Category Archives: Ukraine

Not just Auschwitz but Holocaust in its entirety mainly ended by the Russians

27 January, the day in 1945 when Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz, is also instituted by the United Nations as the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The fact that Vladimir Putin wasn’t invited to the 70 year commemoration of the liberation has attracted some attention, as we saw. But no greater interest in main media has been shown for the Soviet (mainly Russian) role in terminating the Nazi Holocaust altogether.

More important than discovering Auschwitz was to stop the Nazi murder machine that otherwise could have exterminated millions more. For this the Soviet Union had the overwhelmingly most important role by grinding down the up till then strongest military machinery in history, thus sacrificing around 25 million of its people, in addition to unbelievable destruction of half the country.

It would have been most appropriate to give Russia some recognition on a day like that. Not so in Sweden, although the day was commemorated with a prestigious ceremony in Stockholm’s largest synagogue in the presence of the Swedish King and Queen, the Prime minister, the US ambassador and a number of other dignitaries. Russia is expelled from the “international community” for reacting logical to a Nazi infected coup d’état in a neighboring country, while an ambassador representing a power responsible for major war crimes, the last ones most recently, is treated with outmost respect. Well, Jonathan Smith, you know how it is!

When Dagens Nyheter’s editor in chief Peter Wolodarski acknowledged this Stockholm ceremony in a lead article he did it with dedication and compassion. He described the anti-Semitism of today, and concluded: “The mechanisms of Holocaust must be recognized as latent dangers in all civilized societies. They require perpetual vigilance and resistance”. It’s all admirable, except that his statement challenges his own position on the contemporary Ukraine issue.

Wolodarski’s newspaper is blatantly propagandistic, blaming Russia for every evil event and for being the aggressor (no proof given), while keeping almost totally silent about everything that could cast a shadow on the Ukrainian actions. Among the neglected topics is the key role that Nazism plays in that country’s present and history, a main reason for the revolt in Donbas, where people know what it’s all about, many having lost parents and other relatives murdered by Nazis.

Wolodarski describes how ordinary people in the Holocaust era could be transformed into rapists and murderers, “prepared to shove the city’s Jewish citizens into a barn and set it on fire”. The military historian Anthony Beevor describes in fact this method as a Ukrainian specialty in his book on WWII, adding that Ukraine stood out as the country in which people most willingly and in largest numbers assisted the German Nazis in exterminating Jews, Communists, Poles and other unwanted creatures.

This “Ukrainian specialty” was duplicated in Odessa in 2014, where a group of pro-Russian Odessa inhabitants were captured in a building which was set on fire by pro-Nazi elements that then killed some who tried to flee. This mass murder of more than 40 people took place without DN paying any attention to the historical parallel which could be called ironic had it not been so outrageous. Instead Wolodarski naively writes about the same method of extermination months later, ignorant of its horrible implications.

Ukrainian Nazism has a long and ugly history, dating back to at least the 1930s when the so called Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) “began a campaign of assassinating and otherwise terrorizing people who didn’t agree with them”, according to Russ Bellant, interviewed in The Nation, March 2014. In his book Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party Bellant reveals astonishing facts about the collaboration between revered politicians and pure Nazi elements in USA.

At the end of WWII Eastern Europe was swarming with Nazi collaborators guilty of all kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Looking forward to hard punishment by the Soviet justice system, not known for its humanity, their best option was to flee westwards, and many of them ended up in USA and Canada. There they were kindly taken care of and soon reached some prominence as anti-Soviets. Bellant deals in detail with their connections with the Republican Party and some of the Presidents from that party. His findings are too many to fit in this short blog post, but are very much worth reading (thenation.com).

My country had the “honor” of receiving a number of war criminals from the Baltic States, perpetrators guilty of killing Jews and other “unworthy” humans. They mixed with entirely decent refugees and were never hunted down by Swedish police. For this Sweden has received harsh criticism from the Simon Wiesenthal Center (so much for that civilized country).

The Ukrainian connection is interestingly reflected in a recent vote in the UN General Assembly on a resolution that condemned the glorification of Nazism, brought by Russia, undeniably in response to the raise of neofascism in Ukraine. Three countries voted against the resolution: USA, Canada and Ukraine! 155 voted for and 55 abstained, among them the European countries. A fact to consider: Israel voted for the resolution.

