DISGUSTING JEWESS SARAH SILVERMAN MOCKS JESUS IN NEW SHOW PROMO

DISGUSTING JEWESS SARAH SILVERMAN MOCKS JESUS IN NEW SHOW PROMO

REPORT BY INFOSTORMER

I really dislike this disgusting and vulgar Jewess Sarah Silverman. Here she is mocking Jesus in a promo for her new Netflix show.

How the hell does this horrible bitch still have a career? Who is her audience?

She like many Jews hate Jesus greatly. She previously said during one of her unfunny comic routines that she would kill Jesus a second time.

To all of you Christian Zionists out there who think Jews and Israel are so great I would encourage you to see what’s coming out of the mouth of this evil Jewess. It should make you rethink your support for these people. They were responsible for killing the man who is at the center of your religion. They do not deserve your support. They deserve your contempt.

SOURCE –
SEE ALSO –

RELATED –
A MESSAGE FROM A FORMER JEW TURNED CHRISTIAN 
TESTIMONY OF A FORMER JEW WHO CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY
WHY JUDAISM IS BANKRUPT
THE FOUR CURSES ON JUDAISM
PEDOPHILIA IS CONDONED, EVEN COMMANDED, BY JUDAISM
RACIAL TRAITS OF THE JEWS
JEWS ARE LIARS AND ARE SATANS CHOSEN ONES
JESUS CHRIST AND ADOLF HITLER ARE MY TWO HEROES
HOW THE JEWS THINK
SATAN AT THE WAILING WALL
WHAT THE JEWS FEAR MOST…CHRISTIANITY (AND THE WHITE RACE)
THE EVANGELICAL HERESY OF “JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY” 
HITLER AND CHRISTIANITY (QUOTES)
HITLER WAS NOT A PAGAN, ATHEIST OR DARWINIST… HE WAS A MAN OF GOD !
WEIMAR MEETS AMERICA

Brexodus: Rootless Cosmopolitans Move on to Their Next Hotel

Diversity Macht Frei
June 30, 2017

Here are some extracts from Joris Luyendijk’s article (“Brexodus has begun. We EU nationals know staying on is too big a gamble”) in the Guardian. I seem to recall someone saying previously that Joris Luyendijk was Jewish, but I’m not absolutely sure. The Brexodus wordplay does, of course, evoke Jewish history, or rather mythology since there is no evidence their fabled Exodus ever took place.

In any case he’s clearly a rootless cosmopolitan in the classic Jewish vein, someone with no enduring commitment to the country he lives in, no emotional attachment to its people, even a brooding suspicion and hint of hostility towards them.

EU nationals in the UK have first-hand experience of the British government and state. We have seen that this country is not even able to run its trains properly or sort out fire safety. We understand that our rights in Theresa May’s offer could be revoked post-Brexit at any time, and we have seen the pressure that the xenophobic and hysterically Europhobe tabloid press can bring to bear on politicians (“traitors”) and judges (“enemies of the people”).

Highly educated EU nationals know that they have highly sought-after skills – many of us are not in British jobs taken by Europeans but in European jobs done in Britain. Why not take that job with us back to the EU? And why risk investing in a country that could turn on you at any moment?

Source 

Here is the comment I posed on the Guardian site.

Good riddance. We want a people who are absolutely, unshakeably committed to the long-term well-being of this nation, not those who regard it as a mere residence of convenience, like some hotel whose decor or T&Cs they happen to like. It is precisely your rootless cosmopolitan vision that the British people rejected in their referendum vote.

This was promptly deleted “because it didn’t abide by our community standards”.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

SPLC is Suing Anglin! Donate Now to STOP THESE KIKES

weev
Daily Stormer
April 27, 2017

tl;dr: Anglin’s being sued by the SPLC for lawful, First Amendment-protected criticism of Jewry. The site needs a huge chunk of cash to keep going. Right now.

Ways to donate:

Bitcoin (stack them satoshis a megabyte high) is always the most useful currency, because it can’t be seized easily by court orders:

19m9yEChBSPuzCzEMmg1dNbPvdLdWA59rS

Cash, checks, or money orders can go to this address, and can be processed without fees taking a significant chunk:

Andrew Anglin
PO Box 208
Worthington, Ohio
43085

Send donations of significant size via Bitcoin or check if possible.

And finally, for this particular case, there is a crowdfund supporting credit cardsup at Wesearchr.

Wesearchr supports VISA, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover

It all started when realtor named Tanya Gersh attempted to extort Sherry Spencer out of a building she built in retaliation for the political views of her son, known white nationalist Richard Spencer.

Here’s Sherry Spencer’s statement:

On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that I make a public denunciation of my son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that I make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign. ….

Gersh followed up on her conditions in a number of emails, which I’ve just made public. She even shamelessly suggested that she act as my realtor! In other words, she and the local “human rights” organizations appeared to seek financial benefit from threats of protests and reputation damage.

Tanya Gersh was making statements against Sherry Spencer in the media to further this campaign, making her a public political activist legally subject to criticism from the public.

