By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 8, 2024 Anno Domini

The rhetoric that Zionist Israel is a colonialist Anglo-American creation is a cover story for the Soviet procurement, financing, and staffing of the Marxist state of Israel.

It seems that this cover story is part of the Soviets’ Operation SIG (Zionist government), whose aim is to frame the West and white Europeans for any perceived evils coming from the Zionist movement and the state of Israel in preparation for the discrediting and eventual destruction of the West to make way for Soviet world imperium.

Israel was founded on May 13, 1948 by the recently Soviet-founded United Nations and its Partition Plan for Palestine (Resolution 181), and the Soviets were the first power to officially recognize de jure Israel.^[1] On 29 November 1947, Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko (suspected crypto-Jew^[2]) stood up at the podium before the U.N. General Assembly in New York and called for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states following a long speech about how badly the Jews had been done to and the horrors of the Holocaust. The Assembly then cast their votes, with 33 nations voting in favour, 13 against, and 10 more abstaining. Of those 33 in favour, 16 were either Soviet Bloc countries or had Euro-Communist styled “social democrat” governments (another three countries voting yes to the partition plan had masonic-led governments). The socialists/Communists won the vote for “Israel”. They were the deciding factor. With the majority Soviet Bloc swinging the vote, Israel would not have been founded, regardless of the United States (a reluctant “yes” vote under duress) and Great Britain (abstained from vote).

“Stalin then organized the Eastern European Communist states to vote for the creation of Israel as the decisive bloc that provided the two-thirds majority needed for victory in the UN vote of November 29, 1947,” admitted Israel’s Ynet News in its 2015 article The Soviet Union’s forgotten role in the creation of Israel.^[3]

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deranged strategist Aleksandr Dugin said, “at a definite stage these ‘red-brown’ Jewish Eurasianists also have prepared the creation of the state of Israel, having started under the direction (and the approval) of Moscow.”^[4]

President Harry Truman (freemason), representing the United States, voted yes; although, the American nod was coerced with the help of pestering American Jews in Washington. Truman’s administration warned him about Soviet manipulation.^[5]

“Truman was opposed by his own administration and especially by the top officials of the State Department, then led by Secretary of State Marshall, all of whom who were afraid the Arab nations would be driven into the Soviet bloc and, subsequently, close off their oil wells, which, in turn, would bring the industry and economic growth of the superpower to a halt.”

Marshall sensed what was to come of the partition plan.

Further reluctance to granting Jewish statehood was displayed by Truman when he boldly sated, “Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?”^[6]

This should put to rest Soviet-seeded lies about Zionism being an extension of Anglo-American imperialism (colonialism) and the strategically placed “ZOG” narrative designed to mislead as to the true nature of the Jewish-masonic conspiracy. The West is not to blame whatsoever. Subsequent British-American policies supporting Israel and Zionism up to present time are under duress due to further Judeo-masonic and KGB subversion of their governments and the deceiving of Western masses as to the true purpose of supporting Israel and Zionism (the draining of Western resources for ultimate Soviet gain, technology transfers to hostile Eastern powers via Israel [like the U.S. traitor Jonathan Pollard], and the displacement of mostly Islamic hordes for eventual subversive placement in Western nations to disrupt the Christian fabric of society). It seems that Anglo-American support for Israel post 1948 is under the false impression that supporting Israel would curtail the spread of Islam and its Jihadist ways. Had this actually been the case, Western support for Zionism would have been justified; however, we now know that Jewry strategically has been supporting Islamic expansion as revenge against Christianity.

Those who object to the facts of Israel’s founding—those hell bent on blaming the “Anglo-American establishment” for all the world’s problems might argue that although the British abstained from partition plan vote, the Balfour Declaration provided the substance for the eventual formation of the Zionist state. This also isn’t accurate. The idea of a post-Christ Jewish homeland in the Middle East was not new and not Western. In 1881, Russian Jew Leon Pinsker (Lev Semyonovich Pinsker) founded the Rothschild-backed Lovers of Zion (Hibbat Zion), whose aim was to foster Jewish emigration from Russia to Palestine in reaction to Russia’s pogroms. Pinsker’s Zionist organization was only one of several founded by Russian and Eastern European Jews at that time. In 1890, the anti-Jewish Russia Tsar even granted charity status to Pinsker’s The Society for the Support of Jewish Farmers and Artisans in Syria and Eretz Israel, also known as the Odessa Committee (composed of some 4,000 members). Pinsker died a year later and the Committee was eventually absorbed by Theodore Herzl’s World Zionist Organization after the First Zionist Congress in 1897 (from which the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are believed to have originated). Without these Eurasian-based Zionist organizations, it’s unlikely that Israel would have been founded, especially considering Rothschild’s failed attempt to get the British to see the project through. The British eventually became aware, to some degree, of the true nature of the Zionist movement and called World Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann and his group “Communists”.^[7] Even just after Balfour declared for the Zionist state, the British continued to support Arab independence in Palestine. Providing further reluctance to the British were the routine assassinations and public hangings of British troops in Mandatory Palestine by fanatical Marxist Jewish terrorists—all tied in some way to the plethora of Eurasian-based Zionist organizations (these same Marxist Jewish terrorists went on to found Israel’s defense organizations, like Mossad. Former Mossad officer Juval Aviv admitted that “Mossad…it’s an old Russian school”). By 1947, Balfour’s declaration in support of a Jewish homeland had faded from the memory of a weary British establishment. They had had enough. They withdrew from Palestine and refused to vote in favour of Stalin’s Soviet Zionist initiative. World Jewry had repaid British peacekeeping in Palestine with treason and murder and created a void just waiting to be filled by Stalin and the Soviets.

“Stalin hoped that Israel’s creation would lead to chaos in the region and bring about the downfall of the British Empire; and that Israel, with strong socialist leadership, might become a quasi-satellite of the Soviet Union.”^[8]

With nearly every single Prime Minister of Israel, even up to current PM Binyamin Netanyahu, being Soviet derived^[9] and the Marxist-styled society that developed in Israel after 1948^[10], it appears that Stalin’s wishes came true.

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion admitted “that without the Soviet arms, the state would never have survived the onslaught of five Arab armies.”^[11]

Romanian Soviet defector Ion Mihai Pacepa claimed that the use of Israel as a Communist weapon against the capitalist West continued well after Stalin and that then KGB head Yuri Andropov executed Operation SIG to really draw out Soviet-styled anti-colonialism in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world in general. That idea was that if the Soviets could use Israel to very visibly Balkanize the Middle East (as outlined in the Oded Yinon Plan) under the banner of the Balfour Declaration and the West, the Soviets could achieve control in the region while the West would be blamed for the genocide and human rights violations the Soviets themselves had implemented. Meanwhile, the anti-Zionist world, unaware that the Soviets were orchestrating the entire thing, would come to the Soviet side in the hopes of being liberated from supposed colonialist “Zionist oppression”. Arab support for the Soviets would allow the Soviets to further penetrate Islamic Jihad movements and arm and control the Arab side of the conflict, in accordance with the Leninist-styled dialectical method^[12]. Andropov’s deceptive plan would not only turn the Arab world against the West, it would also help radicalize the West’s burgeoning Leftist movement against its own “Zionist occupied” governments, creating further destabilization of Western societies.

Stalin’s use of the Zionist state in the Communist offensive would reach levels that perhaps even he couldn’t have imagined. What started out as perhaps only a device to stick it to the British evolved into a highly sophisticated dialectic that has been a thorn in the side of the West ever since. It has directly contributed to the West’s ongoing demise and is uplifting the Eurasianist neo-Soviet East to be the single world superpower.

“Let’s agree with the formation of Israel. It will be like an awl in the ass for the Arab states and make them turn their backs on Britain… British influence will be completely undermined in Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iraq,” Stalin said.^[13]

Notes:

1. Lokshin, Alexander, Soviet Union and Israel: From Recognition to Severing Diplomatic Relations (1948–1953), Lechaim Magazine, May 14, 2023 – https://fitzinfo.net/forum/topic/stalin-lets-agree-with-the-formation-of-israel-it-will-be-like-an-awl-in-the-ass-for-the-arab-states-and-make-them-turn-their-backs-on-britain/ ↑
2. List of disguised Jews – https://hasid.livejournal.com/220465.html ↑
3. Adelman, Jonathan, The Soviet Union’s forgotten role in the creation of Israel, Dec. 12, 2015, Ynet News – https://fitzinfo.net/2021/03/21/the-soviet-unions-forgotten-role-in-the-creation-of-israel/ ↑
4. Dugin on the Jews – https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/dugin-on-the-jews/ ↑
5. Huvila, Risto, President Truman and UN Vote 1947 – Blessing or Curse?, Times of Israel, November 30, 2019 – https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/president-truman-and-un-vote-1947-blessing-or-curse/ ↑
6. ibid ↑
7. Gorodetsky, Gabriel, The Soviet Union and the Creation of the State of Israel, pg. 4, Tel Aviv University, 2001 ↑
8. Adelman, Jonathan, The Soviet Union’s forgotten role in the creation of Israel, Dec. 12, 2015, Ynet News ↑
9. Bernstein, Jack, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel, The New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle, 1984 – https://fitzinfo.net/2019/05/16/new-york-moscow-tel-aviv-triangle/ ↑
10. Bernstein, Jack, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel, 1984 – https://fitzinfo.net/2020/05/14/communism-in-israel/ ↑
11. Adelman, Jonathan, The Soviet Union’s forgotten role in the creation of Israel, Dec. 12, 2015, Ynet News ↑
12. Bernstein, Jack, My Farewell to Israel, the Thorn in the Mideast, Pro-American Press, 1985 – https://fitzinfo.net/2020/05/21/matzpen-the-jewish-communist-party-of-israel-and-the-kibbutzim-network/ ↑
13. Lokshin, Alexander, Soviet Union and Israel: From Recognition to Severing Diplomatic Relations (1948–1953), Lechaim Magazine, May 14, 2023 ↑

By Gordonua.com
July 24, 2021 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

Former Georgian President and head of the Executive Committee of Reforms in Ukraine Mikhail Saakashvili said on 23 July on Ukraine 24 TV channel that Russian President Vladimir Putin once showed him his office, in which the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly worked earlier.

“When I met with Putin for the first time at an official meeting, he immediately took me to another office and said: ‘This is Stalin’s former cabinet, the official cabinet of former general secretaries, but I moved my cabinet to a small office, because Stalin was modest; he and I have always been in a small office, and I make all my important decisions where Stalin was,'” said the Georgian-Ukrainian politician.

According to him, “Putin is very proud because his grandfather was Stalin’s cook—this is a very significant fact in his biography.”

“He talked about his grandfather endlessly. And Putin kept saying: ‘Here Stalin slept, such a modest sofa; he drank from this teapot my grandfather brought him.’ Yes, what Putin showed me looked modest. He worships Stalin, so that you understand,” Saakashvili explained.

