Trump: Laicidade e Terrorismo no Mundo Islâmico

 

Um vento de laicismo sopra sobre o mundo muçulmano

O discurso de Donald Trump em Riade suscitou uma vaga de tomadas de posição contra o terrorismo e contra o islão político. O mundo árabe expressa a sua sede de laicidade no exacto momento em que esta é deformada na Europa e utilizada contra as religiões. Face a este sopro de liberdade, os Britânicos organizam o campo do islão político à volta do Catar, do Irão, da Turquia e dos Irmãos Muçulmanos.

 | DAMASCO (SÍRIA) | 13 DE JUNHO DE 2017 

-

JPEG - 26.7 kb
Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), o pensador do islamismo político

Durante a colonização, e toda a Guerra Fria, as potências imperialistas utilizaram as religiões para abafar qualquer contestação ao seu domínio. Assim, a França, que adoptou em 1905 uma importante lei sobre o laicismo das sua instituições, decidiu de imediato não a aplicar nos territórios colonizados.

Sabe-se, hoje em dia, que as “Primaveras Árabes” eram uma iniciativa britânica destinada a colocar os Irmãos Muçulmanos no Poder e, assim, fortalecer a dominação anglo-saxónica sobre o «Médio-Oriente Alargado».

Desde há 16 anos, os Ocidentais acusam precisamente os muçulmanos de não limpar os seus países e tolerar aí os terroristas. No entanto, é agora evidente que estes terroristas são apoiados por esses mesmos Ocidentais com o fim de escravizar os muçulmanos por meio do «islão político». Londres, Washington e Paris só se inquietam com o terrorismo quando ele transborda para lá do «Médio-Oriente Alargado», e eles jamais criticam o «islão político», pelo menos no que toca aos sunitas.

Ao pronunciar o seu discurso em Riade, a 21 de Maio de 2017, o Presidente Trump significava pôr um termo ao terrorismo que consome a região e se estende agora ao Ocidente. As palavras que ele pronunciou tiveram o efeito de um electrochoque. A sua alocução foi interpretada como uma autorização para acabar com este sistema.

Aquilo que pareceu impensável durante os últimos séculos, de repente, cristalizou-se. Aceitando cessar todo e qualquer contacto com os Irmãos Muçulmanos, a Arábia Saudita atirou-se aqueles que prosseguem a colaboração com os Britânicos, e particularmente contra o Catar. Riade deu o sinal de uma tormenta que carrega com ela muitas frustrações. Por espírito de vingança beduíno, as relações diplomáticas foram interrompidas, e um bloqueio económico foi montado contra a população catariana; enquanto nos Emirados foi instituída uma sentença de 15 anos de prisão para todo aquele que mostre a mínima compaixão para com o povo do Catar, enxovalhado.

Um gigantesco deslocamento de forças e de alianças começou. Se esta tendência se mantiver, a região irá organizar-se em torno de uma nova clivagem. A questão da luta contra o imperialismo vai apagar-se para dar lugar à da luta contra o clericalismo.

Os Europeus viveram esta clivagem durante quatrocentos anos, do século XVI ao século XIX, mas não os Norte-Americanos porque o seu país foi fundado pela seita dos Puritanos que fugiam a esta clivagem. A luta contra o cristianismo político foi, antes de mais, um combate contra a pretensão do clero da Igreja Católica de dirigir os seus fiéis até mesmo dentro do quarto de dormir. Ela só terminou quando Paulo VI, o qual largou a tiara papal. Esta tríplice coroa era suposta simbolizar que o Papa estava acima de reis e de imperadores.

Tal como o Cristianismo original que não tinha sacerdotes (estes só apareceram no IIIº século), o Islão original e o Sunismo actual também não. Apenas o Xiismo se estruturou como o Catolicismo e a ortodoxia. De facto, hoje em dia o islão político é incarnado pelos Irmãos Muçulmanos e pelo governo do Xeque Rohani (o título de xeque indica que o Presidente Rohani é membro do clero xiita).

Actualmente uma aliança clerical está em vias de formação com a ajuda do Reino Unido. Poderia ser um bloco incluindo o Irão, o Catar, a Turquia, Idlib no Noroeste da Síria, e Gaza. Este conjunto iria tornar-se o protector dos Irmãos Muçulmanos e, por conseguinte, o defensor da utilização do terrorismo.

Em duas semanas a imprensa árabe, que até aqui considerava favoravelmente os Irmãos Muçulmanos como uma poderosa organização secreta e o jiadismo como uma motivação legítima, de repente virou. Por todo o lado, todos apresentam a sua denúncia contra a pretensão dos Irmãos Muçulmanos a reger a vida das pessoas, e a loucura cruel do jiadismo.

Esta maré de comentários, os séculos de frustrações que elas exprimem, a sua violência, tornam qualquer regresso atrás impossível; o que não significa que a aliança Irão-Catar-Turquia-Hamas chegue até ao fim do percurso. Esta vaga revolucionária ocorre em pleno mês do Ramadão. As reuniões entre amigos, e família, que deveriam ser celebrações consensuais transformam-se, por vezes, em contestação daquilo parecia ser até aí as bases do Islão.

No caso de a clivagem a favor ou contra o clericalismo prosseguir, iremos assistir a uma recomposição geral da paisagem política. Por exemplo, os Guardas da Revolução, que se formaram para lutar contra o imperialismo anglo-saxónico, acumularam ressentimento contra o clero iraniano.

Muitos lembram-se que durante a guerra imposta pelo Iraque, os mulás e aiatolas se desenrascavam para esconder os seus filhos enquanto os Guardiões morriam no campo de batalha. Mas, enfraquecidos durante o primeiro mandato de Rohani, é pouco provável que eles ousem levantar-se contra o poder civil-religioso. Pelo contrário o Hezbolla libanês é dirigido por Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (aqui o título de Sayyed indica que ele é descendente directo do profeta Maomé), uma personalidade que promove a separação entre a esfera pública e a esfera privada. Muito embora desempenhando uma função religiosa e uma outra política, ele sempre se opôs a misturar as duas, aceitando sempre o princípio platónico de Velayat-e Faqih (quer dizer do governo por um sábio). É, portanto, pouco provável que o Hezbolla vá seguir o governo Rohani.

Enquanto isso, toda a região se agita : na Líbia, os Irmãos Muçulmanos deixaram Trípoli deixando uma milícia libertar(liberar-br) Saif al-Islam Kadhafi e o General Haftar alargar a sua influência. No Egipto, o General-Presidente al-Sissi encomendou aos seus homólogos do Golfo uma lista de terroristas. Na Palestina, a direcção política do Hamas refugiou-se no Irão. Na Síria, os jiadistas pararam de combater contra a República e aguardam ordens. No Iraque, o exército redobra os esforços contra os Irmãos Muçulmanos e a Ordem dos Naqchbandis. Na Arábia Saudita, a Liga Islâmica Mundial excluiu do seu Conselho de administração o pregador vedeta dos Irmãos e o propagandista das Primaveras Árabes, o Xeque Qaradawi. Enquanto a Turquia e o Paquistão iniciaram o envio de dezenas de milhar de soldados em direcção ao Catar; o qual já só consegue alimentar-se com a ajuda do Irão.

Um nova era parece levantar-se sobre a região.