Thus in response this website’s editor Andrew Anglin invited his readers to make legal, non-threatening critiques of Tanya Gersh’s politically motivated extortion scheme:

Just make your opinions known. Tell them you are sickened by their Jew agenda to attack and harm the mother of someone whom they disagree with.

Again – as always – don’t make any threats of violence and certainly don’t do anything violent. Don’t ever do anything illegal, ever. It is well within your rights to tell these people what you think of their actions, trying to extort Richard Spencer’s family.

Tanya Gersh is now suing Andrew Anglin with the Southern Poverty Law Center for hundreds of thousands of dollars for daring to invite the public to comment on her despicable extortion scheme.

If Anglin doesn’t get money for a legal defense, The Daily Stormer will disappear. Unfortunately, lawyers from an arbitrary jurisdiction can’t appear pro hac vice without appearance of a local counsel per the rules of Montana District Court, so we have to come up with a king’s ransom for Anglin to fight a federal civil case.

Stormer needs a six figure sum to survive.

This matters to everyone on the Internet

Gersh v. Anglin is a flagrant violation of the rights of the whole Internet to criticize public figures.

Tanya Gersh attempted to extort Sherry Spencer out of a building, and yet she gets to play the victim and try to silence her critics? In the complaint Tanya Gersh makes risible lies about how she was simply just trying to help Sherry Spencer after making public condemnations of her building funding racism in the press.

This is purely an attack on the Stormer, because the Jews can’t stand to have us spread the truth.

If this is not fought, a major alt-right press outlet will die and history will record Gersh’s wicked lies of just being a helpful realtor trying to faithfully assist Sherry Spencer, instead of the truth of her being a contemptible manipulator trying to steal from the mother of a man she would see silenced.

Constitutional scholars unaware of the lies of Tanya Gersh are already noting the Constitutional problems with the case:

The biggest problem for the Southern Poverty Law Center is that the worst comments are not made by Anglin himself, the defendant, but by third parties, Banville said. Legally, under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, anyone who publishes online isn’t responsible for comments generated by others.

Beyond that, the complaint doesn’t even establish that authentic Stormers are even responsible for any of the threatening language Gersh took issue with. Just last month, ADL’s Director Oren Segal was attempting to pin the blame on a contributor to The Daily Stormer for a series of bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers. The FBI later discovered that these bomb threats were made by an Israeli national. We all know who is really responsible for violent anti-Semitic threats all around the world. It is the same people every time. Gersh’s own people forged any and all threats to her.

This case will be blown open so hard when Tanya Gersh’s lies are revealed in a court of law.

This is the last stand of the alt-right. Democratic process has failed us, and only our memes remain. Do not let the meme wells die by the perfidy and lies of the wicked. The indictment has loads of issues. If this is fought hard and well, Anglin will win and Gersh will be forced to pay out all the cash for the legal fees. Let us fight together now to see Gersh crushed and a lien put on her house. Gersh should be made to lose her home, just as she tried in wickedness to force Sherry Spencer’s loss of hers, and now the Stormer’s loss of his.

Don’t let the SPLC outspend the lulz.

Donate now!

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Politico: Has The SPLC Lost Its Way?

Hunter Wallace
Occidental Dissent
June 30, 2017

Editor’s Note: There has recently been a lot of blowback against the SPLC.

Ben Schreckinger has a new article in Politico about how the SPLC has gone from fighting the Klan to setting itself up as the hall monitor of American politics:

“But today, the group is best known for its “Intelligence Project,” which has essentially cornered the market on identifying and tracking hate groups, as well as extremists and “hate incidents.” The Intelligence Project’s 15 full-time and two part-time staffers (it’s in the process of hiring five more) pump out reports that are regularly cited by just about every major mainstream media outlet, including Politico, and their researchers have become the go-to experts for quotes on those topics.

The SPLC’s hate group and extremist labels are effective. Groups slapped with them have lost funding, been targeted by activists and generally been banished from mainstream legitimacy. This makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders. …

The Klan may be out of commission, but Dees says these new tactics of organized American racism are “just as bad as burning up this building. He just burned up an individual in a small town.”

Trump supporters, of course, would disagree. Trump campaigned as a rebel against political correctness, and in a sense his election was a backlash against the power amassed by liberal groups like the SPLC—a rejection of the idea that liberal activists should determine what views are considered out of bounds in American politics. …”

Ben is right.

In recent years, the SPLC has made a number of moves which have shredded its legitimacy on the Right: participating in the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, hiring one of the Jena 6 thugs as a “community advocate,” rushing to blame the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tuscon on the Tea Party, labeling figures like Ben Carson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Charles Murray haters and extremists, labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group,” targeting all Confederate monuments in the South for destruction, ignoring countless black-on-white mass shootings which don’t fit the Narrative and ignoring political violence against Trump supporters and Republicans.

