Le « méchant » Vlad Poutine en remplacement du « méchant » Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

 Vladimir Putin
Nous assistons actuellement à une recrudescence des attaques contre Poutine dans les grands médias. Notamment en lien avec la crise fabriquée en Syrie — crise qu’il a réussi à calmer — et davantage depuis la récente affaire Snowden (Dershowitz: « Snowden Hates American and Loves Tyrannical Regimes »).

US Warns Russia Against Giving Snowden Asylum
Snowden libre en Russie : Washington « excédé » par la décision de Moscou

Schumer: Russia ‘should pay a price’ for harboring NSA leaker Snowden

 
ed note–please remember that on the afternoon of June 8, 1967, as the USS LIBERTY was being attacked by Israel that F4 Phantom bombers were on their way to Cairo loaded with nukes to hit Egypt, the USSR’s biggest ally in the region in an attempt to start a war between the US and Russia. The only thing that prevented that war was the LIBERTY not going down.
The people who were trying to get that war started never gave up on that mission and this latest business involving Snowden, the NSA leaks and Russia harboring him may be part of it.

Schumer calls Putin a ‘school-yard bully’
Schumer (L) with Netanyahu (R)

US referred to Putin as alpha dog: WikiLeaks
US referred to Putin as alpha dog: WikiLeaks

[RussiaPutinImage2.jpg]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgLH1he7hL-ECZ7VxxQJ4ufTumOa6-6LT0m_kP3SK4wdoBsbYCTg


Le « négationniste » Ahmadinejad ayant quitté l’arène politique internationale, il faut trouver un autre « gros méchant » pour le remplacer!
http://kopjik.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/2mahmoud-as-haman.jpg
Ahmadinejad perçu comme une « incarnation moderne de Haman », l’éternel ennemi des juifs

 http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fre432.jpg

BHL désespère que ce soit pas si facile de mener l’Occident en guerre contre la Syrie, accuse la démission des grandes puissances et exprime sa crainte devant l’image d’un « Poutine maître du monde ».

Au-dessus, c’est le grand Architecte

(Voir aussi: @BHL: La résistance française mettait des bombes! alors pourquoi tu condamnes la résistance palestinienne, ils sont chez eux! BHL se fait interpeller sur la question israélienne et la légitimité de la lutte contre l’occupant illégal. Les roues de secours de BHL sont: 1) « La shoah », qui a convaincu l’humanité entière que la Palestine appartient aux juifs, et 2) « l’Islam » l’ennemi à abattre.)


VIDEO – Putin tells McCain to f*ck off you war criminal

http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/27_Podcast_Glenn-300x231.jpg
AFP PODCAST: Mark Glenn on Israel Pushing the U.S., Russia to Brink of War

AFP PODCAST
Podcast Play Button

Mark Glenn

Podcast Play Button
Mark Glenn, former AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter and the publisher of The Ugly Truth, and co-author of WHAT I SAW THAT DAY: Israel’s June 8, 1967 Holocaust of U.S. Servicemen Aboard the USS Liberty and its Aftermath  and the co-editor of SHIP WITHOUT A COUNTRY: Eyewitness Accounts of the Attack on the USS Liberty,  discusses Israel’s machinations in the Middle East and beyond, specifically its desire to start a war between the United States and Russia, and the disruptive qualities inherent in Judaism, in this informative interview (38:01).

US And Russia Simultaneously Announce Intent To Arm Opposing Sides In Syria

Sotchi, LGBT et nouvelle guerre froide (Jules Falardeau élabore au sujet de Freedom House, la NED, la CIA, etc., et de leur projet de nouvelle guerre froide culturelle contre la Russie de Poutine.)

A Dangerous Game, or Why is the West Criticizing the Sochi Games, Bashing Vladimir Putin?

Olivier Renault
Daniel Cohn-Bendit a trouvé refuge en Allemagne quand le Général de Gaulle l’a chassé de France. Le voilà qu’il compare dans un entretien à l’Express Vladimir Poutine à Hitler et invite les pays démocratiques à boycotter les JO en Russie.
Déjà, pour lui, Charles de Gaulle c’était la dictature. Cela fait 45 ans que Daniel Cohn-Bendit use du même registre et fatigue les gens en France et en Allemagne. Les citoyens ne comprennent pas qu’il puisse toujours prendre la parole après les accusations de pédophilie. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, qui a refait les titres de l’actualité surtout en Allemagne en 2012 en raison des découvertes de documents sur les pédophiles dans le parti des Verts vantant et réclamant la légalisation de relations sexuelles avec les enfants et sur son livre vantant les relations avec des mineurs, sort cette fois le joker nazi pour taper sur la Russie. La Russie qui a écrasé le nazisme dans son nid d’aigle à Berlin par le sacrifice de sa population et de son armée est à ses yeux comme dirigée par le Führer. Pour les anciens résistants et communistes de l’après guerre, Daniel Cohn-Bendit était dès 68 le collabo des Allemands !
Cohn-Bendit chroniqueur. Daniel Cohn-Bendit qui dénonce la main mise d’Etat en Russie sur les médias est devenu depuis cet automne chroniqueur sur une chaîne radio connue pour être la voix de l’État. Europe 1 était du temps du chroniqueur Marcel Haedrich une station encore libre et représentait un véritable travail journalistique. En travaillant pour Europe 1 le nouveau chroniqueur de la station et chantre de la défense des droits de l’homme, de la liberté d’expression et de la démocratie, est embauché par la station connue pour endormir les auditeurs à coups de slogans publicitaires. Dani le rouge, recommandant le boycott des jeux olympiques de Sotchi, n’en finit pas de se ridiculiser en sortant ses tirades de retraité de mai 68 tout en collaborant avec les ennemis de ses idéaux premiers.
Cohn-Bendit-Allemagne. Tour à tour Daniel Cohn-Bendit va rouler sous l’étiquette allemande et française du parti des Verts tout en étant de nationalité allemande. Tout comme Vitali Klichko, chef de l’opposition en Ukraine, des liens politiques profonds, comme par hasard, existent entre l’Allemagne et Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
Le lundi 9 décembre Wojciech Leszek Pomorski, fondateur de www.dyskryminacja.de, association polonaise de défense des parents et des enfants, a donné une conférence de presse à Berlin sur le Jugendamt et sur les violations des droits fondamentaux en Allemagne à l’encontre des enfants et des familles. Des parents français, comme Lionel Gilberti, Olivier Karrer, ou tout récemment Cédric Laurent, sont aussi touchés par ces violations des droits fondamentaux par l’organisation d’État de la jeunesse qui prend sa source et fonction sous le régime hitlérien.
Wojciech Leszek Pomorski aurait aimé avoir la présence de Daniel Cohn-Bendit pour dénoncer les discriminations en série et les 40 200 enlèvements d’enfants pour l’année 2012 en Allemagne. Seul un journaliste hollandais et correspondant de Varsovie, Ekke Overbeek, travaillant pour Trouw (journal fondé par la résistance hollandaise en 1943), était présent lors de cette conférence et fut le seul journaliste représentant les médias occidentaux. Contacté par la Voix de la Russie le journaliste hollandais évoque son étonnement : « Que des médias polonais, pas un seul média allemand ou d’Europe pour documenter les faits». De fait les médias français préférant parler des violations des droits fondamentaux en Ukraine et en Russie tirent le rideau sur la violation quotidienne de ces droits chez notre voisin. Dans un entretien donné à Stimme Russlands (La Voix de la Russie), Wojciech Pomorski retrace sa vie et traite l’Allemagne de pays nazi !
En 2003, le Jugendamt vient prendre ses deux filles à son domicile et interdit par écrit au père polonais de parler avec elles en polonais lors des visites. Son dossier a provoqué un scandale largement relayé dans les médias polonais mais pas en France. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, député européen qui a pour habitude de dénoncer les dictatures et violences sur les individus, n’est pas intervenu. Le dossier d’une petite fille française, dont le Jugendamt a participé au changement d’acte de naissance français sans décision de justice, n’a pas non plus vu le soutien de Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Pourtant, celui-ci avait été sollicité pour intervenir sur ces dossiers et sur l’activité du Jugendamt sur un plan général car les plaintes contre le Jugendamt affluent des pays voisins à l’Allemagne et de ses habitants. Le silence du défenseur de la démocratie et des droits fondamentaux sur les activités du Jugendamt, qui copient les méthodes nazies selon les dires des parents touchés, reste un mystère. Est-ce que Daniel Cohn-Bendit n’aurait pas le droit de toucher à l’Allemagne sous peine de voir sortir d’autres dossiers plus sensibles sur des révélations sur la pédophilie et aurait pour mission d’attaquer la Russie dans les médias ?

30 juillet 2014
 La guerre qui vient

En novembre 1917, peu après l’entrée en guerre des Américains, Rudolf Steiner mit solennellement en garde (1) :

« Il ne faut pas que le monde soit géographiquement américanisé, car les efforts de l’Amérique visent à tout mécaniser, à tout faire entrer dans le domaine du pur naturalisme, à effacer peu à peu de la surface de la Terre la culture de l’Europe. » (R. Steiner, Derrière le voile des événements – Le mystère du Double, G.A. 178, Paris, 1999, pp. 88-89).

Phase 1, le GMT.
Or, que se trame-t-il en ce moment, à peine un siècle après cette mise en garde solennelle ? Les gnomes de l’Union Européenne s’affairent précisément en coulisse – et le plus loin possible des oreilles des peuples, cela va sans dire – à mettre fébrilement en place le GMT, le futur « Grand Marché Transatlantique » destiné, en dehors de tout accord populaire conscient bien sûr, à aligner la totalite des normes européennes, tant environnementales, que sociales, financières et commerciales, à la mesure des exigences anglo-américaines. Une vassalisation camouflée de l’Europe, ni plus, ni moins.
C’est cela qui se magouille depuis juillet 2013 : une entente de libre-échange intégral ouvrant toute grande l’Europe aux multinationales US en imposant la supériorité de leur droit sur celui des états de l’UE. Une entreprise opaque menée depuis 20 ans derrière un écran de fumée pour supplanter le droit européen au profit direct du droit US. Travail à petits pas discrets auquel même le Parlement européen ne dispose que d’un accès restreint conformément aux ententes entre les négociateurs occultes américains et leurs homologues européens (on oserait mettre des guillemets) :

« Tous les documents concernant le développement du GMT, y compris les textes des négociations, les propositions faites des deux côtés, le matériel explicatif joint, les courriels et les autres informations échangés demeureront confidentiels. » (Accord du 5 juillet 2013). Taisez-vous, profanes, vous n’avez pas le droit au chapitre…

