Crimea, Ukraine and the
Anglo-American New World Order
2 April 2014
Ukraine is a former Soviet Republic which
has often been divided between its immediate neighbours, particularly
Russia to the east and Poland to the west. This pattern has been followed
by Ukraine’s most recent rift caused by conflicting allegiances to
Russia and the European Union. While retaining close trade links with the
former, the country has been moving closer and closer to the latter.
Ukraine’s rapprochement to the
ever-expanding EU had been watched with growing alarm both by Russia and by
the ethnic Russian majority in Ukraine’s semi-autonomous region of
Crimea. Understandably, while pro-EU street demonstrations were taking
place on the Ukrainian mainland, Crimean Russians began to form
On 22 February, when Ukraine’s
pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych
backtracked on a pending agreement to forge closer ties with the EU, he was
ousted by a wave of pro-EU protests, some of them violent. Russian gunmen
responded by seizing the Crimean parliament six days later, while Russian
troops began to surround (and later took over) military bases.
The Crimean parliament’s 6 March vote
to secede from Ukraine and join Russia was backed by a regional referendum
held ten days later and on 17 March Crimea declared itself independent from
Ukraine. The following day, Russian
President Vladimir Putin and Crimean Prime
Minister Sergei Aksyonov
signed a treaty for the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
As one might expect, there was no shortage
of Western regimes which were strongly opposed to the annexation, notably,
America, Britain and Canada.
Sanctions like travel bans and asset freezes were imposed on Russian
and Ukrainian officials and the United Nations declared Crimea’s
referendum “invalid.” Parroting US President Obama and other left-wing world leaders, our very own,
“Conservative” Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that
“the international community has sent a strong message through the
passing of this [UN] resolution that Russia cannot simply trample on
Invoking international law is something
political leaders do when they try to lend credibility, respectability or
justification to their fraudulent policies. It isn’t something we
must take seriously, particularly when the politicians in question are
officials of genocidal states like Britain and
America that are hell-bent on replacing their own people with immigrants.
The international law invoked by our
self-serving leaders infamously allowed America to drop atomic bombs on
defenceless Japanese civilians and Allied Powers to starve millions of
Germans to death. It has also allowed Pakistan to annex half of Kashmir,
China to annex Tibet and Europe and America to forcibly detach Kosovo from
Serbia, the latter feat being fully backed by the same UN Security Council
members – America, Britain and France – who are now objecting
to Crimea’s independence from Ukraine and beating the war drums
International law is nothing but a tool in
the hands of its inventors, the powerful and the wealthy who rule the
world. International law was used by British imperialists to annex German
colonies after the First World War. The instrument through which this
daylight robbery was legalised was the infamous League of Nations, an
international organisation ostensibly intended to “make the world
safe for democracy” but really designed to supress
all opposition to the imperialist schemes of its Anglo-American creators.
It is not for nothing that colonial leaders described the League as a
“club of dacoits.”
The same interests who created and
bankrolled the League – the Milner Group and its American partners
(the Rockefellers and associates) – spawned its successor, the United
Nations, another outfit designed to stamp out opposition to world
domination by Anglo-American interests. The same applies to the European
Union (originally, European Coal and Steel Community), an organisation
created to place Europe’s resources, finance and economic systems
under Anglo-American control (Ratiu, 2012).
As painfully realised by rising numbers of
those it has enslaved, the EU is an economic and political monster.
Originally consisting of six continental countries, it soon incorporated
Britain and has been expanding ever since. It is directly responsible for
the fact that the collapse of Communism has failed to bring freedom and
democracy to the region, with new forms of oppression, exploitation and
slavery being devised and imposed.
The key to the correct understanding of the
current situation is to be found in the privatisation programmes imposed on
former Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc members in the 1990s. With their economies
in tatters after decades of Communist rule, Central and Eastern European
economies were left wide open to systematic take-over by Western European
and American corporations. Among key players acting as official advisers to
governments as well as operating behind the scenes were Rothschild, George Soros, Goldman Sachs and the Rockefellers. Apart from
maximising wealth, power and influence for themselves, these interests are
united by an irrepressible desire to build a one world government.
involvement in Eastern Europe was a natural extension of their established
position as government advisers in privatisation projects in Britain and
other Western European countries. But US banking giant Goldman Sachs was
also expanding in the region, playing a leading role in West
Germany’s take-over of the former German Democratic Republic and
establishing close ties with the political leadership, notably Chancellor
Angela Merkel. On his part, Soros and his network
of “philanthropic” foundations were particularly active in his
native Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and Russia.
