Cultural/Ideological Divide

How to Take Back Control of Your Mind

Leave a comment

by Cynthia Chung
Originally published by Strategic Culture

Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man’s belief…The problem of the doctor and his nervously ill patient, and that of the religious leader who sets out to gain and hold new converts, has now become the problem of whole groups of nations, who wish not only to confirm certain political beliefs within their boundaries, but to proselytize the outside world.”

William Sargant, “Battle of the Mind”

It is rather ironic that in this “age of information”, we are more confused than ever…

It had been commonly thought in the past, and not without basis, that tyranny could only exist on the condition that the people were kept illiterate and ignorant of their oppression. To recognise that one was “oppressed” meant they must first have an idea of what was “freedom”, and if one were allowed the “privilege” to learn how to read, this discovery was inevitable.

If education of the masses could turn the majority of a population literate, it was thought that the higher ideas, the sort of “dangerous ideas” that Mustapha Mond for instance expresses in “The Brave New World”, would quickly organise the masses and revolution against their “controllers” would be inevitable. In other words, knowledge is freedom, and you cannot enslave those who learn how to “think”.

However, it hasn’t exactly played out that way has it?

The greater majority of us are free to read whatever we wish to, in terms of the once “forbidden books”, such as those listed by The Index Librorum Prohibitorum*. We can read any of the writings that were banned in “The Brave New World”, notably the works of Shakespeare which were named as absolutely dangerous forms of “knowledge”.

We are now very much free to “educate” ourselves on the very “ideas” that were recognised by tyrants of the past as the “antidote” to a life of slavery. And yet, today, the majority choose not to…

It is recognised, albeit superficially, that who controls the past, controls the present and thereby the future. George Orwell’s book “1984”, hammers this as the essential feature that allows the Big Brother apparatus to maintain absolute control over fear, perception and loyalty to the Party cause, and yet despite its popularity, there still remains a lack of interest in actually informing oneself about the past.

What does it matter anyway, if the past is controlled and rewritten to suit the present? As the Big Brother interrogator O’Brien states to Winston, “We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not? [And thus, are free to rewrite it as we choose…]”

Of course, we are not in the same situation as Winston…we are much better off. We can study and learn about the “past” if we so desire, unfortunately, it is a choice that many take for granted.

In fact, many are probably not fully aware that presently there is a battle waging for who will “control the past” in a manner that is closely resembling a form of “memory wipe”.

There is an especial focus to rewrite the history of WWII at this very moment. These revisionists are attempting to rewrite this history since there lies the root from which today’s fascism stems.

Whoever understands this period of history understands today’s fascism.

The “experts” say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23rd 1939 is supposedly “proof” that Stalin supported Hitler’s fascist agenda, and thus the veneer of the Soviet Union being the greatest defender against fascism during WWII is a sham.

However, what is left out of this discussion every time, is that in the previous year, the UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed an appeasement deal with Hitler on September 30th 1938, known as the Munich Agreement (aka the Munich Betrayal), where Hitler demanded and promptly received the annexation of Czech border areas, known as the Sudetenland annexation. It had thus become official British policyto allow Hitler’s expansion of German territory relatively unchecked as part of the “appeasement”.

The “logic” behind it was that Britain would give what Hitler demanded in hopes of “appeasing” his imperial “appetites” and thus avoid further conflict. That is, by giving Hitler more power, it would somehow or other, convince him not to desire more…at least the plan apparently looked good on paper.

Then there is the whole embarrassing affair with the Bank of England and Bank of International Settlements, to which the BoE Governor Montague Norman allowed for the direct transfer of money to Hitler, however, not with England’s own money but rather 5.6 million pounds worth of gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia! Well, you certainly didn’t think that England would use her own money?

And let us not forget, the Union Banking Corporation, with founding member and director Prescott Bush also caught in the funding of Hitler before and during WWII, and on Oct 20th, 1942 its bank assets were seized under the “U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act” and “Executive Order 9095”.

Of course, you can imagine that being aware of such dealings made Stalin uneasy as it was becoming apparent that Hitler’s vision was shared by others of “high society” stalk.

Why should we expect Stalin to have stood alone with no support and risk being immediately cut down, when his supposed “allies” were signing “appeasements” and handing over money to what was supposed to be the biggest threat to the free world?

Such “high society” men are used to pulling on strings, they muse themselves as chess masters, yet one never quite knows which side they are playing…

And thus, we find ourselves increasingly in the unsettling position of a Winston. In Orwell’s “1984”, there are three main super states in the world: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia that are in one combination or another constantly at war with each other and have been so for the last 25 years.

In the case of Winston, he has only known Oceania (the British commonwealths and U.S.), he knows essentially nothing of either Eurasia or Eastasia, except that sometimes Oceania is at war with Eurasia and sometimes it is at war with Eastasia. In fact, even this memory, that the enemy is not constant, is not something Winston is supposed to recollect or acknowledge. Just by doing this very thing, he is committing a “thoughtcrime”.

Winston’s experience begs the questions, if one were born into a fascist, totalitarian state would they know it? Of course, the state itself would not describe itself as such. How would you be able to compare your “freedom” with the “oppression” of the enemy, when all you were given was what the state chose to give to you?

How do you know that what has come to shape your convictions, your beliefs, your fears really belong to you, and were not placed there by another?

We are all very sensitive to this unsettling question because ironically, that has also been placed in us. It was what started this whole business of “mind control”, you see, it had to be done…for our “protection”.

THE BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND

“He whom the gods wish to destroy, they first of all drive mad.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow “The Masque of Pandora”

William Sargant was a British psychiatrist and, one could say, effectively the Father of “mind control” in the West, with connections to British Intelligence and the Tavistock Institute, which would influence the CIA and American military via the program MK Ultra. Sargant was also an advisor for Ewen Cameron’s LSD “blank slate” work at McGill University, funded by the CIA.

Sargant accounts for his reason in studying and using forms of “mind control” on his patients, which were primarily British soldiers that were sent back from the battlefield during WWII with various forms of “psychosis”, as the only way to rehabilitate extreme forms of PTSD.

The other reason, was because the Soviets had apparently become “experts” in the field, and out of a need for national security, the British would thus in turn have to become experts as well…as a matter of self-defence of course.

The work of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, had succeeded in producing some disturbingly interesting insights into four primary forms of nervous systems in dogs, that were combinations of inhibitory and excitatory temperaments; “strong excitatory”, “balanced”, “passive” and “calm imperturbable”.

Pavlov found that depending on the category of nervous system temperament the dog had, this in turn would dictate the form of “conditioning” that would work best to “reprogram behaviour”. The relevance to “human conditioning” was not lost on anyone.

It was feared in the West, that such techniques would not only be used against their soldiers to invoke free-flowing uninhibited confessions to the enemy but that these soldiers could be sent back to their home countries, as zombified assassins and spies that could be set off with a simple code word.

At least, these were the thriller stories and movies that were pumped into the population. How horrific indeed! That the enemy could apparently enter what was thought the only sacred ground to be our own…our very “minds”!

However, for those who were actually leading the field in mind control research, such as William Sargant, it was understood that this was not exactly how mind control worked.

For one thing, the issue of “free will” was getting in the way.

No matter the length or degree of electro-shock, insulin “therapy”, tranquilizer cocktails, induced comas, sleep deprivation, starvation etc induced, it was discovered that if the subject had a “strong conviction” and “strong belief” in something, this could not be simply erased, it could not be written over with any arbitrary thing.

Rather, the subject would have to have the illusion that their “conditioning” was in fact a “choice”. This was an extremely challenging task, and long term conversions (months to years) were rare.

