The Raw Story

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Them and us: Murdering journalists

After Paris, condemnation of religious fanaticism is at its height. I'd guess that even many progressives fantasize about wringing the necks of , bashing into their heads some thoughts about the intellect, about satire, humor, freedom of speech. We're talking here, after all, about young men raised in France, not Saudi Arabia.

Where has all this Islamic fundamentalism come from in this modern age? Most of it comes - trained, armed, financed, indoctrinated - from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. During various periods from the 1970s to the present, these four countries had been the most secular, modern, educated, welfare states in the Middle East region. And what had happened to these secular, modern, educated, welfare states?

In the 1980s, the United States overthrew the Afghan government that was progressive, with full rights for women, believe it or not (1), leading to the creation of the Taliban and their taking power.

In the 2000s, the United States overthrew the Iraqi government, destroying not only the secular state, but the civilized state as well, leaving a failed state.

In 2011, the United States and its NATO military machine overthrew the secular Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi, leaving behind a lawless state and unleashing many hundreds of and tons of weaponry across the Middle East.

And for the past few years the United States has been engaged in overthrowing the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. This, along with the US occupation of Iraq having triggered widespread Sunni-Shia warfare, led to the creation of The Islamic State with all its beheadings and other charming practices.

However, despite it all, the world was made safe for capitalism, imperialism, anti-communism, oil, Israel, and . God is Great!

Starting with the Cold War, and with the above interventions building upon that, we have 70 years of American foreign policy, without which - as Russian/American writer Andre Vltchek has observed - "almost all Muslim countries, including Iran, Egypt and Indonesia, would now most likely be socialist, under a group of very moderate and mostly secular leaders". (2) Even the ultra-oppressive Saudi Arabia - without Washington's protection - would probably be a very different place.

On January 11, Paris was the site of a March of National Unity in honor of the magazine , whose journalists had been assassinated by terrorists. The march was rather touching, but it was also an orgy of Western hypocrisy, with the French TV broadcasters and the assembled crowd extolling without end the NATO world's reverence for journalists and freedom of speech; an ocean of signs declaring ... ; and flaunting giant pencils, as if pencils - not bombs, invasions, overthrows, torture, and drone attacks - have been the West's weapons of choice in the Middle East during the past century.

No reference was made to the fact that the American military, in the course of its wars in recent decades in the Middle East and elsewhere, had been responsible for the deliberate deaths of dozens of journalists. In Iraq, among other incidents, see 2007 video of the cold-blooded murder of two journalists; the 2003 US air-to-surface missile attack on the offices of in Baghdad that left three journalists dead and four wounded; and the American firing on Baghdad's Hotel Palestine the same year that killed two foreign cameramen.

Moreover, on October 8, 2001, the second day of the US bombing of Afghanistan, the transmitters for the Taliban government's were bombed and shortly after this the US bombed some 20 regional radio sites. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the targeting of these facilities, saying: "Naturally, they cannot be considered to be free media outlets. They are mouthpieces of the Taliban and those harboring terrorists." (3)

And in Yugoslavia, in 1999, during the infamous 78-day bombing of a country which posed no threat at all to the United States or any other country, state-owned (RTS) was targeted because it was broadcasting (like how much horror the bombing was causing). The bombs took the lives of many of the station's staff, and both legs of one of the survivors, which had to be amputated to free him from the wreckage. (4)

I present here some views on sent to me by a friend in Paris who has long had a close familiarity with the publication and its staff:

"On international politics Charlie Hebdo was neoconservative. It supported every single NATO intervention from Yugoslavia to the present. They were anti-Muslim, anti-Hamas (or any Palestinian organization), anti-Russian, anti-Cuban (with the exception of one cartoonist), anti-Hugo Chávez, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, pro-Pussy Riot, pro-Kiev ... Do I need to continue?