Context:

• Stalin (real name Dzhugashvili) was born in 1878. From 1924 until his death in March 1953, he was the leader of the Soviet Union.
• Saakashvili was the president of Georgia from January 2004 to November 2013.
• Putin has been Russia’s president since 2000, with a break in 2008-2012, when he was head of government.
• In 2020,  the Constitution of the Russian Federation was amended to allow Putin to run again for the post of head of the Kremlin in 2024. 
• All Putin’s policy is a continuation of Stalin’s policy’: former Soviet State Security Lieutenant
• Stalin Jewish? Grave of Stalin’s mother adorned with Jewish kiddush cup and shroud
• Putin is a Jew—documents from the president’s biography confirm rumours

By Igor Shepherd
August 28, 2021 Anno Domini
LewRockwell.com
Follow up to his original warning here

My seven-year medical studies in the Soviet Army under the Strategic Rocket Force sector included large WMD-oriented military field exercises. I learned tactics of global warfare, including weapons of mass destruction and their effects on populations and enemy forces. The Soviet Army had a powerful biological defense system, and to be a successful military medical doctor I was required to know more than traditional medicine—I had to stay abrupt on the combat of “silent weaponry,” because this type of covert biowarfare was crucial in extermination of enemies (peoples of western free nations) and globalizing communism.

Under Soviet rule, biowarfare was set up to be carried out through either tactical or strategic methods. In a tactical event, the military aggressor would use bio-agents during ground battlefield against enemy troops. With strategic warfare, the civilian population would be the main focus for destruction. Bio-agents, as bomblets, would be dropped onto large populated areas using cruise missiles or through aerosol dispersal off aircraft. This type of silent warfare allowed the enemy to quickly take over a country’s infrastructure and economy, and incapacitate the population without a messy drawn-out military invasion.

Americans should be concerned about silent warfare, because most nations, including the US, no longer follow the very Bioweapon Treaty that was put in place to protect the world and whole populations against maniacal bio-genocide.

Worldwide Bioweapons Treaty Violations

After WWII, Americans ramped up their bio-research in order to counter the Soviet threat, and weaponized both incapacitating and lethal biological agents. In 1969, President Nixon stalled the biological research program, allowing the Soviet Union to roll forward as the running wheel of WMD in the world. This caused the US to backpedal, and redirect billions to fund bio-defense efforts and projects related to biological weapons. As bio-production escalated worldwide, the threat to humanity once again caused a stir.

That global threat is what brought about the 1975 Bioweapons Treaty under the Convention. It was established to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons. One hundred and eighty-three nations signed on, including Russia and China.

Compromise started prior to the finalization of the treaty when Russia refused to sign unless the verification provisions were removed. The verification process was crucial because it would compel nations to identify the number of civilian facilities and allow regular inspections. Russia had no intention of sanctioning inspections inside their research labs or displaying their enormous bio-stash. The US and UK caved in to Russia’s ridiculous ultimatum, and allowed the treaty to remove the verification process.

This move opened the door to lack of transparency and constant violations of the treaty, putting entire nations under constant threat. This is why it is important to understand that under this treaty gene-splicing and DNA manipulation used in the recent CRISPR technology and Covid-19 mRNA vaccines is illegal. All mRNA vaccine makers are in violation of this Biological Weapons Treaty, and getting away with it, thus allowing bioweapon development and production to move forward at the pace of a high-speed rail.

mRNA Technology is Not New

Messenger RNA technology in Covid vaccines is not new, even though our leaders have been spinning this mistruth since day one. The Soviets began developing mRNA sequencing almost four decades ago. They were the first to develop “designer” bio-agents under a classified program called Project Factor, one of many classified programs using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, known as DNA genetic engineering. Their gene-sequencing included messenger RNA (mRNA), and microRNA (miRNA), and carried the capability of creating horrific epidemics against enemy populations, even severe and debilitating multiple sclerosis.

DNA is the molecule that contains the genetic code of organisms like plants, animals, and bacteria, and is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. DNA is in each cell in the organism and directs the cells on what proteins to make. Messenger RNA is naturally located within all of our cells and is in charge of carrying out messages from the DNA that lies inside the nucleus of the cell. In the nucleus, the proteins are made from the mRNA sequence in a process known as translation. Both DNA and mRNA are molecules within a cell that are known as nucleic acids. MicroRNA regulates many mRNAs, and equally, a mRNA is regulated by several miRNAs in the production of bioweapons.

The molecules within the cells make up specific genetic codes for each individual’s life, and is the “instruction manual” in keeping the human body functioning properly. Our human genome is what makes the human species human, and gives each one of us our own unique and specific genetic code, which is truly an amazing wonder because everything from eye color to why we have thin or thick lips is locked up inside that code. If our code was modified in any way and genetically changed from its original version, then the chances of losing our humanness becomes a certainty. This is why bioweapons in the wrong hands can dramatically alter human life as we know it.

Through lab-created modified pathogens, using rDNA and mRNA, Soviet scientists decided to rival God. By plugging genes and combining segments of DNA from one type of organism with the gene of another organism, they created more deadly, contagious, environmentally stable and pathogenic novel strains of the various microorganisms. These included multi-drug-resistant anthrax, genetically modified super plague, chimeric variations of smallpox, and German measles. They also found the way to effectively hijack the body’s natural immune processes by producing overstimulation of the immune system through the “reprogramming” of the human immune system responses to those manmade-modified external pathogens. The over stimulation of the body’s immune system was purposed to cause serious immunological reactions and remove the body’s responsibility to release antibodies when the body decided to do so. Once the immune system was continuously in overdrive and self-exhausted (similar example of self-exhaust would be like a cancer patient whose immune system gets depleted from chemo-therapy), the body weakened and became susceptible to mild infections, like a cold, and could no longer fight off infections. For the Soviets, this breakthrough became important “silent warfare” for mass destruction.

Does this “reprogramming” of the immune system sound familiar? It should. The Covid-19 vaccines utilize the same mRNA technology of reprogramming the body’s immune system as Russia used in producing bioweapons for silent warfare against civilians. Unlike traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines do not carry real pathogens, and works by “tricking” the body into thinking it is under attack with a real virus. The body becomes like a computer, and is instructed to develop the pathogenic proteins itself, “reprogramming” the human body to produce its own antibodies. The proteins become independent and do not gather to form a virus like traditional vaccines. The immune system then detects these viral proteins and starts to produce a defensive response to them. The final result, though, has altered the body’s natural responses, and dangerous pathological immune reactions are induced, including systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies, resulting in a cytokine storm or death. Worse, these harmful outcomes might not show up for months or years. This is why the initial side effects of many Covid vaccinated individuals were severe, and developed in days and weeks after the injection. The overstimulated immune system caused by the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines certainly blueprints Russia’s silent weapons of warfare.

Silent Warfare

The Covid vaccine companies insist mRNA does not alter DNA, but I do not buy it. They have their reasons for bypassing the traditional vaccine method and going with the bioweapon technology, and I do not think it has anything to do with ensuring the health of populations, otherwise they would have taken the time to follow proper testing protocols for their “new” vaccines at the onset, and not been rash in ignoring the abundant reports of injuries and deaths caused so far with the vaccinated. And so, should we blindly trust them after knowing mRNA technology was initially developed and used by the Soviets to harm and destroy whole populations? Should we trust them knowing there is no known proper gauge for short or long-term side effects and what fatalities might occur up ahead? Do we ignore the fact Covid vaccine ingredients use aborted fetal cells which could potentially initiate cancer and autoimmune system shifts within the vaccinated? Do we close our eyes to the toxic and non-biodegradable synthetic materials, such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), used to make the vaccines, knowing PEG’s cause disruption to cellular function and provoke severe neuropsychiatric symptoms in offspring?

Should we believe our leaders when they insist these “secretly-patented” mRNA vaccines are safe, even after knowingly receiving reports that the Covid-19 vaccinations resulted in injuries and deaths caused by blood coagulation, pathological thrombus formation, Bell’s Palsy, cardiac disorders, heart inflammation, neurological mayhem, paralysis, Guillain-Barre’s Syndrome, and numerous miscarriages? The creators of the Covid-19 vaccines expect numerous injuries and fatalities ahead. You cannot mess with this type of bio-technology and be “clueless” regarding end results. This is why the pharmaceutical giants made sure they would be free of legal ramifications for harmful effects and deaths.

The evidence of global warfare is everywhere—from the dictatorial global alliances being formed between nations, to the violations of civil rights, to the imprisonment of citizens inside their own homes, to the destruction of private businesses, to the extreme rules of mask wearing, to the cruel new laws denying unvaccinated Americans the right to work, eat at restaurants, or attend theaters—these are not normal responses to a pandemic, especially one with a 0.1% to 0.5% fatality rate. These are the responses of a communist despotism. By mandating these bio-vaccines, they are forcing us to play Russian Roulette, but instead of one bullet in the six-chamber shooter, there are five.

The communist-patterned pandemic responses forced on free Americans is inconceivable, and I find it worrisome that our own American government and the US Department of Defense is knee-deep in partnerships with China regarding Covid-19 vaccine research and development. DOD’s bioweapon research and expert sectors, BARDA, DARPA, and DTRA, have all been heavily involved with the vaccine conglomerates, as well as China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army. To trust the health of our nation’s citizens to a country who is an active enemy of American ideals, and who cannot adequately secure their own bioweapon laboratories is treasonable.

Messenger RNA technology, because it involves genetic engineering, can be used in any Covid or flu vaccine today for rapid global depopulation through sterility measures or immunological complications, for racial extermination, to modify human sexual composition and create non-genders, for behavioral modifications, or to undergo chromosomal integration or insertional mutagenesis, leading to random insertions of genetic codes into the host of cellular genomes (inducing tumors). The idea of vaccines as a dispersal method to annihilate or debilitate millions of people unknowingly, with their consent, is a brilliant strategy of warfare. The very means with which should help eliminate a pandemic and save lives is instead used as a “kill” device.

Because the masses have accepted vaccinations as preventive medicine for decades, most would reject the possibility that a vaccine could be used as a bioweapon against them. Nonetheless, strong evidence of a global “coup” is piling up as more and more citizens become alarmed that this pandemic is less about health and safety, and more about the restructuring and destruction of our laws, economy, civil rights, and freedoms—everything that occurs during an enemy takeover, and not during a pandemic. And with no enforced treaty to protect civilians against biological weapons of mass destruction, silent warfare against all of humanity becomes today’s reality.

References:

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

https://www.brandeis.edu/now/2021/july/bioweapons-samore.html

https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc

https://www.americansecurityproject.org/crispr-is-making-bioweapons-more-accessible/

By Vladimir Popov (Former Soviet State Security Lieutenant Colonel)
June 24, 2020 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

Special services and doping

At the end of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, scandals erupted in connection with the accusation of Russian athletes in the use of various doping agents. The result of these scandals was the revocation of the accreditation of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and the removal of Russian athletes from a number of international competitions. In addition to this, international sports organizations have decided to prevent Russian Paralympians from participating in the 2016 Paralympics in Brazil and 2018 in South Korea. Former sports minister Vitaly Mutko, who was promoted to the level of deputy prime minister of the Russian government in the wake of these scandals, had to respond to these accusations, which he did with ease, calling them deliberately false.

