Americans Usually Support
Ethnic Cleansing When Their Government Does
November
23, 2019
The purpose of ethnic
cleansing is often misrepresented as being just a bigoted majority venting
their common hatred against some minority, but it’s actually a crime by the
state — that is, by the Government, the rulers — in order to get rid of enough
of its opponents there so as to be able to remain in power ‘democratically’ —
that is, by means of popular elections. It’s a means for a dictatorship to call
itself a ‘democracy’ and to be believed by enough of its public and its foreign
allies to be that so as for the Government to be respected as being a
“democracy” even though it’s actually only a ‘democracy’ — a nation that’s
ruled by dictators but that claims to be, and is widely (falsely) believed to
be, a democracy. Several examples will be cited here, and all of these ethnic
cleansings are by regimes that the American regime backs, and that America’s
population widely respects and supports, as is indicated by numerous polls of
Americans. Exceptions to the rule will also be noted and explained (because sometimes
the US Government has not sufficiently carried out its opinion-management in
order for its public to be sufficiently fooled about the matter, and therefore
more intensive propaganda occasionally becomes necessary):
The paradigmatic and
longest-standing case is Israel, which was formed by ethnic cleansing that Jews
there had perpetrated against Muslims there and that was ‘justified’ by an
ethnic cleansing that Christians in Europe had perpetrated (called “the
Holocaust”) against Jews there. As the 1976 masterpiece by Grosser &
Halperin, Anti-Semitism: The Causes and
Effects of a Prejudice, said in its chapter “The Crusades, 1000-1348,” “Jewish existence was
one of almost continual terror. Jews throughout Europe regularly experienced
attacks, slaughter, extortion, kidnap, ransom, forced baptism and confiscation
of property by the [Roman Catholic] Church, the state, and mobs.” But the
Holocaust was the super-pogrom; and, though masterminded from Germany, it was
being carried out everywhere that Hitler reigned. After the war, Muslims in
what was then Palestine paid the price and became the Christian-approved
victims of Jews who were escaping from Christian lands. Thus started the
American and European Christian-approved ethnic cleansing of Muslims in
Palestine. It wasn’t nearly as much due to any hatred that Jews felt for
Muslims, as it was due to Jews wanting to live in a democracy where they would
be the majority. The fascist Jews took over there, because clearing the land of
its natives requires conquest and violence, and, in modern times, people who
like to do that are commonly called “fascists.”
Although the Allied
anti-Axis powers of Soviet Union, UK. US, and France, had publicly and
passionately condemned Adolf Hitler’s attempted extermination of Jews
throughout Christian-majority Europe, those Christian-majority nations refused
to provide and fund refuge and welcome to more than token numbers of fleeing
Jews, and so millions of them fled to what became Israel and needed to
eliminate Muslims there in order to call their new and imposed Jewish
Government a ‘democracy’ and thus become approved in America and Europe. This
necessitated, on the part of those Jews, an extensive ethnic-cleansing of
Muslims there. It’s well-documented, such as here and here and here and here and here. Furthermore, during the
1930s, zionists
considered themselves to be fascists, and fascists in both Germany and Italy
considered zionists to be Jewish fascists, ideological brothers of both Italy’s
and Germany’s fascists (Christianity’s fascists). And Albert Einstein and other
prominent progressive Jews in the US after World War II described as
“fascists” Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom subsequently became elected by Israel’s
Jews to lead Israel. And yet the US Government backed them, not only when Begin
and Shamir were leading massacres of Arab villages in the 1940s, but when both
men became Israel’s leaders in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s — and afterward, under
their political follower Benjamin Netanyahu: clearly, a racist-supremacist
apartheid regime ever since its founding, a regime which defines the supreme
group, “Jew,” not only by religion, but by descent; that is, racially.
Under US President Harry S. Truman, the America and the world that his
predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who was against the formation of a
Jewish state, and who also was opposed to Winston Churchill’s and Dwight
Eisenhower’s urgings for a war against the Soviet Union) had sought and
carefully planned, abruptly ended. Truman thus was one of the worst Presidents
in American history, though he followed immediately after one of the two
greatest, FDR (the other being Abraham Lincoln, who, likewise, was immediately
followed by conservatives who were failures as far as justice and the public’s
welfare were concerned — ending in the 1929 crash, which brought FDR to power
just as slavery had earlier brought Lincoln to power).
The 10 November 2019 coup
against, and subsequent immiseration of, the Bolivian people, is another
example. It, too, is racist (not only classist), this time by a fundamentalist
Christian European-derived aristocracy, against the approximately
70%-native-Indian majority Bolivian public. According to
the CIA (which
now is virtually in control there), Bolivia is “mestizo (mixed white and
Amerindian ancestry) 68%, indigenous 20%, white 5%, cholo/chola 2%, black 1%,
other 1%, unspecified 3% (2009 est.).” The coup-regime are among the 5% Whites.
