it confirms the existence of combined teams comprising prosecutors and SRI officers – which is prohibited by law, and it demonstrates the failure of the new criminal investigation procedures which stipulate very clearly that criminal investigations are to be carried out strictly by the prosecutor and the marshal, without any other interference. The document confirms the existence of a so-called “tactical field”, recognized by the Secretary General of SRI Dumitru Dumbravă, which allowed the Parallel State to stomp into criminal investigations in jack boots, to blackmail and intimidate judges, to decide sentences and throw the enemies of the “Parallel State” in jail, without any chance of defense, according to the deputy secretary general of the PSD.

According to him, “SRI officers were allowed to select fragments of intercepts, and thus shield a felon or a character found on the “white list”, or destroy the life of an innocent man who found himself on the “black list””.

“In conclusion, this secret Protocol signed between the SRI and the General Prosecutor’s office flagrantly violates the Constitution, all laws in force, democracy, the separation of powers, human rights and freedoms. By the way, now that it’s been declassified, it reminds us of a false statement by the DNA’s boss, Laura Codruta Kovesi, on January 27, 2017, who, through a press release, claimed that “there were no mixed teams of SRI-and-prosecutors”. So, from this point onwards, the Protocol is unquestionable proof on the basis of which we can talk about the criminal side of everything that’s happened outside the law and about whether those involved are fit for office,” said Stefanescu. AGERPRES/(AS – author: Cătălina Matei, editor: Florin Marin, online editor: Ada Vîlceanu)

It's All About Jews

Easter question: Is this what Christ died for?

Leave a comment

By Stuart Littlewood

Jeremy Corbyn taking the night bus home after a hard day in the Commons. How many other top politicians do this? The answer is none, they are all in it for the money.

They are the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, members of various Friends of Israel and assorted Israel lobby dogsbodies and flag wavers including Tony Blair.

The opening shot was a letter from the Board of Deputies to the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, saying: “Today, leaders of British Jewry tell Jeremy Corbyn that enough is enough. We have had enough of hearing that Jeremy Corbyn ‘opposes antisemitism’, whilst the mainstream majority of British Jews, and their concerns, are ignored by him and those he leads.”

It went on to complain that there was “repeated institutional failure to properly address Jewish concerns and to tackle antisemitism” and concluded that Corbyn issues empty statements about opposing anti-Semitism and cannot seriously deal with it because “he is so ideologically fixed within a far left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities”.

The insults continued with this gem: “Hizbollah commits terrorist atrocities against Jews, but Corbyn calls them his friends and attends pro-Hizbollah rallies in London. Exactly the same goes for Hamas.”

Has the BoD forgotten why Hezbollah and Hamas were founded in the first place? The idea that it’s OK to support Israeli terror and occupation but not OK to talk with those who resist it, is preposterous and Corbyn needs to rub their noses in it. Moreover Israel’s values are not necessarily ours, and their sworn enemies are certainly not ours.

Corbyn is also accused of being “repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly antisemitic views, but claims never to hear or read them”. The letter ends with the suggestion that Corbyn is part of “a conspiratorial worldview in which mainstream Jewish communities are believed to be a hostile entity, a class enemy”.

Corbyn sent an apology in which he was sincerely sorry for the pain caused by “pockets of anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party. But, he reasoned, “criticism of Israel, particularly in relation to the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people, cannot be avoided”. Nevertheless, comparing Israel or the actions of Israeli governments to the Nazis, or attributing criticisms of Israel to Jewish characteristics or to Jewish people in general, or calling supporters of Israel ‘Zio’, all count as contemporary anti-Semitism, he said. And Jewish people must not be held responsible or accountable for the actions of the Israeli government.

Back came BoD president Jonathan Arkush and JLC chair Jonathan Goldstein with a statement saying that after almost three years of Corbyn’s leadership “words are no longer enough – now we need action. The Labour Party must finally demonstrate that it has the genuine will and determination to act effectively against the hate in its membership. We will not be silent and we will continue to hold it to account.”