A column like this has no punch line, these battlefields will no doubt be revisited.

2015 – the year of human beings, or business as usual?

Looking forward  to what this new year will bring one may wonder if there indeed will occur some unexpected changes for the better in world affairs. For five hundred years we, the Europeans and our off-shoots, have held large parts of the world in a violent grip, mainly for the purpose of enriching and empowering ourselves.

We started by continuously slaughter each other in Europe, thus making war our favorite hobby. With development of modern weapons we got an upper hand globally, and made war a science. From that point on we started to afflict the world with unspeakable horror in order to enlarge and secure our imperialistic conquests.

As late as in my first years in school, some 60 years ago, imperialism was described as a benevolent enterprise, almost a sacrifice made by the white man to help and lift the bewildered herds. The fact that we blessed the poor savages with our civilization by enslaving and slaughtering them was not really recognized. Nor did we hear that our missionary work, much lauded by our teachers, was just a matter of exchanging one superstition for another.

We have in many ways continued to use blinkers to shade off the unpleasant consequences of our efforts to dominate the world. The prime concern has always been to keep the poor majority of people down (if necessary with mass killings). We used small elites in the conquered regions to ensure that wealth and recourses from around the world ultimately landed in the hands of our rich elite.

Our rampage naturally fostered resistance and uprisings. Up came “communism”, a repressive system perfect as a pretext for continued military actions against egalitarian movements wherever they appeared. We left millions of corpses on battlefields all over the world, and hundreds of millions more as a consequence of an economic system that deprived people of elementary living conditions. And we ended up praising ourselves as some kind of saints, affording the world “freedom, democracy and human rights”.

Blatantly racist colonialism’s prime time ended in the 1960s, leaving room for more indirect, but no less effective, means of domination. In just recent years these methods too have met successful resistance here and there, perhaps most significantly in South America. With the convenient pretext “Soviet Communism” gone there were further hopes for our violent tendencies to calm down, but such niceties doesn’t fit our epigenetic habits.

“Communism” had been “the single question”, the all encompassing phenomenon we had to aim all our military capacity against. But that turned out to have been a lie for 40 years. As soon as the Berlin wall fell, we (US supported by EU) started to create capitalist Russia as the new suitable target, first by seceding large parts from the former Soviet territory, then by expanding NATO into Russia’s borders and installing offensive missile bases in Eastern Europe.

Finally we reached Ukraine, and the probably much anticipated Russian reaction took place. Our warmongers, for all their different reasons, got the fodder they had longed for.

And that’s where we are today. Let’s see if reason, sensibility and consideration can play a part this coming year 2015.

MSM: Sweden vs. USA, plus Krugman on inequality

An anecdote has it that Noam Chomsky grinds his teeth when he reads the New York Times. But he also recognizes that there is some serious and professional reporting alongside the skillful but goofy propaganda stream. One can say the same about the Swedish Dagens Nyheter, save the level of professionalism. Thus I subscribe to the NYT web edition to get a broader outlook, apart from it being somewhat less pathetically “mainstreamed” than DN.

When it comes to the selection and presentation of the kind of world news that has to be aligned in accordance with the propaganda model, the similarities between DN and NYT are striking. The material is probably molded already in news agencies, and then DN seems to snitch from NYT and others. Often the wording is identical, and certainly the bias. But there are some differences. Especially interesting is what kind of “big news” in USA that becomes “no news” in Swedish media.

To name one example: Citizens United, a central concept in US debate which is carefully kept out of media in Sweden for reasons one can only speculate on. Is it the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision is incomprehensible for most people here, who probably would compare it with codifying unlimited corruption?

Another more random example is the Cliven Bundy case, which has passed almost unnoticed here. It’s not that violence or crimes as such are censored, on the contrary. Events like school shootings and other mass murders in the US are covered intensely by media, so the difference opens the field for speculations again. Is it that crimes committed by individuals have limited implications for the society, whilst the Bundy insubordination revealed a weak public authority that opened for mafia-like actions challenging law and order (thus degrading USA)? It’s anyone’s guess.

