The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Oceania Saker.
Source: The Vineyard of The Saker
Okay, let’s be clear. I am not Muslim. I oppose terrorism. I don’t even support the death penalty. I loathe Takfirism. I oppose violence as a means to make a political or ethical point. I fully support freedom of speech, including critical speech and humor.
But this morning I am most definitely NOT Charlie.
In fact, I am disgusted and nauseated by the sick display of collective hypocrisy about the murders in France. Here is why:
Charlie Hebdo for the Darwin Awards
The folks at Charlie Hebdo had it coming. Here is what I wrote about them in September 2012 when they published their famous caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed: Worthy of the Darwin
Awards, if you ask me. Excellent, the “gene pool” of the French “caviar-Left” badly needs some cleaning“. Today I fully stand by my words.
Let me ask you this: what would be the point of, say, taking a nap on train tracks? You don’t have to “agree” with the train which will run you over, but it still will, won’t it? What about taking a nap on train tracks specifically to make a point? To prove that the train is bad? To dare it? To make fun of it? Would that not be the height of stupidity? And yet, that is *exactly* what Charlie Hebdo did. I would even argue that that his how Charlie Hebdo made it’s money, daring the “Muslim train” to run them over. You think I am exaggerating? Check out the caricature which one of the folks who got murdered yesterday had just posted. The text reads: “Still no terrorist attacks in France – Wait, we have until the end of January to send you are best wishes“. The crazy person shown in the drawing is packing a Kalashnikov and wearing an Afghan “Pakol” – the typical “crazy Muslim” in Charlie Hebdo’s world. Talk about a stupid dare…
“Spitting in people’s souls”
There is an expression in Russian: spitting in somebody’s soul. It fully applies here. Muslims worldwide have be unambiguously clear about that. They take blasphemy very, very seriously, as they do the name of the Prophet and the Quran. If you want to really offend a Muslim, ridicule his Prophet or his Holy Book. That is not a secret at all. And when Charlie Hebdo published their caricatures of the Prophet and when they ridiculed him the a deliberately rude and provocative manner, they knew what they were doing: they were very deliberately deeply offending 1.6 billion Muslims world wide. Oh, and did I mention that in Islam blasphemy is a crime punishable by death? Well, it turns out that of1.6 billion Muslims exactly three decided to take justice in their own hands and kill the very deliberately blaspheming Frenchmen. You don’t have to be Muslim or to approve of the death penalty for blasphemy to realize that this was inevitable and that this has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Offend any group as large as 1.6 billion and sooner or later you will find 1-5 folks willing to use violence to make you pay for it. This is a statistical inevitability.
Are some victims more equal then others?
So 12 deliberately “soul spitting blasphemers” were murdered and all of France is in deep mourning. The media worldwide does such a good job presenting it all as a planetary disaster that many thousands people worldwide say “I am Charlie”, sob, light candles and take a “courageous” stance for freedom of speech.
Crocodile tears if you ask me.
The fact is that the AngloZionists have carefully and lovingly nurtured, organized, armed, financed, trained, equipped and even directed the Takfiri crazies for decades. From the war in Afghanistan to Syria today these murderous psychopaths have been the foot-soldiers of the AngloZionist Empire for decades. But, apparently, nobody cares about their victims in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Chechnia, in Kosovo, in Libya, in Kurdistan, in Iraq or elsewhere. There these liver-eating murderers are “freedom fighters” who get full support. Including from the very same media which today is in mourning over Charlie Hebdo. Apparently, in the western ethos some victims are more equal then others.
And when is the last time somebody in Europe shed a single tear over the daily murders of innocent people in the Donbass whose murder is paid for and directly directed by the western regimes?
How stupid do they think we are?
And then this. Even a drooling idiot knew that Charlie Hebdo was THE prime target for that kind of attack. And I promise you that French cops are not drooling idiots. Yet, for some reason, they were nowhere to be seen that day. Only a van with two (or one?) cop was parked nearby (hardly an anti-terrorist protection detail) and one poor cop was shot and then executed with an AK shot to the head while he was begging for mercy. Is this the best the French state can do?
So what is going on here? I will tell you what – the EU 1%ers are now capitalizing on these murders to crack down on their own population. Sarkozy already met Hollande and they both agreed that new levels of firmness and vigilance need to be implemented. Does that not reek of a French 9/11?
So no, I am most definitely NOT Charlie this morning and I am disgusted beyond words with the obscene display of doubleplusgoodthinking “solidarity” for a group of “caviar-lefties” who made their money spitting in the souls of billions of people and then dared them to do something about it. And I am under no illusion whatsoever about the fact that cui bono clearly indicates that the French regime either organized it all, or let it happen or, at the very least, makes maximal political use of it all.
But most of all, I am disgusted with all those who play along and studiously avoid asking the right questions about all this. I guess they really are “Charlies” all of them.