Tradução
Alva

Milhares de milhões de dólares de armas contra a Síria

Modern-Space-90x60cm-Acrylics-on-Board-2013

UMA REDE DE TRÁFICO DE ARMAS IMPLICANDO PELO MENOS 17 ESTADOS REDE VOLTAIRE | DAMASCO (SÍRIA) | 18 DE JULHO DE 2017 Thierry Meyssan Desde há sete anos, vários milhares de milhões de dólares de armamento entraram ilegalmente na Síria ; um facto que, só por si, basta para desmentir a narrativa segundo a qual esta guerra seria uma revolução interna democrática. Inúmeros documentos atestam que este tráfico foi organizado pelo General David Petraeus, primeiro a título público a partir da CIA da qual ele era o director, depois a título privado a partir da sociedade financeira KKR, com a ajuda de altos funcionários. Assim, o conflito, que era inicialmente uma operação imperialista dos Estados Unidos e do Reino Unido, transformou-se numa operação capitalista privada, enquanto em Washington a autoridade da Casa Branca era contestada pelo “Estado Profundo”. Novos elementos lançam luz sobre o papel secreto do Azerbaijão na evolução desta guerra. – Como é que os jiadistas de Alepo eram abastecidos com armas búlgaras ? Aquando da libertação de Alepo e da captura do estado-maior saudita que lá se encontrava, a jornalista búlgara Dilyana Gaytandzhieva constatou a presença de armas do seu país em novos armazéns abandonados pelos jiadistas. Ela anotou cuidadosamente as indicações inscritas nas caixas e, de regresso ao seu país, investigou o modo como elas haviam chegado à Síria. Desde 2009 —com a breve excepção do período entre Março de 2013 a Novembro de 2014— a Bulgária é governada por Boiko Borissov, um personagem colorido, saído de uma das principais organizações criminosas europeias, a SIC. Lembremos que a Bulgária é, ao mesmo tempo, membro da OTAN e da União Europeia e que nenhuma destas organizações emitiu a mínima crítica contra a chegada ao poder de um chefe mafioso, desde há longo tempo claramente identificado pelos serviços internacionais de polícia. Foi, pois, arriscando a sua vida de forma clara que Dilyana Gaytandzhieva rastreou a rede e que a redacção do quotidiano de Sofia, Trud, publicou o seu dossiê [1]. Se a Bulgária se colocou como um dos principais exportadores de armas para a Síria, ela contou para tal com a ajuda do Azerbaijão. Pondo a nu o gigantesco tráfico de armas da CIA contra o Afeganistão, o Iraque, a Líbia, a Síria e a Índia Desde o início das Primaveras Árabes, um gigantesco tráfico de armas foi organizado pela CIA e pelo Pentágono em violação de inúmeras resoluções do Conselho de Segurança da ONU. Todas as operações que aqui vamos recapitular são ilegais à luz do Direito Internacional, nelas incluídas, bem entendido, as organizadas publicamente pelo Pentágono. Em matéria de tráfico de armas, mesmo quando certos indivíduos ou empresas privadas servem como disfarce, é impossível exportar materiais sensíveis sem o assentimento dos governos envolvidos. Todas as armas de que vamos falar, salvo os sistemas de espionagem electrónica, são de tipo soviético. Por definição, mesmo quando se finge que exércitos equipados com armas de tipo OTAN são os destinatários finais destes fornecimentos isso é impossível de se verificar. A referência a tais exércitos serve apenas para encobrir o tráfico. Sabia-se já que a CIA tinha recorrido à SIC e a Boiko Borissov para fabricar, com urgência, Captagon com destino aos jiadistas na Líbia, depois na Síria. Desde a investigação de Maria Petkova, publicada na Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), sabia-se que a CIA e o SOCOM (Special Operations Command do Pentágono) tinham comprado, para os jiadistas, armas à Bulgária por 500 milhões de dólares, entre 2011 e 2014. Depois, que outras armas foram pagas pela Arábia Saudita e pelos Emirados Árabes Unidos e transportadas pela Saudi Arabian Cargo e Etihad Cargo [2]. Segundo Krešimir Žabec do quotidiano de Zagreb Jutarnji List, no fim de 2012, a Croácia fornecia aos jiadistas sírios 230 toneladas de armas por um valor de 6,5 milhões de dólares. O envio para a Turquia foi feito por três Ilyushin da companhia Jordan International Air Cargo, sendo depois as armas lançadas de pára-quedas pelo Exército Catariano [3]. De acordo com Eric Schmitt, do The New York Times, o conjunto do dispositivo tinha sido imaginado pelo General David Petraeus, director da CIA [4]. Quando, em 2012, o Hezbolla tentou descobrir o tráfico da CIA e do SOCOM foi perpetrado um atentado contra turistas israelitas no aeroporto de Burgas, o centro nevrálgico do tráfico. Em contradição com a investigação da polícia búlgara e as conclusões do médico legista, o governo de Borisov atribuiu este crime ao Hezbolla e a União Europeia classificou a Resistência libanesa como «organização terrorista» (sic). Foi preciso esperar até à queda temporária de Borisov para que o Ministro das Relações Exteriores, Kristian Vigenine, sublinhasse que tal acusação não tinha qualquer fundamento. Segundo uma fonte próxima do PKK, em Maio e Junho de 2014, os Serviços secretos turcos fretaram comboios (trens-br) especiais para entregar em Rakka, isto é, naquilo que era então chamado o Emirado Islâmico no Iraque e na Síria, e que é conhecido hoje como Daesh, armas ucranianas pagas pela Arábia Saudita e mais de um milhar de Toyota Hilux (pickups de cabine dupla) especialmente arranjadas para resistir às areias do deserto. De acordo com uma fonte belga, a compra dos veículos tinha sido negociada com a japonesa Toyota pela empresa saudita Abdul Latif Jameel. Segundo Andrey Fomin da Oriental Review, o Catar, que não queria ser deixado à parte, comprou para os jiadistas à sociedade Estatal ucraniana UkrOboronProm a versão mais recente do Air Missile Defense Complex “Pechora-2D”. Tendo a entrega sido concluída pela sociedade cipriota Blessway Ltd [5]. Segundo Jeremy Binnie e Neil Gibson, da revista profissional de armamento Jane’s, o US Navy Military Sealift Command (o Comando de Aprovisionamento da Marinha de Guerra dos EUA- ndT) lançou em 2015 dois concursos públicos para transportar armas do porto romeno de Constanta para o porto jordano de Aqaba. O contrato foi ganho pela Transatlantic Lines [6]. Ele foi executado logo após a assinatura do cessar-fogo por Washington, a 12 de Fevereiro, 2016, em total violação do seu compromisso. De acordo com Pierre Balanian da Asia News, este dispositivo prosseguiu em Março 2017 com a abertura de uma linha marítima regular da companhia norte-americana Liberty Global Logistics ligando Livorno (Itália) / Aqaba (Jordânia) / Jeddah (Arábia Saudita) [7]. Segundo o geógrafo Manlio Dinucci, ela destinava-se principalmente ao fornecimento de blindados para a Síria e para o Iémene [8]. Segundo os jornalistas turcos Yörük Işık e Alper Beler, os últimos contratos da era Obama foram feitos pela Orbital ATK que organizou, via Chemring e a dinamarquesa H. Folmer & Co, uma linha regular entre Burgas (Bulgária) e Jeddah (Arábia Saudita). Pela primeira vez, fala-se aqui não apenas de armas produzidas pela Vazovski Machine Factory Building (VMZ) (Bulgária), mas também pela Tatra Defesa Industrial Ltd. (República Checa) [9]. Muitas outras operações tiveram lugar secretamente como o atestam, por exemplo, os negócios do cargueiro Lutfallah II, apresado pela marinha libanesa a 27 Abril de 2012, ou do cargueiro togolês, o Trader, apresado pela Grécia, a 1 de Março de 2016. O total destas operações perfaz centenas de toneladas de armas e de munições, talvez milhares, sobretudo pagas pelas monarquias absolutas do Golfo, pretensamente para apoiar uma «revolução democrática». Na realidade, as petro-ditaduras só intervieram para dispensar a administração Obama de prestar contas ao Congresso dos EUA (Opération Timber Sycamore) e lhe fazer aceitar gato por lebre [10]. O decorrer de todo este tráfico foi pessoalmente controlado pelo General David Petraeus, primeiro a partir da CIA da qual ele era o director, depois desde a sociedade de aplicações financeiras KKR onde ingressou. Ele