April 11, 2014
Obama Blows Up Iran Talks Over 35 Year Old Petty Issue
The U.S. denies a visa to the new Iranian ambassador to the United Nations Hamid Aboutalebi. Mr. Aboutalebi was ambassador to several European countries and to the EU and he had on earlier occasions received U.S. visa and visited the United states:
The Obama administration had previously said only that it opposed the nomination of Hamid Aboutalebi, who was a member of the group responsible for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Aboutalebi is alleged to have participated in a Muslim student group that held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days during the takeover.
Aboutalebi has insisted his involvement in the group involved in the embassy takeover, Muslim Students Following the Imam's Line, was limited to translation and negotiation.
The U.S. is not allowed to decide who UN members nominate and send as UN ambassadors. This visa rejection is clearly illegal under the Headquarter Agreement between the UN and the United States:
[T]he U.N. would be well within its rights to claim a violation of the Headquarters Agreement and to demand an arbitration that it would have a good chance of winning.
No other country in the UN can agree to this U.S. behavior. All would risk to have their next ambassador to the UN rejected for some petty game issue some U.S. politicians want to play. The UN will have to fight this case.
So far the talks about nuclear issues between Iran and the U.S. had gone well. There is now even a sensible solution for the heavy water reactor in Arak which was one of the more problematic items. Iran's president Rouhani has to defend his policies against hardliners in his country. They will use the issue of the ambassador to pressure him to reject any agreement with the U.S. Rouhani can not take back the nomination without receiving serious political damage. As the U.S. rejects the ambassador its also denies Rouhani to have a trusted person in the United States who could help should the negotiations stumble.
This whole issue seems to have been created out of thin air to blow up the talks between the U.S. and Iran. If Obama keeps ups his stance and continues to reject a visa to Hamid Aboutalebi over a 35 year old issue Obama will be guilty for ending the negotiations and the consequences falling from it. But failing negotiations may well have been his plan all along.
Posted by b on April 11, 2014 at 02:43 PM | Permalink
America seems to be determined to act like a blindly willful rogue state at every opportunity it gets.
I am waiting for its European partners to express their outrage and disgust at this flagrant violation of international norms. And the UN itself, as b mentions.
One suspects that this belligerence that the USG exhibits at every turn is related to this:
Is the US or the World Coming to an End?
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 2:56:34 PM | 1
Seems there's still no coherent strategy from the US government regarding Iran. Or still too many people in DC who have too much influence. The rift between Putin & Obama (think Ukraine) doesn't help the situation with Iran either.
Posted by: Willy2 | Apr 11, 2014 2:59:16 PM | 2
Posted by: billschee | Apr 11, 2014 3:05:40 PM | 3
If O doesn't veto this bill, we will know absolutely that US administration was NEVER serious about the Iran 'talks'. "But failing negotiations may well have been his plan all along.", indeed.
OTOH, why did Iran nominate Aboutalebi, knowing he was "controversial"? Iran has so many really good diplomats they could have sent at least 3 or 4 other expert, very competent people.
Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 11, 2014 3:06:14 PM | 4
billschee, I'm laughing, AIPAC is exactly right. They control Congress top to bottom. O can do the world and the US a great service if he vetoes this bill - but will he?
Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 11, 2014 3:10:20 PM | 5
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 2:56:34 PM | 1
No the world is not coming to the end, rather a new world order, the end of Khazar domination.
Posted by: hans | Apr 11, 2014 3:11:25 PM | 6
MOVE THE UN TO IRAN --DUH!
Posted by: HAHA | Apr 11, 2014 3:11:44 PM | 7
The “Headquarter Agreement” is and always was a high camp hoot. The UN was created by the Anglo-American victors of the Second Great War for world mastery; it was a mere pseudonym for their globalist anti-humanity, and is now by inscrutable divine providence, deep into terminal crisis because the BRICS and regional powers are beyond their control.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 3:13:42 PM | 8
According to my info, AIPAC's influence over Washington DC is getting less.
Posted by: Willy2 | Apr 11, 2014 3:14:11 PM | 9
@okie farmer #4:
You are suggesting that Iran nominated Aboutalebi as a provocation. That claim is undermined by his having visited the US before, and having held several ambassadorial positions.
The AIPAC-controlled Congress could have found a pretext to go ballistic over any diplomat that Iran could have named to be ambassador to the UN. This is just another case of the figurehead Obama showing zero leadership, and caving in to the crazies in Congress.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 3:17:59 PM | 10
Yeah, well, fuck the USA, who cares whether they goddam talk or not. They are cruising for a nuking.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 11, 2014 3:21:11 PM | 11
"The U.S. denies a visa to the new Iranian ambassador to the United Nations Hamid Aboutalebi."
They have done the same to others before. The USA is a country ruled by the absolute lowest, most depraved form of criminal element. This is why the UN needs to be moved to a neutral place outside of the USA. The same should be done
"But failing negotiations may well have been his plan all along."
His plan? Ever seen Obama try and answer unrehearsed intelligent questions without a teleprompter? :) Obama is a card reader, nothing more. The Syria negotiations were made to fail by the USA in the same chickenshit sort of manner. Israel has been doing the same with the Palestinians for decades. The USA has [be forced to] adopt the Israeli mode of negotiating.
IE: obviously the Americans never intended to negotiate with Iran in good faith, it was mostly for PR image of the USA and the west. They are not interested in Iran's nuclear power, they want Iran either a colony, or a wrecked state.
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 11, 2014 3:35:57 PM | 12
"The same should be done" with any other international bodies that are currently in the USA.
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 11, 2014 3:37:09 PM | 13
Let's rephrase that: the Jews want a wrecked, crippled, helpless, devastated world, to demonstrate their superior spirituality in.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 11, 2014 3:37:33 PM | 14
Posted by: billschee | Apr 11, 2014 3:05:40 PM | 3
You nailed it. Netanyahu is probably all snickers and giggles right now.
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 11, 2014 3:42:31 PM | 15
You're right on both points. Iran was probably blindsided by Congress rejection of Aboutalebi. But we don't know that the AIPAC controlled congress could have denied visa to other possible diplomats.
Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 11, 2014 3:43:33 PM | 16
You mean zionists or Israelis, not Jews.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 3:44:38 PM | 17
I'm sure my previous comment is quite intolerable to many readers. I don't care much, but as usual I shall try and fill in the steps. 'The Jews' means the Jewish ruling class - like any other nation, or sizeable and distinct community of any sort, the Jewish nation is composed of classes. It has a supra-national ruling class, various nation-based middle classes, and a small working class of no particular interest even to itself now that Jewish Marxism has been forgotten about, generally used as expendable pawns by the Jewish ruling class, which doesn't mind sacrificing a few, or even a great many, if doing so provides a useful grievance to wax hypocritical about. So when I say 'the Jews', I mean the Jewish ruling class, in exactly the same way as when one says 'the Germans' or 'the Russians'. In fact it would be impossible for anyone to say 'the Jews' and mean every single one of them, unless they believed that 'the Jews' were all in telepathic unity with one another, which is far from true.
