Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Madeleine Albright Former US Secretary of State under Bomber Bill Clinton named like operations are named some fake euphemism for something that is, in reality, its opposite
10,000 supporters of the Serbian Radical Party on Belgrade's Republic Square mark the 17th anniversary of bombing of Yugoslavia by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
also opposition to
International Criminal Tribunal (ICC) verdict & sentencing former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to 40 years in prison for genocide and war crimes
Kosovo: An Evil Little War (Almost) All US Candidates Liked
Nebojsa Malic
Originally appeared at RT
Although the 2016 presidential election is still in the primaries phase, contenders have already brought up America’s failed foreign wars. Hillary Clinton is taking flak over Libya, and Donald Trump has irked the GOP by bringing up Iraq. But what of Kosovo?
The US-led NATO operation that began on March 24, 1999 was launched under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine asserted by President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. For 78 days, NATO targeted what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – which later split into Serbia and Montenegro – over alleged atrocities againstethnic Albanians in the southern province of Kosovo. Yugoslaviawas accused of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” as bombs rained on bridges, trains, hospitals, homes, the power grid and even refugee convoys.
NATO’s actions directly violated the UN Charter (articles 53 and 103), its own charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The war was a crime against peace, pure and simple.
Though overwhelmed, Yugoslavia did not surrender; the June 1999 armistice only allowed NATO to occupy Kosovo under UN peacekeeping authority, granted by Resolution 1244– which the Alliance has been violating ever since.
US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright, was considered the most outspoken champion of the “Kosovo War.” She is now a vocal supporter of candidate Clinton, condemning women who don’t vote for her to a “special place in Hell.”
Clintonvisited the renegade province in October 2012, as the outgoing Secretary of State. She stood with the ‘Kosovan’ government leaders – once considered terrorists, before receiving US backing – and proclaimed unequivocal US support for Kosovo’s independence, proclaimed four years prior.
One Sanders aide, Jeremy Brecher, resigned in May 1999 arguing against the intervention as it unfolded, since the “goal of US policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.”
Trouble is there was no “destruction.”Contrary to NATO claims of 100,000 or more Albanians purportedly massacred by the Serbs, postwar investigators found fewer than 5,000 deaths – 1,500 of which happened after NATO occupied the province and the Albanian pogroms began.
Western media, eager to preserve the narrative of noble NATO defeating the evil Serbs, dismissed the terror as “revenge killings.”NATO troops thus looked on as their Albanian protégés terrorized, torched, bombed and pillaged across the province for years, forcing some 250,000 Serbs, Jews, Roma, and other groups into exile.
After George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, his administration adopted the Clinton-era agenda for the Balkans, including backing an independent Albanian state in Kosovo.None of the Republicans, save 2012 contender Ron Paul, have criticized the Kosovo War since.
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump actually has been critical – though back in 1999, long before he became the Republican front-runner and the bane of the GOP establishment. In October that year, Trump was a guest on Larry King’s CNN show, criticizing the Clintons’ handling of the Kosovo War after a fashion.
“But look at what we’ve done to that land and to those people and the deaths that we’ve caused,” Trump told King. “They bombed the hell out of a country, out of a whole area, everyone is fleeing in every different way, and nobody knows what’s happening, and the deaths are going on by the thousands.”
The problem with Trump, then as now, is that he is maddeningly vague. So, these remarks could be interpreted as referring to the terror going on at that very moment – the persecution of non-Albanians under NATO’s approving eye – or the exodus of Albanians earlier that year, during the NATO bombing. Only Trump would know which, and he hasn’t offered a clarification.
Though he has the most delegates and leads in the national polls for the Republican nomination, the GOP establishment is furious with Trump because he dared call George W. Bush a liar and describe the invasion of Iraq as a “big fat mistake.”According to the British historian Kate Hudson, however, the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the “pattern of aggression,” following the precedent set with Kosovo.
Last week Secretary of State John Kerryreluctantly branded the actions of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria“genocidal” towards the Christians, Yazidis, Shiites and other groups. He cited examples of how IS destroyed churches, cemeteries and monuments, and murdered people simply because of who they were.
It was March 17, eight years to the day since 50,000 Albanians began a three-day pogrom in Kosovo, doing the very same things – while their activists in the US were raising funds for the very same John Kerry, as he ran for president as the Democratic candidate.
“For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal,” [Hillary] Clinton said. Given the Kosovo Albanians had renamed a major street in their capital ‘Bill Clinton Avenue’ and erected a massive gilded monument to Hillary’s husband, her comments were hardly a surprise.
She is unlikely to be condemned for those remarks by her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. While arguing that Congress should have a say in authorizing the intervention, Sanders entirely bought into the mainstream narrative about the conflict, seeing it as a case of the evil Serbian “dictator” Slobodan Milosevic oppressing the unarmed ethnic Albanians. He saw “supporting the NATO airstrikes on Serbia as justified on humanitarian grounds.”
Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate Hudson
Thursday 14 August 2003 11.42 AEST
The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states. That challenge, however, is not a new one. The precursor is without doubt Nato's 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, also carried out without UN support. Look again at how the US and its allies behaved then, and the pattern is unmistakable.
