Bad publicity? Cohen? Russiagate? Many reasons Trump canceled Putin meeting, but Ukraine isn’t one

Bad publicity? Cohen? Russiagate? Many reasons Trump canceled Putin meeting, but Ukraine isn’t one
US President Donald Trump cited the recent incident in the Kerch Strait when canceling the meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Experts who spoke with RT doubt that this is the real reason behind the last-minute move.

Officially, Trump called off the meeting because “the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia,” he tweeted on Thursday, referring to the three vessels seized by the Russian coast guard while attempting to pass from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov through Russian waters.

“I think if it was the reason for the meeting being canceled it was a bad reason,” Dan Kovalik, professor of human rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, told RT. “No matter how one views the Kerch strait situation and who was at fault there, I think it’s the very time to have a meeting between the US and Russia to try and sort that incident out, to try to deal again with all the tensions that are happening anywhere in Europe between Russia and NATO.”

ALSO ON RT.COMHow Trump was finally tripped by sabotage of every meeting with PutinKovalik also argued that Trump might be feeling pressured not to look like he’s “colluding” with Putin – a charge leveled by his Democrat critics even before he defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, and used since to challenge the legitimacy of his presidency.

“It is certainly to avoid bad publicity. As you’ve noted, last time he met with Putin somehow he was seen as a traitor. That’s how crazy things have gotten in this country,” he told RT.

US media reacted with outrage to the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, Finland, in July, with more than one outlet and talking head calling his remarks at a press conference there “treasonous.” That’s because Trump did not bring up Russian “meddling” in the 2016 election, which has become an article of faith in the US despite no actual evidence of it ever being produced.

“I think it’s more than a headline diversion,” former US diplomat Jim Jatras, told RT, saying that it might be more related to the appearance of Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen in federal court and his guilty plea about discussing plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow that “all the anti-Trump people are chattering about today.”

“I think that’s the atmospheric reason why he feels he needs to cancel this meeting,” Jatras said.

Instead of being a statesman and starting a conversation with the leaders of Russia, India and China at the summit to resolve tensions from the Black Sea to the South China Sea, Trump is being dragged down by “these petty little political problems domestically here that are designed simply to undermine Trump’s presidency – and I’m sorry to say, he’s dancing like a monkey on a string,” Jatras said.

“I think he is afraid,” the former diplomat added.

 

© Reuters / Grigory Dukor

Journalist Neil Clark thinks the only surprise about the cancellation is that anybody is surprised by it.

“I think that Trump in many ways was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t,” Clark told RT, noting that Democrats who called for him to cancel the meeting are now saying he should still meet with Putin, if only to criticize him over Russia’s alleged misconduct. If Trump had gone ahead with the meeting, he would’ve been accused of “appeasing Russian aggression” just like after Helsinki, Clark said.

ALSO ON RT.COMTrump cancels planned meeting with Putin at G20 over Russia-Ukraine flare upThere is a general atmosphere in Washington, the “mood music” pushing Trump to take a hard line towards Russia, and he is going along with it, Clark explained. He was also skeptical that the current US-Russia tensions could have been resolved in an hour-long meeting.

“There are forces at play here,” Clark told RT. “We’ve got the military-industrial complex, we’ve got the neocon think tanks, we’ve got the US energy industry, which is very keen to push Russia out of the European energy market.”

 

Reuters / Grigory Dukor

He also said he could see how Ukraine could have staged the Kerch Strait incident in order to sabotage the meeting, fearing that Trump and Putin might actually get along and eliminate some tensions between Washington and Moscow.

“There’s a lot of people out there who don’t want that to happen,” Clark said. “They really don’t want Russia and the US to have better relations

Like this story? Share it with a friend!


Ron Paul: Allow Americans to ‘Opt Out’ of Abortion and War

It may be impossible to find a welfare-warfare state program that does not offend someone’s moral or religious beliefs.

Ron Paul

Published  

on  

By  

179 Views

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released proposed rules allowing individuals to opt out of Obamacare’s abortion and contraception mandates for moral or religious reasons. These new rules should be cheered by all who agree with Thomas Jefferson that forcing people to subsidize that which they find abhorrent is “sinful and tyrannical.”

Sadly, Congress continues to pass, and President Trump continues to sign, spending bills subsidizing abortion providers. When government gives taxpayer money to abortion providers, it forces anti-abortion taxpayers to fund something they believe is murder. This is every bit as “sinful and tyrannical” as forcing health plans to pay for abortion and contraception.

If Congress is going to continue giving taxpayer dollars to abortion providers, then it should at least find a way to protect those with moral or religious objections to abortion from subsidizing the practice with their tax dollars. Creating a special fund for the taxes of those who object to abortion and ensuring money in that fund is not used to subsidize abortion providers would help ensure that anti-abortion taxpayers are no longer directly subsidizing what they believe is the murder of unborn children. However, it would force pro-life taxpayers to indirectly subsidize abortion because money is fungible. So, if the government used money from the pro-life taxpayers to increase spending on programs that do not subsidize abortion, it would be able to use a greater percentage of the taxes collected from other taxpayers to fund abortionists.

A better way to protect anti-abortion taxpayers is to give them an expanded charitable tax credit. Pro-life taxpayers could use the credit to support crisis pregnancy centers and other charities that help pregnant women and new mothers. This approach would increase funding to private charities, while ensuring that, since the plan reduces government revenue, anti-abortion taxpayers are neither directly nor indirectly subsidizing abortions.

Opponents of abortion are not the only Americans who should be allowed to opt out of paying for what they consider murder. The many Americans with moral and religious objections to Washington’s militaristic foreign policy should also be able to redirect some of their taxes from the warfare state to private charities. Some may claim this would weaken America’s defenses. However, since America’s military budget is higher than the combined military budgets of the next seven biggest spending countries, and since our militaristic foreign policy has little or no relation to actual security, there is no reason the military budget cannot and should not be reduced.

Allowing taxpayers to opt out of subsidizing war and abortion would be major victories. However, there are other government programs that might offer exemptions for moral or religious objections. For example, followers of Ayn Rand have moral objections to government-funded welfare. Some Christians also find government-provided welfare morally objectionable because they believe it is the duty of the church, not the state, to help the less fortunate. Others may find corporate welfare, the drug war, or restrictions on the First and Second Amendments morally objectionable.

It may be impossible to find a welfare-warfare state program that does not offend someone’s moral or religious beliefs. For many the entire welfare-warfare state is immoral because it is built on a foundation of aggression. The only way to stop the government forcing taxpayers to subsidize activities they consider immoral is to return to limited, constitutional government that does not steal from the people via the income tax and the inflation tax.


Israel denies its jet or any other ‘airborne target’ was downed during Syria raid

Israel denies its jet or any other 'airborne target' was downed during Syria raid
The Israeli military has described reports that one of its jets was brought down while carrying out airstrikes in Syria as “bogus,” amid reports that the country’s air defense systems engaged and downed several “hostile targets”.

Israeli Defense Forces have refused to comment on the country’s alleged role in the attack, with a spokesperson saying that they’re not commenting on reports in foreign media. Yet the IDF has denied a particular report that it had lost a warplane during the raid on Syria.

Israel Defense Forces

@IDF

During a Syrian surface-to-air missile launching, one launch was identified towards an open area in the Golan Heights. At this point, it remains unclear if the launch indeed landed in Israeli territory. IDF troops are searching the area.

Israel Defense Forces

@IDF

Reports regarding an IDF aircraft or an airborne IDF target having been hit are false.

A Syrian security source earlier told RIA Novosti that an Israeli jet was among the targets downed by the air defense. “Our air defense have downed an Israeli jet and four rockets before they could reach their targets,” the source said.

ALSO ON RT.COMSyrian air defense downs several ‘enemy targets’ in southern Syria – reportsMeanwhile, Syria TV reported that a missile strike against Syria was deflected, without specifying what the downed objects were. The incident reportedly occurred in the Kiswah area, located 13 kilometers (8 miles) south of Damascus.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Sexual Morality: Opening the Floodgates

The Jew as Adversary in the Battle Over Obscenity, Pornography and Sexual Morality – Part 4: Opening the Floodgates

Allen Ginsberg

Part 1Part 2Part 3

“Under the [Hicklin test], any obscenity in a work, no matter how slight, contaminated the whole; under the [Roth test], any slight redeeming trait purified it.” – Leo Pfeffer1

The first major publication to reap the benefits of the precedent set by the Rothdecision (discussed in part 3), was Howl and Other Poems by the Jewish “Beat” poet Allen Ginsberg.

The Beats, or the “Beat Generation,” were a literary clique centered around Ginsberg. They were all criminals, degenerates, junkies and mentally insane sexual deviants, and indeed reveled in those qualities and promoted them as the ideal way to be. In effect, they were the precursor to the broader “counterculture” movement which would ultimately revolutionize America with “Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll” in the 1960s and 1970s (see part 5).

Both of Ginsberg’s parents were Russian born Jews, and he had a very disturbed upbringing. His father was a socialist, and Ginsberg wrote of “getting hard-ons” while sleeping in bed with him, “rubbing up against his leg, just pressing close and holding on to him.”2

His mother was a die-hard Communist who brought him and his siblings to Communist summer camp, making Ginsberg a “red diaper baby.” She eventually developed paranoid schizophrenia and suffered severe hallucinations, believing Ginsberg’s father was trying to poison her and once seeing Hitler’s moustache in the sink.3

In her later years, she would wander around the house naked, and believed that the government was beaming radio waves into her brain and reading her thoughts. Ginsberg eventually sanctioned a lobotomy on her in an attempt to alleviate her suffering, and never forgave himself for this act.

Ginsberg himself was a lifelong homosexual and sexual predator who got off on convincing straight men to sleep with him, and was also a member and vocal supporter of the pederasty advocate group the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).4

Howl, written in 1956, was a reflection of Ginsberg’s deranged Jewish mind. With its innumerable references to “cocks,” “cunts,” “semen,” and those “who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists,” publishing it was a risky endeavor at that time, given the existing obscenity laws.

The “avant-garde” book store owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti decided to take the risk, after receiving assurance from the heavily Jewish American Civil Liberties Union that they would defend the publication were it to run into trouble – “which I almost hope it does,” Ginsberg wrote to his father. “I am almost ready to tackle the U.S. Govt out of sheer self delight.”5

Trouble it soon found.

Ferlinghetti was raided on June 3, 1957 (just three weeks before the Roth decision), arrested, and charged with obscenity. One of the shrewdest and most famous Jewish lawyers in the country, Jake Ehrlich, whom the popular TV character Perry Mason was based on, took the lead in the case.

Jake Ehrlich

Naturally, Ehrlich and his team structured their defense on the Roth decision, which had changed the definition of obscenity to whether or not a work overall had “redeeming social and literary value.” This didn’t leave the prosecutor with much to work with. He would have to somehow prove that the entire work was meaningless; an almost impossible task.

The defense, on the other hand, only had to track down a few of the untold thousands of literary authorities who could be shown to have credentials, to claim that the work was of great merit. Of this they brought nine.6

The presiding judge, Clayton Horn, despite being a devout Christian who had notoriously sentenced a shoplifter to a viewing of the Charleton Heston movie The 10 Commandments, followed a strict reading of Roth and reversed the charge and found Howl not obscene.

Aside from further liberalizing obscenity law, the attempted suppression of Howlcatapulted Ginsberg, the Beats, and their works to national fame with the extensive media coverage. Howl sold tens of thousands of copies before the trial was even concluded, and Ginsberg and the Beats were profiled by such widely read outlets as LifeTime and the San Francisco Chronicle.7

Emboldened by the Roth and Howl decisions, Jewish publisher Barney Rosset decided he would challenge obscenity laws directly.

Rosset, born in Chicago in 1922, was a radical leftist even in his youth, publishing his first newspaper, The Sommunist (socialist/communist), while still in high school. He was under surveillance by the government for his radicalism, and suspected “disaffection,” beginning in 1943.8

Upon returning from WWII, where he served mainly as a photographer, Rosset joined the Communist party in Chicago for a time and then in 1948 produced the documentary ‘Strange Victory,’ in which he attacked America as racist like the Nazis. “We took Hitler home with us, specifically in terms of racial problems in this country,” he asserted.

strangevictory
America fought to save the Jews from Hitler only to have many of them turn around and stab her in the back.

After receiving a hefty inheritance from his father, who was a wealthy Jewish banker, Rosset purchased the publishing company Grove Press in 1951, where he employed Jews almost exclusively (see footnote), and would continue promoting his radical leftist agenda, becoming the foremost publisher of “counterculture” materials throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s.9

Being a far-left Jew, Rosset was virulently anti-White and pro-Black. He published radical Black authors such as Malcolm X and Amiri Baraka, who wrote outrageous anti-White vitriol such as: “Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats” and “You cant steal nothin from a white man, he’s already stole it he owes you anything you want, even his life.”10

Rosset was a pervert to boot. He was admittedly obsessed with pornographic materials his entire life. As such he was naturally against all forms of censorship. He compared censorship to anti-miscegenation attitudes (“the fear that your daughter would sleep with a black man and the fear that your daughter would read that book”), and fought vehemently for the dissolution of those two taboos, apparently viewing a society where everyone’s daughter could screw Blacks and read pornographic books without consequence as an ideal utopia to strive for.

Rosset was an unhinged, effeminate man, driven by his impulses. A Military Intelligence report described him as one who “totally lacks sound judgment.” “[H]e is incapable of appraising people,” it reads, “all of his impressions and judgments are based upon emotional reactions.” This assessment was agreed upon by all of Rosset’s associates who were contacted by Grove Press chronicler Loren Glass.11

b2bdb818decc085cc04cb121cb68e4abe1ad9604

These impulses drove him into taking the risk that no other of his ideological kin were willing to take. He published two of the most infamous banned books, Lady Chatterley’s Lover by British author D. H. Lawrence, and Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller, back to back.

Lady Chatterley’s Lover, the milder of the two, came first (against the wishes of the Lawrence estate), specifically to pave the way for Tropic of Cancer.12

“Chatterley he really didn’t give too much of a damn about,” says one of Rosset’s colleagues in a 2007 documentary about him, Obscene. “He didn’t really think that was a wonderful book. But he was convinced that he needed a book of that stature in order to prepare the Tropic of Cancer case.”

It follows that Rosset would not appreciate Lady Chatterley’s Lover, as Lawrence’s anti-modernity, anti-egalitarian political and philosophical views were diametrically at odds with Rosset’s extreme leftism.13

Lawrence, though friendly with many Jews, was also somewhat of an anti-Semite, at least by today’s standards. He blamed the Jews for modern decadence, and would often berate and criticize them. In a letter to one “very bossy and over-bearing Jew,” according to Lawrence biographer Jeffrey Meyers, “he stated that the Jews were elitist and smug”; to another, Waldo Frank, he wrote that “they were a cringing race, for their pride as the Chosen People both provoked and compensated for their persecution.”

On another occasion Lawrence wrote, in agreement with Edward Gibbon (paraphrasing what Gibbon wrote in his history of the Roman Empire), that “the Jews are the great haters of the human race – and the great anti-social principle.”14

According to Lawrence, “humanity hated the Jews” because of their conceited, self-worshiping religion, which he personally found to be “abominable.”15

Though Lady Chatterley’s Lover is indeed a bit explicit, especially for its time, for his part Lawrence was against outright pornography. In his essay Obscenity and Pornography, he wrote: “But even I would censor genuine pornography, rigorously. It would not be very difficult.” 16

“About Lady C,” he later wrote to Aldous Huxley, author of the prophetic Brave New World, “you mustn’t think I advocate perpetual sex in and out of season. Nothing nauseates me more than perpetual sex in and out of season. . . . God forbid that I should be taken as urging loose sex activity.”17

It would then seem that Lawrence, who died in 1930, would have been displeased to see how the Jews later used his work as a means of clearing the path for “genuine pornography” and broader sexual liberation.

MTE5NDg0MDU1MjYwNzkyMzM1
D.H. Lawrence

Henry Miller, on the other hand, was Rosset’s hero. “He just had a contempt for this country that I shared,” Rosset explains, in Obscene. “I said, well we’ll publish Lady Chatterley’s Lover first and when we win that battle we will then do Tropic of Cancer. I didn’t do that to save humanity, I did it to save Tropic of Cancer.”

Rosset’s plan paid off in spades. Lady Chatterley’s Lover was cleared and became Grove Press’s most successful publication, selling almost 2 million copies by 1960. This earned them enough money to fund future court battles, and secured their reputation as the premier fighters on the front line of the battle over obscenity.

Following this victory, Rosset and Grove Press prepared to publish Tropic of Cancer, which had first been published by their European counterpart, Obelisk.

Founded in France by a Jewish expatriate from England, Jack Kahane, Obelisk specialized in publishing books that were banned in English speaking countries (those who traveled through France could then easily purchase them).

Following his death, Kahane’s son Maurice Giordias took over Obelisk, and changed its name to Olympia in 1953. Giordias, like his father before him, delighted in subverting European mores with obscenity: “It was great fun,” he recalled in a memoir,

The Anglo-Saxon world was being attacked, invaded, infiltrated, outflanked, and conquered by this erotic armada. The Dickensian schoolmasters of England were convulsed with helpless rage, the judges’ hair was standing on end beneath their wigs, black market prices in New York and London for our green-backed products were soaring to fantastic heights.18

1990-Clouseau

Tropic of Cancer is an unbelievable sewer of filth – an all out assault on decency.

“This is not a book,” Miller writes in the introduction. “This is a libel, slander, defamation of character. This is not a book, in the ordinary sense of the word. No, this is a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of Art, a kick in the pants to God, Man, Destiny, Time, Love, Beauty … what you will.”19

Miller, though not a Jew himself, was married to one. And he writes of a Jewess, Tania, in Tropic of Cancer (which is semi-autobiographical), “for her sake I too would become a Jew. Why not? I already speak like a Jew.”20 He then fantasizes about having sex with her as follows:

O Tania, where now is that warm cunt of yours, those fat, heavy garters, those soft, bulging thighs? There is a bone in my prick six inches long. I will ream out every wrinkle in your cunt, Tania, big with seed. . . . I know how to inflame a cunt. I shoot hot bolts into you Tania, I make your ovaries incandescent. . . . After me you can take on stallions, bulls, rams, drakes, St. Bernards. You can stuff toads, bats, lizards up your rectum. . . . I will tear off a few hairs from your cunt and paste them on Boris’ chin. I will bite into your clitoris and spit out two franc pieces…21

Needless to say, the ante had been raised a bit from Lawrence’s much tamer work. Nationwide outrage brought Tropic of Cancer to court in over sixty different obscenity trials following its publication.

tocbanned

Grove Press had convinced vendors to carry Tropic on the promise that they would pay the court costs should it run into trouble, and they did just that – for all sixty some odd cases – using their massive profits from Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

The most significant of all these cases was the infamous “Chicago trial,” which was the first to rule the book not obscene. “What goes unmentioned in accounts of this crucial trial,” Josh Lambert writes in Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews and American Culture,

is the prominence of Jews among the advocates for Miller’s novel. Haiman, the plaintiff who initiated the suit, was Jewish, and so was his lawyer . . . Elmer Gertz. The book’s publisher, Rosset, considered himself half Jewish. The paperback of Miller’s book contained an introduction by the poet Karl Shapiro, whose most recent collection of verse was titled Poems of a Jew. Gertz called as the first expert witness to testify on behalf of the novel . . . Richard Ellmann, son of Jewish immigrants from Romania and Ukraine. The presiding Judge, Samuel B. Epstein . . . had come to Chicago in 1911 to lead one of the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish communities.22

And so it went. With the stroke of a pen of one Jewish judge (who just so happened to be a personal friend of Barney Rosset’s father), Tropic of Cancer was cleared, against the wishes of the people of Illinois, who were represented by law enforcement officials of no less than ten different districts.23

Even the Mayor, Richard Daley, had put heavy pressure on Judge Epstein not to clear the book, but it was to no avail.24

“The day [Judge Epstein] handed down his decision,” Rosset wrote in his autobiography, “I sensed we were in the home stretch. No matter what came next, I knew Tropic of Cancer had been set free from the philistines.”25

Soon after, the Supreme Court concurred with the Chicago decision, officially clearing the book nationwide on June 22, 1964.

This resulted in the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal of another obscenity conviction, that of Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce.

Lenny Bruce and his many high profile battles with the authorities had become a counterculture cause célèbre around this time. Allen Ginsberg even formed an ‘Emergency Committee Against the Harassment of Lenny Bruce’ and circulated a petition of protest that was ultimately signed by eighty-eight public figures, about half of whom were Jews such as Bob Dylan, Norman Mailer, Alfred Kazin, Max Lerner, Lionel Trilling, Paul Newman, Woody Allen, Susan Sontag, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Howe.26

Bruce, born Alfred Leonard Schneider in 1925, had been testing the bounds of decency and shocking audiences and authorities as early as 1957, the same year as the Roth decision, with disgusting bits such as: “A kid looks up at his father and he says, ‘What’s a degenerate?’ The father says, ‘Shut up, kid, and keep sucking!’”27

On one occasion he came out on stage naked at a strip club where he was set to perform, and urinated in a hole on the stage to “protest” on behalf of strippers, who had been complaining about getting their high-heels stuck in it.28

His first obscenity arrest was at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco in 1961. He was arrested for several different bits, one where he called the audience “cocksuckers,” and another where he kept repeating “come in me, come in me, come in me,” attempting to make the point that since those three words taken individually (“come,” “in,” and “me”) are innocuous, regarding them as obscene when strung together is somehow unreasonable (such was the typical Lenny logic that many people, with a straight face, claimed was “brilliant social satire.”)

bruce2
Lenny Bruce during one of his arrests.

The case was brought before the same judge who presided over the Howl trial mentioned above, Clayton Horn, who instructed the jury so narrowly within the confines of Roth they had no choice but to find Bruce not guilty.

“We hate this verdict,” one juror told the press. “But under the instructions there was nothing we could do but give the not guilty verdict.” A second juror added: “That’s the way all of us felt, and I hope you newspaper people will report this, that we all felt the law should be tightened.”29

Ultimately Bruce was arrested at least eight times for obscenity, and many other times for drugs and other offenses. Once he was even arrested for an elaborate scam in which he posed as a priest and solicited donations for a leper colony. He made quite a habit of sabotaging his own trials though, repeatedly firing high profile lawyers and insisting on representing himself, and then acting outrageous in and out of the courtroom.

For instance, on December 16, 1964, he recited in court a bit of his about an outraged liberal who was judged unfairly by an all Black jury. For the punchline it is revealed that the liberal, who claimed to have “been since 1939 with that integration shit,” was still a racist deep down (one of Lenny’s main themes was that all Whites are inherently racist): “They gave me twenty years for raising my voice – those niggers!”

Judge Thurgood Marshall, who would go on to be the first Black to serve on the Supreme Court, was not amused. According to Jewish lawyer Martin Garbus, who was present, Judge Marshall’s “head jerked up and he nearly dropped a pen from his hand.” Bruce, seeing this reaction “stumbled, tried bravely to explain the joke, but could not. Then he knew he had lost the case and sat down.”30

On another occasion, in December of 1964, with astonishingly idiotic chutzpah, Bruce invoked the alleged eternal victimhood of the chosen ones, exclaiming to an already exasperated courtroom: “I am a Jew before this Court [and] I would like to set the record straight, that the Jew is not remorseful.”31

This latter case was the most important of all of Bruce’s trials, which taken altogether were by far the most numerous and costly in the history of American obscenity law (see footnote).32

He was convicted to four months in the workhouse, but granted a stay of execution. This gave him the opportunity to appeal, which he blundered through in his characteristically stubborn and self-defeating way and ultimately lost.

Rather than serving the four months, Lenny jumped bail, leaving New York for San Francisco, where he essentially went off the deep end. His stand-up routines were reduced to him rambling and droning on, obsessing over his court battles – generally in a drugged-out stupor – and were deemed boring and unfunny by even his staunchest defenders and fans.

High on a joint soaked in DMT in a hotel room in March of 1965, Bruce told his friend Eric Miller to spit in his face, and then stripped naked and jumped up on – and then fell through – a two-story high window, badly injuring his legs and ankles, before screaming wildly and fighting with cops and ambulance attendants.33

Eighteen months later, on August 3, 1966, he fell off the toilet onto his bathroom floor. He was naked, with a needle sticking out of his arm, dead of a morphine overdose at the age of 40.

Despite his early death, Bruce effectively paved the way for, and is considered an influence and hero by, all dirty comedians (who are all too frequently Jewish) that came after him, singlehandedly doing for comedy what the Jew Howard Stern – who needs no elaboration – did for radio, by breaking down all bounds of decency.

The Jewish owner of the Cafe Au Go Go, Howard Solomon, who had been charged along with Bruce, later had his conviction reversed on appeal, effectively exonerating Bruce posthumously. The decision cited to reverse Solomon (and by extension Bruce) was Memoirs v. Massachusetts, concerning the book Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John Cleland.

Jewish Judge Arthur Klein of the New York Supreme Court had ruled Fanny Hill not obscene in 1963, and it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fanny Hill’s significance laid in the fact that, unlike HowlLady Chatterley’s Lover, and Tropic of Cancer, it was well known that it was purely pornography, without any pretense to “artistic merit” or “redeeming social value.”

Cleland intentionally made the book salacious in order to make a quick buck, as he was facing debtor’s prison. He never denied this motive.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote in the Supreme Court’s decision of Fanny Hill that he had “’stomached’ past cases for almost 10 years without much outcry,” but “this book is too much even for me.”

Memoirs is nothing more than a series of minutely and vividly described sexual episodes.” After setting up the story for “10 pages,” he explains, the

remaining 200 pages of the book detail her initiation into various sexual experiences . . . presented to the reader through an uninterrupted succession of descriptions by Fanny . . . These scenes run the gamut of possible sexual experience such as lesbianism, female masturbation, homosexuality between young boys, the destruction of a maidenhead with consequent gory descriptions, the seduction of a young virgin boy, the flagellation of male by female, and vice versa, followed by fervid sexual engagement, and other abhorrent acts, including over two dozen separate bizarre descriptions of different sexual intercourses between male and female characters. . . .

“There can be no doubt that the whole purpose of the book is to arouse the prurient interest,” he continued, stating the obvious. “Likewise the repetition of sexual episode after episode and the candor with which they are described renders the book ‘patently offensive.’ These facts weigh heavily in any appraisal of the book’s claims to ‘redeeming social importance.’”

Justice Clark was in the minority though. The ultra-liberal Warren Court ultimately concurred with the Jew Arthur Klein, and declared the book not obscene on March 21, 1966, with a 6-3 vote. After that, all obscenity cases on appeal at the Supreme Court were summarily reversed.

Lady Chatterley’s LoverTropic of Cancer and Fanny Hill were all defended by the Jewish lawyer Charles Rembar. In his book on the trials, The End of Obscenity, Rembar wrote that the “Fanny Hill decision produced the cry, pained or joyful, as the case might be, ‘The lid is off!’”34

rembar

“[W]ith each of the books I defended,” Rembar goes on to explain, “most people who gave attention to the matter were against its publication. It cannot be stressed too often that it was the United States Constitution that saved these books, and not the will of the people.”35

And regarding the minority who agitated against “the will of the people,” with this revisionist interpretation of the Constitution, the over-representation of Jews also cannot be over-stressed, as I believe the above evidence shows.

Two other major landmark decisions on obscenity were handed down by the Supreme Court on the same day as Fanny Hill.

One was for the issue of “hardcore pornography,” with the infamous Jewish smut-peddler Eddie Mishkin (see part 2) as defendant. The other was on the issue of “pandering,” with Ralph Ginsberg, who was – believe it or not – also a Jew, as defendant.

Both were affirmed – but to little effect. The new criteria for obscenity, now the Roth-Memoirs test, was so broad that as long as one added a veneer of “redeeming social value” – be it a few quotes from Shakespeare, or whatever – they could get away with just about anything.

Or, as Jewish activist Leo Pfeffer gleefully put it in his book God, Caesar, and the Constitution, all that could be hoped to be censored now was “the hardest of the hardcore.”36 And, as we’ll see in part 8, even that would be unleashed by the end of the decade.

The veritable floodgates, for all intents and purposes, had been opened.

These decisions did not happen in a vacuum though, of course. They ran concurrent to the shifting view on sexual permissiveness being brought about by the largely Jewish-driven sexual and cultural revolution raging throughout America at that time.

This sexual and cultural revolution will be the topic of the next three parts, beginning with part 5, where we look at the Jewish intellectual movements of psychoanalysis, sexology, and the Frankfurt School, and their pseudo-scientific justifications for sexual liberation, and part 6, where we explore in depth the life and theories of the Jew Wilhelm Reich.


If you enjoyed this series, please consider tipping the author. A considerable amount of time and money was spent on writing and researching it.

You can also support this work by purchasing a print copy from Lulu.

Btc address: 14KQkvSS26QbY264yLXK586GuYZkmM7BS4

Notes

  1. Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar, and the Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation, 1974, p.315 
  2. Edward de Grazia, Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius, 1992, p.328 
  3. Christopher Turner, Adventures in the Orgasmatron: How the Sexual Revolution Came to America, 2011, p.266 
  4. Bill Morgan, The Typewriter is Holy: The Complete, Uncensored History of the Beat Generation, 2010, p.37 
  5. Ronald L.K. Collins & David M. Skover, Mania: The Story of the Outraged and Outrageous Lives That Launched a Cultural Revolution, 2013, p.226 
  6. For an abridged transcript of the trial see Lawrence Ferlinghetti and J.W. Ehrlich, Howl of the Censor, 1961 
  7. Collins & Skover, p.253-254 
  8. Loren Glass, Counterculture Colophon: Grove Press, the Evergreen Review, and the Incorporation of the Avant-Garde, 2013, p.5 
  9. Ibid., p.14-15: “Most of the key players at Grove were New York Jews. Fred Jordan, Rosset’s right-hand man throughout the 1960s, was a Holocaust survivor. . . . As the company expanded, Rosset hired more New York Jews, including Morrie Goldfischer; Nat Sobel; Herman Graf; Myron Shapiro, who ran the book club; Jules Geller, who ran the educational division; and Harry Braverman, who was a prominent editor and jack-of-all-trades at the company on and off throughout the 1960s. All of these men came from traditions of left-wing Jewish activism and cultural entrepreneurship, with many having close ties to labor groups such as the Socialist Workers Party.” 
  10. Amiri Baraka, The Dead Lecturer: Poems by Leroi Jones, 1964, p.63; “Black People,” Published in Grove Press’s Evergreen Review, 1967 
  11. Glass, p.5 
  12. Jay Gertzman, Samuel Roth: Infamous Modernist, 2013, p.265 
  13. For more on Lawrence’s political and philosophical views see here 
  14. That Jews have an “irreconcilable hatred of mankind,” was Gibbon’s exact phrasing in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume II, Chapter 16 
  15. All quotes from Jeffrey Meyers, D.H. Lawrence: A Biography, 2002, p.132-33 (emphases in original) 
  16. D.H. Lawrence, Late Essays and Articles, 2004, p. 241 
  17. Meyers, p.361 
  18. Gay Talese, Thy Neighbor’s Wife, 1981, p.114 
  19. Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer, 1934, p.5 (ellipsis in original) 
  20. Ibid. p.8 
  21. Ibid. p.11 
  22. Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews and American Culture, 2013, p.2 
  23. Glass, p.114: “Arlington Heights, Skokie, Glencoe, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Winnetka, and Evanston.” 
  24. De Grazia, p.380 
  25. Barney Rosset, My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship, 2016, p.203 
  26. David E. Kaufman, Jewhooing the Sixties: American Celebrity and Jewish Identity, 2012, p.140 
  27. Ronald L.K. Collins, The Trials of Lenny Bruce, 2002, p.49 
  28. Ibid., p.96 
  29. Ibid., p.87 
  30. De Grazia, p.452 
  31. Collins, p.299 
  32. Ibid, p.383: “The legacy of People v. Bruce is unparalleled in the history of American law. When it was over, really over, the prosecution of Lenny Bruce for misdemeanor obscenity: Involved at least eight obscenity arrests (for Bruce alone)—Entailed six trials in four cities—Took some four years and some 3,500 pages of trial transcripts—Required eight state trial judges (not including the numerous judges who heard bail matters and preliminary motions, etc.)—Involved more than a dozen state attorneys and double that number of billable-hour defense lawyers—Prompted legal actions by Bruce in federal courts in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—Consumed untold man-hours and amounts of public monies—Involved appeals and/or petitions to state high courts, federal appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court (presided over, in total, by twenty-five state and federal appellate judges, plus nine more judges in People v. Solomon)—And bankrupted Bruce, who once made nearly $200,000 a year in the early 1960s.” 
  33. De Grazia, p.475 
  34. Charles Rembar, The End of Obscenity: The Trials of Lady Chatterley, Tropic of Cancer & Fanny Hill by the Lawyer Who Defended Them, 1968, p.13 
  35. Ibid., p.174 (emphasis mine) 
  36. Pfeffer, p.312 

Bobby Fischer’s “Notes on the Jew”

Bobby Fischer is seen by many as the greatest chess player of all time. Whether that is true or not, is impossible to know. But that he is the most famous, important and influential player of all time is not even up for dispute. He captivated the world with his prodigious talent and genius, and pretty much singlehandedly put chess on the map.

