Saturday 21 November 2020

#Yugoslavia, #NATO, #Brexit, the #EuropeanUnion and the #Euromerta (a response to the dreadful neo-lib/con whitewashing of the sepulchre by #PBS: "#TheBalkansinFlames")

Quote; "Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent and multi-ethnic, if imperfect, federation that stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to dominate its "natural market" in the Yugoslav pro vinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991, a secret deal had been struck; Germany recognised Croatia, and Yugoslavia was doomed. In Washington, the US ensured that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans and the defunct Nato was reinvented as an enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in France, the Serbs were told to accept occupation by Nato forces and a market economy, or be bombed into submission. It was the perfect precursor to the bloodbaths in Afghanistan and Iraq*." Go to: 
for full article. 

*Italics mine.

Quote; "Shortly after the declaration, President Tujman introduced a new Croatian constitution which defined Croatia as the national state of the Croatian people and others, pointedly relegating the Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Muslims to second class status. This was an exact repeat of what had happened in 1941 when nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia and set up Croatia as the national state of the Croatian people and others. After the HDZ dominated Government passed the new constitution, discrimination against the Serbs began immediately. Serbs lost government jobs in the civil service, police, local authorities etc…they were evicted for their homes, many lost the ownership of their own businesses, and Serb newspapers were closed down etc. A special property tax applicable only to Serbs was introduced, and Croatian militia openly looted and closed down shops selling expensive products such as jewelry. These measures clearly indicated to the Serbs living within the administrative borders of Croatia that they must leave the land where they had lived for three centuries, or face the consequences of staying." Go to:
for full article.

  Quote; "For decades, the right-wing elements in the German state never had the opportunity to cooperate with a major party that shares its views. Now they do.

For hundreds of civil servants, the rise of Alternative for Germany has presented an opportunity to engage in more right-wing political activities than would have been possible only a few years ago. A senior public prosecutor in Berlin, a judge in Dresden, as well as police officers and teachers across the country: For all of them, supporting the party serves as the bridge between the functioning state apparatus and the far right.

Very often, the party’s members draw connections between their profession and what they take to be the necessity of right-wing activism. They spread rumors of the government’s secret commands to prioritize anti-right policies over the solving of crimes committed by refugees or the “left-green indoctrination of students” in public schools. Their conspiracy theories have not diminished with their proximity to power. The future is a dark one when a right-wing party surges and finds sectors of the state full of “classic civil servants.”" Go to:

Quote; "Since World War II, Yugoslavia--prized by both sides--has been molded by the forces of Cold War.

Early in the first Reagan administration, the U.S. escalated the Cold War with an aggressive, secret strategy to undercut the Soviet economy, destabilize the USSR, and ultimately bring about the collapse of Communism. (1) In 1985, then-Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick dubbed this new strategy, which went well beyond containment, "the Reagan Doctrine." (2)

At about the same time, according to recently declassified documents obtained by CovertAction, the U.S. adopted a similar strategy toward the countries of Eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia. In September 1982, when the region seemed stable and the Berlin Wall had seven years to stand, the U.S. drew up National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 54, "United States Policy toward Eastern Europe." Labeled SECRET and declassified with light censorship in 1990, (3) it called for greatly expanded efforts to promote a "quiet revolution" to overthrow Communist governments and parties. While naming all the countries of Eastern Europe, it omitted mention of Yugoslavia.

In March 1984, a separate document, NSDD 133, "United States Policy toward Yugoslavia," was adopted and given the even more restricted classification: SECRET SENSITIVE
. When finally declassified in 1990, NSDD 133 was still highly censored, with less than two-thirds of the original text remaining. (4) Nonetheless, taken together, the two documents reveal a consistent policy logic.