Yugoslavia was a sovereign state with internationally recognised borders; an unsolicited intervention in its internal affairs was excluded by international law. The US-led onslaught was therefore justified as a humanitarian war - a concept that most international lawyers regarded as having no legal standing (the Commons foreign affairs select committeedescribed it as of "dubious legality"). The attack was also outside Nato's own remit as a defensive organisation - its mission statement was later rewritten to allow for such actions.
In Yugoslavia, as inIraq, the ultimate goal of the aggressor nations was regime change. In Iraq, the justification for aggression was the possession of weapons of mass destruction; in Yugoslavia, it was the prevention of a humanitarian crisis and genocide in Kosovo. In both cases, the evidence for such accusations has been lacking: but while this is now widely accepted in relation to Iraq, the same is not true of Yugoslavia.
In retrospect, it has become ever clearer that the justification for war was the result of a calculated provocation - and manipulation of the legitimate grievances of the Kosovan Albanians - in an already tense situation within the Yugoslav republic of Serbia. The constitutional status of Kosovo had been long contested and the case for greater Kosovan Albanian self-government had been peacefully championed by the Kosovan politician, Ibrahim Rugova.
In 1996, however, the marginal secessionist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army,stepped up its violent campaign for Kosovan independence and launched a series of assassinations of policemen and civilians in Kosovo, targeting not only Serbs, but also Albanians who did not support the KLA. The Yugoslav government branded the KLA a terrorist organisation - a description also used by US officials. As late as the beginning of 1998, Robert Gelbard, US special envoy to Bosnia, declared: "The UCK (KLA) is without any question a terrorist group."
KLA attacks drew an increasingly heavy military response from Yugoslav government forces and in the summer of 1998 a concerted offensive against KLA strongholds began. In contrast to its earlier position, the US administration now threatened to bomb Yugoslavia unless the government withdrew its forces from the province, verified by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The US was now clearly determined to remove Milosevic, who was obstructing Yugoslavia's integration into the western institutional and economic framework.
Agreement was reached in October 1998 and 1,000 OSCE observers went to Kosovo to oversee the withdrawal of government troops. But the KLA used the pullback to renew armed attacks. In January 1999 an alleged massacre of 45 Kosovan Albanians by Yugoslav government forces took place at Racak. Both at the time and subsequently, evidence has been contradictory and fiercely contested as to whether the Racak victims were civilians or KLA fighters and whether they died in a firefight or close-range shootings.
Nevertheless, Racak was seized on by the US to justify acceleration towards war. In early 1999, the OSCE reported that "the current security environment in Kosovo is characterised by the disproportionate use of force by the Yugoslav authoritiesin response to persistent attacks and provocations by the Kosovan Albanian paramilitaries." But when the Rambouillet talks convened in February 1999, the KLA was accorded the status of national leader. The Rambouillet text, proposed by the then US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, included a wide range of freedoms and immunities for Nato forces within Yugoslavia that amounted to an effective occupation. Even the former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, described it as "a provocation, an excuse to start bombing". The Yugoslavs refused to sign, so bombing began on March 24 1999.
Despite claims by western leaders that Yugoslav forces were conducting "genocide" against the Kosovan Albanians, reports of mass killings and atrocities - such as the supposed concealment of 700 murdered Kosovan Albanians in the Trepca mines - were often later admitted to be wrong. Atrocities certainly were carried out by bothSerb and KLA forces. But investigative teams did not find evidence of the scale of dead or missing claimed at the time, responsibility for which was attributed to the Yugoslavs. The damage inflicted by US and British bombing, meanwhile, was considerable, including civilian casualties estimated at between 1,000 and 5,000 deaths. Nato forces also used depleted uranium weapons - linked to cancers and birth defects - while Nato bombers destroyed swathes of Serbia's economic and social infrastructure.
Far from solving a humanitarian crisis, the 79-day bombardment triggered the flight of hundreds of thousands of Kosovans. Half a million Kosovan Albanians who had supposedly been internally displaced turned out not to have been, and of the 800,000 who had sought refuge or been forced into neighbouring countries, the UNHCR estimated that 765,000 had already returned to Kosovo by August of the same year. A more long-lasting result, however, was that half the Kosovan Serb population - approximately 100,000 - left Kosovo or was driven out.
So was the war worth it? Notwithstanding the Nato-UN protectorate established in Kosovo, the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia was no longer under threat - the Kosovans did not achieve their independence.Nor has western support for the KLA been mirrored in Kosovan voting patterns: the party of Rugova, who never backed the violent path, received a convincing majority in the elections in 2001.
Meanwhile, violence dogs the surviving minority communities, and in spite of the presence of 40,000 K-For troops and a UN police force, the Serb and other minorities (such as Roma) have continued to be forced out.More than 200,000 are now estimated to have left. In the short term, support for Milosevic actually increased as a result of the war, and the regime was only changed through a combination of economic sanctions, elections and heavy western intervention.Such interference in a country's internal politics does not generally lead to a stable and peaceful society, as evidenced by the recent assassination of Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic, the most pro-western politician in the country.
As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the framework of international law.As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's self-appointed moral and economic arbiters.
·Kate Hudson is principal lecturer in Russian and East European politics at South Bank University, London and author of Breaking the South Slav Dream: the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia
The American-Anglo NATO criminal alliance consistently uses the pretext of 'hoomanitarian' grounds to lawlessly invade or bomb one unlucky nation after another.
