ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΕΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΚΑΙ… ΑΛΛΑ!.. (ΚΑΙ ΛΙΓΑ… ΥΓ).
1. Αφού ο Τραμπ είναι πολύ φίλος του ΡΤΕ, όπως λες, επειδή έτσι ακούς να λένε τα Κανάλια των Σόρος, τότε γιατί οι Τούρκοι πήραν τους S-400 και δεν παίρνουν τους “Πάτριοτ”, ενώ όπως “βγήκε” χθες (08-06-2020) ξαναπαίρνουν και 2η συστοιχία S-400 από τους Ρώσους; Για πες μου!
Τα περί φιλίας Τραμπ – ΡΤΕ είναι σκοπίμως διαχεόμενα από τα κανάλια των Σόρος στην χώρα μας, διότι ο στόχος της Παγκοσμιοποίησης είναι ο Τραμπ, τον οποίον και(!) οι Έλληνες θα πρέπει, τουλάχιστον / “στην καλύτερη”, να μην τον χωνεύουν!..
2. Ναι! Ο Τσίπρας ζήτησε ο Μητσοτάκης να αρχίσει συνομιλίες με τον ΡΤΕ!* (Εννοεί, για να… ηρεμήσει το τουρκικό… θηρίο, ενώ στο ε/πόπολο ο Τσίπρας το “παίζει” Καμπάνταης και κατηγορεί τον νυν Π-Θ για κατευνασμό, απέναντι στους Τούρκους! Μιλάμε για έναν αμετανόητο πολιτικό βρωμιάρη)!
* ε/φ “Yeni Birlik”
Ο Τσίπρας είναι (αν όχι άμεσα, λόγω των συνομιλιών του Φεβ. του 2018 στην Άγκυρα με τον ΡΤΕ, σίγουρα έμμεσα) ενεργούμενο του ΡΤΕ, αφού το άτομο είναι Διεθνιστής και συνεπώς ανθέλληνας και μάλιστα “δυνατός“! (Δεν είναι τυχαίο και συμπτωματικό ότι οι πολιτικά “συγγενείς” του ή και “αδέλφια” του, πράκτορες των “ΑΝΤΙΦΑ” και του “ΑΝΤΑΡ-CIA”, υποστηρίζουν την Τουρκία, σε μια πλειάδα ανακοινώσεων, που έχουν “βγάλει” κατά καιρούς, σε θέματα που άπτονται των Ε-Τ προβλημάτων, ζητημάτων, κλπ).
Ο Τσίπρας θα κάνει στον Μητσοτάκη στα “ΕΘΝΙΚΑ” (Ε-Τ), ό,τι ακριβώς έχουμε γράψει εδώ με λεπτομέρειες, και ας είναι και οι 2 “Σορίτες“!
Ο Τσίπρας, στο τέλος, θα βγει… “Εθνικός Ήρωας” και ο Μητσοτάκης… Προδότης, μπροστά στην “εθνική κατάρρευση” (απώλεια εδαφών σε Έβρο-Νησιά), την οποία ο Τσίπρας και οι όμοιοί του εύχονται και τα Σόρος-Αφεντικά του προετοιμάζουν με… επιμέλεια!.. Τυχαία βάζουν νομίζεις τα κολόπαιδά τους να διαδηλώνουν φωνάζοντας “να πεθάνει η Ελλάδα“;
Κάποτε η “ΣΟΡΟΣ – ΣΥΡΙΖΑΙΑ”… μποτοξού (μία από τις αρκετές τέτοιες), βουλευτίνα Φωτίου είχε πει: “Τί δηλαδή, απατεώνες είμαστε”; Έπρεπε να είχε πει: “Tί δηλαδή πολιτικά τομάρια είμαστε“;
3. Η εικόνα των Αγίων Ραφαήλ, Νικολάου και Ειρήνης που βρέθηκε στον Έβρο, δεν βρέθηκε, πιστεύουμε, τυχαία!..
Θυμίζω ότι λίγο πριν από την άλωση της Πόλεως από τους Μογγόλους (1443), ο ιερωμένος Στρατιωτικός Ιατρός, απλώς Ραφαήλ και όχι Άγιος ακόμα τότε, είχε σταλεί στην Γαλλία (Αβινιόν), ως ο Έλληνας ύπατος Βυζαντινός εκπρόσωπος, στο πλαίσιο των συζητήσεων που γίνονταν τότε εκεί, για την ένωση των εκκλησιών! (Ήταν “Ανθενωτικός”, με βάση τα γνωστά ιστορικά δεδομένα). Εκεί γνώρισε τον Νικόλαο και μετέπειτα Άγιο Νικόλαο, ο οποίος και ιερώθηκε τότε, γενόμενος Διάκονος και βοηθός του Αγίου Ραφαήλ.
Στον γυρισμό του ο Άγιος Ραφαήλ σταμάτησε στην Θράκη, μαζί φυσικά με τον Νικόλαο και για κάποιους λόγους, απ’ εκεί με πλοίο μετέβησαν στην Λέσβο, όπου το 1463 μαρτύρησαν στην Θερμή, όπου και το ομώνυμο σήμερα ιερό Μοναστήρι τους / μας!..
Συνεπώς, εμείς θεωρούμε ότι ΔΕΝ ΗΤΑΝ ΤΥΧΑΙΑ η εύρεση της εικόνας τους, απ’ τους Συνοριοφύλακές μας, στον Έβρο , με βάση τα όσα διαβάσαμε στο γνωστό “τσατσο-σάϊτ” και πως ο Άγιος Ραφαήλ έστειλε έτσι μήνυμα πως οι Τούρκοι θα επιχειρήσουν και πάλι να καταλάβουν την Λέσβο, στην οποία, ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΓΝΩΡΙΖΕΤΕ και ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΣΑΣ ΚΟΡΟΪΔΕΥΟΥΝ, οι “λάθρο” (Μουσουλμάνοι όλοι) αριθμητικά είναι πια 2000 περισσότεροι από τους Έλληνες! (27.000, έναντι 25.000).
ΟΙ “ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ” ΕΧΟΥΝ ΕΔΩ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΕΙ ΑΝΑΛΥΤΙΚΑ ΤΟ “ΠΩΣ” ΘΑ ΒΓΟΥΝ ΟΙ ΤΕΔ ΣΤΟ ΝΗΣΙ ΜΑΣ – 1ο ΣΤΟΧΟ ΤΟΥΣ, ΚΑΤΙ ΠΟΥ ΟΙ ΠΑΡΑΠΑΝΩ ΑΓΙΟΙ ΜΑΣ ΘΕΩΡΟΥΜΕ ΟΤΙ ΕΠΙΒΕΒΑΙΩΣΑΝ!..
4. Οι Αιγύπτιοι δεν υπογράφουν “ΑΟΖ” με την Ελλάδα, (το γράφουμε για 1η φορά), διότι ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΑΙ την ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΑΓΓΛΙΑ των Ρότσιλντ, (η Βασίλισσα “παλεύει” να διατηρεί τις ισορροπίες και στην χώρα της και διεθνώς, με ανάλογη κάθε φορά στάση της απέναντι σε όλους αυτούς τους απάτρηδες παγκοσμιοποιημένους “Διεθνείς Εβραίους“), μια Αγγλία η οποία είναι “έξυπνα” ταγμένη (λόγω της Λωζάννης, του 1923), με την Τουρκία!
Θυμίζω ότι οι Άγγλοι όχι μόνον δεν καταδίκασαν τις σχεδόν πρόσφατες τ/έρευνες – γεωτρήσεις των Τούρκων στα νερά της “Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας”, αλλά, αν θυμάστε, είχε “βγει” και ο -τότε- Άγγλος Υπουργός υπεύθυνος για τα θέματα αυτά (Υφυπουργός Εξωτερικών νομίζω, ως τίτλος… “παροχή”, για λόγους οντότητος του αντικειμένου του θέματος) και σχεδόν άμεσα είχε “πάρει τα κομμάτια” των Τούρκων!..
Όλα τα άλλα (πχ ότι έχουν θέμα οι Αιγύπτιοι με το “Σύμπλεγμα Μεγίστης”, κλπ), που ακούτε ως αιτία μη υπογραφής της Ε-Α “ΑΟΖ”, είναι “παραμύθια της Χαλιμάς”!..
Τα γεγονότα του Σουέζ, το 1956, κλπ, επί Νάσερ, έχουν “μπει και χαρακτεί” βαθιά στο Αιγυπτιακό “DNA”, ιδιαιτέρως σ’ αυτό των εκδυτικισμένων στελεχών των ΑΕΔ, που κυβερνούν σήμερα την χώρα των Φαραώ! Καταλαβαίνετε!..
Ο ίδιος λόγος (λέγε με Αγγλία, κυρίως και “Διεθνείς Εβραίοι”, ακολούθως) είναι που Ελλάδα και “Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία”, δεν υπογράφουν “ΑΟΖ“, όπως και οι αμερικανικές, επί “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΩΝ” υποσχέσεις στους Τούρκους (από το 2010 ακόμα και την Κα Κλίντον), ότι η Τουρκία θα αποτελέσει μέρος της όποιας, στην Α. Μεσόγειο (αλλά και στο Αιγαίο), “Ενεργειακής Διανομής“!
5. Άντε να γίνουμε και λίγο… Μπαμπινιώτιδες!
Πρόσεξε (Κε Καλίν και συ… Ταγίπ και όποιοι άλλοι Τουρκό-γυφτοι ή ομόδοξοί τους), τί έκανε πως τάχα δεν ήξερε το τ/ΥΠΕΞ σας, όταν ανταπάντησε στο ομόλογό του ε/Υπουργείο (Δένδιας), για την “ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΤΗΤΑ”, που σας καταλόγισε ο Κος Δένδιας, σε μια περίπου… εθνικιστική κρίση που όλως περιέργως τον κατέλαβε και είπε (ορθώς βεβαίως), πως “αποτελεί βαρβαρότητα η εργαλειοποίηση ανθρώπων” εκ μέρους σας, εννοώντας τους “λάθρο” που μας στέλνετε με σχεδιασμό, κυρίως από το 2015 και μετά, (κάτι που ως “Σορίτης” θα πρέπει να το προσέξει, διότι ελλοχεύει ο κίνδυνος να στεναχωρήσει κάποιο ή κάποια από τα διεθνή αφεντικά του), δήλωση που έκανε ο Ε/ΥΠΕΞ, μετά φυσικά που οι… φιλεύσπλαγχνοι Τούρκοι αναφέρθηκαν σε δήθεν… ε/βαρβαρότητα προς τους “Μετανάστες”!..
Οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες ακούγοντας, εκείνα τα χρόνια, τους Ασιάτες επιδρομείς στην Ελλάδα να φωνάζουν συνεχώς “ΒΑΡ”, “ΒΑΡ”, “ΒΑΡ”, (ένα περίπου δικό τους “ΑΕΡΑ” θα λέγαμε, ώστε να καταλάβετε), τους ονόμασαν “ΒΑΡ-ΒΑΡ-ΟΥΣ”!
Στην πορεία του ιστορικού χρόνου, στην πορεία των αιώνων και λόγω των βαναυσοτήτων, ωμοτήτων, φρικαλεοτήτων, κλπ, των λαών αυτών και κυρίως των Μογγόλων, Ούννων, Οθωμανών, Τούρκων, κλπ, το ουσιαστικό “ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΤΗΤΑ” ταυτίστηκε με τις φάρες αυτές και έτσι όλες τους και ειδικά αυτή των Τούρκων, ταυτίστηκε με τους Φονιάδες, Εγκληματίες, Καταστροφείς του Πολιτισμού, κλπ, κλπ, κλπ!.. Ο Ευρωπαϊκός Τύπος, τους 3 προ-τελευταίους αιώνες (18ο – 19ο και 20ο), βρίθει αναφορών για το διαχρονικό ιστορικά “ΕΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΥΤΟ” των εννοιών “Τούρκος” και “Φονιάς”, “Τούρκος” και “Εγκληματίας”! (Έχουμε γράψει σχετικό άρθρο).
Θυμίζω ακόμα ότι, στην τ/γλώσσα υπάρχει (και χρησιμοποιείται ευρέως) το ρήμα “VAR” (Διαβάζεται “ΒΑΡ”)!..
Άρα, Τούρκοι, γιατί διαμαρτύρεστε; Γιατί πάντα “έχετε ένα θέμα” με την αλήθεια;
Για τους Έλληνες φίλους τώρα!
Η λέξη “βαρβαρότητα” απέκτησε λοιπόν, μέσα στον χρόνο, αρνητική σημασία, όπως και πολλές άλλες που χρησιμοποιούμε σήμερα! Για παράδειγμα! Συκοφάντης! Ήταν αυτός που στην Αρχαία Αθήνα έβαζε φανούς στις συκιές της πόλεως για να φωτίζεται η πόλη την νύχτα! Τί σημαίνει όμως σήμερα η λέξη αυτή;
Άλλο παράδειγμα, πιο… “large”! Λέμε πχ “Σ’ εκτιμώ” και εννοούμε θετικά, χωρίς να το προσδιορίζουμε! Η εκτίμηση όμως ενός προσώπου, ενός γεγονότος, κλπ, μπορεί να είναι και αρνητική!..
Και άλλο παράδειγμα! Λέμε “να κάνω μια παρατήρηση” και αμέσως, στο άκουσμα και μόνον της λέξης, περιμένουμε να ακούσουμε κάτι αρνητικό, ενώ η παρατήρηση μπορεί να είναι και θετική!
Πάντα θα πρέπει να προηγείται της όποιας εννοίας ή σημασίας των λέξεων που εξετάζουμε, αναφέρουμε, κλπ, η εξέταση της ετυμολογίας της κάθε λέξεως!..
“Βλέπεις” επομένως… Ταγίπ ότι η ελληνική γλώσσα είναι βαθιά πολυσύνθετη, (γραμματικά, νοηματικά, εννοιολογικά, κλπ), περιλαμβάνει τα πάντα, ακόμα και επιστήμες (είναι δομημένη μαθηματικά και μουσικά), κλπ, κλπ, κλπ, και είναι προσβολή στον ανθρώπινο Πολιτισμό να λέγει κάποιος βιαστικά… “ξέρω Ελληνικά”!..
Πιστεύω, μετά τα παραπάνω, να κατάλαβες τώρα Ταγίπ, το “γιατί” λέγεστε και είστε ασφαλώς ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΙ!..
ΥΓ Παρ. 5: Χαίρομαι Τούρκοι που αρχίσατε να χρησιμοποιείτε και την λέξη “Επιτελείς”, που την μάθατε εδώ και από εμάς!..(Την έγραψα στον πληθυντικό αριθμό, διότι έτσι την είδα για 1η φορά να την χρησιμοποιείτε).