OK. Now, 'the Jews' wanted WW1. They planned it, they organised it, they campaigned for it in a dozen different countries, and of course they got it. 'The Jews' wanted WW2, as indeed is patently obvious: having failed to secure the complete destruction of germany, they wanted to finish the job. 'The Jews', unlike the pathetic puppets we call politicians and if you please, 'leaders', actually do plan ahead. They wrote something called the Yinon Plan, which calls for the destruction of every single country in the near east, except of course their own. Snap out of your fear-driven hypnosis, people. Remember what Kuan Fu Tze said: call things by their right names, and government will be easy. Fail to call things by their right names, and government will be impossible.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 11, 2014 3:51:44 PM | 18
Alright, that makes me slightly more comfortable. Thank you for your clarification.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 3:55:15 PM | 19
@okie farmer #10:
AIPAC tried to make a case against Chuck Hagel becoming SECDEF. If AIPAC can make a case against a blue blooded American, don't you think it can make a case against any Iranian (or at least any non-Jewish Iranian)?
Also, Congress can't deny a visa to anyone. The executive branch issues visas.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 3:57:32 PM | 20
I shall proceed, then. The Jews wanted WW3, as they called it, which the rest of us called the 'Cold War'. That's fifty years of drastically reduced living standards and compulsory right-wing indoctrination for you lot, to turn you into obedient anti-Communists (might have failed on a few here). And at the end of that fifty years, at the expense of several trillion of other peoples' dollars, they won WW3, 'the Cold War'. The Cold War was a quintessentially Jewish war. It would be hard to find any major theoretician of the Cold War who was not a Jew. And now they want WW4. If we could perhaps be a little more explicit about the Jewish ruling class, which evidently owns the USA, the UK, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the supposedly 'national banks' of almost all of the 'ex'- colonies. If we were more explicit, we might shock a few people into waking up.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 11, 2014 4:03:04 PM | 21
Or by being more explicit you might just scare people into believing youre a raving anti-semitic maniac who has read too much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Which by the way I am not suggesting you are, I am merely saying thats what the average layman will take away from what youre saying. I am not endorsing that opinion.
If this is the truth, which it may well be, do realize that it might be too much to give to people immediately, you should probably ease people into it so as to get your theories into their personal Overton Window. If your theories are too unfamiliar for the people without them having any frame of reference for it to feel comfortable with it, they will not believe it, even if it does happen to be true.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:14:24 PM | 22
People cannot wake up to the essential nature of globalist anti-humanity until they grasp that Jews are the deluded suckers of Satanists and of those who have always directed Judaism, which is really anti-religion, i.e., Catholicism thru the looking glass.
But we despise all God talk, and not irrationally because true religion has been successfully, terminally discredited until the Church's resurrection. We truly are in deep deep doo doo.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 4:14:39 PM | 23
Rowan Berkley's survey is quite correct. But to re-phrase—Satan's insatiable, single desire is to maximise the incidence of eternal damnation; to achieve this, the Lord of Hate must master the world. Deathly simple! unless of course he does not exist.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 4:20:03 PM | 24
@Rowan Berkeley #21:
It would be hard to find any major theoretician of the Cold War who was not a Jew.
George Kennan, Samuel Huntington (I'm pretty sure he wasn't Jewish), Zbigniew Brzeziński.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 4:21:25 PM | 25
Huntington was a crazy zionist christian. Definitely not a jew. I dont know about Kennan but one could get away with calling Brzezinski a zionist as well.
Again, if Rowan were to say 'zionist' instead of jewish it would clear everything right up.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:32:36 PM | 26
You are one messed up individual, my good man. Absolutely messed up.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:33:34 PM | 27
And youre anti catholic on top of the rest of that? Typical fundamentalist evangelical protestant...
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:34:40 PM | 28
Those Mujahideen-e Khalq thugs killed three Americans -- and got delisted from the FTO. Killing Americans isn't too bad after all, occupying their embassy is worse, isn't it?
Posted by: g_h | Apr 11, 2014 4:41:27 PM | 29
What is with the hard core anti-Semites on this site? I know that free speech is the best medicine, and nothing kills bacteria like strong sunlight, but Jesus on a stick, that stuff is weirdo-ugly. Kinda gets in the way of discussion of the topic at hand. Is that the point?
The US is cracking up a bit here. It's FP leadership is a mess.
Posted by: Northern Observer | Apr 11, 2014 4:44:03 PM | 30
Kennan strikes me as very much a WASP. Brzezinski is a bleeding Polish nationalist (that's where his hatred of Russia comes from), and hence the Roman Catholic tradition is important to him. I don't think there is such a thing as Roman Catholic Zionism; correct me if I'm wrong.
As for being anti-Catholic (your #28, not directed at me). When I've got my Russian thinking cap on, I am anti-Catholic. But I am not a typical Russian, since when I got to church, it is to a Lutheran church. (Someone baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church can take communion in a Lutheran church, so these two Christian sects are in communion, as far as I'm concerned. I cannot take communion in a Catholic church.) Lutherans to this day are deeply pained by their having had to split with Rome, so I am not anti-Catholic.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 4:44:49 PM | 31
The Anglo wing of the Anglo-zionist U.S. ruling class is strong enough to checkmate the Zionist wing; it simply does not wish to.
Stalin showed how it could be accomplished, also his opponent.
Eurasianism appears now to be the main if not only manner of checkmating Anglo-Zionist power.
Posted by: truthbetold | Apr 11, 2014 4:46:12 PM | 32
Wait, please explain to me how Stalin checkmated Zionism? And by his opponent please tell me youre not referring to Hitler?
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:51:36 PM | 33
Zusa wants to accuse turkey of armenia genocide. Nato wants to present Putin as a former udssr-president.
So there is a common aim to paint a bad image of Turkey and Russia. So by nato they are who destroyed the beatifull picture of western power and greatness. western countries are now eyed as coward bastards, shooting from backside. westerners are snipers.
so Turkey and Russia are now the enemies of western media.
the reason is , turkey didn`t invade syria, and turkey didn`t send tatars to maidan simferopol.
Posted by: ZX | Apr 11, 2014 4:53:01 PM | 34
Eurasianism appears now to be the main if not only manner of checkmating Anglo-Zionist power.