"Strangely enough, the magazine was considered to be 'leftist'. It's difficult for me to criticize them now because they weren't 'bad people', just a bunch of funny cartoonists, yes, but intellectual freewheelers without any particular agenda and who actually didn't give a fuck about any form of 'correctness' - political, religious, or whatever; just having fun and trying to sell a 'subversive' magazine (with the notable exception of the former editor, Philippe Val, who is, I think, a true-blooded neocon)."

Footnotes:

(1) US Department of the Army, (1986), pp.121, 128, 130, 223, 232

(2) Counterpunch, January 10, 2015

(3) Index on Censorship, the UK's leading organization promoting freedom of expression, October 18, 2001

(4) The Independent (London), April 24, 1999

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.

2014 is among the 3 percent of coldest years in 10,000 years

We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of polar bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn't suit the political agenda.

We know the headline referred to NOAA's projection, but the public only remember "warmest year". It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline "NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record." Various months were identified during the year, for example, "NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record," noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,

The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

By October they were summarizing the year.

"This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880."

Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the "Anticipation" for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.

To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, "The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn't Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality". He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.

Challenges and IPCC Fixes

How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 - year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgement of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.

1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate. Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world's surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to "fill-in", the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.

2. Most surface stations are concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe and became the early evidence for human induced global warming. IPCC advocates ignored, for a long time, the fact that these stations are most affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).

The UHIE was one of the first challenges to the claim of AGW evidenced in the instrumental record. Two graphs produced by Warwick Hughes were the most effective and appeared in 1991, shortly after the first IPCC Report in 1990. Figure 2 shows temperature at six major Australian cities.

Figure 2

A most likely explanation for the increasing UHIE, is expansion of the suburban area until it encompassed airport weather stations originally outside the city. The automobile made this possible. Figure 3 provides a comparison with 26 rural stations.

Figure 3

The difference is marked. What is equally interesting is that temperatures were higher in the first part of the record from 1880 and 1900.

3. There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record (Figure 4).

Figure 4

A search of WUWT, using the term "temperature adjustments", yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.

4. Policy anticipated that satellite data would replace the need for surface weather stations. As a result many weather stations were abandoned (Figure 5), or at least not included in the calculation of the global average.

"The figures below indicate:

a the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,

b the number of reporting stations as a function of time,

c the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station."

Figure 5

Figure 5 Source

The number of surface stations was inadequate in 1960, but was further reduced in 1990. Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.

But how accurate can the global temperature be when Antarctica is omitted. Consider the IPCC conclusion:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctic)."

Antarctica is 14 million km2, an area almost equal to Russia, (17 million km2), the largest country on Earth.

Add to that the 14 million km2 of the Arctic Ocean, for which there is no data, as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report notes (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Extent of these regions is one thing, their role in world climate is another, and arguably far more important than almost any other region.

6. Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.

Figure 6

Stations NOAA used from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) in Canada illustrate the problem. (Figure 7).

Figure 7

There are 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA only uses Eureka, a known warm anomaly, to cover 1/3 of the second largest country on Earth. Even the 1200km measure doesn't apply.

7. Alteration of the historic record includes the infamous hockey stick, in which a member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group is reported to have told Professor David Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period? That involved creating the handle of the hockey stick. The blade was formed from CRU Director Phil Jones' data that showed an increase of 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. The problem was the error factor was ±0.2°C or ±33 percent.

8. 20th century temperature trends begin with warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 1998 and a slight cooling trend to 2014. Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.

9. If we accept overall warming from 1900, which is reasonable as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age (LIA), then the highest temperatures will occur in the most recent record (Figure 8).

Figure 8

Identifying that 2014 was fractionally warmer than any other in the record does not change the trend of the "pause". It does not enhance the CO2 causation claim.

10. The claim is 2014 is 0.02°C warmer than any other year. It is reasonable to assume that the US temperature record is among the best. Anthony Watts showed that only 7.9 percent of US stations are accurate to < 1°C. (Figure 9)

Figure 9

A Counter Headline Must Provide Perspective

Some form of the title for this article could work. "2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 year." Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.