Vitaly Mutko was compelled to echo the honorary (and before that – the current) vice-president of the International Olympic Committee and the head of the Soviet National Olympic Committee Vitaly Smirnov, who stated that neither in the USSR nor in modern Russia there was and could not be a state program on the use of doping in sports. In fact, all these statements were outright lies, which both Mutko and Smirnov were well aware of.

Smirnov, before being elected to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the early 1970s, served as Deputy Chairman of the USSR State Sports Committee. In 1978, he was recruited as an agent by the deputy head of the 5th KGB Directorate, Major General Ivan Pavlovich Abramov.

It was problematic to achieve high results in sports without doping. Here is the opinion of an authoritative person in the field of sports medicine, the former director of the Moscow Scientific and Practical Center for Sports Medicine (MNPTSSM), currently the chief specialist in sports medicine of the Moscow Department of Health, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Honored Doctor of Russia Zurab Givievich Ordzhonikidze:

“An average person spends about 2000 kilocalories a day to maintain life. An athlete is about six times more. This is enough to heat 12 tons of water at a temperature of 18 degrees Celsius by one degree. And this is a very serious task. Now – another frightening figure. The systolic (“upper”) pressure of a weightlifter at the moment of lifting the bar is approaching 380! And this is not the limit: it reached 450. And even if divided by three – already obvious hypertension! Therefore, of course, pharmacological support is needed. “

From an interview with MK.ru, June 22, 2016

Article 48 of the Olympic Charter is the medical code of the International Olympic Committee. It clearly spelled out the prohibition of the use of doping in sports. In addition, it notes that “doping is contrary to both medical ethics and medical science. The concept of doping is as follows: the use of substances belonging to prohibited classes of pharmacological drugs, and / or the use of various prohibited methods.”

German scientist, sports historian, Dr. Giselher Spitzer (Giselher Spitzer) in 2003 published a detailed study of the long-term use of various doping by athletes in the GDR in order to obtain high results. Spitzer’s work is called Doping in DDR. Using a large amount of factual material, including on the basis of declassified documents of the Ministry of State Security of the GDR, better known as the Stasi, the book described the state system for the introduction of various doping. In addition to medical institutions, intelligence of the GDR was involved in this system, secretly obtaining the corresponding drugs in Germany and other states.

At the same time, the leading medical specialists of the GDR, who developed programs for the use of doping agents in sports, were agents of the Stasi, that is, they were recruited by the Stasi for the purpose of total control over the development of these programs and their use in practice.

The study Doping in the GDR cites a report by Dr. Rudolf Müller entitled Proposal for the Organization of Medical Support for Leading Athletes and Olympic Team Candidates with West German Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Müller was simultaneously a Stasi agent under the pseudonym Ernst Lahe and from 1964 to 1969 he served as deputy chief physician of the sports medical service of the GDR. Also in the study, Dr. Spitzer mentions sports doctor Dr. Kipke (Stasi agent under the pseudonym “ Rolf ”) and sports officer Hans Gürtler. It was the tip of the iceberg, which opened only after the unification of the two Germany.

In 2000, the Berlin Criminal Court began to consider a criminal case against the former president of the German Sports Union of the GDR Manfred Ewald and his associate Manfred Heppner, who since 1974 led the special medical group “Sports Support”. Ewald was secretary of the German sports committee from 1948 to 1952, and from 1952 to 1960 – chairman of the State Committee for Physical Culture and Sports under the Council of Ministers of the GDR. For outstanding services to the fatherland, he was awarded the highest state award of the GDR – the Order of Karl Marx, to which an award of 20 thousand marks was attached.

From 1963 to 1988, Ewald led the East German sports movement. During this time, athletes from the GDR won 197 gold, 178 silver and 167 bronze medals at the Olympic Games. This was an unprecedented world achievement. The key to success was the training program for athletes in the GDR, which was a state secret. Therefore, during the existence of the GDR, sports functionaries and journalists of this country explained the high results by a special system for selecting talented children, a special system of education and training, demonstrating the advantages of socialism over capitalism.

In reality, the point was the massive use of doping agents not only in high-performance sports, but also in children’s sports schools. At the same time, no one was concerned about the study of the possible negative consequences of doping. No one informed either children or their parents about the use of doping in the process of sports training. Things were exactly the same in the Soviet Union. The goal, as in the GDR, was to promote the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist one.

On April 23, 1951, the National Olympic Committee (NOC) was created in the USSR, which on May 7 of the same year at the 46th session of the International Olympic Committee was admitted to the membership of this international organization. The next year, 1952, Soviet athletes took part for the first time in the Summer Olympic Games, which were held in the capital of Finland, Helsinki. Despite the fact that it was a debut for the USSR national team, the team took second place in the number of medals won.

In the preparation of Soviet athletes for international competitions, anabolic steroids were actively used already in those years, which sharply increase the psychophysical indicators of athletes and determine high results in sports competitions. So the practice of using various doping agents was widely used in Soviet sports, but everything that was connected with this was classified as “secret.”

As part of the USSR Sports Committee (reorganized into the USSR State Committee for Sports in 1977), there was a department of medical and biological support for the USSR national teams in various sports. The employees of this department were sports doctors assigned to the respective national teams, whose functions were not limited to medical monitoring of the health status of athletes during the training process and competitions. In accordance with the instructions of the leadership of specific departments of the sports department, together with the coaches of the USSR national teams, the doctors attached to them carried out a wide program of pharmacological support for athletes. Basically, in this case, various groups of doping agents were used.

For each individual national team and individual athletes in individual sports, the department of medical and biological support of the USSR national teams developed a program for the use of doping agents and a method of concealing their use to avoid exposure during control during international competitions. Such programs were drawn up by sports departments together with the medical and biological department and approved by the deputy heads of the sports department in charge of the respective sports. All documentation was classified as “secret” and was kept in the first (security) department of the USSR Sports Committee.

Traditionally, sports doctors and masseurs of national teams were recruited by the KGB of the USSR to monitor the behavior of athletes during training camps and competitions held abroad, as well as to identify contacts with foreign athletes on the territory of the USSR. By the 1980 Moscow Olympics, all the doctors and masseurs of the combined teams of the Soviet Union were recruited by employees of the 11th department of the 5th department of the KGB of the USSR and the officers of the territorial state security bodies assigned to this unit. The author of these lines was during the described period the head of a group of officers who promptly supervised the USSR national teams in various sports and can responsibly declare that there is no exaggeration in the statement “all doctors and masseurs … were recruited”.

Here is what the leading researcher of the Scientific Research Institute of Sports of the Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sports, Youth and Tourism, Sergei Konstantinovich Sarsania, told about the practice of using doping drugs. Although it should be noted that it somewhat simplifies the practice of using doping drugs in the national teams of the USSR, believing that this happened on the initiative of the doctors of these teams. In reality, however, doctors were only executors of the prescriptions issued by the leaders of sports in the USSR.

“I tested this tendency at Dynamo. I say to Yurzinov (head coach of the Dynamo hockey team and second coach of the USSR national hockey team in the 1970-1980s. – Popov):“ Volodya, we have a series of six games. With CSKA Moscow, “Wings of the Soviets”, “Chemist” and others. Games in a row go, in two days, for the third. Let’s put the players on Nerobol at maintenance dosages. And they will have time to recover, and they will play meaner. But there are two options. Or tell the players what you are giving, explaining that the doses are absolutely harmless. If you want, I can tell. And the second option: you give it blindly, without knowing what kind of pills they are. “He says:” I cannot make such a decision. I have to ask the chairman of the central council of Dynamo. As if [Viktor] Tikhonov asked [Dmitry] Yazov if it was possible to give anabolic steroids to his own people. And I knew what they were giving. The team doctor, a former ski doctor (Boris Sapronenkov, who is also a state security agent Dedov – Popov), told me himself: “I mix it in a cocktail and give them a drink.”

From an interview by Sergei Sarsania to the author of the magazine “Iron World” Andrei Antonov. 2003 year

And this is how he talked about doping control:

“He was not in hockey then. And now they close their eyes. We held the World Championship in Moscow in 1978. Three weeks before the World Championship, we tested the USSR national team. Our coaches love to torture, but not create. I conduct biochemical blood control. The team is tortured. Two days later I was summoned to a closed meeting. The head of the football and hockey department Koloskov (state security agent Yantar – Popov), the head of the hockey department at our institute Korolev, our head of the biochemistry department Volkov, the senior coach of the national team Tikhonov is present. Koloskov asks me : “What to do?” I say: “The team is dead. The only thing that can save is anabolic steroids. The dosage is known to me. They will drink for 10 days, and everything will be fine. The only problem is doping control. But the world championship is in Moscow. “Koloskov says:” I take on this problem. ” nothing”.

From an interview by Sergei Sarsania to the author of the magazine “Iron World” Andrei Antonov. 2003 year

For the Olympics-80 in Moscow, an anti-doping center was created, equipped with the most modern equipment at that time and meeting high international standards. However, not a single case of the use of doping drugs by athletes from countries participating in the Olympic Games has been identified. What was the matter: the non-professional staff working in the anti-doping center, or the poor quality equipment of the center? Both the staff and the equipment were fine. It was about politics.

The Olympic Games, first held in a socialist country, were supposed to demonstrate to the whole world the alleged superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist one. The Central Committee of the CPSU took unprecedented measures to ensure victory at any cost. In accordance with secret resolutions of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, all government departments were obliged to provide all-round assistance to the USSR State Sports Committee in achieving this goal. So, for example, at the request of the leadership of the sports department, the Council of Ministers of the USSR by a secret resolution allocated significant foreign exchange funds for the so-called work with foreign judges or, simply put, for their bribery.

The KGB of the USSR also did not stand aside, which, in addition to the main task of ensuring security during the preparation and holding of the 1980 Olympics, was entrusted with the obligation to provide full assistance to the Soviet national team participating in the Games in achieving a convincing victory in the competition. To this end, the KGB agents from among Soviet judges with an international category and accredited to referee the Games of the Olympics in Moscow, as well as translators who worked with foreign judges, participants in competitions and foreign representatives of various services of the 1980 Olympics, were aimed at processing them in a profitable way for the Soviet Union. plan. Expensive gifts and foreign currency were used. The funds were spent from the budget of the KGB of the USSR and were registered under Article 9, which was used to encourage agents.

The leadership of the International Olympic Committee and the international federations accredited at the Moscow Olympics were under constant intelligence control, in addition to round-the-clock auditory control of their working and recreation areas.
In addition, two officers of the KGB of the USSR who had Olympic accreditation were introduced to the staff of the Moscow Anti-Doping Center. They were the senior operative of the 1st department of the 1st department of the 5th directorate of the KGB of the USSR, Major Boris Nikolayevich Pakin and his colleague, an employee of the same unit, operative captain Yevgeny Ivanovich Vorobyov. Both of them were representatives of the unit in charge of the USSR Ministry of Health and the country’s leading medical institutions. Since the accreditation department of the organizing committee of the 1980 Olympics consisted of more than 90% of state security officers working undercover, there were no problems with Olympic accreditation for the officers of the USSR KGB and their agents involved in servicing the games.

