Europe’s Demographic Suicide

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

Gerelateerde afbeelding

Source: The Ugly Thruth and Dcdave.com

The title above is as it appeared atop the main opinion piece in the May 25-31 Arlington Catholic Herald, the weekly newspaper of the Arlington, Virginia, diocese. The Denver Catholic had a slightly different title, but it’s the same article that was also doubtless in Roman Catholic newspapers around the country. The article delivered a good deal less than its title promised, and because of that and because of some other shortcomings in the piece, I had a strong urge to write a letter to the editor. Then I thought of my experience 17 years ago when I wrote a letter to the same newspaper about an article by the same author and they didn’t see fit to publish it. I had to resort to putting it on my own web site, which some years later I reposted with the title, “The Brazen Duplicity of George Weigel.” Well, here we go again.

 

Anyone following world events knows that most of the countries of Europe are staring a major demographic problem in the face. Most have low and declining birth rates and they are being swamped by immigrants, a large percentage of whom are refugees from wars and chaos in the Middle East and North Africa, which, in turn resulted from the military action of the United States and its European allies. This war-induced immigration and Europe’s low birth rate are the twin elements of what one might call Europe’s looming demographic disaster, and because the war policies have by-and-large been supported by Europe’s leaders and because many of those same leaders, with Germany’s Angela Merkel in the forefront, have welcomed the resulting refugees with open arms, the “demographic suicide” charge might well apply to both elements. Because the largely Muslim immigrants typically have a much higher birth rate than do the natives of Europe and because they are particularly hard to assimilate, the immigration element might well be the stronger of the contributors to Europe’s “demographic suicide.” With that fact in mind, let’s have a look at how Weigel, with his usual lofty tone, begins his article:

Ten years ago, after my meditation on Europe, The Cube and the Cathedral, had appeared in several languages, I was invited to speak to members of the European Parliament in Brussels. There, I pointed out what seemed three rather obvious points.

(1) Europe is committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself in what British historian Niall Ferguson has called “the greatest sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death in the 14th century.”

(2) This unwillingness to create the future in the most elemental sense, by creating new generations, is at the root of many of Europe’s problems, including its difficulties assimilating immigrants and its fiscal distress.

(3) When an entire continent—healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before—deliberately chooses sterility, the most basic cause for that must lie in the realm of the human spirit, in a certain souring about the very mystery of being.

First, he makes it apparent that he’s just going to address the low-birth-rate side of the problem, although we can’t see at this point how poorly he is going to do even that.

 

Second, of all the people who might speak to Europeans about their demographic problem, I can hardly think of a person with less moral authority than Weigel. The extremely pro-Israel U.S. war policies that he has been a cheerleader for, after all, are a major cause of the wave of immigration that is overwhelming Europe.

 

Third, I don’t see how he can use the word “obvious” in describing his points two and three, considering the muddiness of the exposition. What could Europe’s low birth rate have to do with its problem in assimilating immigrants? Isn’t the basic problem simply that Europe increasingly has too many immigrants and that these immigrants are hard to assimilate because they don’t want to be assimilated? And anyone capable of spinning out the words, “a certain souring about the very mystery of being,” to my mind, is simply best ignored (although I must admit to having written the expression “mystery of being” once in a poem). It’s that sort of murky prose, along with his apparent complete lack of anything resembling a sense of humor, however, that affords him the opportunity to bask so much in the adjective, “intellectual.”

 

Later in the article he makes one brief nod of recognition of the Muslim-immigration elephant in the room, only to dismiss it in the larger scheme of things “[as] a Catholic.”

 

The members of the American commentariat most attuned to this plague of Euro-childlessness tend to discuss its impacts in terms of the rapidly growing Muslim population in Europe and the difficulties so many European states seem to have in assimilating immigrants from a different civilizational orbit. Those problems are real enough. But for a Catholic, Europe’s demographic winter bespeaks, first and foremost, a colossal evangelical failure. Acknowledging that also sheds light on the contemporary Catholic situation in Europe.

 

Once again, please note, the only immigration problem that Weigel acknowledges is the puzzling inability of European countries to assimilate the immigrants rather than with the wave of virtually inassimilable migrants that is inundating them. His primary focus, though, is on the failure of Catholic values as exhibited by people not having children.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor europe's demographic suicide cartoon

Real Evidence of Eroding Christian Values

 

If this “Catholic intellectual” had wanted to make some cogent observations about the decline of Catholic values, he could have found a number of better indicators. For starters, take a look at Table 4 on births to unmarried women as a percentage of all live births for 12 countries over the period 1980-2000 in the Monthly Labor Review (MLR) article “Families and Work in Transition in 12 Countries.” The increases are stunning. In the Netherlands it went from 4.1% to 24.9%, in France it rose from 11.4% to 42.6%, and in the United Kingdom from 11.5% to 39.5%. And in what used to be three very Catholic countries, this indicator shows which of them seems to be losing its Catholic values most rapidly. In Italy, births to unwed mothers grew over the period from 4.3% to 9.6%, in Spain from 3.9% to 17.0%, and in Ireland from 5.0% to a whopping 31.8%, and that’s just over a 20-year period.

 

One can’t take comfort that these are births to people who are in a consensual union, essentially informally married and acting as proper parents. In Table 6 we see that single-parent households as a percent of all households with children rose in the Netherlands from 9.6 in 1988 to 13.0 in 2000, in France 11.9 to 17.1 over the same short period, while in the UK it rose from 13.9 in 1981 to 20.7 in 2001. Once again, the biggest jump up was in Ireland, where single parent households made up 7.2% of households with children in 1981 and 16.7 % of households with children in 2002.

