by Jimme Moglia for The Saker Blog
The dust of time is settling on the Scripal affair, after the eruption of British anti-Russian bile, bursting out from the deep state, and scattered to the four winds by the deep-state’s minions. Bile converted into imaginative insults and tokens of contempt for which sometimes it is not easy to find a name – for they are real but escape an attempt to describe them. Including, for example, the asinine and uninformed reference by the Foreign Secretary to “Crime and Punishment,” his knowledge of which, as indicated by the Russian UN Ambassador, is – to be kind – approximate.
And equally including those members of Parliament, nodding and applauding the Prime Minister, unstoppable in her litany of insults and accusations towards Russia – proving that insolence always propagates itself. Indeed, from the times of ancient Rome, corruption would always supply flatterers eager to applaud, and ministers prepared to serve the fear or the avarice, the manias or the oddities of their masters.
Predictably, the memory of the event will be swept up in the gulf of blind forgetfulness and dark oblivion – especially considering the ridicule of the whole affair, since it has become quasi-official that the ex-spy and his daughter were victims of an opiates’ overdose rather than poison gas.
However, as the puppets involved could not injure Russia by invectives, they have now combined to erase the memory of the event by silence, or with silence to pretend that it never happened. Nevertheless, sundry retaliatory sanctions and exclusions against Russia, prompted by England and copied by Europe and America, remain extant. While the usual media suspects keep their tongue employed with very little assistance from memory or reflection. Or they call for assistance professors of profound learning, thirsty wallets and merchantable faith.
The American mirror of the Scripal affair is Trump’s alleged “Collusion with Russia” to win the presidency. Endless media repetition of ‘collusion’ and ‘Russia,’ thus associating one term with the other, is another practical example of sacrificing sense to sound.
Quite likely, it has occurred to the observant reader that the narrative of mainstream news is anchored in a safe harbor of prejudices.
For who hates Russia, also loves Europe and the Euro, favors US intervention in Syria, is mad at Maduro’s “dictatorship,” labels as “populists” the defenders of their nation against demographic invasions from the third-world, thinks of Iran as a den of devils, calls Assad a butcher, likes his well-financed jihadist enemies, rates the coup in Ukraine a triumph of democracy and decries the reconnection of Crimea with Russia. It’s almost a compulsive conspiracy theory in reverse.
These prejudices form a clump of convictions not even attributable to a specific ideology, for convictions and prejudices live in harmonious contradiction with each other. Notably, for example, calling for peace while waging war, and extolling democracy at large, while supporting, sustaining and selling massive volumes of lethal arms to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, which is an updated embodiment of medieval despotism, along with the Gulf’s petro-monarchies, the heritage of Britain when she was still an empire. Pretending to amity with the Arab people and support for their unity (Lawrence of Arabia docet…), only to shamefully betray them even at Britain’s cost in blood (read Judaic anti-British terrorism in Palestine), let alone credibility.
Therefore the referred-to clump of convictions does not constitute an ideology. Rather it is a kind of self-sustaining mental family of factoids, where empirical evidence, let alone coherence, is un-necessary. For the strength of the factoids lies only in its being imposed by authority and repetition. And, recently, even in the persecution and prosecution of dissenters, thanks to the new instruments of “fake news” and “hate speech.”
“We create our own reality,” said the blood-thirsty US defense-secretary Rumsfeld, at the time of the Iraq war, when a naive journalist dared to question him about one particularly unbelievable statement of fact.
Still, even an ideological castle of rubbish, a fictitious structure, arbitrarily called ‘reality’, requires some scaffolding. Authority protects the castle from criticism, but the structure would be subject to dangerous cracks, should empirical reality expose any. Which probably explains, in the instance, the sudden veil of silence on the Scripal affair. Or, as an ingenious observer put it, the clump of invented convictions, of which the Scripal affair is one, constitutes a “wholistic approach to reality.”
For very dangerous to the castle of rubbish would be a spontaneous mobilization of more than a few heads who do not exempt themselves from thought. To prevent it, TV shows simulate a parallel reality, aimed at making less tragic the anxiety for the future and less ridiculous the perception of the present.
All this a good part of the world well knows, yet none knows well, including yours truly, where to start, or how to create a movement organized enough to offer a viable ideological counter-current, based on empirical truth, for the world at large.
Which brings me to say something that may be, or is, unsavory, though uttered by an unimpeachable mouth.
