Category Archives: Bolshevik Revolution

George Friedman: A Neocon’s Blatant Speech on U.S.–Exceptionalism and U.S. Single-Handed International Warmongering Rights

Stratfor, a U.S. neocon geopolitical think-tank, should be considered as an extended arm of the United States’ Criminal Information Agency also known as the CIA.  George Friedman, a Jewish Hungarian naturalized U.S. citizen, is the CEO and co-founder of Stratfor: an organization that has often been described as the “Shadow CIA.” Geopolitical News considers Stratfor’s writings and geopolitical views as an unashamed ambassador for the Anglo-American neocon doctrine of worldwide hegemonic dominance or as coined by F. William Engdhal: Full Spectrum Dominance Totalitarian Democracy.

In order to remain a monocentric Empire, Friedman says, the United States of America must make sure, as it has been doing since World War One and for the last hundred years, that a rapprochement between Germany and Russia never takes place. A pluricentric world could threaten the U.S. Empire particularly a Russo-German alliance that would combine Germany’s state of the art technology and Russia’s vast amount of natural resources.

Another U.S. center of neo conservative Anglo American factories is the CCGA: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The CCGA is a non-elected, de facto U.S. government agency where renowned world leaders such as John Kerry, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Dr. Angela Merkel have all held speeches.  

In George Friedman’s CCGA speech, “Europe — Destined for Conflict?” (February 3rd of 2015), Friedman cynically touches on very sensitive nerves when straightforwardly admitting that the U.S. coup d’état in Ukraine was the “most blatant coup in history.” Two main points emerge from Friedman’s speech: 1. Creation of a European cordon sanitaire between Western Europe and Russia. 2. Prevention of a rapprochement thus détente and cooperation between Russia and Germany.

1. Creation of a European cordon sanitaire

___Screen Shot 08-23-17 at 02.19 PM

U.S. policy of containment encircling Russia

Cordon sanitaire according Wikipedia “is a French phrase that, literally translated, means ‘sanitary cordon’. It originally denoted a barrier implemented to stop the spread of infectious diseases. It may be used interchangeably with the term ‘quarantine’, and although the terms are related, cordon sanitaire refers to the restriction of movement of people within a defined geographic area, such as a community. The term is also often used metaphorically, in English, to refer to attempts to prevent the spread of an ideology deemed unwanted or dangerous.” 

French Prime Minister George Clémenceau (1917—1920) is credited with the first use of the phrase as a metaphor for ideological containment. In March 1919, he urged the newly independent border states that had seceded from Russian Empire and Soviet Russia to form a defensive union and thus quarantine the spread of communism to Western Europe: he called such an alliance a cordon sanitaire. As a native speaker of French, I can only underline the arrogance and rudeness of such geopolitical choice of words. 

george-friedmanaaaa

George Friedman speaking at the CCGA

Getting back to George Friedman’s CCGA speech and the Q&A session that followed, let’s review Friedman’s answer to an attendee’s first question:

(44:50) “Mr. Friedman, thank you for your analysis very much appreciated. If you are in Ukraine right now, and you are the Ukrainian government . . . or the people . . . what do you do? . . . What is next for Ukraine?”

(46:44 —48:10) George Friedman’s answer: “. . . He [ Lt.Gen. Ben Hodges, Commander U.S. Army Europe ] then left and announced . . . that the U.S. will be pre-positioning armor, artillery and other equipment in the Baltic [Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania], Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is a very interesting point . . . In all of this, the United States acted outside the context of NATO . . . So the point is, the United States is prepared to create a cordon sanitaire around Russia. Russia knows it, Russia believes the United States intends to break the Russian Federation; I think that, as Peter Lorry put it, ‘We do not want to kill you, we just want to hurt you a little bit.’ Either way, we are back in the [Cold War] old game (emphasis Geopolitical News) . . .

2. Prevention of a rapprochement between Russia and Germany

The second question asked is of quintessential importance because it nails the U.S. perspectives vis à vis its European geopolitical ambitions:

(53:17 — 53:34) Attendee question: “is Islamist extremism really the major threat to the USA and will it die on its own or will it keep growing?”

