A Skewed View on History, NATO and the 'Truth' that is EUkrainia

James Bissett has outstanding qualifications as a diplomat and a participant and observer in the great events of modern history. His 'slant' on modern times, while it flies in the face of 'conventional wisdom' and the philosophy that justifies modern aggressive war, is the kind of truth that should be setting us free.

Our 'enemies' may not be waging Jihad, or 'invading' Ukrainia,   but sitting behind desks in the power centres of the western governments and corporate offices.  Along with the political shenanigans, the rationale for  'eternal war' is based in the greed of the 'free market' and the need to control the earth's resources to 'create wealth' for 'the deserving'.

Western 'democratic' governments have been co-opted, or 'created' by corporate interests to fulfill a purpose that often has nothing to do with ordinary people. Except that the ordinary people are expected, and legislated,  into supporting and paying for it. The democracy part stops at the 'election process' which sees a list of 'selected' characters stand and, often, given the deepest pockets, elected to office. Democracy like this we haven't had since the days of the Roman forum.

We in the democratic west used to make mock of the Russian system of 'official' candidates and a uniparty approach.  But what's the difference between multi-parties with only coloured icing to differentiate and the same 'donors' getting the same favors from whichever wins an election and would like to win the next one?  The Electorate can't recall a 'mistake' in mid-term, doing so, in most democracies, would be greeted by the riot squad or the military. In Ukraine it took $6 billion in foreign investment and a few years of  'organizing'.  Something like 'the Maidan' in New York City, or London, wouldn't be tolerated - squatters in the 'business district' weren't.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk , Prime Minister of the Black Hundreds was in Berlin last week drumming-up some Eurosupport (money) for besieged little Ukrainia, made a very interesting speech to the Germans. While I'm pretty sure he might have mentioned some aspects of their common history, I'm pretty sure that BabiYar didn't come up.  What did come up was the following:"All of us still clearly remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany,"

Other 'Invasion' Lviv 1941

While speaking for himself might indicate a failing grade in high-school history, or at least a term paper that might not have panned-out as planned,  but what 'all' in Germany might remember, even though it isn't on the curriculum, is what most Germans to-day call 'the Nazi era' and the resulting liberation by Allied forces - one of which was Russian. The defeat of Naziism may be recalled, maybe even the defeat of Germany, but "invasion'"- only to Adolf.  Unless you're counting the British, French and American, along with lesser allies,  as well. The Russians certainly were 'in company' for that "invasion." They 'did Ukraine', that time, all on their own, and the valiant forces of Bandera, for the most part, fled west, with the Wehrmacht behind them - 'scorching' Ukraine as they retreated. In that light, if nothing else, can it be contrasted to what hasn't happened, yet, to Ukraine.  His statement is certainly at odds with the experience of most of EU outside Germany but does demonstrate the adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Kyiv after the Soviet 'invasion'1944

Jesus Charlie

The world is decompressing from another terror incident, this time in Paris. 'Muslim extremists' - differentiated from other extremists by their religious beliefs - attacked the headquarters of a 'satirical' French publication which his now differentiated from other such scatological institutions by the violent deaths of a number of staffers.

The world is not decompressing from another terror incident that happened at the same time in Nigeria.  There the same kind of extremists attacked a small town and left, it is claimed,  two thousand dead inhabitants lying in the streets when they departed.

And there lies the difference between terror that affects us, because the victims are apparently much like ourselves, and terror that affects someone else and about which we really don't have the time, or inclination, to care.

World leaders were literally fighting each other to be first with the bullet of moral indignation ... to deflect, or lead, their sheeple in the path they would like us to go. One of then , valiant Nathan of gallant Israel missed the bus to the event and had to elbow his way into the front rank. Yes, we're willing to send more troops to Iraq and Syria to kill those 'Muslim extremists', whatever they may look like, but Nigeria can look after itself. What happened in France is a 'war on civilization', Nigeria is 'another expression of the differences caused by religious belief'. France is about a need to strike at superstition, Nigeria is about superstition.  We must focus on the one and we can safely ignore the other.

The Media Pic - leading the Masses

The one you didn't need to see

To-day we find 'value' in the ability to make fun of almost anything. Since  the days of the French Revolution, and possibly long before that, the notorious French ability to 'take the mickey' out of anything - usually anything sacred, or  revered, has done much to turn that former land of saints into a bouillabaise of  secularism that doesn't know what it stands for,  other than a good time. Since the time of Napoleon, the place has been on the skids, largely because it doesn't, as a nation, believe in anything that might unify it. Even the fear of the Boche, or regaining sacred lost provinces would cause an argument among Frenchmen. They haave seen politicians, and what politicians do best, being done best for the better part of a century or more - a beaujoulais nouveau is more to be trusted.


But the French are like us and 'we' don't do that any more ... slaughter each other. Or at least we haven't for 75 years. The Africans are different ... 'they' do those things, naturally.