 

In contrast to these truly disturbing trends, Table 5 shows that there is hardly any trend at all toward what Weigel calls “the plague of Euro-childlessness,” as we can see reflected in the percentage of total households made up by married couple households without children. In France, in fact, there was even a slight decline in that percentage from 1982 to 2001. Weigel’s entire basis for assuming that there is such a plague is that at this moment in time several European leaders for one reason or another happen to be childless. From that he jumps to general “Euro-childlessness,” and thence to demographic suicide. If that’s the scholarship of an intellectual, I’d prefer not to be called one.

 

Seeing Population Decline More Clearly

 

He could have made his demographic point much better by simply referencing fertility statistics, but then he couldn’t wring his hands so much over the “certain souring about the very mystery of being.”  Table 1 of the MLR article shows that of the 12 countries covered only the United States had a fertility rate as of 2001 that would lead to a natural rate of population increase. To hold steady, the fertility rate would have to be at 2.1 per female of childbearing age. Italy was at 1.24, Spain at 1.25, and Germany at 1.29. There, in a nutshell, is the depopulation of Europe that the historian Ferguson was talking about.

 

Referencing the fertility rate tables of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to bring the numbers up to date, we can detect in many instances either an arrest in the rate of fertility decline or a small reversal in the downward direction in the rate. But, as explained in the text of the MLR article, the main reason at that time for the U.S. fertility rate being higher was that its immigration rate was higher and immigrant women, with their higher fertility rate, had bumped the national fertility rate up. Now, no doubt, we see that same phenomenon beginning to show in Europe. From a social cohesion standpoint and from a “demographic suicide” standpoint native Europeans can take cold comfort in whatever small rise there might be now in the gross fertility statistics.

 

Homicide, Not Suicide

 

My strongest charge against Weigel in my previous abortive letter to the editor of the Arlington Catholic Herald was that he was deceitful. Now I think he’s at it again. What’s really going on demographically—and particularly culturally—with respect to old Europe is more like a homicide than a suicide, and the Jewish dominated neocon crowd to which Weigel belongs is the primary guilty party. Weigel focuses upon the population decline of Europe and couches it in censorious moral tones, in effect blaming the victim. In reality, what we see going on is the result of quite rational economic decisions by the majority of married couples to limit their number of children to no more than two. There’s no good reason to describe this development in demographic-winter, apocalyptical terms. The continent could probably use a little less crowding and could get along quite well with fewer people, what with the growing use of automation. And one really has to question the long-term implications of the implicit Weigel economic model, requiring as it does endless population growth.

 

Concerning Weigel’s personal guilt for the cultural-demographic homicide of Europe, see this quote from my earlier article:

 

In 1997, Weigel and a host of prominent neoconservatives and hardline foreign policy wonks added their names to the founding statement of principles of PNAC, a group that helped champion a new post-Cold War agenda guided by a “Reaganite” foreign policy and served as a key rallying point for supporters of an Iraq war in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Weigel endeavored to develop a Christian justification for the invasion of Iraq and for the use of preemptive military force. In opposition to the arguments of many leading Catholics, Weigel stated that the Catholic just-war tradition “lives more vigorously … at the higher levels of the Pentagon than … in certain offices at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

 

That quote was taken from the web site, Right Web: Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy. Their Weigel page has since been updated, and, as they document with numerous references, a greater warmonger than Weigel is hard to imagine. But for the fact that he presumably takes regular communion, he might as well be William Kristol, with perhaps an admixture of Professor Irwin Corey thrown in.

 

Premeditated Murder

There is some evidence that the attempted cultural homicide of Europe is premeditated, and that it is the work of the same people for whom Weigel is an evident hireling, and not just an incidental byproduct of the bloody-minded foreign policy that he so eagerly champions. Here we have it in the words of Barbara Lerner Spectre, the American-born founding director of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden:

 

I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re going be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place.

 

Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies [sic] that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make.

 

They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.

 

Indeed, and why shouldn’t they be?   The larger question, though, is why this transformation to multiculturalism is something that “must take place” and why Jews would want to be at the center of it.   It is certainly not what she would advocate for Israel, quite the opposite I would imagine. One can’t help but suspect that it is part of a larger, longstanding campaign against Christianity and is of a piece with the ongoing propaganda campaign to vilify the most monolithically Christian region of the United States, the American South.

 

Another question that needs to be asked is why someone like George Weigel would have a regular platform in American Catholic publications to promote his poisonous views in his devious manner.

 

David Martin

June 1, 2017

source

Please follow and like us:
0

Hoe het “Soros” netwerk werkt een “Color revolutie” in de maak voor Hongarije – blog Zoltán Kovács staatssecretaris Hongarije

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

Gerelateerde afbeelding

 

Volgens de Hongaarse premier is er  slechts een  belangrijk element  in het Hongaarse publieke leven dat niet transparant is, ‘zei premier Orbán in het vrijdagavond-radio interview’ en dat is het Soros Mafia-netwerk en zijn organisaties die niet als burgerorganisaties kunnen worden beschouwd, maar agenten die werken voor het Nastreven van George Soros ‘doelen. ”

De premier reageerde hiermee op opmerkingen die deze week door George Soros werden gepubliceerd, waarin de valutaspekulant beweerde dat PM Orbán een “maffia staat” had opgericht.

Soros’s opmerkingen zijn van een man die zelf transparantie heeft vermeden terwijl hij illegale migratie  naar Europa bevorderde en in sommige gevallen steun gaf aan Hongaarse oppositiegroepen. Soros en zijn netwerk worden vaak afgebeeld als de welwillende filantroop, een open samenlevingsagenda van open grenzen en immigratie die zogenaamd samenwerkt  met groepen om democratisch gekozen regeringen te vernietigen door zogenaamde “Color revoluties”.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor soros netwerk cartoon


Vorige maand heeft een groep linkse leden van het Europees Parlement een resolutie ingediend om de artikel 7-procedures in te zetten  tegen de regering van Hongarije. Het was niet onverwacht. Zoals eerder  beschreven, verwacht Hongarije nu een politiek offensief, een jaar na de Hongaarse parlementsverkiezingen.