A long-time Rothschild associate, the
billionaire and stock-market speculator Soros who
is also a member of the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and
its European clone, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), is a
disciple of left-wing philosopher Karl Popper who believed in a global
“Open Society” controlled by a world government with an armed
executive branch (Popper, 1945). It was after Popper’s “Open
Society” that Soros named his philosophy
and the foundations through which he bankrolls his international projects (Soros, 2000).
In pursuit of his “Open
Society” fantasy, Soros began to meddle in
the region’s economies on a massive scale in 1990, when he introduced
a “shock therapy” programme to speed up Poland’s
transition from planned to “free-market” economy. Operating
through associates like Strobe Talbott of the
Clinton administration’s Steering Committee on the former Soviet
Union and Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute for International
Development (which was overseeing Russia’s economic transformation on
behalf of the US Agency for International Development), Soros
and his team next descended on Russia where they acted as official advisers
to the government.
By late 1990s, the US government was forced
to investigate the illegal transfer of billions of dollars flowing out of
the Russian economy into foreign accounts through the Bank of New York and
other US financial institutions. The loss to the Russian economy was
estimated at over $100 billion. Soros was
personally involved, together with the Rockefeller-controlled Harvard
Management Company, in the acquisition of large privatised Russian
companies like Novolipetsk Kombinat
and Sidanko Oil (US House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, 15 Sept. 1998).
The Russian privatisation scandal, dubbed
“Russiagate” by the press, was
eventually hushed up and forgotten. But Soros
carried on with the “democratisation” of former Soviet
republics, orchestrating in particular the 2003 “Rose
Revolution” in Georgia and the 2004 “Orange Revolution”
in Ukraine. The techniques used in these “velvet revolutions”
followed the tried and trusted template used in Serbia to oust President
Slobodan Milosevic and involved Anglo-American intelligence agencies like
CIA and MI6 as well as funding agencies like the IMF, the US Agency for
International Development and Soros foundations
from which funds were strategically denied or awarded to individuals and
organisations, in combination with carefully choreographed and well-funded
mass propaganda (spreading rumours of “rigged” elections),
street demonstrations and attacks on government installations (Horowitz
& Poe, 2006).
Soros’ machinations have
coincided with the relentless expansion of the gargantuan and over-bloated
EU. The latter began with the incorporation of East into West Germany in
1990 and has advanced at a breath-taking pace ever since: East Germany was
followed by Austria, Finland and Sweden in1995 and no fewer than eight
former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including
Ukraine’s neighbour Poland, in 2003.
In 2009, the European Union launched its
Eastern Partnership (EaP) programme aiming to
bring former Soviet republics Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan into the European fold. Soros and
his associates have been involved in all countries targeted for EU
incorporation, especially those that are rich in natural resources or are
otherwise of strategic value to EU imperialism, where they have been busy
imposing “democracy” and “free-market” economy (Ratiu, 2012).
Association with the EU and lethal doses of
economic “shock therapy” involving currency devaluation,
submission to IMF regimes and transfer of key industries and resources to Soros and his cronies have failed to produce the
expected results as they have failed in Greece, Spain or Portugal.
Certainly, what is happening in Ukraine – where the pro-EU interim
government has appointed oligarchs as regional administrators and Petro Poroshenko, another
billionaire oligarch who backed the anti-Yanukovych
protests is the forerunner in the presidential elections with fellow
oligarch and Soros-collaborator Julia Tymoshenko (a non-Ukrainian) as the only other
candidate – has little to do with freedom, democracy and economic
progress for ordinary people.
The puppeteer and the puppet with many faces: Soros and oligarch Tymoshenko
transformed from member of non-Ukrainian minority group in 2001 (centre) to
Prime Minister of Ukraine in 2007 (right).
See also Westcott, 2007.
Established EU members have not done much
better: while housing and living costs are spiralling out of control,
incomes have stagnated for decades. Soros himself
has admitted that established economic theory is in a crisis because its
very foundations have proved to be inadequate, which is why he has founded
the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at Oxford University which,
he hopes, will “completely rethink economic theory”
While Soros (who
holds a philosophy degree from the Rothschild-Rockefeller sponsored London
School of Economics where he studied under Popper) has embarked on his
quest for the elusive philosophers’ stone of economics, what emerges
is a clear strategy intended to bring about the systematic take-over of the
world’s resources – such as steel, oil and gas – by an
international clique operating through or in collaboration with national
and international agencies from the US State Department to the UN, IMF and
the European Union.
