Guido Preparata's website

[R.K. Locke]

Coincidentally, James Corbett has just had Perloff on his podcast:

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-9...medium=web


He sings the praises of Perloff's research vis-a-vis his 1988 book on the CFR, Shadows of Power.

[Danny Jarman]

'Find a reason to go to war with Germany': Shocking letter documents how King George V urged his foreign secretary to justify conflict two days before outbreak of First World War

• A letter documents a meeting between King George V and Edward Grey
  
  
• The King urged his foreign secretary to find a reason for war with Germany
  
  
• King George V, revealed what had taken place to Sir Cecil Graves in 1933
  
• Sir Edward's great-great-nephew Adrian Graves uncovered the information
  

A secret letter which documents a private meeting between King George V urging his Foreign Secretary Edward Grey to go to war with Germany two days before the outbreak of the First World War has been unearthed.

The incredible note, sent during one of the most difficult times in British history has been made public for the first time, by Adrian Graves, Sir Edward's great-great-nephew and grandson of Sir Cecil Graves.

King George V, who had stayed away from making public declarations about Europe as his hands were tied as a constitutional monarch, said it was absolutely essential' Britain go to war in order to prevent Germany from achieving complete domination of this country'.

However when his Foreign Secretary Sir Edward said that the cabinet hadn't found a justifiable reason to enter the conflict, the King replied: You have got to find a reason, Grey.'

Adrian Graves inherited Sir Cecil's papers which he kept in their original Asprey case next to his fishing tackle but had never looked at them.

He told The Telegraph: My grandfather was involved in the First World War he was one of the first to be captured, at the Battle of Mons, and later awarded the Military Cross. The case contained some of his records and papers relating to the war and his captivity.

I decided to look through through them as the centenary of August 4 was coming up, and I came across an envelope. Written on the front were the words, Interview with King'. I had never known it was there,'

But they held a treasure-trove of information.

In a letter written by Sir Cecil, Sir Edward's nephew, he details a meeting that took place between him and the King, who summoned him to Buckingham Palace a month after his uncle's death in 1933.

The letter told how King George V offered his condolences then recalled the events of 1914 to Sir Cecil.

Sir Cecil wrote: 'He told me of the interview he had with Uncle Edward two days before the outbreak of war. It lasted for one and a half hours.

He told me that Uncle Edward had said that he could not possibly see what justifiable reason we could find for going to war.

HM said in reply, You have got to find a reason, Grey.'

The incredible meeting between the King and his Foreign Secretary is not recorded in any history book.

But it shows the importance placed on defeating Germany's plans.

Sir Cecil also revealed that a private letter from Raymond Poincaré, the French President, encouraging Britain to go to war and a telegram from King Albert about Belgium was also sent from the King to Sir Edward.

On August 3, Sir Edward gave a speech to Parliament over Europe's instability.

He returned to his room in the Foreign Office and made the now famous remark as he watched the lamps being lit outside: 'The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.'

By August 4th, Britain was at war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...d-War.html

::face.palm::::face.palm::::face.palm::::face.palm::

[Paul Rigby]

Does anyone find the claim that Alan Dulles wanted to destroy the British Empire credible?

It is completely credible. The War and Peace Studies Group of the Council on Foreign Relations made the dismantling of the British Empire a key aim. One reason, I suppose why this study is still not available for public scrutiny. This study ran from 1939-45 and Dulles "led" the Armaments Group.

Shoup & MInter's Imperial Brain Trust - The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy is the key available book here, for it shows, in brief, what the War & Peace Studies Group ambitions were. The British Empire had to be dismantled in order for the new American Empire to arise.

Historically, it had been the ambition of the Rhodes-Milner Kintergarden to extend and develop the British Empire to become the global dominating force. But Rhodes eventually understood that this was not possible without the USA - and they wouldn't play that game. Instead they wanted to be the governing empire themselves. Rhodes ultimately decided that Great Britain would throw it's lot in with the USA and proceed with the original plan with Britain becoming the junior partner.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the CFR was the sister organization of Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs), itself a creation of the Rhodes "Group". The RIIA was founded in 1919 during the Paris peace conference where, co-incidentally, the Dulles brothers were both present and plied their trade.

In short, this is the New World Order.

PS, I have linked a brief synopsis of the RIIA/CFR nexus above (Chatham House) by the CorbetT Report, which is worth reading.

Independent Labour Party 1921
I.L.P. Pamphlets. New Series. No. 44.

Oil and Finance: In Turkey, Persia and Mesopotamia.

By George Horwill, B.Sc. (Econ.)
THE INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY,
8/9, Johnson's Court, Fleet St., London, E.C.4.
1921.