The "primary long-term U.S. goal in Eastern Europe" as described explicitly in NSDD 54 was "to [censored...] facilitate its eventual re-integration into the European community of nations." (5)

Since the Eastern European states could not have been "reintegrated" into "the European community of nations" as long as they remained under Communist rule, the basic U.S. goal required removal of Communist governments. The implication of ending Soviet influence extends to the more cautiously worded remnants of NSDD 133. The goal of "U.S. Policy [toward Yugoslavia]," it states, "will be to promote the trend toward an effective, market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure...[and] to expand U.S. economic relations with Yugoslavia in ways which benefit both countries and which strengthen Yugoslavia's ties with the industrialized democracies." (6)

Thus, the basic U.S. objective for Yugoslavia was much the same as for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the GDR, Hungary, Poland and Romania: a capitalist transformation. The list of policy instruments described in NSDD 54 to promote change in Eastern Europe may help fill in some gaps in the more highly censored Yugoslavia-specific NSDD 133. The mechanisms included most-favored-nation status, credit policy, IMF stewardship, debt rescheduling, cultural and educational exchanges, information programs, high-level visits, and restrictions on diplomatic and consular personnel. (7) Even in this document, some items were completely or partially deleted in the declassified version.

Today, the revelations in the two documents may seem banal. It should be remembered, however, that for many years, the government felt the need to keep secret even the more overt means of pressuring for change. Furthermore, significant parts of U.S. policy in the region, particularly in Yugoslavia, remain secret even today. Covert policies, which undoubtedly were implemented, are not usually discussed at any length in a National Security Decision Directive.

The U.S. and Yugoslavia's Internal Crisis

The existence of a separate document for Yugoslavia reflects that nation's special relationship with the U.S. After Yugoslavia left the Warsaw Pact in 1948 over disagreements with Stalin, the West saw it as a buffer state against Soviet expansionism. When the Soviet Union made threats against it in the early 1950s, Yugoslavia asked the U.S. for help and quietly undertook "certain military obligations" towards the West in the event of a conflict with the Soviet Union. (8) The agreement included a commitment to "protect northern Italy from penetration by Soviet troops based in Hungary." (9) According to a knowledgeable Yugoslav analyst, the "alliance with the West," along with expanded educational, diplomatic and commercial ties, "forced Yugoslavia Communists to open up to Western cultural and political influences." (10)

During the post-war years, Western aid--amounting to several hundred billions of dollars, most of which came from the U.S.--helped to create a boom in Yugoslavia. And, although Yugoslavia remained poorer than most of the countries of the industrialized West, the relatively equitable distribution of the fruits of industrialization carried much of the country out of poverty. By the end of the 1980s, Yugoslavs were better off than most people in Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and parts of Greece. That economic success was crucial in diminishing regional and ethnic tensions.

Thus, the Yugoslav socialist experiment was generally viewed as successful, even in the West, both for its economic progress and for the unity which Marshall Tito brought to an ethnically diverse state.

Yugoslav planners, however, strove to combine structural change with rapid economic growth. And that policy was costly; it created a large trade deficit and weakened the country's currency. The oil crises of 1973-74 and 1979 exacerbated Yugoslavia's problems. (11) By the early 1980s, the country faced serious balance of payments problems and rising inflation. As usual, the IMF, in the name of financial rectitude, stepped in and prodded the Yugoslav authorities to slow growth, restrict credit, cut social expenditures, and devalue the dinar. Although the trade deficit was reduced and the balance of payments showed a record surplus by 1970, (12) the IMF "reforms" wreaked economic and political havoc. Slower growth, the accumulation of foreign debt--and especially the cost of servicing it--as well as devaluation, led to a fall in the standard of living of the average Yugoslav.

The economic crisis threatened political stability. Not only did the declining standard of living undermine the authority of the country's leaders, it also threatened to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions.

The 1980 death of Marshall Tito--the one leader whose authority could hold the country together--plunged Yugoslavia into a dual crisis. And without leadership, the economic crisis suddenly become more difficult to resolve.

Moreover, since Yugoslavia was linked to the world capitalist economy, it had suffered the same economic stagnation that affected Western Europe and North America during the 1970s. When the Reagan administration's supply-side economic policies precipitated a recession in 1981-83, the effects were felt everywhere, not least in Yugoslavia.

It is hardly surprising that Yugoslav planners found it difficult to arrest economic decline in their own country. Some observers claimed that the inability of the economic system to respond to the 1980s crisis demonstrated the failure of the Yugoslav model of socialism. While there is some truth to the charge that the system was rigid, Yugoslavia's troubles were caused first and foremost by the transmission of the Western economic crisis to those countries on the edge of Europe which were closely linked to the West by aid, trade, capital flows, and emigration.

