Main Contents

Putin’s Primacy In Ukraine

EU Articles, Russia Articles, Ukraine Articles

Putin’s Primacy In Ukraine
By Brother Nathanael Kapner February 23, 2014 ©

Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!

Online donation system by ClickandPledge

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856

THE FATE OF UKRAINE is linked with its dependence on Russian natural gas and the revenue garnered via its transport of that gas to Europe.

Europe, also dependent on Russian gas, imposed mild sanctions on Ukraine such as visa restrictions and focused targets against officials but was careful not to offend Russia with sanctions with too much bite.

Due to Europe’s restrained line against Yanukovych’s government, the Jew Victoria Nuland (born Nudelman) bit back with “F##k the EU.”

Despite a Jew b##ch speaking on behalf of Jew-ruled America, Putin will protect Russia’s interests in Ukraine and carry the day. He’s smarter than Jews plagued with divine curses and inbred neurosis.

What the Putin-hating press fails to mention in their bashing of all things Russian, including the ‘evil’ Gazprom, is that Yanukovych cut a fracking deal with Chevron and Shell last year which could poison Russian aquifers along the Ukrainian border.

This past January, Moscow gave notice that the fracking technology could “pollute” water supplies for Russians living near the border of the two countries.

Now we know why Chevron placed its banner next to Nuland when giving her spiel at the National Press Club last December (sponsored by Chevron) boasting about US funding $5 billion to foment agitation to bring Ukraine into Washington’s Jew-ruled clutches.

Ukraine is bankrupt with its currency in a meltdown.

The EU offered Ukraine a mere $160 million per year for the next five years yet the bond repayments to the IMF were greater than that. In contrast, Putin offered $15 billion and immediately paid $3 billion. The rest is on hold until a stable government is formed.

But the Jew press won’t let the sheeple see it that way.

Putin wants an economically and socially stable Ukraine as a next-door neighbor and trading partner. His generous offer was designed to help with just that—help Ukraine pay its bills, avoid bankruptcy, and a possible civil war. He also discounted gas prices by 30%.

With both Ukraine and Europe reliant on Russia for natural gas it doesn’t matter what government is installed in Kiev. Putin has the leverage and the primacy. He can demand Kiev pay its debt to Gazprom, call in his loan, and cut supplies anytime he wishes.

‘Freed’ Tymoshenko (“Gas Princess”) knows this. The protesters will soon find out.


AS THE CRISIS deepened on 20 February, Yanukovych replaced Europe-leaning Chief of Staff, General Volodomyr Zamana, with Russia-leaning Admiral Yuri Ilyin.

Spending most of his career in Ukraine’s Russian-leaning Crimea region, Ilyin is the first naval officer to serve as Chief of Staff. Although the largely Russian-speaking Crimea was ceded to Ukraine in 1954, Russian politicians claim it still ‘belongs’ to Russia.

When Putin renewed Russia’s Black Sea Fleet lease in Sevastopol, he sealed the 2010-to-2042 “Ukraine Deal Of The Century” insuring the fleet’s enduring presence in Ukraine’s warm water port with access to the Middle East.

Admiral Ilyin, an ethnic Belarusian (Belarus is friendly to Russia) who has worked closely with Russian navy personnel in Sevastopol, wouldn’t look favorably on any Nato aggression that would threaten Russia’s Crimean port.

And it’s unlikely that Yanukovych, whose power base is East Ukraine with its ethnic Russians, would have promoted Ilyin to the sensitive post unless confident he was his ace in the hole.

Even though Yanukovych is currently out, it appears that Ilyin—along with defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine of which Crimean Sevastopol is part—will preserve the country’s lease obligations towards Russia.

If the new government breaks the lease, Putin and the Russophiles can put all kinds of economic hurt on Western Ukraine which is highly dependent on the Russophilic eastern industrial areas for domestic goods.

And the threat of a Crimea seceding and forming a federated republic under the Russian flag looms large as a major catastrophe for the country.

WHATEVER’S LEFT of Western Ukraine the Jews will loot. The best of Ukraine in the east will have Putin as its protector with assured stability and prosperity.

The Jews ruined Libya…Kiev is next. Protesters, you have been warned.


Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!

Online donation system by ClickandPledge

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856

Scroll Down For Comments

Brother Nathanael @ February 23, 2014


  1. Brother Nathanael February 23, 2014 @ 11:53 am

    Dear Real Jew News Family,

    Make no mistake about it. Tymoshenko, who appears to be Ukraine’s next president, can shoot off her mouth as much as she wants.

    BUT, she owns a Ukrainian natural gas transit business to Europe and WILL play ball with Putin. She NEEDS Russia’s natural gas and Gazprom’s transit assistance to stay in business.

    She’s not known as the “Gas Princess” for nothing. (See my embedded links in the Article above.)

    AND, make no mistake about this, too. If Kiev goes with the EU, the Jew bankers will loot Western Ukraine for whatever it’s worth and enslave the people to their IMF.

    Eastern Ukraine will win with Putin. Western Ukraine will lose with Jews.

    Protesters, you have been warned.

    AND BY THE WAY – Take a look at the map once again at the top of the Article.

    This Russian natural gas transit map through Ukraine to Europe with its MULTIPLE pipelines TELLS it all without saying a word.
    Up Next – New Video!

    Help Me Keep My Articles & Videos Coming!

    Please consider donating to OUR cause in stopping the Jews from ruining our nation and world.

    To Donate Via PayPal CLICK:

    To Donate Via Click & Pledge CLICK:

    By Mail:

    TO: The Brother Nathanael Foundation; PO Box 547; Priest River ID; 83856.

    Personal Needs: (Rent, food, utilities, necessities etc)

    Brother Nathanael; PO Box 547; Priest River ID 83856.

    PS – ALL cash donations by mail come in safely. Many thanks to those who send cash.

    Much Love In Christ!

    +Brother Nathanael Kapner @

  2. Brother Nathanael February 23, 2014 @ 11:54 am

    Watch MY MOST RECENT Video Worldwide CENSOR FREE:

    “Money For People NOT Jewish Bankers” @

    This is my STATE-OF-THE-ART Video Platform AND I OWN It!

    ALL Jew-Ruled EU Countries Can NOW View ALL My Vids Without JEW-CENSORSHIP! @

  3. Koolz February 23, 2014 @ 11:59 am

    Putin is a master chess player and he hold’s all the pieces to keep the NWO from taking over the world!

    I wait Putin to say Check Mate!

    As the CIA and Mossad run around creating Chaos with there psychos like McCain and Kerry, Putin is busy making deals with country and restoring stronger ties with those countries and Russia!

  4. The Elder of Zyklon-B February 23, 2014 @ 12:10 pm

    “Russia is concerned about Ukraine’s plans to develop shale gas through hydraulic fracturing. Why? Potential water pollution concerns.”

    Meanwhile back on the Jew Ranch here, States like Texas are fracking away with no end in sight.

    Special triplex pumps had to be engineered to handle the tremendous pressures used in these MASSIVE frack jobs. They are sucking billions of gallons of water from aquifers to do this too.

    Fresh water zones will continue to be put at high risk no matter how many lies the kosher US oil industry pumps out.

  5. Rick February 23, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

    I’m actually hoping to see a division of the Ukraine: the eastern part with the Crimea remaining allied with Russia, and the western part subjugated to the EU.

    If the western part of the Ukraine really wants to be shackled to the EU, I say let them.

    They’ll regret it soon enough when the IMF begins its pillaging and plundering operations. But the people of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea should never be subjected to that against their will.

  6. KathJuliane February 23, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

    Spectacular article, dear +BN.

    You have such a gift for pulling it all together.

    For example, I do recall seeing the Chevron sign next to Nudelman during her speech during US-Ukraine affair, but RJN is the only site which has pointed out the fracking gas deal cut with Chevron and Shell early last year.

    This simply implicates more deeply the White House interference in Ukraine and support of the West-leaning “Opposition,” which, as you’ve also dug up about “Gas Princess” Tymeshenko, also has its “Oligarch Clans” helping to drive things along, ultimately loyal only to the bottom line of their business contracts.

    And, the economic situation for is precisely as you’ve said, the gas transit map through Ukraine explains it all. Moreover, it’s great that you broke down Ukraine’s current economic and fiscal situation, and describe why the EU offer was such a bad one that the formerly EU-leaning Yanukovych didn’t even want to touch it.

    The Russian deal with Yanukovych is very simple to figure out — Putin wants an economically and socially stable Ukraine as a next-door neighbor and trading partner, and the generous offer was designed to help with just that — help Ukraine pay its bills and avoid total bankruptcy and a possible civil war.

    Really, not only does Putin have the economic and political advantage over the West, but he has the historical Orthodox Russian patience concerning God’s Providence and working with it however events unfold.

    The EU should remember particularly when old General Winter dealt with invading European forces in the past, and it was a part of Russian strategy.

    God bless, dear +BN, and keep up the excellent work.

    IC XC
    NI KA

  7. Nicolas Jaisson February 23, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

    Hi Nath,

    Sadly you never mention the fate of the Ukrainian people, who are the most concerned in the matter with the dramatic legacy of the Russian supremacy during the bloody communist era, during which the Ukrainian people have been literally butchered by millions.

    The socialist form of organization during the USSR dictatorship have left scars in the soul of these people who continue to suffer from a form of government which prevent real changes in the economic affairs.

    Changes like getting rid of the former industrial groups dominated by oligarchs, which are completely obsolete and cannot be renovated without external capital like the Chinese who are investing in coal gasification plants which should contribute to the Ukrainian independence fo its energy supply.

    Ukraine before the communist tragedy was a very prosperous country, feeding Russia and a great part of the world with its wheat export.

    Hence it is hardly comprehensible why such a gifted country finds itself in a dire situation where most of its population live in misery.

    Liberalism may be a bad word, but sometimes it can help remove technocratic obstacles preventing necessary changes to take place, like eradicating the bureaucracy and the old industrial organization inherited from the Comecon (like the weapons industry), and for paving the way to the integration with the EU economic zone.

    I don’t say it is an ideal solution given the flaws of the European federation and its sister-in-law the IMF.

    But a strong partnership between Russia and Germany could at least contribute to the removal of the oligarchs and the creation of a free economy capable of producing and profiting, instead of serving the personal interest of a few tycoons like Gazprom and a few other Russian industrial groups too well served by the current customs union between Ukraine and Russia.

    Best regards,

    Nicolas Jaisson

  8. Victor February 23, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

    I agree.

    Indeed, the sudden (and timely!) release of Tymoshenko might even be Putin’s doing quietly behind the scenes (only a guess, no facts to support!).

    Certainly neither the EU nor the USA had mentioned her as a possible replacement. Yet there she was suddenly up on the podium getting support from the people and distancing herself from everyone else.

    Note that the other opposition contenders were not up there with her in a show of support. They slinked away like whipped dogs as soon as she showed.

  9. JK February 23, 2014 @ 12:54 pm


    Ukraine is in Russia’s backyard. This isn’t Cuba in 1962, this time the Russians hold ALL the cards and know how to play them.
    “Meanwhile back on the Jew Ranch here, States like Texas are fracking away with no end in sight.”

    Fracking has nothing at all to do with “cheap” extraction of petroleum and natural gas reserves, it has a great deal to do with destabilizing earthquake zones as a weapons system.

  10. sdf February 23, 2014 @ 1:45 pm

    If Ukraine is split in two, then Russia needs the whole of the south.

    Otherwise, they will only have access to 1 of the 2 seaports which would be very harmful to Russia’s national security, as America could put ships there.

  11. Wayne Pacific February 23, 2014 @ 3:20 pm

    Apparently the whole Ukraine situation is very critical.

    Some deep thinkers have concluded that it could develop into WW III.

    It is vital to Russia’s sphere of influence and they may respond militarily to protect their necessary interests.

    Given the logistics and sizes of forces, Russia could possibly prevail. But then maybe not.

    Either way, so much is at stake, it could go mini nuke, then larger.

  12. JL February 23, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

    Thanks Bro Nat.

    But how about Ukrainians interests about Ukraine? You have said for many times, that nationalism is the biggest threat to Jew World domination, why to deny that for ukrainians wheter they were right or wrong on both sides.

    You just don’t understand, that if there were two bad choices offered to Ukrainians, they’ll choose them both, as perhaps happened during WW2.

    But what we Europeans, Ukrainians, Russians, Germans, same as Finns know, is the right answer to a question: Which one lives longer a man or a sheep? Equally short they’ll live if they both have throats cut.

    Americans make a big noise about 50 million Christian deaths, how many Americans after all, or do we need your advices or flagless ships? Nationalism is, that you love it, no matter how ugly.

    American nationalism is always pretty, and when it goes ugly in America, You’ll move to Russia.

  13. JK February 23, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

    “Hence it is hardly comprehensible why such a gifted country finds itself in a dire situation where most of its population live in misery.”

    It is easily comprehensible. This is a power struggle in a bloody fight to the finish between the forces of the Light and the Dark.

    The Jews allied themselves to the dark ones, it is they who caused the hideous fate met by so many in the Ukraine as well as Russia under the Soviet yoke.

    Study history!

  14. JK February 23, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

    “If Ukraine is split in two, then Russia needs the whole of the south.

    Otherwise, they will only have access to 1 of the 2 seaports which would be very harmful to Russia’s national security, as America could put ships there.”

    The US has no play in this game. The Russians have all the game pieces.

    There is no way that they would be stupid or careless enough to allow an Amerikan military presence on their doorstep — won’t happen.

    They have the firepower to ensure it won’t; their nuclear weapons load-out still exceeds that of the US and they can put it down range too, if they have to.

  15. Yankee Goy February 23, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

    I thank you for educating us about these matters, putting the reason and rationale behind them.

    There’s no way I could make any sense of this from Drudge, which makes it all sound like “woe to Putin.”

  16. Griff February 23, 2014 @ 4:42 pm

    Servile Jews,

    You swine will gets what is coming to you anti-Christs.

    The Talmudic NWO experiment will eventually falter because of ignorance and greed.

    The Jews in a nutshell: crooks, cheats, perverts, subversive, conniving, mediocre, hypocritical, greedy, dangerous, sadistic, hedonistic, shallow, rude, demeaning, inbred, ugly, creepy, etc.

  17. Ft. Nolan February 23, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

    While Belarus is like a sibling to Russia, Ukraine is more like a cousin. Things have been going so well in Sochi, PRiot had to be brought in to create some controversy.

    Israel Shamir has written a rather supportive account of the Sochi games giving President Putin much credit for his efforts:

    Newscasters covering the Sochi games keep bringing up Russia’s human rights record just to needle President Putin and make Russia look worse than it really is. Of course abuses in the USA are conveniently neglected. But that’s the MSM in this country…

    Isn’t Chernobyl in the western part of Ukraine? If the EU really wants it, why not let them have it? Such a step may be beneficial to a more stable Ukrainian government.