The task of the state security officers Pakin and Vorobyov, introduced into the anti-doping center, was to prevent the detection of the facts of the use of doping drugs by Soviet athletes. They were informed in advance about which samples needed to be replaced, and replaced them with their own urine or with the urine of their colleagues, who were invited to taste the scarce foreign beer that was available in abundance at the anti-doping center. Colleagues were not privy to the details of this operation, and the need for excrement in special containers was explained by strict accountability for the use of beer.

The results of the activities of Pakin and Vorobyov can be called impressive: not a single fact of the use of doping drugs by Soviet athletes was revealed. However, as well as foreign. This was done deliberately so as not to provoke reproaches from the heads of foreign sports delegations who participated in the Moscow Olympics, since if such facts were revealed in relation to foreign athletes, they could rightly be indignant, since they knew that athletes from many countries had sinned by using doping. And so – all have excellent indicators, especially since only those countries participated in the Olympiad that refused to boycott it because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Soviet athletes won 80 gold, 69 silver and 46 bronze medals that year. The second result, of course, was with the athletes of the GDR: 47 gold, 16 silver and 42 bronze medals.

The leaders of the Soviet state during its decline were generous with awards. All those who were direct participants in the 1980 Olympics were rewarded in various ways, including government awards. Major of State Security Pakin, who substituted urine samples at the Moscow Anti-Doping Center, was awarded the Order of the Red Star at the suggestion of his long-term friend, Deputy Head of the 11th Department of the 5th Directorate of the KGB of the USSR, Lieutenant Colonel Igor Perfiliev. According to their status, orders were awarded for bravery and heroism displayed during hostilities, and not for urine analysis in peacetime.

During the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, the Russian special services used the experience of Soviet colleagues and introduced an FSB officer into the anti-doping center, who was doing the same thing as his predecessor Pakin – he replaced the samples of Russian athletes that had traces of doping use, replacing them with clean ones. Thanks to these manipulations, just four years after the disastrous Winter Olympics for Russian athletes in Vancouver, Canada, at the regular Games in Sochi, the Russians achieved an impressive victory, taking first place in the team competition with 13 gold, 11 silver and nine bronze medals.

The statements of the leaders of Russian sports, echoed by the president of the country, about the absence in Russia of a state program for the use of doping drugs in sports, are nothing more than a lie, erected into state policy. On December 23, 2016, during his regular press conference, answering a question from a reporter of the Sovetsky Sport newspaper about the political component of claims against Russia by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Putin said that “there is no state support for doping in Russia, and there are problems with doping in all countries. ”

According to Putin, the WADA investigation relied on the testimony of “informers who fled abroad.” “Now I don’t remember the name of this citizen, who ran away and who headed our Russian anti-doping agency,” Putin continued. “He was where he worked before? In Canada! to a high position, dragged here all sorts of nasty things. ” At the same time, Putin did not specify what kind of “muck” was “dragged” from Canada by Grigory Rodchenkov, who then fled from Russia (whose name Putin at that moment, they say, forgot, although he showed knowledge of various aspects of his biography).

In an interview with foreign media, Rodchenkov admitted that he was an agent of the FSB of Russia (which should not surprise us). Without a doubt, it was this department that prepared the certificate for Putin, where everything was set out in sufficient detail. So, Putin perfectly remembered the name of Rodchenkov.

Grigory Rodchenkov was born in 1958 in Moscow. In 1982 he graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry of the Lomonosov Moscow State University with a degree in chemical kinetics and catalysis. In 1985 he was hired by the Moscow Anti-Doping Center (ADC). In 2005, he became acting director of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) Anti-Doping Center, and from July 6, 2006 to November 11, 2015, he served as director of the FSUE Anti-Doping Center. After being forced to flee Russia in January 2016, finding himself in the United States, Rodchenkov admitted in one of his interviews that, as soon as he was appointed head of the Moscow ADC, he was recruited by Russian counterintelligence under the pseudonym Katz.

Soviet and Russian special services constantly monitored the use of doping agents in elite sports, since it was and remains a secret state program, and secrets must be protected from prying eyes.

Rodchenkov said:

” Our laboratory (as he calls the anti-doping center in Moscow – Popov) has collaborated with many similar foreign centers. In particular, there were close contacts with the laboratory of the GDR. Then the Soviet-American program started with scientists from Los Angeles. In [19] in the 90th year he defended his thesis. And soon after the departure of Uralts (the former head of the Moscow ADC – Popov) to the USA, I also left the Moscow laboratory, having worked in it for nine years. There was an idea to work in the USA. But wherever I was invited, I did not want, and where I wanted, they did not take me. But they hired the American firm Hewlett-Packard, which was the largest manufacturer of analytical equipment, to the Moscow office. Their devices were in all anti-doping centers in the world. But the 1998 banking crisis broke out. I went to Canada, where I worked for a year at an anti-doping center in Calgary. ”

From an interview with Grigory Rodchenkov for the moscowuniversityclub.com website, May 25, 2005

All this time, Rodchenkov was in the status of an agent of the FSB of Russia and therefore, in addition to his official activities, he obtained information in the interests of this department. In 2013, the Moscow ADC attracted public attention: the sister of the ADC head Grigory Rodchenkov, three-time world running champion Marina Rodchenkova, was found guilty under the article “illegal circulation of potent or poisonous substances for marketing purposes.” The court of first instance sentenced Rodchenkova to one and a half years in prison, but after the appeal, the term was replaced with a suspended sentence.

In December 2013, WADA recommended that the Moscow ADC be deprived of its accreditation “due to insufficient reliability.” On November 10, 2015, by a decision of WADA, the work of the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory was temporarily suspended, and Rodchenkov resigned from his post as head of the laboratory. The resignation was accepted by the Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation, and on November 25 of the same year, Rodchenkov was temporarily removed from his post in the medical committee of the International Ski Federation. In the same month, WADA reported that the head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory, Grigory Rodchenkov, destroyed 1,417 doping samples three days before the test.

In January 2016, Grigory Rodchenkov left Russia and went to the United States, where in May 2016 he made a sensational statement to The New York Times that it was he who helped Russia win the team event of the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi by developing an unprecedented doping scheme to achieve victorious results.

All published parts of Vladimir Popov’s book “The Conspiracy of Scoundrels. Notes of the Former KGB Lieutenant Colonel” can be found here.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Author-turned Eurasian guest of honour E. Michael Jones completely failed at trying to dismiss last month the claim that he is a KGB asset aiding the demise of the West.

Jones attempted to dismiss the claim (made by researcher Andy Sloan on this site) using a strawman argument during a live chat on Restoring the Faith, March 6, 2021.

“Someone is now spreading this ridiculous, preposterous claim that I am a KGB agent because I was in a room with Aleksandr Dugin,” Jones declared. He went on, “I am in the unfortunate position of being unable to prove a negative. I cannot prove that I am not a KGB agent, so the burden of proof lies on these people, these character assassinations (sic) who are launching this in the first place. I was at a conference in Tehran with Dugin…he gave a speech about multi-polarity. I offered an objection to that that speech saying we lived in some sense a uni-polar world, even if it’s not the United States of America that’s head of it. That was the extent of our discussion. This Internet breeds character assassination and this is one example of it.”

First off, Sloan’s article in no way based his claim merely on the fact that Jones was in the same room with Dugin (on multiple occasions, by the way). Jones then follows his strawman argument with a challenge of burden of proof, which Sloan did thoroughly provide. Jones addressed none of the many, many pieces of evidence written by Sloan. Did he even read it or is he deceiving his audience about the breadth of evidence?

Jones then claims he offered an objection to Dugin’s speech about multi-polarity. But he didn’t really offer an objection, though. He merely stated what he perceives as the current world geopolitical reality—that it is unipolar. Furthermore, Jones completely fails to discern (deliberately?) Dugin’s meaning of multi-polarity, which is really just jargonous deception to distract from the fact that Dugin wants his Eurasian union to rule the world as a unipolar, neo-Bolshevik empire (world government). To achieve this, the Eurasianists have to break the West’s seemingly unipolar rule using an appeal to the West’s enemies to engage in multi-polarism (divesting from the West) and embracing the East (Eurasianism, Belt and Road initiative). If Jones genuinely can’t understand this, then he is unfit to be a geopolitical analyst, especially as a self-appointed representative of the Catholic Church and the United States of America. Even Glenn Beck’s audience have a better understanding of Dugin’s deceptive language than does Jones, and Beck’s audience could be classified as “normies”.

At worst, Sloan is correct and Jones is a KGB asset wittingly distorting the evidence. Either way, Jones is carrying out the neo-Soviet Eurasianists’ objective of distorting the East’s true intentions as well as blaming the West for what is really Eastern subversion of it. While Jones does seem free, in his apparent KGB mission, to criticize world Jewry, he flat out denies Jewry’s subdivisions: subversion by freemasonry and Soviet communist threat.

“…communism was never a threat, in general.” —Jones

This is in addition to Jones being a race denialist (except when non-whites are he subject), denial of communism as a still-present threat, soft on Vatican II and its “popes”, outright heretical statements concerning Islam, propping up of Putin as an anti-globalist renegade, and associations with numerous Eurasianists and socialists, like Israel Shamir and Dugin—all Soviet-friendly narratives.

Jones has become so blatant with his agenda, I have had to create a dossier just to catalogue it all. The guy smacks of shill. It’s becoming more and more plain.

From the mayor of Netanya, Israel:

By Communitarian.ru
September 6, 2015 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

Operation Krymnash: Putin “brings the arrival of Mashiach closer”?

Why “Krymnash” (Crimea is Ours), and Donbass – “Nenash”? The head of the Eda Haredit sect, the vice-chairman of the Rabbinical court, Rabbi Moshe Sternbach, assures that in Crimea, Putin “brings the arrival of the mashiach closer.”

In March 2014, Sternbach reported that “the Vilna Gaon himself” before his death revealed to his disciples the correct signs of the approaching end of the world: “When you hear that the Russians have captured a city in Crimea, you should know that the times of the Messiah have begun, and you can already hear his steps. And when you hear that you have reached Constantinople (today’s Istanbul), you should put on your Sabbath clothes and not take them off, as this will mean that the mashiach can come at any moment. ”

Passing these words, a rabbi from among the Breslau Hasidim, himself a descendant of the “Vilna genius”, said:

“We must thank President Putin for bringing closer the arrival of the Mashiach” (the Jewish “messiah”, in the Orthodox sense – the Antichrist).

“Sternbach’s Prophecy” is based on the interpretation of the book of the prophet Ezekiel about the “war of Gog and Magog” – two peoples, whose invasion will shake the world shortly before the end of the world. In the book of Ezekiel, Gog is called “nasi rosh”, which some translate as “prince of Rosha.” Which is to appear “in the last days … like a storm … from the borders of the north.” According to Sternbach’s version, Putin fits the interpretation of the concept of “Prince Roche”. In addition, according to the “calculations” of Joseph ben Mataffy (“Flavia”), the land of Magog is the Scythian Crimea.