Phase 2, le coup d’état de Kiev.
C’est en pleine trève olympique que l’« Occident » passe à l’attaque. La paix n’étant pas propice à ce grand chambardement, il y fallait une préparation psychologique des foules, une ambiance et quelques bons prétextes bien sanglants : du sur mesure donc pour les tueurs professionnels des Pravyi Sektor et autres Svoboda, faux nazis naïfs retournés par la CIA, mais vrais mercenaires à la botte de qui les arme et les paie. Le gouvernement légal refusant de faire donner l’armée contre son propre peuple, le putsch prend ainsi le pouvoir en pleine scéance du parlement avec le plein soutien de Washington et de ses obéissants vassaux.
En dépit des slogans de l’Euromaïdan appelant à lutter contre un régime oligarchique, c’est pourtant bien un « roi du chocolat » milliardaire qui devient aussitôt président de l’Ukraine : un oligarque sans scrupules aux ordres de Washington qui s’affaire aujourd’hui à écraser, avec le plein appui de l’UE, tout ce qui, à l’Est du pays, se refuse à se soumettre à l’impérialisme du B.A.O. (2) dans lequel Washington veut à tout prix faire basculer les provinces russophones hostiles à l’inféodation otanienne. Sans la riposte-éclair de la Russie en Crimée, c’était toute la population russe de cette presqu’île stratégique et Sébastopol qui tombait en quelques heures dans les mains de l’OTAN. Une réaction russe avalisée par un référendum écrasant qui déclencha l’ire des dirigeants occidentaux d’habitude si respectueux de la volonté populaire tant qu’elle est à leur avantage…
Déjà des congressistes US proposent de considérer dès à présent l’Ukraine comme « allié militaire majeur des Etats-Unis » face à la Russie. En Europe même, l’hystérie anti-russe bat son plein, tous médias confondus ou peu s’en faut, et n’a de cesse d’appeler au boycott pour complaire aux diktats états-uniens, sans même comprendre qu’ils se sanctionnent eux-mêmes au plus grand détriment de leurs propres entreprises, et que c’est justement là le but de l’administration US : ruiner l’Europe pour mieux l’asservir et pousser l’OTAN jusqu’aux frontières mêmes de la Russie. Ce qui avait déjà précipité l’Europe dans la guerre en 1914 se répète seulement en 2014, mais, comme on le sait, c’est pour la bonne cause et surtout celle de l’Empire ploutocratique anglo-saxon.

La Guerre en marche.

Viêtnam, Iraq, Libye, Syrie, Serbie, Ukraine… C’est à l’encerclement méthodique et total de la Russie et de la Chine (3) que s’affairent aujourd’hui les stratèges insatiables du Pentagone et leurs obéissants vassaux de l’Union dite européenne : tous à la botte de l’État US finissant et d’autant plus agressif. Cette Europe en voie de totale américanisation, espionnée sans vergogne et, semble-t-il, fière de l’être…

Lorsqu’on sait que l’OTAN n’avait d’autre objectif à l’origine que de faire pièce au Pacte de Varsovie communiste et qu’il n’avait, par conséquent, plus aucune raison d’être à la chute du Mur de Berlin que Moscou n’avait autorisé qu’à l’expresse condition – hélas non paraphée – que l’OTAN ne s’étendrait pas sur les pays de l’Est, on ne peut que constater la duplicité et la puissance de corruption de cette organistaion à vocation purement impérialiste de contrôle hégémonique planétaire.

Rudolf Steiner avait plusieurs fois souligné dans un contexte anthroposophique que, du fait de son sol, la nature même de l’Amérique du nord reposait essentiellement sur la seule volonté de puissance ahrimanique aveugle et de domination tous azimuts. Quant à l’Europe, c’est de Lisbonne à Vladivostok qu’elle devait se faire, Russie incluse évidemment, en trait d’union géographique et culturel entre l’extrême Occident américain et l’extrême Orient chinois, en force d’équilibre donc, et non avachie, vendue aux loges noires de Londres et de Washington.

Entre temps le sang coule, et coule à flot. Il coule non seulement en Europe du fait de l’interventionnisme obsessionnel US, mais aussi aux Proche et Moyen-Orients dans le massacre abominable des populations chrétiennes au profit d’un Islam hystérique et monstrueux gavé d’armes et soutenu en sous-main par ces états croupions que sont les monarchies dégénérées du Golfe (4). De toute évidence, les think tanks anglo-américains veulent la guerre et font tout pour pousser la Russie au casus belli : ils sont aujourd’hui tellement dans le pétrin qu’il en va maintenant de la pérennité de leur business. Comme en 1914. Et comme en 1939…

« L’égoïsme universel émane de la race anglo-américaine. Partant de là, l’égoïsme couvrira toute la Terre. Toutes les inventions qui recouvrent la Terre d’un réseau d’égoïsme viennent d’Angleterre et d’Amérique. A partir de là-bas donc, toute la Terre sera recouverte d’une toile d’égoïsme, de mal. Mais une petite colonie se formera à l’est comme la semence d’une vie nouvelle pour l’avenir. La culture anglo-américaine consume la culture de l’Europe […] mais la race elle-même va à sa ruine. Elle porte en elle la disposition à être la race du Mal. » (Steiner, Eléments d’ésotérisme, Paris, 2000, p. 275)

A l’heure où nous écrivons, les populations civiles russophones d’Ukraine orientale sont écrasées sous les bombardements massifs de l’armée kievienne encadrée désormais par plusieurs centaines de conseillers de l’ex-armée mercenaire US Blackwater (Academi). Il est toujours mieux de faire faire le sale boulot par d’autres et sous fausse bannière. Cela ne vous rappelerait-il pas les massacres de civils allemands de Bromberg par les Polonais en 1939 ?

Mais l’Ours russe ne bouge toujours pas…
WH.

1. « La guerre qui vient », titre repris d’un ouvrage célèbre de Francis Delaisi (1911) dont Rudolf Steiner fit autrefois l’éloge à plusieurs reprises.
2. « Bloc Américaniste Occidentaliste ». La Rada putschiste de Kiev ira même jusqu’à abroger le statut du russe comme langue régionale dès la prise de pouvoir, obligeant ainsi les enfants à cesser de parler russe dans les écoles.
3. La Chine aussi fait elle-même l’objet de cet encerclement militaire par les États-Unis et leurs bases (Japon, Taïwan, Indonésie, Thaïlande, Corée du Sud, Guam et Philippines). Les vieilles obsessions US de Mackinder à Brzezinski sont toujours d’actualité. C’est à cela que tente de faire pièce l’Organisation de Coopération de Shanghaï (OCS) dont fait partie la Russie.
4. Quant à l’Israël sioniste, éradicateur criminel des populations palestiniennes soutenu à bout de bras depuis près de 70 ans par l’AIPAC et les USA, son karma est d’ores et déjà scellé ; cette « erreur de l’histoire du monde », pour reprendre les paroles de Steiner, n’est plus qu’un résidu anachronique de l’évolution de l’humanité appelé à cesser d’être et se dissoudre.

Publié il y a Yesterday par
 

PUTIN STYMIES GLOBALISTS
• Russia leaves one-worlders out in the cold by challenging “international system”

By Mark Anderson
In the wake of the late-April meeting of the Trilateral Commission—and with the 2014 Bilderberg meeting dead ahead in Denmark—globalists are fuming over Russia’s moves in the Crimea and its nationalist economic and energy initiatives.
Russia’s strong nationalist stance and its push for a “multi-polar” world system—rather than one dominated by the United States—suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking a more decentralized world order. That may be embodied in Putin’s moves to negotiate trade and energy deals directly with Asian-Pacific nations, including Japan and South Korea, leaving the internationalists out in the cold. It is also reflected in Putin’s overtures to China.
Although it’s too early to forecast outcomes, a Russia that asserts itself independently on the world stage, with minimal linkages to Western power structures, means a world that could avoid having a singular source of ultimate authority.
This is why Secretary of State John Kerry told the Atlantic Council at a gathering in late April that Putin must be opposed simply because he is challenging “the international system.”
Western global expansionists lament that Putin refused to join the World Trade Organization. And various Western think tank policy papers show that Putin may be intent on forming a formal confederation, comprised of Russia and former Soviet states that are now in the loosely knit Commonwealth of Independent States. A confederation is a less centralized arrangement, comparable to Switzerland.
The EU is a federation, with a singular authority located in Brussels.
In contrast, Western corporate and banking interests support world government, an ultimate “unipolar” world with one super-concentrated central authority—a difficult goal that requires patient gradualismforged by the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group and related secretive and semi-secretive Zionist-controlled outfits.
This is what is behind the Trilateralists’ support for a “Europe 2020” rubric consisting of a “fiscal union” among the 28 European Union member nations.
That means member states would have to completely surrender their autonomy to collect taxes and use the receipts for national public expenditures.
Under a fiscal union such matters would be centralized, giving the EU direct control over taxation and spending power in direct contrast to state sovereignty where countries define their own fiscal policies.
The above fiscal item appears to harmonize with remarks this AFP writer chronicled at an April 2013 Brookings Institution meeting at which a Federal Reserve-style central bank for Europe was an announced goal.
——
This article is fromAMERICAN FREE PRESS newspaper, issue #20 for 2014. A 16-week trial subscription is $17.76. One year—52 issues—is $59 or $5 per month deducted from your credit card automatically. Online editions just $15 per year. Write AFP at 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call AFP toll free at 1-888-699-6397 and charge your subscription to amajor credit card. Purchase AFP’s digital edition—sent to you every week in PDF format—on AFP’s website at www.americanfreepress. net. We encourage you to photocopy this article and hand it out to others.

Vladimir Putin, The Great: Book Counters NWO’s Propaganda Barrage

 
Review by John Tiffany
$25.00

Dear TBR Reader and Supporter:

For decades the United States was in a virtual state of war with the Soviet Union. Daily we were told by the frantic press that the Commies were going to drop nuclear weapons on America. School children were instructed in how to hide under their desks so as to avoid being incinerated by the nuclear shock blasts. Air raid siren tests blared every Wednesday. Who could deny the fact that the Soviet Union was the most dangerous enemy America had ever faced?
History has revealed that some of the threat from the USSR was very real. One crisis in the 1960s was spurred by the Soviet Union’s desire to place nuclear warheads and missiles on the island of Cuba—or anywhere in the Western hemisphere—to counter the missiles pointed at them. And, we have learned, on several occasions, due mostly to mistakes in communication, the United States and the USSR came close to launching nuclear weapons at each other.
But with the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, most of us believed a new era in relations between Russia and the United States was soon forthcoming. After all, when you look at it, America and Russia have much in common and have a shared history as allies in war. In World War I, U.S. troops were sent to fight the Bolsheviks. In World War II, though most nationalists objected to it, the Russian people and American soldiers teamed up to defeat the Axis. Even going back to the American Civil War, Russia made a strong statement of solidarity with the United States by sending her fleet to American shores in support of the North against the meddling of the British and French in fomenting further bloodshed by promising troops and more money to the South to keep the war going. Of course the motives of the Russians in this case were altruistic, while the French and Brits were driven by the powerful banking houses of Europe who wanted to cash in on the bloody conflict.
Also in common, the United States and Russia are large, mostly Christian, still mostly white nations with huge deposits of valuable natural resources still ready to be exploited in vast wilderness spaces.
But something has gone wrong.
Russia is still our “enemy,” according to the plutocrats, kleptocrats and cryptocrats who really call the shots—and control the media. In nearly every newscast we hear what a threat Russia is to U.S. national security and what a monster its leader, Vladimir Putin, really is. It’s Russia vetoing U.S. efforts to place sanctions on Syria. It’s Russia who is thwarting U.S. efforts to cripple Iran. It’s Russia that is countering U.S. efforts to control the Eurasian nations on Russia’s edge.
Those awful Russians! That despicable Putin!
In fact, today, President Vladimir Putin is one of the most reviled politicians in the West.
But we disagree. Look at the facts. Few leaders worldwide have maintained such high levels of popularity. Putin’s political and economic successes are too startling to be debated. From his appointment as vice president on New Year’s Eve of 1999, Putin has assisted in the rebuilding of a shattered country in 13 short years. With high rates of economic growth, military and police reform, and a concerted attack on official corruption, Putin has become a trusted populist leader, and a significant figure in global nationalism, non-alignment and multipolarity.
Now we finally have a book that counters the Western propagandists. Russian Populist, by my friend, Dr. Matthew Johnson, attempts to synthesize the basic political views of Putin. It does not deal much with policy, but rather, it centers around the ideas that drive Putin and his reform plans in both domestic and foreign policy.
Contrary to some Western pundits, Putin came to power with a very specific set of philosophical goals in mind—much of which is now part of the Russian political scene. Western politicians, drowning in debt and public cynicism, envy Putin’s consistent popularity with the Russian populace. And Russia itself seems poised to create a counterrevolution in world politics and against the dreaded “American exceptionalism,” which is really just bald-faced imperialism. Russia under Putin has engaged in a consistent policy of state nationalism that has derailed the more radical plans of “globalization” in the West.
So here it is, the one book that will help explain why “they” hate Putin and why we here at TBR wonder if his nationalist policies—implemented in America—could turn the clock back to the day when the U.S. was respected around the globe as the champion of the underdog; when we resisted calls from others for foreign intervention in nations that pose no threat to American security and we were a financial powerhouse poised for the future.

Some here at TBR, I daresay, wish Putin were running for U.S. president. Find out why in this new book.
—John Tiffany, TBR Assistant Editor

To order offline, send payment to: TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge.
Distribution opportunities available. Bulk discounts. Call 202-547-5586.

Go to our online shop

Note

Subscribers to The Barnes Review receive a 10% discount on all book and video purchases placed over the phone. Call us toll-free at 1-877-773-9077 (or ++1-951-587-6936 from abroad) to place your order charged to your Visa, Master, AmEx or Discover Card.
No subscriber to The Barnes Review yet? Click here to subscribe.
THE GOLEM 
The Israelization of American Foreign Policy Planning for Global War in the Name of ‘Democracy’ 
Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, « Islamo-Fascists » Who Will be Targeted Next by The High Priests of War?
By Michael Collins Piper
(…)Aside from Iran and Syria—which have long been in the gunsights of the Zionist warhawks—three additional countries (Russia, China and Venezuela) now seem to be special targets of Bush and his neo-conservative handlers. These countries don’t seem to fall into the category of the « democracy » that Sharansky and Bush are so determined to promote on a global scheme, and even a cursory examination of the media coverage and rhetoric from the neo-conservatives concerning these nations clearly indicates that war—either « cold » or « hot »—may well be in the offing. And Americans will pay for these wars and fight them.
America’s neo-conservative Judas Goats and their collaborators in the pro-Israel lobby in Washington have already fired the opening guns of a new Cold War against Russian leader Vladimir Putin who is increasingly the subject of harsh criticism and hostile questions about his « commitment to democracy. »
Whether Putin is going to be cast as « the New Hitler » or the « New Stalin » remains to be seen, but recent indications suggest that the Zionist war against Russian nationalism has now been launched on American soil.
The big question is whether Americans will be hoodwinked and again dragged into another war that need not and should not be fought.
The truth is that the neo-conservative hostility to Putin stems precisely from the fact that Putin has not been perceived as attentive to the demands of Zionist Israel.
And for that reason Putin and the nationalists of Russia are now the targets of the international Zionist elite.
Although the burgeoning hostility against Putin by the neo-conservatives had been widely hashed over in small-circulation pro-Israel publications and American Jewish community newspapers on a regular basis, it was only later that mainstream publications such as The Weekly Standard and The New York Times, to name the most prominent, began to echo those concerns about Putin, almost as if the big name dailies were taking the lead from the other journals. Increasingly, however, the notion that « Putin is a possible enemy » was now being put forth to the average American, through the outlets of the mass media.
Another major concern about Putin stems from the fact that he moved sharply against the handful of billionaire plutocrats in Russia (many of whom also hold Israeli citizenship) who grabbed control of the Russian economy with the connivance of then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union.
Clearly, as Putin aggressively moved against the billionaire oligarchs who were looting the Russian economy (and then, in some instances, fleeing to Israel for refuge), the U.S.-based major print and broadcast media began increasingly taking shots at the Russian leader.
One American hard-line pro-Israel publication, The New Republic, raised the question on September 24, 2004: « Is Russia going fascist? »
asserting that whether Putin personally remains in power or not, there is a growing movement— »nationalist » in nature—that holds great sway among the Russian population. The New Republic expressed concern that « a fascist revolution » could be in the offing, meaning a movement hostile to the Israeli oligarchs (with international criminal connections) who have looted the Russian economy. Likewise, earlier, in his 1995 book, Russia: A Return to Imperialism, Boston-University-based Israeli academic Uri Ra’anan sounded the concern that post-Soviet Russia may pose a threat to the West (i.e. to Israel and Zionist interests in the West).
These works echoed such writers as Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov who, in their 2003 book, Stalin’s Last Crime, concluded by saying that « Stalin is a perpetual possibility, » leaving open the theoretical proposition that Putin, or other future would-be Russian leaders, may ultimately emerge as heir to Stalin’s anti-Zionist legacy.
In the not-unexpected wake of this, the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for all intents and purposes, officially declared a new « Cold War » on Russia.
The powerful New York-based branch of the London-based Royal Institute on International Affairs—which is funded by the Rothschild family, who are major patrons of Israel—the CFR was, for years, under the domination of the Rockefeller family of the United States.
In recent years, however, a major pro-Israel financier, Maurice « Hank » Greenberg, has emerged as a key figure behind the CFR. Likewise, although—in the past—the CFR was often described (in Jewish-controlled media outlets) as the foreign policy voice of the so-called White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment, the truth is that the CFR has an inordinately large membership of American Jews who are strong partisans of Israel.
In any case, regarding Putins Russia, in late 2005 the CFR announced the formation of a new « bipartisan task force » to study U.S.Russian relations.The CFR was spearheading this new unit to monitor— in fact, pressure—Russia to follow the dictates of the United States under the Bush administration’s push for global democracy, a theme enunciated by Bush’s Soviet-born (but non-Russian) intellectual mentor, Natan Sharansky.
Currently a leading figure in Israeli political affairs, Sharansky has been the guiding force behind the Bush foreign policy, having been so acknowledged as such by Bush.
Some might say it was « just a coincidence » that on Dec. 7, 2005— the momentous anniversary of Pearl Harbor—the nation’s two most influential newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post —both of which consistently feature the pronouncements of the CFR and the elite (pro-Israel) foreign policy establishment—featured heavy-handed attacks on President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
The New York Times offered its readers an op-ed piece entitled « Moscow’s Empty Red Square. » The commentary, charging that Russia under Putin was « becoming steadily less democratic, » was signed by the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), and the Republican Party’s 1996 vice presidential candidate, Jack Kemp.This duo just happened to be sharing the chairmanship of the task force on U.S. policy toward Russia that had just then just set in place by the CFR.
In tackling Putin, Edwards and Kemp said, « Russia faces a choice between entering the mainstream of the modern world, or trapping itself in an eddy of reaction and isolation. »
The CFR spokesmen told Putin he must shelve proposed legislation that would crack down on domestic opposition. This comes at a time when many Russian legislators and opinion leaders have been speaking openly about the power of domestic Zionist groups that are viewed as troublesome for Russia, particularly because of their international ties and their links to the billionaire oligarchs and allied forces in Israel.
In amazing sync with the Dec. 7 attack by the CFR duo on Putin in The New York Times, that very same day The Washington Post—just a « coincidence, » of course—featured an editorial entitled « The Anti-Democracy Agenda » raising the question: « Is Russia a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism? »
The Post then went on to assert « You wouldn’t know it from the bitter campaign Moscow is waging to thwart President Bush’s democracy agenda in Muslim Central Asia, » referring to Putin’s support for Uzbek President Islam Karimov and what the Post called « an emerging Moscow-led bloc of dictatorships » including Belarus, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. The Post scored Putin for lending aid to the leaders of these nations and then demanded an answer to this query: « Is this the act of a partner, or an adversary? » The Post said that it was time for President Bush « to stop ducking that question. » Clearly, the Post’s answer to the question was implicit in its question.
The fact that these most potent blasts at Putin just happened to appear in tandem, on Dec. 7, struck many Russia-watchers as most interesting and symbolic, to say the least.
Several months later, the CFR report on Putin—ostensibly prepared under the direction of the aforementioned Edwards and Kemp—was released and its conclusions didn’t bode well for Putin. The Russian leader wasclearly in the gun sights of the powerful international interests often loosely described as « the New World Order. »
To nobody’s surprise, the « bipartisan task force » report from the CFR echoed and formally enunciated the same themes that Edwards and Kemp had already outlined in their Dec. 7 attack on Putin.
The CFR report insisted the Bush administration take a hard line toward Putin. The CFR asserted Putin s policies may not be in the best interests of the United States. The report said « The very idea of strategic partnership’ [between the U.S. and Russia] no longer seems realistic. » In other words, the CFR had declared a new « Cold War » against Russia.
And now on the heels of the release of this CFR report, there are rumors (from sources unknown) that Russia may have fed U.S. military secrets to the government of Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion of the now-destroyed Arabic republic. Such rumors, having received widespread attention in the major media in America, only tend to feed the anti- Putin frenzy that has already been triggered. However, before American patriots jump on the anti-Putin and anti-Russia bandwagon, they should keep an eye on precisely what forces are driving it.
Essentially, with the American neo-conservatives now moving against Putin, it is as if we are seeing a rejuvenation of the war against Russian nationalism by the Trotskyites, retooled for 21st century geopolitical considerations.
Now—unlike in the first half of the 20th century prior to the founding of the state of Israel—the central role of that Middle East state in the neoconservative worldview cannot be understated, for the concern about Israel is a front-line consideration in the neo-conservative campaign against Putin.
But Putin and the nationalist phenomenon in Russia that Putin has reenergized is not the only target of Zionism and the American war machine that is now in the hands of Israel’s neo-conservative allies.(…)
AMERICAN FREE PRESS
Populist vs. Plutocrat
• Top financial criminals in Russia want Putin ousted