On the Ukraine issue Swedish MSM has a completely one-eyed view applied to both commentary and news reporting alike, a view postulating that Vladimir Putin is the master villain responsible for everything horrible that happens. Thus we are not shared any inclusive reports on for instance the shelling of innocent civilians or the hardship people in Luhansk suffers, or anything else outrageous that the Ukrainian government is responsible for. In this case NYT has a more professional attitude and once in a while sends a reporter to give readers a more complete picture. (I’ve mentioned earlier one reason for this difference, namely that Russophobia, through some kind of epigenetic mechanism, seem to have become inherent in Swedish genes.)

With the morning coffee I consequently browse quickly through the DN site, continue with NYT to stop for some reading and then spend more time with The Nation and other informative links. In my opinion the prime voice of reason in NYT is Paul Krugman, an economist differing from many of his colleagues by using his brain instead of reflexively rely on dogmas from a depleted science. His progressive views are so rare in NYT that he appears to be a kind of liberal alibi for the prestigious paper.

(A cute parenthesis: for subscribers NYT has a top-10-list labeled “Recommended for you”. In analogue cases most sites has a simple plug-in that keeps track on visitor’s preferences, so that recommendations really reflect the reader’s interests. Not so the NYT; here “recommended” obviously means what the editor think I should read; hence links on that list very rarely fit my liking. But to find a link to Paul Krugman I just have to click on “Most read” or “Most emailed” instead, where Krugman’s columns regularly appear among the top hits.)

In his column today (ranked No 1 in “Most emailed”) Krugman has some really intelligent and informative commentaries on “Our Invisible Rich”. Developments have gone to such an extreme the last decades that people just can’t grasp how grotesque the inequality has become. In a recent survey people in various countries were asked how much they thought top executives of major companies make relative to unskilled workers. In the United States the median respondent believed that chief executives make about 30 times as much as their employees (which was roughly true in the 1960s) compared to the real figure which is something like 300 times more, not to mention the really lucky, like the top hedge fund managers, who pick up some 10 000 times more than an ordinary employee.

To this one may remark that neither Aristotle nor James Madison thought that such an unbelievable development would ever be possible. Both took for granted that a majority in a democracy would vote to expel inequalities of that kind, but they chose different solutions to the problem. Aristotle concluded that society had to accept equality as a basic principle, while Madison preferred democracy to be limited. One way for Madison to achieve this was to establish a senate not elected directly by voters. It turned out that Madison was too cautious; he had no clue as to what modern propaganda would be capable of in the coming centuries. Today the super rich are safer than ever from any democratic threats, though the senate nowadays is appointed directly by voters.

It’s not that people’s preferences are unknown. If they estimate the high boss’s salaries to be 30 times higher, they would prefer the difference to be considerably less. The tool to achieve that is called democratic struggle, and that is something bound to come – trough collective action.

Ukrainian “claim” beyond stupidity

Not a word in my morning paper today about Ukraine, as far as I could detect. That could be a good sign since the journalists so far have seemed to cherish every symptom of the conflict worsening. Are we approaching a lasting peace, perhaps?

An odd phenomenon media since long has highlighted is the recurring statements from Ukrainian leaders about Russia’s evil intentions. Recently Prime Minister Yatsenjuk claimed that Putin intended to conquer the whole of Ukraine. This was presented here as some kind of news, with the statement headlined (identical in New York Times, incidentally). The only thing a critical reader would have liked to know was absent, namely what kind of factual support Yatsenjuk had for his allegation.

Was he a mind reader, or what (thus perhaps a scientologist after all)? There were not even any speculations by any reporter, let alone any questions put to Yatsenjuk about the foundations for his rather sensational utterance.

This habit of presenting unsubstantiated assertions by Ukrainian politicians as “news” has gone on since the war started. Perhaps it is thought to have some propagandistic effect, who knows. But it could as well have the opposite effect since the claims sometimes have been more naïve than credible. But the sources have obviously rest assured that whatever they say, it would be published in western media.

Some days ago one allegation by a Ukrainian official reached a level of ridicule that obviously was too much even for our media (thus it was reported by rt.com). On a trip to Poland the Defense minister, Valery Geletey, told a reporter that the loss of the Luhansk airport was due to the Russians using tactical nuclear weapons.

Geletey’s colleague, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, commented this blackout on his Facebook page: “Why would anyone make such statements that can be easily checked and proven false?”, continuing: “In the end Russia and the whole world will now ridicule us. Too bad, it’s nothing new to us.”

