I really find no pressing need to read what the sick American press is saying about Belarus. I’ve been ill, and I don’t need a relapse. Of course, every syllable of it is easily predictable, made up of cribbed cliche’s taken from the “big names” in journalism and academia, big names, defined as those who receive the most in grant money from either the federal government, Soros or one of the old-money foundations. There is nothing of value in the tightly controlled media-academic nexus that controls the mind of the unfortunate group of alienated, confused and manipulated herd known as the “American public.” Let me, however, add just a few facts about all this to soften whatever else out there is being said.

First of all, the poll numbers, weeks before the elections, of Lukashenko’s opponents showed the president polling about 62%, give or take. Their own research shows his opposition polling at under 10%. Keep in mind that John McCain (and the Regime he clownishly represents)–two years ago mind you–said that the Belarussian election is a priori illegitimate. This should provide you with some notion of the level of “debate” over foreign policy in America.

Second, by the middle of February of this year, Belarus had registered over 150 separate independent agencies for monitoring the elections. By the middle of March, over 800, by the date of the election on March 19, over 2,000. In other words, there was an average of 5 to 7 observers at each station, absent the U.S., of course. Lukashenko won easily, with over 80% of the vote, as the Regime fumed, their multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign failed.

Belarus shows one of the most heavily monitored elections in history, proving, without question, Lukashenko’s desire for a free and fair election. And why shouldn’t he? He’s one of the most popular politicians in Europe. “State controlled media!” screams the afirmative action female professor of “political science,” yelling what she’s heard on NPR. Well, given that only about 30% of the nearly 800 newspapers in that tiny country are owned by the state, Belarus is a very poor example of an authoritarian country. As a former reporter in D.C., I can tell her horror stories about the intense control over the American media organized and dictated by private investors.

It might be noted, to cite a recent interview with Belarussian foreign minister Martynov, that the rather large degree of attention focused on Belarus by wealthy American neo-cons might well be explained by the simple fact that over 50% of the oil exports from Russia bound for western Europe go through Belarus, and, further, nearly a quarter of its natural gas exports.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S., unhappy with the results, is trying to impose some limited restrictions on the country. The U.S., the head of the snake of the global Regime, claims “it cannot accept the results of the elections.”

The ministry of foreign affairs stated in reply: “It is difficult to comprehend the sense of this decision. Both the US and the EU had never questioned Mr. Lukashenko being the most popular leader in Belarus who leaves far behind all other contenders. It means that the people’s choice is not liked.”

International observes, including some from enemies of Belarus have made it clear that the elections were free and fair. A member of the British delegation, Philip Matthews stated: “I have been in Belarus for 5 days already and so far I have visited 8 election centers, including two in Brest today. I have to admit that all of them meet all the necessary criteria.There are no obstacles for observers.” A member of the Lithuanian delegation, Viktoras Shugorovas curtly said, “no complaints.” Jonathan Browning of the OCSE expressed his pleasure that the election staff at the polls was “very well-disposed towards the observers.” From Poland, a historic enemy of Belarus, an independent observer named Marjan Walczek claimed that the voting was going smoothly and fairly. These examples can be multiplied endlessly.

Why the fear? Why the twisted, bizarre, sub-rational response from the Hydra? At the risk of being repetitious, the simple answer is that Lukashenko represents the possibly of a nationalist revolution, a non-socialist, non-capitalist approach to economics based on the idea of a nationalist, ethnic identity and specific ethnic interests outside of the global Regime controlled by a few bankers, and media elites.

He’s succeeding: he’s succeeding in having a very low unemployment rate by all international standards, substantial investments in education and a GDP growth, trade surplus and industrial production that is the envy of much of the planet. He stopped the oligarchs from taking over the economy and maintained a strong sate oversight–not control–over economic investment and decision making. Not only is it paying economic dividends, but political dividends as well. Specifically, an increase in industrial production of almost 12% in 2005, an unemployment rate of well under 2%, and a trade surplus of almost $300 million. And why shouldn’t be re-elected? Investments in education amount to a whopping 6.1% of GNP, and investments in health care of well over 4%, leading to the lowest infant mortality rate among the post-communist countries. And as American farms are disappearing, replaced by Con-Agra and Archer-Daniels-Midland, Belarussian agricultural production since 2004 has increased by a massive 25%, meaning the she is soon to begin feeding her neighbors. (all statistics from the World Bank and the UN statistical Yearbook).

As far as the “NGOs” are concerned, the foreign minister said wisely: “ . . . .activities of institutions, NGOs could be different. Let me quote from the United States law which says, ‘A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person such as corporation, labor organization, political committee or political organization with regard to such person’s federal or non-federal election-related activities.’ So, a very wide definition. Anything related to electoral activities is prohibited from foreign involvement and financing. This is exactly what institutions like National Democratic Endowment do, or try to do in Belarus.”

Of course, such institutions are funded, wither directly by the unfortunate U.S. taxpayer, or from wealthy super elites who view the world as their private fief. Such “NGOs” are merely another weapon in the regime’s arsenal, designed to manipulate elections in the name of “democracy.”