By Ronald L. Ray

Awar against Western civilization is taking place, but it is Russia, in the East, that is defending cultural and religious traditions, not the rulers in America or Europe.
Most of theWest has capitulated to the destroyers of truth, goodness and beauty, to the sodomites and usurers, to the abortionists and warmongers, to the adorers of money. It is Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, a former communist, who stands in the breach,while bankers and internationalists promote the likes ofMikhail Khodorkovsky, a Russian Jewish oligarch with billions of dollars to use for the re-enslavement of the former Soviet Union.
Putin granted a humanitarian pardon in December 2013 to Khodorkovsky, a decade-long prisoner whose mother has cancer, and to a large number of others described by Putin’s critics as “political prisoners.”
Although convicted of tax evasion and money-laundering—a conviction upheld by the European
Court of Human Rights—Khodorkovsky has been portrayed byWesternmedia and politicians as a “political prisoner” because he opposed Putin. He is the poster boy for the plutocratic fight against Russian nationalism and economic independence.
But according to a Jan. 3 report in Germany’s National-Zeitung, even defenders of the 50-year-old multi-billionaire are forced to admit that hiswealth is ill-gotten. In just 15 years, the young communist son of a modest chemist amassed many billions of dollars under the aegis of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He was one of a handful of Jews who were given free rein by Yeltsin to enrich themselves by gaining control of much of Russia’s wealth and politics, according to the “National Journal” website.
As Yeltsin’s energy minister, Khodorkovsky used his privately owned bank, MENATEP, for shady real estate dealings and to purchase the Yukos oil concern at a fraction of its value. The Yukos production division in Russia sold the oil atminimal profit to the distribution division, located in a foreign tax haven, which then sold the oil to American and Israeli interests atmarket rates. Khodorkovsky and his partners profited immensely and paid little or no taxes.When a local Russian mayor spoke out about Yukos’s refusal to pay taxes, a Khodorkovsky partner was implicated in the contract murder of the official.
Khodorkovskywas accused of stealing 200 million metric tons of oil from Russia—half the Yukos production—via his business practices. Thus, it was natural that, under Putin’s efforts to break the international bankster grip on Russia and regain control of natural resources, Khodorkovsky would be investigated for selling those resources out of the country.
These are by far not the only such criminal actions and should surprise no one, considering they were done by amanwho still denieswrongdoing and once wrote: “[W]e are animated by riches. . . . Our compass is profit. Our idol is her majesty, capital.”
Yet this icon of usurious debt-slaverswas received regally by the German government in December and granted a year’s residency. He is visiting Switzerland currently, where half of his Yukos wealth is deposited.
Khodorkovsky claims, rather disingenuously, he wants no more part in business or politics, but only desires to “help” Russian “political prisoners.” Like globalist speculator George Soros, the criminal ex-oligarch wants to use his “civil society” foundations to promote his depraved, money-motivated worldview and regain control of Russia.
By distorting the facts of the political situation in Russia and agitating from without, Khodorkovsky and his supporters hope to bring down Putin and vanquish the last powerful political protector of Westernmoral and cultural values, such as God, family and true freedombased on personal and social responsibility.
Putin, however, has ordered “battle lines” to defend our civilization.
——
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author residing in the free state of Kansas. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.

AMERICAN FREE PRESS
Jan 20, 2014 Edition
Putin-Style Politics Could Be What Saves the United States
• American nationalists look to purge ‘crony capitalism’

By Michael Collins Piper

http://americanfreepress.net
The United States is going the way of Russia—but not in the way conservatives would have you think. While conservatives are busy fighting unemployment benefits for middle-class Americans out of work in themidst of a lagging economy, they ignore the fact that powerful plutocrats—money lords, media barons and other capitalist insiders—are increasing their stranglehold on the American system.
Conservatives say this is “free enterprise” and “the American way” but traditional populists, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, say otherwise.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg/250px-Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg
VLADIMIR PUTIN__DAVID STOCKMAN
Ousted greedy oligarchs._Wants “housecleaning.”
In fact, what’s happening in America recalls what happened in Russia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet state: A handful of greedy vultures grabbed control of the Russian economy and the political apparatus arising from the remnants of the Communist Party superstructure that dominated the USSR for some 75 years.
Hardly more than 10 in number, these so-called “oligarchs”—most of them Jewish, not ethnic Russians—became the new ruling class in Russia. Preying upon the Russian people, they looted the economy and bought control of the nation’s media, reigning supreme, cooperating with the interests, in the West, of the Rothschild dynasty.
Here in America, things are little different. Some have reflected upon this sad state of affairs and what lies behind it: In the book The Betrayal of the American Dream, Donald Barlett and James B. Steele denounced the “rapacious job-killing strategies” of those whom they correctly call “the ruling class.” You’ve heard of free trade and Mitt Romney-style “outsourcing,” haven’t you?
Ex-Rep. David Stockman (R-Mich.) has denounced the rise of “crony capitalism” which—he points out—is anything but traditional conservatism: It has saddled America with debt and fiscal collapse, accompanied by a massive rise in military spending propping up the United States (and entangling America in foolish foreign ventures) as a global policeman.
However, as Stockman notes, the advocates of these policies—who loudly proclaim their opposition to “big government”—offer no challenge to Wall Street or the military-industrial complex or to the Federal Reservewhich, he says needs “a sweeping housecleaning.”
So all those worrying about socialism in America missed the big picture, ignoring what media critics John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have called the “dollarocracy” which they contend has set in place a “money and media election complex” that is destroying America.
A handful of billionaires—liberal and conservative alike, ranging from predatory speculator George Soros on the “left” to Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his Israeli wife Miriam on the “right”—bankroll American politicians, virtually unchallenged. Unaccountable money via so-called “super PACs” floods our elections and media companies rake in billions in profits from advertising revenues generated by the PACs.
This incestuous system mirrors precisely what happened in Russia. So, yes, America has gone the way of Russia.
But there’s now a new paradigm in place in Russia: Vladimir Putin turned the tables on those rapacious oligarchs who put him in power in the first place. And while the kings of the kleptocracy still control 70% of the Russian media, Putin carefully plays a multi-level geopolitical chess game, fighting not only his opposition at home but its allies among the intriguers of New York, London and Tel Aviv.
The final outcome remains to be seen, but Americans are being told by the Zionist-controlled media that Putin is a “secret socialist” who wants to conquer the world.
The truth is that if Americans want to get back to good old-fashioned Americanism—however defined—we do need to go the way of Russia and find a leader like Putin.
—— Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has authored more than a dozen book available from AFP.


 
Chavez Fought New World Order
By Michael Collins Piper
American Free Press
(…) Should there be any doubt Chavez was perceived as a roadblock in the way of the New World Order, consider the warnings issued by David Rothkopf, front man at Kissinger Associates, the secretive pressure group of Henry Kissinger, one of the foremost advocates of the New World Order.
In Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making—which acknowledges the influence of such New World Order institutions as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations—Rothkopf spoke approvingly of what he called the new global “superclass” (that is, the New World Order elite) and said that, in his words, the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of “Globalists vs. Nationalists,” that an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” stood opposed to the “superclass.” He wrote:
At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . .
In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . . Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo- imperialist vs. pro-American globalization, the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.
Specifically naming three figures among that “small group of leaders” challenging the New World Order as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chavez, Rothkopf candidly confirmed the primary underlying conflict in our world today is—as it has always been—the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in the face of the concerted drive by cosmopolitan internationalists to erect a global imperium. Rothkopf’s admissions were a clear sign the New World Order schemers recognized serious forces were aligning against them.
Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Society parroted the New World Order crowd and the war-mongering pro-Israel neo-conservatives by attacking nationalists such as Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chavez.(…)
SUPERCLASS Cover
                  Image
http://www.mikepiperreport.com/Articles_Archive/AmericanFreePress/AFP2008_07-12/Michael_Collins_Piper_AFP20080728_Globalists_See_Iran,_Venezuela,_Russia_As_      Threats_to_Their_New_World_Order.htm
.American Free Press
.Vol VIII .#30 July 28, 2008 americanfreepress.net
Page 14, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * July 28, 2008 * Issue 30 BEHIND THE SCENES WITH MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER
Gobalist See Iran,
Venezuela, Russia
As Threats to Their
New World Order

By Michael Collins Piper

Piper
.An influential figure in the global “superclass” says that the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of “globalists vs. nationalists.” This is a candid admission, in no uncertain terms—echoing what American Free Press has been saying since its inception. It also echoes what Liberty Lobby, the longtime populist institution in Washington (before it was crushed by CIA agents and corrupt judges), insisted for years—that the real conflict in our world today is (and always has been) the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in face of an energetic push by super-rich cosmopolitan elitist internationalists to set in place what has commonly come to be known as the New World Order.
The tired and worn labels of “liberal” and “conservative” never meant anything of consequence, just as there is very little difference, on the major international issues, between the Democratic and Republican Party. The real battle is between the globalists and the nationalists.
This is what David Rothkopf—former managing director of Kissinger Associates, the powerful international consulting firm of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, asserts in his book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, a volume that openly acknowledges the influence of such powerful groups as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, even citing the work of AFP editor Jim Tucker and his book Bilderberg Diary,* which details Tucker’s many years following the intrigues of those whom Rothkopf calls “the global elite.”
Rothkopf’s book—described as a “taxonomy of the rich and powerful who shape foreign policy and business in our globalized world” and as a “masterful portrait of this century’s global elite”—acknowledges in a chapter frankly titled “Globalists vs. Nationalists” that that there is an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” who stand in opposition to the aims of the New World Order “superclass.”
What is interesting is that Rothkopf actually admits that among the foremost opponents of the agenda of the global elite are such figures as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Rothkopf wrote:
At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . . In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . .
Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo- imperialist vs. pro-American globalization,” the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.
The fact that a genuine “insider” such as Rothkopf is now openly confirming the nature of the conflict that is now raging on the global stage is a clear sign that the global elite recognize that there are serious forces aligned against their agenda.
Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Society continue to promote the globalist line by attacking nationalist figures such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Putin, failing to recognize (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) the fact that these leaders stand in opposition to the New World Order.
Ironically, Rothkopf’s chapter reads much like the concluding chapter of this author’s recent work, The Golem,** which scores the “Israelization” of American foreign policy and asserts that the United States is now engaged in planning for global war in the name of “democracy” with targets such as Iran, Venezuela and Russia now in the gunsights of the global elite, the high priests of war.
*Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary (softcover, 272 pages) details the facts about this secretive bunch of malefactors, all news of which has been suppressed by all American newspapers (since 1975) except AFP. One copy of this important book is $18 (no S&H inside the U.S.). Send request with payment to American Free Press, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Toll free ordering, please call AFP toll free at 1-888-699-NEWS. UseVisa/MasterCard.
**The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon (softcover, 182 pages, $25) is available from American Free Press at the above address. No charge for S&H inside the U.S. Order.
. . ..Michael Collins Piper can be heard every week day night live on the Internet at republicbroadcasting.org. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, and The GOLEM: Israel’s Hell Bomb. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.
(Issue #30, July 28, 2008, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)
 

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/images/2013/1/7/201317121619508330_8.jpg
Putin hosts world’s Orthodox leaders at unique gathering

http://rt.com/files/news/1f/e1/80/00/putin-christians-repressions-resistance.si.jpg
Putin urges international community to resist repressions against Christians

