WW II – Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe

Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun). Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996. 470 pages. Hardcover. Photographs.

Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war — but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July — not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable. [Image: By mid-June 1941, enormous Red Army forces were concentrated on the western Soviet border, poised for a devastating attack against Europe. This diagram appeared in the English-language edition of the German wartime illustrated magazine Signal.]

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war …

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.


The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height — taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 — an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941-1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.
Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939-40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions — temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet — against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems — tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks — that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 — just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 — when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another — to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

Soviet troops hoist the red hammer-and-sickle flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, an act that symbolized the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe. The Battle of Berlin climaxed the titanic struggle of German and Soviet forces that began on June 22, 1941. On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming the Reichstag building, Hitler committed suicide in his nearby bunker headquarters.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis — which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he — and we — have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July-August 1998), 30-37. Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), a Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957), and recently retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service. Also see (off-site) the National Vanguard’s review of Icebreaker and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

How Stalin Conspired To Foment WW2 & Infiltrate the U.S. Government

By John Wear
The Soviet Union Conspires to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government

Stalin adopted three Five Year Plans beginning in 1927 designed to make the Soviet Union by far the greatest military power in the world. Stalin also conspired to start a major war in Europe by drawing Great Britain and France into war against Germany and other countries. Stalin’s plan was to eliminate one enemy with the hands of another. If Germany entered into a war with Great Britain and France, other countries would enter into the war and great destruction would follow. The Soviet Union could then invade Europe and easily take over the entire continent.

Stalin first attempted to start a major war in Europe in 1936 during the civil war in Spain. Stalin’s political agents, propagandists, diplomats, and spies in Spain all screamed in outrage that children were dying in Spain while Great Britain and France did nothing. However, Stalin’s agents were not able to spread the war beyond Spain’s borders. By the end of 1938, Stalin stopped all anti-Hitler propaganda to calm Hitler and to encourage him to attack Poland.

Stalin eventually forced war in Europe with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. British and French delegations had arrived in Moscow on Aug. 11, 1939, to discuss joint action against Germany. During the course of the talks, British and French delegates told the Soviets that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain and France would declare war against Germany. This was the information that Stalin needed to know. On Aug. 19, 1939, Stalin stopped the talks with Great Britain and France, and told the German ambassador in Moscow that he wanted to reach an agreement with Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union then signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which resulted in the destruction and division of Poland.[1]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement is remarkable in that Hitler repeatedly stated he hated communism and did not trust the leaders of the Soviet Union. Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:

It must never be forgotten that the present rulers of Russia are blood-stained criminals, that here we have the dregs of humanity which, favored by the circumstances of a tragic moment, overran a great State, degraded and extirpated millions of educated people out of sheer blood-lust, and that now for nearly ten years they have ruled with such a savage tyranny as was never known before. It must not be forgotten that these rulers belong to a people in whom the most bestial cruelty is allied with a capacity for artful mendacity and believes itself today more than ever called to impose its sanguinary despotism on the rest of the world. It must not be forgotten that the international Jew, who is today the absolute master of Russia, does not look upon Germany as an ally but as a State condemned to the same doom as Russia. One does not form an alliance with a partner whose only aim is the destruction of his fellow partner. Above all, one does not enter into alliances with people for whom no treaty is sacred; because they do not move about this earth as men of honor and sincerity but as the representatives of lies and deception, thievery and plunder and robbery. The man who thinks that he can bind himself by treaty with parasites is like the tree that believes it can form a profitable bargain with the ivy that surrounds it.[2]

Hitler also states in Mein Kampf:

Therefore the fact of forming an alliance with Russia would be the signal for a new war. And the result of that would be the end of Germany.”[3]

Hitler repeated his distrust of the Soviet Union in a conversation on March 3, 1938, with British Ambassador Nevile Henderson. Hitler stated in this conversation that any limitations on arms depended on the Soviet Union. Hitler noted that the problem was rendered particularly difficult “by the fact that one could place as much confidence in the faith in treaties of a barbarous creature like the Soviet Union as in the comprehension of mathematical formulae by a savage. Any agreement with the U.S.S.R. was quite worthless….” Hitler added that it was impossible, for example, to have faith in any Soviet agreement not to use poison gas.[4]

These statements by Hitler in Mein Kampf and to Nevile Henderson were prescientStalin had been conspiring to take over all of Europe ever since the 1920s. Stalin and the Soviet Union could not be trusted to uphold any peace agreement. However, Hitler decided to enter into the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because Hitler was desperate to end the atrocities being committed against the ethnic Germans in Poland. Hitler was hoping that the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement would prevent Great Britain and France from declaring war against Germany.[5]

Hitler also signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement because the negotiations that had been ongoing between Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union had taken on a threatening character for Germany. Hitler was confronted with the alternative of being encircled by this massive alliance coalition or ending it via diplomatic channels. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact prevented Germany from being encircled by these three powers.[6]

Stalin stayed out of the war in Europe he had conspired to instigate. Stalin kept the war in Europe going by supplying much needed supplies to Germany. However, Hitler’s swift victory over France prevented the massive destruction in Europe Stalin had hoped for. Molotov was sent to Germany in November 1940 to announce the Soviet Union’s new territorial demands in Europe. These new territorial demands effectively ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Hitler was forced to launch a preemptive attack on June 22, 1941, to prevent the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.

The Soviet war effort in the European theater of World War II was enormous. Most historians underestimate the incredible power of the Soviet military. As historian Norman Davies states:

…the Soviet war effort was so overwhelming that impartial historians in the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the European theatre as much more than a supporting role. The proportions were not ‘Fifty-fifty’, as many imply when talking of the final onslaught on Nazi Germany from East and West. Sooner or later people will have to adjust to the fact that the Soviet role was enormous and the Western role was respectable but modest.”[7]

A crucial factor that prevented the Soviet takeover of Europe was the more than 400,000 non-German Europeans who volunteered to fight on the Eastern Front. Combined with 600,000 German troops, the 1,000,000 man Waffen-SS represented the first truly pan-European army to ever exist. The heroism of these non-German volunteers who joined the Waffen-SS prevented the planned Soviet conquest of Europe. In this regard, Waffen-SS Gen. Leon Degrelle states:

If the Waffen-SS had not existed, Europe would have been overrun entirely by the Soviets by 1944. They would have reached Paris long before the Americans. Waffen-SS heroism stopped the Soviet juggernaut at Moscow, Cherkov, Cherkassy and Tarnopol. The Soviets lost more than 12 months. Without SS resistance the Soviets would have been in Normandy before Eisenhower. The people showed deep gratitude to the young men who sacrificed their lives.[8]

The Soviet Union also conspired to have Japan attack the United States. Harry Dexter White, who was later proven to be a Soviet agent, carried out a mission to provoke Japan into war with the United States. When Secretary of State Cordell Hull allowed the peacemakers in Roosevelt’s administration to put together a modus vivendi that had real potential, White drafted a 10-point proposal that the Japanese were certain to reject. White passed a copy of his proposal to Hull, and this final American offer—the so-called “Hull note”—was presented to the Japanese on Nov. 26, 1941.[9]

The Hull note, which was based on two memoranda from White, was a declaration of war as far as the Japanese were concerned. The Hull note destroyed any possible peace settlement with the Japanese, and led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In this regard, historian John Koster writes:

Harry Dexter White, acting under orders from Soviet intelligence, pulled the strings by which Cordell Hull and [State Department expert on Far Eastern Affairs] Stanley Hornbeck handed the Japanese an ultimatum that was tantamount to a declaration of war—when both the Japanese cabinet and the U.S. military were desperately eager for peace.…Harry Dexter White knew exactly what he was doing. The man himself remains a mystery, but the documents speak for themselves. Harry Dexter White gave us Pearl Harbor.[10]

U.S. delegates attending the the Bretton Woods Conference, (l-r, standing): Assistant Secretary of Treasury Harry Dexter White, Fred M. Vinson, Dean Acheson, Edward E. Brown, Marriner S. Eccles, and Michigan Congressman Jesse P. Wolcott. Front row, seated: Senator Robert F. Wagner, Kentucky Congressman Brent Spence, Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., and New Hampshire Senator Charles W. Tobey

The Soviets had also planted numerous other agents in the Roosevelt administration. For example, Harold Glasser, a member of Morgenthau’s Treasury staff, provided intelligence from the War Department and the White House to the Soviets. Glasser’s reports were deemed so important by the NKVD that 74 reports generated from his material went directly to Stalin. One historian writes of the Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government and its effect on Roosevelt:

These spies, plus the hundreds in other U.S. agencies at the time, including the military and the OSS, permeated the administration in Washington, and, ultimately, the White House, surrounding FDR. He was basically in the Soviet’s pocket. He admired Stalin, sought his favor. Right or wrong, he thought the Soviet Union indispensable in the war, crucial to bringing world peace after it, and he wanted the Soviets handled with kid gloves. FDR was star struck. The Russians hardly could have done better if he was a Soviet spy.[11]

The opening of the Soviet archives in 1995 revealed that more than 300 communist members or supporters had infiltrated the American government. Working in Lend-Lease, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the office of the president, the office of the vice president, and even American intelligence operations, these spies constantly tried to shift U.S. policy in a pro-Soviet direction. During World War II several of these Soviet spies were well-positioned to influence American policy. Especially at the Tehran and Yalta meetings toward the end of World War II, the Soviet spies were able to influence Roosevelt to make huge concessions to the Soviet Union.[12]

Purchase Germany’s War

About Germany’s War

Read More:

Did President Roosevelt Betray America & Force An Unjustified Global War?

A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity

Sneek Peek inside Germany’s War Chapter 1 – The Chief Culprit: Joseph Stalin & The Soviet Union

Image: Stalin


[1] Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 106-108.

[2] Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, translated by James Murphy, London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p. 364.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Henderson, Sir Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, p. 115.

[5] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 472.

[6] Walendy, Udo, Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2013, pp. 385-386.

[7] Davies, Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, New York: Viking Penguin, 2007, p. 483.

[8] Degrelle, Leon Gen., Hitler Democrat, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2012, p. 11.

[9] Koster, John, Operation Snow, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012, pp. 135-137, 169.

[10] Ibid., p. 215.

[11] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 250-251.

[12] Folsom, Burton W. Jr. and Anita, FDR Goes to War, New York: Threshold Editions, 2011, pp. 242, 245.

Prosecutors Accuse Rothschild-Connected Billionaire of Protecting Child Trafficking Sex Cult

By Matt Agorist

As TFTP has previously reported, billionaire heiress Clare Bronfman was indicted on racketeering charges in federal court in July. The indictment was connected to her involvement as Operations Director for the NXIVM sex cult which ensnared Smallville star Allison Mack as well. Now, prosecutors have come forward saying that this billionaire heir is protecting her fellow cronies with a massive amount of money in the form of a defense trust fund.

A federal judge in Brooklyn said he is planning on bringing all of the members of the alleged cult into court because he’s found “issues” with this defense fund set up by Bronfman.

As the NY Post reports, 

Prosecutors have said Bronfman set up the irrevocable trust to keep her fellow cultists in line as they head to trial by paying for top-notch defense attorneys.

Judge Nicholas Garaufis held an initial hearing on the issue last month, where he ruled that documentation related to everyone contributing to the trust must be turned over.

The judge’s order noted that all defendants in the case must attend a court meeting “to address issues [the court] has identified in its review of the Trust’s indenture and the declaration that Defendants submitted,” according to the report.

For those who don’t recall, Bronfman is the heir to the multi-billion dollar liquor fortune of Edgar Bronfman Sr, the billionaire philanthropist who was formerly head of Seagram.

The Bronfman family has very close ties to the Rothschild banking dynasty as well, with members of both families belonging to many of the same companies, including their joint financial firm, Bronfman & Rothschild.

Additionally, at least three high-ranking members of the organization, including Nancy Salzman and both Bronfman sisters, are members of Bill Clinton’s foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, which requires an annual $15,000 membership fee.

Salzman, her daughter Lauren and NXIVM bookkeeper Kathy Russell were also accused of a racketeering conspiracy in the superseding indictment in the case.

After her court appearance in July, Bronfman walked free after agreeing to wear an ankle monitor and posting $100 million in bail—illustrating just how deep her pockets go.

Although Bronfman is not accused of sex trafficking like the group’s leaders Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, Frank Parlato, a former NXIVM publicist-turned-whistleblower told the New York Post that Bronfman is among the harshest leaders in the organization.

She’s the enforcer—the brutal one. Clare’s running the [operation] now, and she’s the most ruthless of them. I’m issuing an absolute warning now. Clare Bronfman is a true fanatic, and if there’s a Jim Jones situation, everyone will commit suicide but her.” Parlato said last year.

The Daily Mail reported that “Bronfman has hired Susan R. Necheles, one of the top white-collar attorneys in the country, to handle her case.”

As TFTP  reported on April 27, the majority of the funding for NXIVM, over a reported $150 million, came from the trust funds of Seagram heiresses, Sara and Clare Bronfman:

Their involvement with Raniere allegedly began in 2002 and has been very public and controversial, with other members of the Bronfman family distancing themselves from the sisters in the press. 

Although this extremely important detail is being left out of most mainstream reports, one of the main charges in the criminal indictment against Raniere and Mack is sex trafficking of children.

Although Bronfman has not been accused in the alleged child sex trafficking case, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office:

Raniere and Bronfman conspired to commit identity theft arising out of a scheme to obtain the e-mail usernames and passwords of perceived enemies and critics of Raniere in order to monitor their electronic communications.

Raniere and Bronfman participated in an identity theft conspiracy involving the use of credit card and banking information belonging to one of Raniere’s sexual partners after her death in November 2016. Bronfman sent Raniere regular emails documenting expenses charged to the woman’s credit card for Raniere’s “review and approval.” Those expenses included payments to a chiropractor for Raniere’s benefit, as well as thousands of dollars’ worth of clothing and shoe purchases for the mother of Raniere’s child.

Bronfman encouraged and induced the illegal entry into the United States of an alien for Bronfman’s financial gain, engaging in international wire transfers to make it fraudulently appear that the victim had the financial resources to obtain an investor visa.