There’s nothing “objective” about what the SPLC does. It tries to stigmatize groups and individuals as “haters” and “hate groups” and “extremists” based solely on their politics and how they fit into their Narrative. A good example of this is the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston. A month later the jihadist Muhammad Abdulazeez struck in Chattanooga. The SPLC ignored the story just like it has ignored the half dozen or so black-on-white and anti-police mass shootings (Micah X. in Dallas, Cosmo Setepenra in Baton Rouge, Ismaaiyl Brinsley in New York City, Vester Flanagan II in Roanoke, Kori Allen Muhammad in Fresno, Chris Harper Mercer in Roseburg) that have occurred since then. Whenever the SPLC finds a mentally ill White male who can be of service to the Narrative like Dylann RoofJeremy Christianor Jared Loughner, we never hear the end of it. It becomes a “story about hate.”

We all remember the time Floyd Corkins tried to murder the leaders of the Family Research Council and stuff their faces with Chick-fil-A sandwiches smeared in their blood. He was “inspired” by the SPLC’s hate group list. James Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooter, “liked” the SPLC on Facebook. The SPLC is about as objective as Mother Jones in its reporting on “hate” in America. Amazingly, this “watchdog” doesn’t list any of the openly violent antifa groups in the United States as “hate groups.”

The liberal and progressive journalists who are in collusion with the SPLC are equally partisan. Only 7 percent of journalists in America are Republicans and they are overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of Democratic urban enclaves. There are 12x more liberal professors in academia. It is all one big incestuous bubble talking to each other and pushing narratives. In the SPLC’s case, the money comes from scaring little old Jewish ladies in the North and West with junk mail. In CNN’s case, the Russia Narrative is about titillating liberals with fake news and an exciting conspiracy theory in order to drive up ratings and ad revenue. It is on the same level as Infowars on Jade Helm.

The one positive thing Trump has done is to dismiss all of them as fake news. They have lost their legitimacy. Everyone knows what they are about now and only defer to them out of habit.

 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Angry New York Times’ Staffers Walk Out over Planned Layoffs

  • The New York Times Building in midtown Manhattan

    The New York Times Building in midtown Manhattan | Photo: Reuters

Published 29 June 2017
The president of the NewsGuild of New York called the expected layoffs “humiliating.”

Hundreds of journalists — many of them copy editors at the New York Times — walked out from their offices Thursday and staged a protest in front of the newspaper’s office in response to management talk of cutting the copy editing department in half.

RELATED:
ESPN to Lay Off 100 On-Air Talent: Source

“Top managers sat stone-faced at desks as staffers gathered about them and then walked out via the stairways,” Poynter, a journalism training website, reported.

“New York Times editors, reporters, and staff will come together to leave the newsroom and their offices in protest of management’s elimination of copy editors,” said a statement by the NewsGuild of New York.

Calling the expected layoffs a “humiliating process,” NewsGuild President Grant Glickson, wrote in an open letter, “Cutting us down to 50 to 55 editors from more than 100, and expecting the same level of quality in the report, is dumbfoundingly unrealistic.”

On Wednesday afternoon, nearly two dozen editors also wrote a letter to Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joe Kahn expressing their outrage over the cuts and demanding they reconsider the move.

Banquet said in a statement, that the newspaper has a higher ratio of editors to reporters than its competitors.

“After a year and a half of uncertainty about their futures, New York Times editors and staff have expressed feelings of betrayal by management. The staff has been offered buyouts and if a certain number of buyouts is not reached, layoffs will ensue for the editorial staff and potentially reporters as well,” Glickson wrote.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NATO to Continue Occupation, Sending Thousands more Troops to Afghanistan

  • NATO has said that the 13,000 U.S. and NATO troops currently in Afghanistan is not enough.

    NATO has said that the 13,000 U.S. and NATO troops currently in Afghanistan is not enough. | Photo: REUTERS

Published 30 June 2017 (5 hours 15 minutes ago)
The NATO Secretary General said that he did not see an end to operations “this year, or next, or in the near future.”

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced on Thursday that it will be sending several thousand more troops to Afghanistan, saying they did not see an end to the operations “in the near future.”

RELATED:
NATO States to Raise Defense Spending by 4.3 Percent

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told press that the 13,000 troop force currently occupying Afghanistan was “too low,” and that several thousand more troops will be added to operation “Resolute Support” through 2017 “and beyond.”

“Our military authorities have requested a few thousand more troops for the mission in Afghanistan and today I can confirm that we will increase our presence in Afghanstan,” the Secretary General said Thursday.

“We do not believe that this operation in Afghanistan will be simple and we do not think it will be peaceful this year or next or in the near future,” he continued.

Stoltenberg has previously called Afghanistan a “generational” effort, rather than a “one-off event,” speaking in February.

The Secretary General said that 15 out of 29 NATO member nations have pledged to support the troop presence increase, and that he is expecting more to join.

While he emphasized several times that the NATO troops were not there for combat, but rather “training, assisting, and advising,” of Afghani troops, he also said that the move was intended to break what he called a battlefield “stalemate.”

Earlier this month U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis indicated that the United States was “not winning” its two-decade war, and requested troop levels to be adjusted. Currently, United States forces account for over half of the total NATO allied troops in the country.