Thus, “both components of the near end of the world are present.”

The American Jewish newspaper Forward, which reported in 2014 about the eschatological sentiments that gripped some Jews, recalled that if the Vilna Gaon linked the arrival of the Mashiach with the capture of Crimea by Russia, then this event, in fact, happened during his lifetime , in 1783, when the Russian Empire conquered Crimea during the Russian-Turkish war. And if then the “mashiach” did not appear, then it is still too early to put on Saturday clothes – especially considering that Erdogan is not yet waiting for Russian troops near Istanbul, “Forwards columnist Sigal Samuel believed then.

Later, on August 21, 2015, during a meeting with V. Putin, the leader of the reformist Jews “Ner TAMID” in Crimea, Anatoly Gendin, thanked the Russian president for the attentiveness of the Russian authorities to the demands of Crimean Jews for restitution:

“After several years of fruitless appeals in Ukraine, in this year we have resolved the issue of returning the Talmud-Torah to us—a former religious school for boys in Simferopol. “

Gendin added that the framework agreement on restitution also implies the return of the former synagogue building in Yevpatoria. In addition, some ritual temples of the “religion of the bachelor” will be created at the suggestion of Putin.

We remind you that immediately after the annexation of Crimea, the then head of the “reformist Jews” Mikhail Kapustin wrote a petition to U.S. President Barack Obama with an appeal to send American troops to the Russian peninsula. However, according to today’s statements of “reformist” and “ordinary” rabbis, today they feel safer under the sovereignty of Russia under Putin, who, according to the same Forward, harshly suppresses “manifestations of anti-Semitism” and is attentive to the demands of Jews.

It is extremely difficult to imagine that the current president “will send troops to liberate Jerusalem.” In any case, today the opposite phenomenon is observed—40,000 Jews from Israel are asking Putin to grant Russian citizenship in order to move to Crimea.

In general, there is no doubt what decision will be made by the ruling regime, since there is no doubt about the predilections of Putin himself, who, after being brought up in a “Jewish communal apartment,” never got rid of the “Mowgli syndrome” – when “the meaning of life becomes constant calculation their own benefit and outplaying the goyim. ”

In general, it is necessary to take a sober attitude to the “prophecies of the Vilna Gaons” and other Jewish sects, ready to adjust the “prophecies” to any events (“a true leading figure of the Talmud must find 49 arguments for and 49 arguments against” [1]).

Meanwhile, one cannot but compare the shameful political decisions of Putin, for whom “Krymnash”, and Donbass – at the beginning of April 2014, was also “ours”, and a few days later it became “not ours.” Which indicates, under whose “spiritual” control the “highest official of Russia” is.

As for the “end of the world”, the liberation of Sevastopol and Crimea is followed not only by Constantinople, but also—in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel—”the entry of Gog into Jerusalem”, the war, the defeat of Gog (in fact, the fanatics from among the Jews Satanists and drive all political events).

However, according to Revelation, then the accession and fall of the Antichrist will follow. And the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

NOTE:

[1] “According to the Talmud itself (Yalkut Shadakh), the Book of the Law was given without vowels precisely so that each of its words could be interpreted in seventy different ways … in the treatises Erubin and Sanhedrin one of the leading figures of Talmudism is praised for that he could always find in the Law 49 reasons or grounds for permission and for prohibition of the same subject, for condemnation and justification for violation of any command, A.S. Shmakov, “International Secret Government”, Talmud

By Bruce Gilley
Sept. 8, 2017 Anno Domini

ABSTRACT

For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.

Introduction

For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. Colonialism has virtually disappeared from international affairs, and there is no easier way to discredit a political idea or opponent than to raise the cry of ‘colonialism’. When South African opposition politician Helen Zille tweeted in 2017 that Singapore’s success was in part attributable to its ability to ‘build on valuable aspects of colonial heritage’, she was vilified by the press, disciplined by her party, and put under investigation by the country’s human rights commission.

It is high time to reevaluate this pejorative meaning. The notion that colonialism is always and everywhere a bad thing needs to be rethought in light of the grave human toll of a century of anti-colonial regimes and policies. The case for Western colonialism is about rethinking the past as well as improving the future. It involves reaffirming the primacy of human lives, universal values, and shared responsibilities – the civilising mission without scare quotes – that led to improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples during most episodes of Western colonialism. It also involves learning how to unlock those benefits again. Western and non-Western countries should reclaim the colonial toolkit and language as part of their commitment to effective governance and international order.

There are three ways to reclaim colonialism. One is for governments and peoples in developing countries to replicate as far as possible the colonial governance of their pasts – as successful countries like Singapore, Belize and Botswana did. The ‘good governance’ agenda, which contains too many assumptions about the self-governing capacity of poor countries, should be replaced with the ‘colonial governance’ agenda. A second way is to recolonise some areas. Western countries should be encouraged to hold power in specific governance areas (public finances, say, or criminal justice) in order to jump-start enduring reforms in weak states. Rather than speak in euphemisms about ‘shared sovereignty’ or ‘neo-trusteeship’, such actions should be called ‘colonialism’ because it would embrace rather than evade the historical record. Thirdly, in some instances it may be possible to build new Western colonies from scratch.

Colonialism can return (either as a governance style or as an extension of Western authority) only with the consent of the colonised. Yet now that the nationalist generation that forced sudden decolonisation on hapless populations has passed away, the time may be ripe. Sèbe has documented how the founding figures of Western colonialism in Africa (such as Livingstone in Zambia, Lugard in Nigeria and de Brazza in Congo) are enjoying a resurgence of official and social respect in those countries now that romanticised pre-colonial and disappointing postcolonial approaches to governance have lost their sheen.1 As one young man on the streets of Kinshasa asked Van Reybrouck (as described in his seminal 2010 book on the Congo): ‘How long is this independence of ours going to last anyway? When are the Belgians coming back?’2

Three failures of anti-colonial critique

The case for the past record of Western colonialism – usually referring to British, French, German, Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese colonies from the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries – rests on overturning two distinct lines of criticism: that it was objectively harmful (rather than beneficial); and that it was subjectively illegitimate (rather than legitimate). There is, in addition, a third line of criticism that merits revision: that it offends the sensibilities of contemporary society.

The objective costs/benefits approach identifies a certain need of human flourishing – development, security, governance, rights, etc. – and asks whether colonialism improved or worsened the objective provision of that need. One main challenge of this research is to properly enumerate the things that matter and then to assign them weights, weights that presumably varied with time and place. In a brutally patriarchal society, for instance, access to justice for women may have been more important than the protection of indigenous land rights (which may be part of that patriarchy), as Andreski argued was the case for women in northern Nigeria under colonialism.3

A second challenge is measuring the counterfactual: what would likely have happened in a given place absent colonial rule? Many research designs, for instance, control for variations in colonial rule itself and for a variety of other factors that co-existed with colonialism (such as cultural norms, geography, population, disease burden, etc.) But they do not control for the presence or absence of colonialism, for instance a highly cited study by Acemoglu and colleagues.4 To construct such a counterfactual requires measuring not just global social, economic and technological trends but also the likely course of indigenous development, of regional factors and of an ungoverned non-colonial encounter with the West. Countries that did not have a significant colonial history – China, Ethiopia, Liberia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Haiti and Guatemala, for instance –provide a measure of comparison to help identify what if anything were the distinctive effects of colonialism. So too does research into pre-colonial histories that, almost by definition, reveal comparatively weak institutions, divided societies and subsistence economies, for instance in Biber’s study of pre-colonial Namibia.5

Noting some of these complexities, Abernethy summarises the objective costs/benefits question as follows:

[I]n times and places where colonial rule had, on balance, a positive effect on training for self-government, material wellbeing, labor allocation choices, individual upward mobility, cross-cultural communication, and human dignity, compared to the situation that would likely have obtained absent European rule, then the case for colonialism is strong. Conversely, in times and places where the effects of foreign rule in these respects were, on balance, negative compared to a territory’s likely alternative past, then colonialism is morally indefensible.6

Beyond these requirements, there is a list of simple epistemic virtues. Non-biased data and case selection, for instance, requires that evidence be gathered in a way that does not confirm the hypothesis at stake. So any claim about, say, the level of colonial violence requires not just assumptions about the scale of violence that would have occurred absent colonial rule but also a careful measure of that violence relative to the population, security threat and security resources in a given territory. One is hard-pressed, to take a prominent example, to find a single example of such care in measurement in the vast critical scholarship on the British counter-insurgency campaign against the Mau in Kenya from 1952 to 1960, especially the scolding work of Elkins.7 Daniels argues that ‘[h]ad the British left Kenya to the Mau, there would have been anarchy and further civil war, perhaps even genocide’.8 Just as many Kenyans joined the Kikuyu Home Guard and the special prison service for the rebels as joined the insurgency, and the independent Kenyan government long applauded the historic contribution of the British in suppressing the movement.9 At the very least, it is incumbent on scholars to show that the brutalities unleashed by the British in this campaign were not the likely result of a proportionate response given the context and scale of the threat. If this supposedly solid case is wobbly, what does it tell us about the lesser ‘violence’ often cited as invalidating colonialism?

Perhaps the most egregious violation of epistemic virtues is internal coherence (or non-contradiction). Eminent scholars repeatedly make the logically contradictory claim that colonialism was both too disruptive and not disruptive enough, whether with regard to boundaries, governing institutions, economic systems or social structures, as evidenced in the short space of just two pages by Young.10 Africanists in particular applaud the work both of Herbst,11 who argued that colonialism did too little state-making, and Young,12 who earlier argued that it did too much. New territorial boundaries are criticised for forcing social integration while old ones are criticised for reinforcing tribalism, a contradiction noted by Lefebvre.13 Marxist scholars found colonialism at fault when it did not invest in public health and infrastructure (showing a callous disregard for labour) and when it did (in order to exploit it).14 Colonialism is credited with near-magical powers to sweep away everything good in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity) and with equally magical powers to make permanent everything bad in its path (like tribal chiefs or ethnic identity).

