Martin Zeis, 02.03.2016
John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and founder of the Rutherford Institute * presents an alternative view on the mainstream-overheated US presidential election campaign and points out basic-FACTS of realities in “God’s own Country”.
By ORIENTAL REVIEW
The hard-hitting documentary by Paul Moreira “Ukraine, les masques de la révolution” [Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution], released on Monday night by Canal+, created a turmoil both in Ukraine and France well before the premiere. On Sunday the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry reported in Facebook that their Ambassador in France had sent an outraged letter to Canal+ where he condemned the documentary as a “a pamphlet at the height of the worst disinformation traditions” “using primitive methods of journalistic manipulation, including the handling of comments of respondents, distorted in translation and facts and purely fabricated images“. The same day Le Monde doubled the pressure on Canal+. Paul Moreira has calmly and respectfully responded to his critics by a detailed post translated into English here. To the credit of Canal Plus’ management, the documentary was screened in time: (…)
Preface / m.z.: Following Escobar-article may be read related to Paul Craig Roberts’ Adress to the Conference on the European/Russian Crisis (Delphi, Greece, June 20-21, 2015):
„ … Chosen by History as the exceptional and indispensable country, Washington claims the right and the responsibility to impose its hegemony on the world. Neoconservatives regard their agenda to be too important to be constrained by domestic and international law or by the interests of other countries. Indeed, as the Unipower, Washington is required by the neoconservative doctrine to prevent the rise of other countries that could constrain American power.
Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative, penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine shortly after the Soviet collapse. This doctrine is the basis of US foreign and military policy.
The doctrine states:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
Notice that Washington’s “first objective” is not peace, not prosperity, not human rights, not democracy, not justice. Washington’s “first objective” is world hegemony. Only the very confident so blatantly reveal their agenda.
As a former member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger, I can explain what Wolfowitz’s words mean. The “threat posed formerly by the Soviet Union” was the ability of the Soviet Union to block unilateral US action in some parts of the world. The Soviet Union was a constraint on US unilateral action, not everywhere but in some places. Any constraint on Washington is regarded as a threat. …“
zerohedge, June 25, 2015 — www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-25/pentagon-goes-nuclear-russia
The Pentagon Goes Nuclear On Russia
By Pepe ESCOBAR
RT question more, 23.06.2015
We all remember how, in early June, President Putin announced that Russia would deploy more than 40 new ICBMs “able to overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defense systems.”
Oh dear; the Pentagon and their European minions have been freaking out on overdrive ever since.
First was NATO Secretary-General, Norwegian figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, who condemned it as “nuclear saber rattling.”
Then there’s Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, the head of US Global Air Strike Command – as in the man responsible for US ICBMs and nuclear bombers – at a recent briefing in London; “[They’ve] annexed a country, changing international borders, raising rhetoric unlike we’ve heard since the cold war times…”
That set up the stage for the required Nazi parallel; “Some of the actions by Russia recently we haven’t seen since the 1930s, when whole countries were annexed and borders were changed by decree.”
At His Masters Voice’s command, the EU duly extended economic sanctions against Russia.And right on cue, Pentagon supremo Ashton Carter, out of Berlin, declared that NATO must stand up against – what else – “Russian aggression” and “their attempts to re-establish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.”
Bets are off on what this huffin’ and puffin’ is all about. It could be about Russia daring to build a whole country close to so many NATO bases. It could be about a bunch of nutters itching to start a war on European soil to ultimately “liberate” all that precious oil, gas and minerals from Russia and the Central Asian “stans”.
Unfortunately, the whole thing is deadly serious. (…)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/multi-polar-world-order-the-east-must-provide-an-alternative-to-not-replace-western-hegemony/5455749 Multi-Polar World Order: The East Must Provide An Alternative to, Not Replace Western Hegemony
By Ulson Gunnar
Global Research, June 15, 2015
Recent news has shown China quickly gaining ground against a West which has for centuries maintained hegemony over Asia Pacific. Beyond Asia, China has been steadily expanding its influence throughout Africa and the Middle East. Together with Russia, Iran and other nations of the “East,” they are constructing what is commonly referred to as a “multi-polar” world order.
This multi-polar world order stands in contrast to the unipolar order the West has sought to impose for decades after the end of the World Wars and is a continuation of Western imperialism carried out by the British and other European empires during the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
But is what the East doing truly building an alternative to the West’s brand of hegemonic imperialism? Or is it simply more of the same under a different label? More over, is the West’s behavior coaxing other nations to unify under a singular, consolidated banner, only to be rolled under the West’s vision of an international order ruled from Washington, Wall Street, London and Brussels?
