Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Anders Breivik and Lithuanian political scandals


#1 European Union flag

#2 Anders Breivik

#3 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Smolensk 2010 air crash

"Who paid him? To do what? His targets were members of a Russia-friendly left-wing Norwegian political party. How did his terrorist actions against them serve the interests of communist Belarus?"
[by the atheist conservative - quoted in my: http://control-avles-blogs.blogspot.it/2014/04/anders-breiviks-connection-with.html]

 "...... Poland played an invaluable role in the coup. It has always dreamt of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. ....".
[ a statement by Major General Alexander Yakimenko, February 2014; quoted in my: http://control-avles-blogs.blogspot.it/2014/03/aleksandr-yakimenkos-open-confession-of.html ]
"....Aside from those issues, his [of Lech Kaczynsky] immediate goals were to develop tangible strategic partnership with Ukraine and greater co-operation with the Baltic states, Azerbaijan and Georgia

[in my: http://control-avles-blogs.blogspot.it/2014/03/the-spy-who-came-ii.html]

*   *   * 
 Anders Breivik and Lithuanian nationalist party Order and Justice:

Breivik in his manifesto; “Order and Justice“ is a model nationalist party

URL: http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/7616/breivik-in-his-manifesto-order-and-justice-is-a-model-nationalist-party-20117616/

The Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, whose bloody attacks shook the whole world, devoted a lot of attention to Lithuania in his manifesto, entitled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. “Order and Justice” (“Tvarka ir teisingumas” in Lithuanian), the political party of the impeached president Rolandas Paksas, did not evade the sight of the Norwegian butcher. He has listed this political force among the most noteworthy of Eastern European nationalist parties, as Šarūnas Černiauskas wrote in Delfi.lt portal on the 25th of July. A. B. Breivik mentions Lithuania and Lithuanians in various contexts. True, there are few positive records. The “Order and Justice” followers are perhaps the only phenomenon which the Oslo killer approves of.
Lithuanians – the sharks of the arms trade

In one of the sections of the 1,500-page manifesto, A. B. Breivik analyses criminality in the United Kingdom and draws attention to purportedly flourishing arms dealers from Lithuania.
“The recently completed investigation revealed the arms trade deal which took place in London, whereby a Lithuanian gang traded handguns in exchange for the possibility to get acquainted with Colombian cocaine liaisons. Another investigation dismantled a sex slave trafficking group composed of Lithuanian, Albanian, and Chinese criminals. (…) All criminal groups are ready to resort to violence when conducting robberies, racketeering or consolidating drugs trade agreements. Firearms, seen as a tool and a way of expressing one’s intentions, are a priority. Some groups, especially new gangs from Lithuania, are formed with the intention of meeting this demand,” – wrote A. B. Breivik.
“Order and Justice” members – exemplary nationalists?
The Oslo killer dedicated a separate section to Eastern European right-wing nationalist political organizations. The “Order and Justice” party appeared amongst them.
A. B. Breivik claimed that the nationalists in the Eastern Europe do not puzzle much about the worst, according to him, problems – immigrants and Muslims.
“The terms “anti-immigrant” or “anti-Islamic” are beyond the concern of the biggest Eastern European nationalist parties. As immigration is very limited in these countries, the parties do not mobilize against immigrants. Instead, they spread a strong right-wing nationalism and incite anti-European Union sentiments, as well as anti-Semitism (in particular, Poland‘s “Self-Defence” party and Hungary’s “Justice and Life” party) and opposition to other ethnic groups, especially Roma (Gipsies) – the terrorist shared his insights.
He does not forget the movement “Nashi” (Russian “Ours”), active in Russia, whose members the Western media purportedly wrongly labels as being fascist.
“There are several forms of “nationalism” in Russia. There are pro-Kremlin organisations like “Nashi” (a pro-government youth organisation), which oppose all fascist groups, including the national socialists.
Ironically, the Marxist/multiculturalist (politically correct) Western European media sees “Nashi” and all the supporters of the Russian government (including the government itself) as “fascist”.
After these brief insights, A. B. Breivik provided a list of Eastern European nationalist parties (for some countries, he singled out only the ones that do not advocate Islamic beliefs).
In this list, Lithuania, which has a medley of nationalist organizations has only one political power of this sort – the “Order and Justice” party.
According to the Oslo butcher’s data, R. Paksas’ party reached the fourth best political outcome in the Eastern Europe, receiving 11.4 per cent of the votes during the 2004 elections to the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament). “Order and Justice” in A. B. Breivik’s list fell below only the Kremlin-loyal party “United Russia” (63.3 per cent of votes in the 2007 elections), the Montenegrin/Serbian People‘s Party (14.6 per cent of votes in the 2006 elections), and the Slovak National Party (11.7 per cent of votes in the 2006 elections).
According to A. B. Breivik’s list, Estonia has two nationalist parties. Latvia’s list is even longer: the Oslo killer has found six nationalist parties and organisations.
At the end of the manifesto, A. B. Breivik reminds his readers that they are not alone. In Europe, there are allegedly millions of people sympathizing with their beliefs and concerned about “Marxist/ multiculturalist/ Muslim” crimes. Lithuania is one of the many countries, where A. B. Breivik’s supporters may find “faithful brothers and sisters”. The Vatican also appears in the list.
V. Mazuronis: difficult to comment what a maniac takes into his head