“Its not like you can declare a war over,” Mattis said. “What is the price of not fighting this war? And in that case we’re not willing to pay that price.”

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon has said that the United Kingdom would be in Afghanistan “for the long haul,” and has committed to sending troops to bolster the NATO effort.

NATO defense spending is also on the rise, which Stoltenberg said he was “glad” about.

“I’m glad to say that we expect this will be the third consecutive year of accelerating defense spending increases across European allies and Canada, with a 4.3 percent real increase in defense spending,” he said.

The NATO Secretary General said the organization will “always honor” their soldiers who “paid the ultimate price.” While at least 2,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, it is Afghani civilians who have born the brunt of the violence resulting from the invasion, with at least 30,000 killed violently in a conservative estimate by Brown University’s Watson Institute.

New batch of Turkish troops arrives in Qatar

Joint exercises, expected to start after Eid al-Fitr, could eventually draw up to 1,000 Turkish soldiers to Qatar.

The Turkish military base in Qatar is a first for Turkey in the Arab World [Reuters]

Qatar’s ministry of defence has announced the arrival of a new group of Turkish armed forces to the military base where Turkey began its training mission last week.

The forces are set to take part in joint exercises within the framework of a defence agreement signed between Doha and Ankara aimed at raising Qatar’s defence capabilities, supporting “counter-terror” efforts, and maintaining security and stability in the region.

Khalid bin Mohammed al-Attiyah arrived on Thursday to Ankara where he is scheduled to meet with his Turkish counterpart Fikri Ishik as well as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey’s parliament on June 8 approved 2015 deal with Qatar aimed at strengthening military cooperation between the two states, which gave Turkey the right to establish military bases in Qatar and deploy military forces.

The deal’s approval came three days after Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries severed diplomatic ties with Qatar over allegations that it supports “terrorism” and is too close to Iran – charges Doha has repeatedly denied.

Five armoured vehicles and 23 military Turkish military personnel arrived to Doha on June 18. At the time, Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper reported there were already at least 88 Turkish soldiers in Qatar.

The number of Turkish soldiers sent to the Gulf state could eventually reach 1,000, Turkish daily Hurriyet reported, adding that an air force contingent was also envisaged.

Joint exercises were expected to start after the Eid al-Fitr holiday.

The Turkish military base in Qatar is a first for Turkey in the Arab World.

Source: Al Jazeera News


UN’s Zeid: Call to shut Al Jazeera unacceptable attack

High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein says Saudi-led campaign to close the network is ‘extraordinary, unprecedented’.

A host of groups have condemned the efforts to pressure Qatar into shutting down Al Jazeera [Tamila Varshalomidze/Al Jazeera]

The UN human rights chief has called the demand by a Saudi-led bloc to close Al Jazeera an “unacceptable attack on the right to freedom of expression and opinion”.

UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein “is extremely concerned by the demand that Qatar close down the Al Jazeera network, as well as other affiliated media outlets”, Hussein’s spokesman Rupert Colville said on Friday.

“Whether or not you watch it, like it, or agree with its editorial standpoints, Al Jazeera’s Arabic and English channels are legitimate, and have many millions of viewers,” Colville added.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and imposed sanctions on the country on June 5, accusing it of supporting “terrorism”, an allegation Doha has rejected as “baseless”.

Last week, the Saudi-led bloc gave Qatar 10 days to comply with 13 demands to end a major diplomatic crisis in the Gulf, insisting, among other things, that Doha shut down Al Jazeera, close a Turkish military base and scale down ties with Iran.

READ MORE: All the latest updates on the Qatar-Gulf crisis

The demands also included the closure of all news outlets that Qatar allegedly funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen and Middle East Eye.

Colville said that “if states have an issue with items broadcast on other countries’ television channels, they are at liberty to publicly debate and dispute them”, adding that “to insist that such channels be shut down is extraordinary, unprecedented and clearly unreasonable.”

He also said that if a closure were to happen, “it would open a Pandora’s Box of powerful individual states or groups of states seriously undermining the right to freedom of expression and opinion in other states, as well as in their own.”

INSIDE STORY: What is behind the campaign against Al Jazeera?

Al Jazeera has described the Saudi-led campaign as “nothing but an attempt to silence the freedom of expression in the region and to suppress people’s right to information and the right to be heard”.

Giles Trendle, the acting managing director of Al Jazeera’s English-language service, also denounced the demands by the Arab states as an attempt to suppress free expression.

“We are stunned by the demand to close Al Jazeera,” Trendle said. “Of course, there has been talk about it in the past, but it is still a great shock and surprise to actually see it in writing. It’s as absurd as it would be for Germany to demand Britain to close the BBC.”

He added that Al Jazeera is going to continue its “editorial mission of covering the world news in a fair and balanced way”.

Growing list of support

Hussein joins the growing list of individuals and organisations that have expressed their support for Al Jazeera.

On Wednesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urged the Saudi-led bloc to drop its demand to shut down Qatar-funded media outlets.

In a letter directed to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, the CPJ stressed it was not taking sides in the diplomatic dispute in the Gulf.

