Οι Έλληνες Ως Αδαή Θύματα Των Διεθνών Νταβάδων Εκτύπωση
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 29 Μάιος 2021 20:04

Requiem For A Dream – Trailer






The Life Of A Nigerian Prostitute -






Οι Έλληνες Ως Αδαή Θύματα Των Διεθνών Νταβάδων


Το λαθρεμπόριο ανθρώπων αποτελεί την δεύτερη πιο κερδοφόρα εγκληματική δραστηριότητα.

Το λαθρεμπόριο ανθρώπων, από αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων, βασίζεται στην ύπουλη δηλητηρίαση του υποψήφιου θύματος με ναρκωτικά.

Μακρά είναι η παράδοση των αποικιοκρατικών χωρών (U2RIT), στην παράνομη προώθηση των εμπορικών τους συμφερόντων (εποικιστική-αποικιοκρατία), να κάνουν χρήση, των ενόπλων δυνάμεών τους, βιολογικών/χημικών πολέμων, και ναρκωτικών. Και δεν διστάζουν να καταστρέψουν (βασανιστήρια, ευνουχισμοί, εκτυφλώσεις, δολοφονίες, κ.λπ.) το οποιονδήποτε, παραδείγματος χάριν από έναν διάσημο ζωγράφο μέχρι έναν καθηγητή μαθηματικών, κ.λπ., θα τολμούσε να αντισταθεί στις γενοκτονικές πολιτικές που διαπράττουν εναντίον των ιθαγενών Ελλήνων.

Τους Έλληνες μαστούρωσαν, ύπουλα με φθόριο, υδράργυρο, ψυχοφάρμακα και ναρκωτικά, οι αποικιοκράτες ωσάν, οι Έλληνες, να ήταν ακούσια υποψήφιες ιερόδουλες, κάπου, στην υποσαχάρια Αφρική, προκειμένου αυτοί να μην αντιδράσουν στην διαπραττόμενη υπεξαίρεση, της γης τους, του πλούτου τους, των παιδιών τους, και του μέλλοντός τους.

Για τον σημερινό Ελλαδίτη Έλληνα, η ενημέρωσή του, π.χ. για τον βασανισμό αθώων συμπατριωτών του με τηλεχειριζόμενα αναισθητικά ηλεκτρονικά εμφυτεύματα, μεταξύ αυτών και ο υποφαινόμενος, επιφέρει την ίδια αντίδραση με την ενημέρωσή του ότι, π.χ. χθες έβρεξε στην Κολοπετινίτσα (Τριταία).

Είναι, άραγε, αιτιακά μη-συναρτώμενο το γεγονός ότι, η σημερινή πλειοψηφία Ελλήνων-θυμάτων των διεθνών σωματεμπόρων, κατά τα προηγούμενα 44 χρόνια, και γνώριζε, και αδιαφορούσε για τις θηριωδίες των ίδιων νταβάδων, τις οποίες αυτοί διέπρατταν εναντίον μιας μειοψηφίας ιθαγενών Ελλήνων, εμού συμπεριλαμβανομένου; Δηλαδή, “έχει ο καιρός γυρίσματα”; Και τελικώς, “κοιμάται ο καθείς όπως ο ίδιος στρώσει”;

Υπάρχουν, σήμερα, ιθαγενείς Έλληνες οι οποίοι επιθυμούν, να ζήσει (δηλαδή να αποφύγουν την πολύ πρόωρη θανάτωση λόγω εποικιστικής-αποικιοκρατίας) η οικογένειά τους, και οι ίδιοι;

Αν υπάρχουν, τότε, παρακαλώ οι ίδιοι να με ενημερώσουν, με ποιον τρόπο θα πραγματοποιήσουν αυτή την επιθυμία τους.


Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης



Υ.Γ.: Ιστορικά, έχει αποδειχθεί ότι, οι αποικιοκράτες χρησιμοποιούν όσο θέλουν, τα αναλώσιμα ενεργουμενά τους, και μετά, τα εξοντώνουν. Συνεπώς, ούτε οι προδότες επιβιώνουν της αποικιοκρατίας.