The 1972 World Chess Championship, in which he defeated Boris Spassky 12½–8½, was seen as a Cold War proxy battle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which was at the time the source of the majority of the world’s most formidable players.

Fischer was only 28 years old at the time. His victory over Spassky and the Soviets, and the meteoric rise that led to it (Fischer had become both the youngest grandmaster and the youngest U.S. Chess Champion by the age of 15) was a source of great pride for our nation, and he became a national hero.

Despite his unfortunate partial Jewish heritage, Fischer also absolutely hated the Jews. He saw what they had done and were doing to the world, and was not at all ashamed or afraid to openly call them out for it, regardless of the negative consequences it brought upon him and his legacy.

Living in Brooklyn, New York, from the age of 6, Fischer had many bad experiences dealing with Jews throughout his life. The chess world was also riddled with them. According to Fischer, in a 1961 interview with Jew pornographer Ralph Ginzburg, there were “too many Jews in chess” and they had “taken away the class of the game.”

In the video above, we hear what is probably his most poignant statement against the Jews. It comes from an interview Fischer gave to Philippino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, while he was locked in jail in Japan as a political prisoner in 2005.

Here is a transcript:

A few notes on the Jew:

Jews are anti-social, destructive, intolerant, mean-spirited, deceitful, et cetera. They wish to destroy, rule and kill, rob whoever gets in their way. To facilitate them getting what they want, they have developed a perverted, unnatural, destructive, evil lifestyle.

Even though they live off the non-Jews as parasites, they still hate them and wish to destroy them. Jews hate nature and the natural order, because it’s pure and beautiful, and also because it’s bigger and stronger than they are, and they feel that they can not fully control it. Nature’s beauty and harmony stands in stark contrast to their squalidness and ugliness, and that makes them hate it all the more.

Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. The anti-human Jew hates and wants to destroy all non-Jews. He will also destroy even other Jews who are less destructive and evil than he is, if they get in his way.

Apparently, the wickedness of the Jew is genetically based. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. By the act of circumcision, the Jew shows his hatred towards nature and the natural order. By this bloody, cruel, senseless act, he shows his cruelty and sadism, and that he will stop at nothing to obtain his ends. Surely the Jews are also behind the Islamic circumcision, which serves as an ideal cover and distraction from their own wickedness in this regard.

Jews are truly anti-human and anti-nature. Jews are intensely selfish, intolerant and anti-social, et cetera. They are full of hate, greed, malice, et cetera. Naturally, other people, i.e. the non-Jews, don’t like being bulldozed aside, robbed and murdered by the Jews, and will sooner or later resist. That is where the lies and deceit of the Jews come into place.

Following this, the interviewer objects with some platitudes about “peace and unity” and everybody all getting along, to which Fischer replies “I don’t think there’ll be any peace until these Jews are dealt with Eugene – these people are animals.”

And he was absolutely right. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The Jews dismiss Fischer’s truthful anti-Semitic statements by slandering him as being nothing more than a crazy paranoiac (here is their most recent hit piece against him).

It’s true he maybe was a bit crazy and a bit paranoid at times, especially in his later years, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was spot-on about the evil and destructive nature of the Jew.

Fischer had an IQ somewhere between 180 and 187 – the kikes weren’t fooling him.

Germany denies free speech on Israel’s crimes

German police have used heavy-handed tactics against Palestine solidarity campaigners.Anne PaqActiveStills

A few years ago German police dragged me across the bare gravel, my face pushed into the cold ground.

It was fall 2015. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, had declared that Haj Amin al-Husseini, a Palestinian political and religious leader, talked Adolf Hitler into exterminating the Jews.

A group of us protested against this disgraceful and dishonest claim outside the Chancellery in Berlin. We held placards reading “Netanyahu is a Holocaust denier.”

That evening I was hospitalized due to my violent arrest.

A Palestinian from Gaza and I had been asked by the police for our identity documents immediately after the demonstration ended. Although we fully cooperated, the police resorted to brutality.

I screamed as police officers dragged me along the ground. One officer placed her feet on me. Another officer twisted my arms; it felt like he was trying to break my fingers.

Next, I was thrown into a van. A police officer mocked me in front of his colleagues. He told me – using a sexist tone – that I was a great actress and should star in movies.

An investigation soon ensued. I was accused of defaming a foreign head of government and disobeying a police officer.

Each of these charges was punishable by three years in prison.

With a sword of Damocles above my head, I had to withdraw from political activity in case it would put my doctoral studies at risk.

The charges were dropped after a few months. Yet I remained silent for most of the next two years.

Climate of intolerance

After completing my studies, I decided to resume activism. I did so against the backdrop of German politics becoming more extreme.

The most notable manifestation of this trend is how the far-right Alternative for Germany – known by its acronym AfD – has become the third largest party in the federal assembly, the Bundestag.

Amid this climate of intolerance, dissenters – and particularly those who criticize Israel – are subjected to smears and even criminalized. I learned this for myself during June 2017, when I took part in a protest at Berlin’s Humboldt University.

The protest involved disrupting a talk given by Aliza Lavie, a member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. Lavie used the occasion to engage in “pinkwashing” – presenting Israel as a haven for LGBT rights in an attempt to divert attention from its oppression of the Palestinians.

Ronnie Barkan, Majed Abusalama and I are facing a criminal trial over that protest.

The three of us have been charged with trespassing. I have also been accused of assault – though the charges do not specify who was assaulted. The trial is scheduled to open in March next year.

Our actions have attracted negative media attention accusing us of anti-Semitism. The fictitious allegation was even repeated – without providing evidence – in a report published by the Berlin Senate.

The assassination of our characters belongs to a wider pattern whereby consent is manufactured on shielding Israel from criticism. Yet the smearing of dissidents is nothing but a distraction from truths that can no longer be concealed: the crime of apartheid that Israel has practiced in a barbaric and systematic way for decades and how Germany has been complicit in that crime.

Suppressing political speech is an infringement of basic liberties. No country can genuinely claim to defend human rights if it denies freedom of thought and expression.

Curbing dissent can also have horrific ramifications as it weakens the power of campaigners and campaigning organizations to hold governments and institutions accountable.

Germany’s own experience illustrates the danger of crushing dissent.

Historians have long documented the social, economic and political factors behind why the Nazis came to power in the 1930s. Their analysis has often overlooked one important point. Fascism flourished in Germany because there wasn’t a vast resistance movement against it.

With the rise of AfD and the growing support for its racism, anti-Semitism and pro-Israel extremism, such resistance is needed once again in Germany.

Stavit Sinai is an Israeli activist. Her book Sociological Knowledge and Collective Identity will be published by Routledge in 2019.


Windows on the World: Antifa Handbook – The Protocols of Zion

Mark Windows and Tony Hurst discuss the recent targeting by Antifa of a debating group in London and the bigger picture of Antifa.

Trump: US Troops Will Stay in Middle East to Protect Israel

(MEMO— US President Donald Trump has admitted that the US only keeps its troops in the Middle East to protect Israel.

In an interview with the Washington Post yesterday, Trump explained that he would not withdraw US troops from the region because of the need to support Israel, despite the fact that other US concerns such as oil were no longer sufficient reason to remain. Trump told the Post:

Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world [the Middle East]? One reason to is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.

Trump’s comments have been interpreted as referring specifically to Saudi Arabia – one of the US’ main oil providers and increasingly an Israeli ally – with the Times of Israel suggesting the president “appear[s] to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia”.

This triangular relationship between the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia has been forefront in Trump’s decision-making in recent weeks. Last week, Trump suggested that Israel would face severe difficulties without the presence of Saudi Arabia, saying: “The fact is that Saudi Arabia is tremendously helpful in the Middle East, if we didn’t have Saudi Arabia we wouldn’t have a big base [and] Israel would be in big trouble”. Also last week, Trump thanked Saudi Arabia for lowering oil prices, stressing the US would remain a “steadfast partner” of the kingdom and not allow the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to harm US-Saudi relations or weaken Israel.

It is no secret that the US provides extensive military support to Israel. In October, the largest ever US military aid package to Israel – worth $38 billion to be delivered over a period of ten years – entered into force. US State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert explained that: “Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU], the United States will set funding for Israel at levels of $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for cooperative programmes for missile defence over each of the next ten years”.

The implementation of the MOU was intended to reflect “the enduring and unshakable commitment of the President [Trump], this Administration, and the American people to Israel’s security,” Nauert added.

The US also regularly raises money to support the Israeli army. In the past two months the Friends of the Israel Defence Force (FIDF) held two galas to raise money for the army, raising a total of $92 million across the two evenings. The first event – held in October in New York – raised $32 million and was attended by over 1,000 US business people and philanthropists, as well as key figures from the Israeli establishment. In November, a second FIDF gala held in Beverly Hills, California raised $60 million and was attended by a host of celebrities, including Ashton Kutcher, Pharrell Williams, Gerard Butler and Katharine McPhee.


This article originally appeared on Middle East Monitor


California faculty vote to suspend Israel study abroad program

A metal placard on a stone wall says "Pitzer College, established 1963."
Faculty at California’s Pitzer College have voted to suspend discriminatory study abroad in Israel programs. (Pitzer College Facebook)

In an effort to fight discrimination against their students, faculty at Pitzer College have called for the suspension of study abroad in Israel programs with the University of Haifa.

Voting by a 4-to-1 ratio in favor, faculty said the programs should be curtailed “until the Israeli state ends its restrictions on entry to Israel based on ancestry and/or political speech” and until Israel “adopts policies granting visas for exchanges to Palestinian universities on a fully equal basis as it does to Israeli universities.”

Professors also rejected their administration’s move to nullify a resolution passed by Pitzer’s student senate last year in support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights.

In what the board of trustees admitted was an unprecedented step after decades of respecting student autonomy, it had rescinded the students’ vote to suspend purchases from corporations that profit from Israel’s occupation after coming under fire from Israel lobby organizations, according to civil rights group Palestine Legal.

Pitzer is one of several campuses in the Claremont Colleges consortium in southern California.

Claremont Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) said it received the news of the two motions “with great joy.”

“The University of Haifa program is deeply problematic and it is imperative that the colleges withdraw this program from their study abroad curriculums,” the student group said.

Such study abroad programs are part of an Israeli propaganda effort “designed to give international students a ‘positive experience’ of Israel, whitewashing its occupation and denial of Palestinian rights,” according to PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

They also violate equal rights clauses because Israel regularly denies entry to persons on the basis of their Palestinian, Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim ancestry.

By encouraging Pitzer students to participate in the Israel program, “the college has been consciously supporting these discriminatory practices,” Claremont SJP noted.

Israel’s racial profiling has a “discriminatory impact on students participating in educational programs,” while the 2017 passage of its anti-BDS law “means that US students could be prohibited entry into the country for an act of political expression that is fully protected under the US Constitution,” warned the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).

The group recently launched a call to students and educators not to support or participate in Israel study abroad programs.

“Israeli universities have deep ties to Israeli military occupation and colonization throughout Palestine and are boycottable for this reason alone,” Heike Schotten, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a member of USACBI’s organizing collective, told The Electronic Intifada.

“But Israel’s racist and ideological litmus tests that determine who may – and may not – pass through Israeli-controlled borders means that any US study abroad program in Israel would subject US students to this racist and politically objectionable discrimination,” Schotten added.

“We wouldn’t allow our own students to be treated this way on our campuses. We shouldn’t allow Israel to treat our students this way in an attempt to study at theirs.”

In a statement condemning the Pitzer faculty vote, the University of Haifa alleged that its campus – which is inaccessible to the vast majority of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and from elsewhere around the world – is evidence of Israel’s “commitment to an open and inclusive society in which multiculturalism and interfaith tolerance thrive.”

The university touted the fact that 25 percent of its students are Palestinian citizens of Israel.

But it failed to note that Israel has never allowed the establishment of an Arabic-language university – forcing many Palestinian citizens of Israel who want to pursue higher education in their native language, rather than in Hebrew, to leave their homeland.

Israel supporters have slammed the faculty’s votes and are demanding that the university block implementation of the motions, claiming that they single out Israel and promote “bigotry and anti-Semitism.”

“Falling down on the job”

The move by Pitzer’s faculty to suspend programs with Israeli institutions “is particularly significant because in general, administrations are falling down on the job here,” New York University professor Andrew Ross told The Electronic Intifada. Ross is also a member of USACBI’s organizing collective.

If universities are willing to violate their own basic principles by promoting programs with Israeli institutions in which not all students can participate, Ross said, “it’s up to faculty and students to be the conscience of these institutions.”

For a smaller college like Pitzer, “it does seem possible that faculty votes have a certain amount of power and consequence. It’s not the case everywhere, but they’ve managed to prevail in the face of administrative efforts to suppress this vote,” he added.

The Pitzer faculty motions come on the heels of recent attacks on two instructors at the University of Michiganwho refused to write recommendation letters for students wishing to join study abroad programs in Israel.

Under pressure from Israel lobby groups who smeared professor John Cheney-Lippold’s refusal to write a recommendation letter as anti-Semitism, the University of Michigan took away his merit pay raise and sabbatical and charged him with interfering in the student’s request with his own “personal views and politics.”

University of Michigan graduate student instructor Lucy Peterson, who pledged to support the call to boycott Israeli institutions, also faces potential discipline for refusing to write a recommendation letter.

“The two professors at the University of Michigan began by setting us all an example of our proper conduct in relation to education abroad programs in Israel,” said David Lloyd, a professor at the University of California, Riverside.

“They refused to collaborate with them by writing letters, but there are other ways of not cooperating – including pressuring the institution not to participate in them,” Lloyd told The Electronic Intifada.

Lloyd said that his students who have traveled to Palestine for research or just to visit family have been routinely detained, interrogated and strip-searched.

He added that students understand that they can “put themselves in danger by applying to such programs, so they avoid them.”

Lloyd called the move by Pitzer’s faculty a “major advance” for the academic boycott movement.

He added, “it’s time for some of the larger academic institutions to take the right kind of ethical stand now.”

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

Study: Chinese Navy may overcome US Navy capabilities within 15 years

submarines

A new study finds that the Chinese Navy may overtake the US Navy within 15 years as global superpower.

On November 28ththe Asia Times published an article by Peter J. Brown, which mostly cites an essay written by Boston College Political Science Professor Robert Ross, an expert on Chinese defense and security policy, which appeared in the influential Lawfare blog on November 18th.

It is titled “The End of US Naval Dominance in Asia,” and claims that the US Navy is not receiving enough funding and requires more so as to secure its position as the world’s dominant naval power.

“The rapid rise of the Chinese Navy has challenged US maritime dominance throughout East Asian waters,” Ross writes. “The US, though, has not been able to fund a robust shipbuilding plan that could maintain the regional security order and compete effectively with China’s naval build-up. The resulting transformation of the balance of power has led to fundamental changes in US acquisitions and defense strategy. Nonetheless, the US has yet to come to terms with its diminished influence in East Asia.”

Ross also stated that China’s fleet will soon outnumber the US one, and it will also be more modern. “From 2017 to 2018, for example, as China’s Navy grew from 328 to 350 ships, more than 70% were of the latest designs – up from 50% in 2010, based on a RAND Corp study.

“China is the largest ship-producing country in the world and at current production rates could soon operate 400 (naval) ships. It commissions nearly three submarines each year, and in two years will have more than 70 in its fleet. The Chinese Navy also operates growing numbers of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes, all equipped with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. Between 2013 and 2016, China commissioned more than 30 modern corvettes. At current rates, China could have 430 surface ships and 100 submarines within the next 15 years,” the essay reads.

The Bohai Chinese Naval facility, displaying two JIN class submarines, taken on November 16th, 2018, courtesy of Planet Labs.

Bohai Chinese Naval facility

The Bohai Chinese Naval facility, displaying two JIN class submarines, taken on November 16th, 2018, courtesy of Planet Labs.

Ross reiterates that currently the US Navy retains its maritime superiority in East Asia, however the trend is not so optimistic. “In 12 years, the active US naval fleet will decline to 237 ships and in six years, the US submarine fleet will decline to 48 boats, according to Ross’ data.

“Both the navy and the White House have pushed to grow the US fleet, but budgets have not kept pace with their plans,” Ross writes. “In 2015, the navy planned to increase the fleet to 308 ships by 2022, and the Trump administration plans a 355-ship navy. To reach 308 ships, the navy will have to spend 36% more than the average shipbuilding budget over the past 30 years, requiring a one-third increase in its current budget.

Ross concluded that there is a necessity for a large increase in budget, however it is unlikely that one would be provided.

“If funding continues at the same average maintained for the last three decades, the US Navy will likely purchase 75 fewer ships than planned over the next three decades. To reach a fleet of 355 ships, the navy will need a budget 80% higher than the average shipbuilding budget over the past 30 years, and approximately 50% more than the average budget of the past six years,” Ross found.

Ross also focused on the apparent reluctance or maybe even inability of the US Navy to address the situation it faces. Furthermore, he claimed that strained relationships with traditional allies in East and Southeast Asia are becoming more apparent.

“Developments in the maritime balance have weakened the confidence of East Asian countries in the ability of the United States to fulfill its security commitments and they are improving security cooperation with China,” Ross said.

He also cited Seoul’s recent steps to “calm” China over the deployment of a Theater High-Altitude Terminal Air Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea.

“South Korea recently reached an agreement with China to limit missile-defense cooperation with the US and security cooperation with the US-Japan alliance.”

Furthermore, South Korea appeared to be improving its relationship with the North, with Chinese assistance and despite opposition by the US.

There appear to be signs of insecurity among the US ASEAN partners. Furthermore, ASEAN countries appear to be improving relations with Russia and China.

“The Philippines has reduced the scale of its defense cooperation with the United States and improved security ties with China. Beijing now constrains Vietnamese defense cooperation with the US, as well. And China and Malaysia have begun joint military exercises and Malaysia has not supported US policy on Chinese claims in the South China Sea,” writes Ross.

In November 2018, “the [US] Navy carried out its largest-ever exercise with Japan,” Ross says, and goes on to add a cautionary note:

“But increased up-tempo US naval presence in East Asia without the requisite underlying naval capabilities to contend with China’s rise will neither constrain China’s naval activism nor reassure US Allies.”

Meanwhile, China is working on its third aircraft carrier, in addition to unmanned radar and optical monitoring stations are being established in the South China Sea. Artificial Intelligence submarines are also in development, in addition to the unmanned missile boat which was unveiled in early November.

On November 20th, Defense One reported that Western observers likely underestimated the number of Chinese nuclear submarines in development. They have, however, overestimated how many are operational, according to an analysis by Catherine Dill and Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

It appears that only half of China’s nuclear-armed SSBNs appear to be in operation. Photos of the Bohai Shipyard and the Longpo Naval Facility produced by Planet Labs suggest that “China does not yet have a credible sea-based deterrent,” Dill said. Two of China’s four JIN (or 094)-class subs “appear to not be in operation and are undergoing maintenance or repairs at the Bohai shipyard, suggesting to us that credibility is still in question.”

That is in contrast to the Defense Department’s 2018 China Military Report and CSIS’s Chinapower group, both of which claim China had four operational 094-class submarines.

Dill and Lewish also discovered that China had one more nuclear submarine in development than was previously believed. There were three at Longpo and two at the Bohai shipyard, suggesting that China is well on its way to meeting its goal of eight.

“China is continuing to modernize its nuclear weapons program, broadly,” Dill said. “There’s a big emphasis on the SSBN program because all of their deliverable nuclear weapons are on land-based systems. Expanding into these SSBNs gives China more flexibly and credibility.”

Thus, it appears that China’s constant reported progress may actually put the country ahead, amid the US military’s constant need for more and more money for some of their “money pit” projects.


USS Chancellorsville

Beijing Sends Warships to Warn US Over Its ‘Provocation’ in S China Sea

CC BY 2.0 / Official U.S. Navy Page / USS Chancellorsville

ASIA & PACIFIC

Get short URL
5153

The warning came after the US Pacific Fleet said that its guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville had sailed near the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea to challenge what it described as Beijing’s “excessive maritime claims.”

Beijing has lodged a protest against a US navy ship sailing close to the disputed islands in the South China Sea, according to Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang.

He said that the US ship had entered Chinese waters without permission and that Beijing had made its position known with its “stern representations”.

Geng added that the Chinese military “had sent its ships to watch the US vessel and to warn it to leave the area.”

READ MORE: US Voices Opposition to China’s Military Steps in South China Sea

“Beijing urges the American side to immediately stop such provocative actions, which violate China’s sovereignty and threaten security,” he underscored.

Earlier on Friday, US Navy Commander Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the US Pacific Fleet, told CNN that the guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville “sailed near the Paracel Islands to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways, as governed by international law.

Christensen added that the Chancellorsville conducted what is referred to as a “Freedom of Navigation Operation” in the vicinity of the Paracel Islands to challenge claims made by China. He noted that the US warship was shadowed by a Chinese vessel but that all interactions were deemed safe and professional.

READ MORE: ASEAN Does Not Want South China Sea to Become Competitive Arena — Professor

“US Forces operate in the Indo-Pacific region on a daily basis, including the South China Sea. All operations are designed in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows,” Christensen stressed.

Over the past few years, Beijing has cultivated a slew of military assets in strategic areas of the South China Sea for what it calls national defence purposes.

The resource-rich sea, which is also enormously important for trade in and out of Asia, is contested by numerous southeast Asian nations, which each claim unique and frequently overlapping rights to reefs, islets and fishing waters within the area.

READ MORE: Pentagon Chief: US ‘Cannot Accept’ China’s ‘Militarization’ in South China Sea

Apart from China, the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, which are among the more frequently disputed territories, are also claimed by Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. China has exerted de facto control over the Paracels since 1974.US officials have long expressed alarm at Beijing’s construction of industrial outposts and military facilities on artificial islands in the South China Sea but have mostly limited their reaction to verbal reproach.

US Navy ships continue to carry out “freedom of navigation” operations in these areas, with US Air Force bombers sometimes conducting flyovers of the South China Sea.

US official: Military action on the table against Iran

Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:45AM [Updated: Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:50AM ]
Brian Hook, the head of the United States’ Iran Action Group, speaks to reporters at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2018. (Photo by AFP)
Brian Hook, the head of the United States’ Iran Action Group, speaks to reporters at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

The Trump administration says military action against Iran could be possible should US sanctions against the country fail to curb Tehran from threatening Washington’s interests. 

The threat by Brian Hook, the US State Department’s director of policy planning and head of Iran Action Group, on Thursday came a day after Tehran asserted that it did not seek a war with any other nation.

“We have been very clear with the Iranian regime that we will not hesitate to use military force when our interests are threatened,” Hook said.

“I think right now, while we have the military option on the table, our preference is to use all of the tools that are at our disposal diplomatically,” he said.

He was speaking at a press conference at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, DC in response to a question on possible next steps the US could take against Iran in its maximum pressure campaign against Iran.

Hook spoke at an event held to display pieces of what he claimed were Iranian weapons and military equipment handed over to the US by Saudi Arabia.

Outgoing US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley held a similar event in the same location last November, displaying what she alleged scraps of a missile given by Iran to Yemen’s Houthis.

The show drew ridicule from many observers who questioned the authenticity of the claims made by a diplomat with no knowledge of military matters.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter that Iran would not print the “Iranian Standard Institute logo” on its missiles as was the case concerning the “evidence” displayed by the US.

“Try fabricating ‘evidence’ again,” he said, pointing out that a destroyed missile would not “land fully assembled.”

On Thursday, US media questioned the timing of the event, saying it was an attempt to shift the narrative away from Saudi Arabia, which has come under intense scrutiny over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

It came as the Senate on Wednesday advanced a resolution that would end US military support for the Saudi military campaign in Yemen in a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump.

Hook tried to dispel those questions, saying there “isn’t anything tied to what’s happening in Saudi Arabia.”

He also sought to press back on criticisms that the display was a political stunt by the Trump administration that could increase tensions in the region.

“This is simply putting out in broad daylight Iran’s missiles and small arms and rockets and UAVs and drones,” he said.

On Wednesday, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei stressed that the Iranian Armed Forces have to develop their capabilities to deter any potential aggressor. The Leader, however, said the Islamic Republic is not after a war with any country.

The US has stepped up its pressure on Iran under the Trump administration. Back in May, the US left a multi-lateral nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic and imposed sanctions lifted under the agreement.

prairedog
What is Murder Inc. waiting for, The Zionist to give them the Green Light?
Iran, you know the Zionists stooges are coming, you had better be well prepared, not like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Jack Fiercevor 1 Stunde
And what interest is that? American warmongering existence!
Miriam_1> Jack Fiercevor 21 Minute
Those US interests? “The right to:- invade other peoples’ lands, commit terrorist acts, murder their citizens; the right to;- use deception (false flags/fake propaganda/fake news; the right to;- dominate the world in order to steal their resources. Principled, humanitarian nations challenging/defending those US military objectives are thus put on notice, Iran topping the list.
Bring it on you zionist coward criminal babykillers!vor 2 Stunden

Bring it on you coward zionist jews! You only attack defenseless nations, Babies, women, men without weapons. You have threatened Iran with military action since Iranian revolution 1979. You have tried to destabilize Iran internally without success. Why are you waiting? Bring it on!!!!

You have only succeeded in inslaving US and Europé! Well it is their fault, because they allowed you to do so.

US and EU are controlled by these zionist criminal baby-killers! You blamed Hitler. But you have been driven from different countries. You Think you were innocent? Why did you do to these countires that they kicked you out of their country?


Globalist Think Tank Suggests Using Engineered Event As Excuse For WAR With IRAN

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Thu Nov 29, 2018 07:04PM [Updated: Thu Nov 29, 2018 09:08PM ]
UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura attends the plenary session of Syria peace talks brokered by Iran, Russia and Turkey in Astana on November 29, 2018. (Photo by AFP)
UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura attends the plenary session of Syria peace talks brokered by Iran, Russia and Turkey in Astana on November 29, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

The guarantor states of the Astana peace process have ended their 11th round of talks in the Kazakh capital, reiterating their strong commitment to Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Iran, Russia and Syria on Thursday also rejected “all desperate attempts” by foreign-backed militant groups to undermine the sovereignty of the Syrian nation, Syria’s official news agency SANA reported.

Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar al-Ja’afari called on all foreign forces operating without the permission of Damascus to leave the Arab country.

He also accused the US, Britain, France and Turkey of illegally dispatching troops to Syria and occupying some parts of the country.

In a declaration, the participants in the Astana talks also strongly denounced militant groups for firing shells filled with chlorine gas at Syria’s northern city of Aleppo this week.

The chemical attack was launched from an area in the Idlib de-escalation zone which is controlled by the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as Nusra Front.

In the past, the United States and its allies have used chemical attacks as a pretext to carry out missile strikes against Syria.

The 11th round of talks began Wednesday, with the participation of representatives from the Damascus government and opposition as well as the three guarantor states of the Astana peace process.

The discussions mainly focused on the situation in the de-escalation zone set up in Idlib Province and the creation of a constitutional committee in the war-torn country.

The 10th round of talks within the Astana format took place in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi on July 30-31.

The Astana talks have so far resulted in the return of a succession of militant bastions to the government fold, the establishment of safe zones across Syria and the movement of civilians to those regions.

Police Disperse ‘Yellow Vests’ Protest in Brussels With Tear Gas, Water Cannons

A demonstrator gets hit by a water cannon during a protest of the yellow jackets in Brussels, Friday, Nov. 30, 2018

© AP Photo / Francisco Seco

EUROPE

Get short URL – Sputnik
126

The demonstrators in Belgium, dressed in the yellow jackets that have become a symbol of the protests in France, have gathered close to the district where the Belgian government and parliament are based.

The police have dispersed the riots that broke out in Belgium on Friday, using water cannons and tear gas.

Earlier in the day, reports stated that the groups of “yellow jacket” demonstrators, protesting against high taxes and living costs, have already disrupted traffic in Brussels.

“In connection with the rally of ‘yellow vests,’ the Rue de la Loi street (the small ring), tunnels Loi (toward the city centre) and Cinquantenaire (toward the centre) are closed to traffic,” the police of central Brussels said.

The city transport authorities also notified drivers about the disrupted traffic in the centre of the Belgian capital in light of a “spontaneous demonstration.”

READ MORE: Yellow Vests: No Coincidence Macron, Merkel and May are in Dire Straits — Journo

Local law enforcement is closely monitoring the situation, police water cannon trucks have been parked close to the site of the unrest.

Prime Minister Charles Michel has responded to the incident by saying that he wanted to negotiate with the leaders of the protest movement.

Roads have also been blocked near the city of Charleroi, 60 kilometres south of Brussels.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks with US President Donald Trump

Germany’s Former Foreign Minister Brands US ‘Rogue Superpower’

© AP Photo / Jesco Denzel/German Federal Government
EUROPE

Get short URL
3302

Former head of the German Social Democrats Sigmar Gabriel warned about “Europe’s farewell to world history” as he spoke about the challenges Germany and its EU neighbors face, addresses the bloc’s underperformance in its rivalry with China, as well as disagreements with the US.

In his interview to the German outlet Handelsblatt, ex-Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who has been recently lecturing in the US, voiced what he considered the key reason why Donald Trump and the Republicans held their positions in the recent midterm elections.

“Trump exists by keeping the country awake with his emotions every day,” Gabriel said.

According to Gabriel, the incumbent US president has prompted him to write a book, which he is now promoting. In it, he brands the US ‘a rogue superpower’, rants about the alienation of Russia from the West and addresses Chinese claims to world power. The German political heavyweight views Trump with a mixture of fascination and fright.

“That one goes right through everything that has seemed right so far. He brutally follows through on what he said he would before the election despite all theories,” Gabriel said, describing Trump’s style in the interview.

The former deputy chancellor suggested that the Democrats’ winning the majority in the house could actually play out well for Trump, who has the perfect starting position following the midterm elections and could always point to the Democrats if he fails to enforce his laws.

“He thinks only in terms of friend-or-foe, he only knows confrontation,” he said.

Gabriel stated that this approach has had an impact on US foreign policy, especially with respect to China, claiming that ‘for Trump, the world is an arena, a battleground.” He pointed out that the US had already alienated from the world to some degree under Barack Obama, and China, Turkey, Iran and Russia are trying to fill the vacuum.

“These are essentially revisionist forces that want to change the world order,” explained Gabriel, saying they strive for multilateralism rather than global treaties.

READ MORE: German Ex-Chancellor Brands US Ambassador in Berlin ‘Occupant Officer’

Gabriel called on Germany to take a sober approach to China, which he described as the only country that has a great geopolitical idea, with the Silk Road.

“I would rather blame ourselves that we have no strategy,” Gabriel said, noting that Germany and Europe were far behind China in the investment race and praising China for its artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions and plans to earmark $150 billion dollars, compared to Germany’s plan to spend three billion euros.

“We did not recognize the technological trends,” Gabriel admitted, saying that Europe has to respond to China, and that otherwise, historians would at some point look back at this time as “Europe’s farewell to world history”.