If this latest debacle hampers the flow of more or less fabricated announcements by Ukrainian officials, obviously intended to increase tensions between parties, it’s a good thing. Now it should be peace and nothing else on the agenda, the keys to which aren’t far-fetched but rather obvious.

A third Russian aid convoy to suffering Ukrainians. Time for the West to join in?

I read today about a third Russian aid shipment to Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, wondering when the second one took place, since that one obviously escaped media in Sweden. It’s comforting anyway that our propaganda has become more civilized over time.

We remember the outrage caused by the first aid convoy. It was a Trojan horse; the Russians just intended to deliver arms under Red Cross cover. Or it was a propaganda stunt by Putin, pretending to be some kind of saint. And, anyway, many of the trucks were empty, etc. The convoy was denied entrance to Ukraine, a permit the Russians politely awaited while the Ukrainian leaders tried to make the most of the media frenzy. When the convoy finally just entered and delivered their goods in Luhansk it was described as an unlawful intrusion by a hostile power. And so on.

The dire situation in Luhansk, where electricity and water had been cut off due to artillery and rocket fire supposedly from the Ukrainian military, appeared to be of no concern to the Ukrainian leaders. The fate of their suffering countrymen seemed much less interesting than the propagandistic charades played out to the world’s media. I think it’s proper to say in hindsight that the Ukrainian tactics in this case was a fiasco and that western media’s complicity will be filed in the archive for disgraceful memories.

A New York Times reporter – Carlotta Gall – issued yesterday an informative report from the hard-hit city of Luhansk. She interviewed a hotel manager, Nikolai Pesotskii, and wrote:

“The first sign of help, he said, came from a Russian convoy of aid, which entered Luhansk against the wishes of the Ukrainian government. ‘Without that, there would have been hunger,’ Mr. Pesotskii said. A wealthy businessman, even he made use of a Russian food parcel, distributed from the local school, that contained canned meat, sugar and rice – enough for one person for 10 days, he said.”

Where are the superior humanitarian values of the democratic world, which constitute the core of our self adulation? How come we always prefer to bomb suffering people with grenades instead of aid, and even demonize those who do the opposite?

 

Stupid losses of invaluable lives in meaningless wars.

Who’s killing whom in Ukraine? The secessionists in the southeast obviously declared independence from a government which they considered illegal, hostile and even dangerous to them and their Russian language, culture and religion. Thus they occupied buildings, obtained arms and built barricades. But they didn’t kill anyone.

“We” (US and EU) had no objections to the violent street coup in Kiev spearheaded by neo-Nazis, who then got important seats in the resulting new government (with a Prime Minister picked by US diplomats). Nor did we react towards blatant anti-Russian statements and decisions made by that government and directed towards their own citizens living in the southeastern part of the country.

During this phase we could easily have calmed down the situation, since the Ukrainian leaders were completely in our hands. We did the opposite. After each visit by characters like the US Vice President, the head of CIA, the notorious John McCain and others, the Ukrainian military made new attacks, though in the beginning rather futile. But we helped instigate the atrocities to come.

The regular Ukrainian army had qualms against killing their own fellow countrymen. It was not until the ruthless neo-Nazi elements in the so called militia were engaged that the indiscriminate murdering of civilians took off. Shelling and bombing hit the population (a war crime, by the way) leading to what must be called ethnic cleansing, forcing by now probably one million Ukrainians to leave their homes; many of them their country. Still we had no objections to this tragic part of the conflict and its perpetrators.

We see only one villain, whom we harass with defamation and sanctions: Vladimir Putin. His administration had from the beginning a reluctant attitude towards the rebels, making them disappointed by denying them open support. In our Goebbels-like propaganda, though, it’s Russia and Putin who are waging the war in Ukraine. Russian hawks naturally prevent Putin from denying the rebels at least some real help, but still probably no decisive backup that could be pictured as waging a war.

To evaluate the moral content of the Russian behavior we have to compare with our own actions in similar situations. There happens to be a case as close to equivalent as history can provide, namely Kosovo, where an Albanian minority wanted the enclave seceded from Serbia. They got western support for this action and to implement the secession US bombed Belgrade and other parts of the country for 78 days, without UN authorization, killing an estimated 3,000 people. One pretext for the bombing was Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians, although these really started as a response to the US attacks.

