Blair’s unusual silence explained
Many readers have wondered why Tony Blair has been remarkably quiet so far about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Look no further than Blair’s very close relationship with one of Putin’s favourite billionaire Jewish oligarchs, Moshe Kantor. Among many prominent positions in international Zionism, Kantor is President of the European Jewish Congress and Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress.
Since 2015 Blair has been chairman of Kantor’s ‘European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’, which campaigns for ‘tougher laws against extremism’.
Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck.
Invading a neighbouring country is, by contrast, not ‘extreme’: not if the invader is Moshe Kantor’s close friend Vladimir Putin.
Moshe Kantor also funded the World Holocaust Forum, which provided a platform for Putin to indulge his now familiar ‘anti-Nazi’ posturing.
Israel’s ‘Holocaust museum’ Yad Vashem has repeatedly accepted major donations from Putin’s favourite oligarchs, including not only Kantor but also Roman Abramovich who now faces ostracism in the UK for his close Kremlin ties but is still very welcome in Jerusalem.
Europe’s future is neither Washington nor Moscow!
H&D readers will probably be divided in their response to this morning’s news that Russian forces have invaded Ukraine.
Having for a lifetime become used to rejecting the lies of our own governments, European nationalists sometimes become too credulous in accepting the propaganda lines of rival governments. The Ukraine crisis is a sad example.
A vast range of European dissident movements – including ‘populists’, civic nationalists and racial nationalists – have become uncritical adherents of the Moscow line. (This is an eerie echo of the 1930s when many ‘democratic’ socialists in the West became fellow travellers of Stalin.)
Yet through the fog of war on this first morning of the invasion, it ought to be possible to discern some basic principles.
Having opposed Washington’s aggression in Iraq, we should (without any illusions about our own influence or lack of it) also oppose Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine. Let’s be clear – our political struggle is not for instant victory but for the next generation of Europeans. That’s why our struggle must have firm foundations of ideological principle.
As a matter of principle, we should refuse to take fees from Moscow propaganda outlets such as RT while this aggression continues.
And we should prepare for what happens next. Putin’s hubris is likely (as the Ancient Greeks knew) to end in nemesis. If some sort of ‘Western’ victory – and the destruction or weakening of Putin – is indeed the outcome, it won’t change the fact that ‘Western’ liberalism is profoundly sick, and it won’t make NATO the defenders of European interests.
The true Europeans – racial nationalists who reject both Washington and Moscow – will need to build true European unity.
Moscow’s “fake factory” – 2022 version derided by Western media; 1945 version enshrined in Western law
Analysis of recent Russian propaganda in the Ukraine shows that films purporting to show Ukrainian ‘saboteurs’ were actually made by a Russian ‘fake factory’.
The anti-Putin investigative journalists at Bellingcat point out: “Russia has a long record of doing this. It isn’t surprising.”
What is surprising is that Western countries themselves have built an entire structure of debate-denying laws, on the foundations of an earlier generation of Moscow “fake factories” and “lie machines”.
Right now for example, 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck in Germany, and the Spanish author, publisher and bookseller Pedro Varela, are facing criminal proceedings and jail sentences for raising forbidden questions about the alleged extermination of six million Jews and the unique mass-murder weapon of the homicidal gas chamber.
Soviet ‘investigators’ pioneered their technique of ‘Holocaust history’ at the Majdanek camp in the summer of 1944, and the same year ‘investigated’ the Janowska camp near the old Habsburg city of Lemberg (later Lvov or Lviv). The foundations of Auschwitz history were laid in early 1945 by a similar Soviet ‘investigatory commission’. The entire story was presented by the Soviet prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials, whose verdict it is forbidden to question in many European countries.
While the liberal media’s renewed interest in Moscow propaganda lies lead them to re-examine ‘Holocaust’ history? Or even to accept that courts should be prepared to hear evidence on such matters, rather than moving straight to conviction of ‘Holocaust deniers’ without even allowing evidence to be submitted, as for example is frequently the case in today’s German courts?