    Keep in mind the US supports the Republic of Georgia in just about every way. This gives the US something of a toehold in the Black Sea which can be exploited against Russian interests. Yet I’m sure Putin has plans for any interference coming from there.

    Can’t wait to see the tanks come rolling into Maidan to quell the pro-NWO/EU protests.

  18. JK February 23, 2014 @ 6:56 pm

    Servile Jews,

    “You swine will gets what is coming to you anti-Christs.

    The Talmudic NWO experiment will eventually falter because of ignorance and greed.

    The Jews in a nutshell: crooks, cheats, perverts, subversive, conniving, mediocre, hypocritical, greedy, dangerous, sadistic, hedonistic, shallow, rude, demeaning, inbred, ugly, creepy, etc”.

    Pretty well sums up their “father” doesn’t it?

  19. Luke X February 23, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

    If the Axis won WWII we would now be reading in the news about colonies on Mars & the exploration of new solar systems; but since the Judeo-homo Allies won this is the news you get: endless staged CIA Orwellian wars-riots-revolts-terrorism etc..

  20. Yankee Goy February 23, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

    Christian Killing Fields in Ukraine

  21. KathJuliane February 23, 2014 @ 7:43 pm

    The way the Western press and the Euromaidan movement is acting, you would think that the Ukrainians had birthed a new democratic nation on the Maidan, especially if you read Brzezinski’s recent opinion in the Financial Times.

    Ukraine has been a democracy (cough, cough) since their independence in 1991.

    The sad truth is that all of the post-independence leaders, including Tymoshenko, ultimately harmed Ukraine by their misgovernance, lust for power and endless greedy appetite setting up their various business magnate fiefdoms.

    From Globe and Mail:

    “Politics and business are linked in Ukraine unlike anywhere else in Eastern Europe.

    A handful of oligarchs emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, building vast fortunes by acquiring state-owned assets on the cheap and pushing aside any competitors, often violently.

    All of this was aided by helpful politicians and bureaucrats who facilitated the empire-building for a fee.

    While much the same happened in Russia and other former Soviet republics, the oligarchs in Ukraine became far more politically entrenched, often holding seats in parliament and organizing groups of MPs who have no ideology other than protecting the oligarchs’ businesses.

    These billionaires’ interests are also dutifully covered by the country’s major media outlets all of which they own.

    This system of mutual benefit has thrived more than ever under President Viktor Yanukovych, who has consolidated power in the presidential office since taking power in 2010.

    Mr. Yanukovych [was] backed largely by two groups of oligarchs led by these men: Dmytro Firtash, a natural-gas tycoon; and Rinat Akhmetov, one of Ukraine’s wealthiest men who comes from the same region as the president and has interests in mining, power generation and media.

    The street protests against Mr. Yanukovych have upset this cozy world.

    Even worse for the oligarchs, it has hurt them financially. Much of the economy has ground to a halt and there are reports international lenders are getting nervous about extending credit. And that has made the oligarchs worried.

    “Protests and bloodshed are very bad for making money,” said Taras Berezovets, a political analyst in Kiev. The oligarchs “want to keep their money safe in Ukraine and overseas. So they do not want any sort of civil conflict.””
    ( )

    “EU officials recall [Tymoshenko’s] period as prime minister after Ukraine’s 2004/5 pro-democracy Orange Revolution as hardly less corrupt than Yanukovich’s tenure. Ukraine is 144th on watchdog Transparency International’s index of perceived corruption.”
    ( )

    No Ukrainian government since her independence, inclusive of the haloed Yulia, has actually taken the necessary steps to reform the country’s economy and political system other than paying lip service to great promises while attacking one’s political enemies.

    Most of Ukraine’s wealth lies in the elite hands of the shadow cabinets of oligarchic clans, their allied government officials and their families, including Tymoshenko with her own shady and corrupt background.

    It appears that the tracks of her and her husband’s wealth are better covered than most through a labyrinth of Ukrainian and European business associations and companies.

    Oligarchal wealth in the Ukrainian feudal system is generated by skimming profits off of natural gas imported from Russia among other scams, by the seizure of profitable assets, by graft, and partnering with organized crime for the less savory stuff.

    “EU-leaning” Western Ukraine is more agricultural and poorer than the south and east, but it has its own woes with burgeoning Agricultural Oligarchs buying up and selling massive tracts of Ukraine’s famous Black Earth farmlands to mega-agribusiness development, and forcing farmers and the rural class into the cities and the EU for cheap industrial labor pools.

    As +BN reported sometime back, Nudelman boasted at the International Business Conference at Ukraine in Washington, held at the National Press Club, that the US had spent $5 billion in US taxpayers’ money in the development of Ukrainian “democratic institutions.”

    I’m sorry to say that it was all designed to keep Ukraine’s modern Oligarch clan feudal system in place, partnered with the West’s own corporate feudal magnates such as Chevron and Shell Oil.

    Per the Irish Times last December:

    “…Yanukovich and protesters came in an unexpected decision by opposition leaders to attend crisis talks with the president. They took place within hours of Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, breaking his silence over the crisis and calling on all sides to “sit at the negotiating table and take decisions that will make us proud.”

    The meeting was bad-tempered and did not quell the street protests, but Akhmetov’s call for compromise was seen as having influence on both Yanukovich and the opposition.

    The US ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, welcomed “the wise advice of Rinat Akhmetov,” amid reports that the billionaire had earlier held a secret meeting with visiting US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland.””
    ( )

    On December 31, the Kiev Post reported:

    “Ukrainian business tycoon Rinat Akhmetov came out to the participants of the rally near the Botanical Garden in Donetsk, where his home is located.

    About a dozen activists of the Democratic Alliance held a rally outside Akhmetov’s residence on Tuesday, an Interfax-Ukraine correspondent reported.

    The activists brought to Akhmetov’s residence “a bloody New Year’s tree.” According to them, the tree symbolizes the funding by the businessman of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s “bloody regime” and his personal involvement in the crackdown of a pro-European rally in Kyiv.

    Akhmetov came to the protesters in his own car and said that he was ready for the dialogue with the public. He also noted that he was a patriot of Ukraine and Donetsk region in particular.”

    In other words, the rather reclusive Akhmetov publicly signaled that he was ready to throw Yakunovych under the bus as being bad for business, and was, out of loyalty to the bottom line in profits and losses, moving in the direction of the ‘Opposition.’

    Just a day after she left the hospital where she was imprisoned, demonstrators outside the Cabinet of Ministers expressed dismay that she could be Ukraine’s next president.

    One of them held a placard depicting Tymoshenko taking power from Yanukovych and reading, “People didn’t die for this.”
    ( )

    A day after dismissing Yanukovich with the help of votes from his own party, parliament handed his powers temporarily to Oleksander Turchinov, who was elected speaker on Saturday.

    An ally of newly freed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, Turchinov called for an interim prime minister to be in place by Tuesday to run the country until a presidential election called for May 25. Among contenders may be Tymoshenko.

    Yesterday she was very feeble, and had to be wheelchaired to Maidan.

    Today, she was able to stand for a happy photo op during a meeting in Kiev with US Ambassador Geoffrey R Pyatt and EU Ambassador to Ukraine Jan Tombinski. The only one missing from the photo op was Victoria Nudelman.

    The EU-philic Tymoshenko also had the energy to speak with her new BFF, German Chancellor Angela Merkel today.
    ( )

    The New Boss is the same as the Old Boss. The “Opposition” showed off Yanukovych’s mansion as spoils of the battle, and politely, if hypocritically, refrain from exposing to public view the “state-owned” mega-mansions of their own supporting oligarchs and clans, some of which are in the same neighborhood as Yanukovich’s house.

    Near bankrupt Ukraine still needs bailout, and the EU is offering the same deal as what Yanukovych declined.


    “Western nations face a daunting task to help stabilise a near bankrupt Ukraine after a popular uprising toppled its Russian-backed president, and will need to placate a wounded Moscow.

    The biggest challenge falls to the European Union, which helped broker an end to violent repression in Kiev last week, after Ukrainians rebelled against President Viktor Yanukovich.

    The EU now faces the pottery shop rule: you break it, you own it. Yet it is far from clear that west European members want to take ownership of rescuing the sprawling former Soviet republic of 46 million people.

    The European Commission’s economics chief, Olli Rehn, promised substantial financial support on Sunday and went out on a political limb by saying the country should be given the prospect of joining the EU one day.

    “From a European point of view it is important that we provide a clear European perspective for the Ukrainian people who have shown their commitment to European values,” Rehn said after a meeting of the world’s financial leaders in Sydney.

    “European perspective” is EU-speak for a membership prospect. Not all of the 28 member states support that view.

    Rehn made clear that Brussels stood ready to provide more than the 610 million euros ($838 million) in immediate assistance that was on offer last November when Yanukovich spurned a far-reaching economic pact with the EU, preferring Vladimir Putin’s promise of a $15 billion bailout from Russia.

    The International Monetary Fund also said it was ready to assist a new Ukrainian government if Kiev were to request help, but IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said “important economic reforms” which Yanukovich rejected would still be a condition for a loan package.
    ( )

    And, simply to round the picture out, a newsy little item from the Jewish Tablet Mag, boasting to other Jews about “Ukraine’s Western Face: As Pro-European Protests Seize Ukraine, Jewish Oligarch Victor Pinchuk Is a Bridge to the West” and his connections to the Clintons:

    One breezy evening last September, Viktor Pinchuk, Ukraine’s second-richest man, stepped onstage at the Livadia Palace in the Black Sea resort of Yalta to introduce the star speaker of the annual international conference he hosts to promote his country’s ties with the West: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Nearby, at a table set for an exquisite five-course meal, sat her husband; they were joined in the hall by Shimon Peres and Tony Blair, as well as a number of former European heads of state, top diplomats, and business tycoons. “Mr. President, you are really a super star,” Pinchuk told Bill Clinton in a seemingly apologetic tone, “but Secretary Clinton, she is a real, real mega star.”

    Pinchuk, a Jewish son of the Soviet system who became a steel and media magnate and, more recently, fashioned himself into a billionaire philanthropist, was in his element. At age 52, Pinchuk basks in his newfound role as a global philanthropist and a leading Westernizer of his country—and a man rich and powerful enough to crack jokes at the expense of a former American president.

    It’s been a remarkable transformation. Just nine years ago, Pinchuk—the son-in-law of Ukraine’s then-President Leonid Kuchma—was denounced by many of his compatriots as a robber baron who used his personal connections to snap up some of the most valuable assets in Ukraine for a song during the post-Soviet privatization wave while millions of his countrymen struggled to make ends meet.
    ( )

    Dear Ukraine, I’m praying for you.

    May God have mercy on us all.

    Україна, Я молюся за вас.

    Нехай Бог помилує всіх нас.

    IC XC
    NI KA

  22. Nicolae February 23, 2014 @ 8:22 pm


    Belgian MP Laurent Louis: When Will Belgium Support Assad

  23. Sludge Report February 23, 2014 @ 8:32 pm

    Matt Drudge looks like a Zionist Jew.

    No wonder his Sludge Report is always backing the Zionist Jews.

  24. Nicolae February 23, 2014 @ 8:33 pm

    Israeli ex officer leads Ukraine protests Reports

    The Jewish puppets have planed for a long time to sell Ukraine to Jew World Order — IMF financial package.

    I’m not leaving’: Yanukovich accuses opposition of coup d’etat, calls on EU to fulfill obligations

    It is time to stop misleading the international community and pretend that today’s Maidan represents the interests of the Ukrainian people,” Lavrov said.

    But it seems that German Foreign Minister Steinmeier also has a separate agreement with British Foreign Secretary William Hague.

    “Agreed with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier today to support new government in Ukraine and push for vital IMF financial package,” Hague stated on Twitter.

  25. Steven February 23, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

    A big part of the problem is that Jews generally think they can get away with doing anything because of who and what they are.

    History is testament to that fact. Negotiation with them is futile as they will never honor the terms they agree to. That just leaves the crucible of global war and genocide to liberate humanity from this satanic kosher plague.

    Frankly I don’t see how lesser measures can ever work. Jews with few exceptions will not repent. And I include the social, political and financial allies of the Jews as being global criminals requiring apprehension and punishment.

    They all got to go!

  26. JK February 23, 2014 @ 9:06 pm

    Why does Tymoshenko remind one so much of Sarah Palin?

  27. KathJuliane February 23, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

    Putin is on record as saying that he and Russia regard Ukraine as an independent, sovereign state, albeit one with a common history and close affinity at popular level to Russia.

    Putin for many years also draws a very clear distinction between EU membership for former Soviet republics – including Ukraine – and membership of NATO, which he vehemently opposes.

    Until the middle of the 19th century, ethnic Ukrainians referred to themselves as “Rusyns” in Ukrainian (“Ruthenians” in the Latin world, and “Rutén” in Hungary). Tsar Nicholas II’s official official short title was “Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias,” meaning Greater Russia, Belarus’ (White Russia), and the Rusyns (Little Russia — now Ukraine.)

    The toponym translated as Little or Lesser Rus’ is adapted from the Greek term, used in medieval times by Orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople since the fourteenth century, first appearing in ecclesiastical documents.

    The Byzantine Romans called the northern and southern part of the lands of Rus’ as: Μεγάλη Ῥωσσία (Megálē Rhōssía – Greater Rus’) and Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία (Mikrà Rhōssía – Lesser or Little Rus’), respectively. Initially Little or Lesser meant the smaller part, as after the division of the united Rus’ metropolis (ecclesiastical province) into two parts in 1305, a new southwestern metropolis in the land of Halych-Volynia consisted of only 6 of the 19 former eparchies

    Later Little Rus’ lost its ecclesiastical meaning and became a fully geographic name, and was reflected in the Tsar’s imperial title.

    During the Iron Age, the land was inhabited by Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians.

    Between 700 BC and 200 BC it was part of the Scythian Kingdom, or Scythia.

    Later, colonies of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, and the Byzantine Roman Empire were founded, beginning in the 6th century BC, on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea, and thrived well into the 6th century AD.

    The Goths stayed in the area of the Black Sea, mostly in Crimea, but came under the sway of the Huns from the 370s AD. By the 16th century, the existence of Goths in the Crimea had become well known to European scholars.

    While initially Arian Christians like other Gothic peoples, the Crimean Goths had fully integrated with the Trinitarian Church of Rhomania by the 500’s. Following the Great Schism of the Church, these peoples would remain loyal to Constantinople as part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    In the 8th century John of Gothia, an Orthodox bishop, led an unsuccessful revolt against Khazar overlordship.

    In the 7th century AD, the territory of eastern Ukraine was the center of Old Great Bulgaria. At the end of the century, the majority of Bulgar tribes migrated in different directions, and the Khazars took over much of the land.

    The Grand Principality of Kiev (Kievan Rus) was a powerful East Slavic state dominated by the city of Kiev.

    Shaped in the 9th century it went on to flourish for the next 300 years. It’s role in the history of Eastern Europe is comparable to that of the Carolingian Empire in Western Europe.