I am not.
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 Full Paris Match interview of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, granted in Damascus on November 28th.
Paris Match: Mr. President, three years into this war, and considering how things have turned out, do you regret that you haven’t managed things differently at the beginning, with the appearance of the first signs of the revolution in March 2011? Do you feel that you are responsible for what happened?
Bashar el Assad: Even in the first days of the events, there were martyrs from the army and the police; so, since the first days of this crisis we have been facing terrorism. It is true that there were demonstrations, but they were not large in number. In such a case, there is no choice but to defend your people against terrorists. There’s no other choice. We cannot say that we regret fighting terrorism since the early days of this crisis. However, this doesn’t mean that there weren’t mistakes made in practice. There are always mistakes. Let’s be honest: had Qatar not paid money to those terrorists at that time, and had Turkey not supported them logistically, and had not the West supported them politically, things would have been different. If we in Syria had problems and mistakes before the crisis, which is normal, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the events had internal causes.
Paris Match: Your army is blamed for its excessive use of force during this war. Why are civilians shelled?
Bashar el Assad : When a terrorist attacks you with weapons, how do you defend yourself and your people, with dialogue?! The army uses weapons when the other side uses them. For us in Syria, it is impossible to have our objective as shelling civilians. There’s no reason to shell civilians. If we are killing civilians, in other words killing our people, fighting terrorists at the same time, and fighting the states which stand against us and which support terrorists, like the Gulf countries, Turkey, and the West, how could we stand for four years? If we haven’t been defending the people, we wouldn’t have been able to stand all this pressure. Consequently, saying that we are shelling civilians doesn’t make any sense.
Paris Match: Satellite imagery of the cities of Homs and Hama show completely destroyed neighborhoods; and the United Nations, of which your country is a member, talks about 190,000 people having been killed in this war. Were all the people in those neighborhoods terrorists?
Bashar el Assad : First of all, you need to verify the figures provided by the United Nations. What are the sources of these figures? The figures being circulated in the world, particularly in the media, are exaggerated and inaccurate. Second, images of destruction are not only obtained through satellite images, they are there actually on the ground, and they are accurate. When terrorists enter a certain region and occupy it, the army has to liberate it, and there is a battle. So, naturally, there is destruction. But in most cases, when terrorists enter a certain area, civilians flee from it. In fact, the largest number of victims in Syria is among the supporters of the state, not the other way round; and a large number of those were killed in terrorist attacks. Of course, when you have war and terrorism innocent people die. This happens everywhere in the world. But it is impossible for a state to target civilians.
[Please click below to continue reading]
We all have been well acquainted with the western presstitute narrative on any and everything Russia. But sometimes it is fun to give a slap back, here is your chance to do that personally.
The oldest national newspaper in France, also the second-largest, is conducting a poll that is worth participating in. Of course the newspaper is mired in dirty politics, military industrial complex links and what not. There is no guarantee on impartiality as western governments now routinely employ trolls, manipulate site visits, online polls and even manufacture data. But then again that is western “journalism” in general these days.
Anyhow, take the time out and cast your vote here and pass this on !
Click below to vote if France should deliver the Mistral ships to Russia. Remember “Oui” means yes!
The emergence of such initiatives is always a good sign even if it is a little late to the game. I would say that crisis creates change and as such nature has its own way. A number of viewpoints are expressed below both by the authors and our guest editor. Our editor has been most generous in helping publish this piece, bringing in his vast knowledge in Soviet studies and an astute command of the complex Russian perspective.
I would also like to thank the great effort by our translators without whom this would not be possible.
My own views centre more around the need to put a human element in discourse. The heart and mind go hand in hand and as such I am always skeptical when one is ignored. I believe this proposal,fundamentally, has both heart and mind in it.
Written by: Jean-Paul Baquiast and Jean-Claude Emperuer
Originally published by: The French Saker
Translated by: Elena L. & Alice S.
Editor: Rufus Magister
It was decided to write this text, which is still under discussion, on behalf of the editorial committee of “Solidarity of Europe”. It is signed by Jean-Paul Baquiast and Jean-Claude Emperuer (in alphabetical order).
We have previously shown that if Europe does not free itself from more than sixty years of domination by the US, it will forever remain a simple tool, continually exploited for their main project, which is the destruction of Russia. Liberation from this suzerainty should bring Europe closer to the geopolitical formation of the BRICS countries, which is still under construction. Subsequently, Europe and the BRICS [together] will become a force capable of resisting American power, which long remain stronger than the European or the BRICS individually. On this basis, we can draw two conclusions:
* Europe is too diverse and too riddled with American influence for anyone to suppose that it can solidly and quickly enough join, or at least form a strategic partnership with, the BRICS countries. Acting individually, i.e. overcoming the diplomatic limitations dictated by the European Union, European countries would have to take the initiative and negotiate on their own behalf.
