The (((Biblical))) US Immigration Policy

Somewhere in the world, a little brown baby is crying. According to the jews and their insane rabbinical logic, this means Whites everywhere should meekly surrender their homelands, dig their own graves, and die. Please don’t have any White babies, because those might lead to a future for the White race; and that is precisely what the jews fear most. Instead, vapidly gaze into the talmudvision and watch the endless, insipid images showing the natural consequences of the r-selection reproductive strategy pursued by the dark, nightmare creatures whose 80 IQ and underdeveloped frontal lobes hamper their capacity for drawing cause-and-effect associations. They are your equals, say the jews; they’re just as good as the children you didn’t have because they would have gotten in the way of all that empty materialism and careerism. Keep watching the greasy tears pouring down the fat, screaming face of that brown, vaguely human cowbird, goyim. Then trust the sanctimonious, rat-faced man when he tells you that flooding your homeland with a few billion of these sullen, hostile genetic aliens is The Right Thing To DoTM.

If shamelessly preying upon the empathy and altruism that are uniquely part of the White genetic inheritance doesn’t convince you, the jew is ready with its old standby for persuading Whites to act against their best interests: the (((Wholly Babble))). Cucktianity is a perverse religion that was originally dreamed up by an unhinged jewish subversive, and then purposefully weaponized by his tribal brethren as a tool for destabilizing and destroying White societies. To this day, the Christian branch of Judaism continues to be a spiritual sickness in many Whites that causes otherwise functional people to enthusiastically support the extinction of their own race through embarrassingly trite, but suicidal mantras such as “love thy enemy” and “turn the other cheek.” As befits a weapon designed by rootless jews, the universalist nature of JUDEO-Christianity was intended from the beginning to provide a religious excuse for the foolish belief that radically disparate and incompatible races could be “equal” (except for Whites who are bad, and jews who are “g*d’s” favorites). This is a kosher con-game that has consistently tricked Whites for 2,000 years, has done immeasurable damage to the character and quality of the White racial lineage, and has advanced the talmudic imperative to extinguish the White race into a swamp of brown genetic sewage through miscegenation. It is spiritual cuckolding that encourages racial cuckolding. It has been so successful, that the jews can openly boast about it, as did (((Marcus Eli Ravage))) all the way back in 1928. In the intervening 90 years since Ravage made it plain that “good cucktians” were really dupes who had ill-advisedly swallowed kosher spiritual poison, the brazen jewish arrogance has only gotten increasingly shrill. A rabbi in the California failed-state is openly basking in the (((Biblical))) nature of U.S. immigration policy.

Last week [Rabbi Jill Jacobs] visited McAllen, Texas, with a group of clergy – including 10 rabbis – to bear witness to the situation on the border, where new policies are forcing the detention and separation of families and the refusal to hear asylum claims from victims of gang and domestic violence.”

The Sanhedrin that truly rules Weimerica heads to the world’s most porous, pathetic excuse for a border to ensure that not even the most mild and ineffectual efforts are being made to prevent a formerly safe and prosperous White homeland from being inundated by the brown tide from the Central American cesspool. According to the jews, every piece of worthless, welfare-seeking flotsam should be entitled to an “asylum claim” just because they’re not White and want to pick carrion from the corpse of the USSA. The legalistic jews knowingly fail to mention that being the victim of crime, being impoverished, or simply crying crocodile tears does not make one eligible for asylum. Did anyone notice the deafening silence from the jews (who are so self-righteous and vocally aggressive in advocating for non-White immigration of all kinds) when the question of whether the US should consider the legitimate asylum claims from White South Africans?

We did…spend time with some of the luckier families – those who were not detained at entry but instead were granted a “credible fear” interview (the first step in the asylum process) and released wearing ankle monitors. These families hoped to reunite with family elsewhere in the country and pursue asylum claims in their new communities.”

How does our dysfunctional, corrupt, and (according to a rabbi) JUDEO-Christian immigration system determine which foreign invader to detain, and which to release into the heartland of our ostensible “country”? We hire a bunch of patriotards to conduct “credible fear” interviews! If a Mestizo is sober enough to mumble out, “Dey is goin’ to git me, manng!” then he has a credible fear, and gets a free pass to join the swelling colonies of his co-ethnics who are busily draining the precious vitality from what was once a White nation with a future. The only ones that get detained are the incompetent drug mules, notorious repeat offenders, and likely anyone doesn’t look quite brown enough.

[Attorney General Jeff] Sessions found a convenient justification for demanding obedience to an immoral law. Too bad he didn’t look a bit earlier, to the story of Sodom…While Sessions probably believes that the sin of Sodom concerns homosexuality, the Bible and rabbinic tradition think otherwise. Per the Prophet Ezekiel, “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).”

Hypocrisy and deceit come as easily to the jew as breathing. The most arrogant species that has ever plagued the face of the earth has the temerity to shriek at us about how politely asking the most blatant violations of our sovereignty to stop is “arrogant” to an extent that requires a visitation of divine wrath. The rotten rabbi Jacobs must be very worried about her fellow tribe members in Israel who are deporting all those poor and needy blacks seeking asylum. Just like in their obscene religious texts, the jews will slander you if you resist their open-border depredations; if the jews win, their slanders become history.

The Talmud goes on to imagine a series of deceptive and violent practices that the people of Sodom would employ to maim and starve any foreigners who dared enter their land… The ancient rabbis understood that immoral societies such as Sodom justify themselves through the establishment of unjust and immoral laws. So the Talmud identifies the four judges of Sodom, whose names roughly translate as “Liar,” “Habitual Liar,” “Forger” and “Perverter of Justice.”

Could those “foreigners who dared enter their land” perhaps have been amoral, rootless merchants peddling filth, pornography, and any other kind of hedonistic perversion that only a semitic mind could fathom? Could the authors of the (((Wholly Babble))) and the toxic talmud be describing a healthy reaction (one that has happened over a hundred times in more recent history) to expel the nation-wrecking jews from a city or country they had infested? Who would suspect “g*d’s chosen people” of a relentless propaganda campaign to vilify a people who tried to unsuccessfully resist their depredations?

We’re repeatedly bombarded by a babble of broken pidgin English, spewing forth from angry, ugly brown faces, ungratefully demanding our largess, our labor, and our land for their benefit. We must not lose sight of the fact that this bombardment is being directed at us by the jews. The non-White hordes deserve our resistance, our contempt, and a show of our racial strength and pride for their opportunistic attacks on our homelands; but it remains the jews who are ultimately culpable for orchestrating their actions against us, and organizing them to have such a concerted and devastating effect on White communities. We must not abrogate our duty to protect our homelands, our people, and our future because some jews will hurl invective at us. Whether we resist them or not, the jews will spit their venom at us. If we allow the jews to dictate our immigration policy, we will end up as hated minorities in our own lands, and vanish into the deracinated mass of miscegenated morons over whom the jews wish to rule. We must expose the JUDEO-Christian insanity for what it is: a shamefully successful jewish ploy to manipulate Whites to their immense detriment. We need to expose the fact that jews are openly using the (((Wholly Babble))) to promote the continuing invasion of White homelands, and hopefully awaken our race to the existential dangers of believing anything said by any jew (even jewsus). We must stop the jewish-orchestrated White genocide.

Source article:






If jews had been exiled, expelled, or otherwise done away with by one or two countries, you could possibly make a case for this fable of “anti-semitism” or that maybe just certain people had a problem with the jews. However, when it gets to the point that you have a list of 109 different exiles from 84 different places, with some of them having to do so repeatedly, one is forced to start looking at the jew it’s self as the problem, and not those attempting to free themselves from the grasp of these parasites.


Just the fact that some countries were forced to repeatedly exile the jews, proves that these are relentless parasites, who will stop at nothing to gain control of our countries, enslave our people, and commit genocide against all peoples of the earth.

Jews have been exiled over 100 times since 250AD, and this fact alone is probably all one needs to know to realize that the jewish parasite is the problem, and not this political ideology called zionism.  If zionism was the issue, how do we explain the last 2000 years of jewish domination, subversion, infiltration, pedophilia, ritual murder, usury, manipulation, supremacy and all of the other ills that come with the jews?  How do you explain that these critters have been kicked out of 84 different countries, long before this “zionist” bullshit line appeared on the scene?  These jews weren’t “zionists” when they were exiled from all of these places, they were simply jews behaving as jews are known to do.  This one fact alone accentuates and explains the very nature of the jew as the problem, and not this “zionist” bit that jews and their minions try to sell you on. Does that mean that “zionists” or even “christian zionists” should be spared for supporting genocidal jews?  Of course not.  These people bear a lot of blame, and are in many cases, just as bad as the jew, but I wouldn’t dare take the focus off of these rat faced jews for even one second.