However, Sargant saw an opening. It was understood that one could not create a new individual from scratch, however, with the right conditioning that was meant to lead to a physical breakdown using abnormal stress (effectively a reboot of the nervous system), one could increase the “suggestibility” markedly in their subjects.

Sargant wrote in his “Battle of the Mind”: “Pavlov’s clinical descriptions of the ‘experimental neuroses’ which he could induce in dogs proved, in fact, to have a close correspondence with those war-neuroses which we were investigating at the time.”

In addition, Sargant found that a falsely implanted memory could help induce abnormal stress leading to emotional exhaustion and physical breakdown to invoke “suggestibility”. That is, one didn’t even need to have a “real stress” but an “imagined stress” would work just as effectively.

Sargant goes on to state in his book: “It is not surprising that the ordinary person, in general, is much more easily indoctrinated than the abnormal…A person is considered ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ by the community simply because he accepts most of its social standards and behavioural patterns; which means, in fact, that he is susceptible to suggestion and has been persuaded to go with the majority on most ordinary or extraordinary occasions.”

Sargant then goes over the phenomenon of the London Blitz, which was an eight month period of heavy bombing of London during WWII. During this period, in order to cope and stay “sane”, people rapidly became accustomed to the idea that their neighbours could be and were buried alive in bombed houses around them.

The thought was “If I can’t do anything about it what use is it that I trouble myself over it?” The best “coping” was thus found to be those who accepted the new “environment” and just focused on “surviving”, and did not try to resist it.

Sargant remarks that it is this “adaptability” to a changing environment which is part of the “survival” instinct and is very strong in the “healthy” and “normal” individual who can learn to cope and thus continues to be “functional” despite an ever changing environment.

It was thus our deeply programmed “survival instinct” that was found to be the key to the suggestibility of our minds. That the best “survivors” made for the best “brain-washing” in a sense.

Sargant quotes Hecker’s work, who was studying the dancing mania phenomenon that occurred during the Black Death, where Hecker observed that heightened suggestibility had the capability to cause a person to “embrace with equal force, reason and folly, good and evil, diminish the praise of virtue as well as the criminality of vice.”

And that such a state of mind was likened to the first efforts of the infant mind “this instinct of imitation when it exists in its highest degree, is also united a loss of all power over the will, which occurs as soon as the impression on the senses has become firmly established, producing a condition like that of small animals when they are fascinated by the look of a serpent.”

I wonder if Sargant imagined himself the serpent…

Sargant does finally admit: “This does not mean that all persons can be genuinely indoctrinated by such means. Some will give only temporary submission to the demands made on them, and fight again when strength of body and mind returns. Others are saved by the supervention of madness. Or the will to resist may give way, but not the intellect itself.”

But he comforts himself as a response to this stubborn resistance that “As mentioned in a previous context, the stake, the gallows, the firing squad, the prison, or the madhouse, are usually available for the failures.”

THE ART OF DOUBLETHINK

“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
George Orwell’s “1984” (Big Brother Mantra)

Thus what Sargant found, and what Orwell astutely identified, was that the most reliable form of mind control was found to be in the art of “doublethink”, that is, the ability to accept two contradictory thoughts in your mind without acknowledging that they are in fact opposites.

Orwell identifies this under two forms of “doublethink”, which are “crimestop” and “blackwhite”. “Crimestop” meaning the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of a dangerous thought.

Orwell further states:

It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments…and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop in short, means protective stupidity.”

“Blackwhite”, is the act of contradiction of plain facts, applied to an opponent. And when applied to the Party, it is the willingness to say black is white when the Party discipline demands it so.

As Orwell describes it:

it means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past…The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons […] The subsidiary reason is that…he must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off… [the precautionary reason] by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party.
[…]
The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest.

That is, it is the Inner Party members who are the most indoctrinated, the best at inducing “mind control” or “doublethink” on themselves, and at the same time believe that it is the best and right thing to do.

Orwell describes “doublethink” thus:

The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence guilt…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.

THROUGH THE RABBIT HOLE AND OUT AGAIN

What many fail to grasp when reading “1984” is that Orwell is not only the character Winston, he is also the character O’Brien. He is the Outer Party member-turned-revolutionary, and he is the Inner Party disciplinarian.

He is simultaneously the tormentor-programmer as well as the tormented-programmed.

Winston eventually breaks and releases the one thing that kept him human, his love and loyalty to Julia. In the end, an announcement is made that Oceania is ever nearer to winning the war and Winston looks up at a large poster of Big Brother and cries gin-filled tears of joy and relief, for he had finally come to love Big Brother.

He had become O’Brien.

Orwell’s is a tragic story of a product of the British Empire. Stationed as a senior police officer in Burma, he had first-hand experience in the “programmer” techniques O’Brien was using. Refer to Martin Sieff’s excellent article for more of this story.

I think it is safe to say that Orwell intended Big Brother to symbolise the British Empire, the largest empire that has ever existed in world history.

Today, NATO is planning on moving further eastward. 9500 U.S. troops are being removed from Germany with the plan of entering into Eastern Europe near the Russian border and into the Indo-Pacific region, a potential new hot-spot between the U.S. and China.

The justification for this move relies on the WWII and Cold War narrative that Russia and China have always been the enemies of the “free world”… that Russia and China have never left their fascist “ideologies” that have thrown the entire world into conflict and war for almost a century.

I will leave it up to you dear reader, to fill in the rest.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

Project Fear

Leave a comment

by Norman Lewis
People have been so spooked by the state-sanctioned Project Fear that they believe TENS OF MILLIONS have died from Covid-19

People wear face masks as they leave a music festival in Saint Etienne de Baigorry, southwestern France, Sunday, July 26, 2020. © AP Photo/Bob Edme

The perception of the risks of the Covid-19 crisis are now so exaggerated that it demonstrates how fear has become the only true enduring reality of the pandemic.

The gap between the reality and perception around Covid risks – almost a factor of 100 – shows how state-sanctioned “fake news” – Project Fear – has come to dominate the public imagination and is negatively impacting how we manage the crisis.

A Research Report, “Covid-19 Opinion Tracker, edition”, published on 27 July 2020, by Kekst CNC, a global strategic communications company which is part of the Publicis Groupe, the world’s third largest communications group, has almost passed the world’s media by. Yet it contains one truly remarkable section on the perception versus the reality of impact of Covid-19 on the public.

The report shows that across the five countries in which the survey was conducted, people, without exception, think that the risks from Coronavirus are far more widespread and dangerous than official figures show.

The survey was conducted between 10-15 July 2020. In the perception versus reality section of the survey, 1000 adults were questioned in the UK, USA, Germany, Sweden, and France.

Two questions were posed which required people filling in percentages: How many people in your country have had coronavirus? How many people in your country have died from coronavirus?

The results are astonishing: to the first question relating to the numbers who have contracted C-19; people in the UK answered 22 per cent (4 times higher than official figures); in the USA, the answer was 20 per cent (20 times greater than confirmed cases); in Germany, the answer was 11 per cent (46 times greater than confirmed cases); in Sweden, the answer was 16 per cent (20 times confirmed cases) and in France, the answers was 12 per cent (46 times confirmed cases).

On the numbers of deaths, the figures are even more exaggerated: in the UK, the response was 7 per cent (100 times greater than confirmed deaths); in the US, the answer was 9 per cent (225 times greater than the confirmed deaths); in Germany, the answer was 3 per cent (300 times greater than confirmed deaths); in Sweden, the answer was 6 per cent (100 times greater than confirmed deaths); and in France, the answer was 5 per cent (100 times greater than confirmed deaths).