Raniere and his inner circle, including the defendants Clare Bronfman, Allison Mack, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman and Kathy Russell also known as “Prefect,” and others known and unknown, comprised an organized criminal enterprise (the “Enterprise”).

The principal purpose of the Enterprise was to obtain financial and personal benefits for the members of the Enterprise by promoting the defendant Keith Raniere, also known as “Vanguard,” and by recruiting new members into the Pyramid Organizations.

By promoting Raniere and recruiting others into the Pytu-id Organizations, the members of the Enterprise expected to receive financial opportunities and increased power and status within the Enterprise.

On top of all the current charges faced by this cult leader, Raniere is also accused of having a history of pedophilia, with accusations that stretch back over 20 years, involving girls as young as 12.

In 2012, several women were interviewed by the Albany Times Union about the coercive sexual experiences that they had with Raniere when they were young girls. One of the women in the case was found dead of a gunshot wound before she was able to give the interview. Her death was ruled a suicide.

Clare Bronfman released a statement in December of 2017, regarding the allegations against NXIVM, denying any impropriety:

The past few months have been deeply painful for me, as I have seen my friends, associates, and the organization I care for come under fire. Some have asked me why I remain a member and why I still support NXIVM and Keith Raniere. The answer is simple: I’ve seen so much good come from both our programs and from Keith himself. It would be a tragedy to lose the innovative and transformational ideas and tools that continue to improve the lives of so many.

This defense of the NXIVM cult comes in spite of the countless women who have “escaped” the brutal organization with horrid tales of torture and rape. Bronfman seems overly confident that she and her group will beat the charges and this recent information on her fund may be an indicator that she will.

As TFTP has reported many times, billionaire sex offenders—like Jeffrey Epstein—all too often escape any form of actual punishment for their crimes against countless victims. Let’s hope that this situation plays out differently. TFTP will keep you updated as this case progresses. The alleged cult members are due back in court on April 29.

This article originally appeared on The Free Thought Project.

White Nationalists Need to Dump Donald Trump

It is sickening watching supposed White Nationalists and “anti-Semites” fawning over Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner. The amount of cognitive dissonance (and cognitive infiltration) in our movement is becoming quite clear as more and more jump on the “Trump train.”

Sure, some of what Donald Trump says about illegal immigration is great, but what about his plan to grant amnesty to millions of “good” illegal aliens and his stance on massive legal immigration? And what about his Zionist warmongering, jewish family, and jewish business relationships? Trump supporters want us to only focus on the illegal invasion of Mestizos and disregard all of this man’s other statements over the years.

“Nelson Mandela and myself had a wonderful relationship,” Trump says of the celebrated South African terrorist, adding that Mandela “was a special man and will be missed.”

Let’s go back in time to track Trump’s position on people like us. The following is from a 1999 NY Times article:

”Look, he’s a Hitler lover,” Mr. Trump said, alluding to the recent debate over Mr. Buchanan’s view that in World War II Hitler initially presented no serious threat to the United States.

”I guess he’s an anti-Semite,” Mr. Trump said, raising an accusation Mr. Buchanan has repeatedly denied in his career as White House strategist and talk show polemicist. ”He doesn’t like the blacks, he doesn’t like the gays,” Mr. Trump continued. ”It’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy.”

Donald Trump was openly pro-jew, pro-gay, and pro-black in 1999, but have things changed at all in recent years? Not at all! Donald Trump was honored this year with an award at the Algemeiner Jewish 100 Gala in New York City, and during his speech he brought up his jewish family. From a February, 2015 article:

“I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter,” he said at the event, which drew a star-studded crowd of 500 to the Capitale on Bowery. “This wasn’t in the plan but I’m very glad it happened.”

Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, converted to Judaism in 2009 before marrying real estate developer Jared Kushner, whom Donald described on stage as a “spectacular guy.” In presenting the award to her father, Ivanka described him as someone who has firm convictions and “a man who uses his platform and uses his voice to effectuate change.”

“He is fundamentally somebody who believes that it’s his civic duty to speak his mind and often say what’s not popular and what others are afraid to,” she added. “He has used his voice often and loudly in support of Israel and in support of developments within Israel, in support of security for Israel and in support of the idea of Israeli democracy.”

On stage, Trump concluded his acceptance speech by asserting his strong support for the Jewish state. He told the audience, “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.

Trump has a jewish daughter, a jewish son-in-law, and jewish grandchildren. Do you really think he would do anything to reduce the power of the jewish oligarchs ruining America? Do you really want a president that has expressed his desire to go to war with Iran? Do you really want another president who will put Israel first?

Donald J. Trump


Nobody but Donald Trump will save Israel. You are wasting your time with these politicians and political clowns. Best!

I am getting angrier by the moment. I am sick and tired of people thinking that Trump is somehow better than all of the other cuckservatives. He has criticized Barack Obama for not loving Israel enough, even though Obama has said he has a “jewish soul,” been hailed as the “first jewish president,” and bent over backward for the jewish state at every turn.

From a February, 2015 Blaze article:

“Now yesterday, Susan Rice, the President’s National Security Advisor, said Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is ‘destructive.’ What do you think of the President’s attitude towards Israel? Is he a friend of Israel?” Hewitt asked.

“No, I think he’s one of the worst things that’s ever happened to Israel,” Trump responded.

Trump endorses Benjamin Netanyahu:

I wonder if Donald Trump will travel over to Israel for the next Gaza massacre to get a good front-row seat.

Israel really is our greatest ally, right goy?

This is what Donald Trump supports.

Trump loves people who are sexually aroused by the murder of goyim children. Trump supports the people who murdered a young American girl standing against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and who now celebrate her death with “Rachel Corrie pancakes.”

It doesn’t matter what kind of lip service Trump gives to protecting the United States, he really cares about: himself, his money, his jewish family, the jewish people, and the jewish state of Israel.

Do you know about Donald Trump’s top adviser? Meet Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s Jewish Wingman:

Cohen, who is Jewish, has been Trump’s most loyal ally for nearly a decade, standing up for the real estate mogul in the media and filing lawsuits when Trump perceives he’s been wronged. A 2011 ABC News profile reported that within The Trump Organization he’s called the boss’s “pit bull.”

If all of this was not damning enough, let’s consider Trump’s relationship with some disgusting individuals. In an episode of his show that was filmed a year before the Bill Cosby sex scandal broke, Trump fired a woman for not reaching out to Cosby. From a January, 2015 article:

Calling Cosby “a gentleman,” Trump ultimately fired her from the show, saying “I really believe, if you’d called that gentleman, he would’ve helped you, even if you hadn’t spoken to him in years because you were an amazing team with one of the most successful shows ever.”

In November Trump—who had a year to edit the scene of himself firing a woman clearly distraught at the prospect of contacting Bill Cosby—told reporters Cosby needed a better PR team.

To say Trump has a history of commenting inopportunely on skeevy sex scandals would be an understatement—in 2002, years before Jeffrey Epstein’s egg-shaped penis became a matter of public record—Trump described Epstein as a “terrific guy.”

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Wow, so Donald Trump knew all about jew Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual preference for young girls, but how connected was Trump to the child sex slaver? So close that he was even in his “little black book.”

From a January, 2015 article:

Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz may have been identified by a butler as potential “material witnesses” to pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes against young girls . . .

There is much more that could be written about this subject, but the evidence compiled in this article should be more than ample for anyone who is honest and thinking critically. We need use these points to confront anyone in the alternative media that continues to perform fellatio on Trump. Let’s hold their feet to the fire. If supposed pro-Whites continue chugging along in the “Trump train,” they should be completely discredited. Supporting this Republicuck front-runner is some serious shilling and should not be considered acceptable.

Merkel & Macron Apply Sticking Plaster on Fracturing Europe

While Macron poured tea for Merkel and shared niceties in Aachen, both their countries are reeling from social unrest over economic grievances and uncontrolled immigration.

Published on

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a new Franco-German Treaty last week in the historic city of Aachen it had pomp and gravitas as background setting.

But in the foreground, figuratively speaking, the two leaders are beset by jarring political problems in both their respective countries, as well as across the entire European Union and on the international level.

If the location of the 9th century Charlesmagne empire centered on German border city of Aachen was meant to inspire unity, it could equally also inspire doom. All empires are destined to fall. Why should the supranational EU not also succumb to demise?

The Franco-German accord signed by Macron and Merkel appeared to be more a PR gesture than a substantive development.

For a start, there already exists an accord between the two countries. The Elysée Treaty signed in 1963 was signed by Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer and is viewed as an historic postwar reconciliation between the two major European powers which helped paved the way for the modern European Union.

Some observers questioned the need for Macron and Merkel to sign a new treaty. “It was like an old couple renewing their marriage vows,” commented historian Marion Gaillard to France 24.

The treaty last week aims to bring closer cooperation between Germany and France in the fields of foreign policy, defense, security, economic policy, and to reinforce the wider EU project. Importantly, another aim is to strengthen “the ability of Europe to act independently”.

The day after signing, Angela Merkel addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, where she said the new Franco-German pact was a real step towards the creation of a European army.

Striving to give Europe independence in foreign policy and defense is obviously a response to the growing tensions between the United States and the EU, tensions that have rudely emerged since Donald Trump became president.

Trump’s berating of European governments, in particular Germany’s, over trade, foreign policy and NATO military spending has inevitably pushed the two main EU powers – Berlin and Paris – to close ranks and perhaps to try to salvage some respect for their images as not being mere vassals of Washington.

However, the outlook is not auspicious. European governments continue to slavishly follow the line from Washington on adopting hostile sanctions against Russia. Also last week, it was shameful how the EU meekly went along with Washington’s blatant coup attempt in Venezuela. So much for being independent!

Merkel and Macron also had their eyes on mounting pressures from within the European bloc.

The two leaders lamented the rise of “populism and nationalism” as negative forces undermining and fracturing the 28-member EU project. Thus by signing the accord last week, the German and French leaders were aiming to “inspire unity” and “cohesion”.

Again, their effort seems more pomp and PR than anything of substantive progress.

While Macron poured tea for Merkel and shared niceties in Aachen, both their countries are reeling from social unrest over economic grievances and uncontrolled immigration. Both leaders have seriously lost political authority. They are weakened figures in the eyes of their respective public, unlike the 1963 signatories De Gaulle and Adenauer who at the time were revered as statesmen.

France’s Macron is particularly despised by growing numbers of his citizens. The Yellow Vest protests, which have been gripping France for nearly three months, are demanding his resignation, mocking Macron as “president of the very rich”.

Merkel is also a shadow of the former “Iron Chancellor” she once was seen as. In her final term of office, she is due to step down with her reputation sullied by growing economic grievances among Germans and the rise of the anti-immigration and Eurosceptic party, Alternative for Germany. Merkel’s former “open door” policy on immigration has rebounded to damage the electoral strength of her center-right Christian Democrat party.

The signing of the Franco-German accord last week is seen as a hollow attempt by both leaders to give themselves an aura of gravitas in the face of growing criticism and rancor among voters. If anything, the exercise in Aachen will further incite popular contempt.

As for Macron and Merkel “inspiring unity” for the rest of Europe: their pomp and ceremony collides with the reality of visceral anger across the EU over what many citizens see as an aloof, unresponsive European establishment whose neoliberal capitalist policies relentlessly rack up social misery.

Macron deprecates so-called “populism” as a nasty scourge on a presumed pristine Europe. He has even referred to populist politics as a form of “leprosy” corroding the body politic of the EU. His snide comments were seen as an attack on the governing parties of Italy and Hungary.

Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini has become a thorn in Macron’s side. Salvini lambasted the French leader for “all talk and no action”, adding that he hoped French voters will soon get rid of “terrible Macron”.

Italy’s second deputy prime minister Luigi Di Maio also gave a verbal kicking to French pretensions last week. He slammed France for “exploiting Africa” through its economic policies towards former colonies, and in that way, claimed Di Maio, French governments are fueling migration to Europe.

Considering that Italy is one of the founding members of the EU – along with France and Germany – the increasingly bitter rhetoric demonstrates just how fractured the bloc has become.

It must be deeply alarming to Europhiles like Macron and Merkel that so many parties across the EU have endorsed Britain’s decision for Brexit, despite the mess that the Brits have made of that departure.

What Macron and Merkel, and other pro-EU establishment politicians, don’t seem to understand is that “populism” is simply a democratic revolt against the orthodoxy of running economies to satisfy big banks and big business, while ordinary people are expected to endure poverty, low wages, unemployment, rising living costs, unaffordable housing, and deteriorating public services.

In other words, the likes of Macron and Merkel have created their own challenges, opposition, and failures from pursuing bankrupt capitalist policies.

At the Davos conference of business elites last week, Italian premier Giuseppe Conte castigated EU economic policies for “sowing despair and discontent across Europe”. He added: “We are radical because we want to bring the power back to the people.”

The Franco-German Treaty signed last week is a useless sticking plaster for covering up a fracturing Europe. What is required is to rebuild Europe with an economic, political system that is genuinely democratic in addressing the needs of ordinary people. And to create a Europe that is truly independent from Washington’s warmongering and Cold War obsession towards Russia.

Don’t Expect The EU To Cave On May’s Brexit Deal Until The Very Last Minute

Theresa May now has to convince the EU to reopen negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, something EU officials have insisted will not happen.

Published on

After a series of embarrassing Parliamentary defeats (and still more embarrassing triumphs over a series of no-confidence votes), Theresa May is we imagine reveling in what was a rare win for on Tuesday: MPs backed an amendment that calls for removing the backstop from her Withdrawal agreement and replacing it with a commitment to find something better after the prime minister vowed to ask the EU to reopen negotiations (something she has reportedly been trying to persuade the block to do behind the scenes for weeks now with little apparent success).

Now that she’s won what her cabinet believes is enough support for a modified version of the deal, having finally corralled a majority for something resembling her current deal, the hard work truly begins: Convincing the EU to reopen negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, something officials have publicly insisted will not happen (though there have been whispers that they have been slowly coming around to the idea).

In a speech on Wednesday, European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker blasted the vote as irresponsible and once again insisted that removing the backstop from the agreement is out of the question.

“This is not a game,” he said, according to Bloomberg.

