Americans usually support ethnic cleansing when our government does.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

The purpose of ethnic cleansing is often misrepresented as being just a bigoted majority venting their common hatred against some minority, but it’s actually a crime by the state — that is, by the Government, the rulers — in order to get rid of enough of its opponents there so as to be able to remain in power ‘democratically’ — that is, by means of popular elections. It’s a means for a dictatorship to call itself a ‘democracy’ and to be believed by enough of its public and its foreign allies to be that so as for the Government to be respected as being a “democracy” even though it’s actually only a ‘democracy’ — a nation that’s ruled by dictators but that claims to be, and is widely (falsely) believed to be, a democracy. Several examples will be cited here, and all of these ethnic cleansings are by regimes that the American regime backs, and that America’s population widely respects and supports, as is indicated by numerous polls of Americans. Exceptions to the rule will also be noted and explained (because sometimes the U.S. Government has not sufficiently carried out its opinion-management — “manufactured consent” — in order for its public to be sufficiently fooled about the matter, and therefore more intensive propaganda occasionally becomes necessary):

The paradigmatic and longest-standing case is Israel, which was formed by ethnic cleansing that Jews there had perpetrated against Muslims there and that was ‘justified’ by an ethnic cleansing that Christians in Europe had perpetrated (called “the Holocaust”) against Jews there. As the 1976 masterpiece by Grosser & Halperin, Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects of a Prejudice, said in its chapter “The Crusades, 1000-1348,” “Jewish existence was one of almost continual terror. Jews throughout Europe regularly experienced attacks, slaughter, extortion, kidnap, ransom, forced baptism and confiscation of property by the [Roman Catholic] Church, the state, and mobs.” But the Holocaust was the super-pogrom; and, though masterminded from Germany, it was being carried out everywhere that Hitler reigned, all of which were Christian-majority nations — it was carried out by Christians (not by Muslims). After the war, Muslims in what was then Palestine paid the price and became the Christian-approved victims of Jews who were escaping from Christian lands. Thus started the American and European Christian-approved ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Palestine. It wasn’t nearly as much due to any hatred that Jews felt for Muslims, as it was due to Jews wanting to live in a democracy where they would be the majority. The fascist Jews took over there, because clearing the land of its natives requires conquest and violence, and, in modern times, people who like to do that are commonly called “fascists.”

Although the Allied anti-Axis powers of Soviet Union, UK, U.S., and France, had publicly and passionately condemned Adolf Hitler’s attempted extermination of Jews throughout Christian-majority Europe, those Christian-majority nations refused to provide and fund refuge and welcome to more than token numbers of fleeing Jews; and, so, millions of them fled to what became Israel and needed to eliminate Muslims there in order to call their new and imposed Jewish Government a ‘democracy’ and thus become approved in America and Europe (Christian-majority nations). This necessitated, on the part of those Jews, an extensive ethnic-cleansing of Muslims there. It’s well-documented, such as here and here and here and here. Furthermore, during the 1930s, zionists considered themselves to be fascists; and fascists in both Germany and Italy considered zionists to be Jewish fascists, ideological brothers of both Italy’s and Germany’s fascists (Christianity’s fascists). And Albert Einstein and other prominent progressive Jews in the U.S. after World War II described as “fascists” Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom subsequently became elected by Israel’s Jews to lead Israel. And yet the U.S. Government backed them, not only when Begin and Shamir were leading massacres of Arab villages in the 1940s, but when both men became Israel’s leaders in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s — and afterward, under their political follower Benjamin Netanyahu: clearly, a racist-supremacist apartheid regime ever since its founding, a regime which defines the supreme group, “Jew,” not only by religion, but by descent; that is, racially. Under U.S. President Harry S. Truman, the America and the world that his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who was against the formation of a Jewish state, and who also was opposed to Winston Churchill’s and Dwight Eisenhower’s urgings for a war against the Soviet Union) had sought and carefully planned — the world that FDR had been intensively working to build — abruptly ended. Truman thus was one of the worst Presidents in American history, though he followed immediately after one of the two greatest, FDR (the other being Abraham Lincoln, who, likewise, was immediately followed by conservatives who were failures as far as justice and the public’s welfare were concerned — ending in the 1929 crash, which brought FDR to power just as slavery had earlier brought Lincoln to power).