Not only are we morally prevented from criticizing Russia for the secession of Crimea, since we have done exactly the same thing (at that expecting praise for it), we would neither possibly be in a position to morally condemn Putin if he got the bizarre idea to order bombing of Kiev for 78 days, as punishment for the obvious and lethal atrocities against civilians performed by Ukraine. But moral has no place in power games performed by militarily superior states. Putin cannot do the same things we have done; he has to do what we tell him.

This lack of moral principles is something that makes normal people sick, and we really don’t have to endure it. We just have to organize and overrule our governments. The problem is that power not only has the means of violence, but also has the propaganda tools that create our world view, unless we enlighten ourselves – together with others.

How to create a State Truth

Developments in Ukraine have driven media and majority opinion in Sweden quite nuts. Not even the traces of reason sometimes visible in New York Times can be detected here (except for dissident media outlets that no one has heard of). The Editor in Chief of our most important paper Dagens Nyheter – Peter Wolodarski – has turned into a paranoid buffoon conducting a limitless and hateful campaign against Russia and Putin.

Wolodarski and his colleagues in thought are acting as if their intention is to fire up conflicts and enhance the risk of a global war. Their simple truth is that Putin is an imperialist dictator; nothing that puts perspective on the whole Ukrainian problem is allowed to appear in print. That is: one of DN’s columnists, Johan Croneman, had the guts to curse in the church the other day, namely about the shoot-down of MH17.

Croneman had studied some of the works by Robert Parry and the Malaysian paper New Straits Times. Parry is a prize-winning reporter known for his role in revealing the Iran-Contra affair, and his webpage contains interesting information. There he describes a number of convincing indications that the shoot-down of the airliner couldn’t have been performed by the pro-Russian rebels. Foremost of those is the lack of pictures or other evidence for Russian Buk missiles transported into and out of Ukraine.

The Buk missiles are 5.5 meters long and the launch vehicles are more than double that length. Parts of the radar equipment are some 20 meters high. The whole battery demand support facilities carried by a number of large vehicles. Thus the units are easily detectable by US surveillance techniques. For the Buk system to be operative in the shoot-down it had to be transported quite some distance from Russia into Ukraine territory. And more than that: after the shoot-down, when the advanced US supervision machinery must have been intensely focused on the area, this caravan had to drive back to Russia. If US had pictures of this operation, is it conceivable that they had been kept secret to this day, Perry asks.

Other important indications are leaked testimony by independent arms experts, saying that the plane wreckage showed signs of being hit by a missile fired from an aircraft, plus bullet holes indicating machine-gun fire. The black boxes implicate another question. If they had contained evidence for the Ukrainian standpoint, wouldn’t that have been disclosed already? Now the whole question is remarkably muted.

Croneman’s observation and outrage concerns the absolute silence about these matters in Swedish media. I would add that conformity of this kind would hardly be possible even in a dictatorship. But here the political truth, declared by Carl Bildt two hours after the shoot-down, is prescribed as a state fact. Croneman sums this up as “unspeakably sad, and dangerous, and terrible”. (We have of course freedom of expression here, so Croneman isn’t fired, but he’s back writing about his ordinary topics: sports and movies.)

To recommend Wolodarski and all the other Swedes of his faith to read about the Ukraine problem in “one of the most prestigious periodicals of its kind in the world” – Foreign Affairs – would of course be presumptuous. In its Oct/Nov issue that rag publishes a comprehensive and analyzing article by John J. Mearsheimer under the rubric: “Why the Ukrainian Crisis Is the West’s Fault”.

From 1989 and on Russia was considered by the West as a defeated enemy which should accept total submission. The country itself soon became devastated and the population decimated after the capitalist remaking, and not much of a threat to anyone. Still it had to be contained, just as in the old Communist days. In violation of verbal pledges to Gorbachev NATO thus started to expand eastwards, by now having added twelve new states to its ranks. And this giant military machine has only one obvious enemy: Russia.

Mearsheimer reviews this history and its consequences, and concludes that the US and EU have one simple way to avoid every risk of an all-out war: declare (on paper this time) that Ukraine never will be a member of NATO. This trivial and rather natural solution has obviously been proposed also by people like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former German Chancellors and others. But this is all too benevolent for Wolodarski et.al. who rather rub Putin’s face even harder into the mud.