6. Αποτελεί την ΑΠΟΘΕΩΣΗ της ΞΕΦΤΙΛΑΣ ένας… (Υ)ΠΟΣΤΟΛΑΚΗΣ να έχει αναγορευθεί σε… αναλυτή των Ε-Τ θεμάτων, απλώς και μόνον διότι διετέλεσε ΔΟΤΟΣ Α/ΓΕΕΘΑ και ΔΟΤΟΣ ΥΠΑΜ, επί “ΣΟΡΟΣ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ”, προκειμένου να αναγνωρισθούν τα Σκόπια ως Μακεδονία!..
Είναι η ΑΠΟΛΥΤΗ ΚΑΤΑΝΤΙΑ και Ο ΟΡΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΝΤΡΟΠΗΣ να έχει δημόσιο λόγο ο στρατιωτικός αυτός, ο οποίος ανήλθε στα ύπατα αξιώματα των ΕΕΔ και του ε/Κράτους, απλώς και μόνον επειδή ήταν συγγενής των Βαρδινογιάννηδων!..
7. ΟΛΟΙ ΟΙ ΠΡΑΚΤΟΡΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΟΡΓΑΝΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΟΡΟΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ (ΑΣΦΑΛΩΣ ΚΑΙ Ο “ΣΥΡΙΖΑ”), ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΙΣΩ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΔΗΛΩΝΟΝΤΕΣ “ΑΘΕΟΙ”, ΠΟΥ ΑΝΑΦΕΡΘΗΚΑΝ, ΧΩΡΙΣ ΙΧΝΟΣ ΑΙΔΟΥΣ, ΣΕ ΕΟΡΤΗ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ… ΟΙΝΟ-ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ, ΚΛΠ, ΣΤΗΝ ΕΟΡΤΗ ΤΗΣ ΤΡΙΑΔΙΚΗΣ ΘΕΟΤΗΤΟΣ, ΣΤΙΣ 08-06-2020!
Ε/Εκκλησία και ε/Κ-Β δεν υπάρχουν, ούτε φυσικά ε/Δικαιοσύνη, (για άλλη μια φορά, μετά την κάθε Μ. Παρασκευή και τα “πάρτις”, των τελευταίων ετών, με κρέατα των ΑΝΤΙΧΡΙΣΤΩΝ αυτών, κλπ), ώστε να επέμβουν, ως θα όφειλαν, εναντίον αυτής της μείζονος εκδηλώσεως ΡΑΤΣΙΣΜΟΥ και ΠΡΟΣΒΟΛΗΣ της ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΗΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΗΣ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑΣ, και… συνημμένως και της πλειοψηφίας του λαού μας!..
Εδώ, δεν εφαρμόζονται οι Νόμοι, διότι μάλλον (για εμάς σίγουρα) αφορούν τους Έλληνες και κυρίως τους Ορθόδοξους Χριστιανούς!.. Και δεν υπάρχουν, όπως και ούτε θα υπάρξουν ποτέ πια στο μέλλον, προστατευτικοί θεσμοί στο Κράτος μας για την Χριστιανική θρησκεία, η οποία είναι και η επίσημη της Πατρίδος μας, (εκτός αν έχω χάσει ή δεν θυμάμαι σχετικά… επεισόδια, που “παίχτηκαν” επί “ΣΟΡΟΣ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ”), διότι έτσι / διότι και μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο, προσβάλλονται οι ρίζες των Ελλήνων, των οποίων το ΤΕΛΟΣ ΕΠΙΘΥΜΟΥΝ ΔΙΑΚΑΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΧΟΥΝ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΣΕΙ ΟΙ ΜΙΣΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ ΣΟΡΙΤΕΣ, ΟΙ ΑΠΑΤΡΗΔΕΣ ΔΗΛΑΔΗ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΠΟΙΗΜΕΝΟΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ, “ΔΙΕΘΝΕΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΙ“!..
8. Πρωϊνό (09-06-2020) ανέκδοτο της… Τουρκαναλύτριας Καθηγήτριας (“Παντείου” και… “ΣΚΑΪ”) “ΚΑΙΡΙΔΟΥ”! Διαβάστε το! “Χαίρομαι που ο Κος Καρβουνόπουλος δεν είναι ατζέντης εξοπλιστικών”!.. Αχαχαχαχαχαχαχαχαχα
Πάντα πιστεύαμε ότι όλες οι… “Ντουλάπες” ή… “Διπλοί”, κλπ, έχουν και(!) μεγαλύτερο του κοινού Μ.Ο., αλλά κυρίως και(!) ένα άκρως ιδιαίτερο “IQ”!..
9. Πρόεδρε ΤΡΑΜΠ! “ΚΟΡΩΝΟΪΟΣ” – “ΦΛΟΪΝΤ” και “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΟΙΔΕ” τί ΑΚΟΜΑ ΣΟΥ ΕΤΟΙΜΑΖΟΥΝ ΟΙ “ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΠΟΙΗΤΕΣ” “ΔΙΕΘΝΕΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΙ” ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΣΕ “ΡΙΞΟΥΝ”!..
Για τον Αφρο-Αμερικανό και πρώην πλέον Ρεπουμπλικανό(!) Κόλιν ΠΑΟΥΕΛ και την βρώμικη στάση του απέναντι στο Κόμμα του, (μια στάση που έφτασε να… ψηφίζει… Μπάϊντεν), έχουμε έμμεσα γράψει, όταν σας είχαμε ενημερώσει πως ο Ρεπουμπλικανός αποκαλούμενος “Βλαξ ΜΠΟΥΣ Β’ Τζούνιορ”* έγινε Πρόεδρος των Η.Π.Α., διότι απεδέχθη απολύτως όλα τα “θέλω” των Παγκοσμιοποιητών, των οποίων το Κόμμα στις Η.Π.Α. ήταν και παραμένει το “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΟ”, που όπως σας έγραψα έχει πλέον πλήρως αποπολιτικοποιηθεί, γενόμενο ένα απλό, ισχυρότατο”Εργαλείο” στα σχέδια της “Παγκοσμιοποίησης”, όπως αυτά εκπονήθηκαν στην “CIA” επί “Κλίντον” και “Ομπάμα”, των 2 αυτών εκτελεστικών Οργάνων της “Διεθνούς Εξουσίας”, λέγε με “φονιάδων” των λαών των Βαλκανίων και της Μ. Ανατολής – Β. Αφρικής αντιστοίχως, τα τελευταία 25 χρόνια!
* Ο Πατέρας του, Γ. ΜΠΟΥΣ (και φίλος του πατέρα του νυν Ε/Π-Θ) θυμίζω ότι ήταν Α/”CIA”, πριν γίνει Πρόεδρος των Η.Π.Α.
Οι “Διεθνείς Εβραίοι” έχουν και στις Η.Π.Α. οριζοντίως… κατανεμηθεί και στα 2 υπάρχοντα εκεί πολιτικά Κόμματα, όπως πχ στην Πατρίδα μας και ευρύτερα στην Ευρώπη, που την κυβερνούν, δια της Μέρκελ, όλοι αυτοί οι… Κοι!.. (Στην Ελλάδα αίφνης έχουμε το κυρίως ελληνόφωνο “Διεθνιστικό Κόμμα του “ΣΟΡΟΣ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ” και το δηλούν “ελληνικό”, Κόμμα της ΝΔ, Κόμματα τα οποία 100%, και τα 2, ανήκουν στην “Παγκοσμιοποίηση” – “Διεθνείς Εβραίους” / Σόρος, κλπ, οι οποίοι, δι’ αυτών, καλύπτουν έτσι το μείζον του υφισταμένου ε/κυβερνητικού πολιτικού… άξονος).
Τί δεν καταλαβαίνεις λοιπόν;
Ο ΤΡΑΜΠ ΤΟΥΣ “ΞΕΦΥΓΕ”, ΤΟ ΞΑΝΑΓΡΑΦΩ! ΟΤΑΝ ΕΛΕΓΕ
“ΠΡΩΤΑ ΟΙ Η.Π.Α.”,
“ΠΡΩΤΑ ΟΙ ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΟΙ”,
“ΑΠΟΣΥΡΣΗ ΤΩΝ Α/ΔΥΝΑΜΕΩΝ ΑΠΟ ΟΛΕΣ ΤΙΣ ΕΣΤΙΕΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΛΑΝΗΤΗ, ΧΩΡΙΣ ΝΑ ΠΛΗΤΤΟΝΤΑΙ ΤΑ Α/ΣΥΜΦΕΡΟΝΤΑ”,
“ΤΕΛΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΤΥ ΤΩΝ ΚΙΝΕΖΩΝ”,
“ΤΕΛΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΤΥ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΙΩΝ”,
“ΤΕΛΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΟΝΟΨΥΧΟ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΙ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΛΑΙΣΤΙΝΙΩΝ”,
“ΤΕΛΟΣ ΣΤΙΣ ΒΡΩΜΙΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΡΑΝ”,
“ΕΠΙΤΥΧΙΑ ΤΗΣ Α/ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΣ”, ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΠΟΛΛΑ, ΤΟΝ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΙΖΑΝ ΤΟΤΕ, ΚΑΤ’ ΕΛΑΧΙΣΤΟΝ, “ΓΡΑΦΙΚΟ” ΟΙ “ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΠΟΙΗΤΕΣ” ΝΕΟ-“ΝΕΟ-ΤΑΞΙΤΕΣ” “ΔΙΕΘΝΕΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΙ”!.. ΕΞΕΛΕΓΗ ΟΜΩΣ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ Α/ΛΑΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΤΕ ΟΙ ΚΑΘΕ… ΣΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΑΝ ΤΟ ΜΕΓΑΛΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΑΘΟΣ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΕΛΕΓΞΟΥΝ ΤΙΣ ΠΡΟΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΕΣ Α/ΕΚΛΟΓΕΣ, (ΚΑΤΙ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ ΤΩΡΑ, “ΒΓΑΖΟΝΤΑΣ” ΣΤΟ ΠΕΔΙΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΤΡΑΜΠ ΚΑΙ ΣΧΕΔΟΝ ΣΕ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟ ΕΠΙΠΕΔΟ ΚΑΙ ΟΧΙ ΜΟΝΟΝ ΣΕ ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΟ, ΟΛΗ ΤΗΝ ΒΡΩΜΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΑΤΑΝΙΚΟΥ ΜΥΑΛΟΥ ΤΟΥΣ), ΜΕ ΣΤΟΧΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΛΟΓΗ, ΣΤΙΣ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΕΣ ΕΚΛΟΓΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΕΧΟΥΣ ΝΟΕ 2020, ΤΟΥ “ΜΕ ΑΔΕΙΑ ΕΞΟΔΟΥ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΤΑΦΟ”, “ΡΑΜΟΛΙ” ΠΙΑ, ΜΠΑΪΝΤΕΝ, ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΟΠΟΙΟΝ ΘΑ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ Ο,ΤΙ ΘΕΛΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΙΣ Η.Π.Α., ΑΛΛΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΛΙ!..
Για τον “Κορωνοϊό” που γράψαμε και δεν… κατάλαβες τάχα το “γιατί”, κλπ, φίλε, σου γράφω πως προ αυτού η ανεργία στις Η.Π.Α. είχε “πέσει” στο 3% και ο Τραμπ τύχαινε ευρυτάτης αποδοχής, ακόμα και στην Κοινότητα των Μαύρων, (έφτασε η αποδοχή του Τραμπ στους Μαύρους ακόμα και στο 40%), μια Κοινότητα που επί Ομπάμα μακαρίως… εκάθευδε, ενώ είχε την ευκαιρία να “δει” όλα τα θέματα ρατσισμού, που σήμερα τάχα την… απασχολούν, όπως βεβαίως και ο Αφρο-Αμερικανός Μουσουλμάνος Χ. Μ. ΟΜΠΑΜΑ, ο οποίος θα έπρεπε να είχε ταυτίσει την Προεδρία του τουλάχιστον με το θέμα της ΙΣΟΤΗΤΑΣ, που δήθεν δεν υπάρχει στις Η.Π.Α., ανάμεσα σε όλες τις Κοινότητες – Μειονότητες, με πρώτη την δική του Φυλή!..
Και σε ρωτάω, μιας και “παίζει” ως θέμα: Ο μαύρος Κ. ΠΑΟΥΕΛ και εκ-ρια άλλοι μαύροι, πώς και σταδιοδρόμησαν μέσα στο Α/Κράτος, αυτό των τεραστίων ευκαιριών για όλους, Αμερικανούς και μη, όντας μάλιστα Ρεπουμπλικανοί, αφού υπήρχε, και υπάρχει ακόμα τάχα, φυλετικός ρατσισμός στην Αμερική;
“Πλάκα θα έχει”, αν βγει ο Μπάϊντεν Πρόεδρος των Η.Π.Α. τον Νοε, οι “Παγκοσμιοποιητές” “Διεθνείς Εβραίοι” να τον πλασάρουν ως τον νέο… Αβραάμ ΛΙΝΚΟΛΝ!.. Αχαχαχαχαχαχαχαχα!..
Αυτό το απόλυτο πολιτικό ΚΝΩΔΑΛΟ, προετοιμάζεται ή ορθότερα τον προετοιμάζουν, μαζί με την… “Αφρο” Μισέλ, να κυβερνήσουν -υποτίθεται(!)- τις Η.Π.Α.! (Πρώτα ο… “Κοιμισμένος Τζο” και μετά η… όμορφη, όπως την παρουσιάζουν, “Μισέλ”, ώστε να… ηρεμήσουν τάχα και οι… ταλαιπωρημένοι Μαύροι των Η.Π.Α.! Αχαχαχαχαχαχαχαχαχα! Για τέτοια… Φιλευσπλαγχνία μιλάμε των… “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΩΝ” και του λεγομένου “Διεθνούς Συστήματος”)!..
10. Ενώ η Ελλάδα διαλύεται, κυρίως από την εσωτερική της “5η ΦΑΛΑΓΓΑ”, από τα Αναρχο-Συριζο-Κομμούνια, τους ελληνόφωνους ελληνοποιηθέντες “εισβολείς”, τους “λάθρο”, που πληρώνουν οι Έλληνες σε ποσοστό μεγαλύτερο του 70%, τους πράκτορες και τους πάσης φύσεως “κυνηγούς” του χρήματος του Σόρος, κλπ, η Τουρκία, “η… δείξα και… μπείξα” και “ό,τι άλλο θέλετε”, δια στόματος του Προέδρου της ΡΤΕ, δηλώνει ότι θα ασχοληθεί περαιτέρω, στο κυνήγι του δικού της μέλλοντος (αυτό το λέμε εμείς συμπληρώνοντας τον ΡΤΕ), με τα ακόλουθα:
β. Υποδομές Επικοινωνιών και Κυβερνο-ασφάλεια.
γ. Ασφάλεια αποθεμάτων γενικώς και κυρίως τροφίμων (Αν τον “τσιμπήσαμε” ακουστικά σωστά, όπως πιστεύουμε).
δ. Με την Φαρμακευτική βιομηχανία και κυρίως με τα εμβόλια.