If there’s anything new to take away from the developments of the past two days, it can be found in a Bloomberg report published Wednesday afternoon that effectively confirmed what many have long suspected: That there won’t be any movement on the deal – either from the EU or, likely, the UK, until the last possible minute. According to BBG, EU diplomats have pointed to a last-minute summit set for March 21 and March 22 – just a week before Brexit Day – as the likely time when a deal may finally be struck.

The European Union is prepared to take Brexit down to a last-minute, high-stakes summit rather than cave into U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s demands over the next few weeks, diplomats said.

Although May is getting ready to head back to Brussels to reopen the Brexit deal that she negotiated over the past 18 months, the EU isn’t planning to give her any concessions before she returns for a vote in the British Parliament on Feb. 14, according to the diplomats. Behind closed doors, European officials are sticking to their well-coordinated public line that they won’t rework the deal.

The EU is in no rush to convene an emergency meeting of EU leaders, which would be necessary for any changes to the deal or for a Brexit-day delay. Diplomats point to a scheduled summit on March 21-22 — just seven days before the U.K. is due to leave the bloc — as the moment when the two sides could be forced to act. Some senior figures in the EU believe the U.K. needs to be all but out of options before accepting the deal, diplomats said.

May met with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn on Wednesday and the two reportedly sparred over Labour’s demands that the UK commit to permanently remain a part of the EU customs union – an idea that’s anathema to Tory Brexiteers. She’s also due for a phone call with Donald Tusk Wednesday night (he has already publicly reiterated that he won’t budge on the backstop).

Ireland’s prime minister and his cabinet remain committed to the idea that Parliament must cave and accept May’s deal as-is, having warned that a return to a hard border in Ireland will not happen (a ‘no-deal’ Brexit would likely lead to a hard border returning), while simultaneously insisting that the backstop is an integral part of May’s deal.

In an interview with RTE Wednesday morning, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the notion the UK could leave the bloc without a deal amounts to a threat to “jump out the window”, adding that Ireland wouldn’t cave to threats. He also offered a few unkind words for the Brady amendment, saying it was “wishful thinking:” to replace the backstop with a vague call for something better.

“We are being asked to replace the backstop with wishful thinking,” he said, adding there are no obvious ‘magic’ solutions out there to reopen the withdrawal agreement. Instead, he said that the focus might be on the non-binding political declaration, which would be tweaked in an effort to calm U.K. concerns.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar released a statement after speaking with May via phone on Wednesday where he “set out once again the unchanged Irish and EU position on the withdrawal agreement and the backstop.” It added that the latest developments “reinforced the need for a backstop which is legally robust and workable in practice” and said the two leaders “agreed to stay in touch over the coming period,” per the BBC.

If there’s any clarity to be found in the Brexit process, it’s in the markets: The pound has sunk since the Brady amendment was adopted on Tuesday (and two amendments calling for a delay of Brexit Day were rejected) based on the idea that the UK is inching closer to a ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario. Because of this, Goldman Sachs has upped its “no-deal” Brexit probability to 15% from 10%, and cut the chance of Brexit not happening at all to 35% from 40%.

But has anything really changed? A look past the headlines reveals that the basic facts on the ground haven’t. UBS perhaps put it best in a laconic recap of Tuesday’s vote, that still applies after Wednesday’s outraged squawking from EU officials in Brussels.

The interminably tedious EU-UK divorce continues. The UK government must renegotiate with the EU. The EU says it will not renegotiate. The UK parliament does not want a no-deal exit. There is no automatic delay mechanism, but there are votes in two weeks which might impose an automatic delay mechanism.

And it looks like that’s how things are going to stay for another month or so. But even as the reality that nothing will happen until the last possible minute dawns on markets, we doubt that will put a stop to the endless firehouse of Brexit-related headlines.

Holy Land – Palestinian girl fatally shot at Israeli checkpoint

A still from an Israeli police video shows an officer handcuffing Samah Mubarak after she was shot and incapacitated, as a soldier points a rifle at her, at al-Zaayim checkpoint in the occupied West Bank, 30 January. The 16-year-old, who died of her injuries, appears to have received no first aid.

Israeli forces killed a Palestinian girl at al-Zaayim checkpoint in the occupied West Bank east of Jerusalem on Wednesday.

Israeli police claimed that Samah Zuhair Mubarak attempted to stab a security guard at the checkpoint before she was fatally shot.

The Palestinian Authority health ministry gave Mubarak’s age as 16, and media reported she was in the 11th grade.

No Israeli soldiers were injured during the incident, as in many previous cases in which an alleged Palestinian attacker was killed.

An Israeli police spokesperson tweeted a photo of the knife he claimed Mubarak had carried:

Israeli police also released an edited video said to show parts of the incident.

The video shows a person wearing all black and carrying a backpack approaching the checkpoint.

It then shows an altercation from a distance in which a person appears to stumble or lunge forward, and then fall backwards onto the ground as if shot.

The video is edited such that it does not show what happened in the seconds prior to the altercation and shooting.

It also shows a soldier handcuffing the clearly incapacitated Mubarak who is lying on the ground while another soldier points a rifle at her.

Medical aid denied

In many cases of alleged or actual attacks by Palestinians against Israeli soldiers, occupation forces have habitually used unnecessary lethal force – extrajudicial executions – against persons who presented no imminent threat or had ceased to present a danger.

“In some cases, Israeli officials have said Palestinians appeared to have carried out attacks or attempted to do so in order to be shot dead by Israeli security forces, as a form of ‘suicide by cop,’” the Times of Israel stated after Wednesday’s shooting.

Local media reported that Israeli forces prevented first responders from providing first aid to Mubarak after she was shot.

None of the images released by Israeli police or those circulating on social media and seen by The Electronic Intifada appear to show any examination of Mubarak by medical personnel or life-saving efforts taking place.

Medical care is habitually denied or actively prevented for Palestinians shot by Israeli occupation forces.

In reference to such incidents in the past, Amnesty International has stated that it is “a basic duty under international law to provide medical aid to the wounded, and failure to do so – especially intentional failure – violates the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”

This video shows soldiers looking through Mubarak’s school bag after she was shot and finding only school books:

Family shocked

A family member told Palestinian media that following the killing of Mubarak, Israel detained her father Zuhair Mubarak after summoning him for interrogation at Ofer military prison.

“We knew that Samah was going to school, and we were surprised by the news of her death. We do not know any other details about what had happened at the checkpoint.” the family member added.

Mubarak’s family is originally from the Gaza Strip, but lives in the occupied West Bank town of al-Ram, north of Jerusalem, where her father moved at the age of 18.

She is the third Palestinian child to be killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of 2019.

“Samah has a childish personality, she has no extremist thought or ideology, she comes from a religious family, we are all religious, and she would not do what Israel claims,” Samah’s uncle, Fathi al-Khalidi, told the publication Donia al-Watan.

Fatal tear gas canister

Meanwhile in Gaza on Tuesday, 47-year-old Samir Ghazi al-Nabbahin died from injuries he suffered during Great March of Return protests last Friday.

The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said that al-Nabbahin was hit in the face with a tear gas canister fired by Israeli occupation forces.

On 14 January, another Palestinian in Gaza, 13-year-old Abd al-Raouf Ismail Salha, died from injuries sustained when he was shot in the head by an Israeli tear gas canister days earlier.

Al-Nabbahin was buried on Wednesday amid scenes of anguish:

At least five more Palestinians were injured by Israeli gunfire on Tuesday as they participated in a weekly march in the north of Gaza against Israel’s maritime blockade of the territory.

Tamara Nassar contributed research.

Thu Nov 26, 2015 02:00AM [Updated: Thu Nov 26, 2015 02:04AM ]


Israel’s request that Washington should recognize its illegal settlements is itself illegal, says a New York-based author and lecturer.

“The settlements, all of them, are illegal under international law,” Norman Gary Finkelstein told Press TV on Wednesday, while commenting on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated calls for the international recognition of major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank in exchange for steps to ease tensions with the Palestinians.

Bibi wants the US to “legalize a situation, which is clearly illegal,” the analyst noted, slamming the Israeli premier’s offer to “allow for certain kinds of economic development in the occupied Palestinian territory” instead.

“He has no right to do that either… he has only one right; he has the right to pack up his bag and leave.”

The United States strongly rejected Israel’s request, calling construction of settlements an obstacle to a two-state solution.

The new dispute over Israeli settlements emerged between Washington and Tel Aviv on Tuesday, as US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel and the West Bank for the first time in more than a year.

The presence and continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine has created a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.

More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds.

The UN and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in the 1967 war and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied lands.

Ra2015.11.28 05:38
Dismantling ‘Israel’ is absolutely necessary for World peace. Let alone Palestine.
Peter West2015.11.27 18:58
300,000 of them are American Citizens, believe it or not.
1BigCREE1Redtail2015.11.27 07:15
ALL of Palestine is under ILLEGAL OCCUPATION ever since May, 1948. The invaders i.e. “israelis” have no right or say in anything over Palestine period. They need to leave ALL of it and issue a GLOBAL APOLOGY plus FULL COMPENSATION for the past seventy years of damages, stolen land and resources belonging to the Palestinians.
Adam2015.11.27 04:34
The US does wonders
Reza2015.11.26 22:25
USA rejects Israeli settlement buildings on Arab lands? at the same time rewards Israel to carry on building new settlements,where is the logic in that!
Gunney582015.11.26 21:05
All “illegal” settlers should be given no choice but one – LEAVE and leave NOW
Jo.Green2015.11.26 17:39
With Other words ….. This parasite should get a headshot,then Palestine will be ziocancer free,the ME and the whole world safer.
Graham Griffiths2015.11.26 16:33
Finkelstein’s knowledge is always outstanding. It’s good that he reminds us that the settlements are illegal under the International Court of Human Justice, and he gives the year and bill number.
Mesud Peco> Graham Griffiths2015.11.27 09:52
Those are the facts that we, people of the free world knows from 1967. , that’s only you, Americans, who must be educated in international matters
Wed Nov 25, 2015 08:09AM [Updated: Wed Nov 25, 2015 08:38AM ]
US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner
US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner

The United States has strongly rejected Israel’s request that Washington should recognize its illegal settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories, calling the settlements an obstacle to a two-state solution.  

The new dispute over Israeli settlements emerged between Washington and Tel Aviv on Tuesday, as US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel and the West Bank for the first time in more than a year.

During Kerry’s visit to Jerusalem al-Quds, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly demanded international recognition of major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank in exchange for steps to ease tensions with the Palestinians.

However, the US State Department quickly rejected any suggestion that Washington would change its longstanding opposition to settlements or recognize them as legitimate.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner categorically rejected that possibility. “It’s a big no,” he told reporters.

“We’re not changing the decades-old US policy regarding settlements,” he said, noting that every US administration since 1967 has opposed them because they are an obstacle to a two-state solution.

“The US government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them, and by extension, does not pursue policies that would legitimize them,” Toner said.

Kerry’s visit comes at a time of heightened tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

There were no signs that Kerry made any progress in easing those tensions during his meetings with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The fresh wave of unrest was triggered in September by Israel’s imposition of restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshipers into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in East al-Quds.

More than 90 Palestinians have been killed at the hands of Israelis since the beginning of October.

Israel says the violence is the result of incitement by Palestinian political and religious leaders.

The Palestinians say the outburst of tensions is the result of nearly 70 years of Israeli occupation and a lack of hope for gaining independence and frustration over repeated failures in peace efforts.

Louise OBrien2015.11.28 08:18
The Americans know that their support of Israel and its support of the theft of Arab land is putting it at loggerheads with the Saudis, its allies in terrorism in the Middle East. Little do the Saudis know or probably care that the US agenda is for Israel to own a lot of Arab land and be a dominant power in the Middle East.
n2015.11.27 03:45
But the Americans pay for there construction

Vandals throw Torah scrolls on floor in Jerusalem synagogue attack

Netanyahu says he is shocked by desecration in Kiryat Yovel neighborhood; interior minister slams vandalism as an ‘outrageous anti-Semitic pogrom’

ed note–and there it is, that word again–


Not ‘Talmud, but


Now, some undoubtedly wonder why we spend so much time in underscoring this theme, and he’s why–

The entire Judaic power structure is like the proverbial house of cards that has been constructed with a million different lies, falsehoods, inaccuracies, etc, and it is this very paradigm–of overwhelming and inebriating the Gentile mind with falsehoods of various size, scope, species, and severity so as to incapacitate it from accurately understanding the nature of the ‘JQ’–that accounts for what has now become a plague in and of itself as represented by Jewish power.

One of these falsehoods (unfortunately as popular in certain Gentile ‘neighborhoods’ as is the ‘Judaism ain’t Zionism’ nonsense) is the notion that modern day Judaism and its adherents do not follow the Torah but rather the Talmud, a paradigm whereby the former is presented and accepted as ‘holy’, holistic, and beneficent to mankind and as the ‘word of God’, while the latter is characterized as the substance-opposite of the Torah that has produced all the ills of the world today, or at least those ills where organized Jewish interests are intimately involved.

As pointed out here regularly however, both notions are baseless and as bereft of fact as saying that a whale is a fish just because there are certain superficialities that would lead the less studious types to conclude thus.

In the first sense, and as partially evidenced by what appears in the following news story, indeed the Torah is as much part of modern day Judaism as peanuts are part of peanut butter. Every Sin-a-gogue in the world contains Torah scrolls, and on every sabbath (Saturday) a certain ‘parsha’ (part) of those scrolls is read. At the end of the 52 week cycle and beginning on the Jewish New Year of Yom Kippur, the cycle of Torah reading begins anew with the book of Genesis.

It has been this way for thousands of years and all anyone need do in accurately (and honestly) coming to terms with these facts is to bother themselves with a mere few minutes’ research in fereting out truth from fiction.

So the obvious question that begs be asked in all of this is just WHY people embrace such notions, and the answer to that is equally easy to understand–Just as the Jews utilize falsehoods in building their power structure, they also know just what kinds of falsehoods make good bait for those Gentile fish which they intend to catch and eat. Christians of various stripes put the Torah into an equal (or sometimes even higher) caste as they do the New Testament. They have been taught that warlords such as Moses, pimps such as Abraham, thieves and fraudsters such as Jacob and 1st-degree murderers such as David were ‘pre-figurements’ of Jesus, despite the fact that ‘Jesus, son of Mary’ was as opposite their characters as Elliot Ness was to Al Capone.