EU-US relations have been on a rocky path since Donald Trump was sworn in, as the trans-Atlantic partners have clashed on a number of issues, including the growing row over tariffs, Donald Trump’s repeated rants about insufficient military spending, the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and its intention to leave the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), as Washington has accused Russia of violating it numerous times, while Moscow rejected the allegations.

Israeli Jet Downed by Syrian air defences System – Russia/Syria

Russia/Syria: Israeli Jet Downed by Syria

Syrian air defences have downed several “hostile targets” over the country’s southern region, Syrian news agency SANA reported. A Syrian security source reported that the air defences downed an Israeli combat plane and four missiles. Israeli military has refuted the claims about the downing.

A Syrian security source reported that Syrian air defences have downed an Israeli military plane as well as four missiles over the country’s al-Kiswah area. The downed missiles have failed to reach their targets, the source added.

Later, Israeli military refuted the claims of downed plane in a statement.

​Earlier, Syrian Arab News Agency reported citing a military source that Syria’s air defence forces have intercepted several “hostile targets” over al-Kiswah and downed them.

“Our air defense systems repelled an attack by several enemy targets over the Al-Kiswah area in the south of the country and shot them down,” the Ikhbariya television said, citing a Syrian military source.

Earlier this year, Syrian Arab News Agency’s reporter said that air defences countered another “hostile target” which had breached Syrian air space west of the capital Damascus.The target back then was reportedly destroyed over Deir al-Ashair area. There were no immediate reports as to what it was.

READ MORE: Russia’s S-300 Will be Able to Close Parts of Syrian Airspace — Moscow

Previously, Syrian President Bashar Assad said that he did not exclude another US strike anytime as long as the United States continued to violate international laws, adding that Syria will continue beefing up its air defences.


The detained Ukrainian ships are delivered to the port of Kerch

Tusk ‘Sure’ EU to Roll Over Sanctions Against Russia Over Kerch Row in December

Press service of border management of FSB of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Crimea

EUROPE

Get short URL – Sputnik
Kerch Strait Row (44)
6240

The Kerch Strait incident took place on Sunday when three Ukrainian naval vessels, heading from the Black Sea to the Azov Sea, tried to pass through the strait without obtaining permission from Russia and thus illegally crossing the country’s sea border.

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Friday he was sure that the EU leaders would roll out new sanctions against Russia due to Moscow’s response to Ukraine’s naval activity in the Kerch Strait.

READ MORE: NATO to Keep Monitoring Black Sea Following Ukraine’s Kerch Strait Provocation

“The de-escalation in the Sea of Azov is a cause of a grave concern to us, and of course Russia’s use of force against Ukrainian ships is totally unacceptable… Europe is united in its support of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. And this is why I am sure that the EU will roll over the sanctions against Russia in December,” Tusk said at a press conference during G20 summit.

The statement comes after NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said that NATO will “continue to assess its presence in the Black Sea region”, where the alliance’s ships are carrying out routine patrols and drills.The NATO’s move follows the incident in the Kerch Strait, which took place last Sunday: two Ukrainian gunboats and a tugboat entered Russian territorial waters illegally as they tried to sail through a temporarily closed area in the strait. Their crews were detained by the Russian border service.

READ MORE: Pantsir-S Missile Battalion Enters Service in Crimea After Kerch Strait Incident

Commenting on the incident, Russian President Vladimir Putin described it as a provocation, which was likely related to the low approval rating of Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko ahead of the upcoming presidential election.

After the incident, the Ukrainian authorities on Monday introduced 30 day-long martial law in certain regions of the country.


US and Ukraine give Russia perfect opportunity to increase Crimea defenses

Ukraine must be desperate to pull a cheap stunt like this

2024
17

… from Press TV, Tehran

Update: Russian X-35 anti-ship missiles with 20km ranges have also been dispatched to the city of Kerch.

[ Editor’s Note: Ukraine sleepwalked into this silly game they are playing of claiming they are under imminent threat from Russia with the recent naval provocation. The GPS locations of the two parties ships were obviously recorded by everyone with the ability to do so.

The Ukrainian ships refusing to stop when ordered to do so was beyond stupid, but that said, that is what the Ukrainian leadership seems to be all about. Poroshenko is in weak shape for the coming election as the Ukie economy is down the drain with the oligarchs sucking the life blood out of the country.

Cooking up a little attention deflecting war to give the US and NATO the excuse to come in to “save” Ukraine is just another day at the office for the Unipolar crowd and its thug puppets.

On a more serious note there might be an effort in play to stretch Russia’s resources away from its Syria effort, where new generation S-57 fighter planes recently flew combat missions with report that they successfully showed they could not be detected by the US and Israeli radars. That rattled some cages.

This was just for show of course, as Moscow is not going to have enough of these planes for some time, for five years at least. But it is demonstrating its defensive capacity if forced to use it.

The US criminal involvement, with NATO and the EU, in the violent coup in Ukraine has been brushed under the rug as they expected. It might be time to rehash the whole thing and rub it in their faces to remind the public who was really responsible.

The fake story was that the “pro-Russian” former president had broken a promise to align with the West, which was a big lie of course. What he clearly wanted to do is get subsidized from both, as that was the only way for Ukraine to economically survive.

Russian had been giving Ukraine huge subsidies, including things like paying it Crimea basing rent 10 years in advances, and making sure Ukraine got a good chuck of the Russia military production budget.

Former president Victor Yanukovych wanted the West to match the Russian subsidies, but was given a choice of all or nothing. As we can see now, without the Russian subsidies Ukraine is down the tubes, and whose fault it that? Russia’s?

Do the Western spinmeisters think we are so stupid to buy that?… Jim W. Dean]

– First published … November 28, 2018 –

Russia has announced it will deploy new S-400 defense missile systems on the Crimean Peninsula amid a standoff initiated by Ukraine.

On Sunday, Russia’s naval forces intercepted and seized three Ukrainian vessels after they illegally entered Russian waters off the coast of Crimea in the Sea of Azov. The Kremlin has said the seizure of the ships was lawful because they were trespassing.

Still, that development set off an international dispute in which Kiev and its Western allies have accused Moscow of trying to assert dominion in the Sea of Azov.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has announced the application of martial law for 30 days in parts of the country following the seizure of the three vessels.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has voiced “serious concern” over Ukraine’s introduction of martial law, conveying the concern in a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Kremlin announced in a Tuesday statement.

The martial law gives Ukrainian officials the power to mobilize citizens with military experience, control the media, and impose restrictions on public rallies. That has in turn raised speculations that the tensions may spiral into an armed conflict.

In Ukraine’s east, the military has already been cracking down on ethnic Russians since 2014.

The RIA news agency reported that the new S-400 missile systems would be operational by the end of the year. Footage released on Wednesday showed the new missiles participating in drills at the Kapustin Yar test range in the Astrakhan region.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the S-400 systems practiced destroying low-flying, high-speed, highly maneuverable targets, relocation after completing combat missions, countering diversion groups, and moving through contaminated areas.

Paul Craig Roberts: Russia Is Disadvantaged by Her Belief that the West Is Governed by Law

By trusting that there is a rule of law in the West, the Russian government is digging Russia’s grave while it allows Washington’s Ukrainian Nazis to murder Russian people.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published  

on  

719 Views

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


Ukrainian military ships have violated Russian restrictions in the Sea of Azov and Articles 19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Ukrainian Navy crossed the Russian sea border and entered a closed area of Russian territorial waters. Clearly, Washington was behind this as Ukraine would not undertake such a provocation on its own. Here is an accurate explanation of the event: https://www.rt.com/news/444857-russia-ukraine-kerch-strait-standoff/

The Russian Navy detained the Ukrainian ships. Of course, the Western presstitutes, most of whom are CIA assets, will blame “Russian aggression.” Washington and its presstitutes are doing everything they can to make impossible Trump’s expressed goal of normal relations with Russia. NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu quickly aligned NATO with Ukraine: “NATO fully supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its navigation rights in its territorial waters.” https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/1066796714672222210/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1066796714672222210&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2F444853-russia-ukraine-ships-conflict%2F

The US military/security complex prefers the risk of nuclear war to any diminution of its $1,000 billion annual budget, a completely unnecessary sum that is destined to grow as the presstitutes, in line with the military/security complex, continue to demonize both Russia and Putin and to never question the obvious orchestrations that are used to portray Russia as a threat.

The Russian goverment’s response to Ukraine’s provocation and violation of law was to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, as if anything would come of this. Washington pays such a large percentage of the UN budget, that few countries will side against Washington. As President Trump’s crazed UN ambassador Nikki Haley said, “we take names.”

From all evidence, the Russian government still, despite all indications to the contrary, believes that presenting a non-threatening posture to the West, which appeals to law and not to arms, is effective in discrediting Western charges of aggression against Russia. If only it were true, but no sooner than a high Russian official announced that, despite the overwhelming elections for independence from Kiev in the breakway Russian provinces of Ukraine, Russia would not recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk than “the Ukrainian army opened massive artillery fire on Sunday, shelling residential areas of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic.” https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811261070125114-ukraine-kerch-strait-crisis-martial-law-poroshenko/

By trusting that there is a rule of law in the West, the Russian government is digging Russia’s grave while it allows Washington’s Ukrainian Nazis to murder Russian people. The Russian government is discrediting itself by trusting US vassals, such as Germany, to enforce the Minsk agreement and, despite all evidence to the contrary, believing that there is a rule of law in the West. Russia continues, year after year, to appeal to this non-existent entity called the Western Rule of Law.

This policy reassures the Zionist Neoconservatives who rule Washington’s foreign policy that Russia is incapable of defending its interests.

The Putin government seems to think that in order to prove that it is democratic, it must tolerate every Russian traitor in the name of free speech. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/25/if-the-united-states-can-arrest-julian-assange-why-cant-russia-arrest-these-real-traitors/

This makes Russia an easy mark for Washington to destabilize. We see it already in Putin’s falling approval ratings in Russia. The Russian government permits US-financed Russian newspapers and NGO organizations to beat up the Russian government on a daily basis. Decades of American propaganda have convinced many in the world that Washington’s friendship is the key to success. The Russian Atlanticist Integrationists believe that Putin stands in the way of this friendship.

China is also an easy mark. The Chinese government permits Chinese students to study in the US from whence they return brainwashed by US propaganda and become Washington’s Fifth Column in China.

It sometimes seems that Russia and China are more focused on gaining wealth than they are on national survival. It is extraordinary that these two governments are still constrained in their independence and remain dependent on the US dollar and Western financial systems for clearances of their international trade.

As Washington controls the explanations, surviving Washington’s hegemony is proving to be a challenge for both countries.


Israel’s Overlooked Strategic Losses in Wars Against Arabs

Merken

After conventional Arab armies failed to deter Israeli invasions, Lebanese and Palestinian volunteers have changed the strategic balance in the Middle East, writes As`ad AbuKhalil.

2006 Lebanese War Changed Power Calculus

By As`ad AbuKhalil
Special to Consortium News

In South Lebanon, the Museum for Resistance, also known as the Mlita Museum, for thetown in which it is located, is a wildly popular tourist attraction and a place where you can run into Arabs visiting from around the region.

In it, Hizbullah—the political party with an armed wing that, with Iranian assistance, emerged in response to the Israeli invasion of 1982—celebrates its military successes, displaying weapons captured from the occupation army and replicas of some of its military tunnels.

The museum enshrines an important realization for the country: that while conventional Arab armies failed to deter Israeli invasions, Lebanese and Palestinian volunteers succeeded in holding the mighty Israeli army at bay and have become the real defenders against Israeli attacks and occupation.  As such, the museum offers testimony to the current nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The U.S. and other Western powers want to disarm Hizbullah while denying the Lebanese Army the weapons to deter Israel.  In other words, they want to return Lebanon to its former state of weakness.

The problems this situation poses for Israel are often overlooked given its apparently clear strategic advantage.

Visitor at Lebanon’s Resistance Museum. (Mleeta.com)

Israel’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is still being protected by Western countries from scrutiny or even criticism. The Obama administration guaranteed Israel a most generous financial assistance program for the next decade. Israeli’s 100-percent occupation of Palestine remains immune from U.N. or other international condemnation. Israeli citizens’settlement building in Palestine territories—despite violating international law—has not caused a rift between Israel and either the European Union or the U.S.

Egypt, meanwhile, remains committed to the peace treaty with Israel and to security coordination with the occupation state, as does Jordan.   And Israel does not fear an assault from any Arab state or a combination of Arab states. (Arab threats—largely rhetorical—have only been intended to pacify popular anger.)

But things are not as secure for Israel as they might seem.

The Resistance Persists 

A century after the Balfour Declaration, the Arab-Israeli conflict has not ended.  Early Zionist thinkers and leaders—influenced by racist European attitudes about the natives—never considered that the Palestinians would continue to resist Zionism for so long. This in itself is a big failure for Zionism as it defies the long-held belief that force is the only language that Arabs understand. At the same time, economic offers and political ploys have not deceived the Palestinians—or Arabs—into accepting the Israeli occupation project either.

The resistance is not only tenacious, its effectiveness reached a new level in 2000. That year, after an escalating pattern of resistance operations that began in 1982—first by secular (communist and Syrian nationalist) groups and later by Hizbullah—the Israeli occupation army was forced to withdraw from South Lebanon.

Israel’s biggest strategic loss came in 2006 during the Lebanese-Israeli War, when armed groups (not part of an Arab conventional army) resisted Israeli assaults and deterred a ground offensive against Arab territory. Unless you have studied the performance of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon between 1970 and 1982, it’s difficult to fathom how seriously this changed the power calculus of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance groups vis-à-vis Israel.

But the significance of that war—and most importantly on Arab perceptions of it—was obscured by Saudi regime propaganda intent on undermining the standing of any resistance, leftist or Islamist, Sunni or Shi`ite.  The House of Saud began to promote sectarian hatred and agitation and emphasize the losses for the Arab side to downplay the precedent set by the war.  (Examples of this are so pervasive it would be unfair to single out any one broadcaster or publication.)

Lebanon’s Resistance Museum (Mleeta.com)

During the invasions of Gaza, Israel failed again to advance or even to prevent primitive Hamas rockets from firing; all claims to the (fake) successes of the Iron Dome air defense system notwithstanding.

This is a marked contrast to previous confrontations. In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon and the PLO’s resistance was disorganized and largely spontaneous.  Four years later, in the face of the 1982 massive Israel invasion, the PLO failed again to formulate a joint resistance plan. Fighting was stiff in some cases, such as at the refugee camp`Ayn Al-Hilwi and the medieval-era Beuafort castle.And later at Khaldah, on the outskirts of Beirut, the PLO did implement a defense plan for Beirut (designed by West Point graduate Abu Al-Walid), which explains why Israel never dared to invade West Beirut until after the evacuation of PLO forces from Lebanon. Overall, however, the PLO resistance record pales in comparison to that of Hamas and Hizbullah, in Gaza and South Lebanon, respectively.

Former Psychological Advantage

Israeli strategy in dealing with the Arabs was based on massive, indiscriminate use of force and the promotion of the Israeli soldier as invincible and terrifying. This produced a psychological advantage that, from 1948 to 1967, sowed fear and resignation.

More recently, however, the image of the mighty Israeli soldier and a fearful Arab resistance has been reversed.  In the 2006 war, Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon were terrified by Hizbullah fighters who prevented the enemy army from advancing one inch into Lebanese territory.  I grew up in Lebanon in the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel used to bomb and invade at will. This no longer happens because Israel has come to fear Hizbullah.

Another problem for Israel is its once-vaunted intelligence, which has developed a reputation for clumsiness. The failed raid in Gaza (by an elite unit of the Israeli occupation army) is the most recent example. In 2010, Dubai police plastered the faces of top agents of Mossad, the intelligence agency, around the world in the wake of the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a co-founder of the military wing of Hamas. Before that, in 1997, there was the botched assassination attempt on Khalid Misha`l’, the Doha-based former leader of Hamas, by Mossad agents.

In the 2006 war with Lebanon, Israel’s intelligence failures included the famous and (almost) comical kidnapping of a poor man whose only crime was that his name was Hasan Nasrallah, the same as that of the Hizbullah leader. Presumably, Mossad experts on the Arab world assumed there was only one Hasan Nasrallah in all of Lebanon.

Hizbullah and Hamas, meanwhile, have run intelligence operations that the PLO has rarely ever matched. Hizbullah’s 2012 kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is an example of careful preparations and reliable intelligence.  Hizbullah and Hamas have special operatives monitoring the communications of the Israeli military.  Hizbullah has its own Hebrew language school. PLO organizations, by contrast, had so few Hebrew speakers they often had to rely on Hebrew teachers from the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut to translate important documents.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about to end anytime soon.  Trump’s “Deal of the Century” hinges on the belief that Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman can convince the Palestinians to give up their cause.  This is a conflict that is unlikely to end in compromise, and the Israeli occupation state has made it clear that historical Palestine belongs to the Jewish people and that the Palestinians represent a mere nuisance on the land.

As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New “War on Terrorism” (2002), and The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004). He also runs the popular blog The Angry Arab News Service.

If you value this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

Please visit our Facebook page where you can join the conversation by commenting on our articles to help defeat Facebook censorship.  While you are there please like and follow us, and share this piece! 

image_pdfimage_print
1946

Tanzania Orders Destruction of Monsanto-Gates Foundation GMO Trials

Tanzanian civil society organisations (CSOs) welcome the decision of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Mathew Mtigumwe, to bring an immediate stop to all ongoing GM field trials taking place in the country.

These are under the auspices of the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project which includes Monsanto, the Gates Foundation and national research centres. This decision has since been verified by the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture, Japheth Hasunga in latest media reports.

In a report issued by the Ministry, the Permanent Secretary ordered, with immediate effect, the cessation of all field trial operations and the destruction of all “the remnants” of the trials at the Makutupora Centre in Dodoma, where trials were taking place.

This decision has come after the Tanzania Agriculture Research Institute (TARI) released the results of the trials without the necessary authorisation, when it invited certain members of the public, including the well-known pro GM lobbyist, Mark Lynas, to witness how ‘well’ the GM crops were performing. TARI also hosted a recent excursion to the trial site by the Parliamentary Committee on Food and Agriculture.

Unauthorised access to trial sites indicates collusion between biotech lobbyists and GM researchers paid by the Gates Foundation and others. Mark Lynas’s unethical social media hype uses Tanzania’s smallholder farmers in an instrumentalist way as a means to justify the introduction of GMO crops in the country, claiming that Tanzanians are poor and hungry.

The statements of the pro-GM scientists have not yet been corroborated by the Ministry of Agriculture or related institutions such as the Tanzania Official Seed Certification Institute (TOSCI).

The biotech machinery both in Tanzania and elsewhere has supported a well-funded media campaign to spread pro GM propaganda and to push for the adoption of GM maize in the country, despite the questionable benefits for smallholder farmers.

They have consistently made unsubstantiated claims about the GM varieties, including superior drought tolerance and resistance to fall army worm. In a media report ‘New push in pipeline for acceptance of GMO seed’, GMO trials were hailed as a “success” with the Director General of TARI claiming that ‘GMO seeds are a solution to the longstanding problems of pest invasions in farms across Tanzania’.

These unsubstantiated claims were made on the effectiveness of the insect resistant Bt trait -MON 810 – that was ‘donated’ to WEMA countries even though it has been phased out in South Africa due to massive and widespread insect resistance.

That the claims are unsubstantiated was confirmed by the recent decision of South African biosafety authorities to reject Monsanto’s application for commercial release of its triple stacked GM drought tolerant maize, MON 87460 x MON 89034 x NK 603.

The decision was made on the grounds that the field trial data insufficiently demonstrated the claimed drought and insect resistant efficacy of the GM event. MON 87460 is currently being field trialed in Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique where the WEMA project is also active. The decision to stop the trials is another blow to the WEMA project following so soon after the South African decision.

Farmers’ organisations including Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA), the national smallholder farmers’ organisation, other CSOs, academics from the University of Dar es Salaam and members of the scientific community and the public within and outside the country, have openly criticized the WEMA project and the GM trials taking place in Tanzania.

In a recent letter to a local newspaper, MVIWATA strongly expressed the view that “farmers have called for our government not to allow GMOs to be used in the country for obvious reasons that neither farmers nor the nation shall benefit from GMOs”.

Organisations have condemned threats by local scientists, who are paid by WEMA, to push for further revisions of the country’s biosafety regulations. The aim of proposed revisions is to change from strict liability to fault based provisions to allow the commercial release of the GM crops once the trials were completed.

Strict liability means that whoever introduces GMOs into the environment is directly legally responsible for any damage, injury or loss caused. Fault-based provisions mean that the fault or negligence of whoever introduces a GMO will first have to be proven.

According to Janet Maro from Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) “the move by the Permanent Secretary comes at a critical time when almost all media houses are publishing the pro biotech propaganda about the successes of the field trials without a shred of solid research data to back up their claims.

We call upon the Permanent Secretary to encourage researchers to carry out farmer-centered research aimed at addressing current pressing challenges and to explore using locally available solutions to ensure sustainability and wider adoption of locally researched practices and technologies.”

Dr. Richard Mbunda a food sovereignty researcher and lecturer from the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Dar es Salaam  also supported the view, recently writing an open letter to the President questioning the deployment of GM technology in the country.

Sabrina Masinjila, Tanzania-based research and advocacy officer at the African Centre for Biodiversity says:

“We hope that this decision will help the government rethink investments when it comes to agricultural research. Rather than spending huge amounts of scarce public resources on failed and discredited GM technology, we should focus on strengthening existing research institutions, and support participatory farmer research on seed systems aimed at strengthening seed, food and national sovereignty.”

Reference: Acbio.org.za


F. William Engdahl – Genetics are the New Eugenics: How GMO’s Reduce the Human Population


Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation Paperback – November 20, 2007


Agenda 21– Eugenics And Depopulation

The Agenda for the 21st Century, also known as the Millenium Project of the United Nations. You can read the document from the link below:

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

Creating a New World Order, One Region at a Time

The Deep State’s globalist plan for what insiders refer to as the “New World Order” — basically, a global government controlled by themselves — begins with submerging the sovereignty of nation-states into regional “orders.”

These are better understood as regional governments built using “free trade” deals as the foundation, with the European Union serving as the premier example. How do we know this is the plan? Because top Deep State globalists have said so publicly and repeatedly, and because that is the exact strategy being pursued openly.

All over the world, pseudo-“free trade” agreements and other sovereignty-shredding schemes are being used to transfer more and more power to transnational bureaucracies and courts.

And eventually, these regional orders will be interwoven into an overlapping patchwork of multilateral regimes on the road to creating a truly global authority, perhaps under the United Nations or some less-discredited future global body. At least, that is the glob­alist plan. But it is starting to show major cracks amid historic public backlash.

As far back as 1950, globalists had openly revealed their agenda for global government under the United Nations. In his book War or Peace, for example, global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations co-founder John Foster Dulles spelled it out clearly.

“The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” Dulles wrote.

“Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

In the same book, Dulles went on to argue that the existing UN Charter was strong enough to serve as the foundation for a world government.

“I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter,” he said.

Unfortunately for globalists, though, humanity was not yet ready to surrender its sovereignty to an all-powerful world government. Thus, regionalization.

In a 1962 report headlined “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” financed by the U.S. State Department, CFR member and longtime State Department official Lincoln Bloomfield argued that global government could be brought about via regionalism.

In the plan, he proposed that “ever larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella.” Sound familiar?

Of course, that is precisely the strategy that has been used, primarily relying on “free-trade” schemes — in addition to going to war and threatening war, other key tactics highlighted in the Bloomfield report.

By 1974, almost a quarter of a century after CFR founder Dulles wrote his infamous book, the globalist organization’s mouthpiece, the magazine dubbed Foreign Affairs, was telegraphing its strategy of globalism via incrementalism to globalist insiders and useful idiots everywhere.

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down,” wrote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard N. Gardner in April of 1974. “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

In short, globalists recognized the reality that people were not willing to relinquish control over their own nations and their own destinies all at once. Instead, the plan would have to be pursued slowly, quietly, and deceptively.

And so, piece by piece, sovereignty was eroded using tools such as “free trade,” international agreements, regional military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and more. Central to the plot was convincing nations and peoples to surrender sovereignty not to some global government-in-waiting right away, but to regional organizations.

Consider former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a longtime CFR member and one of the key figures behind globalist mastermind David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

In 1995, speaking at former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev’s “State of the World Forum,” attended by The New American magazine’s senior editor William F. Jasper, Brzezinski outlined the plan clearly, perhaps assuming he was speaking just to fellow globalists and friends.

“We cannot leap into world government in one quick step,” he said. “In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”

Also in 1995, the UN-created “Commission on Global Governance” — yes, it really was called the “Commission on Global Governance” — outlined precisely the same strategy in its “Our Global Neighborhood” report.

“The UN must gear itself for a time when regionalism becomes more ascendant worldwide and assist the process in advance of that time,” wrote the globalists on the UN commission, foreshadowing the strategy that was about to go into overdrive.

“Regional co-operation and integration should be seen as an important and integral part of a balanced system of global governance.”

Regional Governments Everywhere

This regionalization and “integration” as a steppingstone toward globalization of political and economic power is exactly what is happening worldwide.

Here are some of the more prominent examples — it is in no way an exhaustive list:

• European Union: The EU is by far the most developed supranational regime in the world, with former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev approvingly describing it as “the new European Soviet” during a 2000 visit to Britain.

Originally, it started as a “Coal and Steel” agreement between six nations after World War II. With key support of Deep State institutions such as Bilderberg, the CFR, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and more, it gradually usurped more and more power under the guise of “free trade.”

Over the decades, it morphed into the European Economic Community, the European Community, and finally, the European Union. By 2012, then-EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso, a former Maoist revolutionary, was boasting of the machinations that The New American had been warning of for decades, a plot that globalists had generally denied as the EU was forming.

“We will need to move toward a federation,” he said. “This is our political horizon.”

Today, the EU has a single currency, a law-enforcement agency, a proto-continental military, and much more. Brussels, where the monster is headquartered, has stolen more power than even the U.S. federal government has taken from U.S. states in some areas, purporting to have the authority to veto national budgets passed by member states’ elected parliaments.

Despite being opposed by citizens in referendums at virtually every turn, the EU is still working to become “deeper” by usurping more power, and “wider” by adding more and more members. It is also working to export its globalist model of total centralized power to other regions of the world.

• African Union: The AU is another one of the more advanced regional unions smashing national sovereignty and imposing unelected, supranational rulers on diverse peoples. Already, the AU has a “Parliament,” a military, a “Court of Justice,” and more.

It is working on a continental currency, too. Because Africa is so vast and undeveloped, the globalist overlords are actually using the same plan they are pursuing at the global level to subsume nation-states, but on a continental scale.

Consider the emerging “Tripartite Free Trade Area.” Under the plan, various “free trade” areas on the African continent are to eventually be merged into a single, continent-wide “free trade” regime with open borders from Cape Town to Cairo, and a single African passport.

For a sneak preview of the future under this regional regime, consider that genocidal Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe was made chairman of the AU before being overthrown by his own military.

And of course, it is an undisputed fact that outsiders — primarily the U.S. government, the EU, and the dictatorship enslaving China — are funding and imposing the AU on Africans. Beijing built the AU headquarters. The EU, meanwhile, funds more than 80 percent of the AU’s program budget.

• Union of South American States: In South America, globalists and communists have foisted on the peoples an emerging superstate known as UNASUL or UNASUR, depending on the language.

Inspired by the EU, the forces behind this sovereignty-shredding scheme envision a United States of South America, complete with a South American military, currency, parliament, and more.

Until recent disagreements over the brutal socialist dictatorship enslaving Venezuela caused some member states to temporarily suspend their participation, the socialist- and communist-dominated supranational body was quickly usurping a vast array of powers from member states.

And as is the case in other parts of the world being subsumed under regional governments, UNASUL / UNASUR is merely one of a vast constellation of supranational institutions in Latin America working to “integrate” the formerly sovereign nation-states into a “regional order,” to be followed by the “world order.”

Others include MERCOSUR, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), and many others.

• Eurasian Union: In “Eurasia,” Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is spearheading the creation of what is currently known as the Eurasian Economic Union, or EEU. It brings together Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan, with other countries being inducted.

Eventually, they hope to expand the union to include other former Soviet states, particularly from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

“It took Europe 40 years to move from the European Coal and Steel Community to the full European Union,” Putin observed in an op-ed for Izvestia, adding that the Eurasian Union is “proceeding at a much faster pace because we could draw on the experience of the EU and other regional associations.”

The harmonized Eurasian regulatory regime is “in most cases consistent with European standards,” he added, noting that it was “based on World Trade Organization principles,” while promising that the union would “help ensure global sustainable development.”

Putin noted that eventually, the EU and the Eurasian Union could create a “harmonized community of economies stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a free trade zone and even employing more sophisticated integration patterns” that would pursue “coordinated policies in industry, technology, the energy sector, education, science, and also to eventually scrap visas.”

Ultimately, “existing regional institutions, such as the EU, NAFTA, APEC, ASEAN inter alia,” would become “the integration bricks that can be used to build a more sustainable global economy.” Top EU leaders have echoed that rhetoric exactly. Note the reference to NAFTA, too.

Around the world, there is a dizzying array of other “integration” schemes working to amalgamate once-sovereign nation-states into regional unions. For instance, in the Middle East, the already functioning Gulf Cooperation Council is becoming a supranational regime over the nations of the Arabian Peninsula.

Meanwhile, globalists from the CFR and beyond are working to put the entire region under what they tout as a “Middle East Union.”

“Just as a warring [European] continent found peace through unity by creating what became the EU, Arabs, Turks, Kurds and other groups in the region could find relative peace in ever closer union,” claimed Mohamed “Ed” Husain, an “adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies” at the CFR, in a 2014 piece published in the Financial Times.

In South East Asia, the “Association of South East Asian Nations,” more commonly known as ASEAN, is doing the same.

In North America, globalist architect Henry “New World Order” Kissinger described NAFTA, which set up international tribunals and bureaucracies, as “the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War.”

Worldwide Deception

There is no populated region on Earth not being subsumed under regional government right now. Obviously, the notion that people all around the world just woke up one day seeking to surrender sovereignty to a regional government is ludicrous. It was all by design, of course. But all along, those responsible were deceiving the public.

For instance, while shackling the United Kingdom to the emerging European superstate, then-British Prime Minister Edward Heath blatantly lied.

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty,” Heath said in a January 1973 prime ministerial TV broadcast. “These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Of course, not only were those concerns completely justified, they underestimated the subversion of sovereignty that would be taking place.

By 2016, the British people had wised up, with more people voting to secede from the EU with Brexit than have ever voted for anything in U.K. history. Globalists are now doing everything possible to overturn the vote, again using deception.

Almost three decades after Heath’s lies, in a July 13, 2000 interview with the newspaper La Stampa, then-Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato outlined the strategy of deception.

“The Union is the vanguard of this changing world: it indicates a future of princes without sovereignty,” he said.

“The new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected…. That is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they were being subjected to a higher power….

“I don’t think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method — which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power — with great institutional leaps. Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up little by little, avoiding brusque transitions from national to [EU] federal power.”

Must-read: The Complete History of the Freemasonry and the Creation of the New World Order

Global Merger of Regions

Globalists have been getting bolder in recent years, speaking openly of their machinations and intentions. For instance, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissingeroutlined the same plot to advance globalism as his co-conspirator Brzezinski did two decades earlier at Gorbachev’s confab, just more openly.

“The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” Kissinger explained in an excerpt from his book World Order that appeared on August 29, 2014, under the headline “Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order” in the Wall Street Journal.

Calling for a “structure of international rules and norms” that is “fostered as a matter of common conviction,” he praised, in particular, developments on the other side of the Atlantic.

“Europe has set out to transcend the state,” Kissinger said. Despite the use of opaque and sterile language, it is clear that Kissinger was calling for the world’s nations and peoples to be divided up into “regional orders” as a prelude to the “New World Order” finale.

And as the EU works to transcend the nation-state at home, it is working simultaneously to do the same worldwide, including in North America. In a revealing document released in June 2016, the EU actually vowed to “support cooperative regional orders worldwide,” including in the Americas, while touting global governance composed of regional governments based on a “strong UN.”