Great Britain is the mandatory power in Mesopotamia. In a high moral tone she has informed the United States that she does not seek to exploit the petroleum resources of the country for herself, that no private interests are involved, that the resources of Mesopotamia will be secured for the Arab State. The mandate also states that there shall be no advantage given to her own nationals in matters of "taxation, commerce, navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, etc." This is nonsense. Mandate is indeed merely a respectable name for annexation. As the United States has already pointed out to Great Britain, discrimination in favour of her own nationals has already taken place. The San Remo petroleum agreement provides that any private petroleum company operating in Mesopotamia shall be under permanent British control. The British and French have an agreement whereby Great Britain shall, have 75 per cent. and France 25 per cent. of the oil of Mosul: the 1916 secret agreements are only altered, not lapsed.

The fact is that the American and British financiers are quarrelling exactly as the British and Germans began to quarrel 15 years ago. The American oil interests are organised in the Standard Oil Co.; the British have allied themselves to the Shell Combine. The United States secured railway, concessions in Turkey, and the Standard Oil Co. wants to use them to have a finger in the Mosul oilfields, The British interests are determined to keep them out. At a dinner given in April, 1920, at which all the oil interests of Britain were represented, Sir C. Greenaway referred in particular to their friends in the Royal Dutch and Shell Co., Sir Marcus Samuel and Mr. Deterling. A study of the Shell Combine shows that British interests are now included, that it is supreme in the Middle East; and the concessions granted to the Turkish Petroleum Co., together with the complaints of the oil interests of our dependence on American controlled oil (70 per cent. of our total supplies in pre war days), indicate that the conflict is now in progress.

http://www.marxists.org/history/england/...inance.htm

[R.K. Locke]

Coincidentally, James Corbett has just had Perloff on his podcast:

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-9...medium=web


He sings the praises of Perloff's research vis-a-vis his 1988 book on the CFR, Shadows of Power.

Perloff was on The Corbett Report again:


http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-9...y-warrior/

[Paul Rigby]

The same crew fingered by Preparata reappear in a book examining the origins of the second world war's precursor. We now have the beginnings of an accurate account of the first half of the 20th century, and the contrived catastrophes which drowned it in blood:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-S...1780576307

Splendidly-researched account of the origins of the First World War. 7 Aug 2013
Customer review by William Podmore

Gerry Docherty, a former head teacher, and Jim Macgregor, a former doctor, have written a most remarkable book about the true origins of the First World War. They write, "What this book sets out to prove is that unscrupulous men, whose roots and origins were in Britain, sought a war to crush Germany and orchestrated events in order to bring this about."

They note, "A secret society of rich and powerful men was established in London in 1891 with the long-term aim of taking control of the entire world." This was the real ruling class, led by Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of Cape Colony, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, the world's richest man, Lord Esher, advisor to the monarchy, Alfred Milner, later high commissioner in South Africa, and William Stead, the top journalist of the day. Prime Ministers Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury, and Balfour, Grey and Asquith, the elected cover, carried out the demands of this tiny minority.

Milner, using Jan Smuts, instigated the Boer War. Milner wrote, "I precipitated the crisis ... and ... have been largely instrumental in bringing about a big war." 102,000 people were killed.

Britain's 1904 entente with France gave Morocco to France, and drew France into an alliance pointed against Germany. Britain's 1907 Convention with Russia secretly offered Russia control of the Black Sea Straits, and also drew Russia into the alliance against Germany.

The British government backed King Leopold of Belgium's annexation of the Congo. In return, Belgium agreed to secret military cooperation with Britain and France. From 1905 onwards, these three states jointly planned war against Germany.

As the authors state, "Belgium's behaviour violated the duties of a neutral state ... Professor Albert Geouffre de Lapradelle, the renowned French specialist on international law, explained: `The perpetually neutral state renounces the right to make war, and, in consequence, the right to contract alliances, even purely defensive ones, because they would drag it into a war ...'" So Belgium was not neutral. As Albert J. Nock wrote, "Belgium ... was one of four solid allies under definite agreement worked out in complete detail ..."

The authors point out, "On four separate occasions over the previous two years [1912-14], Grey and Asquith stood at the despatch box in the House of Commons and solemnly assured Parliament that Britain was entirely free from any secret obligations to any other European country. In a private letter to his ambassador in Paris, Grey noted: `there would be a row in Parliament here if I had used words which implied the possibility of a secret engagement unknown to Parliament all these years committing us to a European war ....'"

On 3 August 1914, Grey read out to the House of Commons a letter to the French, but left out its last sentence: "If these measures involved action, the plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken into consideration and the governments would then decide what effect should be given to them." The authors comment that if he had read this out, "All of Prime Minister Asquith's previous statements in Parliament denying that secret agreements tied Britain to France in the event of war with Germany would have been revealed as deliberate deceptions."

Revanchist lawyer Raymond Poincaré said, "I could discover no other reason why my generation should go on living except for the hope of recovering our lost provinces ..." He became Prime Minister of France in January 1912, then President in February 1913.

