Oh this is too good!!! My two "favorite" Russia-hating Ueber-Zionists join forces in the New York Times to call for the salvation of the Nazi Junta in Kiev by a massive injection of capital.
Here is what they wrote: (full text)
Save the New UkraineThe way the NYT presents these two bloodthirsty clowns is also typical. One, Soros, is a "philanthropist" while the other, Levi, is a "philosopher". They might as well have presented them as modern day saints.
A NEW Ukraine was born a year ago in the pro-European protests that helped to drive President Viktor F. Yanukovych from power. And today, the spirit that inspired hundreds of thousands to gather in the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, is stronger than ever, even as it is under direct military assault from Russian forces supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine, which was demoralized and riddled with corruption. The transformation has been a rare experiment in participatory democracy; a noble adventure of a people who have rallied to open their nation to modernity, democracy and Europe. And this is just the beginning.
This experiment is remarkable for finding expression not only in defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity from the separatists, but also in constructive work. Maidan’s supporters have moved from opposition to nation building.
Many of those in government and Parliament are volunteers who have given up well-paying jobs to serve their country. Natalie Jaresko, a former investment banker, now works for a few hundred dollars a month as the new finance minister. Volunteers are helping Ukraine’s one million internally displaced people as well as working as advisers to ministers and in local government.
The new Ukraine, however, faces a potent challenge from the old Ukraine. The old Ukraine is solidly entrenched in a state bureaucracy that has worked hand in hand with a business oligarchy. And the reformers are also up against the manifest hostility of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, who wants at all costs to destabilize Ukraine.
One drawback is that the new Ukraine is a well-kept secret, not just from the rest of the world but also from the Ukrainian public. Radical reforms have been hatched but not yet implemented.
It is instructive to compare Ukraine today with Georgia in 2004. When he became president that year, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately replaced the hated traffic police and removed the roadblocks used to extort bribes from drivers. The public recognized straight away that things had changed for the better.
Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet found a similar demonstration project. Kiev’s police force is to be restructured, but if you need a driver’s license, you must still pay the same bribe as before.
Mr. Saakashvili was a revolutionary leader who first stamped out corruption but eventually turned it into a state monopoly. By contrast, Ukraine is a participatory democracy that does not rely on a single leader but on checks and balances. Democracies move slowly, but that may prove an advantage in the long run.
The big question is, will there be a long run? Although Russia is in a deepening financial crisis, Mr. Putin appears to have decided that he can destroy the new Ukraine before it can fully establish itself and before an economic downturn destroys his own popularity.
The Russian president is stepping up the military and financial pressure on Ukraine. Over the weekend, the city of Mariupol came under attack from forces that NATO said were backed by Russian troops, undermining the pretense that the separatists are acting on their own.
Ukraine will defend itself militarily, but it urgently needs financial assistance. The immediate need is for $15 billion. But to ensure Ukraine’s survival and encourage private investment, Western powers need to make a political commitment to provide additional sums, depending on the extent of the Russian assault and the success of Ukraine’s reforms.
The reformers, who want to avoid the leakages that were characteristic of the old Ukraine, have expressed their wish to be held accountable for all expenditures. They are passing extensive legislation but also want the International Monetary Fund to go on exercising oversight.
Unfortunately, just as democracies are slow to move, an association of democracies like the European Union is even slower. Mr. Putin is exploiting this.
It is not only the future of Ukraine that’s at stake, but that of the European Union itself. The loss of Ukraine would be an enormous blow; it would empower a Russian alternative to the European Union based on the rule of force rather than the rule of law. But if Europe delivered the financial assistance that Ukraine needs, Mr. Putin would eventually be forced to abandon his aggression. At the moment, he can argue that Russia’s economic troubles are caused by Western hostility, and the Russian public finds his argument convincing.
If, however, Europe is generous with its financial assistance, a stable and prosperous Ukraine will provide an example that makes clear that the blame for Russia’s financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin. The Russian public might then force him to emulate the new Ukraine. Europe’s reward would be a new Russia that has turned from a potent strategic threat into a potential strategic partner. Those are the stakes.
Clearly, the Neocons and their Zionist allies are in a full-war mode, they fear that their russophobic Nazi regime in Kiev is going to tank and they are terrified at the consequences. As they should.
Well, just as predicted the Rada in Kiev has declared Russia an "aggressor state". Now all that is needed to "prove" their point is a major false flag to show that hordes of Spetsnaz GRU throat-cutters are slaughtering babies in their cribs (Kuwait), blowing up peaceful shoppers (Markale market), committing genocide (Srebrenica), massacring villages (Racak) or using Viagra as a weapon of war (Libya). Then Putin needs to be upgraded form "new Stalin" to "new Hitler" (or both) and, voilà, the US and NATO will have to "shoulder their historical burden" of having to defend "civilization, human right, freedom and progress" against the revanchist Russian aggressor.
I am sorry to have to say that, but I consider a large scale false flag a virtual inevitability by now. God willing, the Junta is in too much disarray and chaos to make it happen, but I think that everybody in the Novorussian resistance needs to go to "red alert" for some crazy move by the Junta.