    The empire is traditionally seen as the beginning of Russia and the ancestor of Belarus and Ukraine.

    Kievan Rus’ was founded by the Rus’ people, Varangians who first settled around Ladoga and Novgorod, then gradually moved southward eventually reaching Kiev about 880.

    Kievan Rus’ included the western part of modern Ukraine, Belarus, with larger part of it situated on the territory of modern Russia.

    According to the Primary Chronicle the Rus’ elite initially consisted of Varangians from Scandinavia.

    Kievan Rus is the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy where Prince Vladimir the Great Christianized the entire Kievan Rus’ nation in 988.

    In the 11th and 12th centuries, constant incursions by nomadic Turkic tribes, such as the Pechenegs and the Kipchaks, caused a massive migration of Slavic populations to the safer, heavily forested regions of the north.

    The 13th century Mongol invasion devastated Kievan Rus’. Kiev was totally destroyed in 1240.

    On today’s Ukrainian territory, the state of Kievan Rus’ was succeeded by the principalities of Halych and Volodymyr-Volynskyi, which were merged into the state of Galicia-Volhynia.


    “[Kievan Rus] rose to civilized status by adopting Christianity as its state religion in 988. By that time Christianity had already spread to the territories of the South Slavs and to the Czech and Polish lands inhabited by the West Slavs.

    Practically at the same time with the Kievan Rus, Christianity was adopted in Hungary, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In contrast to central and eastern Europe, however, Kiev’s official religion was not the Christianity of the Latin world, but of the Greek world of Byzantium.

    The main reason for the adoption of Eastern Orthodox Christianity was that the Kievan Rus maintained close cultural, economic and political links with its powerful southern neighbor, the Byzantine [Roman] Empire, with its centre in Constantinople.

    The conversion to Orthodox Christianity through the missions sent by Constantinople, and the subsequent adoption of a written language from Bulgaria, based on Greek and Hebrew alphabets, further strengthened Kiev’s southern orientation and led to a gradual cultural separation from its West Slavic neighbors.

    The Kievan Rus state expanded to a considerable size and was able to establish links with Western Europe to complement its traditional southern orientation. By the end of the twelfth century, however, the Kievan Rus had become fragmented into smaller feudal principalities.

    In 1237 the Mongols, led by Batu, a grandson of the great Mongol leader Genghis Khan, were able to exploit this fragmentation, invaded the Russian lands and established their lordship over them.

    This severed Russia’s links both with Western Europe and the South. Only in 1480 were the Mongols finally expelled from Russia.

    Their legacy of 240 years was the introduction of a degree of barbarism into Russian life and the separation of Russia from the rest of Europe. This legacy was felt for centuries after 1480.

    By the late fifteenth century Moscow emerged as the capital of the fledgling centralizing state that had successfully brought under its control formerly disunited Russian lands.”

    Speaking of the haloed Yulia Tymoshenko, last October:

    Timoshenko’s icon on Internet sale for €100,000

    Kiev, October 28, Interfax – An “icon” depicting Ukrainian ex-prime minister Yulia Timoshenko is on sale at the eBay auction, starting price is 100,000 Euro, the Ukrainian edition of the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily reports.

    “Modern Yulia Timoshenko’s icon, mixed collage technique, painting. Size 60×50,” the author writes in the commentaries.

    The edition says no one has desired to buy the work for the three days, though four thousands of users looked through the announcement.

    The “icon’s” author is Timoshenko’s old-time admirer Italian painter Antonio Matragrano. He became famous last year when he wished to present Timoshenko her portrait.

    His first work dedicated to the ex-prime minister was created during the legal process:
    Timoshenko’s face was crossed with the prison bars, today her photos are placed at the painter’s page in Facebook alongside with the slogan “Yulia’s free.”

    “Judging from his other works, Antonio ranks Timoshenko among actresses and models. He made Naomi Campbell’s and Monica Bellucchi’s portraits in the same technique,” the edition notes.

    ( )

    At the time Interfax published it, no buyers had been found. Don’t know about later.


    Tymoshenko reminds me more of Princess Leia.

  28. JK February 23, 2014 @ 9:47 pm

    “That just leaves the crucible of global war and genocide to liberate humanity from this satanic kosher plague.”

    Out of Khaos, order.

    Their “order.”

  29. Reinbeek February 24, 2014 @ 1:19 am

    Good politics is, in my opinion, listening to the political opinion of the poor, working, native people of the nation and to fullfill their simple political wishes.

    To base politics upon getting richer as a nation at the cost of the happiness of the poor workingclass is just an example of a low character.

    I really dislike Putin and his political philosophy till the bone.

    Putin and democracy? That seems like a joke to me.

  30. Mary February 24, 2014 @ 4:14 am


    Excellent historical statements on the history of Ukraine.

    Of 300 years of the Romanov Czars, Ukraine was very pro-Russia for approximately 200 of these years.

    Lenin was the one that changed the name of Petersburg to Leningrad, which finally (thank God) has been changed back to Saint Petersburg now.

    It appears that if Yanukovych had as much backbone as Putin, maybe Ukraine would not be in this situation. The problem though is that they are smaller than the Russian Federation and are a country with close ties to Russia, but the EU is obviously after them.

    @Ft. Nolan

    I really liked your statements and also about it’s links to the Olympic Games that even Israel of all people admitted. It is apparently extremely obvious that they are pulling for gay rights to try to make Russia look like bad people while they are on the world stage.

    They were the ones that ended up looking bad because they even threatened the Olympic Torch (now that is a no-no … bad sportsmanship).

    Even though it is kind of sad that Russia ended up getting caught up in dealing with those insane situations, not only concerning the PRiots (very insulting no matter what religion a person is … you do not enter a temple/Church and behave like that), but also concerning the situation in Kiev.

    It would have been nice for Russia to be able to have enjoyed their glory, which they probably are now, are winning the most gold medals and also more medals than any other country when their population is only 1/3 of the population of the US and there are no indications to give that Russians are like Alex Rodridiez, Ryan Braun, or Serena Williams.

    It was the US that looked horrible in front of the world the past 2 weeks, not Russia.

    But people have to understand that they are given disinformation many times. There are people in America that are White Supremacists that shave their heads they believe in salute of Hitler.

    Any German or German descent will tell that person “Look, the only reason people shaved their heads in the first place was because there was a head-lice problem where refugees had to go to camps during the war and some of them were just disgusting.” See, that is how much disinformation is given.

    So a person really has to use sound judgment and not fall for the first thing that they hear. Of course here in the US, we are all complaining about this being an atheist country that has gone completely immoral and basically wants to be tyrants to the world.

    The US might have engaged in wars when it was Christian, but for anyone to look at the contrast is not only shocking, but very disturbing.

    I would recommend people to go to Tomato Bubble to see the comparisons between: George Washington vs. Barack Obama, and also Jackie Kennedy vs. Michelle Obama.

  31. Griff February 24, 2014 @ 4:32 am


    Yes, as when I wrote “Servile Jews, You swine will gets what is coming to you anti-Christs” the same is synonym for their “father” who is surely anti-Christ in persona and is indeed Satan like.

    One only has to look at their vile Talmund and how they justify usury, perversion, crimes against Gentile, favoring of their kin, idolatry, sex with minor, etc.

    Jews love to finagle their way around law, and even the Old Testament which they cherry pick for their own needs when called for.

    That is why they killed Christ, the Holy Bible and continue their crimes against not only Christians and Whites, but the whole worlds and themselves.

    That is why I think Jews will lose, either we will rise up against them or their ZOG system will naturally fall under their own infighting.

  32. chestergimli February 24, 2014 @ 7:45 am


    Democracy has been described as “Rule of the Rabble.” Maybe you would rather have Obama as your president. I wouldn’t. Well, I remember, and haven’t forgotten, Obamacare.

    Then before that George Bush and the billions he gave to the bankers in 2008. Did he give any to us poor people? NO! All those billions he gave to the Jewish bankers could pretty well have paid off all of our home loans.

    Putin is no angel, no politician is. But, I don’t believe he is a Jew like Obama either. You are speaking about the western part of the Ukraine not the eastern part. Ukraine may split up. But I firmly believe that Putin has his plans.

    Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus may be nations of poor people. But just hang in there citizens of these countries. Our Lord will return. Then it will seem like spring forever.

  33. DaveE February 24, 2014 @ 8:46 am

    The Jews have exposed themselves this morning in The Guardian, at least.

    Yanukoyvich is on the run, the deal is trashed and The Guardian is getting all mushy at the prospect of a Jew-takeover of Ukraine with no resistance from Putin. Let’s hope they’re WRONG.

    Of course, Rice, Ashton and the usual chorus of Jew-puppets in the West are salivating over the prospect of another confrontation with Russia.

    The Jews have been setting this up for years, most recently with their Snowden psy-op, constant Russia bashing over the Olympics, not to mention the Georgia “revolution,” the “Cold War” (Russia vs. the Jews) and God knows what else.

    Makes ya’ think there were a LOT of Jonathan Pollards selling US secrets to Russia.

    Anyway, here’s The Guardian link. Read it and weep. Or better yet, get ready. The Jews won’t quit until we’re at war with Russia.

  34. KathJuliane February 24, 2014 @ 9:17 am

    White House Opens Mouth To Change Feet…
    Russia’s FM source: Susan Rice had better advise US, not Russia

    MOSCOW, February 24. /ITAR-TASS/:

    Russia has declared that the US president’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, would better counsel the White House, not Russia, a Russian Foreign Ministry source told Itar-Tass on Monday in a comment on Rice’s statement that Russia’s intervention in Ukraine “would be a grave mistake.”

    Barack Obama’s aide says introduction of Russian troops to Ukraine would be grave mistake.

    “We have brought to notice Susan Rice’s expert estimates based on repeated introduction of US forces in different parts of the world, especially where, according to the US administration, values of Western democracy are endangered or where the incumbents get out of hand too obviously,” said the source.

    “We hope it is such advice on the wrongs of using force that the current national security adviser will give the US authorities if they decide on another intervention.”

    Asked on broadcaster NBC on Sunday whether the US was concerned that Russia may bring its troops to Ukraine, Rice said “it’s not in the interest of Ukraine or of Russia or of Europe or of the United States to see a country split. It’s in nobody’s interests to see violence return and the situation escalate.”

  35. douglas adams February 24, 2014 @ 9:31 am

    I doubt Jews will let go of Eastern Ukraine.

    I predict the whole Ukraine (including the eastern Russian speaking part) will join the EU and NATO.

    Then I predict that the controlled Ukraine government will start killing ethnic Russians, which will provoke Putin into sending in tanks to protect his people. Then the Jew media will portray Putin as an invader and NATO will send their armies in. This will be the start of WW3.

    BTW, the exact same thing happened 1939 when Poles were slaughtering ethnic Germans which resulted in Hitler sending in armies to protect all these innocent Germans. We all know what happened after that.

  36. KathJuliane February 24, 2014 @ 9:43 am

    Voice of Russia: Ex-USSR, Russian Allies: Targets of US, NATO Color Revolution – Rick Rozoff

    It is unprecedented that simultaneously three countries that are allies of Russia are being threatened by color revolutions: Venezuela, the Bosnian and the Serb Republic (The Republika Srpska) and Ukraine.

    These synthetic uprisings orchestrated by the US/NATO/EU would have been identified as the uprisings of fascistic guttersnipes 100 years ago, but in 2014 they are being portrayed as democracy or freedom movements, by the same people who are organizing them to destroy country after country.

    Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff says that if something like this was to happen in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin or Rome, this would not have been tolerated for hours, much less days, weeks and months.

    Mr. Rozoff also stated that since the fragmentation of the Soviet Union the US and other Western nations have insinuated themselves very deeply into the political structures of former Soviet states, especially in Ukraine and into its internal security apparatus and military through a NATO integration and Partnership for Peace Agreement and the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

    It should be known, says Mr. Rozoff that the NATO Association Agreement with Ukraine is meant to: “… bring a country with a 1400 km border with Russia firmly into the military pen of the United States and NATO.”

    Excerpts from interview with Rick Rozoff by John Robles


    Incidentally, before I sign off, I just want to read a couple of brief excerpts from title 2 of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and European Union.

    The agreement, that not having been signed on November 21st, was the alleged cause for this violent uprising in Ukraine. It included comments like the following:

    “The Association Agreement will promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever deeper involvement in the European security area.”

    It calls to strengthen cooperation and dialog on international security and crisis management, and so forth. It talks very precisely about the military integration of Ukraine into that of western Europe, into the European Union in the first place, which itself is almost…

    Robles: NATO.

    Rozoff: Yes, it is NATO. It goes through the Berlin Plus and other agreements. It also calls for: “taking full and timely advantage of all diplomatic and military channels between the Parties” and so forth.

    And this goes on. People should know what this Association Agreement is. It is not meant to have workshops and multiculturalism or humanitarian festivals or something of the sort.

    This is a security-military agreement which is meant to bring a country with a 1400 km border with Russia firmly into the military pen of the United States and NATO.

    Robles: And last comment, if you would Rick. You are US-based, you live in Chicago.

    A lot of people here still entertain an idea, and some of them might be listening right now, people in Ukraine, people in Bosnia, people in Serbia, that somehow the answer to all their problems lies in the West.

    That somehow, if they welcome the United States into their countries, that they are going to be taken care of and they are going to have better lives and everything else. Can you comment on that?

    Rozoff: Yes, two scores. All they need to do is ask the people of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy – the southern flank of the European Union – what integration into the Western power structures portents for them.

    It portents misery, insecurity, unemployment, indebtedness, bankruptcy, old pensioners jumping out of windows because life doesn’t mean anything to them anymore.

    This is what subordination to the West means for the people of southern and eastern Europe, and ultimately for the people of the world. That is number one.

    Number two, we have to remember that Arseniy Yatsenyuk was Foreign Minister during the Government of Viktor Yushchenko – the US puppet who was implanted in the so-called Orange Revolution – and while he was Foreign Minister, 2000 Ukrainian troops were dragooned to be stationed in a warzone in Iraq.

    This is what integration with the West means.

    It means supplying cannon fodder – unemployed Ukrainian men and women who will be sent to warzones around the world to kill and die.

    This is what the new world order is. If this is what the West offers the people of the world, the world would be well advised to reject it.

  37. Mary February 24, 2014 @ 3:55 pm

    Speaking of the New York Times, “Turchinov said Ukraine and the EU should immediately revisit the closer ties that Yanukovych abandoned in November in favor of a $15 billion bailout loan from Russia that set off a wave of protests.”

    Stop right there. Russia was offering a peace settlement to be paid off over a long period of time and has much more to offer Ukraine than the EU ever will.

    Every time the EU bails out a country, the people don’t protest until they become even more impoverished and then they become upset. But when someone offers a generous hand, it does not send off waves of protests. In America during all of Obama’s bailouts, the Americans were actually stating “Where’s my bailout?”