The authors write, "Poincaré's first concern was `to prevent a German movement for peace'. Under his direction, the nature of the Franco-Russian agreement changed from a defensive alliance to open support for aggressive Russian intervention in the Balkans." Poincaré extended national service from two to three years and sharply increased the size of France's army. Docherty and Macgregor observe, "By 1914, over 80 per cent of Russian debt was owed to French banks. Poincaré and his backers insisted that these loans were conditional on increases in the Russian military and a modernised railway infrastructure that would speed up mobilisation against Germany."

The Russian ambassador in Bulgaria wrote in November 1912 that a representative of The Times claimed `very many people in England are working towards accentuating the complications in Europe' to bring about the war that would cause the `destruction of the German Fleet and of German trade'. King George V reportedly told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov in September 1912, "We shall sink every single German merchant ship we shall get hold of."

Poincaré went to St Petersburg on 20-23 July 1914. France's ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue, wrote in his account of the banquets held to honour Poincaré that "the Grand Duchesses Anastasia and Melitza, the respective wives of Grand Duke Nicholas and Grand Duke Peter, were ecstatic at the prospect that `War is going to break out. Nothing will be left of Austria. You will get Alsace-Lorraine back. Our armies will meet in Berlin. Germany will be annihilated.'"

The British ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office on 24 July, summarising the result of Poincaré's visit: "France would not only give Russia strong diplomatic support, but would, if necessary, fulfil all the obligations imposed on her by the alliance." The authors comment, "Poincaré and Sazonov had agreed the deal. When Russia went to war against Germany and Austria, France would fulfil her commitment to Russia. This telegram explicitly proved that by 24 July Sir Edward Grey knew that his world war was ordained. The document was concealed from the world for ten years."

The authors point out that, "Buchanan did not suggest that Sazonov should stop the Russian mobilisation, far from it, but urged him to keep it well hidden from German view." Paléologue recalled Buchanan telling him, "Russia is determined to go to war. We must therefore saddle Germany with the whole responsibility and initiative of the attack, as this will be the only way of winning over English public opinion to the war."

On 24 July, Russia, France and Belgium all mobilised. The first to mobilise was the aggressor. The chief of Russian general staff for mobilisation explained why - after the first mobilisation `no further diplomatic hesitation is possible'.

Alexander Isvolsky, Russia's ambassador to France, told St Petersburg on 1 August, "The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany ..." This was almost 24 hours before Germany had announced mobilisation or declared war on Russia.

Docherty and Macgregor sum up, "Germany was the last of the continental powers to take that irrevocable step [mobilisation]. How does that possibly fit with the claim that Germany started the First World War?"

Lord Milner's Second War: The Rhodes-Milner Secret Society; The Origin of World War I; and the Start of the New World Order

By John P. Cafferkey

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (3 Jan 2013)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lord-Milners-Sec...FG9BRT4Q4H

The present work examines the origin of World War I, the seminal event of the Twentieth Century and the event that "made" the New World Order under the leadership of Lord Milner. Lord Milner was an international banker and he worked closely with J. P. Morgan in the USA and Lord Rothschild and other bankers in the City of London. The central thesis of "Lord Milner's Second War" is that Lord Milner arranged for Britain to participate in the War. Cecil Rhodes, the great British Imperialist, wanted to establish a world state through the British Empire. He set up his secret society to achieve that goal and he groomed Lord Milner to succeed him. Milner started the South African War (the Boer War) to seize control of South Africa and its huge gold deposits. He pioneered the use of concentration camps to wage war on the civilian population. Twenty-seven-thousand Boer women and children perished in Milner's campsfar more than the casualties of all combatants. Having hoisted the British flag on all of South Africa, Milner set his sights on the ultimate prizea great war that would crush Russia and Germany and leave his banking allies free to dominate world finances.

The present work suggests that the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, The Secretary of War, Richard Haldane and the British Director of Military Operations, General Sir Henry Wilson forged the military arrangements with France that led Britain to war. But two of these men, Grey and Haldane, belonged to the Rhodes-Milner secret society, and the third, General Wilson, was a close associate of Lord Milner. "Lord Milner's Second War" outlines how this secret society directed British foreign policy to fomenting a European conflict. With patience and skill, Foreign Secretary Grey convinced France and Russia of Britain's genuine commitment to taking part in a European war. As a result, France and Russia became more aggressive in the Balkans. With the rise of President Poincaré of France, Sir Edward Grey at last had a French partner who unequivocally wanted war. Allied to Russian Ambassador Izvolsky, Poincaré and Grey arranged for Europe to plunge into the 1914-18 catastrophe. The First World War did not go as planned, but Milner won in the end with a lot of help from the American banking cartel, which arranged the extraordinary intervention of America. The Milner Group came out of World War I as the most powerful organization in the West. They had a major influence in starting World War II and they emerged from that war stronger than ever. After the Second World War, headquarters moved permanently to New York. Gradually the organization transformed itself into the New World Order and Bilderberg Group of the present. The New World Order is about to create a cashless society, the penultimate step to ushering in the absolute surveillance exercised by Orwell's "Big Brother." "Lord Milner's Second War" has one purpose: to argue for the existence of the Milner Group and to introduce you to your enemy.