“We will invest in regional orders, and in cooperation among and within regions,” the superstate declared in its “Global Strategy” document, echoing almost precisely the schemes outlined by Kissinger in his book World Order. “And we will promote reformed global governance…. The EU will strive for a strong UN as the bedrock of the multilateral rules-based order.”

Ironically, the EU document acknowledges that people are upset with the globalist agenda. Indeed, the EU “Global Strategy” document was released just five days after Brexit sent shock waves through the globalist movement worldwide.

But the official document goes on to suggest that surreptitiously undermining self-government around the world to build regional governments is all for the good of humanity, and so it must be pursued anyway.

“In a world caught between global pressures and local pushback, regional dynamics come to the fore,” the document argued.

“Voluntary forms of regional governance offer states and peoples the opportunity to better manage security concerns, reap the economic gains of globalization, express more fully cultures and identities, and project influence in world affairs.”

Eventually, as Kissinger and others explained, after these regional governments are in full control, the plan is to begin merging them with each other in overlapping regional governments, again using “trade” as the pretext.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, for example, was aimed at bringing the EU and North America together under transatlantic bureaucracies, a longtime globalist goal that has been worked on for generations. This transatlantic union would then create regulations and supranational kangaroo courts over more than half of global GDP.

On the other side of the United States, the Trans-Pacific Partnership did virtually the same thing. Taken together, the supranational regulatory regime that would emerge from the “trade” regimes would govern virtually the entire global economy, with even nations that were not technically under its thumb being forced to submit just to continue participating in trade.

If the American people do not actively oppose these plans en masse, the result will be the end of self-government, liberty, prosperity, and Western Christian civilization.

This article originally appeared in the November 19, 2018 print edition of The New American. The New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology.


George Soros Felt No Guilt When Nazi’s Took Jews In Homeland


Soros’ “Open Society” Driven Out of Turkey Amid Probe Into Terrorism Ties

Six month after Hungarian PresidentViktor Orban succeeded in driving his former mentor, and current nemesisGeorge Soros out of Hungary, the Hungarian-born billionaire financier and his “Open Society” Foundation that has financed an army of liberal NGOs across Europe and the US has been driven out of yet another country.

by Tyler Durden

According to the Guardian, Soros’ Open Society Foundation is formally withdrawing from Turkey after the founder of its Turkey organization was arrested and charged with supporting an opposition figure accused of trying to overthrow the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The organization announced its decision to withdraw from Turkey amid an interior ministry investigation seeking to uncover links between the organization and protests at Gezi Park in Istanbul in 2013.

One of the founders of the Turkish OS branch, Hakan Altinay, was arrested along with 12 others two weeks ago and accused of supporting jailed Osman Kavala, an opposition activist accused of trying to overthrow the Hungarian government with mass protests.

Kavala has been accused of supporting terrorism within Turkey, and Open Society has been accused of supporting Kavala.

Back in May, OS closed its Budapest Office and moved its operations to Berlin after the country passed an “Stop Soros” law aimed at making it more difficult for foreign NGOs to operate in the country.

In a speech last week, Erdogan accused Soros of trying to sow instability and discord in Turkish society, and of organizing destabilizing protests.

“One of its founders in Turkey, Hakan Altinay, was among 13 people detained 10 days ago. They were accused of supporting jailed rights activist Osman Kavala in trying to overthrow the government through mass protests.

In a speech last week, Erdoğan linked those arrests to Soros.

The person [Kavala] who financed terrorists during the Gezi incidents is already in prison,” he told a meeting of local administrators.

And who is behind him? The famous Hungarian Jew Soros. This is a man who assigns people to divide nations and shatter them. He has so much money and he spends it this way.”

Though it denied links to the protests, Open Society told the Guardian that it would nevertheless seek to close its office in Istanbul and liquidate its Turkish operations as swiftly as possible. The organization added that it was unsure whether it will be able to continue its Turkish operations.

The foundation said that ‘new investigations’ were trying to link it to the Gezi protests. “These efforts are not new and they are outside reality,” it said

“The foundation said it would apply for the legal liquidation of its operations as soon as possible.”

According to the New York Times, a representative for Open Society said maintaining the organization’s operations in Istanbul had become “completely untenable.”

“We are deeply dismayed and disappointed that the foundation had to close,” an Open Society spokeswoman, Laura Silber, said on Monday. But, she said, “it became completely untenable.”

Open Society purports to support “justice and human rights” in more than 100 countries; but in more recent years, it has primarily focused on Soros’ liberal agenda of open borders and free trade while resisting the wave of populist sentiment that has swept across Europe and the US.

Trump calls Federal Reserve ‘much bigger problem than China’

ed note–2 items worth noting here–

1. Please, all of you out there holding proud membership in the ‘Trump is owned by D’Jooz’ brigade, please list for all of us the last time a president highlighted the ‘money power’ which Judea, Inc uses in blackmailing and keeping in line all Western governments.

Ok, since you are obviously stumped, we’ll answer it for you–JFK.

Now, for all of you out there proudly holding membership in that aforementioned elite brigade whose response to this will invariably and inevitably be some version of–

‘WELL, IF HE WERE A TRUE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, HE WOULD HAVE ABOLISHED THE FEDERAL RESERVE ON HIS VERY FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, AS WELL AS REVEALING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT ISRAEL WAS THE ONE WHO PULLED OFF 9/11…’

Oh, if only life were that simple, but the ugly truth of it all is that it isn’t.

Trump knows who his audience is and just how under the spell they are on a wide variety of subjects and what an utter disaster would ensue were he to do anything of the sort listed above, so please, just put a lid on it.

2. As pertains his obvious antagonism with the FR, (which he has expressed on many occasions since being elected) it should be remembered that it was precisely a sluggish economy that Judea, Inc first created and then utilized in making sure that George H.W. Bush did not get re-elected after he held up $10 billion in loan guarantees to the Jooish state until they agreed to come to the negotiating table with the Palestinians for a ‘peace deal’, and therefore all can rest assured that similar maneuvers and machinations are taking place at this very moment in trying to turn the American people against another president who has made the same ‘peace deal’ one of his top priorities.

cleveland19.com

President Donald Trump says he thinks the Federal Reserve’s policies are a greater threat to U.S. economic growth than a burgeoning trade war with China.

Trump told The Washington Post on Tuesday: “I think the Fed is a much bigger problem than China.”

Trump adds that he is “not even a little bit happy” with Fed Chairman Jay Powell, whom he selected last year.

The Fed has raised interest rates steadily under Powell’s leadership as the central bank has tried to balance promoting maximum employment with controlling inflation. Those decisions have drawn rebukes from Trump, who wants the Fed to focus on economic growth.

Trump says: “They’re making a mistake because I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.”

Congressman Nadler Could Run Impeachment against Trump in House as Jewish Democrats Sweep Top Committees

Several other Jewish members of Congress are expected to take over key committees such as foreign affairs and the panel that allocates spending

ed note–Well, what can we say other than a hearty round of applause to all those holding membership in ‘duh muuvmnt’ and who–in whatever capacity–helped in securing yesterday’s Election Day victory for Judea, Inc and her plans of removing a President–just as she did with Kennedy–who was serious in coming to some sort of resolution to the ticking time bomb that is about to explode in EVERYONE’S face.

From those in the pro-Palestinian identity politics corner and all the memes they sent out showing Trump and Netanyahu tongue-kissing each other, to the idiot white nationalists and all their bullshit in Charlottesville, to the ‘Trump is owned by dJooz’ brigade who scurry from website to website in the alternative media leaving their stupid commentary like rodents leaving little pellets, to–last but certainly not least–the 2 morons who helped push Trump’s enemies across the finish line yesterday with all the political violence taking place just prior to election day–congratulations for all you contributed in helping the enemies which you claim to oppose in winning a major victory.

Now, for those who don’t get it–in much the same manner as the idiots making up the ‘Sandy Hook was a hoax brigade’ who absolutely refused to see how they were being played, we’ll spell it out for you–

Just as we predicted a year ago with the removal of John Conyers as the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and his replacement with the very Pro-Israel and VERY Jewish Jerold Nadler, Israel was setting the stage for a Democrat takeover of the HoR in 2018 so that a very pro-Israel Jew would be moved into the Chair so that WHEN Impeachment proceedings against Trump took place, that all those ‘in the know’ would understand that this was Israel overseeing the entire thing, just as it was Israel who oversaw the Impeachment process against Bill Clinton as payback for his own ‘peace deal’ with the Palestinians.

But it is not just limited to Nadler taking over Judiciary, as it is also expected that these same very pro-Israel Jews are also expected to take over the Foreign Affairs Committee (which will have oversight vis a vis Trump’s planned ‘utimate peace deal’ in the Middle East as well as all other areas of his foreign policy) and the Ways and Means Committee from which all spending bills originate, which means that Trump’s entire agenda–foreign and domestic–can be held hostage simply by strangling the funding process of what it is he intends to do.

No one should mistake for a moment what kind of celebrating is taking place at this very moment behind closed doors in places such as Netanyahu’s office, the Knesset, AIPAC, etc.

In fact, as far as Israel and the war party is concerned, the only thing missing in all of this are the 5 dancing Israelis.

The Jewish Daily Forward

With Democrats grabbing control of the House of Representatives, Jewish Rep. Jerry Nadler will become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee – and could preside over impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.

Several other Jewish members of Congress are expected to take over key committees such as foreign affairs and the panel that allocates spending.

Democrats rode a big #BlueWave to victory in the House, even as Republicans picked up seats in the Senate.

It’s unclear whether Democrats are going to have the political stomach to mount the divisive fight of pushing for impeachment, especially with little or no chance of unseating him with a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Nadler has been highly critical of the conduct of Trump and his staff (including senior advisor/son-in-law Jared Kushner). But last year, he urged Democrats last year to hold off the impeachment process.

Nadler told Politico last year that those pushing for expelling Trump need to make sure they persuade at least some of his supporters.

“If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election,” Nadler said. “It’s OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that – as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president’s former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it’s necessary.”

But by May, Nadler said that Trump was starting to act guilty. He told WNYC that the president’s criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller were “another act in an ongoing obstruction of justice. It’s not only an intimidation, but this is going off on a complete tangent.”

A number of members of Congress have already filed articles of impeachment against Trump. The first to do so was Rep. Brad Sherman, who represents Los Angeles areas like Sherman Oaks and Northridge.

In addition to Nadler’s promotion, there are several other Jewish Democratic members of Congress who will also rise to control important committees.

Prominent Trump critic Adam Schiff, also from Southern California, will run the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Nita Lowey of New York’s Rockland County will chair the Appropriations Committee, the powerful body that regulates where and how government money is spent; Elliot Engel of the Bronx and Westchester County will control the Foreign Relations Committee; John Yarmuth of Kentucky will take charge of the Budget Committee; and Ted Deutch of South Florida will lead the Ethics Committee.

Holy Land – Israeli settlers, with IDF complicity, have destroyed 800,000 olive trees since 1967

Israeli settlers, with IDF complicity, have destroyed 800,000 olive trees since 1967

An olive tree uprooted in the village of Mreir, October 14, 2018. Credit: Abdullah Na’asan

Palestinians who rely on olive harvests for their livelihood have been terrorized by Israeli settlers since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. Settlers – often guarded or assisted by Israeli military – destroy trees and equipment, steal large quantities of olives, kill livestock, and attack Palestinian farmers. 
In the ongoing travesty of justice, some olive groves are only accessible to their Palestinian owners for a few days a year; swaths of farmland has been appropriated by Israel for settlement expansion or military use. 

from IMEMC

Israeli settlers uprooted dozens of olive trees, on Saturday, near Turmusayya village, northeast of the central occupied West Bank district of Ramallah.

According to local sources, Israeli settlers under the protection of Israeli forces stormed the area and uprooted dozens of Palestinian-owned olive trees.

Sources added that following the uprooting, Israeli forces arrived to the area and claimed that they opened an investigation regarding the incident, despite the presence and testimonies of the locals and owners of the uprooted trees.

Israeli settlers constantly harass Palestinian farmers and residents in the village, in attempt to force them out of their lands, as part of an Israeli plan to expand illegal settlements nearby.

For hundreds of Palestinian families, olive trees are the main source of income, however when harvest season approaches, Israeli settlers target Palestinian lands and cause severe economic damages.

According to a report by Israeli NGO B’Tselem, Israeli settlers’ vandalism in the occupied West Bank is a daily routine and is fully backed by Israeli authorities.

B’Tselem reported that “In just over two months, from the beginning of May to 7 July 2018, B’Tselem documented 10 instances in which settlers destroyed a total of more than 2,000 trees and grapevines and burned down a barley field and bales of hay.”

B’Tselem also argued that under the guise of a “temporary military occupation,” Israel has been “using the land as its own: robbing land, exploiting the area’s natural resources for its own benefit and establishing permanent settlements,” estimating that Israel had dispossessed Palestinians from some 200,000 hectares (494,211 acres) of lands in the occupied Palestinian territory over the years.

Between 500,000 and 600,000 Israelis live in Jewish-only settlements across occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank in violation of international law, with recent announcements of settlement expansion provoking condemnation from the international community.


RELATED READING: 

Palestine: Jewish Settlers Torch 100 of World’s Oldest Olive Trees

Breaking the Silence about Israel’s occupation of Hebron

IMEMC reports: Israelis abduct, injure, attack Palestinians in West Bank & Gaza

IMEMC reports: Israelis abduct, injure, attack Palestinians in West Bank & Gaza

Photo of Israeli occupation soldiers beating a Palestinian man in Hebron in the West Bank, Sept. 2016. Soldiers frequently beat prisoners when they “arrest” them. The West Bank is in the Palestinian Occupied Territories; it is not part of Israel.

Recent news reports from the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC):

 

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Twelve Palestinians In Tulkarem

Dozens of Israeli soldiers invaded, on Wednesday at dawn, Shweika area, north of the northern West Bank city of Tulkarem, searched and ransacked dozens of homes, and abducted twelve Palestinian, including one woman, and siblings, in addition to interrogating many Palestinians. Eyewitnesses said many armored military vehicles surrounded the area, […]

 October 10, 2018 9:35 AM  IMEMC News Israeli attacksNews ReportTulkaremWest Bank 0

Israeli Soldiers, Police Harass Olive Pickers in As-Sawiya Village

10/07/18 | International Solidarity Movement | As-Sawiya Village A group of Israeli soldiers, one Israeli policeman, and one Israeli settler harassed a group of Palestinian and international olive pickers in As-Sawiya village yesterday, demanding identification and threatening to expel the harvesters from the area. Soon after the group began work, […]

 October 10, 2018 8:55 AM  IMEMC News & Agencies Israeli SettlementNews ReportRefugees/ImmigrationWest Bank 0

Adnan Continues Hunger Strike for 37th Day

Leader of the Islamic Jihad movement, Khader Adnan, from the town of Arraba, in the Jenin district of the northern occupied West Bank, has continued his open hunger strike for 37 days in a row, in protest of his illegal and arbitrary detention. According to the Mohjat al-Quds Foundation for […]

 October 10, 2018 8:47 AM  IMEMC News & Agencies Israel,News ReportPrisoners 0

Erdan: US Student Will Be Released If She Condemns BDS

Israeli minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan, on Tuesday, said he would reconsider his official stance on denying entry to an American student over alleged links to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement if she publicly condemned a boycott of Israel. Last week, Lara Alqasem was barred from entering the country […]

 October 10, 2018 7:54 AM  IMEMC News & Agencies Boycott MovementInternationalIsraelIsraeli PoliticsNews Report,Refugees/Immigration 0

Army Injures Five Palestinians In Gaza

Israeli soldiers shot, Tuesday, five Palestinians with live fire, and caused scores to suffer the effects of teargas inhalation, east of Deir al-Balah, in central Gaza. Medical sources said the soldiers resorted to the excessive use of force against the nonviolent protesters, on Palestinian lands near the perimeter fence, east […]

 October 10, 2018 3:43 AM  IMEMC News Deir al-BalahGaza StripIsraeli attacksNews ReportRefugees/Immigration 0

Israeli Colonists Attack Palestinians Picking Olive Trees Near Nablus

A group of extremist illegal Israeli colonists attacked, Tuesday, many Palestinians while picking their olive trees, in the area between Talfit and Qaryout villages, south of the northern West Bank city of Nablus. Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian official who monitors Israel’s illegal colonialist activities, said dozens of extremist colonists invaded […]

 October 9, 2018 3:19 PM  IMEMC News Israeli attacksIsraeli SettlementNablusNews ReportWest Bank 0

Israeli Colonists Uproot 39 Trees Near Salfit

A group of illegal Israeli colonist settlers invaded, on Tuesday morning, Palestinian agricultural lands in Bruqin village, west of Salfit in northeastern West Bank, and uprooted 39 olive and almond trees owned by a Palestinian farmer. Bashir Salama, the head of Bruqin Local Council, said the Israeli assailants invaded lands, […]

 October 9, 2018 2:31 PM  IMEMC News Israeli attacksIsraeli SettlementNews ReportSalfitWest Bank 0

Army Demolishes Two Rooms, Confiscates Solar Panels Donated By EU

Israeli soldiers demolished, Tuesday, two residential rooms, and confiscated solar panels, in Masafer Yatta area, south of Hebron, in the southern part of the occupied West Bank. Rateb Jabour, the coordinator of the Popular Committee against the Annexation Wall and Colonies in southern Hebron, said the soldiers invaded the al-Halawa […]

 October 9, 2018 2:04 PM  IMEMC News HebronIsraeli attacks,Israeli SettlementNews ReportWest Bank 0

Israeli Soldiers Invade UNRWA Clinic In Jerusalem After Announcing Takeover

Israeli soldiers and employees of the Israeli Health Ministry invaded, Monday, a clinic run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Sahera Gate area, in the Old City of occupied East Jerusalem. Eyewitnesses said the soldiers and health department employees invaded the clinic, and attempted to […]

 October 9, 2018 12:46 PM  IMEMC News Israeli attacksIsraeli PoliticsJerusalemNews ReportRefugees/ImmigrationWest Bank 0

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Thirteen Palestinians In West Bank

Israeli soldiers abducted, overnight until morning hours, Tuesday, thirteen Palestinians, including five women, and one child, during extensive and violent searches of homes, in several parts of the occupied West Bank. The PPS office in Tulkarem, in northern West Bank, said the soldiers abducted Abdul-Rahman Mazen Abdo, 20, and Yousef […]

 October 9, 2018 12:33 PM  IMEMC News BethlehemHebron,Israeli attacksJeninNablusNews ReportTulkaremWest Bank 0

Israeli Navy, Soldiers, Injure 29 Palestinians Near Gaza Shore

Israeli soldiers and the navy shot and injured, Monday, 29 Palestinians during a nonviolent flotilla procession from Gaza city shore towards the shore in northern Gaza, close to the Zikim Israeli controlled shore. Medical sources said the soldiers injured 29 Palestinians, including 11 with live fire, after the army fired […]

 October 9, 2018 9:58 AM  IMEMC News Beit HanounDeir al-BalahGaza CityGaza StripIsraeli attacksKhan YounisNews Report,RafahRefugees/Immigration 0

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Family Members Of Burkan Shooter

Israeli soldiers abducted, on Tuesday at dawn, the mother and two sisters of Ashraf Na’alwa, the Palestinian who fatally shot two Israeli settlers, and wounded a third, in the Industrial Zone of Barkan colony, which was illegally built on Palestinian lands in Salfit governorate, in the West Bank. The army […]

ADL’s letter to Airbnb fails to make a compelling argument

ADL’s letter to Airbnb fails to make a compelling argument

In a letter to Airbnb, ADL raises questions about the company’s recent decision to not list rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Airbnb is doing the right thing by de-listing properties in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Anti-Defamation League is pushing back – but its arguments fail to hold up to even the mildest scrutiny.

by Kathryn Shihadah

Brian Chesky
Chief Executive Officer
Airbnb, Inc.
888 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA

ADL says: Dear Brian:

For the past several years, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement has worked around the world to isolate and delegitimize the state of Israel. The predominant drive of the BDS campaign and its leadership is not criticism of policies, but the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

FALSE. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, in its own words, “works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.” BDS criticizes those Israeli policies that contravene international law.

ADL says: BDS campaigns promote a biased and simplistic approach to the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and present this dispute over territorial and nationalist claims as the fault of only one party: Israel.

The BDS campaign addresses fundamental human rights abuses by Israel that began with the appropriation of land, and continue today with occupation, blockade, home demolitions, and more. Palestinian actions against Israel are resistance against these abuses. 
The BDS movement rejects “the false impression of symmetry between the colonizer and the colonized…or that holds Palestinians, the oppressed, and Israel, the oppressor, as both equally responsible for ‘the conflict.’”

ADL says: The BDS campaign does not support Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, and rejects a two-state solution to the conflict.

INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING. The BDS movement “does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a ‘one state solution’ or a ‘two state solution.’ Instead, BDS focuses on the realization of basic rights and the implementation of international law.”
BDS supports efforts toward a just peace, which by definition requires an end to Israeli injustice. ​

ADL says: Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns – are anti-Semitic.

FALSE. The BDS movement “stands for freedom, justice and equality. Anchored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the BDS movement, led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee, is inclusive and categorically opposes as a matter of principle all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-semitism.
Also keep in mind, Airbnb still welcomes Jewish hosts in Israel, and Jewish customers from anywhere in the world. 

ADL says: Many individuals involved in the starting and running of BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. And, all too often, BDS advocates employ anti-Semitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel.

FALSE. The allegation of “anti-Semitic rhetoric and narratives” is unsupportable, except when “anti-Semitism” is defined as “criticism of Israel,” which is an unjust and dangerous constraint.
Supporters of BDS seek an end to the apartheid, oppressive policies that currently define Israel and the creation of a system with self-determination and justice for all.
The BDS movement does not boycott or campaign against any individual or group simply because they are Israeli.

ADL says: That is why we were dismayed to read about Airbnb’s recent announcement to not list rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. With this decision, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and its supporters will be further emboldened and view it as a victory for their hateful campaign against Israel.

HALF RIGHT. BDS supporters are indeed invigorated by Airbnb’s decision; however the BDS campaign is not “hateful,” only justice-minded.

ADL says: Also, as best as we can tell, Airbnb has not de-listed rentals in any other disputed areas. Your website currently lists properties in Northern Cyprus, Tibet, the Western Saharan region, and other territories where people have been displaced. Yet only Israeli settlements are being singled out for de-listing by Airbnb, a decision which many see as a double standard set by your company. Make no mistake: double standards when it comes to Israel cause us great concern.

“Disputed areas” accusation: FALSE. According to their website, “Airbnb has previously removed listings in Crimea as a result of international sanctions and they are currently not available on the Airbnb platform.” The company is also studying other regions.
“Double standard” accusation: In fact, Israel is guilty of operating according to double standards through its system of discriminatory laws, its Nation-State Law, its policy of killing Gazans who approach the border, while itself regularly crossing the border into Gaza, just to name a few.
Instead of centuring Airbnb, Israel might consider emulating one of its policies: “The Airbnb community is committed to building a world where people from every background feel welcome and respected, no matter how far they have traveled from home. This commitment rests on two foundational principles that apply both to Airbnb’s hosts and guests: inclusion and respect.” 
Additionally, it’s important to note that settlements are not “disputed areas.” They are illegal colonies on confiscated land.
The BDS movement does not single Israel out for blame – rather Israel has been singlularly safeguarded from accountability for its crimes. The BDS movement “working to end this exceptionalism and calls for Israel to be held to account according to the standards of international law.
“BDS campaigns target the Israeli state because of its responsibility for serious violations of international law and the companies and institutions that participate in and are complicit in these Israeli violations. he BDS movement does not boycott or campaign against any individual or group simply because they are Israeli.
“As the US organization Jewish Voice for Peace has explained, Israel claims to be acting in the name of all Jewish people, but a rapidly increasing number of Jewish people of conscience feel compelled to make sure the world knows that many Jews are opposed to Israel’s actions.”

ADL says: Moreover, it is far from clear how and why Airbnb came to this decision. We have several questions for you that demand an answer:

Your statement explaining the decision suggests that this new policy was taken in response to sentiment within the global community that believes “companies should not do business here because they believe companies should not profit on lands where people have been displaced.” Is Airbnb planning on taking this approach with any other disputed areas, including those listed above?

QUESTION: If Airbnb had targeted Tibet for de-listing first, would ADL be demanding that Israel be de-listed too? Does ADL actually care about the displaced people of Tibet? If not, why not? If so, they should also care about displaced Palestinians.

ADL’s position that companies should profit on lands where people have been displaced is hard to reconcile with ADL’s mission to “secure justice and fair treatment to all.”

ADL says: You wrote that you will “consult with a range of experts and our community of stakeholders” when evaluating “listings in occupied territories,” and you spent “considerable time” doing so in this case. With whom did you consult?

Fair question. Clearly Airbnb consulted with experts who recognize that the displacement of Palestinians is contributing to existing human suffering.

ADL says: You wrote that Airbnb will “remove listings in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank that are at the core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.” How does a rental in the West Bank meet this criterion?

Does ADL really not know the answer to this question? Just in case: Settlements in the West Bank are built on land that most of the world considers occupied, and exist in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The land is part of the Palestinian territories. That’s what the dispute has been about for 70 years.

ADL asks:

a. Which listings does this cover?

200 Airbnb listings in Israeli settlements in the West Bank will be de-listed; 20,000 properties in Israel remain.

b. Does it include listings in the Golan Heights?

Yes, although the Golan Heights is disputed.

c. Does it include listings in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, that are in its Old City or over the Green Line?

Yes, although the settlements in East Jerusalem are just as illegal as the ones in the West Bank.

ADL says: Finally, in your statement, you write that the “core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians” are the West Bank settlements. While we do not deny that determining the status of Israeli settlements is an important part of any two-state solution to the conflict, this is a myopic view that places all the blame at Israel’s door. It ignores the fact that upon the founding of Israel in 1948 – with borders that did not include the West Bank – five Arab countries invaded the fledgling nation in order to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Seventy years later, Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab nations that recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

“Myopic view” accusation: Perhaps the myopic view is the one that refuses to get Palestinian permission before building for 600,000 settlers on Palestinian land. Is it not short-sighted to take such an action with no thought of a future agreement in which Palestinians may not want to give up that property?
“Ignoring Israel’s founding” accusation: What connection does this have to Airbnb? Also, the statement “five Arab countries invaded the fledgling nation in order to wipe it off the face of the Earth” is disputable and likewise irrelevant.
“Recognition of Israel’s right to exist” accusation: Actually, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian people’s legitimate representative, acknowledged Israel’s right to exist in 1988. Israel, however, seems to struggle with the possibility of a Palestinian state’s right to exist. Please see what this “right to exist” actually means.

ADL says: During the Oslo Peace Process, Israel offered the Palestinians significant land concessions in the West Bank, but the Palestinian team walked away from the deal. Instead of working to promote peace, there are voices in Palestinian society as well as others in the Arab world, who reject Israel’s legitimacy and call for a violent end to Israel itself. Unfortunately, the “core of the dispute” is that too many do not want a Jewish state to exist.

The Palestinians’ unwillingness to make an unsatisfactory deal with Israel was their own prerogative, and does not decriminalize the presence of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
Criticism of Israel by Palestinians, BDS supporters, and indeed the whole world, should be taken seriously. Instead of returning to the mantra of “delegitimizing Israel” and “wiping Israel off the map,” Israel’s advocates should address the issues. Case in point: settlements are built on occupied, Palestinian land, and neither Airbnb nor Israel should profit from this injustice.

ADL says: As an organization committed to a two-state solution and to an equitable and just resolution of the conflict, we share your company’s “hope for a durable, lasting peace” in the region. However, achieving that goal demands a clear-eyed view about the conflict.

Yes, a clear-eyed view about the conflict is critical. ADL lacks such a view.

ADL closes: We look forward to your responses to these questions.

Sincerely,

Jonathan A. Greenblatt
CEO and National Director
Anti-Defamation League

Supporters of a just peace for Palestinians have a few questions for ADL, and look forward to answers:
  1. If Airbnb is anti-Semitic, how do you explain its willingness to list properties in Israel?
  2. Is ADL willing to acknowledge a Palestinian State’s right to exist?
  3. How can ADL’s position that companies should profit on lands where people have been displaced be reconciled with ADL’s mission to “secure justice and fair treatment to all”?
Sincerely,
People around the world who await a just peace for Palestinians

Shut up! Trump to Gina Haspell, CIA Chief, on Khashoggi case

Trump bans CIA chief from briefing Senate on Khashoggi’s death

CIA Director Gina Haspel on 26 May 2018 [Facebook]

CIA Director Gina Haspell on 26 May 2018 [Facebook]
3
SHARES

The US President Donald Trump stopped CIA Director Gina Haspel from briefing the Senate on the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi who was killed by a Saudi hit squad in the kingdom’s consulate in Turkey.

Haspel travelled to Turkey last month and heard an audio recording of Khashoggi’s assassination and dismembering inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. She was due to speak to the Senate about the CIA’s findings on the case yesterday ahead of a planned vote on US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE following their involvement in the Yemen war.

The CIA report concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman ordered Khashoggi be killed, but Trump refused the conclusion.

Last week, Trump pledged to remain a Saudi ally, saying it was not clear whether Bin Salman was aware of the plan to murder Khashoggi.

The US president has been accused of “favouring” the Saudi crown prince and covering up for him in an effort to maintain arms deal worth hundred of billions of dollars.

READ: Trump presses home his Saudi oil advantage after Khashoggi affair

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

Trump Leaks ‘Israel Needs Saudi Arabia’


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

Neti, King Salman, nukeface

MINT PRESS Brothers in Nukes


CIA director in Turkey to investigate Bin Salman’s role in Khashoggi murder

Door of Consulate General of Saudi Arabia is seen as the waiting continues on the disappearance of Prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in Istanbul, Turkey on October 18, 2018. Turkish and Saudi Arabian officials started joint investigation of case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ( Elif Öztürk - Anadolu Agency )

Doors of the Consulate General of Saudi Arabia is seen as the waiting continues on the killing of Prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in Istanbul, Turkey on 18 October 2018 [Elif Öztürk/Anadolu Agency]
14
SHARES

CIA Director Gina Haspel arrived in Turkey yesterday morning to help investigate the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi as Western security agencies look into the potential role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in the murder.

US media quoted well-informed sources as saying that Haspel has travelled to Turkey to discuss the ongoing investigations into Khashoggi’s murder as well as the Saudi Crown Prince’s involvement in the crime.

Haspel has sought to hear a purported audio recording of his torture and murder which Turkish authorities said they are in possession of, four sources familiar with her mission told Reuters.

Muslim scholar: Bin Salman is a ‘crazy thug’ who ordered Khashoggi’s murder 

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said on Monday evening that he was still not satisfiedwith what he had heard from Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi’s death.

Reuters quoted six US and Western officials saying that they believe the crown prince “is ultimately responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance because of his role in overseeing the Saudi security services. But they have no hard evidence”.

Turkish officials suspect that Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist was killed and “dismembered” inside the Saudi consulate building in Istanbul on 2 October by a 15- member Saudi hit squad.

How can US Senators and Congress people who swear an oath and allegiance to serve and protect the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the American people also legally, and with due good conscience, hold a dual citizenship with Israel?

Senate Bill 720, A Knife at the Heart and Throat of America’s Constitution

A big question is beginning to loom in the minds of all true Christians and patriotic Americans.  How can US Senators and Congress people who swear an oath and allegiance to serve and protect the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the American people also legally, and with due good conscience, hold a dual citizenship with Israel?

How more importantly, the question becomes apparent, can these same voting members of our Government so blatantly align and kowtow in support of Israel’s monolithic lobbying entities of APAC, the ADL and its Government’s clearly declared and militarily directed geopolitical agendas?

The bold and arrogant actions of these dual Israeli citizen Congress and Senators are becoming glaringly apparent and consistent with those who support a Zionist philosophy and world dominating agenda.  This hypocritical contempt for the elected offices of which these same people hold, and supposedly serve, places the American people in the greatest of harmes way and all of our US military personnel as staged canon fodder.

Therefore, and with all due reason, logic and recommendation;  Any and all elected government officials who hold a dual citizenship with Israel should immediately and judiciously tender their resignation, and/or if not, be impeached and/or then be placed on trial for TREASON.