And now for the most horrendous phase: Putin has achieved a cease fire which so far seems to work passably. He’s acting to bring some peace to the place – the son-of-a-bitch. He’s giving himself away, that imperialist dictator who’s supposed to restore the Soviet Union by violence. But just relax; Wolodarski will soon explain to us in what way Putin only tries to fool us into dangerous passivity.

The second victim of war

The second victim of war seems to be the ability to think clearly.

“Putin is waging a war in Ukraine” wrote one journalist in our most mainstream paper recently, as if it was just self-evident. The combination of deep demagogy and shallow thinking we experience in our “enlightened” countries today will stun future historians. Not even the rebels started any war. They armed themselves in self-defense, but didn’t harm anyone. The war of aggression was launched by the Ukrainian leaders when they chose to meet their Russian speaking fellow countrymen’s grievances with deadly violence.

When the People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine were proclaimed Putin was from the very beginning hesitant to engage more actively with open support. That this stance has been upheld is clearly to show that the leaders in Russia are using their brains; thus concluding that there was nothing but problems for Russia to be gained from this uproar. Meanwhile we in the west avoided thinking, maintaining that Putin was about to invade Ukraine, an incredibly cretinous fantasy considering that such a step immediately would have engaged NATO’s entire military force which is some 15 times stronger than Russia’s. For us to believe such a thing Putin not only has to be stupid, he also has to be suicidal.

It could be claimed that a state has the right to use violence against armed insurgents, even domestic ones. Yes, but that’s in the first place why the Ukrainian leaders are the ones who’s waging a war. And secondly it’s a completely senseless way of trying to solve the real problems, unless the goal is to carry out total ethnic cleansing, driving everyone in the southeastern area out of the country, which of course is impossible.

Another consequence of war is obviously a hazardous shortsightedness. Ukrainians in the western and eastern parts of the country will have to live together in the future to come. For every day that passes the violence and the dead bodies on both sides will increase the hatred and thus aggravate the obstacles for a functioning agreement. The only solutions can come from negotiations, something that Putin has been pushing for tirelessly, others not.

Media in Sweden is almost unanimously propagandistic in favor of the attacking Ukrainian forces, spearheaded by neo-Nazis. No moral judgments are expressed about this so called militia’s ruthless killing of innocent civilians. No qualms are uttered whatsoever about the violent methods the Ukrainian leaders have chosen when met by understandable grievances from people in the southeast, which saw a government in Kiev formed after a coup and under supervision by US diplomats. The fact that this government included some neo-Nazi members and started by passing a law suppressing the Russian language hardly makes it inconceivable that the pro-Russian citizens in the southeast began to fear for their security and their possibilities to form their own lives.

The way our media palliates the Nazi connection is quite remarkable. Right now I happen to read Antony Beevor’s 1000-page book on World War II, published in 2012. In his view the Ukrainians were the ones most willing to help the German Nazis to liquidate Jews. He particularly mentions a method of extermination which he attributes to the Ukrainian Nazis. They simply locked people up in a house and sat it on fire. Those who tried to escape were killed. This shows an eerie resemblance with the horrible Odessa murders recently, where the same method was used.

Antisemitism has a long tradition in Ukraine, as has Nazi influences. The Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera is still honored by large groups wearing swastika-like symbols. One obvious reason for anti-Russian sentiments may have been Stalin’s horrible atrocities against the kulaks, costing more than three million lives. Beevor also mentions propaganda spread by Kremlin blaming the Jews for Ukraine’s hardship. The roots being whatever they are, in today’s Ukraine Nazism should be harshly condemned by democratic nations. In Anglo-Saxon (and Swedish) MSM this whole embarrassment is met with almost complete silence. To get a somewhat balanced approach to the Ukrainian issue these days, one has to look for a German newspaper (or The Nation, for instance).

Is Ukraine ruled by hilarious (or just plain) superstition?

Some 85 percent of Christians in Ukraine belong to the Orthodox Church, Russian or Greek. Protestants comprise one percent of the population. This country is now ruled by a Baptist President and an alleged scientologist Prime Minister, (in that case) both within two typically western belief systems, one of which is even extremely American. Let’s just assume this is a coincidence, unrelated to them being appointed to their positions by the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

The president, Oleksandr Turchynov, is presented by a Christian website (CT) as “a well-known Baptist pastor” but by Wikipedia as just “a lay preacher”. In the western world we’ve had our toll of deeply Christian Heads of State waging bloody, devastating and illegal wars, so Christianity is nothing comforting in itself. We may just hope that this Baptist president is of a more peaceful kind, though signs of that hitherto aren’t overwhelming.

