Pharisees welcome to #Haiti!

Anna van Densky, OPINION

The linguistic argument over  President Trump choice of epithet to describe the situation of rampant criminality in Haiti ( 219 murders per 100,000 a year), and some other African countries overshadowed the concern with the situation itself, becoming a hysteria of Pharisees, outraged for pointing to  the unpleasant truth.

African nations started to express their protest and request apology for the unflattering comparison, being used to comfortable “politically correct” public discourse, indulging in escapism. The population rushed to express their frustration and rage in destruction. (Image below: spontaneous protests in H&M store in South Africa against epithet “shit hole”, reportedly used by President Trump.

A discussion in White House with President Donald Trump on immigration regulation that suggested asylum for people from Haiti and other likewise places, caused a whirlwind of emotions. Why US citizens  should welcome immigrants from “shithole countries” rather than from Norway? The question the President reportedly asked, according to sources present in conversation leaked to press and make headline. But it is not rate of gang rapes that concerned the general public, but an obligation to hide the abhorrent reality, making it a taboo. The next question is how to fight evil, if politicians are not allowed to raise an issue without censorship?

Pipe

“It is not a pipe!” says the line on painting of the father of Surrealism Renée Magritte. The international politics has become totally surrealistic, rejecting realities, and sheltering in illusions. While the UK FCO travel advice  (see below) warns about horrors of Haiti, Pharisees among the US #Democrats attack the President for using an epithet, slightly hinting on degradation of failed states and territories, with highest rates of murders and gang rapes on planet Earth. Pharisees do not attack the problem, they attack the President pursuing their own political aims, manipulation public opinion in their own selfish interest, waging infowar against Republicans. However it is time to establish the truth, all Pharisees should present a reason for their indignation. If President is wrong, they should leave for next holiday there:)  Welcome to #Haiti! We are waiting in anticipation for the photographs on your Facebook pages:)

FCO Haiti travel

 

 

 

 

II Brexit referendum as gambling addicion

Anna van Densky, OPINION

A hint of a possibility of II Brexit referendum made by one of the most prominent Leave EU campaigners, the Member of the European Parliament, Nigel Farage made headlines worldwide, however the possibility  of the second plebiscite is just hypothetical.

Any genuine public vote has element of risk, and Prime minister Theresa May knows it from her own experience of nearly lost snap elections, reportedly ill-advised by European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. She was aiming at confirming her authority in leading nation through Brexit, her stated reason was to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations, but she achieved a poor result of losing majority, facing perspective of ‘hung’ parliament.

After the snap elections unexpected failure May would hardly try her luck the second time calling for referendum on Brexit, gambling her political future. In case LeaveEU wins the second referendum, May as a figure of a compromise, and a former ‘Remainer’ won’t be able to keep a grip on power, and the Brexit hardliners would sweep away May’ government – a blend of ‘moderate’ Brexiteers (read ‘converted Remainers’) like Prime Minister herself, and genuine Brexiteers receiving ministerial portfolios in exchange of toning down.

The II Brexit referendum is not only a ‘Russian roulette’ for Theresa May, and her government, but even more so for the EU. If one recalls the experience of the II Irish referendum, as a model of  a clever managing an exercise of ‘direct democracy’, one forgets that in Irish case there was no alternative. The Republic of Ireland was the only member state to hold a referendum on Lisbon Treaty, and without second referendum the situation could not move on for the entire EU block, unlike the case of Brexit led by PM May, who has already accepted lion’s share of Brussels claims.

The gambling risks are not affordable for the EU in decline, struggling against rapidly rising Eurosceptic parties. The moral damages can be dramatic, however the financial could be devastating . Till now for PM May offered the EU a generous ‘allowance’, and transition period with unclear end date. In case of the II ‘yes’ to Brexit vote, the ‘hardliners’ will not leave a penny to Brussels bureaucrats, neither will they take the “poisonous pill’ of Brexit deal.  In short, the addiction to gambling may invite catastrophe for both the EU as a fragilized block and the UK incumbent Government. Above it all, Theresa May as a Remainer heading Brexit is too precious interlocutor for the EU to risk to lose.

Ne quid nimis 🙂

 

Iran: Mogherini as ‘guardian’ of Obama legacy

Even after 20 slain protesters in Iran, the European Union top diplomat Federica Mogherini did not break her silence. After days of growing unrest, the European External Actions Service (EEAS) press person tweeted a carefully worded neutral line about monitoring the situation, and an ambivalent “being in touch” with the Iranian authorities. What about? Does the European diplomacy express “concerns” about killings, or demands to “restrain from violence”?

Where is the usual ‘eloquence’ of the 3 611 strong European diplomacy body?