[R.K. Locke]

[Paul Rigby]

The great weakness of Preparata's Conjuring Hitler is the extent to which it downplays the US establishment's involvement in the watercolourist's rise. The US elite were anything but the dupes and playthings of the British clubs

Fursov briefly alludes to US and British financial establishments' creation of Hitler - but not before referencing Allen Dulles' ambition to scupper the British empire via WWII, an ambition, Fursov notes, shared by the USSR (3 mins 26 sec - 3 mins 39 secs):

[video=youtube_share;-q3MLfGC63I]http://youtu.be/-q3MLfGC63I[/video]

"Ukraine a rehearsal for the union of liberals and neo-Nazis in Europe."

Andrei Fursov on the real meaning of the Ukrainian war on Russia, 28 May 2014

Translated by Maria Razdiak
Edited by S. Naylor

Fursov A. I. is a political historian, sociologist, and Head of Department at Moscow State University (MGU)
The Anglo-Saxons continue to support Ukraine, hoping to grow out of her neo-Nazi state, the new Third Reich. They also let in Russia, as Hitler incited them against the Soviet Union in the middle of the last century. This, of course, the controversial hypothesis that many today do not dare to voice. What is the West trying to accomplish with Ukraine? Our resident expert historian Andrew FURSOV believes that the main task of the West is the destabilization of the whole of Eurasia. But after the "Crimean Victoria," says FURSOV, Russia is experiencing withdrawal from the area of ​​historical defeats. After the most important victory of the 20th century, our win over the German fascists, are we facing a new Third Reich we have to fight later this century?

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/27/ukrain...pe-280514/

Q: Recently, you've said that right now Russia is no going through a withdrawal from the area of historical defeats. The most important victory of the 20th Century was the defeat of German Fascism, but there is a looming sense that we'll be faced with a new Third Reich this century.

A: In history there are not identical repetitions, and, of course, we can compare the current situation, but we must not forget that it is very different today than it was in 1939-1941. Then, there was an obvious aggressor, who approached our borders. The current situation is different, but, nevertheless, the USA is starting, after the Syrian front (and Syria was a definite stand-off between Russia and the US), an opposition in Ukraine. I would go as far as to call it the "Ukrainian Front" of the Russian-American opposition. And Americans, in Ukraine, attempted to use the American-Banderian revolt to resolve a very simple predicament. They wanted to create a foothold for a political and, if necessary, for an armed, provocative, pressure point with which to push Russia. They sought to create an even more Russophobic Slavic society than Poland, which could be used, if required, against Russia. It is the creation of hotbeds of tension around the perimeter of national and strategic borders of Russia.

Q: The paths of the modern, Russophobic governments are as artificial as the during rise of Hitler, who was sponsored by the USA and the financial clans of Britain. Is this a same situation?
A: Everything comes down to this: the enemies of Russia had always expanded their forces, which they were planning to throw, as an armed entity, against Russia, but, nevertheless, in any case the current Ukraine could never be compared with the Third Reich even by economic potential. In addition, within the Ukraine, half of the population opposes the Bandera neo-Nazis, so it is a very, very, different situation.

Q: If we are to bring up the subject of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, and Europe in general… the recent European Parliament election. Here we observe the victory of nationalists and "Euro-sceptics" in the French and British elections. Does that shift the direction of the EU?
A: The election speaks to the deep, on-going crisis of the European Union. It demonstrates that this structure, which was initially viable, is coming to the end. And the rise of the right and the left, parties who together don't want to be in the EU, who don't want to lose their identity all this shows us the current situation.

Q: We start with Ultra-Right parties; do we end up with the rehabilitation of Nazism?
A: The correlation is only partial. I do not think that people, like Marine Le Pen, will be rehabilitating Nazism. But, of course, one of the byproducts of the collapse of the European Union can be rehabilitation of Nazism. The fact is, the rehabilitation of Nazism is, primarily, linked not to the European crisis but to the target of the current western Elite. This Elite can no longer solve their problems with liberal methods, and require Neo-Nazism as a resolution to their own crisis. In this respect, Ukraine is a certain rehearsal; here we observe an attempt at a union of the liberals, who failed to tear Ukraine away Russia with the aid of the "orange" revolution (in 2004), and the Banderian Neo-Nazis.

Q: What do you think, will there be a large-scale war?
A: Not in the near future. But, history proves that the Anglo-Saxons always have enduring plans, and their constant task is to create an on-going source of tension on the Russian border. Moreover, this new state [Ukraine] is to serve as an example of "democracy" and "freedom", as opposed to "totalitarian" Russia. Unquestionably, this is a hotbed of tension, and the aim is to create such tensions along the whole perimeter of our borders. To be fair, the Americans strategists are not concealing the fact that USA desperately wants to destabilise Eurasia. Destabilising Eurasia is to destabilise Russia.