Among the euphemisms of our current new-speak is the term “deep state,” of which, in the Scripal instance and others, the British government showed itself to be its unashamed purveyor and voice. In attempting to discover the details and the depth of the “deep state”, our curiosity would probably consume itself in toilsome and disappointed effort.
Still, Neo-Conservatives,” or “Neo-Cons,” are the currently accepted outward expression of the “Deep State.” Here next I quote the definition of “neo-cons”, given to the New York Times by Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, a Judaic Marxist from the Soviet Union.
Initially a Communist, Irving Kristol belonged to a loud Trotskyist anti-Soviet group, which later became known as “The New York Intellectuals.” He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. A contributor to The Wall Street Journal, he also served on the Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities (Democracy).
I italicized the institutions universally acknowledged as shaping both internal and foreign American policies. George W. Bush gave him the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Kristol senior is considered the father of the Neo-Conservatives.
Irving Kristol’s son is Bill, a quintessential neo-conservative. In an interview with the New York Times, said that, in the term “Neo-Cons”, ‘neo’ means ‘new’ and ‘con’ means ‘Jews.’ A statement probably and pragmatically true, considering the ostentatious influence of the neo-cons, especially in foreign policies.
But Kristol’s frankness also shines a light onto the elephant that polite (and supposedly clever) people in the room must ignore. For if Joe Biden, VP of the United States says, as he did, for example, that Judaic influence were behind same-sex marriage, he is applauded. But if someone who disagrees with same-sex marriages says the same thing he is an anti-Semite.
It is OK to say that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. But a Gentile quoting the New York Times – which claims that without the neo-cons there would not have been a war in Iraq – is anti-Semitic.
I borrow from Michael Jones a schematic description of the characteristics of the “neo-conservatives.” The quotes mean that Conservatism is too wide a notion to be compressed into a verbal label. Or rather, that there is both a practical and an ideological divide between neo-cons and more traditional American conservatives, an issue outside the scope of this post.
However, it is demonstrably true that today’s neo-cons are an extension of Judaic-Israeli interests, politics and ideology. Whose characteristics can be described as follows:
— A deep concern with furthering specific Judaic interests, such as helping Israel or promoting immigration (in the US and Europe).
— Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Judaic particularism. (e.g. mass immigration is good in itself and who opposes it is a racist – exception made for Israel that opposes it, but is not racist.)
— Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority pervades the movement.
— Key cultural ideas are centered around charismatic leaders. For example, Boas (Darwin was wrong – there are no races, only superstructures), Trotsky, Freud, etc. Interested readers may check the post, “The Fraud of Freud.”)
— Judaic thought forms a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
— Some Gentiles appear in highly visible roles, but act as spokespersons for the movement. See for example the US representative at the UN – a pawn of wickedness in the guise of a woman, in whom penury of knowledge and vulgarity of sentiment were never so unhappily disguised.
— A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and are expunged from the movement.
— The movement is irrational in the sense that it is fundamentally concerned with using available intellectual resources to advance a political cause.
— The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic institutions.
— Access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of practical Judaic ownership of media and entertainment channels.
— Active involvement of the wider Judaic community in supporting the movement.
…, and, I will add, the extraordinary ability of the sect to be, appear and act as a monolith. A phenomenon unique in history, which may explain why, when the sect reached the extreme of tolerance by the local populations, it was often expelled en mass, as any of them was deemed indistinguishable from the whole.
To sprinkle an anecdote on the text, each night at 10 PM the bells of Strasbourg’s Cathedral in France sound the Zehnerglock, a reminder of the associated Judenblos, (Juden horn), which notified them to leave the city. The association of the Zehnerglock with the night-banning of the members of the sect from the city stopped in 1790, but as of today, the 10 PM bell is still considered a reminder of that tradition.
Those members of the sect who criticize the critics of the sect’s practices, and accuse gentiles of indiscriminate generalization, actually prove the point. For in the very defense of the sect, they prove its core monolithic structure.
The influence of Judaic interests in the political, financial sphere and military ventures is universally acknowledged. Relatively less known is how a historically recent contributor to the Judaic monolith’s success has been…. the Catholic Church. The thread to justify the statement is lengthy, and there is only so much that can be written before it becomes too much. Let the patient reader forgive the omissions.
To begin with – and I have observed this directly more than once – there is a perception at large, including among many Catholics, that Hitler was the father of so-called anti-Semitism. Hitler was bad – therefore, for the indifferent children of the earth, anything associated with Hitler is diabolic.