Some Europeans, such as Emmanuel Todd, thought that role would go to Europe, but USG's preserving NATO after the collapse of the USSR blocked that outcome.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 4:54:05 PM | 35
Brzezinski is not a zionist insofar as the term means actually believing the Zionist ideology.
Rather, I meant that hes more of... An ideological fellow traveler, whose american imperialist ideology largely creates common ground with AngloZionist intelligentsia.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 4:55:14 PM | 36
And it was only a year ago that Turkey was the DARLING of the western media.
"We were never allied with EastAsia, we were always at war with EastAsia", a la 1984. Yesterdays allies are todays enemies, and any previous cooperation between the United States and the enemy-du-jour is swept down the medias memory hole.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 5:00:30 PM | 37
Germany is too busy destroying the rest of Europe economically for Europe to think about engaging conflict with the rest of the world right now.
Thank god Hitler wasnt an economist. He would have just made a common European currency under Germany and destroyed Europe that way instead.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 5:03:25 PM | 38
Are American "opinion leaders" really bringing up the Armenian genocide now? I haven't seen that anywhere. (No serious person denies that it occurred, by the way, and Turkey to this day refusing to apologize for it is inexcusable.)
I haven't seen mainstream voices in the West bring up the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which amounts to what the West has accused Russia of doing to the Crimea, either.
In general, Turkey is being given a free ride, as far as I can tell. It is just Erdogan that is being given bad press. Contrast that with Russia, where both Putin and all things Russian are vilified.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 5:18:38 PM | 39
So get this. A retired US Air Force General and some guy from JINSA a shopping around the idea of giving Israel B-52s and Massive Ordnance Penetrators. That way they could "take care of the problem" of Iran, or more likely start WW4 (H/T Rowan Berkeley for his guidance on the Rectification of Names...). A post on this over at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
Of course the USAF is chock-a-block with End-Timer Christian Zionist lunatics, so finding some general to actually advocate for this shouldn't pose a problem. The JINSA guy? But of course.
Here's hoping that this will get the Russians to supply the Iranian with (or man themselves) the best anti-aircraft missiles and electronic warfare equipment they've got.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 11, 2014 5:26:14 PM | 41
Thanks. Yes, the timing of that resolution shows that it is just Turkey bashing. (I posted a link before to an article by Sybil Edmonds which shows how the Western media's coverage of Turkey has turned 180 degrees.)
Anyway, that is all in the past. If the US Senate were a serious institution, it would pass a resolution condemning the Turkish occupation of Cyprus.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 5:45:23 PM | 42
I'd differ with the headline here. Personalizing this as "Obama's" confuses the issue. When it comes to foreign policy, the President has had little to nothing to do with it since JFK was popped. Occasionally, when a Dem is in the White House you might see strains between the President and the permanent government, and you might see a player like Bob Gates be put into a position when, for ex, Rumsfeld became too much of a liability. But anyone who thinks that Obama has much of a say in this is merely confusing his or herself. The drum majorette leads the parade but she doesn't make decisions about the parade will go.
One strategy that may help a more pacific President in the future is to drop any use of armed forces into Congress' lap, which kind of happened with Syria.
Posted by: Bob In Portland | Apr 11, 2014 5:48:10 PM | 43
About time the UN headquarter be moved to a neutral, or at least not a rogue, country.
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 11, 2014 5:53:21 PM | 44
But wait un momento!!
Didn't Mr. Pragma and dear sweet Kalithea get banned for talking about The Juice!!!?????
Posted by: Fernando | Apr 11, 2014 6:02:47 PM | 45
@Bob in Portland: The President of the U.S. has the legal power to do whatever he wants. If he doesn't do it because of fear of being assassinated, that is irresponsible cowardice. If he wasn't willing to stake his life on principle, he should never have sought to be president in the first place.
And I really wonder if the permanent government would be willing to assassinate Obama. By doing so, it would totally discredit the U.S. government, and face the certainty of riots -- and the distinct possibility of revolution -- in the U.S.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 11, 2014 6:03:04 PM | 46
"The administration's decision to block Aboutalebi's nomination drew praise from both parties, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the chief sponsor of the congressional legislation. In an interview with Fox News, Cruz said he appreciated the president "doing the right thing and barring this acknowledged terrorist from coming into the country."
funny concept on who is and isn't a terrorist here.. but more important is the ongoing use of this label 'terrorist'.. do none of these idiots in the administration have the imagination to think of what it would have been like living under some us installed dictatorship from about 1953 to 1979 when they finally managed to overthrow the us installed dictator - the shah of iran? are they that friggin ignorant of their own foreign policy history? sure - go ahead and use the word terrorist, but don't forget to apply it to your own country for all of the horrific acts it has committed with 1953 history on iran as good as any starting point for self examination..
Posted by: james | Apr 11, 2014 6:07:18 PM | 47
Kalithea got banned too?
Well hot damn, I was wondering why she wasnt commenting.
Why those two were banned but not Michael is beyond MY understanding.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 6:12:23 PM | 48
I dont recall there being any riots by catholics or anyone else when Kennedy was assassinated.
But anyway, I think Obama is a willing puppet more than an unwilling one. Just pointing out that im not so sure about your theory.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 6:13:58 PM | 49
@49. I happen to agree that Obama is more a willing puppet than an unwilling one.
My point was that, if he was an unwilling one, the law allows him to overrule the permanent state.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 11, 2014 6:27:22 PM | 50
@49. And there certainly were riots when Martin Luther King was assassinated.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 11, 2014 6:28:12 PM | 51
"It would be hard to find any major theoretician of the Cold War who was not a Jew."
Hmm... Just off the top of my head: Paul Nitze, Kennan's successor, Robert Bowie, Gerard Smith, Winston Lord, the Dulles Brothers, George Schultz....
I could go on for pages since we are speaking of the entire US foreign policy apparatus before Scoop Jackson in 1978.
Then there is that strange incident when "crypto-Jew" David Petreus exposed US Defense Department plans to invade 7 nations -- an act, which according to Professor Berkeley's esteemed theory, only made it easier for Jews to control the world.
Once this was a realist blog, with strong moralistic overtones. Now it has turned into a meeting hall for black is white, one size fits all theories that have all the subtlty of a granite boulder. And when it is not Professor Berkeley declaiming that Jews control the world, we have Lord Bevin ponderously opining that elites are stupid and don't amke any plans. Sheesh!
b came into this blog with a strong technical and analytic background; little did he know that he was destined to run a nursery school for IR dropouts.