ε. Με τις σύγχρονες μεθόδους, κλπ, στις ιατρικές -γενικώς- εγχειρήσεις.
ΚΑΙ ΟΛΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΜΕ ΕΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΟΝΟΝ ΣΤΟΧΟ, ΠΟΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ Η “ΕΙ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ” ΜΗΔΕΝΙΚΗ “ΑΠ’ ΕΞΩ” ΕΞΑΡΤΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΠΑΡΑΠΑΝΩ ΤΟΜΕΙΣ!..
11. Απαντώ, αν και είναι κάτι που και μόνος σου θα μπορούσες να βρεις!
1960 – 1971 – 1980 – 1997 – 2007 – 2016! Έξι (6) πραξικοπήματα, σ’ ένα οιονεί ΣΤΡΑΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΣ, ζωής σήμερα, 97 ετών!
Ένα Πραξικόπημα δηλαδή, ανά 10ετία, από το 1960 και μέχρι σήμερα (60 ακριβώς χρόνια). Ο αριθμός όμως των κινημάτων, αποπείρας κινημάτων, πραξικοπημάτων, κλπ, είναι αρκετά μεγαλύτερος στην χώρα, που ακόμα και την Σημαία της την έκλεψε από τους Βυζαντινούς!.. Την τ/Ιστορία όμως, μπορείς και εσύ και ο καθείς να την βρει μόνος του!..
12. Έχουμε γράψει εδώ προ πολλού χρόνου, τί ήδη θα έπρεπε να είχε κάνει η ε/Κ-Β στο θέμα γενικώς των προετοιμασιών της, για έναν λίαν πιθανό Ε-Τ πόλεμο! Εκεί γράφαμε και για τις προς τον λαό μας δέουσες -από τότε- ενέργειές της, κλπ, για τις οποίες μας ρωτάς!
Μπορείς να ψάξεις εδώ και να βρεις τα πάντα! Αρκετά κάναμε τους πνευματικούς… “Δούλους”!.. Αν οι αναγνώστες μας έχουν τα πάντα κάθε φορά έτοιμα, και δεν ψάχνουν, τότε και η γνώση δεν ωφελείται, αλλά κυρίως δεν βοηθιέται με τίποτα ο όποιος απαραίτητος προβληματισμός τους!.. Καταλαβαίνεις!..
13. Στρατηγέ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΗ, δεν είσαι και δεν είμαστε, ως χώρα, σε κανένα “WAR GAME”, όπως δήλωσες! Είμαστε ήδη σε ΠΟΛΕΜΟ, όπως εδώ και καιρό (σας) το έχουμε γράψει, αναλύσει και πλήρως εξηγήσει!.. Να υποθέσω ότι εσύ ειδικά δεν μας… μελετάς; “Με τίποτα”!
Με την ευκαιρία, λιγότερους… Καλλιντερήδηδες και Σία*… παντού ή όχι μόνον τέτοιους, για να στο πω και αλλιώς Στρατηγέ, αν θες να μ’ ακούσεις! ΣΑΠΙΖΕΙ ΤΟ ΑΝΤΙΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ “ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ” ΚΑΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΡΙΜΑ!.. (Μην”θαφτεί” το αντικείμενο “ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ” επί ημερών σου!.. Θα είναι μεγάλο κρίμα… και ο πατέρας σου ήταν κάποτε και στέλεχος της ΕΥΠ!… )!..
* Η 29η Ταξ/χία έχει μετατραπεί σε… ΙΔΙΩΤΙΚΗ ΤΑΞ-ΧΙΑ;
Επίσης, κάνε / κάντε τώρα αλλαγή ή προσθήκη (με κάποιον ή κάποιους τρόπους), αν έχετε σ’ αυτό (στην αλλαγή δηλαδή) πρόβλημα, εννοώ λόγω του μη καταλλήλου χρόνου, αλλαγή λοιπόν ή προσθήκη και μάλιστα ΕΠΕΙΓΟΝΤΩΣ (!), σε θέσεις “Πληροφοριών”, κατά σειράν στο Λονδίνο, στην Ουάσιγκτον, στις Βρυξέλλες (ΝΑΤΟ / έχεις εκεί τον εκ Κύπρου ερχόμενο δίμετρο “δικό” σου, αλλά δεν κάνει για “συλλογή” και “τσίμπημα” του κρίσιμου “τσαφ”, όταν απαιτηθεί / αρκετά χρήματα “τσίμπησε” στην αλλοδαπή, χρόνια τώρα… / κοντεύει να ισοφαρίσει σε “εισοδήματα… εξωτερικού”, τον συμμαθητή σου Ζαχαριάδη), στο Βερολίνο, στην Άγκυρα, στην Μόσχα ή στην Μόσχα και στην Άγκυρα και τέλος στις όμορές μας βαλκανικές πρωτεύουσες!.. (Δώστε ιδιαίτερη σημασία στην υπόψη υποπαράγραφο της παρ. 13).
α. Τον νέο -πιθανό- ΑΡΑΠΑΚΗ, τον “βρήκες”; Πολύ ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ εκεί στο ΓΕΝ!.. Έχεις εκεί κανέναν “δικό” σου / σας; (Εννοώ του ΥΠΑΜ και όχι φυσικά μόνον τον… Μπακογιαννικο-Βαρδινογιαννικό Αρχηγό του υπόψη Κλάδου);
β. Έπεισες τον ΜΗΤΣΟΤΑΚΗ για τα F-35 ή όχι ακόμα; Αν το πετύχεις, “θα μείνετε και οι 2 στην Ιστορία”, ο καθείς για διαφορετικούς λόγους βεβαίως, ενώ θα σας ευλογεί και ο… μελλοντικός ε/λαός, αν θα… υπάρχει, όπως εμείς πιστεύουμε, παρά τα άκρως ανησυχητικά μηνύματα των χαλεπών καιρών μας!.. Και
γ. Δεν θα ήταν λάθος να καλέσετε “ΗΣΥΧΩΣ και ΑΘΟΡΥΒΩΣ” τίποτα παλιούς Αρχηγούς και να κάνετε καμιά συσκεψούλα ΟΛΟΙ ΜΑΖΙ!!! Κανενός νυν Αρχηγού δεν θα πάθουν τίποτα τα… αστέρια!..
Αν ήμουν στην θέση σου, θα ήθελα να άκουγα τις θέσεις – απόψεις (sic) πχ των Στρατηγών ΓΡΑΨΑ – ΦΡΑΓΚΟΥ, κλπ, χωρίς παρεξήγηση και όχι μόνον του Λαλούση!.. Αχαχαχαχαχαχαχα! (Αυτός είναι “μανούλα” στην “Παραπλάνηση” και στην δημιουργία – κατασκευή… υπονόμων – στοών, προστατευτικών των αμυνομένων δυνάμεων! Καταλαβαίνεις!.. Μάλλον για το ΜΧ “πήγαινε” και κατέληξε στα ΤΘ)!..
14. Αν ο 47χρονος Βέλγος(;), αγνώστου ακόμα(;)… πραγματικής ταυτότητος, ο οποίος δολοφονήθηκε στην Γλυφάδα ήταν ΚΑΙ(!) πράκτορας των Τούρκων, κλπ, όπως κάποια δημοσιεύματα εμμέσως υπενόησαν, τότε ΠΟΛΛΑ ΣΥΓΧΑΡΗΤΗΡΙΑ (και) στην ΕΥΠ!..
15. Μετά τις 02-07-2020, θα σου πω ΡΤΕ το ποιός πραγματικά είσαι, αλλά με “βούλα”!..
16. Συγχαρητήρια στην ε/Κ-Β και ειδικά στον Κο Δένδια, για την υπογραφή της “ΑΟΖ” μας, με την Ιταλία!.. Παρακαλούμε να δημοσιευτεί όλη η συμφωνία, αν αυτό είναι εύκολο, πριν αυτή “πάει” στον Ο.Η.Ε. , κλπ, ώστε να την “δούμε” και εμείς!..
ΠΡΟΣ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΓΕΝΙΚΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΞΑΙΡΕΤΩΣ, … ΕΜΒΟΛΙΜΑ!
“Ο ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΘΑ ΞΑΝΑΜΑΤΩΣΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ΠΟΛΥ, ΑΛΛΑ ΣΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΘΑ ΒΓΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΛΙ ΝΙ-ΚΗ-ΤΗΣ”!..
17. ΤΣΟΥΧΛΟΣ: ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ “Ο.Λ.Μ.Ε.“!.. Ο,ΤΙ ΠΙΟ ΒΡΩΜΙΚΟ, ΥΠΟΓΕΙΟ, ΚΑΤΑΧΘΟΝΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΣΙΧΑΜΕΡΟ ΠΕΡΑΣΕ ΠΟΤΕ ΑΠΟ ΤΗ ΝΔ (ΑΠΟ ΤΟ 1975 ΑΝΗΚΕΙ Σ’ ΑΥΤΗΝ ή ΑΝΗΚΕ -ΜΑΛΛΟΝ- Σ’ ΑΥΤΗΝ)!.. Ο,ΤΙ ΣΑΣ ΛΕΩ ή ΜΑΛΛΟΝ Ο,ΤΙ ΣΑΣ ΓΡΑΦΩ!..
Yunanistan’la sıcak çatışma ortamına doğru mu gidiyoruz?
Yunanistan’la ilgili gelişmeler üzerine yazı yazmak için kafa yormaya başladığım zamanlarda, aklıma 15 Temmuz darbe girişiminden birkaç ay sonra Atina’dan Ankara’ya ulaşan o enteresan istihbarat bilgisi gelir.
Şimdi yine öyle oldu.
Bu köşede daha önce bir iki kere okuduğunuz o hikayeyi, birazdan değineceğimiz son gelişmeler için bir bağlam oluşturmak adına tekrar hatırlatmak istiyorum.
Ankara’ya nasıl ulaştığını hala ciddi şekilde merak ettiğim o istihbarata göre, 15 Temmuz’dan sonra dönemin Yunanistan Savunma Bakanı (Kammenos) ile Genelkurmay Başkanı arasında Türkiye konulu bir görüşme yapılmıştı.
Görüşme sırasında darbe nedeniyle Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri’nin güçten düştüğü değerlendirmesi yapıldıktan sonra “Türkiye ile savaşmanın tam zamanı” noktasına gelinmişti.
Ancak bu fikre ulaşıldıktan sonra Yunan aşırı sağını temsilen hükümette yer bulan dönemin Savunma Bakanı Kammenos’un aklına, ülkenin içinden geçmekte olduğu zorlu ekonomik şartlar gelince, “Tüh, keşke ekonomimiz krizde olmasaydı da bunu yapabilseydik” yazıklanmasıyla o toplantı tamamlandı.
(Bu olayı, haber kaynağı olarak beni hiç yanıltmadığı için söylediklerine ihtiyatla bakma ihtiyacı duymadığım üst düzey bir yetkili isimden dinledikten sonra 2017 başlarında bu köşede kullanmıştım).
Yunan Savunma Bakanı ile Genelkurmay Başkanı, 15 Temmuz kalkışmasından hemen sonra “Türkiye ile savaşa girmenin tam zamanı” diye düşünürken, darbenin ordu üzerinde bıraktığı tahribattan nemalanma hesabı yapmışlardı.
Ancak ilerleyen dönemlerde, TSK’nın özellikle Suriye ve Kuzey Irak’ta gösterdiği operasyonel başarılar, o hesabın da yanlış yapıldığını ortaya koydu.
TSK’NIN SURİYE’DEKİ BAŞARILI OPERASYONLARI ATİNA’YI HUZURSUZ ETTİ
2018 Ocak ayında başlayıp iki ay içerisinde başarıyla tamamlanan Zeytin Dalı harekatı devam ederken de, Ege’de birtakım dalgalanmalar olduğunu gözlemledik.
Belli ki, Afrin bölgesinde yürütülen harekat, Atina’da bir yandan huzursuzluk üretirken, öbür yandan “Acaba Türk ordusunun dikkatleri güney sınırlarında iken bunu fırsata dönüştürebilir miyiz” şeklinde yine bir takım fikir egzersizleri yapılmıştı.
Bunu nereden çıkartıyoruz?
Yunanistan’ın yine o dönemki Savunma Bakanı, Afrin harekatı devam ederken, Kardak kayalıklarına çiçek bırakmış, muhtemel bir provokasyon için ortamı yoklamış, aynı zamanda İzmir’in Karaburun ilçesinin açıklarında Bizans bayrağı takan Machitis isimli bir Yunan karakol gemisi, Türkiye’ye ait gemileri taciz etmişti.
AMA ARTIK KÖPRÜNÜN ALTINDAN O KADAR ÇOK SU AKTI Kİ…
Buraya kadar saydıklarımızı ve verdiğimiz bu örnekleri, 15 Temmuz sonrasından başlatıp iki yıl öncesine kadar geçen sürede olup bitenler şeklinde bir sınıflandırmaya tabi tutacak olursak, aynı bağlamda bugün gelinen noktayı değerlendirmeye almak için “Köprünün altından o kadar çok su aktı ki” dememiz gerekecek.
Örneğin, yaklaşık dört yıl öncesi için (15 Temmuz’un hemen sonrası), Yunanistan’ın 100 yıl önce olduğu gibi Anadolu’ya gözünü dikme cüreti gösterdiği bir ortamdan söz edebilecekken, bugün Türkiye’nin Girit, Rodos ve Kerpe gibi adaların yakınlarında petrol aramak için ruhsat başvurusunda bulunmasından söz edebiliyoruz.
Yunanistan’ın bugünkü Savunma Bakanı Panagiotopoulos, “Her türlü senaryoya hazırlanıyoruz. Elbette bu olasılıklar arasında askeri müdahale de var. Bunu yapmak istemiyoruz, ancak egemenlik haklarımızı azami derecede korumak için mümkün olan her şeyi yapacağımızın anlaşılmasını sağlamak istiyoruz” açıklaması yaparken, bu tehdidin arka planında Akdeniz’deki oyun planlarının Türkiye lehine bozulmuş olmasından duyulan telaş olduğunu görebiliyoruz.
Her durumda, birkaç yıl önceki hücum hesaplarından, savunma kaygılarına dönüldüğünü gösteren bur tablo bu.
Libya’da son günlerde olup bitenlerin Abudabi, Kahire gibi başkentler kadar Atina’da da büyük bir endişe ürettiği ortada.
Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı’nın Yunan adalarının hemen yakınında petrol arama ruhsatı için başvuruda bulunması demek, Akdeniz’in yer altı zenginliklerinin geleceğiyle ilgili Atina’nın bütün hesaplarını boşa çıkarmak anlamına geliyor.
Diğer yandan son günlerde Türkiye destekli Ulusal Mutabakat Hükümeti’nin Libya sahasındaki kazanımları, Türkiye’nin bu hükümetle yaptığı deniz sınırlarını yetkilendirme anlaşmasını daha bir sağlama almış görünüyor.