So in real terms, the public in the UK think 4.6 MILLION people have died of Covid there, rather than the actual 46,000. In the US, people believe 29.5m have died from it, rather than 155,000.

One might argue that these figures reveal people in these countries need some educating about statistics and percentages. But the truth is that the pattern is unmistakable – the perception of the risk and danger is far greater than reality.

This is the reality of society today. It is the outcome not of ‘fake news’ or an expression of that equally vacuous and fallacious invention, ‘post-truth’ society. This is an outcome of state-backed ‘fake news’, where the threat of the Coronavirus and steps taken to deal with it have institutionalised an exaggerated sense of uncertainty and fear among millions of citizens around the world.

Anglozionism

Anti-immigration? Which Immigration?

Leave a comment

Caspar von Everec says:

Its more important to restrict high IQ Asian and Indian immigrants than a pack of low IQ Mestizos from central America. The Black criminals are even less of a threat. A government could crush them in minutes if it wanted to and everyone would applaud.

The problem with Asian and Indian immigration is that they replace the whites in high cognition jobs. If it continues, it will get to a stage where whites are simply not needed by the Jewish oligarchy anymore. Right now, they can’t afford to simply kill off or completely force out the white population of the US.

They do most of the high cognition, professional and technocratic jobs like engineering, finance, medicine, technical work etc. However, if America amasses a large enough pool of rootless and compliant coolie technocrats from India and China, this will no longer be the case.

The jewish plutocracy would feel much more comfortable with such rootless and amorphous subordinates than Whites, who have a large population base and historical roots in the country.

The elite is already waging a soft genocide on whites, yet when they no longer need whites for intelligent labor, it will turn into a hard one, with full Soviet style dekulakization. Instead of enemies of the proletariat, it will be enemies of equality/ diversity.

Furthermore, even if that were not the case, it makes zero sense for whites to allow high IQ immigrants in the country. Why would you want a foreign cadre of technocrats to rule over you? Why would you want more competitors for your children for well paying professions?

Mass Asian immigration means complete depowering of whites and their reduction to a coolie class. It will be a future where the best job a white man is able to get is to be a mechanic or carpenter. Law, medicine, engineering? Those are for the diverse and oppressed Asians and blacks (read: groups not a threat to the Jewish plutocracy).

Then there’s the case of Hispanics… I’ll concede that its not that much of an issue. They are not as criminal and their low IQ means they’ll never be a credible technocratic threat. These people are mostly powerless and are simply cattle labor for the corporate bosses.

However, mass migration is still a great economic punch to the heritage American. It lowers wages, destroys unionization, cripples support for welfare services and the glut of labor serves as a permanent downward pressure on wages…in addition to rising inflation as a result of the newcomer’s debt fuelled consumption.

The US importing hordes of STEM gradates whereas STEM fields have long passed saturation point.

https://alltogether.swe.org/2017/12/is-there-a-shortage-of-stem-jobs-to-stem-graduates-its-complicated/

Thus immigration reduction is deeply popular among Americans of all races, as everyone feels the financial crunch. It is impossible to achieve any sort of middle class society with decent wages, when there are a billion immigrants in tow.

The End is Here

Geriatric pontification?

Leave a comment

YeahNO says:

Having escaped the pisshole , last october , all you godless disgraces are currently trapped in , I have recently landed in Serbia .

I can say that it sure is nice to be walking around in white cities … they are beautiful , clean , women and children and old men playing chess in the parks … the youth out at night walking hand in hand or with a friend , wandering around the city , sitting near the fountain in the park , laughing – they have a strength and a bond , a down home honestly of expression , and the feeling is palpably different than the wretched isolation I almost constantly felt in those trashhole low trust multicultural wastelands called american cities…

I am still alone , but there is a sense of hope here … yesterday I chased down a 5’11” voluptuous beauty and asked her out … I soon noticed she had a ring and backed off , but she walked amicably with me for 10 minutes , inquired about my lemgth of stay and travels , exhibited more femininity in her pinky than 20 of those trashy sluts you share your shit-stained streets with…

And , I just recalled , yesterday morning , as I munched on a komplat lepinja at a little bakery hole in the wall run by two friendly old ladies , one of the lady’s daughter and granddaughter showed up . The mother of the daughter was probably early to mid forties , thin , blond , olive skinned and quite pretty . She commented on how the komplats won’t make me fat because look at her… I agreed and threw a smile and a funny comment her way… NOW , this woman was married and had a lovely beautiful 7 year old girl in tow , BUT she turned bright red with blush and beautiful shyness at my comment… it was just moving … when was the last time you saw one of your women blush?

Homogeneity matters if you want more than money out life , like , say , nature and humanness …

Get out.

Scamdemic - Corona Virus

CV – 19 Timeline

Leave a comment

Breitbart

Jan 14, WHO declared no evidence of human-to-human transmission of virus.
– Jan 21, Dr. Fauci makes this statement about the Coronavirus: ““This is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States should be worried about right now,”
– Jan 23, At an emergency committee convened by the World Health Organization, the WHO says that the Wuhan coronavirus does not yet constitute a public health emergency of international concern.
– Jan 28, Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom in Beijing. At the meeting, Xi and the WHO agree to send a team of international experts, including US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff, to China to investigate the coronavirus outbreak.
– Jan 29, The White House announces the formation of a new task force that will help monitor and contain the spread of the virus.
– Jan 31, Trump bans travel from Wuhan, press cites “experts” claiming it is counterproductive.
– Feb 1, Florence holds “Hug a Chinese Person Day”.
– Feb 4, President Trump dedicates part of State of the Union Address to the Coronavirus issue. Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of this address on national television.
– Feb 9, NYC holds Chinatown parade with assurances of no danger from the mayor
– Feb 16, Dr. Fauci says “Risk of coronavirus in USA is ‘minuscule’; skip mask and wash hands”
– Feb 23, 1st evidence of community transfer within U.S.
– Feb 24, Pelosi says to shop more: “‘Come to Chinatown … come join us”
– Feb 25, Mardi Gras was held with few people sounding warnings
– Feb 26, Pence takes over task force, daily briefings begin.
– Feb 26, Fauci said: “Travel restrictions become almost irrelevant because you can’t keep out the entire world.”
– Feb 29, Fauci said that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large, ‘Going to Malls, Movie Theaters, Gym Okay’
– March 1, just 42 confirmed cases in U.S.
– March 3, NYC mayor encourages New Yorkers to go to the movies.
– March 5, NYC mayor rides the subway to assure people it is safe to do so.
– March 9, Fauci told the country it was perfectly safe for healthy Americans to take a cruise and to hold campaign rallies.
– March 11, WHO acknowledged a pandemic scale virus
– March 12, 2020: In contrast to his February 26 remarks, Fauci said that he believed certain travel restrictions have “absolutely” helped with the prevention of the spread of the coronavirus. “I think it absolutely has,” Fauci said. “I believe if we did not do that with China early on …”
Fauci also called the travel restriction involving Europe a “prudent choice.”
– April 11, Fauci claimed during an interview with Fox News’s Jesse Watters that it was “in January” when he believed that this was a problem Americans needed to worry about, which conflicts with several of his previous remarks made that month and the months following, including his remarks on the Today Show in February.

Anglozionism, Military Affairs

Why Britain Paid Vast Sums to Other Countries to Make War on Napoleon and Why Trade Beat the Emperor

Leave a comment

During the Napoleonic Wars Britain spent 14 percent of its total budget on paying France’s enemies to carry the fight to the Emperor. Gary Girod, host of the French History Podcast, explained why ultimately it was Britain’s financial and naval prowess which defeated Napoleon.