George Friedman’s answer: “It is a problem to the United States but it is not an existential threat; it has to be dealt with but it has to be dealt with proportionately; we have other foreign policy interests. Sothe primordial interest of the United States of America, over which for centuries we fought wars, First and Second and Cold War, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that does not happen (emphasis Geopolitical News), I say this as a possible victim of Islamic terrorism, it will happen … Even if we develop all of our efforts to preventing it, we will fail therefore if we do what we did in a decade after 9/11, which is utterly concentrate on that issue to the exclusion of all else, so that our army cannot fight unless it has sand under its feet, just not used to it, there are much larger dangers to the United States out there. It is very difficult to say to a country that has been hit by 9/11: take it in stride and no government can. But, the discipline of governance is that, while at the same time reassuring people that you are doing everything you can, you make sure you are not. . You are making as much as you reasonably should and our government… We have to remember the United States is like a fifteen year old, it’s manic depressive, in the morning it is love peace, love and happiness, at night it is suicidal because their best friend does not like them anymore: We are a very young empire we don’t even want to think about being an empire. We want to go home and have libertarian dreams: it won’t happen but it takes us a very long time to become mature. Georges Bush had not idea that his presidency was going to be about 9/11 and had no idea how to respond and neither did his critics. Barack Obama decided he could wish it all away. If he was nice, they won’t try to blow him up. We have to find a pattern of governance that combines an American Republic with what it never wanted to be, but we are almost one quarter of the world’s economy; we are going to piss people off a lot.”

___Screen Shot 08-23-17 at 03.04 PMaaa

In other words, the goal of the United States of America with its annual military budget exceeding 600 billion USD (more than all other nations’ military budgets combined) is to achieve the Pentagon’s Joint Vision 2020 of a unipolar world of full spectrum dominance: divide and conquer, Divide Et Impera.

George Friedman’s neocon views are sharp and high-pitched, cynical and arrogant, particularly when criticizing the U.S. wasting time and resources on a “Muslim threat” that does not qualify as an existential one! So one could and should ask: why on earth is the U.S. “allegedly fighting terrorism” in so many countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen via its proxy Saudi Arabia?

( to be continued…)

for Geopolitical News: Bruno P. Gebarski

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Angela Merkel, Bolshevik Revolution, Color Revolution, Corruption, Coup d'état, Fascism, Geopolitics, George Friedman, George Soros, Geostrategy, Germany, NATO, Neo Con, NWO, Russia, Terrorism, Ukraine, USA, Vladimir Putin, WWI, WWIII

Guest Article: “Trump’s Anti-Interventionism – Neocons Hate It As Anti-War Left Comes Around”

Original Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/trumps-anti-interventionism-neocons-hate-it-anti-war-left-comes-around

Submitted by John Walsh via LewRockwell.com,

Until recently the progressive mind has been resolutely closed and stubbornly frozen in place against all things Trump.

But cracks are appearing in the ice.  With increasing frequency over the last few months, some of the most thoughtful left and progressive figures have begun to speak favorably of aspects of Trump’s foreign policy.  Let us hear from these heretics, among them William Greider, Glen Ford, John Pilger, Jean Bricmont, Stephen F. Cohen and William Blum.  Their words are not to be construed as “endorsements,” but rather an acknowledgment of Trump’s anti-interventionist views, the impact those views are having and the alternative he poses to Hillary Clinton in the current electoral contest.

First, let’s consider the estimable William Greider, a regular contributor to The Nation and author of Secrets of the Temple.  He titled a recent article for the Nation, “Donald Trump Could be The Military Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare: The Republican Front Runner is Against Nation Building.  Imagine That.” 

Greider’s article is brief, and I recommend reading every precious word of it.  Here is but one quote: “Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate.”  And here is a passage from Trump’s interview with the Washington Post that Greider chooses to quote:

“‘I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,’ Trump told the editors.  ‘And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.'”

Trump talks about building infrastructure for the inner cities, especially better schools for African American children, rather than bombing people of color halfway around the world!  That is hardly racism.  And it is not how the mainstream media wants us to think of The Donald.