On 11 November 2019, Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton headlined at The Gray
Zone, “Bolivia coup
led by Christian fascist paramilitary leader and millionaire – with foreign
support”, and
provided financial details about the propaganda-support from Amnesty
International for this ethnic-cleansing operation. On 18 November 2019, Alan
MacLeod at Mint Press News headlined “Media Silent
as Bolivia’s New Right-Wing Gov’t Massacres Indigenous Protesters”, and reported that, “Despite having been in power for
only one week, the new Bolivian coup government of Jeanine AƱez has already
turned the powers of repression onto the population, using live rounds on
demonstrators protesting the forceful removal of President Evo Morales from
power on November 10.” Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were both
cited there as supporting the ethnic-cleansing operation that was now starting.
On November 12th, the anonymous Moon of Alabama blogger bannered “Lessons To
Learn From The Coup In Bolivia” and he summarized the popular democratically
elected and re-elected overthrown leader Evo Morales’s enormously successful
record of leadership there, such as:
—
During his twelve years in
office Evo Morales achieved quite a lot of good things:
Illiteracy rates:
2006 13.0%, 2018 2.4%
Unemployment rates
2006 9.2%, 2018 4.1%
Moderate poverty rates
2006
60.6%, 2018 34.6%
Extreme
poverty rates
2006
38.2%, 2018 15.2%
—
And the nation’s aristocracy
hated that, just as they hated the nation’s public, whom now they were
brutalizing in order to make submissive. These people were trying to turn
Bolivia into a white Christian fundamentalist Israel against the natives there.
But propaganda, such as from organizations like HRW and AI, is necessary in
order to ‘justify’ this. It’s how such nonprofits win the donations that pay
their bills.
Yet another example is
Ukraine. In a moment of extraordinary candor, George Friedman, the founder and
CEO of the ‘private CIA’ consulting firm Stratfor, once called the overthrow of the democratically
elected President
of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, which occurred in February 2014, “the most blatant coup in history”, and this was because it was the first coup ever to
have been captured live on cellphone videos
and uploaded to the internet as it happened, and afterward documented by
interviewing some of the participants, in detailed accounts which fit perfectly with
similar confessions from other participants (such as this, from one who didn’t even know about those other
participants, but they all were carrying out the same plan, which they didn’t
know about and which came from above — the US regime — they all were only
following the orders that they had been given by agents of the US). These
realities were able to be reported outside the United States but not inside the United States. The top EU
officials didn’t become so much as even aware that it had been a coup instead
of an authentic revolution, until it was already finished, on 26 February
2014. By our
time, there is no longer any reasonable doubt that it had been led by the US
regime, and that Barack Obama’s Administration had started
planning the operation by no later than 2011, and the implementation-phase
started by no later than 1 March 2013 inside the US Embassy in Ukraine — well before the fairy-tale ‘explanation’ of the coup (‘the
Maidan Revolution’) started on 21 November 2013. Famously, after that ‘democratic revolution’ (which
was instead a fascist coup that was hidden behind popular anti-corruption
demonstrations), came the breakaway of Crimea (which had voted over 75% for Yanukovych)
and of Donbass (which had voted over 90% for him). And then came the Obama-installed regime’s ethnic
cleansing ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ to eliminate as many of the
voters in Donbass as possible, because if they stayed in Ukraine, then the newly
installed regime in Kiev would soon be elected out-of-office. Hatred was needed
in order for that ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ or ‘ATO’
(the ethnic-cleansing operation) to be able to achieve its purpose, of
retainining in power the US-stooge regime, in a ‘democratic’ way.
Part of the urgent need of
the US-installed regime was to get rid of the Ukrainians who had voted Yanukovych
into power. This is the only way the stooge-people could be ‘democratically
elected’ into power: get rid of the ‘bad’ voters. 90+% of the residents in
Donbass had voted for Yanukovych; and 75+% of the residents in Crimea had done
so. Crimeans managed to hold their referendum on 16 March 2014 and over 90% of
them voted to become restored again to Russia (as they always had been prior to
the Soviet dictator in 1954 having transferred them to Ukraine), but because of
the US-incited opposition against Donbassers being able to do likewise, Russian President Vladimir Putin, on 17
September 2014, said that Donbass must build its “own country” and not be a
part of Russia.
All US-and-allied ‘news’-media refused to publish this historically extremely
important fact, because their regimes were insisting that Putin was trying to
‘seize more territory’, and because NATO especially needed that lie in order to
terrify against Russia the residents in the Baltic nations, etc. I was the only
journalist in The West to report this key fact, and though virtually all
news-media were sent the news-report, only a few very small and independent
ones published it. Datelined on September 19th, its headline was “Russia’s
Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim to Become Part of Russia”. This
was one of Putin’s most important geostrategic decisions. Western ‘news’-media
hid it, instead of reported it, and the reason why is obvious: they needed to
hide The West’s guilt.