But for many, ‘Semitism’ is a somewhat nebulous term, as compared to, say, “Israel.” Which may explain the strenuous ongoing effort by the interested parties to declare any criticism of Israel “anti-Semitism,’ or better, a “hate-crime.”
Nevertheless, as we know, the so-called “Judaic Question” is as old as Christianity. And in relatively recent historic times (1880-1890), Judaic influence drew sharp criticism from many sources, including and notably the Catholic Church. Here, for example, is a translated extract from a 1890 issue of “Civilta’ Cattolica,” one of the key media organs of the Jesuits and the Vatican,
“The XIXth century will end, in Europe, leaving her in the throngs of a very sad issue, of which the XXth century will feel consequences so calamitous, as to induce her (Europe) to drastically deal with it. We refer to the improperly-called “Semitic Question,” that more accurately should be called “Judaic Question” – which is connected via an intimate link, to the economic, moral, political and religious conditions of Europe.
How fervid at present and how much this question perturbs the major nations, is manifest by the common cry against the invasion by Jews in all spheres of public and social life; by the leagues formed to slow its advance in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, Rumania and elsewhere. By the calls for action in various Parliaments – by the large number of newspaper articles, books and pamphlets that are constantly printed, all showing the need to stem the growth of this plague, and to combat it, showing evidence of its very pernicious consequences….
Naively, some try to show that the ”Judaic Question” is the result of a (Christian) hatred of the (Judaic) religion or sect. Mosaism (read ‘religion inspired by Moses) in itself could not be an argument for hatred…. for it was the antecedent of Christianity… But for centuries Judaism has turned its back on Mosaism, exchanging it with the Talmud, quintessence of that pharisaism, many times blasted by Christ…. And although Talmudism is an integral element of the Jewish question, we cannot say that (Talmudism) is all that relevant to it (Judaic question). For in Talmudism the Christian nations detest not so much the theological part, almost reduced to insignificance, but the moral one, that contradicts the elementary principles of natural ethics…. “
And in a starkly foretelling book, written at the end of the XIXth century by Georg Ratzinger, great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI, and titled “Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen” (The national economy in its moral foundations), he wrote that “If the German workers would ever find a leader capable of guiding them, it cannot be predicted what could happen to the Jews.”
But all this changed with the Second Vatican Council, when it was discovered that the chosen people had never been an enemy of the Catholic Church, and those who earlier thought otherwise were wrong. In turn, and through a sequence of documented and extraordinary developments, the road was open, for the brethren at large, to the teachings, for example, of Wilhelm Reich, philosophical guru and proponent, among other things, of sexual liberation, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, sexualization of children and, literally, pedophilia. Reich was the spiritual father of the 1960s’ culture and of the 1968’s upheavals, along with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.
As an example of relatively recent Judaic influence on Catholicism, Eric Ericcson (whose real name is Eric Samuelson) was invited, by the eminently Catholic University of Notre Dame, to apply Freud’s theories to determining whether seminarists could be “psychologically mature” if they did not have sex, etc. In a scale of one to ten, someone who did not have sex would remain at level six. There is no need to expand on the consequences of this teaching on a religion that requires celibacy from its priests. And the matter should help to frame, at least in part, some of the grossest recent scandals of the Catholic Church.
Or take Cohn-Bendit, guru of the Green Party in Europe. Among other things, the Greens founded ‘sexually liberated’ children’s schools. In his memoirs, Cohn-Bendit relates how on arrival at one such school, one child unzipped his zipper and started fondling him.
In essence and skipping many steps, the devilish pact went as follows, “We (Deep State), give you (Christians or people of Christian upbringing) sexual liberation, the most disgusting pornography among pornographies, the most disgusting movies and entertainment and a seal of Freudian approval to degeneracy. In exchange, you will make the world safe for capitalism – where economy is but the metaphysics of the rich. And you will equally bless the perverse evolution of the social function into a function solely aimed at economic profitability.
Which also helps explain, at least in gross terms, why the “Left” all over Europe – including the heirs of socialist ideologies – has essentially abandoned claims to social justice, while embracing the tenets of the so-called “New Left.” That is, out with the social and in with the capital and the fostering of neo-liberal, neo-conservative Zionist objectives.