The CPJ, an independent organisation that promotes press freedom worldwide, said the demand to close the outlets, including Al Jazeera, showed “clear contempt for the principle of press freedom”.

READ MORE: An Open Letter from Al Jazeera

On Monday, a trade association representing more than 80 media companies voiced its support for Al Jazeera amid the Saudi-led campaign to have the network shut down.

“It is vital we value and protect the independence of media organisations and journalists around the world. Any effort to silence journalists or use news organisations as a bargaining chip is an affront to freedom,” a statement by the Digital Content Next association said.

Last week, The Guardian newspaper said in an editorial that the demand by the Saudi-led bloc was “wrong”.

“The attack on Al Jazeera is part of an assault on free speech to subvert the impact of old and new media in the Arab world. It should be condemned and resisted,” the editorial published by The Guardian on Friday said.

READ MORE: Norway groups slam ‘outrageous’ call to shut Al Jazeera

Media watchdogs, human rights groups and prominent commentators have also condemned the demand to close Al Jazeera as “outrageous”, “absurd” and “worrying”.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Qatar’s foreign minister, has said that Al Jazeera Media Network is an “internal affair” and there will be no discussion about the fate of the Doha-based broadcaster during the diplomatic crisis.

The UAE ambassador to Russia said in an interview with The Guardian newspaper on Tuesday that his country does “not claim to have press freedom”.

He was responding to a question about whether the demand to close Al Jazeera was reasonable.

“We do not promote the idea of press freedom. What we talk about is responsibility in speech,” he said.

Source: Al Jazeera News

Middle East Qatar Al Jazeera Media GCC

Washington Has Been at War for 16 Years: Why? By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

“What Planet Earth, and the creatures thereon, need more than anything is leaders in the West who are intelligent, who have a moral conscience, who respect truth, and who are are capable of understanding the limits to their power”. Paul Craig Roberts

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.

The lack of curiousity on the part of the American people, the media, and Congress about the purpose of these wars, which have been proven to be based entirely on lies, is extraordinary. What explains this conspiracy of silence, this amazing disinterest in the squandering of money and lives?

Most Americans seem to vaguely accept these orchestrated wars as the government’s response to 9/11. This adds to the mystery as it is a fact that Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iran (Iran not yet attacked except with threats and sanctions) had nothing to do with 9/11. But these countries have Muslim populations, and the Bush regime and presstitute media succeeded in associating 9/11 with Muslims in general.

Perhaps if Americans and their “representatives” in Congress understood what the wars are about, they would rouse themselves to make objections.

So, I will tell you what Washington’s war on Syria and Washington’s intended war on Iran are about. Ready?

There are three reasons for Washington’s war, not America’s war as Washington is not America, on Syria. The first reason has to do with the profits of the military/security complex.

The military/security complex is a combination of powerful private and governmental interests that need a threat to justify an annual budget that exceeds the GDP of many countries. War gives this combination of private and governmental interests a justification for its massive budget, a budget whose burden falls on American taxpayers whose real median family income has not risen for a couple of decades while their debt burden to support their living standard has risen.

The second reason has to do with the Neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony. According to the Neoconservatives, who most certainly are not conservative of any description, the collapse of communism and socialism means that History has chosen “Democratic Capitalism,” which is neither democratic nor capitalist, as the World’s Socio-Economic-Political system and it is Washington’s responsibility to impose Americanism on the entire world. Countries such as Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, who reject American hegemony must be destabilized and desroyed as they stand in the way of American unilateralism.

The Third reason has to do with Israel’s need for the water resources of Southern Lebanon. Twice Israel has sent the vaunted Israeli Army to occupy Southern Lebanon, and twice the vaunted Israeli Army was driven out by Hezbollah, a militia supported by Syria and Iran.

To be frank, Israel is using America to eliminate the Syrian and Iranian governments that provide military and economic support to Hezbollah. If Hezbollah’s suppliers can be eliminated by the Americans, Israel’s army can steal Southern Lebanon, just as it has stolen Palestine and parts of Syria.

Here are the facts: For 16 years the insouciant American population has permitted a corrupt government in Washington to squander trillions of dollars needed domestically but instead allocated to the profits of the military/security complex, to the service of the Neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony, and to the service of Israel.

Clearly, Amerian democracy is a fraud. It serves everyone but Americans.

What is the likely consequence of the US government serving non-American interests?

The best positive outcome is poverty for the 99 percent. The worst outcome is nuclear armageddon.

Washington’s service to the military/security complex, to the Neoconservative ideology, and to Israel completely neglects over-powering facts.

Israel’s interest to overthrow Syria and Iran is totally inconsistant with Russia’s interest to prevent the import of jihadism into the Russian Federation and Central Asia. Therefore, Israel has put the US into direct military conflict with Russia.

The US military/security complex’s financial interests to surround Russia with missile sites is inconsistent with Russian sovereignty as is the Neoconservatives’ emphasis on US world hegemony.