In the instance of Yugoslovia, they violated the following:
UN Charter (articles 53 and 103) (USA's own charter)
1975 Helsinki Final Act
1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
and their aggressive incursions set a precedent for Iraq.
The American-Anglo politicians are liars and war criminals.
Notice how NATO re-wrote its mission in the aftermath of violating international law?
It's the same legal redefinition game they played to commit atrocities and war crimes with impunity, against German prisoners of war during their post WWII massacre and occupation of vanquished Germany (which they still occupy today).
It's the same shifting of the goal posts and betrayals they've been adept at, consistently violating treaties with native Americans.
It's the same dishonesty being played out on the international stage, with the Americans 'unsigning' themselves from the Rome Statute, so they can avoid being held accountable for their war crimes by the International Criminal Court ('ICC') at The Hague.
In the lead-up to the establishment of the ICC, USA signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline:
-- to ensure that it would be a State party to the agreement
-- that could participate in DECISION-MAKING on how the Court works
To make certain it would remain immune to prosecution:
Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures.
Washington ... has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals.
In addition: US threatens military force if personnel held at The Hague:
-- U.S. President George Bush -- 3 August, 2002, signs: -- Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002)
-- dubbed the 'Hague Invasion Act' -- because the law: -- law authorises the use of US military force -- to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country -- being held by ICC in The Hague
-- USA punishing those that ratify ICC treaty -- Servicemembers Protection Act -- provides for withdrawal of US military assistance -- from countries ratifying the ICC treaty -- reconstructs US participation in UN peacekeeping, unless US obtains immunity from prosecution -- but provisions may be waived on 'national interests' grounds
-- however, the US has written into law, the provision that the US may: -- assist internationally to 'bring to justice' those accused of: -- genocide; -- war crimes; -- crimes against humanity; -- including assistance with efforts of ICC.
*USA makes an exception of itself and its partners in crime.
2. Maelbeek metro station - shortly after 8am local time - 3rd blast
BBC Article
Brussels raids: Paris attack suspect Abdeslam arrested
19 March 2016
Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam has been wounded and arrested in a dramatic raid in Brussels after four months on the run.
Another man arrested, Monir Ahmed Alaaj, was also on a wanted list, Belgian prosecutors said.
Three members of a family accused of harbouring Abdeslam have also been detained.
...
Abdeslam, a 26-year-old French national born in Brussels, had lived in Molenbeek before the Paris attacks.
Is Molenbeek a haven for Belgian jihadis?
What happened during the Paris attacks?
Who were the Paris attackers?
He is believed to have returned to Belgium immediately after the attacks, in which his brother Brahim blew himself up. In January, police said they may have found a bomb factory in the Schaerbeek district of Brussels used as a hideout by Abdeslam.
Police found traces of explosives, three handmade belts and a fingerprint of the suspect.
...
Abdeslam
has been the subject of a massive manhunt since the attacks, claimed by
militants from the so-called Islamic State (IS) group.
...
A number of suspected attackers lived in the Belgian capital, and police have carried out a series of raids.
Missiles thrown at police in Molenbeek by Salah Abdeslam 'supporters' - their sick 'HERO'
TENSE scenes have broken out between locals and security forces in Molenbeek following the arrest of Salah Abdeslam with some residents reportedly “praising” the evil Paris terrorist.
By Selina Sykes
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sat, Mar 19, 2016 | UPDATED: 11:32, Sat, Mar 19, 2016
Riot police were called in to disperse the crowds who gathered in the Brussels suburb after missiles were thrown at the Belgian authorities.
Tensions were sparked after young people from the troubled area started declaring their support for their “hero” Abdeslam, according to a witness.
An eyewitness posted on Twitter: “Great tension in Molenbeek with young people from the area praising their ‘hero’ Salah Abdeslam."
Police officers were targeted by locals, many of which were young people, who threw objects including bottles, according Belgian newspaper La Libre.
Video footage of the incident shows large crowds in the road where the dramatic terror raid took place, with shouts heard before objects are thrown at officers.
Other journalists at the scene confirmed the tense scenes, with officers using police dogs to get people to leave the area.
Stones were also reportedly thrown at police, according to French media.
Police dogs are heard barking at locals shouting and hurling objects while officers attempt to push the crowd back.
...
Riot police armed with batons and shields move into the area, while several young men appear reluctant to leave the scene.
The presence of riot police at the scene suggests authorities were concerned about potential riots, according to some Belgian media.
The authorities had the tough task of managing the tense and nervous atmosphere among locals on the streets while a dramatic raid was still underway. Many exasperated locals who left their houses after hearing rumours of Abdeslam's capture gathered by the security cordons blocking off the area.
Tensions have been running high in Molenbeek since the Brussels suburb was linked to the murder of 130 people by Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis in November last year.
Several of the Paris attackers, including Abdeslam and ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, came from the troubled area which has been dubbed Europe’s ‘jihadi haven’. The Brussels district, where some areas are up to 80 per cent Muslim, was also searched as part of anti-terror operations in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015.
In January three journalists were attacked when they tried to interview family members of Chakib Akrouh, the suicide bomber who blew himself during a police raid in Saint-Denis, Paris, after the November attacks.
The Belgian government has vowed to crack down on extremism in Molenbeek which has been thrust into the international spotlight after the atrocities in Paris.
Many Molenbeek residents, particularly young people, are suspicious and hostile towards authorities, who they believe are infringing their liberty with patrols and surveillance.