The uneasy U.S.-Yugoslav alliance persisted throughout 1980s. Because of Yugoslavia's unique "buffer" position, the U.S. had a special stake in its stability. Despite discomfort with its communist "ally," the new Reagan administration preserved the relationship, hoping to benefit from the developing instability in Yugoslavia in order to install a more amenable government.

In the late 1980s, three factors suddenly altered the dynamics of the U.S.-Yugoslav relationship. Yugoslavia began to suspend its market-oriented "reforms." The Cold War ended and Yugoslavia was no longer so useful. And a newly united Germany, staking out a larger role for itself in Europe, demanded that the Bush administration adopt the German policy of working for the "dissociation," that is, the dismantling, of Yugoslavia*." Go to: for full article. *All italics mine (also see "The #Euromerta" below).

  This is, in my opinion, by no means all though. It has been my distasteful task, over the years, to read and to listen to many fine words about collusion and intervention with regards to the West's involvement in the Yugoslavian conflict and never hear (if anyone else has and can name a source please let me know), what I consider to be the obvious "deeper truth". This truth concerns what a facilitating conflict the Yugoslavian Civil War was, I read often about how Zionists and the "Red, White and Blue" (U.S, U.K and France), collude and connive in undermining regimes throughout the world but it never seems to strike anyone just how damaging the Yugoslavian War was to the integrity and authority of the United Nations (it did at the time but the understanding seems to have disappeared down the memory-hole), "Interventionism" has been the principle by which NATO has subverted the authority of the United Nations ever since (certainly there have been interventionist State Dept. sponsored adventures before -such as Korea and Vietnam-, but Yugoslavia specifically enabled the "transcendence" of NATO remodelling it for a post Cold War world and transforming the alliance into the blunt instrument of a western imperialism that no longer required the destruction of aggressive communism for its raison d'etre, go to: Is it beyond the wit-of-man to encompass the notion that one of the primary reasons for forcing this European strife was to break the will of the U.N?

In Pilger's article he describes the Yugoslavian conflict as; "the perfect precursor" and it was as it represented a very "good bet" for the vested interests of the western military-industrial complex. Attempting to subvert the authority of the U.N in order to facilitate an Interventionist approach (a simple enablement of neo-con/liberal laissez-faire monetarism whereby democracy equates to the fulfilment of -as its adherents see it-, capitalism's manifest destiny), by destabilising a non-European country whose populace were predominantly non-white and non-Christian would have rightly been perceived as a very "dodgy investment" whereas sparking a conflagration in a European state bordering the E.U presented the "sheepish-masses" with a (more or less), fait accompli, in other words; "how can you standby and do nothing whilst your neighbours die (the subtext being; "you and yours could be next")?" This is why the Yugoslavian Civil War (for such it was as should never be forgotten), preceded the interventions in the Middle East (which were mostly driven by the desire to control the world's oil supplies). If one wanted to get one's hands on Middle Eastern oil by invading its countries but could not (except in the case of the first conflict against Iraq when Saddam was encouraged to attack a neighbouring sovereign nation, quote;
"George Bush senior had been unable to break the deadlock, however if one can “suspend disbelief” one can imagine that both The Pentagon and the CIA had been devising strategies with which to remove such obstacles to action -of which Mr. Bush was, of-course, fully aware-, one of which was to provoke or “encourage” an attack by Saddam Hussein on one of his oil rich neighbours -something that Saddam would “jump at” at the time in order to refill his treasury following Iraq’s bloody and costly war with Iran-. In order to facilitate this it would be necessary to somehow deceive Saddam as to America’s true interests in the region as not even he would risk direct conflict with the most powerful military machine on the planet. Such a deception would, however, risk showing America’s hand to the international community in a way which even Bush senior felt unable to justify and therefore these plans remained shelved until such time as the political climate became more favourable. Around this time however certain documents were stolen from the United States which were to provide precisely the right impetus with which to change the weather. It seems that although America had secured the necessary technical documents which would enable one to produce a viable fusion weapon -something Saddam did not have the industrial or financial ware-withal to do in any-case-, the original Alamogordo trinity test specifications for a fission bomb were not held under such tight security and were stolen -“rumour has it” by an Asian “freelancer”-, and then sold to the Iraqi regime. Bush senior then “green-lighted” the operation that would lead to “Desert Storm” -go to: “How Bush Tricked Saddam into Invading Kuwait “The April Glaspie Interview”"-. As you can see this information is extant -thank you Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander –“Unholy Babylon” Gollancz 1991-"-" Go to:
), justify such action without claiming the need for intervention, in order to "democratise" the poor unfortunate country concerned, how would such a thing be allowed (or even simply "tolerated"), by a United Nations that had not already bowed to the NATO sword? Public opinion was deliberately manipulated by the meddling in the internal politics of post Tito Yugoslavia (the ground for such being prepared well before Tito's death), to swing popular consent within the major European Powers away from that of the international rule of law and back to an imperialist notion of Manifest Destiny. To fail to ascribe to the manipulators and massive vested interests enough sense to realise the barrier that a strong and truly "United" Nations represented is to live in a fool's paradise. I believe one of the reasons that this process has, to quite a large extent, been colluded in by the Left is that it has never really respected the U.N and refuses to take its mandate seriously, the Left always preferring their own moral high-horse of international socialism to policies based on the consensus of nations (unless that consensus happens to suit the purposes of the "International" -but even then an inimical attitude to international institutions of a different hue promotes a failure to engage that leads to lack of experience, consequently the Left often seems to shoot itself in the foot-), in my opinion this has been a terrible if not truly treacherous indulgence and exemplifies many of the problems the Left in Europe (and especially in Britain), have with democracy (reliance on the union, first-past-the post and the Crown should give the lie but they don't seem to). When will the posturing Left grow-up and smell the coffee of the 21c I wonder?