beneficiou-se da ajuda de altos funcionários, algumas vezes sob a presidência de Barack Obama, depois massivamente sob a de Donald Trump. O papel até agora secreto do Azerbaijão Segundo a antiga funcionária do FBI e fundadora da National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, Sibel Edmonds, de 1997 a 2001, o Azerbaijão do Presidente Heydar Aliyev, acolheu em Baku, a pedido da CIA, o número dois da Alcaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muito embora oficialmente procurado pelo FBI, aquele que era então o número 2 da rede jiadista mundial deslocava-se regularmente por avião da OTAN para o Afeganistão, para a Albânia, para o Egipto e para a Turquia. Ele era, igualmente, frequentemente visitado pelo Príncipe Bandar ben Sultan da Arábia Saudita [11]. Às suas relações de segurança com Washington e Riade, o Azerbaijão —cuja população é, portanto, sobretudo xiita— junta Ancara, a sunita, que o apoia no seu conflito contra a Arménia a propósito da secessão da República de Artsakh (Alto-Karabaque ). À morte de Heydar Aliyev, nos Estados Unidos, em 2003, sucede-lhe o seu filho Ilham Aliyev. A Câmara de Comércio EUA-Azerbaijão torna-se a sala de manobras de Washington tendo ao lado do Presidente Aliyev, Richard Armitage, James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Brent Scowcroft e John Sununu. De acordo com Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, o Ministro dos Transportes, Ziya Mammadov, coloca em 2015 à disposição da CIA a companhia estatal Silk Way Airlines paga pela Arábia Saudita e pelos Emirados Árabes Unidos. O Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, o muito pouco escrupuloso Elmar Mammadyarov, envia a várias das suas embaixadas pedidos de homologação de «vôos diplomáticos», o que interdita as inspecções dos mesmos segundo a Convenção de Viena. Em menos de três anos, mais de 350 vôos disporão deste privilégio extraordinário. Muito embora segundo os tratados internacionais, nem aviões civis, nem aviões com imunidade diplomática estejam autorizados a transportar material militar, os pedidos de reconhecimento como «voos diplomáticos» fazem menção explícita das cargas transportadas. No entanto, a pedido do Departamento de Estado dos EUA, pelo menos o Afeganistão, a Alemanha, a Arábia Saudita, a Bulgária, o Congo, os Emirados Árabes Unidos, a Hungria, Israel, o Paquistão, a Polónia, a Roménia, a Sérvia, a Eslováquia, a República Checa, a Turquia e o Reino Unido irão fechar os olhos a esta violação do Direito Internacional, tal como já haviam ignorado os vôos da CIA entre as suas prisões secretas. Em menos de três anos, a Silk Way Airlines transportou assim pelo menos US $ mil milhões (1 bilhão-br) de armas. De forma exaustiva, a jornalista Dilyana Gaytandzhieva pôs à luz do dia um vasto sistema que aprovisiona os jiadistas não só no Iraque e na Síria, mas também no Afeganistão, no Paquistão e no Congo, sempre às custa dos Sauditas e dos Emiratis. Algumas armas entregues na Arábia foram reexpedidas para a África do Sul. As armas transportadas para o Afeganistão teriam chegado aos talibãs, sob o controle dos Estados Unidos, os quais afirmam combatê-los. As fornecidas ao Paquistão eram provavelmente destinadas a cometer atentados islamitas na Índia. Ignora-se quem são os destinatários finais das armas entregues à Guarda Republicana do Presidente Sassou Nguesso, no Congo, e à África do Sul do Presidente Jacob Zuma. Sendo os principais negociantes as firmas norte-americanas Chemring (já citada), Culmen International, Orbital ATK (também já citada) e Purpel Shove. Para além das armas de tipo soviético produzidos pela Bulgária, o Azerbaijão comprou, sob a responsabilidade do Ministro da Indústria de Defesa, Yavar Jamalov, stocks (estoques-br) na Sérvia, na República Checa e incidentalmente em outros Estados, sempre declarando ser o destinatário final dessas compras. Em relação aos equipamentos de espionagem electrónica, Israel colocou à disposição a firma Elbit Systems, que simulava ser o destinatário final, não possuindo o Azerbaijão o direito de comprar este tipo de material. Estas excepções atestam que o programa do Azerbaijão, mesmo tendo sido requisitado pelos Estados Unidos e pela Arábia Saudita, era controlado, de uma ponta a outra, a partir de Telavive. O Estado hebreu, que afirma ter permanecido neutral durante todo o conflito sírio, tem, no entanto, bombardeado repetidamente o Exército Árabe Sírio. Todas as vezes que Telavive reconheceu os factos, pretendeu ter atacado para destruir armas destinadas ao Hezbolla libanês. Na realidade, todas essas operações, salvo talvez uma, foram coordenadas com os jiadistas. Sabe-se, pois, hoje em dia que Telavive estava supervisionando a entrega de armas a esses mesmos jiadistas de tal modo que, se Israel parecia contentar-se em utilizar a sua Força Aérea para os apoiar, de facto jogava um papel central no desenrolar da guerra. Segundo as convenções internacionais a falsificação de certificados de fornecimento final e o envio de armas para grupos mercenários afim de que eles derrubem governos legítimos, ou destruam Estados reconhecidos, constituem crimes internacionais. Thierry Meyssan Tradução Alva <:ver_imprimer:> Facebook Twitter Delicious Seenthis Digg RSS [1] “350 diplomatic flights carry weapons for terrorists” («350 vôos diplomáticos carregando armas para terroristas»- ndT), Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, Trud, July 2, 2017. [2] “War Gains : Bulgarian Arms Add Fuel to Middle East Conflicts” («Proveitos de Guerra :Armas Búlgaras Somam Combustível aos Conflitos do Médio-Oriente»- ndT), Maria Petkova, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, December 21, 2015. [3] “TAJNA LETOVA JORDANSKIH AVIONA S PLESA Sirijski pobunjenici dobivaju oružje preko Zagreba!”, Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 23 veljača 2013. «TRANSFER HRVATSKOG ORUŽJA POBUNJENICIMA U SIRIJI Sve je dogovoreno prošlog ljeta u Washingtonu!», Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 26 veljača 2013. “VIDEO: JUTARNJI OTKRIVA U 4 mjeseca za Siriju sa zagrebačkog aerodroma Pleso otišlo 75 aviona sa 3000 tona oružja!”, Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 7 ožujak 2013. “PUT KROZ ASADOVU SIRIJU Nevjerojatna priča o državi sravnjenoj sa zemljom i njezinim uništenim ljudima: ’Živote su nam ukrali, snove ubili…’”, Antonija Handabaka, Jutarnji list, 9 ožujak 2013. [4] “In Shift, Saudis Are Said to Arm Rebels in Syria” and “Airlift To Rebels In Syria Expands With C.I.A.’S Help”, C. J. Chivers & Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 26 and March 25, 2013. [5] “Qatar and Ukraine come to deliver Pechora-2D to ISIS” («O Catar e a Ucrânia, acabam de fornecer Pechora-2D ao Daesh-EI»- ndT), by Andrey Fomin, Oriental Review (Russia), Voltaire Network, 22 November 2015. [6] “US arms shipment to Syrian rebels detailed” («Revelado em detalhe carregamento de armas dos EUA para os rebelde Sírios»- ndT), Jeremy Binnie & Neil Gibson, Jane’s, April 7th, 2016. [7] “Jordan strengthens military presence on border with Syria and Iraq” («Jordânia reforça presença militar na fronteira com a Síria e o Iraque»- ndT), Pierre Balanian, AsiaNews, April 11, 2017. [8] « De Camp Darby, des armes US pour la guerre contre la Syrie et le Yémen », par Manlio Dinucci, Traduction Marie-Ange Patrizio, Il Manifesto (Italie), Réseau Voltaire, 18 avril 2017. [9] “O Pentágono prossegue os contratos de armamento dos jiadistas da era Obama”, Tradução Alva, Rede Voltaire, 30 de Maio de 2017. [10] “U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels” («EUA Baseia-se Sobretudo em Dinheiro Saudita para Apoiar os Rebeldes Sírios»- ndT), Mark Mazzetti & Matt Apuzzojan, The New York Times, January 23, 2016. [11] Classified Woman. The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir((«Mulher da Sombra. A História de Sibel Edmonds : Testemunho ndT) et The Lone Gladio ((«Gládio Solitária»- ndT), Sibel Edmonds.