    Anyone that believes that man needs to see a psychiatrist and he does as well.

    Little Russia … I mean Ukraine … is fully aware that the EU has been in serious trouble for quite some time and the circumstances specifically of Spain, Greece, and Cyprus.

    If anyone would like to perform some homework on Little Russia, they will find a numerous amount of times that the Ukrainians expelled Jews out of there.

    @Douglas Adams

    Interesting you brought that up. There’s even more.

    Actual Precursors to World War 1:

    1.) British Prime Minister Disraeli (Jew) granted Austria the superiority to appoint Serbian leaders, whereas Serbian interests were best protected by the Russian Czars.

    2.) Austria unfortunately took the bait.

    3.) This broke the Austrian-German-Russian Triple Alliance.

    4.) Young Turks (actually Jews) promote violence in Serbia.

    5.) Archduke Ferdinand arrives in Serbia is murdered by a Serb.

    6.) Austrian press dramatizes events to already enraged Austrians, which does not allow ample time to be given for Austria-Hungary and Russia to settle the Serbian conflict.

    7.) Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia when Russia states they will continue to defend Serbia (of all European countries entering WWI, Germany was actually the last country to mobilize, but then they are blamed for everything).

    Actual Precursors to World War 2:

    1.) Communist International (Comintern) is spread across Asia and Europe following the ending of the Russian Revolution (1917-1920).

    2.) Great Depression hits America and affects rest of world.

    3.) Four countries refuse to give in to the communists: Italy (1922) under Mussolini, Spain with their military leader Franco (Spanish Civil War – 1936-1939), Japan (signed Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany in 1937 upon Chinese invasion), and Germany (drove Jewish-Communists out in 1933 and also tossed out Rothschilds in 1933 as well).

    4.) Germany couldn’t figure out if Japan was fighting the Nationalist Chinese or the Communist Chinese in 1937; upon Japanese pledge to fight the communists, Germany enters Triple Entente with Japan, as well as Italy.

    5.) Jews declare boycott on Germany in 1933 after rally of 40,000 in New York.

    6.) Germany retaliates by declaring boycott on Jewish goods.

    7.) Germany is also to successfully avoid Jews until 1938.

    8.) Assassinations of German diplomats by Jews occur in both Switzerland and France in 1938 (Jews are imprisoned for these acts).

    9.) Situation with Danzig remains unclear (Western Prussia).

    10.) Jews in Poland burn down Protestant Churches and force Catholic priests to sleep on concrete floors (August 1939); these people are begging for Hitler to save them.

    11.) Hitler invades Poland.

    Now of course Third Reich Germany goes down in history books as the country that invaded Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, France, Sudetenland, and the Soviet Union. The ratings are there.

    The EU has already falsely attacked Putin over interests in Georgia and also Serbia. The latest is over Ukraine. This might get interesting.

  38. JL February 24, 2014 @ 4:14 pm

    Looking westwards from Ural mountains, this is Europe all the way to the Atlantic.

    The fact though is, that Russia continues 2/3 more eastwards all the way to Alaska and Pacific. Most of Russia’s natural resources are in this area, where there already are millions of Chineses.

    The other fact is, that Ukrainians same as Russians are European Christians, that is not a repulsive force.

    Ukrainians could join Jew led EU anytime, equally well from which Jews could be kicked out anytime, happened before. But Russia can’t, unless cutting that enormous nation into pieces, which Jew bankers are already waiting in China with our offshored industry and technology.

    I got the feeling, that Ukraine is backyard and bluff of things really happening.

  39. Eileen K. February 24, 2014 @ 7:10 pm


    This is one of your best articles to date, Br. Nathanael; and, I’m happy to see that you used very strong language in describing Victoria Nuland Kagan (aka Nudelman). She is that, indeed; and, she does NOT speak for us.

    She and her fellow Jews STOLE $5 billion from US taxpayers w/o our consent to finance violent riots in Kiev and eventual coup, which we strongly opposed.

    They OWE us all at least $5 billion and must pay the price for their TREASON against this nation; i.e., all of their assets must be seized in order to pay their debt to us, and be deported to some uninhabited island in the South Pacific and left there.

    In a way, that’s worse punishment than hanging, in that they would be marooned on this isolated island for life, with no hope of contact with anybody else. They would have to fend for themselves, something they never had to do before.

    You have been a great source of truthful information on this and other topics you have presented for quite some time, Br. Nathanael; and, as a token of my sincere appreciation, I have a donation to give to you once again.

    May the untold Blessings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, continue to flow upon you and never end.


  40. Jane February 24, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

    This morning John McCain was snickering and smirking as he told the US media that soon will come the time to overthrow the Putin government via the same tactics used in Ukraine.

    He even indicated that Vladimir Putin better start running if he knows what is good for him.

    I think soon will come the time for McCain to answer to God for all the evil he has done througout his miserable life.

    I can well imagine there already is a nice red hot pit in Hell prepared for him which will be his abode for all eternity and a bunch of scary looking demons assigned to eternally torture him.

  41. Skvalr February 25, 2014 @ 1:56 am

    Hahaha, nobody is going to play with Russia.

    Enough said.

  42. Reinbeek February 25, 2014 @ 3:54 am

    If McCain attacks Putin by the same tactics used in Lybia, Syria and now The Ukraine, Putin will probably fall, but with him entire Russia by looking at the demographic situation of Russia.

  43. Johann February 25, 2014 @ 7:35 am

    To get a deeper understanding of the often sorry phlight of the people of the Ukraine and the importance of the Orthodox Church in their lives, I recommend Nikolai Gogol’s wonderful novella “Taras Bulba” — a work the Jews have hated for more than 150 years, something that makes it even more enjoyable to read.

    In it we follow the lives of some Cossack warriors, each and every one of them prepared to die for Christ and the Church at any time, in their struggle against foreign invaders.

    The Cossacks were totaly committed to the Orthodox Church and its protection, something that Gogol makes absolutely clear when he depicts how a new recruit was welcomed to the Cossack army.

    The new recruit was presented to the general of all the Cossacks who then asked the newcomer:

    “Welcome, good fellow! Do you believe in Christ?”

    “I do.”

    “And do you believe in the Holy Trinity?”

    “I do!”

    “And do you go to Church?”


    “Let’s see you cross yourself.”

    The newcomer made the sign of the cross.

    “All right, said the general, “Go and choose any kuren (regiment) you like.”

    This ended the ceremony.

  44. Piotr February 25, 2014 @ 9:42 am

    Ukraine would have to adopt new laws like it has been done in Russia.

    The new laws oblige the NGOs to declare that they are Foreign entities.

    The fact that the CIA and EU have been paying demonstrators by using NGOs to wreck Kiev should require regulations to prevent a repeat of this behavior.

  45. Nico February 25, 2014 @ 1:14 pm


    Glad you brought this up…

    See the 2009 film version (Taras Bulba) which is also based on Nikolai Gogol’s novel. And pay particular note to the dialog between Taras Bulba and the ‘good Jew,’ Yankel.

    The latter character though still devoted to his father’s faith, is a good example on how all Jews should comport themselves with Christian believers. And if you watch closely, Yankel is moved almost to tears by the Cossacks’ suffering in their own land.

    Throughout, his expressions and speech possibly belie his ‘inherited’ faith.

  46. Hoff February 25, 2014 @ 4:43 pm

    Assassinations of German diplomats by Jews occur in both Switzerland and France in 1938 (Jews are imprisoned for these acts). – Mary –


    Source on the Switzerland case?


    The late Dr William Pierce. An extremely Jew-wise man. is a goldmine to find rare books, audios and movies about the Jews.

  47. KathJuliane February 25, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

    Dear Mary,

    You listed several precursors to World War I:

    “1.) British Prime Minister Disraeli (Jew) granted Austria the superiority to appoint Serbian leaders, whereas Serbian interests were best protected by the Russian Czars.”

    Never heard of this. The Serbs had their own monarchial dynasties re-established in their struggle for independence from the Ottoman regime. The Russian Tsars, as the only free Orthodox nation, long considered themselves the protectors of the Eastern Orthodox nations in the Ottoman Empire.

    In the 1870s, there was a set of personal agreements between the emperors of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany brokered by Bismarck where western Rumelia (the Balkans) was recognized as being within Austria-Hungary’s sphere of influence, and Eastern Rumelia within Russia’s. Disraeli nor Great Britain had anything to do with this.

    Disraeli was present at the Treaty of Berlin, which is completely different from the Three Emperors League.


    “2.) Austria unfortunately took the bait.”

    What bait? Austria-Hungary was itching for war in order to further annex more of the Western Rumelia (the Balkans) down to the Mediterranean for decades. Disraeli had nothing to do with it.

    Here’s the historical chronology, and nowhere does Austria show up as a hapless duped victim.

    1867 – The Habsburg Empire is replaced by the Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The Serbian lands are split between the two.

    Southwards, in the Principality of Serbia, Serbs rebel against the Ottoman authorities following the bombardment of Belgrade. Great Britain and France urge the Ottomans to withdraw their troops from Serbia. The Principality of Serbia is now de facto independent— 50 years after the Second Serbian Uprising.

    1869 – Subotica, one of the biggest Serbian settlements, is connected to the West by railway.

    1873 – Banat Krajina is abolished and included into Transleithania; despite the wishes of the majority Serbs and Germans. This is the first step towards the destruction of the Serb-populated Military Frontier inherited from the Habsburg Empire. By 1883 the Military Frontier is entirely abolished and incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, save for the Bay of Kotor (Austria).

    1877 – The Russo-Turkish War begins. The majority peoples, the Bosnian Serbs, launch an uprising against the Ottomans in Nevesinje declaring their unification with the Principality of Serbia.

    Nikola Pašić and Nicholas I of Montenegro proclaim the formal independence of Serbia and Montenegro. The Ottoman Empire declares war on Serbia and Montenegro.

    1878 – Christian troops besiege Istanbul. Western interference stops the collapse of Ottoman Turkey by acknowledging de jure independence of Montenegro, Serbia and Romania with the Treaty of Berlin: all of whom have already been sovereign for some time prior to the Congress.

    1882 – The Kingdom of Serbia (5th Serbian Realm) is proclaimed under Austrophile King Milan Obrenović following a corruption scandal he was involved in.

    1885 – The Serbo-Bulgarian War results in the country’s humiliation following the Unification of Bulgaria increasing hostility toward the House of Obrenović.

    1889 – King Milan Obrenović abdicates the throne in favour of his minor (age) son Aleksandar Obrenović. Austrophile policy continues.

    1893 – Aleksandar Obrenović assumes power following a coup d’état.

    1903 – The May Coup d’Etat results in the execution of the royal couple King Aleksandar Obrenović and Queen Draga Mašin by Black Hand activists.

    1906 – the Pig War between Austria-Hungary and the Kingdom of Serbia begins.

    Austria imposes an economic blockade on Serbia following Serbia’s decision to improve cooperation with France, Britain and Bulgaria. Serbia eventually triumphs with the aid of Western allies.

    At the beginning of the twentieth century Serbia was (economically at least) little more than a satellite of the Habsburg empire, its major export being pork, most of which was bought by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    When Serbia started trying to evade economic and political control by the Habsburgs, and build links with other countries, particularly Bulgaria and France, Vienna decided to punish the Serbs with economic sanctions.

    Specifically, in an attempt to reduce its economic dependence on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1904 Serbia began to import French rather than Austrian munitions and established a customs union with Bulgaria in 1905, making tariff-laden Austrian goods unsalable in Serbia.

    Long used to setting economic policy, Austria responded in 1906 by closing its borders to Serbian pork.

    These failed, and Serbia found other markets for its pork. Serbia refused to bow to Vienna, gained French investment to build new packing plants for international trade, began to order materials from the Austrian rival Germany, and pressured the Austrian-administrated, nominally Ottoman Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a trade outlet on the Adriatic Sea.

    1908 – To squash Bosnia and Herzegovina’s cooperation with Serbia, at the peak of the economic blockade Austria-Hungary annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina triggering the Bosnian crisis in Europe.

    The Young Turk Revolution starts within the Ottoman Empire.

    As Bulgaria proclaims independence Serbia starts looking toward Kosovo and Macedonia in the south having to accept the Bosnian occupation by Austria-Hungary.

    Russia supported Serbia’s actions, and war between Austria-Hungary and Russia was averted only because of a German ultimatum in 1909 demanding the cessation of Russian aid to Serbia.

    This Pig War conflict was crucial in running up to the decision of the Habsburg Empire on a final (and ultimately unsuccessful) military strike at Serbia in 1914. It therefore is one of the causes of World War I.

    1910 – The Kingdom of Montenegro is proclaimed in Cetinje under King Nicholas I of Montenegro. His long-term programme is the restoration of the Serbian Empire with himself as an Emperor. Two rival Serbian dynasties now fight for supremacy among Serbs.

    1912 – The Balkan Wars begin as Montenegro and Serbia declare war on the Ottoman Empire followed by Bulgaria and Greece. The Balkan League besieges Constantinople.

    Albania proclaims independence from the Ottoman Empire and is approved in the Treaty of London forcing Serbo-Montenegrin troops to withdraw from the country.

    1914 (28 June) – The Assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand sparks a major European crisis in “The Powderkeg of Europe” — the Balkans.

    The July Ultimatum is delivered to Serbian authorities demanding that Austro-Hungarian troops march into Serbia.

    The Kingdom of Serbia rightfully rejects the proposal supported by Imperial Russia, France and Great Britain as an invasion of sovereign territory, and not willing to come under Austro-Hungarian military occupation at all.

    For some reason, the popular Western historical “mind” perceives that the assassination occurred within Serbia and was officially sanctioned by the Serbian government, and so as a consequence, Austria-Hungary had a right to waltz in and invade Serbia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The crime happened on Austro-Hungarian territory, was committed by Austro-Hungarian citizens who were ethnic Slavs in Bosnia, the perpetrators were very quickly taken into custody by Austro-Hungarian authorities, and their trial was held in Austro-Hungarian provincial courts.

    Serbia was willing to assist and cooperate in any wider criminal conspiracy investigation, but an occupation of Austro-Hungarian military troops on sovereign territory was simply out of the question. That would be like the US demanding to occupy Mexico because a Mexican national committed a crime in LA County.

    Because Serbia refused to accept foreign military occupation, two months after the assassination (in Austro-Hungarian territory) Austria-Hungary and the German Empire declare war on the Kingdom of Serbia triggering the outbreak of World War I.

    I don’t see anything in this chronology which would indicate that Austria was somehow Disraeli’s stooge. Do you?

  48. KathJuliane February 25, 2014 @ 9:41 pm


    “3.) This broke the Austrian-German-Russian Triple Alliance.”

    There was no such thing. The Triple Alliance of 1882 until 1914 was the secret military alliance among Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Italy (as opposing the Triple Entente which consisted of an alliance between Britain, France and Russia), that lasted from 1882 until World War I in 1914.