Worse yet are those ‘Christians’–and particularly of the ‘Identity’ variety, as well as their color-opposite counterparts, the ‘Black Hebrew Israelites’–who view themselves in the most ego-pandering method imaginable as the literal, DNA-descendants of those same aforementioned warlords, pimps, thieves, fraudsters, and 1st-degree murderers.

As it is with any house of cards, all that need take place is to begin flicking a few of them in order to make the entire flimsy structure collapse, and yet, despite all the evil, turmoil, and the fact that Armageddon itself approaches like an apocalyptic storm that threatens to destroy all life on earth, for the most part it will be found that Gentiles–for reasons rooted in their own personal emotional attachments–simply will not part with those delusions which please them the most, despite the fact that it is these very delusions which are the most deadly to their own continued existence.

Times of Israel

Vandals broke into a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Kiryat Yovel overnight Monday and damaged the prayer house, throwing Torah scrolls and other Jewish artifacts onto the floor.

Torah scrolls thrown on the floor in Jerusalem synagogue attack, January 29, 2019 (Facebook)

“We arrived this morning for prayer and we saw the synagogue completely upside-down,” worshiper Yisrael Levy told the Ynet news site. “The burglars tried to break into the ark and when they did not succeed, they cut into it and threw all the Torah scrolls on the floor,” he said, referring to the ornate cabinet where the scrolls are kept.

Levy, who serves as a lay leader for the Siach Yisrael French-speaking community, said there was no friction between worshipers and people outside the community, adding that there are no security cameras located nearby.

Police said in a statement that a forensic team was immediately sent to the scene and an investigation into the incident has been opened. They later announced the formation of special task force to investigate the attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement saying he was “shocked” by the attack, adding that he hoped the perpetrators would soon be caught and brought to justice.

Interior minister and head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party Aryeh Deri said the attack was an “outrageous anti-Semitic pogrom at a synagogue here in the Land of Israel.”

He added, “There is no Jewish heart that is not afraid of such scenes.”

President Reuven Rivlin tweeted from his personal account that the images from the synagogue were “hard and painful.”

Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion condemned the attack as “a grave event reminiscent of dark periods of the Jewish people,” and said he was confident police would find the perpetrators.

Dan Illouz, who sits on the Jerusalem municipal council, wrote in a Facebook post that the attack was particularly sad as many members of the Siach Yisrael community had left France to escape persecution. He said that the city must come together and “fight the hatred of those who try to divide us with more love and better relations among the different sectors in the city.”

The chairman of the National Union party, Bezalel Smotrich, also commented on the attack, saying: “These are difficult scenes that are reminiscent of dark days in the history of our people.”

The incident comes just days after vandals burned Jewish prayer books and graffitied the phrase “Hail Satan” in an attack on a Netanya synagogue. A pentagram was also discovered sprayed onto a wall.

Police are investigating Saturday’s incident at the Orthodox place of worship on McDonald Street, popular among English-speaking residents of the coastal city.

British Deep State Of Canada Caught Steering Venezuelan Coup

Featured World

British Deep State Of Canada Caught Steering Venezuelan Coup

…by Matthew J.L Ehret,  for VT Canada

Since Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself president on January 23, it has become obvious to all intelligent onlookers that this “people-power color revolution” is not directed by Trump at all but rather by what has been exposed as the trans-national “Deep State”.

When we look behind the layers of false narratives obscuring the true motives behind this operation, we should not be surprised to find the ugly picture of an insecure empire trying desperately to break apart the new coalition of Russia-China-American partnership now in danger of overthrowing the script for global dictatorship that has been building up for decades.

While anti-Trump neocon Elliot Abrams has been assigned to manage the ongoing coup from the American side of things, an overlooked force driving this scheme is not to be found in America itself, but rather Britain, or more specifically, British-run operations in Canada. Two of the most active players in this operation who we will showcase below are Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and her Oxford cohort Ben Rowswell. Rowswell is not only the former Ambassador to Venezuela but current President of the Canadian International Council (aka: the Round Table Movement of Canada[1]).

The Role of Chrystia Freeland

After completely crippling Russian relations with Canada for over six years, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, a close friend of George Soros, has been at the forefront of every attempt to preserve the structures of the failing British Empire, including playing a guiding role behind the regime change “direct democracy” movement now tearing apart Venezuela.

In a January 24 Global News article entitled Canada played key role in secret talks against Venezuela’s Maduro, an unnamed Canadian Government official described Freeland’s role in the coup:“Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro’s swearing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader”.

The quote refers of the Lima Group, a coalition of 14 Latin American nations (11 of whom endorsed the Venezuelan color revolution on January 4) which was founded in August 2017. While some wonder why Canada is a member of this coalition of Latin American nations, the fact is that Canada is not only a member, but the founder[2].

The group was set up entirely to legitimize the regime change movement of Venezuela. Not only did Freeland speak with Guaido two weeks before he declared himself president, giving him the green light to begin the operations stating that Canada would support all actions he takes against Victor Maduro, but she will be presiding over Lima Group’s next anti-Maduro meeting in Ottawa on February 4.

In a Globe and Mail editorial of January 27, Ben Rowswell described Canada’s surprising role as leading member of the Lima Group in the following terms “That our country stands so prominently among these comes as a surprise to many Canadians. It is the product of 18 months of effort over which the Trudeau government has carved out a uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion.” Rowswell then laid out the three principles of the “uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion” as a combination of:

1) The premise that sovereignty stems from the people, 2) That direct action to overthrow a government must come from the people, and 3) International support is vital for a “democratic” regime change.

While Freeland’s guiding hand behind the 2017 creation of the Lima Group satisfied “principle 3” (and “principle 1” is a somewhat meaningless truism when it comes from an ideological social engineer), “principle 2” remained the most difficult during the years of failed western coups against socialist governments in Venezuela.

Unifying the highly scattered and disorganized forces needed to unseat a president has always been the biggest challenge for the Deep State. In the case of Ukraine and Syria the use of Nazis and ISIS terrorists were vital recipes for success, but the absence of similar forces in Venezuela posed a major problem which Ben Rowswell himself was assigned to manage in 2014.

A few words about Rowswell

Prior to becoming Ambassador to Venezuela (2014-2017), Oxford-trained Rowswell worked for the U.S. National Democratic Institute (a branch of the National Endowment of Democracy) in Iraq, served as Deputy Head of Mission in Afghanistan (2009-2010) and in 2011 was visiting scholar at Stanford University’s New Center on Democracy, which was then headed by regime-change expert Michael McFaul (who spent his failed tenure as Obama’s Ambassador to Russia where his sole job was to promote a “white revolution” from the American embassy). McFaul and Rowswell are outspoken disciples of “internet-tech driven direct democracy” modes of unseating “bad” governments.

Rowswell himself described his greatest achievement as Canadian Ambassador to Venezuela as having united opposition forces and having advancing “direct democracy” through social media tech and embassy events.

“We became one of the most vocal embassies in speaking out on human rights issues and encouraging Venezuelans to speak out” said Rowswell in an Ottawa Citizen interview in September 2017. When he left his post on July 27, 2017 he tweeted “I don’t think they (anti-Maduro forces) have anything to worry about because Minister Freeland has Venezuela way at the top of her priority list”.

Obviously, Rowswell never learned that Ambassadors exist to enhance relationships between countries, not to promote the overthrow of the nation hosting them. Wishing to spread his perverse notion of the purpose of “ambassadors”, Rowswell stated in a 2017 interview that “there are many people that could be effective Canadian ambassadors abroad. But not many people that had enough exposure to technology and human rights activism in the field that could combine those two and could create some dramatic new outcomes in global affairs.”

The British Empire on the Verge of Collapse

The question remains: Why such emphasis on Venezuela at this moment in history?

Much can be said about issues of corruption, regime change policies, deep state intrigue and colour revolutions, but all this is mere trivia which does little more than satisfy a useless lust for information.

The reality is that we are living in history, and history is no longer being shaped by the British script which ushered in the post-nation state “New World Order” praised by the likes of Sirs George H.W. Bush or Henry Kissinger decades ago. This new force of history is being shaped by the higher nationalist
aspirations led by Russia and China who, along with other nations, have created a bond of survival centered on mutual growth, long term infrastructure investment and scientific research.

New institutions needed to fund and provide stable credit for projects like the Belt and Road Initiative have been created since 2013, institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Silk Road Fund, the BRICS Bank and more.

The behavior of these credit mechanisms stand in direct opposition to the short-term monetarist rules plaguing the western financial system. Ironically, these new mechanisms bear a great similarity to the traditional American system of political economy represented by Lincoln’s Greenbacks which tie the value of money to the REAL economy rather than Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”.

A major focus of Belt and Road Investments from Chinese and Russians alike has been Latin America and the Caribbean, and since the 2016 victory of American nationalist forces in led by Donald Trump, a serious potential for a U.S.-China-Russia alliance of sovereign nation states has arisen for the first time since World War II This reality keeps British oligarchs (and their slavish lackies) up at night feeling more and more like they are living through the horrifying self-destruction of Edgar Allan Poe’s Roderick Usher[3].

Already, forces representing the genuine self-interests of the United States have begun overturning Obama’s 2011 banning of cooperation on Space science with China as we have seen with NASA’s collaboration with the Chang’e 4 landing on the far side of the moon and former NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s call for a new age of space research and exploration with Russia and China. Donald Trump’s impassioned call for a Moon-Mars mission by the end of his second term is well known, as is his recognition that the Belt and Road Initiative is the way to the future.

This is the new paradigm as outlined by the Schiller Institute for decades. Seething with infantile rage, the British Empire has little left in its arsenal except to try with all of their might to burn the earth rather than lose their power. Fortunately for humanity, the arsonists have lost many of their matches.

[1] The Round Table Movement launched with funds from the Rhodes Trust was created in 1902 to advance the doctrine of a new British Empire advocated by Cecil Rhodes. Simultaneously created was a scholarship fund to indoctrinate generations of technocrats in the halls of Oxford.

The Round Table Movement in Canada changed its name to the Canadian Institute for International Affairs in 1928 and then renamed itself again in 2006 as the Canadian International Council. The American branch of the Round Table Movement was created in 1921 under the name “Council on Foreign Relations”.

[2] A January 27 Globe and Mail editorial by CIC President Rowswell boasted that Canada founded the Lima group.

[3] Poe’s story The Fall of the House of Usher (1839) should be read in full and understood as a psychological study of the oligarchical personality type represented by the pitiful aristocrat Roderick Usher. The story ends: “From that chamber, and from that mansion, I fled aghast. The storm was still abroad in all its wrath as I found myself crossing the old causeway. Suddenly there shot along the path a wild light, and I turned to see whence a gleam so unusual could have issued; for the vast house and its shadows were alone behind me. The radiance was that of the full, setting, and blood-red moon which now shone vividly through that once barely-discernible fissure of which I have before spoken as extending from the roof of the building, in a zig-zag direction, to the base. While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened –there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind –the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight –my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder –there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters –and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the “HOUSE OF USHER.”

Monika Schaefer – Ms. Chrystia Freeland and Her “Nazi Collaborator” Grandfather #461


Venezuela Crisis: U.S. Has Painted Itself Into Corner


…from SouthFront


Venezuela has the dubious fortune of being located on the continent of South America, which the United States has treated under the so-called “Monroe Doctrine” as its exclusive zone of political, economic, and military influence. In practical terms it meant that whenever a Latin American government pursued a policy at odds with Washington’s preferences, it would be subjected to measures ranging from economic sanctions to outright military invasion.

Latin America became one of the many battlefields of the Cold War when several countries sought to leave the US shadow and align themselves with USSR. The US retaliation was harsh, and included the support for the brutal military coup in Chile, training of “death squads” in Honduras and El Salvador, support for the so-called Contras in Nicaragua, not to mention the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once the Cold War was over, however, a relative peace settled over the region, with Cuba remaining the only hold-out against US power. Even the coming to power of soft Marxist “pink wave” governments in Venezuela and Bolivia did not seem to overly ruffle Washington’s feathers. But the current escalation of the US campaign against Venezuela suggests a revival of US activism in the region.

“Energy Dominance”

One might as well cut to the chase and state the obvious: Venezuela is not only a member of OPEC, it is also a country with the world’s largest known oil reserves dwarfing those even of Saudi Arabia. It is no coincidence that pretty much every country that has been on the US “hit list” in the last decade or so—Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela—is a major producer of hydrocarbons. Given that the global economy is utterly dependent on steady provision of hydrocarbons, US political control over these countries means a stranglehold over major industrial competitors to the United States, namely the EU and China. It also creates US jobs, once US oil companies establish control over the country’s oil fields. At the very least, should the effort to place the country under indirect US control fail, plunging it into chaos removes a competitor to struggling domestic US oil producers.

Monroe Doctrine Returns

The timing of the US escalation closely follows the visit by Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venezuela during which the possibility of creating a Russian military base in the country was discussed by some media outlets. Given that Russia has by now established through the Syrian example that once Russian troops arrive in a country they are unlikely to leave no matter how great the US pressure, Washington may have decided to step up the pressure in the hopes of not only Russia but it’s other major competitor, China, from establishing themselves more firmly in the country. Russia’s Rosneft already has considerable presence in the Venezuela, assisting it with the development of its oil potential, and China has also made a number of investments in the country, though its economic footprint remains modest. Moreover, the US aggression against Venezuela sends a signal to the nearby Nicaragua, also a country facing increasing US political pressure, against pursuing a project of building a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with China’s support.