Earlier this year clashes broke out between young people and soldiers who were patrolling a metro station in Molenbeek, according to Belgian media.
Abdeslam has been captured alive by Belgian terror police after a dramatic raid in which two suspects were shot.
The three suspects arrested at the scene are all linked to the atrocities that happened in Paris on November 13 last year.
Brussels Capital of Belgium
(officially Brussels-Capital Region)
19 municipalities, including the City of Brussels
French Community of Belgium
Flemish Community
+ large non-European population
+ low birth rates
de facto capital of European Union hosting European Union institutions
(one of three, incl. Luxembourg & Strasbourg) location of:
HQ - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
Benelux secretariat
historically Dutch speaking
shift to French late 1800s onwards
'official' majority language: French
-------/\/\/
Gatestone Institute 2012 Belgium Will Become an Islamic State
"The
rise of the Islam Party comes amid a burgeoning Muslim population in
the Belgian capital. Muslims now make up one-quarter of the population
of Brussels, according to a book recently published by the Catholic
University of Leuven, the top Dutch-language university in Belgium."
"In real
terms, the number of Muslims in Brussels -- where half of the number of
Muslims in Belgium currently live --- has reached 300,000, which means
that the self-styled "Capital of Europe" is now the most Islamic city in
Europe."
The politicians that have made decades worth of moronic decisions are responsible for this.
Europe had better:
1) Put its police and what's left of its military on steroids, asap.
2) If there's any sense of self-preservation left in Europe, all of Europe's heirs should immediately be conscripted as a civil force, armed and fully trained for urban warfare.
European authorities need to recognise that they've lost control of the their nations.
Where there's no-go zones and non-indigenous inhabitants of those regions violently challenge the police and even the military forces of the nations they have been permitted to occupy, it's time to wake up.
European people need to be trained to defend themselves and their nations.
And the morons that have spent decades facilitating the destruction of their own nations need to take immediate steps towards reversal.
Germany is not a sovereign state Submitted by Editor on 2013-02-21 01:30:39
Manuel Ochsenreiter
- Manuel, please, can you to characterize contemporary foreign policy of Germany, it's implications toward EU, changes during last years and possible perspectives?
- The contemporary foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)is not a foreign policy an independent and sovereign state would make. Berlin foreign politicians and so called “foreign policy experts” of the established parties in the Bundestag attach great importance to the fact that Germany is “embedded” in the foreign policy of the “transatlantic values” of the European Union or the NATO.
By the way, the fact that Germany is not a sovereign state is not a conspiracy theory. The German Minister of finance Dr. Wolfgang Schaublesaid during the European Banking Congress on November 18 2011: “But in Germany since May 8, 1945 [the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht] at no time have we been fully sovereign”.
When we analyze German foreign policy especially since the reunification in 1990 when the so called “post war era” ended officially, we can see clearly that from the German side there were no attempts to regain full sovereignty, although it might have been possible. Instead, Germanyparticipated as a willing NATO-“partner” in conflicts (e.g. Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Syria, Mali). We don't witness any independent German foreign policy activities. Of course there are also some little exceptions.
Just one example of an exception: When in 2003 the discussion went on if Germany should participate in the military aggression against Iraq, the German Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroder from the social democrats refused to be with the US. The opposition leader in that time, Angela Merkel from the Christian democratic union (the Federal Chancellor today!), attacked Schroder in a speech in the Bundestag with the following words: “We don't want a German Sonderweg [special path]!” She expressed clearly that in her opinion there is no other option than supporting the US in the aggression against Baghdad. But we shouldn't forget in that context that Schroder's government already participated in the conflicts inKosovo and Afghanistan. Schroder's coalition of social democrats and greens ordered the German air force to bombard the Serbian capital Belgrade. But when it came to the Iraq aggression, a huge German peace movement became very active with demonstrations in the German cities. So it was more or less about collecting their votes than a general change in German foreign policy.
Everything must be permitted or confirmed by the western “friends” or “partners”. Germany even reforms its army, the Bundeswehr, in a way that it is not anymore a classical defense army but a global rapid deployment force. The Bundeswehr today is seen as an element of the western military forces but not as an independent German army.
There is one important point. The German foreign policy today is not “suffering” under western or EU pressure. All these things happen by the free will of the German politicians in Berlin. This is easy to explain. Especially US-dominated NGOs and foundations take care about the careers and education of German politicians since decades. When we look for example at the activities of the group “Atlantik-Brucke” (“Atlantic bridge”) which was founded in 1952 in Bonn (West-Germany), we have to see that almost all established political parties and media companies in Germany are influenced by that organization. More than 500 elites from the banking sector, economy, political parties, media, and science are organized in the “Atlantik-Brucke”. You find there social democrats as well as liberals and conservative, even greens. With the so called “young leader” program they secure the supply of “new blood”. In the official statement it sounds like this: “In 1973 the Young Leaders Program was added to Atlantik-Brucke’s repertoire. With it the Atlantik-Brucke promotes interaction between rising young German and American professional leaders”.
But the “Atlantik-Brucke”is just one of the many organizations that “shape” German foreign policy in a way that Berlin seems to be more or less a satellite of Washington. The western hegemony is fully developed in German policy. For the near future it doesn't seem that there might be any big change.