This list below also dispels the myth that “zionism” (which didn’t appear until 1898) and “zionists” are the root source of today’s problems. Both of these are merely symptoms of a much larger problem with the entire jewish race.  None of the countries listed below exiled just some of the jews, and none were foolish enough to simply consider them a religion or ideology. The jews were exiled and expelled as an entire race then, and should be dealt with as an entire race now. Some of these are general uprisings, and not outright exiles of jews.

Anyone doubting the danger of just one jew, needs to click HERE and watch the film below the article.

Image result for the wandering jew

YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PLACE

250 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Carthage
415 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alexandria
554 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Clermont (France)
561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Uzès (France)
612 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Spain
642 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Empire
855 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
876 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sens
1012 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
1276 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Upper Bavaria
1290 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – England
1306 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
1322 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France (again)
1348 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Switzerland
1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hielbronn (Germany)
1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Saxony
1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
1360 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
1370 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Belgium
1380 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
1388 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
1420 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lyons
1421 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Fribourg
1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Zurich
1424 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cologne
1432 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Savoy
1438 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
1439 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Augsburg
1442 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
1444 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
1446 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
1453 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Breslau
1454 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
1462 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
1483 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
1484 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
1485 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vincenza (Italy)
1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Spain
1492 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
1495 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
1496 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Portugal
1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Nuremberg
1498 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Navarre
1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenberg
1510 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prussia
1514 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
1515 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
1519 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Regensburg
1533 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
1541 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Naples
1542 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague & Bohemia
1550 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Genoa
1551 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria
1555 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Pesaro
1557 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
1559 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Austria
1561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague
1567 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurzburg
1569 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Papal States
1571 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg
1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Netherlands
1582 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
1593 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Brandenburg, Austria
1597 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
1614 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Frankfort
1615 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Worms
1619 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kiev
1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Ukraine
1648 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Poland
1649 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hamburg
1654 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
1656 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania
1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Oran (North Africa)
1669 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
1670 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Vienna
1712 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sandomir
1727 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
1738 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Wurtemburg
1740 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Little Russia (Beylorus)
1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Prague, Bohemia
1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
1744 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Livonia
1745 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moravia
1753 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Kovad (Lithuania)
1761 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bordeaux
1772 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
1775 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Warsaw
1789 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alsace
1804 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages in Russia
1808 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Lbeck & Bremen
1815 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
1820 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bremen
1843 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russian Border Austria & Prussia
1862 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Areas in the U.S. under General Grant’s Jurisdiction[1]
1866 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Galatz, Romania
1880s – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Russia
1891 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Moscow
1919 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
1938-45 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Nazi Controlled Areas
1948 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Arab Countries


Jewish Author Harry Waton Admitted that Communism is Jewish, Hitler was Right and the Jews Aim to Conquer the World – see here


Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew)

Directed by Fritz Hippler at the behest of Joseph Goebbels and the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Produced in 1940.

Last night I actually got a chance to re-watch ‘The Eternal Jew’. To be honest, I’d forgotten how good it was! The Germans certainly had these Jews ‘worked out’, to put it mildly. Everything they said about Jewish behaviour and their general ‘nature’ is still 100% applicable! 74 years after they made it, and it’s still completely relevant – the best proof that the National Socialists were correct!

If you haven’t seen Der Ewige Jude, then I’d suggest you watch it. It’s well worth it, and you get to see what utterly filthy rat-faced creatures these Jews really are. (I still broke out in a cold sweat and it’s the middle of a heat-wave!)



“Women stay home and take care of their kids. Men study the Talmud. Goyim work.”


Chabad…. they are everywhere

Chabad: The Jewish Supremacist Doomsday Cult

I am still not sure what to think about Nathan (Lift the Veil), but this is a pretty good overview for people who are not too familiar with Chabad. I am glad to see more people covering this now.

The Resounding Success of the World Cup is a Great Victory for Football but an Epic Fail for Russophobes

Russian Flag

world cup 2018

© Kai Pfaffenbach / Reuters
Mexico fan kisses a toy trophy, Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow, Russia, June 17, 2018

The 2018 World Cup is shaping up to be the best ever. It’s a far cry from the negative media coverage that surrounded the Mundial before it began, which sought to de-legitimize Russia’s hosting of the event and put fans off going.

Has there ever been a World Cup that has left so many people with egg on their faces.

We were told by indignant neo-cons and virtue-signaling Western ‘liberals’ that it was a disgrace that Russia, a country of which they did not approve, was being allowed to host the tournament. It would be like the 1936 Nazi Olympics, MPs and media pundits assured us. ‘Putin’s World Cup’ would be the worst World Cup ever.

Fans who went would be in fear of their lives as three out of every four Russians was a racist, homophobic football hooligan and the fourth was like Frankenstein’s Monster. England’s players could be drugged in their hotel to “slow them down.”

In fact, the World Cup has turned out to be absolutely brilliant.

There have been some incredibly exciting games – with the drama greatly enhanced by VAR (video assistant referee) technology – lots of goals and plenty of surprises. Reigning champions Germany have failed to get past the group stage for the first time since 1938. No, it’s not fake news, it really happened. We are guaranteed to get a new final pairing on July 15.

Given how open it has been, and how the ‘Big Guns’ have been wobbling, any team in the last 16 can be realistically dreaming of glory, including countries such as Croatia, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Mexico and Switzerland who have never won the World Cup before. Isn’t that wonderful?

The World Cup has been a success on and off the pitch. Fans have mingled happily together and enthused about the warm and friendly welcome they have received from the locals. Far from being a dour, miserable place, they have found that Russia really rocks. Football commentators have hailed the magnificence of the stadiums and facilities. The only attacks England fans got in Volgograd were from the midges.

The propaganda that we were subject to 24/7 before the tournament began has been exposed by those who actually defied the ‘Boycott Russia’ brigade. “(England) fans were put off (going to Russia) by suggestions of hooligans, authoritarian police, racism and homophobia, but it’s not been anything like that,” author Mark Perryman, who has travelled to World Cups since the 1990s, told the Daily Express.

Others are finding out too that Russia is actually very different from the way it is routinely painted.

“I’ll admit it: the thought of working and living in Moscow for almost six weeks conjured thoughts of being tossed back in time… Gray and unfriendly. Barren food shelves and shadowy figures. The joy and passion of the World Cup doused by Russian gloom. I was wrong. Moscow is the vibrant heart of this soccer celebration… (It) looks and feels like any major European city,” wrote Steven Goff in the Washington Post.

It’s worth pointing out that there’s always negativity about a non-Western country that hosts a major sporting event. Stadiums won’t be ready in time. Supporters will be in danger. The bidding process has been hideously corrupt. I remember going on BBC Radio Five live in 2012 to debate about how safe it was for fans to travel to Ukraine and Poland for the European Championships to be held there that summer. I remember too the negative coverage of Brazil that preceded the 2014 World Cup, and of South Africa in 2010.

However, while dissing the host nation is nothing new, the campaign against Russia this time has been off the scale. What’s come into play is not just sour grapes that a leading Western country didn’t get to host the tournament, but geopolitics too.

Russia is demonized in elite Western circles not because it’s a ‘terrible country’ with an ‘appalling human rights record’ but because it has got in the way of the hegemonic ambitions of the US and some of its regional allies in the Middle East.

Reflect on the fact that there was no establishment-induced Russophobia in the 1990s when Russia, under the drunken Boris Yeltsin, allowed oligarchs to plunder the country’s wealth. The elites were quite happy with the Kremlin then, even though there was a large number of journalists killed in Russia at the time. But as soon as the Russian authorities began to clamp down on certain oligarchs, and the Russian government took a less submissive role in foreign affairs, the situation changed. Russia was the bogeyman once again.

If you want to demonize a country then it stands to reason you don’t want major sporting events to be held there and lots of people to go and visit it. Significantly it was uber neo-con hawk John McCain, who led calls in the US for the World Cup to be taken away from Russia.