Posted by: Bob M. | Apr 11, 2014 7:01:15 PM | 52
@ g_h ..."Those Mujahideen-e Khalq thugs killed three Americans -- and got delisted from the FTO. Killing Americans isn't too bad after all, occupying their embassy is worse, isn't it?" 29
Why was this man given Visas previously if this is the real reason he's been denied at this time? In any case, the role he played with the people who took the embassy was very minor (he was a translator) not operational. Even if he had been a honcho, after all the people we killed in Iran using our puppet Shah, losing only three seems pretty minor to me. Three Americans, eh?
Posted by: billschee | Apr 11, 2014 7:10:00 PM | 53
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 6:12:23 PM | 48
Why those two were banned but not Michael is beyond MY understanding.
Throw in Rowan and it would clean up the stench considerably.
Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 11, 2014 7:22:27 PM | 54
You people seem to spend more time whining about who you want blocked from the site than you do discussing any other specific subject. This happens on every Jewish discussion forum I've ever visited. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 11, 2014 7:28:52 PM | 55
The Zionazi Lobby rules OK! Their 'boy', Whatisname, follows orders like a good little 'House Negro' as Malcolm X would most certainly have described him.
Posted by: Mulga Mumblebrain | Apr 11, 2014 7:35:47 PM | 56
In a way, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King are lucky not to have lived to see Obama's presidency.
Morrissey wrote that because of Thatcher, there will never be another female British Prime Minister. The equivalent can be said of Obama.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 7:48:55 PM | 57
@32 truthbetold said Stalin checkmated Zionism
His “socialism in one country” was his determination to survive.
To do that he had to kill out the globalist Trots,
whose New York financiers of world conquest thereby lost their USSR power base.
So they planned to replace the USSR with their USA as the bastion of globalist anti-humanity by destroying/controlling the self made American on his industrial base. Thus the October 1929 crash.
So it is reasonable to say Stalin at least checked the Zionist ideal achievement of world domination,
which was the purpose of WW2,
whose planning began at Versailles in 1919 when Bernard Baruch and Churchill first met.
And sorry, but Stalin’s “opponent” was our Adolph—funded by NY to scream bloody murder against “the Jews” in order to drive Talmud-crazed young ones out toward the Zionists’ (genocidal) Palestine project. The great joke of the most terrible century in all history is that Hitler did not know he was funded by the NY You Know Whose in order that German sovereignty could be re-built then annihilated.
Stark raving nuts, Massi??
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 7:54:12 PM | 58
Well I have to disagree with b on this one. I do not think that Obama would deliberately sabotage an agreement with Iran. Since February of 2012 there have been indications that Obama is interested in coming to terms with Iran. Nothing he has done in the last two years has changed this impression. At this point, it is the only potential foreign policy initiative that he has going. His policies with Israel, Syria, Russia and China have been nothing but one fiasco after another that have the potential to brand him as the worse leader of America in foreign affairs ever (maybe Bush will retain that title, but just barely).
This does raise the question why he is letting this one appointment cause potential trouble. It might be that he is not even aware that there is any problem and it seems possible to me that it won't be. If it looks like it might become a serious problem, I am sure there will be some face saving outs for both sides that will become available.
Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 11, 2014 8:03:47 PM | 59
"...OK. Now, 'the Jews' wanted WW1. They planned it, they organised it, they campaigned for it in a dozen different countries, and of course they got it. 'The Jews' wanted WW2, as indeed is patently obvious: having failed to secure the complete destruction of germany, they wanted to finish the job...."
This is, demonstrably, utter nonsense.
As is Rowan's ridiculous characterisation of the Cold War. To believe Rowan's ravings all that is necessary is to know no history.
Far from being the work of "Jews" with the exception of a few renegade socialists looking for work and anxious for acceptance from a US ruling class which, notoriously, treated Jews only a little more gently than they treated blacks, every single one of the statesmen in the US and the NATO alliance which started the Cold War was not only not Jewish but, for the most part convinced anti-semites.
I have no objection to Rowan's juvenile attempts to 'epater le bourgeois' but it is a pity to see an able mind and a clever writer wilfully demeaning himself.
And his audience.
Posted by: bevin | Apr 11, 2014 8:16:51 PM | 60
The Pope of Hope is steaming over being punked by Putin again. The Euros are more than a bit restive over the possibility of gas exports to the illegal, occupying coup installed deadbeat regime in Kiev being interrupted. Shit, if I don't pay my monthly fucking utility bill I would be very rapidly cut off. Obama and his team of rival morons once again come through. So the narcissist in chief, not getting enough of his frustration out by drop-kicking Kathleen Sebelius out of her HHS Secretary gig for the incompetent rollout of the Obamacare website and getting the middle finger by Glenn Greenwald returning to the US of A to accept his Polk Award for reporting on Obama's Stasi has to strike out at someone.
Too bad that there is no honor in American culture in the New American Century. The Japanese had it right in that an act of horrible disgrace could be mitigated by Hara Kiri which is a bit too bloody for Americans. A mass firing of his entire foreign policy staff, starting with that stammering ass from Skull and Bones John Kerry followed by his own resignation would be an honorable act from Obama.
Too bad that he has none..
Posted by: Donn Marten | Apr 11, 2014 8:22:16 PM | 61
OT: Hm, I think even less of Glenn Greenwald now. He told RT that Snowden should go to Germany to testify. Even German officials say that they can't protect Snowden from the Americans in Germany. Is Greenwald so uninformed not to know that?
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 8:37:09 PM | 62
22;Funny thing,those POTEZ;It all came true.And who decided it was a forgery?The Eastern European Rabbinical Council?Sheesh.And the real problem with the American government is that it is now for sale,as in campaign contributions by the Zionists.Boy,would our FFs be turning in the grave if they knew the power that a foreign entity holds over their hard won freedom.Every old style American pol eschewed foreign entanglements,which we now trip over daily.And Obomba just might be the weakest link in the history of our govt,in a mile deep and floundering,and this pathetic wet finger in the air of public opinion,shows his nothingness.And our masters,the Zionists chortle at the craven knee bending of their quislings.
I really think the people are awakening to the clowns like Cruz,a Cuban Canadian Texan(yeah,like he was at the Alamo) whose latest blow jobs towards the money men leaves me more than enraged,but short of internet invective,what can we do?
Posted by: dahoit | Apr 11, 2014 8:39:17 PM | 63
ToivoS @53 & Massinissa @48,
I have a bit of a different notion here, being of a "Free Speech Absolutist" turn of mind. I don't favor the banning of posters for the tenor of their comments, but rather for persistently insulting demeanor toward other posters (all of us being guests in b's house), or toward the host of the blog himself. These are rules that I have seen enforced with firmness, but fairness over at Col. Patrick Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis. On occasion, a poster will get dismissive, not merely of the ideas expressed by another poster, but of the other poster personally for having the temerity to have and to express those ideas. Characteristically, this doesn't result in the aggressive poster being permanently banned, but they may get a trip to the penalty box for a while. When this sort of personalized aggression is directed toward the host himself, they may get a warning, or they may get booted immediately, depending upon the severity and/or intentionality of the offense, the penalty box not usually being an option.