Perhaps one might say that the reason why America’s Government supports Israel is that the American people do, rather than vice-versa (the American Government’s leading the people). What is the main direction of the causation here? Is America’s Government’s support of Israel a result of America’s being a democracy? The answer is clearly no on this: Israel is no friend to the American people; Israel is an enemy of the American people, and the American Government keeps this fact a secret from Americans. For example, on 8 June 1967, Israel intentionally attacked and nearly sank the USS Liberty, slaughtering 34 of our sailors and injuring another 172, but the U.S. Government kept the attack’s intentionality secret from the American people, who donate in taxes $3.8 billion per year in order for Israel to buy U.S.-made (Lockheed Martin, etc.) weapons. That’s not democracy, in either country. If anything, it is dictatorship, the opposite of democracy.

There are also many other examples showing that Americans usually support ethnic cleansing when our government does.

The 10 November 2019 coup against, and subsequent immiseration of, the Bolivian people, is one such example. It, too, is racist (not only classist), this time by a fundamentalist Christian European-derived aristocracy, against the approximately 70%-native-Indian majority Bolivian public. According to the CIA (which thus became virtually in control there), Bolivia is “mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry) 68%, indigenous 20%, white 5%, cholo/chola 2%, black 1%, other 1%, unspecified 3% (2009 est.).” The coup-regime are among the 5% Whites. On 11 November 2019, Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton headlined at The Gray Zone, “Bolivia coup led by Christian fascist paramilitary leader and millionaire – with foreign support”, and provided financial details about the propaganda-support from Amnesty International for this ethnic-cleansing operation. On 18 November 2019, Alan MacLeod at Mint Press News headlined “Media Silent as Bolivia’s New Right-Wing Gov’t Massacres Indigenous Protesters”, and reported that, “Despite having been in power for only one week, the new Bolivian coup government of Jeanine Añez has already turned the powers of repression onto the population, using live rounds on demonstrators protesting the forceful removal of President Evo Morales from power on November 10.” Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were both cited there as supporting the ethnic-cleansing operation that was now starting. On November 12th, the anonymous Moon of Alabama blogger bannered “Lessons To Learn From The Coup In Bolivia”. Here are the main “lessons to learn” about Morales’s leadership of Bolivia, ever since he took over in 2006:

——

Bolivia, 2006-2018:

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Bolivia/GDP_constant_dollars/

GDP 16.4 in 2006 became 29.1 in 2018; that = +77% GDP under Morales.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Bolivia/External_debt/

External debt 56.59 in 2006 became 33.78; that = -40% external debt under Morales.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Bolivia/roads_quality/

Road-quality 1.98 in 2006 became 3.4 in 2018; that = +72% in road-quality under Morales.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS?locations=BO

Literacy in 2007 (earliest year studied) = 90.743%. 2012 (latest year studied) = 94.461. Illiteracy declined 40%.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Bolivia/Poverty-rate-at-national-poverty-line

Poverty-rate 59.9% in 2006 became 34.6% 2018. Poverty declined 42%.

——

It’s no wonder, then, that Morales is so popular in Bolivia.

And the nation’s aristocracy hated that, just as they hated the nation’s public, whom now they were brutalizing in order to make submissive. The aristocrats were trying to turn Bolivia into a white Christian fundamentalist Israel against the natives there. But propaganda, such as from organizations like HRW and AI, is necessary in order to ‘justify’ this. It’s how such nonprofits win the donations that pay their bills. Those donations come largely from the aristocracy. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are propaganda organizations, ‘justifiers’ of sanctions, coups, and invasions, by ‘democracies’. They are tools of imperialism.