McCain re-iterated his call last December, this time on the basis that Russia was banned from the Winter Olympics. The ‘Boycott Russia’ brigade got a second wind after the Salisbury poisoning case, even though Russian state involvement was unproven. “I’m glad Prince William has already indicated that he won’t be going to watch any of England’s matches. But his absence – and the mooted refusal of officials to go to Russia – will not of themselves constitute an adequate protest. Everybody must stay away,” opined columnist Stephen Glover.

MP Stephen Kinnock wanted a “coordinated approach to FIFA to discuss moving the World Cup to 2019 and having it hosted in another country or countries.”

As I pointed out in an earlier column, if that had happened there would have been no ‘England 6 Panama 1’ last Sunday.

Neocon/neoliberal ideologues aren’t happy that people are now praising Russia to the rooftops.

Tim Montgomerie showed his frustrations in a tweet to BBC football presenter Dan Walker who had said Moscow had been a great host city.

Tim seemed to want Dan to talk about Crimea and Syria on Match of the Day. “I’m not sure half-time in a Colombia-Japan game is the right time,” was Dan’s response.

As the world delights in the football, the continued ill-humor of anti-Russia obsessives stands out like a sore thumb. The world’s greatest, sexiest and most fun summer-time party is taking place in Russia at the moment and they want us to carry on being angry, like a bunch of misanthropic weirdos.

Of course, there’s still over two weeks to go. There could yet be issues with hooliganism. The football might go off the boil. The midges might become super midges.

But already, it’s become much harder for the neocons and their “muscular liberal” allies to peddle BS about Russia. People who go there soon realize it’s a very normal country with a lot fewer problems than the US and many other Western nations.

The situation reminds one of that classic scene from the 1930 film version of ‘All Quiet on the Western Front.’ Schoolmaster Kantorek encourages his pupils to enlist for the German Army, filling their minds with images of glory for the ‘Fatherland’. Paul Baumer comes back from the front, having experienced first-hand the horrors of war and doesn’t want to tell lies. “I’ve been there, I know what it’s like,” Paul tells Kantorek.

The supporters in Russia have had the reverse experience to Paul. They were told that it would be terrible but, in fact, it’s been great.

“I’ve been there, I know what it’s like”: That’s what fans will be able to say to those who persist on promoting anti-Russia propaganda campaigns, in pursuance of geopolitical objectives, after the World Cup.


Putin says that Russian weapons systems are decades ahead of foreign counterparts

Meanwhile, how useful is NATO in the geopolitical environment of the 21st century?

Russian President Vladimir Putin assured graduates of Russia’s military academies that several Russian weapons systems are years, even decades more advanced than its foreign counterparts. Earlier this year, the Russian President unveiled numerous weapons systems with advanced capabilities which do not yet possess equivalents anywhere else in the world relative to their impressive capabilities.

Press-TV reports:

Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country has made a breakthrough in designing new weapons, which are years or even decades ahead of its rival countries.

Addressing the graduates of Russian military academies in the Kremlin on Thursday, the president said that the modern weapons represent a quantum leap in the Russian military capability, the Associated Press reported.

“A number of our weapons systems are years, and, perhaps, decades ahead of foreign analogues,” Putin said. “Modern weapons contribute to a multifold increase in the Russian military potential.”

Putin singled out the new Avangard hyper-sonic vehicle, which has an intercontinental range and can fly in the atmosphere at a speed 20 times the speed of sound. The weapon, which can change both its course and its altitude en route to a target, is “absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defense means,” Putin explained.

He also mentioned a new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which is set to replace Russia’s Soviet-designed Voyevoda – the world’s heaviest ICBM, which is known as “Satan” in the West and which carries 10 nuclear warheads. Putin noted that Sarmat carries a bigger number of nuclear warheads, which are more powerful than the ones on Satan.

Weighing 200 metric tons (220 tons), the Sarmat is capable of flying over the North or the South Poles and strike targets anywhere in the world, Putin explained earlier in March, when he presented an array of new nuclear weapons.

Among the weapons he mentioned on Thursday was also the Kinzhal hyper-sonic missile that has already been put on duty with the units of Russia’s Southern Military District.

Putin made the remarks as Russia’s longtime adversary, the United States, is worried that if North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had to head off a conflict with Russia, it could get stuck in a traffic jam, The Washington Post said in a Sunday report.

“We have to be able to move as fast or faster than Russia in order to be an effective deterrent,” the Post quoted Ben Hodges, the US Army’s former top general in Europe as saying.

Washington has long been pressing its European allies to get more NATO warplanes, ships and battalions ready for a possible combat. NATO leaders, however, are just beginning to address the underlying issues, such as funding for infrastructure and bureaucratic roadblocks.

For years after NATO’s 2004 expansion into the territory that had once been the Soviet Union’s, the US-led military alliance had no plans for how to defend its new members, according to a retired US Army general and former US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute.

The NATO members are getting prepared for a mid-July summit in Brussels, where they are expected to approve a new plan that would speed transit from the East Coast of the United States all the way to NATO’s border with Russia.

This, however, would be a challenge for European governments, who have come under pressure by US President Donald Trump to increase military spending to solve the long-running problems – which even still will take years to eliminate.

Trump and Putin are also expected to meet on July 16 in Helsinki, Finland.

Meanwhile, NATO is attempting to get its act together as it inducts new members, but hasn’t yet developed strategic defense plans around NATO’s defensive functionality. Disputes have arisen over how the defensive treaty’s military capabilities are to be funded. Additionally, many of the members of the Organization are becoming increasingly at odds with each other over political and economic differences.

Meanwhile, if NATO lacks a concise perspective over its purpose, lacks a common ideology, and its members can’t agree on how international agreements ought to function, or whether they even ought to exist, how useful is NATO in the geopolitical environment of the 21st century? Could it simply be classified as an outdated political construct of the Cold War which no longer has effective bearing on the current world order?

Canada’s tariffs on US goods goes into effect

“We will not escalate, and we will not back down”

Following US President Donald Trump’s metals tariffs, Canada, together with a host of other American trading partners, vowed responsive tariffs aimed at goods imported from the US. Those threats are now becoming a reality as Canada’s response is becoming a reality on July 1st, when Canadian tariffs will go into effect.

CNBC reports:

Canada’s foreign minister announced Friday that Ottawa plans to impose about $12.6 billion worth of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods on July 1, joining other major U.S. allies striking back in the escalating trade dispute.

The country is working closely with the European Union and Mexico, according to Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

“We will not escalate, and we will not back down,” Freeland said.

Canada’s announcement is part of larger fallout from U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcements on trade. The U.S. has levied tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum on Canada, the EU and other nations. As a result, some of the U.S.’ biggest trading partners have retaliated with counter-tariffs.

Canada’s plan taking effect next week will include imports of U.S. products such as yogurt, caffeinated roasted coffee, toilet paper and sleeping bags. Mexico’s tariffs took effect June 5 on U.S. products such as pork, cheese, cranberries, whiskey and apples. The EU enacted tariffs Friday on more than $3 billion worth of U.S. goods including bourbon, yachts and motorcycles.

The U.S. accounted for 55 percent of Canada’s steel imports in 2017, with the remainder coming from China, South Korea, Brazil and Turkey.

The White House’s stated goal in implementing tariffs is protecting U.S. jobs, but the initial business response suggests that U.S. companies are taking a hit. Companies are coping with the tit-for-tat tariffs by increasing prices or making business changes to cope with higher costs.

Trump thinks he’s balancing out a trade deficit and protecting American industry, but what he’s being quite successful in achieving is higher operating costs for American manufacturers and higher prices for the American consumer, all while taking America’s relations and influence with its trade partners down a notch or two. Chinathe EUJapanIndiaMexicoRussia, and other nations which represent a large chunk of America’s trade, have each in turn threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs, and some of those countermeasures have met with punitive retaliations from the Trump administration, threatening a full blown trade war.

EU migration deal eases political tension, but fails to address core issues

Europe is finally having to pay the piper, and paying is what EU bureaucrats do best

Massive waves of refugees and migrants flooded Europe over the past few years, adding to the migration that Europe has been encountering now for decades. With a worsening demographic winter blowing over the region together with increasing poverty and income inequality, the refugee crisis brings with it a host of new liabilities, political, demographic, cultural, and economic in nature, to be faced by the bloc.