And just to mention in this context, the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, said in 1949 that the organization's goal was “to keep the Russians out,the Americans in,and the Germans down.” Although we are talking since 1990 about the reforms and new aims of the NATO, we have to admit that nothing changed. Lord Ismay's statement is as actual as it was in 1949. And Germany right now doesn't have a problem to be “kept down”.
- Is there any attempts to opposite initiatives of U.S. for global dominance such as concept of Anchor States proposed by Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development?
- Unfortunately, even the concept of the “Ankerstaaten” [Anchor States] doesn't really oppose the US global dominance. It simply recognizes the fact that other states develop to influential powers in their regions. But the original document of the Ministry from 2004 says clearly that those new powers, the Anchor States, might have a positive or negative influence on their specific region. And in the “Leitlinien” - the guidelines of the concept given by the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development we can read that Germany acts in “strategic alliances with the EU and other bi- and multinational donors”, and that Germanywants to enforce the integration of the Anchor States into the “international community of shared values”. So if we to analyze the Anchor State concept in a pessimistic way, we have to state that this concept is a pure western hegemony doctrine and not an idea to oppose US dominance.
- How going actualization of this process of dialogue between countries of Asia, Africa and South America?
- This dialogue fits perfectly to the western agenda. You will not find any “German attempts” here. For the Russian Federation and China the so called “human rights” questions are dominant. We witnessed the campaigns during the Pussy Riot scandal. Many German established politicians didn't hesitate to call Russia a type of dictatorship with President Vladimir Putin as an “almighty” leader. Sometimes the hostility towards Russia is conspicuous. The announcement that Putin would receive the official German Quadriga award in 2011 was widely condemned. As a result of protests by Quadriga board members and former recipients all the 2011 awards and ceremonies were cancelled.Same thing with China. Also here Germany acts as a political “housemaster” for liberal “western values”. So dialogue is a strong word. What takes place in reality is schoolmastering.
And we can see the same things in the majority of “dialogues” Germanyhas with the so calledAnchor States. The dialogue with Iran shows that Berlin is one of the motors of the policy of sanctions against Teheran because of defending alleged Israeli and US interests instead German interests. The dialogue with Turkey doesn't deserve the term “dialogue”. The large Turkish national minority in Germanyis abused by the Ankara government ofPrime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a “fifth column” for influencing German interior policy. Turkey, as a “NATO-partner”, is under the direct protection of Washington.
These are just some examples of dialogue. The rule is: Berlin will not do anything that opposes the US-hegemony.Germany with those personal elitewill not follow its national interest.
- Representatives of German government some time ago told about necessity to back golden reserves to the country. Why it happens?
- The real questions should be as follows: Why did it take so long until our politicians became active?More than two thirds of Germany's gold reserves valued at 137 billion euros or $183 billion is abroad, stored in the vaults in New York, Paris, and London. The official reason: During the Cold War times the gold was transferred from Frankfurt to USA, UK, and France because it is more secure in case of a Soviet attack.Frankfurt was considered too “close to the iron curtain”.
The Cold war ended 23 years ago. But some analysts say it might be for a certain reason that the German gold is in the vaults of the western allied powers of World War II.
Why is Germanyonly now interested to get the gold of the Bundesbank back? It might have to do with the crisis of the euro and with the European economic crisis in general. Some analysts like the UK based financial journalist Matthew Lynn speaks out very clearly: “German sentiment is hardening against the single currency with every month that passes. What is a whole vault full of gold in the basement of your central bank good for exactly after all? Starting a new currency of course.” So hopefully this might be the overture for the comeback of the Deutsche Mark. To be honest I doubt that our government thinks that way. But hope dies last.
- Is any signals in military sector for re-nationalization (I mean decrease of NATO and US influence on German military planning, strategy and so on)?
- No especially that the military sector becomes more and more fully integrated into the NATO-structures.Germany is “castrating” its own security forces. They are not fit anymore for homeland defense but as an element for international operations. We practically abolished conscription in July 2011 which was a long term tradition of the German forces and a base for the national defense.
Germanynever seemed so far away from a re-nationalization of its military defense as seen nowadays. Although during the Cold War times West German generals opposed the NATO-plan that Germany should become a nuclear battle field in case of a hot conflict with the Eastern block.
- What is your opinion about idea of Multistakeholder-approach developed by German think-tank SWP?
- Generally it would be crazy to deny the danger of cyber-attacks against infrastructure of a country. And it would be crazy as well to deny the necessity of international cooperation in this new battle field. We should be prepared and build up a well-organized defense structure.
But “Angst” (fear) alone is always a bad advisor for reacting in a clever way to such threats. So we should read the SWP-concept of the Multistakeholder approach very clearly before we celebrate a plan to protect our countries against cyber-attacks.
First of all we should take into account that the SWP is not an independent think-tankalthough it claims to be independent. The SWP is supported by several German and EU-governmental institutions as some German ministries and the European Commission. The author of the Multistakeholder-concept, Dr. Annegret Bendiek, is Deputy Head of Research Division “EU External Relations” of the SWP. So we can say that the SWP is more or less part of a multinational network.
And the Multistakeholder-concept should be read carefully, precisely, and accurately. It contains ideas of mixing up the cyber security tasks with the private sector and the so called “civil society”, and that this cooperation should happen with “equal rights” of all participants. This means nothing else other than giving state functions to non-state institutions. At the same time it mentions the fields of inner and foreign politics “melting” with each other. And the concept is again a very US-related. It gives the impression that the threat generally comes from the “evil” east but never from the west!