Next, Glen Ford, the eloquent radical Left executive editor of Black Agenda Report, a superb and widely read outlet, penned an article in March 2016, with the following title: “Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy – In Fact, He’s Damn Near Anti-Empire.” Ford’s piece is well worth reading in its entirety; here are just a few quotes :

“Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present.”

 

“If Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called ‘Middle American’ followers stick by him, it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means.”

 

“Trump shows no interest in ‘spreading democracy,’ like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to ‘protect’ other peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton.”

 

“It is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp.

Next, let’s turn to John Pilger, the Left wing Australian journalist and documentary film maker who has been writing about Western foreign policy with unimpeachable accuracy and wisdom since the Vietnam War era.   Here are some of his comments on Trump:

“..Donald Trump is being presented (by the mass media) as a lunatic, a fascist.  He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure.  That alone should arouse our skepticism.”

 

“Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.”

 

“In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as ‘a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image’.  The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. …”

 

“Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

The money quote is: “The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton.”  When Pilger submitted his article to the “progressive” magazine Truthout, this sentence was deleted, censored as he reported, along with a few of the surrounding sentences.  Such censorship had not been imposed on Pilger by Truthout ever before.  Truthout’s commitment to free speech apparently has limits in the case of The Donald versus Hillary, rather severe ones.  So one must read even the progressive press with some skepticism when it comes to Trump.

Trump has also been noticed by the Left in Europe, notably by the sharp minded Jean Bricmont, physicist and author of Humanitarian Imperialism who writes here:

 

(Trump) “is the first major political figure to call for ‘America First’ meaning non-interventionism.  He not only denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers, but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican President. He does so to a Republican public and manages to win its support. He denounces the empire of US military bases, claiming to prefer to build schools here in the United States. He wants good relations with Russia. He observes that the militarist policies pursued for decades have caused the United States to be hated throughout the world. He calls Sarkozy a criminal who should be judged for his role in Libya. Another advantage of Trump: he is detested by the neoconservatives, who are the main architects of the present disaster.”

And then there is Stephen F. Cohen, contributing editor for The Nation and Professor Emeritus of Russian History at Princeton and NYU.  Cohen makes the point that Trump, alone among the presidential candidates, has raised five urgent and fundamental questions, which all other candidates in the major parties have either scorned or more frequently ignored. The five questions all call into question the interventionist warlike stance of the US for the past 20 plus years. Cohen enumerates the questions here, thus:

“Should the United States always be the world’s leader and policeman?

 

“What is NATO’s proper mission today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union and when international terrorism is the main threat to the West?

 

“Why does Washington repeatedly pursue a policy of regime change, in Iraq, Libya, possibly in Ukraine, and now in Damascus, even though it always ends in “disaster”?

 

“Why is the United States treating Putin’s Russia as an enemy and not as a security partner?

 

“And should US nuclear weapons doctrine include a no-first use pledge, which it does not?”

Cohen comments in detail on these questions here. Whatever one may think of the answers Trump has provided to the five questions, there is no doubt that he alone among the presidential candidates has raised them – and that in itself is an important contribution.

At this point, I mention my own piece, which appeared late last year.  Entitled “Who is the Arch Racist, Hillary or The Donald”?  Like Cohen’s pieces, it finds merit with the Trump foreign policy in the context of posing a question.

Finally, let us turn to Bill Blum, who wrote an article entitled, “American Exceptionalism and the Election Made in Hell (Or Why I’d Vote for Trump Over Hillary).”  Again there is little doubt about the stance of Blum, who is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, a scholarly compendium, which Noam Chomsky calls “Far and away the best book on the topic.”

Blum begins his piece:

“If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.”

 

“My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted.”

And he concludes:

“He (Trump) calls Iraq ‘a complete disaster’, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. ‘They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.’ He even questions the idea that ‘Bush kept us safe’, and adds that ‘Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists’.”

“Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?”

I conclude with Blum’s words because they are most pertinent to our present situation.  The world is living through a perilous time when the likes of the neocons and Hillary Clinton could lead us into a nuclear Armageddon with their belligerence toward Russia and their militaristic confrontation with China.