The issue has been somewhat of a political football game threatening the unity of the Union and the political stability of some governments. For this reason, it was necessary that some sort of talks went down to address the issue, whether it resolved the crisis itself or not, just as long as it relieved some political pressure, which is essentially what a recent summit in Brussels was able to achieve.

Euronews reports:

BRUSSELS — European leaders declared victory Friday, claiming to have set aside major differences over how best to handle migrant arrivals as they commissioned new plans to screen people in North Africa for eligibility to enter the continent.

But even as they met for a second day in Brussels, the coast guard in Libya — the main jumping off point for most migrants trying to reach Europe — said around 100 people were missing and feared dead in the Mediterranean Sea after their smugglers’ boat capsized.

Bickering over who should take responsibility for the tens of thousands rescued from the Mediterranean has undermined European unity and threatens the future of cross-border business and travel inside the E.U.

The summit underscored how the 2015 spike in immigration continues to haunt the continent, despite a sharp drop in arrivals of people fleeing conflict and economic hardship in the Middle East and Africa.

It also took place in an atmosphere of political crisis, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel under intense political pressure at home to take a firmer stance on migration.

At the summit, the E.U. leaders agreed upon a “new approach” to managing those who are plucked from the water. They would be “disembarked” from rescue ships into European nations that agree to share responsibility for handing migration with the main point-of-entry countries like Spain, Italy and Greece but also to centers in North Africa and possibly the Balkans.

“A complete approach was adopted,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after a night of haggling to address vehement demands from Italy’s new anti-migrant populist government.

“We are not an island,” said Macron. “Europe will have to live a long time with such migratory pressures which come from countries in crisis, poor countries.”

No North African countries have agreed so far to sign on to the plan, though possible E.U. funding that could bring billions in aid may prove persuasive.

Italy long held up any interim agreements at the summit unless it received concrete commitments the country would get help managing the waves of newcomers that arrive from across the Mediterranean.

“Italy doesn’t need any more verbal signs, but concrete deeds,” Italian Premier Giuseppe Conte said, insisting that the responsibility needed to be shared more equitably across the E.U.

As with so many E.U. agreements, Friday’s deal stopped well short of being decisive in solving the problem but created enough of a platform to build on.

“Europe is going step by step, and this was necessary,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

But migrant experts and humanitarian aid groups fear the agreement is a political smoke screen aimed at addressing the concerns of the resurgent far-right and which will only leave vulnerable people once again at risk.

“At a time when E.U. leadership on global issues is needed more than ever, European heads of state and government continue to try to offload their responsibilities onto poorer countries outside the E.U.,” said Oxfam migration policy adviser Raphael Shilhav.

The International Organization for Migration estimates that some 80,000 people will enter Europe by sea this year, based on current trends. That’s around half as many as in 2017.

Yet anti-migrant parties have made significant political gains, most recently in Italy, which along with Greece and Spain is among the preferred landing destinations for people from Africa seeking better lives.

Merkel, for her part, is fighting a battle at home and abroad against critics who accuse her of endangering European security with her hospitality. Her conservative coalition is under pressure from the far-right Alternative for Germany.

But Merkel is deeply aware of the threat the issue poses to Europe, notably to its Schengen passport-free travel area — one of the jewels in the E.U. crown — that allows easy cross-border business and travel.

“Europe has many challenges, but that of migration could determine the fate of the European Union,” Merkel told German lawmakers Thursday before heading to the summit.

The meeting’s main accomplishment was removing a mandate that the refugees must be received and shared among the EU’s member nations, which has been a matter of major contention, especially with more anti-migrant governments cropping up in recent election cycles, such as that of Italy. An agreement was made that EU member nations should voluntarily receive migrants and strengthen the blocs external borders.

Receiving migrants is to be concentrated at ‘reception centers’ which are voluntary for each nation, and secondary movement of migrants between member states is to be discouraged. Additionally, the EU’s favourite means of dealing with problems is to throw money at them, so that a massive fund is being generated to basically donate to African countries.

In this case, how that is going to decrease migration is a really good question, as the ethical efficiency of African political entities is a little bit less than optimal and the migration issue from Africa really stems from both political and economic instability and inefficiency on the continent, largely due to Western meddling for resource exploitation.

Middle Eastern migration, of course, being a result of Western backed terrorism and regime change efforts, its no wonder that there is a migration and refugee crisis at all, so that it’s really more a matter of Europe finally having to pay the piper, and paying is what EU bureaucrats do best to solve their problems. Fostering functioning democracies in Africa with prosperous economies and at the very least cutting back on their intervention in the Middle East, Europe could improve the situation, but that would run counter to Washington’s interests, and that just won’t do. So, while some political crises may have been averted, the core problem remains unresolved and the problem will continue, but with a different political score board.

Washington dictates EU energy policy

Europe finds itself torn between opposing ideologies

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is clearly showing itself to be one of the most polarizing issues in European political circles, and demonstrates in a very clear manner how foreign policy is perceived by European states. Some are able to forego certain aspects of their political hostility towards Russia in areas where insisting upon it would result in considerable damage to their own economic outlook, where others persist in their political russophobia regardless of the consequences. A former Turkish diplomat and finance and energy geopolitical expert discusses this subject with Sputnik, as well as the influence being exerted by Washington on the issue.

Sputnik reports:

Denmark has claimed that it can legally stop the Nord Stream 2 project if it chooses to. Mehmet Ogutcu, a former Turkish diplomat and expert in finance, energy and geopolitics and who now chairs the investment advisory group Global Resources Partnership, as well as the Bosphorus Energy Club, has given his take on the prospects of the project.

Mehmet Ogutcu: This project is one of the most polarizing projects that the EU has ever discussed. I have no doubt that whatever the EU is doing right now, especially some factions within the EU, is politically motivated.

Mostly inspired by Washington, because the US is clearly against Nord Stream 2, for a couple of reasons; one being that they want to sell their over-priced LNG [Liquefied Natural Gas] across the Atlantic, which is not in the interests of the European Union; and the second one, it is often heard, that this project is going to increase the EU’s dependence on Russia, which is around 30 percent overall, as for Germany it’s about 40 percent.

These concerns are leading to confusion within the European Union, and I don’t think it is only the legal arguments that the European Commission is putting forward. And it’s really motivated by political imperatives, especially the US threat with sanctions on European companies, as it does also not only in the case of Russia, but Iran, starting from November 4.

There is a very clear push for banning Iranian crude exports. It’s part of a concerted effort from Washington to penalize countries which are not in line with US interests.

Sputnik: Denmark has recently withheld from granting permission for the implementation of the project. Several European politicians have stated that Europe no longer has hard legal leverage to halt the project. What’s your feeling regarding that matter?

Mehmet Ogutcu: Denmark is the last string among all other countries, so it has already passed through Finland, Sweden, so Denmark is the last one. I think again here, the US probably has used its influence to block this project, which has already left it almost 5 billion euros, almost half of the whole investment foreseen for the project.

I believe that the pressure is real, coming from Washington, and also the concern among Central European countries, some of them at least, is very real; with increasing dependence on Russia and the fear that Russia might be using the pipeline as leverage in its relationships with these countries.

And the fate of the existing Ukrainian gas transit route arrangement, which will expire in 2019, as you know, at the end of the year, when also Nord Stream 2 is expected to come on stream – that’s another serious concern, because when you look at it from outside, objective thinking requires that a route that is stable and direct without any transit country, should be preferable to Ukraine, where we know what difficulties are, in terms of transparency, in terms of political difficulties and additional costs. However, in this project, Nord Stream 2, we cannot look at it only from the commercial, rational [perspective].

There are very strong geopolitical imperatives that we have to bear in mind. Also, you have to think of Nord Stream 2, not in isolation from the TurkStream Project, which is going ahead full speed in the Black Sea coming to Turkey.

I think everything is on schedule for bringing Russian gas to the Turkish Thrace, there are two strings there as well; altogether we have about 31 bcm [billion cubic meters] of gas coming. Part of it will stay in Turkey and part, especially from the second pipeline, will go to South and South Eastern Europe.

Again, when you discuss Nord Stream 2, you have to see it in the broader context of other Russian projects coming also through Turkey. We have to understand different dimensions in this project.

As it stands, I don’t think we can say that Danish concerns or Eastern and Central European concerns can easily be done away. The US, through the trade wars that we saw the Trump administration start, through sanctions towards Iran, China, Russia are real, I don’t think they’re going to go away. But this might lead to some modifications of the dates and approach of Nord Stream 2, as well as Turkish Stream I think; although the first stream has been completed, there is concern whether US sanctions will also be felt there.