Valentinas Mazuronis, a representative of the “Order and Justice” group in the Seimas, told DELFI that he could not understand how the name of his party could have appeared in the Oslo killer‘s manifesto.

“Our party does not have and has never had any relations (with the nationalists – DELFI), not to mention with the Norwegian guys. Why and what does this guy write about? I would carry strong doubts about his mental state. (…) I find it difficult to comment on what a maniac has in his head”, – said the “Order and Justice” member.
Urges to hunt skinheads
V. Mazuronis condemned any sort of nationalism and encouraged the Lithuanian law enforcement authorities to monitor such movements in Lithuania more effectively.
“I approached the Prosecutor’s Office when the fascist flags were raised on the bridges because I believed that this was serious. Unfortunately, there was no serious reaction. (…) Our Special Investigation Service should seriously address the situation in Lithuania. I mean all the manifestations of Murza’s (a radical nationalist and anti-Semitic Lithuanian politician) movement and all these skinhead organisations. And this should be done very seriously and strictly. Norway is a warning,” – summed up the interviewee.
Edited by Nicola Lavey

     Well, what happened to the head of the Order and Justice party to which Anders Breivik deserved a special attention (in the manual by him allegedly written)?


Lithuanian Parliament Removes Country's President After Casting Votes on Three Charges

Published: April 7, 2004 
URL:  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/world/lithuanian-parliament-removes-country-s-president-after-casting-votes-three.html

 The Lithuanian Parliament removed President Rolandas Paksas from office on Tuesday, ending a political scandal that has roiled the country for nearly six months even as it celebrated its new membership in NATO and the European Union.