Srebrenica – the Memoirs of a Portuguese General – II

 Peacekeeper (II)

See Part I
In his memoir, «War in the Balkans», (1) retired Portuguese general Carlos Martins Branco, who was during the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia in the strategically important post of Deputy Head of Mission of UN Military Observers in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1994-1996), recounts his knowledge of events that took place around Srebrenica in July of 1995.
In contrast to the fanciful tales of a bevy of dubious «experts», false witnesses, and outright propagandists, General Martins Branco reports facts as they were observed or collected by intelligence and other sources in the field. That information made its way through official channels to his desk in Zagreb, where the headquarters of the UN Observer Mission was located. Martins Branco’s facts and conclusions are hardly susceptible to off-hand dismissal. Excerpts cited below are on pages 201 – 206 of his memoir.
We will begin with the general’s conclusion challenging the received wisdom that Srebrenica was genocide and then work our way back from there:
«Had they entertained the specific intent to commit genocide, the Serbs would have blocked the enclave from all sides so that nobody could have managed to escape. Instead, they attacked from two directions, southeast and east, where they concentrated their assault forces, leaving open corridors for withdrawal toward the north and west (…) nor would they have planned the transportation of seventeen thousand women, children, and elderly, as occurred on July 12 and 13, which made it possible for about half the displaced persons to reach Federation territory. A great number of Srebrenica residents, who did manage to flee, found refuge in Serbia where they spent several years without being bothered by anyone. For the assertion of genocide to hold, it was necessary to conceal some inconvenient facts which were liable to compromise it».
Martins Branco does not deny that «the attack on Srebrenica resulted in many deaths». He notes, however, that «even after twenty years no one has managed to determine their number». (Actually, the Hague Tribunal has been attempting to make that determination but as a result of its lackadaisical efforts we now have, in various verdicts, five drastically varying figures the highest and the lowest separated by a gap of 4.000, all presumably reflecting the judicially ascertained number of executed victims.)
As «Srebrenica Historical Project» has been arguing for years, Martins Branco points out also a very important fact, namely the heterogeneity of the causes of death among the exhumed Srebrenica-related human remains. The author describes the forensic situation in the following terms:
«The causes of the deaths which occurred during and after military operations were various: combat between the two armies facing each other; combat between the Serbian forces and militants taking flight, who were joined by civilians; internecine warfare among fighters of the Bosnian army; and lastly executions of war prisoners».
As for the antecedents of the «magic figure of 8.000 missing (that was an initial Red Cross estimate) which ultimately morphed into an unchallengeable truth», the author says that at a certain point it became a «fact which it was forbidden to question, even before any proof was forthcoming». And he continues: «Woe unto him who would dare to challenge that incontrovertible truth. He will immediately be excommunicated and labeled a ‘genocide denier.’ The fact that 3.000 persons who had been declared missing found their way onto the voting rolls in the September 1996 elections had no impact whatsoever on the incessant repetition of the narrative about 8.000 dead. The media never expressed the slightest curiosity in the face of this and a number of other obvious incoherencies. It was easier to keep relentlessly repeating the genocide theory, which the mass media eagerly promoted. But regardless of the stubborn reassertion of that ‘truth’ it is worth recalling that between a media sound bite and a historical fact there continues to be a huge gap».
«How many prisoners were shot, and how many were killed in battle?», General Martins Branco raises one of the key questions. «We are quite far from having the answers, and I would say that we will have a difficult time ever finding them. It is much easier – and simpler – to talk about genocide».