Bütün bu gelişmelerin üzerine şu soruyu sormanın vakti geldi:
Bu olup bitenlerin, Türkiye ile Yunanistan arasında bir çatışmaya yol açma ihtimali nedir?
Önceki yıllara ve önceki yüzyıla ait örnekler, Yunanistan’ın bir zafiyet yakalaması halinde, Türkiye’ye karşı harekete geçmeyi ciddi şekilde düşündüğünü, fırsatını bulması halinde de bunu yaptığını gösteriyor.
Peki, mevcut şartlarda olduğu gibi, Türkiye’ye karşı savunma halinde kalmaları halinde Yunanlılar bir çatışmayı göze alma anlamında aynı cesareti gösterebilirler mi?
Onlar için cevaplaması daha zor bir soru bu.
Mehmet Acet / Yeni Şafak Gazetesi
Έτσι δρούσε η σπείρα που έκλεβε πολυτελή αυτοκίνητα – Τα οχήματα κοστίζουν πάνω από 1.500.000 ευρώ
Δείτε τις φωτογραφίες
Οκτώ άτομα, έξι Έλληνες και δύο αλλοδαπούς, συνέλαβε το Τμήμα Εγκλημάτων κατά Ιδιοκτησίας της Διεύθυνσης Ασφάλειας Αττικής, το οποίο εξάρθρωσε πολυμελή σπείρα που διέπραξε περισσότερες από 40 κλοπές πολυτελών οχημάτων, σε διάφορες περιοχές του Λεκανοπεδίου.
Σύμφωνα με την Αστυνομία, η συνολική αξία των αφαιρεθέντων οχημάτων εκτιμάται ότι υπερβαίνει το ποσό του 1.500.000 ευρώ.
Ορισμένοι από τους δράστες, όπως αναφέρει το ΑΜΠΕ, εντόπιζαν και αφαιρούσαν τα οχήματα, ενώ άλλοι φρόντιζαν να φτιάχνουν πλαστές πινακίδες για να τις τοποθετούν στα κλεμμένα οχήματα. Στη συνέχεια, είτε παραποιούσαν τα στοιχεία κυκλοφορίας τους (αριθμό πλαισίου και αριθμό κινητήρα) και τα μεταπωλούσαν αυτούσια, είτε τα διέθεταν για ανταλλακτικά.
Η σπείρα διέθετε ειδικό τεχνικό εξοπλισμό, ο οποίος χρησιμοποιείται από άτομα που διαπράττουν κλοπές κατ’ επάγγελμα και είναι δυσεύρετος στην Ελλάδα και τις περισσότερες φορές τον εισήγαγαν από το εξωτερικό.
Σημειώνεται, ότι από την αστυνομική έρευνα διαπιστώθηκε ότι οι δράστες αφού έκλεβαν ένα όχημα στη συνέχεια, το μετέφεραν και το στάθμευαν σε ασφαλές σημείο και ερευνούσαν το εσωτερικό του για να εντοπίσουν τυχόν συστήματα γεωγραφικού εντοπισμού (GPS TRACKERS).
Σε κάποιες περιπτώσεις, μάλιστα και ειδικά για πολυτελή οχήματα ιδιαίτερα μεγάλης αξίας, τοποθετούσαν σε αυτά πλαστές πινακίδες που είχαν κατασκευάσει νωρίτερα από αγγελίες πώλησης οχημάτων ίδιου τύπου, μοντέλου και χρώματος στο διαδίκτυο. Αργότερα, τα στάθμευαν σε ακριβές περιοχές, για να μην κινούν υποψίες και ειδοποιηθούν οι Αρχές.
Μετά την πάροδο δύο-τριών ημερών και αφού τα οχήματα δεν είχαν εντοπιστεί από τους ιδιοκτήτες τους, είτε τα μετέφεραν σε υπόγειους χώρους στάθμευσης, είτε τα παρέδιδαν σε άτομα που σχετίζονται με καταστήματα εμπορίας ανταλλακτικών αυτοκινήτωνγια να τα αποσυναρμολογήσουν.
Παράλληλα, ορισμένα οχήματα τα μετέφεραν σε συνεργείο που χρησιμοποιούσε η οργάνωση, ιδιοκτησίας ενός εκ των συλληφθέντων.
Εκεί, αφού πραγματοποιούσαν διάφορες αλλαγές, πλαστογραφούσαν αριθμούς πλαισίου οχημάτων πρακτορείου ενοικίασης αυτοκινήτων, επίσης ιδιοκτησίας του ίδιου συλληφθέντα και στη συνέχεια μέσω αυτού τα διέθεταν για ενοικίαση σε ανυποψίαστους πελάτες, αποκομίζοντας με αυτό τον τρόπο αρκετά χρήματα.
Οι δράστες αναζητούσαν στο διαδίκτυο αγγελίες πώλησης ολοσχερώς κατεστραμμένων οχημάτων και αφού αγόραζαν τέτοια οχήματα σε ιδιαίτερα χαμηλές τιμές, στη συνέχεια χρησιμοποιούσαν τους χαρακτηριστικούς αριθμούς τους (αριθμό πλαισίου και πινακίδες κυκλοφορίας) για να πλαστογραφήσουν τα κλεμμένα οχήματα ίδιου μοντέλου, τύπου και χρώματος και με τον τρόπο αυτό να τα «νομιμοποιήσουν».
Από τις αστυνομικές έρευνες που πραγματοποιήθηκαν, βρέθηκαν και κατασχέθηκαν 38 Ι.Χ αυτοκίνητα, εκ των οποίων 23 κλεμμένα και 15 πλαστογραφημένα, πινακίδες και άδειες κυκλοφορίας κλεμμένων αυτοκινήτων, πλήθος εξαρτημάτων, ανταλλακτικών οχημάτων, μικροποσότητα ναρκωτικών ουσιών, καθώς και το χρηματικό ποσό των 18.000 ευρώ.
Έως τώρα, έχουν εξιχνιαστεί 44 κλοπές Ι.Χ οχημάτων και 2 κλοπές πινακίδων κυκλοφορίας.
Σημειώνεται, ότι τα περισσότερα μέλη της οργάνωσης έχουν συλληφθεί και κατά το παρελθόν για παρόμοια αδικήματα.
Σε βάρος τους σχηματίστηκε ποινική δικογραφία, για τα κατά περίπτωση, αδικήματα της συγκρότησης και ένταξης σε εγκληματική οργάνωση, διακεκριμένες κλοπές κατά συναυτουργία και κατά συρροή, πλαστογραφίες, νομιμοποίηση εσόδων από εγκληματικές δραστηριότητες και για παραβάσεις της νομοθεσίας περί όπλων και περί ναρκωτικών.
Οι συλληφθέντες, με τη δικογραφία που σχηματίστηκε σε βάρος τους, οδηγήθηκαν στον εισαγγελέα Πρωτοδικών Αθηνών.
Α. ΖΗΤΩ Η… ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΙΑ!..
Β. ΠΟΛΛΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΛΙΚΡΙΝΗ ΣΥΓΧΑΡΗΤΗΡΙΑ ΣΤΗΝ ΓΑΔΑ / ΔΝΣΗ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΑΣ !
Ένας από τους πλέον δραστήριους εισαγωγείς κοκαΐνης από την Κολομβία στην Αμβέρσα του Βελγίου θεωρείτο από τις διεθνείς αρχές ο 47χρονος Βέλγος Κ.W (από την πόλη Βιλβόρντε της συγκεκριμένης χώρας) που δολοφονήθηκε το βράδυ της Παρασκευής στην Βούλα!
ΤουΒΑΣΙΛΗ Γ. ΛΑΜΠΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
Ο 47χρονος είχε καταδικασθεί -όπως αποκαλύπτει «το Βήμα»- το 2014 σε φυλάκιση 12 ετών για διακίνηση ναρκωτικών, αλλά και για ξέπλυμα χρήματος. Φέρεται ότι στο όνομά του, όπως και με συγγενικό του πρόσωπο, να είχε κι αρκετές off shore εταιρείες με έδρα στο Βέλγιο, στη Μ. Βρετανία κι αλλού.
Όμως κατόρθωσε να αποφυλακισθεί και τη τελευταία τριετία ήταν στην χώρα μας, όπου εμφανιζόταν ως έμπορος ξύλων και τροφίμων. Χρησιμοποιώντας και ταξιδιωτικά έγγραφα με το ψεύτικο όνομα «Γιώργος Χριστόφορος» και φερόταν γεννηθείς το 1976.
Ο 47χρονος που πυροβολήθηκε εν ψυχρώ από επιβάτες μοτοσικλέτας έξω από το σπίτι του στην οδό Δωδεκανήσου στην Βούλα, είχε κατηγορηθεί μαζί έναν 55χρονο Βέλγο μεγαλέμπορο κοκαΐνης, επίσης με έδρα στην Αμβέρσα.
Οι δύο αλλοδαποί διακινητές δημιούργησαν εταιρείες μεταφορών στη Νότια Αμερική, οργάνωναν υποτιθέμενες νόμιμες μεταφορές ανανά, σπαραγγιών ή δομικών υλικών, τα οποία χρησιμοποιούσαν ως προκάλυμμα μεταφοράς κοκαΐνης κι άλλων ναρκωτικών ουσιών. Χρησιμοποιούσαν, ως προσωπικό, εργαζόμενους σε εταιρείες εμπορευματοκιβωτίων στην Αμβέρσα.
Σύμφωνα με αναφορές ξένων διωκτικών αρχών ο 47χρονος μαζί με τον συνεργό του είχαν επιχειρήσει να εισαγάγουν από τον Παναμά έναν τόνο κοκαΐνης και οργάνωσαν μια άλλη μεταφορά εκατοντάδων κιλών κοκαΐνης από το Περού.
Από τη Βενεζουέλα, πραγματοποιήθηκε μεταφορά 400 κιλών ναρκωτικών ενώ υπήρχαν υπόνοιες εμπλοκής τους σε εισαγωγή 3,8 τόνων κάνναβης, επίσης από τη νότιο Αμερική. Επίσης ο συνεργός του δολοφονηθέντος στην Βούλα είχε… ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΥ ΕΝΔΙΑΦΕΡΟΥΣΑ ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΣΤΗΝ ΠΗΓΗ!..
ΣΧΟΛΙΟ DP: Το ρεπορτάζ του πολύπειρου συναδέλφου είναι συναρπαστικό. Εμείς θα προσθέσουμε δυο σκέψεις οι οποίες μπορεί να έχουν, μπορεί όμως και να μην έχουν σχέση με το ρεπορτάζ. Είναι σκέψεις που γεννήθηκαν διαβάζοντας τα στοιχεία της υπόθεσης δολοφονίας, όπως αυτά ερχόντουσαν στο φως της δημοσιότητας… Τροφή για σκέψη από την πλευρά αρμοδίων, εντός ή εκτός της χώρας.
Πρώτη παρατήρηση είναι ότι τέτοια κυκλώματα, πολύ συχνά χρησιμοποιούνταν από μυστικές υπηρεσίες για να γίνονται και άλλες δουλειές. Αντάλλαγμα, φυσικά, ήταν ένας βαθμός ασυλίας στο να κάνουν τις δουλειές τους. Το χρήμα πολύ. Κάποιος θα την κάνει την δουλειά…
Δεν είναι μυστικό ότι οι ίδιες οι μυστικές υπηρεσίες ερχόντουσαν σε σύγκρουση με αντίστοιχες του ιδίου κράτους από το οποίο προέρχονταν, καθώς ο ένας ασχολείται με την εθνική ασφάλεια και ο άλλος με την επιβολή του νόμου. Η σύγκρουση αναπόφευκτη. Συνήθως επικρατούσαν οι πρώτες…
Αυτές οι δοσοληψίες του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος με τις μυστικές υπηρεσίες μπορεί να εκτραπούν για διάφορους λόγους που δεν έχει νόημα να καταγράψουμε εδώ ως σενάρια. Όταν αυτό συμβεί, συνήθως τον λόγο παίρνουν τα όπλα. Δεν είναι ακριβώς εκδίκηση, αλλά αποστολή μηνύματος προς συνετισμό των επόμενων, ότι οι κανόνες σε αυτό τον κόσμο είναι αμείλικτοι…
Δεύτερη παρατήρηση, είναι ότι συνδέοντας τα παραπάνω με τη δολοφονία του Βέλγου -σύμφωνα με το ρεπορτάζ πάντα, διότι το όνομα και η εθνικότητα του Βέλγου υπηκόου παραμένει μυστήριο…- επιχειρηματία, τα χαρακτηριστικά της επιχειρησιακής μεθόδου που επελέγη για να εγκαταλείψει τον μάταιο τούτο κόσμο, κάτι θυμίζουν…
Θυμίζουν καταγραφές στη βιβλιογραφία του “intelligence” και αφορούν τρόπο δράσης και τα μέσα συγκεκριμένης υπηρεσίας, ιστορικά, όταν είχε λόγους να επιθυμεί να καταλάβουν, όσοι πρέπει ποιος βρισκόταν από πίσω.
Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ασφαλώς ότι είναι από πίσω η συγκεκριμένη υπηρεσία που υπονοείται εδώ. Γι’ αυτό και δεν την αναφέρουμε. Γι΄αυτό και δεν αναφέρουμε αυτά τα επιχειρησιακά χαρακτηριστικά και τα μέσα που οδηγούν σε αυτό το συμπέρασμα.
Όσο πιθανό είναι να εμπλέκεται, άλλο τόσο είναι, θεωρητικά, και η χρήση της μεθόδου από κάποιον άλλο, υπηρεσία ή… ιδιώτη, που αντιθέτως επιθυμεί να μην ανιχνευθεί και επιχειρεί να στρέψει την προσοχή προς κάποια άλλη κατεύθυνση. Όμορφος κόσμος…
ΕΙΣΑΙ “ΠΟΛΥ ΚΑΛΟΣ” ΚΕ ΣΧΟΛΙΑΣΤΗ… “DP”!..
4. Εμείς σας το γράψαμε ήδη πιο πάνω, στο κυρίως μας κείμενο, Τούρκοι! Μετά τις 02-07-2020 θα σας πούμε για το ποιός είναι ο ΡΤΕ, με… Βούλα, με… Ταπού, ό,τι και να μας λέτε εδώ!!!..
…AK Parti’den flaş ‘Ayasofya’ açıklaması
AK Parti Grup Başkanvekili Mehmet Muş, Ayasofya’nın cami olarak tekrar kullanıma açılmasıyla ilgili “Danıştay’ın 2 Temmuz’da vereceği kararın ardından gerekli adımları atacağız” dedi.
“Ayasofya Cami’nin ibadete açılması” amacıyla Meclis Başkanlığına sunulan Araştırma Önergesi, TBMM’de kabul edilmedi.
AK Parti Grup Başkanvekili Mehmet Muş, konuya ilişkin yaptığı açıklamada, “Ayasofya’nın İbadete açılması önerisine şimdi ret veriyoruz.Danıştay’da bir dava yürümektedir, temmuz ayı içerisinde bununla alakalı bir karar verilecektir. Mesele araştırmanın ötesine geçmiştir. Karardan sonra gerekli adımlar atılacaktır.” mesajını verdi.
