The Empire is relentless, on the move, planning, trying, testing, re-calibrating, reorganising and then going on the offensive again. It is an endless cycle and surely there are victims as we all play our role in resisting the Nazi Death Cult that is the United States and its surrogates.
A patriot of Novorussia, Arseny Sergeyevich Pavlov (aka Motorola) was assassinated on 16 October 2016 by a remote triggered bomb in the lift of his apartment complex. He leaves behind his wife and child who will bear the very real burden of his loss. He sacrificed all for his belief in the right of man to set his own destiny, he sacrificed for all of Donbass.
There are varying analysis going around and it is worthy to read, digest and take into account each. The Saker has penned his own take on things which is well worth consideration, you can read it here.
However, I wish to put forward another account from Texac, who is in the Essence of Time unit in DNR. He is an American who has decided that dignity and honour are above meaningless pledges to a bloody flag (USA). He left his life behind in the US and has since worked towards fighting US/EU backed Nazis in Ukraine.
The purpose here is to illustrate that all of us are on the same side and it is with our varied views that we forge in strength to face the enemy in whatever way we can. The information war is a vital one that is already taking toll on the enemy, hence it is more important than ever to close ranks and not give way to infighting and slander.
Oceania Saker’s take on this finds merit in questions and legitimate points raised in both Texac’s observation as well as the very legitimate concerns raised by The Saker.
They don’t hate ‘our freedoms.’ They hate that we’ve betrayed our ideals in their own countries — for oil.
In part because my father was murdered by an Arab, I’ve made an effort to understand the impact of U.S. policy in the Mideast and particularly the factors that sometimes motivate bloodthirsty responses from the Islamic world against our country. As we focus on the rise of the Islamic State and search for the source of the savagery that took so many innocent lives in Paris and San Bernardino, we might want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology. Instead we should examine the more complex rationales of history and oil — and how they often point the finger of blame back at our own shores.
America’s unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria — little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians — sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a “provisional” ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal — and the ceasefire doesn’t include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra — it’s bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama’s stepped-up military intervention in Libya — U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week — is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.
To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians’ perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America’s imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy’s speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called “Bruce-Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government’s denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today.” The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America’s international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists “hate us for our freedoms.” For the most part they don’t; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms — our own ideals — within their borders.
* * *
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Like most of you, I too see an increase in the use of the term ‘fascism’ in the media, and it is -almost- always linked to the rise of Donald Trump in the US and various politicians and parties in Europe, Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland, Erdogan in Turkey, plus a pretty bewildering and motley crew of ‘groups’ in Eastern Europe (Hungary’s Orban) and Scandinavia. I guess you could throw in Nigel Farage and UKIP in Britain as well.
And while I -sort of- understand why the term is used the way it is, and it’s not possible to say it’s used wrong simply because ‘fascism’ knows so many different interpretations and definitions, very few of which can be classified as definitely wrong, that doesn’t mean that just because you’re not definitely wrong, you’re therefore right, and certainly not comprehensive or complete. And there’s a story in there that deserves to be told. Who is really the fascist? From Wikipedia:
George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’”. Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that “fascism” is the “most misused, and over-used word, of our times”. “Fascist” is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term “neo-fascist”.
I’m inclined to venture that ‘terrorism’ is a good second for most misused word, but something tells me that once you get into economics and the way terms like ‘stimulus’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘inflation’ are used, this is an argument that would never end. Let’s stick with ‘fascism’ for now.
The prevalent definition -and public notion- of fascism today is connected first and foremost to Adolf Hitler, to the Holocaust, the SS and other German WWII ‘phenomena’. And it’s quite something to link Trump or Le Pen to that, even if they say things at times that may make you shudder. It seems at least a tad hyperbolic, no matter how much you may not like these people. Neither is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
What’s more interesting, because it can provide perspective, is to look at what fascism is (or was) prior to, and beyond, Hitler and Germany. One man stands out in this: Benito Mussolini, Italian prime minister slash wannabe dictator from 1922 till 1943, who’s even often labeled the founder of fascism (though its roots go back much further). But for Mussolini, fascism was not what Hitler has made us define it as.
The Military Industrial Complex is in panic mode. Their candidate Hillary is sure to secure the Democratic vote but it is looking increasingly unlikely that Americans can be fooled again.
For the few that really need the nudge, please use Google and see what Bernie’s war record is both past & present. He is at the end of it a Military Industrial Complex candidate. Period.
Donald Trump is the red pill that America needs.
Here is one of the (Democratic) Military Industrial Complex’s many mouthpieces. He really went all out this time, stage fireworks and a rap song to boot. Looks like the conservatives in America are back with a vengeance. There maybe a chance of peace.
Will thinking Millenials & Baby boomers – be they African American, Latino or Asian – wake up in time to vote Trump?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.
The chaotic socio-political processes that the US provoked in Europe have given rise to a dangerous group of ideologues that the author describes as Secular Wahhabis. Just like their Islamic jihadist ideological brethren, they have a burning hate for Western civilization and want to totally destroy it, even though most Secular Wahhabis were born, raised, and spent their whole lives within it and don’t have any practical experience living outside of this civilizational sphere. While it may initially come off as mind-boggling that a Westerner, or anybody for that matter, would want to facilitate their own civilizational suicide, it’s not at all strange when one realizes that these people operate under the guidance of an ultra-extreme leftist ideology that has essentially become a fundamentalist secular religion for them.