Further, the foreign minister makes a claim as the Belarus’ agenda in foreign policy, one that mirrors the very core purpose of this project:

Belarus as well as Russia are countries which are working to have an important integration structure in this area. We are not trying to resurrect the former Soviet Union, it would have been stupid and unrealistic, but we would like a meaningful integration in this geography which will be and should be no less successful than integration in the west of Europe. And we have all the resources and abilities to achieve such a success. And, probably, countries like Belarus who are proponents or engines of such integration deserve special attention from Washington, which is the case with Belarus. (Interview with the LA Times, March 15, 2005)

Unsurprisingly, Lukashenko received his core voting strength from the lower middle classes, the poor, farmers, army veterans and the elderly. All of which are abandoned and humiliated domestically by the American system in Washington D.C. Belarus has proven itself to be the superior political and moral system to that ruled by the controlled neo-cons in D.C., and Belarus remains light to the world in terms of creating a multi-polar system responsive to the needs of its most vulnerable citizens. America is sick and dying, the Asio-Slavic world is the future, and we can thank God for this.

Day after day. Day after day. The same lies, the same myths, the same American “democratic” garbage spewed out for all to see. Whether it be making up stories about the Immigrant Riots in France, having a vomitious “Orange Revolution” exhibit in Washington D.C., saturated with mythology, Berezovsky’s admission that he spent tens of millions to finance this same “revolution,”on and on.

It is rare to just get to the bottom of things and write about the facts. The last place that sorry bunch of alienated idiots called “Russia watchers” wants to talk turkey about is Belarus. Belarus has the western world shaking in its boots. Why?

Belarus remains one of the top performing countries in the world in terms of economic performance and independent media: that is, independent of both oligarchic and state control. She did this after inheriting a rusted, industrial post-Soviet infrastructure, having to deal with 1/3 of its farmland poisoned by Chernobyl and the western powers overtly financing the artificial and foreign “opposition” parties and movements. Lukashenko, as per popular request, booted the hacks and frauds at the IMF and World Bank out of the country (which is Lukashenko’s real sin, after all), and creaetd a powerhouse economic dynamo in the midst of post-Soviet tedium.

OK. Lets look at some facts.

Some economic data concerning Belarus’s economy is coming out concerning 2005. The figures are astounding and are completely unreported in the west, deliberately so. Here goes:

The entire economy grew at just under 10% the first half of 2005. Both agricultural production and industrial production grew roughly around 10% as well. Capital investment grew at an inhuman 115%, or thereabouts (figures do differ, but this is an average). Furthermore, Belarus is not running a modest trade surplus for the first time.

Figures from the admitted enemies of Belarus at the IMF differ from the above, which are official figures, but they do not differ to any great extent. The fact is that Belarus is an economic success, and it is precisely this success outside of the mainline channels of elite-controlled trade that has the west so afraid. Western leaders care about money and power only, and therefore, seeing these figures clearly have some westerners scared, and frankly, puzzled.

The World Bank, another avowed enemy of Belarus, stated in their recent country report that this growth was shared by the bulk of the population. The IMF stated, in its turn, that Belarus (they will never say “Lukashenko”) has made substantial strides in curbing inflation (Belarus’ central weak point, economically) and commends the economic thrust of the government centering around the raising of incomes. By the way, this latter commendation from the IMF is quite dishonest, for the IMF’s policies in “stabilizing” economies normally centers around the freezing of wages and the condemnation of unions and all forms of social insurance. Nevertheless, there it is.

From the website of the Embassy of Belarus in the U.S., we read:

According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2005, Belarus remained the leader among CIS states in terms of education and health and takes the lead over a number of developed countries on several indicators in these fields.

In particular, Belarus:

– yields only to 12 out of 57 countries from high human development group in terms of public expenditure on education (6 percent of GDP);

– takes the lead over all CIS countries in terms of adult literacy (99.6 percent) and youth literacy (99.8 percent);

– passes 22 out of 57 countries from high human development group in terms of public health expenditure (4.7 percent of GDP);

– is the first among CIS countries in terms of health expenditure per capita (PPP $583) and spends on health more than 10 countries from high human development group;

– in terms of the number of physicians per 100,000 people (450 physicians) surpasses all CIS countries and all but 3 countries (United States, Italy, Cuba) from high human development group;

– has the best among CIS countries indicators of infant mortality rate (13 per 1000 live births) and under-five mortality rate (17 per 1000 live births);

– the indicator of population undernourished in Belarus (2 percent) is lower than in all CIS countries and 14 countries from high human development group.

“But,” screams the dopey college girl with her protest sign, “Lukashenko has suppressed democratic freedoms, and I don’t think he likes Jews!” Really? Let’s look at some facts

In Belarus, a country the size of Kansas, there are about 800 newspapers. Of this, about 600 are privately owned. There are about 450 magazines are various kinds. Of these, about 300 are owned by private investors or entrepreneurs. In television, there are 9 state owned stations, and about 40 stations owned by private investors.

But do you think the mere fact that I write these lines and report these figures will have the slightest impact upon how citizens will “feel” about Belarus. You guessed it. “Feel.” Ideology is adopted because of self-interest, or, more commonly because a certain ideological commitment fills some psychological need. No one makes a list of all possible political ideologies and picks one based on a set of mathematical calculations that leads to the “rational” choice. Western politics, however, still clings to this rather curious aspect of democratic dogma.

Belarus has 18 functioning political parties. The U.S. has 2. In the entire country, there are about 1400 local social and civic organizations of various hues. Since Lukashenko was elected in 1994, 13 have been liquidated by the government, largely because they were engaging in commercial practices and thereby violating their charter. While Bill Clinton was president, he sent the IRS to investigate every, single conservative opposition organization within the 495 Beltway.