Ukrajina jako model Evropského jara

/in , /by
Z perspektivy etnonacionalisty jsou skutečnými nepřáteli Evropská unie a USA

Z perspektivy etnonacionalisty jsou skutečnými nepřáteli Evropská unie a USA

http://deliandiver.org/2014/04/ukrajina-jako-model-evropskeho-jara.html

Role geopolitiky a zájmů mocných národů a skupin  – zejména když se navzájem dostanou do konfliktu nebo naopak rovnovážného stavu – je v národně osvobozeneckých, nacionalistických a dalších podobných politických zápasech trvale podceňována.

Například Kurdové – navzdory tíživé potřebě, spravedlivým požadavkům na vlastní stát a zjevným třenicím mezi jejich sousedy – dosáhnou nezávislosti jen velmi obtížně, dokud pro tři dominantní skupiny, které je obklopují (Turci, Arabové, Íránci a supervelmoci, které je podporují) bude tento vývoj nevýhodný.

Podobný scénář se odvíjí na Ukrajině. Navzdory silným řečem zúčastněných stran je zřejmé, že situace směřuje k novému konsensu, jehož obsahem budou tyto body (1) tichý souhlas s novými hranicemi – např. Krymu jako součásti Ruska, (2) Rusové zastaví další růst nebezpečnějších separatistických tendencí na východní a jižní Ukrajině, (3) Západ poskytne podporu kyjevským liberálům a umírněným na úkor na ukrajinských nacionalistů, (4) přívod plynu zůstane otevřen.

To je škoda, protože rok 2014 má potenciál být svědkem evropské verze „arabského jara“ – což je přesně to, co Rusko, ani EU (což v zásadě znamená dominantní státy EU) a pochopitelně USA, nechtějí. Read more

The Pathetic Apologetics of Caroline Glick

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Editor’s note: As someone who has  written chapters on Jewish apologia and  self-deception, I have to say that Caroline Glick may be the most extreme case I have ever encountered. One struggles for words to describe her rabid ethnocentrism and how it blinds her to the most obvious realities. Jews are morally superior paragons of rationality, responsible for everything good in the world, including Western institutions of democracy and individual freedom. With only a few exceptions (non-Jews who accept the tutelage of Jews), non-Jews are, as Brenton Sanderson phrases it, “brutish and irrational embodiments of evil” while Jews are “reasoning, intelligent moral paragons.”

Truly breathtaking. It’s terrifying to think that such a person is a highly praised and powerful member not only of the Israeli political establishment but is also a well-established figure in neoconservative circles and the media in the US.

Caroline Glick is an American-born Israeli journalist and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington DC-based neoconservative Center for Security Policy. A radical Zionist, Glick migrated to Israel in 1991 and served in the Israeli Defense Force before going on to serve as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Glick has been showered with awards and praise from Zionist and Jewish organizations. In 2003 the Israeli newspaper Maariv named her the most prominent woman in Israel. She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America’s Ben Hecht award for Outstanding Journalism (previous recipients included A. M. Rosenthal, Sidney Zion and Daniel Pipes). She has also been awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch. In 2009 she received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. In 2012 The David Horowitz Freedom Center announced the hiring of Glick as the Director of its “Israel Security Project.”

Inevitably, given the Jewish stranglehold over the American media, Glick is given a regular platform to espouse her Jewish supremacist views in The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Times and many other newspapers and journals around the world. She is also a regular pundit on MSNBC and the Fox News channel. Given her wide exposure in the Jewish-controlled media, and the senior positions she holds within the neoconservative establishment (where she is touted as “a brilliant and outspoken Jewish academic”), one might expect Glick to possess a formidable intellect and have a knack for formulating intellectually sophisticated Jewish apologetics. Read more

Featured Video Play Icon

Philip Giraldi – Is Israel a U.S. ally?

/in /by

Scott McConnell – Did Neoconservatives take over GOP foreign policy?

/in /by
Featured Video Play Icon

Geoffrey Wawro – Key findings from the book “Quicksand”

/in /by

Comrades and Cannibals: Odium Theologicum on the Modern Left

/3 Comments/in , /by

In Gulliver’s Travels (1726), the land of Lilliput is gripped by a furious controversy about hard-boiled eggs. Should they be opened at the big end or the little end? The opposing sides slaughter and persecute each other over the issue. Jonathan Swift was satirizing the absurdities of religious dispute in his day and the wars it caused between different sects. There’s a special term for this phenomenon: odium theologicum, or “hatred among theologians.” Because there is no objective means of establishing truth in theology, the only definitive argument is force.

Centuries later, the modern left is full of atheists and secularists who have no time for religious nonsense like that. Instead, they conduct furious controversies about chairs and haircuts. Two giants of the British left, Richard Seymour and Laurie Penny, have recently been excoriated as racists, colonialists and white supremacists:

Racist Richard Seymour

Racist Richard Seymour

But… wait a minute, you might ask. What was it that Seymour and Penny did to bring down this rain of criticism on their heads? Did they invade a country? Or did they lynch someone?

No. Seymour was talking about that chair – you know the one that looks like it is a black woman, that Roman Abramovich’s girlfriend had herself photographed sitting on for the [London] Evening Standard. Seymour did not say he liked the chair. He said it was racist. But he made the terrible error of pointing out that some sex play involved racial acting out (which is a bit outré, but not actually an endorsement of racial oppression).

Penny’s crime was even greater: she wrote an article in the New Statesman about short hair being (a bit of) a feminist statement… except that she did not say anything about the hair of “Women of Colour.” Yes, that’s right: Laurie Penny’s article “does not include any mentions (even as a side note) of WoC hair issues.” (Further adventures in intersectionality, The Charnel-House, 31st January 2014)

The offending photo, from the Guardian

The offending photo, from the Guardian

Read more

Alison Weir: Findings from the new book “Against Our Better Judgement”

/in /by