Between 1793 and 1815 Britain gave £65,830,228 to Russia, Austria, Prussia and other smaller nations in order to subsidise their conflicts with France.

That was on top of the millions it was spending on the Royal Navy, which ruled the waves and ensured Napoleon never tried to invade Britain.

People in period uniforms fight during a re-enactment of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo between the French army led by Napoleon and the Allied armies led by the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Blucher, on June 17, 2012, in Waterloo

© AFP 2020 / GEORGES GOBET
People in period uniforms fight during a re-enactment of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo between the French army led by Napoleon and the Allied armies led by the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Blucher, on June 17, 2012, in Waterloo

Napoleon was driven into exile on the isle of Elba in 1814 but returned and was finally defeated at the Battle of Waterloo the following year. He died on the remote island of St Helena in 1821.

But why did Britain spend such exorbitant sums to keep Napoleon’s armies at war in Europe?

Gary Girod, host of the French History Podcast, said: “Britain was willing to pay so much because it could.”

Britain had grown rich from importing sugar, tobacco, coffee and other crops from the Caribbean – which relied on the slave trade – and tea and spices from India and invested these profits into the Industrial Revolution, which made them the world’s biggest manufacturer of iron, engines and woven cloth.

​Mr Girod said England had modernised their government in the late 17th century when William of Orange brought over the Dutch banking system and this meant Britain was far more creditworthy than most European countries in the Napoleonic era.

He said: “This meant the British government could raise incredible amounts of money from international banks at very low interest rates.”

Mr Girod, a PhD candidate in modern British-French history at the University of Houston in Texas, contrasted the situation in France, which had a poor credit rating among banks: “Even under Napoleon, France’s credit was bad and he struggled to pay for his wars,” said Mr Girod, who explained that it was part of the reason he sold off a huge chunk of North America to the US, the so-called Louisiana Purchase.

© SPUTNIK / GRIGORY SISOYEV
Napoleon

In 1805 Britain paid Russia £1.25 million – in golden guineas – for every 100,000 soldiers the Tsar fielded against the French.

The Russians sent a huge army into central Europe but a joint Austro-Russian army was defeated at Austerlitz in December 1805 and in June 1807 Napoleon destroyed a Russian army at the Battle of Friedland in what was then East Prussia.

Mr Girod said Britain’s world outlook – which had changed since the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) – also encouraged it to fight Napoleon.

“British policymakers tended not to think of Britain as a European-centric country, but a global power. Thus their policy was to maintain a ‘balance of power’ on the continent in order to give it a free hand in expanding its empire around the world,” Mr Girod said.

He said this was Britain’s world view throughout the 19th century and until the middle of the 20th century and he said there were still echoes of it in British euroscepticism, which played a part in the Brexit referendum.

Napoleon army
© CC0
Napoleon army

During the late 18th century British politics was dominated by William Pitt “The Younger”, who took a hard line against the republican regime which came to power after the French Revolution and to Napoleon, who was crowned Emperor in 1804.

After Pitt’s death in February 1806 a new government changed its policy and sought peace with the French. But when Charles Fox, the Francophile foreign secretary, died in September 1806 hopes of peace faded.

Subsequent British prime ministers – The Duke of Portland, Spencer Perceval and Lord Liverpool – resumed the warlike posture towards France until after his defeat at Waterloo.

Could Britain have ever lived in peace with Napoleon’s France?

Mr Girod said: “British reconciliation with France probably wouldn’t have led to peace. More likely Napoleon would take it as a sign of weakness that would allow him to act more freely on the continent.”

He added: “French domination of Europe went against the foundation of British foreign policy, which was to stymie the other world European powers so that it could expand its empire abroad.”

Mr Girod said Napoleon’s empire was an “existential threat” to the British Empire and his Continental System, with its ban on British goods, was a direct attack on the UK economy.

In November 1806 Napoleon signed the Berlin Decrees, which forbade all trade between Britain and Europe and stated: “All warehouses, all merchandise, all property of whatever nature it might be, belonging to a subject of England will be declared a valid prize.”

At the time a third of Britain’s direct exports and three-quarters of her re-exports (products like refined sugar, processed tea, and cotton cloth) were destined for continental Europe so the impact was devastating and there are echoes of the concerns about trade after the 2016 Brexit referendum.

But British products were so good and alternatives were so rare – France even tried to develop cotton from thistles – that most European nations sought to ignore the Continental System and smuggling was rife.

The situation was so farcical that in 1807, when Napoleon’s Grande Armee needed uniforms for an upcoming campaign against Prussia and Russia, middlemen bought 200,000 pairs of shoes, 50,000 greatcoats and 37,000 vests from British suppliers.

Even Napoleon’s wife, the Empress Josephine, bought smuggled British goods on the black market.

Mr Girod said Napoleon saw a military solution to most problems, even the flouting of the Continental System: “When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.”

​He said Napoleon’s armed forces were the best in Europe but this was ultimate the source of his downfall.

“By 1812 his attempts at diplomacy with Russia failed it bucked his Continental System, so his solution was naturally war,” said Mr Girod, who pointed out the invasion of Russiawas a disaster and led to Napoleon’s abdication in 1814.

There was one last hurrah but after Napoleon and his veterans were defeated at Waterloo in June 1815 he went into exile and the British restored the hated Bourbons to the French throne.

Mr Girod said Britain was then the world’s pre-eminent power and French governments would from then on avoid conflict with London and side with the British in conflicts like the Crimean War, the First World War and the Second World War.

“Napoleon’s project of French domination collapsed. France was still one of the great powers but it has never since dominated like before,” concluded Mr Girod.

Anglozionism, Military Affairs

Why England Was Always The Worst Enemy Of Russia

1 Comment

by Aleksandr Samsonovvia Stalkerzone

Russia and England do not have common borders and are geographically separated from each other. It would seem that two great powers may have neutral, if not friendly relations. England practically did not conduct a full-scale war against Russia itself (excluding the Crimean war), but secret war (inciting Russia’s neighbours) did not stop for centuries. London has always had an unfriendly relationship with Russia: Tsarist, Soviet, and democratic.

England is our main enemy

Over the past century, England has been the most terrible and dangerous enemy of Russia. It has done us more harm than Napoleon and Hitler. In the 20th and 21st centuries. England shares this place with the United States, which continued and developed Britain’s policy of creating a global empire. If you look at the history of Germany, France, Turkey, or Japan, you can find objective reasons for the conflict with Russia: historical, territorial, religious, economic, or diplomatic. Most often it was a natural (biological) struggle for a place under the sun.

The ongoing conflict with England was different. It is caused by a deep conceptual confrontation. It is caused by the desire of England (and then the United States) to rule the world, embodying the ancient strategy of Rome: divide and conquer. The Russian world on earth has the mission of preserving the measure/balance. Therefore, any attempts by one control centre (the throne) to take on the role of “king of the mountain” (the planet) receives resistance from the Russian people. As a result, for centuries London has been trying to solve the “Russian question”: to dismember and remove Russians and Russia from the historical arena. Russia is still resisting this onslaught.

Russia and England have never shared borders or laid claim to the same land. Russia expanded its borders, making new lands Russian. Britain was creating a world-wide colonial (slave-owning) empire. Russia and England gave the world two examples of global projects/orders. The Russian order is the unity of people regardless of race, religion, or nation. A life of truth, conscience, and love. Orthodoxy is the glory of truth. Spirit is higher than matter, truth is higher than law, the general is higher than the particular. The western order dominated by London is slavery. The world of master slave owners and “talking tools”. The domination of matter, the “golden calf”.