To explain, Secular Wahhabis abide by the literal interpretation of leftist theoretical texts from a bygone era, structurally mirroring the exact same thing that the Islamic Wahhabis do with the Quran. For whatever personal reason it may be, whether they misguidedly think in their own minds that such a move will strengthen multipolarity or if they’re just expressing an inferiority complex on a macro scale via civilizational sadism, they firmly believe in the sanctity of the leftist theoretic dogma for open borders and complete opposition to any assimilative and integrative policies on the part of immigrant-receiving governments. So strong is their belief in this radical ideology that they instinctively slur anyone who disagrees with it or stands in their way as “fascists”, typically accompanying their overly emotional and disproportionate reaction with the threat that “the only good fascist is a dead fascist”. In this way, they once more follow in the footsteps of the Islamic Wahhabis who always call their opponents “infidels” and oftentimes literally try to kill them.
The similarities don’t end there, however, since the Secular Wahhabis have a vile hatred for cultural and civilizational identity, even among their own “comrades”, that’s equal in intensity to that which the Islamic Wahhabis feel towards secularity and their fellow Muslims that go along with it. The reason why Islamic Wahhabis obsessively oppose secularism is obvious, but when it comes to the Secular Wahhabis, this can be attributed to the influence of Cultural Marxism. This label is an exonym that’s not self-applied by those who believe in it but is instead given by outsiders who note these people’s utter disdain for anything to do with cultural identity, thinking instead that the only social variables that matter in explaining the world are economic- and class-based ones. Accordingly, the Secular Wahhabis regularly engage in paranoid purges and “fascist” outings within their ranks against those who they suspect of believing in the practicality of incorporating ethnic and cultural identity factors into their world outlook. The verbal violence that occurs during these dark moments frighteningly resembles and is but one escalation point away from the physical violence that Takfiris commit against their own flock, further underlining the behavioral and ideological structural commonalities between the Secular and Islamic Wahhabis.
The rise of Secular Wahhabis has been directly facilitated by the polarizing ideological extremism that has resulted from the Immigrant Crisis, but even before this pivotal event was engineered, the Russian government had already predicted that such a hateful movement might one day rear its ugly head. In 2008, Russia’s then-Ambassador to NATO and present Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the defense industry Dmitry Rogozin warned that a very dangerous threat was brewing in the world:
“Until things get really tough, they are going to keep pretending that Russia is their opponent. I think that in the XXI century, the real threat is posed by a certain bunch of people who think that you and I are second-class people. Those close-minded people simply don’t recognize our right to live. They don’t care who they are dealing with – Russians, Jews, Tatars, French, or British, or whoever, – they are all the same to them. To them, we are just a worthless civilization that must be destroyed. Let’s hope our Western counterparts realise that those guys threaten us all in equal measure and that this plague advancing on the European continent will engulf us while we are all arguing.
There is a new civilization emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. This is very serious. If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
From Regional War, “Regime Change” to Global Warfare
2015 has become a year of living dangerously.
Wars are spreading across the globe.
Wars are escalating as new countries are bombed and the old are ravaged with ever greater intensity.
Countries, where relatively peaceful changes had taken place through recent elections, are now on the verge of civil wars.
These are wars without victors, but plenty of losers; wars that don’t end; wars where imperial occupations are faced with prolonged resistance.
There are never-ending torrents of war refugees flooding across borders. Desperate people are detained, degraded and criminalized for being the survivors and victims of imperial invasions.
Now major nuclear powers face off in Europe and Asia: NATO versus Russia, US-Japan versus China. Will these streams of blood and wars converge into one radiated wilderness drained of its precious life blood?
I have always liked this country of red earth, mighty rivers and rough cobblestone streets. I have liked its bougainvillea, its long silent nights, and its endless open spaces.
But almost everything that could went wrong for the Paraguayan people, or at least for its indigenous majority.
Before Evo Morales became the President, Bolivia had been the most destitute country in South America. Paraguay was slightly “above it” – the second poorest nation. Now, most likely, it is the most deprived.
It is pitch dark outside, and the road is flooded. As in other extreme right wing countries worldwide, from Indonesia to Kenya, the drainage system is far from being a priority of the rulers.
One of the mightiest South American waterways – Rio Paraguay – is forming a national frontier between Argentina and Paraguay, two countries with similar cultures but diametrically different political systems.
Argentina is socialist, with free medical care and mostly free education. It has a progressive government. It sent its creditors, the World Bank and IMF, packing. It defaulted its debt, which was accumulated during the right-wing and pro-Western governments (Greece should study and follow Argentina’s model). It is increasingly close to other socialist Latin American countries, and also to non-Western powers like Russia and China.
Paraguay is a divided country. Even according to the BBC, fewer than 2 percent of the landowners are said to control 70 percent of its arable land. Other sources put the number to 75 percent and higher. Periodically, indigenous people demand their land back, and periodically, they get murdered.
Paraguay used to be the second poorest country in South America, right after Bolivia. But with enormous positive changes taking place in Bolivia during the last decade, Paraguay is now hitting the continent’s rock bottom.
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
To initiate a war of aggression…,” said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, “is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.