So when we analyze the concept we see that it contains in many ways guidelines how to disintegrate more and more sovereign state tasks. The concept follows the postmodern trend determining that the state alone is not able to take care of traditional state organized challenges. When it comes to security issues, maybe the most important national challenge for any state, we should be very careful. We should also be careful when such concepts tell us today where the future threats will come fromexactly. We can interpret this in two ways. The author is able to read in the coffee cup and knows exactly what will happen in the future, or the author follows an explicit frontline given to him by the party ordering the research study.
- What is role of Germany in Cyber-G5 (Deutschland, Frankreich, Gro?britannien, Niederlande, Schweden) and how Bundestag reflects on cyberpolicy and cyberthreats in general? The results of summit in Dubai shows red line between Russia, China, India, Iran etc. and U.S. + E.U. on other side that mean possible confrontation in this specific domen in future.
- The cyber policy is a political field which is underestimated by the majority of political analysts today. Let us talk frankly. Cyber policy is a part of the so called western concept of “world inner policy”. It denies national sovereignty. The European concept is close to the US concept given by the former US head of state department Hillary Clinton. She declared the “freedom of the internet” a “fundamental principle” of the US foreign policy. By the way, this was the justification of supporting the Libyan Sunni extremist fighters during their war against the Gaddafi-regime in capturing big parts of the Libyan national mobile phone network. The “freedom of the internet” argument is used right now to support anti-state groups with communication material. State sovereignty, where information policy is also an important part of state security, is violated by those Washington activities nonstop.
In the so called “Cyber-G5” group, the German government supports exactly this understanding of the “freedom of the internet”. Again German SWP-authors (Annegret Bendiek, Marcel Dickow and Jens Meyer) framed the concept in an article for “SWP-Aktuell”: The authors speak about an “emancipating and democratizing effect” of the internet and mention the so called “Arab Spring” as an evidence, although in the “Spring”-countries sunni islamist governments came to power who are not really well known for supporting “information freedom”.
So we cannot ignore the fact that what is called today with a nice term “freedom of the internet” might be tomorrow already the justification for violating the sovereignty of those states that don't obey that idea.
This is also cynicism and hypocrisy.While talking about the “freedom of the internet” and “freedom of information” all over the world the EU-countries violate freedom of speech and press inside. So we can say that the “freedom of the internet” policy is nothing else other than an instrument to violate and destabilize other states in the future.
And of course there is a fat red line between the west and those states that have a strong sovereign agenda such as Russia, China, India or Iran.
- And what you think about trade relations and it's link with politics and ideology? For example, last year presence of German companies in Russia become smaller than before.
- I consider Germany and Russia as natural partners in business and trade. Unfortunately the political situation doesn't encourage good and prosperous business relations. Germany is Russia's second biggest trade partner after China. We import resources and export industrial goods and high technology. In a positive political atmosphere Germany and Russia could benefit much more by close relations, not just in the economic field. But as long as the guidelines for German foreign politics are written in Washington and Brussels I don't see big chances for a change.
But why not think ahead? There are plenty of fields for great future cooperation. Germany and Russia could build up Northern East Prussia in modern day Russian exclave “Oblast Kaliningrad” with a joint venture! Konigsberg (Kaliningrad), the old Prussian town, could become again a capital of German-Russian free state outside the EU. Why shouldn't we combine our skills there on a historical soil. Konigsberg used to be an important center for north eastern European trade.
Of course for many readers this might sound like fantasy and very unrealistic. But the people who talked in 1988 and even in summer 1989 about a German reunification were also considered as lunatics. So why not be little bit crazy and think about such great opportunities. Things might change, and sometimes very quickly.
- Actually what is geopolitical thought of Germany now? It mostly unknown in Russia. After Haushoffers (father and son) and few names there is no information about it, expect discourse of some political scientists, but not geopoliticians.
- Geopolitics is banned in Germany since 1945. It was considered especially by the US as one of the evil sources of “German aggression”. So what does that mean today? The German authorities don't consider Germany itself to be an independent global player anymore.Geopolitically Germany became a full part of the so called “western international community” although this is anti-historical.Germany used to be a central European state, a bridge between east and west. This thinking almost disappeared.
If I personally want to talk with someone about geopolitics and e.g. about Haushofer's ideas I have to find most probably a Russian or Middle Eastern conversation partner.
Interviewed by Leonid Savin
IMAGE Manuel Ochsenreiter (right) and professor Alexander Dugin (left) in Freiburg, Germany
Once again, my gut instincts are confirmed correct.
The puppet state that is Germany follows the foreign policy of its American masters, supporting attack of sovereign foreign states, as subservient on-call American deployed attack-dog, while neglecting to even try to establish the German nation's sovereignty, over 70 years after Germany's defeat, and some decades since German reunification (1990).
Germany's politicians excel at pissing on the German and European people, as we're seen from Merkel's invasion of Europe policy.
That apparently extends to dismantling national defence capabilities of the German army, while pursuing a policy of providing the Americans with a ready rapid deployment force to violate some more countries with, and a policy of borderless and unprotectedGerman and European suicide.
Meanwhile German taxpayers are fleeced to the tune of €34.4 billion (1.2% of German GDP, 2014) and Germany is among the top ten in the world for military spending.