Q: What role did Crimea play in this opposition?
A: "Crimean Victory" concluded the humiliation, which started on the 2nd of December 1989, when Gorbachev followed his meeting with the famous Russophobe Pope John Paul II, with a trip to Malta. There, he betrayed and handed over the socialist camp to Bush. After that Russia was stained with the humiliation of Yeltsin and his government, as we continued to give up our positions. And now, finally, we have started to pick-up our bits and pieces, and it is evident: the west doesn't have a game plan to match Russia.
Furthermore, the Ukrainian crisis showed the utterly inadequate western position, their inability to play the games of world politics. They have nothing to oppose Russia.

Q: And what do we have? Do we have actual allies, whom we can trust?
A: Our tactical ally is the People's Republic of China, our interests, right now, are coincide on a variety of issues. But, when we speak about Russian allies, we must always remember the phrase of Alexander III: "Russia has only two allies: the army and the fleet", as of now, I would also add in the intelligence agencies. We must be strong, and then the allies will be unnecessary.

Q: China and Russia are currently becoming close, and they are making that fact well known. What does this mean?
A: It says that in the world there are no permanent allies and permanent friends. For the next 10 years, we have common interests and a common geostrategic enemy, and then it is difficult to guess is changing rapidly.

Q: After the official visit of Joe Biden to Beijing, in December 2013, everyone started speculating that the deciding factor in world politics would be the US-China relationship. That USA and China were negotiating on how to "divide" the world. But today, things have changed?
A: Well, first of all: there never was such a situation, where USA and China would "divide" the world. We recall that the only country which can cause irreparable damage to the United States is Russia. This, of course, is generally obvious. Well, the current situation, after the Ukrainian crisis, has completely changed everything: we now have a bloc situation, when the west is overrun by complex, disorganising processes; and a certain tactical, some claim strategic, union of China and Russia.

Q: So, China has turned the USA down? Refused to cooperate?
A: At this this point in time, yes. But the Chinese understand well that the Americans, who constantly tricked the Soviet Union and still deceive Russia, will try to trick China. The Chinese do not trust the USA, and rightly so.

Russian original: http://ruskline.ru/opp/2014/05/28/ukrain..._v_evrope/

[Lauren Johnson]

"The aim, of the unfolding events, is an internal Slavic war, the final solution to the Russian question."
Andrew Fursov

Q: Andrey Iliych, the main geopolitical question of today is the Russian geopolitics in Ukraine. Let's start our conversation with the analysis of that situation. What happened there?

A: The situation in Ukraine, I would put on a par with the situation in Syria. And if the Syrian question was met with conflicting views the leaders of the world Capitalism, the Elite, did not want an escalation of the conflict in Syria and its transformation into a regional war the Ukrainian question was met by the West as one. It is obvious that, economically, Ukraine is of no interest to the northern-Atlantic Elite. It is, rather, a geopolitical necessity to tear Ukraine from Russia, to turn it into an anti-Russian foothold.

The separation of Ukraine, from Russia, is a long-time geopolitical project of the West Germans, Britons, Americans. We often quote the words of Zbignew Brzezinski: "deprived of the reunion with Ukraine, Russia is not destined to reclaim the status of a great power". "Long Zbig" is wrong: Russia can reclaim that status without Ukraine, but it will be more difficult and take longer. The thing is, Brzezinski is not original; he repeats the words of a German General Paul Rohrbach, who stated, in the beginning of the XX century: "to diminish the threat of Russia to Europe, and especially to Germany, you must completely remove Ukrainian Russia from Muscovy Russia". Please note that to a German General both Ukraine and Muscovy are Russia; and he speaks of creating an internal, Russian, split. He evokes the ideas of the German politicians of the last third of the XIX century, principally Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck-Schönhausen, who not only insisted on the necessity of such a split, but defined the means.

Many German politicians outlined the need to oppose Ukraine to Russia, incite the people; in order to do so, it is necessary to cultivate, among the Russian Ukrainians, people with a consciousness, so perverse, that they will begin to hate everything Russian. Thus, it was the psycho-historical operation, with information and psychological sabotage aimed at the creation of Slavic-Russophobes as a psycho-cultural type and a political power. Edakii Orcs in the service of Western Saruman . They were to sever Ukraine from Russia and to oppose it, as a final "anti-Russian Russ", as a "free and democratic" alternative to the Empire. All this was originally moulded as a Galician project, which was worked on, first, by Austro-Hungarian intelligence and Kaiser's Germany; then taken over by the Third Reich and inherited, in the second half of the XX century, by the CIA and the BND.