Figure 10

Figure 10 Source

The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998),

After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago).

The key phrase in the 2014 claim is, "in the record", but that only covers approximately 100 years. In the climatologically meaningful 10,000-year context, it is among the coldest.

The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20th century temperatures were the "warmest ever". This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.

Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 - 1895) said,

The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

The problem is the facts keep piling up and the AGW proponents keep ignoring, diverting, or stick-handling (hockey terminology), their way round them. We know the science is wrong because the IPCC projections are wrong. Normal science requires re-examination of the hypothesis and its assumptions. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, "It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off."

Recommended article: Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.

Heavy rainfall in Borneo and Sumatra over the last 3 days has left parts of Malaysia and Indonesia struggling with yet more flooding. Malaysia is still recovering from the floods of December 2014 in the north of the country, which were some of the worst flooding seen in years.

Sarawak, Malaysia

In Borneo, over 5,000 people have been evacuated in the flood-hit state of Sarawak. This figure has dropped slightly from almost 7,000 earlier today. 38 relief centres have been set up to house those displaced by the floods.

The worst affected area is around the state capital of Kuching, where at one point almost 5,000 were staying in temporary accommodation. Just over 1,000 people have been displaced in Padawan.

One flood-related death has been reported in Mukah, when a teenage girl drowned after a boat capsized in rough waters.

[embedded content]

Power outages

The heavy rain has caused power outages in Limbang, Bau and Lundu after Sarawak Energy Bhd (SEB) said it had shut down several substations in areas affected by torrential rain

Flood waters receding but more rain forecast

Some reports say that the flood water have started to recede, at least in some places, allowing almost 2,000 to return to their homes. Malaysia's Drainage and Irrigation Department say there are currently no rivers with water levels at the danger point.

The rainfall over the last 24 hours has been less intense. 64 mm of rain fell in Kuching in 24 hours yesterday, compared to over 250 mm the day before.

However, further heavy rainfall has been forecast for parts of Borneo, including parts of Sarawak, and the Malaysian Meteorological Department has issued Orange level severe weather warnings.

East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Just over the border from Sarawak, the Indonesian provinces of East and West Kalimantan has also been affected by heavy rain and flooding over the last 3 days. Over 160 mm of rain fell in 24 hours in Putussibau yesterday, according to WMO.

Around 1,000 people have been evacuated in East Kalimantan after a river overflowed in the province.

Sumatra

Elsewhere in Indonesia, over 2,000 people have been evacuated in Aceh province after floods in South Aceh regency that first struck almost one week ago. Pidie Jaya regency has also been badly affected and 4,000 houses have been reportedly damaged as a result.

Mozambique's National Disaster Management Institute today confirmed that 71 people have died in the flooding that has ravaged parts of the country over the last 10 days.

The worst affected province is Zambezia, where 49 of the victims died. The area has been badly hit by flooding after the Licugno river overflowed. The province of Nampula has also been badly affected by flooding caused by heavy rainfall over the last two weeks.

The country's authorities have set up 34 relief centres to house those displaced by the floods. It is understood that around 30,000 people are currently staying in the centres.

Rescue and relief operations are being hampered by the closure of parts of the north-south highway in Zambezia province. Several communities are thought to be isolated as a result.

A group of 18 people, including 15 children, who were taking part in a coming-of-age ritual went missing in the floods late last week. The Mozambique authorities reported yesterday that all members of the group have been rescued and are safe.

Parts of south-eastern Africa have seen heavy rainfall since the start of the year. Malawi and Zimbabwe have also seen severe flooding.

A few aerial shots I took of the severe flooding here in #mozambiquefloods @Alimdaad @Alimdaad_UK @YACOOBVAHED http://bit.ly/1xYpr2i

- Qari Ziyaad Patel (@QariZiyaadPatel) January 18, 2015

Previous reports by several scientists in both reputable publications and cancer foundations have stressed the importance of soy to reduce breast cancer. Meanwhile there has been plenty of research to contradict these claims and completely oppose them. Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York studying invasive breast cancer are warning women that adding soy to your diet will speed up the rate at which breast cancer cells spread.