The Portuguese officer nevertheless ventures to make some estimates of the possible number of war crime victims in Srebrenica in July of 1995:
«The execution by Serbian forces in Srebrenica and the environs of a considerable number of Muslim males – well informed sources cite the figure of 2.000 – among whom the majority were soldiers, was undoubtedly a war crime».
The number mentioned by Martins Branco is significant for a number of independent reasons. Firstly, because the same number of execution victims – 2.000 – is cited by another, no less respectable intelligence source, John Schindler, a high-ranking US intelligence officer who was stationed in Sarajevo contemporaneously with the Srebrenica events. Schindler’s assessment, made from his Sarajevo vantage point, is completely congruent with Martins Branco’s coming out of Zagreb. It was articulated in Ole Flyum’s documentary «Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed». (2) Both assessments match available forensic data to a T. And it should be borne in mind that when things happen to be rather muddled, as they are with Srebrenica, a synthesis of intelligence data deriving from various trustworthy sources should always be paid close attention. It often presents an overall picture that is far more reliable than the reports of isolated individuals, whose field of vision is often limited and who frequently are not even objective.
Finally, the figure jointly suggested by Martins Branco and Schindler, which the available material evidence fully supports, is of interest also for an additional reason. Within the various intelligence communities a rumor has persistently been making rounds alleging the existence of a document – a mysterious letter sent by Alija Izetbegovic to Naser Oric in the Spring of 1995, not long before the commencement of the Srebrenica operation – where it is supposedly reaffirmed that the offer of foreign intervention still stood, as well as the condition that the Bosnian Serb takeover of Srebrenica ought to be accompanied by mass slaughter. The key point in that alleged letter is that the number of victims that would satisfy the interventionist criterion of the interested foreign party would be the already familiar figure of – 2.000.
«However», our author continues, «that was not an act of genocide, as is asserted in many places, mainly by the Tribunal at The Hague, in the form of a political argument». As a civilized person he, of course, entirely agrees that «taking justice into one’s own hands, which is culturally characteristic not just of Serbs but of other communities of the Former Yugoslavia as well, does not justify or mitigate the gravity of the committed act. That was, beyond doubt, a violation of the Geneva Convention».
His main point, nevertheless, would seem to be that things definitively ought to be called by their proper name:
«Terrible war crimes must be punished. Yet these criminal acts cannot and should not be confused with genocide. When war crimes, such as the execution of hundreds of military age males, are conflated with genocide, where it is necessary to establish the intent to systematically eradicate members of an ethnic community, that sends a very frivolous signal. That is particularly evident if we bear in mind the fact that the party committing the crime had made available the means to transport seventeen thousand displaced persons, which is about fifty percent of the entire displaced population».
Martins Branco then turns his attention to another notable «incoherence» in the Srebrenica affair, which is that the «Tribunal has so far condemned but a single direct perpetrator» (in a footnote he clarifies that the reference is to Drazen Erdemovic, a perpetrator defendant-turned-prosecution-witness who was initially rewarded with a laughably insignificant three year sentence for signing a plea bargain agreement, followed by numerous benefits in return for his mechanically repeated and highly disputed testimony).  (3) The Portuguese author stresses that «no one else was ever put in the dock for executing prisoners of war but, rather, based on ‘command responsibility’ or participation in a Joint Criminal Enterprise, which is the Tribunal’s favored doctrine but the application of which in such a conflict situation is highly dubious. How is it possible to claim genocide if, after twenty years, the Tribunal is incapable of determining the number of victims, the cause of death, and who killed them?»
All eminently logical questions. Martins Branco should perhaps also be given credit for this equally astute observation:
«The Tribunal has forgotten to concern itself with crimes committed around Srebrenica between 1992 and 1995 where the victims were Serbs, resulting in the murder of almost two thousand persons (males, females, children, and elderly), in some cases after acts of torture and other atrocities. For the most part this has been carefully documented, and the identity of the perpetrators is known (…) As Richard Holbrooke admitted in his book, ‘the Tribunal had always been a valuable political instrument of US policy». (4) Quite so, indeed.
And when talking about genocide, Martins Branco is not shy to draw a sharp contrast between the situation in Srebrenica in July of 1995 and what transpired in relatively close proximity barely a month later, in August, as Croatian armed forces went into attack mode:
«What happened in Srebrenica cannot and should not be equated to what happened a month later in the Krajina, where the Croatian army conducted an operation of systematic murder of the Serbian population which did not manage to find any shelter, sparing no one. Men, women, children, the elderly – all without distinction were subjected to the same atrocities, and things even worse. That operation was planned down to the last detail and was amply documented. The orders were issued by Tudjman to his generals, at a meeting in Brioni on July 31, 1995, on the eve of Operation Storm. The Tribunal never considered the events in Krajina as a possible genocide. Western media kept a careful distance from those events. Their silence was complicit and deafening».
Concluding his reminiscences, Martins Branco seems to harbor no doubt that Srebrenica was the perfidious fruit of long-term planning and parallel activity of various interested parties. In support of that, he cites evidence from Ibran Mustafic’s book «Planned Chaos», statements of local politician Zlatko Dukic, and revelations by Srebrenica enclave police chief during the conflict, Hakija Meholjic. The author singles out  in particular the intriguing claim of the then chief of staff of the Bosnian army, Sefer Halilovic, that in fact Izetbegovic had made the decision to «discard» Srebrenica rather early in the game but was determined «to extract from it maximum political profit».
Incidentally, while considering what Meholjic and Halilovic had to say on the subject and the evidence that the event may have been conceived some time in advance, it is worth recalling Meholjic’s famous claim of Izetbegovic’s offer to allow the slaughter of Srebrenica’s residents in return for foreign intervention, Srebrenica later to be traded with the Serbs for the Sarajevo suburb of Vogosca. The episode, be it recalled, is alleged to have taken place in the Fall of 1993, when a Bosniak National Congress was being convened in Sarajevo. However, in his book «The Cunning Strategy» (5) Sefer Halilovic set forth some additional information on the subject that may be of possible significance. He claims that the idea of staging a Srebrenica massacre, in return for harvesting its political dividends, was most likely entertained in the minds of Alija Izetbegovic and the Bosnian leadership even before the Congress. It so happens that at the time of the book’s publication Halilovic was politically on the outs with Izetbegovic so perhaps his assertions should for that reason be taken with a grain of salt. The fact remains, however, for all it is worth, that according to Halilovic (who is alive and may be questioned concerning his statements) Izetbegovic had mentioned to him in the Spring of 1993 the supposed offer which several months later, towards the end of the year, was to shock Meholjic and the other members of the Srebrenica delegation in attendance at the Bosniak meeting.
General Carlos Martins Branco’s reflections about Srebrenica are a valuable piece of the mosaic, supplementing and improving our understanding of events. His book is not simply the notes of a strategically positioned foreign observer, but much more than that. It is, in a certain sense, a coming to terms with the politically obscured reality of the matter by institutions which the author – willingly and consciously, or not – nevertheless personifies. In considerable measure, it furnishes answers to such important questions as «what did they know and when did they find out». The clear subtext of Martins Branco’s memoir is that the author and the instances above and below him had the capability of following events in real time, that they pretty much knew who was doing what and to whom, and that on a deeper analytical level they have no illusions – not to speak of dilemmas – about the real nature and background of Srebrenica. After reading «War in the Balkans – Jihadism, Geopolitics, and Disinformation», it is difficult to imagine that the proverbial «powers that be» were in the dark about the cynical political agenda which Srebrenica has come to serve.
(1) A Guerra nos Balcãs, jihadismo, geopolítica e desinformação [War in the Balkans, Jihadism, Geopolitics, and Disinformation]  Edições Colibri 2016.
(2) «Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed», 50:50 to 51:10 minutes
(3) Erdemovic’s account was meticulously picked apart by Bulgarian journalist Zerminal Civikov in «Srebrenica. Der Kronzeuge», Edition Brennpunkt, Osteuropa, 2009.
(4) Holbrooke, Richard. To End a War, p. 190.
(5) Halilovic, Sefer: «The Cunning Strategy» (Lukava strategija), Sarajevo 1997, pp. 130-132.