But the US extortionist, NATO, wants yet more from the German vassal: ie 2%.
Hypocritical US-shaped German politicians are also pissing on the very principles that are the cornerstones of purported Western 'freedoms' and 'democracy', demonstrating that the controlled German politicians, much like their two-faced con-artist oligarchy-serving American political master counterparts, have no regard whatsoever for: self-determination, justice, freedom, or freedom of speech.
Instead, Germany exploits the very principles it pays lip service to, manipulating public perception and sentiment, via the controlled media that has been exploiting and selling:
the fantasy of 'noble' American 'protector' intent, to window-dress the vassalage of Europe;
the fantasy of Western 'freedom', while Germany's violating liberties such as freedom of association; freedom of political affiliation; freedom of intellectual and political conviction; freedom from state harassment and freedom from infiltration of one's political organisations by state agents; freedom from communications harassment and censorship; freedom from ongoing state harassment and state attempts at political party shut-down etc; to name but a few such violations (while Germany's US-Anglo masters have been exposed violating entire countries, deploying American empire mass surveillance);
above all, selling the fantasy of post-WWII constitutionally-mandated American-designed 'united Europe,' a project that has since manifested itself in the unholy supranationalEuropean Union alliance of the obliging neocon American puppet elites;
the philosophical fantasy of 'universalism' above ancestral identity, along with the worship of universal 'human rights' ideology, which is accompanied by Western media and educational indoctrination to the point of absurdity, and has paved the way to exploitation of the assailed and politically castrated masses by their pious, moralising, instructing, and supremely virtuous intelligentsia 'betters' and the violent, lunatic left government shills that are never condemned as extremists that they are in the controlled media;
the fantasy of Western 'moral superiority,' with the US-Anglo war criminals cast in the role of 'champions', priests and popes of this universalist 'religion' of the American capitalist empire;
so as to embed in the realm of public perception, a fantasy of Western 'moral high ground', while deceitfully, callously, pre-emptively & hypocritically smearingtargets of American aggression that have been designated 'official enemies and targets of future American aggression, by joining the controlled media (and controlled Western politician counterparts), in the chorus of orchestrated disapproval, for public consumption (see 2012 Bundestag 124-member signed letter to Russian ambassador re Pussy Riot).
And that's when these principles are not more aggressively exploited as instruments of coercion and pretexts for economic and other sanctions (eg. Iran 40 years of sanctions; Iraq sanctions - millions of dead children, but American Madeline Albright thinks it was worth it), and even pretexts for US-led unlawful, strategic war of aggression by way of unprovoked military attack.
All of the above applies to German hypocrisy and to that of Germany's Western counterparts, save that they are not occupied in the way that defeated Germany remains occupied.
-------/\/\/
*What does the following say about the silent, Western, controlled corporate media collective, that has never referred to Clinton, Bush, Killary or Obomber -- actualwar criminals -- as 'strongmen', for example, while it routinely smears Russia's President Putin?
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton Illegal Bomber of Serbia with support of prisoner of war Germany
(strategic US ambitions)
Bomber of Sudan medicine factory
(Lewinsky cover-up)
Cruise Missile Bomber of Iraq
(strike in violation of international law) War Criminal
Joke States
Czech Republic, Papua New Guinea, POW Germany & site of 'surprise' US military base: Kosovo
honoured Bomber Bill Clinton
Killary Clinton
famous for Libya
Benghazi
missing $6-billion ... yes, BILLION
... & missing state e-mails
Killary Clinton
"“And in denying that it represented policy she – under oath – essentially admitted to the fact pattern of US policy being regime change in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi. Both are war crimes, both are prosecutable acts at the International Criminal Court, and her statements were made under oath,” the analyst stated."here
Pussy Riot US Empire, US Vassals' & Controlled- Media Darlings
-------/\/\/
YetGermany's US NGO-moulded politicians have the nerve to criticise Russia regarding Provocateurs-R-Us, Pussy Riot, while the German US-controlled, prisoner of war, puppet state:
imprisons those that raise an arm at a "politically incorrect angle";
imprisons the likes of 87 year old Ursula Haverbeck for speaking her mind; and while
Germany, 'paragon' of progressive European 'liberty', has spent multiple decades harassing free-thinker Ernst Zundel, over six prisons and two continents, effectively kidnapping or pretty much 'renditioning' Zundel from Canada (albeit, with Canadian court approval), without charge, before imprisoning kidnapped free-thinker Zundel in the totalitarian, American-dominated puppet 'German' state that is ruled by self-serving elites - ibid & here.
Ernst Zundel had lived and worked in Canada for 40 years without criminal charge.
Zundel's sanctioned kidnap to Germany, without charge, was on the basis of allegations, and on the basis that his website could be read in Germany*.
Let's not forget the unjust and undemocratic imprisonment Zundel's lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, imprisoned for over 3 years and barred from practising law (video), pursuant to a victor-dictated 'German' totalitarian, unconditional surrender 'constitution,' enforced without challenge by the craven, US-indoctrinated German puppet politicians.
*What does that say about the collusion of Western governments and courts to violate the rights of Westerners?
*What does that say about Germany's portrayal as the bastion of internet and information freedom in Europe and champion of Western 'dissenters' when Germany violates the rights of Germans and even Germans abroad?