Following America’s withdrawal from the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran (JCPOA)reactions from European leaders were like that of a pendulum swinging back from its prior orientation. French President Emmanuel Macron was quoted as saying “If we accept that other major powers, including allies… put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy, security for us, and sometimes even make us run the worst risks, then we are not more sovereign and we cannot be more credible to public opinion.”  However, the Nord Stream 2 project demonstrates that this sentiment is not universal across Europe.

The pipeline would bring Russian gas to Europe, but is perceived as an ‘energy weapon’ wielded by Russia in order to exert its control by Eastern European nations Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia. The perception from the political perspective of these countries is that there is a growing ‘Russian threat‘ that must be contained, and in terms of the Nord Stream 2 project, this means that it must be countered. For this reason, political leaders from these four countries have travelled to Washington, in hopes that they can lobby American politicians to exert their influence to help stop the Russian energy project:

InsideSources reports:

Russian revanchism is a repeated concern for the governments of many of the Central and Eastern European states. For these countries, membership in western organizations including the European Union and NATO offers economic benefits, but comes with the risk that moving too far away from alliance with Russia will provoke some sort of aggressive response from the government of Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, leaders from Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova spoke to reporters and lawmakers at an event hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, emphasizing the role that European energy security plays in global security and reiterating the need to both stop the Nord Stream 2 project and to promote the use of American energy and technology.

“Putin’s action is not limited to his aggression or use of military force. Russia’s sophisticated use of information warfare including cyberattacks is well know. Vladimir Putin also uses Russia’s energy supplies as a weapon against neighboring states. Nord Stream 2 is a political project that will increase Europe’s reliance on Russia,” said American Foreign Policy Council President Herman Pirchner.

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed project that would bring natural gas from Russia through the EU to Germany. For the countries whose leaders spoke on Wednesday, the pipeline is far more than an infrastructure project. Construction of the pipeline would provide Russia with additional leverage over European countries, they warned.

“Nord Stream 2 is one of the elements of energy weapons used by Russia against the world,” said Ukrainian parliamentary chairman Andriy Parubiy, who spoke through an interpreter.

The importance of energy security is not lost on Ukraine, where Russia has used its control over the energy markets to enact political concessions. On two occasions in recent memory, Russia halted gas shipments to Ukraine in the middle of a winter cold snap until the government there agreed to price increases and political concessions.

“Ukraine knows for sure that gas supplies, for Russia, are not about the economy. For Russia natural gas, first of all, is a mechanism for political influence,” Parubiy continued.

While some analysts have questioned America’s involvement in the region, saying that it has provoked Russian revanchism, the leaders repeatedly expressed their desire to work with both the U.S. government and American businesses to expand their sources of energy. Allowing Russia to have a monopoly over energy supplies gives the Russian government a worrying amount of control over neighboring countries, the leaders emphasized.

“Nord Stream 2 is a political, not an economic, project,” said Lithuanian Speaker of the Seimas Viktoras Pranckietis.

For Lithuania, constructing a gas terminal which allows it to recieve gas shipments from overseas was an important step in reducing its dependence on Gazprom and Russian energy. After completion of the terminal, natural gas prices fell by 30 percent. Last year, Lithuania received shipments of American natural gas for the first time, a sign that its dependence on Russian energy was further weakening.

When possible, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia are looking for ways to become energy secure through the development of domestic energy sources or through trade with neighboring countries. This offers an opportunity for American businesses, many of which have the technical expertise these countries need.

“It is very important that U.S. business comes to this part of the world,” said Pranckietis.

The Moldovan government agreed.

“In order to have independence, we look for solutions and we found a solution. Now we are starting the process of building a gas pipeline between Romania and Moldova, because Romania in three years will have enough gas to cover their needs and our needs,” said Andrian Candu, chairman of the Moldovan parliament.

The countries see energy security as a vital part of their independence and warn that construction of Nord Stream 2 provides Russia with additional money to fund expansionist actions abroad, while spreading corruption in Europe. The pipeline still awaits approval in Europe and the speakers urged the American government to throw its influence against the project.

“Mark my words, Nord Stream 2 will be stopped,” said Parubiy with confidence.

Washington already has incentive to stop the project, both to secure a market for American shale gas, which is significantly more expensive for the Europeans than the Russian gas, as well as to counteract a major Russian energy programme, thereby countering Russian influence in Europe as well as to nix a plan that might be beneficial for the Russian economy as well as for European-Russian relations. Hence, while some European powers are looking to partner with Russia on some key issues, such as the JCPOA and the Nord Stream 2, others are looking for ways to participate in Washington’s plan of Russian containment.

Of course, the excuses being promoted are not quite as sensical in the present political environment, objectively speaking, as Europe finds itself under economic threat not from the Russians, but from the Americans, who are attempting to dictate to them their foreign policysecuritytrade, and energy interests under threat of sanctions and a budding trade war. This rift in energy policy in some ways mirrors the division on Europe’s migration policy, with some nations agreeing to take in migrants while others outright refuse, with some EU member states investing in Russian energy programs while others intend to buck it, with all the help from Washington that they can muster. It would appear, then, that all of this talk about ‘an economy of trust‘ and Macron’s words about European sovereigntyare falling on deaf ears among some European partners.

Meet Srdja Popovic, the secret architect of global revolution

The Serbian activist who formed the Otpor! movement in 1998 to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic has taken his philosophy of protest – laced with humour and rock’n’roll – worldwide. He explains how to mobilise people and change the world

Srdja Popovic: ‘Resistance is possible, and that it doesn’t have to be about boring sit-ins.’
 Srdja Popovic: ‘Resistance is possible, and that it doesn’t have to be about boring sit-ins.’ Photograph: Illustration: Andrew Stocks for the Guardian

In early spring 1992, Srdja Popovic was a first-year student at the University of Belgrade, reading not a lot of biology and playing bass in a band. Like his friends, he was revolted by the soldiers, the security police, the wars, the terror, the repression, the whole brutal and bloody mess that Serbia had become under its crazed dictator, Slobodan Milosevic.

But like most 18-year-olds, he didn’t feel there was much he was could actually do about it. “I was,” he says – a wiry and, at past 40, still impish figure – “basically into three things: drinking a lot, staying up late, and getting off with girls. About the only thing that would haul me off my backside was a rock concert.”

And one night in March 1992, a massive Serbian supergroup called Rimtutituki (the name is an anagram of Turim ti kitu, which means, roughly, “I put my dick in you”) played Belgrade, except that the authorities had denied them permission, so they performed on a flatbed truck.

“So there they were, our idols, driving round Republic Square in circles in a truck, singing,” says Popovic. “They looked more like generals than rockers. And what they were singing was stuff like: ‘There’s no brain under that helmet’ and ‘If I shoot, I won’t have time to fuck.’ Just really mocking, funny, seditious stuff. And I got it. We all got it.”

What Popovic got, although it took him some time to work through its implications, was that “resistance is possible, and that it doesn’t have to be about boring sit-ins – in fact it could be quite cool, and indeed the more fun it is, the more effective it will probably be. That even in hopeless situations, you can get people to care. And that ultimately, it had to be us. We had to do something.”

So they did. The campaign Popovic and his friends started, and the group that by 1998 it grew into, Otpor! (translation: Resistance!) inspired a mass, non-violent movement. They finally saw off the repression and horror of Milosevic, who at the end could not even make it to the final round of the elections he called in September 2000.

Since then, Popovic and his friends have been in some demand. The Centre for Applied Non-violent Action and Strategies or Canvas, an independent, five-man, Belgrade-based NGO he founded with a handful of other Otpor! members in 2003, has now advised and trained pro-democracy activists in more than 50 countries, including India, Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma, Ukraine, Georgia, Palestine, Belarus, Tunisia and Egypt.

The organisation’s materials, including its handbook, Non-violent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points [PDF], have been translated into half a dozen languages and counting, and downloaded tens of thousands of times – 17,000 in Iran alone. Popovic and his pals now teach classes in non-violent political and social change at some of the world’s most prestigious universities, including Harvard, New York, Columbia and UCL.

The rangy, too-cool-to-care student bass guitarist (his term) whose favourite place in London is Camden Market has mutated into a respected teacher, writer and thinker in the new but fast-growing academic field of non-violent struggle, the influence of which is felt around the world.