Srebrenica – the Memoirs of a Portuguese General I

General Carlos Martins Branco is one of the most fascinating (and until quite recently also inaccessible) actors in the Srebrenica controversy. From his Zagreb vantage point as deputy head of the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) between 1994 and 1996, during the latter phase of the 1990s Yugoslav conflict as it unfolded in Croatia and Bosnian and Herzegovina, this Portuguese officer had privileged access to significant information. Confidential reports about the goings on in the field were crossing his desk. With first-hand information and further enlightened by discrete conversations with colleagues from various intelligence structures, Martins Branco was positioned ideally to learn facts which many officials would have preferred to cover up, and the media frequently ignored.
With a typically Latin emotional flair, refusing to remain silent as the «Srebrenica genocide narrative» was taking shape in the second half of the 1990s, Martins Branco published in 1998 an article provocatively entitled «Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eyewitness Account of a Former UN Military Observer in Bosnia» In that early plunge into the toxic Srebrenica debate, Martins Branco ventured a number of critical questions concerning the notorious events in July 1995:
«One may agree or disagree with my political analysis, but one really ought to read the account of how Srebrenica fell, who are the victims whose bodies have been found so far, and why the author believes that the Serbs wanted to conquer Srebrenica and make the Bosnian Muslims flee, rather than having any intentions of butchering them. The comparison Srebrenica vs. Krajina, as well as the related media reaction by the ‘free press’ in the West, is also rather instructive».
Shortly after that expression of skepticism about the nature of the disputed events in Srebrenica, Martins Branco practically disappeared from view. Not physically, of course. He spent several years in Florence teaching at the European University Institute and preparing his doctoral dissertation. After that, in 2007 and 2008 he was attached by his government to NATO forces in Afghanistan in the capacity of media spokesperson for the Commander. From 2008 until recently, when he retired, General Martins Branco served as deputy director of the National Defense Institute of the Portuguese armed forces.
This impressive background, to which we may add the duty of head of the Intelligence Affairs Section of EUROFOR for Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo from 1996 to 1999, bespeaks an elite and highly trained staff officer, with first-class intelligence capabilities and powers of observation.
Intrigued by Martins Branco’s out-of-the-box analysis of Srebrenica events, shortly after the founding of our NGO «Srebrenica Historical Project» we attempted to establish communication with him to see if he would share with us some of his exceptional information and insights. Our efforts were fruitless and correspondence with the general over the years came down mostly to an exchange of non-committal courtesies. Defense teams at the ICTY in the Hague, which endeavored to obtain him as a witness on their clients’ behalf, had no better luck. However, not very long ago General Martins Branco wrote to us seeking answers to some questions concerning Srebrenica. He mentioned that in November 2016 his memoirs were published in Portugal. That volume, which he kindly made available to us, encompassed the period of his service in the Balkans. It was entitled «A Guerra nos Balcãs, jihadismo, geopolítica e desinformação» [War in the Balkans, Jihadism, Geopolitics, and Disinformation], published by Edições Colibri in Lisbon.
As already seen numerous times with high-level officials, in this case as well open expression of intimate views and public disclosure of facts regarded of a delicate nature had to wait for retirement. In General Martins  Branco’s case, the wait was worthwhile. These fascinating recollections from the Balkan war theater consist of the insights of a Portuguese officer attached to UN forces into such episodes as the merciless expulsion, accompanied by mass killing, of the Serbian population of Krajina by Croatian forces. These outrages were orchestrated with the discrete backing of the NATO alliance, for which the author indirectly happened to be working at the time. Events surrounding Srebrenica in July 0f 1995 encompass another portion of his recollections. For the moment, we will focus on the latter and Martins Branco’s perception of the background and impact of the Srebrenica situation.
Already in his introduction to the chapters of his memoirs that deal with Srebrenica, Martins Branco questions the coherence of the prevalent view that it constituted genocide:
«General Ratko Mladic had made it known that he was leaving open a corridor for withdrawal toward Tuzla. With Mladic’s approval, about 6.000 persons took advantage of that opportunity. In a report by the Dutch Foreign Ministry it is noted that, according to UN sources, by August 4 a total of 35.632 displaced persons had made it to Tuzla, of whom between 800 and 1.000 were members of Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces. Out of that total, 17.500 had been evacuated by bus». (Page 195)
The Portuguese general then continues:
«Srebrenica was portrayed – and continues to be – as a premeditated massacre of innocent Muslim civilians. As a genocide! But was it really so? A more careful and informed assessment of those events leads me to doubt it». (Page 196)
Martins Branco goes on to raise some pointed questions, and he does so purely in the capacity of a professional soldier:
«There are various estimates of the relative strength of forces involved in the Srebrenica battle. On the Serbian side, at most 3.000 fighters could have taken part. The number of armored vehicles is more difficult to determine, as stated at the beginning of this chapter. According to field reports, however, not more than six such vehicles were in motion at any given time. Though we lack reliable information about troop strength on the Muslim side, it is entirely probable that they numbered a minimum of 4.000 armed men, counting together Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina soldiers and members of the paramilitaries. According to some sources, they numbered up to 6.000. But for the purposes of this analysis, we will consider the 4.000 figure as credible». (Page 196)
The general then goes on:
«The topographical features of the terrain around Srebrenica, and Eastern Bosnia as a whole, are extremely rugged and hilly.  Crags, thickly forested areas, and deep ravines impede the movement of military vehicles while facilitating infantry operations. In relation to ground features, which beyond any doubt favor defenders, the numerical relationship of forces on the opposing sides suggests that Bosnian army troops had at their disposal more than sufficient manpower to put up a defense. They, however, failed to do that. Taking into account the numerical ratio of attackers to defenders, as we were taught at the military academy, for the attack to have any chance of success the number of attackers would have to exceed that of the defenders by a factor of at least three. In the case at hand, that ratio was more than advantageous to the defenders (4.000 defenders versus 3.000 attackers). In addition, the defenders had the additional benefit of knowing the landscape». (Page 196)
Martins Branco than asks one of the key Srebrenica questions:
«Given that military advantage favored the defense, why did the Bosnian army fail to put up any resistance to Serbian forces? Why did the command of the 28th Division of the Bosnian army – acting apparently contrary to its interest – fail to establish a defense line, as at other times it knew well how to do, as for instance during the April 1993 crisis? Why did Muslim forces in the enclave fail to act to regain control over their heavy weapons, which had been deposited in a local warehouse under UN’s lock and key? Was it no more than an oversight?» (Page 197)
As a supplement to these well-formulated questions, we may note that already on July 6, as the Serbian attack was commencing, the Dutch battalion command in Srebrenica let it be known to the 28th Division that it was free to retrieve its warehoused heavy armaments, if it so wished. That fact was revealed in the Dutch battalion «Debriefing», which came out in October of 1995. However, Muslim forces in Srebrenica inexplicably ignored this invitation, thus reinforcing the impression that – for political or other reasons – they lacked the purpose of militarily resisting the Serbian attack.
Which leads the author to the following reflections:
«Twenty years later, we still lack satisfactory answers to questions that seem crucial, assuming that we are seeking to find out what exactly happened. The passivity and absence of a military reaction on the part of Muslim forces in the enclave is in stark contrast to their offensive behavior during the preceding two years, which was manifested in the form of systematic slaughter of Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding Srebrenica». (Page 197)
The author then discloses an intriguing detail that was previously unknown even to this reviewer:
«Ramiz Becirevic [in command of the 28th Division in Naser Oric’s absence] initially issued an order for the heavy weapons to be collected. However, he cancelled it shortly thereafter, explaining that he had received a countermanding order. Who was the source of that order, and for what reason was it given? For the record, let it be noted that in the morning of July 6, as the Serbian attack was starting, acting on his own responsibility, the Dutchbat commander informed the leadership of the Bosnian army that the Serbs had ‘trespassed’ the enclave’s boundaries and that the UN would not be object should they come to retrieve their heavy weaponry that had been deposited in a local warehouse». (Page 197)
 Pressing further his point about the enigmatic dissipation within the Srebrenica enclave of the will to resist, Martins Branco points out that Naser Oric, «the charismaticleader who very likely would have acted differently», was withdrawn from the enclave in April of 1995, never to return. He therefore goes on to ask some common sense questions:
«Was [Oric’s] return prevented by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, of which 28th Division was part? What could have been the reasons for that? We still lack convincing answers to these questions». (Page 198)
«On the other hand», the Portuguese author continues with his detailed analysis of the suspicious train of events, «officials of the local SDA, the Party of Democratic Action that was in charge in Sarajevo, not only refused, citing strange reasons, to assist UN forces in evacuating Srebrenica, which is to say their own population and refugees from the surrounding villages who had taken shelter in the town, but they went even further by preventing them from fleeing in the direction of Potocari. Instead, they submitted to the commander of B Company [of the Dutchbat] a long list of demands, the fullment of which was insisted upon as the condition for their cooperation. The nature of these demands suggested the existence of a carefully elaborated advance plan which, however, did not mesh with the conditions that actually prevailed on the ground at that particular moment. At that point, there were only two issues which were of significance to the municipal president: one, the demand to the Military Observers on July 10 to disseminate to the outside world a report alleging the use of chemical weapons by Serbian forces, although that was not true; secondly, to publicly accuse the international media of spreading misinformation that Muslim forces were offering armed resistance, with an additional demand to the UN to also issue an official denial to that effect. According to him, Bosnian soldiers neither used heavy weapons, nor were they prepared to ever do so. At the same time, he complained about the lack of foodstuffs and the dismal humanitarian situation. The outline of an official narrative was becoming perceptible and it consisted of two messages: the absence of any military resistance and lack of food». (Page 198)
To put it in plain English, this elite NATO officer with excellent powers of observation and acumen for critical analysis «smelled a rat,» and he did so right from the beginning of the game. He does not say it outright in his memoirs, but it is strongly suggested that these doubts about the authenticity of the official Srebrenica narrative were proliferating in his mind in real time, as field reports accumulated on his desk in Zagreb.
Martins Branco then pops the logical question or, rather, he points his finger at one of the key incoherencies of the official account of Srebrenica events:
«A question mark could also be put over the complete absence of a military response of any kind by the Second Corps of the Bosnian army, whose zone of responsibility encompassed northeastern Bosnia, including Tuzla (where its headquarters was located), as well as Doboj, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, Zepa, and Zvornik. Bosnian army intelligence agencies, whose ear was constantly fixed on Serbian signal communications, were perfectly aware of the impending offensive operation. In spite of not at all being in the dark concerning the Serbs’ intention to attack, the Second Corps of the Bosnian army did not make the slightest move to weaken the Serbs’ pressure upon the enclave. It was a known fact that the Drina Corps, the Serbian army unit in whose zone of responsibility Srebrenica was located, was exhausted and that the attack on Srebrenica was made feasible only by scraping together forces withdrawn from other segments of the front, which naturally left in its wake many vulnerable points. Why didn’t the Second Corps undertake an attack along the entire front line with the Drina Corps, not merely in order to relieve the pressure on Srebrenica but also to exploit the Serbian forces’ temporary vulnerabilities in order to seize territory in areas that were left unprotected? Following the passage of twenty years, we still do not have the answer to this more than coherent and reasonable question». (Pages 198-199)
These are just some of the more important reasons leading a professional soldier to be skeptical of the general framework of the accepted Srebrenica narrative. As we will see in the next installment of this review, his more detailed analysis raises even more troubling questions.