    Do you mean the Dreikaiserbund — the League of Three Emperors? If so, this was a short lived personal alliance between in the latter part of the 19th century of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, devised by German chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

    Disraeli had nothing whatsover to do with the Dreikaiserbund.

    Bismarck aimed at neutralizing the rivalry between Germany’s two neighbours, Austria-Hungary and Russia, by an agreement over their respective spheres of influence in the Balkans and at isolating Germany’s enemy, France, thus forming the League of Three Emperors.

    The first Dreikaiserbund was in effect from 1873 to 1875. A second one, formal and secret, was established June 18, 1881, and lasted for three years.

    It was renewed in 1884 but lapsed in 1887. Both alliances ended because of continued strong conflicts of interest between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans.

    The partners were Kaiser William I of Germany, Czar Alexander II of Russia and Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria.

    These three rulers agreed: (i) to maintain the existing territorial arrangements in Europe; (ii) to resist the spread of revolutionary (e.g. socialist) movements; and (iii) to consult one another if any international difficulties arose.

    France was being diplomatically isolated. But the underlying weakness of this personal understanding between the three emperors was the rivalry between Austria and Russia over the Balkan Peninsula.

    Both sought to dominate the Balkans. It was difficult for Bismarck to keep them in the same camp.

    The Second Dreikaiserbund was also known as The Second Three Emperors’ League (1881).

    Bismarck still wanted to keep Russian friendship after the signing of Dual Alliance (1879) with Austria. The year 1881 was particularly favourable for the restoration of the League of the three conservative Emperors.

    In that year, Czar Alexander III ascended the Russian throne after the assassination of Alexander II. The fate of his father made Alexander III ready for a renewal of the Three Emperors’ League of 1872 which promised to suppress the revolutionary movements.

    The terms of this League were: (i) the Balkans was to be divided into two spheres of influence — the western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina) belonged to the Austrian sphere and the eastern Balkans (Bulgaria) belonged to the Russian sphere; (ii) the three Emperors agreed to consult one another if there was another Balkan crisis, and (iii) the three Emperors agreed to preserve benevolent neutrality if any one of them found himself at war with a fourth power.

    The League could not last long because Austria and Russia would soon rival over the Balkan Peninsula again.

    Bismarck was able temporarily to preserve the tie with Russia in the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887; but, after his dismissal, this treaty was not renewed, and a Franco-Russian alliance developed instead.

    Austro-Russian rivalry over Bulgaria led to the collapse of the Second Three Emperors’ League again. Bismarck secretly made a treaty with Russia without informing Austria.

    Russia and Germany would observe neutrality towards each other if either became involved in war with a third power, except if Germany attacked France or if Russia attacked Austria-Hungary.

    By making this treaty, Bismarck had been able to prevent his nightmare — a two front war — from being realized.

    According to the terms of the Second Three Emperors’ League, Bulgaria was recognized as a Russian sphere of influence.

    The Bulgarians were experiencing an awakening of national self consciousness and did not want to be dominated by the Russians. In 1885, in defiance of the Treaty of Berlin, the Bulgarians united Bulgaria with Eastern Rumelia.

    Russia objected to the emergence of a large anti-Russian state but Austria and Britain gave their recognition to the union of Bulgaria with Eastern Rumelia.

    Russia hated the Austrians for breaking the terms of the Second Three Emperors League and allowed the League to lapse in 1887.

    “4.) Young Turks (actually Jews) promote violence in Serbia.”

    Young Turks based in Salonika, Greece promoted violence in the rump state of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, particularly in the capital of Istanbul in Turkish Europe, in order to overthrow the monarchial sultanate.

    The Young Bosnian Movement were not Turks or Jews. They were pan-Slavs, a group made up of Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Bosnian Muslims, committed to achieving independence for Bosnia.

    Six of the actual conspirators were Bosnian Serbs, one was a Bosnian Muslim.

    “5.) Archduke Ferdinand arrives in Serbia is murdered by a Serb.”

    This is incorrect, and a misconception common to popular Western understanding of Balkan history and geopolitics.

    Archduke Ferndinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was unilaterally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908, thirty years after the Congress of Berlin.

    The crime occurred on Austria-Hungarian territory, and the assassin was was an ethnic Serb of Bosnia, and therefore legally an Austria-Hungarian citizen.

    Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Serbia, fell under Austro-Hungarian rule in 1878 when the Congress of Berlin approved the occupation of the Bosnia Vilayet, which officially remained part of the Ottoman Empire.

    Bosnia-Herzegovina was occupied and “administered” by Austria-Hungary.

    Three decades later, in 1908, Austria-Hungary provoked the Bosnian crisis by formally annexing the occupatied zone. It was placed under the joint control of both Austria and Hungary.

    Unification was the goal of German and Italian nationalism in the 19th century which in turn was inspired by French unification and nationalism. Serbian and Irish nationalism followed the same pattern and historical dynamics.

    Gavrilo Princip in his court trial in 1915 explained his motives for the assassination:

    “We thought: unification, by whatever means.” But who or what were to be unified? Princip considered himself a “Yugoslav” first and a “Serbian” second.

    In its broadest and most general form, unification would consist of all the South Slavs. In its narrowest form, it would consist of the unification of only Serbs, consisting of an enlarged Serbia, termed “Greater Serbia” by Austria-Hungary.

    In essence, Young Bosnia represented the culmination of the Yugoslav (literally, South Slav) idea, the unification of all the South Slavs into a single state — Yugoslavia.

    Disaffection and opposition to Austro-Hungarian occupation and (mis)rule in the Balkans was widespread and endemic. Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats sought independence and self-rule themselves.

    In other words, the independence movements were not solely limited to Serbs. Many Bosnians shared the views and goals of Gavrilo Princip and the Mlade Bosne (Young Bosnia) Movement.

    A second motive was revenge. Princip stated: “Still another motive was revenge for all torments which Austria imposed upon the people.” Princip was quoted as saying that “revenge is bloody and sweet.”

    What did Princip seek to avenge? Bosnia-Hercegovina, although nominally still Turkish territory, was occupied and “administered” by Austria-Hungary since 1878. In 1908, Austria annexed Bosnia outright. The Serbian Orthodox population of Bosnia was denied any civil, political, or human rights, and under intense pressure to convert to Catholicism.

    The Austro-Hungarian governor of Bosnia, Oskar Potiorek, advocated a blatantly and virulently anti-Serbian policy and opposed any measures which would improve the lot or position of the Serbian population of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

    Princip was motivated by the grievances and suffering of the Bosnian Serb population.

    The prosecutor asked him: “Of what do the sufferings of the people consist?” Princip replied: “That they are completely impoverished; that they are treated like cattle. The peasant is impoverished. They destroy him completely.

    “I am a villager’s son and I know how it is in the villages. Therefore I wanted to take revenge, and I am not sorry.”

    Opposition to Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration in Bosnia was long-standing and widespread. Political assassination attempts were common. Princip himself was guided by the earlier assassination attempt by the Bosnian Bogdan Zerajic, who headed the secret society Sloboda (Liberty).

    Zerajic attempted to assassinate General Marijan Varesanin, committing suicide after the attempt. Zerajic became a detested scoundrel (referred to as “scum” by Varesanin himself) to the Austro-Hungarian officials but a hero and martyr and symbol of resistance to the Young Bosnia Movement.

    Viktor Ivasjuk, the Austro-Hungarian chief police investigator, to show his contempt, later used Zerajic’s skull as an inkpot. Zerajic set the example to Princip to follow.

    Still, D’Israeli, contemptuous of political non-intervention, and his dynamic personality had a major role as part of the Triple Entente representing Britain at the Congress of Berlin. When the Treaty of Berlin was signed, England was greatly benefited by it. Hence Queen Victoria bestowed rare titles and honors on Disraeli and Salisbury. Disraeli was so proud of the treaty of Berlin that he pompously declared that he had returned honorably by making peace with honor.

    D’Israeli boast of having secured a peace with honor was certainly misplaced, for there was again the Ottoman Empire in Europe and the Eastern interests of England were not firmly preserved, but in fact, all that he had done was to prolong the process and the pain of Turkey’s extinction.

    The treaty formally recognized independence of the de facto sovereign principalities of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, together with the autonomy of Bulgaria.

    The latter de facto functioned independently and was divided into three parts: the Principality of Bulgaria, the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia, and Macedonia, which was given back to the Ottomans thus undoing Russian plans for an independent — and Orthodox —”Greater Bulgaria.” The Treaty of San Stefano had created a Bulgarian state, which was just what Great Britain and Austria-Hungary feared most

    The Kosovo Vilayet remained part of the Ottoman Empire. The former Sanjak of Novi Pazar was placed under Austro-Hungarian occupation, though formally remaining a part of the Ottoman Empire.

    D’Israeli estimated wrongly that Turkey would make reforms to improve the condition of the Christians.

    Soon the powers began to quarrel between themselves. In fact the treaty of Berlin created more problems than it actually solved. It left the European powers more dissatisfied than before and thus made the outbreak of the Balkan wars and the first world war inevitable.

  49. Dante Ardenz February 26, 2014 @ 1:48 am

    Thank you Brother for this.

    As usual wunderbar! I am pleased that you explained this so well.

    It has assuaged my fears that this Judiac Coup in the Ukraine is a total victory. Perhaps the JWO has gone a ‘bridge to far?”

    Many parts of the Jews’ agenda has been revealed here to more people. Ms Nuland; Liberal Democrat, is married to Robert Kagen, Republican/Neoconserevative who helped the drunken Churchillian Bush 2 ruin the millions!

    This displays how the Left/Right game, is just a Jewish Produced Show. John McCain, the old senile war monger, is said to be so hysterical, and determined because the Saudis/Israels ar bribing him.

    The Chinese Intelligence Service intercepted a phone call with Prince Bandar and the creep where 70 million was offered. See Syrian Persepective (Please research this), and this must get a wider audience.

    Christ said ‘Your house shall now be made desolate,’ when the filty Jew Crowd (take that Zio-Christians,and Vatican 2 sell out Catholics) shouted “May the blood of this man be on us and are children forever’. We must be vigilant, pray, and meditate no matter our spiritual beliefs.

    Keep backing Brother and study history: The Bad War.Com. David Irving Action Watch and speak out.

  50. Johann February 26, 2014 @ 4:59 am

    I haven’t seen the film, Nico, but its portrayal of Yankel doesn’t correspond to Gogol’s, for Yankel is not a nice man. Far from it.

    At the start of the book Taras Bulba saves Yankel’s life from certain death at the hands of the Cossacks. The Jew then moves away to another area where Bulba later finds him again, needing his help.

    Yankel’s first thought is to betray Bulba to cash in on a very large reward, but when he is offered more than twice that amount from Bulba he changes his mind. That’s gratitude for you.

    Gogol describes the sight that met Bulba when he found Yankel again:

    “The Jew was none other than Yankel. He had already settled there as a lease-holder and pot-house keeper, gradually got nearly all the neighbouring noblemen and squires into his hands, gradually sucked up all the money, and had made his Jewish presence strongly felt in the region.

    “Within a radius of three miles, not a single hut remained in order; everything had lived out its time, was falling into ruins; everything was being drunk away, and nought remained but poverty and rags; the whole region was laid waste as by a conflagration or a plague.

    “And had Yankel lived there for another ten years, he would probably have laid waste the whole waywodeship.”

    There is a reason the Jews hate Taras Bulba and that reason is the way they are portrayed by Gogol.

    Interestingly, apart from the Russians, Gogol doesn’t have much good to say about any of people living in or near the Ukraine, including the Poles, the Tatars and the Turks. But they don’t complain. They’ve moved on.

  51. Mary February 26, 2014 @ 8:41 am


    I am surprised that you had never heard of Britain’s involvement during the Balkan Wars while the Ottoman Empire was shrinking? Yes Disraeli was and here is an article to completely rebuke your very long statement.

    This also talks extensively about the Orthodox Serbs. Please read Brother Nathanael’s articles on the Young Turks.

    Concerning all of the comments about the agreement between Russia and Germany to not attack each other is exactly correct from what I understand about the situation as well. Otto von Bismarck was correct on so many issues.

    Concerning Germany as World War I was approaching, the Morocco Crisis was occurring. Kaiser Wilhelm II of the Hollenzollern Dynasty backed off this crisis in 1911, which is formally known as the Agadir Crisis and when Prussia (Germany) did this, it allowed the French to take over most of Morocco. This is because Germany did not want war.

    The crisis is thought to have begun in 1905.

    You have a very longer set of details on matters, but these are some additional links. I apologize that you fail to understand the Hapsburg’s were also responsible for ensuring the safety of the Pope when people and monarchies were told that Napoleon was going to kidnap the Pope and then Napoleon ended up not doing what he was told to do.

  52. Nico February 26, 2014 @ 10:26 am


    Yes, the ‘Yankel’ character portrayed in the film version is the complete opposite to that which you described from Gogol’s novel: he is a shrewd merchant but far from the Venetian crowd.

    Many occasions the Cossacks objected to his ‘shrewdness’. But time and again, Taras Bulba rode to his rescue. In one scene, after their revered Sich shrine was ransacked and burned by the Poles, the Cossacks, while on the march to enact revenge, object to Yankel being in their ranks.

    One fierce fellow confronts him.

    “Yankel, you don’t belong; why are you here?”

    Undeterred but equal to the task, Yankel rebuts him.

    “For such a large campaign, my wagons are carrying much needed supplies.”

    He then strengthens his defense.

    “I’m sure from the many spoils of war, you’ll pay me in fresh ducats!”

  53. Hoff February 27, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

    Follow The JC on Twitter

    Ukrainian far-right party Svoboda (Photo: AP)

    Ask Yuri Syrotyuk, a senior member of Ukrainian far-right party Svoboda, about widespread allegations of antisemitism in his own party and among the country’s political classes, and he constructs an unfortunate defence.

    “It is absolutely not true… Many representatives of your people [Jews] are in the Ukrainian parliament and among the richest citizens of Ukraine. Could that happen in a country where antisemitism is widespread?”

  54. Hoff February 27, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

    Yuri Syrotyuk, senior figure in the Svoboda party, says Jews have nothing to fear in his country.

  55. Hoff February 27, 2014 @ 8:31 pm

    World’s largest Jewish centre lights up like a menorah – one block on each day of the week

  56. Varangian March 2, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

    The US of America should stop treating Russia like it’s an uncivilised & barbarous nation.

    Russia claims a unique, proud heritage & should be thus treated with dignity.

    The Zionist controlled US has shown extreme disregard on the international stage using its puppets, “The United Nations” and “NATO” to openly invade & destroy nations in its quest for total control & thus monopoly of the worlds natural resources, parading under the banner of “Western Democracy.”

    Funny how American “democracy” always results in the bombing of nations into submission.

    Finally, in Putin, Russia now has a true & courageous stalwart leader.

  57. Laskarina March 4, 2014 @ 4:49 pm

    Thank you, Brother Nathanael, for this and your other excellent articles on the Jewish hand in the turmoil of the world.