Furthermore, we would encourage any courageously claimed Congressman or Senator to propose a Bill that would forever prohibit and make illegal the ability for any elected and/or appointed government official (State and/or Federal) to hold office and/or a position civic responsibility if they are a dual citizen with Israel or another foreign country and/or has a known affiliation with any lobbying groups such as APAC, ADF, etc…and/or a said lobbying equivalent that represents another foreign country’s lobbying interests.

Read the Senate Bill 720, just below, to educate yourself on the elected representatives who are putting Israel’s knife to the throat of every American who believes in our First Amendment, Free Speech:

The Bill of Rights First Amendment so states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Here is link to Senate Bill 720: Israel Anti-Boycott Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720

Here is a list of elected officials who are dual citizens with Israel, suspected traitors, who are sponsoring the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/cosponsors

MORE ISRAELI DUAL CITIZENS WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT LISTED HERE:

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/89-of-our-senators-and-congress-hold-dual-citizenship-citizenship-with-israel/

Your thoughts and comments?

Here is a clear picture of a Palestinian Terrorist just below: 

Editors Note:  (Much of this article is borrowed from BraveHeart’s series “Dark Secrets of the Wizards of Oz”)

We live in a topsy-turvy world where humanity’s heroes journey is liken to that within the famed Wizard of Oz story.

Journey with us to explore our stranger than fiction reality.  Return home a more informed and empowered person. 

We live in a topsy-turvy world where humanity’s heroes journey is liken to that within the famed Wizard of Oz story.  Will we awaken from a cowardice dream that presently allows misguided bullies to imprison, victimize us, our world and our families OR will we rise-up to realize and express our great hero within and be known as the warriors of loving truth who acted in turn, as we were destined to be?

The story’s heroine, Dorothy, is a young woman who along with her home is literally swept up by a mystical tornado and then placed in a magical land far away. Unbeknownst to Dorothy her home lands on top of and kills one of the wicked witches of the West.

Her wicked witch sister soon arrives and vows to revenge for this death. Bewildered by all of the events Dorothy regains her composure and immediately begins her quest to discover the truth about the people of this new world, the powers behind it, and ultimately, how to find her way back home to her family farm in Kansas. From the beginning she is instructed by midget-like mythical beings that in order to get back home she must ‘follow the yellow brick road’.

Along the way Dorothy will meet and be guided by, Glenda, the good witch of the North. She will also encounter and confront metaphorical characters that ultimately represent the fears of her dark side and those of her undeveloped hero within. Soon on her journey she discovers that the yellow brick road leads to a castle where there lives an all-powerful-Wizard. The Wizard, as it turns out, possesses a pair of magical red shoes that are capable of transporting Dorothy back home.

Once within the Castle she discovers that the Wizard projects an image of himself on a large screen from where he remains hidden. There he twists special knobs and pulls levers to controls the destiny of the magical world. The imagined Wizard of Oz story is ultimately about Dorothy’s ability to face her deepest fears, overcome deception and return to the truth of her truest home, that of her empowered self.

A woman holds a sign which reads “Boycott Israel” in front of symbolic coffins while attending a demonstration supporting Palestine, in Berlin August 1, 2014. Israel launched its Gaza offensive on July 8 in response to a surge of rocket attacks by Gaza’s dominant Hamas Islamists. Hamas said that Palestinians would continue confronting Israel until its blockade on Gaza was lifted. REUTERS/Steffi Loos (GERMANY – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST) – RTR40YJG

In the paralleled and real-life challenges of each person’s heroes journey we will encounter all manners of self-challenging and sabotaging characters. To succeed we will learn to master the clarity of intuition, summon our greatest courage and establish wisdom within our character. This process will test the essence of the resolve and determination by which we achieve any of our chosen goals.

As we journey back home to the center of our true inner power, an empowerment that operates beyond the limits of deceptive manipulation and/or our self-created fears, we will find the home of sane perception. In this state of true reality our inner wisdom aligns with love. Here, consciousness transcends the intuition into a state of “Knowing” that sees any form of rationalized injustice or cruelty as a lie against the truth of love. Such brainwashing lies are strategically designed, by an elite few, to keep humanity in a living hell.

In order for our world to regain its freedom and achieve a lasting peace we are must face our darkest fears, confront and disarm the wizards who seek to both oppress and imprison us. One of history’s greatest of perceptional wizards was that of Dr. Edward L. Bernays. Considered the founding Father of Public Relations, he was also the nephew of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.

Almost thirty years ago, when I began my journey, a friend arranged for me to meet and spend an afternoon with Dr. Bernays. At the time the Internet did not exist so I had little way to research who he truly was other than to understand he was a world-famed Public Relations expert. When we met my goal was to pick his brain on the subject of PR as it pertained to promoting a series of humanitarian concerts that I envisioned could help promote peace.

In his late 90’s at the time, he was kind and considerate with me as he served coffee and crumb cakes and showed photos of himself with Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and numerous US Presidents of this era that he had worked with. Over the course of the next 25 years, I would experience great pushback from various powers in achieving my plans and goals towards peace. I went to great lengths to educate myself about why this could be and ultimately learned of the real power and philosophies that drove the manipulative skills used by Bernay.

Edward, as it turned out, worked on behalf of those who envisioned a New World Order:

“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of… If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it…The conscious and intellectual manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” Dr. Edward Bernays, Founding Father of Public Relations

With a resounding awareness and on April 27, 1961 John F. Kennedy delivered a speech from before the American Newspaper Publishers Association (some two years before his assassination) in an attempt to bring light to the reality of an elite group of lost souls who orchestrated the monstrous intent of mind-controlling society towards their enslavement:

“We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence —-on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of election, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations…Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, nor rumor printed, no secret revealed.

It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war -time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match…That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution —- not primarily to AMUSE and ENTERTAIN not to emphasize the Trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” -but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometime even anger public opinion.”

The intentional deception of our world’s modernized media machinery and its continuous stream of propagandized fake news is intended to obscure the pathways from which we differentiate and choose a true path from a false one. Occasionally, and mostly due to a poorly planned deception, we can glimpse behind the grand curtain of manipulation to see the controlling agendas of certain secretive figures and organizations who twist the knobs and pull the levers of power.

This is the future! No more hatred!

Humanity, according to the Deep State and their prophesized business plan proclaims that the masses are considered mentally inferior and are thus unable to run their own countries. Therefore, their plan is to abolish such governments and replace them with a single New World Order government controlled by the elite. They understand that this will take a long time and are prepared to have millions die in the name of their cause.

In order to achieve this goal, they will place their helpers and agents everywhere. They will take control of the media and use it for propaganda. They will start fights and wars between different races, social classes, and religions. Use bribery, threats, and blackmail to achieve any and all objectives. Use the Secret societies like the Freemasons to attract large numbers of accomplished business people and various public officials. Use all forms of flattery to appeal to the egos of the most successful people. Appoint puppet leaders who can be easily controlled through blackmail. Replace democratic rule with socialism, then communism and then despotism.

Abolish all rights and freedoms other than those granted permissible by the Cabal. Plan to sacrifice people, as necessary, including those who are deemed to be ‘the lesser of brethren’. Eliminate religion and replace it with materialism and science. Control the education system so as to destroy the intellect and disseminate deception. Rewrite history so that it most favors the plans and deeds for control and domination. Use the entertainment industry to create distractions.

Corrupt the hearts and minds of people with perversion, violence, pornography and other forms of filth. Create a state of distrust and encourage people and technology companies spy on the public. Keep the majority of humanity in a perpetual state of poverty and doing physical labor. Take possession of all wealth and property, especially gold.

Our collective history, whether we choose to be aware of it or not, is guided and bound by a lineage of a delusional elite whose psychopathic mentality is feed by an insatiable appetite for cruel indifference, ruthless greed and a monstrous desire to dominate and control all others. They are known by many names, the Deep State, New World Order (NWO), the Cabal, Khazarians, Illuminati and/or Ziocons. Their agenda for control and power is well orchestrated, methodically camouflaged and strategically implemented.

Their global media machine of news agencies, print publications, radio and TV networks, the Film, Music, Entertainment industries and the internet are all designed to control a worldwide narrative and slowly steer the perception of consciousness and resulting actions into a perverted status-quo where lies, sexuality, and financial materialism power replace a person’s spiritual center of goodness, love, and truth.

People who have succumbed to the soul robbing entertainment/media/news narratives and propaganda of the wizards live in a sleepwalking and zombie-like state. The lost soul manipulators refer to such subordinated people as “Goyim,” a term meaning “cattle.”

These wizards who control perception from behind the massive curtain of the entertainment industry shape certain narratives that clearly bend the truth and impregnate the public’s subconscious with misdirects that intentionally inflict both confusion and suffering. Their bending of love’s truth, which describes the large majority of all entertainment that is created and then pointed at consumers for consumption, is considered a term called “schadenfreude,” a German word meaning to “take pleasure from someone else’s suffering”.

At present, the Cabal’s media bombards each of us moment by moment. It strategically leverages its unspoken parental-like authority over public opinion so to distract humanity’s consciousness away from our inner truth of love and a real sense of what defines justice.

As a result, this media narrative has invisibly shaped group-thoughts into a mainstream acceptance of ultra-violent fighting sports, all forms of perverted sexual orientations/activities, music that promotes violence and defines women as sexual objects and television and movie content that normalizes the torture and murder of others as exciting entertainment.

Under the spell of such deception, humanity is prone to lose its ability reason between what is right from what is wrong, from what is loving from that which is indifferent/hateful and from what is rational from what is insane. Ultimately though, this is the goal that the cruel and lost souls of the Cabal have in store for our world.

In the present and topsy-turvy world that we live, delusion and perversion are becoming more of a norm. The earth is being transformed into an insane asylum whereby one person or group is easily propagandized into to fighting against and/or murdering another once they have been labeled, by a respected authority figure, as “the enemy” (a term meaning “Not Friend”).

High-profile false-flag fake-news propaganda stories are the go-to tactic to spark the thoughts and actions of Goyim into the reactive “Let’s get them”, robotic and mob-rules state of blind patriotism. Ultimately such mindless reactivity is known to lead the good and unaware into willing sacrificing their own lives, and those of the children they love, in the name of methodically engineered false flag wars.

Yes, throughout history, there have been courageous whistleblowers who have alarmed the truth however, the Cabal is quick to respond with a well planned, funded and orchestrated campaign of ridicule that strategically squashes and labels the truth-teller as a conspiracy theorist of the most foolish proportions. Journalists, celebrities or public figures of good conscience who dare speak the truth, outside of the scripted narrative, quickly find their careers and financial future in great peril through soft-lobbed phone calls of threatening innuendo to either the person themselves or those who represent and/or manage them.

The controlling elite and the global media machine they own and operate assures that the timing of any such awakened alarm-bell rarely reaches a critical mass in public perception and concern. Instead, the strategy of character assassination serves to successfully defraud the truth and foil any state of collective awareness. The results of such defamation serve to place a doubt in the mind of the public so as to create distance between an engineered false-flag / pain-point-event and any thought of a righteous retaliation for the deception and social harm accomplished.

The highly addictive and appetizing can-of-worms disinformation which is fed to the public, and driven and given credibility through the media, is intentionally designed to keep humanity hungry for a monstrous news agenda that is defined by “if bleeds it leads.” Under the psychological spell and a collective trance of constant fear, public behavior is easily prescribed and automated to work under the accord and will of the Cabal’s agenda of enslavement through promoting government’s protective arm of big brother. Does such a Cabal really exist? The axiom, “follow the money” points to the answer:

“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschild’s prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union.” – Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor, 1865

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson, America’s Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

Part II 

Dark Secrets of The Wizards of Oz and Your Hero Within:

The Scofield Bible and Talmudic teachings about Jesus, Mother Mary, and Christians.


Journey with us further to explore our even stranger than fiction reality.  You may find yourself feeling shocked over how you and humanity have been and are being played. 

Can we recover from this topsy-turvy world where humanity’s heroes journey is likened to that within the famed Wizard of Oz story?  Will we awaken from a cowardice dream that presently allows misguided bullies to imprison, victimize us, our world and our families OR will we rise-up to realize and express our great hero within and be known as the warriors of loving truth who acted in turn, as we were destined to be?

Truth and love can set us free and melt away our fears so that we can return again to be as ONE.

(Author’s special note:  As you read ahead please know that I work with many Jewish people who I consider very close friends and who are some of the most wonderful, kind and loving people I know.  Jewish people and those of this beautiful faith,  differ profoundly from Zionism and/or Zionists who represent a political ideology that believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.)

The New Testament of the Bible identified the Jewish people as the persecutors of Jesus and as those whose actions ultimately lead to his crucified death in Jerusalem.

John 7:1 “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.”

John 7:13 “Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.”

As a result, and in part, the early World Zionist leaders ultimately sought to secure a new and permanent homeland for Jewish people worldwide so as to escape persecution.  This, as it turned out, proved to an indigestible reality for Zionists who now sought to circumvent their historical past and proceed now forward with an irrevocable agenda of befriending and securing the support of American Christian churches in order to induce their cooperation in moving to and occupying Jerusalem (Jesus’s proclaimed homeland), as their envisioned new home.

Therefore, in order to deflect this adverse narrative and strategically reorient the deliberation of American Christian churches a brilliant idea was hatched, the Scofield Reference Bible.  Samuel Untermeyer, an attorney and the President of the Koren Hayesod, an agent entity of the Rothschild/Zionist movement within America, would soon be introduced to Cyrus I. Schofield, a civil war veteran, pastor and person who served time in prison for criminal forgery.

As a result, Cyrus was chartered with the task of re-writing the King James Bible with a new and pro-Zionist twist.  In essence, the new Schofield Reference version would use highly sophisticated forms of Talmudic “deception ideologies” to propagandize, subvert and brainwash Christian academics and seminary school students who would soon become ministers.  Thus it was known that these young, enthusiastic and newly indoctrinated ministers would unconsciously serve to proselytize the Zionist agenda as Christian Zionist Evangelists.

Soon and with the advent of Television, ministers would leverage the might and reach of this new technology to become Televangelists.  This significantly, and almost instantaneously, advanced the minister’s reach, of falsely designed partisan teachings, from small community church congregations of hundreds of people to now millions of upon millions of people.  In essence, these new Evangelists served to give strategic credibility and tenability to falsified true teachings of the Bible as it specifically related to the holy land and to whom its’ future and sovereign governance would be historically accorded, secured and entitled.

Untermeyer, who, as it turned out, was instrumental in the preparations of the 1910 Federal Reserve Banking law, would also help with the financing of the Scofield’s Reference Bible.  Cyrus was able to successfully camouflage, strategically spell out and embed specific pro-Zionist narratives throughout the texts of this new bible.  This was accomplished by creating the appearance that this new version provided new, insightful and easy to understand scriptural interpretations to its readers from within the texts of the footnotes and margins that laid between various verses and chapters of the book…mini Cliff notes like sections if you will.

This propagandized version of the King James Bible, now known as the Scofield Reference Bible, first appeared in 1909.  Published by, at that time, one of the world’s most prestigious publishers, the Oxford Press University, it was also backed by an unlimited advertising and promotion offensive campaign that landed it as the best-selling “Bible” in America.  Since then, and for 90 years, it has remained so.

More important and enlightening insights come from a new book by Laurent Guyénot, soon to be published by Kevin Barrett, both of whom are writers with VT:

“Among the architects of the secret diplomacy leading to the Balfour Declaration, Nahum Sokolow praises very specifically “the beneficent personal influence of the Honorable Louis D. Brandeis, Judge of the Supreme Court.”[1] Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), descended from a Frankist family (adepts of kabbalist Jacob Frank), had been appointed to the highest level of the judiciary in 1916 by President Wilson, at the demand of Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer who, as rumor has it, blackmailed Wilson with letters to his mistress Mrs. Mary Allen Peck.[2] 

Untermeyer would become president of the Keren Hayesod (Hebrew for “The Foundation Fund”), a fundraising organization established at the London World Zionist Conference in 1920, to provide resources for the Zionist movement. Brandeis was, with Untermeyer, one of the most powerful Zionist schemers, exercising an unparalleled influence on the White House. Brandeis established a formidable tandem with his protégé Felix Frankfurter, who would be his successor in exerting influence on Roosevelt.

“Working together over a period of 25 years, they placed a network of disciples in positions of influence, and labored diligently for the enactment of their desired programs,” writes Bruce Allen Murphy in The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection.[3][1] Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism (1600–1918), vol. 2, 1919, pp. 79–80, quoted in Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, 2014, k. 387–475.[2] Gene Smith, When the Cheering Stopped: The Last Years of Woodrow Wilson, William Morrow & Co, 1964, pp. 20–23. [3] Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 10…

…The Judaization of American Christianity, and English Christianity to a lesser extent has not been a spontaneous process, but rather one controlled by skillful manipulation.

An example is the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 and revised in 1917. It is characterized by dubious and highly tendentious footnotes. For example, the promise of Yahweh to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 merits a two-thirds-page footnote explaining that;

“God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever,” accompanied by “a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews,”  or “commit the sin of anti-Semitism.”

In reality, at this point Jacob, who would receive the name of Israel and beget the Jewish people, was not even born yet, nor was his father. The same note explains that “Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession.”

…How was Cyrus Scofield, a lawyer without theological training, capable of publishing such a work with the prestigious Oxford University Press? The mystery has been solved: Scofield was only a front man for a project whose real sponsor was Samuel Untermeyer, a Wall Street lawyer, Federal Reserve co-founder, devoted Zionist, and close associate of Woodrow Wilson. As noted in chapter 7, Untermeyer called for a “holy war” against Germany in 1933.[1]” – Laurent Guyénot

The Grand Wizard of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, had this to say:

 

 “The wealthy Jews rule the world; the fate of the governments lies in their hands. They start wars between countries, and when they wish, the governments make peace. When the wealthy Jews sing, the nations and their leaders dance along, and meanwhile the Jews get richer!” (Published by Herzl in a German newspaper)

Respectively, most Christians and people of other faiths know little or nothing about the mind controling prison that the Zionist philosophies have locked them behind.  Firstly, it will become an eye opener for Gentiles to learn that the Talmud, the holy book of the Zionists, refers to them and other non-Jews as “Goyim,” a term inferred to mean “cattle.”

The Talmud is the holy book of the Zionists.  According to it:  “The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah himself asks the opinions of earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in heaven. Rabbi Menachen, Comments for the Fifth Book: “Jehovah himself in heaven studies the Talmud, standing: he has such respect for that book.”

Be forewarned, as you read further you will come face to face with a horrifying and painful reality of how Zionist teachings and propaganda have brought both past and present-day Christians to turn against Jesus, their faith and themselves.   One can only shake their head in utter disbelief at the foolishness of how Christians, knowing what you’re about to learn, could ever bow to the belief of proclaiming the Zionists as somehow being God’s Chosen Ones.

At the forefront of this herculean deception, you’ll find the San Antonio Texas Evangelical Christian minister John Hagee of Cornerstone Church.  Hagee, aware or not,  has successfully misrepresented the Bible’s teachings and seduced his congregation into drinking the Israeli cool aide of the Jewish Zionists somehow being designated as “the chosen one’s” and then financially supporting the expulsion of Palestinians and apartheid through his church’s funding of Israeli settlements.

John Hagee is known for having bamboozled his congregation into giving Israel tens of millions of dollars while contributing virtually nothing to his hometown of San Antonio (a good reason in general to deny his church and/or any other such church who follows in these footsteps, their tax exemption status).

All this said, please prepare yourself for what Talmudic Rabbis say about Mother Mary, Jesus and Christian Gentiles.  And yes, this will comes across as blatant insanity and blasphemous…and that is because it is.

Oh, a special thanks to Talmud.Faithweb.com and Rense.com for the following references:

THE TALMUD SAY THIS ABOUT MOTHER MARY and JESUS:

 

Insults Against Blessed Mary, Sanhedrin 106a:  Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Miriam the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

“Jesus was a bastard born of adultery.” (Yebamoth 49b, p.324).

“Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man.” (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725).

“Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress”. (Shabbath 104b, p.504).

Gittin 56b-57a:  [Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam (JESUS) from the dead.  [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world?  [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them?  [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) “You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days.”  [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment?  [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.

[Onkelos] called up Yeshu (another name for JESUS) from the dead.  [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world?  [Yeshu] replied: Israel.  [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them?  [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good.  Do not seek their bad.  Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye.  [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment?  [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement.  As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in “hot excrement.”

TALMUD ABOUT NON-JEWS, GENTILES or CHRISTIANS:

Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs. Then why is this not included in the Noachian laws? — On the reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the reading me’orasah [betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a betrothed maiden, who is stoned. An objection is raised: R. Meir used to say. Whence do we know that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse, [Ye shall, therefore, keep my statutes, and my judgments:] which, if a man do, he shall live in them. Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men: hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.

Yalkut 245c:  Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice.

Zohar, Shemoth: Tob shebbe goyyim harog – Even the best of the Goyim (Gentiles) should be killed.

Sanhedrin 54b: Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.’…

Sanhedrin 59a: To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.

Libbre David 37: A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them.

Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment!

Prayer said on the eve of Passover (Pranajtis: Christianus in Talmudae Judeorum, quotations from: Synagoga Judaica)

The Feast of Tabernacles is the period when Israel triumphs over the other people of the world. That is why during this feast we seize the loulab and carry it as a trophy to show that we have conquered all other peoples, known as “populace”…

Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b: When the (Jewish) Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.

Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D:  Resh Lakish said: He who is observant of fringes will be privileged to be served by two thousand eight hundred slaves, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, etc.

Mas. Shabbath 31b: On the house of the Goy [Goy means unclean, and is the disparaging term for a non-Jew] one looks as on the fold of cattle.

Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIII: When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.

Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth.

Choschen Hamm 388, 15: Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: “Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.” At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: “The Lord alone will appear great on that day!…

Zohar, Vayshlah 177b: That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful.

That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.

A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise, the name of God would become dishonored.

Sanhedrin 58b: [In other words, if a non-Jew kills a Jew, the non-Jew can be killed. Punching an Israelite is akin to assaulting God. (But killing a non-Jew is NOT like assaulting God.]  If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible.

WHAT THE TALMUD SAYS ABOUT CHILDREN:

Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39: A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat.

Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.

Gad. Shas. 2:2:  A boy-goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy.

Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11: Raba stated: With reference to the Rabbinical statement that [legally] an Egyptian [Gentile] has no father, it must not be imagined that this is due to [the Egyptians’] excessive indulgence in carnal gratification, owing to which it is not known [who the father was], but that if this was known it is to be taken into consideration; but [the fact is] that even if this is known it is not taken into consideration…. Thus it may be inferred that the All Merciful declared their children to be legally fatherless, for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Yevamoth 98a: [Trans.: A non-Jew is “legally fatherless,” regardless of whether or not the father is known. Gentile children are essentially asses and horses, i.e., animals.]

[The daughters of the heathens] should be considered as in the state of <http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4942.htm>niddah [separation?] from their cradle…

Avodah Zarah 36b:  They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him…. It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious!

Avodah Zarah 36b-37a: Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; [if a niddah] she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflicted with gonorrhoea].

Sanhedrin 55b:  Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

Jesus had these interesting things to say:

John 8:44: Jesus says to the Jews, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh if his own, for he is a liar and the father of it”.

Revelation 3:9:  “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

Respective to the candidly unkind and even monstrously construed quotes from the above Talmud verses, I am compassionately reminded and find comfort in the words of Jesus’s dying words on the cross from Luke 23:34 where he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

From such wise insight, and other illuminated spiritual teaching, it is known and stated that the true Creator God of Universe loves all, even those who appear greatly lost and have forgotten their soul mission on earth, that of remembering and returning to here express and BE only love.  We pray that the Lord God will forgive and show mercy for any soul who has thought, written and/or acted from or by the direction of such Talmudic teaching. We pray that ALL will awaken to the truth of love, peace, and forgiveness.

Now, and hopefully, with more opened eyes and a wiser perspective, it is easier to understand the two basic reasons and imperatives behind why the Zionist Cabal have designed and implemented massive worldwide mind control:

  1. No rational or sane person will submit to being labeled and/or treated as a Cattle-slave-servant.
  2. In order to achieve its goal of total domination, it must minimize any attempt by individuals or groups of people to alarm humanity about the nightmare of manipulated enslavement that presently imprisons them.

Therefore, the Cabal employees the greatest levers of mind-controlling and manipulatively coercing powers presently known to humankind:

  • Syndicated banking cartels that represent the Rothschild’s central banking model. This model that precludes countries from freely and independently printing their own sovereign currency which is backed by their own gold bullion reserves…i.e within America, The US Federal Reserve, an entity owned and run by foreign banking enterprises which prints our U.S. currency, determines the amount of it circulation and then sets and controls the interest rates in which our overall financial system works,
  • The Media and Entertainment industries: Music, TV, Film, magazine / book publications, pornography and the puppet master entertainment executives and celebrities (musicians, actors, etc) who have been morally compromised and manipulatively blackmailed through either promise of fame, money, power, sexual compromise and/or whom have allowed themselves to be seduced into black-occult practices, pedophilia and worst) and/or some combination thereof,
  • Famed celebrities often serve, unknowingly or knowingly, as a public spokesman for the subliminal messaging machine of the Cabal. They use special keywords, wear special apparel or insignia and/or make secret hand gestures to inform other cult members or subliminally program their fan base.
  • Education and Medical systems which are philosophically propagandized and financially manipulated through secret think-tank lobbying entities and pharmaceutical companies that shape treatment protocols, government budgets, and expenditures,
  • A judicial system which appears to shield and protect unconstitutional black-op government agencies/criminal drug cartel enterprises, and/or U.S. police activities (Municipality Police forces who have been flown to Israel, trained by the Israeli Defense Force then taken into Palestine to engage in live combat interaction with the local civilian population – see Amnesty International Report) who now irrationally and violently treat U.S. civilians as combative terrorists and turn basic interactions into a cage fighting opportunity that often results in one of our citizens being physically harm and/or killed.
  • The US government’s globally manipulated control over the world’s oil reserves through the US Petrodollar system (all world government / private sector entities must use the US petrodollar to buy, sell or trade oil),
  • A well funded US military-industrial complex who manufactures and sells all forms of weaponry such as guns, bullets, missiles, jet aircraft, tanks and other armored vehicles, warships/submarines, conventional, nuclear and hydrogen bombs to the highest bidder,
  • A large-scale, well organized and an under-educated group of military personnel who’ve been strategically brainwashed into marching lockstep to any given command from its internal leadership ….a leadership,  mind you, that ultimately takes order from Government leadership and who in turn takes orders from the invisible Cabal.

In essence, military forces (and more specifically our US military force), take on the role of the Mafia strong-arm-debt-collecting thug organization. They serve to enforce the agenda of the Deep State and/or the corrupted politicians who seek to control the chest board of world resources as described in Richard Nixon’s book The Real War.

On this global game-board, leaders and the powers behind them, vie for control and ownership over certain strategic resources such as oil, natural gas, water and important metals like titanium, platinum, chromium, etc., (intentionally not mentioned where the Poppy field/opium trade) and people who make up a given country’s workforce.

Countries who possess these strategic natural resources with the territories of their continental soil have assets, power, and leverage from which to bargain and exert power within the chessboard game. Countries who do not have these assets or direct access to them may be able to trade or bargain certain technological know-how and/or manufacturing capabilities to gain these resources.

Access to strategic resources is especially vital to countries whose economies are driven from the manufacturing and production of military weaponry. Most are unaware or lack the common sense to know that not every country on the planet has the ability to design, manufacture, sell and distribute: guns, bullets, bombs, tanks, aircraft, warships…etc.

On America’s game board of strategic resources, that which it is able to source from its own sovereign soil, the US military complex finds little to zero strategic metals. As such and without them, US military manufacturers can not manufacture jet aircraft engines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and so on. Respectively, and from the US Defense perspective, it is critical to keep these same strategic resources out of the hands of “Other” political powers or groups who are perceived to have anti-western sentiments.

In order to fortify this stance, the US utilizes diplomatic channels and economic-hit-man make sure that the leadership of other countries, who have such resources, are placed in financially vulnerable and compromised positions so as to leverage or extort access. This may make clear why the U.S. has and maintains some 1000 military bases around the world. On the other hand, Russia who is self-sufficient with most strategic resources maintains only five military bases worldwide, four of which reside within the former USSR.

“Throughout the 1990s both the U.S. oil industry and the Pentagon had contributed to the consensus that America would need full-spectrum dominance to guarantee access to oil and other resources in the rest of the world…

…This program would require massive expenditures, perhaps as much as a trillion dollars, and this could not be expected from Congress – except in response to an attack as massive and frightening as Pearl Harbor. With respect to the events of 9/11 it is clear that the Bush Administration’s settled goal of invading Iraq depended on the attack. What we have been witnessing, to quote the Oslo researcher Ola Tunander is “the use of terrorism to construct world order.” – Peter Dale Scott, considered the Father of ‘Deep Politics’, Berkley Professor, Poet and former Diplomat.

Those who make up the Cabal and, in delusion, refer to themselves as the “Chosen Ones” have engineered every possible way possible to financially in debt and/or morally compromise key political, religious, civic, business leadership and entertainment industry executives and talent within countries so as to continually control and twist them into a propagandizing pulpit that brainwashes the public into subverted state of:

  • Feeling good about and/or rationalizing that their government spies on them so as to supposedly protect personal and national security so as to protect the greater freedom and good for all.
  • Willfully substituting rational and deductive reasoning skills for an insatiable addiction to mind-numbing entertainment that methodically dumbs down civic discourse to a level of trivialized gossip and/or the guerilla chest pounding of boy/men who foolishness argue over the statistics of athletes or sporting events (so as elevate their sense of machismo) rather than discuss relevant issues of public and world concern and solutions for them.
  • Willfully reacting to the perpetual threat of an ever-present boogieman terrorists and the Government generated false-flag operations that are disseminated by fake new propaganda machine so as to instills a cycle of public hysteria that parasitically feeds on the very fear it has created,
    1. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
    2. “In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace.” – John Foster Dulles secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration. (Super Patriotism, Michael Parenti, p93) (1888 – 1959)
    3. “The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out … this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 “terror” attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on ‘terrorists’… The “next 9/11′′ — constantly promised by officials and the media — is likely to be carried out under the guise of future military exercises.”– Captain Eric H. May, a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer (2008)
    4. “All over the world, we know its well established, the State Department and Intelligent Agencies engage in theater, its spycraft to create spectacles and events that people may not realize are spectacles and events, like the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in the 50’s. They’ll funnel money to protestors, fly people in to infiltrate protestors, they’ll create fake newspapers and so on. So we know that this happens in countries around the world. I believe there’s a law that’s been passed that is part of the Defense Authorization Act that now makes it legal to propagandize American citizens. What this means is that we’ve entered an era that it’s not crazy to assess news events to see if they’re real or not real in the US and as well overseas. In fact its kind of crazy not to. Now, there’s this sort of reflexive vilification of anyone speculating about that because they become a conspiracy theorist. Now that its legal to propagandize the US it doesn’t surprise me that there are more and more products coming up in popular culture and events showing up in the news streams that appear to be subsidized. – Naomi Wolf, Bestselling author, ‘The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.’
    5. “All that is necessary for the success of “false flag” or “black ops” events is for the government to have its story ready and to have a reliable and compliant media. Once an official story is in place, thought and investigation is precluded. Any formal inquiry that is convened serves to buttress the already provided explanation.” Paul Craig Roberts, American Economist, Journalist and former United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan in 1981.

Read the final articles on the Dark Series of the Wizards of Oz

Don´t shoot the Messenger – Free Assange

Beware the Trumpenleft!

 RSS  

 

shutterstock_1116388916

Unless you move in certain leftist circles, you may not have heard about one of the Russians’ most insidiously evil active measures, an active measure so insidiously evil that it could only have been dreamed up in Moscow, the current wellspring of insidious evil. Its official Russo-Nazi-sounding code name is still being decided on by leftist cryptographers, but most people know it as the “Trumpenleft.”