* TheBRICS countriesare still toodifferent from,and some of themare quite distantfrom, Europe, which will makecomprehensive negotiationswith themdifficultin the near future; however, incertain circumstances,such would still be possible. The Europeansshould find new preferred [“privliegirovannykh” literally privileged] partnerswho sharewith themas many common goals as possible.
To meet thisdual requirementin the construction ofa broad alliancebetween Europe andthe BRICS, we propose to consider as the first and necessary step a strategic alliance between France and Russia. Since the era of Catherine the Great, and up to the Great Patriotic War, France and Russia — even without any shared land borders — had much in common and very similar interests. Even in the daysof Stalin’s dictatorship, the two nations did not confront each other. Charles de Gaullewas the first head of state to encourage closer ties with Russia.
From the outset,we note thatsuch a planned alliance withRussiacould todaybe extendedto otherEuropean countries, primarily to Germany, Spainand Italy. In each specific case, it is worth noting that having stronger ties with Russia would be beneficial even today, and that may be of further interest to these countries in the future, but such a discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
As for France, you will recall that when Czar Alexander’s troops briefly occupied Paris, after the fall of Napoleon the First, they conducted themselves almost perfectly. Recall also that the Franco-Russian Alliance, concluded on the eve of the World War [“mirovoi voini,” the First World War], was very popular in both countries. The continued success of the eponymous dessert in France is no accident. All this testifies to the profound harmony between the two societies, which is expressed in literature and art, technology and science…
But on what basis should a Franco-Russian alliance be created today, which could become the model for the union of Europe and the BRICS?
A Geopolitical Project
The project should be primarily geopolitical. This term is used to designate a union or a political rapprochement between two countries that share a common geographic area and broad strategic objectives.
Even in times of global trade, it is important to have common interests. Concerning France and Russia,at first glance it is not that clear that they share a geographic space. If we take a closer look at the concept, however, it becomes quite apparent. There are plenty of rail, sea and air connections, and they can be expanded at a very low cost. The similarity of the different parts of the space, which Charles de Gaulle called “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond”, is undeniable. Today, there are other states between France and Russia, but there is no reason to think that they, or at least their population, would oppose a rapprochement between the two sides of the Union, which could be useful to all of them. In any case, it would only mean bringing the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, back to Europe.
A Plan Based on Reciprocal Scarcities
The primary basis is a complementarity of resources and a commitment mutual development.
The geographic factor: Through France,Russia will gain access to the seas, which today are still very difficult for her to reach– the Atlantic Ocean, the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, as well as all the maritime areas belonging to France through her overseas possessions(a unique situation in the world). France, in turn, would gain access to the polar regions and Siberia which, if they are properly managed, will become more and more valuable(taking into account global warming).
The economic factor: France is very well developed industrially and could help Russia in the development of corresponding industries, and in return receive Russian expertise and resources, including in technology, energy, as well as mining — rich rare-earth metals. In the important area of research and development, we note the possibility of creating programs related to clean energy, all NBIC technologies(nano-, bio-, information and cognitive technologies), as well as space and military technologies.
Finally,the political and diplomatic factors: Inter-amplification is already obvious.In particular, the example of the struggle against radical Islamic movements which are equally threatening in Russia and in Europe, as they are in the Middle East. Now they are even spreading to the countries of southern Africa. Even if France and Russia cope with this problem in different ways, cooperation between them is necessary. And it would be very helpful if France would cease to consider itself obliged to obediently follow the intricacies of American policies: France and Russia together could then have a substantial place in the major negotiations and the conflicts taking place beyond their borders: in Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Kurdish question, etc. The question of differences in their approach to political democracy, civil liberties and morality should not be an obstacle to cooperation. First,over time these differences will diminish, and second, each of the partners must demonstrate its willingness to let the other bear its share of responsibility for societal choices– without trying to change them.
A gradual process
We should not hide the fact that with regard to a Franco-Russian alliance, there are some differences of opinion, especially in France. Political movements and politicians who are convinced that it is necessary would do well to propose a gradual approach, calculated to take hold over a longer period. But this does not rule out making some urgent, even if only symbolic, decisions. Note that if France, bowing to orders from the US, decides not to provide Russia with what, by rights, belongs to her – in this case, two “Mistral” class vessels, designed at Saint-Nazaire — it will be a significant obstacle to hopes for cooperation between the two countries. Conversely,if France and Russia were to deepen their already very fruitful cooperation in space, they could more rapidly develop the launchers, manned modules and ground stations needed to expand cooperation in space research, and exploration of the Moon, of the moons of Mars,and Mars itself. The areas showing the most urgent needs and opportunities for cooperation are numerous, including medicine, robotics, machine translation of languages, social sciences, and politics.