Finally, there is the simple epistemic virtue of falsification. This is most pointed in the treatment of what was undoubtedly a benefit of colonialism: the abolition of slave-trading. Anti-colonial critics squirm and fidget over this issue because it puts the greatest strain on their ‘colonialism bad’ perspective. The result is a constant stream of revisionism: it did not happen fast enough; there were mixed motives; not all colonial officials supported it; former slaves remained poor and former slave owners remained rich; it should never have existed in the first place.15

Of course, not all research falls afoul of the basic prescriptions above. Research that is careful in conceptualising and measuring controls, that establishes a feasible counterfactual, that includes multiple dimensions of costs and benefits weighted in some justified way, and that adheres to basic epistemic virtues often finds that at least some if not many or most episodes of Western colonialism were a net benefit, as the literature review by Juan and Pierskalla shows.16 Such works have found evidence for significant social, economic and political gains under colonialism: expanded education, improved public health, the abolition of slavery, widened employment opportunities, improved administration, the creation of basic infrastructure, female rights, enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded communities, fair taxation, access to capital, the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, and national identify formation, to mention just a few dimensions.17

This leads to the second failure of anti-colonial critique. Given that objective costs and benefits varied with time and place, another approach is simply to defer to the judgements of those affected. The subjective legitimacy approach asks whether the people subject to colonialism treated it, through their beliefs and actions, as rightful. As Hechter showed, alien rule has often been legitimate in world history because it has provided better governance than the indigenous alternative.18

Anti-colonial critics simply assert that colonialism was, in Hopkins’s words, ‘a foreign imposition lacking popular legitimacy’.19 Yet until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons. Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonised to colonised areas, fought for colonial armies and participated in colonial political processes – all relatively voluntary acts. Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and areas concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives. The ‘preservers’, ‘facilitators’ and ‘collaborators’ of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the ‘resisters’ at least until very late: ‘Imperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull’.20 In Borneo, the Sultan of Brunei installed an English traveller, James Brooke, as the rajah of his chaotic province of Sarawak in 1841, after which order and prosperity expanded to such an extent that even once a British protectorate was established in 1888, the Sultan preferred to leave it under Brooke family control until 1946.21

Sir Alan Burns, the governor of the Gold Coast during World War II, noted that

had the people of the Gold Coast wished to push us into the sea there was little to prevent them. But this was the time when the people came forward in their thousands, not with empty protestations of loyalty but with men to serve in the army … and with liberal gifts to war funds and war charities. This was curious conduct for people tired of British rule.22

In most colonial areas, subject peoples either faced grave security threats from rival groups or they saw the benefits of being governed by a modernised and liberal state. Patrice Lumumba, who became an anti-colonial agitator only very late, praised Belgian colonial rule in his autobiography of 1962 for ‘restoring our human dignity and turning us into free, happy, vigorous, and civilized men’.23 Chinua Achebe’s many pro-colonial statements, meanwhile, have been virtually airbrushed from memory by anti-colonial ideology.24 The few scholars who take note of such evidence typically dismiss it as a form of false consciousness.25

The failure of anti-colonial critique to come to terms with the objective benefits and subjective legitimacy of colonialism points to a third and deeper failure: it was never intended to be ‘true’ in the sense of being a scientific claim justified through shared standards of inquiry that was liable to falsification. The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy. Today, activists associate ‘decolonisation’ (or ‘postcolonialism’) with all manner of radical social transformation, which unintentionally ties historic conclusions to present-day endeavours. Unmoored from historical fact, postcolonialism became what Williams26 called a metropolitan flaneur culture of attitude and performance whose recent achievements include an inquiry into the glories of sado-masochism among Third World women27 and a burgeoning literature on the horrors of colonialism under countries that never had colonies.28

This third failure of anti-colonial critique is perhaps most damaging. It is not just an obstacle to historical truth, which itself is a grave disservice. Even as a means of contemporary advocacy, it is self-wounding. For it essentially weaponises the colonial past, as the gradually imploding postcolonial South African state’s persecution of Helen Zille shows. ‘What a meta-narrative of anti-colonial sentiment can render invisible are ways in which people made claims on new possibilities without deploying either anti- or pro-colonial idioms’, Englund writes in his study of colonial-era newspapers in Zambia.

To devote all scholarly attention to the question of how different actors during this period sought to end colonial rule is to succumb to a limiting meta-narrative of anti-colonialism, one that allows no conceptual space between colonial and anti-colonial agendas, and thereby keeps other possibilities inaccessible to the scholarly and moral imagination.29

The costs of anti-colonialism

It is hard to overstate the pernicious effects of global anti-colonialism on domestic and international affairs since the end of World War II. Anti-colonialism ravaged countries as nationalist elites mobilised illiterate populations with appeals to destroy the market economies, pluralistic and constitutional polities, and rational policy processes of European colonisers. In our ‘age of apology’30 for atrocities, one of the many conspicuous silences has been an apology for the many atrocities visited upon Third World peoples by anti-colonial advocates.

Few cases better illustrate this than Guinea-Bissau and its anti-colonial ‘hero’ Amilcar Cabral. In launching a guerrilla war against Portuguese rule in 1963 Cabral insisted that it was ‘necessary to totally destroy, to break, to reduce to ash all aspects of the colonial state in our country in order to make everything possible for our people’.31 He took aim at a successful colonial state that had quadrupled rice production32 and initiated sustained gains in life expectancy33 since bringing the territory under control in 1936. Cabral, in his own words, was ‘never able to mobilize the people on the basis of the struggle against colonialism’.34 Instead, he secured training and arms from Cuba, Russia and Czechoslovakia and economic assistance from Sweden.35 The resulting war killed 15,000 combatants (out of a population of 600,000) and at least as many civilians, and displaced another 150,000 (a quarter of the population).

Once ‘liberation’ was achieved in 1974, a second human tragedy unfolded, costing at least 10,000 further lives as a direct result of conflict. By 1980, rice production had fallen by more than 50% to 80,000 tonnes (from a peak of 182,000 tonnes under the Portuguese). Politics became a ‘cantankerous din of former revolutionaries’ in the words of Forrest.36 Cabral’s half-brother, who became president, unleashed the secret police on the tiny opposition – 500 bodies were found in three mass graves for dissidents in 1981.37 A tenth of the remaining population upped stakes for Senegal.38 The Cabralian one-party state expanded to 15,000 employees, 10 times as big as the Portuguese administration at its peak.39 Confused Marxist scholars blamed the legacies of colonialism or the weather or Israel.40

Things have gotten worse. Guinea-Bissau has a more or less permanent United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force and continues to suck up millions in aid as the ‘continuadores de Cabral’ squabble under what the World Bank calls ‘continuing political disarray’.41 Today, in per-capita terms, rice production is still only one-third of what it was under the Portuguese despite 40 years of international aid and technological advances. The health transition, meanwhile, slowed considerably after independence. By 2015, the average Guinea-Bissauan was living to just 55, meaning gains of just 0.3 years of extra life per year since independence, less than half of the 0.73 extra years of life per year being gained in the late colonial period. What might have become a prosperous and humane Macau or Goa of Africa is today a cesspool of human suffering. Western and African anti-colonial scholars continue to extol Cabral’s ‘national liberation’ ideas.42 But actually existing Guineans may be asking: When are the Portuguese coming back?

Guinea-Bissau seems like an extreme case. It is not. Of the 80 countries that threw off the colonial ‘yoke’ after World War II, at least half experienced similar trauma, while most of the rest limped on. For 60 years, Third World despots have raised the spectre of recolonisation to discredit democratic oppositions and ruin their economies. Yet there is virtually nothing written about most of these postcolonial traumas since, as Igreja notes, it still assumed that anti-colonial movements were victims rather than victimisers.43 Scholars in full Eurocentric mode prefer to churn out books on colonial atrocities or to suggest that ‘colonial legacies’ have something to do with the follies and body blows inflicted on these countries by their anti-colonial leaders.44

To be sure, just as the colonial era was not an unalloyed good, the independence era has not been an unalloyed bad. A few postcolonial states are in reasonable health. Those whose moral imaginations were not shrouded by anti-colonial ideology had the most productive encounter with modernity, emerging as leaders of what W. Arthur Lewis called the ‘creative’ Third World.45

But most of the rest remained stuck in anti-colonial ‘protest’ identities with dire consequences for human welfare. A sobering World Bank report of 1996 noted: ‘Almost every African country has witnessed a systematic regression of capacity in the last 30 years; the majority had better capacity at independence than they now possess’.46 This loss of state capacity was no trifle; it meant the loss of tens of millions of lives. And it is not getting better. For instance, only 13 of 102 historically developing countries are on track to have high state capacity by the year 2100, according to Andrews and colleagues. The people of Bangladesh will have to wait another 244 years at their current rate to reach a high-capacity state.47Would it have taken Britain, even in some adjusted role (as discussed below), until the middle of the twenty-third century to institute good government in this former province of Eastern Bengal?

In international affairs, meanwhile, otherwise liberal and democratic states such as India, Brazil and South Africa continue to style themselves as enemies of Western colonialism. As Chatterjee Miller shows, the foreign policies of these former colonies continue to be driven by a sense of victimhood and entitlement rather than rational self-interest or global responsibility.48 This means that every time the world is desperate for a coordinated response to a human, political or security catastrophe – in Sri Lanka, Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance – the voices of anti-colonialism intercede to prevent action. As it turned out, the most serious threat to human rights and world peace was not colonialism – as the United Nations declared in 1960 – but anti-colonialism.

Chatterjee Miller argues that it is the responsibility of the West to be ‘sensitive’ to these anti-colonial viewpoints. An alternative view is that it is the responsibility of the West to help these nations kick the habit. After all, Britain’s rise is surely inseparable from the ways that it embraced and celebrated its colonisers from the Romans through to the Normans. If anti-colonial sentiments had gone unchallenged in Britain, the country today would be a backwater of druid worshippers.

Resurrecting colonial governance

Even as intellectuals have continued to plough the anti-colonial furrow since the end of the Cold War, many countries have changed their domestic governance to replant the seeds of ‘colonial governance’. This agenda has many things in common with the ‘good governance’ agenda: economic liberalisation, political pluralism and administrative streamlining have replaced the socialist road in most countries. But the colonial governance agenda is distinct from the good governance agenda in two respects.

First, the colonial governance agenda explicitly affirms and borrows from a country’s colonial past, searching for ideas and notions of governmentality. As Burton and Jennings note, ‘In the first decade or so after independence … East African governments often adopted or adapted both administrative structures and ideological concepts from their colonial predecessors in order to create quite successful forms of governance – certainly by regional standards’.49 In many cases, colonial bureaucrats and police were rehired by the newly independent governments.

Reclaiming this colonial trajectory abandoned at independence is key to the colonial governance agenda. No less an anti-colonial ‘hero’ than Chinua Achebe ended his days with a memoir that explicitly affirmed the positive contributions of colonialism to governance in his native Nigeria: ‘[I]t is important to face the fact that British colonies were, more or less, expertly run’, he wrote.50 What was important about Achebe’s ‘articulation of the unsayable’, as Msiska called it, was his rediscovery of ‘the colonial national formation as a habitable community’.51 This had concrete implications for how to organise the civil service, how to manage federalism and how to promote education. As with democratic episodes in a country’s past, colonial episodes become an attic to ransack in search of a livable past. This also underscores the importance of reinvesting in a non-biased historiography of colonialism so that the colonial periods are seen not as objects of resistance but as fruitful sources of creativity.