The allegation that the Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is a scientologist is most troublesome and it’s vitally important for him to deny every connection with such a compromised sect. Due to the deep secrecy in the organization in question it’s difficult to collect any kind of proof, and there are no such to be found by a quick search on the Internet. For the time being, and following a fundamental legal principle, Yatsenyuk must be considered not guilty. This is also what our media have done by not reporting a single word about the allegations.

It’s hard to believe that a scientologist would ever be considered fit to become Prime Minister in any western country, simply because that “religion” is all too wacky. According to the rumors in question Yats – as Nuland calls him – is not just a passive participant in this “church” but a high-ranking member of the sect with a “level of auditing” called OT-6 (out of a total of 8). If this would be the case he would be familiar with the secret myths in the scriptures, concocted by L. Ron Hubbard and now leaked. (But, as I said, we must assume he isn’t.)

Hubbard’s story is hilarious and breaks all records from the very beginning. The reality, as known by scientology, came into existence four quadrillion (1015) years ago, which also is to say some four quadrillion years before Big Bang. Wikipedia has parts of the continued story: “… Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago, which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as “Teegeeack”. The planets were overpopulated, containing an average population of 178 billion…”

“Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of psychiatrists, he gathered billions of his citizens under the pretense of income tax-inspections, then paralyzed them and froze them in a mixture of alcohol and glycol to capture their souls. The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). … When they had reached Teegeeack, the paralyzed citizens were unloaded around the bases of volcanoes across the planet. Hydrogen bombs were then lowered into the volcanoes and detonated simultaneously, killing all but a few aliens.”

No wonder Yats had to deny all connection with such lunacies, regardless of everything.

 

Ukraine’s killing by military: a reminder of Berlin 1953 – except for western reactions

Today’s horror-place is Mariupol in Ukraine where twenty “rebels” were shot dead by military countrymen. Swedish media treats this episode in a very calm and composed way so far. The casualties adds up to the other victims killed by their own people in uniform, by now exceeding the number killed in a comparable attack by military forces against a civil population, an atrocity giving rise to a completely different attention and one that we are not allowed to forget.

I’m referring to the worker’s uproar in East Germany in 1953, which we still are reminded of now and again. It started by a government proclamation that the production goal was to be raised by 10 percent without any income lift. By stepwise escalation finally some 100 thousand people gathered in Berlin for demonstrations, and by that time Soviet military were engaged. In direct confrontations 34 civilians were shot dead, with an additional 20 killed from other causes.

This terrible assault was rightly treated as an unforgivable crime. And it was naturally attributed to the regimes in Soviet and East Germany and viewed as typical for the monstrous Communists. I was just 12 years old by then but I remember the moral outrage in media against the horrible Communists. The years to come we were constantly reminded of the East German cruelties in an intense propaganda effort, to which was added the comparable atrocities performed by Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

The heated reporting in Swedish media as long as “Putin” was expected to invade Ukraine calmed down remarkably when the first civilians were killed by the military in Sloviansk, now followed by somewhat laid back commentaries on today’s horrible events.

Are there no limits on the hypocrisy of our journalist, one may really wonder?! They are in this respect not any different from the politruks in Pravda in the old days, with the exception that people in the Soviet Union didn’t trust their propagandists, while we are effectively brainwashed to believe freedom of expression to guarantee us truthful media, on the whole.

The most challenging question is why Swedish media, almost unanimously, make such efforts to instigate an atmosphere of war by vilifying Russia and Putin. And to do so by twisting every little piece of message till it points in the “right” direction. My paper lectures Putin almost daily on how to surrender his country’s interests the proper way. Russia is treated like a defeated enemy and it’s slightest claim on national interests are interpreted as aggression. The West obviously considered it completely normal that Russia’s important naval base in Crimea should be situated in a NATO-country, thus in one of the members of an organization primarily pointing its gigantic war machine against – Russia!

The lack of proposals for peaceful negotiations in our media is almost total. But as I mentioned below the one-eyed propagandists are balanced by informed readers in media’s commentary sections. This is the hope for the future.