There are certain posters here for whose ideas I have little respect, but with whom - to me - there appears to be little value to be gained by my engaging them; they come to troll, quite obviously, and not to discuss or to contest. With these posters, I have learned to employ the scroll wheel. But I would not think to advocate for their temporary or permanent banning unless they are personally insulting to other posters or to the host. If others wish to engage with these folks, well, have at it if you think it will do any good. If someone is inclined to troll, if you don't engage, they don't get their ego boost, and they tend to fall away.
As to others, so long as they don't resort to ad hominems and insults, I say let them talk. If you find their doctrines risible, then challenge them to defend them, or present your alternatives without starting a pissing contest yourself by exhibiting a lack of decorum. Otherwise, there's that scroll wheel ready to hand.
I do not like the practice of banning posters for their ideological point of view. It goes against my grain, and I consider it an unhealthy practice. I have similar views concerning laws against "hate speech", rather prevalent in Europe, and unfortunately gaining traction in the US, too. The best measure against views that your consider ignorant or narrow-minded is to attempt to challenge their adherents to adduce facts in support of their views. It may work to persuade, it may not, but at minimum you have come away more mindful of the existence and roots of these viewpoints, and the onlookers may have benefited from the crossing of swords.
And now I'll stop being polite to you two, and come right out and say that I think that your open advocacy for banning others in this forum for ideological reasons is itself grounds for consideration of a trip to the penalty box - for you. If you feel that strongly about your ideological antagonists' views, then put up your dukes. Banning them absolves you of taking on the responsibility yourself, and frankly I consider it cowardly to hide behind the host's skirt. It is very passive aggressive, something that goes up my back.
P.S.: Massinissa, I saw you apologize for posts that you wrote after having skimmed and not carefully read another's post here. That was big of you, and I was quite impressed. That set a serious good example for all and sundry. Good on ya.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 11, 2014 8:42:45 PM | 64
@57 - you're saying that WWII was in spirit a precursor to Gladio? Multiple objectives were in play of course (and you offer a reasonable half-century perspective), but one of them was sacrificial in the sense of hardening ordinary Jewish sentiment in favor of the Zionist vision? Or at least, this was a useful by-product?
Posted by: Grieved | Apr 11, 2014 8:54:28 PM | 65
I dont really advocate banning Michael. I just dont see much logic to banning Kalithea or Pragma. I was mostly joking about Michael, and I was under the impression that Pragma and Kalithea were expelled for alleged anti-semitism, when Michael's is clearly much more naked.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 9:07:22 PM | 66
I'm not defending the banning of Pragma and Kalithea—I regret it, and it had the fallout of Nora dropping out, apparently out of solidarity—but b warned them to stop going on about Zionism. If they had simply stopped posting in the thread in which b gave them a warning, as I expected them to do, they probably would not have gotten banned.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 9:22:53 PM | 67
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 9:07:22 PM | 64
Anti-semitism does not exist except as a false flag to blind Jews themselves to the truth that “No one hates Jews as much as Jews,” (thanx to Sarah Silverman). The dumb goyim do not even know what a Jew is. And Jews themselves do not know that their common denominator is fear of having descended from the “Christ killers.” They are not, but it is this that inflicts the terror cum despair.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 10:11:03 PM | 68
When I saw this—Hearing No Apology, a Hostage Can’t Forgive—I suspected that the person in question is Jewish, and it turns out I was right. Forgiveness is a Christian, but not a Jewish, value. The whole idea of a "Judeo-Christian ethic" is silly, since Christian and Jewish ethics are diametrically opposed.
And why should an Iranian apologize for having taken part in the hostage affair when the US and Britain have not apologized for toppling Iran's elected government, which is what made Iranians hate the US in the first place? Has the US ever apologized for any of its acts of nation destroying?
Now that the Iranian hostage crisis is in the news again, it is a good time to remind ourselves that Reagan and his circle committed treason by making a deal with the Iranians to delay releasing the hostages, in order to throw the election against Carter.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 10:12:44 PM | 69
"ANTI SEMITISM IS A FALSE FLAG!!!!!!"
*beats face on desk due to stupidity of comment*
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 10:17:07 PM | 70
Oh, forgiveness is a Christian value?
Then what do I make of this part of the Tefila Zaka meditation, said during Yom Kippur?
"I know that there is no one so righteous that they have not wronged another, financially or physically, through deed or speech. This pains my heart within me, because wrongs between humans and their fellow are not atoned by Yom Kippur, until the wronged one is appeased. Because of this, my heart breaks within me, and my bones tremble; for even the day of death does not atone for such sins. Therefore I prostrate and beg before You, to have mercy on me, and grant me grace, compassion, and mercy in Your eyes and in the eyes of all people. For behold, I forgive with a final and resolved forgiveness anyone who has wronged me, whether in person or property, even if they slandered me, or spread falsehoods against me. So I release anyone who has injured me either in person or in property, or has committed any manner of sin that one may commit against another [except for legally enforceable business obligations, and except for someone who has deliberately harmed me with the thought ‘I can harm him because he will forgive me']. Except for these two, I fully and finally forgive everyone; may no one be punished because of me. And just as I forgive everyone, so may You grant me grace in the eyes of others, that they too forgive me absolutely."
Sounds like forgiveness to me...
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 11, 2014 10:21:26 PM | 71
So why don't Jews forgive Europeans for the Holocaust, in the same way that I have forgiven the Bolsheviks for killing the Russian intelligentsia, killing more than the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust?
Instead, there are Holocaust memorials and museums everywhere, even in the US, which had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Sounds like the exact opposite of forgiveness to me. (And this view that I am expressing is the view just about everywhere, except in the West.)
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 10:28:16 PM | 72
" But failing negotiations may well have been his plan all along."
Gee, ya' think? You got it b.
Posted by: ben | Apr 11, 2014 10:35:20 PM | 73
YOM(expletive deleted)KIPPUR !
Let us not be so fascist and antisemitic as to mention the KOL NIDREI because it encapsulates the unprovoked hate that drives most people into assimilation or else electrifies the wretched lied-to bastards with despair.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 10:39:50 PM | 74
The Kol Nidrei is the most solemn “hymn” of the most solemn of all the “high holy days” in the calendar.