After the "Orange Revolution" (in 2004) it appeared, to the West, that the task was almost complete but they were wrong. By the end of 2013 it again appeared so; it seemed that the EU clamp was firmly around Yanukovych's neck, tightening over Ukraine. But, the position of Russia (and possibly, China) played a lead role, and Yanukovych, deciding on his own, unknown, game, bolted. It was at this instant that the West wrote-off, firstly, Yanukovych, and, secondly, the peaceful "Orange" path of separating Ukraine from Russia. Instead they bet on the "Banderovtsy", on the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Russophobes; the product of that very psycho-historical operation, started by the Germans one hundred and fifty years ago. Then during the second world war, the Nazis picked up the baton, creating the "Galichina" SS Division, and since 1990 s, the heirs of the Third Reich the Americans were to establish a new world order (what a coincidence terminology!).

During the current situation with Ukraine, the USA and the EU showed a clear, unashamed demonstration of double standards, hypocrisy and Russophobia. That is the only explanation for their "tolerant" behaviour towards the Ukrainian Nazis, who marched through the streets of Kiev, to the SS mantras. The logic is simple: if the Ukrainian Nazis (and the Baltic ones) are against Russia, let them be. On the other hand, this is nothing new for the Americans. Actively aided by the Russophobic Vatican throughout 1945-46, they did everything to get the Nazis away from justice (even those guilty of "war crimes"); to smuggle them into USA or Latin America, and actively utilise them against the USSR. The Ukrainian events are a clear example, of who we are dealing with.

Q: Who exactly are we dealing with?

A: In Kiev, on the 19-21 of February, there occurred a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, inspired by the collective West, primarily by the US. It was the Americans, who exploited the stupidity and greed of Yanukovych (and his entourage), who altered the situation, by halting the anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian government at the start. If the operation had been given the green light, Maidan would have been over (as it had already began to dissolve). But the result was as it happened. The long years of work of the US intelligence with the Ukrainian leaders, who keep their money in the American banks, with the SBU (the Ukrainian secret service), with the Bandera underground, which was reinvented and activated, paid off.

It is significant that during the two deciding days, the American ambassador took on the "role" of the Rada (Parliament) Speaker, dictating the conditions to the leaders of the "nezalezhnoi" (independent) Ukraine. But, how can we even mention the constitutional "nezalezhnost" (independence)? The quasi-state of Ukraine has always been prominently steered by the external influence; here, such was revealed most visibly, cynically and impudently. It was done so to demonstrate who runs the "show" and who steers the events of the Rada (Parliament) and of Maidan; to demonstrate whose will directs the neo-Nazi scum. The American-Bandera revolt could prominently change the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and the world.

Q: But, did the Kiev protest not represent the real, honest, discontent of Yanukovich's regime?

A: Yanukovich's clan, without a doubt, is mafia-oligopolistic. But the West and the pro-western powers within the Ukraine abused, for self-profit, the natural discontent of the Ukrainian population.

Q: What are their aims?

A: At a minimum, the creation of a West Slavic Bandera neo-Nazi Reich. A constant pressure upon Russia, with numerous methods of provocation, including sabotage. And, if receiving an adequate response replicating in the world's media the image of " a free and democratic Ukraine, which is being molested by the imperially motivated Russia. In short, poor little Ukraine a victim of the big Russia, following the proven Yugoslavian scheme: "poor Albanians victims of the evil Serbs".

A maximum program, identical to the one in 1930's, with the creation of the German Nazi Reich: the creation of a force, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the deciding role in a war with Russia, resulting in a maximum Russian exhaustion, self-destruction. In other words, the final solution to the Slavic/Russian question, carried out by the Slav/Russians themselves, with a subsequent division of Russia/northern Eurasia and the allocation of the natural resources and land. It must be remembered: the current separation of Ukraine from Russia is planned to result in an opposition, to pressure or to punch Russia with the strength of the Bandera neo-Nazi regime.

This, among other factors (such as the power struggle among the American leadership, Obama's shaky position after the stale 2013, the American-German disagreements, the Chinese games in Eastern Europe and so on), is the USA's reply to the actions of Russia, during 2013. It appears that they (the current administration and the clans behind it), obliged to save face, are commencing active action. The elections are in two years' time, and the Democrats desperately don't want to leave the White House, meaning that Obama is forced to work for the next, probably white, President. Whoever that will be maybe Madam Clinton (who spent the whole of December 2012 fuming over the Customs Union, claiming it to be the re-Sovietisation of the post-Soviet territory and demanding that the US must oppose it with all means), Biden or someone else is of no importance. What is of importance is the fact that Russia should not expect anything pleasant from this segment of the American Elite, while an attack is possible.

But, as the heroes of the movie "Chapaev" stated about the enemy attack: "Psychic? Screw it, let's go mental." On paper, everything was smooth. History is Queen of the insidious; it is enough to remember how it ended for those, fuelled by the desire to find a permanent solution to the Russian question. This is not to mention the fact that there is East and South-East of Ukraine.

Q: Could it be that you are exaggerating?