De resolutie zelf en de feitelijk onjuiste claims, bevat enkele nieuwe punten. De resolutie van het EP zou Hongarije dwingen om de zuidelijke grenzen van Europa te verdedigen en zo de onbeheerde instroom van migranten te bevorden. Een terugkeer naar 2015 toen de grens onbeschermd was ener  honderden duizenden ongeregistreerde migranten illegaal naar Europa zijn gekomen. Het is moeilijk te begrijpen hoe dat in het belang van Europa zou moeten zijn, maar het is in lijn met de open maatschappelijke agenda van George Soros.

Daarom hebben velen, waaronder de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken van Hongarije, dit laatste verslag van het Europees Parlement het “Soros-rapport” genoemd.

Soros is de afgelopen jaren regelmatig op bezoek geweest bij de Europese instellingen in Brussel. Afgelopen woensdag had deze privé-burger vergaderingen met drie Europese commissarissen: – Christos Stylianides, verantwoordelijk voor humanitaire hulp en crisisbeheersing; Pierre Moscovici, verantwoordelijk voor Economische en Financiële Zaken; En Dimitris Avramopoulos, die verantwoordelijk is voor, migratie, binnenlandse Zaken en Burgerschap. Tot op heden hebben we geen substantiële informatie gekregen over wat ze besproken hebben.

Vorig jaar schreef Soros artikelen die suggereren dat de EU jaarlijks 4,5 miljoen (!) Migranten op moet nemen en de integratiekosten voor deze mensen gedekt moet worden door de bestaande wetgeving en het nemen van leningen via zijn organisaties. Twee weken voor de stemming over  artikel 7 werd de valuta speculator hartelijk ontvangen in Brussel en ontmoette ook andere EU-leiders.  Naar buiten met het publiek en zogenaamde regeringen die dwars liggen wordt niet gecommuniceerd!


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor open migratie volgens soros


Als u zich afvraagt waarom deze privé-burger dergelijke privileges bij de EU-leiders heeft, dan ben je niet de enige. De invloed van Soros in Brussel is ruim onder de aandacht van de media maar over het wereldwijde belangennetwerk van de miljardair wordt niets prijs gegeven. De details zijn hoogst interessant.

Vergelijk bijvoorbeeld de lijst met namen van de leden van het EP die de artikel 7 “motie” tegen Hongarije hebben opgezet op de “lekkende” lijst, ze zijn  bondgenoten van Soros in het Europees Parlement  en dus niet verrassend dat ze veel gemeen hebben.

In een gelekte e-mail van het European Policy Institute van de “Open Society”, een raadgevend bedrijf,  met “betrouwbare bondgenoten” in het Europees Parlement. Zullen tussen 2014-2019 , volgens het insiderdocument, waarschijnlijk de aanbevelingen van de Open Soros Society in de wet van het EP  zullen worden vastgelegd.

Een handige, gedetailleerde gids (177 pagina’s) voor de Europese lobbyisten van de Open Society Foundations in Europa, geeft aan dat het bondgenootschap “over 11 commissies en 26 delegaties bestaat, evenals de hoogste beslissingsorganen van het Europees Parlement: er zijn dus 226 MEPs (Euro Parlementariërs) die na gewezen of bewezenis, de bondgenoten van de Open Society- zijn.

Geen verrassing dat het veel overlappingen heeft met de initiatiefnemers van het “Soros-rapport” tegen Hongarije heeft, twee weken na het bezoek van de miljonair’s  aan Brussel aanvaardt is. Tweeëntwintig van de 37 namen zijn te vinden in de lijst van “betrouwbare bondgenoten”, een bijna 60 procent overlapping.

Péter Niedermüller, Birgit Sippel, Sophie in ’t Veld, Guy Verhofstadt, Louis Michel, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Cornelia Ernst, Gabriele Zimmer, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Martina Anderson, Malin Björk, Barbara Spinelli, Sabine Lösing, Helmut Scholz, Younous Omarjee, Lola Sánchez Caldentey, Judith Sargentini, Ska Keller, Ulrike Lunacek, Eva Joly, Josep-Maria Terricabras en Sven Giegold worden allemaal beschouwd als betrouwbare bondgenoten van Soros. De correlatie is sterk en overtuigend.

Wat het verslag van het Europees Parlement betreft “over de situatie in Hongarije”:  is er maar één instelling met de wettelijke autoriteit om een ​​wet van de lidstaten uit te voeren. Dat is de Europese Commissie.

Maar één ding moet duidelijk zijn. Hongarije zal onder geen beding voorrang geven aan de waanzinnige “open society” ideeën van een miljardair die een privé-burger is,  voor de belangen van de Europese burgers. De regering van premier Orbán is verantwoordelijk voor de Hongaren, en Hongarije heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat zij ten alle tijden verzet plegen tegen onbeheerde en illegale migratie.

Bron: http://abouthungary.hu/blog/the-machinations-of-the-soros-mafia-network/

Zoltán Kovács

Zoltán Kovács (politician,)
Historicus
Ambt: Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Relations of Hungary sinds 2010
Please follow and like us:
0

Nederland heeft Syrische en Irakese burgers vermoord

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Dutch killed Syrian people cartoon

Gisterenavond kwam eindelijk het nieuws naar buiten. Nieuws wat geen nieuws is, misschien voor de onwetende Nederlandse burgers, maar zeker niet voor de politiek, want bijna alle partijen hebben voor gestemd en ook al hebben sommige partijen niet voor gestemd, een ieder weet dat als je zogenaamde “missies” gaat vliegen er doden vallen, precisie bombardementen zijn nooit precies en in elke aanval vallen doden.