Soros’ Ideology Exposed: A Post-Modern, Post-Family, Post-Border New World Order

darth20soros

© AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta
POLITICS
20:40 20.02.2017(updated 02:14 21.02.2017) Get short URL5976591074
“Over 16,000 people have signed a petition asking President Trump to deprive George Soros of citizenship and expel him from the US. Igor Pshenichnikov, an advisor to the director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, an influential Moscow-based think tank, explains what’s at stake in the ideological and metaphysical battle shaping up.

Thousands have signed a petition at verified petition site Change.org asking Donald Trump to ban the US-Hungarian billionaire and his Open Society Foundations from operating on US territory, accusing him, his family, and his businesses of working to manipulate US politicians and spread post-modern, anti-conservative values in the country and throughout the world.

“We ask for a warrant to be issued for [Soros’s] willful actions to destabilize and bankrupt our economy by pushing his anti-America open borders globalist New World Order society agenda with the intent of destroying our country,” the petition, authored by Ohio-based activist and songwriter Vanessa Feltner, reads.

Georges Soros, Chairman of Soros Fund Management, speaks during the session ‘Recharging Europe’ in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos January 23, 2015. File photo.

1379418476-soros
Time to ‘Drain the Swamp’: Will Soros Find Himself Behind Bars?
The billionaire, according to the petition, is trying to destroy the US by “buying our governments, manipulating our currency, buying politicians and negatively buying influence over our Western values.” Listing the issues of particular concern to conservatives, the petition protests that “Soros has provided funding for abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration and other radical experiments in social engineering.”
“We want America to remain sovereign, a Republic nation,” the petition stresses. “We want to remain a Christian nation. This man and his son will continue to attempt to destroy our Western values and we agree he must be removed or arrested immediately to guard the safety of our values and our country.”

Taking a look at what is known about Soros’ global efforts, and offering a distinctly Russian perspective on the billionaire’s initiatives, RIA Novosti contributor and Russian Institute for Strategic Studies expert Igor Pshenichnikov pointed out that virtually everything laid out in the Change.org petition applies not only to the United States, but far beyond its borders as well.

Business magnate George Soros arrives to speak at the Open Russia Club in London, Britain June 20, 2016.
“Soros,” the analyst recalled, first “outlined his view of the world in his book ‘The Age of Fallibility’. His main aim is to create a world without borders, where everyone is equal and free, where the interests of all minorities, especially sexual ones, are not only secured through legislation, but prevail over the interests of the majority.”

The billionaire, Pshenichnikov added, is the proponent of a gender ideology “borne in the depths of the feminist movement, and which today has become a socio-political foundation of Western society. This ideology implies ‘freedom from gender identity’: however one imagines him or herself in the gender sense is how they should present themselves to the world. In the West today, this is de facto the ‘dominant religion’, and Soros is a fanatical follower of this religion.”

Last year, hacktivist-run website DC Leaks published dozens of secret documents related to Open Society Foundations operations, demonstrating, among other things, how Soros’ fingerprints were all over efforts to affect Western societies in ways disturbing to conservatives and others opposed to a post-family world. This, Pshenichnikov noted, includes the depatholization of sexual and gender identities, along with strategies to decriminalize prostitution and legally recognize transsexualism as a psychiatric norm.
“Soros has also actively intervened in the work of the World Health Organization,” the journalist noted, “and has tried to change existing international classifications of sexual disorders so that the postulates of ‘gender ideology’ could be scientifically justified.” The strategies include support for advocacy groups working to change the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases to remove transsexualism as a psychiatric diagnosis.

The WHO’s European bureau, where Soros’ supported ‘advocacy groups’ are also in place, have also been highly active in supporting the billionaire’s agenda, specifically with the ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe’.

General view of the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, February 1, 2016
This document, Pshenichnikov noted, includes instructions “on how European children are to be reformatted from a young age, their traditional innate matrix destroyed. Here’s just one excerpt from these standards: ‘Sex education is firmly based on gender equality, self-determination [of sexual identity] and the acceptance of diversity.'”