5. ΤΟΥΡΚΟΙ ΤΗΝ ΧΟΥΛΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΜΑΤΙΑ ΣΑΣ, ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΓΙΝΕΙ “ΤΗΣ ΑΝΩΜΑΛΙΑΣ”! ΑΝΤΕ!..
HÜLYA AVŞAR’IN EVİNDEN HIRSIZLIK YAPMIŞ
Bay’ın sanatçı Hülya Avşar’ın Balıkesir’in Ayvalık ilçesi Sefa Çamlık Mahallesi’ndeki yazlık evini 2018 yılında soyduğuve evden 1500 TL’nin yanı sıra 2 pırlanta küpe ile Avşar’a ait kimlik kartları, pasaport ve kredi kartlarını çaldığı belirlenmişti.
Cezaevine gönderilen Bay, geçtiğimiz gün geçirdiği kalp krizi sonucu yaşamını yitirdi.
6. ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΩ ΑΡΘΡΟ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ (ΠΕΡΙΠΟΥ) H ΑΛΛΗ ΑΠΟΨΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ “ΚΑΤΑΓΩΓΗ” ΤΩΝ “ΑΝΤΙΦΑ”! ΕΔΩ ΟΙ “ΑΝΤΙΦΑ” ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΩΣ “ΚΑΤΑΣΚΕΥΗ” ΤΩΝ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΩΝ ΜΥ! ΣΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΗ ΟΜΩΣ, (ΕΜΕΙΣ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΓΡΑΨΕΙ ΤΙ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΟΥΜΕ ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ… “ΠΑΤΕΡΑ” ΤΟΥΣ), ΕΞΥΠΗΡΕΤΟΥΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΣΜΟΥΣ ΤΩΝ “ΔΙΕΘΝΩΝ ΕΒΡΑΙΩΝ”, ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΔΙΑΛΥΣΗ ΚΥΡΙΩΣ / ΠΡΩΤΙΣΤΩΣ ΤΩΝ “ΕΘΝΩΝ – ΚΡΑΤΩΝ”!..
Antifa: A Relic of German Communism
On a mission to destroy the United States.
When Antifa first invaded the national consciousness, during the 2017 riots in Charlottesville, Va., two prominent journalists made a stunning assertion.
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo joined others in equating the left-wing militants with the thousands of Allied soldiers who stormed Normandy’s beaches to invade Adolf Hitler’s “Fortress Europe” on D-Day.
A more appropriate equation would be with the thousands of soldiers in the Red Army, who brutally marched toward Berlin, where they would establish Soviet hegemony in the so-called German Democratic Republic after defeating Hitler.
Despite antiseptic portrayals throughout American media, Antifa is much more than an “anti-Fascist” group. As Americans have seen since the death of George Floyd, Antifa provides the violent complement to “Progressive” ideology. Like its comrades in academia and the media, Antifa seeks to destroy the American emphasis on liberty under law, and to impose one of history’s most repressive ideologies.
Bernd Langer, whose “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” was published by Germany’s Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Literature, succinctly defined the rhetorical subterfuge.
“Anti-fascism is a strategy rather than an ideology,” wrote Langer, a former Antifa member, for “an anti-capitalist form of struggle.”
Short for the German phrase, “Antifaschistische Aktion,” Antifa was founded during Germany’s Weimar Republic as the paramilitary arm of the German Communist Party (KPD), which the Soviet Union funded. In other words, Antifa became the German Communists’ version of the Nazis’ brown-shirted SA.
The KPD made no secret of Antifa’s affiliation. A 1932 photo of KPD headquarters in Berlin prominently displayed the double-flagged Antifa emblem among other Communist symbols and slogans. In a photo from the 1932 Unity Congress of Antifa in Berlin, the double-flagged banner shared space with the hammer and sickle and with two large cartoons. One supported the KPD, the other mocked the SPD, Germany’s Social Democratic Party.
Interestingly, in its May 31 article on Antifa, the New York Times failed to mention the group’s roots in German Communism. That information, included in this piece, is widely available.
Today, Antifa embraces those roots. An article from the website www.redspark.nu describes members as “communists, anarchists, and other non-aligned leftists brought together for the express purpose of confronting and preventing local fascist organizing.” Six months before the Charlottesville riots, Antifa provided an example of that mission.
In February 2017, former Breitbart.com editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. Antifa responded by sending masked agitators into the city to start fires, break windows, paint graffiti, destroy automatic teller machines and assault bystanders with pepper spray and flagpoles. The university cancelled Yiannopoulos’ appearance but not before the militants caused nearly $100,000 in damage.
Antifa’s goal to suppress “fascism” reflects the views of neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. “A policy of unequal treatment would protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right,” Marcuse wrote in “Repressive Tolerance,” his 1965 essay. “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left” extending “to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”
Marcuse dismissed the idea of individual liberty protected by law in favor of a Marxist society that favors ostensibly oppressed groups at the expense of everybody else. Such a society, Marcuse wrote, would demand “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements” that not only “promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion” but also “oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” and “may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions.”
Marcuse even justified violence. “There is a ‘natural right’ of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate,” Marcuse wrote. “Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it … for their share of humanity. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one.”
In expressing his contempt for “the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side,’” Marcuse maintained in 1968 ”that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition.”
NYU Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat illustrated Marcuse’s influence in comments for the Times. A specialist in studying fascism, Ben-Ghiat alluded to a protest last year in Portland, Ore., where Antifa pelted independent journalist Andy Ngo with so-called milk shakes laced with quick-drying cement. Ngo suffered a brain hemorrhage and went to a hospital.
“Throwing a milkshake is not equivalent to killing someone,” Ben-Ghiat said. “But because the people in power are allied with the right, any provocation, any dissent against right-wing violence, backfires.”
K-Su Park, an associate law professor at Georgetown, also reflects Marcuse’s thought. After the Charlottesville riots, Park challenged the American Civil Liberties Union to reconsider its approach to the First Amendment. The ACLU represented Jason Kessler, who organized the “Unite the Right” rally and sued the City of Charlottesville for revoking his permit for the protest.
The ACLU’s approach “implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression,” Park wrote. “Other forms of structural discrimination and violence also restrict the exercise of speech, such as police intimidation of African-Americans and Latinos. The danger that communities face because of their speech isn’t equal.”
At the time, Park was a fellow with UCLA’s critical race studies program. Critical race studies comes from critical theory, a sociological approach developed by Germany’s neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, where Marcuse was a leading thinker.
Marcuse’s influence also plays a vital role in the left-wing ideology permeating the Democratic Party and the entertainment industry. So nobody should be surprised that numerous celebrities publicly committed themselves to providing bail for anybody arrested during rioting.
Joining them is the staff of former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrats’ presidential nominee who has yet to condemn the rioting.
“What’s always been troubling is the way that so many people in the media and in the political establishment have given (Antifa) cover to operate — including law enforcement, by the way, and one administration after the other,” former CBS News journalist Lara Logan said. “This is not a Democrat-Republican, left-right, blue-red kind of thing.”
Given the political controversies roiling the nation, the “Progressive” agenda and Logan’s remarks, the article on Antifa from www.redspark.nu concludes with words as enlightening as they are frightening. (All emphases added)
“Fighting fascism is direly important—like fighting police violence, environmental destruction, homelessness, etc. is direly important—but you can’t cure a disease by chasing after the symptoms alone. … To ultimately solve these problems is to wage a much larger war.
“As these issues are all symptoms of capitalism, the solution is found in working class organizing in order to take power and thus dictate the society in which we wish to live. We will only do this by connecting anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-colonial, anti-patriarchal, pro-environment organizing with revolutionary anti-capitalist organizing aimed towards achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Logan expressed that idea more succinctly: “Liberation begins when America dies, and that’s what they’re looking for.”
Law-and-Order African Americans Stand With Trump
President Trump is standing with the 72% of African-Americans who are happy with their local police departments.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Leftists have launched yet another campaign to destroy President Trump, the economy, and the hopes of the African-American community which had been seeing record employment numbers.
If you believe the media, African-Americans are rising up against President Trump because of a police incident in Minneapolis, a Democrat city, run by radical lefties who voted to disband the police, in Minnesota, a Democrat state, which had not voted for a Republican since Nixon, over 1,000 miles away from Washington D.C. And, if you believe the media, the economy is doomed, and every state that opened before the riots has streets filled with piles of the pandemic dead.
The latest Rasmussen tracking poll shows that President Trump’s approval rating among likely black voters is at 41%.That’s up from 40% in the fall of 2018 which had been a high at the time.
How is that possible? Aren’t black people furious after Trump’s call for law and order?
A Monmouth University poll however shows that 72% of African-Americans are satisfied with their local police departments. Despite what you’re seeing on television, 21% of African-Americans are very satisfied with the local police and another 51% are satisfied.
Only 5% are very dissatisfied.
Why is the country burning and why are so many politicians, corporations, and organizations falling into line to sate the outrage of that 5%? Ask them if you can find them inciting a riot.
By backing law and order, President Trump is standing with the nearly 3 in 4 African-Americans who are happy with their local police departments over the less than 1 in 5 who aren’t.
Why do these numbers about what African-Americans actually believe differ so dramatically from what the media insists on telling us that they believe in order to justify the riots and looting?
41% of African-Americans reported that they had an experience where a police officer had helped keep them or their family members safe in a dangerous situation.
That’s significantly higher than the 33% of white people and 21% of Hispanic people.
Black communities benefit from law enforcement more than other communities do. Many of the stores that were ransacked and looted were owned by African-Americans. And they’re much less likely to be able to rebuild than massive national chains like Target or CVS. The collapse of cash businesses and businesses that provided local credit will devastate these neighborhoods.
While the media has been busy championing the radical protests to defund the police, 167 people were shot in one week in Chicago, 14 people were shot over the previous weekend in Baltimore, and a 12-year-old was shot in St. Louis. No one but the police is going to stop this.
Defunding the police is the project of a small number of wealthy young radicals who have never lived in a world without the police and have no idea what can happen to them without the cops.
Black people who live in poorer areas know exactly what can and does happen every week.
That’s why President Trump’s call for law and order, and his march to a besieged church, may have infuriated white radicals, especially in the media, but is understood differently by many black people. The history of fighting crime in America has undergone its own radical historical revisionism that might be dubbed the 1960 Project as a counterpart to the 1619 Project.
The contemporary state of the police and prisons wasn’t invented by white people, but the result of demands by black community leaders who wanted a crackdown on drugs and crime.
In 1973, 71% of African-Americans in New York wanted drug dealers to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. That was back when the NAACP Citizens’ Mobilization Against Crime had asked for more police officers in black neighborhoods and a minimum of 5 years in prison for muggers, 10 years for drug dealers, and 20 years for murderers.
“It is not police brutality that makes people afraid to walk the streets at night,” Vincent Baker, the head of the Citizens’ Mobilization Against Crime, had said.
Meanwhile, black residents were buying guns and forming vigilante groups to protect their own streets. Ministers and black nationalists stepped into that vacuum to go after drug dealers.
“The silent majority in Harlem would welcome a police order to get tough,” Baker had pleaded. The alternative, he had previously argued, would be vigilante justice. “We don’t need gunslingers, paid or unpaid, in our community. We want law enforcement.”
Crime debates in the 1960s pitted white liberals, who favored looser crime rules, against black community leaders who were ready to call for the vigilante killings of drug dealers. Putting police officers on every block was not a racist conspiracy, it was the demand of neighborhood leaders who wanted to avoid the bad choices between drug gangs and community vigilantes.
President Trump knows this history and lived this history. That’s why he stands for law and order. Law and order isn’t racist. When it collapses, its victims are very often African-American.
“The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities and as their president, I will fight to keep them safe,” President Trump declared. “I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order.”
While the media has falsely claimed that he was threatening to repress the black community, Trump was really reminding African-American voters of the difference between him and Biden.
Biden might be happy to watch America burn as long as his radical allies were satisfied, but the black communities and businesses that are burning are likely to be less enthusiastic at the idea.
The media has suggested that President Trump’s call for law and order is somehow radical.
Fighting crime, like supporting the military or free speech, used to be a bipartisan issue before radicalized Democrats defected from what had been a fundamental plank of national policy.
Democrats keep trying to tie Trump’s call for law and order to Nixon. But it’s actually LBJ who declared a war on crime and who federalized law enforcement, tying local police into the DOJ, and supplying them with military equipment, while emphasizing statistics and metrics.
“Our parks are deserted. Our storekeepers weigh the dangers of arming themselves against the dangers of attack. Crime and violence in the suburbs increase even more rapidly than in the central cities,” President Johnson had vowed. “Until every woman in this land can walk the streets of her city at night, unafraid and unharmed, then we have work to do in law enforcement.”
Like the rest of the Great Society, Johnson’s War on Crime failed because it assumed that running local policies through a national expert class would make them more efficient, and, the Great Society’s other great fallacy, that social problems could be solved with social welfare. Instead of defeating crime, the Great Society created the welfare state and made blight permanent, reducing formerly aspirational black communities to a morass of broken homes.
Had LBJ sought to deliberately destroy black communities, he could not have done better.
Johnson’s War on Crime was a response to race riots, but failed to address the reality that the riots, like most race riots in the previous century, had been inspired by first Communist, and then assorted other leftist agitators, of which Antifa is just one of many incarnations.
Where LBJ’s team focused on pandering to black socialists, Trump has reached out to black capitalists. The riots and looting are devastating not the welfare state that the black socialists want, but the small businesses that are at the root of black capitalism. That’s not a coincidence.
Defunding the police is a demand to shift money from law and order to the welfare state.
Black capitalism cannot operate without law and order, while black socialism thrives on misery.
The riots are, in a certain sense, a civil war for the soul of the black community. If the rioters succeed, black communities will sink deeper into gangland decay and the welfare state. They will become more integral to the Democrats even as they lose any hope for a better future.
That’s why law and order African-Americans stand with President Trump.
Obama Used National Security to Spy on Americans Opposed to Islamic Terrorists
Obamagate redefined opposition to Islamic terrorism as a national security threat.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
We know when Obamagate ended, but we don’t know when the policy of spying on Americans began. The tangled roots of the domestic surveillance of political opponents by the NSA predate the alarmism about Russia. Tracing them back into the fetid swamp takes us not toward Moscow, but to Tehran.
The first public revelation that the White House was spying on high level members of the political opposition came in 2015. Members of Congress had been eavesdropped on as part of an operation to sabotage Prime Minister Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran Deal. The Israeli leader and his entire country had earlier been targeted by a massive spy campaign to stop Israel from taking out Iran’s nukes.
But the new wave of surveillance was no longer just against a potential Israeli attack on Iran, but was part of a political campaign to win the domestic argument to aid Iran and legalize its nuclear program.