The reality is that we are faced with a choice between Clinton and Trump, a choice which informs much of the above commentary.  Survival is at stake and we must consider survival first if our judgments are to be sane.

Original Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/trumps-anti-interventionism-neocons-hate-it-anti-war-left-comes-around

Submitted by John Walsh via LewRockwell.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Bolshevik Revolution, Color Revolution, Daesh, IS, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State, Libya, Middle East, Migrant, NATO, Neo Con, NGO, NWO, Russia, Syria, Terrorism, Ukraine, USA, Vladimir Putin, WWIII

How the USA Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014.  Terror attacks or mass shootings allegedly perpetrated by the ISIS [IS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Al Nustra, Daesh, The Islamist State] the question that should be asked: who are the State sponsors of  Al Qaeda and ISIS?  (M.Ch. GR Editor).
Geopolitics_F_Wordle_01“Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.  The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms:
  • On one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool;
  • On the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, ‘by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.'”
__USA_F_ISIS-DAESH-Terrorism_01During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood [A Nazi Fascist group who already had very close ties to the German Third Reich] in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology [the very reason why the Khazarian Mafia hired Adolf Hitler in the 1930’s to stop the spread of communism they themselves had exported to Russia via the Bolshevik Revolution] among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda a U.S. database of thousands of Islamist extremists
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
__USA_F_ISIS-DAESH-Terrorism_02America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy. The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity,
American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group re-branded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria:
  • One between the government and the rebels
  • Another between Iran and Saudi Arabia
  • And yet another between America and Russia
__USA_F_ISIS-DAESH-TerrorismIt is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways:
  • To attack its enemies in the Middle East,
  • To serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad,
  • And at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revoltThe so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are:
  • The Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy
  • The Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions
Geopolitics_F_Wordle_02Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite. In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer.
Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

arikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com | Follow Garikai Chengu on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/ChenguGold

Opinions stated in Garikai Chengu’s article (except for GeopolticalNews’ comments in […] are not necessarily endorsed by this site or its guest-authors.

Leave a comment

Filed under Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Bolshevik Revolution, Central Banking, Color Revolution, Corruption, Daesh, Fascism, Geopolitics, George Soros, Geostrategy, IS, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State, Middle East, NATO, Neo Con, NWO, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Terrorism, Uncategorized, USA, WWI, WWII, WWIII

Western NATO and U.S.-led geopolitical duplicity (1949 — 2016) | MittelEuropa, Lebensraum | U.S. Vassal State Germany

The Telegraph Europe’s Editor Peter Foster and Matthew Holehouse are either geopolitical slapstick comedians or two knuckleheads (dummköpfchen in German) who have lost their political common sense and sold their journalistic raison d’être to a Western never ending anti-Russian media propaganda. Their recent article:”Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties” and “UK warns of ‘new Cold War’ as Kremlin seeks to divide and rule in Europe.” is an insult to the sound mind and an additional contribution to the debris of geopolitical waste.

Clipboard_Image 019_F

Contrary to what vaudeville comics Peter Foster and Matthew Holehouse report, the U.S. has never been interested in the welfare of the German and/or European people whatsoever: Quite the contrary! Germany has become U.S. (NATO) Central European’s dumping ground providing additional territorial space to nature’s oceanic buffer zone! The U.S. has turned our little European continent into a dangerous lethal playground: The result of an increasingly rogue and war mongering Washington régime. And no Peter Foster and Matthew Holehouse, Russia did not annex Crimea. Please Gentlemen, do your homework, as we should expect from journalists doing their job accurately instead of the news presstitutes you’ve turned yourselves into.

Even German pro-U.S. propagandist “Der Spiegel” reported: Ukraine-Crisis:  400 U.S.-mercenaries from Academi [Blackwater] are fighting against separatists (Ukraine-Krise: 400 US-Söldner von Academi [Blackwater] kämpfen gegen Separatisten). Consider this hired Blackwater/Academi entity:  Positionened on rooftops, shooting both at police and public demonstrators. These US-based sniper elements were verified by Estonian Embassy translators. They appeared to have been hired by the Maidan Regime, supplied by the U.S. and Langley (CIA).