These are questions that must be asked and explored particularly by the people who gravitate toward the East the most. They understand the threat of Western hegemony and the very real damage it has and still is inflicting upon humanity. From the devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan, to the wars raging in Yemen, Syria and Libya, Western designs have taken unstable tinderboxes around the globe and turned them into raging infernos.
Naturally, people look for a force to counter such inhumane violence, bloodshed and shameless exploitation and manipulation. They see that counter in Russia, China and those in their spheres of influence. And while in the past these nations have indeed served as counterweights to the forces of fascism or imperialism, one must always be careful not to simply back one hegemon over another.
For Moscow, Beijing and across the other BRICS nations, they must understand that the support and success they enjoy is specifically because they offer what many believe is an alternative to, not a replacement for Western hegemony. The world sees BRICS as a viable alternative specifically because they are not setting up military bases in foreign lands, intervening militarily thousands of miles from their borders and working with nations instead of coercing them. As soon as they cease to uphold these principles, they will cease to serve as a relevant alternative to the West.
China in particular has been long criticized by the West for doing business with any nation regardless of their so-called human rights record. The West however, makes these criticisms because it disrupts their ability to exploit human rights as a pretense to meddle diplomatically, militarily and economically in any targeted country. Meanwhile, the West gladly has conducted long-term business with the most egregious human rights offenders on Earth, the Saudi regime chief among them. (…)
Von: Martin Zeis <martin.zeis>
Datum: Dienstag, 6. Mai 2014 10:43
An: “Global Change engl. Liste” <gc-special-engl%Martin.zeis>
Betreff: WHITE BOOK ON VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN UKRAINE; Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Russian Federation; April 2014
On May 05, 2014 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has released a
„White Book on violations of human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine –
November 2013 – March 2014“:
ON VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN UKRAINE
(NOVEMBER 2013 — MARCH 2014)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Russian Federation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Violations of the right to life, violations
of public order and safety, the use of torture,
inhuman treatment and committed iniquity ………………………………7
Interference in the internal affairs
of a sovereign state …………………………………………………………….29
Weapons, equipment, and tactics
of the Euromaidan participants. Evidence
of deliberately committed violence and provocations
by the so-called “Peaceful demonstrators” ……………………………35
Violations of the right for freedom of thought and belief,
including political beliefs, and violations of the right
to express them. Restrictions on freedom of the media
and intimidation of dissidents. Censorship ……………………………..41
Discrimination along ethnic and linguistic lines,
xenophobia and racial extremism.
Incitement of racial hatred ……………………………………………………51
Religious intolerance, including threats
to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
of the Moscow Patriarchate ………………………………………………….59
Full text availabe at:
by Oriental Review
May 05, 2014 (1)
„… The report contains a chronological record of the HR violations in Ukraine based on monitoring of Ukrainian, Russian and some Western media, statements and announcements made by the leaders of the “new government” of Ukraine and their supporters, numerous eyewitness accounts, including those posted on the Internet, as well as records based on observations and interviews with people on the scene, and those collected by non-governmental organization The Foundation for Researching Problems in Democracy, and the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights. It is supported by extensive photo and documentary footage.
The facts exposed in the book clearly demonstrate that under the influence of extremists from ultranationalistic and neo-Nazi forces, and with the active support of the USA and the European Union and its members, the protests in Ukraine which bore an initially peaceful character rapidly escalated into a coercive rebellion and, in the end, the forceful seizure of power and an unconstitutional coup d’état.
These dramatic events were accompanied by widespread and gross violations of human rights and freedoms on the part of the self-proclaimed government and its supporters. As a result, manifestations of extremist, ultranationalist, and neo-Nazi sentiments, religious intolerance, xenophobia, blatant blackmail, threats, pressure placed by the Maidan leaders on their opponents, purges and arrests amongst them, repression, physical violence, and sometimes plain criminal lawlessness have become commonplace in today’s Ukraine.
In all of Ukraine’s regions, but especially in the southeastern part of the country, Ukrainian radical nationalists, instructed by the de facto authorities in Kiev and their external patrons, are ramping up the pressure on Russian-speaking citizens who do not want to lose the centuries-old ties that bind them to Russia and Russian culture.
The reporting covers the period since November 2013 till the end of March 2014. The situation even worsened later on and culminated in the horrific massacre committed by the Ukrainian ultras in Odessa on May 2, 2014 leaving 46 dead (officially) and hundreds of wounded.“ URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKpJ1-ECpPg
„ORIENTAL REVIEW calls all concerned citizens of the world to deliver this report to your national authorities and distribute it widely among relevant institutions and parties. Together we can stop the madness of war and ethnic terrorism in Ukraine!“