I kicked her rear end until my leg cramped. Through it all she just moaned and sobbed. I was soaked in sweat. Panting, I lay on the bear-skin beside her. I thrust my mouth against her ear. In an icy whisper I said, “Bitch, do I have to kill you to make you my whore? Get up and give me that scratch.”

“I told you once, do I have to tell you a thousand times? Greenass Nigger, to be a good pimp, you gotta be icy, cold like the inside of a dead-whore’s pussy. Now if you a bitch, a sissy, or something let me know. I’ll put you in drag and you can whore for me. Stay outta my face Nigger, until you freeze up and stop that sucker grinning.”



American Settler Colonialism 101

By Dina Gilio-Whitaker

The term "colonialism" is possibly one of the most confusing, if not contested, concepts in American history and international relations theory. Most Americans would likely be hard-pressed to define it beyond the "colonial period" of U.S. history when early European immigrants established their colonies in the New World. The assumption is that since the founding of the United States everybody who is born within the national boundaries is considered American citizens with equal rights, whether or not they consent to such citizenship.

In this regard, the United States is normalized as the dominant power to which all its citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, are subject. Although a democracy is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in theory, the nation's actual history of imperialism betrays its democratic principles. This is the history of American colonialism.

Two Kinds of Colonialism

Colonialism as a concept has its roots in European expansionism and the founding of the so-called New World. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and other European powers established colonies in new places they "discovered" from which to facilitate trade and extract resources, in what can be thought of as the earliest stages of what we now call globalization. The mother country (known as the metropole) would come to dominate Indigenous populations through their colonial governments, even when the Indigenous population remained in the majority for the duration of colonial control.

The most obvious examples are in Africa, such as the Dutch control over South Africa and French control over Algeria, and in Asia and the Pacific Rim, such as British control over India and Fiji and French domination over Tahiti.

Beginning in the 1940s the world saw a wave of decolonization in many of Europe's colonies as Indigenous populations fought wars of resistance against colonial domination. Mahatma Gandhi would come to be recognized as one of the world's greatest heroes for leading India's fight against the British. Likewise, Nelson Mandela is today celebrated as a freedom fighter for South Africa, where he was once considered a terrorist. In these instances European governments were forced to pack up and go home, relinquishing control to the indigenous population.

But there were some places where colonial invasion decimated Indigenous populations through foreign disease and military domination to the point where if the Indigenous population survived at all, it became the minority while the settler population became the majority. The best examples of this are in North and South America, the Caribbean islands, New Zealand, Australia, and even Israel. In these cases, scholars have recently applied the term "settler colonialism."

Settler Colonialism Defined

Settler colonialism has best been defined as more of an imposed structure than a historical event. This structure is characterized by relationships of domination and subjugation that become woven throughout the fabric of society and even becomes disguised as paternalistic benevolence. The objective of settler colonialism is always the acquisition of Indigenous territories and resources, which means the Indigenous inhabitants must be eliminated. This can be accomplished in overt ways including biological warfare and military domination but also in more subtle ways; for example, through national policies of assimilation.

As scholar Patrick Wolfe has argued, the logic of settler colonialism is that it destroys in order to replace. Assimilation involves the systematic stripping away of Indigenous culture and replacing it with that of the dominant culture. One of the ways it does this in the United States is through racialization. Racialization is the process of measuring Indigenous ethnicity in terms of blood degree; when Indigenous people intermarry with non-Indigenous people they are said to lower their Indigenous blood quantum. According to this logic, when enough intermarriage has occurred there will be no more natives within a given lineage. It does not take into account personal identity based on cultural affiliation or other markers of cultural competence or involvement.

Other ways the United States carried out its assimilation policy included the allotment of Indigenous lands, forced enrolment in Indigenous boarding schools, termination and relocation programs, the bestowal of American citizenship, and Christianization.

Narratives of Benevolence

It can be said that a narrative based on the benevolence of the nation guides policy decisions once domination has been established in the settler colonial state. This is evident in many of the legal doctrines at the foundation of federal Indigenous law in the U.S.

