Ilya Kharlamov

Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci
and Madeleine Albright

The Western world is literally going hysterical in their attempts to deny the Crimean population its free demonstration of will to return the region to its historic motherland –Russia. However, not too long ago Washington and the European capitals adamantly supported Kosovo's will to separate from Serbia despite the fact that there were significantly fewer reasons for that.

What is the reason for that? Is it caused by the fact that for the West the notions of international law, historic justice and the multi-polar nature of the world are simply an empty sound that only calls for a condescending smile?

The stories of Crimea and Kosovo clearly showed the following: the principle of double standards (the phrase is worn-out, but accurate) is something the West sticks to fully and consistently.

In essence, over the past few decades its main efforts were channeled into one direction: to dominate over the diversity of cultures, points of view, social and political models of society. In the case of an active standoff, they are to be subordinated: the elite – with money, everybody else – with arms. A special type of “geopolitical racism” appeared. Only this paradigm allows us to explain what appears to be an illogical and inconsistent position of the Western countries in some regions with similar problems. Readiness to act upon the instructions of “Big Brother” or its lack thereof becomes the main driver of their further destiny.

The support of the West of Kosovo's separation from Serbia in 2008 should have been demonstrative and instructive for everybody. Nobody paid attention to any resolutions regarding territorial integrity of states, or the UN basic legal norms. It was considered to be purely irrelevant that Serbia viewed Kosovo as their national symbol of national integrity and unity (some battles took place there that determined Serbia's destiny, and some important holy objects are located here). But by completely violating the international norms the West never brought its project to completion, points out Vladimir Bruter, a political analyst.

More »

Stephen Lendman

March 16 was historic. It was important. Crimean authorities showed how real democracy works. They shamed America's sham process. Monied interests control things. People have no say. Both major parties control a rigged process. They're two sides of the same coin. Not a dime's worth of difference separates them. Independent candidates are virtually shut out. Americans get the best democracy money can buy.

Crimeans got the real thing. International observers praised the process. Voting went peacefully and smoothly. It was scrupulously open, free, and fair. No irregularities occurred. None were seen. No pressure. No intimidation. Not a single Russian soldier in sight. None invaded. None occupy Crimea. Claims otherwise are false. They're Western propaganda. They're malicious lies.

A previous article said Russians comprise about 60% of Crimea's population. Ukrainians around 25%. Tatars 12%.

Turnout was impressive. It was unprecedented. It exceeded 83%. In Sevastopol, it was 89.5%. Over 1.274 million Crimeans voted. Plus Sevastopol residents excluded from this total. An astonishing 96.77% chose Russia - 95.6% of Sevastopol voters. Results show Crimeans overwhelmingly reject Kiev putschists. Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars agree. Claims otherwise are false.

Referendum Commission chairman Mikhail Malyshev said: "We were receiving protocols from the 27 district commissions all night long. The last one came at around 6:00AM." "After that, our commission compiled the final protocol." Commission members signed the official document. It certified election results. A scant .72% of ballots were declared invalid.

Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksionov addressed a Simferopol rally, saying: "No one can take away our victory. We are going to Russia." He spoke accompanied by the Russian national anthem. "We are going home," he added. "Crimea within Russia. Hooray, comrades." Parliament Speaker Vladimir Konstantinov added: "We have done it! You have done it! This is our victory, and nobody can take it away from us."

More »

Gilad Atzmon

The once well-respected Guardian has been reduced in recent years into a lame Zionist mouthpiece - a light Jewish Chronicle for gentiles' consumption. Last week, the paper launched an attack on Martin Heidegger, the 20th century’s most influential philosopher.

“Heidegger's 'Black Notebooks' reveal anti-Semitism at core of his philosophy” the paper’s headline the ‘progressive’ British Guardian read. But what does that mean? Was Heidegger really a Jew hater? Did he oppose people for being ethnically or ‘racially’ Jewish or was he, instead, critical of Jewish politics, culture, ideology and spirit?

According to the ‘progressive’ British Guardian, the newly published Black Notebooks (Schwarzen Heften) reveals that Heidegger saw 'world Jewry'[*] as the driver of “dehumanising modernity”.

Needless to mention that we didn’t need a ‘new publication’ to assert that this was Heidegger’s view of Jewish culture and politics. The German thinker, like many of his contemporaries, saw “Jerusalem” as an oppressive and corrupted spiritual, cultural and intellectual influence as opposed to “Athens”, which portrayed in his eyes, the birth of humanism, universalism, aesthetics, ethics and pluralism.

Let’s examine what makes a prominent thinker into an anti-Semite in the eyes of the Guardian. “While distancing himself from the racial theories pursued by Nazi intellectuals, Heidegger argues that Weltjudentum ("world Jewry") is one of the main drivers of western modernity, which he viewed critically.”

But aren’t we entitled to criticize religion, culture or ideology? Aren’t we allowed to disapprove of modernity or technology and to try to identify its cultural and ideological roots? For some reason, I can’t recall the Guardian taking Max Weber to task for suggesting that Protestant ethics was the driving force behind Capitalism. Embarrassingly enough, the same Guardian that clumsily and shamelessly smears the greatest continental thinker, provides a platform to a long list of Neocons, pro-war advocates such as Nick Cohen who constantly and relentlessly criticize the so-called ‘Islamo-Fascists’ - a code name for Islamic political culture. I guess that for The Guardian of Judea, it is only Jewish culture, religion and ideology that must remain beyond criticism.

More »