Referring to the ousting of Yanukovych, President Putin
has correctly observed that “What happened in Ukraine reflects the
situation that unfolds in the entire world.” Indeed, we find that the
“Arab Spring” currently sweeping across North Africa and the
Middle East is part of the world revolutionary programme imposed on Eastern
Europe and Central Asia: opponents of Syrian President Assad
have been trained and funded by the US State Department through Soros-associated outfits like the Institute for War and
Peace Reporting (IWPR) whose chairman David Bell has been a director of
Rothschild co-owned The Economist Group and a trustee of Common Purpose
International, a far-left outfit with close links to the same interests and
working for “the development of future leaders” to be installed
in societies “democratised” by Soros
and associates (Ratiu, 2012).
The identity of the interests involved is
confirmed by the J P Morgan International Council (part of the
Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase banking giant)
which consists of Rockefeller associates like Tony Blair (former member of
the Rockefeller-controlled Global Leaders of Tomorrow group), Henry
Kissinger, Kofi Annan, Khalid Al-Falih of Saudi Aramco (originally a Rockefeller-Saudi joint venture)
and Gao Xi-Qing of
Communist China’s state-controlled China Investment Corporation.
Like the EU, China, to which the
Rockefellers established close relations in the 1970s, is an insatiable
ogre with its paws in all of the world’s energy hotspots. While its
economy is dominated by a monopolistic 5 per cent who control most of the
country’s wealth, China has long been cunningly using its state-owned
enterprises to dominate foreign markets and has become a key partner of the
West’s own monopolistic interests, currently worming its way into a
multi-billion “free-trade” deal with the EU.
The primacy of the above constellation of
interests is clearly reflected in the domination of Iraq’s post-war
oil industry by China (CNPC, PetroChina), the
Rockefellers (Exxon, Chevron), the Rothschilds
(Genel, Shell) and their European and Arab partners. With their Saudi Arabian
associates dominating the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC), it is clear that we are dealing with a virtual monopoly by a
close-knit international cartel.
This situation is replicated in
Russia’s near-abroad from Eastern Europe all the way to Central Asia.
A quick glance at events in the region, such as former Soviet republic
Azerbaijan, where in 1993 British Petroleum (BP), American Oil Company
(AMOCO) and MI6 staged a coup to install a front man for president (Leppard, Nuki & Walsh,
2000), clearly shows who the real aggressors are.
As pointed out by former Conservative
chairman Norman Tebbit, the EU having annexed
swathes of Central Europe is in no position to condemn Russia. Indeed, when
taken in the right context, the staggering arrogance, hypocrisy and
duplicity of European and US accusations of a Russian “land
grab” in Crimea become only too apparent.
The truth of the matter is that the
Anglo-American New World Order is based on relentless economic expansion,
integration and interdependence, all of which inevitably leads to One World
Government by economic interests. All organisations tasked with
international governance – from the League of Nations to the UN, NATO
and the EU – were created by Anglo-American interests for the express
purpose of suppressing economic rivals (notably Germany) and controlling
Now that economic powerhouses like Germany
and Japan have been successfully subdued (after two world wars) and
harnessed to the Anglo-American world system, and Communist China has been
taken on board as an equal partner and fellow advocate of world government,
it is Russia’s turn to be fully subordinated to the new international
Former British ambassador to Moscow Rodric Braithwaite commented that Russian leaders do
not understand that the choice for Russia is “between irrelevance and
incorporation into the civilised world” (Braithwaite, 1997). This has
been echoed by President Obama who has crowed
that the path forward for Russia’s leaders is “to move forward
with integration with the world economy.”
Let us be clear about it. It is entirely
natural for Mr Obama to call on Russia to
surrender its national sovereignty and enter into a devil’s pact with
those who are building a world economy controlled by a satanic world
government represented by organisations like the UN and EU. He came to
power with the backing of George Soros and
Goldman Sachs. It is not for nothing that many Americans see Obama as a sort of Antichrist.
Forcing sovereign nations to integrate into
a world economy is incompatible with the “freedom” and
“democracy” ostensibly promoted by America and its EU partners
in crime. What is more, EU-US economic expansion has been backed up by a military expansion which has seen
the wholesale incorporation of EU-dominated nations into NATO and has
brought NATO tanks and ballistic missiles to Russia’s doorstep. And
when sovereign nations are threatened militarily, they have a right to
respond by military means.
It is a democratic right for nation-states
to resist incorporation into undemocratic international organisations.