Talk about coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of the opposites) – neo-liberals and neo-conservatives united in a harmonious coalescence of objectives.
But what is the link between this set of affairs and events like the so-called “Scripal” crisis with its attendant, vitriolic hatred of Russia? The informed reader may already know the answer. I repeat it here only to give consistency to the historical link.
Somewhat arbitrarily, it begins with the “Pale of Settlement” of Tzarina Catherine the Great, when members of the sect were eventually confined to the Western part of the Russian Empire. Soljenitsin, in his “Two Hundred Years Together,” explains at length why this measure had become necessary and inevitable.
That hatred was suspended during the Bolshevik stage of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath – when, coincidentally, the Judaic presence was predominant in the Soviet executive cadres. Then, as the latter-day Stalin changed his views, and even more after his death, even Soviet Russia discovered that it could not deny or reject its history, traditions, core values and the Christian-Orthodox religion.
The slow but palpable revival of traditions and religion coincided with the equally palpable revival of Judaic discontent, causing mass emigration to Israel and the US. Later, the externally engineered destruction of the Soviet Union led, in turn, to a revival of Judaic hopes and actual plunder, accompanied by the well documented, almost apocalyptic collapse of the Russian social and economic order. And we know what happened afterwards.
In the end, the hatred of Russia can be considered as added evidence of frustrated (but not abandoned) Judaic objectives. For, to quote Rahm Emanuel, major of Chicago and a bigwig in the Obama administration, “Do not let a good crisis go to waste.”
We know that the modern state is an engine of propaganda, producing crises so as to declare itself as the only instrument capable of resolving them. The Scripal crisis fits that mode of operation.
It may be a coincidence, but while the Scripal saga was developing and more sanctions were applied to Russia, there has been a renewed and apparently successful effort to expand the definition of so-called “anti-Semitism,” as applied to language, discourse, suspect words and implied criticism. With a view to turning free-speech into a crime and free-speech crime into punishment.
Emblematic, among the recently persecuted, are the 90 year-old German Ursula Haverbach, jailed for her opinions on the “Holocaust,” and the British housewife turned song-writer, Alison Chabloz, guilty of posting online satirical songs on sundry Judaic claims related to WW2.
Perhaps, most of what written above could be condensed into a quotation, attributed to Voltaire and well know to many Internauts. Namely, that to determine who rules over us, we should find whom we are prompted to hate (and why), and who we are not allowed to criticize.
On the other hand, history lends itself to unlimited analyses. ‘Analysis’ means to ‘unloose,’ and figuratively, to resolve a complex structure into its components. But the components of history are infinite and any selection must be inevitably reductive.
Still, if the past is recalled by narration, and the future anticipated by vision, I attempted a narration, let the reader provide the vision. Keeping in mind that, after all is said and done, hope is still the best comfort to our imperfect condition.
A quite simple case. The Skripal case happened because Russian finally lost its patience in E Ghouta and killed/captured hundreds of US/UK Special Forces in their clean out of the area for terrorist gangs.
Yes, the Scripal affair obviously had something to do with this, but it was pointless and very foolish indeed. What this article does not mention is the fact that 300 French troops have also been captured. No doubt this is one of the reasons why Macron asked Trump for the US military to stay in Syria.
I think the author has important things to say, and these should be stated simply and plainly.
What is the current state of understand on the Scripal case?
Anon, thx for the diversion try, but no cake for the effort. Author delivered a very clear and complete message.
JM thank you your for your wonderful work.
It is my view that the totally bogus and ludicrous Skripal/Novichok fiction garbage was the (long awaited) attempt at spoiling the FIFA World Cup in Russia, either boycotting the tournament en masse or promptly re-locating it to England as due ”retribution”. However, it didn’t come off — the hoax was simply too clumsy, far-fetched, and unconvincing to fool enough people, especially given the arrogant Zionazis’ very kind ”reward”: Deliberately trashing the world’s most popular sporting event.
To rub it in, I end by congratulating Russia to her hammering of Saudi Arabia in today’s opening match: 5 – 0. Way to go, Russia!
Well, when you take into account the timing of the nonsense announced by the Dutch ‘investigators’ into the MH 17 atrocity, with the ludicrous and filthy attribution of responsibility directly to Russia, and the villainous imputation that the horror was deliberate, I am very surprised that the Cup has gone ahead. Which makes me fearful that the Cup will yet see some sort of false-flag atrocity, probably against foreigners. In any case the Western fakestream media sewer, and the presstitute swine that reside therein, are exceeding even their vile standards of hate propaganda against Russia. The Russians are even being taught how to smile, don’t you know, to impress foreigners. The BBC says so.