President Trump does not control Washington. Washington is controlled by the military/security complex (watch on youtube President Eisenhower’s description of the military/security complex as a threat to American democracy), by the Israel Lobby, and by the Neoconservatives. These three organized interest groups have pre-empted the American people, who are powerless and are uninvolved in the decisions about their future.

Every US Representative and US Senator who stood up to Israel was defeated by Israel in their re-election campaign. This is the reason that when Israel wants something it passes both houses of Congress unanimously. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly,

“No American President can stand up to Israel.”

Israel gets what it wants no matter what the consequences are for America.

Adm. Moorer was right. The US gives Israel every year enough money to purchase our government. And Israel does purchase our government. The US government is far more accountable to Israel than to the American people. The votes of the House and Senate prove this.

Unable to stand up to tiny Israel, Washington thinks it can buffalo Russia and China. For Washington to continue to provoke Russia and China is a sign of insantity. In the place of intelligence we see hubris and arrogance, the hallmarks of fools.

What Planet Earth, and the creatures thereon, need more than anything is leaders in the West who are intelligent, who have a moral conscience, who respect truth, and who are are capable of understanding the limits to their power.

But the Western World has no such people.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Why the West Will Not and Cannot Let Syria Live in Peace

For all those who have become awake and conscious or otherwise put; have escaped the western media pit of lies and brainwashing, the six year long resistance of the Syrian people in the face of the US Deep State and its terrorist proxy troops ISIS, Al Qaeda et al has been a deeply tragic but historically heroic inspiration to us all. They survived four years almost totally alone until Russia entered to fight the US, EU, Israeli proxy terrorist fighters that were gaining ground on government held territory in Syria.

The Russian campaign has been exemplary, resulting in, at the time of writing in a total reversal for the aggressors. Many are rightly praising the the Heroic Syrian Arab army and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies. I have been saying all along however that this optimism is misplaced as the forces that actually run the western world simply cannot let Syria rise from the ashes.

A re-built Syria which controls it’s own central bank and can issue it’s own currency as it needs with no outside control and no debt to the International Monetary Fund or anyone else, (The most fundamental and essential of freedoms that most western countries have not experienced for at least a hundred years.) which, because of this,  is able to offer its citizens, even during the war, free education and higher education, health care and extremely low or non existent utility charges is totally anathema to the real leaders of the western world. The fact that different branches of Islam and above all, the fact that the many Orthodox Christians in Syria live in peace with each other burns the western, fractional reserve, debt enslaving banking elites as holy water burns a vampire.

The neo-cons, i.e. the people who actually run the US Deep State are hell bent on total world domination and they are achieving this through control of every country’s central bank and their freedom to issue their own currency as they need and a ruthless war on culture facilitated by the ever increasing rate at which education is dumbed down with the help of main stream media. In just thirty years they have succeeded in turning the average westerner into a zombie who’s “understanding” of the world is completely founded on lies and often total reality inversions and who’s powers of thought and objective reasoning, as well as a sense of any meaningful self and a place in history have been reduced to almost zero.

A resurgent Syria will be a shining example to the whole world of what life can be like without the neo-con iron grip on the money supply, education system, media, sport, art and all the rest.

A resurgent, whole Syria will be a block to the much touted “Greater Israel” and to the western plans for gas pipes from Qatar to Europe (whatever may or may not be happening with Qatar right now). Last but anything but from least, is the fact that Syria’s survival will be a massive spanner in the works of their ultimate goal of subduing, conquering and dismembering Russia which is of course the number one reason why Russia came to Syria’s aid in the first place! That is why they will not and from their Satanic point of view, cannot, allow it to allow Syria to survive!

At the time of writing (evening June 26 in Europe) seemingly coordinated reports are coming in from the US, UK, France that another chemical attack on the Syrian people and “innocent little children” by its own government and president is being prepared and is due any minute and that the west will make President Assad and his military “pay a very heavy price” “when or maybe even before it occurs”. (preemptive strike)

Now all sane, informed, awake people in the world know that the government of Syria has never used chemical weapons on anybody and never will. We know that this was only ever western lies to help domestic public opinion accept yet another western destruction of free humanity and culture as with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria hence bringing them them ever closer to their absolute domination of the entire world and the enslavement of every human soul. Hence what we are seeing here is yet another attempt to use the same tired old lie to justify a western regime change action followed by the destruction of secular, civilized Syria.

Were a major western, Israeli attack on Syria to take place, that would put Russia in a difficult position which is precisely why some of the hotter heads in the western elite may just decide to risk it.

The Russian government and people absolutely do not want war and Russia has repeatedly shown a very “Zen” ability to dissolve all the aggressive provocations the west has thus far thrown at her in Ukraine as in Syria. One does not have to be a military or geopolitical expert to see that if Russia resists militarily, this could risk escalating very fast all the way to WWIII. This is something that Russia wants to avoid at nearly all costs but were the situation to become existential, that would be another matter and as many have already commentated, the Russians are informed and ready which cannot be said in any way of western populations.