The Wall Street Journal reported that by 2013, surveillance of Netanyahu was focused on protecting the Iran nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu’s invitation to address Congress caught the White House by surprise and the surveillance was not only directed at Israelis or even pro-Israel Americans, but members of Congress who were skeptical that the Islamic terror regime would ever scuttle its nukes.
The Iran Deal ushered in a surveillance shift from monitoring the former allies that Obama wanted to toss overboard, to monitoring Americans who were friendly to those governments, and then leading members of the political opposition, and finally members of an incoming administration. Obama and his associates had redefined national security as the pursuit of his dangerous foreign policy, and the new national security threats were administration critics who were surveilled in order to entrap them.
Surveillance had morphed from spying on Obama’s political opponents to conspiring to lock them up.
General Flynn had been a key opponent of the Iran policy, as detailed by Lee Smith in How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign. Flynn’s arrival not only threatened the Iran Deal, but the politicized intelligence agencies that had been covering for Iran even during the Bush days. Beyond protecting the Iran Deal and Obama’s legacy, the fake intelligence machine was defending itself.
Flynn had already been forced out once. His return wasn’t supposed to happen and was seen as a threat.
Oubai Shahbandar, who had worked for the DIA and served on the ground in Iraq as a strategic analyst, noted that Flynn had warned Obama that Al-Qaeda in Iraq would make a comeback, “Flynn’s prophetic warnings would play out exactly as he’d warned shortly after he was fired.”
It was bad enough that Obama’s foreign policy vets and intelligence cronies had failed. The prospect of having Flynn return to take advantage of their mistakes and wreck their credibility was unthinkable.
The pretext for taking down Flynn was generated when he called Ambassador Kislyak about an anti-Israel resolution coming up at the UN. The Obama administration had played a key role in generating these shadow resolutions by other countries to pressure Israel. The Jewish State, along with the UAE, the Saudis, and Egypt, and any Trump associates friendly to them, had become targets in a shadow war meant to keep Obama’s foreign policy in place even under the incoming Trump administration.
Obamagate was waged to protect a foreign policy based around Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
That was why Walid Phares, a Trump adviser, was also investigated by the FBI and the Mueller team for his friendliness to President Sisi’s anti-Islamist government in Egypt. Flynn and Phares were investigated because they posed a threat to Obama’s pro-Islamist foreign policy. That was Susan Rice’s pretext for unmasking the names of Trump officials meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.
The Obama administration had not only redefined support for Islamic terror states as being in our country’s national interest, but it also redefined opposition to Islamic terror as a national security threat.
Flynn and Phares were targeted because they were critics of the Iran Deal and the Brotherhood.
After Obama and his cronies had dismantled counterterrorism and crippled the military, they took national security into an inverted Orwellian world in which terrorism was national security, and national security was terrorism, and members of the incoming Trump administration were the greatest national security threat because they opposed Obama’s foreign policy of aiding Islamic terrorists.
Flynn and Phares, in their own ways, struck at the twin Islamist hearts of that foreign policy.
The Arab Spring and the Brotherhood’s ascendancy had been crucial to Obama’s vision of a new Middle East. Obama had been pushing regime change in Egypt as early as his 2002 Daley Plaza speech, in which he invoked regime change for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but not, of course, for Iran. The Brotherhood’s collapse across the region had been personally humiliating for Obama and his people hadn’t given up their dreams of a Muslim Brotherhood Reconquista in Egypt. Phares was a threat to those dreams.
Iran was Obama’s last shot at his grand strategy to realign America foreign policy toward Islamist terror states. This was not just one agreement, but a desperate attempt to turn back the clock to the Cairo Speech, before ISIS, the counter-revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, and the growing tilt of the Saudis and the UAE toward Israel and against the Islamists and Iran. Obama’s entire foreign policy was on the line.
Having Flynn on duty risked sabotaging what Obama saw as his only surviving foreign policy success. And when Flynn directly intervened to stop an Obama shadow UN resolution aimed at Israel, his cronies in the intelligence community struck back hard, taking revenge over Flynn’s effort to protect Israel, and marking their territory from Egypt to Iran, while seeking to hijack the incoming Trump administration.
The peaceful transition that traditionally separated the American political system from those of failed states was coming apart as the Obama administration, no longer content with covert eavesdropping or media leaks, actively went to war over foreign policy with the Trump administration. This was not a mere Watergate. It was a civil war being waged within the limited confines of Washington D.C.
The weapons of the national security state were being used to fight a war over who would be able to define national security with intelligence community figures targeting an incoming intelligence community figure. Conflicts that were once conducted with media leaks had gone well beyond them.
But the pattern of media leaks did suggest a link between Obama’s surveillance of members of Congress and the spying on Flynn.
As Smith notes, “Adam Entous was offered the leak of the Dec. 29 call early on”. Entous was also the writer who ‘broke’ the story of Obama’s spying on Congress and pro-Israel activists for the Wall Street Journal while spinning the material in a way that justified this latter-day Watergate. Washington D.C. operatives usually have favored reporters that they leak stories to for the right political spin.
It seems likely that whoever leaked the Congress surveillance story also leaked Flynn’s phone call.
As I noted in 2018, “Spygate was the warped afterbirth of our failure to meaningfully confront Islamic terrorism. Instead, the political allies of the terrorists and the failed watchmen who allowed them to strike so many times, got together to shoot the messengers warning about the terror threat.”
The Obama administration betrayed America. It sold out the soldiers in the field, and then their commanders, and when it lost power, it went to war against the civilian leadership using the tools that had been traditionally reserved for the terrorists that it had refused to take on and defeat.
Obama didn’t just corrupt our national security system to wage war on his successor administration, he did it to protect the Islamist terrorist enemies of this country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Instead of fighting Islamic terrorists, Obama used the national security state to spy on their opponents, beginning with pro-Israel Americans, and concluding with Trump allies in a horrifying act of treason.
The Marxist-Anarchist Face of the Riots
Antifa’s involvement is clear.
Numerous leftists are claiming that unnamed racists affiliated with the “far right” are responsible for much of the rioting that has taken place in cities across the United States since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. For example, Peggy Flanagan, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Minnesota, has accused such “white supremacists” of “burning down the institutions that are core to our identity and who we are” – and of thereby making it more difficult for people of good will “to come together … and mourn and grieve and demand change and justice in policing and every other racist system that we have that has been part of this state.”
Meanwhile, a number of reporters at CNN are likewise promoting the claim that “white supremacists” are responsible for the riots. The Chicago Tribune similarly asserts that “experts who track extremist groups” have “reported seeing evidence of the far-right at work.” And BET.com cites “the covert members of white supremacists’ groups using George Floyd’s death as an opportunity to infiltrate and derail the movement for justice.”
But there is little to suggest that these claims are anything other than attempts to divert attention away from the very solid evidence that the far-left, Marxist-anarchist Antifa movement is heavily involved in the rioting. As Fox News has reported: “Antifa sent the word out far and wide to burn buildings, loot stores, destroy cars and attack law enforcement officers.” And Antifa members – who often travel from far-flung locations to meet up with their allies in sites that have been pre-selected for rioting – have coordinated their violent efforts in a very organized way.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr alluded to this when he stated: “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda. In many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by anarchic left extremist groups — far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics, many of whom travel from outside the state to promote the violence.”
U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien concurs that the violence “is being driven by Antifa,” whose constituent groups “are organized and use Molotov cocktails and fireworks and gas to burn down our cities.”
Some of the most powerful and detailed testimony about Antifa’s involvement comes from John Miller, the New York Police Department’s Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism, who told reporters in a telephone briefing that anarchists had planned to ignite chaos in the New York even before any unrest had begun. Some excerpts from Miller’s remarks:
- “[B]efore the protests began, organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with police.”
- “They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities.”
- “[T]hey developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not, for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be.”
- “We believe that a significant amount of people who came here from out of the area who have come here as well as the advance preparation, having advance scouts, the use of encrypted information, having resupply routes for things such as gasoline and accelerants as well as rocks and bottles, the raising of bail, the placing of medics. Taken together, [this] is a strong indicator that they plan[ned] to act with disorder, property damage, violence, and violent encounters with police before the first demonstration and or before the first arrest.”
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, a black Democrat, says he “wouldn’t be surprised if Antifa” was involved in some of the violence in his city, noting that “we have watched and intercepted, frankly, groups coming into Denver … that were heading to the demonstrations” with “assault weapons” in some cases.
In a similar vein, a Philadelphia Police Department bulletin said: “Domestic extremists, including anarchist extremists and other anti-government extremists, are using the unrest in Minneapolis to amplify and justify their calls for dismantling law enforcement agencies and carrying out attacks on law enforcement, government, and capitalist targets.”
Moreover, observers from both sides of the political aisle have noted the highly organized nature of the riots. NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea, for one, reports that “they had tactics deployed, prepping stations with additional weapons available.” And Chicago’s Democrat mayor, Lori Lightfoot, says: “There clearly was coordination, they were clearly listening to our radio traffic. The number of U-Haul trucks that magically showed up in front of stores, car caravans that dropped people off and broke windows, and then were hustling the goods out into the backs of the cars. Absolutely, it was organized — there’s no question whatsoever about that.”
Another highly noteworthy characteristic of the riots is the fact that many of the participants have traveled far and wide to convene at the various sites of violence. As the NYPD’s John Miller reported Sunday, nearly 100 of the 686 arrests that had been made in New York City over a three-day period were of people who resided in other states, including such faraway places as Iowa, Nevada, and Texas.
Meanwhile, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter told reporters last Saturday that all of the protesters who had been arrested in the region hailed from other states. Minnesota governor Tim Walz, for his part, said that the “best estimate” is that some 80 percent of the people rioting in the state were not from Minnesota. Those arrested in Minnesota included residents of such states as Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan.
Black Lives Are a Pretext
Origins of the violent racist organization behind the riots.
[David Horowitz is the author of Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win, which was released June 2 by Humanix Books: Order Here.]
Black Lives Matter emerged as a national presence in the years 2014 and 2015 by declaring war on America’s law enforcement agencies. Black Lives Matter activists made headlines occupying America’s streets, targeting racially integrated and even majority minority police forces whom they accused of killing blacks at random merely because they were black. The Black Lives Matter activists fomented riots, burned and looted cities, and incited their followers with chants that ranged from “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want them? Now!” to “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”
The latter slogan was designed to highlight the movement’s baseless claim that a 19-year-old resident of Ferguson Missouri Michael Brown was singled out because he was black and shot by a police officer while he was surrendering with his hands up. The protesters demanded that the officer be convicted of murder in advance of any trial – in other words, lynched. However, the facts as revealed in Grand Jury testimony and subsequent investigations by the Obama Justice Department, were quite different. The officer singled out the 300-pound Brown because he had just committed a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store owned by a much smaller Asian shopkeeper, whom he brutalized.
When the officer attempted to arrest Brown, he responded by attacking the officer and attempting to seize his gun, which was discharged in the scuffle wounding the attacker. According to the sworn testimony of six black eye-witnesses, Brown was fatally shot while charging the officer, who fired another five rounds in self-defense. Yet, so disregardful of the facts were the protesters’ claims that they demanded the officer be convicted of a racial homicide, and the chant “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” continued to live on as a battle cry.
Black Lives Matter was formed in 2013 by three self-styled “Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries,” who selected as their movement icon convicted cop-killer and Black Liberation Army member Assata Shakur. Shakur had fled to Cuba after being convicted of the homicide she committed when her car was stopped for a broken tail-light by two New Jersey state troopers. Without any warning, Shakur shot trooper Werner Foerster. The 34-year- old Vietnam veteran was lying wounded on the ground pleading for his life, when Shakur walked over and executed him. Officer Foerster left a widow and a three-year-old son. Black Lives Matter activists refer to the murderer as “our beloved Assata Shakur” and chant her words as a ritual, “at every meeting, every event, every action, every freeway we’ve shut down, every mall we’ve shut down.”  The chant is this: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support one another. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” The last line is lifted directly from the conclusion to the Communist Manifesto, a document and war cry that has led to the murders of millions.
The Black Lives Matter movement is not about particular injustices but about the alleged injustice of the American system, of capitalism, and of “white supremacy.” Its mission is not to save black lives. The thousands of deaths from black-on-black homicides draw no attention and inspire no protests, nor do the deaths of black police officers on the integrated police forces they attack. Their ferocious denunciations of slogans like “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” as “racist” reveal the racist impetus behind their own agenda.
This agenda was on display in November 2015, when a group of 150 Black Lives Matter activists stormed the library at Dartmouth College and screamed at the bewildered students studying for exams: “F–k you, you filthy white f–ks!,” “F–k you and your comfort!” The activists ordered students who supported them to stand up, and verbally attacked those who refused, screaming at one of them: “You filthy white racist piece of sh-t!” When a female student burst into tears, a Black Lives Matter activist shouted “F—k your white tears.” Then: “If we can’t have it, shut it down.” The only thing missing were black hoods and black sheets to complete the perverse parallel to the KKK racists of the past.
At the July 2015 Netroots Nation convention, a major gathering of the left, activists shouting “Black Lives Matter” blocked two leftist presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Kevin O’Malley from speaking because they were white. Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors seized the microphone and said by way of explanation, “Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath. We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.” O’Malley responded to this: “I know, I know, Let me talk a little bit… Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
As the words left O’Malley’s mouth, the crowd erupted in boos and catcalls. Then they chanted:
If I die in police custody, don’t believe the hype. I was murdered!
Protect my family! Indict the system! Shut that sh*t down!
If I die in police custody, avenge my death!
By any means necessary!
If I die in police custody, burn everything down!
No building is worth more than my life!
And that’s the only way motherf***ers like you listen!
If I die in police custody, make sure I’m the last person to die in police custody.
By any means necessary!
If I die in police custody, do not hold a moment of silence for me!
Rise the f*** up!
Because your silence is killing us!
“Burn everything down!” is a slogan that mimic’s Marx’s claim that “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” The nihilistic racism of the Black Lives Matter message is based on a demonstrably false premise – that police have declared open season on black men. The premise is false not only because America’s police forces have long been racially integrated. But as black talk show host Larry Elder and many conservative writers have observed, the proportion of blacks killed by police is directly related to the number of violent crimes committed by black males and thus likely proportional to the number of blacks involved in violent encounters with the law.
Despite being almost 65 percent of the population, whites commit disproportionately fewer of the nation’s violent crimes – 10 percent – and therefore are less likely to have encounters with police. Blacks are only 13 percent of the population, and black males, who commit the lion’s share of the violent crimes only 6 percent. Yet Black males account for nearly half the nation’s homicides.
Despite this disparity, whites are still 50 percent of the victims of cop shootings. Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of people killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were Black. In other words, if the statistics are adjusted for the homicide rate (as opposed to population numbers) whites [pursued by police] are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” And even this statistic doesn’t factor in the number of blacks killed not by white law enforcement officers but by black and minority ones.