The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.

These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.

Accelerates The Progression of Breast Cancer

Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center compared tumor tissues from before and after a 30-day regimen of consuming a soy supplement while a control group took a placebo. They found changes in the expressions of certain genes, that are known to promote cell growth, in those women taking the soy supplement.

The findings led them to conclude the soy protein could potentially accelerate the progression of the disease. The study states: 'These data raise concern that soy may exert a stimulating effect on breast cancer in a sub set of women.'

Thousands of women are now consuming soy in the belief that it protects them against breast cancer. Yet, in 1996, researchers found that women consuming soy protein isolate had an increased incidence of epithelial hyperplasia, a condition that presages malignancies. A year later, dietary genistein was found to stimulate breast cells to enter the cell cycle - a discovery that led the study authors to conclude that women should not consume soy products to prevent breast cancer .

"It's a myth that soy prevents breast cancer," says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of "Numerous studies show that soy can cause, contribute to or even accelerate the growth of cancer."

All those taking part in this study had recently had breast biopsies and were diagnosed with stage one or two breast cancer. They were all scheduled to have a mastectomy or lumpectomy two to three weeks later.The researchers said it is not yet clear if the effects can be reversed.

Vegans and Vegetarians At Risk

Of the women with high genistein levels, a few of them experienced changes in a specified set of genes that are known to affect breast cancer cell growth, death, or some aspect of breast cancer pathology, Dr. Jacqueline Bromberg, co-author of the study said.

The changes were seen in women who consumed around 51.6 grams of soy - the equivalent of about four cups of soy milk a day.

The researchers concluded those who eat soy regularly could 'reasonably consume that amount' through the course of a day, particularly vegetarians and those who do not eat dairy products. They warned those living in Asian countries could be especially at risk, due to the high levels of tofu and soy in traditional diets.

Dr Bromberg, said: 'We're not talking about 20 times more soy. 'We're talking about something that a person could eat.'

A 1998 survey found that the average daily amount of soy protein consumed in Japan was about eight grams for men and seven for women - less than two teaspoons. Americans are consuming amounts far exceeding this quantity.

Genetically Modified

Any ingredient listed as soybean or soy on any product ingredient list has a 93% chance of being GMO if it is not listed as organic. But even organic soy cannot be trusted. Soy is very problematic crop . Non-organic sources of soy in many agricultural practices are being passed off as organic.

In 2011, the USDA uncovered a plot to import fraudulent organic certificates produced by an uncertified supplier in China. The Chinese firm used the counterfeit certificate to represent non-organic crops, including soybeans, millet and buckwheat, as certified organic. These types of things are happening every year and only a fraction are being discovered. Even domestically sourced organic soybean crops are now being investigated for having GMO origins. Organic soy also does not change the toxicity of unfermented sources so abundant in the food supply.

Most Soy is Unfermented

Phytates in unfermented soy products actually obstruct absorption of protein and four key minerals: calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc better than fermented sources. In their natural form, soybeans contain phytochemicals with toxic effects on the human body. The three major anti-nutrients are phytates, enzyme inhibitors and goitrogens. These anti-nutrients are the way nature protects the soybean plant so that it can live long enough to effectively reproduce. They function as the immune system of the plant, offering protection from the radiation of the sun, and from invasion by bacteria, viruses, or fungi. They make the soybean plant unappetizing to foraging animals.

All plants have some anti-nutrient properties, but the soybean plant is especially rich in these chemicals. If they are not removed by extensive preparation such as fermentation or soaking, soybeans are one of the worst foods a person can eat. The net protein utilization of unfermented soy is 61 which quite low. The most common soy (99%) sold at major grocery retailers in soy milks and processed foods is unfermented soy. It is deadly.