The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang
Guys, I am constantly getting a flow of comments about "Jews this Jews that", "Nazis this, Nazis that", and the "killer argument" "Jews cannot be Nazis and Nazis cannot be Jews". Guys, think again. Look at all Zionists and Nazis have in common:
1) the belief in the existence of races/ethnicities
2) the belief in the superiority of their own race/ethnicity
3) the morbid obsession with blood and racial purity
4) a phenomenal propensity to use violence to achieve their goals
5) the belief that their opponents are not really human
6) a morbid interest for the occult (Ahnenerbe, Kabbalism)
7) a rabid hatred for Russia, Russians and Orthodoxy
Now, of course, they also happened to hate each other. So what? Trotskists hated Stalinists and vice versa, the SS hated the SA and vice versa and the Jesuits hated the Lutherans and vice versa. But in each case these movement spring from the same well (Bolshevism, National-Socialism and Frankish Papism).
Zionism and Nazism are born from the same fetid womb: 19th European secular nationalism and, as Brecht so well put it: the belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang. This is also the root of Ukrainian nationalism, Russian pan-Slavism, and many other ideologies. Most of them have lost traction and have been repudiated, but in Israel Zionism is still the main official state ideology and the same is true for the part of the ex-Ukraine run by the Nazi junta in Kiev.
Now, sincere there are apparently quite a few of you who still hold on to racist/racialist ideas, I feel the need to repeat here what I wrote in my post AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers:
Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear:This is why the listing of Jews in power in Kiev because what is missing from the picture is either a list of all Jews who are not in power in Kiev or the list of all non-Jews who are in power in Kiev, or both.
When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which for this Empire's "deep state".
By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of "Nazi Germany" or "Soviet Russia" does in now way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russian s Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that's all.
Zionism is to Jews what National-Socialism is to Germans and what Communism is to Russians: a pathology triggered by a slight, but crucial, modification of these nation's "spiritual DNA". This is like comparing healthy tissue to a malignant tumor: very similar but different enough to be fatal.
The real enemy:
The real enemy is not the Jew, the German or the Russian, of course. The real enemy are evil, satanic ideologies. As Saint Paul so eloquently put it: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12). He did not say the "1%ers" of course, but if you ask me, this is close enough.
I recently got an email from a friend who asked me to stop using the word "Ukie" and I decided to follow his advice because even if some, or even most, Ukrainians nowadays might support the regime of freaks in Kiev, some, even maybe most, do not.
Yes, Soros and BHL are Jews. Real evil, bloodthirstily and ugly buffoons whom I despise from the very bottom of my heart. And yes, there ideology is the kind of Neocon Zionism which has become so popular in the USA and, in the past decades, in Israel (original Zionists were dramatically different, socialists, secularists and, actually, I think honest, if mistaken, idealists). Oh, not that I believe for one second that either one of them sincerely cares about his fellow Jews or about Israel. Not at all. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not need to care for Israel at all to be a Zionist. Are you shocked by that statement? Okay, here me out. Here is what I wrote in my "primer":
Let's take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word "Zionism" means: it is "a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel". Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews - whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity - need a homeland anyway? Why can't they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries? The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let's accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies. First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally "move up" to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc. In other words, far from being a local "dealing with Israel only" phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should "think locally and act globally" and when given a choice of policies always ask THE crucial question: "But is it good for Jews?". So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally split up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called "pre-traumatic stress disorder".So we need to be very careful here. First, we cannot fight an Empire whose nature and essence we do not understand. Second, we cannot fight an enemy whom we cannot even name. I therefore submit that speaking of the AngloZionist Empire is not only correct, but even crucial: "Anglo" refers to historical roots and geopolitical reality, "Zionist" refers to its ideological world view. HOWEVER, as soon as we start "counting Jews" or saying that Nazis and Jews cannot be in the same junta, we are immediately falling back into a completely discredited 19th century West European ideology which has triggered many millions of deaths in all the major wars of the past couple of centuries.
This is bull. Acting like a bull. In a corrida.
Personally, I don't even believe that the word "race". Here again, I will quote my "primer"
First, I don't believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see "Jewishness" as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist, but not a race. Second, I don't even believe that the concept of "race" has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don't differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.But I am aware that there are people out there who consider themselves as Jews or Jewish (never understood the difference between these two terms, but nevermind). I say - let them. But let's not paint them as the enemy when the enemy is a tribal ideology which is shared by millions of people who do not consider themselves as Jews (US Evangelicals, for starters, millions of them).
If we miss the real target and get distracted by the fake one put in front of us by the real enemy, we will act just like a bull in a Spanish corrida: we will always miss the real enemy who will exhaust us and then kill us.
Let's us please be smarter and stop constantly chasing the wrong enemy. Let's hit the real enemy there where he really is, there where he hides, there were it will really hurt him. Let's accurately name him. His name is "Legion" because he has many ideologies and manifestations and he shows up in any and all human groups.
One last thing: I am truly sick and tired of moderating comments about "Jew this, Jews that" or "Nazis this, Nazis that". So, exceptionally, I will not allow any comments on this post at all. And if some smart ass will post a comment about that elsewhere, I will delete it. I want the level of conversation of this blog to go up, not down, and if that means shutting up the Jew-centric trolling then I will. My apologies to everybody else, but the last thing I want here is 700 comments rehashing all the common racist/racialist inanities which were in fashion in the 20th century.
Please read the above post carefully, please re-read my "AngloZionists: a short primer" for a fuller discussion and, whether you agree with my arguments or not, please forgive me for exceptionally not opening this one post to comments.
Kind regards to all, cheers,