The Russian campaign in Syria has resulted in a very low casualty count so far but a very high profile one. All deaths of male and female Russian service personnel in Syria (Except secret agents we may presume) have been publicized on mainstream media. All are felt as a great loss but some were especially moving. The young reconnaissance soldier who found himself hopelessly surrounded by ISIS fighters who called down a missile strike on himself to avoid being captured and to make sure the terrorists were all killed: which they were. The pilot who was shot down by a Turkish fighter and then machine gunned by western backed terrorists as he parachuted to earth hanging helplessly in the air. All Russia saw his legs kicking out as the bullets entered him. It would be very hard, maybe even impossible for Russian public opinion to except that all that heroism and sacrifice was for nothing. That Russia must just let the west and Israel overthrow the legitimate government, hand the country over to the Islamist terrorists and their masters and come home with her tail between her legs and start to reinforce the Russian borders.

The Russian government has always said that it is in Syria to defeat the terrorists rather than to “prop up”, as the western media likes to say, the Assad government. Recent poles say that if there was an election in Syria tomorrow, Assad would get close to ninety percent and the fact on the ground is that if he goes, the terrorists will win. A fact that is perfectly understood in Washington, London, Paris, Tel Aviv as it is in Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. If that happens, next step, Iran!

If the west goes for an all out regime change attack in Syria and should Russia decide that its long term interests are best served by retreating, then this could be more destabilizing for Russia’s internal unity than any thing the west has thrown at her so far. The west’s use of so called “liberals” and “Clinton, Soros worshiping and funded dissidents” to effect regime change in Russia has spectacularly failed. However, if there is any undercurrent of doubt in the leadership of Vladimir Putin in the country it is among those who feel frustrated by his “Zen” way of dealing with the west and who would like to see a much more full on, robust countering of western aggression around her borders and protection of Russia’s interests worldwide.

These people would find it impossible to stomach a Russian defeat, retreat from Syria and internal tensions would certainly rise more than they have done to date. I would certainly not envy President Putin, his ministers and advisers given such a choice. True! A firm, decisive rebuttal of western aggression might cause the west to back down as it is in much more disarray than Russia or Syria itself for that matter. On the other hand it might not and then what?

Let us pray that such a decision will not have to be taken. That the few remaining non neo-con people in the Pentagon and the US administration manage to thwart this ridiculous false flag creation or: that as Alexander Mercouris noted, that it looks like a heavy handed attempt to distract public attention from Seymour Hersh’s devastating article exposing the last “chemical attack false fag as a total lie!

The next few hours and days will be crucial! Someone recently wrote and I’m paraphrasing as I can’t find the original.

“The neo-con desire for world domination has zombified them to such an extent that they cannot stop on this path. Until someone shoots them in the head, they will continue moving forward”!

Marcus Godwyn is a British musician and amateur essayist.

All images in this article are from the author.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————

‘For 68 years NATO failing to create peaceful world’

‘For 68 years NATO failing to create peaceful world’
It is unreasonable to ask taxpayers to pay billions more dollars for NATO’s budget because they get less and less peace, security and stability, says Jan Oberg, director of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the bloc’s security spending would see its biggest increase since 2014, by 4.3 per cent in 2017. This is a response to US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO countries failing to increase military budgets.

Stoltenberg also said the alliance has combat-ready forces along Russia’s border.

“NATO’s four multinational battle groups in the Baltic countries and Poland are now fully operational, a clear demonstration that our alliance stands united in the face of any possible aggression,” Stoltenberg said during a news conference on Wednesday.

European  Allies & Canada spent almost $46 billion more on defence over the last 3 years. The trend is up. And we intend to keep it up.

RT: Why does NATO feel it necessary to increase its spending? Have new threats developed to the alliance in the last year?

Jan Oberg: There is absolutely no threat that would legitimate this type of increase. NATO with 29 countries are 12 times higher in terms of military spending than Russia which is the alleged main threat. And secondly, terrorism, which is a very legitimate threat to combat, has increased since 2001 80 times, meaning the war on terror is the most counterproductive war ever fought in human history. On Thursday, the defense ministers are meeting in Brussels. And one of the things they are going to discuss is how to combat ISIS in the Middle East. Everybody knows the US and its allies are supporting ISIS and other terrorists and are preventing the struggle of the Syrian government from combating this intrusion, these terrorists on its territory. Facts play no role anymore. It is perception management…Whenever we have a problem – and for 68 years we have failed to create a peaceful world – we need more money. The money Stoltenberg is talking about is citizens’, taxpayers’ money and my serious proposal would be: those who want war and have done such a bad job for 68 years and asking for even more money – they should go and do crowdfunding for their wars because it is unreasonable to ask taxpayers to pay billions of more dollars and getting less and less peace, security and stability.

‘NATO is the part of the US global empire’

NATO is ubiquitous and this has to do with the preservation of corporate interests, not saving or helping people, says Mike Raddie, co-Editor of BSNews.

RT: Why does NATO feel it necessary to increase its spending by such a large amount?

Mike Raddie: I think NATO is still trying to justify itself after 25 years of existence that shouldn’t have happened really – after the Cold War NATO should have been disbanded. It is still being used: it was used in Libya, it is used in Afghanistan, and it is used in Syria, still today. I think the build-up of troops on the Russian borders is extremely dangerous, really provocative. It is not just Russia. China is pretty much surrounded by US troops, US bases, and US aircraft carriers.