It was London that created the world’s slave empire, which became an example for Hitler. The British were the first to create an ideology of racism, social Darwinism, and eugenics. They built the first concentration camps, used methods of terror and genocide to subordinate “inferior”peoples and tribes. For example, in North America, South Africa, India, and Australia. The British skilfully used the tribal, national elite to subordinate the vast masses of people.

If it were not for this conceptual confrontation (at the level of “what is good and what is bad”), the two powers could live peacefully and cooperate. In the very least, to not notice each other. For example, this was the way the Russian Empire and Spain, a great colonial empire, lived (before it was pushed out of the world arena by the French, Dutch, and English). Russia is a continental power, and England is a maritime power. However, the point is that London claims global domination. And Russia stands in the way of anyone who claims to be the “king of the mountain”. As a result, the Foggy Albion is clearly to blame for all the conflicts between Russia and England. It is difficult to find a country in the world that has not been messed up by the “Englishwoman”. This is Spain, France, and Germany, with which England fought for leadership in Europe, and even the small Denmark. You can also recall the atrocities of the British in America, Africa, India, and China.

“The Englishwoman craps”

For the first time, interest in Russia in England appeared during the Great geographical discoveries. In fact, at this time, the Europeans discovered the world for themselves and raped and robbed it (the initial accumulation of capital). England was looking for an alternative route to rich India and China through the polar seas. In the 16th century, Europeans made several expeditions to find the northeastern (around Siberia) and northwestern (around Canada) passages and obtain new passages to the Pacific ocean. Captain Richard Chancellor was received by Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. From this time, diplomatic and commercial relations between Russia and England began. The British were interested in trade with Russia and an exit through it on the Volga route to Persia and further south. Since that time, Britain has been preventing Moscow from reaching the shores of the Baltic and Black Seas again.

Thus, under Peter I, London, on the one hand, developed trade with Russia, on the other – supported the allied Sweden in the war against the Russians. The British also stood behind Turkey in almost all the Russian-Turkish wars. For this reason, the English Ambassador in Constantinople (as well as the Dutch and French) tried to disrupt the conclusion of peace between Russia and Turkey in 1700. England wanted to destroy the sprouts of Russian shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk and Azov, and prevent Russia from breaking through to the Baltic and Black Seas.

This hostile policy of London continued in the future. The British were behind Russia’s wars with Turkey, Persia, and Sweden. Prussia served as the “cannon fodder” of England in the Seven Years’ War. During the time of Ekaterina the Great, Russia was able to inflict two “pricks” on England: its policy supported the American revolution (the war of independence) and declared a policy of armed neutrality, which led to the creation of an anti-English alliance of northern European countries. Under the onslaught of almost all of Europe, the British lion had to retreat. On the whole, Ekaterina skilfully avoided the pitfalls of England and pursued a national policy. As a result, there were huge successes: the annexation of western Russian lands and the reunification of the Russian people, and wide access to the Black Sea.

After Ekaterina II, England was able to take revenge. London drew St. Petersburg into a long confrontation with Paris. This led to a series of wars and heavy human and material losses for Russia (including the Patriotic War of 1812). Russia had no fundamental contradictions and disputes with France. We had no common borders. I.e., St. Petersburg could safely leave the conflict with revolutionary France, and then the empire of Napoleon to Vienna, Berlin, and London. Pavel I of Russia realised his mistake and withdrew his troops. He was ready to make an alliance with Paris and to march against England, the real enemy of Russia. But he was killed by the aristocratic conspirators. English gold killed the Russian Emperor. Aleksandr I could not get out from under the influence of his “friends”, the pressure of England, and Russia fell into a trap, in a bitter conflict with France. Russian soldiers in the anti-Napoleonic wars (except for the Patriotic War) shed blood for the interests of London, Vienna, and Berlin.

London set Iran and Turkey against Russia in 1826-1829. It didn’t allow Nikolay I to occupy Constantinople. Britain acted as the organiser of the Eastern (Crimean) War, in fact it was one of the rehearsals for the future World War. However, it was not possible to dislodge the Russians from the Baltic and Black Seas, as planned. Then there was the big game in Central Asia. The Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when London managed to take away from Russia the well-deserved fruits of victory over the Turks, including the sphere of influence in the Balkans, Constantinople, and the Straits. The British lion entered into an alliance with the Japanese dragon, directed against China and Russia. With the help of England, Japan defeated both China and Russia. The Russians were pushed back from the greater Far East, and Port Arthur and Yellow Russia (Manchuria) were taken. At the same time, the British secret services actively fanned the fire of the first revolution in the Russian Empire.

Britain successfully pushed Russia into a confrontation with Germany, although the Russian Tsar and the German Kaiser was not a serious cause for bloodshed. The British had skilfully outwitted both the Germans and the Russians, pitting them against each other. They destroyed the two empires. England supported the February Revolution, which led to the collapse of Russia and turmoil. The British did not save Nikolay II and his family, although there were opportunities to do so. The big game was more important than dynastic ties. London took an active part in the outbreak of the Civil War in Russia, which led to millions of victims. The British hoped that the collapse and weakening of Russia would be forever. They captured strategic points in the Russian north, the Caucasus, and the Caspian Sea, and secured positions in the Baltic and Black Seas.

World War II and the cold war

London’s plans to destroy Russia have failed. The Russians recovered from the terrible blow and created a new great power – the USSR. Then London bet on fascism and Nazism in Europe. English capital took an active part in the restoration of German military and economic power. British diplomacy “pacified” the Third Reich so much that it gave it most of Europe, including France. Almost all of Europe was gathered under the banner of Hitler and thrown against the USSR (Hitler was only a tool in the destruction of the USSR). Then they waited for the Russians and Germans, who had been drained of blood in the mutual slaughter, to be finished off. It didn’t happen. At the head of Russia/USSR was a great statesman and leader – Stalin. The Russians emerged victorious in this terrible battle.

The British had to play the role of an “ally” of the USSR in order to participate in the division of the Third Reich’s inheritance. After the fall of Berlin, British leader Churchill wanted to start World War III almost immediately (in the summer of 1945). The war of western democracies against the USSR. However, the moment was considered unfortunate. It was impossible to defeat the Russian forces in Europe, which first retreated to Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, then went forward and took Warsaw, Budapest, Konigsberg, Vienna, and Berlin. But in 1946, in Fulton (USA), Churchill delivered the famous speech that marked the beginning of the third world war (it was called “cold”) between the West and the USSR. In the course of this war, Britain almost continuously moved up to a “hot” local war. In 1945-1946 – intervention in Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, and Greece. In 1948-1960s – aggression in Malaya, the war in Korea (in terms of the number of soldiers and aircraft in this war, England was second only to the United States in the western ranks), the confrontation in South Arabia, conflicts in Kenya, Kuwait, Cyprus, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt (the Suez crisis). Only the existence of the USSR on the planet did not allow England and the United States to establish their own world order during this period, which would have been approximately the same as Hitler’s.

In the 20th century, Britain twice managed to pit two great powers against each other, two nations that were a threat to London: Germany and Russia, Germans and Russians. The British twice crushed their main opponent in the western project – Germany. Russia was destroyed once – in 1917. For the second time, the Soviet Empire learned a lesson from previous defeats and won a great victory. The result was the collapse of the British Empire itself, over which the sun never set. England became a junior partner of the United States.