Despite Black Lives Matter’s racist agendas, incitements to violence against police, and disregard for the facts, President Obama invited its leaders to the White House in February 2015 at the height of their protests, riots and incitements. When the Black Lives Matters leaders arrived in the White House, Obama put his arms around them figuratively. and pandered to them saying, “They are much better organizers than I was when I was at their age, and I am confident that they are going to take America to new heights.” Think about that statement for a moment.
In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement and its false narratives: “[T]he DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming black lives matter and the ‘say her name’ efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.” This shameful resolution went on to claim that the American Dream “is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy,” and to demand the “demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities;” and asserted that “without systemic reform this state of [black] unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation.”
The following month Black Lives Matter activists Brittany Packnett, DeRay McKesson, Johnetta Elzie, Phillip Agnew, and Jamye Wooten were invited to the White House to meet again with President Obama as well as senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and other administration officials. For Packnett, it was her seventh visit to the Obama White House. Afterward, Packnett told reporters that the president personally supported the Black Lives Matter movement. “He offered us a lot of encouragement with his background as a community organizer, and told us that even incremental changes were progress,” she stated. ““He didn’t want us to get discouraged. He said, ‘Keep speaking truth to power.’” Evidently it was the police forces in Dallas, Chicago, Baltimore and other cities, headed by blacks and under siege from the left, that was the “power” needing to be confronted.
In October, Obama made a public announcement in support of Black Lives Matter, saying: “I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”
The president’s support for a racist and violent vigilante group, his validation of its false version of reality and hostile attitude towards law enforcement, led predictably to more criminal violence. On July 7, 2016, Black Lives Matter activists staged rallies in numerous cities across the United States, to protest the recent shootings of two African American men by police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. As was their practice, the demonstrators illegally occupied public thoroughfares and threatened violence chanting “No justice, no peace,” – a transparent threat to create mayhem if their demands were not satisfied. The Minnesota shooting by a Hispanic policeman was triggered by panic and should have been prosecuted as manslaughter; the other was the justifiable killing of a career criminal who was reaching for the officer’s gun. But like the lynch mobs they despised, Black Live Matters protesters were not interested in seeking remedies through the law. They had persuaded themselves there was no such remedy, and had been encouraged by the American president to take the battle to the enemy camp, which consisted of America’s integrated law enforcement agencies.
The result was, inevitably, tragedy. At a rally in Dallas, Texas, demonstrators shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” During the demonstration, a black racist army veteran, named Micah Johnson, assassinated five police officers trying to protect the protesters, and wounded 9 others. Dallas police chief David Brown, who is black, explained: “The suspect wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
The anger generated by the lies of Black Lives Matter reached such a fever point in the wake of the Dallas massacre that, to justify the atrocity one Black Lives Matter activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: “The less white babies on this planet, the less of you we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill ’em all right now! Kill ’em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!”
In the face of this racist hatred, the Obama White House stepped forward to provide still more support for the movement that had provided the tinder and lit the fuse. At the funeral for the slain Dallas policemen, the president lectured the surviving officers rather than the rioters, schooling them and the grieving family members about the racism of America’s police departments: “We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow; they didn’t simply vanish with the law against segregation … we know that bias remains.”
Exactly whose bias? White Americans played a large and historic role in the civil rights struggles that ended segregation, and established the Civil Rights Acts. There is no evidence that the shooter, Micah Johnson was harassed by, or suffered at the hands of white people. But there was evidence that he was influenced by Black Lives Matter and similar organizations at war with the police. And he was deeply affected by the series of false, racist narratives promulgated by these organizations and their allies in the press about the police shootings that had occurred over the previous two years.
The police were also profoundly affected by officer shootings and, even more so, officer assassinations, anti-cop demonstrations, riots, and threats. According to a Pew Foundation study published in 2017, “More than three-quarters of U.S. law enforcement officers say they are reluctant to use force when necessary, and nearly as many — 72% — say they or their colleagues are more reluctant to stop and question people who seem suspicious as a result of increased scrutiny of police, …” This attitude on the part of police in areas which had become the focus of the protest-assaults – Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas, Chicago – was accompanied by a dramatic spike in homicides with the perpetrators and victims being overwhelmingly black. As former Baltimore cop and now university criminologist Peter Moskos commented: “Murders and shooting increased literally overnight, and dramatically so. Of course, this took the police-are-the-problem crowd by surprise. By their calculations, police doing less, particularly in black neighborhoods, would result in less harm to blacks. And indeed, arrests went way down. So did stops. So did complaints against policing. Even police-involved shootings are down. Everything is down! Shame about the murders and robberies, though.”
The entire syndrome of police withdrawal leading to spikes in crime rates was termed “The Ferguson Effect” after the city that was looted and burned following the shooting of Michael Brown, and the creation of the myth that he was killed with his hands up. It summed up the unintended – but not surprising – consequences of having an extremist organization like Black Lives Matter take over the nation’s streets, and – with the help of an American president – shape the national narrative on race.
The power of Black Lives Matter stemmed from its exploitation of the ideology of oppression – Identity Politics – a ready-made indictment looking for a crime. Black Lives Matter was at the center of a very large network, including hundreds of leftist organizations sharing the same vision. Among them: The Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Dream Defenders, Hands Up United, Black Left Unity Network, Black Workers for Justice, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Right to the City Alliance, School of Unity and Liberation, Dignity and Power Now, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Causa Justa/Just Cause, Organization for Black Struggle, Communist Party USA, Showing Up for Racial Justice, and others.
Many of these organizations are funded by America’s largest corporations and philanthropies, including the Ben & Jerry Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Margaret Casey Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute.
In the summer of 2016, the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund, a six-year pooled donor campaign whose goal was to raise $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition. This coalition embodies the extremist views and agendas of the Black Lives Matter radicals. In the official words of the Ford Foundation: “The Movement for Black Lives has forged a new national conversation about the intractable legacy of racism, state violence, and state neglect of black communities in the United States.” (Emphasis added) According to Borealis, “The Black Led Movement Fund provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working to advance the leadership and vision of young, black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”
In a joint statement, Ford and Borealis said that their Fund would “complement the important work” of charities including the Hill-Snowden Foundation, Solidaire, the NoVo Foundation, the Association of Black Foundation Executives, the Neighborhood Funders Group, anonymous donors, and others. In addition to raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives, the Black-Led Movement Fund planned to collaborate with Benedict Consulting on “the organizational capacity building needs of a rapidly growing movement.”
The fact that Black Lives Matter was now a major national movement funded by America’s establishment elites did not prompt its communist founders to reconsider their political infatuation with totalitarians or their anti-American agendas. When Cuba’s sadistic dictator Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, the Black Lives Matter leadership published an article titled, “Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante.” It began, “We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.”
The eulogy then turned to Black Lives Matters’ own icon, cop-killer Assata Shakur, who fled to Cuba to avoid paying for her crime: “As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, [cop-killers and airplane hijackers-DH], asylum to [Black Panther leader, rapist and murderer] Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.”
The eulogy expressed gratitude to Castro for “attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters.” This was another Black Lives Matter lie obvious to anyone who watched the rescue efforts on TV, where virtually all the rescuers were white and all the rescued black. Responsibility for the failure to evacuate residents rested squarely on the Democrat mayor of New Orleans who was black and was eventually sent to prison for his crimes. The eulogy lauded a dictator who put AIDS sufferers, many of whom were black, in concentration camps for having “provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish.” In a religious language suited to their adoration, the tribute closed by saying: “As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!”
As delusional and repellent as these sentiments should be to any American, and as troubling coming from an organization endorsed by the Democrat Party and supported by American philanthropy and the Obama White House, they are matched if not exceeded by Black Lives Matter’s endorsement and embrace of Islamic terrorists who have sworn the destruction of Jews, Christians and the United States. In January 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors joined representatives from Dream Defenders on a 10-day trip to the Palestinian Territories in the West Bank. Their objective was to publicly draw a parallel between what they portrayed as Israeli oppression of Palestinians and police violence against blacks in the United States. The following August, Cullors was one of more than 1,000 black activists, artists, scholars, politicians, students, and “political prisoners,” to sign a statement of alliance with the Hamas terrorists who ruled the Gaza strip.
Proclaiming their “solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people,” the Black Lives Matter group demanded an end to Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestine,” condemned “Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and chokehold on the West Bank,” and urged the U.S. government to end all aid to Israel. They also exhorted black institutions to support the terrorist-sponsored Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions movement designed to strangle the Jewish state. On their return to the states, the repulsive call for liberation “From Ferguson to Palestine” quickly became a slogan of the movement.
Black Lives Matter had in fact achieved a kind of transformation, although it was more the climax of a trend that had begun with the death of Martin Luther King, than something original. President Obama had touched on it in his attempts to conflate what he called the “messy” aspects of the Black Lives Matter “protests” with what he regarded as similar rough edges he detected in the civil rights and suffragette movements of the past. But those movements and their leaders were clearly part of the American tradition and their allegiances and beliefs could be traced back to the Founders who had created a Republic based on democracy and individual rights. By contrast, Black Lives Matter leaders identified with alien, totalitarian forces, with Islamic imperialists and terrorists who were conducting a 70-year genocidal aggression against the Jewish state. They had joined declared enemies of the United States and its democratic ally. This was a foretaste of the insurrection they are now leading, setting fire to the country that made them the freest, richest and most privileged black community in the world.
 For an extensive analysis of these events see Heather MacDonald, The War Against Cops, 2017
 For details on the organization and its founders, see www.discoverthenetworks.org
 For other examples, cf. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/
 https://www.wnd.com/2016/07/the-truth-about-cops-killing-blacks/#LWc1WAI0IYWi4UVq.99. Cf. also MacDonald, The War On Cops, Chapter 13 “Black and Unarmed,” for a further breakdown of the statistics.
Carlson, Ship of Fools, op. cit., loc 2005
 Carlson, op. cit. Cf also Heather MacDonald, The War on Cops, on the support for Black Lives Matter in the mainstream media.
 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/11/ferguson-effect-study-72-us-cops-reluctant-make-stops/96446504/
 Cf. www.discoverthenetworks.org, op. cit.
 Nat Hentoff, “The Revolutionary as Sadist,” Village Voice. Hentoff was a well-known libertarian leftist.
http://www.blackforpalestine.com/read-the-statement.html; http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/black-activists-endorse-bds-movement.html; https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/My-word-BDSs-binding-ties-with-terrorists-580068
Hillary Without Bill
What would her life have been like if she’d gone it alone?
Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
In his 1976 novel The Alteration, Kingsley Amis imagined a contemporary Britain in which the Protestant Reformation never took place. In The Plot against America (2004), Philip Roth imagined a 1940s America in which Charles Lindbergh beats FDR in the 1940 election and signs peace treaties with Germany and Japan. In her new novel, Rodham, Curtis Sittenfeld imagines an equally portentous alternate world: one in which Hillary Rodham never married Bill Clinton – and ended up being elected president in 2016.
Well, it’s not quite correct to say that Sittenfeld imagines it. There’s not really much in the way of imagination in this stunningly vapid, pedestrian piece of work, which plods from incident to incident without a single vivid detail or snappy exchange of dialogue or hint of wit. It’s so flatfooted, so thoroughly uninspired, that one assumes, in the early pages, that Sittenfeld – who is a woman – banged it out prontissimo, Joyce Carol Oates-style, with the cynical objective of cashing in on all the poor hapless women who were so devastated by Hillary’s loss that they’d presumably be desperate to escape into an alternate universe in which Hillary won. But as one reads on, one acquires the distinct, and horrifying, impression that Sittenfeld’s heart is actually in this leaden, lifeless thing, and that escaping into her own sketchily depicted parallel universe is Sittenfeld’s way of consoling herself.
The premise here is simple: If only Hillary had ditched Bill back in Little Rock, she could’ve taken a different route to the 2016 elections – and won! Forget the critics who say that Hillary’s only real credential for being president – and, before that, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State – was her wedding ring. Sittenfeld’s novel implicitly argues the opposite: that Bill has, all along, been an ethical and professional liability to Hillary; that on her own she’d have been able to be truer to her extraordinarily high moral values, and could have followed an independent path that led to a long-term senatorial career earned entirely on her own merits and, ultimately, to the White House.
Until reading Rodham, I’d never heard of Sittenfeld before. It turns out, however, that she’s published five previous novels with Random House, including American Wife, based loosely on the life of Laura Bush, and Eligible: A Modern Retelling of Pride and Prejudice. No, I haven’t so much as looked at these books, but the fact that they sound like the worst kind of hacky “women’s fiction” doesn’t mean that they aren’t masterpieces. In fact, Sittenfeld has made the bestseller list, been translated into a couple of dozen languages, and garnered glowing reviews featuring such words as “masterful,” “brilliant,” and “poignant.” How is it, then, that such a highly praised writer has produced a book that reads, in large part, like a rough draft of a Harlequin romance? Here, for instance, are our two Yale Law School geniuses confessing their feelings to each other:
“I love you, Hillary,” he said. “I’m in love with you, and I love you. I can’t believe that you exist.”
“That I exist? You’re the Arkansas Renaissance man and future president.” I looked at him more seriously. “I’m in love with you, Bill, and I love you, too.”
Here’s Hill opening up to Bill about her insecurities:
“…No one like you has ever been interested in me. You’re so much handsomer and more appealing. And I realize I’m not beautiful, and I realize you could easily find someone who is. It doesn’t make sense that someone like you wants to be the boyfriend of someone like me.”
Some time later, here’s Bill reassuring her of his love:
A silence arose between us, filled with the hum of the campus, which was, like that of Wellesley, absurdly beautiful: A nearby dogwood tree filled the air with a sweet spring scent. Bill’s voice was serious when he spoke again. He said, “I really don’t think you understand. All this time, I needed you. I needed you, and I was looking for you, and now I never want to let you go.”
And, still later, after she’s caught him in a sexual indiscretion, there’s this:
….he dropped to his knees. He looked up at me, took both my hands, and said, “The flesh is weak. Lord knows how weak my flesh has been. But, Hillary, my spirit is yours. My soul and my spirit and my heart—they’ll always be yours, no matter what.”
So much for the soap opera. At other moments I thought I was reading Fifty Shades of Gray. For those of you who’ve always wanted to picture Hillary and Bill having sex – well, your ship has finally come in. As for the rest of you, good luck getting these images out of your head:
And then I could feel the nudging of Bill’s erection, it was probably going to happen, then it was definitely going to happen, he was entering me, and I gasped—I gasped both because it felt so incredibly good and because I couldn’t believe I was naked with this man….
…when he was thrusting into me, I had such a strong sense of wanting him to come inside me….When Bill was inside me, sometimes I was mindless with how good it felt, and sometimes I was aware, with a kind of granular precision, of the unlikely sequence of events that had made our lives intersect….
Granular precision? Oh well, never mind. Here’s more:
His body in my arms, pressed against me, was shocking. Looking into his eyes was shocking. That we were literally fused, that his erection was inside me and my legs were wrapped around him, hooked through the backs of his knees—all of this was shocking. It was shocking that we’d found each other and it was shocking how natural yet thrilling having conversations with him was and it was shocking that we were naked, even though we’d never spoken until a few weeks earlier. Falling in love was shocking, shocking, utterly shocking.