Thus far US actions consisted of economic sanctions and apparent coordination of coup attempts to be carried out by elements within Venezuela’s military and security forces. It is still difficult to make out what the Trump Administration’s recognition of Juan Guaido, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, as the country’s “interim president” was supposed to represent. Even by the standards of Trump’s current foreign policy team of Pompeo and Bolton, “recognition” of a claimant to supreme executive office who does not actually occupy said office is unprecedented. Not even in the case of Syria, where the US has been far more directly involved in attempting to overthrown its legitimate government, was any opposition leader “recognized” as the official representative of the country itself. Therefore one may conclude Guaido’s “recognition” was supposed to follow the military coup which Guaido probably promised and Washington clearly expected. It is also difficult to say whether Guaido overestimated the degree of his support within the military or outright lied to his American sponsors. Either way, the US intelligence community has once again failed at providing an accurate assessment of the situation within a country, as Venezuela’s military rallied around President Maduro.

Bay of Pigs 2

United States has thus painted itself into a corner. Guaido’s recognition, which was moreover coordinated with the bulk of Latin America’s countries and with the European Union (which likewise points to a wider though failed conspiracy to overthrow Venezuela’s government) cannot very well be walked back. Maduro’s continued presidency has now become a challenge to US power at least as great as Assad’s. One can therefore expect stepped up US efforts to overthrow Venezuela’s government, though it remains to be seen how far the US is willing to go. An outright US military invasion appears unlikely at the moment. The most recent such effort has been in Panama during the George H.W. Bush administration, a far smaller and easier to control country. There is no evidence of US intelligence services training Venezuelan expats in the manner of the “Bay of Pigs” invasion force or the Nicaraguan contras. However, Venezuela is bordered by two countries ruled by far-right politicians closely allied to the United States, Brazil and Colombia. In the wake of the failed US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and with the US military retooling itself for great power confrontations, the US modus operandi in the past several years has been to use proxy armies. These may take the form of non-state actors funded and armed by US intelligence agencies or of friendly states, as in the case of Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen. One could readily imagine the Yemen model used against Venezuela, but this time with a “Brazil-led” coalition doing Washington’s dirty work.

Bargaining Chip?

Last but not least, one must consider the possibility of Venezuela being treated as a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation with Russia and/or China in the delineation of the great powers’ spheres of influence. This would mark a de-facto return to the policy of compensations wherein the balance of power is preserved by major powers ceding parts of their empires to others in exchange for gains elsewhere. Thus, for example, Washington could approach Moscow and  offer a “Venezuela for Syria” or even “Venezuela for Ukraine” bargain. While not out of the realm of possibility, it remains a difficult course of action to imagine for two reasons. The first is that there is little awareness of the limits of US power in Washington itself. The expectation is still of powering through any opposition. The second is that even if the offer were made, it would probably not be accepted in Moscow. Apart from the cost to Russia’s international image, the US at this point has very low credibility and trustworthiness.


On Hollerco$t remembrance day, Poland blots out any mention of its own complicity

Times of Israel

The Polish government marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday, but completely ignored the complicity of Poles who actively participated in crimes against Jews during World War II.

Rather, Warsaw seemed to stress Polish suffering and Polish efforts to rescue Jews, leading an Israeli Holocaust historian to charge that Poland is trying to make the Nazi genocide look like a “Polish rescue project.”

Historians debate how many Poles aided the Nazi death machine during World War II, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

But Poland has never admitted to complicity on any large scale and last year Warsaw passed a law prohibiting people from blaming the Polish nation for Holocaust atrocities.

Indeed, a new study on Holocaust remembrance in Europe argues that the Poles are among the “worst offenders” when it comes to efforts to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators and war criminals and “minimizing their own guilt in the attempted extermination of Jews.”

According to the study, conducted by researchers from Yale and Grinnell colleges and published last week, the right-wing government in Warsaw has “engaged in competitive victimization, emphasising the experience of Polish victims over that of Jewish victims.

“The government spends considerable effort on rewriting history rather than acknowledging and learning from it,” the study found.

On Sunday, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who is due in Israel next month, said the truth about the Holocaust “cannot be relativized in any manner.” In his speech, he did not mention Polish complicity, but rather appeared to stress that the German people, rather than the state’s leadership, bear responsibility for the Holocaust.

“The Holocaust was not carried out by Nazis, but by Hitler’s Germany,” he said at a memorial ceremony held in the building of the central “sauna” in the former Auschwitz II-Birkenau death camp.

Hitler Germany was consumed with fascist ideology, which was the source of “all the evil,” Morawiecki said, according to a readout posted on his website.

In a statement issued Sunday, Poland’s Foreign Ministry noted that six million Jews were killed in the areas occupied by Hitler’s Germany, while emphasizing Polish suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and Polish efforts to save Jews.

“The first transport arrived at Auschwitz on 14 June 1940. It was made up of Polish political prisoners. The decision to transfer them to Auschwitz was dictated by mass arrests of Poles and the resultant overcrowding of prisons in German-occupied Poland,” the statement read.

“The Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was where 1–1.5m people were murdered, a million of them Jewish,” the statement said. “Many were citizens of the Republic of Poland.”

While the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust “will always be a shame for humankind,” it went on, “our faith in humanity is restored by the stories of men and women, Poles among them, who saved Jews from the Holocaust.

“Guided by their sense of shared human solidarity, the Polish Government-in-Exile and thousands of our fellow citizens were involved in helping Jews during the Second World War.”

The Foreign Ministry’s statement stressed that the punishment for doing so in German-occupied Poland was the death penalty, and that Poles account for the largest group of gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center recognizes 6,863 Poles as Righteous Among the Nations, the highest number of any nation.

“Operating under the auspices of the Polish Government-in-Exile, the Council to Aid Jews ‘Żegota’ was the only state organization in occupied Europe established specifically to save Jews,” the Polish Foreign Ministry statement noted.

Polish diplomats helped save “several hundred Jews” from various European countries, it went on.

The statement does not mention the actions of Poles who actively participated in the murder of Jews, even though historians argue that the number of Polish anti-Jewish acts vastly outweigh — in number and significance — those of Poles who helped Jews.

Poland’s Ambassador to Israel, Marek Magierowski‏, on Sunday also issued a statement marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that appeared to imply that only Germans were involved in killing Jews.

“Surely, we in Poland remember very well what happened in that period of time, we remember the Jewish victims of World War II, murdered by Nazi Germans, but we also know that we hold enormous responsibility to preserve the material legacy of the greatest genocide in the history of mankind,” he said.

The statement, which Magierowski‏ tweeted in Hebrew, English and Polish, did not mention anti-Jewish atrocities committed by Poles.

Havi Dreifuss, who heads the Institute for the History of Polish Jewry and Israel-Poland Relations at Tel Aviv University, said she was saddened but not surprised by these comments.

“Reading those statements, one could think the Holocaust was not an unprecedented genocide of Jews, but an impressive Polish rescue project,” she told The Times of Israel on Monday.

“These are just additional expressions of the historical distortion the current Polish government creates in relation to the memory of the Holocaust in Poland.”

Unlike the claims made Sunday, “hundreds of thousands of Poles took part in the Jewish tragedy — by handing Jews to the Polish Blue Police or to the Germans, and by murdering them in immense cruelty,” said Dreifuss, whose research focuses on the relationship between Jews and Poles during the Holocaust.

Those Poles who did risk their lives to rescue Jews feared reprisals from their compatriots, “and usually concealed their courageous acts during – and many times even after – the Holocaust.”

On June 27, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Morawiecki agreed to end the spat between the two countries over a controversial Polish law that criminalized any accusation of the Polish nation of being “responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich.”

Part of their agreement was the issuance of a joint statement that declared that the term “Polish death camps” was “blatantly erroneous” and that the wartime Polish government-in-exile “attempted to stop this Nazi activity by trying to raise awareness among the Western allies to the systematic murder of the Polish Jews.”

Controversially, the joint declaration condemned “every single case of cruelty against Jews perpetrated by Poles during…World War II” but noted “heroic acts of numerous Poles, especially the Righteous Among the Nations, who risked their lives to save Jewish people.”

In exchange for Israel agreeing to issue the statement, the Polish government canceled the section of the controversial Polish law that stipulated criminal sanctions for people accusing the Polish nation of complicity in Nazi crimes.

The agreement, which Netanyahu initially hailed as safeguarding “the historic truth about the Holocaust,” was harshly criticized by Israeli academics and politicians.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center issued a statement saying the joint declaration “contains highly problematic wording that contradicts existing and accepted historical knowledge in this field.”

Historians at the state-funded Holocaust research center said assertions in the statement “contains grave errors and deceptions,” and supports the disproved narrative that the Polish Government-in-Exile was committed to saving Europe’s Jews.

“At least tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Polish Jews perished during the war due to actions of their Polish neighbors. Accordingly, Poles’ involvement in persecuting Jews was in no way marginal,” Yad Vashem researchers said in a statement.

Yad Vashem acknowledged the important work of Żegota (the Council for Aid to Jews), saying it helped “thousands of Jews, including hundreds of children,” survive the war. However, its members “were susceptible to extortion and had to hide their actions from Polish society, which turned a jaundiced eye on helping Jews,” the scholars added.

Netanyahu later acknowledged the criticism and vowed to take it into consideration on July 8, but has not addressed the issue publicly since.

“This doesn’t interest him at all; what he cares about are defense, economic and diplomatic relations with Poland. The rest doesn’t interest him,” leading Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer told The Times of Israel on Monday.

Also on Monday, the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem announced that the Polish prime minister was due in Israel next month for a conference.

“The two governments want to increase cooperation,” Bauer said, “and the Holocaust interferes [with that goal], so they’re putting it aside.”

Polish president ‘flabbergasted’ by ‘violent’ Israeli reaction to Holocaust bill

‘We absolutely can’t back down,’ Andrzej Duda says, as Israel’s envoy to Warsaw meets with his top aide regarding legislation

Ed note–doubtless all the usual suspects within ‘duh muuvmnt’ will react in their typical knee-jerk fashion to what the Polish government is proposing here and will thus level terminal criticism at them for not outright denying that the Hollerco$t ever took place at all.

This is the nature of politics. It is as much an impossibility to root out the cancer of Judaic intrigue that has been festering and has been left free to metastasize for decades overnight. Like turning a ship the size of the Titanic in a 180 degree arc, it takes time and has to be done slowly and carefully lest the ship capsize or suffer structural damage due to the stress of its radically-shifting inertia.

This is a good start in that at least it begins the discussion known as ‘revisionism’. Today it is the Polish government outlawing its citizens from participating in the mass suicide known as Hollerco$t guilt as demanded by Judea, Inc, and tomorrow it is additional steps taken that begin the process of thawing the public mind and preparing it for other measures as well.

Please notice however the over-the-top hypocrisy on the part of Israel and Jewish interests who are castigating this latest move by Poland as a ‘violation of the Poles right to ‘free speech’, when it is these same hypocritical Judaic forces responsible for getting legislation passed all over the world making it illegal for persons to exercise their right to free speech when it comes to denying or even QUESTIONING the ‘holy of holies’ known as the Hollerco$t.

It cannot be emphasized enough–Fish swim, birds fly, and Jews lie.

Times of Israel

Poland’s Andrzej Duda said Monday he was “flabbergasted” by Israel’s “violent and very unfavorable reaction” to a bill that criminalizes blaming Poles for atrocities during the Holocaust.

“We absolutely can’t back down. We have the right to defend the historical truth,” he told public broadcaster TVP.

In a fiery speech earlier in the day, he insisted there was “no systematic participation of the Polish nation or the Polish state (in exile) in the Holocaust, but the Polish resistance and Polish state (in exile) fought the Holocaust in an organized and systemic way.”

However, he did acknowledge that “there were wicked people (Poles) who sold their neighbors for money, but it was not the Polish nation, it was not an organized action… There were also cases of Poles giving up their lives to save their Jewish neighbors.”

Duda’s remarks came as Israel’s ambassador in Warsaw, Anna Azari, met with Duda’s cabinet chief, as part of the efforts to resolve the row over the legislation, although Warsaw has signaled it will not change the bill.

During the meeting, Azari reiterated Israel’s concern that the legislation violates freedom of speech and would limit the discourse surrounding the Holocaust in Poland and its victims, the Foreign Ministry said.

Krzysztof Szczerski told Azari that Poland sees the bill as necessary to prevent Poles and Poland being blamed for Nazi crimes, according to the ministry.

Szczerski characterized the talk as “difficult and frank,” and said he was critical of the reaction in Israel to the legislation approved by the lower house of Poland’s parliament Friday.

It also said a joint team would meet on the matter. The Prime Minister’s Office said on Sunday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Polish counterpart, Mateusz Morawiecki, held talks and “agreed to immediately open a dialogue between staffs of the two countries, in order to try and reach an understanding over the legislation.”

Netanyahu has pilloried the legislation, which prescribes prison time for referring to “Polish death camps,” and criminalizes the mention of Polish complicity in Nazi crimes, as “distortion of the truth, the rewriting of history and the denial of the Holocaust.”

But two hours after the Prime Minister’s Office issued its statement, Polish government spokesperson Joanna Kopcińska tweeted: “Prime Minister @MorawieckiM talked today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the current Polish-Israeli relations and historical conditions. It was agreed that there will be a dialogue between the teams of both countries. However the conversation will not concern sovereign decisions of the Polish parliament.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry downplayed her tweet, saying her view does not represent the Polish government.

However, her statement and Duda’s comments seem to indicate that Israel will not have any influence on reworking the law, which Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have demanded be fixed.

The bill, passed by the lower house of the Polish parliament on Friday, still needs approval from Poland’s Senate and president. Still, it marks a dramatic step by the nationalist government to enforce its official stance that all Poles were heroes during the war. Historians say many Poles collaborated with the Nazis and committed heinous crimes.

The Israeli delegation to the bilateral talks will be headed by Foreign Ministry director Yuval Rotem, the ministry said Monday. Israel does not currently have a dedicated foreign minister, with Netanyahu taking on the role in addition to other duties.

On Sunday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry summoned Poland’s deputy ambassador to express Israel’s opposition to the bill, and said it expects the draft to be amended before final approval.

Polish officials claim the law aims not to “whitewash,” but “to safeguard” history.

The legislation has still sparked outrage in Israel, with some lawmakers accusing the Polish government of outright Holocaust denial, as the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Saturday.