Agree. The ideas presented in the article would be better consumable by a reader if split in 2… or, better, 10 smaller ones yet more focused on the specific point. As it is presently, it’s hard to decipher what the author really wanted to say.
The Scripal affair was a stupid false flag which nobody believed, as it was too absurd. It was nothing more than a continuation of the vilification of Russia.
We have to go back to the 17th century and the English Civil War. It was provoked by Zionist bankers residing in Holland. Their agent Oliver Cromwell overthrew the English monarchy, with Charles I being executed. This type of internal subversion was subsequently to be repeated many times, and is still in use. The same methods were used in 1789 in France and in 1917 in Russia. Both monarchs were executed.
The point is that Zionists needed Britain, which to them was a perfect island fortress for imperial conquest. In 1776 they provoked the so-called American Revolution, where their agent George Washington basically repeated the methods of Oliver Cromwell. Both Britain and the US are Zionist controlled, Britain by the Rothschilds and the US by the Rockerfellers. However, both have one big problem, and that is Russia and China, the chief barriers to the introduction of a globalist banker empire.
After German unification, Bismarck advocated an economic alliance with Russia, fully understanding the importance of Eurasia. The Kaiser, under banker influence, foolishly had him removed. At the beginning of the 20th century, Halford Mackinder, the famous English geographer, warned the British Government of the importance of Eurasia and the dangers of a German-Russian alliance. One can argue that two world wars were fought to prevent such an alliance.
The situation today has not changed. On the contrary, the importance of Eurasia has been proven with the Russians and Chinese introducing the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road.
The Atlantic powers, Britain and the US, led by Zionist bankers, want to curtail the the power of Eurasia. We also have the continental powers, the chief ones being Russia and Germany. Russia is independent. Germany is a member of NATO and the EU. NATO ostensibly exists to “protect” Western Europe from a Russian “threat”, which is absurd. The EU was created by private bankers to curtail the power of sovereign European states. It is based of the US Federation and is a civilian component of NATO. Both have the chief task of preventing a German-Russian alliance, which would subsequently attract other European states.
Both NATO and the EU planned an eastward march. The aim was to destabilize Russia and then march in. As we all know, it did not work out that way. Now both are used to prevent Europe turning towards the East, to Russia and China. Well, that is not working out too well either. You have elites in the US, in Britain and in continental Europe. As well all know, politics is at the mercy of economics. Business is business. Since last year analysts have been warning of a rift between elites in continental Europe and in the US. It’s going that way. It’s only a matter of time before Europe turns towards the East. How are the Atlantic powers going to prevent his ? By monetary means ? By military means ? Any attempt in the end will be futile.
Wow top notch comment seconding another thought-provoking article. I feel i lack some years on reading on this topic(s) compared to the various contributers of this site. I may be simply a ‘victim’ (in the broadest sense), maybe not so much by generic mass-media but by the absence of insightful and honest media. (On a side note: this special book by Solzhenitsin mentioned in the article is expensive and hard to find). Thanks for your work.
“The Scripal affair was a stupid false flag which nobody believed, as it was too absurd. It was nothing more than a continuation of the vilification of Russia.” In essence this is totally correct, and says it all.
Your understanding of ‘British’ history is also in essence totally correct, but I would imagine that for brevity you left some of the history out. I refer to James 2nd. Before James became king, the ‘British Parliament’ had his daughter Mary betrothed to the Duke of Orange, as those in power realised that Charles 2nd would have no legitimate offspring, and thus James daughter would be the ‘natural’ inheritor of the British Crown. Much the same as similar ‘people’ recognised that the English ‘Virgin Queen’ Elizabeth would have no offspring and thus moves were made to ensure where the crown went and who would manage his upbringing and ‘education’.
N.B. James 1st was a ‘Presbyterian’ not ‘Anglican High Church, and totally opposed to the Roman Catholic religion.
James 2nd, though noted that the Presbyterian religion was false in that it recognised ‘Usury’ and that is why he had to go. Amsterdam organised three rebellions against James 2nd, and it was the third that defeated him, and when William of Orange invaded England with his 3,000 Danish mercenaries, James had to flee and the English Merchants called this event the “Glorious Revolution’.