Unfermented soy has been linked to digestive distress, immune system breakdown, PMS, endometriosis, reproductive problems for men and women, allergies, ADD and ADHD, higher risk of heart disease and cancer, malnutrition, and loss of libido.

Fermented sources of soy such as natto, miso, tempeh and some fermented tofus are likely the only types of soy that should be consumed by humans and that's only if you can get around the crap shoot that they're non-GMO and organic (which there is no guarantee despite labeling).

When food is eaten, digestive enzymes such as amylase lipase and protease are secreted into the digestive tract to help break it down and free nutrients for assimilation into the body. The high content of enzyme inhibitors such as trypsin in unfermented soybeans interferes with this process and makes carbohydrates and proteins from soybeans impossible to completely digest.

The edifice of world post-1991 order is collapsing right now before our eyes. President Putin's decision to give a miss to the Auschwitz pilgrimage, right after his absence in Paris at the Charlie festival, gave it the last shove. It was good clean fun to troll Russia, as long as it stayed the course. Not anymore. Russia broke the rules.

Until now, Russia, like a country bumpkin in Eton, tried to belong. It attended the gathering of the grandees where it was shunned, paid its dues to European bodies that condemned it, patiently suffered ceaseless hectoring of the great powers and irritating baiting of East European small-timers alike. But something broke down. The lad does not want to belong anymore; he picked up his stuff and went home - just when they needed him to knee in Auschwitz.

Auschwitz gathering is an annual Canossa of Western leaders where they bewail their historic failure to protect the Jews and swear their perennial obedience to them. This is a more important religious rite of our times, the One Ring to rule them all, established in 2001, when the Judeo-American empire had reached the pinnacle of its power. The Russian leader had duly attended the events. This year, they will have to do without him. Israeli ministers already have expressed their deep dissatisfaction for this was Russia's Red Army that saved the Jews in Auschwitz, after all. Russia's absence will turn the Holocaust memorial day into a parochial, West-only, event. Worse, Russia's place will be taken by Ukraine, ruled by unrepentant heirs to Hitler's Bandera.

This comes after the French 'Charlie' demo, also spurned by Russia. The West hinted that Russia's sins would be forgiven, up to a point, if she joined, first the demo, and later, the planned anti-terrorist coalition, but Russia did not take the bait. This was a visible change, for previously, Russian leaders eagerly participated in joint events and voted for West-sponsored resolutions. In 2001, Putin fully supported George Bush's War on Terrorism in the UN and on the ground. As recently as 2011, Russia agreed with sanctions against North Korea and Iran. As for coming for a demonstration, the Russians could always be relied upon. This time, the Russians did not come, except for the token presence of the foreign minister Mr. Lavrov. This indomitable successor of Mr. Nyet left the event almost immediately and went - to pray in the Russian church, in a counter-demonstration, of sorts, against Charlie. By going to the church, he declared that he is not Charlie.

For the magazine was (and probably is) explicitly anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim. One finds on its pages some very obnoxious cartoons offending the Virgin and Christ, as well as the pope and the Church. (They never offend Jews, somehow).

A Russian blogger who's been exposed to this magazine for the first time, wrote on his page: I am ashamed that the bastards were dealt with by Muslims, not by Christians. This was quite a common feeling in Moscow these days. The Russians could not believe that such smut could be published and defended as a right of free speech. People planned a demo against the Charlie, but City Hall forbade it.

Remember, a few years ago, the Pussy Riot have profaned the St Saviour of Moscow like Femen did in some great European cathedrals, from Notre Dame de Paris to Strasbourg. The Russian government did not wait for vigilante justice to be meted upon the viragos, but sent them for up to two years of prison. At the same time, the Russian criminal law has been changed to include 'sacrilege' among ordinary crimes, by general consent. The Russians do feel about their faith more strongly than the EC rulers prescribe.