Yet another example is Ukraine. In a moment of extraordinary candor, George Friedman, the founder and CEO of the ‘private CIA’ consulting firm Stratfor, once called the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, which occurred in February 2014, “the most blatant coup in history”, and this was because it was the first coup ever to have been captured live on cellphone videos and uploaded to the internet as it happened, and afterward documented by interviewing some of the participants, in detailed accounts which fit perfectly with similar confessions from other participants (such as this, from one who didn’t even know about those other participants, but they all were carrying out the same plan, which they didn’t know about and which came from above — the U.S. regime — they all were only following the orders that they had been given by agents of the U.S.). These realities were able to be reported outside the United States but not inside the United States. The top EU officials didn’t become so much as even aware that it had been a coup instead of an authentic revolution, until it was already finished, on 26 February 2014. By our time, there is no longer any reasonable doubt that it had been led by the U.S. regime, and that Barack Obama’s Administration had started planning the operation by no later than 2011, and the implementation-phase started by no later than 1 March 2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine — well before the fairy-tale ‘explanation’ of the coup (‘the Maidan Revolution’) started on 21 November 2013. Perhaps the coup de grace of the whole operation is that Obama even had been planning for the U.S. Navy to move in and take Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remains) located in Crimea, and turn it into yet another U.S. naval base — this was blatant theft, not just aggression, in his plan. Famously, after that ‘democratic revolution’ (which was instead a fascist coup that was hidden behind popular anti-corruption demonstrations), came the breakaway of Crimea (which had voted over 75% for Yanukovych) and of Donbass (which had voted over 90% for him). And then came the Obama-installed regime’s ethnic cleansing ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ to eliminate as many of the voters in Donbass as possible, because if they stayed in Ukraine, then the newly installed regime in Kiev would soon be elected out-of-office. Hatred was needed in order for that ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ or ‘ATO’ (the ethnic-cleansing operation) to be able to achieve its purpose, of retaining in power the U.S.-stooge regime, in a ‘democratic’ way.

Part of the urgent need of the U.S.-installed regime was to get rid of the Ukrainians who had voted Yanukovych into power. This is the only way the stooge-people could be ‘democratically elected’ into power: get rid of the ‘bad’ voters. 90+% of the residents in Donbass had voted for Yanukovych; and 75+% of the residents in Crimea had done so. Crimeans managed to hold their referendum on 16 March 2014, and over 90% of them voted to become restored again to Russia (as they always had been prior to the Soviet dictator in 1954 having transferred them to Ukraine), but because of the U.S.-incited opposition against Donbassers being able to do likewise, Russian President Vladimir Putin, on 17 September 2014, said that Donbass must build its “own country” and not be a part of Russia. All U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media refused to publish this historically extremely important fact, because their regimes were insisting that Putin was instead trying to ‘seize more territory’, and because NATO especially needed that lie in order to terrify against Russia the residents in the Baltic nations, etc. I was the only journalist in The West to report this key fact, and though virtually all news-media were sent the news-report, only a few very small and independent ones published it. Datelined on September 19th, its headline was “Russia’s Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim to Become Part of Russia”. This was one of Putin’s most important geostrategic decisions. Western ‘news’-media hid it, instead of reported it, and the reason why is obvious: they needed to hide The West’s guilt.

But the Obama-installed regime, now under Poroshenko’s rule, finally might have gotten elected out-of-office on 21 April 2019 and replaced by the new President Volodmyr Zelenskiy, despite the billions of dollars that the U.S. regime had spent on this coup-and-ethnic-cleansing operation. Zelenskiy won by the largest margin of any Ukrainian President ever, and the reason for this is that his opponent, Poroshenko, had spectacularly failed to fulfill his electoral promises — he couldn’t follow through on everything that Obama had wanted him to do. Because so much of Obama’s agenda conflicted with what the Ukrainian public wanted him to do (especially they wanted the war to end, and for it to end ‘victoriously’), Poroshenko was leaving office as being extremely unpopular. The war was simply dragging on, because Putin would not let the U.S.-allied forces kill or drive out virtually all residents in, or to conquer, Donbass.