But the Obama-installed
regime, now under Poroshenko’s rule, finally might have gotten elected out-of-office on 21 April 2019
and replaced by the new President Volodmyr Zelenskiy, despite the billions of dollars that the US regime
had spent on this coup-and-ethnic-cleansing operation. Zelenskiy won by the largest margin of any Ukrainian President
ever, and the
reason for this is that his opponent, Poroshenko, had spectacularly failed to
fulfill his electoral promises — he couldn’t
follow through on everything that Obama had wanted him to do. Because so much of Obama’s agenda conflicted with
what the Ukrainian public wanted him to do (especially they wanted the war to
end, and for it to end ‘victoriously’), Poroshenko was leaving office as being
extremely unpopular. The war was simply dragging on, because Putin would not
let the US-allied forces kill or drive out virtually all residents in, or to
conquer, Donbass.
Whether or not Zelenskiy
decides to be yet another US stooge isn’t yet clear, but maybe he’ll be able to
lift the American yoke from his country, a yoke which destroyed Ukraine’s
economy. In 2013,
Ukraine’s average annual household income was $2,601.40, and then it fell off a
cliff and became $1,109.63 by 2015 and has stabilized at around that level
since. Also, in 2013, Ukraine’s GDP was $183.31 billion, and
by 2015 that had become $91.03 billion and stabilized at that level and started
rising in 2017. More
information about the decline in Ukraine’s economic rankings can be seen here. Ukraine was avoiding bankruptcy only because the
US-controlled IMF kept lending it money so as to continue the war.
However, despite Zelenskiy’s
promise to end the war against Donbass by means of negotiations and of building
the trust of Donbass residents, Ollie Richardson posted to youtube on 31 May
2019 (11 days after Zelenskiy’s inauguration) “Ukraine
continues to shell the LPR despite Zelensky’s promises of peace”, and clearly this military attack against Donbass
showed that Zelenskiy was continuing the Obama-started Ukrainian regime (unless
Zelenskiy publicly condemned that attack, which he did not). This attack “on May 29th
carried out by the
UAF [Ukrainian Air Force] on the settlement of Golubovsky, which is a part of
front-line Kirovsk,” produced no public response from President Zelenskiy — no
condemnation, no replacement of any official, nothing at all. He was thus
making less possible each and every day, Donbassers’ support for any negotiations
with his regime.
The US regime has been toxic to the
Ukrainian people,
no matter how one looks at the matter. Whether and how Ukraine can ever recover
isn’t yet clear. US corporations (and agents such as the IMF) have by now moved
into Ukraine so deeply that maybe Zelenskiy will either fulfill Obama’s plan or
else be assassinated (by his country’s very active nazis) for resisting it. On
24 May 2019, the Irish independent investigative journalist Danielle Ryan had
headlined at RT “West-backed
think tanks threaten new Ukrainian president with disturbing list of ‘RED
LINES’”, and
apparently the US regime was having its way, yet again. All of this success is
achieved by selecting only billionaire-approved candidates as the final contenders
in ‘elections’ (actually mere selections), and all of them deceive the public
in order to become (s)‘elected’ by billionaires and then by the public. The US
regime is relentless. Zelenskiy is apparently trapped by it. And Trump is
just another Obama, who is just another Bush, etc.
The ultimate objective of
this particular plan is to make Ukraine a NATO member in order to place US
missiles only five-minutes flight-time away from Moscow. But in order to
achieve that, America’s IMF must continue lending Ukraine’s Government more and
more money and thereby drive it deeper and deeper into debt, so that when
Ukraine goes bankrupt, the Ukrainian people will be stripped of everything, and
America’s international corporations will get most of what they did have.
Of course, if Trump were a
decent person, he would expose what Obama had done to Ukraine, instead of
continue doing it. Only time will tell whether he has, within him, such a shred
of decency. He’s never yet shown it, in anything that he has actually done. But
he’s no worse than his predecessor was. And, perhaps, in the congressional
hearings, regarding his impeachment, the only way he will be able to avoid being
forced out of office would be for him to turn the Ukraine knife away from
himself and instead toward Obama, and Obama’s Administration. Perhaps that will
happen when the matter produces a vote in the Democratic-Party-led House to
impeach, and then reaches the Republican-Party-led Senate, for the final vote.
Perhaps that’s when Trump will take the gloves off, and grab the Democrats’
Ukrainian knife, and stick it into their heart, which is Obama himself. The
documentation which has been supplied here should be enough to do it. The
result would likely be to destroy all of the current Presidential candidates
who are promising to be a President “in the Obama mold.” And — to judge by the
current polls — that’s most of today’s Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.