Daarbij komt nog het feit dat de Nederlandse regering zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan niet alleen moord, maar ook op het aanvallen van een soeverein land en dat geld zowel voor Syrië als Irak. Het is zeer duidelijk volgens het internationaal recht hebben staten, niet het recht andere staten aan te vallen of te bezetten. Wat gebeurd met Syrië, Irak, Afghanistan, Palestina en andere veel andere landen in de wereld!

Syrië heeft zelf de hulp ingeroepen van Rusland en dit waren dus illegale aanvallen op een soevereine staat. Irak, Afghanistan en Palestina zijn bezet door de EU/NATO en VS.

Gezien de bovenstaande feiten zou er een aanklacht tegen de Nederlandse staat/EU en de VS ingediend moeten worden. Ik zal maar zwijgen over de staat Israël, die niet alleen illegaal grond claimt maar ook nog als bezettingsmacht de tactiek uitroeien van het Palestijnse volk handhaaft.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Nederland vermoorde burgers in Syrie

Pater Frans van der Lugt, de enige Nederlander in Syrië, die gewaarschuwd heeft voor terroristen, niemand wilde luisteren, uiteindelijk is hij door hen vermoord en werd er een “hypocriet afscheid” georganiseerd door de politiek in Den Haag!

Verder met Syrië: Nederland heeft nu, volgens het ministerie van Defensie toegegeven dat zeker in vier gevallen er burgerdoden zijn gevallen. Er 2100 missies zijn gevlogen en 1800 bombardementen, alles onder de pretext van IS, zijn er BURGER slachtoffers gevallen. Een criminele daad, die veroordeeld moet worden.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor politiek den haag schuldig aan moord cartoon2016:

Een grote meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer heeft gestemd voor het kabinetsbesluit om de Nederlandse betrokkenheid in de strijd tegen IS te vergroten (januari 2016). ‘Onze’ F16’s mogen nu behalve boven Irak ook bombarderen boven Syrië. Volgens het kabinet is een uitbreiding gerechtvaardigd, omdat bewezen is dat IS vanuit Syrië zijn strijders in Irak bevoorraadt.

Formeel hoeft de Tweede Kamer geen toestemming te geven voor militaire missies, maar het is goed gebruik dat het kabinet alleen tot dit soort missies besluit als er brede steun is in het parlement. Dit keer was de steun (uiteindelijk) opvallend groot: alleen SP, GroenLinks, Partij voor de Dieren en de Groep Kuzu/Özturk stemden woensdagmiddag tegen. In totaal stemden 122 Kamerleden voor en 22 tegen. Militaire missies zoals die naar Afghanistan leidden in het recente verleden tot aanzienlijk grotere verdeeldheid.

De Syrische autoriteiten hebben geen toestemming gegeven voor door de Amerikanen geleide luchtaanvallen op doelen van Islamitische Staat (IS) in Syrië. Uitlatingen van de Syrische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken zijn daarvoor ‘volkenrechtelijk gezien te algemeen van strekking’, volgens de toen nog  minister  van Buitenlandse Zaken Frans Timmermans.

Zijn Syrische collega, Walid al-Moualem, verklaarde daarna  bij de Verenigde Naties in New York dat Syrië achter elke internationale inspanning staat die gericht is op het bestrijden van terrorisme. Maar Syrië uitdrukkelijk toestemming moet geven of de hulp in moet roepen van Buitenlandse soevereine staten. Wat niet gebeurd is, Syrië heeft alleen de hulp van Rusland ingeroepen en uitdrukkelijk NIET van o.a. Nederland! Wat totaal anders geïnterpreteerd is door de media aan het Nederlandse volk. Hieruit blijkt dat de media en politiek in Nederland propaganda en leugens verkondigen aan haar eigen volk! Daarbij in het achterhoofd een “dirty” oorlog in Syrië, na al in een oorlog verwikkeld te zijn in Irak, Afghanistan, 1999 NATO bombardementen in Joegoslavië en natuurlijk de vernietiging van Libië en haar volk!

Wanneer Nederlandse politici, van alle partijen houden jullie op met oorlogen, imperialisme en kolonialisme? Wat leidt tot radicalisering. Daarbij een zogenaamd beroep doen op de Nederlandse bevolking om zoveel mogelijk vluchtelingen op te nemen uit de landen die jullie eerst gebombardeerd hebben? Ziek deze wisselwerking en de destructie van het Midden-Oosten maar ook van de Europese samenlevingen.

Dit dames en heren is de uitkomst van de Nederlandse politiek, die in een gas en olie oorlog verwikkeld is onder het mom van IS. IS die met medeweten van de EU, (een eerder artikel dat ik schreef over de Turkse klokkenluider) Turkije gebruikt heeft om de olie, onder controle van IS in Syrië en Irak naar Italië te smokkelen en zo naar de andere EU landen. Illegaal en crimineel en daar hebben 122 Kamerleden VOOR gestemd.

Het fabeltje, we wisten het niet, hebben de Duitser ook gebruikt in de 2e wereldoorlog, in ieder geval wisten de burgers het niet, maar de politiek kan zich daar niet achter verschuilen!