Attaques contre le christianisme et contre la Croix, le jour de la fête juive de Pourim: extraits de Reckless Rites – Purim And The Legacy Of Jewish Violence (p.68 et 157-158)

La première réponse de Radbaz , qui utilise le terme Kedushat ha-Shem (la sanctification du nom de Dieu), a laissé entendre que s’incliner devant Haman aurait pu être considéré comme un acte idolâtre, reflétant la tradition rabbinique selon laquelle Haman portait une image idolâtre sur sa poitrine. Abraham Saba, qui était comme Alashkar un exil d’Espagne, a également évoqué, dans son commentaire sur Esther, la tradition rabbinique concernant l’image idolâtre portée par Haman, ajoutant, toutefois, dans une veine plus contemporaine, que c’était « comme les rois Édomites [ndt : c’est-à-dire Chrétiens] dont les fonctionnaires arborent la croix abominable sur leurs vêtements, afin que quiconque les voit se prosterne ».) (…)

La croix comme abomination

Avant de procéder à d’autres cas de comportement indiscret vis-à-vis de la croix, permettez- moi de revenir sur le terme « abomination » et l’histoire de son utilisation par les Juifs comme un moyen de se référer cacophémistiquement (mon néologisme) à la croix. L’exemple le plus lointain que j’ai pu trouver se trouve à la fin des travaux midrashiques connus sous le nom de Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (Les Chapitres de Rabbi Eliezer) qui, tel qu’indiqué plus haut, a été évidemment composée en Palestine au huitième siècle. Comme nous l’avons vu, l’auteur de l’œuvre tente implicitement, en racontant l’histoire de Pourim, de résoudre un des problèmes les plus épineux dans l’exégèse du livre d’Esther : Pourquoi Mardochée a-t-il refusé de se prosterner devant Haman ? Selon PRE, Haman « avait une « image » [ tzelem ] brodée sur son vêtement, et tous ceux qui se prosternaient devant Haman saluaient également à l’ « abomination » [ to’eva ], qu’il avait faite. Madochée a vu cela et n’a pas consenti de se prosterner devant sa « chose dégoûtante » [ shikutzo ], comme il est dit : « Mais Mardochée ne s’inclina point, ni ne fit révérence » ». L’auteur de ce midrash tardif transforme Haman en un évêque chrétien portant fièrement sur sa poitrine le signe de la croix, appelée du nom peu flatteur de la trinité des termes hébreux – tzelem to’eva, shikutz. Et bien que l’auteur midrashique résida apparemment dans les Omeyyades de Palestine, il sentait néanmoins la nécessité de lier l’ancien ennemi juré du peuple juif avec le symbole central du christianisme. (…)

Mais les Juifs ne se sont pas seulement engagé dans le discours sur le christianisme et ses symboles. Les mots s’étaient, depuis l’Antiquité tardive, reportés dans les faits, comme dans la pratique, interdite par la loi de Théodose de 408, de la fabrication d’une effigie d’un crucifié le jour de Pourim. Des siècles plus tard, les juifs convertis au christianisme dans l’Empire byzantin étaient requis non seulement de renoncer généralement à toute la loi hébraïque, ses coutumes et cérémonies, mais spécifiquement de « maudire ceux qui gardent la fête du soi-disant Mardochée … clouant Haman au bois, le mêlant ensuite à l’emblème de la croix et les brûlant ensemble ». Un tel serment pré-baptismal, datant de quelque part entre les huit et au début du dix-sept siècles, est venu jusqu’à nous depuis l’Orient byzantin. (…)

Comme Basnage, l’historien juif du dix-neuvième siècle Graetz a pu imaginer plus d’une explication de la loi de Théodose de 408 interdisant de se moquer du christianisme et de ses symboles lors de la fête de Pourim. « En ce jour », écrit-il, « les jeunes lurons [ lustige Jugend ] étaient habitués d’avoir à la main une effigie du pire ennemi des Juifs, Haman, sur une potence (gibet), et cette potence, qu’il était coutume de brûler, avait, soit par dessein, soit par accident, la forme d’une croix ». (Nous soulignons). Son contemporain, cependant, Ferdinand Gregorovius, l’historien de Rome né en Prusse, a présenté la question d’une façon un peu plus unilatérale. Gregorovius, contrairement à Graetz, appartenait à l’école qui avait tendance à considérer les Juifs comme étant eux-mêmes « responsables du mépris » dont ils faisaient souvent l’objet. Il est fortement étonnant, donc, qu’il a vu la loi de Théodose comme interdisant aux Juifs « de célébrer une certain fête [ Pourim ] au cours de laquelle ils étaient habitués à exprimer sournoisement leur haine pour le Sauveur crucifié ». Selon Gregorovius, au cours de cette journée, « ils représentaient Haman crucifié et … le brûlaient en effigie au milieu des cris et des festivités comme s’il était le Christ » (je souligne). Comme il l’a lui-même vu (et entendu) dans son imagination, il n’y avait pas deux manières d’aborder ce sujet. Les Juifs du cinquième siècle détestaient le Messie crucifié et donnaient une « expression rusée » à leur haine en l’évacuant « au milieu des cris et des festivités » le jour de Pourim.

La loi de Théodose de 408 évoquée par ces trois chercheurs informait les gouverneurs des provinces, tel que mentionné plus tôt, qu’ils devaient « interdire aux Juifs de mettre le feu à Aman en souvenir de sa peine (châtiment), dans une certaine cérémonie de leur festival, et de brûler avec une intention sacrilège une forme faite pour ressembler à la sainte croix au mépris de la foi chrétienne, de peur qu’ils ne souillent le signe de notre foi avec leurs moqueries ».

//

Radbaz’s first reply, which used the term kedushat ha-shem (the sanctification of God’s name), implied that bowing before Haman could have been considered an idolatrous act reflecting the rabbinic tradition according to which Haman had worn an idolatrous image on his chest. Abraham Saba, like Alashkar an exile from Spain, also referred, in his commentary on Esther, to the rabbinic tradition concerning the idolatrous image worn by Haman, adding, however, in a more contemporary vein, that this was « like the Edomite (Christian) kings who have their officials wear the abominable cross on their clothing, so that whoever sees them would bow down ».) (…)

The Cross As Abomination

Before proceeding to other instances of indiscreet behavior vis-a-vis the cross, let me return to the term « abomination » and the history of its use by Jews as a means of referring cacophemistically (my neologism) to the cross. The earliest instance I have been able to find occurs in the late midrashic work known as Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer), which as noted earlier, was evidently composed in eighth-century Palestine. As we have seen, the work’s author implicitly attempts, in retelling the story of Purim, to solve one of the thorniest problems in the exegesis of the book of Esther: Why did Mordecai refuse to bow down to Haman? According to PRE, Haman « had an ‘image’ [tzelem] embroidered on his garment, and anyone who bowed down to Haman bowed also to the ‘abomination’ [to’eva] which he had made. Mordecai saw this and did not consent to bow down to his ‘disgusting thing’ [shikutzo], as it is said, ‘But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence’. » The author of this late midrash transforms Haman into a Christian bishop who proudly wears upon his chest the sign of the cross, referred to by the uncomplimentary trinity of Hebrew terms — tzelem to’eva, shikutz. And although the midrashic author apparently resisded in Umayyad Palestine, he nonetheless felt the need to link the ancient arch-enemy of the Jewish People with the central symbol of Christianity. (…)

But Jews did not only engage in discourse about Christianity and its symbols. Words had, since late antiquity, carried over into deeds, as in the practice, prohibited by the Theodosian law of 408, of burning a crucified figure on Purim. Centuries later, Jewish converts to Christianity in the Byzantine empire were required not only to generally renounce every Hebrew law, custom, and ceremony, but to specifically « curse those who keep the festival of the so-called Mordecai … nailing Haman to wood, and then mixing him with the emblem of the cross and burning them together. » Such a prebaptismal oath, dating from some time between the eight and early seventeen centuries, has come down to us from the Byzantine East.(…)

Like Basnage, the nineteenth-century Jewish historian Graetz was able to imagine more than one explanation for the Theodosian law of 408 prohibiting mockery of Christianity and its symbols on Purim. « On this day », he wrote, « the merry youths [the lustige Jugend] were accustomed to hand in effigy the arch-enemy of the Jews, Haman, on a gallows, and this gallows, which it was the custom to burn, had, by design, or by accident, the form of a cross. » (emphasis added). His contemporary, however, Ferdinand Gregorovius, the Prussian-born historian of Rome, presented the matter in a somewhat more one-sided way. Gregorovius, in sharp contrast to Graetz, belonged to the school of scholarship that tended to regard the Jews as being themselves « responsible for the contempt » with which they were often held. It is sharply surprising, therefore, that he saw the Theodosian law as forbidding the Jews « to celebrate a certain festival [Purim] at which they were accustomed to give sly expression to their hatred for the Crucified Saviour. » According to Gregorovius , on that day, « they represented Haman as crucified and… burned him in effigy amidst shouts and revelry as if he were Christ » (emphasis added). As he saw (and heard) it in his imagination, there were no two ways about it. The Jews of the fifth century hated the crucified Messiah and gave « sly expression » to their hatred by venting it « amidst shouts and revelry » on the day of Purim.

The Theodosian law of 408 alluded to by all three of these scholars had instructed the governors of the provinces, as mentionned earlier, to « prohibit the Jews from setting fire to Aman in memory of his past punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent a form made to resemble the saint cross in contempt of the Christian faith, lest they mingle the sign of our faith with their jests. »

Vladimir Poutine et son ex-femme Lioudmila.... (Photo Alexander Zemlianichenko, Associated Press)
Vladimir Poutine et son ex-femme Lioudmila, maintenant divorcés.

Grabar : « Alors sur le plan de la démocratie là, parce que c’est un mot qui revient tout le temps dans votre bouche, du point de vue russe, évidemment, c’est pas tout à fait la même chose. La période Eltsine, malheureusement, a dévalorisé ce terme de démocratie, il y avait même un vilain jeu de mots où on faisait rimer démocratie avec diermocratsia, le mot diermo ça veut dire de la merde. La période Elstine a été une période d’effondrement du niveau de vie… »
Jacques Attali : « Je crois que la raison pour laquelle la démocratie est mal vue en Russie, c’est que la période démocratique commence en fait avec la perestroïka, avec Gorbatchev, a provoqué la fin de l’Union soviétique, c’est-à-dire le fait que justement existe l’Ukraine et que la Russie soit coupée en morceaux. Et un des grands regrets de Poutine, c’est que la brève période démocratique a conduit à la fin d’un empire. C’est pour ça qu’il faudra du temps avant que la Russie revienne… »

Top diplomat Christopher R. Hill says that Russia’s response to the Ukraine crisis means that Moscow has betrayed the “new world order” it has been a part of for the last 25 years.