The Trumpenleft (or “Sputnik Left,” as it is also called by professional anti-Putin-Nazi intelligence analysts) is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It is a gang of nefarious Putin-Nazi infiltrators posing as respectable leftists in order to disseminate Trumpian ideology and Putin-Nazi propaganda among an assortment of online leftist magazines that hardly anyone ever actually reads. The aim of these insidious Trumpenleft infiltrators is to sow confusion, chaos, and discord among actual, real, authentic leftists who are going about the serious business of calling Donald Trump a fascist on the Internet twenty-five times a day, verbally abusing Julian Assange, occasionally pulling down oppressive statues, and sharing videos of racist idiots acting like racist idiots in public.

The Trumpenleft is determined to sabotage (or momentarily disrupt) this revolutionary work, mostly by tricking these actual leftists into critically thinking about a host of issues that there is no good reason to critically think about … global capitalism, national sovereignty, immigration, identity politics, corporate censorship, and other issues that there is no conceivable reason to discuss, or debate, or even casually mention, unless you’re some kind of Russia-loving Nazi.

Angela Nagle’s recent piece in American Affairs is a perfect example. Nagle (who is certainly Trumpenleft) puts forth the fascistic proposition that mass migration won’t help the world’s poor, and she claims that it creates “a race to the bottom for workers” in wealthier, developed countries and “a brain drain” in poorer, less developed countries. After deploying a variety of Trumpenleft sophistry (i.e., fact-based analysis, logic, and so on), she goes so far as to openly suggest that “progressives should focus on addressing the systemic exploitation at the root of mass migration rather than retreating to a shallow moralism” … a shallow moralism that reifies the dominant neoliberal ideology that is causing mass migration in the first place.

This is the type of gobbledegook the Trumpenleft use to try to dupe real leftists into putting down their phones for a minute and actually thinking through political issues! Fortunately, no one is falling for it. As any bona fide leftist knows, there is no “mass migration problem.” The whole thing is simply a racist hoax concocted by Putin, Alex Jones, and other Trumpian disinformationists. The only thing real leftists need to know about immigration is that immigrants are good, and Trump, and walls, and borders are bad! All that other fancy gibberish about global capitalism, Milton Friedman, labor markets, and national sovereignty is nothing but fascist propaganda (which needs to be censored, or at least deplatformed, or demonetized, or otherwise suppressed).

But Angela Nagle is just one example. The Trumpenleft is legion, and growing. Its membership includes a handful of prominent (and rather less prominent) fake leftist figures: Glenn Greenwald, who many among the “Resistance” would like to see renditioned and indefinitely detained in some offshore Trumpenleft gulag somewhere; Matt Taibbi, who just published a treasonous article challenging the right of the US government to prosecute publishers as “enemy agents” for publishing material they don’t want published; Julian Assange, who is one such publisher, and who the US has scheduled for public crucifixion just as soon as they can get their hands on him; Aaron Maté of the Real News Network, a notorious Trump-Russia “collusion denialist“; Caitlin Johnstone, an Australian blogger and poet who the Red-Brown Putin-Nazi hunters at CounterPunch have become totally obsessed with; Diana Johnstone, who they also don’t like; and (full disclosure) your humble narrator.

Now, normally, the opinions of some political journalists and rather marginal political writers wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but there’s a war on, so there’s no room for neutrality. As I mentioned in my latest essay, over the course of the next two years, the global capitalist ruling classes need to make an example of Trump, and Assange, and anyone else who has had the gall to fuck with their global empire. Part of how they are going to do this is to further polarize the already extremely polarized ideological spectrum until everyone is forced onto one or the other side of a pro- or anti-Trump equation, or a pro- or anti-populist equation … or a pro- or anti-fascist equation.

As you probably noticed, The Guardian has just launched a special six-week “investigative series” exploring the whole “new populism” phenomenon (which began with a lot of scary photos of Steve Bannon next to the word “populism”). We are going to be hearing a lot about “populism” over the course of the next two years. We are going to be hearing how “populism” is actually not that different from fascism, or at the very least is inherently racist, and anti-Semitic, and xenophobic, and how, basically, anyone who criticizes neoliberal elites or the corporate media is Russia-loving, pro-Trump Nazi.

And this is where this “Trumpenleft” malarkey fits into the ruling classes’ broader campaign to eliminate any kind of critical thinking and force people to mindlessly root for their “team.” See, the problem with us “Trumpenleft” types is not that we support Donald Trump. For the record, none of us really do. Some of us think he us a dangerous demagogue. Others of us think he is a blithering idiot. None of us think he’s Fidel Castro, or that he cares one iota about the working classes, or about anyone other than Donald Trump.

No, the problem is not that we’re on the wrong team; the problem is that we are asking people to question the propaganda of the team that we’re supposed to be on, or at least be rooting for. We are asking people to pay attention to how the global capitalist ruling establishment is going about quashing this “populist” insurgency (of which Brexit and Trump are manifestations, not causes) so they can get back to the business of relentlessly restructuring, privatizing, and debt-enslaving everything, as they’ve been doing since the end of the Cold War. We’re asking folks, not to join “the other team,” but to pay close attention to how they are being manipulated into believing that there are only two “teams,” and that they have to join one, and then mindlessly parrot whatever nonsense their team decides they need to disseminate in order to win a game that is merely a simulation they have conjured up (i.e., the ruling classes have conjured up) in order to inoculate themselves against an actual conflict they cannot win and so must prevent at all costs from ever beginning … which, they are doing a pretty good job of that so far.

In other words, the problem with us Trumpenlefters is, the prospect of defeating a fake Russian Hitler, and restoring neoliberal normality in the USA and the rest of the West, is just not all that terribly inspiring. So, rather than regurgitating the Russia hysteria and the fascism hysteria that is being produced by the global capitalist ruling establishment to gin up support for their counterinsurgency, we are continuing to focus on the capitalist ruling classes, which are actually still running things, globally, and will be running things long after Trump is gone (and the Imminent Threat of Global Fascist Takeover of Everything has disappeared, as the Imminent Threat of Nookular Terrorist Backpack Attack disappeared before it).

Or maybe all that is just a ruse, an attempt on my part to dupe you into going out and buying a MAGA hat and shouting racist abuse at Honduran kids, assuming you can find some in your vicinity. You never know with us Trumpenleft types. Probably the safest thing to do to protect yourself from our insidious treachery is to start your own personal Trumpenleft blacklist, and spread lies about us all over the Internet, or just report us to Twitter, or Facebook, or somebody, whoever you feel are the proper authorities. The main thing is to shut us up, or prophylactically delegitimize us, to keep us from infecting other leftists with our filthy, nonconformist ideas. The last thing we need at a time like this is a bunch of leftists thinking for themselves and questioning official leftist dogma. Who knows what that kind of behavior might lead to?

N.B. As far as I could gather from my research, the “Trumpenleft” label was coined by Paul Street, a regular columnist at Truthdig and CounterPunch and all-around professional leftist. Like the editors of The New York Times, Street understands the importance of sloppily Germanicizing terms you want to frighten people with, because there’s nothing quite as terrifying as Nazi morphology!

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

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

Netanyahu’s Ceasefire Is Meant to Keep Gaza Imprisoned

 RSS  

 

shutterstock_118790737

Palestinians in Gaza should have been able to breathe a sigh of relief last week, as precarious ceasefire talks survived a two-day-long, heavy exchange of strikes that threatened to unleash yet another large-scale military assault by Israel.

Late on Tuesday, after the most intense bout of violence in four years, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas, the Islamic movement that rules Gaza, approved a long-term truce brokered by Egypt.

Both are keen to avoid triggering an explosion of popular anger in Gaza, the consequences of which would be difficult to predict or contain.

The tiny enclave is on life support, having endured three devastating and sustained attacks by Israel, as well as a suffocating blockade, over the past decade. Thousands of homes are in ruins, the water supply is nearly undrinkable, electricity in short supply, and unemployment sky-high.

But as is so often the case, the enclave’s immediate fate rests in the hands of Israeli politicians desperate to cast themselves as Israel’s warmonger-in-chief and thereby reap an electoral dividend.

Elections now loom large after Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s hawkish defence minister, resigned on Wednesday in the wake of the clashes. He accused Netanyahu of “capitulating to terror” in agreeing to the ceasefire.

Lieberman takes with him a handful of legislators, leaving the governing coalition with a razor-thin majority of one parliamentary seat. Rumours were rife over the weekend that another party, the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home, was on the brink of quitting the coalition.

In fact, Netanyahu recklessly triggered these events. He had smoothed the path to a truce earlier this month by easing the blockade. Fuel had been allowed into the enclave, as had $15 million in cash from Qatar to cover salaries owed to Gaza’s public-sector workers.

At this critical moment, Netanyahu agreed to a covert incursion by the Israeli army, deep into Gaza. When the soldiers were exposed, the ensuing firefight left seven Palestinians and an Israeli commander dead.

The two sides then upped the stakes: Hamas launched hundreds of rockets into Israel, while the Israeli military bombarded the enclave. The air strikes killed more than a dozen Palestinians.

Lieberman had reportedly expressed outrage over the transfer of Qatari money to Gaza, claiming it would be impossible to track how it was spent. The ceasefire proved the final straw.

Hamas leaders boasted that they had created a “political earthquake” with Lieberman’s resignation. But the shockwaves may not be so easily confined to Israel.

Strangely, Netanyahu now sounds like the most moderate voice in his cabinet. Fellow politicians are demanding Israel “restore its deterrence” – a euphemism for again laying waste to Gaza.

Naftali Bennett, the head of the settler Jewish Home party, denounced the ceasefire as “unacceptable” and demanded the vacant defence post.

There was flak, too, from Israel’s so-called left. The opposition Labour party leader Avi Gabbay called Netanyahu “weak”, while former prime minister Ehud Barak said he had “surrendered to Hamas under fire”.

Similar sentiments are shared by the public. Polls indicate 74 per cent of Israelis favour a tougher approach.

Sderot, close to Gaza and targeted by rockets, erupted into angry protests. Placards bearing the slogan “Bibi Go Home” – using Netanyahu’s nickname – were evident for the first time in his party’s heartland.

With this kind of goading, an election in the offing, and corruption indictments hanging over his head, Netanyahu may find it difficult to resist raising the temperature in Gaza once again.

But he also has strong incentives to calm things down and shore up Hamas’s rule.

The suggestion by some commentators that Netanyahu has turned a new leaf as a “man of peace” could not be more misguided. What distinguishes Netanyahu from his cabinet is not his moderation, but that he has a cooler head than his far-right rivals.

He believes there are better ways than lashing out to achieve his core political aim: the undermining of the Palestinian national project. This was what he meant on Wednesday when he attacked critics for missing “the overall picture of Israel’s security”.

On a practical level, Netanyahu has listened to his generals, who warn that, if Israel provokes war with Hamas, it may find itself ill-equipped to cope with the fallout on two other fronts, in Lebanon and Syria.

But Netanyahu has still deeper concerns. As veteran Israeli military analyst Ben Caspit observed: “The only thing more dangerous to Netanyahu than getting tangled up in war is getting tangled up in peace.”

The Israeli army has responded to months of largely non-violent mass protests at Gaza’s perimeter fence by killing more than 170 Palestinian demonstrators and maiming thousands more.

The protests could turn into an uprising. Palestinians storming the fence that imprisons them is an eventuality the Israeli army is entirely unprepared for. Its only response would be to slaughter Palestinians en masse, or reoccupy Gaza directly.

Netanyahu would rather bolster Hamas, so it can keep a lid on the protests than face an international backlash and demands that he negotiate with the Palestinians.

Further, a ceasefire that keeps Hamas in power in Gaza also ensures that Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank, can be kept out.

That was in part why Netanyahu, against his normal instincts, allowed the transfer of the Qatari money, which had been opposed by the Palestinian Authority. It is not just a fillip for Hamas, it is a slap in the face to Abbas.

A disunited Palestine, divided territorially and ideologically, is in no position to exert pressure on Netanyahu – either through Europe or the United Nations – to begin peace talks or concede Palestinian statehood.

That is all the more pressing, given that the White House insists that President Trump’s long-delayed peace plan will be unveiled within the next two months.

Leaks suggest that the US may propose a separate “entity” in Gaza under Egyptian supervision and financed by Qatar. The ceasefire should be seen as a first step towards creating a pseudo-Palestinian state in Gaza along these lines.

Palestinians there are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Between vengeful hotheads such as Lieberman, who want more carnage in Gaza, and Netanyahu, who prefers to keep the Palestinians quiet and largely forgotten in their tiny prison.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.


Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, DC. - Manafort faces charges including conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy against the United States. Manafort was the first to be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Today's hearing includes Manafort's arraignment on new charges concerning attempts to tamper with potential witnesses via an encrypted messaging platform. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at U.S. District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

THE GUARDIAN TODAY published a blockbuster, instantly viral story claiming that anonymous sources told the newspaper that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at least three times in the Ecuadorian Embassy, “in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016.” The article – from lead reporter Luke Harding, who has a long-standing and vicious personal feud with WikiLeaks and is still promoting his book titled “Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House” – presents no evidence, documents or other tangible proof to substantiate its claim, and it is deliberately vague on a key point: whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign.

For its part, WikiLeaks vehemently and unambiguously denies the claim. “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation,” the organization tweeted, adding: “WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.” The group also predicted: “This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the ‘Hitler Diaries.’”

(Manafort denies it the claim as well; see update below.)

While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalisticvoices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, “is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.”

There are many more reasons than the very valid ones cited by Heer to treat this story with great skepticism, which I will outline in a moment. Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange – either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times – but since the Guardian presents literally no evidence for the reader to evaluate, relying instead on a combination of an anonymous source and a secret and bizarrely vague intelligence document it claims it reviewed (but does not publish), no rational person would assume this story to be true.

But the main point is this one: London itself is one of the world’s most surveilled, if not the most surveilled, cities. And the Ecuadorian Embassy in that city – for obvious reasons – is one of the most scrutinized, surveilled, monitored and filmed locations on the planet.

In 2015, Wired reported that “the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated 5.9 million CCTV cameras keep watch over our every move,” and that “by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day.” The World Atlas proclaimed that “London is the most spied-on city in the world,” and that “on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.”

For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments – at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not only are guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, but they also pass through multiple visible cameras – to say nothing of the invisible ones – on their way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange.

In 2015, the BBC reported that “Scotland Yard has spent about £10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there,” and that “between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were £7.3m, with £1.8m spent on overtime.”

Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the very same Guardian that now wants you to believe that a person as prominent as Manafort visited Assange without having you see any video footage proving this happened, itself claimed that “Ecuador bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and support Julian Assange in its central London embassy, employing an international security company and undercover agents to monitor his visitors, embassy staff and even the British police,”

This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.

So why would any minimally rational, reasonable person possibly assume these anonymous claims are true rather than waiting to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available? As President Obama’s former national security aide and current podcast host Tommy Vietor put it: “If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting,” adding: “seems dubious.”

THERE ARE, as I noted, multiple other reasons to exercise skepticism with this story. To begin with, the Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him. One of the most extreme of many instances occurred in late 2016 when the paper was forced to retract a remarkably reckless (but predictably viral) Ben Jacobs story that claimed, with zero evidence, that “Assange has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.”

Then there are the glaring omissions in today’s story. As noted, every guest visiting Assange is logged in through a very intricate security system. While admitting that Manafort was never logged in to the embassy, the Guardian waves this glaring hole away with barely any discussion or attempt to explain it: “Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.”

Why would Manafort visit three times but never be logged in? Why would the Ecuadorian government, led by leftist Rafael Correa, allow life-long right-wing GOP operative Paul Manafort to enter their embassy three times without ever once logging in his visit? The Guardian has no answer. They make no attempt to explain it or even offer theories. They just glide over it, hoping that you won’t notice what a massive hole in the story this omission is.

It’s an especially inexcusable omission for the Guardian not to discuss its significance given that the Guardian itself obtained the Embassy’s visitors logs in May, and – while treating those logs as accurate and reliable – made no mention of Manafort’s inclusion on them. That’s because his name did not appear there (nor, presumably, did Roger Stone’s).

The language of the Guardian story also raises all sorts of questions. Aside from an anonymous source, the Guardian claims it viewed a document prepared by the Ecuadorian intelligence service Senain. The Guardian does not publish this report, but instead quotes a tiny snippet that, as the paper put it, “lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians.’”

That claim – that the report not only asserts Manafort visited Assange but “mentions ‘Russians’” – is a rather explosive claim. What does this report say about “Russians”? What is the context of the inclusion of this claim? The Guardian does not bother to question, interrogate or explain any of this. It just tosses the word “Russians” into its article in connection with Manafort’s alleged visits to Assange, knowing full well that motivated readers will draw the most inflammatory conclusions possible, thus helping to spread the Guardian’s article all over the internet and generate profit for the newspaper, without bothering to do any of the journalistic work to justify the obvious inference they wanted to create with this sloppy, vague and highly manipulative paragraph.

Beyond that, there are all sorts of internecine battles being waged inside the Ecuadorian Government that provide motive to feed false claims about Assange to the Guardian. Senain, the Ecuadorian intelligence service that the Guardian says showed it the incriminating report, has been furious with Assange for years, ever since WikiLeaks published filesrelating to the agency’s hacking and malware efforts. And as my May interview with former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa revealed, there are all sorts of internal in-fighting within the government over WikiLeaks, and the most hostile anti-Assange elements have been regularly dumping anti-Assange material with Harding and the Guardian, knowing full well that the paper’s years-long, hateful feud with WikiLeaks ensures a receptive and uncritical outlet.

In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story.

It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself “secretly” visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It’s possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.

And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it. Thus far, no such evidence has been published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence before forming a judgment?

The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other.

Update, 4:05 pm, November 27:

Manafort vehemently denies any meeting with Assange or WikiLeaks, issuing a statement on the Guardian’s report that reads:

This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us 

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

Glenn Greenwald

Jew  RICHARD FALK : Hiding Israel’s Crimes of State behind False Claims of Victimization

143 SHARES

40475236515 d2cd2021ac z 8e5c2

I along with many others am being victimized these days. They are being labelled anti-Semites, and in some instances, self-hating Jews as well.

This is a Zionist and Israeli effort to shut down our voices and punish our non-violent activism, with special venom directed at the BDS Campaign (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) because it has become so effective in recent years.

This negative branding of the opposition is being called ‘the new anti-Semitism.’ The old anti-Semitism was simply hatred of Jews as expressed through negative images and attitudes, as well as discriminatory practices, persecution, and vigilante violence.

The new anti-Semitism is a criticism of Israel and Zionism, and it has been endorsed by governments friendly to Israel and pushed by a variety of prominent Jewish organizations, including some associated with Holocaust survivors and memories. Emmanuel Macron, President of France, put this pushback by apologists for Israel rather clearly, if in a rather malicious form: “We will never surrender to the expressions of hatred. We will not surrender to anti-Zionism because it is the reinvention of anti-Semitism.”

The false premise is equating Zionism with Jews, automatically making criticism and opposition to the Zionist state of Israel as anti-Semitism.

Already in 2008, the U.S. State Department moved more subtly in a direction similar to that of Macron with this formal statement: “Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. […] However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.”

The fallacy here is to view criticism as ‘disproportionate’ without ever considering the realities of Israel’s long record of unlawfulness with regard to the Palestinian people.

To those of us who view the reality of Israeli policies and practices have little doubt that the criticisms being advanced, and the pressures being exerted, on in every sense proportionate.

A related argument often made is that Israel is being held to higher standards than other states, and this discloses an anti-Semitic sub-text. Such an argument is disingenuous. It is not a defence to suggest that the criminality of others is more severe.

Besides, the U.S. subsidizes Israel to the extent of at least $3.8 billion a year, besides its unconditional backing of its behaviour, creating some responsibility to impose limits according to with international humanitarian law.

As well, the UN contributed to the Palestinian ordeal by failing to implement the partition solution and allowing for 70 years for millions of Palestinians to be subject to apartheid structures of domination. No other people can so justifiably blame external forces for its own sustained tragedy.

In 2014 Noam Chomsky explained the false logic of such an allegation with typical moral and intellectual clarity:

“Actually, the locus classicus, the best formulation of this, was by an ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban, […] He advised the American Jewish community that they had two tasks to perform. One task was to show that criticism of the policy, what he called anti-Zionism – that means actually criticisms of the policy of the state of Israel – were anti-Semitism. That’s the first task.

Second task, if the criticism was made by Jews, their task was to show that it’s neurotic self-hatred, needs psychiatric treatment. Then he gave two examples of the latter category. One was I.F. Stone. The other was me.

So, we have to be treated for our psychiatric disorders, and non-Jews have to be condemned for anti-Semitism, if they’re critical of the state of Israel. That’s understandable why Israeli propaganda would take this position. I don’t particularly blame Abba Eban for doing what ambassadors are sometimes supposed to do. But we ought to understand that there is no sensible charge. No sensible charge. There’s nothing to respond to. It’s not a form of anti-Semitism. It’s simply criticism of the criminal actions of a state, period.”

One feature of this new anti-Semitism is its non-response to the well-evidenced allegations of crimes against humanity made by those being labelled as anti-Semites. Do these ardent supporters of Israel really carry their sense of impunity to such an extent that silence is allowed to stand as an adequate defence?

Underlying such a denial of the very idea of legal accountability and moral responsibility is this sense of Israeli exceptionalism, an outlook toward international criminal law that it shares with American exceptionalism.

Those who adhere to such exceptionalism purport to be outraged even by the implication that such a government might be subject to the norms embedded in the statute of the International Criminal Court or the UN Charter. Israeli exceptionalism does have its own roots in biblical tradition, especially a secular reading of Jews as ‘the chosen people,’ but really rests on a comfort zone created by the geopolitical umbrella shielding its most law-defying moves from global scrutiny.

Illustrative of many such protective actions was the recent UN General Assembly Resolution declaring Israeli steps toward the annexation of the Golan Heights to be null and void, with only Israel and the United States voting ‘no’ as against 151 UN members voting ‘yes.’

If we take just a minute to consult international law we find the issue so obvious as to be unworthy of serious discussion. A cardinal principle of contemporary international law, often affirmed by the UN in other contexts, is the impermissibility of the acquisition of territory by force of arms.

There is no dispute that Golan Heights were part of Syrian sovereign territory until the 1967 War, and that Israel acquired control that it has exercised ever since as a result of the forcible occupation.

The Ironies of the New New Anti-Semitism

There is an opportunistic irony present. The new anti-Semitism seems to have no trouble embracing Christian Zionist despite their hostility to Jews that is coupled with their fanatical devotion to Israel as a Jewish state. Anyone who has watched a Christian Zionist briefing knows that their reading of the Book of Revelations involves an interpretation that Jesus will return once all Jews return to Israel and the holiest temple in Jerusalem is restored.

Such a process does not end there. Jews then face an ultimatum to convert to Christianity or face eternal damnation. And so there is present among these fanatical friends of Israel a genuine hostility to Jews, both by trying to insist that ending the Jewish diaspora as a matter of religious imperative for Christians, and in the dismal fate that awaits Jews who refuse to convert after The Second Coming.

An illuminating perversity is present. Unlike the new anti-Semites that have no hostility to Jews as people, the Christian Zionists give priority to their enthusiasm for the state of Israel, while being ready to disrupt the lives of diaspora Jews and eventually even Israeli and Zionist Jews.

Maybe it is less perversity than opportunism. Israel has never had any reluctance to support the most oppressive and dictatorial leaders of foreign countries provided they buy arms and do not adopt an anti-Israeli diplomacy. Netanyahu’s congratulatory message to Jair Bolsonaro, the newly elected leader of Brazil, is but the most recent instance, and Israel received a quick reward by an announcement of a decision to join the United States in moving its embassy to Jerusalem.

In effect, the new anti-Semitism is comfortable with both Christian Zionism and with foreign political leaders that exhibit fascist inclinations.

In effect, a blind eye toward the core reality of true anti-Semitism is a characteristic of the new anti-Semitism so favoured by militant Zionists.

For abundant documentation see the important book by Jeff Halper, War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification (2015).

Against such a background, we need a descriptive term that identifies this phenomenon and rejects its insidious claims. I am here proposing the inelegant label ‘the new new anti-Semitism.’

The idea of such a label is to suggest that it is the new anti-Semites, not the critics and activists critical of Israel, that are the real bearers of hatred toward Jews as Jews. Two kinds of arguments are contained in this pushback against the campaign seeking to discredit or even criminalize the ‘new anti-Semites.’

First, it deflects criticism from the persistence of an alarming reality, the continuing ordeal of apartheid imposed on all the Palestinian people as a whole, which should become the salient concern for all who wish the best for humanity.

Secondly, it deliberately or unwittingly diverts attention from, and confuses, objections to real anti-Semitism by accepting on behalf of the state of Israel the embrace of Christian Zionists (and evangelicals) along with that of fascist leaders who preach messages of ethnic hatred.

To conclude, we who are attacked as new anti-Semites are really trying to honour our human identity, and to reject tribalist loyalties or geopolitical alignments, in our commitment to the realization of Palestinian rights, above all their right of self-determination.

As Jews, to hold Israel accountable under standards that were used to condemn Nazi surviving political and military leaders is to honour the legacy of the Holocaust, not to defile it.

In contrast, when Israel sells weapons and offers counterinsurgency training to fascist-led governments around the world or remains ready to accept post-Khashoggi Saudi Arabia as a valued ally, it obscures the evil nature of the Holocaust in ways that could haunt Israel and even diaspora Jews in the future.

*(Judaism and Zionism are diametrically opposed Image credit: Alisdare Hickson/ flickr)

WRITER

Jews and Film

The Jew as Adversary in the Battle Over Obscenity, Pornography and Sexual Morality – Part 8: Jews and Film

Moment-magazine580

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7

“As soon as the Jew gained control of the ‘movies,’ we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are not yet visible. It is the genius of that race to create problems of a moral character in whatever business they achieve a majority.” – Henry Ford1

The movie industry, according to film historian Robert Sklar, was “completely in the hands of respectable, established Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans,” before Jewish immigrants began taking it over in 1911.2

By 1915, the Jew Carl Laemmle had crushed all of his competitors using every dirty trick at his disposal, and had become head of the largest studio, Universal.

“From this point on,” Neal Gabler writes in An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, “the Jews would control the movies.”3

There was great concern over the potential harm that movies could do to public morality from the very beginning. In the same year that the Jews effectively took over Hollywood, 1915, the Supreme Court denied First Amendment rights to movies with Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio.

This decision gave local censors the right to screen movies before allowing their showing, making film the only medium ever subject to “prior restraint” censorship in the history of America.

“[T]he exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple,” the court declared.

Acknowledging that motion pictures could be used for good, such as for education, the judges also recognized that they “may be used for evil,” especially since their audiences include not just men and women, but also children.4

The salient aspect of the history of the Jewish domination of our film industry in Hollywood is the lack of any open acknowledgement of the Jews as an ethnic group among their opposition. This is despite it being a well-known, obvious, and despised fact that the Jews were using the movies for ill.

For instance, the 1922 anti-Hollywood pamphlet The Sins of Hollywood – the most popular of its time – describes a movie producer who is preying on a pretty aspiring actress as “small, dark-haired with a bullet head and a low, receding brow” and “a large nose and small ratty eyes.” Along with the suspiciously Yiddish sounding accent he is given, that makes it pretty clear that the character is a Jew, yet he is never explicitly named as such.5

Calling a Jew a Jew was out of the bounds of respectability, apparently, even way back then.

image62

The one prominent American who had the courage to come forward and openly name and oppose the Jews was the great industrialist Henry Ford. His newspaper The Dearborn Independent, which he distributed for free to hundreds of thousands of Americans every week, ran a total of ninety-one anti-Semitic articles. Three of them were concerning “Jews and the movies.”

“There is little wisdom in discoursing against evil in the movies and deliberately closing our eyes to the forces behind the evil,” one such article reads.6 “The purpose of this and succeeding articles,” it continues

is not to lift hands in horror and point out how rotten the movies are. Everybody is doing that. The case against the movies is not contested at all. It is unanimous. Women’s clubs, teachers, newspaper editors, police officers, judges of the courts, ministers or religion, physicians, mothers and fathers — everybody knows just what the movies are.

What all these disgusted groups evidently do not know is this: their protests will be entirely useless until they realize that behind the movies there is another group of definite moral and racial complexion . . . they can go on beating the air for a lifetime and still obtain no improvement, unless they face the unpleasant racial fact that the movies are Jewish. It is not a question of morals – that question has been settled; it is a question of management.7

In 1921 alone, there were almost 100 bills introduced in 37 states calling for the regulation of motion pictures.

So in 1922 – the same year as the distribution of both Ford’s articles and the The Sins of Hollywood pamphlet quoted above – the major Hollywood studios hired U.S. Postmaster General Will H. Hayes to head the newly formed Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), for the purpose of regulating film content in order to prevent a government crackdown.

The MPAA drew up guidelines in the form of “The Formula” in 1924, the “Don’ts and Be Carefuls” in 1927, and finally the “Production Code” in 1930, which was not fully enforced until they hired Joseph Breen and formed the “Production Code Administration,” in 1934.

The period between the writing of the Production Code and its actual enforcement – 1930 to 1934 – is what is known as “Pre-code Hollywood,” during which producers were continuously pushing the moral boundaries of the time.

In response, Catholics formed the Legion of Decency, for the stated purpose of boycotting and condemning “absolutely those salacious motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land.”

The Catholic Legion of Decency’s threat of boycott loomed heavily over the Hollywood Jews. This was no empty threat. On one occasion they organized a protest in Philadelphia and the profits for that city dropped by 40 percent.8

breen
Joseph Breen

Breen was a prime example of Ford’s complaint about the futility of people opposing Jewish behavior without ever naming them directly. Breen, according to multiple private correspondences, was an anti-Semite, but he never dared to say it publicly.

In 1932, he wrote to a Jesuit confidant that the Jews are

a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the making of money. . . . Here [in Hollywood] we have Paganism rampant and in its most virulent form. Drunkenness and debauchery are commonplace. Sexual perversion is rampant . . . any number of our directors and stars are perverts. . . . These Jews seem to think of nothing but making money and sexual indulgence. . . . Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth.9

He wrote to his assistant, Martin Quigley, that same year: “The fact is that these damn Jews are a dirty, filthy lot.”

Two years later, again in a letter to a Jesuit, while referring to one movie official as “a kike Jew of the very lowest type,” Breen claimed to be the one man “who could cram decent ethics down the throats of the Jews.”10

Breen and the Legion of Decency did in fact effectively rein in the Jews’ racial urge to promote degeneracy and immorality – at least for a time. The first serious “chink in the Code’s armor,” according to Leonard J. Leff and Jerold L. Simmons, in their history of the Production Code, The Dame in the Kimono, came with the movie The Bicycle Thief, which was imported from Italy by the Jew Joseph Burstyn in 1948.11

After viewing the film, Breen found two scenes objectionable and wanted them removed prior to the issuing of a seal. Both seem rather innocuous, especially by today’s standards. One of the scenes showed a boy, filmed from the back, pausing to urinate on a wall before his father called him away, and another showed characters running through a brothel, though nothing even remotely explicit is shown.

The former Breen considered “toilet humor,” which he categorically rejected; and the latter he considered dangerous in that “such locales inescapably suggest commercialized vice and human depravity, and arouse unwholesome interest and curiosity on the part of youth.”12

Burstyn skillfully whipped up controversy over this, knowing the film would rise in popularity accordingly. After it won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, Breen, under pressure from multiple civil liberty organizations, the media, and even the Legion of Decency, finally backed down and gave it a seal without the recommended cuts.

Breen’s reasoning for wanting the scenes cut was the following: “If, for any reason whatsoever, such scenes are to be appraised as acceptable, such approval may be properly deemed to set a precedent for all future motion pictures . . . the motion pictures will be flooded with similar scenes.”13

A very prescient observation, I would argue, given the nature of what Jewish Hollywood films – especially “comedies” – have devolved into, now being filled front to back with almost nothing but “toilet humor” and “human depravity.”

Joseph Burstyn

Joseph Burstyn was a Polish-born Jewish immigrant. He was initially a diamond polisher, but after making a decent enough turnover from a screening of the movie A Jew at War, he went into the business of exclusively importing foreign films.14

In 1952, four years after The Bicycle Thief, Burstyn again caused controversy when he imported another Italian film called The Miracle.