George Soros’ “Rose Revolution”
in Georgia led to the breakaway of pro-Russian South Ossetia
and Abkhazia and to a military conflict between Georgia and Russia. His
“Orange Revolution” in Ukraine has led to the breakaway of
pro-Russian Crimea and Russian military intervention – so far without
bloodshed and only in Crimea, though Russia may yet invade Ukraine should
the West continue to refuse to respect Russia’s legitimate strategic
interests (Russia has important naval and air bases in Crimea which it
cannot allow to fall into the rapacious hands of Europe, America or NATO).
Moreover, a concerted effort to destabilise
Russia and install a puppet regime in order to control the country’s
economy and resources has been mounted by Anglo-American interests with
links to George Soros, MI6 and CIA.
Following the depredations of Soros and associates in the 1900s described above, the
Russian government severed its links to these interests. However, the seeds
of subversion they had sown soon began to take root. In 2000, oligarch
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the main
beneficiaries of Russia’s privatisation programme instigated by Soros, set up his Open Russia Foundation, an
organisation modelled on Soros’ Open
Society Institute and aiming to make Russia open to investment and
eventually control by foreign interests and their local collaborators (like
Khodorkovsky himself). Before long, Soros-inspired street-protest organisations, including Oborna (“Defence”), began their
anti-government operations (Bennett, 2014).
The above organisations’ activities
have been carried on in conjunction with those of Anglo-American
intelligence outfits CIA and MI6. For example, Russian
“dissident” Alexander Litvinenko has
been exposed as belonging to an extensive ring of MI6 operatives involved
in subversive activities directed against President Putin,
as well as working for UK-based Boris Berezovsky,
another oligarch and media baron who became co-owner of one of
Russia’s largest oil companies, Sibneft,
thanks to the Soros-instigated privatisation
programme and who publicly admitted that he was plotting the violent overthrow of Putin
from his base in London (Cobain, Taylor & Harding,
Those who condemn Russia for defending the
interests of its people should reflect on whom they are defending. Who is
the greater evil, those who resist centrally-controlled world economy and
world government or the satanic forces seeking to impose it either at
gunpoint or through economic blackmail? What kind of government should we
support? The Russian model that stands up for its people, or its American
and European counterparts which, acting no better than foreign occupying
powers, have made the replacement of their own populations with uninvited
immigrants their first priority?
In their two-faced and cowardly
condemnation of Russia and, above all, in their imperialist and
expansionist actions, the UN and the EU have shown their true colours. They
represent the forces of evil and the time has come for all nations to
decide which side to take.
Nigel Farage of
the UK Independence Party, a vocal opponent of the European Union and
admirer of President Putin has said
“let’s topple the establishment who got us into this
mess.” His words are the voice of the silent millions who want to
free themselves from the satanic EU, UN, IMF and their national stooges.
The Russian leadership must hear them and respond to foreign meddling in
Russia’s internal affairs by joining forces with the growing
resistance movements in Britain, Europe and America.
Bennetts, Marc, Kicking the Kremlin, London, 2014.
“Bringing Russia in,” Prospect,
20 Jun. 1997.
Cobain, Iain, Taylor, Matthew and Harding,
Luke, “I am plotting a new Russian revolution,’”, Guardian, 13 Apr. 2007.
Horowitz, David and Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized
Control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Leppard, David, Nuki
Paul and Walsh, Gareth, “BP accused of backing ‘arms for
oil’,” Sunday Times, 26
Martin, James, director
and producer, Revolution in Oxford,
short propaganda film, June 2012 download
MP4 (170 MB).
Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and Its Enemies, London, 1945.
Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying
Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Soros, George, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, London, 2000.
Westcott, Kathryn, “The queen of
Ukraine’s image machine,” BBC
News, 4 Oct. 2007.
’Revolt on the Right’: UKIP and the Fabian
and the Anglo-American New World Order
Nelson Mandela: “President of the World” or
Diversity is Not a Catholic Value
it’s Saturday, it’s the Germans again – or why the Mail has lost the plot
a British revolution
Do white people have a future in South Africa?
there a “need” for immigrants?
The Labour Party, a puppet of
the Fabian Society
The truth about the Labour
truth about the Fabian Society
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy against humanity
Socialism’s prescient critics
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Britain divided by Islam, survey finds
The Real Churchill
The last days of a white world
A Webb of Lies
Socialism and Incentives
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an
international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the
World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From
Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San
Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago,
Eric D., The Fabian
Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David &
Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How
George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties
Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ,
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From
Within, New York, NY, 2006.
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana,
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked,
Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden
History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.