D’après un haut diplomate américain “La Russie a trahi le Nouvel Ordre Mondial”

.American Free Press
.Vol. V .#10/11.March 7&14, 2005 .americanfreepress.net
 http://www.mikepiperreport.com/Articles_Archive/AmericanFreePress/AFP2005/Michael_Collins_Piper_AFP20050307&14_Neo-Cons_Declare_War_On_Russia.html
P. 14, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * March 7 & 14, 2005 Media Watch
with Michael Collins Piper
Neo-Cons Declare
War on Russia
Israeli Lobby Targeting
Putin As New ‘Enemy’ By Michael Collins Piper
America’s neoconservative elite and their collaborators in the pro-Israel lobby in Washington have fired a first shot in the opening guns of a new Cold War being launched against Russian Premier Vladimir Putin.

Although it hasn’t been reported widely in the America mass media, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (DConn.), two of the Israeli lobby’s leading congressional stalwarts, introduced a resolution in the Senate on Feb. 19, condemning Putin and urging President Bush to push for suspending Russia’s membership in the G-8 organization of industrial nations.

Latching on to the president’s emphatic declaration in his Jan. 20 inaugural address of a new global campaign by the United States for the promotion of “democracy.” Lieberman announced that “President Putin’s assault on democracy in Russia violates the spirit of the industrialized democracies and the letter of Russia’s obligations to the Group of Eight. We must openly confront anti-democratic backsliding in Russia for the sake of all those who look to the United States as a beacon for freedom.”

The resolution was designed to put Bush on the spot just as he was meeting with Putin in Slovakia on Feb. 24.

The motive for the neo-conservatives and their congressional spokesmen to undermine Putin is clear: Putin recently challenged Bush and Israel by daring to say publicly that he (Putin) does not believe that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

Although the burgeoning hostility against Putin by the neo-conservatives has been widely hashed over in small-circulation pro-Israel publications and American Jewish community newspapers on a regular basis, it has only been recently that mainstream publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have begun to echo those concerns about Putin. It is almost as if the big name dailies were taking the lead from the other journals. Increasingly, however, the word that “Putin is a possible enemy” is now being preached to the average American through the outlets of the mass media.

Though Russia joined the G-8, which includes Britain, Canada, Japan, France, Italy and Germany, in 2002, the companion resolutions in the Senate and the House ask the president to enlist the other G-8 countries to join with the United States in suspending Russia’s membership until such time as Bush decides that Russia is supposedly committed to so-called “democratic principles.”

This is the second time that McCain and Lieberman introduced such a measure, although their last effort, in 2003, failed in committee. At that time, two other members of Congress, California Reps. Tom Lantos — a Democrat — and Christopher Cox — a Republican — introduced a companion resolution in the House which reached the floor but was never voted upon.

Reflecting on the fact that the media was increasingly promoting hostility to Putin, American Free Press noted on Oct. 25, 2004, that the media’s primary concern about Putin stems from the fact that he has been moving against the handful of billionaire plutocrats in Russia who grabbed control of the Russian economy with the open-connivance of then- Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union. Many of these oligarchs also held Israeli citizenship.

One American hard-line pro-Israel publication, The New Republic, raised the question on Sept. 24, 2004: “Is Russia going fascist?” asserting that whether Putin personally remains in power or not, there is a growing movement “nationalist” in nature — that holds great sway among the Russian population. TNR expressed concern that “a fascist revolution” could be in the offing, meaning a movement hostile to the Israeli oligarchs, with international criminal connections, who rule the Russian economy.

Likewise, much earlier, in his 1995 book, Russia: A Return to Imperialism, Boston-University-based Israeli academic Uri Ra’anan sounded the concern that post-Soviet Russia may pose a threat to the West.

These works echo such writers as Jonathon Brent and Vladimir Naumov who, in their 2003 book, Stalin’s Last Crime, published evidence that longtime Soviet leader Josef Stalin was almost certainly murdered in 1953 after he began moves toward exorcising Zionist influence in Soviet circles of power. They concluded by saying that “Stalin is a perpetual possibility,” leaving open the theoretical proposition that Putin, or other would-be Russian leaders, may ultimately emerge as heir to Stalin’s anti-Zionist legacy.

With the American neo-conservatives, whose ideological godfathers are widely known as admitted ex-Trotskyite communists, now moving against Putin, it is as if we are seeing a rejuvenation of the war against Russian nationalism by the Trotskyites, retooled for 21st century geopolitical considerations. Now — unlike in the first half of the 20th century prior to the founding of the state of Israel — the central role of that Middle East state in the neo-conservative worldview cannot be understated, for the concern about Israel is a front-line consideration in the neo-conservative campaign against Putin.

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/putin2.jpg

« PUTIN PUMMELED: Because he has been working to break the back of powerful Israeli oligarchs in Russia and has refused to support U.S. efforts to undermine Iran, a roadblock in Israel’s design for Middle East dominance, Vladimir Putin is increasingly under attack by the U.S. media. Now the neo-cons are rallying to undermine him. Stay tuned. »

. . ..A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, The Judas Goats, and Dirty Secrets, all available from America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(#10 – # 11…. March 7 And 14, 2005. American Free Press)

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Russian President Putin Deserves Nobel Peace Prize
By Michael Collins Piper
In one swift measure—working in conjunction with the besieged Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad—Russian President Vladimir Putin has spared the United States the ignominy of once again getting involved in a foolish and needless war in the Middle East.
The truth is that Putin—the leader of the Cold War colossus that was America’s presumed “enemy” for so long—did what the battle-tested leaders of the American military wanted. He put a stop to the attack on Syria the pro-Israel lobby, standing virtually alone, was demanding Congress endorse in spite of overwhelming opposition from the American public.
Even after President Barack Obama, on the evening of September 10, in a speech from the White House, tried to make a case for attacking Syria, polls show 60% of Americans still oppose getting involved in Syria’s civil war. Only 19% of those surveyed believe the U.S. military should attack Damascus. Legislators are certainly feeling this pressure from their constituents, who are calling and writing Washington to tell their elected representatives they do not want to get involved in any more wars. As a result of this, initial support for attacking Syria on the part of the Republican leaders appears to be unraveling.
On the morning of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that he would not support Obama’s plan for even limited strikes in Syria.
It’s no secret that America’s military elite opposed any kind of military action against Syria. In taking such a stand, they were endorsed by the large majority of the American people, who have come to realize—after a decade of disastrous intervention in the Middle East—that such wars (and let’s call them what they are: wars on behalf of Israel’s imperial designs) are not in the best interests of the United States or the world for that matter.
Putin may well have averted a third world war, and—if the reaction of Israel’s cheerleaders is being judged correctly—he has also put a roadblock in the way of Israel’s continuing push for America to wage war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a longtime ally of the secular regime of Syrian leader Assad.  Michael Collins Piper
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

Ce que Poutine souhaite dire aux Américains sur la Syrie
vendredi 13 septembre
Tribune du président de la fédération de Russie, Vladimir Poutine, parue dans le New York Times du 11 septembre 2013 :
Les récents événements en Syrie m’ont poussé à m’adresser directement au peuple américain et à ses dirigeants politiques. Il est important de le faire à un moment où la communication est insuffisante entre nos deux sociétés.
Les relations entre nous sont passées par différentes étapes. Nous étions adversaires pendant la Guerre froide. Mais nous avons aussi êtes alliés une fois : nous avons vaincu les nazis ensemble. L’organisation internationale universelle – l’Organisation des nations unies – a ensuite été mise en place pour empêcher qu’une telle dévastation ne se reproduise plus jamais.
Les fondateurs de l’Organisation des nations unies ont compris que les décisions concernant la guerre et la paix devraient être prises par consensus, avec le consentement de l’Amérique et aussi des membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité, cela a été inscrit dans la Charte des Nations unies. C’est cette profonde sagesse qui a permis la stabilité des relations internationales depuis des décennies.
Personne ne souhaite que l’Organisation des nations unies ne subisse le même sort que la Société des nations, qui s’est effondrée parce qu’il lui manquait une véritable force. Cela pourrait se produire si des pays influents contournent les Nations unies et entreprennent une action militaire sans l’autorisation du Conseil de sécurité.
L’éventuelle attaque des États-Unis contre la Syrie, malgré la forte opposition de nombreux pays et des principaux responsables politiques et religieux, y compris le pape, se traduira par plus de victimes innocentes et par la propagation du conflit au-delà des frontières de la Syrie. Une attaque augmentera la violence et déclenchera une nouvelle vague de terrorisme. Il pourrait saper les efforts multilatéraux visant à résoudre le problème nucléaire iranien et le conflit israélo-palestinien et déstabiliser davantage le Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord. Il pourrait ébranler l’ensemble du système qui régit le droit international.
La Syrie n’est pas l’objet d’une bataille pour la démocratie, mais d’un conflit armé entre le gouvernement et l’opposition, dans un pays multiconfessionnel. Il y a quelques défenseurs de la démocratie en Syrie. Mais il y a bien plus de combattants d’Al-Qaïda et d’extrémistes de tous bords qui luttent contre le gouvernement. Le département d’État des États-Unis a désigné les rebelles du Front al-Nosra, membre de l’organisation de « l’État islamique en Irak et au Levant », comme des organisations terroristes. Ce conflit interne, alimenté par des armes étrangères fournies à l’opposition, est l’un des plus sanglants du monde.
Des mercenaires venus de pays arabes luttent là-bas, et des centaines d’autres proviennent des pays occidentaux et même de la Russie. Ne pourraient-ils pas retourner dans nos pays avec l’expérience acquise en Syrie ? Après s’être battus en Libye, les extrémistes sont allés au Mali. Cela constitue une menace pour nous tous.
Depuis toujours, la Russie a prôné un dialogue qui permettrait aux Syriens d’instaurer un compromis menant à un avenir pacifique. Nous ne protégeons pas le gouvernement syrien, mais le droit international. Nous devons utiliser le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et croire en la sauvegarde de l’ordre dans un monde complexe et turbulent car aujourd’hui cela reste l’une des rares façons de préserver les relations internationales et d’éviter de sombrer dans le chaos. La loi est toujours la loi, et nous devons la suivre que nous le voulions ou non.
Selon le droit international actuel, la force n’est autorisée qu’en cas de légitime défense ou par la décision du Conseil de sécurité. Tout le reste est inacceptable en vertu de la Charte des Nations unies et constituerait un acte d’agression.
Personne ne doute que du gaz toxique a été utilisé en Syrie. Mais il y a tout lieu de croire qu’il a été utilisé non pas par l’armée arabe syrienne, mais par les forces de l’opposition, afin de provoquer, en leur faveur, l’intervention de leurs puissants protecteurs étrangers. Les rapports que des fondamentalistes se préparent à une nouvelle attaque – cette fois contre Israël – ne peuvent pas être ignorés.
Il est alarmant de constater que l’intervention militaire des États-Unis dans les conflits internes de pays étrangers est devenue monnaie courante. Est-ce dans l’intérêt à long terme de l’Amérique ? J’en doute. Des millions de personnes de part le monde voient de plus en plus l’Amérique non pas comme un modèle de démocratie, mais plutôt comme ceux qui s’appuient uniquement sur la force brute, échafaudent des coalitions réunies sous le slogan « vous êtes avec nous ou contre nous ».
Mais la force s’est révélée inefficace et inutile. L’Afghanistan est déstabilisé, et personne ne peut dire ce qui se passera une fois que les forces internationales se seront retirées. La Libye est divisée en tribus et clans. En Irak, la guerre civile se poursuit, avec des dizaines de morts chaque jour. Aux États-Unis, nombreux sont ceux qui établissent une analogie entre l’Irak et la Syrie, et se demandent pourquoi leur gouvernement répète les erreurs du passé.
Que ce soit avec des frappes chirurgicales ou en utilisant des armes sophistiquées, les victimes civiles sont inévitables, y compris les personnes âgées et les enfants, que les frappes sont censées protéger.
Le monde réagit en demandant : si vous ne pouvez pas vous appuyer sur le droit international, alors vous devez trouver d’autres façons d’assurer votre sécurité. Ainsi, un nombre croissant de pays cherchent à acquérir des armes de destruction massive. Ce qui est logique : si vous avez la bombe, personne ne va vous toucher. Alors que nous devrions renforcer la non-prolifération, elle s’érode.
Nous devons cesser d’utiliser le langage de la force et nous devons reprendre le chemin vers un règlement diplomatique et politique civilisé.
Une nouvelle possibilité d’éviter une action militaire a émergé ces derniers jours. Les États-Unis, la Russie et tous les membres de la communauté internationale doivent tirer parti de la volonté du gouvernement syrien de mettre son arsenal chimique sous contrôle international en vue d’une destruction ultérieure. À en juger par les déclarations du président Obama, les États-Unis voient cela comme une alternative à l’action militaire.
Je me réjouis de l’intérêt du président à poursuivre le dialogue avec la Russie sur la Syrie. Nous devons travailler ensemble pour maintenir cet espoir vivant, comme convenu en juin dernier à la réunion du G8 à Lough Erne en Irlande du Nord, et orienter le débat vers la négociation.
Si nous pouvons éviter la force contre la Syrie, cela permettra d’améliorer les relations internationales et de renforcer la confiance mutuelle. Ce sera une réussite commune qui ouvrira la porte à une coopération sur d’autres questions cruciales.
Ma relation professionnelle et personnelle avec le président Obama est marquée par une confiance croissante. J’apprécie cela. J’ai étudié attentivement son discours à la nation mardi. Mais je serais plutôt en désaccord avec l’affirmation qu’il a faite sur « l’exception américaine », affirmant que la politique des États-Unis est « ce qui rend l’Amérique différente. C’est ce qui nous rend exceptionnel. » Il est extrêmement dangereux d’encourager les gens à se considérer comme exceptionnels, quelle que soit la motivation.
Il y a des grands pays et des petits pays, riches ou pauvres, ceux qui ont de longues traditions démocratiques et ceux qui ont encore à trouver leur chemin vers la démocratie. Leurs politiques sont différentes aussi. Nous sommes tous différents, mais quand nous demandons la bénédiction du Seigneur, nous ne devons pas oublier que Dieu nous a créés égaux.
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Poutine,
Président de la fédération de Russie.