    "The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter. Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared much in common.

    Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016, they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.

    Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."

    Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the 1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of corporate dictatorship. This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it, dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.

    Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the wilful abandonment by the "Me Too" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world war.

    With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis: true journalism. Sites such as,, ZNet,,,, and are required reading for those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of narcissistic spectacle.

    In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the remarkable Media Lens - remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, the Guardian, Channel 4 News.

    Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose essential facts or promoted discredited myths.

    The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.

    I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and demystifies the media's power.

    What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality of journalism - a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity - is a bracing quality of their online Media Lens dispatches.

    I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book, Propaganda Blitz, in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all do."...

    "When he was US commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media". What really mattered was not the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as always, an informed and critical public at home.

    Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose propaganda mesmerised the German public.

    She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.

    "Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.

    "Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."" Go to:

    *Italics mine.

  The Euromerta

Quote; "as we have examined elsewhere on this blog the formation of an Eastern European Union would break the back of the Now Actively Treacherous Oligarchy ("NATO"), that has come to ascendancy and dominates the body politic and help establish the principles of independence and emancipation benefiting all the significantly (currently marginalised and ignored), ethnically and culturally divergent regions in the union.".."
Not a sniff in either article that it was the Wider Europe and its NATO-isation that has both overstretched EU finances and put so much pressure on Western European societies that additional immigration from the Middle East has become unacceptable to much of the populace".."So does separatism within the European Union represent the biggest threat to the markets? Only if you're a zombie desperately trying to find fresh living flesh to feed on! Should Britain (for instance), achieve the kind of devolution for (what should be), its independent member states and then reorganise itself on a more egalitarian basis both a United Ireland and the mighty economy that is Brittany would be able to contribute to our common-wealth (having never actually joined the poor-old Euro perhaps even a "United Brit-Pound" could be something "we" could sensibly contemplate), and form a counterweight to a more democratic Western European Union (containing a number of then devolved member states and regions), and newly formed Eastern Union of a similar hue itself." Go to:
Quote; "Unfortunately for both Macron and Merkel; "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and both will have problems forming a European force whilst the Wider Europe dominates the agenda. The Wider Europe is NATO's Europe, Trump is simply reasserting the U.S State Dept.'s interests in the region and demonstrating the true nature of the NATO-ised agenda. I am forced to admit to a certain amount of wishful thinking on my part concerning the withdrawal of NATO from the European Theatre (and "drama" it certainly is now-a-days if not actual soap-opera), but as I am not (and never have been), in favour of the expansion of the European Union I have no interest in continued adherence to the NATO-ised narrative, Macron and Merkel are, however, hoisted by their own petard with regard to this issue as both will find that if they don't embrace the notion of the formation of an Eastern European Union ("EEU"), the removal of the parasite that is NATO will prove very difficult indeed. 
 Putin's involvement in the funding and promotion of separatist and nationalist groups is designed to weaken NATO's power-base but an EEU would undermine this strategy and lend credence to more moderate patriots (whose voices should be heard), within the Eastern European states who do not feel that it is necessary to resort to fascism in order to protect either their cultures or ethnic identities.".."
“We should work on a vision of one day establishing a real, true European army,” Merkel told MEPs during her speech, drawing applause – and booing – in the chamber.
Although Merkel left open how such a step could materialise in practice, she backed the forming of a European rapid reaction force and a common arms acquisition policy. According to a previous French proposal, a small group of states could go forward and build up a powerful intervention force for crisis operations, for example in Africa.
Echoing Macron’s catch-phrase of a “European army”, she also made a huge step towards Paris. Only last week, the French president argued for more European strategic autonomy when urging that the EU should be able “to protect itself with respect to China, Russia and even the United States.”"..
 "Although her position represents a trend of Europeans answering calls by US and NATO to enhance their capabilities, Merkel clarified: “This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO.”* Go to:
for full article.