He has now published a highly readable book, the deftly titled Blueprint for Revolution: How to Use Rice Pudding, Lego Men and Other Non-Violent Techniques to Galvanise Communities, Overthrow Dictators or Simply Change the World, combining an entertaining primer on the theory and practice of peaceful protest with a very personal account of his own involvement with it.

The journey, he acknowledges, has not always been straightforward. The second son of a fearless 70s TV reporter father and a glamorous TV presenter mother, he says there was “nothing in my childhood to suggest I was any kind of rebel. I wanted to make animal documentaries. David Attenborough … Thirty years after I first saw him, I can still hear his voice.”

But when you grew up in liberal, free-thinking, even pretty damn cool Tito-era Yugoslavia, in “a certain system of values, and they are just stamped on … Not just the ugly bully-boys running around everywhere in really uncool uniforms, but the worst kind of nationalist folk culture all over TV, the insane hate speech … Croats were our brothers, you know? And suddenly we were being told to kill them; it’s like you being told it’s your patriotic duty to shoot Scots. Well, you change.”

An Otpor member vandalises a traffic sign during protest demonstrations in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 2000.
 An Otpor member vandalises a traffic sign during protest demonstrations in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 2000. Photograph: Braca Nadezdic/Getty Images

There were moments of desperation. Not so much for himself, Popovic says (“Once you’ve been arrested, beaten, you know what’s going to happen, you know there are people outside the jail and a lawyer, the media – that you’re not alone – you beat the fear”), but for the younger Otpor! members, and above all for their mothers.

“Those midnight phone calls from parents when their kids were picked up by the cops,” says Popovic. “Those were hard. The responsibility can get to you.” The toughest moment, the time he doubted change would ever come, was during the Nato bombardment of Serbia in April 1999, when the national TV centre where his mother worked – and where Popovic had spent many hours of his childhood – was targeted.

“She wasn’t there; she worked an afternoon shift that day,” he says. “But our neighbour was. I stood at the window watching the smoke rise with her son. That was the pits. Like, your country’s being bombed; sixteen of your mum’s colleagues die; she comes this close to losing her life … It was bad.”

But there was a lesson even in that. “Milosevic had his highest approval ratings in 1999,” Popovic says. “Just like George W Bush was never as popular as he was on 12 September 2001. When a country is attacked from the outside, everyone rallies around its leadership – even a really bad leadership. Foreign military interventions don’t bring change.”

Nor, Popovic argues, do many sanctions. “The targeted ones, on Milosevic’s inner circle, were great. But the oil embargo just made the mafia richer, and the trade embargo plunged us into hyper-inflation; my parents were selling smuggled petrol in the streets to survive.”

Imposing this kind of thing on a society from outside, Popovic is now convinced, “gives the government every excuse to do whatever it wants to do. That’s number one. Number two, it makes every single person who you’re going to be relying on for durable change really struggle for their life. They are all going to be too busy just surviving to mobilise.”

Srdja Popovic: 'You need to offer people the chance to do something meaningful, and – crucially – to get away with it.'
 Srdja Popovic: ‘You need to offer people the chance to do something meaningful, and – crucially – to get away with it.’ Photograph: David Levene

From such experiences, Otpor! reached its conclusion that internal resistance, not external intervention, is the best driver for political change. Through trial and error in its own campaigns, it confirmed Popovic’s own intimate conviction, acquired during the now-seminal 1992 epiphany-on-a-truck, that non-violent and, if remotely possible, amusing protest will be the most effective driver of all.

But the core principles – unity, planning and non-violent discipline – that the movement evolved, and that Canvas now teaches, did not come overnight. “In 1992, we were in our Occupy phase,” says Popovic. “We occupied all four university campuses in Serbia – it’s a small country – and we were super-liberal, super-educated, super-cool and super-isolated. Meanwhile Milosevic was sending his tanks to Croatia. We had to go out and listen. Get the real people, rural people, not so clever-clever people, behind us. Build a movement. We did, but it took us five years.”

Fear and apathy are the “status quo forces” in oppressive and corrupt societies, Popovic believes, and to counter them you need mobilisation, enthusiasm and humour. Otpor!’s wonderfully stylised raised and clenched fist, designed by Popovic’s best friend Nenad Duda Petrovic, could be stencilled on to walls, stamped on to any old bit of paper from flyers to banknotes, and imitated in the street. No banners, no chants – just bumping fists with your fellow man (and woman).

Similarly, the group’s campaigns never asked too much of anyone. “All successful movements come with a very low entry bar,” says Popovic. “You need to offer people the chance to do something meaningful, and – crucially – to get away with it. In Chile, against Pinochet, they drove at half speed: not illegal, very low risk, pretty funny, nothing the cops can do. It’s about doing something neat, and living to tell everyone.”

Campaigns that are funny count double, at least; Popovic calls this “laughtivism”. One of Otpor’s best-known stunts involved painting Milosevic’s face on a barrel, propping a stick against it, and leaving both on a busy street. No passerby would be arrested for having a bash, but the authorities faced a dilemma: make fools of themselves by arresting an empty barrel, or act unfazed and risk hundreds of them popping up everywhere.

The Canvas approach has some academic underpinning. A 2011 study of 323 civil resistance campaigns around the world between 1900 and 2006 by two US researchers, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J Stephan, found that nonviolent campaigns were successful in 53% of cases, and violent ones in only 26%. Moreover, only 4% of violent regime changes ended up in a functioning democracy, compared with 42% of non-violent regime changes.

Working out why a successful revolution did not transition to a successful democracy is hard, Popovic acknowledges: “In Egypt’s case, I think they probably called ‘game over’ too soon. They shook the tree, got rid of Mubarak, had their party and went home. Given the country didn’t have grownup institutions, it had been a one-man state for so long …

“And they weren’t able to maintain unity afterwards. If, say, they’d been able to form a transitional government of the civil youth movement, the military, the Muslim Brotherhood … As it was, the more powerful and organised groups simply took over, and have been fighting it out ever since.”

And Syria … Well, Syria’s opposition, Popovic says, “figured that if only they took up arms, the cavalry would come riding over the hill, just like it did in Libya. Except it didn’t. And they picked the wrong battle. Fighting Assad is like boxing Mike Tyson, and you don’t want to challenge Mike Tyson in a boxing ring. You want to challenge him at chess.”

Here, too, he reckons, a different course just might have produced different results – although with murderous dictators, nothing is ever certain: “If the opposition had achieved some unity between Arabs, Kurds and Christians; managed to hit Assad where it hurt, in his wallet, with mass non-co-operation, international consumer boycotts … I mean, who knows? That was what did for Apartheid South Africa. But instead, they plundered the arsenals and started fighting a war they can’t win.”

So the learning curve is not always a smooth one, Popovic concludes. He is optimistic, though, that Canvas-type techniques can be successfully transferred to movements for broader social change: the Syrizas, Podemoses, even – with some reservations – the assorted Occupy movements of the past few years. There are, he reckons, “many parallels and overlaps”.

A Belgrade student throws leaflets from a rooftop as part of the 2000 protests against Slobodan Mil
 A Belgrade student throws leaflets from a rooftop as part of the 2000 protests against Slobodan Milosevic. Photograph: Reuters

But Occupy frustrates him. “They’re just too predictable,” he says. “And confrontational. Instead of unpredictable; exploiting the political space that’s open to you. In Hong Kong, they simply occupied the same space every day, and mainland China knew all it had to do was wait.

“You see, what you want in a campaign are what we call low-risk, inclusive tactics of dispersal. Occupy is a high-risk, divisive tactic of concentration: getting everyone in one place, fighting with the police, and pissing off the people – like shopkeepers – you need to win over.”

When, in 2002, a small, brave group of Zimbabwean opposition activists became the first to seek out Otpor! and ask their advice, Popovic and his fellow revolutionaries suspected they might be on to something. When Georgians, Ukrainians, Belarussians followed suit, they knew it.

Now that the “let’s solve this with guns” approach is even more discredited (“we know now that guns solve nothing; we’ve seen this in Libya, Iraq, Syria, in many, many places”), non-violent revolution must play an even greater role, he says: “The challenge now is threefold: activists have to learn the rules of non-violent resistance, and we need to make the tools for that available. We need to keep on convincing elites that planes and bombs won’t change anything. And we need to watch our opponents, because dictators are learning just as fast as we are. Look at Putin.”