Catholics protested The Miracle and blocked its showing in New York theaters,because they found it to be blasphemous. Burstyn, spending more than $60,000 of his own money (over half a million in today’s value), brought the movie to the Supreme Court, where it resulted in the landmark decision of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, also known as the Miracle decision.

The Miracle decision overturned the Mutual decision, and freed movies from the burden of prior restraint. Films were not seen as “a business, pure and simple” anymore, but as a medium worthy of full First Amendment protections.

The movie was defended by the Jew Ephraim London, who was the uncle of the prominent Jewish feminist Robin Morgan of the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (see part 7).

London – who once opined on a television show that if people “want to publicly perform intercourse on a nightclub stage, or defecate or anything like that,” they should be allowed – ultimately argued nine film cases before the Supreme Court (The Miracle being the first), and, incredibly, won them all.15

ephraimlondon
Ephraim London

The Production Code’s main nemesis was the Jew Otto Preminger, who actively and openly defied it repeatedly. Following the Miracle decision, he submitted the script for The Moon is Blue, and it was subsequently rejected by both the Legion of Decency and the Production Code Administration, with Breen accused it of having “an unacceptably cavalier approach toward seduction and illicit sex.”16

Preminger went ahead with the film anyway. During the press conferences for it he repeatedly slammed Breen for his “hypocritical interpretation of an antiquated code,” and, foreshadowing the weapon the Jews would soon use to topple the Code entirely, compared the very concept of censorship to Nazism: “It is an evil institution, and if we give in to it on small matters this is the first step toward the kind of totalitarian government that destroyed my country, Austria.”17

After having the film rejected by both Warner Bros. and Paramount, for being “too risky,” Preminger convinced the Jews Arthur Krim and Robert S. Benjamin to produce it unedited with their company United Artists, and then released it without Code approval – a full “frontal assault on Joseph L. Breen,” as Leff & Simmons put it.18

Following its release, The Moon is Blue was censored in many states and outright banned in three – Maryland, Ohio and Kansas. Preminger and United Artists took the Kansas ban all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where, with the help of Ephraim London, they got the decision reversed.

The Moon is Blue, due to its success in spite of not being Code approved, “sounded the death rattle of the legion of decency and the Production Code,” wrote Leff & Simmons.19

37614_ottopreminger1953stalg1701_12
Otto Preminger, along with being a producer and director, was also an actor, frequently typecast as Nazi “heavies.”

Following the the Miracle decision, and the subsequent 1957 Roth decision (see part 3), independent film-makers, who were not bound by the Production Code as the major studios in Hollywood were, began pushing the envelope by producing “nudie cutie” and “sexploitation” films.

Beginning with Russ Meyer’s The Immoral Mr. Teas (1959), these were the first “above ground” films to feature gratuitous nudity (without being in the “nudist” or “naturalist” genre). They initially played in what were known as “grindhouse” theaters, but slowly moved into more mainstream ones.

Next to Meyer, the Jew David F. Friedman is by far the biggest name associated with sexploitation. In 1963, he produced Scum of the Earth!, using the pseudonym Davis Freeman. Scum of the Earth! is considered the first in the “roughie” subgenre of sexploitation. Roughies, in general, were violent revenge films. In the beginning they would show a woman, or multiple women, being brutally raped or otherwise abused and tortured by men; and then by the end the men would be shown on the receiving end of the graphic violence.

Also in 1963, Friedman produced Blood Feast, which is considered the first in the “gore” or “splatter” genre.

Later, in 1969, using the pseudonym Herman Traeger, Friedman produced Love Camp 7. This was the first film of the most bizarre sexploitation subgenre of all: “Nazisploitation.” Nazisploitation films were over-the-top, sex and gore, horror fantasy films about cartoonish German Nazis conducting all kinds of deranged experiments on Jewish concentration camp inmates.

The mother of all Nazisploitation films was Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, which was, again, produced by Friedman/Traeger.

Here is part of the plot summary for Ilsa, as found on Wikipedia, to give you an idea of how sick and weird these types of movies actually were:

Ilsa is Kommandant of a Nazi prison camp, who conducts sadistic scientific experiments designed to demonstrate that women are more capable of enduring pain than men are . . . Ilsa is also portrayed as a buxom woman with a voracious sexual appetite for men. Every night she chooses another of her male prisoners and rapes him; however, owing to her hypersexuality she is disappointed when her current victim eventually ejaculates, and promptly has him castrated and put to death. Only one American prisoner, who can avoid ejaculating, manages to use her weakness to his favor.

Ilsa_she_wolf_of_ss_poster_02-670x1024

In 1964, the Supreme Court again weighed in on the issue of film censorship with the highly significant landmark case, Jacobellis v. Ohio. It was this case, which was over the showing of the French film Les Amants (The Lovers), where Justice Potter Stewart, when trying to define pornography, made the famous, oft-repeated and mocked statement: “I know it when I see it.”

The Jacobellis case, which was again argued by Ephraim London, applied the liberal Roth test to film, meaning now as long as a film had “socially redeeming value,” and its “overall effect” was not to “appeal to prurient interest,” it was legal and could not be suppressed.

Local censors’ hands were now somewhat tied by the Supreme Court. Hollywood, on the other hand, was still ultimately beholden to the Legion of Decency and the Production Code, and so it went into all out assault on them both.

In 1964 alone, the Legion faced by far more Code breaking films than any previous year. “34 films, of which 20 were major Hollywood productions,” Monsignor Thomas Little of the Legion reported at the time, “would have been released with scenes employing nudity,” had his organization not successfully pressured them to edit.20

There was one film that year that wasn’t be dismissed so easily though: The Pawnbroker, which was centered around the Holocaust. The Jews cleverly weaved the nudity into scenes that they could claim were “necessary to the movie.”21

This being a Holocaust film, the moral responsibility was entirely flipped on its head: the Jews were not in the wrong for wanting to put nudity on the big screen, the censors were in the wrong for condemning it. It was “art,” they argued, not smut, and the Holocaust is a deeply emotional topic for the poor, innocent Jews who had just suffered so much at the hands of the Nazis (see footnote).22

Though thoroughly intimidated by the Jews’ Holocaust guilt-tripping, the Production Code Administration and the Legion nevertheless both rejected The Pawnbroker, recognizing that allowing it would be the first step on a slippery slope: “If we were to agree to that, how could we hold back the next one?”23

The Jews released the film anyway, uncut and without Code approval, through Allied Artists, which was controlled at the time by the Jewish Mirisch family. The Jewish producer of The Pawnbroker, Ely Landau, then appealed the film to the board of the MPAA. The board overturned the prior ruling and awarded the movie a seal, claiming the “sole exception granted The Pawnbroker is to be viewed as a special and unique case and in no way setting a precedent.”24

This, of course, was nonsense, and everybody knew it. The Pawnbroker “exception” set off a string of events that saw the Production Code completely abandoned within five years. It was replaced by the MPAA ratings system, which is still in use today, though it has been altered a bit throughout the years. Initially, the ratings system was: G for General, M for Mature, R for Restricted, and X for not rated.

thepawnbrokernude
Negress prostitute in The Pawnbroker – the first nude scene ever to pass Code approval.

Michael Medved, with his book Hollywood vs. America, gives us many astonishing statistics about these crucial years, such as the following:

Theater profits were a steady 40 to 49 million a week for 12 years prior to the beginning of the dissolution of the Code (1953-1965). The numbers then dropped from 44 million in 1965, to 17.5 million in 1969.25

That is almost a full two-thirds loss of theatergoers and profit. From 1966 to 1967 alone, it went from 38 million to 17.8 million – well over a 50% drop in one year!26

Medved goes on to provide data that prove unequivocally that G-rated movies make an overwhelmingly larger monetary return than others (more than twice as much as R-rated movies on average, with PG-13 and PG-rated movies falling pretty evenly in between).27 Yet the producers have continuously made more and more R-rated films and less G-rated ones, in spite of the millions upon millions – maybe even billions – of guaranteed profits going out the window.

Even foul language, Medved reveals, is shown to be rejected by “huge majorities of potential moviegoers” in “innumerable surveys,” yet it has only, as we all well know, gotten more and more offensive over time.28

Medved is a Jew himself, and as such is a staunch apologist for his tribe’s role in Hollywood. He feigns ignorance as to why his own data shows what it does, choosing to place the blame on “liberalism,” but those of us with the PC blinders off, who are willing to deploy even a modicum of common sense, know there can only be one possible explanation for this phenomenon: the Jews are more concerned with demoralizing society and pushing their own ethnic and political agenda than they are in making profits.

And we all know how much the Jews love profits.

Those figures (and Medved’s book in general), are in and of themselves proof that the Jews are using film as a weapon to deliberately attack the morality of gentile society (just as they admittedly do with outright hardcore pornography, as we’ll see in part 9). This is not conjecture by an anti-Semite, but an incontrovertible fact, thoroughly documented by a Jew – and it needs to be understood.

To draw further contrast between these years, it’s worth noting that in 1965 the Academy Award for best picture went to the G-rated, family-friendly musical The Sound of Music, and in 1969 – the very first year after the breakdown of the Code – it went to United Artists’ disturbing X-rated film Midnight Cowboy.

Midnight Cowboy was directed by the Jew John Schlesinger, and featured multiple scenes of homosexuality and other perversions, including one where the “cowboy” character (meant to symbolize the quintessential masculine, heterosexual White American male) is forcibly sodomized.

The year 1969 also saw the founding of the first explicit hardcore porn advocacy group, the Adult Film Association of America, of which David Friedman, the aforementioned Jew of sexploitation fame, was elected president five times.

The popularity of sexploitation films had waned quite significantly by that time due to the fact that hardcore porn, featuring actual sex, was now becoming more acceptable.

In January of 1968, the Swedish countercultural sex film I Am Curious (Yellow) had been seized by customs after being imported by the Jew Barney Rosset, who, as we discuss in depth in part 4, had been at the forefront of the major landmark obscenity cases in regard to banned books in the mid-60s (Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Tropic of Cancer, specifically).

I Am Curious (Yellow) featured multiple scenes of nudity and simulated sex, including one where the lead actress is shown kissing a flaccid penis.

Rosset paid Sandrews, the Swedish film company that produced I Am Curious (Yellow),$100,000 in order to secure American distribution rights for the film, and agreed to pay them 30% of its profits. He also promised to pay all legal fees should the film run into trouble, boasting that he “may win for the film industry the same freedom afforded literature in the Lady Chatterley’s Lover case.”29

Being the first movie that featured sex and nudity to be shown in regular theaters, rather than back alley porn theaters, viewers flocked to see I Am Curious (Yellow). By September, 1969, it had already grossed $5 million. A month later it became “the first foreign-language film to top Variety‘s list of the top-grossing films.”30

Predictably, the film became the subject of many obscenity trials across the country. It was shown in 53 cities, and contested in 15, ultimately getting banned in about 10 states.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals eventually overturned the New York customs’ ban, but this was not a nationwide ruling, as those, of course, only come from the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court did finally hear the case it ended with a 4-4 split. Justice William O. Douglas, who was a radical First Amendment “absolutist,” had recused due to a conflict of interest (some of his anti-censorship writings had been featured in Rosset’s journal, the Evergreen Review).

The split upheld the lower court’s ruling by default, and though this still did not overturn decisions in other parts of the country, it nevertheless spelled the end of the censorship of I Am Curious (Yellow), as it became clear the issue would never be decisively resolved in the censors’ favor.

Altogether the film earned Rosset an astonishing $14 million, but, ironically, by paving the way for true pornography, it undercut the agenda of his publishing company, Grove Press. “I Am Curious (Yellow) was a big success,” he said in an interview,

But it was a disaster for us in many ways. Because we made a lot of money, I went and bought a lot of foreign films—which were no longer commercially viable because all the art theaters had closed down, overnight, in 1970. They had started showing X-rated porno films. There had been a big market for foreign films in this country, and suddenly it was gone. After I Am Curious (yellow) played, that was the end. We killed our own market.31

fca7cf91fc69f7f5240acd9c45b0b8e66099cfd6
Future president Gerald Ford holding up the issue of Evergreen Review which featured the anti-censorship writings of Justice William O. Douglas, in a move to have him impeached from the Supreme Court.

In the first post-Curious above ground pornographic films – Andy Warhol’s Blue Movie(1969), and Mona the Teenage Nymph (1970) – the sex was shown while the man had a flaccid penis, carefully following the I am Curious (Yellow) precedent, and then it progressively became more graphic.

By 1972, the infamous, full-on hardcore porno Deep Throat was a nationwide theatrical blockbuster, earning over $100 million, and staying on Variety‘s list of top 10 highest-grossing movies for 48 weeks. Deep Throat was soon followed by the similarly successful Behind the Green Door (1972), and The Devil in Miss Jones (1973).

A nation-wide backlash to these and other liberal excesses swept conservative Republican Richard Nixon into power in 1969, and there was a last ditch effort to stem the tide of hardcore pornography.

This effort, which culminated in the Nixon-stacked Supreme Court’s 1973 Millerdecision – the precedent of which still stands as the test for obscenity today – and the preeminent Jewish role in hardcore pornography from then up to the present time, will be the topic of part 9.


If you enjoyed this series, please consider tipping the author. A considerable amount of time and money was spent on writing and researching it.

You can also support this work by purchasing a print copy from Lulu.

Btc address: 14KQkvSS26QbY264yLXK586GuYZkmM7BS4

Notes

  1. Henry Ford, The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem, 1922, p.218 
  2. Matthew Bernstein, Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era, 1999, p.20-21 
  3. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood1988, p.64 
  4. Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) 
  5. Ed Roberts, The Sins of Hollywood, 1922, p.77 (For a highly listenable audio version see here.) 
  6. Ford, p.239 
  7. Ibid., p.244 
  8. Fredrick S. Lane III, Obscene Profits: The Entrepeneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age, 2001, p.22 
  9. Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies, 1994, p.70 
  10. Leonard J. Leff & Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code, 1990, p.47 
  11. Ibid., p.165 
  12. Ibid., p.163 
  13. Ibid., p.172 
  14. Laura Wittern-Keller & Raymond J. Haberski Jr., The Miracle Case: Film Censorship and the Supreme Court, 2008, p.59 
  15. Richard Kuh, Foolish Figleaves? Pornography in-and out of-Court, 1968, p.4 
  16. Foster Hirsch, Otto Preminger: The Man Who Would be King, 2007, p.191 
  17. Ibid., p.197 
  18. Leff & Simmons, p.199 
  19. Ibid., p.203 
  20. E. Michael Jones, John Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution, 1995, p.303 
  21. See Leonard L. Jeff, ‘Hollywood and the Holocaust: Remembering the Pawnbroker,’ American Jewish History, 1996 
  22. This wouldn’t be the last time the Jews used their Holocaust story as leverage to get nudity approved on the screen. In fact, it was how they did it every time. The first time nudity was ever shown on television was in the Holocaust TV series War and Remembrance in 1978 (see here and here), and the first movie ever to be shown on TV with nudity – during “primetime,” to 65 million people, many of them children – was none other than Schindler’s List, in 1997. It has aired unedited ever since (see here and here). 
  23. Jones, p.325 
  24. Thomas Doherty, Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph L. Breen and the Production Code Administration, 2009, p.331 
  25. Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values, 1992, p.277 
  26. Ibid., p.283 
  27. Ibid., p.287 
  28. Ibid., p.291 
  29. Eric Schaefer et al., Sex Scene: Media and the Sexual Revolution, 2014, p.107 
  30. Loren Glass, Counterculture Colophon: Grove Press, the Evergreen Review, and the incorporation of the Avant-Garde, 2013, p.207 
  31. Ken Jordan, ‘Barney Rosset, The Art of Publishing No. 2,’ The Paris Review 

Post navigation

  • Rosset paid Sandrews, the Swedish film company that produced I Am Curious (Yellow), $100,000 in order to secure American distribution rights for the film, and agreed to pay them 30% of its profits.

    Specerihandlaren Anders Sandrew [1885-1957] hade under 1920-talet byggt upp en biografkedja med 16 biografer i Stockholm. År 1931 började han samarbeta med produktionsbolaget Europa Film för att få tillgång till fler svenska filmer. Tack vare samarbetet visades bland annat de publikdragande Edvard Persson-filmerna på Sandrews biografer. Biografrörelsen ombildades 1937 till aktiebolaget Sandrew-biograferna. Året efter övertog Anders Sandrew det konkursdrabbade bolaget Irefilms filmateljé som nu blev AB Sandrew-Ateljéerna och han startade ett filmbolag med regissören och producenten Schamyl Bauman [1893-1966]. *https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandrews

    *The wholesaler Anders Sandrew [1885-1957] had built a cinema chain with 16 cinemas in Stockholm during the 1920s. In 1931, he began collaborating with the production company Europa Film to gain access to more Swedish films. Thanks to the collaboration, Edvard Persson’s publicly featured films were featured at Sandrew’s cinemas. The movie company was transformed into the stock company Sandrew Cinemas in 1937. The following year Anders Sandrew took over the bankrupt company Irefilm’s film festival, which became the AB Sandrew Atelier and started a film company with the director and producer Schamyl Bauman [1893-1966].

    Europafilm grundades 1930 av bröderna Gustav Scheutz och Per Scheutz, med stöd av regissören Schamyl Bauman. Bolagets första film blev Kärlek och landstorm som Bauman själv regisserade. Som inspelningslokaler användes från 1933 en nedlagd cementplattefabrik i Mariehäll i Bromma. År 1943 köpte Europafilm Folkteatern, och under några år fungerade den som biograf parallellt med teaterverksamheten. **

    ** Europafilm was founded in 1930 by the brothers Gustav Scheutz and Per Scheutz, supported by director Schamyl Bauman. The company’s first film was Love and Landstorm directed by Bauman. From 1933, a recessed cement plate factory in Mariehäll in Bromma was used as recording rooms. In 1943, Europafilm bought the Folk theatre, and for several years it served as a cinema in parallel with the theater activities.

  • How (((Porn))) Is Used As A Weapon Of Subversion

    When a person rejects morality, they reject good reason and become mindless slave’s to their basic creature lusts and sensuality. The ancient Greeks and Hebrews knew all too well that sexual liberation was in fact a form of political slavery. For the Greeks, this truth was revealed in the tragic play, Euripides and The Bacchae. For the Hebrews, this truth was revealed in the story of Samson and Delilah.

    A highly informative talk that will furnish the listener with an excellent and truthful understanding of why (((Pornography))) has been used as a primary tool for political control and consequently the moral subversion of the West. What worked so well in the West is now being implemented all over the Middle East in the next stage of the Zionist war of subversion against the world.

    • EmilyEnso

      List of names on here which may be of interest.


      The Dark Side of Steven Spielberg & Hollywood

Leaked Transcript Proves Russiagaters Have Been Right All Along

Trump Putin evil plot

 

A transcript of exchanges between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin. We here at NNC have confirmed the authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we’ve been using to authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 US elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions, and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.

This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News Conglomerate. Obey.

11/9/2016

Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired with your hackers to steal the election, and now I’m going to be president! I want to thank you for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of people, which is something I never normally do.

Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.

Trump: One thing I’m curious about though my lord, if you don’t mind my asking. If you already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help? Couldn’t you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to interact with them at all?

Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don’t need to get into specifics.

Trump: Oh okay.

~

1/20/2017

Trump: I’m in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What are my instructions, my lord?

Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world domination.

Trump: That’s a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone gets along up until today. I’ll try my best though. Anything else?

Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation’s large media outlets and convince them that the US intelligence community is often dishonest.

Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.

~

4/7/2017

Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.

Trump: What? Really? Aren’t they, like, your allies?

Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can’t have them finding out about that pee tape.

Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.

Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they’ve been in exposing us?? Have you never watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth at every turn! We can’t afford to take chances. Do as I say.

Trump: Yes sir.

Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.

~

5/14/17

Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro’s addition to NATO?

Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.

Trump: Uhhh okay.

~

6/28/17

Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?

Putin: Kurt Volker.

Trump: Volker? He hates you! He’s like the biggest Russia hawk ever.

Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We’re playing 3-D chess here. This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.

Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you’re doing.

~

8/30/17

Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats. That will confuse the hell out of them.

~

11/21/17

Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will throw them off the trail for sure.

~

1/1/18

Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.

~

1/29/18

Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward Russia.

~

2/14/18

Putin: Happy Valentine’s Day. Don’t worry about those Russians your guys killed in Syria.

~

2/19/18

Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.

~

3/25/18

Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.

~

4/5/18

Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.

~

4/10/18

Putin: Bomb Syria.

Trump: What?? Again?

Putin: Yes.

Trump: What the hell, man? Why’d you even recruit me if you’re just going to have me do everything all the Russia hawks want?

Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate investigation?

Trump: Yeah?

Putin: Well that wasn’t enough. Now we’re playing 4-D chess.

Trump: Fine, whatever, I don’t care. Just don’t release my pee tape.

~

7/17/18

Trump: Oh man. They’re really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?

Putin: Play it cool. Don’t let them know about our secret diabolical plot.

Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?

Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.

~

9/2/18

Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?

Trump: Working on it.

~

10/20/18

Putin: I like John Bolton’s idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

~

11/25/18

Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch Strait spat.

Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?

Trump: Hello?

Trump: Are you there?

Trump: Answer me!

Putin: 5-D chess.

______________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalbuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Comment: LOL! There’s nothing quite like parody to expose the absolutely ridiculous. The Russiagate narrative is exposed as the completely ludicrous narrative that it is.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Trump Blasts Mueller & “Angry Democrats” – “Go Back To The Clinton Foundation”

Trump referenced the FBI’s shuttered investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Published on

999 Views

Via Zerohedge


In a trio of increasingly angry tweets this morning, President Trump raged at special counsel Robert Mueller as “a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue” lambasting him for “doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System” because of his one-sided investigation.

“The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue…

...The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite. He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won’t be Mueller and his…

…terrible Gang of Angry Democrats. Look at their past, and look where they come from.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite. He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won’t be Mueller and his…

Trump went on to reference the FBI’s shuttered investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, which chastised the former Democratic nominee as “extremely careless” for her use of a private email server to do official business at the State Department.

The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives.Where is the Server? Let these terrible people go back to the Clinton Foundation and “Justice” Department!”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….terrible Gang of Angry Democrats. Look at their past, and look where they come from. The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives. Where is the Server? Let these terrible people go back to the Clinton Foundation and “Justice” Department!

64.3K people are talking about this

Trump has attacked and criticized Mueller’s investigation into members of his campaign for months, but this outburst comes a day after Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi refused to sign a plea deal with Mueller.

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

Israel is THE instigator of the tensions between the US and Russia

xisraelzionismjudaism4

PRESS TV – Israel is the instigator of the tensions between the US and Russia over the Syrian crisis, a former CIA/NSA contractor tells Press TV. Israel is the “instigator and the entire source of this problem that’s going to plague the entire world with nuclear war,” Steven Kelley said in an interview with Press TV on Friday.

“None of this would be happening if it was not for the expansionist desires of the Zionist regime, and this very fact that we are now threatened with horrible annihilation and nuclear destruction, should be time for all of us to sit back and look and see who is profiting and who is instigating this fight and it is not between [US President Barack] Obama and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” Kelley said.

“It is the Zionists against the entire world. This is genocide and we really need to stop it as soon as possible,” he added.  

He also stated the US is launching attacks against Syrian government forces at the behest and orders of the Israeli regime in order to try to “salvage” the Daesh Takfiri terrorists in Aleppo.

The comments came after Russia warned the US against striking the Syrian forces’ positions, saying Moscow was ready to use its air defense systems to protect them.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said that any missile attack or airstrike on the territories controlled by the Damascus government would pose a clear threat to Russian military personnel.

The analyst further noted Washington’s desire to destroy Syria and overthrow President Bashar al-Assad is in line with the expansionist policies of the Israeli regime.

“Nobody wants to admit the truth. Everybody is pretending to go along with this charade that ISIS (Daesh) was not created by the United States, that the United States is fighting ISIS, that it does not have anything to do with Israel,” he added.

Kelley also argued all the peace agreements in Syria are meant to allow the Daesh terrorist group to rearm.

Since March 2011, Syria has been hit by militancy it blames on some Western states and their regional allies. Moscow and Washington support opposing sides in the crisis.

PAX JUDAICA 2

SOURCE: PRESS TV


Thu Nov 29, 2018 08:53AM [Updated: Thu Nov 29, 2018 08:58AM ]
Head of Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh
Head of Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh

Hamas has written to the UN, condemning “aggressive” attempts by the US to pass a resolution against the resistance movement, urging the world body to end Tel Aviv’s “abhorrent” occupation of the Palestinian territories.

In a letter addressed to UN General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa on Wednesday, head of Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh highlighted the importance of international work to thwart Washington’s efforts meant to delegitimize the Palestinian resistance.

He also reiterated the right of the Palestinian nation to defend themselves and resist the occupation, describing Hamas as a movement that acts for “the fulfillment of the Palestinian aspirations.”

The letter came days after Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon said that US diplomats had been in talks with their EU counterparts to win their backing for a draft resolution against Hamas.

The UN General Assembly is expected to vote Friday or possibly Monday on the motion.

A draft text seen by AFP “condemns Hamas for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence.”

Elsewhere in his letter, Haniyeh said that he has been “following up with great anger and condemnation the ongoing and miserable efforts by the United States of America, not only by adopting the Israeli narrative of the conflict, but also by providing all the necessary material and moral support for the Israeli occupation.”

He also stressed that Hamas would “greatly count on the members of the UN General Assembly [to] stand by international legitimacy in support for the right of peoples to defend themselves and thwart these aggressive American endeavors.”

The Hamas leader further denounced Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians lands, illegal settlement activities, the judaization of Jerusalem al-Quds and the terrible siege imposed on the Gaza Strip.

Israel, he added, is “acting as an entity above the law, by rejecting dozens of international resolutions condemning the occupation, settlement and targeting civilians, and even working to abort these decisions and prevent their implementation in all ways.”

Additionally, Haniyeh called on the UN to put an end to the “abhorrent” Israeli occupation and help Palestinian dreams come true.

Hamas runs Gaza, which has been under a crippling siege since 2007 and witnessed three wars since 2008.

The coastal sliver has also witnessed a fresh wave of tensions since March 30, which marked the start of “The Great March of Return” protests.

The Tel Aviv regime carries out regular attacks on Gaza under the pretext of hitting positions belonging to Hamas. In response, the resistance group conducts rocket attacks in the occupied territories.


Ex-CIA chief tears into Trump– ‘Mueller’s name will be revered in US history while yours will be scorned’

ed note–we’ve said it before–a million times by now, in fact–but for the benefit of those all-too-willing stragglers who just can’t (won’t) seem to ‘catch up,’ we’ll do it again.

John Brennan is not some minor cog in some minor wheel of little to no importance. As former head of the CIA he was the CEO of one of the most powerful pieces of machinery working in the service of Judea, Inc that played an indispensable role in the assassination of JFK and his brother RFK, Israel’s attack on the USS LIBERTY, the destruction of those politicians who got sideways with Israel (including but not limited to presidents Nixon, Carter, Ford, and George H.W. Bush) the Impeachment of Clinton, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, 9/11, the anthrax attacks, the lies that led up to the destruction of Iraq, and much, much more.

Having said that then, Brennan’s very public and very Jramatic high-decibel war against the President would not be taking place were it not complementary with what it is that Judea, Inc aims to achieve. If Trump truly were ‘the chosen one’ as so many ‘experts’ claim, and were Brennan causing problems for ‘duh plan’, the former CIA chief would have received his cease and desist orders long before he had even cast as much as a furrowed glare in the general direction of the person of POTUS Donald J. Trump rather than being given regular and repeated front-and-center podiums within virtually every neighborhood making up the JMSM.

That this needs more than 3 second’s explication/explanation amongst those who claim to be on the ‘cutting edge’ in terms of understanding the mechanics of how Judea, Inc functions in the broader political sphere underscores just how much a day late and a dollar short all of this is.

More important than this though is the manner by which the entire Jrama featuring Brennan and the manner by which he–despite having been deposed from his former post, nevertheless–continues working in an intelligence/assassination/psychological operation capacity reads as a chapter in an excruciatingly-long and painful-to-endure apocalyptic novel depicting the hijacking of the Gentile mind and the manner by which ‘they’ will not only use their ‘friends’ in advancing the apocalyptic narrative of that novel, but as well, those claiming to be their ‘enemies’ and on the ‘cutting edge’.

thehill.com

Former CIA Director John Brennan on Tuesday slammed President Trump after Trump attacked special counsel Robert Mueller, writing in a tweet that Mueller’s name “will be revered” in history while the president’s “will be scorned.”

Brennan added that Trump reminds him of how other “corrupt authoritarian leaders” have acted before being “deposed.”

“Your feelings of inferiority, insecurity, vulnerability, and culpability are loud & clear. You remind me of how many corrupt authoritarian leaders abroad behaved before they were deposed. Bob Mueller’s name will be revered in the annals of U.S. history; your name will be scorned,” he tweeted.

Brennan has frequently sparred with Trump. In August, the president had Brennan’s security clearance revoked in a move that was viewed widely as retaliatory.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump took to Twitter to lash out at Mueller, calling him “a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue” and claiming that he is doing “tremendous damage” to the criminal justice system in the U.S. Trump also tweeted the “phony witch hunt continues,” referencing Mueller’s probe.

Trump has long attacked Mueller and his investigation, which the president has frequently sought to cast as a “witch hunt.”

Trump’s criticism of Mueller came one day after the special counsel, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, said in a new filing that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort violated his plea agreement by lying to federal prosecutors.

White House Muzzled C.I.A. on Khashoggi Slaying, Mattis and Pompeo Say

White House Muzzled C.I.A. on Khashoggi Slaying, Mattis and Pompeo Say

The White House blocked CIA Director Gina Haspel from attending a highly anticipated Senate briefing on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary James Mattis told senators on Wednesday.

“The most persuasive presence at this briefing was an empty chair—a chair that should have been occupied by Gina Haspel, head of the Central Intelligence Agency,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters. “We were told at this briefing that it was at the direction of the White House that she not attend.”

Several senators confirmed to The Daily Beast that Mattis and Pompeo told senators at the classified briefing that the White House prevented Haspel from attending. Lawmakers, including Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had specifically asked for Haspel to brief senators on the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment about the murder of Khashoggi. Thanks to the Turkish government, Haspel reportedly has heard a gruesome audio recording of Khashoggi’s final moments.

Read more at Daily Beast


🇹🇷 CIA chief ‘seen all proof’ related to Khashoggi murder | Al Jazeera English


The intercept

DONALD TRUMP LIES. We know that. He lies in the morning, he lies in the afternoon, he lies in the evening and at night. He even gets up in the middle of the night to tweet, and that tweet almost always turns out to be a lie. A lie is produced each time his lips move. And this astonishing, serial, non-stop, 24/7, pathological lying is not just weird, pathetic, and immoral, it’s a danger to democracy. Because Trump, in classic autocrat fashion, wants us to just accept that the only truth we need worry our little heads about is the truth that comes straight from his mouth. Daniel Dale, the Toronto Star’s Washington correspondent, joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss Trump’s top ten lies and his totalitarian obsession with controlling what his supporters in particular define as true or false — and why this is all matters.

Support Deconstructed by becoming a member of The Intercept: theintercept.com/give.

Mehdi Hasan: Hi, this is Mehdi Hasan. Before we begin, I want to take a moment to invite you to become a member of Deconstructed and The Intercept.

It’s never been more important to support truly independent journalism. If you’re listening to this show, then you probably already know that The Intercept is a news organization that doesn’t follow the crowd and isn’t afraid to challenge orthodoxies. We don’t worship at the altar of access journalism. We cover stories that other media outlets don’t or won’t.

But if we’re going to keep producing this show and all the other great journalism you know and love in 2019 and beyond, we’re going to need your support. Right now, you can head over to theintercept.com/give, and make a donation of $15, $50, $100 or more. Or, you can become a sustaining member and sign up for a $5 or $10 monthly donation. Become a member at whatever amount you can afford; whatever amount feels right to you.

Membership is not only about the money — it’s about a proud and public declaration of support for the kind of fierce, adversarial journalism we do every day. We try and have your back and you can have ours. Press freedom is under attack in this country—to support the kind of independent journalism that The Intercept produces every day, head over to theintercept.com/give—that’s theintercept.com/give.