Secondly, and related, the colonial governance agenda recognises that the capacity for effective self-government is lacking and cannot be conjured out of thin air. The lack of state capacity to uphold the rule of law and deliver public services was the central tragedy of ‘independence’ in the Third World, as a few voices like Plamenatz and Barnes warned at the time.52 To reclaim ‘colonial governance’ means increasing foreign involvement in key sectors in business, civil society and the public sector in order to this bolster this capacity. In 1985, for instance, the Indonesian government fired all 6000 government inspectors at the Jakarta port of Tanjung Priok and replaced the corrupt and inefficient customs service with the Swiss firm SGS. The Swiss rebuilt the customs service, handing back partial control in 1991 and full control in 1997.53 Indonesia’s exports boomed. Civil society and successful policy reforms, meanwhile, improve faster with the presence of international civil society actors, as they did in the colonial era, as shown by studies of environmental civil society.54 Multinational corporations, moreover, can be tasked with public service provision near their facilities in direct imitation of colonial practices, as Hönke has documented.55

The colonial governance agenda embraces a cosmopolitanism – a civilising mission – often lacking in the good governance agenda. Bain, for instance, admits the ‘grim reality’ and ‘ghastly consequences’ of decolonisation.56 Yet he simultaneously rejects the idea that the West has anything to offer, since this implies an imperial mission. This ‘uncritical critique of the liberal peace’, as Chandler57 calls it, consigns Third World nations to the foibles and vagaries of ‘authentic’ or ‘indigenous’ practices, a de facto abandonment of hope in their self-governing capacities. By contrast, the colonial governance agenda resurrects the universalism of the liberal peace and with it a shared standard of what a well-governed country looks like.

The case for recolonisation

The second broad way to reclaim colonialism is to recolonise some areas. It may be that in some cases, only a formal share of sovereignty for Western countries can provide the mix of accountability and authority needed to build capacity in weak states. In Chesterman’s oft-quoted phrase, the problem with modern statebuilding is not that it ‘is colonial in character; rather the problem is that sometimes it is not colonial enough’.58

The World Bank and United States, for instance, experimented with‘co-signatory’arrangements in Liberia and Chad in the 1990s and 2000s, where major government expenditures required the signatures of both domestic and external agents. In the Australia-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) or the UN’s International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (known by its Spanish acronym CICIG), key legal and police functions were handed over to external powers because of rampant corruption and criminalisation of the state.

Sèbe calls this ‘cosmopolitan nation-building’ because it represents an explicit rejection of the parochial myth of self-governing capacity that drove most postcolonial countries into the ground.59 Rather than use an ever-expanding set of euphemisms that avoid the ‘C’ word – ‘shared sovereignty’, ‘conservatorship’, ‘proxy governance’, ‘transitional administration’, ‘neo-trusteeship’, ‘cooperative intervention’ – these arrangements should be called ‘colonialism’ because it would embrace rather than evade the historical record. As Ignatieff wrote in 2002: ‘Imperialism doesn’t stop being necessary just because it becomes politically incorrect’.60

While the conceptual abandonment of the myth of self-governing capacity is now mainstream, the challenges of making new forms of colonialism work are immense. There are three separate questions for policymakers: (1) how to make colonialism acceptable to the colonised; (2) how to motivate Western countries to become colonial again; and (3) how to make colonialism achieve lasting results.

Any colonial relationship requires a high degree of acceptance from the local population. Perhaps this explains why post-Cold War interventions have sought to emphasise their participatory and consensual nature in contrast with an alleged illegitimate and coercively imposed colonialism.61 This is another area where an accurate historiography of colonialism is sorely needed because, as noted, colonialism usually spread with a significant degree of consent from politically salient actors.

One lesson from colonial legitimation is that at least in the initial phases, legitimacy will be demonstrated not by the holding of a plebiscite or by the support of organised and broadly representative groups but simply by the ability of the intervening state to win compliance from key actors and get the job done. Too often, critics of modern interventions have decried the lack of ‘accountability or representation’.62 Yet it is precisely the absence of conditions for meaningful accountability or representation that makes intervention necessary in the first place, much as colonialism spread in order to better manage ungoverned encounters with the West. As Chesterman wrote: ‘If genuine local control were possible, then a transitional administration would not be necessary’. The creation of accountable political power ‘may well be the end of the transitional administration’, he writes, ‘but by definition it is not the means’.63

To push the logic further, it is the intervening state, bound to act as a trustee, that has the capacity initially to choose a legitimate path forward. As in colonial times, foreign control by a liberal state with its own robust accountability mechanisms is the closest that a people with a weak state can come to ‘local ownership’. The widespread support in Sierra Leone for the 1999 to 2005 British overhaul and rebuilding of the police force was explained by this externally created legitimacy with an explicit colonial vestige: ‘There has always been a soft spot for the British among Sierra Leoneans. That feeling has now come into full play, with public demands for the Brits to stay for as long as necessary, because of the helpless condition of the country’, one local journalist noted.64

The legitimacy of a new colonialism will almost always require a local leader who is both domestically popular and a strong advocate of the colonial relationship. After initial scepticism, Liberia’s energetic president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf championed the post-2005 Government and Economic Assistance Management Program (GEMAP) that gave extensive powers over spending and budgeting to external actors. As a result, Liberians generally welcomed GEMAP.65 ‘Although some Liberian politicians see the plan as thinly veiled colonialism, it is wildly popular among those living on the rubbish-strewn streets of the capital’, noted The Times. ‘“We love GEMAP,” Henry Williams, a shopkeeper, said to nods from the crowd at the counter. “It will stop the politicians from stealing from us”’.66

The dynamics of colonial legitimation moving forward are tricky because as a country ‘earns sovereignty’the legitimacy of the colonial relationship will decline if it is not constantly recalibrated and reaffirmed. As local institutions and norms improve, the colonial relationship will become more intensive but also more contested because of this more complex polity. Again, lessons from past colonialism are germane: ‘The central paradox of the process of colonial exit was that it coincided in most cases with the most active phase of colonial state-building’, wrote Darwin.67

Very little attention is ever paid to the second challenge although it is arguably greater: how to motivate Western countries to become colonial. Despite cries of ‘exploitation’, colonialism was probably a money loser for imperial powers. The Stanford economist Richard Hammond coined the term ‘uneconomic imperialism’ to describe the ways that European powers embarked on ruinously costly and ultimately money-losing colonialism for largely non-economic reasons.68 That is why they gave up their colonies so easily, as Wu also showed with regard to the Dutch surrender of Taiwan.69 The benefits of empire were widely diffused while the costs were narrowly borne by the colonial power. As Kaplan wrote: ‘The real problem with imperialism is not that it is evil, but rather that it is too expensive and therefore a problematic grand strategy for a country like the United States’.70

Australia’s Lowy Institute for International Policy, for instance, calculated that the RAMSI programme cost Australian taxpayers about US$2 billion over its 10-year period, roughly the annual health and education budget for the capital city of Canberra, or the equivalent of a year’s economic output for every Solomon Islander. The institute described this as ‘a massive investment for a country where Australia’s interests are limited’.71 The moment there was a whiff of Solomon Islander opposition using anti-colonial tropes, the Australians headed home.72 A willingness to assume responsibility for the affairs of a foreign land will not come easily since Western governments are held closely to account for their spending and anti-colonial ideology can be easily mobilised. The UN, meanwhile, is not likely to step in with more ‘international administration’ due to the enduring anti-colonialism of leading Third World states.73 Collier’s suggestion for expanded UN-led governance provision is impractical for this reason.74

To solve the incentives problem, Hechter has called for a ‘market in transnational governance’75 which we might call less euphemistically ‘colonialism for hire’. Colonial states would be paid for their services, an important motivator to be successful. The contractual motivation would also strengthen consent through periodic renegotiation of the terms. If properly designed, host countries would more than recoup those costs through higher foreign investment, lower external borrowing costs and greater business confidence, benefits that were arguably more significant than improved governance in the colonial era.76

That still leaves the third question of whether new forms of colonialism would work. The salient point is simply to draw attention to the relevance of the colonial past to this question since the appropriate models for statebuilding are probably not modern liberal ones but something else.77 Whereas the number of post-Cold War interventions involving a share of sovereignty has been quite small, there were many episodes and types of colonialism from which to draw lessons. For instance, the largely successful resurrection of the state in Cambodia after a Chinese-imposed genocidal regime is not attributable to the UN-led reconstruction effort of 1992–1993. Liberal peacebuilding failed in Cambodia judged in terms of the intention to create a robust democracy or an independent police and army.78 Rather, what emerged was a successful semi-authoritarian polity with deep roots in the colonial past.79

One lesson from the colonial past is that the share of sovereignty needs to be substantial and thorough in most cases. If external actors are constrained to work with rotten local institutions, as Matanock has argued,80” then reforms will be difficult. Remaking a local police force may be possible without a share of sovereignty, but cleaning out a thoroughly corrupt national criminal justice system requires external control. Again, the reason to reclaim the word ‘colonialism’ is that it does not sidestep this important empirical insight.

The second lesson is what Lemay-Hébert calls ‘the centrality of the social’, – that is, the centrality of a congruence between the values in the community and those of the state.81 Liberal interventions fail, he argued, because of their aversion to the social. Colonial interventions, by contrast, may stand a greater chance of success because historically this ‘emphasis on the social’ is what colonialism was good at: the dual mandate, indirect rule, minimal expatriate staffs and customary law went hand in hand with the infrastructure of modernity (schools, universal laws, ‘Western’ medicine, etc.) ‘Since gaining independence, Congo has never has at its disposal an army comparable in efficiency and discipline to the former [Belgian colonial] Force Publique’, was Van Reybrouck’s sad conclusion.82 Maybe the Belgians should come back.

The tale of Galinhas

Even with local legitimacy, Western will and a good plan, the challenges of making new forms of colonialism work are immense. Leaders will need to come up with novel solutions to continued chaos and displacement caused by a century of anti-colonial policies. So here is a modest idea: build new Western colonies from scratch.

In 2009, the economist Paul Romer – who became the World Bank’s chief economist in 2016 – suggested that rich nations build ‘charter cities’ in poor countries.83 Under this model, largely empty land is leased to a foreign nation or group of nations so that their sovereignty allows a modern enclave to grow up, as was the case in Hong Kong. That tiny British colony, according to Romer, ‘did more to reduce world poverty than all the aid programs that we’ve undertaken in the last century’.

New colonies solve the three challenges above nicely. For the local population, they are legitimate because citizens choose to move there, escaping worse situations, and because their governments agree to the terms. They are potentially attractive to Western states because for conservatives they are low risk and self-financing while for liberals they are ‘acts of justice’.84 Finally, charter cities could be effective – which was Romer’s main concern in developing the idea – because they have a blank slate to transplant home institutions without having to work with rotten local ones.

Back to Guinea-Bissau. Suppose that the government of Guinea-Bissau were to lease back to Portugal the small uninhabited island of Galinhas that lies 10 miles off the mainland and where the former colonial governor’s mansion lies in ruins. The annual lease would be US$1 so that the Portuguese spend their money on the island and the Guinea-Bissau government is not dependent on a lease fee. Suppose, then, that the US$10 million to US$20 million in foreign aid wasted annually on the country were redirected to this new offshore colony to create basic infrastructure. As part of the deal, the Portuguese would allow a certain number of Guinea-Bissau residents to resettle on the island each year. Portuguese institutions and sovereignty would be absolute here for the term of the lease – say 99 years, as was the case with the mainland parts of Hong Kong. A small European state would grow up on the African coast.