The Parliament, or Seimas, ousted Mr. Paksas less than 14 months after he took office, voting on three counts that he violated his oath and the Lithuanian Constitution through his dealings with a Lithuanian-Russian businessman suspected of links to Russian organized crime.
Mr. Paksas, 47, became the first European leader to be removed from office by the impeachment process. The Parliament's speaker, Arturas Paulauskas, a political rival, took over as acting president after the voting, pending a new election that by law must be held within two and a half months.
All along Mr. Paksas, a flamboyant stunt pilot and populist politician, denied the charges, accusing his opponents of exacting political revenge for his unexpected victory in a presidential runoff in January 2003.
Appearing before Parliament as it prepared to vote, he sounded contrite, acknowledging mistakes but saying that none merited his impeachment. ''I do not feel guilty,'' he said.
His remarks did little to persuade Parliament to grant him leniency. And his behavior of late, often seen as erratic and temperamental, only worsened his prospects for political survival.
As the vote neared, he appointed the businessman at the center of the scandal, Yuri Borisov, as a special adviser and then reversed himself within hours, saying he had been pressured by Mr. Borisov.
The ouster comes less than a month before Lithuania is to cement its place in Europe by joining the European Union, a tremendous accomplishment for a country that regained its independence from the Soviet Union less than 13 years ago. A week ago it officially became a member of NATO, welcoming the arrival of four Belgian F-16's to patrol the skies over the Baltics.
Many in Lithuania have viewed the scandal as a sign of the strength of the country's nascent democracy, albeit an embarrassing one.
Despite the political turmoil -- heightened by an undercurrent of fear about Russia's meddling in the country's affairs -- the impeachment process did little to distract the country from its principal economic and foreign policy goal of joining Europe's elite club of nations. Lithuania, eager to demonstrate its commitment to NATO and the United States, has also deployed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
''The democracy of Lithuania is proven,'' Vytautas Landsbergis, the first president of post-Soviet Lithuania and one of the parliamentary deputies who voted against Mr. Paksas, said in a telephone interview. ''We are able to cope even with such a problematic situation. And we did it in an absolutely peaceful and constitutional way.''
Mr. Paksas, the third post-Soviet president, was accused of improperly restoring citizenship to Mr. Borisov, the owner of a helicopter manufacturer, Aviabaltika, which has been accused of illegal arms sales to Sudan. Mr. Borisov contributed $400,000 to Mr. Paksas' presidential campaign, and in exchange, according to parliamentary investigators, received preferential access to the president's office.
Calls for his impeachment intensified after the country's State Security Department reported last fall that he had also leaked classified information to Mr. Borisov about investigations into his dealings. Mr. Paksas also faced a third charge of interfering in a privatization deal.
Photo: Rolandas Paksas was removed as president of Lithuania yesterday while some of his supporters held his picture outside the Parliament. (Photo by Associated Press)

      Please, notice the date, of course the one of the article refers to the date on the voting of the resolution. Just-in-time with  the Massacre of Utøya. 

 URL: http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/7028/the-two-sides-of-rolandas-paksas%E2%80%99s-story-by-medelinskas-20117028/