Now, time for the show.

Daniel Dale: I think the U.S. media is heavily complicit in amplifying his lies in that way, in allowing him air-time to lie unfettered, and again to not treat the lying as an important story that needs to be told.

[music interlude]

MH: I’m Mehdi Hasan, welcome to Deconstructed. Now that the midterms are over and Donald Trump isn’t doing any more of those insane campaign rallies, you might have thought we’d get a break from his incessant lying about pretty much everything.

Amy Goodman: President Trump blamed Republican losses in the midterm elections on voter fraud.

MH: No such luck. In fact, the President of the United States has lied almost every day since those elections. That probably doesn’t surprise you very much, but it should. After nearly two years of this routine, we’ve kind of lost our national capacity to be shocked by brazen presidential mendacity.

Well, today on the show I want to try and help us get back that shock factor. Because the lying matters. It really does. My guest is the brilliant, the one and only Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star who literally monitors Trump’s lies for a living.

DD: Through 2017, it was 2.9 false claims per day. During the run-up to the midterms, during the month and a half leading up to it, it was 26 per day.

MH: He and I are going to count down what we consider to be the most egregious, despicable, or just downright weird falsehoods that have ever left the Commander-in-Chief’s lips. Today on Deconstructed: Donald Trump’s top 10 lies and why they matter.

Zerlina Maxwell: Donald Trump is someone who lies constantly about little things and big things.

Trevor Noah: Trump lies about things we can see: the size of his crowds, the margin of his victory.

Steve Schmidt: Trump lied 6,000 times this year.

News Anchor: Trump lies once every three minutes, 15 seconds.

Stephen Colbert: On the plus side, you can use Trump’s lies to tell if your microwave popcorn is done.

Seth Meyers: Trump lied, got laughed at, and then lied about getting laughed at, and then Fox News lied about Trump’s lie about how we got laughed at for lying.

MH: Donald Trump lies. We know that. He lies in the morning. He lies in the afternoon. He lies in the evening and at night. He even gets up in the middle of the night to tweet, and that tweet almost always turns out to be a lie.

There’s an old line about politicians. How do you know if they’re lying? Their lips are moving. Well, that literally applies in the case of President Trump. His lips move, and a lie is produced. In fact, there has never been a president, a U.S. politician, I would argue, who is so utterly unwilling, incapable of, allergic to telling the truth.

He lies about things big and small. He lies about things in front of our eyes. He lies about people, places, policies, and this astonishing, serial, non-stop, 24/7, pathological lying is not just weird. It’s not just pathetic. It’s not just immoral. It’s a danger to democracy because Trump in classic autocrat fashion wants us to just accept that the only truth we need to worry our little heads about is the so-called truth that comes straight from his mouth.

Donald Trump: Just remember what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.

[music interlude]

MH: And so, today’s show is going to explore Trump’s lies, his war on truth, and why it matters so much. And I couldn’t possibly ask for a better guest to discuss all this then Daniel Dale, Washington DC bureau chief for the Toronto Star. Daniel’s become kind of famous as the journalist who not only fact checks in real time on Twitter everything Trump says live at his rallies or in his TV interviews, but he also keeps a running tally of all Donald Trump’s false claims since coming to office.

Honestly, I don’t know how he does it but I do want to try and find out today. And also, let’s have a bit of fun. I also want to compare what I think Donald Trump’s top five lies are with what Daniel thinks his top five lies are. Of course, there are so many thousands, literally thousands, to choose from. So, we’re going to have a kind of Trump lie-off. Daniel Dale, thanks for joining me on Deconstructed.

DD: Thank you for having me on.

MH: Daniel, let me start with the obvious question. How did you end up taking on this role? You’re not an American journalist. You’re a Canadian journalist based in D.C. for the Toronto Star. How did you become the great Documenter-in-Chief of the Commander-in-Chief’s many, many, many, many, many, many lies?

DD: There are many. It started during the campaign. It was September 2016 and he had a day where he was especially dishonest even for himself.

MH: Okay.

DD: And it struck me that this kind of avalanche of dishonesty was a central story of his candidacy, independent of any of the policy issues or whatever else was going on. The lying was a story and I was frustrated that in my view, it wasn’t being treated as such. What would happen was that individual reporters would fact-check him periodically on Twitter, you know, say during a speech but then if you were to watch the news at night, or read the article online, or in the next day’s paper, there would be no mention that you know, Trump made 20 false claims in a day –

MH: And that in itself is a story.

DD:  Yeah, that’s a huge thing. And so, I thought you know, the way to convey this to just make a kind of an informal list. Just you know, here are the 15 things that he got wrong today. And the response was so huge. People were so appreciative of this. At least, a certain segment of the electorate and it just kept going.

MH: And it’s not just you. It’s the Washington Post which also keeps a kind of running list of the Trump lies. How much time – you’re not the Washington Post. You’re Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star on your own here in D.C. How much time do you have to devote to fact checking his every utterance? Are you up all night doing this stuff?

DD: Well, I do it mostly on “my own time.” It’s not my beat. I’m not a full-time fact-checker. And so, I do it –

MH: You still have to file pieces on the news.

DD: – I have to file pieces. Yeah, I’m writing about what’s going on in America, what’s going on here in Washington. So, I do a lot of it on weekends, unfortunately. At first, at the beginning of his presidency, you know, he was averaging for a while, through 2017, it was it was 2.9 false claims per day. And so, that’s 21 a week. That’s not a huge amount of time to fact-check. But now in 2018, he’s averaging nine per day. During the run-up to the midterms during the month and a half leading up to it, it was 26 per day.

MH: Is that just because he’s talking more? Like he’s going to rallies, doing more rallies or is it because he’s decided “I’m going to tell more untruths because there’s more to cover up?”

DD: It’s both and I’ve actually looked at this statistically rigorously, and so a large part of it is that he’s talking more. When I checked there was a .73 correlation between the number of words he uttered and the number of false claims he made. So that’s a that’s a strong correlation. But what I also found that what I started calling his “dishonesty density” had increased. So, the number of false claims per word spoken has also –

MH: So, I love this idea. It’s not just that he’s a liar. We know he’s a liar. He’s been a liar since the 1980s when he was ringing up gossip columns and spreading nonsense about his wealth, but it’s the idea that even in office, even in the last year or two of watching him as president the – what did you call it? The “dishonesty density” has gone up.

DD: It’s gotten worse, for sure.

MH: Wow, that could be the title of his memoir. We’re recording this the week of Thanksgiving. As of this week, how many lies has he told since becoming the President of the United States?

DD: So as of Sunday November 11th, which is my last online update, it’s 3,749 false claims as President. Another update for last week, which has not been posted yet has at least another 50 more and we’ve had more even today. So, it’s above you know, it’s around 3,800.

MH: Okay, so 3,800 lies and false statements. We don’t have time to go through all of them today. But what we’re going to do, what I thought would be interesting, and fun, and important because I do want to kind of break this down. This is not you know, it’s not a laughing matter. I mean we do laugh but this is serious –

DD: Yes.

MH: – That he is a serial liar. It has consequences in the real world. I thought you and I could pick our list of top 5 lies and there’s so many to choose from – 3,700-odd lies. We’re picking, what less than .2 percent, .1 percent? My maths is not very good. So, we’re going to do your fie, my five. So, with a fake drumroll, Daniel Dale, you go. At number five, what lie do you have from Donald Trump?

DD: So, at a campaign rally in Nevada late in the campaign, he repeated something that he had said the day before but this time not as a joke.

DT: They want to open your borders, let people in illegally, and then, they want to pay for those people for healthcare, for education. They want to give them cars. They want to give them driver’s licenses. I said, I said last night “What kind of car will they supply them? Will it be a Rolls-Royce?

MH: So, Daniel are you telling me that Donald Trump is wrong that the Democrats don’t plan to give immigrants free cars?

DD: I am indeed, Mehdi, telling you that.

MH: That’s a difficult fact-check that one.

DD: Yes, and what was interesting to me about this was that the day before he was at a rally in Arizona and he said this as a clear joke. He said, “You know, they want to give them healthcare. They want to give them education. Next thing you know, they’ll want to give them cars.” And then the subsequent day he comes and turns it into a statement of fact. So, I think it –

MH: So, he road-tests his lies. See what works.

DD: Yes.

MH: I mean, this is important question. There’s a big debate about can you call him a liar? Because you know, the Wall Street Journal editor Jared Baker told his staff, “You shouldn’t use the L-word because we don’t know what his intent is and of course, to be a liar you have to intentionally mislead someone” which is an absurdly high bar, I would argue. Because you would never be able to call anyone anything because we can’t see into anyone’s heart. But I do wonder about him. How much of it is, okay, that’s a deliberate lie. I’m going to mislead these people? How much of it is a just he gets carried away with no filter, no real – you know, just “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yesterday I was joking. Today I’m going to say it as fact.”

DD: I think he does get carried away, but I still think that’s a lie, you know, if someone at the bar –

MH: Well, he knows it when he said it –

DD: Yeah.

MH: – That they’re not planning to give a Rolls-Royce to undocumented immigrants.

DD: Right, so in cases where there’s absolutely no factual basis for something and he says it anyway, I think I’m comfortable calling it a lie.

MH: As am I. Okay, that was your number five. This is my number five, rather recent one from this past Sunday. FOX News Sunday got an interview with Donald Trump – shock, horror, Fox got an interview with Donald Trump. Bet you’ve never seen a Donald Trump interview on Fox News before. But it was Chris Wallace one of the half-decent interviewers on Fox and he had this exchange with the president:

DT: I think we’ve wasted enough time on this witch hunt and the answer is probably, we’re finished.

Chris Wallace: What are the odds? 1 in 100?

DT: I don’t do odds. I gave very –

CW: You ran a casino, sir.

DT: You’re right and very successfully, actually.

MH: So that clip had a lot of pickup because it was a funny line from Chris Wallace where he said “You ran a casino,” but for me what stood out was the following line where he can’t help himself. That’s the thing about Donald Trump. He tells lies where he doesn’t need to tell lies. So, if I ran four casinos – the Trump Taj Mahal which filed for bankruptcy in 1991, Trump’s Castle and Trump Plaza Casinos, which filed for bankruptcy in 1992, Trump’s Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 1994 filed for bankruptcy and Trump Entertainment Resorts which filed for bankruptcy in 2009.

If I ran four different casino chains, which had declared bankruptcy and someone mentioned it during an interview, the last thing I’d want to do is dwell on them. I’d want to change the subject. Trump is so brazen. He just says “Yeah, I ran them successfully.”

DD: Yeah.

MH: Is that because he thinks “I’m going to get away with it?”

DD: I think so. I think so and –

MH: Because Wallace didn’t pick up on it.

DD: Right, so he knows that this clip for whatever reason will be broadcast widely and he’ll reframe the perception of what happened with those casinos.

MH: Yeah, so the haters might say, “Oh, yes, great joke by Chris Wallace.” But his fans would say “And he ran this casino successfully.” Facts don’t matter, or do they?

Let’s have your number four. What do you have at number four in your top five list?

DD: So, this is one where so often, he takes actual good news, finds it insufficient and turns it into dishonest news.

MH: Okay, let’s have a listen. It’s a press conference.

DT: U.S. Steel is building eight or nine plants. They’re expanding plants.

MH: Eight or nine plants, Daniel. How many have we seen built so far or open?

DD: We’ve seen U.S. Steel open or build no new plants. We have seen them invest into existing plants since Trump imposed his tariffs, which you know, there are arguments that the tariffs are harmful in other ways, but that’s a good news story for Trump. He can say “Look, this big company made major investments in two plants.”

MH: He can’t help himself.

DD: He can’t help himself. So, first he said they’re building 6 plants. He said “They called me up. The CEO called me up. And said six new plants” Then he made it seven then he made the eight. In this case, he made it eight or nine. And so, it’s this eternal escalation where the truth and even the exaggeration is never sufficient for him.

MH: And it’s very specific lie. It’s not just a general in passing, “It was a few plants.” And then you go “Was it three or four?” He also says that the guy called him up. They made an announcement, he says.

DD: Right.

MH: Which is fact-checkable. You go to U.S. Steel and they say “We didn’t make an announcement.”

DD: Right.

MH: So, he just literally pulled it out of his backside. Okay, that was your number four. This is my number four. This is from earlier this year on Air Force One, Donald Trump taking questions from reporters.

Reporter: Mr. President, do you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

DT: No, no.

Reporter: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?

DT: I don’t know, no.

MH: So, that was Donald Trump speaking to reporters on Air Force One about the hush money that was paid to Stormy Daniels, the adult film star, who says she had an affair with Donald Trump. Trump was asked at the time “Where did the money from Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, come from? Do know where he got the money to make that payment?” the reporter asks and Trump says “No, I don’t know.” Within a matter of weeks, Rudy Giuliani, his current lawyer, admitted that it was Donald Trump who provided the cash and Trump himself later admitted in a Fox News interview, and on Twitter that he did pay the money.

Daniel what I find interesting about that clip, if you watch it, on Air Force One, we talk about the rambling stuff. You know the “Oh, is it six or seven steel mills? Oh, is it free cars for immigrants?” There is a different type of lie that Trump tells. The more cold-blooded, strategic lie which is clearly – if you watch him on the plane, the reporter asked the question. He knows he provided the money to Michael Cohen at that point. We don’t know. The world doesn’t know. Now whether he thinks he’s going to get caught or not, you see he does a classic eyes dart to one side. “No, I have no idea.” That’s a different type of lie, I would argue.

DD: It is a different type of lie. And to me that’s something that – it’s no more excusable. But that’s a more traditional, politician lie.

MH: Politician lie. Get caught, just deny it.

DD: Exactly. And so, this is the kind of thing that when people say “All politicians lie.” This is the kind of case where I say “Well yeah, this is the kind of thing that others would do.” Not that that makes it okay.

MH: No, it doesn’t but it just shows that if you wanted to have a charitable interpretation where you said, “Well, he’s just a kind of mad, rambling, old man with dementia, or out of his mind and just saying crazy stuff that comes into his head.” No, he has a calculating, strategic side.

DD: Absolutely and I think especially in the run-up to the campaign, in the run-up to the midterm election, during the height of the campaign season, a lot of the lies were so clearly strategic. Many of them were even written into speeches. This wasn’t the old man rambling.

MH: Yeah, sometimes he goes off his speech and says mad stuff.

DD: Yeah.

MH: But this time, you know, the White House is complicit in all of this stuff. The officials, the speech writers et cetera. Okay, so that was my number four. What’s your number three on the list?

DD: So, this is one where he looks people in the eye, he looks at his supporters and he tells them about something he says is going on in the room that is not actually happening.

DT: That’s so funny. Look back there. The live red lights they’re turning those suckers off fast. They’re turning those lights off fast.  Like CNN, CNN does not want its falling viewership to watch what I’m saying tonight, I can tell you. Not only does – Oh boy, those cameras are going off. Oh, wow. Why don’t you just fold them up and take them home?

MH: So that is a different kind of lie to the one we just discussed. I do believe he just did that spur of the moment. He thought “I’m going to rile up the crowd against those horrible reporters at the back.” I remember watching that at home and thinking “This is bizarre. He’s telling his gullible, cultish base that they are not being seen on CNN. I’m watching it right now.”

DD: Yes, CNN was broadcasting that. He said this kind of thing about cameras being turned off because they don’t like what he’s saying –

MH: The red light.

DD: – Yes, it’s always the red lights. At least five times during his presidency and more before his presidency during the campaign. And to me, it shows the contempt he has for the intelligence of his audience because he’s pointing to something in the room –

MH: – And they know too because presumably they got friends and family at home are watching the rally they went to. They’ll go home and watch clips of themselves. But they don’t care.

DD: Yes.

MH: That is part of the problem. They don’t care. And also, the irony of saying CNN does not want you to watch what I’m saying. It’s CNN who gave him the unrivaled platform during the presidential campaign. Jeff Zucker, head of CNN has admitted, has expressed a minor regret that “Yeah, we kind of got that wrong in letting him just unchallenged run his rallies live on air.”

And you now have Carl Bernstein this past weekend saying on CNN that the cable news networks need to think again about just running his stuff uninterrupted. Yes, he’s the president. Yes, what he says matters, but if you’re just running pure misinformation and propaganda unchallenged, uninterrupted, live, what kind of service you doing journalism or democracy?

DD: Absolutely agree. I think that there are certain statements that he makes where there may be a news value that you know, if it’s a statement on an attack, or an incident, or some tragedy, sure, carry it. But when he’s making any kind of political speech and not just a rally, even a so-called policy statement –

MH: He did it in the midterms. He said “I’m going to announce a new policy on asylum and immigration,” didn’t he? And people turned up and it was just a rant about Mexicans and caravans.

DD:  Exactly, and so, I think by televising almost anything he says live you’re doing a disservice to the truth.

MH: Okay, well talking of televised lies, here’s a Florida rally. My number three on my top five Trump lies. A Florida rally in February 2017. By the way, I love the idea that he does rallies a month after winning the presidency. Here’s what he said at that rally:

DT: We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden.

MH: So, Donald Trump there at a rally suggesting that there was a terrorist attack in Sweden the previous night. Breaking news: what happened in Sweden the previous night, last night in Sweden? Nothing happened in Sweden the night before, according to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. I have no idea if I’m pronouncing that correctly. The Friday night in question that Trump was referring to was marked by mostly unremarkable news, including an alleged drunk driving incident and an avalanche warning in Sweden. Avalanche warning, but no terrorist attack.

Trump literally just fabricated – I don’t know out of his imagination or whatever, you know, he came prepared with it – a terrorist attack in a European country to again, rile his base.

DD: He did. I think the handling of this statement shows how his lies can work for him. Because he absolutely fabricated this incident and yet his supporters and this ecosystem around him take the little kernel of truth that may be there and make that the news. So, he said, “Well, there was an incident last night but Sweden – “

MH: There have been attacks in Sweden and Germany, yes.

DD: Sweden is having problems handling Muslim refugees.

MH: But why not just say that? That’s what’s so interesting. So, it comes back to the non-strategic Trump versus the strategic one. He could be doing his argument a favor by avoiding these pointless lies. He could still rile them up and make racist claims about Muslim immigrants in Europe and point to real attacks, but he has to go one step further like you said on U.S. Steel.

DD: Yes, yeah, the reality is never sufficient.

MH: Another potential title for his memoir.

DD: Yeah, there’s always an escalation he thinks will better serve his purposes.

MH: Okay, number two lie on your list.

DD: So, this was an interview he did recently with the Wall Street Journal and he had he had spoken about the tariffs that he has imposed and boasted about on numerous occasions. But then a little later in the interview, the Journal said, one of the reporters said, “a lot of people say that tariffs are really the biggest threat to the economy long-term” and Trump responds “We don’t have any tariffs.” And then he continues. So, there’s this whole long exchange, but he says “I didn’t put tariffs. Where do we have tariffs? We don’t have tariffs anywhere. I read that today. We’re worried about the tariffs,” And he says “This is business. This is CEOs who are incompetent and blaming non-existent tariffs.” He goes on to say “Where do we have tariffs? I’m talking tariffs. I’ll use tariffs. I’ve said I was going to put tariffs in European Union cars, but there’s no tariffs right now.”

MH: And this is a print interview with the Journal.

DD: Yeah, the Wall Street Journal of all publications. You know, of all publications –

MH: A business paper that knows what they’re talking about when it comes to these tariffs.

DD: Exactly.

MH: And I think they fact-checked him in the paper and produced a list of something like 250 billion dollars of tariffs that he has brought in. I mean, he’s proudly bragged about a trade war with China that he can win.

DD: Right.

MH: But when he’s questioned, is it the sense that he – and I often call Trump a man-child which I feel is an insult to children – but is there a sense that whenever he feels cornered, or semi-cornered, or under pressure that’s another time that he thinks you know what? Again, he could have made the argument that we actually don’t have as many tariffs as you think. He could have said, “You know what? Tariffs aren’t a bad thing. You’re the Wall Street Journal, but I’m with the little guy.” Instead he goes for “there are no tariffs.”

DD: Yes.

MH: Demonstrably absurd.

DD: Yes, I think it is completely situational for him. He thinks about extricating himself from the given moment. “So, how do I get through these 30 seconds with the Wall Street Wall Street Journal? And I’ll deal with the fallout later?”

MH: Fact-checks, pesky fact-checks.

DD: Right, yes, but it was completely unnecessary and it was completely contradictory to what he’d said literally minutes before to the same people.

MH: And again, as he’s talked about the contempt he has for his base. We hear about “Oh, liberal media doesn’t respect the white working class.” Trump’s contempt for his base is astonishing because again, tariffs were supposed to be something that they voted for him for. It was a big selling point, you know, “I’m going to end free trade and globalization. I’m going to bring jobs back. I’m going to punish those people who try and you know, take jobs away from you.” And now he’s confronted by the Murdoch-friendly, big-business-friendly Wall Street Journal, and he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to say “Who cares what you think? Tariffs are good.”

DD: That’s a good point, yes.

MH: Okay, here’s my number two on my list. This is from the very day he took office, 20th of January, 2017 at the Liberty Ball, Trump started talking about his inauguration speech – and this is not one of the many lies related to his crowd size because he told a fair few lies about those – this is a separate lie:

DT: But I have to say the crowd was unbelievable today, you know. I looked at the rain which just never came. You know, we finished the speech, went inside, it poured, then we came outside, the helicopter scene was an incredible scene, and then amazingly it rained, and then we went out. It’s like God was looking down on us, I will tell you.

MH: Okay, so put aside this image of God looking down on Trump. Were you there at the inauguration, Daniel?

DD: I was watching the speech from the Canadian embassy. So, I was not there.

MH: Okay, and I was watching the speech from home, and those of us who have eyes in our heads saw rain coming down as he started to speak. Rain came down throughout his inaugural address. The drops of rain are visible on his coat and his suit if you go and watch it right now on YouTube. You have people holding ponchos and umbrellas. You have his wife, Melania Trump is standing behind him under an umbrella to protect herself from the rain that only hours later – this is not days later, this is that night – he says didn’t happen. Donald Trump is a man who will lie about the weather.

DD: He is and so, as you said, this is the first moment of his presidency.

MH: It’s a nice one.

DD: Yeah, this might have been the very first one.

MH: It was the night of the ball right after the speech.

DD: Yes.

MH: Yeah, that evening, and then, he repeated at the CIA the next day that it stopped raining.

DD: Right, and so the lying started literally from the first hour.

MH: Yes, I mean, I just found this one is a fascinating one for me because A) who lies about the weather? But B) it goes to the core – and we can talk about this in a bit – about how Trump uses dishonesty not just to get himself out of situations, as you rightly say, but also as a way almost of kind of demonstrating his power over his base, his followers. That “I can tell you things that you know to be untrue.” You know, “Who are you going to believe – me or your lying eyes?” is that old phrase. Trump is basically saying, “Believe me not your lying eyes. You can see it was raining but I’m telling you it didn’t.”

DD: Absolutely, I agree.

MH: Scary. Okay, what’s your number one? What’s top of your list, the top five of the 3,700 odd lies?

DD: So, this is the example I use when I speak somewhere and they ask me why I use the word lie, and not falsehood, or false claim. So, this is my example. So, Trump gave a speech to the Boy Scout Jamboree, which is usually very apolitical, you know, gives a pep talk to these young people about hard work, public service, but Trump said things like this:

DT: This horrible thing known as Obamacare. That’s really hurting us… What do you think the chances are that this incredible massive crowd, record-setting, is going to be shown on television tonight? That is some crowd. Fake media, fake news… The polls. That’s also fake news. They’re fake polls… By the way, just a question, did President Obama ever come to a Jamboree?

DD: So, the speech was controversial, obviously. He was speaking to children, and many parents, and you know, scout troop leaders – I don’t even know what they’re called – were upset that the President was so political. And so, he said, in explaining himself, he said “No, no, you know, this wasn’t controversial.” He said “I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them and they were very thankful.”

And so, of course, I contacted the Boy Scouts. Usually big organizations, especially ones with which the president is directly involved, I think he officially is the head of the Boy Scouts by law. So, I contacted the Boy Scouts. Usually, they don’t want to respond but they sent me an email saying, I think, they said, you know – on background, not for attribution – no one called him. This did not happen. No one said this to the President. And so, the President made up an entirely fictional story about the Boy Scouts of America. And to me, this shows that there is no –

MH: Nothing he won’t lie about.

DD: – There’s nothing he won’t lie about.

MH: Nothing precious or sacred.

DD: There’s nothing sacred, the Boy Scouts.

MH: Also, again, it’s a demonstrable falsehood. It’s not a gray area. It’s not what do you mean? You know, he often says “many people say”, right, to get himself out of a corner. His classic go-to is “My friend says, many people say, my friend Johnny,” invents random people. In this one, he could have just said that’s not true. I met many people afterwards who said it was a great speech. He goes to a very specific, disprovable lie that “I got a call from the Boy Scouts.” And you can check, as you did and they said “We didn’t make the call.” I think Sarah Sanders later admitted there was no call as well, the press secretary.

DD: She did. I think she said that there was no call but you know, people approached him personally.

MH: He didn’t use that formula.

DD: He didn’t.

MH: So, it comes back to the question of, is this an evil genius who is trying to see what he can get away with, and doesn’t care, and thinks “You know what? I can manipulate my base and my audience in such a way that I can get away with anything?” Or is just a guy who cannot control his lying mouth?

DD: I think we’re too quick to say that he is a master liar. I mean, this is a President who eked out a victory against another unpopular presidential candidate, who just got walloped in the midterm election, who in the polls is seen as dishonest consistently by two-thirds of the population. And so, his laws are not working with everyone.

MH: That’s true.

DD: He has proven effective at convincing a small percentage of the population that he is honest, or in convincing an additional small percentage that the lies don’t matter. But I don’t think that he is deceiving people to the extent that some liberals, left-wingers sometimes fret that he is.

MH: Okay, I’m going to come back to that point in a moment. But let me just end my list. That was your top five. You ended with the Boy Scout phone call. I’m going to end with a slightly more serious one. This is another recent lie of his. He said on Twitter during the midterm campaign 22nd of October: “Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s police and military are unable to stop the caravan heading to the southern border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in.”

Now, the lie is not the caravan lie because there’s lots of lies mixed into here. You know, the idea that the caravan was about to enter the United States was a lie. He stopped talking about the caravan. The lie was about this line about unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. Put aside the racism in that, the conflation of Middle Easterners with terrorists, and just deal with the fact. Are there any unknown Middle Easterners in that caravan? Does Trump know? This is what he said in the White House days later.

DT: They could very well be.

Jim Acosta: But there’s no proof?

DT: There’s no proof of anything. There’s no proof of anything, but they could very well be.

MH: So, when he’s challenged by Jim Acosta, who has since had the big row over his press pass, CNN correspondent, when he’s challenged the White House over that controversial tweet, he doesn’t say “Yes, I have intelligence agencies telling me, Jim. You have to trust me.” Instead again, he basically says “I don’t give a damn about the truth. Nothing can be proven. It could be true. It might not be true.” It’s astonishing.

DD: Yes, and that I think that that sentence is a perfect encapsulation of his attitude toward –

MH: There’s no proof of anything.

DD: – Right, there’s no –

MH: Therefore, I can say whatever I want.

DD:  Yes, there’s no objective reality. It’s my reality –

MH: There’s no objective reality. That is a very, very scary implication. How much is the U.S. media complicit in Trump’s serial dishonesty? Because until very recently, you had media organizations unwilling to even say the L-word. Now, a few of them are gingerly heading in that direction saying this is a lie. Anderson Cooper occasionally on CNN will say it. The New York Times would occasionally say it in a headline. But even now you see The New York Times, and ABC News, and others just putting up tweets with Trump’s falsehoods with no fact-check and just running it. Even now, even two years in.

DD: Yes.

MH: It’s so frustrating.

DD: It’s so frustrating because to me, you know, the media has so many systemic difficult issues about everything, but this one is so easy to fix, and it’s not being fixed. I think the U.S. media is heavily complicit in amplifying his lies in that way, in allowing him air-time to lie unfettered, and again to not treat the lying as an important story that needs to be told over, and over. I think it’s one of the most important things about his presidency.

MH: And I think slowly, I hope, people are waking up to it. Funny, you’re a Canadian. I’m a Brit and we’re sitting here in D.C. saying “What is going on with the U.S. media?” It’s a real problem and Trump is a product of that. He knows it. He’s talked about how he can suck all the oxygen out of the room and he brags about it.

And there is this weird paradox whereby the media is more anti-this president in terms of the ongoing war between the two sides than any previous president. On the other hand, without the media, he wouldn’t be president today.

DD: Yes, and I think one other point I’d like to make is I think there’s this strange kind of deference to the president that we especially see in interviews with him. And you had a viral clip where you interviewed, you know, a Trump adviser and just peppered him with important valid questions about Trump’s lying.

MH: He said during the campaign that there’s six to seven steel facilities that are going to be opened up. There are none. U.S. Steel has not announced any facilities. Why did he say they’ve announced new facilities? That’s a lie, isn’t it?

Steven Rogers: No, it isn’t because there are a lot of companies opening up. There are steel facilities that are going to be opening up or I think they actually want –

MH: No, no, sorry, Steven. That’s not what he said.

DD: And Trump is almost never, like maybe, never at all, challenged, you know, with the lack of deference that I think he is –

MH: And not just a lack of deference, but everyone seems to have a very short memory. He’s not challenged on the lies from the previous interview, right? So, I think Erik Wemple of the Washington Post made this point that the next interview with Trump – and this was a few weeks ago and there’s been several since – should just be going through all his lies which is what I did in that clip with Trump supporter Steven Rogers. I just said “Okay, you keep saying it’s all fake news, liberal media. Let’s just go through the lie one after another.” And because he has a sense of reality, Steve Rogers, that Donald Trump doesn’t have, he was able to go “Alright fine, that’s not true – “

DD: Yes.

MH: – When you put them on the spot. Okay, last question, prediction time on the current rate of trump lies, how many lies total do you think he’ll have told as President, roughly, by the time we get to the next election in 2020, two years from now?

DD: Oh my gosh, so we have to do math.

MH: Dishonest density.

DD: Okay, so wait, so, he’s at about –

MH: 3,749, right?

DD: – Yeah, so he’s about ten per day right now. So, let’s say the seven per day we have, what two years?

MH: Two years, about 700 days.

DD: Until the election. So, we have 7 times –

MH: 5,000 more lies.

DD: Yeah so maybe, he’ll –

MH: But, then there’s going to be a presidential election campaign and according to you, he ramps them up when the campaign starts.

DD: I think it is very likely that we’ll get to 8,000. It’s possible we get to 10,000.

MH: We could see a 10,000-lie presidency. That is Donald Trump’s legacy to the United States of America. I can only hope and pray that when the next election does come around the U.S. media has found some way to try and fact check him in real time and show less deference to his brazen dishonesty.

Daniel Dale, keep up the great work. Keep doing what you’re doing. You’re doing the Lord’s work, in many ways, when the Lord is not looking down on Trump’s rain-free inauguration. Thank you so much for joining me on Deconstructed.

DD: Thank you so much.

[music interlude]

MH: That was Daniel Dale, Washington bureau chief for the Toronto Star and the great chronicler of lies in this age of Trump. We owe him a great debt. And, look, I know it’s hard, I know it’s mentally and even emotionally exhausting, but we cannot allow ourselves to become used to Trump’s brazen and shameless lies, to become inured to them, bored of them, un-shocked by them. This Trumpian dishonesty, is yes, partly situational, as Daniel pointed, but it’s also deeply political, it’s totalitarian in its approach to truth and falsehood, to facts and figures, to reality itself. The damage being done to democracy, to public confidence in institutions, to the free press is immense. These lies matter. Never forget that. Never let them go unchallenged.

[music interlude]

MH: That’s our show.

Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept, and is distributed by Panoply.  Our producer is Zach Young. Dina Sayedahmed is our production assistant. The show was mixed by Bryan Pugh. Leital Molad is our executive producer. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.

And I’m Mehdi Hasan. You can follow me on Twitter @mehdirhasan. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice, iPhone, Android, whatever.  If you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review – it helps new people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Thanks so much!


———————————————————