However, this does not mean that England has ceased to be an enemy of Russia. Firstly, London has retained some of its global influence. It is a Commonwealth of Nations (over 50 countries) led by the British crown. This is British financial capital. This is a British cultural influence. Secondly, England has maintained its particular hostility to Russia, even to the “democratic” one. Britain’s relations with Russia are significantly worse than with other members of the NATO bloc, for example, with Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. This was shown by the hysteria of England during the Georgian aggression in South Ossetia in 2008, and the “Crimean spring”, and the war in Donbass.

Recently, London has again stepped up its policy in connection with the “Russian threat”. So, from the report of the UK Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament from July 21st 2020 it is clear that London is again targeting Russia. The report notes that Russia is a priority for the British intelligence services with the allocation of additional resources; a special group is being formed to develop a national security strategy in relation to Russia, which consists of representatives of 14 ministries and agencies; attention is focused on Russia’s alliances with other countries; refusal to effectively use regulations on unexplained wealth in order to seize the property of the Russian elite acquired with unconfirmed income. In other words, the British intelligence services realised that the seizure of capital and property from Russian oligarchs does not lead them to cooperate – on the contrary, it repels them. Therefore, the British removed the threat of seizure of property and accounts. The real estate and accounts of Russian oligarchs are inviolable in order to create a network of British influence in Russia. Part of the Russian “elite” is guaranteed immunity under the British crown after fulfilling its mission in Russia.

Thus, England shows that in the current global system crisis, the West is again interested in creating Maidan-style turmoil in Russia.

It's All About Jews

High-Ranking Retired General Leonid Ivashov: The Pro-Israeli Lobby Permeates All The Administrative Structures Of The Russian Federation; Russia’s Sovereignty Is At Stake

Leave a comment

First published: October 2, 2018

Russia | Special Dispatch No. 7692

The former high ranking Russian military and public official, retired Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, a former member of the Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote a stream of consciousness style article, titled “Russia’s Sovereignty Is At Stake,” accusing the “Israeli lobby” of putting at stake Russia’s sovereignty. Ivashov is not known for restraint and in 2012, he compared U.S. actions in Libya to Hitler’s actions in Poland and claimed that Russia would employ military power in defense of Iran and Syria.[1]

Ivashov wrote the article for the Izborsk Club that groups ultranationalist conservatives and Communists who are united by their hatred for the West and their espousal of a Eurasian alternative. The philosopher Alexander Dugin is perhaps the club’s most famous member.

Ivashov accused the pro-Israeli lobby of the death of the Russian servicemen on board of the Russian Ilyushin-20, which was shot down over the Mediterranean, on September 17. He described Israel as a hostile power, and suggested taking immediate punitive counter-measures.

Below are excerpts from Ivashov’s article:[2]


Leonid Ivashov (Image: Izborsk-club.ru)

If A Hostile Power Committed An Aggressive Act Against Our Aircraft, Then One Should Immediately Take Political And Diplomatic Measures

“The death of our servicemen on September 17 happened precisely because the pro-Israeli lobby in Russia tied the military to a certain format of activities that did not correspond to the realities of the military, strategic, and political situation in the region. Neither did it correspond to the missions that the Russian armed forces contingent conducts in Syria. I will remind you of a few details. Firstly, an entire package of agreements signed earlier, and even during the conflict in Syria, was humiliating to us. Back at the time of [former Minister of Defense of Russia Anatoliy] Serdyukov, we signed an agreement about intelligence sharing with Israel. What information could we give to Israel? Naturally, data about Syria, Iran, Turkey, the Arab countries. That is, the areas and countries which are Israel’s adversaries. That is, even back then we entered their service.

“Next — agreements on military and technical cooperation. We refused to send the S-300 even to Iran, although the Ministry of Defense supported deliveries under the signed contract. The Ministry of Defense declared that the S-300 would be supplied to the Syrian Arab Republic. They cancelled that decision and supplied nothing.

“We also remember how our Foreign Ministry interfered into the strategic situation, when the military made decisions together with the Syrian government and the army, organizing an offensive. At that time, there was a call from Kerry to Lavrov, and there was a pause, which was used by the rebel fighters, Israel, and the US with its satellites.

“Of course, resentment mounted in the armed forces and even among the military leadership over such interference with their professional issues. The pressure of magma kept growing — and the volcano erupted. And now we hear that the real military commanders, who are responsible for military operations and for the lives of their subordinates, have shown their responsibility before the people and the state. They did it in their statement of September 24, which the Supreme Commander-in-Chief had to agree with.

“Look at the first statement of the Ministry of Defense concerning this tragedy: ‘Israel is a hostile state. Then, immediately after Netanyahu’s call and his talk with the President of Russia, the Kremlin announced that it was ‘a chain of tragic accidents’. That is, immediately there was an attempt at blurring. Next: if a hostile power committed an aggressive act against our aircraft resulting in the deaths of wonderful specialists, then one should immediately take political and diplomatic measures.

“First of all, we should have immediately frozen our visa-free regime with Israel, because a visa-free regime is established with friendly nations, not with hostile ones. A number of agreements should have been suspended, including those I have mentioned. And I don’t think that it was the military who had reached an agreement with Israel to cooperate in order to prevent incidents in the air. In what air, what air space? In Syrian territory [!] That is, this arrangement sort of allows the Israelis to invade the Syrian air space and make strikes, i.e. commit acts of aggression. And we will simply notify each other, cooperate, etc. I am certain this was not decided by the military either.

“Now the military have had their say, but I would not hasten to celebrate victory yet. The pro-Israeli lobby permeates, in fact, all the administrative structures of the Russian Federation, plus the mass media, plus the oligarchs, etc. Why is it so? Double citizenship? Okay, let the Jewish oligarchs have it. But I am trying to find a deeper cause-and-effect relation: why does a strong pro-Israel lobby exist, why do we dance to Netanyahu’s tune? The fact is that the assets of those who had moved their billions (earned by nights in their mines) to the West, are now being arrested — and their owners are being arrested as well. But in Israel they are always welcome to stash their funds.

“A number of our oligarchs and functionaries have escaped there, by the way. And the Israelis do not extradite their compatriots. On this subject, I will remind you: a couple of months ago, [Roman] Abramovich paid a momentary visit to the Ben-Gurion airport, where he immediately got Israeli citizenship and left. He had been, in fact, kicked out of London. Even though he had bought Chelsea and invested his billions — he was squeezed out. So, Israel is a sort of safe haven for most of our corrupt officials who had been caught stealing, for oligarchs who pump not only oil but also dollars out of Russia — in case something happens in our country. And ‘something’ will definitely happen.

“If the Ministry of Defense puts its foot down, if it pushes through its decision, if it delivers all as planned, including the S-300, thereby creating a united air defense system with the Syrian armed forces (an automated system, electronic countermeasure system) — this system will be really effective. But next, another serious step will be needed. And for that, the Ministry of Defense must put the question to the High Command: ‘Define the purpose of our presence in Syria’. Either we are only protecting, defending ourselves there — or we are fulfilling our obligations under a treaty with the Syrian Arab Republic and protecting the ground, sea and air space of Syria. That is, acting in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter ‘On the right of any state to individual and collective self-defense’. And we are not just present there, protecting ourselves or attacking terrorists, but we are protecting a friendly state together with it, we are engaging in collective defense of the Syrian Arab Republic. And, indirectly, of ourselves. And we don’t give a damn about threats tossed about by [Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor] Liberman and others.