The key word, if you missed it, is “shocking.”
After Bill exits Hillary’s life, there’s no more throbbing and pulsating, although decades later we hear about Hillary’s “first postmenopause sex” (“I was delighted to discover I still had the knack, as long as there was lubricant nearby”) and her “ritual predebate diarrhea.”
A word about Sittenfeld’s prose. Workmanlike at best, at worst it’s just plain dreadful. Here’s Hillary on Bill: “What was unfolding between us felt continuously replenishable, regenerative.” Hillary on Anita Hill: “In the sense that Clarence Thomas was confirmed, she didn’t prevail.” Hillary contemplating a 2012 presidential race: “At that point, I would be sixty-four years old, and, assuming my own senatorial reelections, I’d have held office for twenty years.” And here’s Hillary on the presidential campaign trail, wondering if she’s slipped up while chatting with journalists: “Had I pronounced the Cuban names displeasingly to them?”
Don’t look to Rodham for verisimilitude. At no point does anything in this book feel authentic. Sittenfeld sets scenes in law schools and on election campaigns, but doesn’t come close to capturing the atmosphere of either. Her supporting cast contains several smart women who feel disappointed because they settled for marriage rather than pursuing careers; but they’re all interchangeable cardboard cutouts. (Michelle Obama doesn’t actually appear, but Hillary mentions her in passing: “like everyone else, I thought she was terrific.”)
Meanwhile the book’s heterosexual men, real or fictional, are all jerks, fools, bullies, weaklings, sleazebags, and/or sexual predators. Among them is Donald Trump, who, in Sittenfeld’s only attempt at humor, is portrayed as (of course) a clown. Clarence Thomas isn’t a character, but Sittenfeld manages to smear him anyway (and in a particularly shabby way). She even allows one of her characters to get in a dig at Obama: “Those of us from Chicago know Barack isn’t as pure as we all pretend.” Throughout, we’re invited to agree with a gay male aide of Hillary’s who says: “Men are such assholes.” The one exception to this rule in the whole book is the rich, doting, and utterly one-dimensional lapdog with whom President Rodham finally finds happiness.
Anyway, back to Sittenfeld’s story (the word “plot” doesn’t apply here). In 1992, Hillary is elected to the Senate from Illinois and Bill loses the race for President. He leaves politics, becomes a tech billionaire in Silicon Valley, and decides to make another try for the White House in 2016 – only to find himself up against Hillary, who also tosses her hat in the ring. As this conflict takes shape, the reader, who’s been slogging through this mind-numbing morass for over 200 pages, thinks: Aha! Finally the big showdown. Yippee! So this is what Sittenfeld has been preparing us for. The potential for drama increases when Hillary finds out that Bill has been taking part in drug-fueled orgies and that a woman whom he raped decades ago is prepared to talk.
But guess what? Nothing happens. Nada! Just when we’re expecting the big dramatic climax, Hillary informs us, suddenly, bluntly, that she won the Democratic nomination and general election; and next thing you know she’s winding things up, telling us how content she is with her life as commander-in-chief and how proud she is “of the legislation my administration has gotten passed without Republican support: reversing the Hyde Amendment to allow poor women access to abortions through Medicaid; creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants; exceeding the climate-change commitments in the Paris Agreement; and requiring background checks on all gun sales.”
We’re plainly meant to melt into tears at the thought of what we missed by not getting a President Hillary. For my part, I sat there stunned at this staggeringly lame excuse for a payoff. What kind of fiction writing is this? You’d never know that Sittenfeld had ever read a novel, let alone written several of them to widespread acclaim.
But hey, that’s just me. If your heart was broken when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, and the pain hasn’t healed even after multiple readings of her various memoirs and binge viewings of the four-part Netflix documentary Hillary, here’s the book for you. Pour yourself a glass of chardonnay and enjoy.
Islam in Focus: Raymond Ibrahim Discusses Constantinople’s 1453 Fall
Shillman Fellow reflects on the infamous events of May 29.
On May 29, the anniversary of the Islamic conquest of Constantinople, Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, was interviewed on Global Patriot Radio about that event’s significance. The hour-long interview can be listened to here.
For Ibrahim’s May 29 article summarizing the Fall of Constantinople, see below:
Today in History: The Sword of Islam Conquers Ancient Christian Capital.
Today in history, on May 29, 1453, the sword of Islam conquered Constantinople. Of all Islam’s conquests of Christian territory, this was by far the most symbolically significant. For not only was Constantinople a living and direct extension of the old Roman Empire and current capital of the Christian Roman Empire (or Byzantium), but its cyclopean walls had prevented Islam from entering Europe through its eastern doorway for the previous seven centuries, beginning with the First Arab Siege of Constantinople (674-678). Indeed, as Byzantine historian John Julius Norwich puts it, “Had the Saracens captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe—and America—might be Muslim today.”
When Muslim forces failed again in the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople (717-718), conquering the ancient Christian capital became something of an obsession for a succession of caliphates and sultanates. However, it was only with the rise of the Ottoman sultanate—so named after its eponymous Turkic founder, Osman (b.1258)—that conquering the city, which was arguably better fortified than any other in the world, became a possibility, not least in thanks to the concomitant spread of gunpowder and cannons from China to Eurasia. By 1400, his descendants had managed to invade and conquer a significant portion of the southern Balkans—thereby isolating and essentially turning Constantinople into a Christian island in an Islamic sea.
Enter Sultan Mehmet, or Muhammad II (r. 1451-1481)—“the mortal enemy of the Christians,” to quote a contemporary prelate. (Note: “Mehmet” is simply an English transliteration of the Turkish pronunciation of “Muhammad.”) On becoming sultan in 1451, Constantinople sent a diplomatic embassy to congratulate him; the 19-year-old responded by telling them what they sought to hear. He “swore by the god of their false prophet, by the prophet whose name he bore,” a bitter Christian contemporary retrospectively wrote, that “he was their friend, and would remain for the whole of his life a friend and ally of the City and its ruler Constantine [XI].” Although they believed him, Muhammad was taking advantage of “the basest arts of dissimulation and deceit,” wrote Edward Gibbon. “Peace was on his lips while war was in his heart.”
What was in his heart soon became apparent. Throughout the spring of 1453 the city watched helplessly as Ottoman battalion after battalion made its way to and surrounded Constantinople by land and sea. One contemporary remarked that Muhammad’s “army seemed as numberless as grains of sand, spread . . . across the land from shore to shore.” In the end, some one hundred thousand fighters and one hundred warships came.
Few Western Europeans came to Constantinople’s aid. In the end, less than seven thousand fighters, two thousand of whom were foreigners, made ready to protect fifteen miles of walls, while only twenty-six Christian ships patrolled the harbor.
Muhammad commenced bombardment on April 6. Although he tried to go over, through, and under the walls, he made little headway. Some six weeks after he had started bombarding Constantinople, he was no nearer his goal. At his wit’s end, the sultan held council with his senior officers. Although there was some discussion of withdrawing, in the end, Muhammad decided on vomiting forth every last man he had against the walls in one last-ditch effort.
But first he would need to inflame his men.
So he assembled and exhorted them: “As it happens in all battles, some of you will die, as it is decreed by fate for each man,” he began. “Recall the promises of our Prophet concerning fallen warriors in the Koran: the man who dies in combat shall be transported bodily to Paradise and shall dine with Mohammed in the presence of women, handsome boys, and virgins.”
Even so, Sultan Muhammad knew that rewards in the now were always preferable to promises in the hereafter. As Sheikh Akshemsettin had earlier told him, “You well know, that most of the soldiers [particularly the dreaded Janissaries] have in any case been converted [to Islam] by force. The number of those who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the love of Allah is extremely small. On the other hand, if they glimpse the possibility of winning booty they will run towards certain death.”
So the “Sultan swore … that his warriors would be granted the right to sack everything, to take everyone, male or female, and all property or treasure which was in the city; and that under no circumstances would he break his oath,” wrote a Catholic prelate who was present. “He asked nothing for himself, except the buildings and walls of the city; all the rest, the booty and the captives, would be theirs.”
Any Muslim still uninspired by the boons of the here or hereafter was left with a final thought: “[I]f I see any man lurking in the tents and not fighting at the wall,” warned the sultan, “he will not be able to escape a lingering death,” a reference to Muhammad’s favorite form of punishment, impalement (which Vlad the Impaler—“Dracula”—was introduced to while a “ward” in the sultan’s court). Muhammad’s “announcement was received with great joy,” and from thousands of throats came waves of thundering cries of “Allahu Akbar!” and “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet!”
“Oh! If you had heard their voices raised to heaven,” wondered a Christian behind the wall, “you would have been struck dumb with amazement… We … were amazed at such religious fervor, and begged God with copious tears to be well disposed towards us.” All this “most terrible shouting,” echoed another eyewitness, “was heard as far as the coast of Anatolia twelve miles away, and we Christians were very fearful.”
The all-out assault was set for May 29. Atonement, ablutions, prayers, and fasting, “under penalty of death,” were ordered for the Ottoman camp the previous day. Fanatics of all sorts were set loose to inspire the men to jihad. Wandering “dervishes visited the tents, to instill the desire of martyrdom, and the assurance of spending an immortal youth amidst the rivers and gardens of paradise, and in the embraces of the black-eyed virgins [the fabled houris],” writes one modern historian. Criers swept throughout the camp to horn blasts:
Children of Muhammad, be of good heart, for tomorrow we shall have so many Christians in our hands that we will sell them, two slaves for a ducat, and will have such riches that we will all be of gold, and from the beards of the Greeks we will make leads for our dogs, and their families will be our slaves. So be of good heart and be ready to die cheerfully for the love of our [past and present] Muhammad.
Finally, on May 29, around two a.m., Muhammad unleashed all hell against Constantinople: to blasting sounds of trumpets, cymbals, and Islamic war-cries, cannon fire lit the horizon as ball after ball came careening into the wall. Adding to the pandemonium rang church bells and alarms. After the initial wave of cannon fire, the sultan implemented his strategy: “to engage successively and without halt one body of fresh troops after the other,” he had told his generals, “until harassed and worn out the enemy will be unable further to resist.”
On and on, wave after wave, the hordes came, all desirous of booty or paradise—or merely of evading impalement. With ladders and hooks, they fought, clawed, and clambered onto the wall. “Who could narrate the voices, the cries of the wounded, and the lamentation that arose on both sides?” recollected an eyewitness. “The shouts and din went beyond the boundaries of heaven.”
After two hours of this, thousands of the Ottomans’ most expendable raiders lay dead beneath the wall. Having served their purpose of wearying the defenders down, Muhammad—now mounted near the wall and directing traffic with a mace in his hand—ordered another wave of fresh Anatolian Turks to crash against the wall. They built and clawed atop human pyramids of their own dead and wounded, all while cannon balls careened and crashed— to no avail. Having the high ground, the Christians slew countless. “One could only marvel at the brutes,” conceded a defender. “Their army was being annihilated, and yet they dared to approach the fosse again and again.”
By four a.m. nonstop cannon fire had made several breaches, which the Ottomans’ elite shock troops, the Janissaries—composed of abducted Christian boys indoctrinated in jihad—charged, even as their former coreligionists held firm. An eyewitness offers a snapshot:
[The defenders] fought bravely with lances, axes, pikes, javelins, and other weapons of offense. It was a hand-to-hand encounter, and they stopped the attackers and prevented them from getting inside the palisade. There was much shouting on both sides—the mingled sounds of blasphemy, insults, threats, attackers, defenders, shooters, those shot at, killers and dying, of those who in anger and wrath did all sorts of terrible things. And it was a sight to see there: a hard fight going on hand-to-hand with great determination and for the greatest rewards, heroes fighting valiantly, the one party [Ottomans] struggling with all their might to force back the defenders, get possession of the wall, enter the city, and fall upon the children and women and the treasures, the other party bravely agonizing to drive them off and guard their possessions, even if they were not to succeed in prevailing and in keeping them.
A small detachment of Turks entered the city through a minor doorway which the defenders had left open during the chaos. They quickly planted the Islamic flag, causing consternation among the defenders.
Playing on their worst fears, the sultan cried aloud, “The city is ours!” and ordered his best Janissaries to charge. One Hassan—“a giant of a beast”—slew all before him and inspired other Turks to press in behind him. When a well-aimed stone took him down, he continued swinging his scimitar on one knee until riddled and “overwhelmed by arrows” he was welcomed into paradise by the houris. “By then, the whole host of the enemy were on our walls and our forces were put to flight.” Thousands of invaders flooded in and slaughtered the outnumbered defenders; others were trampled underfoot and “crushed to death” by the press of men.
Crying, “The City is lost, but I live,” Emperor Constantine XI stripped and flung off his royal regalia and “spurred on his horse and reached the spot where the Turks were coming in large numbers.” With his steed he “knocked the impious from the walls” and with “his drawn sword in his right hand, he killed many opponents, while blood was streaming from his legs and arms.” Inspired by their lord, men shouting “Better to die!” rushed into and were consumed by the oncoming throng. “The Emperor was caught up among these, fell and rose again, then fell once more.”
Thus “he died by the gate with many of his men, like any commoner, after having reigned for three years and three months,” wrote a chronicler. And on that May 29, 1453, the 2,206-year-old Roman state died with him, and “the saying,” observed another contemporary, “was fulfilled: ‘It started with Constantine [the Great, who founded Constantinople in 325] and it ended with Constantine [XI].’”
Note: The above account is excerpted from the author’s book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. Unless noted otherwise, all quotes come from contemporary eyewitnesses and primary sources documented therein.
”Με το ένστικτο της εθνικής μας επιβίωσης κανένας δεν θα παίξει”!
“Ατσαλώστε την ψυχή σας και την καρδιά σας, κλείστε μέσα σας την Ελλάδα και να είστε σίγουροι ότι κανείς δεν μπορεί να μας αγγίξει χωρίς βαρύτατο κόστος…Είναι τώρα η σειρά μας, η βάρδια μας στις πολεμίστρες, στις πολεμίστρες της ξηράς, της θάλασσας και του αέρα”.
”Είμαστε απόγονοι ευκλεών και γενναίων πολεμιστών. Η λαμπρή μας ηρωική παράδοση, θα πρέπει να συνεχιστεί. Ιδιαίτερα αυτήν την εποχή, που τα σύννεφα στη γειτονιά μας ολοένα πυκνώνουν και η γεωπολιτική σκακιέρα έχει πάρει φωτιά, πορευόμαστε με ασυναγώνιστη βούληση, εμπνεόμενοι από το παράδειγμά τους και την ύστατη θυσία των ηρώων μας, έτοιμοι να συντρίψουμε οποιονδήποτε επιβουλέα που θα κάνει το μοιραίο λάθος να μας υποτιμήσει”!..
Και για το σύνηθες ΑΠΑΡΑΙΤΗΤΟ, όπως και ΑΝΑΓΚΑΙΟ… “ξελαμπικάζ”, δείτε από κάτω!