    1. It’s the the Byzantine Roman Empire — the empire of the Justinian code — which is the triumph of good over evil. Though originally the eastern Roman Empire, it was a separate political and religious entity that flourished for over a thousand years, though in the west, the Jews have done a great job of wiping form the history books.

    2. The Jew Disraeli and a vast network of Jews too numerous to name here, planned, fomented and organized all the conflicts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (and it was a Jew who assassinated Tsar Alexander II) Disraeli was certainly well aware that the Muslims in Turkey would annihilate the Christians at some point.

    The Jews collude with the Muslims to destroy Christians throughout history. It’s all about money and power for them–the synagog of Satan who accepted the temptations that Christ rejected.

    Brother Nathanael is trying to wake people up to this larger fact, and does not plagiarize Jew Wikipedia and other silly internet mass propaganda for his facts. Read Disraeli’s novel. It’s all there.

    3. It was not only a “lone assassin” who murdered the Archduke and his wife — it was a large conspiracy and Princip was the one who held out his nerve. Another assassin threw a bomb which the driver of the Archduke managed to speed away from though others were wounded, including bystanders.

    Gavrilo Princip was a Jew, and the Black Hand was organized by Jews using masonic/organized crime type oaths incorporating Christian symbols to throw off it’s origins. (not the only time they were successful with that ploy)

    4. The Donmeh, some of whom were from Thessaloniki, Greece, were supremacist Jews who were part of a messianic community, fanatic followers of Sabbatai Zvi, who promoted himself as god.

    Kaganovich, who wreaked horror on Ukraine, was also Jew,yet there are still so many Jews in power and wealth in Ukraine. They also have IOF commandos “advising” and leading protesters, according the the Times of Jerusalem. Are you surprised?

    Some time ago, they distributed the identical leaflets (though different language) to people before the protests as they did in Egypt.

    Lastly, it deserves mention that the reason why the Cossacks (in Taras Bulba) asked the recruits to cross themselves was to distinguish them from Catholics (mostly Polish), but still, as Gogol makes clear — with the Jews (Yankel as example), it’s always about money.

    Christ have mercy.

  58. KathJuliane March 23, 2014 @ 10:02 am


    Apologies for taking so long. This got buried in other stuff.

    “6.) Austrian press dramatizes events to already enraged Austrians, which does not allow ample time to be given for Austria-Hungary and Russia to settle the Serbian conflict.”

    In part this is true, the Austrian press was very propagandistic and inflammatory towards Serbia in keeping with Emperor Franz Joseph’s belligerance towards the Kingdom of Serbia for interferring with his desires to extend his empire across the Balkans and march to Salonika. And it certainly inflamed the local population enough as to launch an orgy of pogroms against the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere.

    However, Austria had no intention of doing anything other than what they’d already decided to do years before, one step of which was to unilaterally and illegally annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, still nominally Turkish territory.

    That long-standing obssession of Franz Joseph and his belligerent court was to conquer Serbia on Austria-Hungary’s march to capture Saloniki for itself. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the pretext.

    In fact, for Franz Joseph, it did away with the nuisance in the person of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as well, for despite F.F’s public rhetoric of hatred towards Slavs, at court he was a ardent and vocal proponent of “trialism,” offering Slavdom a monarchy at the Viennese court as a third crown of the emperor along with Austria and Hungary, in order to cut off both the nationalistic pan-Slav movement as well as the competing national Slav moments of Serbia, Czechia, Slavonia, etc inside the emperor.

    Bosnia-Herzegovina, the two westernmost provinces of the Ottoman Empire that Austria-Hungary was assigned to administer in the name of the Divine Porte, were held in a state of semifeudal serfdom by a unique Moslem Serbian landowning class.

    At the time of the Turkish invasion four centuries earlier, some of the native Serbian nobility accepted Islam and retained their lands, which is why there are Muslim Slavs today, besides those descendents of the Janissaries, which were Christian boys who were taken fr But the bulk of the population remained Christian, of both Catholic and Orthodox varieties.

    At the time of the revolt, out of a total population of l.2 million in the two provinces, 40 per cent were Moslem, 42 per cent Orthodox and 18 per cent Catholic.

    Only a handful of the Muslims were large landowners, the remainder of Muslims being peasants who were exploited in the same manner as their Christian counterparts.

    But the Christians were more susceptible to foreign influences and were more dissatisfied with their lot. In practice, though not in law, they were bound to the estates of the Muslim landowners.

    They had the right to own landed property but the difficulties in the way of acquiring land were so formidable that few were able to surmount them.

    Peasants paid one third to one half of their crop to the landowner and also one eighth to the tax farmer, the usual contractors of which were often Jews, a traditional Jewish occupation everywhere.

    The tax farmer also collected petty taxes on animals and on specific produce. In fact, as elsewhere, these tax farmers were a grievous burden because they paid a cash sum for the privilege of collecting the taxes and then proceeded to fleece the peasants mercilessly in order to secure a large return on their investment.

    It made no difference to them if the crops were poor and the peasants were in difficulty. Indeed, the immediate cause for the 1875 revolt was the crop failure of the previous year and the unrelenting pressure of the tax farmers.

    On the heels of a number of rebellions and insurrections in Rumelia against the Ottoman empire (the Great Balkan Crisis), agrarian unrest eventually sparked the Herzegovinian rebellion, a widespread peasant uprising, in 1875.

    The conflict rapidly spread and came to involve several Balkan states and Great Powers, a situation which eventually led to the Congress of Berlin and the Treaty of Berlin in 1878.

    The Congress of Berlin was a renegotiation of the Treaty of San Stefano.

    At the Congress of Berlin in 1878, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Andrássy obtained the occupation and administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he also obtained the right to station garrisons in the Sanjak of Novi Pazar, which remained under Ottoman administration.

    The Sanjak preserved the separation of Serbia and Montenegro, and the Austro-Hungarian garrisons there would open the way for a dash to Salonika that “would bring the western half of Rumelia [the Balkans] under permanent Austrian influence.”

    “High [Austro-Hungarian] military authorities desired [an…] immediate major expedition with Salonika as its objective.”

    The occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a step taken in return to Russian advances into Bessarabia. Unable to mediate between Turkey and Russia over the control of Serbia, Austria–Hungary declared neutrality when the conflict between the two powers escalated into the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878).

    In order to counter Russian and French interests in Europe, the Triple Alliance Treaty was concluded with Germany in October 1879 and with Italy in May 1882.

    The Austro-Hungarian empire eventually unilaterally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 1908.

    The Bosnian Crisis of 1908–1909, also known as the Annexation crisis, or the First Balkan Crisis, that erupted into public view when on 6 October 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the unilateral annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a common holding under the control of the finance ministry, rather than attaching it to either territorial government.

    Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany and France took an interest in these events.

    In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to accept the new status quo bringing the crisis to an end. The crisis permanently damaged relations between Austria-Hungary on the one hand and Russia and the Kingdom of Serbia on the other.

    The annexation of 1908 and reactions to the annexation were contributing causes of World War I.

    Serbia and Russia protested to Austria-Hungary taking over Bosnia, but backed down when Germany said it supported Austria-Hungary. Neither Russia or Serbia were prepared to go to war with Germany.

    Austria-Hungary became over confident with Germany’s help and escalated the crisis. Russia was determined not to back down again and hastened its arms build up.

    World War I started in 1914. Two months passed between the murder of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a Bosnian Serb high school student on June 28, who was part of a small South Slav nationalist group plotting the assassination, and the coming of general war at the end of August.

    In other words, there was plenty of time for calculation, caution and decision. Who chose to risk war, and why?

    A look at the actual participants tells us something about South Slav nationalist dissatisfaction in Habsburg-ruled Bosnia.

    The first conspirator along the parade route was Mehmed Mehmedbasic, a 27-year old carpenter, son of an impoverished Bosnian Muslim notable: he had a bomb.

    When the car passed him, he did nothing: a gendarme stood close by, and Mehmedbasic feared that a botched attempt might spoil the chance for the others. He was the only one of the assassins to escape.

    Next was Vaso Cubrilovic, a 17-year old student armed with a revolver. Cubrilovic was recruited for the plot during a political discussion: in Bosnia in 1914, virtual strangers might plot political murders, if they shared radical interests.

    Cubrilovic had been expelled from the Tuzla high school for walking out on the Habsburg anthem. Cubrilovic too did nothing, afraid of shooting Duchess Sophie by accident.

    Nedelko Cabrinovic was the third man, a 20-year old idler on bad terms with his family over his politics: he took part in strikes and read anarchist books.

    He was a friend of Gavrilo Princip, who recruited him for the killing, and they travelled together back to Sarajevo. Cabrinovic threw a bomb, but failed to see the car in time to aim well: he missed the heir’s car and hit the next one, injuring several people.

    The fourth and fifth plotters were standing together. One was Cvetko Popovic, an 18-year old student who seems to have lost his nerve, although he claimed not to have seen the car, being nearsighted. Popovic received a 13-year sentence, and later became a school principal.

    Nearby was 24-year old Danilo Ilic, the main organizer of the plot; he had no weapon. Ilic was raised in Sarajevo by his mother, a laundress.

    His father was dead, and Ilic worked as a newsboy, a theatre usher, a laborer, a railway porter, a stone-worker and a longshoreman while finishing school; later he was a teacher, a bank clerk, and a nurse during the Balkan Wars.

    His real vocation was political agitation: he had contacts in Bosnia, with the Black Hand in Serbia, and in the exile community in Switzerland. He obtained the guns and bombs used in the plot. Ilic was executed for the crime.

    The final two of the seven conspirators were farther down the road. Trifko Grabez was a 19-year old Bosnian going to school in Belgrade, where he became friends with Princip.

    He too did nothing: at his trial he said he was afraid of hurting some nearby women and children, and feared that an innocent friend standing with him would be arrested unjustly.

    He too died in prison: the Austrians spared few resources for the health of the assassins after conviction.

    Gavrilo Princip was last. Also 19-years old, he was a student who had never held a job. His father was a postman, his peasant family owned a tiny farm of four acres, the remnant of a communal zadruga broken up in the 1880s; for extra cash, his father drove a mail coach.

    In 1912 he went to Belgrade: he never enrolled in school, but dabbled in literature and politics, and somehow made contact with Apis and the Black Hand. During the Balkan Wars he volunteered for the Serbian army, but was rejected as too small and weak.

    Gavrilo was one of nine children, six of whom died in infancy. His health was poor and from an early age suffered from tuberculosis.

    Princip attended schools in Sarajevo and Tuzla, but in May 1912, left Bosnia for Belgrade to continue his education. While in Serbia Princip joined the Black Hand secret society. For the next two years he spent most of his spare time with other nationalists who also favoured a union between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia.

    When it was announced that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungarian Empire, was going to visit Bosnia-Herzegovina in June 1914, Dragutin Dimitrijevic-Apis, the chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian Army and head of the Black Hand, sent three men, Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic, and Trifko Grabez to Sarajevo to assassinate him.

    Each man was given a revolver, two bombs and small vial of cyanide. They were instructed to commit suicide after Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been killed. It was important to Dragutin Dimitrijevic that the men did not have the opportunity to confess who had organised the assassination.

    Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez were suffering from tuberculosis and knew they would not live long. They were therefore willing to give their life for what they believed was a great cause, Bosnia-Herzegovina achieving independence from Austro-Hungary.

    Nikola Pasic, the prime minister of Serbia, heard about the plot and gave instructions for Princip and the other two men, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez to be arrested when they attempted to leave the country.

    However, his orders were not implemented and the three man arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they joined forces with fellow conspirators, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, Danilo Ilic, Vaso Cubrilovic, Cvijetko Popovic, Misko Jovanovic and Veljko Cubrilovic.

    Pasic now sent instructions to Jovan Jovanovic, the Serbian Minister in Vienna, to warn the Austrian government about the possibility of an assassination threat to Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

    On 5th June Jovanovic had a meeting with Leon von Bilinski, the Minister of Finance at Vienna’s court. However, Bilinski failed to pass on this message to the people who could have made the necessary precautions to prevent the assassination.

    On the day of the attack, Princip heard Cabrinovic’s bomb go off and assumed that the Archduke was dead. By the time he heard what had really happened, the cars had driven by.

    By bad luck, a little later the returning procession missed a turn and stopped to back up at a corner just as Princip happened to walk by. Princip fired two shots: one killed the archduke, the other his wife.

    Princip was arrested before he could swallow his poison capsule or shoot himself. Princip too was a minor under Austrian law, so he could not be executed. Instead he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and died of tuberculosis in 1916.

    Some generalizations about the plotters. All were Austro-Bosnian Slavs by birth. Most were Serbian Orthodox, but one was a Bosnian Muslim: at their trial, the plotters did not speak of Serbian, Croatian or Muslim identity, only their unhappiness with the Habsburgs.

    None of the plotters was older than 27: none of them were old enough to remember the Ottoman regime. Their anger over conditions in Bosnia seems directed simply at the visible authorities.

    The assassins were not advanced political thinkers: most were high school students. From statements at their trial, the killing seems to have been a symbolic act of protest. Certainly they did not expect it to cause a war between Austria and Serbia.

    A closer look at the victims also supports this view: that symbolic, not real, power was at stake.

    Assassination attempts were not unusual in Bosnia. Some of the plotters originally planned to kill Governor Potiorek, and only switched to the royal couple at the last minute.

    Franz Ferdinand had very limited political power. He was Emperor Franz Joseph’s nephew, and became the heir when Franz Joseph’s son killed himself in 1889 (his sisters could not take the throne).

    Franz Ferdinand’s position conferred less power than one might think. Franz Ferdinand’s wife, Sophie Chotek, was a Bohemian noblewoman, but not noble enough to be royal. She was scorned by many at court, and their children were out of the line of succession (Franz Ferdinand’s brother Otto was next).

    Franz Ferdinand had strong opinions, a sharp tongue and many political enemies. He favored “trialism,” adding a third Slavic component to the Dual Monarchy, in part to reduce the influence of the Hungarians.

    His relations with Budapest were so bad that gossips blamed the killing on Magyar politicians.

    There have been efforts to say that Serbian politicians had him killed to block his pro-Slav reforms, but the evidence for this is thin.

    Franz Ferdinand had first met Sophie von Chotkovato at a dance in Prague in 1888. The couple fell in love but although Sophie came from a noble but impoverished Bohemian family, she was not considered a suitable woman to marry Franz Ferdinand.

    To be an eligible partner for a member of the Austro-Hungarian royal family, you had to be descended from the House of Hapsburg or from one of the ruling dynasties of Europe. Franz Ferdinand insisted he would not marry anyone else.

    Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and Pope Leo XIII all made representations to Franz Josef on Franz Ferdinand’s behalf arguing that the the disagreement over Ferdinand’s marriage was undermining the stability of the monarchy.