Whether or not Zelenskiy decides to be yet another U.S. stooge isn’t yet clear, but maybe he’ll be able to lift the American yoke from his country, a yoke which destroyed Ukraine’s economy. In 2013, Ukraine’s average annual household income was $2,601.40, and then it fell off a cliff and became $1,109.63 by 2015 and has stabilized at around that level since. Also, in 2013, Ukraine’s GDP was $183.31 billion, and by 2015 that had become $91.03 billion and stabilized at that level and started rising in 2017. More information about the decline in Ukraine’s economic rankings can be seen here. Ukraine was avoiding bankruptcy only because the U.S.-controlled IMF kept lending it money so as to continue the war.

However, despite Zelenskiy’s promise to end the war against Donbass by means of negotiations and of building the trust of Donbass residents, Ollie Richardson posted to youtube on 31 May 2019 (11 days after Zelenskiy’s inauguration) “Ukraine continues to shell the LPR despite Zelensky’s promises of peace”, and clearly this military attack against Donbass showed that Zelenskiy was continuing the Obama-started Ukrainian regime (unless Zelenskiy publicly condemned that attack, which he did not). This attack “on May 29th carried out by the UAF [Ukrainian Air Force] on the settlement of Golubovsky, which is a part of front-line Kirovsk,” produced no public response from President Zelenskiy — no condemnation, no replacement of any official, nothing at all. He was thus making less possible each and every day, Donbassers’ support for any negotiations with his regime.

The U.S. regime has been toxic to the Ukrainian people, no matter how one looks at the matter. Whether and how Ukraine can ever recover isn’t yet clear. U.S. corporations (and agents such as the IMF) have by now moved into Ukraine so deeply that maybe Zelenskiy will either fulfill Obama’s plan or else be assassinated (by his country’s very active nazis) for resisting it. On 24 May 2019, the Irish independent investigative journalist Danielle Ryan had headlined at RT “West-backed think tanks threaten new Ukrainian president with disturbing list of ‘RED LINES’”, and apparently the U.S. regime was having its way, yet again. All of this success is achieved by selecting only billionaire-approved candidates as the final contenders in ‘elections’ (actually mere selections), and all of them deceive the public in order to become (s)‘elected’ by billionaires and then by the public. The U.S. regime is relentless. Zelenskiy is apparently trapped by it. And Trump is just another Obama, who is just another Bush, etc.

The ultimate objective of this particular plan is to make Ukraine a NATO member in order to place U.S. missiles only five-minutes flight-time away from Moscow. But in order to achieve that, America’s IMF must continue lending Ukraine’s Government more and more money and thereby drive it deeper and deeper into debt, so that when Ukraine goes bankrupt, the Ukrainian people will be stripped of everything, and America’s international corporations will get most of what they did have.

Of course, if Trump were a decent person, he would expose what Obama had done to Ukraine, instead of continue doing it. Only time will tell whether he has, within him, such a shred of decency. He’s never yet shown it, in anything that he has actually done. But he’s no worse than his predecessor was. And, perhaps, in the congressional hearings, regarding his impeachment, the only way he will be able to avoid being forced out of office would be for him to turn the Ukraine knife away from himself and instead toward Obama, and Obama’s Administration. Perhaps that will happen when the matter produces a vote in the Democratic-Party-led House to impeach, and then reaches the Republican-Party-led Senate, for the final vote. Perhaps that’s when Trump will take the gloves off, and grab the Democrats’ Ukrainian knife, and stick it into their heart, which is Obama himself. The documentation which has been supplied here should be enough to do it. The result would likely be to destroy all of the current Presidential candidates who are promising to be a President “in the Obama mold.” And — to judge by the current polls — that’s most of today’s Democratic Party. Maybe reforming the Democratic Party is the only hope and Donald Trump the only person who is in a position to be able to force it to happen. But probably, Trump would rather lose the White House than do that.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.