Bron: Nu.nl, Wikipedia, Internationaal recht http://www.asser.nl/media/1598/h-12-internationale-rechtshandhaving-willem-van-genugten-fred-grunfeld-en-dick-leurdijk.pdf

 

Please follow and like us:
0

President Al-Assad en zijn vrouw Asma-Al-Assad ontvangen 34 vrijgelaten burgers uit Barzeh

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

President Bashar al-Assad en vrouw ontvingen afgelopen donderdag 34 ontvoerde personen, waaronder twee vrouwen, samen met hun families, die werden vastgehouden door de gewapende terroristische groepen in Barzeh voordat ze werden vrijgelaten.

President Al-Assad en zijn vrouw feliciteren de ontvoerden over hun bevrijding en het einde van het moeilijke dilemma dat ze samen met hun families hebben door gemaakt.

Barzeh  is een gemeente en een wijk in het noorden van Damascus , Syrië .  Met  een bevolking van 47.339  De wijk  Barzeh was grotendeels onder bedreiging van diverse terroristische groepringen.    In Barzeh  was sinds 2014 een wapenstilstand tussen de terroristen en de regering . Op 1 april 2015 begonnen de terroristen ( Jaish al-Islam en de eerste brigade van het zogenaamde vrij-Syrische leger )   een onderlinge campagne met ISIS die drie dagen later succesvol eindigde. Op 29 mei 2017 herstelde de Syrische regering de controle over het gehele district.

De president zei dat de Syrische samenleving een echte crisis doorleeft en ontvoeringen een echt probleem is eraan toevoegend dat dit een obsessie en nachtmerrie is voor de Syrische staat, instellingen en ambtenaren.

De president voegde eraan toe dat “dergelijke dilemma’s de burger sterker maken; Hij of zij wordt meer patriottisch wordt en de waarde van zijn geboorteland kent, weet wat het betekent dat het thuisland veilig moet zijn. ‘

President Al-Assad voegde eraan toe dat, ondanks alle pogingen van de terroristische groepen, die de daden en ontvoering plegen om uw overtuigingen door de ergste martelingen te veranderen, hebben zij uw patriottisme en uw standvastigheid tijdens de ontvoeringstijd niet beïnvloed .

“De strijd is nog niet afgelopen, er zijn nog steeds duizenden Syriërs die door hetzelfde dilemma gaan, de vreugde zal niet voltooid zijn totdat iedereen bevrijd is en de veiligheid geheel zal worden hersteld ,” zei de president”.

De vrijgegeven personen bevestigden dat ze sterk geloofden dat de staat hen zou bevrijden en zeiden dat ze terugkeren naar hun normale leven om de veiligheid en stabiliteit in Syrië te helpen herstellen.

Bron: SANA, YouTube

Please follow and like us:
0

Maria Zakharov: Nederlanders in een on-democratische situatie over Oekraïne

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor oekraine en het nederlandse verdrag carton

Nederland heeft haar democratie opgegeven en het kapitaal gaat boven het volk door de ratificatie van het  EU-Oekraïne Association verdrag. Dit werd in ongeveer deze bewoording  uitgedrukt door het Russische ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: woordvoerder  Maria Zakharova.

“Het afgelopen jaar in Rusland – en de wereld – werd er met argus ogen en veel belangstelling gekeken, toen de aanhangers van het zogenaamde Europese toekomst verdrag (EU) met Oekraïne, de laatste veertien maanden naarstig op zoek waren naar een uitweg uit de situatie na het referendum in Nederland, waar het Nederlandse volk duidelijk en ondubbelzinnig NEE stemde en haar verzet tegen het idee, dat om elke prijs, Oekraïne aan de EU te binden en zo een stap dichter bij toetreding van de Europese Unie – zei Zakharov -. Zoals verwacht  gebeurde het, dank de massale propaganda van Brussel (en niet alleen in Brussel) politici in Nederland en Oekraïne kregen er geen genoeg van te benadrukken hoe belangrijk het wel was dat Oekraïne bij de EU zou moeten komen, alles om de hypothetische vijand Rusland uit te schakelen. Premier Rutte, legde gewoon een inlegvel in het verdrag en daar was het  klaar om te ratificeren!

“Het was allemaal heel voorspelbaar en in recente debatten werd het allemaal weer teruggebracht tot ongefundeerde beschuldigingen en provocaties tegen Moskou. Het oproepen tot  Europese solidariteit, tegen de imaginaire mythische” Russische dreiging “, – zei het Russische ministerie van buitenlandse zaken. – Echter, dit alles geeft een trieste conclusie weer:  het Nederlandse volk, heeft nee gezegd tegen  het” associatieverdrag  met Oekraïne, maar dat maakt de elitaire politici niets uit. Hun wil is wet en niet anders. Het woord democratie (wil van het volk) zou uit de vocabulaire van de EU politici gehaald moeten worden!

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor oekraine en het nederlandse verdrag carton

Volgens Zakharova, zal de ratificatie van de overeenkomst  “hen (volk) voor enige tijd blij maken en de  de Oekraïners te voeden met verhalen over ” een heldere Europese toekomst. “Maar dat het ratificatie verdrag niet voorziet in  de status van kandidaat-lidstaat van de EU. Geen veiligheidsgaranties of andere militaire bijstand maar nieuwe financiële verplichtingen ten aanzien van de EU ook is er geen verplichting van vrij verkeer van werknemers wordt er niet bij vertelt.

bron: https://rg.ru/
Please follow and like us:
0

Vladimir Putin’s FULL interview in English with France’s Le Figaro (VIDEO)

DONEER EN STEUN ONS WERK

DONATE AND SUPPORT US:

IBAN: NL10 SNSB 0902 6349 33

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor putin in le figaro

Picture: RT Philippe Wojazer

The Duran’s Adam Garrie analyzed how Vladimir Putin criticized US domestic politics in a recent interview with France’s Le Figaro. Putin blasted what so many have been referring to as ‘the deep state’ for interfering in how not only how Donald Trump has conducted his business, but also how much control ‘they’ had over Barack Obama.