About six months ago, the Strasbourg Court made a resolution regarding the case of the former President Paksas but only recently has the Lithuanian Government submitted a proposition to actually deal with the legal issue. And as always, as soon as something concerning Paksas is mentioned, a ruthless battle between his supporters and haters begins. Interestingly enough, both groups only see one side of Paksas whereas there are at least two, Alvydas Medelinskas wrote in Delfi.lt portal on 2 June.
I admit, for quite some time Paksas’s case has been like a litmus paper to me, indicating the prevailing injustice in Lithuania with all forces thrown against one person who is aiming to deal with corruption. But a few years after the impeachment, the Order and Justice Party gained power and showed that good words don’t necessary mean good works, and the Party’s Chairman Paksas was defending and protecting the culprit personally. It was then when Paksas showed his other side.
Following the judgment of the Strasbourg Court, I find many former merciless critics of Paksas who now begin seeing white where they used to see only black. And Paksas’s activities weren’t just black and white. Earlier, when I was defending Paksas during the impeachment, I, too, saw only one colour, saw a bright face of a promising fighter against corruption and perceived the ban for life from participating in the Lithuanian political world as a crime not only against democracy but against justice as well. This face is much darker now but the prolonged ban from becoming a member of the Seimas looks too harsh nonetheless. The Strasbourg Court shares the same opinion.
By the way, this judgement says nothing on the circumstances of the impeachment and the possibility for Paksas to become a president again. Previously, Paksas has said that after this judgement he would return to his office in Daukantas St, and now he’s explaining obscurely that if he got elected into the Seimas and then as the Chairman of the Seimas then chances are he could become president again. It’s unclear if Paksas had the path of Artūras Paulauskas in mind, who only became president after an impeachment because he failed during the elections.
During the 7 years after Paksas’s impeachment I’ve had to explain time and again why I doubted the usefulness of this procedure to Lithuania. And when the dirty works of the Order and Justice Party in the municipality of Vilnius (I covered this issue elaborately) finally came to light, members of this party were asking me why I was so critical towards them.
On the other hand, with Paksas out of the way not many cared about carrying on with the implementation of justice. The high bar of legal, moral, and constitutional norms didn’t apply to President Valdas Adamkus and other politicians. Members of the Order and Justice Party themselves, when gained power in Vilnius, showed that they only wanted to fight the corruption of other parties. Maybe when Paksas became president it wasn’t corruption and justice that clashed, but the interests of several groups, although those who only wanted justice were involved too. I’m pretty sure that we still don’t see the entire picture. And this matter should be settled not in Strasbourg but here, in Lithuania.
The story with the citizenship of Yuri Borisov which was granted to him by Paksas is very similar to that of Mansur Sadekov, who was granted citizenship by Valdas Adamkus (probably for financial support during elections). And later, Adamkus rewarded Vladimir Jakunin, a KGB general, and appointed people on the KGB reserve list to top positions at foreign affairs and security related institutions. Why? Can’t we ask Adamkus?
I wish that Lithuania became a country where the actions of former leaders aren’t discussed but the activities of current leaders are analysed instead. Another question: should it be done in court or via impeachment? If in our country an attempt to reveal all the dirty works of the politicians was made, I’m sure many people, even those who met Paksas’s impeachment with resent, would believe that justice applies to the powerful white-collars.
But nothing happened and Adamkus finished his tenure without any problems. He didn’t notice the privatization activities in Vilnius when it was run by his protectee Artūras Zuokas and the privatization of the entire country when it became Brazauskas’s zone of interest. And they are called good presidents. Monuments are built from taxpayers’ money and annuities are assigned. And what should a common man think of justice when seeing all this?
Despite all the work of the commission during the impeachment of Paksas, many questions remain unanswered. Why did he want to appoint Borisov his advisor, what are the connections between the two men? How could someone who waged war against corruption get involved in the “Žemaitijos Keliai” story which is similar to the one with Brazauskas and the hotel “Draugystė”. One was concerned with the well-being of a beloved woman, and the other – with his friend’s interests. Why Paksas was protecting Remigijus Ačas, who was accused of smuggling, and even wanted him to work at the President’s Office?