Primary among those doctrines is the doctrine of Christian discovery. The doctrine of discovery (a good example of benevolent paternalism) was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), in which he opined that Indigenous peoples had no right to title on their own lands in part because the new European immigrants "bestow[ed] on them civilization and Christianity." Likewise, the trust doctrine presumes that the U.S., as the trustee over Indigenous lands and resources, will always act with the best interests of Indigenous peoples in mind.

Two centuries of massive Indigenous land expropriations by the U.S. and other abuses, however, betrays this idea.



The CIA and Chile: Anatomy of an Assassination

Chile Marks 50th Anniversary of Assassination of Chilean Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider

'60 Minutes' Posts Dramatic Exposé on Henry Kissinger’s Role and Schneider Family Lawsuit

Schneider’s Murder: “a stain on the pages of contemporary history”



Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia



“Zionism is Making Us Stupid”: The Russian Relationship with Israel from the Soviets to Putin

Kyle W. Orton Dec 12, 2018


The Soviet Union recognised Israel immediately. Moscow played up its role in defeating the Nazis as part of its political outreach to the nascent Jewish state. It is often pointed out that the Soviet Union also provided crucial military help, through its Czechoslovak puppet regime, to the Zionists during the war of independence. This is true. The intention of the Soviets in doing this, however, was to expel the British and to foster “a situation which was certain to provoke conflict in Palestine and great unrest throughout the Arab world, thus necessitating Soviet intervention to maintain order”. This kind of cynical behaviour, creating problems in order to solve them, was standard tradecraft for the Soviet Union right down to the end.

Vasili Mitrokhin, the archivist who spent twenty years transcribing KGB files he knew might never see the light of day, managed to defect just after the end of the Cold War and bring his incredible trove with him. These files, written up in a book co-authored with Christopher Andrew, The World War Going Our Way, tell the story of the Soviet approach to Israel, Zionism, and Jews domestically — issues the KGB, the actual driving force of much foreign and eventually domestic policy in the Soviet Empire, regarded as inextricably linked.

The Mitrokhin Archive shows that nearly as soon as Israel had secured her survival, the Soviet regime turned against her and by the early 1950s the sentiment was returned. The Israeli government publicly opposed Soviet aggression in Korea, for example. The KGB residency in Israel, Mitrokhin and Andrew note, “blamed the ‘[anti-Soviet] hysteria’ on the Israeli government’s desire both to convince the United States that it could count on Israeli support for its ‘aggressive plans’ and ‘continue to use Israel as a centre of espionage in the countries of the socialist camp’.” What the residency could not say, since it would have led to their execution, was what was blatantly obvious: Israeli public opinion soured on the Soviet Union because of Moscow’s antisemitic policies.

In January 1948, the Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin had Solomon Mikhoels murdered. Mikhoels was a Yiddish actor and prominent member of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC), which had done so much work to raise the standing of the Soviet Union in the West during the war with Adolf Hitler. JAC had proposed that Soviet Jewry be allowed to reconstitute itself in Crimea; the peninsula had been emptied of Tatars by Stalin anyway, and Jews could hardly live comfortably in the former Nazi-occupied zones where their neighours had collaborated in an attempt at their extirpation. Stalin viewed it as a plot to establish a secessionist Jewish homeland that would be used as a base for American imperialism.

Using the Crimea plot pretext and other imaginary reasons, the rest of the JAC was arrested in late 1948; the leaders were charged with treason and tortured in custody for three years until they were shot in August 1952. In November that year, a hysterical show trial of Jews in the government of Czechoslovakia centred around Rudolf Slansky took place and eleven defendants were hanged in Prague the next month. A wide-scale purge of Jews from official positions took place in the Captive Nations. In the background, the so-called Doctors’ Case had been building since 1951 that aimed at the Jews of the Soviet Union itself.

The Soviet media in January 1953 broadcast details of an extraordinary scheme by a group of “saboteur-doctors” who “had as their goal shortening the lives of leaders of the Soviet Union by means of medical sabotage.” It was said these “killer doctors” had already murdered Aleksandr Shcherbakov, a founder of the Soviet Writers’ Union, who drank himself to death in May 1945, and Andrei Zhdanov, the heir-apparent to Stalin who died in August 1948. The “filthy face of this Zionist spy organization” was now exposed, said Pravda, as were the “Anglo-American war mongers” that stood behind the plot. In June 1951, the MGB, as the secret police were named, turned inward after a nine-month campaign against Jews in the bureaucracy, arresting its chief, Viktor Abakumov, the deputy of the investigative division, L.L. Shvartzman, and several other senior Jews in the MGB. These arrests were now linked to the Doctors’ Case.