    In 1899 Emperor Franz Josef agreed a deal with Franz Ferdinand. He was allowed to marry Sophie von Chotkovato but it was stipulated that her descendants would not be allowed to succeed to the throne.

    It was also pointed out that Sophie would not be allowed to accompany her husband in the royal carriage nor could she sit by his side in the royal box. As historian A. J. P. Taylor observes in The First World War: An Illustrated History:

    “[Sophie] could never share [Franz Ferdinand’s] rank … could never share his splendours, could never even sit by his side on any public occasion. There was one loophole … his wife could enjoy the recognition of his rank when he was acting in a military capacity.

    “Hence, he decided, in 1914, to inspect the army in Bosnia. There, at its capital Sarajevo, the Archduke and his wife could ride in an open carriage side by side … Thus, for love, did the Archduke go to his death.”

    In 1913 Franz Ferdinand was appointed Inspector General of the Austro-Hungarian Army.

    A promoter of naval expansion and military modernization, Ferdinand was popular with the armed forces and in the summer of 1914 General Oskar Potiorek, Governor of the Austrian provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina, invited the Inspector of the Armed Forces, to watch his troops on maneuvers.

    When Potieoek made it clear that his wife, Dutchess Sophie would also be made welcome, Franz Ferdinand agreed to make the visit. As Inspector General of the Army, F.F. accepted an invitation to visit the provincial capital of Bosnia — Sarajevo — to inspect army manoeuvres.

    The trip also provided an opportunity for both himself and Sophie to be seen as ‘imperial,’ since a military inspection in one of the provinces was not the same as a royal procession.

    Franz Ferdinand knew that the journey would be dangerous. A large number of people living in Bosnia-Herzegovina were unhappy with Austro-Hungarian rule and favoured union with Serbia.

    In 1910 a Serb, Bogdan Zerajic, had attempted to assassinate General Varesanin, the Austrian governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, when he was opening parliament in Sarajevo.

    Zerajic was a member of the Black Hand (Unity or Death) who wanted Bosnia-Herzegovina to leave the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The leader of the group was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, the chief of the Intelligence Department of the Serbian General Staff.

    Dimitrijevic considered Franz Ferdinand a serious threat to a union between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. He was worried that Ferdinand’s plans to grant concessions to the South Slavs incorporated as a third part of the monarchy would make an independent pan Slavic state of Greater Serbia more difficult to achieve.

    The assassins did not act alone. Who was involved within Serbia, and why? To understand Serbian actions accurately, we must distinguish between the Radical Party led by Prime Minister Pasic, and the circle of radicals in the army around Dimitrijevic-Apis, the man who led the murders of the Serbian royal couple in 1903.

    The role of Apis in 1914 is a matter of guesswork, despite many investigations. The planning was secret, and most of the participants died without making reliable statements.

    Student groups like Mlada Bosna were capable of hatching murder plots on their own. During 1913 several of the eventual participants talked about murdering General Oskar Potiorek, the provincial Governor, or even Emperor Franz Joseph.

    Once identified as would-be assassins, however, the Bosnian students seem to have been directed toward Franz Ferdinand by Dimitrijevic-Apis, by now a colonel in charge of Serbian intelligence.

    Princip returned from a trip to Belgrade early in 1914 with a plan to kill Franz Ferdinand, contacts in the Black Hand who later supplied the guns and bombs, and information about the planned June visit by the heir, which Princip would not have known without a leak or tip from within Serbian intelligence.

    In 1917, Apis took credit for planning the killing, but his motives can be questioned: at the time, he was being tried for treason against the Serbian king, and mistakenly believed that his role in the plot would lead to leniency. In fact, both the Radical Party and the king were afraid of Apis and had him shot.

    When it was announced that Franz Ferdinand was going to visit Bosnia in June 1914, Dimitrijevic began to make plans to assassinate the heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne.
    Dimitrijevic sent three members of the Black Hand group based in Belgrade, Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez, to Sarajevo to carry out the deed.

    Unknown to Dragutin Dimitrijevic, Major Voja Tankosic, a senior member of the Black Hand group, informed Nikola Pasic, the prime minister of Serbia, about the plot.

    Although Pasic supported the main objectives of the Black Hand group, he did not want the assassination to take place, as he feared it would lead to a war with Austro-Hungary. He therefore gave instructions for Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez to be arrested when they attempted to leave the country.

    However, his orders were not implemented and the three man arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they joined forces with fellow conspirators, Muhamed Mehmedbasic, Danilo Ilic, Vaso Cubrilovic, Cvijetko Popovic, Misko Jovanovic and Veljko Cubrilovic.

    The eldest son of Emperor Franz Joseph’s younger brother Carl Ludwig, Franz Ferdinand (F.F.), third in the line of succession, became the hier-apparent following the death of Crown Prince Rudolf in 1889, and his own father in 1896.

    Not an especially cultured man, at times prideful and mistrusting, F.F. lacked the charisma to make him socially and politically popular. His short temper and suspicious nature ensured that truly talented advisors did not last long in his cabinet-in-waiting.

    He became more reclusive following his morganatic marriage to Sophie Chotek von Chotkova in 1900. Contrary to his public persona, he was a very happy husband and devoted father.

    Another source of F.F.’s lack of popularity was the reforms he intended to enact when he became Emperor. Recognizing growing the strains and pressures of nationalism among the many ethnic groups within Austria-Hungary, F.F. proposed to replace Austro-Hungarian dualism with ‘Trialism,’ a triple monarchy in which the empire’s Slavs would have an equal voice in government with the Germans and Magyars.

    Another possible variation F.F. was exploring was a form of federalism made up of 16 states. While such radical reforms might have saved the empire, they were not popular among those with vested interests in the existing political structure.

    Serbia was as uncomfortable with F.F.’s potential reforms as any group within the empire. Contented Slavs living within the empire would not be likely to agitate for separation and to join with Serbia in the nationalist pan-Slav movement.

    The provinces of Bosnia and Herzogovina had been under Austro-Hungarian administration and protection by international agreement, since 1878. In 1906, Austria initiated a customs war with Serbia, and 1908, Austria annexed the provinces outright.

    Some European governments were upset at the annexation, but Greater-Serbia proponents were outraged. They wanted the provinces to be part of a Serbian led pan-Slav state, not part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

    A Serbian secret terrorist group, the Black Hand, decided to assassinate somebody in protest. F.F. was eventually selected when his trip to Saravejo was made public. By killing him, the threat of his reforms would be removed.

    On June 28th, 1914, while riding in the motorcade through the streets of Sarajevo, Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were shot and killed by Gavrilo Princip — one of seven young Bosnians and Black Hand recruits. The assassination provided ‘justification’ for Austria to take hard action against Serbia. Throughout the month of July, 1914, the Austro-Serbian situation quickly escalated to include the Eruopean world powers — resulting in world war.

    All of the assassins were eventually caught. Those in Austro-Hungarian custody were tried together with members of the infiltration route who had helped deliver them and their weapons to Sarajevo.

    Mehmedbašić was arrested in Montenegro, but was allowed to “escape” to Serbia where he joined Major Tankosić’s auxiliaries, but in 1916 Serbia imprisoned him on other charges.

    Anti-Serb rioting broke out in Sarajevo and various other places within Austria-Hungary in the hours following the assassination until order was restored by the military.

    On the night of the assassination, country-wide anti-Serb pogroms and demonstrations were also organized in other parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, particularly on the territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.

    They were organized and stimulated by Oskar Potiorek, the Austro-Hungarian governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first anti-Serb demonstrations, led by the followers of Josip Frank, were organized in early evening of 28 June in Zagreb.

    The following day, anti-Serb demonstrations in the city became more violent and could be characterized as a pogrom. The police and local authorities in the city did nothing to prevent anti-Serb violence.

    Writer Ivo Andrić referred to the violence in Sarajevo as the “Sarajevo frenzy of hate.” Two Serbs were killed on the first day of pogrom in Sarajevo, many were attacked, while around 1,000 houses, shops, schools and institutions (such as banks, hotels, printing houses) owned by Serbs were razed or pillaged.

    ( )

  59. KathJuliane March 23, 2014 @ 11:40 am


    Gavrilo Princep was the son of a Bosnian Serb postman and peasant farmer and no Jew.


    You wrote: “I am surprised that you had never heard of Britain’s involvement during the Balkan Wars while the Ottoman Empire was shrinking? Yes Disraeli was and here is an article to completely rebuke your very long statement.

    Reply: Of course I am aware of Britain’s sometimes treacherous and double-dealing hand in the Balkans in much of modern history, just as the alliance of Britain, France, and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont sided with Turkey against Russia in the Crimean War of 1853.

    And Bismark was a master at the Balance of Power Game generally pitting Russia against Britain in Germany’s interests.

    The Crimean War arose from the conflict of the Great European Powers in the Middle East and was more directly a reaction to Russian demands to exercise protection over the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan within the Ottoman Empire.

    Another major factor was the dispute between Orthodox Russia, and Catholic France (and of course the Papacy backing the Catholic countries) over the privileges of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in the holy places in Palestine.

    London was a major backer and ally of the series of wars of Greek Independence from the Ottoman empire throughout the 19th century, starting in 1821.

    You may “rebuke” my statement all you want, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you have made at least six factually erroneous statements you claim as historical, leading up to WWI.

    Even your own sources work against you. Additionally, I have yet to understand just what Napoleon and the Pope from the first half of the 19th century have to do with the later events including the Congress of Berlin.

    1.) “British Prime Minister Disraeli (Jew) granted Austria the superiority to appoint Serbian leaders, whereas Serbian interests were best protected by the Russian Czars.”

    This is still factually wrong on two points. ‘Dictator’ D’Israeli did not wave his magic wand and “grant Austria the superiority over Serbia…”. To his credit, D’Israeli converted to Anglican Christianity, and prioritized British patriotism over his own well-known Jewish ethnic roots.

    Even the article you cited states that at the Congress of Berlin which involved a month-long meeting (13 June – 13 July 1878) of the leading statesmen of the European Great Powers (recognized by the Congress of Vienna which created the Concert of Europe — the empires of Russia, Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia) and the Ottoman Turkish Empire, in Berlin.

    D’Israeli was a powerful statesman of the pre-eminent imperial power behind the Pax Brittanica due to its navy and the extent of its territories, and an instigator of the Great Game between Britain and Russia, but he certainly was not any kind of “dictator” over the other heads of four strong-willed imperial states, particularly Russia.

    The next paragraph of your cited article then reads:

    In 1875, the Serbian population of Hercegovina, first in the Nevesinje region, launched an insurrection and revolt or revolution against the exploitation of the Muslim begs and agas (from Turkish bey, aga, master) which spread throughout Bosnia.

    1875 was a year of poor harvests which resulted in a famine in Hercegovina, where the Serbian population faced starvation. There was, moreover, widespread political dissatisfaction with the repressive and exploitative policies of the several hundred begs and 6,000 agas.

    The Muslim begs and agas and the Muslim populace reacted with a counter-revolution. The Muslim forces formed irregular Islamic troops called the Bashi-Bazouks (from Turkish basibozuk, bas, head, bozuk, depraved, out of order) known for their brutality, fanaticism, and atrocities against Orthodox Christian Serbs.

    The exactions of the Ottoman feudal lords on the Orthodox Serbian population had become intolerable.

    The heavy and unjust tax burdens, the lack of any civil and human rights of the rayah, the reactionary and non-democratic nature of the Islamic feudal regime, which opposed any and all reforms, all of these tyrannical abuses were factors which led to the Bosnian Revolution or Insurrection of 1875.

    The spark for the Bosnian Revolution was a massacre of unarmed Orthodox Serbs by the Ottoman overlords.

    The Bosnian Insurrection led Serbia, Montenegro, and then Russia, to declare war on the moribund Turkish Ottoman Empire. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, Russia defeated Turkey.

    The Orthodox Serbian populations of Hercegovina and Bosnia expected to gain independence and freedom from Ottoman Muslim occupation and rule.

    But due to the political machinations of Britain, Germany, and Austria-Hungary, which opposed independence for Bosnia, at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 sponsored by Otto von Bismarck, who was the president of the Congress, Bosnia-Hercegovina was assigned to the Austro-Hungarian Empire to administer or occupy, although nominally still a part of Ottoman Turkey.

    Before the Congress met, secret protocols were agreed to between Russia and Britain: 1) Bulgaria would be partitioned into a northern territory and a southern territory, “eastern Rumelia”; 2) Turkey would cede Cyprus to Britain; and, 3) Austria-Hungary would occupy and administer Bosnia-Hercegovina.

    Turkey retained sovereignty over Bosnia.

    Austria-Hungary also occupied Novi Pazar, a strategic region that separated Serbia and Montenegro and was an important route to Salonika.

    Austria wanted to keep Montenegro and Serbia from uniting, which was an obstacle to the German-Austrian Drang nach Osten policy, “drive on the East”. Priboj, Prijepolje, and Plevlje were garrisoned by the Austro-Hungarian Army.

    Before the Congress, Bismarck had stated that Germany would act as an”honest broker” between the parties and not as an arbitrator of the claims. When the Congress ended, Bismarck declared that it had “within the limits of what was possible, done Europe the service of keeping and maintaining the peace.”

    Benjamin Disraeli stated that he had “brought peace with honour.” Did peace result?

    The Bosnian Serb perception of the Treaty of Berlin was to see it as a treacherous and perfidious act of betrayal by foreign, imperialist-colonialist powers. One foreign master was replaced by another foreign master.

    The position of the Bosnian Serbs remained the same in Bosnia under Austria-Hungary as it had under the Ottomans. Nothing had changed for them.

    This act of treachery and diplomatic perfidy perpetuated in the name of imperialist expansion by moribund empires would lead to the assassination in 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by a student from Hercegovina and a member of the Young Bosnia Movement, Gavrilo Princip.

    Like many Westerners, you are confusing the history of Serbia proper and the ethnic enclaves of Serbs like Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were traditional Serb territories under Ottoman administration, which came under Austro-Hungarian administrative control after Austria-Hungary invaded and occupied the two Turkish provinces.

    The Serb diaspora also included Serbian communities invited by the Habsburg Empire to live in the Austro-Hungarian frontier military provinces on the border with the Ottoman Empire.

    These same administrative territories were then unilaterally annexed as Austro-Hungarian territory in 1908 — Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    In 1815 the Serbs successfully rebelled, and in 1835 they proclaimed their own constitution.

    1876 – Serbia went to war with Turkey and conquered Bosnia, and area of the Balkans where many Orthodox Serbs lived.

    HOWEVER, at the Congress of Berlin, two years later, Austria-Hungary persuaded the other great powers to give back Bosnia to Turkey, under Austria’s ‘protection,’ resulting in the secret protocols.

    1878 Treaty of San Stefano: Serbia was declared an independent country.

    In 1867 Serbia proper was still a tiny, backward principality of the Ottoman Empire, self-governing but subject; the Prince of Serbia counted as a vassal of the Turkish Sultan.