“Everybody knows that many, many thousands of Poles killed or betrayed their Jewish neighbors to the Germans, causing them to be murdered,” said Efraim Zuroff, a prominent historian on the Holocaust and the Eastern Europe director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “The Polish state was not complicit in the Holocaust, but many Poles were.”

Press TV’s Marzieh Hashemi due back on Wednesday in Iran after ordeal in US jail

Tue Jan 29, 2019 04:56PM [Updated: Tue Jan 29, 2019 06:58PM ]
Press TV anchor Marzieh Hashemi
Press TV anchor Marzieh Hashemi

Press TV anchor Marzieh Hashemi, who was released after spending 10 days in US detention without charge, is set to arrive back in Iranian capital, Tehran, on Wednesday.

A special ceremony will be held to welcome Hashemi back home upon her arrival at Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 09:00 p.m. local time (1730 GMT).

The journalist, a 59-year-old American-born Muslim convert who has lived in Iran for years, was detained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at St. Louis Lambert International Airport in Missouri on January 13th while in the US to visit her ill brother and other family members.

She was taken to court after spending a night in “unbelievable conditions” at the facility, where she was incarcerated in solitary confinement next to other people from different nationalities that the FBI had detained for unknown reasons. She was initially forced to remove her hijab and only offered non-halal food.

The US government said Hashemi had been arrested as a “material witness” in an unspecified criminal proceeding and that she faced no charges herself.

To get to the courtroom, the Press TV journalist was forced to climb the stairs while in shackles because of the malfunctioning elevators that authorities had been unable to repair due to the ongoing government shutdown.

During a live interview with Press TV from Washington a day after her release, Hashemi recounted her ordeal in US detention and said she was resolved to prevent others from being subjected to such mistreatment by the American justice system.

She said while she had long been “harassed” by American security officers during her previous trips to her homeland, the detention took everything to a “whole new level.”

“In general, when I travel throughout the United States and domestic flights… I always have to be at the airports three to three-and-a-half hours prior to flight just to make it through all obstacles,” the Press TV anchorwoman added.

Massive rallies were held in many cities around the world on Friday to protest against the US legal system in the wake of Hashemi’s imprisonment.

In an address during demonstrations in Washington, DC, Hashemi recounted her ordeal during her time in jail and mistreatment by the American justice system.

“It can be called whatever they want to call it, but I was kidnapped from the St. Louis airport. Fortunately, my son Reza was with me otherwise who knows what could have happened. You can be made to disappear very easily,” Hashemi told the crowd attending the rally.

Read more:

Chief Two Moon
Welcome Back,your TRUTH telling reporting were surely mist,Welcome Back
mrs.Mazieh Hashemi.
Watchervorgestern um 21:21
Welcome back home and breath freedom, in the good old land of sincere brothers and sisters.
Allen> Watchervor 22 Stunden
Good keep her there
ZOrtvorgestern um 20:37

Well hopefully this woman never sets foot in US again. She quite clearly has an issue with the country.

“You can be made to disappear very easily”

I wouldn’t want to live in that kind of country, and if that is how she feels, then Iran is obviously more suitable for her!!!!

J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trolls> ZOrtgestern um 07:23
And you’d know a lot about this cause your Zionist People were made to Disappear in 104 Countries right?
J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trollsvorgestern um 19:39
“Kidnapped from the St. Louis airport”, might be better than being Kidnapped in the Streets of St. Louis, unless it’s The U.S. Federal Government that Kidnapped you. The U.S.A. has become Nazi Germany
and I think it’s going to get a lot worse.
I’m Grateful that we still have Americans like Marzieh Hashemi that knows
America is supposed to be about Freedom of Speech and Religion and
She stood up for those Rights.
King Java> J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trollsvorgestern um 20:24
“America is supposed to be about Freedom of Speech and Religion” would that include the Jewish religion?
J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trolls> King Javagestern um 07:15
Yes, but you’re not a Jew, you’re a Zionist, that’s like being a Nazi, Good Jews are Never Zionists.
Mark> J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trollsvorgestern um 22:45
Please stop posting. You are bring down the intelligence level of the site.
J.J.-Slaying-the-Zionist-Hasbara-Paid-to-Post-Trolls> Markgestern um 07:16
You Zionists have to Silence the Truth, cause it’s the only way people might believe your Hateful Lies

Jewish sayanim. How it works.


Marzieh Hashemi Kidnapped by FBI | PRESS TV and Western Censorship | BACKFIRE


Israeli expulsion of observers from Hebron a ‘wicked’ decision – former UN rapporteur

Israeli expulsion of observers from Hebron a ‘wicked’ decision – former UN rapporteur
A former UN envoy on Palestinian affairs has condemned a decision by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to expel international observers from the West Bank city of Hebron, a hotspot of Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

John Dugard, an international law professor who previously served as special rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council concerning Palestinian affairs, described the decision to expel the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) as “wicked.”

“The situation in Hebron is very volatile,” he told RT, adding that TIPH “have kept the peace there quite successfully” even as tensions continued to rise between Palestinians and Jewish Israeli settlers.

The observers have “always played an important role in keeping the peace in Hebron and one cannot imagine Hebron without the presence of TIPH. This will be seen as a green light to the settlers to undermine and to violate the rights of the Palestinian people in Hebron,” he said.

Uri Blau


Last month I exposed a highly critical internal report produced by in Herbron, blaming Israel In breaking the international law. This evening @netanyahu decided not to prolong the org mandate to operate http://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/.premium-confidential-report-claims-israel-regularly-breaks-international-law-in-hebron-1.6747523 

Confidential 20-year monitoring report: Israel regularly breaks int’l law in Hebron


he-64-member mission has been present in Hebron since 1994. While Palestinians make up the majority of the city’s population, the Israeli military have been controlling parts of the city since 1997 in a bid to protect settlers.

On Monday, Netanyahu announced that he would refuse the observers from continuing their mission, accusing them of acting against Israel’s interests. It follows calls from right-wing politicians in Israel’s Parliament to expel TIPH “from the city of our forefathers.”

Dugard was one of several voices to condemn Tel Aviv’s decision, with Palestinian official Saeb Erekat calling on the UN to “guarantee the safety and protection” of Palestinians until an end is brought to Israel’s “belligerent occupation.”

While criticizing TIPH for being a “toothless” organization, Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada tweeted it did “document occupier crimes” in the city.

Ali Abunimah


Although TIPH is toothless it does document occupier crimes in Hebron. Expulsion by occupier is direct result of ⁦@EUinIsrael⁩ rewards to the criminal apartheid regime. Palestinians will again be harmed due to EU complicity and support for occupation https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-to-expel-international-monitoring-force-in-hebron-after-20-year-presence-1.6883412 

Israel to expel international monitoring force in Hebron after 20-year presence


Last month, a highly critical internal report from the body was leaked to Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It cited a “severe and regular breach” of Palestinian human rights in the city and slammed Israeli settlements there as a violation of international law.

“One cannot imagine what will happen,” after the mission leaves Hebron, Dugard warned, “as the settlers are very violent and determined to make the lives of Palestinians hell.”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Soldiers drag 8-year-old from home to home looking for stone-throwers, Hebron, March 2017

Breaking the Silence about Israel’s occupation of Hebron

Breaking the Silence about Israel’s occupation of Hebron

Israeli soldiers escort Ido Even-Paz and his Breaking the Silence tour through the West Bank city of Hebron on September 27,2018. (Heidi Levine for The National)

“Whatever a soldier believes when they begin their military service, there is no way to behave ethically in the occupied territories,” he says. “It’s a system in which Palestinians are always treated as inferior, always viewed as the enemy, whoever they are.
“Every day the job is to inflict collective punishment. We were told explicitly that we were waging psychological war, that we were there to intimidate them.
“In the middle of the night we raided families’ homes, chosen randomly, waking up frightened children. We violently broke up Palestinian protests. I arrested Palestinians every day to ‘dry them out’ – to teach them a lesson, to make them understand who is boss.”

By Jonathan Cook, reposted from The National

Ido Even-Paz switched on his body camera as his tour group decamped from the bus in Hebron. The former Israeli soldier wanted to document any trouble we might encounter in this, the largest Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank.

It was not Hebron’s Palestinian residents who concerned him. He was worried about Israelis – Jewish religious extremists and the soldiers there to guard them – who have seized control of much of the city centre.

Mr Even-Paz, 34, first served as a soldier in Hebron in the early 2000s. Today he belongs to Breaking the Silence, a group of former soldiers turned whistleblowers who leads tours into the heart of Israel’s settlement enterprise. After 14 years of operations however, Breaking the Silence is today facing ever-more formidable challenges.

Hebron, 30km south of Jerusalem, is a microcosm of the occupation. A handful of settlers moved here uninvited five decades ago, drawn in part to the what Israelis call the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Palestinians the Ibrahimi mosque. The Herod-era building is erected over the putative burial site of Abraham, Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Since then the settler ranks have swollen to nearly 900 – aided by the Israeli army.

Despite their relatively small number, however, their territorial footprint has been expanding relentlessly, and now covers some 2 square kilometres.

The settlers and military, says Mr Even-Paz, have worked hand in hand to hijack the freedoms of some 230,000 Palestinians and turn Hebron’s once-vibrant commercial centre into a ghost town. All of this has happened with the apparent blessing of the Israeli government.

Ido Even-Paz, a Breaking the Silence tour guide, wears a bodycam to record altercations with setllers and soldiers in the West Bank city of Hebron. Heidi Levine for The National

When Mr Even-Paz arrived in Hebron as a teen soldier at the height of the Second Intifada, he was keen to distinguish himself as a combat soldier by fighting Palestinian “terrorists”, and impress his father, a retired career officer.

His political awakening however, didn’t begin until much later, in 2008, as Israel launched a massive assault on the Gaza Strip. Later he discovered the more than 1000 testimonies recorded by Breaking the Silence, in which Israelis acknowledged that they had participated in or witnessed war crimes during their military service.

“Those stories were exactly like mine. I thought I’d done nothing significant during my military service, that it was boring. I started to realise it was the very mundanity of the occupation – its round-the-clock oppression of Palestinians – that was the core of the problem.”

He believes the problem of the occupation is systemic rather than the result of misconduct by individual soldiers.

“Whatever a soldier believes when they begin their military service, there is no way to behave ethically in the occupied territories,” he says. “It’s a system in which Palestinians are always treated as inferior, always viewed as the enemy, whoever they are.

“Every day the job is to inflict collective punishment. We were told explicitly that we were waging psychological war, that we were there to intimidate them.

“In the middle of the night we raided families’ homes, chosen randomly, waking up frightened children. We violently broke up Palestinian protests. I arrested Palestinians every day to ‘dry them out’ – to teach them a lesson, to make them understand who is boss.”

Yet in Israel, the military is regarded as an almost sacred institution. Breaking the Silence casts a long, dark shadow over claims that Israel’s is the most moral army in the world.

Hebron is ground zero for much of the group’s work, where military service is a rite of passage for Israeli combat soldiers. The group’s tour attracts some back later in life, either after they grow troubled by their earlier experiences enforcing the occupation or because they want to show family members what their service was like.

Some go on to testify to the group, says Ori Givati, Mr Even-Paz’s colleague on the tour. “When they come with us to places like Hebron, the memories flood back. They recall things they did that they can now see in a different light.”

With the spread of phone cameras in recent years, the dark underbelly of the occupation in Hebron has been ever harder to conceal, confirming the soldiers’ testimonies.

Palestinians have captured on video everything from terrified small children being dragged off the street by soldiers into military Jeeps to an army medic, Elor Azaria, using his rifle to execute a prone Palestinian man by shooting him in the head from close range.

Israel has carved Hebron into two zones, part of its “separation policy”. H1, the city’s western side, is nominally under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, except when Israel decides otherwise.

H2, a fifth of the city and home to somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 Palestinians (the number is contested), is where settlers and soldiers rule. They are supported by a much larger neighbouring settlement of 8,000 religious Jews, Kiryat Arba, hemming in Hebron’s eastern flank.

The chain of settlements form a spear of territory thrusting into Hebron’s throat from the main body of H2 and Kiryat Arba.

“The idea is to make life so intolerable the Palestinians will choose to expel themselves,” Mr Even-Paz says. “Unemployment among Palestinians is about 70 per cent in H2, so the pressure is on the residents to move into H1 or out of Hebron entirely.”

Religious Jews celebrating the Sukkoth holiday pass closed Palestinian stores in the divided area of the West Bank city of Hebron. Photo by Heidi Levine for The National

In their place, the settlers have taken over. Carefree looking couples wander with push chairs, men and boys hurry to seminaries, bored teenagers study their phones on street corners, and families lounge at bus stops for the frequent services connecting them to Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Everything, says Mr Even-Paz, from water and electricity to rents and public transport, is subsidised to encourage Jews to move here.

Amid the surrounding Palestinian homes, all of this “normality” takes place in a controlled environment that is anything but. It is enforced by heavily fortified checkpoints, razor-wire, watchtowers, army patrols and rooftop sentries watching every move.

Many of the settlers have licences to carry army-issue rifles and handguns.

As elsewhere in the occupied territories, Israel has imposed two systems of law. Palestinians, including children, face summary arrest, military trial and draconian punishment, while settlers operate under an Israeli civil law that involves due process and a presumption of innocence – though even this is rarely enforced against them.

“They know they are untouchable,” says Mr Even-Paz. “The army’s rules of engagement mean soldiers can’t enforce the law on Israeli civilians.

“Soldiers are not allowed to respond if the settlers commit a crime or assault a Palestinian. They are even under orders not to shoot back if a settler opens fire at them.”

Israeli soldiers on a field trip to the divided West Bank city of Hebron on September 27,2018. Heidi Levine for The National

Not that such a scenario has occurred often. Many soldiers are religious settlers themselves, and even the secular ones sympathise with Hebron’s settlers.

“When I served, they brought us hot drinks on a cold day, and iced drinks on a hot day. During Shabbat [the Sabbath], they invited us to come and eat in their homes. They became like family to us.”

But that welcome has turned sour since Mr Even-Paz joined Breaking the Silence. Settlers have thrown eggs, water-bombs, coffee grounds and mud at him. Yehuda Shaul, the founder of Breaking the Silence was recently punched in the face during a tour of Hebron, and another guide had paint poured over her.