I Remember The Way The Israeli National Anthem Resonated On The Red Square On Victory Parade-2018; ‘We Must Rise From This Degraded State’

“Liberman made a statement after Shoigu’s address to the effect of ‘we bombed and we will continue to bomb’. They can bomb, but only until [their] first serious losses. By the way, there have been such moments in the history of Israeli-Arab relations. They shot down our planes, in great numbers, but when we delivered our Shilka anti-aircraft systems, if I’m not mistaken, in one of their first raids the Israelis lost 11 planes. That’s it! That sobered them up immediately, they stopped all flights at once, started looking into it, appealed to Moscow, etc. This is what will happen here, if we act decisively in full compliance with the norms of international law from the UN Charter. Yes, they will scream at us and call us names, that is natural. But all their flights will stop immediately. We should not make agreements on ‘cooperation in the Syrian air space’; we should reach an agreement so that the Jews would respect the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic and not invade its ground, air or sea space.

“There was indeed a serious clash in the corridors [of power] last week, and this round was won by the military. The fight will continue. Russia’ssovereigntyisatstakehere. Either we obey Netanyahu — then personnel appointments and all the rest will continue to depend on the Israeli lobby. Which is what [Alexander] Livshits talked about not long ago, when he was actually in Israel. In 1996, he was appointed a Deputy Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance. And then the oligarchs gathered together and told him: ‘Here is a checklist of what you must do. No independent decisions, no personnel appointments. Only through us. We have brought Yeltsin to power, [in the 1996 elections against the Communist Gennady Zyuganov] now it is our country’. And to his question ‘What will happen to me if I don’t do this?’ they said that he would no longer be a minister or a deputy prime minister, that’s it. This was the influence on the part of Israel and the United States on our domestic, foreign and human resource policies.

“God grant this Rubicon be crossed now in our favor, in favor of national interests. The next two weeks are very important because this is the timeframe that Shoigu mentioned. After these two weeks, if the S-300 and other systems that the Minister of Defense listed are delivered to Syria, it will be difficult to withdraw them. It is in these two weeks that the most serious fight will take place. Most likely, not in the Kremlin offices. The president is only rarely in the Kremlin now, to say nothing of the Prime Minister. It will be something off-stage, in the offices of the Duma, in ministries.

“There will be attempts to find some mechanisms of counteraction, to look for clauses that do not correspond to legal norms in the resolution of the Ministry of Defense, or something else. America will join, including Trump. Serious money will be involved. I hope that Sergei Shoigu and his colleagues do not have investments and real estate abroad. Those who do have them, and support the decision of the Defense Ministry, will have to pay for it — we will witness arrests, searches, and sanctions including a ban on leaving the country. This entire arsenal will be put to use. And, of course, our mass media will have something to say. Look at [the liberal radio station] ‘The Echo of Moscow’, which exists on Gazprom’s money and is quite well off. And Gazprom was declared ‘our national heritage’. So, we will see all that. The fight continues.

“We must support our army, so that the army could win today and could not only protect the interests of the oligarchs and bring them profit, but do something to raise the prestige of our nation. We need to pull our people out of the deplorable state we are in. Victory Parade-2018: I remember the way the Israeli national anthem resonated on the Red Square. We must rise from this degraded state.[3]

“And our Jews, who are Russian citizens, should remember how Israel treats them. After all, hundreds of our people (both tourists and those who have residence permits) are being deported, humiliated, refused help — including medical help. Because our Jews are mostly lower in status. They are ‘not Sephardic’ — that’s what they think in Israel. Iosif Kobzon [known Soviet and Russian singer of Jewish origins, known for his crooner style] told me a lot about that (by the way, he was not allowed into Israel because of his standpoint).

“Our political parties, primarily CPRF, and all other movements that are fighting against the pension reform, should start using geopolitical terminology. Because they will introduce some concessions into the pension reform now, but the humiliation and robbery will continue. The members of the so-called government will remain in their posts or will be replaced by others, who are the same — or even worse nonprofessionals, corrupt officials, etc. One must look at the situation in the country as a whole. There should be expressions of support for the actions of our military in Syria, for the Ministry of Defense, in mass events and rallies. The latest decisions of the Ministry should feed political momentum, the people should be involved.

“Our army is the people’s army, and it must not only serve the interests of the oligarchs, banks and hydrocarbon companies. We talked about this at the Russian Officers’ Assembly. But it is the first time the army has made such a statement as an institution of power, as a state institution. May it be God’s will, as they say! The army’s opinion still counts for something. The army has suffered a lot of humiliations too: Serdyukov’s appointment, a ‘women’s battalion’ in the leadership of the armed forces, etc. It has gone through much. God grant that its patience has reached the breaking point.”

The End is Here

“Operation Legend”: The End of America’s Democracy

Leave a comment

by Phil Butler

OL3423

A great many analysts and journalists are dancing around the issue of Donald Trump’s visions of fascist grandeur these days. Americans put in office a greedy and self immersed billionaire to save the nation from a woman of even scarier character. And now the American people are about to come under military rule. The federal crackdown putsch dubbed “Operation Legend” will soon be expanded to any city in the United State that does not overwhelmingly support Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

It’s happening people. When Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933 and created the Nazi state, he leveraged a blend of political acuity, deceptiveness, and cunning. Donald Trump did not need these attributes to seize power in America, his backers took care of the details while Trump catered to the same brand of far-right idealists who helped usher in an era of anti-Marxist, Pan-Germanism, and anti-Semitism which set the stage for The Second World War.

Trump’s version is, of course, Pan-Americanism, anti-Everything, and decidedly pro-Israeli no matter what. The takeover has begun, and hardly anyone in the United States sees it. “Operation Legend”, featuring agents from the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshals Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and eventually active-duty US military personnel usurps everything the US Constitution stands for. If Trump is allowed to proceed, the greatest democracy ever to rise will fall in the ashes of an elitist nightmare, the same way Hitler’s Third Reich fell. Only this time, there may be no survivors.

With Kansas City as a test case, Homeland Security and the other Trump controlled agencies proceed to Portland, Oregon where reports from news people and protesters tell of officers dressed in camo pulling up in unmarked cars and detaining people with no explanation, and no due process. In one account, a protester was left hospitalized after federal officers shot him in the head with so-called less-lethal munitions on July 11.

On Attorney General William Barr’s announcement that Albuquerque would see Operation Legend agents, Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico commented:

“Instead of collaborating with the Albuquerque police department, the sheriff is inviting the President’s stormtroopers into Albuquerque.”

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Albuquerque Police Chief Mike Geier have issued statements suggesting that President Trump’s plans to expand Operation Legend are an election-year stunt. Keller went on to refer to the plan as an attempt at the creation of a “police state” in Albuquerque. Other stakeholders say what Trump is up to is the polarization of political protests, the fomenting dissent, and sowing distrust in the United States’ system of government, with the same purpose as past presidential campaign tactics utilized since the middle of the 20th century. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has counseled other mayors about concerns that Operation Legend would metastasize into something not only wrong but unconstitutional.

At the heart of the matter, the constitutionality of Trump’s moves hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the nation. Trump is pushing the envelope farther, especially since his getting off the impeachment hook recently. Like any bully, the New York businessman has spent his life pushing to discover his limits. The question looms; “How and when may the president deploy armed federal officers across the country?” Under the constitution, the president can send federal officers to protect federal property and enforce federal law.

Trump has his “stormtroopers” exceeding their authority to simply protect property and commerce laws. His agents are interfering in “normal” police investigations. Policing the streets of these cities is not under federal jurisdiction, and using force against peaceful demonstrations is certainly not under federal jurisdiction. DHS officers cannot enforce non-federal law unless they are deputized by state or local officials to do so. So, Donald Trump is willfully ignoring the governing law of the land he is sworn to defend. Michael Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Cornell University told PBS News Hour the other day:

“The idea that there’s a threat to a federal courthouse and the federal authorities are going to swoop in and do whatever they want to do without any cooperation and coordination with state and local authorities is extraordinary outside the context of a civil war.”