Above all, though, ordinary people everywhere who are oppressed – a lifelong Tolkien fan, he refers often to the “hobbits” – should realise that together, with discipline, humour, careful planning and a few neat tactics, they can move mountains. “In 1992, all we actually wanted was a normal country with cool music,” he says. “And look where it got us.”

Srdja Popovic is the author of Blueprint for Revolution, published by Scribe (£9.99). To order a copy for £7.59 with free UK P&P, call 0330 333 6846 or visit

“OTPOR” Youth Movement in Serbia

Image for Canvas, Otpor, Pora: Serbia's brand is non-violent revolution

Canvas, Otpor, Pora: Serbia’s brand is non-violent revolution

Published on 

Israa Abdel Fattah, Mohamed Adel and Asmaa Mahfouz will be remembered as the ones who largely contributed to dismantling Hosni Mubarak’s 30 year rule over Egypt, and one of them revealed this year that he trained with similar youth organisations in Belgrade

‘The journey from dictatorship to democracy does not solely consist of overthrowing non-democratic leadership or organising fair and free elections. It is foremost a longterm institution building process,’ says Srdja Popovic, director of the centre for applied non-violent actions and strategies (Canvas) in Belgrade. Recently Canvas received massive media attention because one of the leaders of the April 6 Egyptian youth movementMohammed Adel stated that it was in this particular centre where they received advice on how to organise protests in their country.

The 38-year-old was himself one of the co-founders and leaders of Otpor! (‘Resistance‘), a Serbian youth movement that played a significant role in the downfall of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s regime in the country eleven years ago. Since then, he has been advocating for citizen activism throughout the world; Serbia has a new brand on its plate, and it’s called non-violent revolution. ‘The media have a way of making a mountain out of a molehill,’ he says. ‘They’ve turned a story of several brave Egyptian activists who came to a human rights workshop in Serbia into a romantic tale of importing and exporting revolution,’ His organisation has set up workshops for over 1, 000 people from 37 countries.

Romantic notion of revolution

Non-violence movement strategies have been known for decades and are taught at some prestigious universities. However, the idea of a non-violent protest as a Serbian brand was portrayed in the Serbian media couple of years ago after the orange revolution in Ukraine. It was then reported that Otpor activists met with members of


Pora (‘

It’s Time

‘), a Ukranian youth movement that was one of the organisers of their own revolution. Similar meetings were also held with activists from

Georgia, Zimbabwe, Burma

and the


. Add to that an

MTV Free Your Mind award

that Otpor received in


, and you get a perfectly sellable brand.

The media potentially gave a romantic notion to the whole story, but the fact that the documentary of Otpor’s doings Bringing Down a Dictator (2002) was seen by 23 million people vouches for the spreading of their ideas.

And what’s there not to be romantic about? After all, the fist symbol of Otpor, was reportedly a product of a man in love; Nenad Duda Petrovic, now 37, was asked to create a logo for some student organisation by a girl who he was in love with. It took him only two hours to draw a fist that would later on represent the resistance of people toward dictators’ regime. That symbol has since been seen on protests in Georgia, Venezuela and recently in Egypt.

Petar Milicevic was one of the trainers at workshop that CANVAS organised for Egyptian activists in 2009. In his opinion, the methods that were presented at the training were perfectly applied during the Egyptian revolution. ‘Not a single change of power was successfuly done because of some international training and support,’ notes Milicevic. ‘The desire for social and political changes has to come from people. Everything else is more appealing than spending eighteen days in Tahrir Square while surrounded by (former president Hosni) Mubarak’s forces. The key to Egyptian success was that the revolution leaders recognised the needs of their society.’

Happily-ever-after or not?

However fascinating the story of Egyptian uprise seems, the fight didn’t end on the day Mubarak resigned on 11 February. While global attention has now turned towards Libya, Bahrain, Syria and other countries in similar political situations, it is up to the Egyptian people to start rebuilding their political institutions. ‘The next important step is changing the grotesque constitution that is long past  its expiry date. After that there’s the registration of political parties, freedom of speech and assembly, autonomy of educational institutions and separation of legislative, executive and judicial power…’There’s a long road ahead of them, but they don’t lack hope and enthusiasm,’ says Srdja Popovic.

‘People think that a better life comes right away. It doesn’t’

High hopes can also take a toll in the process. A decade after Milosevic’s downfall, Serbians are feeling disappointed by the outcomes of their revolution. The general apathy is deepened by poverty, high corruption rate and a lack of trust in politicians and institutions. Recent research in Ukraine showed similar results. ‘Serbia definitely looks better ten years after Milosevic than it did during the nineties. I can’t possibly think of anything from that period that we could be nostalgic about. The problem is that people think that a better life comes right away. It doesn’t, and then that enormous energy hits a brick wall when it has to deal with everyday issues. I hope Egypt will find a way to overcome that,’ says Petar Milicevic. Judging by numbers, Egyptian people have passed their first democratic test by making a large turnout protest on 18 March to a popular vote on constitution changes. The story continues in August when the presidential elections will be held.

Images: main Pop!Tech art, Otpor! 2005 (cc) Peter Durand/ Alphachimp Studio/ alphachimp.comon Flickr/ videos: MTV award and trailer for movie (cc) technodrombg and (cc) AFMPF Films/Youtube

Turkey vows to keep Iran ties despite US pressures

Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:26AM
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

Turkey says it remains determined to maintain trade ties with Iran in an apparent defiance against a purported plan by the US to urge all nations to cut imports of Iranian oil from November.  

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was quoted by media as saying that Ankara would not cut off trade ties with Iran “at the behest of other countries” in a clear reference to the US.

“If the United States’ decisions are aimed at peace and stability, then we’ll support them, but we don’t have to follow every decision. Being allies doesn’t mean following every decision word for word,” Cavusoglu told the Turkish broadcaster NTV in an interview.

“Iran is a good neighbour and we have economic ties. We are not going to cut off our trade ties with Iran because other countries told us so.”

Earlier, Turkey’s economy minister had emphasized that Washington’s demand to stop purchasing oil from Iran will not be binding for Ankara.

Nihat Zeybekci told reporters on Wednesday that Turkey would only respect measures announced by the United Nations toward its eastern neighbor.

“The decisions taken by the United States on this issue are not binding for us. Of course, we will follow the United Nations on its decision. Other than this, we will only follow our own national interests. In addition, we will pay attention so our friend Iran will not face any unfair actions,” Turkey’s Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci told reporters on Wednesday.

Iran has been Turkey’s leading supplier of crude oil for most of the past two decades, ceding first place to Iraq only for three years during the recent period of US sanctions.

Imports last year came to 11.493 million tonnes, or 44.6% of the total supply, at an average of 230,800 barrels per day (bpd), up 66% from the 6.939 million tonnes supplied in 2016, according to reports.

F-35 drama

The Turkish top diplomat finally said his country had conveyed to Trump its discomfort about a purported decision by Washington to cancel delivery of F-35 jets to Ankara.

The US has warned Turkey against the purchase of S-400 air defense missile systems from Russia, threatening to impose sanctions on Ankara and also stop delivery of F-35 fighter jets it is contracted to give to the country.

Cavusoglu, however, said Trump had told Ankara that necessary steps over the delivery of the advanced fighter jets would be taken. He said there were no problems over the delivery of the planes yet, adding that he did not think there would be any in future either.

Max Ahmadivor 5 Stunden
Turkieh knows its needs, rights and powers. let US and Zion try to stop it
Lumpyvor 7 Stunden
Might as well. The U.S. Bully-in-Chief betrays his conquests anyway.
u.s. governmnt is a thief…..vor 10 Stunden
Iranian engineers r truely incapable in design and building, in general completing a project….oil wells but no walkways to those pumps, no landscaping at all, dont know a crap about geometery…..learn, learn…time is now !!
Chud Nazakvor 10 Stunden
GREAT JOB TURKEY! I am calling every country in the world to strongly defy US pressure against Iran, rather encourage all countries in the world to boycott US products. Let their economy collapse like they do to others.
Narivor 10 Stunden
I know deep down Iranian leaders know the true face of Turkey and they remain quiet just to keep the peace.
Narivor 10 Stunden
If Iran was invaded today Turkey would be helping that invasion someway or another. Turkey has already attacked and occupied an Iranian allie.
Ardeshirvor 12 Stunden
Iran and Turkey are one family, no one can separate them. God bless Mr.Erdogan , MR.Chavushoghlu and all Iranian and Turkish people

Why No Outrage Over US Killing of Children?