It’s not just settlers targeting the group.

Government ministers routinely accuse Breaking the Silence of treason and of aiding supposed efforts by Europe to damage the army and Israel’s image. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the past called for the group’s members to be investigated by the police.

He also refuses to meet any foreign dignitary who has dealings with Breaking the Silence. That policy resulted in a highly publicised snub last year to the German foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel.

In July, the parliament passed a law barring Breaking the Silence from schools, even though visits by ‘loyal’ soldiers are a mainstay of the curriculum.

Now the army and settlers appear to be working hand-in-hand to stymie the group’s tours.

In fact, 10 years ago, the army issued an order banning the group’s trips to Hebron, though Breaking the Silence eventually won a costly legal battle to have them reinstated.

But in recent weeks the settlers have markedly intensified efforts to break up the tours. The army, meanwhile, appears to be exploiting the upsurge in settler violence to crack down on Breaking the Silence, on the pretext that restrictions are necessary to “prevent friction”.

Ido Even-Paz speaks at the grave of American Israeli Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 125 during the 1994 massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs. Photo by Heidi Levine for The National

The same rationale was originally used to implement the system of restricted access for Palestinians to areas of Hebron coveted by settlers. In 1994, shortly after the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships signed the Oslo peace accords, a fanatical settler, Baruch Goldstein, opened fire in the Ibrahimi mosque, killing and wounding some 150 worshipping Muslims.

It should have provided the moment for Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s then prime minister, to remove the small settler community from Hebron. It was a necessary first step in proving that Israel was serious about the Oslo process and creating a Palestinian state in the occupied territories.

Instead, Mr Even-Paz observes, Israel entrenched the settlers’ rule, crafting the situation visible on the ground today.

For more than 15 years, Israel has forbidden entry for Palestinians to what was once Hebron’s main throroughfare and central shopping area along Shuhada Street. Now it has been rebranded in Hebrew as King David Street, and declared what the army terms a “sterilised area”. The closure severs the main transport routes for Palestinians between north and south Hebron.

Most of the Palestinian inhabitants have been driven from the city centre by endless harassment and attacks by settlers, bolstered by arrests and night raids conducted by the army, says Mr Even-Paz.

The few Palestinians still residing in the area are literally caged into their own homes – their doors welded shut and their windows covered with bars. The bars are there for their own protection because settlers throw stones, eggs and soiled nappies at their windows. The families are forced to enter and leave via the rooftops into back streets to shop, work and meet friends.

The dozens of stores that once drew shoppers from throughout the southern West Bank have been sealed up long ago. The army, according to our guide, has turned a blind eye to the settlers requisitioning some for their own use.

A Jewish settler walks past a street of closed Palestinian shops in the divided area of the West Bank city of Hebron. Heidi Levine for The National

As we moved into the settler-controlled heart of Hebron, we got a taste of the new official policy of intimidation and harassment against Breaking the Silence.

It started early on when an officer approached to tell us we were not allowed to move without a military escort. Soldiers and Jeeps shadowed us closely.

Our group hardly looked combative. It included European staff from a human rights organisation; curious holidaymakers; a group of young friends brought along by an Israeli leftist they were visiting; and a young Jew from Brooklyn who was in Israel to understand the occupation and his Jewish identity more deeply.

The last, who asked to be identified only as Todd for fear that his entry into Israel might be blocked next time by the authorities, said it was his first time in the West Bank.

“I feel an obligation to understand what’s going on because it’s done in the name of Jews. But it is very hard to see this up close. It hurts.”

Palestinian children enter a checkpoint in the divided West Bank city of Hebron on September 27,2018. Photo by Heidi Levine for The National

The only crossing point on Shuhada Street still open to Palestinians, Bab al-Khan, is littered with half a dozen checkpoints, which only Palestinian children returning from school appeared willing to pass.

Even that route is under threat. Settlers have occupied two Palestinian homes either side of the road in an attempt to force the army to close the street to Palestinians entirely, says Mr Even-Paz.

The confidence of the settlers today – and their support from the government and among a significant section of the Israeli public – was starkly on show during the recent Sukkot holiday, or Feast of the Tabbernacles.

Every few minutes a truck converted into open-backed tour bus offered a free lift for some two dozen Israeli “tourists” at a time, taking them from the Tomb of the Patriarchs up the Palestinian-free Shuhada Street to the settlements.

But while these Jewish visitors had the run of the place, our escort of heavily armed soldiers soon blocked the way ahead.

Half-way up Shuhada Street, before we could reach the last two, most extreme illegal settlements, the military commander issued an order that we were denied further access to “prevent friction”.

As we stood at the side of the road contesting the ban, Israelis on the tour buses plied past, staring at us like unwelcome gatecrashers at their party.

“It seems there are only two kinds of people not allowed to walk through the centre of Hebron,” Mr Even-Paz observed. “Palestinians and Breaking the Silence.”

Maduro to Americans: You are bigger than Trump, don’t let him start ‘Vietnam’ war against Venezuela

Maduro to Americans: You are bigger than Trump, don’t let him start ‘Vietnam’ war against Venezuela
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called on the people in the US to deter the Trump administration from putting boots on the ground in Venezuela, warning that any intervention would backfire leading to new Vietnam-like disaster.

The 4-minute video, in Spanish with English subtitles, was posted on Maduro’s official Facebook page on Wednesday, shortly after he accused US President Donald Trump of ordering the Colombian government and mafia to assassinate him, and rejected a European ultimatum to call snap presidential elections within 8 days.

READ MORE: ‘Direct nexus between US sanctions & death’ – UN rapporteur slams ‘economic war’ on Venezuela

Maduro accused the US media of waging a “brutal campaign of false images” to support the Trump administration’s interference in Venezuela.

“This campaign has been prepared to justify a coup d’état in Venezuela that has been set, financed and actively supported by Donald Trump administration.” 

Effectively sidestepping his US counterpart, Maduro urged Americans to second-guess the distorted narrative peddled by the mainstream media. The embattled Venezuelan leader stated that Washington cannot use the same pretext to invade Venezuela as it did to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, so it is spreading new falsehoods about his government in hopes that something will tip the balance.

“They cannot invent that Venezuela and Maduro have [weapons of mass destruction] so they could intervene, they now invent lies every day, false news to justify an aggression against our country.”

Maduro reiterated that US interests in Venezuela are limited exclusively to its vast natural riches. Venezuela boasts the world’s largest confirmed oil reserves and the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas. The president said that by fomenting unrest in Venezuela, the US elites want “to put their hands” on that national treasure “as they did in Iraq and Libya.”

“We are a country of great resources, both natural and energetic. That is the truth and this explains the constant attacks against Venezuela. That’s why I appeal to your conscience and solidarity.” 

He admitted that Venezuela faces a plethora of problems, “as any other country” and said Venezuelans can “solve them by ourselves,” without any outside meddling.

Describing himself as an admirer of US history, Maduro said that he hopes that reasonable US citizens will prevail, adding that America “is a great country, and it is much more than Donald Trump.”

“The United States is a great country and it is much bigger than Donald Trump,” he said. “I only ask for respect for Venezuela and I need your support to avoid a war like Vietnam.”

More than 58,000 American soldiers were killed and some four million Vietnamese died in what is now the second longest war in American history after Afghanistan. The US sent first 3,500 combat troops to South Vietnam in March 1965, to fight against the communist government of North Vietnam that sought to unify the country under its terms. While the intervention was first met enthusiastically by the American public, the protracted nature of the conflict and US inability to turn the tide of the war led to a massive anti-war movement in the US. The last US troops withdrew in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords. In 1975, troops from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam entered Saigon, the capital of US-backed South Vietnam, sealing the US military defeat

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Shocking! Netanyahu Breaks His Silence Over Venezuela – Hugo Chavez was RIGHT – CONFIRMED!!!!

Trump backs big ‘protests against ex-dictator Maduro’ as he talks with Venezuela opposition’s Guaido

Trump backs big ‘protests against ex-dictator Maduro’ as he talks with Venezuela opposition’s Guaido
Venezuela’s opposition leader and self-declared ‘interim president’ Juan Guaido chatted by phone with US President Donald Trump, with Trump giving the thumbs up to “large protests” against “former dictator Maduro.”

The phone call occurred Wednesday as anti-government demonstrators in Venezuela were about to take to the streets for the second time in a week. Trump “noted the importance” of the protests against “former dictator Maduro,” and vowed “strong support for Venezuela’s fight to regain its democracy,” according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Seung Min Kim


Via @PressSec — Trump and Guaido phone call readout

Nicolas Maduro remains Venezuela’s elected leader, despite a number of countries declaring their support for Guaidó’s claim as the acting head.

Trump, meanwhile, congratulated Guaidó on his “historic assumption of the presidency.” Neither President Maduro or predecessor Hugo Chavez ever received a phone call from a US president after election.

Guaidó said that Trump offered his “full support for our democratic work, commitment to humanitarian aid and recognition of…our presidency.”

Juan Guaidó


Agradezco la llamada del Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump @realDonaldTrump, quien reiteró completo respaldo a nuestra labor democrática, compromiso con la ayuda humanitaria y reconocimiento de su administración a nuestra presidencia (E).

Riding a wave of civil unrest, the head of the anti-Maduro National Assembly swore himself in as interim president last Wednesday, calling Maduro’s election last May “illegitimate.” Since then, the US has been quick to support the 35-year-old and equally quick to threaten Maduro.

Trump recognized Guaidó within an hour of his announcement, with Venezuela’s neighbors with right-wing governments following suit later that day. Several EU countries have threatened to recognize Guaidó unless a presidential election is called within days – something Maduro outright rejected.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged $20 million in humanitarian aid to Guaidó’s fledgling government, and gave the opposition leader access to Venezuelan assets held in US banks.

ALSO ON RT.COMRegime change is ‘state policy of US’: Fmr Chavez adviser weighs in on Venezuela crisis (VIDEO)Maduro has been warned by Washington not to harm Guaidó, with National Security Adviser John Bolton threatening “serious consequences” if the US-sponsored leader is harmed. The embattled president has also faced calls from European nations to hold fresh elections and has been denied access to billions of dollars of his country’s gold reserves held in the UK.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also announced on Monday that the US would seize all assets of Venezuela’s oil company PDVSA, and channel them into accounts that would be accessible only by Guaidó or a new government which the US approves of.

Donald J. Trump


Maduro willing to negotiate with opposition in Venezuela following U.S. sanctions and the cutting off of oil revenues. Guaido is being targeted by Venezuelan Supreme Court. Massive protest expected today. Americans should not travel to Venezuela until further notice.

Maduro has denounced Washington’s sponsorship of Guaidó as a “vile” coup attempt, but has said that he is willing to enter into talks with the opposition.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Bolton warns Caracas about harming opposition leader

More Than 60 LGBTQ+ Groups Call for Boycott of Song Contest in Israel

30 JAN
4:52 AM

More than 60 queer and trans liberation organizations, from nearly 20 countries across Europe and beyond, are calling on global LGBTQIA communities to boycott the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest in Israel.

The signatories condemn Israel’s “shameful” use of Eurovision, which has a strong following among LGBTQIA communities, to “distract attention from its war crimes against Palestinians” and “forward its pinkwashing agenda, the cynical use of gay rights to distract from and normalize Israel’s occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid.”

The statement, initiated by Palestinian queer groups, recalls the 1969 Stonewall Riots symbolizing LGBTQIA resistance against daily harassment and violence, drawing parallels with the tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza protesting, through the Great March of Return, decades of Israel’s violent oppression and denial of fundamental rights.

Since last March, Israeli army snipers have shot and killed more than 200 unarmed Palestinians participating in the protests in Gaza, injuring 18,000 and leaving many with life-changing disabilities in what Amnesty International has described as “deliberate attempts” to kill and maim.

Israel held a celebratory concert with 2018 Eurovision winner Netta Barzilai the evening of the Gaza protest’s deadliest day, when Israeli forces massacred 62 unarmed Palestinians. Netanyahu has called Barzilai “the best ambassador of Israel.”

The signatories also call for a boycott of the Israeli government-backed Tel Aviv Pride, which they say is “promoting Eurovision alongside Tel Aviv Pride in order to reap maximum benefits for Israel for an entire month of pinkwashing.”

The signatories include Palestinian collectives al-Qaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian SocietyPinkwatching Israel and Aswat- Palestinian Feminist Center for Sexual and Gender Freedoms, the National LGBT Committee for UNISON, one of the UK’s largest trade unions, ACT UP groups in France and the UK, the Panteras Rosa in Portugal, more than 20 queer and trans groups in the Spanish State and Italy, the Gay Liberation Network, the Methodist Federation for Social Action and Jewish Voice for Peace New York City Queer Caucus in the US.

The statement from LGBTQIA groups follows an outpouring of support for the Palestinian call to #BoycottEurovision2019 in Israel, including artists, former Eurovision winners, contestants and presenters, politicians, trade unions. Tens of thousands have signed a petition urging a Eurovision boycott, and the UK band The Tuts has refused an invitation to enter the Eurovision contest in the UK.

Haneen Maikey, director of alQaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society, commented:

As Palestinian queers, we are heartened by the increasing numbers of LGBTQIA communities taking a stand against Israel’s pinkwashing agenda in a true show of effective solidarity.

LGBTQIA communities are refusing to allow queer and trans liberation to be used by the Israeli regime of oppression as a progressive smoke screen to conceal its violent oppression of Palestinians. They are saying, ‘Our rights are indivisible from the rights of all oppressed communities.’

Joining and promoting the call to boycott Eurovision 2019 in Israel and Tel Aviv Pride help expose the Israeli government’s reprehensible co-opting of queer rights as a public relations tool to hide its crimes against Palestinians. They strike a blow to its shameful pinkwashing strategy to maintain its apartheid regime and its decades-old colonization and occupation of Palestine.

For the full list of signatories, see the Pinkwatching Israel web site.

To add organizational signatures for LGBTQIA groups, please completing this form.