*Italics mine. This exemplifies the double-think Merkel has always indulged when it comes to Germany's position in Europe; "Ah chancellor it was ever thus but surely if one learns from history one does not repeat the mistakes of the past!"".."it seems that the balance might have been TTIP-ed by the increasing intransigence (at least as far as the U.S is concerned), shown by most of (esp. mainland), Europe by its policy of the non-acceptance of less regulated produce such as genetically modified foods and chemically and/or pharmaceutically "enhanced" produce from America finding their way on to the shelves, such opposition to the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may well have been the issue that weighted the scales in favour of electoral intervention by the Trump/Farage/Mercer/Johnson/Putin alliance and the machinations of the "home-grown" talents of Cambridge Analytica."".."These people simply exploited an already unstable Europe though as the Wider European Adventure had stretched the tolerance of both the former E.U's member states' domestic populations and economies further than either was comfortably able to tolerate" (also see; ""Sophie's Choice" -again-. #Brexit #EUReferendum #VoteYes #VoteNo Montage" go to: Quote; ".... Why should not The Poles (who "don't like" the Germans and consistently produce the lowest turn out of any E.U nation in European elections), the Western Ukrainians (bye bye Crimea!), and the other recently assimilated Eastern European States attend to their own affairs? Such would surely be both socially and financially better for all of us.
Take the debacle over the Shengen agreement. Really Mr.Major? Your country's citizens got nothing out of that, is Europe only for the businessmen then? It seems so (quote; "The free movement of persons was a core part of the original Treaty of Rome" go to: ). One would think that it would be the job of our country's "liberal-left" to point out the "diminishment of persons" that not becoming signatories to the Shengen Agreement represented but noooo as so often where European politics is concerned there was a terrible silence in the "oppositional barn"").

 So how to resolve the impasse? The simply expedient of a third choice (as should also have been presented to the British people with regard to our recent referendum on electoral reform by including the option of proportional representation on the ballot papers), whereby Britain would choose not to rejoin unless a process that would reform the current structure by fostering the creation of an Eastern European Union (consequently addressing the issues of the wider union and the influence of  NATO), was entered into by all member states, might well give a truer representation of the electorate's wishes and concerns and encourage real debate on the nature of the union that people wish to see, such would surely better serve the interests of democracy."" Go to:

Quote; "the "omerta" concerning discussion of the true nature of The Yugoslavian conflict and the economic, social and political consequences of "The Wider European Union" that is so rigidly adhered to and enforced by The European Media applies to R.T and Al Jazeera as-well (whose collusion indicates both the true extent of the omerta's influence and it's source).  Russia's behaviour (and that of the westernised Arab states), which is similar to that of America with regard to foreign and domestic policy dictates that such should be the case, for just as it is not in N.A.T.O's interest to encourage stability in the middle east it is not in Russia's to encourage the formation of an Eastern European economic and political community (whatever did happen to ours?), Russia's embrace of monetarist values and "laissez-faire" ensures that her foreign policy decisions are taken solely in order to maximise short term profits for a small group of people in just the same way as are those of the member states of N.A.T.O"...."For those of us who were conscious during the process of the "Sophie's Choice" of a referendum on electoral reform that the post Yugoslavian Conflict British electorate were encouraged to accept as a true expression of their democratic freedoms the notion that a transcendent N.A.T.O does not control the economic, political and social direction of our country is ludicrous (is it not Mr.Ashdown?). Cameron dances the nationalist tune but he does not "pay-the-piper" yet whilst the anti-European lobby postures pro-Europeans (and this is true throughout Europe and beyond), simply refuse to accept the idea that "The European Adventure" has been hijacked by imperialist brigands" Go to:

"The Poles (bless 'em), to whom we owe a great deal, would surely have been better served (as would we), if the E.U's unconsidered expansion to the very borders of Mother Russia had not taken place. The Germans who -virtually- single handedly destroyed the fabric of The United Nations by recognising an independent Croatia having done so then colluded with America (again? go to -Edit 21/11/10-), to point missiles up Putin's nose*." Go to:

Quote; "The fact that this situation has now worsened (re: NATO involvement in the Ukraine and the State Dept's continuing presence/influence in Europe), should give the clue as to the causes of the U.K's current "State of Khaos". Those forces within the European Union which are pushing for the federally administrated fascism of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ("TTIP"), and the "Nato-isation" of Eastern Europe have no interest in democracy such as that represented by the exercise of their rights of self-determination by the "European" Electorate (or anyone else come to that)! That any politician or any commentator should have considered that entering into a vote on independence for the Scottish People without first determining how Scotland (and the rest of the U.K), would cope economically and continue to trade with the rest of The World should the vote be "Yes" is clearly asinine. Or is it? Not if you depend for your power-base on anachronistic institutions which are anathema to the "modern" (community centred), democratic process it isn't! Perhaps Alex Salmond felt powerless against The Eurasian State but does this excuse his seeming lack of ability to go "toe to toe" with The Euro-fascists on the issue of currency union? Certainly the fire-breathing Euro-dragon has become a formidable and heavily armed opponent for any single postulant or squire." Go to:

Quote; "Putin's actions in "annexing" The Crimea are simply a tit-for-tat reaction to U.S attempts to extend its influence by abusing its relationship with The European States (and those same states stupidity in colluding with them), and a long-term strategic aim for Mother Russia because it denies The U.S a possible base in The Black Sea* (go to; "Analysts: Black Sea port in Ukraine still key to Russia's naval interests":
 That R.T should begin to screen documentaries on; "the true nature of The Yugoslavian Conflict" following the denouement of The First Act of this gripping drama is therefore hardly surprising; the scene has moved on, the wheels are in motion....Our  soft-fascism continues too with "The Omerta" in full-force regarding The Greater Europe for once again both Left and Right Wings in Britain have failed to grasp-the-nettle with regard to European immigration. Quote: "How has Pallas Athena offended us so badly as to provoke us to perpetrate these obscenities? Well for one thing The European Union is too big ( ), as Schumacher intimated in "Small is Beautiful";  "a "Greater Europe" will represent an unsupported socio-economic structure and must collapse"
" Go to:

 Napoleonic style imperialist republican zeal is not the only reason why the E.U has become an untenable structure, however, for it is still partially made up of a number of a number of monarchies and princely states, first and foremost amongst these is of-course the U.K. Elizabeth the Second might well express her lack of amusement with the outcome of the Brexit referendum for she wishes to prevent the United Kingdom from disbanding. It is in the monarchy's interest to maintain (at least the illusion of -although even in the 21c the U.K monarchy's power is certainly not all "smoke-and-mirrors"-), power and independence for Scotland would be the beginning of a very slippery and steep slope for the House of "Windsor" (it matters not that the SNP are in favour of Scotland remaining in Europe as the Scots will -effectively-, be a republic if they leave the union despite what the SNP leadership may posture for the cameras), leading to many voices in Wales, Northern Ireland (and even places like Cornwall), being raised in favour of greater and greater devolution and ("eventual"), independence from the English Crown. In this sense the European Union is an anachronism for it (still), represents an attempt to resolve the internecine strife that sparked the great European conflagration of wars one and two, as such the E.U is a compromise between both families and political philosophies and now the compromise is "past-its-sell-by-date"! Perhaps we will discover that E.F. Schumacher was absolutely right when he outlined the principles by which he saw international consensus (and international institutions), developing, that such must come from; individual consciousness, supported by communities, expressed through societies and "enshrined" in republics, for if humanity is to to come together successfully, despite its ethnic and cultural differences, each individual must be sovereign unto themselves and not enslaved to any other.