Paksas would give different answers each time and when all of the cases were cancelled by the General Prosecutor’s Office, he suggested forgetting the matter altogether. Back then I didn’t know that many influential people in Lithuania could cancel an investigation or prevent it from initiating. For example, the “Rubikonas” case.
And then a corruption scandal shook the Vilnius municipality. The case was sluggish even though the information coming from the court indicated who the guilty were. The Order and Justice Party’s coming to power wasn’t accompanied by a desire to bring justice. Today, no one will know why the Seimas prevented the main person responsible, Evaldas Lementauskas, who became a member of the Seimas, from being tried. But I’m absolutely certain that the suggestion for Ačas to resign from the mayor of Raseiniai and allow Lementauskas to take his place in the Seimas was planned with Paksas knowing and giving approval, and the rest was just a smokescreen for the voters.
The law enforcement agency was interested in the dirty deeds of the Vilnius vice-mayor, the treasurer of the party and the right hand of its leader. The case could have disclosed how corrupt the party was, thus it was bound to be terminated. Even though Paksas was just an ordinary member of the municipality, Mayor Juozas Imbrasas was accountable to him. And Lementauskas was taking care of the main issues: the (non)construction of the national stadium (the same company built apartments near Kristina Brazauskienė’s hotel), the construction permit for Maxima near the Vingis Park.
And most importantly, as it was revealed in court, the majority of decisions were bought. The Special Investigation Service (STT) got hold of Lementauskas and allowed him to operate freely for some time. Despite the accusations, Paksas offered him the position of executive secretary of the party.
For the meantime, when the law enforcement agency starts investigating a politician, it is not interested in the possible connections with the party’s leaders or if those leaders are corrupt too but they are actually the ones who make decisions at municipalities, the Seimas and the Government.
As the municipality elections were closing in, I had a discussion with Zuokas, who wanted to become a mayor again, and explained why the man who sold out Vilnius should not return. Then Zuokas showed me a document which allegedly proved that the selling out of Vilnius cinema was arranged by Paksas, who paved the way for Zuokas’s return.
I admit, when I worked at the President’s Office I heard people ask if the director of a flying club Paksas could afford a house from his salary, could his small construction company get a construction contract from a Russian energy giant? Back then, I brushed doubts away and tried to convince myself that if a person decided to fight against the so-called clan, he should expect a strong smear campaign. Now I understand the young supporters of Zuokas who dismiss the accusations of selling out, VEKS (Vilnius – European Capital of Culture) and other shady projects. The supporters of Paksas do the same thing when hearing claims that he could be a part of political corruption.
Seven years after the impeachment have proved that this process had both the desire of some people for more justice and the selfish interests of certain politicians and judges. The other side of the process was wrong too, I began thinking so after the impeachment. This contradiction didn’t allow me to live peacefully.
I admit, I only started evaluating Paksas performance at the Presidential Office objectively after getting to know his party’s doings in Vilnius and that back then he had all the leverage. And then I realized something that had been a heresy before: Paksas was punished for HIS OWN deals with Borisov, “Žemaitijos Keliai”, etc., and the people of Lithuania, because of Paksas, lost a chance to create a legal and democratic country seven years ago.
Its creation could have been facilitated by the top Governmental officials but they should have worked honourably and fairly, serving as an example to follow. Another question is wasn’t Paksas punished too harshly? Were the initiators so clean and sinless? Did they create assumptions artificially to reach their goal?
As new circumstances were appearing, I felt free from having biased opinions about certain politicians and parties. By the way, I’ve never been a member of the Order and Justice nor the Liberal Democrats. Having realized all this, I felt the need to live and do something important for my country. Just like during the Sąjūdis (Lithuanian Reform Movement). The goal is to make people demand justice in Lithuania.
Today, I wouldn’t claim that Paksas and his party have nothing to do with corruption and maybe even with smuggled money. And I wouldn’t defend him like I did during the impeachment. But I’ve always been against a permanent ban for such politicians and the Strasbourg Court agrees with me.
We live in a country where numerous party leaders are corrupt, but such evil deeds must be dealt with by fair elections, not bans, which only add up to the creation of the myth about political martyrdom and prevent the people from realizing who is who.