“All vows” is a finger up your face, Christian dog. Never forgive. Never forget.
This filth revolts and frightens most Jewish people, because they are innocent.
Posted by: Michaël | Apr 11, 2014 10:48:51 PM | 75
"Bolsheviks for killing the Russian intelligentsia, killing more than the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust?"
Been hearing this my whole life by people who lie about everything else. Oh, but when it comes to Communism they speak Truth? Not buying.
Posted by: ruralito | Apr 11, 2014 10:49:02 PM | 76
PCR is a Deviant Gold-Bug. "This (Russia trading in rubles instead of dollars) means a big drop in the demand for US dollars and a corresponding drop in the dollar’s exchange value."
Big drop? WTF? Russia's resource trade is a tiny fraction of overall global trade in dollars. I'm willing to bet their net trade surplus of 17630 USD Million, or a mere $17B, is just enough to keep rubles revalued back to flat line parity against the flagging EU.
PCR also feeds the Sovereigntist fetish of 'The Manipulators' of golds 'True Value™'. The true value of gold as a non-currency is 10% over 850% an ounce as coinage. The rest is all retail marketing and markup by the pawn shops/coins shop who control the buy:sell spread, and the day-traders dumping into 'gold' overnight to hedge currency changes.
PCR completely ignores the rise of virtual 'gold' funds with zero reserves. Toilet Paper.
PCR completely ignores the Indian government closing down gold imports at the peak last year, and since India is the largest retail buyer of gold on earth, and since AU miners have been holding back ingot surplus as a better hedge than cash, you don't have to be a Sovereigntist or a Gold-Buggerer to know that was the Sell signal of all sell signals.
Yet so many of PCRs victims kept buying on the Myth of the Great Inflation. He's a Con.
So PCR is reduced to the ephemera of Apocalypse Shill. As in Warmism, so in AU'Buggery.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring, with this Macabre Ass Clown Posse running WADC-NOVA?
We have Z'big lecturing Americans on foreign policy, after PNACs total CF in Afghanistan.
We have Good Queen Hillary dodging shoes, and pontificating on Global Trade Catholicism.
We have Supra-National Overlords running an unsustainable 24% of US GDP annual burn-rate.
We have Unelected IMF-World Bank telling Mil.Govs to Loot-One-Time™ our last life savings.
Is this what Dante was referring to as the Seventh Circle? 2014. Add the digits. It's 7!
"And nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care. And now they're coming for your Social Security. And you know what? They'll get it. They'll get all of it. They don't give a frack about you. They don't give a frack about you. They don't give a frack about you." G. Carlin
Posted by: Chip Nikh | Apr 11, 2014 11:21:09 PM | 77
Well I have to disagree with Toivos on this one. 1)The granting of visas is completely within the executive branch. It does not need to get permission of congress - ever. Obama can just ignore any congressional preference.
2)The 'nuclear issue' is nothing more than kabuki theater. There is no nuclear issue. It is merely a fig leaf for regime change. Obama has strung out the 'issue' for years 5 years now - it could have been 'solved' in a matter of weeks at any point.
He's just been dragging it along like a festering limb so he could drop it at any time that he feels like he has an excuse or if it suits his purpose. He's a duplicitous, mendacious piece of shit/psychopath. "So the mask has fallen? So the jig is up? Fine. I'll get you and your little dog too!" That about sums up where the U.S. vs. the world is at.
There was never any intention to come to a resolution of a completely fictitious issue. The course was set AT LEAST 12+ years ago with the Axis of Evil speech, and the U.S., regardless of administration, has "stayed the course."
Posted by: skuppers | Apr 11, 2014 11:31:45 PM | 78
" in the same way that I have forgiven the Bolsheviks for killing the Russian intelligentsia, killing more than the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust?"
You have a link for this? Even that anti-Russian "historian" Snyder won't go that far.
No offense to you, but it seems that everyone dreams of getting the big historical victim medal, no matter what the facts are. and because the world is awash in anti-communism, they're an easy target. We see this exactly at work in Ukraine today - by the same people who would want to carefully verify the placement of all the bricks at Auschwitz, no less.
But I don't see any evidence for the claims that communism was some massive killer - certainly compared to capitalism, or relative for the history of Russia itself. But I have never in my life heard that over 6 million members of the Russian intelligentsia were killed. Ever.
And I'm quite certain that, the world over, far more communists and citizens of communist countries have been killed because of "anti-communism" than were ever killed by communists themselves. And I'm sure I could prove this easily with respected sources.
Posted by: guest77 | Apr 11, 2014 11:39:29 PM | 79
Mass killings under Communist regimes
Several scholars, among them Stalin biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore, former Politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev and the director of Yale's "Annals of Communism" series Jonathan Brent, put the death toll at about 20 million. Robert Conquest, in the latest revision (2007) of his book The Great Terror, estimates that while exact numbers will never be certain, the communist leaders of the USSR were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths.
But sure, this is all "lies".
Posted by: Demian | Apr 11, 2014 11:45:31 PM | 80
You are exactly right.
Communism was the existential threat to the world's wealthy elite. They battled that threat with everything they had.
We see so many lies told today - bald-faced, verifiable lies told for far less reason than the danger of the entire capitalist class swinging from the lampposts of the world. We see it in Ukraine, Iran, Syria - so of course they lied about the USSR. Big lies.
I'm not suggesting life under Communism was at all rosy and pink - but I am suggesting that it was no where near the tall tales that have been spun about it. We live in a violent world - no one has escaped from it. Prisons, murder, political violence - yes. And the Soviets were not sweet hearts, and Eurasia is a tough place. But the Soviet Union never did anything approaching what the US did in Viet Nam. Nothing compared to what the US did in Indonesia. And these are just two examples of many.
No, the evils of the USSR are greatly exaggerated by demonstrable liars of whom benefitted then - and still benefit today, with the lies being transferred over to Russia. And it is provable, I think.
Posted by: guest77 | Apr 11, 2014 11:52:26 PM | 81
I didn't say they were all lies. Don't pull the "so you say there were no gas attacks" on me. And no, you still haven't provided links except to point at some academics living and working in the heart of the Soviet Union's greatest enemy.
Robert Conquest is a propagandist, pure and simple.
All the numbers I here is stuff like this, numbers that include in "Stalin's death toll" all the Soviet Soldiers to die in WW2 PLUS all the German soldiers. This is not history - it is pure propaganda.
This kind of shit: "Most accurately, Stalin caused the deaths of at least 20,000,000 people. Obviously, though, he did not kill that many himself. With his faulty tactics and failed techniques on the battlefield, he cause at least 25,000,000 Red Army soldiers."