At 60 square miles, Galinhas could, over time, easily accommodate the entire population of Guinea-Bissau. If successful, it would attract talent, trade and capital. The mainland parts of Guinea-Bissau would benefit from living next to an economic dynamo and learning to emulate its success, while symbolically escaping from the half-century anti-colonial nightmare of Amilcar Cabral. The same idea could be tried all over the coastlines of Africa and the Middle East if successful. Colonialism could be resurrected without the usual cries of oppression, occupation, and exploitation.

A preposterous idea? Perhaps. But not so preposterous as the anti-colonial ideology that for the past 100 years has been haunting the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the Third World. A hundred years of disaster is enough. It is time to make the case for colonialism again.

Notes

1. Sèbe, “Post-Colonialism to Cosmopolitan Nation-Building?”
2. Van Reybrouck, Congo, 255.
3. Andreski, Old Wives’ Tales.
4. Acemoglu et al., “Colonial Origins of Comparative Development.”
5. Biber, Intertribal War in Pre-Colonial Namibia.
6. Abernethy, Dynamics of Global Dominance, 403.
7. Elkins, Imperial Reckoning.
8. Daniels, “Mau Mau Revisited,” 26.
9. Stanley, “History Is Never Black and White”; and Branch, “Enemy Within.”
10. Young, “Heritage of Colonialism,” 11, 13.
11. Herbst, States and Power in Africa.
12. Young, African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective.
13. Lefebvre, “We Have Tailored Africa.”
14. E. Burns, British Imperialism in West Africa.
15. Miers and Klein, Slavery and Colonial Rule in Africa; Misevich and Mann, Rise and Demise of Slavery; and Ribi Forclaz, Humanitarian Imperialism.
16. Juan and Pierskalla, “Comparative Politics of Colonialism and Its Legacies.”
17. Lange, Mahoney, and vom Hau, “Colonialism and Development”; Fieldhouse, The West and the Third World; Gann and Duignan, Burden of Empire; and Ola Olsson, “On the Democratic Legacy of Colonialism”; Midgley and Piachaud, Colonialism and Welfare; and Amone and Muura, “British Colonialism and the Creation of Acholi Ethnic Identity.”
18. Hechter, Alien Rule.
19. Hopkins, Future of the Imperial Past, 19.
20. Abernethy, Dynamics of Global Dominance, 272–3, 264.
21. Walker, Power and Prowess.
22. A. S. Burns, Colonial Civil Servant, 318.
23. Lumumba, Congo, My Country, 12, 13.
24. Gilley, “Chinua Achebe on the Positive Legacies.”
25. Ernst and Pati, India’s Princely States; Freud, “Organizing Autarky”; Stilwell, “Constructing Colonial Power”; and Ypi, “What’s Wrong with Colonialism.”
26. Williams, “Postcolonial Flaneur and Other Fellow-Travellers.”
27. Deckha, “Pain as Culture.”
28. Lüthi, Falk, and Purtschert, “Colonialism without Colonies.”
29. Englund, “Anti Anti-Colonialism,” 243.
30. Gibney, Age of Apology; and Bentley, Empires of Remorse.

31. Quoted in Cohen, “The State in Africa,” 1.
32. Galli and Jones, Guinea-Bissau: Politics, Economics, and Society, 43.
33. Riley, “Timing and Pace of Health Transitions.”
34. Cann, Counterinsurgency in Africa, 24.
35. Wolfers, “West African Leader Seeks Talks with Portugal.”
36. Forrest, Guinea-Bissau, 50.
37. GalliandJones,Guinea-Bissau:Politics,Economics,andSociety,98;andLopes,Guinea-Bissau,154.
38. Forrest, Guinea-Bissau, 97.
39. Mota, Guiné Portuguesa, 61.
40. Bigman,HistoryandHungerinWestAfrica;andOkafor,“PaigcandtheEconomicDevelopment.”
41. Gacitua-Mario et al., “Institutions, Social Networks, and Conflicts,” 24.
42. Mendy, “Amilcar Cabral and the Liberation of Guinea-Bissau”; and Rabaka, Resistance and Decolonization.
43. Igreja, “Frelimo’s Political Ruling.”
44. Levy and Young, Colonialism and Its Legacies; Mayblin, Asylum after Empire; and Miles, Scars of Partition.
45. Quoted in Gilley, “Challenge of the Creative Third World.”
46. World Bank, Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa, 5.
47. Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock, Building State Capability, 20.
48. Chatterjee Miller, Wronged by Empire.
49. Burton and Jennings, “Introduction: The Emperor’s New Clothes?,” 3.
50. Achebe, There Was a Country, 43.
51. Msiska, “Imagined Nations and Imaginary Nigeria,” 413.
52. Plamenatz, On Alien Rule and Self-Government; and Barnes, Africa in Eclipse.
53. Liebhold, “Businesses Brace for Return of Customs.”
54. Schofer and Hironaka, “Effects of World Society.”
55. Hönke, “Multinationals and Security Governance in the Community.”
56. Bain, “Love of Order and Abstract Nouns,” 155, 157.
57. Chandler, “The Uncritical Critique of ‘Liberal Peace.’”
58. Chesterman, You, the People, 12.
59. Sèbe, “Post-Colonialism to Cosmopolitan Nation-Building?”
60. Ignatieff, “Nation-Building Lite.”
61. Whalan, How Peace Operations Work.
62. Cunliffe, “State-Building: Power without Responsibility,” 52.
63. Chesterman, You, the People, 239, 144.
64. Grøner Krogstad, “Local Ownership as Dependence Management,” 115.
65. Andersen, “Outsiders inside the State.”
66. Houreld, “World Turns out to Hail Woman Who Carries Hopes of a Continent.”
67. Darwin, “Exit and Colonial Administrations,” 29.
68. Hammond, Portugal and Africa, 1815–1910.
69. Wu, “A Re-Valuation of the Management of Dutch Taiwan.”
70. Kaplan, “In Defense of Empire.”
71. Hayward-Jones, Australia’s Costly Investment in Solomon Islands, 17.
72. Barbara, “Antipodean Statebuilding.”
73. Lake and Fariss, “Why International Trusteeship Fails”; and Murray and Hehir, “Intervention in the Emerging Multipolar System.”
74. Collier, Wars, Guns, and Votes, 199–203.
75. Hechter, “Alien Rule and Its Discontents.”
76. Davis and Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire.
77. Lemay-Hébert, “Critical Debates on Liberal Peacebuilding.”
78. Richmond and Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions, ch. 1.
79. Roberts, “Hybrid Polities and Indigenous Pluralities”; and Tully, France on the Mekong.
80. Matanock, “Governance Delegation Agreements.
81. Lemay-Hébert, “Statebuilding without Nation-Building?”
82.  Van Reybrouck, Congo, 470.

83. Romer, “Why the World Needs Charter Cities.”
84. Freiman, “Cosmopolitanism within Borders”; and Sagar, “Are Charter Cities Legitimate?”

By Zet09
July 7, 2012 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

Due to the extreme importance of the fact found by Holmes in Georgia; namely, the irrefutable proof that Stalin’s mother was Jewish, and therefore Stalin himself was a Jew, Holmes gives this proof. This is a photo of Stalin’s mother’s grave in the Tbilisi Pantheon. On Wiki, there will be no photo of Stalin’s mother’s grave, don’t count: http://ru.wikipedia.org/ This is a tombstone – the Jewish Shabbat Cup KIDDUSH wiki / Kiddush_cup covered with a shroud – on the grave of Stalin’s mother!

By Eustace Mullins
Excerpt: Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America (1988 Anno Domini)
pgs. 169-170

The daytime soap opera known as the Iran-Contra affair was made to order for the secretive operatives of the CIA. They delighted in leading the obtuse members of Congress on one wild goose chase after another, while the real story remained untold. It was chefs surprise, a culinary delight of drugs, the sale of arms to  belligerents, and money, well seasoned with political sauce, stirred with various commitments to the State of Israel by leading Washington politicians, and topped with luscious Swiss bank accounts. In fact, the Iran Contra affair was the logical culmination of the longtime involvement of the Rockefeller interests and the Drug Trust in pro-Communist activity. John D. Rockefeller himself had tucked the sum of $10,000 in cash into Leon Trotsky’s pocket before seeing him off to start the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party which was left behind to subvert the United States, was operating under the name of the  Socialist Workers Party. It was then given the cover name of League for Industrial Democracy. Thus the Drag Trust, while maintaining the Stalinist Communist government in Russia, simultaneously maintained a Communist backup regime in the United States, the Trotskyite movement, in case the Stalinist regime should fall. Noticeably irked by this competition, Stalin sent an agent Mexico to  eliminate his rival, whom he had previously exiled, realizing that Trotsky was still too popular in Russia to be murdered there.

The Trotsky organization now had its political martyr. During the 1950s, it quietly placed its members in power in the media, the universities and the government, replacing, in most instances, the incumbent Stalinist hardliners. The Stalinists in Washington who had surrounded Roosevelt and Truman were gradually replaced with “neoconservatives,” that is, hard-line anti-Moscow ideologues, who later added to their masquerade by additional and impressive noms de plume, such as “the Hard Right,” “the New Right,” “the Religious Right,” or, in some instances, merely as “conservatives.” None other than the Hollywood man on the white horse, Ronald Reagan, rode into power in 1980 on a tide of “neoconservatism.” His principal  backing came from the CIA, which by then was only a mouthpiece for the neoconservatives, and its house organ, the National Review, whose editor, William Buckley, boasted that the only job he had ever had was with the CIA. Jeane Kirkpatrick, of the Rockefeller financed League for Industrial Democracy, became the spokesman for the new policy, while Reagan’s entire team was dominated by the Hoover Institution, whose two senior fellows, Sydney Hook and Seymour Martin Lipset, were on the board of LID. Thus David Rockefeller maintained close liason with the Stalinist Communists in Moscow, while other Rockefeller interests directed the “anti-Communist” stance of the Reagan regime. It was a classic Hegelian operation of thesis and antithesis, with the still unresolved synthesis yet to come. The power of the LID lay in its domination of the CIA and its total commitment to the State of Israel as the world headquarters of the Trotskyite Communist movement. Thus Elliott Abrams, son-in-law of the Israeli propagandist Norman Podhoretz, who was editor of the American Jewish Committee organ, Commentary, was appointed by Reagan to direct the Contra operation in Nicaragua, a classic standoff between the Stalinist regime in Managua and Trotskyite directed rebels in the hills.

The drug involvement in this operation should surprise no one, because the Rockefeller interests, having established the American Drug Trust, had long been active not only in ethical drugs but in unethical ones as well. The contra affair not only threatened to blow the lid off the Iran Connection; it endangered the Israeli Connection, the Swiss Connection, and the Rockefeller Connection as well. The danger was averted by astute maneuvering of the docile congressmen, and by adroit manipulation of the media to focus on Col. Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter, to the exclusion of their controllers. Thus a “crusade against Communism,” a noble effort to contain the Communists a la George Kennan, to be financed with “dirty” money from the sale of drugs, was at last revealed….