   We deliver languages. Worldwide.

       Well, what was that Strasbourg court sentence? Give a look, there you appreciate that Roland Paksas was also Euro-skeptic but at the same time not a crazy anti-European head, it seems he was sober, just like a certain Lech Kazynsky:


Lithuania loses Euro court case over ex-leader Paksas

URL:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12126217

 Mr Paksas is now an MEP in a group opposed to deeper EU integration

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Lithuania was wrong to bar former President Rolandas Paksas from running for parliament after he had been ousted from power in 2004.
Lithuania violated an article on free elections in the European Convention on Human Rights, the ruling said.
Mr Paksas was impeached and removed from office as president after the Baltic state's constitutional court found that he had abused his position.
He is now a Euro MP in Strasbourg.
The judgement by the Strasbourg court on Thursday is binding, meaning that Lithuania, an EU member state, will have to act on it to prevent any similar violation in future.
But the judges did not award Mr Paksas compensation, saying their ruling was in itself "sufficient just satisfaction".
Lithuania was found to have violated Article Three of Protocol One (Right to free elections) in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Landmark impeachment In 2004 Mr Paksas became the first European head of state in modern times to be impeached and removed from office.
The former Soviet republic's constitutional court found that he had illegally arranged Lithuanian citizenship for a Russian-born businessman, Yuri Borisov.
But Mr Paksas, an aerobatic pilot in Soviet times, was cleared of the charge of having leaked state secrets to Russia.
After the constitutional court had backed Mr Paksas's disqualification, the Lithuanian parliament adopted a new electoral rule barring anyone from becoming an MP if they had previously been dismissed in impeachment proceedings.
Mr Paksas complained that the rule had been passed deliberately to bar him from office. He also said the constitutional court had lacked impartiality and had exceeded its powers.
The Strasbourg judges accepted that a breach of the constitution was "a particularly serious matter", but they argued that Mr Paksas's permanent and irreversible disqualification from running for election was disproportionate.
In 2009 Mr Paksas was elected to the European Parliament. He sits with the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, which seeks to defend national sovereignty and prevent the further concentration of power in Brussels. 

*   *   *

      Roland Paksas was hit by the scandal in 2004.  In the same year when Anders Breivik went in Lithuania to open a bank account. Roland Paksas' Order and Justice party had a special treatment inside the (alleged) Breivik's manual. Could this allude to Roland Paksas as gear wheel of the bloody mechanism which led to the Massacre in July 2011?... Or, instead,  the former Lithuanian  president who resigned in the same year for a scandal, was only a man framed using Anders Breivik's ideology

      Anders Breivik, was used to build many connections with people who couldn't foresee what would happen seven years later (Utøya Massacre)?...  But whose public figure, if linked in a manner or other with or  positively quoted inside the Breivik's manual,  would have been polluted with the following blood of those 77 anti-Zionist (and pro-Putin's Russia) fighters? And with opportune physical travels in some countries with some financial deals exactly in time proximity with scandals involving political figures of those countries?  In order to allude in the future to an eventual connection of those scandals with the Breivik's short visits? Was therefore only the case  to press Anders Breivik to have short but significant deals with some countries of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or a deliberate choice of someone who was inspiring and accompanying his spiritual (initiation) growth?


"....Swept into office as voters repudiated the group of former Communist officials who had dominated the country’s politics for much of the preceding decade, Mr. Kaczynski and his brother struggled at the top. They frequently put Poland on a collision course with its European Union partners and Russia, while polarizing voters at home with a shift to the right.
Poland joined the European Union in 2004, but Mr. Kaczynski often preferred dealing with the United States.
A devout Roman Catholic, Mr. Kaczynski was regarded as skeptical of the European Union while he fought to defend Poland’s sovereignty against Brussels and to protect its traditional, conservative values. In 2008, he argued against ratifying the union’s Lisbon Treaty for fear its prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would become Polish law. ..."

From the New York Times

URL:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/europe/11kaczynski.html?_r=0

     Notice the year when Poland joined EU: 2004.
     Paksas remained politically buried from 2004 till the Utøya Massacre and Lech Kaczyński was murdered the year before. No one ever linked the human and political lives of both men before?.... I would imagine why....
     Yes it was just this to kill him, that to be a 'devoted' Roman Catholic but at the same time a fierce opponents to the popish dreams of a renewed union between Western Roman Empire (EU) and Eastern Roman Empire (Putin's Russia). At the end of all another victim of SJ Wladimir Ledochowsky's war against politically independent minded Catholics who clashed against the Jesuits' evil dream of absolute temporal power in the Old Continent :

 Saturday, April 12, 2014

"Anders Breivik’s connection with LITHUANIA has been revealed." 


Monday, April 14, 2014 



1 comment:

  1. Apparently Breivik had more than one purpose, to also destroy more honest moderates/ nationalists in scandinavia/baltic countries, who weren't swayed so trustfully west(or rather south) or east. . .