Quote; "Sheremet, 44, was a Belarusian journalist and TV host who has been working outside of Belarus for a long time. He used to work in Russia as TV host and journalist before moving to Kyiv around five years ago.
Sheremet hosted a morning show on Radio Vesti. According to the radio's website, the journalist was heading to the radio's office to host his show when the car exploded." Go to:

Quote; ""Before becoming Ukraine’s Finance Minister last December, Natalie Jaresko collected $1.77 million in bonuses from a US-taxpayer-financed investment fund where her annual compensation was supposed to be limited to $150,000, according to financial documents filed with the US Internal Revenue Service this year.

The near 12-fold discrepancy between the compensation ceiling and Jaresko’s bonuses, paid in 2013, was justified in the IRS filing from the Jaresko-led Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF) by drawing a distinction between getting paid directly from the $150 million US government grant that created the fund and the money from the fund’s “investment sales proceeds,” which were treated as fair game for extracting bonuses far beyond the prescribed compensation level.

Using this supposed loophole, Jaresko and some of her associates enriched themselves by claiming money generated from US taxpayers’ dollars while avoiding any personal financial risks. She and other WNISEF officers collected the bonuses from what they deemed “profitable” exits from some investments even if the overall fund was losing money and shrinking, as it apparently was in recent years." Go to:

Quote; ""What my dear is this man doing in my house?" Well that's an interesting question young man..some of it (and I stress "some of it"), goes like this.....this man has no right in your house or to tell you what to do...those who make up what could become "your people"  are about to make a decision driven (one way or another), by economics concerning whether they wish to remain in close proximity to our bloodied former enemies or take their chances in (as "Mr.President" pointed out), an open boat on the North Atlantic! Call me picky but don't this (what otherwise -?-, would be carpet-bagging), individual and the country he represents bear at least some measure of responsibility for The Wider Europe's current appalling problem in terms of immigration from the states that his country so enthusiastically encouraged all the other NATO members to bomb and/or invade? Yet no in the wondrous world of  "Unclo Samo" it is possible to consider electing a man who considers that simply sharing the faith of those one has so imprudently attacked be sufficient to deny one entry to ones fair land! So will European democracy be the first casualty in the war? No I don't think so I believe we are at the triage stage now" Go to:

Quote; ""Either/or democracy is the dalliance of the totalitarian"" Go to: 

Quote; "North and South? You might just as well say, "beat the w*ps!" Surely returning the Grecians their marbles would be an anti-imperialist act (for it is the imperialists who have championed "The Greater Europe's" unconsidered eastern expansionism -is it any wonder that; "The centre cannot hold"?-)? Please see; "Sophie's Choice (again)", go to:" Go to:

Quote; "
The nation WAS Europe’s breadbasket – and now in an act of bio-warfare, it will become the wasteland that many US farmlands have become due to copious amounts of herbicide spraying, the depletion of soil, and the overall disruption of a perfect ecosystem.
The aim of US government entities is to support the takeover of Ukraine for biotech interests (among other strategies involving the prop-up of a failing cabalistic banking system that Russia has also refused with its new alignment with BRICS and its own payment system called SWIFT). This is similar to biotech’s desired takeover of Hawaiian islands and land in Africa.
The Ukraine war has many angles that haven’t been exposed to the general public – and you can bet that biotech has their hands in the proverbial corn pie.
Originally Published: Global Research
"Go to:" Go to:

Quote; "Our problems are causing seems to this observer that the media is failing in its duty to point out America's responsibilities at this time..the Left (because of its attitudes towards Europe -and Shengen-, re: The Scottish Vote etc.), are poor Europeans and as a result consistently fail to properly represent our financial interests to the U.S!" Go to:

Quote; "
With the help of historians and contemporary witnesses, the three-part documentary 'The Balkans in Flames' examines the disintegration of the former Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia. The #Balkans in Flames 7.20pm, Wednesday 18 - Friday 20 November" Go to:

No comments:

Post a Comment