Putin spoke about Ukraine and touched on Syria – reaffirming Assad was not responsible for any chemical attacks, and that it was a pretext for military escalation in Syria in order to overthrow him.

Below is the full transcript translated into English from Putin’s interview by RussiaFeed. Read for yourselves – do you agree with the Russian President?

Question: Good afternoon! Thank you very much for agreeing to answer our questions for Le Figaro. I also thank you for accepting us here at the Cultural Center of Russia here in Paris. Once again, many thanks for agreeing to give us this interview.

You came here to open an exhibition that is devoted to the 300th year anniversary since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and France. Franco-Russian relations have had ups and downs. How do you assess this relationship today?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, President Macron invited me to participate in the opening of this exhibition. But I must say that the relations between Russia and France have been developing much longer and have much deeper roots, we have already mentioned this several times with President Macron.

In the 11th century, Anna, the youngest daughter of one of our great princes Yaroslav the Wise, came here to France, and became the wife of the French King Henry I. Her name was Anna Russkaya, the queen of France. Her son Philip I became the founder of two European dynasties: Valois and Bourbon, the latter still rule in Spain.

So, we have much deeper roots as you can see, although for the last 300 years, relations have developed more intensively, it is true. I very much hope that today’s event, the opening of the exhibition, and our talks with President Macron will help give these relations new life.

Question: Mr. President, what kind of figure is Peter the Great to you, who arrived in Versailles in 1717 to commemorate diplomatic relations?

Putin: I already spoke today to my French colleagues, our French friends – Peter I is, first and foremost, a reformer, he is the person who not only introduced the best advancements, but of course, he was a patriot of his country, he fought for Russia’s worthy place in world affairs, but mainly, he transformed his country, making it more modern, mobile, and forward thinking. He did a lot, if not to say everything.

He was engaged in science, education, culture, engaged in military affairs and state construction. He left a colossal legacy after he died, to which Russia has enjoyed practically still today. I’m not talking about the fact that he founded my hometown of St. Petersburg, which for a long time was the capital of the Russian state.

Question: You said you had a meeting with Macron already. Were there any expectations from the first meeting? You said that you need to overcome the stage of distrust. Did you manage to overcome it?

As for the main issue, the issue of sanctions, can you say that you have reached some sort of understanding?

Putin: At any kind of meeting, with any contacts, at any event of this level, especially if this is the first meeting, the first contact, there are always expectations. If these expectations are missing, then it is pointless to hold this type of meeting in the first place.

Of course, there were expectations this time. They were related to issues close to me, to learn first hand the position of the incoming President of the French Republic on key issues regarding his international agenda, and the development of bilateral relations.

Of course, the newly elected President of France, who has just taken office, has his own view on things, on bilateral relations, and on international politics.

In general, this is a very pragmatic view, as it seems to me. We have precisely the points for connecting our positions, to work jointly on key areas.

Question: The implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Ukraine, as it seems to us, is in a deadlock today. Have you managed to achieve progress with President Macron towards the resolution of this conflict?

Putin: Progress on resolving any conflicts, including the conflict in southeast Ukraine, can primarily be achieved only by the conflicting parties.

The conflict in southeast Ukraine is an internal conflict, a Ukrainian conflict first of all. It occurred after an unconstitutional, power-seizing coup in Kiev in 2014. This is the source of all the problems.

The most important thing to do is to find the strength to negotiate with all the conflicting parties, and, above all, I am convinced of this, the ball, as they say, is on the side of the Kiev authorities, they must, first and foremost, implement and fulfill these Minsk Agreements.

Question: What needs to happen in order to move towards a positive outcome? Can Russia take the initiative to finally secure a truce?

Putin: We always come up with this initiative. We believe the main thing that needs to be done is to divert the armed forces from the line of contact. This is where you need to start. Two points need to be taken, otherwise the third point will not succeed at all.

And today’s Ukrainian authorities constantly refer to the fact that the other side is shooting. But if troops and heavy equipment are not diverted, of course they will shoot. We must take away heavy equipment. This is first and foremost.

Secondly, what needs to be done in the political sphere, in the end, is the necessity to introduce the law adopted by the Ukrainian parliament on the special status of these territories [Donbass]. After all, the law was passed, but it has not yet come into effect.

The law on amnesty was adopted, but the President did not sign it. The Minsk Agreements state that it is necessary to conduct social and economic rehabilitation of these territories of these unrecognized republics. Instead of doing this, on the contrary, they introduce a blockade, that is the problem.

And they imposed a blockade on the indigenous living there, blocking the railway tracks. The President of Ukraine first said that he condemned it and that he will straighten things out, tried to do it, but he did not succeed.

Instead of continuing those efforts, he officially supported the blockade, issuing a decree on the blockade. How can we speak about positive developments for the situation in such conditions? Unfortunately, we do not see this yet.

Question: Let’s slightly forget about the Eastern Europe, to talk about the Middle East, and first of all about Syria. After your military intervention in September 2015, to date, in your opinion, what basic solutions exist for this country after so many years of war?

Putin: First of all, I would like to note the constructive approach by Turkey and Iran, which together with us [Russia] achieved a ceasefire, and, of course, along with the Syrian government. This could not be done, of course, without the so-called Syrian armed opposition. This was the first very important, serious step on the road to peace.

And the second, no less important step, is the agreement on the creation of so-called de-escalation zones. Now, we are talking about four zones. It seems to us that this extremely important for road to peace, if I may say so, because it is impossible to talk about the political process without stopping the bloodshed.

Now, in my opinion, we all have another task: technically and, if you will, even technologically, to complete the process of creating these zones of de-escalation, you need to agree on the boundaries of these zones, how the institutions of power will operate there, and how communication will be organized there. These zones of de-escalation will need to communicate with the outside world.