Did I say ‘Invaded”? It was an invasion that history closed an eye to, much the same as many other inconvenient truths.
And when the same tactics were utilised in France, and the French Revolution was won, these ‘Merchants’ then called for a war against all monarchies in 1790. This should also add another dimension to the Crimean war, the first time ever that the forces of France and England were joined against a common enemy of the Jew from the Pale, being the European Bankers.
Thank you for the info. I would like to add one further point. When it comes to Queen Elizabeth, “the Virgin Queen”, the reason she never married was because “she” was not a women, but a man, in fact a farmers boy. The real Elizabeth died when she was a child, buried in secret. She was replaced by a farmers boy, who was trained to impersonate a women. Even during her reign it was suspected that “she” was a man. If you look at her portraits, some pretty manly features appear.
Now, that is something I never heard. The info is quite interesting, although we can not argue the point that there are many women with “manly” features, just like there are men with “soft” features. There could also be many genetic reasons for her not to be able to have any children. Anyway, interesting thing to think about.
One additional point. Oliver Cromwell was not the first Zionist agent in England. The first one was Duke William of Normandy. In 1066 he invaded England. Historians never fully explained how a duke, a subject of the French king, had the financial means of assembling a mercenary army of some 10.000 men and in the process building a fleet. Well, money was given to him by the Zionists of the day, who resided in Rouen, Normandy. A deal was struck. The Zionists would give him the money on condition they became tax collectors in England. The deal was honored. Unfortunately, the Zionists overplayed their hand. When Edward I, known as Longshanks, became king, he found himself in financial trouble. The Zionists stepped in, offering him financial aid on condition he obeyed every single one of their commands, in effect becoming their puppet. The furious Edward sent them to the Tower, where he had the Zionist leaders decapitated for treason. All Jews (Khazars) were expelled from England. They, of course, planned revenge. It came with Oliver Cromwell, who overthrew Charles I, having him decapitated in revenge for what Edward I did. This, of course, has been left out of the English history books.
I have read somewhere, that Cromwell was actually one of “them” as he allegedly was a gold trader.
“For who hates Russia, also loves Europe and the Euro, favors US intervention in Syria, is mad at Maduro’s “dictatorship,” labels as “populists” the defenders of their nation against demographic invasions from the third-world, thinks of Iran as a den of devils, calls Assad a butcher, likes his well-financed jihadist enemies, rates the coup in Ukraine a triumph of democracy and decries the reconnection of Crimea with Russia. It’s almost a compulsive conspiracy theory in reverse.”
So very true.
The only change I can suggest is “For who hates Russia also loves the EU” rather than “For who hates Russia also loves Europe”.
I was meaninhg (but no time unfortunately) to write something on Mai 68 and Cohn Bendiyt following le Monde’s Mai 1988 artcile on the list of Mai 68 leaders and their religious beliefs.
A famous communautarist/religious supremacist blog talked about it too 20 years later:
see also here:
and yes Cohn Bendit had his Micheal Jakcson moment on litterary show held by Bernard Pivot in the early 80’s
Most importantly, François Asselineau (candidate to presidentail elections in 2017) drew the parallel between Mai 68 and the Maidan (as Mai 68 as a prototype of coloured revolutions):
Pompidou also speaks of foreign influence (and not hinting at CIA) in the riots
De Gaule on communautrist lobbies:
well basically 68 followed 67 and De Gaule + Pompidou hinting at who the culprits were, sounds like almost like official position from the authorities of that time
The explanation of Vatican II was effective
“But all this changed with the Second Vatican Council, when it was discovered that the chosen people had never been an enemy of the Catholic Church, and those who earlier thought otherwise were wrong. In turn, and through a sequence of documented and extraordinary developments, the road was open, for the brethren at large, to the teachings, for example, of Wilhelm Reich, philosophical guru and proponent, among other things, of sexual liberation, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, sexualization of children and, literally, pedophilia. Reich was the spiritual father of the 1960s’ culture and of the 1968’s upheavals, along with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism”.
Today’s plot is blaming the Romans for the death of Jesus
Merci beaucoup pour vos commentaires, et pour avoir posté le vidéo de De Gaulle, que chaque français admire (j’aime à penser) pour son amour noble et sincère de la France, ainsi que sa noblesse d’esprit. Je n’ai pas suivi François Asselineau et je ne le connaissais pas. Je pense que lorsqu’il a fait référence aux USA, il faisait probablement référence à une force qui, malheureusement, a fait un long chemin vers la domination du monde. Et il est significatif que même une personne de sa stature ne puisse pas en parler. Mais De Gaulle a été très clair et prophétique dans le discours que vous avez posté.