In contrast to many other cases the European diplomats do not write the appropriate: “the EU strongly condemns the continued systematic, widespread and gross violations and abuses of human rights” in Iran. Neither does EU diplomacy express support to Iranian people, raising in discontent with the oppressive regime of Ayatollahs… There is no enthusiasm even slightly reminiscent of embracing Arab Spring or Maidan revolution in Ukraine. The neutrality of the EU diplomacy in case of the cause of Iranian people  is close to autism.

However a glance to into Mogherini’s record explains it all. An adept of political Islam, claiming it belongs to Europe, EU High Representative stretched her efforts to build an amiable dialogue with the Ayatollahs to an extend visible to everyone – the wearing of veil, a religious symbol of submission of a woman to a man, appalling to all those believing in gender equality, enshrined among top European values.

Mogherini pink veil

The camouflage or masquerade, as some insisted,  pleasing  of the very same clerics who defend Medieval executions by lapidation, was aimed at reaching the notorious multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, the one Mogherini defends with ‘teeth and claws’ as an ‘achievement’ of the EU diplomacy she leads; and the highlight of the legacy of Obama administration, Obama perceived as a political ally of the EU, on contrary to Trump, regarded as a foe of Brussels bureaucracy.

Image: social media.

Mogherni Obama

The nuclear deal, promoted by the EU,  giving oxygen to ayatollahs by removing international sanctions, has been widely criticised  during the presidential election campaign in 2016 by Donald Trump pledged to throw it out.

The ongoing protests of Iranian people threaten the powers of Iranian clerics, thus partners of  the nuclear deal Mogherini protects: the cause of freedom and democracy of Iranians sacrificed in preservation of a political legacy. The choice of dead silence of Mogherini confirming the EU diplomacy is a self-serving politicised clan defending their own interests at cost of promotion of  freedom and democracy worldwide. Meanwhile far away from people and their needs, EU de facto minister of foreign affairs Mogherini enjoys visit to Cuba to her Communist friends. Finale of the scene! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saint-Petersburg bomb explosion named “incident”

The victims of the bomb explosion in Saint-Petersburg supermarket are ironic about the qualifying of the blast as a “murder attempt in public place”: “Assassinating us for food baskets?!”. The official version is obviously doubtful, taking into consideration the fact of the home-made engine spreading shrapnel or “frag” – fast-moving pieces of metal thrown off by a detonation, leaving 10 people seriously injured, and one in a critical condition. Among wounded is also a pregnant women.

The investigation is led by the National anti-terrorist committee, however the word “terrorism” is avoided in public discourse; the video with major suspect entering the supermarket, and some other images of the interior with damages were published by the anti-terrorist committee as well. The obvious official hypocrisy has political  reasons.

Petersburg media interpreted the approach of the authorities as an attempt to play down the gravity of the situation, damaging New Year celebrations atmosphere in town. The issue is particularly delicate, because the blast happened in the home city of the incumbent and future President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who will be re-elected on 18 March under slogans of “stability” (read “stagnation”). The terrorist act during festivities, committed by an individual of “non-Slavic” appearance, as the investigators stated, is seriously undermining the Disney-land image of happy and stable Russia the clans at power are attempting to project, justifying their choice for continuity of Putin’s unchallenged reign.

The rise of Islamists in Russia is aggravated by open border with the Central Asian countries, influenced by Islamic State radicals, who are constructing a belt from Iraq to Afghanistan, via Central Asian countries, regrouping their forces after the major defeat of the Caliphate in the Middle East.

Russia 1917-2017 from “dictatorship of proletariat” to oligarchy

The rejection of registration to Alexey Navalny did not come as a surprise to him – the authorities fabricated lawsuits against the major critic of Kremlin to find a reason to block his ascendance, regarding him as a dangerous challenger of oligarchy. However the announcement brought to a conclusion a century of Russia’s development: from 1917 seizure of control over the entire Empire by left radicals led by Lenin imposing the “dictatorship of proletariat”  to 2017 Putin’s plutocracy, or “dictatorship of oligarchy” formed at collapse of Soviet Empire the end of last century.

In a way both are extremes so typical to Russian character, product of a rhythm of development from stagnation to crisis.

With the exclusion of Navalny from elections the pattern of further political development is becoming familiar: the biological change of generations. Its climax reflected in so-called epoch of “ostentatious funerals” of dying out members of Politburo, who were eager to try the crown of the fading Empire even for a few months before the end of their life, prolonged due to professionalism of Kremlin physicians. The political commentators were defining the state of play from the color of the walls behind the  leader addressing the nation, and mostly they were  grey ones from Soviet hospitals. “USSR is governed from hospital ward!” – exclaimed one of the critics of Communist party. Now a well-known scenario is awaiting Russians again.