Sure, let's not blame the German's for killing them. It was Stalin's faulty tactics.
Posted by: guest77 | Apr 11, 2014 11:58:09 PM | 82
The final straw has broken the camels back : russia refuses to let us use the northern distribution network to move its troops out of Afghanistan by end if 2014 #diplomacyfailure #usasfailedstate
Posted by: brian | Apr 12, 2014 12:09:28 AM | 83
It's not just Conquest; he may be a propagandist, for all I know. But why would Alexander Yakovlev lie about this? Wikipedia says he put the figure at 20 million, and he was a member of the Politburo.
Anyway, I respect your opinion, and we usually agree, so this is not worth arguing about, especially since it's totally off-topic.
As for the Soviet Union, even at the time it collapsed, I could see that it's collapse was a very bad thing. (A social system breaking down is always a disaster. The idiots at Maydan don't understand that. The Bolshevik Revolution was a disaster, and the collapse of the USSR was a disaster.) I had hoped that Perestroika would be successful. And even my father, who had fled communism twice (from Russia itself as a child, and later from Latvia after the Soviets annexed it) realized that a counterweight was necessary to the US, and that the USSR was that counterweight. And that was during the Cold War.
But nobody, not even people who get published in the New Left Review, for example, foresaw that things would get as bad as they have once US power became unchecked.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 12, 2014 12:23:20 AM | 84
Three or four shocked bien pensants: bevin (of course, the man's a tape recording); toivos, fernando, and the usual complete unknown who drops in just to say, no platform for fascists (unless they are judeofascists, I assume, in which case you have to do an awkward change of gear and accuse them of something else). Bevin's main scorn is reserved for my claim that 'the Jews' wanted WW1, which he has never even seen suggested before and therefore assumes is wrong.
I would say that once you know what you're looking for, you can see that from the end of the second Boer-War in 1902 (when the British handed them ownership of the bulk of SA gold & diamonds) to the beginning of WW1, the core ruling elite of the Jewish ruling class, who were in the process of moving from London to NY at the time, decided that destroying mainland Europe would be a good move for their wealth. It's all quite consistent, the way they leapfrog from old empire to new empire, but it's messy. Albert Ballin, the top Jewish tycoon in Germany, killed himself in 1918 when he realised the Jewish elite, now ensconsed in UKUSA, was going to throw the German Jews to the, ahem, dogs. Even in 1918, the French Jewish elite (that is, rich men who own mainstream politicians) were necessary to screw the Versailles negotiations into an expression of genocidal frenzy. But you wouldn't read that kind of history ('anti-Semitic' history, largely the memoirs of discontented aristocrats in Britain, France, etc), because you have a barrier of prejudice that tells you:
All those people were Nazis! Quite frankly, even if they were right about 'the Jews', I wouldn't want to know! And they were certainly wrong about economics!" (actually, as far as they go, their economic ideas make more sense than the bankers would wish you to know). "Well, anyway , they would put me in the camps for the duration, and indeed they would put me under punitive conditions, or just shoot me, cos I'm a Marxist" (which they did not do to eg Rabbi Leo Baeck, the 'leader of German Reform', whom they looked after under almost hotel conditions in Theresienstadt throughout the war, and who lived to a ripe old age, continuing to talk pretentious nonsense, guard his institutional turf, and preen himself on his extreme closeness to whatever it was he was close to, probably the Rothschilds, the Montefiores, the Sassoons, etc)...
The above stream of consciousness is not really intended to be 'Logical'. It's the expression of a state of mind in which the pre-ideological observer lives on, albeit with a mental age of 4 or so, for want of development.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 12, 2014 12:49:04 AM | 85
To be fair, I have to agree with this post.
In 30 years, it will be 100 years ago... And many elite jews will still be bitching about it. Even though as 1/3 as many Gypsies died in the holocaust you never hear Gypsies bitching about it. (6 mil Jews, 2 mil Gypsies)
Hearing about the jewish holocaust over and over again (and never about the other victims of the same event...) every single year gets tiring after awhile. 6 million is hardly the largest genocide ever.
On the other hand, though, there are still Christians who have not forgiven the Jews for allegedly betraying Jesus (Like Michael on this board), and that was 2 THOUSAND years ago. So im not sure how accurate calling forgiveness a 'christian thing' is.
Posted by: Massinissa | Apr 12, 2014 12:53:06 AM | 86
Thank you for that comment. One of the most painful experiences in my life was produced by antisemitism (when I had a girl friend who had a Jewish parent), so I get a bit edgy when I make such points. I actually don't think I would make them publicly (even as an anonymous poster on the internet) if there weren't Jews like Gilad Atzmon making similar points.
As for Christians, again, when I speak of Christians, I think about churches that I can relate to (even though, as I wrote in another thread, I am an atheist). So I simply don't take this idea of Christians "not forgiv[ing] the Jews for allegedly
betraying killing Jesus" because (1) it doesn't make any sense, since according to Christian theology, Christ had to be sacrificed in order for humanity to be saved; (2) it reminds me of a skit from the King Biscuit Flower Hour. Someone with a very priestly voice (probably meant to be Episcopalian, as far as I recall), goes through a long list of groups of people who should be forgiven, and then ends with, "everybody but the Jews, because they killed Christ, and we can never forgive them for that."
Posted by: Demian | Apr 12, 2014 1:17:15 AM | 87
re the Republik of Donertsk:
a self proclaimed state: 'Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm?utm_source=Happy+(REAL)+Independence+Day+(2013)&utm_campaign=Legal+Trends+Reach&utm_medium=archive
Posted by: brian | Apr 12, 2014 1:33:30 AM | 88
Nina Byzantina @NinaByzantina · 28m ago
Lifenews: since #Ukraine's special forces refused to crush peaceful protests, Right Sector mercenaries will be used. http://lifenews.ru/news/131086
a chance for Berkyt to get some revenge?
Posted by: brian | Apr 12, 2014 1:46:24 AM | 90
Somewhat surprisingly, a NY Times editorial actually criticizes Obama's decision:
In the looking-glass world of Iranian-American relations, Mr. Aboutalebi is a moderate at home and is opposed by Iran’s hard-liners. Here, spurred by Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, who called Mr. Aboutalebi a terrorist, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, Congress voted to deny him a visa. Without signing the bill, which is of unclear legality, President Obama set an unfortunate precedent on Friday by saying he would deny Mr. Aboutalebi a visa anyway.
As the host for the United Nations, the United States is supposed to admit whomever a country designates as its ambassador, barring a direct national security threat. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, were all allowed to visit.