UK still behind pushing for OPCW to be able to find perpetrators of chemical attacks to name and shame……seems very strange that somehow this organisation found”likely” traces of sarin and chlorine in Syria from an “incident” in 2017…..something to me does not seem right in this organisation with its dodgy inaccurate director……
MOSCOW, June 15. /TASS/. A report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Hama province on March 24-25, 2017 fails to meet information gathering and analysis criteria and raises questions, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
“It becomes obvious already after the first reading of the report that the methods of the [OPCW] mission’s work are still far from the requirements for gathering and analyzing information on the alleged use of chemical agents that are set forth in the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the OPCW regulatory documents,” the Russian diplomat noted.
WASHINGTON, June 15. /TASS/. All chemical provocations in Syria follow the same scenario, the Russian embassy in Washington said, commenting on the US Department of State’s recent remarks.
Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on June 14 that Free Syrian Army (FSA) militants have delivered chlorine cylinders to the Syrian Deir ez-Zor province to simulate another “chemical attack against civilians” in a bid to create “a new pretext for a missile strike on Syria’s state facilities by the US-led coalition.”
Russian General Staff: Syrian facilities hit by US strikes had no chemical weapons
“Even State Department spokesperson cannot deny any CW [chemical weapons] provocation in Syria having the same scenario. Let’s remind you about the loud exposure of the staged Douma ‘attack’,” the embassy said in a Twitter post.
US Department of State Spokesperson Heather Nauert replied that the United States was not preparing any kind of chemical provocation in Syria, describing Konashenkov’s report as “false.” “While Russia used nerve agent in #Salisbury and shields Assad from accountability for repeated CW attacks in Syria, we abide by the Chemical Weapons Convention,” she added.
Usa not letting go of Skripal
We are still waiting for their report on the so called Douma chemical attack,looks like they need more time to fabricate it.
A couple of points:- ‘British Government” is a misnomer. We have “governance” by the corporate EU (foreign) power, installed by repeated Treasons since 1972, following the unlawful joining of the EEC, pushed through Parliament by Ted Heath, who was awarded the the ‘Charlemagne Prize’ shortly afterwards. A coup d’etat by any other name, there has been no lawful government since that date. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDc7nzmffSY “Wilhelm Reich, philosophical guru and proponent, among other things, of sexual liberation, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, sexualization of children and, literally, pedophilia. Reich was the spiritual father of the 1960s’ culture and of the 1968’s upheavals, along with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.” At best, a generalisation of an undoubted scientist, persecuted by the FDA for his discoveries and inventions, a dissenter portrayed as the personification of evil and expunged from the movement: ie. imprisoned, books burned, publications banned and inventions destroyed. And this in the land of the free. I cannot discuss the proclivities of the man here, simply because I do not know of them, but I will quote a line from his book,(Ether, God and the Devil):- “The pornographic interpretation of sex economy is the infectious disease of our profession”. Reich was expelled from the Freudian circle because of his heretical views.
Great reading. Some of the essays should be published in collection with Saker.
MOSCOW, June 15. /TASS/. The UK intelligence services could be involved in orchestrating the Skripal case, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
“The circumstances only confirm the British authorities’ provocative motives and their obvious desire to use the orchestrated Skripal case for their own unscrupulous anti-Russian purposes,” she said. “Also, it is not improbable that British officials, including the intelligence services, could be involved in the Salisbury provocation.” Etc
I am as sick of “the jews did it” as an explanation as I am sick of “the Russians did it.”
Hopefully, you’ll feel a little better after you take a short nap.
So your feelings are your criterion for your truth? Not even emotion, just “tiredness”? And you expect us to care about such weakness? Why?
Even more nauseating is the religion of ‘antisemitism’ that says that no Jew, anywhere, ever, committed a wicked or harmful act, or ever did so accidentally or in error. That is truly sickening, particularly when the extraordinary and unparalleled power of the Zionazi elites is so obvious.
Thanks mister Moglia for your clever analysis. I totally agree, even if the Jews, Semitic, Talmudic, Israeli, Christianity, Pharisiac links, are willingly ground flying.