*What does that say about American 'dissident', NGO and Western controlled-media darlings, who choose US-controlled prisoner of warGermany as an 'escape' from US persecution?
Germany remains an occupied state, yet it's a magnet for American dissidents. Go figure.
-------/\/\/
[Click image to enlarge]
German elites that profit from and carry out American orders, and the Americans that pull the strings behind the scenes, are responsible for violations of German liberty, continued violation of German sovereignty and for violation of the German right to self-determination.
And it's the Americans who are therefore ultimately responsible for the present-day invasion of Europe, for the implementation of the policy that spells the destruction of Europe, and for the damage to European self-determination, in the short term, and the damage to all European people who are at risk and shall remain at perpetual risk bearing the costs and consequences of invasion of their ancestral lands and their unique societies, at the end of the day.
Among a number of negative consequences of mass immigration, the capacity to continue to exercise national self-determination is irrevocably damaged, in what can only be a perpetual, enduring and increasing cycle of divestment of native European host peoples in relation to foreign populations, as foreign populations grow biologically and through continued immigration.
Slavic
народ = narod = people
род = rod = to give birth to, to produce, to bring forth (crops)
also: family, clan
[source: 'Thinking about the Environment: Our Debt to the Classical and Medieval Past' - By T. M. Robinson, Laura Westra - page 88]
the prefix 'на' or 'na' = on
so народ = narod = people = on-birth
While the word 'narod' is applicable in general terms to all people, it is interesting that at its root this Slavic word appears to be comprised of the words for 'on' and 'birth'.
When a nation is no longer comprised of one people, whose political power is vested in that people, the capacity to exercise self-determination as a people is lost.
Merkel was merely mouthpiece here.
The US-Anglo alliance uses Germany, as if Germany were some independent, dynamic mover and shaker, when, in fact, they still control Germany behind the scenes, while making out the decisions are big, bad Germany's or something like that. That's the impression I have, especially when it comes to the EU.
TimeMagazine didn't waste any time sending the world's plebs its endorsement and propaganda 'positive' messaging.
-------/\/\/
TIME WARNER
STUDY IN CONTRASTS
E U R O P E
-------/\/\/
What's France's excuse, I wonder?
Funny how France and Britain, the WWII allied occupiers, aren't scapegoated like the Germans are for the European Union abomination that is their 'baby'.
The European Union is yet another US-Anglo empire (and Franco bloc) post-WWII concocted institution that is primarily a vehicle for American financial, corporate and political interests, in the ongoing post WWII exercise of American power over Europe.
Dr Wolfgang Schauble's remarks on the 'constitution' even refer to the alien concept of a 'united Europe', versus a Europe comprised of sovereign nations and sovereign peoples, as has been historically the case in Europe from time immemorial:
"... In the preamble 1949 it says the goal is to serve the peace of the world as an equal partner in a united Europe."[video ibid]
The controlled Western media and the US-Anglo political agenda serving 'humanitarian' shilling Western NGO's:
do not condemn the violation of rights of politically persecuted Germans (and their defenders), the designated ideological 'lepers' that are dutifully smeared in the press;
do not condemn the violation of the rights of native European populations that are subjected to invasion, deceit, political suppression, and decimation by invasion;
nor do they condemn the destruction of Europe and the destruction of the European peoples;
as the 'free press' is actually the corporate, controlled press and they, along with the Western NGO 'do-gooders', are in the business of maintaining and applauding the edifice that is US-Anglo led Western hypocrisy and farce.
Watch while they give each other self-congratulatory awards, as 'defenders' of values and principles they merely function to help exploit.
-------/\/\/
And Vladimir Putin is the 'dictator'? What lies and hypocrisy.
-------/\/\/
Imperial Russian Army Song Взвейтесь, соколы, орлами!
Anti-Zensur-Koalition
8th Internationale Konferenz
Speech Forbidden, Evidence Forbidden, Legal Defence Forbidden: The Reality of Freedom of Expression
Speaker: Sylvia Stolz Ivo Sasek Moderator / Announcer Our last speaker of the day will be speaking on the theme "Speech Forbidden, Evidence Forbidden, Legal Defence Forbidden." That's taking it to the next level [forbidding legal defence], and it relates to a still larger problem. This is a fully qualified lawyer, an Assessor Juris, and in listening to her it is particularly important that we don't let our judgment be influenced by what we have previously seen or heard. She really made the headlines a few years ago as a defence attorney. So let me briefly explain whom we are dealing with. This attorney is-- No, don't clap yet, we're not quite there. [laughs] This defence attorney has the courage of a lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defendErnst Zundel in the famous case against him for so-called Holocaust denial. She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zundel. During the legal proceedings she presented evidence to the court which would raise doubts regarding the official account of history. This caused a furore in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case and barred from listing more evidence. She ignored the speech ban and continued to submit evidence. She was then threatened with penalties if she persisted. And this defence attorney simply kept going. As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called 'Holocaust denier' Ernst Zundel. But not even this would silence her; if I remember correctly, they had her carried out and she continued to argue, she simply kept presenting evidence on behalf of her client. And for this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years. Arrested in the courtroom and locked up. On top of this, she had to face 5 years of professional exclusion, through cancellation of her licence to work as an attorney, she was removed from the Association of German Lawyers. They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. I urge you to help her along. [applause]
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