Clipboard_Image 031

German “Der Spiegel” Western Propaganda

  • Putin, the Dangerous Neighbor | Putin, der gefährliche Nachbarn
  • Stop Putin Now! | Stoppt Putin Jetzt!
  • Putin: the Arsonist/Firestarter | Putin, der Brandstifter
  • Obama Super Star | Obama Super Star
  • Obama, the World President | Obama, der Weltpräsident
  • Obama, the Messiah Factor | Obama, Der Messias Faktor

Wasn’t it bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll Victoria Nuland who said in a leaked private foul-mouthed indiscretion to U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt: “F**k the EU. . . . I think Yats [Arseny Yatsenyuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience. . . . “I’ve got a five billion USD budget? Wasn’t it the same Victoria Nuland aiming at standing out in her political  career and sounding more macho, miserable and moronic than her male American counterparts? Wasn’t it German chancellor Angela Merkel who described Victoria Nuland’s remarks as “totally unacceptable”? How about the 33 tons of Ukraine central bank’s gold bullion removed, confiscated and stolen then quickly spirited back to New York for “Safe Keeping “and rehypothecation? All this for the sake of the United States “safeguarding” our European interests? Yeah sure!

Since 9/11, regardless of where U.S. agent provocateur has boots on the ground, chaos, destruction and squalor are left behind. In the name of “democracy”, self-created tailor-made terrorist schemes (Al Qaeda/ISIS/IS/ISIL/Daesh) have been applied to countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Mali, Yemen and now Germany (see migrant crisis parts three, four and five) leaving behind a destructive path of destabilization and destruction.

Geopolitics_Germany_Morgenthau.Plan_FSeveral months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.” Obviously, Russia must not have been presenting a threat to the U.S. and the security of its Allies! So why then would the West create such a communist threat hysteria while allowing the Red Army to enter Berlin in the first place? Or was it rather a repeat of a nefarious plan to carve out Germany? An updated version of the 1919 Versailles treaty?

Hungary’s Jobbik, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Italy’s Lega Nord, and France’s Front National are simply exposing EU’s corruption while the U.S. and NATO transform our continent into a warzone powder keg! Altruistic U.S. hegemon? U.S. concern about a potential European “Putin-threat” is a complete nonsense Washington and our European governments would want us to believe. Just like the U.S. post-WWII fabricated “communist threat” did not exist, the present imaginary “Russian threat” does not either. The real threat to European security does not come from Russia: The real threat to European security comes from the Washington Régime of the United States of America.

__Untitled

In an excellent read: Seventy years of harassing political establishment and people of Europe, Andrey Fomin raises the question:

“Why the hell do U.S. intelligence agencies care about challenges to Europe’s internal security? Aren’t they the same agents who finance, recruit, and control countless political organizations, individuals, and media outlets on the European continent? Why are they so brazenly revealing their dominion over Europe?” Andrey Fomin goes on to say: “A politically correct challenger would argue that the United States saved Europe from the “Communist threat” after the end of WWII, facilitated its speedy economic recovery, and is still safeguarding the continent under its nuclear umbrella. Perhaps. But a review of the historical background should not begin with the Marshall Plan. First of all, that was launched in April 1948. Since the Nazis capitulated in May 1945, a misinformed reader might deduce that the United States had been drafting a massive investment program for Europe for as long as three years, and … he would be wrong. At the Second “Octagon” Quebec Conference in September 1944, President Roosevelt and US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. submitted to the British PM Winston Churchill their Post-Surrender Program for Germany. That strictly confidential document envisaged the partition and complete deindustrialization of the German state. According to the plan, Germany was to be divided into two independent states. Its epicenters of mining and industry, including the Saar Protectorate, the Ruhr Valley, and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by France and Poland…”

Recommendation for a German-Program after Capitulation [“Morgenthau-Plan”] , September the 6th of 1944 (Document in English starting page three)

Clipboard_Image 030_FDemilitarization of Germany

It should be the aim of the [US] Allied Forces to accomplish the complete demilitarization of Germany in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means completely disarming the German Army and people (including the removal or destruction of all war material), the total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength.