Who are the Israel lobby? And should we listen?

This attack on Corbyn and the Labour Left in the run-up to Easter is a reminder of the deep racism and the religious war being waged in the Holy Land.

The place where Christianity was born is defiled by a brutal and illegal military occupation that has gone unpunished for 70 years and turned a beautiful and very special historic region, precious to three religions, into a swamp of racial hatred resulting in unspeakable crimes against the native Arab population hundreds of thousands of whom have been cruelly dispossessed of their homes and lands and forced to flee.

The Israel Project was a Zionist political initiative of the late 1800s given a huge boost by the murky scheming behind the Balfour Declaration of 1917, actually drafted by Zionist Leopold Amery. It caused Lord Sydenham to remark: “What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Well, now we know. And it suits the Israel lobby to confuse the issue by conflating anti-Zionist views with anti-Semitism.

The Israel lobby insists Israel is not an “apartheid state”. But this puts it at odds with a recent UN report and the facts on the ground. The lobby is also furious about the success of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), the non-violent movement by civil society as a result of the international community’s failure to act. It aims to persuade Israel to comply with international law and UN resolutions, recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and end its occupation and colonisation of their lands.

Theresa May warns she’ll “have no truck” with people who support BDS. But 200 legal scholars and practising lawyers have pointed out that it is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right protected by international convention.

Who are the Israel lobby anyway? Essentially the Friends of Israel groups that are allowed to flourish within our political parties (except the SNP which has resisted pressure to let them in), backed by the BoD and the JLC who claim to speak for the Jewish community. This is a noisy coalition that certainly isn’t supported by all Jews. A growing number of Jewish organisations are highly critical of the Israeli state and its policies. Not all Jews are Zionists – and not all Zionists are Jews; indeed a very large number are Christians, especially in the US.

Discontent about the conduct of the Jewish State and its military is spreading even among Israelis. At the Labour Party conference last year Miko Peled told activists that Israel is “terrified” of Jeremy Corbyn becoming British prime minister. “They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn from being prime minister….

“The reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument, there is nothing to say. How can a call for justice and tolerance be conflated with anti-Semitism? I don’t know if they realise this but they are pitting Judaism against everything good and just.”

Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army.

I’d be more impressed with Corbyn if he turned on his tormentors and told them straight: “You yourselves need to condemn the horrendous crimes committed by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians, and urge the Jewish State to end its occupation, recognise Palestinian independence, restore the refugees to their homes (or provide compensation), and issue a fulsome apology for past wrongs. That’s when I will begin to listen to you.”

I’m also waiting for him to demand an explanation for the Israelis’ anti-Semitism. It turns out, or so we’re told, that the true Semites are the Arabs, and most Israelis are Ashkenazi coverts with no ancestral links to the Holy Land at all.

That’s not all. The Israel lobby might like to reflect on the desperate cry for help from over 30 Christian organisations in occupied Palestine to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement recently. They had issued a similar heart-wrenching plea 10 years earlier. Their message now is stark: “Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse. The current status-quo is unsustainable. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land…. We need brave women and men who are willing to stand in the forefront. This is no time for shallow diplomacy….”

But shallow diplomacy is all they get still. Response from the WCC, which represents 500 million Christians in more than 110 countries, has been heavily muted or non-existent. Feeble leadership means that Western Christendom could soon say goodbye forever to the wellspring of their faith, Jerusalem, which is being stolen from under their noses. Do they care? Apparently not.

The Israel lobby is no doubt celebrating.

The illegal occupier also restricts access to Islam’s third most holy place, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Do Muslim rulers care? They are so divided they cannot mobilise effectively to deal with it.

As someone who has witnessed the racial abuse of Palestinian Arabs (Christian and Muslim) and seen how their homeland – the Holy Land – has been made a living hell, I’d love to know what the 500 million Christians and 1.8 billion Muslims in this world are going to do about it.

Stuart Littlewood
27 March 2018