Surpris que Poutine se sont pas encore fait traiter d’antimite: il est en train d’accuser les USA de se prendre un peu trop pour des juifs, c’est-à-dire pour le peuple élu.

Poutine : « le premier gouvernement soviétique était principalement juif »

Warmongers Are Shootin’ for Putin
THE WAY I SEE IT By Michael Collins Piper for American Free Press

Lest anyone doubt the New World Order elite are moving further toward outright efforts to destroy Russian leader Vladimir Putin—perhaps even force a war with Russia—The Washington Post made things abundantly clear on July 22 that the push is on to pressure President Barack Obama into taking a more combative stance against Putin.

A longtime voice forwhatmany call “the foreign policy establishment,” the Post once again adopted a notably hysterical tone toward Putin (quite in contrast to the paper’s otherwise staid tradition) and in a lead editorial, bluntly titled “Russia’s barbarism,” declared “the West needs a strategy to contain the world’s newest rogue state.”

Slamming Putin for denying responsibility for the loss over Ukraine of a Malaysian airliner—the circumstances of which remain in dispute, Western media claims notwithstanding—the Post issued a virtual call for war.

“What’s needed,” roared the Post, “is a broad strategy for putting a stop toMr. Putin’s aggression and, where possible, rolling it back. . . . It’s time to treat Mr. Putin’s Russia as what it has become—a dangerous outlaw regime that needs to be contained.”

The Post’s designation of Russia as “the world’s newest rogue state” was more than a rhetorical flourish. Instead—and be assured of this—it was a serious, explosive provocation.

While there’s no formal legal definition of a “rogue state”—though one dictionary defines it as “a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations”—the phrase is a now-much-used political term of art that, in statecraft, is the practical equivalent of calling a person a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.

“Rogue states rollback”—targeting Iraq and Iran—was first enunciated on May 22, 1993 by Martin Indyk (a former Israeli government propagandist and later U.S. ambassador to Israel) in a speech reported only by AFP’s predecessor—The Spotlight —to a pro-Israel group in Washington.

However, within a year, the concept of rogue states rollback was publicly unveiled in an article, “Confronting Backlash States,” in the March/April 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York branch of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, foreign policy arm of the Rothschild banking empire, premier patrons of Israel and the world Zionist network.

Since then, the smear “rogue state” has most often been slapped on nations perceived hostile to Israel, to Jewish interests or to schemes of the international banking establishment (much of which is in the grip of the Rothschild dynasty and elements in its sphere of influence).

In that respect, it’s perhaps no coincidence the Post complained on March 24 that “Putin has long argued that Russia’s wealthy . . . should keep their money inside Russia and away from a global economy controlled by Western interests.” That was a view reflective of Putin’s now-legendary war against the handful of Jewish “oligarchs,” many of whomheld Israeli citizenship and squeezed Russia for its riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Describing Putin as being “animated by nationalist impulses and historic grievances,” the Post had a grievance of its own with Putin who—after assuming power—jailed one of Russia’s oligarchs who was a business partner of the Post’s then-publishers, the Graham family, heirs of Wall Street war profiteer Eugene Meyer—first president of the World Bank, an early member of the board of the Federal Reserve System and grandson of the grand rabbi of France.

On July 25, the Post amped up its assault on Putin. The latest shrieking attack nowdrewBarack Obama into theweb, crying “President Obama hobnobs with donors as Russia escalates its war of aggression,” bemoaning the fact Obama had taken a fundraising trip to California amidst the crisis over the Malaysian airliner.

Most revealing was that the Post noted “frustration” with what it called “Mr. Obama’s weakness” in dealing with Putin was extending to the “top ranks of the Democratic Party,” citing three Putin bashers—Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.)—who are among the Senate’s most pivotal Democratic parrots for the Zionist lobby and allies of the top Republican critics of Putin—John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.)—the Senate’s most energetic GOP advocates for Israel.

The nature of this “bipartisan” opposition to Putin—from pro-Zionist operatives—underscores thatmuch of the anti-Putin clamor comes precisely because he is considered a danger to Israel and to monied Jewish interests in the West.

On July 28—in case anyone missed the point—the Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt—a CFR member—chimed in with a signed commentary again trashing Obama for, among other things, not being tough enough on Putin.

Describing Obama’s attempts at “a cautious, modest retreat” from U.S. meddling in global affairs—which the CFRman saidwas “an experiment gone wrong” that “expose[s] the dangers of U.S. disengagement”—Hiatt asserted that while Obama “argued that America should concentrate on ‘nation-building here at home,’ ”what resulted “is a far more dangerous world.”

Hiatt sounded like New York’s Jewish Press—a Putin-bashing journal—which on June 6 called Obama “the neo-isolationist president” whose foreign policy will “diminish America’s pivotal, stabilizing role around the world.”

As far back as Feb. 25, 2013, Post commentator Jennifer Rubin—associated with American Jewish Committee circles—declared that “for all intents and purposes, [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu is now the West’s protector.”

The Post echoes Jewish internationalist, advocate for Israel and fanatical Putin critic William Kristol who gloated in the neoconservative Weekly Standard onMarch 24 that “awar-weary public can be awakened and rallied . . . . All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast.”

So the Post is doing the rallying. And as a media powerhouse, which shapes the mindset of official Washington, what the Post says is influential, no matter how much grassroots America might reject what the Post has to say.–
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States.

POUTINE: LA MENACE DU MONDIALISME SERA VAINCUE PAR UN RENOUVEAU NATIONAL
(…) Dialogue tous azimuts, mais pas de séparatisme ethnique 

Le président a ensuite déclaré que toutes les forces politiques doivent participer à la discussion sur l’idéologie nationale, exhortant chacun des camps opposés à s’écouter mutuellement et à abandonner la pratique du nihilisme total et de la critique.
Poutine a averti surtout l’aile nationaliste, en disant que ceux qui oublient que la Russie était un État multi-ethnique et tentent de spéculer sur un séparatisme régional « s’embarquent sur la voie de la destruction de leur propre code génétique et, essentiellement, commencent à se détruire. »
« La souveraineté, l’autonomie et l’intégrité de la Russie sont inconditionnels, ce sont les lignes rouges que nul n’est autorisé à dépasser », a souligné M. Poutine.
Parlant de la base possible pour la nouvelle idée nationale, le président a déclaré que les dirigeants russes actuel ont choisi de s’appuyer sur des valeurs chrétiennes et morales traditionnelles, notant que sans ces idéaux millénaires éprouvés les gens « perdraient inévitablement leur dignité humaine ».

Un monde multipolaire reste la priorité de la politique étrangère

En outre, le dirigeant russe a noté que la renaissance nationale de la Russie est en droite ligne avec le cours de la politique étrangère en faveur d’un monde multi-polaire et du règne du droit international sur la primauté de la force brutale.
Poutine met en garde contre les tentatives de réanimer le modèle d’un monde unifié et unipolaire, ajoutant qu’un tel système n’aurait pas besoin d’États souverains, mais aurait besoin vassaux à la place.
« La Russie est avec ceux qui soutiennent que les décisions importantes doivent être prises sur une base collective plutôt que conformément aux plans et aux intérêts de certains États ou groupes d’États. Le droit international doit s’appliquer au lieu du « droit du plus fort » et du « règne des poings », a dit Poutine devant l’Assemblée.

Putin–’Globalist challenges will be overcome by national revival’
(…)All-sided dialogue, but no ethnic separatism

The president then said that all political forces must join the discussion about national ideology, urging the opposing camps to listen to each other and to abandon the practice of total nihilism and criticism.

Putin especially warned the nationalist wing, saying that those who forget that Russia was a multi-ethnic state and attempt to speculate on regional separatism “step on a path of destruction of their own genetic code and, in essence, begin to destroy themselves.”

Sovereignty, self-reliance and integrity of Russia are unconditional, they are the red lines no one is allowed to step over,” Putin emphasized.

Speaking of the possible basis for the new national idea, the president said that the current Russian leadership chose to rely on traditional Christian and moral values, noting that without these millennia-tested ideals people would “inevitably lose their human dignity”.