  1. Partitioning of Germany.
  • (a) Poland should get that part of East Prussia which doesn’t go to the U.S.S.R. and the southern portion of Silesia as indicated on the attached map,
  • (b) France should get the Saar and the adjacent territories bounded by the Rhine and the Moselle Rivers.
  • (c) As indicated in part 3 an International Zone should be created containing the Ruhr and the surrounding industrial areas.
  • (d) The remaining portion of Germany should be divided into two autonomous, independent states, (1) a South German state comprising Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, Baden and some smaller areas and (2) a North
  • German state comprising a large part of the old state of Prussia, Saxony, Thuringia and several smaller states. There shall be a custom union between the new South German state and Austria, which will be restored to her pre-1938 political borders.
  1. The Ruhr Area.
  • (The Ruhr, surrounding industrial areas, as shown on the attached map, including the Rhineland, the Keil Canal, and all German territory north of the Keil Canal.) Here lies the heart of German industrial power, the cauldron of wars. This area [The Ruhr] should not only be stripped of all presently existing industries but so weakened and controlled that it can not in the foreseeable future become an industrial area. The following steps will accomplish this:
  • (a) Within a short period, if possible not longer than 6 months after the cessation of hostilities, all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action shall either be completely dismantled and removed from the area or completely destroyed. All equipment shall be removed from the mines and the mines shall be thoroughly wrecked. It is anticipated that the stripping of this area would be accomplished in three stages:
  • (i) The military forces immediately upon entry into the area shall destroy all plants and equipment which cannot be removed.
  • (ii) Removal of plants and equipment by members of the United Nations as restitution and reparation (Paragraph 4).
  • (iii) All plants and equipment not removed within a stated period of time, say 6 months, will be completely destroyed or reduced to scrap and allocated to the United Nations.
  • (b) All people within the area should be made to understand that this area will not again be allowed to become an industrial area. Accordingly, all people and their families within the area having special skills or technical training should be encouraged to migrate permanently from the area and should be as widely dispersed as possible.
  • (c) The area should be made an international zone to be governed by an international security organization to be established by the United Nations. In governing the area the international organization should be guided by policies designed to further the above stated objectives.

Clipboard_Image 028This was the original postwar proposed Magnus Opus recovery program for Germany, known as the Morgenthau Plan. It is well worth reminding the reader that the Germanophobic psychopath, Theodore Newman Kaufman, author of “Germany Clipboard_Image 032must perish” is most likely the one who provided the framework to the Morgenthau plan. However, the Morgenthau plan did not take into account Europe’s propensity towards socialism dating back to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that initiated the spread of communism/socialism throughout Europe. Most likely, the Morgenthau Plan could have caused a Soviet (USSR) threat to a fragile post-WWII European continent thus it was replaced by the Marshall plan: A plan made to “revive” the economies of Europe away from any Soviet industrial sphere of influence.

Bruno P. Gebarski

Additional sources in alphabetical order:

Additional Reading:

  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror Management” | Germany 1871 – 1914 | German Gold Mark | German Industrial Revolution (part 9)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror Management” | Organized Migrant invasion | Asylum Industry | NGOs‘ Online Traveling Advice & Migrant Handbooks (Part 8)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror Management” | Germany’s Migrant Sexual Crimes: unintended consequences or organized consequence? (part 7)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, Weapons of Mass Migration | Libyan Gold | The Trail of a French Tale (Part 6)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, Coercion and Weapons of Mass Migration: coming Full Circle (Part 5)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, and Weapons of Mass Migration, Forced Displacement and Eugenics (Part 4)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement and Coercion (Part 3)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, Al Qaeda and ISIS as secret U.S. CIA assets (Part 2)
  • Fifteen Years of Western NATO and U.S.-led “Terror management”, 911 and Afghanistan (Part 1)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Academi, Angela Merkel, Blackwater, Bolshevik Revolution, Coup d'état, Fascism, Geopolitics, Geostrategy, Germany, Karl Haushofer, Morgenthau Plan, NATO, Neo Con, Russia, Theodore N. Kaufman, Ukraine, Uncategorized, USA, Victoria Nuland, Winston Churchill, WWI, WWII