    With its Slav population of just over a million, Serbia was dwarfed by the Habsburg Monarchy to the north, a European great power of some thirty-six millions; yet, in 1914, it was tiny Serbia that the Monarchy attacked, hysterically driven to desperation by Serb nationalism in the Serbian diaspora it perceived as posing for the empire’s very survival.

    An aggressive, often shrill and jingoist Serb nationalism was certainly a significant ingredient in the breakdown of relations, since Austria-Hungary (as it was called after 1867) included a sizeable Serb minority among its eleven different nationalities, and Serbs on both sides of the frontier experienced Catholic Habsburg rule as oppressive.

    Hapsburg rule was even more alarmed by the South Slav (Yugoslav) movement, and the even larger “pan-Slavic” nationalist movement which included Serb Orthodox, Catholic Croats and other Catholic and Orthodox Slavs in eastern and central Europe, like the Catholic Slovenes or the Orthodox Ruthenians of Austrian Poland, and Slavic Muslims of the Balkans, and which was endorsed by Russia.

    The “Bosnian nationality” ( Boshnjaci, Boshnjachka, Bosniak) as a divisive tool to prevent Pan-Slavic unity and to prevent a separate ethnic or national identity for the Serbian and Croatian populations.

    For the same reasons, the Bosnian Muslims were strongly supported by the Austrian regime to maintain the status quo established by Ottoman rule to prevent any Slavic unity, which the Austrian government feared the most.

    Austrian policy was to keep the minority Bosnian Muslims in control and in power in Bosnia and to maintain Bosnia as it had existed under Turkish rule to prevent the Bosnian Orthodox Serbian population from seeking to determine its own national destiny.

    “This also talks extensively about the Orthodox Serbs. Please read Brother Nathanael’s articles on the Young Turks.”

    Reply: How does Brother Nathanael’s articles on the Young Turks overthrowing the absolute rule of Sultan Abdulhamid II in the 1908 relate to Orthodox Serbs of the 1870s?

    The article you cited mentions the Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans in the complex political context of the 1870s and the Treaty of Berlin. “Serbs in the Balkans” is inclusive of ethnic enclaves of Serbs which were recruited and planted in the Hapsburg empire’s military frontiers.

    “Concerning all of the comments about the agreement between Russia and Germany to not attack each other is exactly correct from what I understand about the situation as well. Otto von Bismarck was correct on so many issues.”

    Ok, so far as it goes. Bismarck was also proud of his ability to keep the 5 Great Powers off balance and at odds with each other so that they wouldn’t attack Germany,

    “Concerning Germany as World War I was approaching, the Morocco Crisis was occurring. Kaiser Wilhelm II of the Hollenzollern Dynasty backed off this crisis in 1911, which is formally known as the Agadir Crisis and when Prussia (Germany) did this, it allowed the French to take over most of Morocco. This is because Germany did not want war.”

    “The crisis is thought to have begun in 1905.”

    Ok, but what does the Morocco Crisis of 1911, which is “thought to have begun in 1905,” which occured in Africa, have to do with the political conditions of the 1870s in the Balkans?

    “You have a very longer set of details on matters, but these are some additional links. I apologize that you fail to understand the Hapsburg’s were also responsible for ensuring the safety of the Pope when people and monarchies were told that Napoleon was going to kidnap the Pope and then Napoleon ended up not doing what he was told to do.”

    The links you presented are interesting in themselves as running up to WWI, but are mostly unrelated to the political circumstances of the 1870s, the Congress of Berlin, and it’s treaty, which in themselves prove that D’Israeli never “gave permission” to Austria to invade Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    And, I’ll say again, what does the Hapsburg’s responsibility for protecting the Pope from Napoleon in the 1820s or so, have to do with the six factual errors you made to begin with in your historical synopsis of political events in the 1870s you gave to someone else?

    These errors are so bad, that I do feel compelled to go extensive lengths to post the correct history of very complex political and religious circumstances in the Great Chess Game of the Great Powers which used the people of the Balkans like chess pieces, and not your erroneous interpretations of it.

    And since you did bring up the Pope and the Hapsburgs, and somewhere in that I suppose there is Catholic impulse to do so out of some vague “Serbophobia”, let me add this written by the historian Carl Savich:

    The Austrians lost no time in shoring up the power of the Bosnian Muslims [after their 1878 occupation]. The Austrian government expended considerable funds in restoring and renovating Muslim mosques and Muslim religious schools and institutions.

    Large amounts of Austrian funds were used to preserve Islamic education and Islamic institutions and training in Bosnia, which were perceived as threatened with the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks.

    The Austrian policies in Bosnia did not benefit the Orthodox Serbian population and in fact were designed to weaken and destroy that population.

    To win the support of Muslim landowners, the Habsburg Monarchy modernized the roads and industry, but left agriculture and land and education reform in a backward state because the Serbian population was primarily rural while the Muslim population was urban.

    Agricultural reform was most needed. Muslim exploitation of Serbian landed peasants had precipitated the Bosnian Revolution of 1875 in the poorer rural region of Hercegovina.

    The Austrians also built railroads primarily for military and strategic purposes so that troops could be sent to occupy and garrison any region of Bosnia. Railroad connections to Adriatic ports, for instance, were forbidden, except for Metkovic and Gruz.

    This construction was meant for strategic military considerations and not for the economic development of Bosnia.

    The Austrians also formed special Bosnian Muslim regiments in their armies which accommodated Islamic requirements and allowed the Muslims to retain their Ottoman Turkish attire, including the fez.

    Four infantry regiments were recruited from the Bosnian Muslim population by the Austrian regime following the 1878 occupation: the Bosnia-Hercegovina Regiment No. 1, recruited around Sarajevo; the Regiment No. 2, recruited around Banja Luka; the Regiment No. 3, recruited around Tuzla; and, the Regiment No. 4, recruited around Mostar.

    Following the outbreak of World War I in 1914, these Bosnian Muslim regiments in the Austro-Hungarian Imperial Army would be thrust against the Serbian Army. These troops would commit massacres and atrocities against the Serbian Orthodox population.

    The two [Waffen] SS Divisions made up of Bosnian Muslims formed during World War II, the 13th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Handzar” and the 23rd Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Kama” were modeled on these earlier Austrian Muslim regiments.

    Gerald Reitlinger explained how the Muslim regiments of the Habsburg Empire were to serve as the models for the two SS Divisions as follows in The SS

    The Hapsburg Monarchy maintained an anti-Orthodox, anti-Serbian, and anti-Pan Slavic policy, towards the “inferior Slavs” and “Eastern heretics and schismatics” which sadly infected the later Austrian and German nationalist movements and their racial policies.

    Pope Leo XIII convinced Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph to create a “league of Catholic states” which would act as a “bulwark of Catholicism” against Orthodoxy and Pan-Slavism in the Balkans.”

    [This era after the Treaty of Berlin saw aggressive Catholic proselytization in Orthodox lands, and the setting up of Uniate counter-altars in the Balkan provinces and independent nations.

    This policy of the Pope and his own drive toward the East eventually enlarged into Intermarium plan, envisioned a network of Catholic East European states from the Baltic to the Black Sea as a buttress against Evil Tsarist Russia.

    The plan of the Intermarium was resurrected after World War I by socialist Catholic Polish leader Józef Pilsudski, for a federation, under Catholic Poland’s aegis, of Central and Eastern European countries.

    Invited to join the proposed federation were the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

    The proposed federation was meant to emulate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, that, from the end of the 16th century to the end of the 18th, had united the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

    On the southern end, Mussolini also commenced “Italianization” policies in the Western Balkans, including forced conversions of Orthodox Christians in his quest for Greater Italy.]

    Continuing with Carl Savich: Thus, both the Vatican and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy waged an undeclared war against Serbian Orthodox Christians. They both worked to forcibly Austrianize and Catholicize Bosnia, both Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Slavs, and to extend Roman Catholic influence in the province.

    Roman Catholic cathedrals and churches were constructed with the sponsorship and support of the occupying Austrian regime, while any construction or renovations to ancient Orthodox churches and monasteries which languished for centuries under the Ottomans were forbidden.

    In 1914, Pope Pius X formally sanctioned the Austrian declaration of war against Serbia, ushering in the Great War, World War I.

    Austria-Hungary underpinned its occupation of Bosnia on an ideological position that attacked the nationalist policy of a “Greater Servia”(“Greater Serbia”).

    This is the origin of the propaganda and ideological anti-Serbian policy that regarded any Serbian Orthodox attempt to assert self-rule, autonomy, or national self-determination as a policy of “Greater Servia.”

    This propaganda policy would be adopted by the US State Department and CIA and Pentagon during the 1990s break-up and civil wars in Yugoslavia. But this “Greater Serbia” propaganda policy was developed and applied by the Austro-Hunagrian regime earlier, and not by James Rubin, Madeleine Albright, Peter Galbraith, Anthony Lewis, or the CIA and Pentagon, which were just aping and plagiarizing this earlier policy developed and originated by Austria-Hungary.

    One method by which the Austrian regime exploited this “Greater Serbia” propaganda policy was in a series of famous show trials that sought to implicate Serbia in the political unrest in Bosnia.

    The most famous was the 1909 Agram or Zagreb show trial, which accused 53 persons, traders and teachers, of high treason, as being agents of “Greater Serbia,” agents of the Serbian government. The show trial lasted from March 3 to October 5, 1909. Thirty-one defendants were found guilty. On appeal, the sentences were quashed in November, 1910.

    There was no evidence to support the charges. The trial was merely a trumped up political show trial.

    A second show trial was the Friedjung trial, a libel action against Dr. Henry Friedjung, who had accused three prominent figures in Neue Freie Presse on March 25, 1909 that they were agents of “Greater Serbia”. The case was dropped after it was found that the documents in the case had been forged.

    The administration of Bosnia-Hercegovina was placed under the Austro-Hungarian Joint Ministry of Finance and were included within the Austro-Hungarian Customs Union following the the Austrian-Turkish Convention of April, 1879. The Austro-Hungarian anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox policy was carried out by Benjamin von Kallay, the Finance Minister from 1882 until his death in 1903.

    And if it wasn’t even part of your original comment, then how can I “fail to understand the understand the Hapsburgs were also responsible for ensuring the safety of the Pope when people and monarchies were told that Napoleon was going to kidnap the Pope and then Napoleon ended up not doing what he was told to do.

    Besides, wasn’t the King of France’s traditional role that of protector of the Pope?

    And for your edification, “Rumelia” is the formal, historical term describing the area now referred to as the Balkans or the Balkan Peninsula when it was administrated by the Ottoman Empire, and was until the 20th century. The term Rûm means “Roman,” while Rumelia and Rumeli, mean “land of the Romans” in Turkish referring to the lands conquered by the Ottomans from the Roman Empire.

    As such, it was long used in Greek, Turkish and the Slavic languages to describe the lands of that empire; however, following the conquest of Anatolia by the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II, it was applied to the southern Balkan regions of the Ottoman Empire, which remained primarily Christian.

    The Orthodox Christian people of the Balkan region and in other places of the former Ottoman empire continued (and still do) refer to themselves and to be referred to by the Muslim conquerors as Rum (Romans) into the final years of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.

    Both “Byzantine Empire” and “Eastern Roman Empire” are historiographical terms applied by historians in later centuries; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire (Ancient Greek: Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum, and Romania). We “Greek Orthodox” are actually still the “Roman Orthodox” or Romaioi.

    Roman Emperor Constantine established the capital of the Roman Empire at the ancient city of Byzantion, naming it New Rome. Diocletian had formally disestablished Old Rome as the capital of the empire, made it a kind of special economic district and magisterium, and established the tetrarchy with thrones in four administrative Roman capitals, but by that time Rome was a political backwater.

    The Roman Empire emerged from the Roman Republic when Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar transformed it from a republic into a monarchy. Rome reached its zenith in the 2nd century, then fortunes slowly declined (with many revivals and restorations along the way).

    Marcus Aurelius had granted citizenship to every free person in the empire. “Rome” was no longer a city which controlled an empire, but an empire – Romania — land of the Romaioi (Romans), which had absorbed the City.

    And the concept of “Europe,” first spoken of in the Frankish Empire of Charles I, appropriated its name from the ancient Roman province of Europa, in the Diocese of Thrace, in the Prefecture of the Orientalis. Ancient geographers had named the continent from the locality of Europa, at the closest point with another continent named as Asia.

    Εὐρώπη is first used as a geographical term in the 6th century BC, by Greek geographers such as Anaximander and Hecataeus.

    The Greek historian Herodotus mentioned that the world had been divided by unknown persons into three parts, Europa, Asia, and Libya (Africa), with the Nile and the River Phasis forming their boundaries—though he also states that some considered the River Don, rather than the Phasis, as the boundary between Europe and Asia. Europe’s eastern frontier was defined in the 1st century by geographer Strabo at the River Don.

    The Book of Jubilees described the continents as the lands given by Noah to his three sons; Europe was defined as stretching from the Pillars of Hercules at the Strait of Gibraltar, separating it from North Africa, to the Don, separating it from Asia.

    A Latin Frankish cultural definition of Europe as the lands of Latin Christendom coalesced in the 8th century, signifying the new cultural condominium (“the West”) created through the confluence of Germanic traditions and Christian-Latin culture, defined partly in contrast with Byzantium (or the “Greek Empire” of Thomas Aquinas, in his disavowal of the authentic Christian-Greek Roman Empire of the Orient where physical and political ancient Europa actually lies) and Islam, and limited to northern Iberia, the British Isles, France, Christianized western Germany, the Alpine regions and northern and central Italy.

    The locality of Europa was known as such since the founding of ancient Byzantion by King Byzos in the 7th century or so, where Constantinople still stands. The Odrysian kingdom of Thrace became a Roman client kingdom c. 20 BC, while the Greek city-states on the Black Sea coast came under Roman control, first as civitates foederatae (“allied” cities with internal autonomy).

    After the death of the Thracian king Rhoemetalces III in 46 AD and an unsuccessful anti-Roman revolt, the kingdom was annexed as the Roman province of Thracia. Under the administrative reforms of Diocletian Thracia’s territory was divided into four smaller provinces and formally named: Thracia, Haemimontus, Rhodope and Europa.

    The province of Europa largely corresponds to what is modern day European Turkey, and so you can still see it’s political outline preserved from antiquity. Twenty-five ancient episcopal sees of the Roman province of Europa and historical Eastern Orthodoxy are listed in the Annuario Pontificio as titular sees for the Catholic church, which also attests to the antiquity of the true, original Europa.

    The heirs of the long lived cultures and civilizations of “true Europe,” that is, Roman Europa are those which evolved into the “Byzantine Commonwealth” of Eastern Orthodox Christian nations, including Holy Russia. In other words, the Carolingian empire and its claims to being the successor of the Roman Empire was attempting to imitate, and compete with the Europe of Constantinople and Orthodox Civilization.

Leave a comment