Accustomed to changes caused by two major factors: biological and organic (hydrocarbons, or simply price of oil and gas – the backbone of Russian economy), or combination of two, as it happened during Gorbachev’s perestroika, Russians are patiently waiting for the end of the cycle, preferring stagnation to revolution. The intense search of truth in a century brought from dictatorship of proletariat to oligarchy, bypassing democracy. With vivid memories over ‘big robbery’ of Russians in the 90s, they are hardly prepared for another experiment, looking forward to a long stretch of stagnation ahead. To the winter of discontent…

 

Leonardo as a Gastarbeiter

Josef et Mary

The comparison of modern asylum-seekers and migrants to Holy family, fleeing King Herod 2017 years ago, pronounced in the Christmas Eve prayer of Pontifex is at most extravagant allusion even in terms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s atypical for high clergy personality.

In first place as the ultimate authority in interpretation of The Bible, Pontifex should have known, that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were not looking for an asylum abroad, but were moving within the Kingdom of Herod, although this is not the essential criticism.

The Biblical episode can not serve as a model delivering a solution of a problem of refugees, because first of all they became too numerous in modern word to accommodate in ‘rich’ countries. Pontifex continuous reproaches of Europeans for not doing ‘enough’ for asylum-seekers and migrants do not lead to the root problems resolution – the poverty in the countries of origin, and protracted conflicts, some of which date to epoch prior to  Jesus birth.

A simple gesture of kindness of good Samaritans does not offer a key to the complex phenomenon of mass migration to Europe, neither does it help in their further integration. On contrary its simplification leads away from the effective answers.

The example of Sweden is a convincing evidence that the kindness Pontifex requires as a solution is an illusion.

Praised for its hospitality, receiving more than 160 000 migrants from Africa and Middle East since 2015, Sweden has been rapidly degrading into a Third world country, with a correlating  rate of crimes, and growing no-go zones.  Apparently Pontifex omitted that nowadays migrants do not always have the gentle nature of Joseph!

“The integration [of immigrants]  does not go as it should. We had a problem with it before the autumn of 2015, when Sweden accepted a wave of migrants. For me it is obvious that we cannot accept more asylum seekers than we can integrate. It will not be good either for people who come here or for the whole society,” said the Swedish Finance minister Magdalena Andersson. Her words are the epilogue to the mass-scale experiment of a promoted by Pontifex model.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus as a son of asylum-seekers. The parallels are far to simplistic and linear to respond to the unfolding demographic crisis in Africa with eight children per women born in poverty. The allusion  would sound grotesque if articulated by someone else than the Bishop of Rome: asylum-seeker Joseph… And Leonardo as a Gastarbeiter.

Welcome Gastarbeiters they will paint you smile of Mona Lisa! 🙂

Mona Lisa Duchamp

 

Tusk squealer’s help to Russian democratic opposition

With his public declaration of being “no fan of Russia”, the president of the European Council Donald Tusk offered a squealer’s help to Russian pro-European democratic opposition at crucial time of upcoming presidential elections, discrediting their giant efforts to convince electorate that Brussels is opponent of Kremlin, but not to people of Russia. Those, who wanted to vote for opposition to Russia’s ruler Vladimir Putin, from now onwards know, that they have no friends in Brussels. The top political body – the EU Council – is chaired by an open russophobe – Donald Tusk. Many could guess previously, but this affidavit put an end to any doubt – a protagonist from Cold war times degrades the relations between Europeans and Russians.

However this ‘affidavit’ of Tusk disaffection to Russia is not only undermining the efforts of the opposition forces in Russia, because it clarifies that pro-European electorate do not have friends among the EU top players, but it also has put an end to the entire EU policy of promotion of European values, and democracy in Russia, entirely dependent on confidence of Russian people that the West wishes them well. After Tusk’s declaration this confidence was abolished: any offer from Brussels from now onwards is a poisonous chalice.

For those who followed Tusk activities from his appointment in an obscure procedure behind closed doors, the affidavit of disaffection to Russia is a finishing touch to his public profile: in opposition to the U.S. President Donald Tump, undermining the government in his native Poland,  and now openly declaring his confrontational attitude to the EU top trading partner, – Tusk demonstrates total absence of a diplomatic fiber. But not only, completely taken by his personal emotional perceptions, Tusk has been unable to raise above mediocre to level of a statesman with sense of responsibility and vision. Generously remunerated loyalty to the EU institutions, wrongly understood as an enmity to the world outside European Quarter, produced squealer’s help of an EU apparatchik, matching the worst examples of dogmatism of Soviet era, he is not able to step out.