By the way, President Macron spoke about this part of it today, when he talked about humanitarian convoys. In general, I think the President of France is correct, and here is also one of the points of contact, here we can work together with our French colleagues.

After this takes place, the formalization of de-escalation zones, I very much hope that at least some elements of interaction between the government and those people who will control the situation in these zones of de-escalation will begin.

I really wouldn’t like – it is very important that I now say – that these zones were some kind of prototype for future territorial division of Syria. On the contrary, I count on the fact that these zones of de-escalation, if peace is established there, the people here and control the situation will be communicating with the official Syrian authorities.

And so it can happen, there should be a situation of at least some elementary interaction and cooperation. And the next step is a purely political process of political reconciliation, and if possible, to elaborate on constitutional rules, the constitution and to conduct of elections.

Question: Indeed, there are differences on the Syrian issue between Russia and other parties, especially the fate of Bashar Assad, whom Western countries have accused of using chemical weapons against their own population. Mr. President, do you see a political future for Syria without Bashar Assad?

Putin: In general, I do not consider myself entitled to determine the political future of Syria with or without Assad, this is a matter solely for the Syrian people. No one has the right to assign himself any prerogatives that belong exclusively to the people of a particular country. This is the first thing I would like to mention.

Do you have any more questions?

Question: Yes. You say that you do not make any decisions – does that mean that there is a future without him [Assad]?

Putin: I repeat, this should be determined only by the Syrian people. You have now accused the government of Assad of using chemical weapons.

After this event related to chemical weapons happened, we immediately invited our American partners and all who deemed it necessary, to inspect the airfield from which the aircraft allegedly used chemical weapons.

If the chemical weapon were used by the official military structures of President Assad, there would inevitably be traces left behind on this airfield, modern technology would prove this, it is inevitable. And there would traces left on the planes, and traces would be left at the airport. But in fact, all refused to conduct this check.

We proposed to conduct an inspection at the site where the chemical weapons were allegedly struck. But they also refused to conduct an inspection, citing the fact that it was too dangerous. How is it dangerous if the explosion was allegedly inflicted on civilians and on the armed opposition which is still healthy?

In my opinion, this was done only for one purpose: to show why it is necessary to apply additional measures on Assad, including military. That’s all.

There is no evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons. In our deep conviction, this is just a provocation: Assad did not use this weapon.

Question: Do you remember when President Macron spoke about the so-called red line regarding the use of chemical weapons? Do you agree with this?

Putin: I agree. Moreover, I believe that the issue should be broader, and President Macron agreed. Whoever applies chemical weapons against these individuals, against these structures, the international community must build a common policy, and the answer must be one that makes the use of such weapons impossible by anyone.

Question: After the election of Donald Trump in the US, many expressed their views on the relative new phase of Russian-American relations. These relations, it seems, did not have a new start. Now I quote: “There is a Russian threat,” it was said at the last NATO summit last week. Are you frustrated by this attitude on the part of the US?

Putin: No. We did not expect anything, nothing special in fact. The President of the United States conducts a traditional American policy. Of course, we heard during the election campaign the intentions of the already elected and incoming President of the United States, Mr. Trump, about his desire to normalize Russian-American relations. He talked about relations being worse than ever, we remember it well.

But we also understand and see that in fact, the internal political situation in the United States is such that people who lost the election do not want to put up with it and, unfortunately, use the anti-Russian map in the most active way possible, in an internal political struggle under far-fetched pretexts.

Therefore, we are in no hurry, we are ready to wait, but we very much hope that the normalization of Russian-American relations will happen someday.

Question: In an ideal world, what would you expect from the United States in order to improve relations between the US and Russia?

Putin: There is no ideal world, and the subjunctive mood also does not exist in politics.

I want to answer the second part of your question, about 2% or more increase in military spending, which, the United States, is well known for today, spend more on the military and defense than the budget of every countries combined.

Therefore, I fully understand the President of the United States when he wants to shift some of this burden to his NATO allies. This is a very pragmatic and understandable approach.

But what interested me? At the NATO summit they said that NATO wants to establish good relations with Russia. But then why increase military spending? Against whom did they come to fight?

There are some internal contradictions here, but in fact it’s not our business, let NATO understand who and what to pay for, we are not very worried. We provide our defenses – we do it reliably, with a prospect for the future, we are very sure of ourselves.

Question: But if we talk about NATO, they are also your neighbors, who in turn want to ensure their security thanks to NATO. Is this a sign of mistrust for you, something that causes a scandalous attitude?

Putin: For us, this is a sign that our partners, excuse me, in both Europe and the US are pursuing a short-sighted policy, they do not look forward – there is no such habit, this habit has already disappeared among our Western partners.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us that it was not recorded on paper, but it was clearly said that NATO would not expand to the east.

And a few German politicians at that time offered a new security system in Europe that included the participation of the United States, and by the way, and Russia. If this were done, then we would not have the problems that we have faced in recent years, namely the expansion of NATO to the east up to our borders, advancing towards our borders of our military infrastructure.

There would have been, perhaps, the exit of the United States unilaterally from the ABM Treaty and the Treaty is the cornerstone of today’s and future security; there would have been, perhaps, the construction of missile defense elements in Europe – in Poland, Romania, which, of course, poses a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and violates the strategic balance, which in itself is extremely dangerous for international security.

Maybe it would not have been like this, but it happened, you can not turn the clock back, you can not unscrew the film of history, it’s not a feature film. We must proceed from how it is now. If we proceed from how it is, we need to think about what we want in the future. I think that we all want security, peace, prosperity and cooperation.