Finally, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait says President Trump has committed at least two “impeachable offenses” in the last few days. First, the story by Chait cites other sources saying Trump pressured his ambassador to the United Kingdom to request that the British Open be held at Trump’s Scottish golf resort. Secondly, the article comes out and accuses Trump of using the military occupation of cities run by the opposing political party to win an election. The author goes on to cite Both Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security directors under George W. Bush, as having denounced Trump’s abuse of their former departments.

But of course, Donald Trump cannot be swayed by either public opinion, expert advice, or the law of the land. The only good news is that Donald Trump is a weakling according to some analysts, who say Trump’s autocratic moves are “a slow ratchet in the direction of dictatorship.” And for doubters about Trump’s moves toward becoming the first American Führer, his minions ring every alarm bell there is in their rhetoric and their actions. Take Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, who said recently:

“I don’t need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors to do our job. We’re going to do that, whether they like us there or not.”

Hundreds of little kids ripped from the arms of thei

r parents, with no documentation in place to reunite them, is a callous act that should have had Trump on the witness stand years ago. But like almost all the billionaire president’s misdeeds, shredding rights and decency are seldom reasons to call Trump to accountability. The current present has zero accountability either publicly, or in his private life. No wonder he feels like the rule of America.

If history is repeating itself, in a new and twisted sort of way, Americans can expect a redux of the infamous Night of the Long Knives that cemented Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship of Nazi Germany. I know this sounds like the tongue in cheek conspiracy theory, but Germany conquering much of the world and murdering millions seemed crazy in 1933 too. Russia’s Czar Nicholas probably never believed he die in a humble house in far off Ekaterinburg, shot to death with his whole family by Bolsheviks. No dynasty or idea ever goes knowingly or softly into the night. And Donald Trump is just the sort of soulless, self-involved, a narcissist to go down in history as the great desecrator of democracy.

I urge my countrymen to study past events like the Night of the Long Knives and to superimpose what’s going on in America today. In my mind, the American hegemony under a democratic model was an unsustainable disaster. We are seeing the results of 75 plus years of capitalism at work. The world cannot even come to grips with a collective sickness, let alone the socioeconomic divides that fracture geopolitics. The empire is failing, and the only solution for the world order is to reboot it under a new model. The only model they believe will work. With Trump or his successor in absolute control, the last crumbs of human and natural resources can be summoned for a final ritual feeding of the elites. Their “growth model” demands a feeding time, and there is nothing left to feed on but us peons who have been grinding at their mill wheels all along.

Operation Legend, indeed. I never thought I would live to see the day the United States would use a wartime cliche or icon, to suppress the people at home. “Operations” are surely only meant to steal oil from Arabs or to keep the Russians at bay. Operations with important-sounding names are what lend purpose so that brave, young American boys can go slaughter some other breed of humans. Or, to destroy Nazi Reichs or Japanese Empires just like the one we’ve created in the name of the Republic.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Cultural/Ideological Divide

Colonialism, Modernity and Africa

Leave a comment

JONES H. MUNANG’ANDU (author)

Motivational speaker

Black Africa is the poorest part of the world by far. When African governments are not openly plundering their nations economy, they are simply incompetent. The argument that colonization accounts for Africa’s poverty is so easily refuted that it should have gone out of currency long ago. That it has not can be attributed only to the apparently endless capacity of whites to accept arguments that paint them as villain.

To believe that colonization thwarted the economic development of Africa is to believe that indigenous societies were on their way towards prosperity but were brutally shoved off course by Europeans. Every year, thousands of Africans die of starvation. In bad years, hundreds of thousands starve. Even in tropical parts of Africa untouched by famine, as many as one third of all children die before the age of five. One in a hundred births kills the mother. Malaria, sleeping sickness, hepatitis, leprosy, and AIDS are rampant. Nevertheless, the population of Africa grows faster than that of any other region of the world. The total number of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren that an average woman from a developed world will have is 14. The equivalent figure for the average African woman is approximately 258! Despite the ravages of disease, starvation, and inter-tribal warfare, Africa’s population increases by more than three percent a year. At that rate, populations can double in 20 years. When most of Africa became independent, the region exported food. Now, it devours more than $1 billion a year in Western food aid, and thousands still starve.

It is possible to argue that Africans might have been better off if they had been left entirely alone. This is to take a romantic view of the disease, tribal warfare, slavery, and ignorance that were widespread on the continent. Moreover, no African group that has glimpsed the possibilities of Western progress has opted to return to purely African primitivism. This suggests that Africans themselves would rather have the benefits of Western technology than do without them.

Given that people naturally yearn for medical advance and material progress, colonization was an obvious and striking benefit to Africa. The benefits are particularly clear in any comparison of those parts of Africa that were colonized with those that were not. In fact, African societies south of the Sahara that had not had contact either with Europeans or with Middle Eastern traders showed no signs of modern development.

No precontact African society had devised a written language or had discovered the wheel. None had a calendar, or built multi-story buildings. No African had learned how to domesticate animals. The smelting of iron was widespread, as was fire-hardened pottery, but the continent did not produce anything that could be called a mechanical device. It was trade with Europeans that introduced modernity to Iron Age Africa.

Far from hobbling and holding the continent back, colonization laid the foundations for whatever evidence of economic progress can now be found in Africa. It was Europeans who built roads and rail lines, introduced piped water, schools and telecommunications, and built national administrations. Nothing suggests that Africans would have achieved any of this on their own. There is no question but that life for Africans improved steadily under colonization.

Africans had no concept of the biological origins of disease, and attributed personal misfortunes to the work of evil spirits. Slavery was widely practiced, and deeply rooted in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans. There is no reason to think that, left to themselves , Africans would have risen from the primitive conditions in which Europeans found them. The European slave trade, though unquestionably harmful to Africa, was hardly the depopulating scourge it is often made out to be. When the 15th century Portuguese began sailing down the coast, they met long-established slave traders keen to sell off surpluses. Europeans almost never went on slaving expeditions into the interior. They bought slaves from dealers, which mean that other Africans first enslaved slaves taken from Africa.

For any knowledgeable African who has looked into the question as to ‘What lessons can Africa learn from colonization? There seems to be little doubt that Africans have brought misery upon themselves. Whether it be in Africa, Haiti, or Washington (DC) , Africans show little evidence of an ability to organize and run a modern economy. Just as economic refugees from Africa working in developed countries like Europe or United States in which they may form a majority community have failed to exercise authority, so have Africans desolated a continent bursting with riches. Of course, it is not permissible to conclude that this is because of natural, genetic handicaps from which blacks suffer, so anti-white arguments inevitably rush in to fill the explanatory void. Blacks the world over, whether they live only among themselves or among people of other races, are said to lead lives of failure and misery only because whites have oppressed them in the past and continue to oppress them in the present. It makes no difference that this explanation falls apart under scrutiny. It is the only one that is permitted because the alternative does not conform to current political dogma. There can be no pleasure in saying so, but the facts point to one conclusion. Whether in Africa or America, Haiti or Great Britain, blacks are poor because they are, for the most part, incapable of lifting themselves from poverty. Africa is poor, just as Harlem is poor, because it is populated by Africans.

Comment: Young black men account for just 3% of the population of the U.S. yet they commit 53% of all murder. 13% of the population receives 39% of the welfare, and 20% of all federal jobs are handed to the 13% of the population that is black. Various schools add 50 points to their SAT scores to make them qualified for entry. Not to mention decades of promotions under affirmative action. How many artificial steps must be provided to the ladder for Africans to be equal?