Boomerang Effect: US’s Color Revolution Formula Comes Home to Roost
Furthermore, the commentator added, DC Leaks has confirmed in its 2016-2019 strategy for ‘women’s rights’ an aggressive campaign to promote abortion, aiming not only to remove anti-abortion restrictions, but to stimulate their growth in countries where restrictions do not exist. “The implementation of this strategy involves a national representative presence by Amnesty International, various associations and family planning centers, and organizations defending women’s right to abortion. In the first stage, Soros’ plan calls for an attack against Catholic countries, especially Ireland and Poland, which have strong anti-abortion legislation in place.”
Billions for Regime Change Worldwide

The financing of NGOs meant to destabilize countries which don’t meet Soros’ value system is no secret to anyone, Pshenichnikov noted. “On its own website, Soros’ fund does not hide that it has spent $1.6 billion on the goal of ‘democratic development’ in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union over the past 33 years.”

“Furthermore, $2.9 billion has been spent on ‘human rights’, including ‘often marginalized groups such as drug users, sex workers, and LGBTQ communities.'” $2.1 billion more has been spent on ‘education projects’ from pre-K to higher education, including the aforementioned sex education projects.

In 2017, Soros’ fund plans to spend a total $940.7 million dollars, “from which initiatives in the US will get $98.7 million, those in Europe $65 million, and those in Eurasia (meaning Russia) $42.8 million.”

Three years ago, Pshenichnikov wrote, Soros’ tens of millions of dollars’ worth of investment into ‘pro-democracy’ NGOs in Ukraine paid off, and the country was subjected to the unrest leading up to the Euromaidan coup d’état, a cataclysm from which the country continues to reel from today. Other Eastern European countries, from Bulgaria to Hungary, have also been affected.

Nationally oriented leaders in Eastern Europe have made clear where they stand on Soros and his foundations. Last year, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had the following to say of the billionaire’s activities: “There are some who envisage a world without borders: this is exactly the concept which George Soros and his civil society organizations seek to popularize. This notion is at best well-intentioned and naïve, and at worst is based on a calculated assessment of processes leading to the end of traditional civilizations, ways of life, cultures and nations.”

Now, Pshenichnikov noted, following Trump’s election, mass demonstrations of the kind long seen in developing countries around the world have begun popping up in the US as well, including via Pussyhat Project, which US alternative media have warned sounds quite similar to Soros-linked projects, complete with its own color and brand identity.

Ultimately, the journalist stressed that as far as the US is concerned, Trump is now the main figure “expressing the will of traditional America. For this reason, he appears to be the main headache for Soros.” Who will emerge victorious in the ideological, political and metaphysical battle between conservative nationalism and liberal globalism? Only time will tell”.

Apocalipse: RTP ou Apocalipse Estaline – António Santos

commie2

odiario.org

Recentemente, explodiu nas televisões americanas um novo tipo de «documentário» a que chamam docufiction. Ficção apresentada como se abordasse uma realidade factual. É o caso da série da RTP dedicada a Stáline. Uma fraude documental com um objectivo ideológico preciso, no ano em que se celebra o centenário da Revolução de Outubro. A RTP, paga por todos nós, dá tempo de antena a propaganda que os nazis não desdenhariam.

Acabo de assistir a «O Demónio», o primeiro episódio da mini-série «Apocalipse: Estaline». Durante uma hora, Isabelle Clarke dedica o seu «documentário» a convencer-nos de que Estaline foi o que o título diz: um demónio. Veja-se: «Lénine e um punhado de homens lançaram a Rússia no caos. (…) Como os cavaleiros do Apocalipse, os bolcheviques semeiam morte e destruição para se manterem no poder. Continuarão durante 20 anos, até os alemães chegarem às portas de Moscovo». Estaline surge como um «louco», «sexualmente insaciável» e com uma «mentalidade próxima dos tiranos do Médio Oriente» [sic] que só Hitler pode parar. Num frenesim anacrónico, o espectador é levado de «facto» em «facto» sem direito a perguntas nem a explicações. Para trás e para a frente, dos anos quarenta para o final do século XIX, de 10 milhões de mortos na guerra civil russa para 5 milhões de mortos no «holodomor: a fome organizada por Estaline», o puzzle está feito para ser impossível de montar. Ao narrador basta descrever o que, a julgar pelas imagens de arquivo, é aparentemente indesmentível: «os camponeses ucranianos, vítimas das fomes estalinistas abençoam os invasores alemães. Mais tarde serão enforcados pelos estalinistas. A conjugação das imagens de arquivo colorizadas é tão brutal e convincente que somos tentados a concordar com as palavras do narrador: «Estaline declarou guerra ao seu próprio povo». São os «factos alternativos» de Trump aplicados à História.

Só há dois problemas. Primeiro: Isabelle Clarke, a autora, admite que «Apocalipse: Estaline» não é História nem tem pretensões de querer sê-lo. Vou repetir, a autora admite que aquilo que fez não tem nada a ver com História. Podia terminar aqui. Mas, em segundo lugar, será que a RTP, canal público pago por todos nós para cumprir a missão de educar e informar, sabia que estava a comprar ficção em vez de História?

Claramente a História, enquanto ciência social, passe a inelutável normatividade a que estamos presos, é incompatível com a calúnia e a propaganda ou, numa palavra, a demonização. «Apocalipse: Estaline – O Demónio» não disfarça a demonização, disfarça a ficção.

Então, o que é «Apocalipse, Estaline»? Recentemente, explodiu nas televisões americanas um novo tipo de «documentário» a que chamam docufiction. Exemplos recentes são «Sereias: o cadáver encontrado» ou «Megalodon, o tubarão monstro vive». Em ambos, o documentário da Discovery Channel dá a palavra a cientistas, investigadores, professores e biólogos que explicam a descoberta científica de sereias, no primeiro caso e de um tubarão jurássico, no segundo. Durante uma hora, o espectador assiste a filmagens convincentes dos míticos criptídos e ouve especialistas, identificados como tal, debater as possíveis explicações para as descobertas serôdias. No final, em letra de efeitos secundários de bula de medicamento, admite-se, para quem ainda estiver a ver, que era tudo a fingir: os especialistas eram actores, as imagens eram fabricadas. «Apocalipse, Estaline» faz algo parecido: no final ficamos a saber a que «historiadores» foi beber inspiração: a romancista Svetlana Alexievitch, uma versão actualizada de Alexander Soljenitsyne; Robert Service, o mais proselitista e criticado dos historiadores-pop contemporâneos ou Pierre Rigoulot, um ex-trotskista transformado em neocon apoiante de Bush e fã confesso da guerra do Iraque. Trata-se contudo de menções honrosas e agradecimentos. Mas de onde vêm as citações? Onde foi buscar os números? Quais são as fontes? Raquel Varela coraria de vergonha alheia.

Não se trata de admirar ou condenar Estaline, trata-se de não sermos tomados por parvos. «Apocalipse: Estaline» não é ficção nem História: é uma falsificação estupidificante e tóxica para o público. Como os novos «documentários» sobre sereias e tubarões jurássicos, que confundem ciência com ficção, a RTP acabou de confundir História com propaganda nazi.

Este texto encontra-se em:

http://manifesto74.blogspot.pt/2017/01/apocalipse-rtp.html#more

Convido-os a comparar este documentário com estudos sérios como, por exemplo, de Dominico Losurdo, Estaline Uma Lenda Negra ou de Jean Elenstein, História da União Soviética.