In Charlie's France, Hollande's regime frogmarched the unwilling people into a quite unnecessary gay marriage law, notwithstanding one-million-strong protest demonstrations by Catholics. Femen despoiling the churches were never punished; but a church warden who tried to prevent that, was heavily fined. France has a long anti-Christian tradition, usually described as "laic", and its grand anti-Church coalition of Atheists, Huguenots and Jews coalesced in Dreyfus Affair days. Thus Lavrov's escape to the church was a counter-demonstration, saying: Russia is for Christ, and Russia is not against Muslims.

While the present western regime is anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, it is pro-Jewish to an extent that defies a rational explanation. France had sent thousands of soldiers and policemen to defend Jewish institutions, though this defence antagonises their neighbours. While Charlie are glorified for insulting Christians and Muslims, Dieudonné has been sent to jail (just for a day, but with great fanfare) for annoying Jews. Actually, Charlie Hebdo dismissed a journalist for one sentence allegedly disrespectful for Jews. This unfairness is a source of aggravation: Muslims were laughed out of court when they complained against particularly vile Charlie's cartoons, but Jews almost always win when they go to the court against their denigrators. (Full disclosure: I was also sued by LICRA, the French Jewish body, while my French publisher was devastated by their legal attacks).

The Russians don't comprehend the Western infatuation with Jews, for Russian Jews have been well assimilated and integrated in general society. The narrative of Holocaust is not popular in Russia for one simple reason: so many Russians from every ethnic background lost their lives in the war, that there is no reason to single out Jews as supreme victims. Millions died at the siege of Leningrad; Belarus lost a quarter of its population. More importantly, Russians feel no guilt regarding Jews: they treated them fairly and saved them from the Nazis. For them, the Holocaust is a Western narrative, as foreign as JeSuisCharlie. With drifting of Russia out of Western consensus, there is no reason to maintain it.

This does not mean the Jews are discriminated against. The Jews of Russia are doing very well, thank you, without Holocaust worship: they occupy the highest positions in the Forbes list of Russia's rich, with a combined capital of $122 billion, while all rich ethnic Russians own only $165 billion, according to the Jewish-owned source. Jews run the most celebrated media shows in prime time on the state TV; they publish newspapers; they have full and unlimited access to Putin and his ministers; they usually have their way when they want to get a plot of land for their communal purposes. And anti-Semitic propaganda is punishable by law - like anti-Christian or anti-Muslim abuse, but even more severely. Still, it is impossible to imagine a Russian journalist getting sack like CNN anchor Jim Clancy or BBC's Tim Willcox for upsetting a Jew or speaking against Israel.

Russia preserves its plurality, diversity and freedom of opinion. The pro-Western Russian media - Novaya Gazeta of oligarch Lebedev, the owner of the British newspaper Independent - carries the JeSuis slogan and speaks of the Holocaust, as well as demands to restore Crimea to the Ukraine. But the vast majority of Russians do support their President, and his civilizational choice. He expressed it when he went to midnight Christmas mass in a small village church in far-away province, together with orphans and refugees from the Ukraine. And he expressed it by refusing to go to Auschwitz.

Neither willingly nor easily did Russia break ranks. Putin tried to take Western baiting in his stride: be it Olympic games, Syria confrontation, gender politics, Georgian border, even Crimea-related sanctions. The open economic warfare was a game-changer. Russia felt attacked by falling oil prices, by rouble trouble, by credit downgrading. These developments are considered an act of hostility, rather than the result of "the hidden hand of the market".

Russians love conspiracia, as James Bond used to say. They do not believe in chance, coincidence nor natural occurrences, and are likely to consider a falling meteorite or an earthquake - a result of hostile American action, let alone a fall in the rouble/dollar exchange rate. They could be right, too, though it is hard to prove.

Regarding oil price fall, the jury is out. Some say this action by Saudis is aimed at American fracking companies, or alternatively it's a Saudi-American plot against Russia. However, the price of oil is not formed by supply-demand, but by financial instruments, futures and derivatives. This virtual demand-and-supply is much bigger than the real one. When hedge funds stopped to buy oil futures, price downturn became unavoidable, but were the funds directed by politicians, or did they act so as Quantitative Easing ended?