How quaint, that the NY Times can still observe that the US should observe some international norms.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 12, 2014 2:07:27 AM | 91
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 12, 2014 12:49:04 AM | 83
Sorry Rowan you are an antisemite. As much as I dislike that accusation (after all, it has been hurled at me because of my opposition to the state of Israel) there really are good old fashioned antisemites. You happen to be one of them.
You might like this anecdote. My father was a communist. He fought in the Spanish civil war against the fascist Franco forces. He served along side Yugoslav volunteers in that war. In 1948 he sided with Tito when Tito broke with commintern and tried to build an independent socialist country. In that year my father was expelled from the CPUSA for antisemitism. I was only 5 years old then so I did not know what was going on. However, at no time in my upbringing did I ever hear a single conspiracy theory from him that the Jews were ruling the world. He realized exactly what happened to him. The Stalinist forces inside the CPUSA had taken over and they used whatever tool was at hand to purge their opposition.
Also, strangely enough, my father never joined with the other side. I was 14 when an FBI agent came to our house and asked my father to confirm the identities of some people in photos they showed him. He erupted in total rage and the agent and his assistant quickly ran away off our property. I could understand why -- he could be one really violent person. In this case, I was never more proud of him then at this moment.
Does this story sound confusing? Many good comrades both Goyim and Jew have fought against fascism and Western Imperialism. Those of us who recognize this really do dislike the naked antisemitism that Rowan spreads here at MoA.
Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 12, 2014 2:11:39 AM | 92
All I can say is WOW, by way of intro to this news. ;)
http://lifenews.ru/news/131075 Помощник Астахова просит Поклонскую расследовать дело депутата Ляшко
Assistant Astakhov requests Poklonskaya investigate deputy Ljashko
"Anna Levchenko asks to check famous for its extravagant behavior of the Verkhovna Rada deputy Oleg Lyashko, who is suspected of pedophilia.
Assistant Public Astakhov and the chairman of the monitoring center to detect inappropriate content Anna Levchenko wrote an open letter to the Acting Attorney Natalia Poklonskaya in Crimea. In her address, she asked to start investigation against the deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Oleg Lyashko, who is suspected of pedophilia.
The letter listed a few facts acts known for this gay MP's extravagant behavior.
Thus, according to the data indicated in a letter in July 2012 Oleg Lyashko was spotted at the Yalta airport boarding with two pupils aged 12 and 14, which allegedly wanted to go "on vacation" in Turkey. Airport staff did not allow him to take the children.
- The Russian public, including our organization, concerned that the criminal case against Oleg Lyashko was lodged and criminals remain at large - says Anna Levchenko in circulation. - We believe that the investigation is not possible to establish all the facts Ljashko crimes. We ask you to verify the activity of the deputy in the Republic of Crimea from 2012 to 2014.
Lawmaker Oleh Lyashko was not Seen in relations with young boys.
In 2002 Ljashko, at that time candidate for the by-elections to the Ukrainian parliament, received injuries of moderate severity (bruised genitals) from cadet Kiev Military Institute of Communications, who did not share his craving for non-traditional relationships. :D Then the deputy, without thinking twice, said the student was trying to rob him, and two meters from the [command center? administration offices?] of his institute. About scandal newspapers, but hushed Ljashko this ugly history.
In the spring of 2012 at the deputy broke charity tour of orphanages and boarding Crimea together with accordionist Igor Zawadzki "Warm love their children." Then Ljashko with the support of the Crimean deputy Leo Mirimskaya wanted to organize concerts in orphanages for the selection of candidates for the fake adoption. But the arrest Zavadsky [child molestation] prevented these plans from coming true.
Because of parliamentary immunity against Oleg Lyashko could not open a criminal case."
So Lyashko likes little boys. And got his nuts kicked in once when he tried to charm the wrong guy. I can see now why these junta nazis are so popular with people who run the west - they are just like them! :D
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 12, 2014 2:12:50 AM | 93
Apparently the gay kiddie fiddler Lyashko has gotten his ass kicked more than once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Trp8itG8U Zoom - Vice speaker of Ukrainian Parliament throttles deputy Oleg Lyashko
"Uploaded on May 21, 2011
Vice speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Adam Martynyuk, on the right, throttles deputy Oleg Lyashko during a session in the chamber"
But he is more brave when he has his nazi bodyguards with him.
'I'll hang you by the balls and have you f***ed' – Ukrainian presidential hopeful abducts pro-Russian MP
"A Ukrainian presidential hopeful and his supporters have abducted a regional MP over his opposition to the coup-imposed government in Kiev. A video of the action shows the MP being roughed up by a group of men and threatened.
Oleg Lyashko reported secretly going to the Lugansk region on Sunday night and detaining Arsen Klinchev, a member of the local parliament from the Party of Regions.
"The scum Klinchev will answer for his crimes. We detained him and handed him over to law enforcement. I am sincerely grateful to everyone, who helped with this deed. The video is coming shortly. The fight goes on," Lyashko wrote on his Facebook page."
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 12, 2014 2:20:58 AM | 94
Roza Kazan @rozakazancctv 23m
VIDEO purports to show unloading of weapons and troops at airport near #Donetsk http://youtu.be/UEHxWfnO9Z0
Posted by: brian | Apr 12, 2014 2:36:23 AM | 95
BTW, Natalia Poklonskaya, the Crimea lead prosecution attorney (like an American state attorney general) is the famous Natalia Poklonskaya.
'She annexes your heart': Reasons why Crimea prosecutor Poklonskaya not to be messed with
If this takes off, it's going to be a lot of fun.
Posted by: scalawag | Apr 12, 2014 2:37:08 AM | 96
GrahamWPhillips @GrahamWP_UK 2h
**Breaking** My activist contact in #Donetsk just called me from scene - they took the SBU building no struggle, Berkut refused to intervene
after all the effort with the barricade!
Russian Truth @RussianTruth1 2h
Lots of chatter about something going down in Donetsk now. Too early to be sure what is happening. #RussianSpring #РусскаяВесна
Ukraine Reporter @StateOfUkraine 2h
Ukrainian Interior troops are heading to the prosecutors office in #Donetsk #Ukraine, a special forces operation operation is now underway
Ukraine Reporter @StateOfUkraine 33m
We're told there were about 40 people who briefly stormed govt building in #Donetsk #Ukraine but then they left. Looks like a provocation.
Posted by: brian | Apr 12, 2014 2:40:14 AM | 97
That reminds me of The Damned.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 12, 2014 2:45:39 AM | 98
I can't wait for the American magazine People and TV magazine 20/20 to do profiles of Natalia Poklonskaya.
Posted by: Demian | Apr 12, 2014 2:48:53 AM | 100