In February 1953, with the Israeli public incensed after the judicial massacre in Czechoslovakia and the evident preparations for worse in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Embassy in Tel Aviv was bombed, leading to the suspension of all diplomatic relations for five months.

What exactly the Soviets had planned for the Jews under their rule remains a subject of contention.

When Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn published The Gulag Archipelago in the West in the early 1970s, describing conditions in the Soviet slave labour camps, he noted that his best information said Stalin had intended hang the “doctor-murderers” in Red Square after a show trial at the beginning of March 1953, triggering an anti-Jewish pogrom. “At this point,” noted Solzhenitsyn, Stalin “would intervene generously to save the Jews” by deporting them to Siberia, where they could be worked to death.

In Stalin’s Last Crime, Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumova bring to light a letter, intended to be printed after the condemned doctors had been executed. Prominent Soviet Jews would sign the letter, demanding punishment for the Jewish plotters. The movement of Soviet Jewry to the East would spare them the Russian people’s wrath and isolate them from further Zionist-imperialist propaganda. The authors note that the Soviet regime had begun construction of “special camps” in Komi, Kazakhstan, and Irkutsk.

Boris Smolar’s book, Soviet Jewry Today and Tomorrow, notes that Stalin was felled by a massive stroke on 1 March 1953 — Purim, as it happened — apparently brought on after Vyacheslav Molotov (the formal head of government) and Kliment Voroshilov (the formal head of state) “dared to oppose, openly and strongly, his proposal” for deporting the Jews to the East. Stalin died on 5 March.

The uniqueness of the Holocaust is often viewed as providing at least a tincture of moral difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It appears that the final thing on Stalin’s mind was to abolish even this distinction.


Outside of the shadow war the Soviets helped regional governments and terrorists lead against Israel, Moscow engaged in political warfare, beginning in earnest in the 1970s, to delegitimize the state of Israel by, inter alia, equating Zionism with racism and apartheid. This active measures campaign, like so many others, is still with us today, disseminated earnestly by many who have no idea of its origins. The height of the Soviet success was having the United Nations General Assembly pass a resolution in November 1975 declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”, a verdict roundly denounced by the U.S.’s ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The Soviet political assault on Israel was, to a considerable degree, a continuation of an old problem from Soviet domestic politics: the affinity of Jews for Israel. In the Soviet Union in its last two decades this had an even more concrete aspect: many Soviet Jews were trying to emigrate to Israel. This affronted Moscow in that it was part of a more general “brain drain”, and it was an ideological embarrassment for a state that proclaimed it had moved beyond ethnic distinctions, to a universalistic conception of citizenship, to be confronted with the fact of ethno-religious discrimination in its midst so extreme that its citizens were willing to risk starting their life again in a new country.

Those Jews blocked from emigration by the Soviet government became known as “refuseniks”, and the wrangling over their fate was one of the major political contests of the latter part of the Cold War. The U.S. Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1974 that tied human rights — particularly the Jewish emigration — to trade opportunities. As it happened, this backfired: the number of Jews allowed to emigrate declined after this legislation was brought into effect. But the political damage to the Soviet Union was very real, and they knew it. The KGB adopted a schizophrenic policy of cracking down ever-further on Soviet Jewry, and worrying about the impact on the Soviet Union’s reputation abroad.

A fascinating revelation in the Mitrokhin Archive is that in the last few years of Leonid Brezhnev’s rule, when he was in a dream world of his own, Yuri Andropov, the KGB chief whose institution effectively controlled foreign policy since the 1960s, ran deception operations against the Politburo itself. Some of these had world-historical impacts, such as Andropov’s skewed assessments of an invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 that led to a monstrous catastrophe. Smaller but still significant was Andropov telling the Soviet leadership that Jews had sufficient matsos for Passover in order that they support his continued ban on Jews receiving matsos for the seder in parcels from abroad, a practice he regarded as subversive.