A: I'd really love to be wrong, I want time to prove that I was exaggerating. Never the less, I have spent decades studying the international power struggle, information and resources; analysing the aims and the actions of the north-Atlantic Elites. I repeat: Russia, even in its current state, is still the only obstacle in the way of the full world domination, the creation of a "New World Order". This is why one of the last commanders of the Soviet intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, stated: "the West needs one thing from Russia: for it not to exist." Strategically, geo-historically to not exist. In order to organise such "non-existence" a battering-ram is needed like Hitler. That is why we must always be ready for an attack: we have been warned. I would rather exaggerate and be wrong, than to allow for a repeat of the 22[SUP]nd[/SUP] of June 1941; especially, taking into account the fact that, the northern-Atlantic Elites are an enemy much more dangerous than Hitler, with his Third Reich, who ended up alone, and opposed by almost the whole world. Today, we are the ones alone and opposed by, almost, the whole world; the RF (Russian Federation) is not the USSR, not so in terms of economic potential, and not so most importantly, in the quality of the human resource.

Q: How do you see Ukraine after the collapse of Yanukovich's regime?

A: Ruins. Nothing else is possible. A Partly destroyed, partly repressed, partly exiled Russian population. The infrastructure destroyed, the land bought by the West and, to a smaller extend, by China. It's theoretically possible for a commotion, which will end with overturn of the Bandera regime. But, it is hard to overthrow the regime, which is sustained by the West. That was possible, when USSR existed in the world a second Super Power, which could have supported the weaker of our world, the underdogs, in their struggle against the strong; against the iron foot of the "bourgeoisie".

A more probable outcome: the regime and the West will attempt to direct the social rage of the masses at the eastern neighbour, declaring it to be the source of all sorrow, lashed by the, supposed, "whip of the Russian Empire", "Soviet Totalitarism" and so on. Regrettably, the bout for Ukraine is lost, and most shabbily. Our ambassadors worked with the Ukrainian oligarchs, chasing their own gain, completely forgetting about the people, the population, some pro-Russian for the dollar fogs the mind. At the same time the West worked with both, the oligarchs and the most active representatives of the anti-Russian forces, layers, groups. It was those groups that became the "Jokers", with which the West beat the, so-called, pro-Russian oligarchs and their envoy, Yanukovych, with a criminal past.

Yet, I will repeat: history is a cruel Queen. Everything can go by a different scenario. The future is not foretold, it is created from the struggle, from the collision of will and strength; thus, it depends on us, on our actions. Losing the bout, is not the same as losing the match, the match continues. But, to win, or, at least not to lose, merciless effort has to be applied to right the mistakes, to clean house. The loss of the "Ukrainian bout" is the result of internal problems, internal instability.

Q: You say the bout for Ukraine is lost. What about the Russian army in the Crimean territory?

A: The decision of the Russian administration, particularly Putin, completely destroys the scenario of the evolvement of the Bandera neo-Nazi revolt in Ukraine, inspired by the West, primarily by the USA. From that, we can state that the "face" of "Sasha Belyj" (Alexander Muzychko, a known Nazi, part of the post-revolt Ukrainian government, used to attend parliament meetings with an AK, was murdered, shot in the heart, 10 days after this interview MR) is the reflection of President Obama and all those in the West, who pushed the neo-Nazis into power. Once the power was seized in Kiev, the radicals, after banning the use of the Russian language in their first Act, planned reinforced and aided by the West to push the Russian east and south-east into submission, onto their knees. But, it turned out that those regions had support, serious support Russia. It turns out that a country, which has defeated Nazism before, stood-up to the neo-Nazis' attempt at a Russian genocide.

The suppression of the east and south-east (it would have followed the same pattern, which was utilised to overpower the Serbs during the Yugoslavian affair, only the Albanians, who acted from below the NATO shields, would have been replaced by the western Ukrainians) is utterly necessary to the northern-Atlantic Elite for they want the whole of Ukraine, not only the western part. Because, the western part alone is completely pointless, and can be used only as a second Kosovo.

This is why, the Russian position has enraged the western leaders, who, in turn, are not actually capable of any serious harm; only the winding up of the nerves, provocations, petty deceits and so forth. The words of Obama and Co, are lined with impotent fury. They wanted Russia to step aside and watch, to observe how the Russians would be stomped, how the Slavic neo-Nazi Reich would be formed on her western border. It is most educational to observe that the majority of the Russian Federation population supports the actions of the government. The majority, from which a small, but very loud, group is excluded: the "fifth column", the one that started hissing straight away.

In general, the situation in Ukraine, and around it, perfectly exposes the "fifth column" her vileness, her intellectual and professional squalor. An expert surfaced, from the Carnegie Fund, and began squeaking that all this reminds him of the arrival of the troops in Afghanistan. What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Did Afghanistan, prior to the introduction of the Soviet troops, house a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, and did the persecution of the Russians begin? Was Afghanistan, inhabited by the citizens of Russia (then of the USSR)? Where is the logic? It appears that logic is redundant for an expert, the main thing is that the American "masters" heard him bark, loud and timely. On the other hand, if I were in place of the "owners", I would have cut the pay cheque, of such a "servant"; how could an expert, so stupidly "guard" the interests of those who'd hired him? He should be more graceful, more meticulous.

