On 2 May 2014, there was a massacre that was initially reported as being of 116 anti-Kiev (or independence) demonstrators at the Trade Unions Building in Odessa. The latest reliable report (from an American, George Eliason, who lives in that area) indicates it to be instead “now counted at 272 people that were tortured, gassed …, bludgeoned, …, etc.,” above and beyond the numbers who had been incinerated there by the firebombing of the building. Western news-media unfortunately seem to be doing all they can to keep the public ignorant of what went on there, and of why.
For example, despite the many youtube videos that were posted on the night of May 2nd showing the actual massacre, and making clear that this was a massacre of anti-Kiev, pro-independence, demonstrators by pro-Kiev (pro-central-government) thugs, here is what came up on May 20th in a google search at Huffington Post of the two terms “Ukraine” and “Odessa” (all suggesting that Russia’s Vladimir Putin was behind this, not that America’s Barack Obama, who had actually installed the Kiev Government, was):
And here are some news reports of the reality, reports which were offered to Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, and virtually all other major Western news sites, but which were turned down by them all:
And here is why this is important:
As the reformed former CIA operative Ray McGovern documented on 15 May 2014, headlining “How NATO Jabs Russia on Ukraine,” a historic end of the Cold War was agreed to at the Malta Summit on 3 December 1989, and finalized in February 1990, between George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, but was violated by Bill Clinton, and is now being utterly trashed by Barack Obama via his Ukraine gambit.
Russia doesn’t want to be surrounded by NATO missiles and troops in the adjoining countries of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and now, especially, Ukraine (the latter being especially important as the pipeline route for transit of Russia’s gas supplies to Europe, as well as the long-established base for Russia’s Black Sea fleet). Here is McGovern’s account of the agreement between G.H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev:
“According to Jack Matlock, then-U.S. ambassador to the U.S.S.R. who took part in the Malta summit, the most basic agreement involved (1) Gorbachev’s pledge not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had 24 divisions (some 350,000 troops) in East Germany alone, and (2) Bush’s promise not to ‘take advantage’ of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe.
In early February 1990, Bush sent Secretary of State James Baker to work out the all-important details directly with Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. Ambassador Matlock again was there and took careful notes on the negotiations, which focused on German reunification.
From memory, Matlock told me that Baker tried to convince Gorbachev that it was in Moscow’s interest to let a united Germany remain in NATO. Matlock recalled that Baker began his argument saying something like, ‘Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses.’ [emphasis added]
The implication was that Germany might just opt to acquire nuclear weapons, were it not anchored in NATO. Gorbachev answered that he took Baker’s argument seriously, and wasted little time in agreeing to the deal.
Ambassador Matlock, one of the most widely respected experts on Russia, told me ‘the language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the U.S.”
He added, ‘I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage.’”
U.S. President Obama is so determined to tie a noose around the neck of Russia, that he has no hesitation about allying himself with supporters of Adolf Hitler in order to achieve it. And, so, this is the result, and it was sparked by this.
Just imagine that you are a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who had voted for the winner of the last Presidential election in Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovych won overwhelmingly in the eastern half of the country), and that he was ousted in a coup on 22 February 2014, and the Obama-Administration-imposed interim government had perpetrated that massacre in Odessa against supporters (like yourself) of that ousted President, and now of independence from the fascists who (after $5 billion+ of U.S. preparation, plus sending U.S. mercenaries) had ousted him and installed the neo-Nazis who organized and perpetrated the May 2nd massacre of former supporters of that now-ousted President, and instigated Ukrainian civil war. Would you feel safe, being ruled by those people? Would you want to be ruled by people who are committed to your destruction?
But is this what you’ve been hearing from the Western press?
How is the Western press any more trustworthy now than it was in the lead-up to the 19 March 2003 invasion of Iraq to destroy “Saddam’s WMD”?
It’s not that the reporters are corrupt. It’s that no major news media will hire them if they’re not. The owners, the controlling families, do not want the public to understand what’s going on; and this is why they’ve bought control of major news media. That, for example, is why such deceptions as this are so common.
For example, on 28 February 2014, the great investigative journalist Mark Ames bannered “Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show,” and he documented that the founder of ebay, Omidyar, had hired some of the leading investigative journalists — including Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and Marcy Wheeler — and was himself heavily invested in the Ukrainian coup that had culminated on February 22nd.
When are we going to acknowledge that democracy in the U.S., and in at least some other so-called “democratic” countries is a hoax? It’s more like George Orwell’s novel 1984 than like democracy.
And, under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it’s virtually as bad as it was even under George W. Bush.
Before a problem can be solved, it must first be acknowledged.
What you have just read is samizdat: banned. We don’t have communism; it’s not the communist version of samizdat. We don’t have democracy, where there is no samizdat. We have fascism, where the samizdat is carried out by the aristocracy, the oligarchs, controlling “democracy” and using and abusing the public, by setting one faction of it (racially, religiously, or ethnically) against another, and everyone against some hyped or even fictitious foreign “threat,” in order to distract from those aristocrats’ own ongoing rape of the public.
The Axis powers have finally won: their model, fascism, has now taken over in the United States — now, even more than before, the land of inequality.
Democracy is in desperate straits.