To blunt the adverse coverage of the “refusenik” issue, the Soviets conducted a series of active measures designed to tilt the balance. The Brooklyn-based extremist rabbi, Meir Kahane, and the Jewish Defence League (JDL) that he founded, were a goldmine for the Soviets. Kahane’s statements and the JDL’s claims of political violence could be amplified — and, indeed, fabricated. The Mitrokhin Archive records that in July 1971, the KGB planted a bomb in a black section of New York City and then claimed it in the name of the JDL, saying it was revenge for the crimes of “black mongrels”. Antisemitic leaflets were distributed in other areas, as well as documents calling for whites to save America from the predatory Jews. The difference the KGB could make was marginal: the facts remained as they were. But the Soviets did have some success in cultivating British Chief Rabbi Jakobovitz, who came back from a tour of the Soviet Union quite convinced that conditions were not so bad for Jews, a view he couldn’t be dissuaded of even after it became clear that those he met were carefully-trained KGB operatives.

The extraordinary fact, documented by Mitrokhin and Andrew, is that “Zionism was second only to the United States (‘the Main Adversary’) as a target for KGB active measures.” Stalin’s murderous antisemitism died with him, but the antisemitic worldview — repackaged later as “anti-Zionist” — infused the KGB in particular and the Soviet hierarchy in general throughout its entire existence. It was left to Brezhnev, even in his mental decrepitude, to grasp that “Zionism is making us stupid”. It did not stop the problem, however.

After Andropov replaced Brezhnev in 1982, he was utterly convinced President Ronald Reagan was planning a nuclear first strike, and began the expensive Operation RYAN to uncover the details of this non-existent plot. As one would expect, Andropov was quite sure the plan included Zionist collaboration. This hysteria calmed somewhat with Andropov’s death in 1984, but it was well into the Gorbachev era that Jews were allowed into the government, at long last reversing the Stalinist purge. The old guard fought far more tenaciously to avoid lifting the restrictions on Jews than any other group. Mitrokhin and Andrew conclude by noting that the Soviet Union collapsed soon after these restrictions were lifted and many in the KGB analyzed the two events as one and the same: “the triumph of Zionist subversion”.



«Όπως στη Βοσνία, στην Αλγερία, στη Σομαλία, όπως σε κάθε ασαφή πόλεμο, που δύσκολα καταλαβαίνεις σε ποια μεριά ανήκεις, αρκεί να σκοτώσεις το γείτονά σου, τον σκύλο, το φίλο ή κάποιο συγγενή σου. Μια συγγένεια, μια ομοιότητα είναι αρκετή προϋπόθεση για να γίνεις στόχος. Φτάνει να περάσεις από κάποιο δρόμο για να δεχτείς αμέσως μια ταυτότητα από μόλυβδο. Είναι βασικό να συγκεντρώσεις όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο πόνο, τραγωδία και τρόμο. Με μοναδικό σκοπό να αποδείξεις την απόλυτη ισχύ, την αδιαμφισβήτητη υπεροχή, την ανικανότητα να αντισταθείς στην πραγματική, αληθινή δύναμη που κυριαρχεί [την ποικιλόμορφη βία]. Μέχρι να συνηθίσεις να σκέφτεσαι όπως αυτοί που θα μπορούσαν να παρεξηγηθούν από μια χειρονομία ή λέξη. Πρέπει να είσαι προσεκτικός, επιφυλακτικός, σιωπηλός για να μείνεις ζωντανός, να μην αγγίξεις το καλώδιο υψηλής τάσης της βεντέτας».

[σελ. 182, Ρομπέρτο Σαβιάνο, «γόμορρα», 2008, εκδ. Πατάκη].


Six of the Most Famous Mob Murders of All Time

The death of Gambino crime family head Frank Cali brings to mind these mafia killings from years past



Το μπαχαρικό που δεν αφήνει το φθόριο να καταστρέψει τον εγκέφαλό σας






Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Πέμπτη, 03 Ιούνιος 2021 21:57