A couple of hundred years ago, if a government saw hostile troops on its border, it wouldn’t wait for a declaration of war, it would just see that as an imminent invasion and defend themselves. So, you can say that Russia and China have been amazingly restrained in their attitude to the West and NATO countries in particular. It is part of the US’ global empire. We can’t forget that they’re at least 800 US bases around the world. And the US Special Forces last year were deployed in 138countries. That is 70 percent of the country-states in the world. So, it is ubiquitous; it is everywhere. There are very few countries that don’t have a US presence in their land at the moment. Arguably some of these Special Forces are for training purposes. But they are only to train the local troops, and this is all to do with the preservation of corporate interests. They are not there to save people or help people. They are there to protect corporate interests wherever they may be.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Ukraine faces fine over Eurovision delays, decision to bar Russian entrant

Ukraine faces fine over Eurovision delays, decision to bar Russian entrant
Ukraine is to pay a hefty fine because of severe delays in the organization of the Eurovision Song Contest, as well as Kiev’s decision to bar the Russian entrant from the competition.

The Ukrainian National Broadcasting Company has been notified of the fine, AFP reported, citing a representative of the EBU (European Broadcasting Union).

The Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev was marred by a row between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow boycotted the event after singer Yulia Samoylova, who was set to represent Russia, was denied entry due to a previous performance in Crimea. Russia’s Channel One refused to broadcast Eurovision.

“As a result of this, attention was drawn away from the competition and the brand reputation of the Eurovision Song Contest was endangered,” the EBU said in a statement, cited by Reuters.

The organization added that the contest’s steering committee “has recommended that UA:PBC [Ukraine’s state broadcaster] should receive a substantial fine, in line with the rules of the competition.”

The EBU did not specify the exact sum Kiev will be required to pay.

Ukrainian authorities have already declared they are going to appeal the EBU decision, with the fines for similar breaches reaching €200,000 (US$228,000), according to the chairman of the country’s National Public Broadcasting Company, Zurab Alasaniya.

“Formally, it wasn’t us who made the decision not to allow [the Russian singer], but I don’t think that the SBU [State Security Service] or the government will want to take part in this,” Alasaniya told Reuters.

According to Alasaniya, the EBU was considering was suspending Ukrainian participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, RIA Novosti reported.

At the same time, the organization will not sanction Russia’s Channel One over its refusal to broadcast the song contest. A warning will be issued, though, for the channel not visiting the mandatory meeting of delegation heads, the EBU told RIA Novosti

Iran targeted Star of David in ballistic missile test, Israel says  

Israel complains to UN as satellite imagery shows impact crater from weapons test next to Jewish symbol target carved in the desert

Times of Israel

Iran used a Star of David as a target for missile test last year, Israel said Wednesday, distributing satellite images of the site to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday.

Satellite imagery released by Israel's UN mission on June 28, 2017, shows the Star of David being used as target practice by the Iranian military. (courtesy, UN PHOTO)

“This use of the Star of David as target practice is hateful and unacceptable,” Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon wrote in a complaint to the Council.

Grainy photos provided to UN members showed what Danon said was the Jewish and Israeli symbol as the target in a test of a ballistic missile carried out last year with the impact crater visible next to it.

“The missile launch is not only a direct violation of UNSCR 2231, but is also a clear evidence of Iran’s continued intention to harm the State of Israel,” Danon said, adding that “the targeting of a sacred symbol of Judaism is abhorrent.”

“It is the Iranians who prop up the Assad regime as hundreds of thousands are killed, finance the terrorists of Hezbollah as they threaten the citizens of Israel, and support extremists and tyrants throughout the Middle East and around the world,” he added.

Earlier this month Iran fired missiles at Syria, targeting Islamic State positions in the first missile attack by Iran outside its own territory in 30 years, since the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.

The medium-range ballistic missiles Iran said it fired at the eastern Syria’s Deir el-Zour region were ostensibly in retaliation for the twin terror attacks carried out by the group on June 7 in Tehran’s parliament, and at the grave of Ayatollah Khomeini in which 17 people were killed. Revolutionary Guards officials warned that other assaults on Iran would lead to similar retaliatory attacks, describing the missiles as a message to its enemies.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the attack, “I have one message for Iran: Don’t threaten Israel.”

Iran has in the past test-fired missiles with anti-Israel messages written on them in Hebrew. In March 2016, it test-fired two ballistic missiles, which an Iranian news agency said were inscribed with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out.”

After Iran test-fired a ballistic missile in January, the US-imposed sanctions on a number of entities involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program, and US President Donald Trump warned the Islamic Republic it had been “put on notice.”

Although Iran maintains that the testing of ballistic missiles is not banned by the 2015 nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, the US said that the sanctions were imposed for Iran’s violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2331, which calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

Since January’s test-firing of a ballistic missile, Iran has carried out a number of other tests of cruise and submarine-based missiles.