Multi-polar world remains priority in foreign policy

In addition, the Russian leader noted that the national revival of Russia was in line with the foreign policy course for a multi-polar world and the prevailing of international law over the rule of brute force.

Putin cautioned against attempts to reanimate the model of a unified and unipolar world, adding that such a system would not need sovereign states, but would need vassals instead.

Russia is with those who hold that the key decisions must be taken on a collective basis rather than in accordance with plans and interests of certain states or groups of states. International law must work instead of the ‘right of the strong’ and the ‘rule of fists’” Putin told the assembly.

The Russian president again stressed that every country and their people were not exceptional, but they were unique and all had equal rights, including the right to choose their path of development.

Une prophétie politique de Léon Degrelle
Extrait de l’entretien :
Où se trouve la solution? Eh bien, je vais vous surprendre, au risque de déchaîner contre moi la colère de nouveaux ennemis: j’attends beaucoup du peuple russe. Il représente une force encore saine et il ne supportera pas éternellement son régime de bureaucrates gâteux dont l’échec est total dans tous les domaines.
J’espère qu’un jour un jeune Bonaparte sortira de l’Armée rouge comme aurait pu le faire Toukhatchevski en 1938, et qu’il rompra avec le fatras idéologique débile qui étouffe la plus grande nation blanche qui soit encore décidée à agir sur l’histoire.
Là où Napoléon et Hitler ont échoué, c’est peut-être le fils de l’un de nos adversaires du Caucase et de Tcherkassy qui réussira en rassemblant autour de la Russie, guérie du virus communiste, tous les peuples européens pour entraîner le monde dans une nouvelle marche en avant.

Léon Degrelle – Interview recueillie par Jean Kapel et publiée dans la revue «Histoire magazine», N° 19, septembre 1981.

Russian President Putin
« The Guardian – « An evil collusion between a tyrant and a man of God »
« The marriage of the Kremlin and the church in the Pussy Riot affair shows how sinister matters are in Russia »

« Poutine séduit par une performance des Femen »
Poutine le nouveau Hitler qui veut « exterminer les gays »… Selon les médias en tout cas.

The New Jews: American activists once fought valiantly to save Soviet Jews. In Vladimir Putin’s homophopic Russia, gays are the new Jews.

http://i2.wp.com/img.youtube.com/vi/dRgWVAfHNZM/0.jpg?w=520
 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrYn9kmZg-XUThI1-lcAidXW_N8pIMt2z1wmFoZ2L-g3kJaZem7w
Poutine et Assad, l’alliance des nationalistes
http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/arab-nationalists.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Logo_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party.svg/500px-Logo_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party.svg.png
Logo_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party





The Ugly Truth Broadcast July 8, 2013
Morsi’s recent meeting with Putin and their budding friendshipthe kiss of death that led to Morsi’s overthrow?
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

Israel reacts positively to Egypt coup

ed note–but please, all of you out there who ridiculed the idea that the most recent ousting of Morsi was in Israel’s interests, please explain why Netanyahu is now crowing over this?

VIDEO – PRESSTV – MARK GLENN: Netanyahu aiming towards war with Egypt to retake Sinai
Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists Morsi s’est rapproché de Poutine récemment… Certes il a apporté son soutien à Israël, comme presque TOUS les politiciens dans le monde (encore en vie!), mais juste le fait de se rapprocher de Poutine suffit pour que les juifs aient envie de te remplacer! Poutine est ami de l’Iran et de la Syrie!  Morsi aura beau répéter publiquement combien il aime Israël, les juifs savent que c’est juste un spectacle, de belles paroles destinées à les berner.

How Egyptian Mayhem Benefits Israeli Goals: Big Media confirms what AFP said more than two years ago By Michael Collins Piper The current crisis in Egypt recalls a warning put forth by AMERICAN FREE PRESS more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.”

more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.” – See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11936#sthash.wlxCi6Tw.dpuf

Were U.S. and Israel Behind Egyptian Military Coup d’Etat

EGYPT: Israeli ambassador calls Al-Sisi a “national hero for all Jews”

US seeks civil unrest in Egypt to ensure Israel’s safety

D’apres livni l’israelienne; Morsi et Erdogan doivent payer pour avoir quitté notre camps

Venezuelan president: Israel, US behind Morsi ouster

Egyptian law professor: US causing our civil war

McCain and Graham flipflop on aid to Egypt– after AIPAC speaks up

‘Israel undermining Western diplomatic efforts in Egypt’
Qui est-ce qui a intérêt à semer le trouble en Égypte? Qui est-ce qui voudrait reprendre possession du Sinaï?

Netanyahu convenes security cabinet for special meeting on Egypt

Egyptian movement seeks to reverse peace deal with Israel

Lieberman: Israel Totally Uninvolved in Egypt Conflict

Israelis ordered out of Sinai, told to avoid Jordan Terrorists ‘aim to hit Israeli, Jewish targets worldwide’ in coming weeks

« Israël a aidé à renverser Morsi » (The New-York Times)

Egyptian Jews: We support military’s fight against ‘terrorism’

Muslims protecting Catholic Christians during mass in Egypt

Israel quietly backs Egypt’s military

Israel lobbying U.S., EU to support Egypt’s military government

AMERICAN FREE PRESS – Were U.S. and Israel Behind Egyptian Military Coup d’Etat?
• New government expected to be more willing partner with Zionists

‘Back Story’ on Putin-Obama Deal: Plug Pulled on Israel, Warmongers
• Zionists up in arms that peaceful solutions to Mideast problems being considered
By Mark Glenn

NEW YORK, N.Y.—To say it has been a month of political roller coasters powerful enough to give even the most seasoned veterans a case of severe whiplash is an understatement. This all culminated when the U.S. president, for the first time in three-and-a-half decades, telephoned the newly elected Iranian president on Sept. 27 to discuss firsthand the future of the two countries they lead.
September began with the possibility of yet another military disaster in the Middle East for Israel’s benefit. By all appearances, a nagging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had finally gotten on President Barack Obama’s last nerve and pushed him into doing what he had resisted doing for the last four years—war with Syria.
The calls for war were built around circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad in a chemical weapons attack that took place in a suburb of Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary of State John Kerry was out in front, accusing the Syrian military of gassing its own people. Ghastly videos of children dying were quickly posted to the Internet for the world to see, and estimates of the death toll escalated to more than 1,400 Syrians.
It was Iraq all over again. In spite of weak proof that the Syrian military was actually behind the attack, it looked as thoughWashington had made up its mind and was going to war whether or not the Assad regime was responsible or not.
With up-to-the-minute news reports featuring U.S. military assets steaming toward the Syrian coast, the drama was breathlessly reported by the mainstream media.
And then, almost as quickly as it all started, the shouts for war ended abruptly. Suddenly, Obama announced there would be nomilitary action without Congress being brought in, just as the Constitution demands.
Of course, even themost politically naive would have a hard time leaving out of this curious political equation the fact that a few days before Obama had suddenly became a conscientious constitutionalist he and other world leaders met in St. Petersburg, Russia for the G20 conference. Equally difficult would be dismissing the possibility of Obama having discussed the messy business of Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who up to this point had made it clear that, when it came to a war with Syria, “nyet” means “nyet” and that his country was not going to sit by as another Middle Eastern country was bombed into oblivion by the United States.
However, even the most optimistic watchers of politics found it hard to believe that the Russian president could rein in the lawless America. After all, Putin does not control the U.S. Congress, the U.S. media or the U.S. financial system like Netanyahu’s kith-n-kin. Jewish groups around the globe have made it clear that wars in the Middle East are vital for the continued survival of Israel.
It was against this backdrop that the crazy notion of an American president calling his Iranian counterpart on the phone actually took place on the last Friday in September, despite 34 years of silence between the two offices.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (third from right; shown with members
of the Israeli delegation), addressed the UN secretary general (not shown) during
the UN General Assembly in New York on Oct. 1. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s belief
that only tough sanctions and a “credible military threat” would force Iran to bow
before Israel’s will. He also said Israel was not afraid to bomb Iran alone if he felt
it necessary.STAN HONDASTAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The mainstream media was in an uproar over the phone call. Fox News headlined its report: “Netanyahu decries Iran’s Rouhani as ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’” The Washington Post titled its article:
“Worries about the Rouhani phone call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry bear that was standing in its way.
——
Mark Glenn is a commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com.

TUT Broadcast July 29, 2013

Putin and the Jews–is he ‘one of them’ as certain corners of the ‘Truth Movement’ are alleging or simply a skilled chess player?
We are joined by ‘Alexander from Russia’ to discuss this and other issues.
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

TUT Broadcast Aug 20, 2013

The coup in Egypt–an American/Israeli engineered event to keep Egypt from falling into the ‘wrong hands’?
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

The Ugly Truth Broadcast Sept 24, 2013

From Russia, With Love…
Russia and Vladimir Putin have stepped into the most unlikeliest of roles as peacemakers and lion tamers of beasts such as Israel and America. A signal towards a paradigm shift in global power?
We are joined by Michael Collins Piper to discuss this and other matters.

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

 

TUT Broadcast March 5, 2014

March 5, 2014
putin
It is Purim season, 2014 and Putin is this year’s Haman. Israel and Netanyahu are in full court press to see Putin–who is standing in the way of the New World Order–destroyed, even if it means war with the United States.
We are joined by the one and only Michael Collins Piper to discuss this.
paypal2.jpg?w=200&h=50
 


VIDEO – Michael Scheuer: It’s Time To Cut U.S. Aid To Middle East Including Israel – Let The Russians And The Chinese Deal With Them!

 



Sur ce blog:

2005: l’année des Russes

Les néocons ont un problème avec la Russie

La surclasse internationale

Les médias juifs désignent Obama comme bouc émissaire du scandale d’écoute électronique par la NSA, pour faire pression sur lui et son administration afin que l’option militaire soit envisagée dès maintenant en Syrie et en Iran

John McCain et les guerres pour Israël

Gertrude Stein, juive: « le Nobel de la paix à Adolf Hitler! »

Chavez n’est plus: les nationalistes et les socialistes du monde entier savent à qui profite la mort de ce grand homme

Adolf le Grand diffamé par des « nationalistes » — Y a-t-il un autre homme dans l’histoire, à part peut-être Jésus, qui ait été à ce point calomnié?

Des sympathies et ambitions nationalistes de Joseph P. Kennedy

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: « Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s’en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous »

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

Le messager BHL informe Netanyahou que les rebelles libyens vont reconnaître Israël ; Netanyahou remercie Sarkozy d’être intervenu en Libye

BHL louange « l’armée la plus démocratique au monde »

Le Talmud selon BHL: une machine anti-fanatisme

Le gouffre à la place du coeur: la signature BHL

Le printemps arabe: « une incroyable opportunité pour Israël », selon l’ancien directeur du Mossad Meir Dagan et le Maj. Gen. et criminel de guerre Yoav Galant

BHL à l’anti-Durban II

930ddd495d0de2
Wiesel sauvera-t-il l’oligarque Khodorkovski?

http://europeorient.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/vladimir-poutine-clin-d-oeil.jpg?w=336&h=443
This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.

By sparlaxy.de