The steep fall of the rouble could be connected to oil price downturn, but not necessarily so. The rouble is not involved in oil price forming. It could be an action by a very big financial institution. Soros broke the back of British pound in 1991; Korean won, Thai bath and Malaysian ringgit suffered similar fate in 1998. In each case, the attacked country lost about 40% of its GDP. It is possible that Russia was attacked by financial weapons directed from New York.

The European punitive sanctions forbade long-term cheap credit to Russian companies. The Russian state does not need loans, but Russian companies do. Combination of these factors put a squeeze on Russian pockets. The rating agencies kept downgrading Russian rating to almost junk level, for political reasons, I was told. As they were deprived of credit, state companies began to hoard dollars to pay later their debts, and they refrained from converting their huge profits to roubles, as they did until now. The rouble fell drastically, probably much lower than it had to.

This is not pinpoint sanctions aimed at Putin's friends. This is a full-blown war. If the initiators expected Russians to be mad at Putin, they miscalculated. The Russian public is angry with the American organisers of the economical warfare, not with its own government. The pro-Western opposition tried to demonstrate against Putin, but very few people joined them.

Ordinary Russians kept a stiff upper lip. They did not notice the sanctions until the rouble staggered, and even then they shopped like mad rather than protested. In the face of shrinking money, they did not buy salt and sugar, as their grandparents would have. Their battle cry against hogging was "Do not take more than two Lexus cars per family, leave something for others!"

Perhaps, the invisible financiers went too far. Instead of being cowed, the Russians are preparing for a real long war, as they and their ancestors have historically fought - and won. It is not like they have a choice: though Americans insist Russia should join their War-on-Terrorism-II, they do not intend to relinquish sanctions.

The Russians do not know how to deal with a financial attack. Without capital restrictions, Russia will be cleaned out. Russian Central bank and Treasury people are strict monetarists, capital restrictions are anathema for them. Putin, being a liberal himself, apparently trusts them. Capital flight has taken huge proportions. Unless Russia uses the measures successfully tried by Mohammad Mahathir of Malaysia, it will continue. At present, however, we do not see sign of change.

This could be the incentive for Putin to advance in Ukraine. If the Russians do not know how to shuffle futures and derivatives, they are expert in armour movements and tank battles. Kiev regime is also spoiling for a fight, apparently pushed by the American neocons. It is possible that the US will get more than what it bargained for in the Ukraine.

One can be certain that Russians will not support the Middle Eastern crusade of NATO, as this military action was prepared at the Charlie demo in Paris. It is far from clear who killed the cartoonists, but Paris and Washington intend to use it for reigniting war in the Middle East. This time, Russia will be in opposition, and probably will use it as an opportunity to change the uncomfortable standoff in the Ukraine. Thus supporters of peace in the Middle East have a good reason to back Russia.

A 5.9 meter long and 3.2 meter wide minke whale weighing 2 tons was found dead, stranded in a fishnet in the East Sea 19 kilometers from land in Wondeok-eup, Samcheok City, Kangwon-do on January 20.

The whale was sold for 48 million won (US$ 44,138) on consignment. The minke whale is the third whale found stranded in Korean waters so far this year. One minke whale was found in a net near Pohang on January 14, and sold for 16 million won (US$ 14,711) on consignment. Another was found stranded near Daejin Port in Donghae City on January 12, and sold for 19 million won (US$ 17,463).

The Raw Story

Focused on providing independent journalism.

Kiev orders crackdown on Russian TV channels

What I did after police killed my son

Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Them and us: Murdering journalists

2014 is among the 3 percent of coldest years in 10,000 years

Thousands evacuated following flooding in Malaysia and Indonesia

71 people die in Mozambique floods

FLASHBACK: Scientists warn soy speeds up the spread of breast cancer cells

The Western trolling of Russia

3 minke whales found dead in just 9 days, South Korea

Search

Recent Posts

Popular