So, there is no need to push anything, we do not need to invent mythical Russian threats, hybrid wars and so on. They themselves came up with this, and then they frighten themselves on this basis, which also formulates their prospects for politics. No such policy has any prospects – there is only one perspective: cooperation in all areas, including security issues.

What is the main security problem today? Terrorism. In Europe, there are explosions in Paris, explosions in Russia, explosions in Belgium, there is war in the Middle East – that’s what we need to think about, and we are all discussing what kind of threats Russia is creating.

Question: On the issue of terrorism, on the issue of Islamism. You say that you can do more. What exactly needs to be done, what can Russia do? And why can’t we combine our efforts with Europe to achieve our goals?

Putin: Ask Europe – that’s what we want. I said this while speaking at the UN General Assembly’s 70 anniversary from the podium at the UN, and called then to unite the efforts of all countries in the fight against terror. But this is a very complex process.

See, after the terrorist attack in Paris, a terrible, bloody event, President Hollande came to us then, and we agreed on a few joint actions. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle approached the banks of Syria. Then Francois [Hollande] went to Washington, and the Charles de Gaulle turned around and left, going towards the direction of the Suez Canal. And the real cooperation between us [Russia] and France stopped, never having begun.

France is involved in operations there, but within the framework of an international coalition led by the United States. You need to understand who is senior, who is not senior, who has the word, who claims what. We are ready, we are open for cooperation.

It was very difficult to negotiate with the Americans on this matter. By the way, we recently noticed a certain shift, there are practical results.

I talked with President Trump on the phone, he generally supported the idea of ​​creating zones of de-escalation. We are now thinking about how to ensure the interests of all the countries in the region in southern Syria, bearing in mind the concern of all countries that have problems in this region, namely, Jordan, Israel and Syria itself, and, of course, we are ready to listen to the opinion of the United States and our European partners. But we need to conduct a concrete dialogue, and not talk about some mutual claims and threats, we need to practice practical work.

Question: You say that it is their decision, and their action, right?

Putin: That’s right, so it is.

Question: Talking about the US. Suspicions that Russia interfered in the election campaign in the United States caused a real political storm in Washington. In France, similar suspicions also sounded. First of all, in the light of what is happening in the United States, how do you react?

Putin: I have already spoken about this many times. Today one of your colleagues also asked a question on this topic. He did so very carefully at a press conference, saying that “they say that they are allegedly Russian hackers.” “They say” – who said, on what basis? “Allegedly Russian hackers”, and maybe not Russian at all.

Mr. Trump himself once said, and spoke perfectly, in my opinion, correctly: “And maybe they’re from another country: maybe it was someone lying on their bed.” After all, anything in this virtual world can think something up. Russia never does this, we do not need this. We do not have any sense to do this. What is the point?

I already talked with one US President, and with another, and with the third – the presidents come and go, but the politics don’t change. Do you know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong. A man has been elected, he comes with some ideas, people with cases come to him, well-dressed and in dark suits, like me, but not with a red tie, but with black or with dark blue, and begin to explain how necessary it is to do this, and everything changes at once. It goes from one administration to another.

For someone to change something is quite a complicated matter, I say this without any irony. This is not because someone does not want to, but because it is difficult. Here Obama is an advanced man, a man of liberal views, a democrat, who, before his election, promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Did he? No. And why? Did he not want to? I really wanted to, I’m sure I wanted to, but it did not work. He sincerely sought this. It does not work that way, it’s not that simple.

But this is not the most important question, although it is important, it is hard to imagine: people in shackles have been walking there for decades without trial and effect. You can imagine, France would have done so or Russia. But no, only in the United States this is possible and is still continuing.

I have a certain amount of reserved optimism, it seems to me that we can and should negotiate on key issues.

Question: To date, you say that such a political storm in Washington rests on absolute fiction.

Putin: It does not rely on fiction, it relies on the desire of those who lost the election in the United States, at least somehow to improve their affairs at the expense of anti-Russian attacks, due to accusation of Russian interference.

People who lost the election do not want to admit that they really lost them, that the one who won was closer to the people, he understood better what people, simple voters want. I do not want to admit this.

I want to explain myself to others and prove to others that they have nothing to do with it, that their policy was right, they did everything well, but someone from their side deceived and burned them. But this is not so, they just lost and must admit that.

Then, when this happens, I think it will be easier for us to work together. But the fact that this is done with the help of anti-Russian tools is very bad, it brings dissonance into international affairs.

Let them argue among themselves, argue and prove who is cooler, who is better, who is smarter, who is more reliable and who formulates the policy for the country better – why should third parties be involved here? This is very distressing. But also this will pass: everything passes – and this too will pass.

Question: Mr. President, we come to the end of our interview, and first of all I would like to ask a question about 2018. This is the year of elections in Russia, presidential elections, legislative elections.

Can you tell us whether you intend to nominate your candidacy, or, perhaps, the opposition will be able to nominate your candidacy in the event of this campaign in a democratic way? How do you see the development of this situation, do you want the campaign to go unconditionally, exclusively in a democratic environment? I’m talking about 2018.

Putin: You know, all the campaigns are in strict accordance with the Russian Constitution, in strict accordance. And I will do everything to ensure that the 2018 election campaigns are held in the same way – I repeat again, in strict accordance with the law and the Constitution.

Everyone will have the right to do so, and everyone will undergo the relevant procedures prescribed by law, can and will certainly participate, if they so wish, in elections of all levels: from legislative assemblies, to parliament, and even presidential elections. As for the candidates, it’s still too early to talk about it.

Question: Many thanks. I hope we’ll see each other soon. Thank you very much for this conversation for Le Figaro.

source: The Duran, Adam Garrie
Please follow and like us:
0