National outrage over President Trump’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents as a way to deter illegal immigration into the United States has forced the president to abandon the policy. The outrage came from all sides of the political spectrum, especially from the left, and from the mainstream media.

Trump’s policy is obviously cruel and brutal, given that it uses children as pawns to achieve a political end. No matter how much psychological damage is inflicted on children owing to the fear that comes with forced separation, the idea is that such emotional damage is worth it given the aim of preventing or discouraging illegal immigration to the United States.

What’s strange, however, is that while there has been mass outrage over Trump’s separation policy, there is virtually no outrage over the U.S. government’s policy of killing children as a way to achieve the political goal of regime change in foreign countries.

Consider, for example, the brutal system of U.S. sanctions on Iraq, which the Clinton administration enforced during the 1990s. Year after year, it contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children, especially since the sanctions prevented Iraq from repairing the water-and-sewage treatment plants that the Pentagon had intentionally bombed during the Persian Gulf War.

What was the attitude of liberals and Democrats back then? They couldn’t care less. In fact, the position of the Clinton administration was summed up by the official U.S. government spokesperson to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, who was serving as U.S. Ambassador to the UN. When Sixty Minutes asked Albright whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were worth it, she responded that while the issue was a difficult one, yes, the deaths of those children were worth it.

What was “it”? Regime change, a political goal by the U.S. government wished to oust the Saddam Hussein regime from power and replace it with another pro-U.S. regime. (The Saddam Hussein regime and the U.S. government had been partners and allies during the 1980s when the U.S. government was helping Iraq wage war against Iran.) By killing children and others, the hope was that Saddam would abdicate, or that he would fall into line and comply with U.S. orders, or that there would be a violent revolution entailing massive death and destruction, or that there would be a military coup that would bring a pro-U.S. military dictator into power.

What was the response of the liberal-Democratic segment of society and of the U.S. mainstream media to the mass killing of those Iraqi children? Silence or, even worse, support! There was certainly nothing like the outrage being expressed against Trump’s separation policy, which causes one to wonder whether the reaction against Trump might be motivated by politics rather than by moral values. In other words, if it were Obama or Clinton doing what Trump is doing, would the response be different among progressives and the mainstream media?

Even when three high UN officials, Hans von Sponeck, Jutta Purghart, and Denis Haliday, resigned their posts out of a crisis of conscience over the deaths of Iraqi children that the Clinton administration was inflicting with its system of sanctions, that didn’t provoke any sympathetic reaction among liberals, progressives, or the U.S. mainstream press. When U.S. officials mocked and ridiculed the three of them, the American left and the U.S. mainstream press remained nonplussed.

A real-life hero in the Iraq sanctions saga was an American man named Bert Sacks. He decided to violate the sanctions by taking medicines into Iraq. U.S. officials went after him with a vengeance that bordered on the pathological and that gave new meaning to the term “banality of evil.” With the exception of newspapers in Seattle, where Sacks was from, most leftists and most mainstream newspapers failed to come to Sacks’ defense. To Sacks’s everlasting credit, he fought the Treasury Department’s $10,000 fine (plus another $6,000 in penalties) for around a decade, refusing to pay it and finally winning.

For that matter, consider the current brutal U.S. sanctions against North Korea, one of the most impoverished Third World countries in the world, one in which hundreds of thousands of people have died of starvation as a result of North Korea’s socialist economic system.

The U.S. sanctions are intended to make the starvation even worse. The U.S. government’s hope is that the sanctions will kill even more people and thereby accelerate the chances of regime change or a change in behavior among North Korea’s communist regime.

Ordinarily, the most vulnerable people in an impoverished society are the very young and the very old. Thus, they run the risk of bearing the brunt of sanctions, either from malnutrition or illness.

What is the reaction of the American left, the right, and the mainstream media when U.S. sanctions kill more North Koreans, including children and seniors? They love it! That exult that the sanctions are starting to “bite” and call for even more stringent sanctions to increase the killing even more. In the minds, the bigger the “bite,” the better the chances of causing North Korea to fall into line or of bringing regime change to the country.

Same for Cuba, where U.S. officials have brought untold economic suffering to the Cuban people, on top of the economic suffering that already experience of Cuba’s socialist economic system. Again, the aim is either regime change or regime conformance with U.S. directives. While there is a smattering of support for lifting the decades-old, Cold War-era embargo  among the left, there is certainly no moral outrage within the left and the mainstream media, as there is with Trump’s separation policy.

It’s refreshing to see moral outrage over Trump’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents. If only there was similar outage over the U.S. government’s policy of killing children and others with sanctions.


Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.


A new multipolar order, driven by economics and history, is emerging in the world – ‘Post-West world order’

‘Post-West world order’ being shaped as we speak – Lavrov to Channel 4

A new multipolar order, driven by economics and history, is emerging in the world and Western attempts to stop or to slow it down are unlikely to succeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told UK’s Channel 4.

“I think that we are in the post-West world order,” Lavrov told the British Channel 4 in an interview on Friday. “It is a historical epoch, if you want. Certainly, after five or so centuries of domination of the collective West, as it were, it is not very easy to adjust to new realities that there are other powerhouses economically, financially and politically,” he added, pointing to China, India and Brazil.

Asked if Russia was shaping this world order, Lavrov replied it was rather the product of history and “development itself.”

“You cannot really hope to contain [these] new powerful, economically and financially, countries. You cannot really ignore their role in world trade and world economy,” despite attempts to slow down the process with sanctions and tariffs, the top Russian diplomat said.

The European Union is “certainly a very important pillar of any world order,” Lavrov added, but it needs to decide whether to remain reliant on the US or become more self-sufficient. By way of illustration, Lavrov brought up the migrant crisis, which the EU is currently struggling with.

“NATO bombed Libya, turned Libya into a black hole through which waves of migrants, illegal migrants, rushed to Europe. Now EU is cleaning the broken china for NATO,” Lavrov said.

Russia’s relations with the West, which have soured dramatically since the 2014 US-backed coup in Ukraine, will be among the topics discussed at the July summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Finland.

During the interview, Lavrov brushed off Channel 4 speculation that Russia could offer to hand over NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom it granted political asylum, in exchange for the lifting of US and EU sanctions.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

‘You stopped Ronaldo!’ Netanyahu incites Iranians to depose government channeling World Cup euphoria

Showcasing his ball-dribbling skills, Benjamin Netanyahu engaged in some footsy lobbying with Iranians, insisting that, if their national team could stop Cristiano Ronaldo, then the opposition can surely take out the government.

Playing on the emotions of millions of Iranians, who were thrilled to see their team achieve an “impossible” World Cup 1-1 draw with Portugal, the Israeli PM decided to demonstrate he too can play ball, while conveying his love and care for the Iranian people.

Netanyahu appealed to the Iranian opposition to seek inspiration in their squad’s performance against superstar Cristiano Ronaldo and his boys, and to find the “courage” to stand up against their government.

“To the Iranian people I say: You showed courage on the playing field, and today you showed the same courage in the streets of Iran,” Benjamin Netanyahu said in the video, titled ‘Could you stop Ronaldo from scoring a goal?!’

READ MORE: Aggressive US campaign to overthrow Iranian govt serves only to boost its support – experts

The euphoria felt by the fans at the FIFA World Cup in Russia, the PM hinted, can only be exceeded by the feeling of total freedom when the government of Israel’s arch-rival, which is, of course, the root of all Iranians’ troubles, is toppled.

“Iran has many problems — air pollution, water scarcity, billions wasted on terror,” he pointed out. “Can you imagine what would happen if the Iranian government, instead of wasting your money in Syria, in Yemen, and in unnecessary wars in the Middle East, would start investing it in solving these problems in Iran?”

Stressing his desire to help Iranian people help themselves, the Israeli PM painted a bright future, in which “Iran’s soccer team goes head-to-head against Israel in a free Tehran. On that day, we’ll all be winners.”

Attempts to win the hearts of the English-speaking Iranian social media users have become Netanyahu’s signature tactics over years of meddling in Iranian affairs. It’s not the first time Netanyahu has used sports events to encourage the Iranian opposition to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Tehran has repeatedly accused Washington and Tel Aviv of providing support for sporadic protests aimed at overthrowing the government.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

“Modern” Israel