That is the problem of the "fifth column". You listen to their argumentation and wonder: are they that unprofessional or are we dealing with a basic case of imbecility?

One more question, why does our country still accommodate institutions such as the Carnegie Fund? Why is an agency, clearly of a foreign influence, so comfortable in our country? Yes, they are mostly rude and counterproductive, but it is a matter of principle. But, back to the surface. For example an outdated singer. Proudly announcing that our army, in the Ukraine, will nosedive, like it did in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunate, weak man, go read a book, if you can still read. The Soviet Army established control over Czechoslovakia (the third strongest army of Europe, following the USSR and East Germany) in 36 hours, with minimal losses of its own and civilian ones. That operation was studied as a model in NATO centres. The current crisis will require trimming the "fifth column" of the media; you need to put hard political and legal barriers to its operations. And ignore the hypocritical cries of those who wallowed in the blood of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, many countries, with blood, and are ready to drown Ukraine.

Overall, the West is increasingly interested in the Russian situation, in the post-Soviet region. Do they not have their own problems? If so, maybe such should be arranged? Why does the West operate, unpunished, in our zone? Why shouldn't we start doing, what the Soviet Union did, actively working the foreign zones? Considering that there are more than enough feeble locations.

In any outcome, the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the West to the backdrop of the national discontent with Yanukovich's regime, is a marker in the history of Europe, Eurasia and international relations. The era, which started in 1991 with the August provocation and the betraying "belovezhskij" agreement (Belovezha Accords), is coming to an end. A new era is dawning. You can't run away from time and why would you? Time must be met, face first.

And, most of all, you must protect your own, fight for them, as Alexander Nevskij would have said "for friends of yours". In the given situation, not only "for friends", but for yourself for the Russian existence and self-sufficiency in history.

[R.K. Locke]

Webster Tarpley was on Guns & Butter this week (though it may be a re-run of an old show - they do that quite often) talking about British culpability in WW1. His take is predictably a bit different from that of Preparata, Docherty et al. but there is enough interesting information to sift through to make it worth a listen:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/107962

[Danny Jarman]

So on a day where we are supposed to remember the dead Nigel Farage suggests 100,000 more should have died. FFS.

Nigel Farage: the armistice was the biggest mistake of the 20th century

Ukip leader believes Germany should have been forced to unconditionally surrender, even if it cost 100,000 more casualties

Britain and its allies should have continued the first world war for another six weeks in order to achieve an unconditional German surrender, even at the cost of another 100,000 casualties, according to the leader of Ukip, Nigel Farage.

Describing the armistice that ended the first world war as the biggest mistake of the entire 20th century, he claimed that a slightly longer conflict would have prevented the conditions which gave rise to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis coming to power in Germany some 15 years after the Treaty of Versailles.

"I believe we should have continued with the advance," Farage said as he delivering the annual Tom Olsen Lecture at London's St Bride's Church, the spiritual home of the media, on Monday night, hours before Armistice Day was due to be marked across Britain, parts of Europe and the Commonwealth.

"We should have pursued the war for a further six weeks, and gone for an unconditional surrender. Yes the last six weeks of the war cost us 100,000 casualties, and I'm prepared to accept that a further six weeks of war might have cost us another 100,000.

"But had we driven the German army completely out of France and Belgium, forced them into unconditional surrender, Herr Hitler would never have got his political army off the ground. He couldn't have claimed Germany had been stabbed in the back by the politicians in Berlin, or that Germany had never been beaten in the field."

The UKIP leader said that the reason why Hitler had been able to get his party off the ground in Germany drawing on "the myth of the stab in the back" at the Treaty of Versailles was because one of those marching through the streets in support of him in 1923 was Erich Ludendorff, a commander of the German Army during the first world war.

He added: "It was Ludendorff who gave Hitler credibility. Yet none of this would happened if someone had made Ludendorff surrender unconditionally."

Farage, lecturing on the effects of the Great War and the legacy to contemporary Europe', was this year's speaker in the Tom Olsen lecture series, which dates back to 1991 and is named after the distinguished Fleet Street journalist, leader, writer, editor and author.

The Ukip leader, whose hobbies have included touring first world war battlefields with a group of friends, said: "The consensus is that the Treaty of Versailles was too punitive. It led directly to German hyper-inflation, which in turn led to seven million unemployed, and which in turn led to National Socialism.

"But I don't actually think Versailles was the mistake. I believe the real mistake, the anniversary of which we remember today, was the armistice."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014...?CMP=fb_gu

Readers of Conjuring Hitler will know that the armistice and Versailles were all part of a bigger design to crush Germany once and for all.