As for us — an Association of those who are confident that such a Franco-Russian alliance is needed — we will expand our activities in this area and will seek to establish a virtual dialogue with other organizations playing a similar role,in France,in Europe, and in Russia,to bring about profound changes in public opinion.
As a former doctoral student in Soviet History, permit me a few observations.
As I find common with technologists, the statement is a compound of astute naiveté.
Baquiast and Emperuer correctly note the long and often cordial relations between the Third Republic and Imperial Russia, and later between the Fifth Republic under De Gaulle and the Soviet Union. France notably absented itself, until fairly recently, from the NATO military command structure.
More recently, however, under Sarkozy and Hollande, France seems to be opting for its own version of the Anglo-American “Special Relationship,” (or as Tony Blair was known, “America’s lap dog;” please insert your favorite “French Poodle” witticism here). She certainly views her former possessions in Africa, and the continent in general, as within her sphere of influence under subcontract to the United States. It is noteworthy that France was a critical proponent of the disastrous “humanitarian interventions” in Libya and Syria.
An aside – why is it that self-serving American “humanitarian interventions” are just and to be accepted uncritically? How is it that similar and far more genuine Russian solicitude for its own people (either in strict ethnic or broader linguistic terms) is somehow a violation of international law? America hypocritically applies its own loose and indeed criminal version of international law to itself and its friends, while holding everyone else to the strictest of standards. Like my fellow readers of VS, I anxiously await the outcome of the Russian aid mission.
I cannot speak to the viability of the rail, road, and air links between the two. Are they sufficient for the proposed traffic from the Volga to the Atlantic? Would their expansion be easy and/or cost effective? I see it as unlikely, however, that the populations of states such as Germany and Poland, under the anti-democratic structure of the so-called European “Union” or “Community,” can effectively change the policies dictated to Brussels by Washington. Perhaps a transport version of the Southern Stream is possible, but I would have greater doubts as to the capacity and scalability.
I would agree, however, that any loosening of the bonds would likely be best achieved on the national level, hopefully as a precursor to a true democratization of the European Union as a whole. Such a version would include, rather than exclude, the Russian Federation. Perhaps mutual interests and complementary resources will prevail. To do so, political action by the masses, rather than techno-utopianism, is needed.
 Biographic note: Jean-Paul Baquiast was formerly a senior technologist in the French government. He founded the website “Admiroutes” (www.admiroutes.asso.fr), which his webpage describes as “an unofficial and user-friendly resource for the Internet based modernisation of public services….” He also edits the internet magazine “Automates Intelligents.” His essay on “Europe paneuropéenne superpuissance” was published by Editions Automates Intelligents along with co-author Jean-Claude Emperuer’s “Essai suivi de Indépendance de l’Europe et technologies de souveraineté” in April 2003. From http://www.jean-paul-baquiast.fr/
 See, in French “Europe is the epicenter of destructive conflict”, http://www.europesolidaire.eu/article.php?article_id=1433&r_id=)
 Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa, for those few who may be unfamiliar with the term.
 This is to me suggestive of the diplomatic term “most favored nation,” a type of trade-tariff relationship. Here and throughout the rendering of the Russian text is in the gender and case used in the document.
 This is the common rendering of “Velikoi Otechestvennoi voini” literally the Great Fatherland War, the Soviet and later Russian styling of the Second World War II.
 This treaty, signed in 1892, united the Third Republic with Czarist Russia against their mutual rival, the rising German Empire. It was a critical step toward the First World War.
 I believe they are referring to the napoleon. According to Wikipedia, as the “mille feuilles” the pastry predates the First Empire, but was refined by the French chef Marie-Antoine Carême (1784–1833). It had no direct connection to Bonaparte. Appearing in Russia early in the 1800’s, it gained especial popularity during the centenary of Borodino and subsequently became a staple of Soviet cuisine. The article goes onto describe variations throughout the world. Carême also created the Charlotte russe, which Wikipedia describes as “a dessert invented by who named it in honor of his former employer George IV’s only child, Princess Charlotte, and his current, Russian employer Czar Alexander…. It is a cold dessert of Bavarian cream set in a mold lined with ladyfingers.”
 “vzaimodopolnyaetmost’” – This seems to be a neologism, perhaps by the authors.
 It seems at this time that Hollande government, for commercial reasons, will permit delivery of the two ships, “Vladivostok” and “Sevastapol.” They are helicopter and amphibious assault carriers, with command and control capabilities. The French state-owned company DCNS designed the vessels, three of which France presently deploys. They were built at the Chantier de Atlantique at Saint-Nazaire. Now owned by STX Shipbuilding of Korea with a French government minority stake, this yard built such historic vessels as the liners “Normandie” and “France.” See Wikipedia and the websites of the companies involved.