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was initiated in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. PACBI advocates for the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, given their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law. Visit PACBI at https://bdsmovement.net/pacbi and follow us on Twitter @PACBI

“Modern” Israel

UK band boycotts Eurovision to be held in Israel


British band, The Tuts [WMPSC/Twitter ]



An upcoming British band has refused to enter the Eurovision Song Contest due to it being hosted in Israel this year.

Confirming their decision on Twitter, the three-girl band The Tuts, prompted a backlash from supporters of Israel.

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!

9,291 people are talking about this


Oh no. Israel has survived three major wars. However will they survive three piece girl band “The Tuts” not performing there?

Herzl chews his fingernails anxiously…

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!

114 people are talking about this

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!


Well never heard of u,so you did a favour for the UK for not anticipating, thank you!!

See davidgooner’s other Tweets

Some even tried to suggest that the group’s choice was evidence of anti-Semitism, although the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel has clearly stated that its campaign protests the ongoing military occupation of Palestine.


Are the tuts band antiSemitic ? Why did they post they turn down a supposed opportunity to play Eurovision in the only Jewish state of Israel@a history of 5000 for Jews? Why do they ignore the persecution of gays in their Palestinian support ?

17 people are talking about this

But the band was also praised for being aware of the human rights abuses committed by Israel and conscious of the impact their participation would have on normalising the occupation.

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!

rick magill@rickmagill54

Courageous and moral stand. Thank you.

See rick magill’s other Tweets

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!


No Pride in Apartheid. Thank you! ❤️

33 people are talking about this

David Lane@davidlane1955

Great news from the UK as The Tuts decide to prioritise ethics, human rights and solidarity with Palestinians and announce they will and not attend in Tel Aviv. We hope Australian artists will follow them…

See David Lane’s other Tweets

Some urged other countries, including Ireland which has been a vocal supporter of BDS, to also boycott the event.

The Tuts


So, we got asked to enter EUROVISION 2019 to represent the UK but it’s being held in ISRAEL so that’s a NO from us!

LAMMIE 🇮🇪🇵🇸@Ciaran28121971

Hopefully the Irish entry will do the same and GRMA for standing up for Palestine 🇵🇸👊🏼

43 people are talking about this

Read: Eurovision challenges Israel to face the music

Palestinian cultural groups and journalists have been urging a boycott of this year’s Eurovision contest since it was announced Israel would be hosting the annual transnational event.

“Would the Eurovision have held the contest in apartheid South Africa?” a statement, signed by the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate and a network of Palestinian cultural organisations, asked last year.

In September, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) announced that the contest will be held in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem following worldwide criticism and fear of boycotts.

A campaign in Ireland that calls on songwriters to boycott Eurovision 2019 has also gained the support of more than 60 public figures , with participating in the event deemed a betrayal of the Palestinian people.

Israel, with the support of the US, has long accused those who support BDS of being anti-Semitic and has applied pressure on foreign government and organisations to oppose the movement. In 2017, Tel Aviv threatened action against Amnesty International after it launched a new campaign calling for a ban on settlement-made products. Israel has also moved to publish a blacklist , listing 22 NGOs from Europe, the United States, South America and Africa, whose employees or members are banned from entering Israel due to their alleged support of the BDS campaign.

Read: Timeline: International attempts to boycott BDS

‘No place for Israeli athletes in Malaysia,’ prime minister says


Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks to reporters during a press conference at the Great Hall of the People (GHOP) in Beijing, China, 20 August 2018 [How Hwee Young – Pool/Getty Images]

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said that there is “no place for Israeli athletes in Malaysia,” refusing to issue entry visas for the Israeli swimming team.

Mohamad stressed on Thursday that his country would not issue entry visas to Israeli athletes scheduled to participate in the World Paralympic Swimming Championship 2019 this summer, Shehab reported.

The prime minister also stressed that, if in response to his stance the organisers decided to cancel the event, “they can do so”.

The Israeli Olympic Committee has put pressure on Malaysia to issue visas for its members, but Malaysia has refused to do so. It also put pressure on the event’s organisers to obtain the visas, but to no avail.

Deputy Malaysian Sports Minister, Sim Hee Kyung, said on Wednesday that his country would not allow the Israeli athletes to enter the country, citing the “clear” Malaysian policy regarding dealings with Israel. The minister stressed that: “The government will maintain its steadfast position regarding this issue as a means to protest against the continuous Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.”

For over 50 years, Malaysia has rejected normalising ties with Israel due to huge popular support for Palestine among the Malaysian population.

Read: Malaysia’s Mahathir says no rights to recognise Jerusalem as Israeli capital

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine  – Second Edition

by Jew  Ilan Pappe (Author)
Renowned Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe’s groundbreaking book revisits the formation of the State of Israel. Between 1947 and 1949, over 400 Palestinian villages were deliberately destroyed, civilians were massacred and around a million men, women, and children were expelled from their homes at gunpoint.

Denied for almost six decades, had it happened today it could only have been called “ethnic cleansing”. Decisively debunking the myth that the Palestinian population left of their own accord in the course of this war, Ilan Pappe offers impressive archival evidence to demonstrate that, from its very inception, a central plank in Israel’s founding ideology was the forcible removal of the indigenous population. Indispensable for anyone interested in the current crisis in the Middle East.

ISBN-13: 978-1851685554

#FreeSpeech – The US Senate Just Quietly Passed An Anti-BDS Bill – Here Are The Senators Who Voted Yes

The US Senate Just Quietly Passed An Anti-BDS Bill – Here Are The Senators Who Voted Yes

Anti-BDS Rollcall Vote – All The Senators Who Voted For This Bill

Adalah Demands Israeli Lottery Give Green Light to Theatre Production It Cancelled for Seemingly Political Reasons

20 JAN
5:45 AM

(Photo by Tsukasa Aoki, courtesy of Einat Weizman)

Mifal Hapayis lottery director cancelled performance of ‘Palestine Year Zero’ after it was approved by lottery’s project funding theatrical productions in Arab communities.

The Israeli national lottery accepted the play “Palestine Year Zero”, directed by Einat Weizman, to its program funding theatrical productions in Arab communities around the country but its director ordered its cancellation last month in what amounts to political censorship.

Palestine Year Zero confronts the issue of demolition of Palestinian homes by Israeli authorities. The play was performed at the Akko Festival in 2016, despite the attempt by Culture Minister Miri Regev to intervene in the decision to present her. Since its premiere at the festival, the piece has appeared in Israel and around the world.

In 2017, the Mifal Hapais Lottery Council for Culture and Art issued a call for theater groups and artists to submit proposals for Arabic-language performances to be hosted in Arab communities throughout the country with financing by Mifal Hapayis.

In March 2018, Mifal Hapayis announced that Palestine Year Zero had been accepted into the project and the play was slated for performance on December 13 2018 in the town of Kabul, located northeast of Haifa.

Starting in November 2018, following criticism by right-wing political figures, reports began to appear in the media attacking the production and the Mifal Hapayis decision to fund it. Media coverage noted a response from Mifal Hapais that it was examining the issue.

About a week before the performance, the artists gathered for a rehearsal. At the start of the rehearsal, during the course of a telephone conversation relating to the logistics of the production, they were informed by chance that the performance was canceled.

Attorney Sawsan Zaher, deputy director of Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, sent a letter on Weizman’s behalf to Mifal Hapais Director Avigdor Yitzhaki, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, and Kabul Council Chairman Saleh Reyan demanding that the production be rescheduled as soon as possible, with full funding.

In the letter, Adalah notes that illegitimate political considerations led to the cancellation of the performance and stresses that the Mifal Hapais decision to block the performance went beyond the bounds of authority and is therefore illegal.

“There is no legal basis that authorizes Mifal Hapayis to cancel or intervene in a performance because of its content. The fact that Mifal Hapayis is financing the play’s production also does not authorize them to intervene,” Adalah wrote in the letter.

This intervention by Mifal Hapais severely violates both artistic freedom and freedom of expression. It prevents a wide audience from being exposed to art that reflects values and views not accepted by the majority. These violations, which are not anchored in any law, is unconstitutional.

Attorney Zaher commented: “The severe and illegal political intervention by Mifal Hapais harms both the performers and the residents of Kabul and violates the right to freedom of expression. Our demand to allow the production – with funding from Mifal Hapais – is also an expression of opposition to the repeated silencing of the Palestinian narrative. Mifal Hapais has no legal authority to cancel a show because of its content, especially after it was approved by an artistic committee that it appointed. This is unconstitutional.”

Human Interest 01/13/19 VIDEO: Jerusalem in 2018 


A visit to the grave of mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein


Jeff Klein on July 4, 2013 21 Comments

  • Adjust Font Size


Commenters on the conflict often speak of the grave of Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish extremist who gunned down 29 Muslims inside the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron in 1994. Jeff Klein recently visited the grave. This account appeared on his site, At a slight angle to the universe, on June 22.

On a hillside in the settlement of Kiryat Arba, overlooking the large West Bank Palestinian city of al-Khalil — known to Israeli Jews and most foreigners by its biblical name of  “Hebron” – is the grave monument of Dr. Baruch Goldstein.




On the Jewish holiday of Purim, February 25, 1994, Goldstein, then a reserve officer in the Israeli army, walked into the Mosque of Ibrahim (the traditional burial place of the Patriarch Abraham) in uniform and with his army-issued weapon, opening fire on the Muslim worshippers. 29 people were murdered outright and 125 wounded before the survivors managed to disarm Goldstein and kill him on the spot.

For many far-right Israeli Jews and especially the settler movement Goldstein was a martyr to the cause of religious Zionism.  His grave in a ceremonial plaza overlooking the Palestinian town became a place of pilgrimage and celebration – to the great embarrassment of the Israeli government and many of its supporters in the US.


The ceremonial plaza around the grave was ordered dismantled, but the park and monumental walkway leading up to his grave remain in place.  The park is dedicated to Meir Kahane, the US-born rabbi who was a founder of the violent Jewish Defense League and later the leader of the fascist Kach party — which was so openly racist that it was eventually banned in Israel.  Kahane was assassinated in New York in 1990, but today you can still find stickers and graffiti around Israel with the slogan “Kahane Lives” or in English “Kahane Was Right!”

The Hebrew inscription on Goldstein’s grave monument reads, in part:


“The revered Dr. Baruch Kapel Goldstein… Son of Israel.  He gave his soul for the sake of the people of Israel, The Torah, and the Land.  His hands are clean and his heart good… He was assassinated for the Sanctity of God”

The stones on the grave are customarily left by visitors to express their mourning.


During the annual observance of the Purim holiday, settlers gather at Goldstein’s grave to celebrate his deed and sing songs in praise of the man they regard as a noble martyr.  One of the songs includes the verse: “Dr. Goldstein, there is none other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all love you… he aimed at terrorists’ heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and shot.”


Then the settlers march down to pray at the Mosque/Synagogue of Abraham, accompanied by a  massive show of force by Israeli army troops.

The 1994 Hebron Massacre launched a fierce outburst of violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories, which included the first suicide bombings carried out by Hamas within the 1948 borders.


But in this case (Jewish) terrorism worked.  The ancient burial place of the Patriarchs, which had been converted into a mosque over a thousand years earlier was now divided into a Muslim and a Jewish section and made accessible to Jewish worshipers and foreign tourists.


Ironically, it’s impossible for anyone to visit both parts of the shrine at a single occasion, since people approaching the heavy security at the shrine must declare their religious affiliation and are allowed into one or the other section depending on their answer.  Muslims are not allowed into the Jewish section and Jews are not allowed into the Muslim section. Non-Jewish tourists can choose one or the other, but not both.  (I know this from a previous visit with my son to the Mosque side).

On the day I was there, a large group of Swedish tourists, the men sporting incongruously small white Jewish kippot (“yarmilkas”) given to them at the entrance. Jewish religious law does not require non-Jews to have their heads covered.

Meanwhile religious Jewish yeshiva students were chanting fervently and loudly just behind them.



About Jeff Klein

Jeff Klein, is a retired local union president, a long-time Palestine solidarity activist and a board member of Mass Peace Action. He has a blog: http://atmyangle.blogspot.com/

Posts by Jeff Klein.

Ido Even-Paz speaks at the grave of American Israeli Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 125 during the 1994 massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs. Photo by Heidi Levine for The National

Settlers Invade Al-Aqsa Mosque

31 JAN
5:53 AM

Dozens of Israeli illegal settlers, on Wednesday morning, broke into the courtyards of the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound via the Mughrabi {Moroccan} gate under heavy military protection.

Jerusalemite sources reported, according to Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency, that some 48 settlers, accompanied by rabbis, broke into the mosque, roamed its courtyards, and received explanations on the alleged “Temple Mount”.

According to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, some of the settlers performed Talmudic rituals at al-Rahma gate, which was being stormed by Israeli intelligence officers at the same time .

Sources added that worshipers, educational students, and guards of the mosque who were present, there, defended it by chants and Takbeer (chanting “Allahu Akhbar… God is Greatest!”), and hampered the settlers from roaming it freely.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is exposed,  on a daily basis, to the storming of extremist Israeli settlers, at which they perform Talmudic rituals and desecrate its sanctity, in an attempt to upset the temporal and special division of the mosque, and further Judaize the occupied Palestinian city of Jerusalem.

01/29/19 Settlers, Glick Perform Wedding Ceremony inside Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound

Israeli forces attack Gaza Freedom Flotilla protest

Israeli forces attack Gaza Freedom Flotilla protest

Israeli forces have attacked a rally held by Palestinians near the maritime barrier in northern Gaza. The gathering was held in support of a new Freedom Flotilla launched in a symbolic move to break the Israeli siege on the coastal sliver. Press TV correspondent Ashraf Shannon has more.

Israel Demolishes A Building Consisting Of Three Flats And Three Stores In Jerusalem

 January 30, 2019 11:37 PM  IMEMC News Israeli attacksJerusalemNews ReportWest Bank 0

30 JAN
11:37 PM

Israeli soldiers demolished, Wednesday, a Palestinian building consisting of three apartments, three stores and two adjoined sheds, owned by a Khaled al-Malhi, in Wadi al-Jouz neighborhood, in occupied East Jerusalem, allegedly for being built without a permit.

The Wadi Hilweh Information Center in Silwan (Silwanic) said the soldiers, accompanied by members of the City Council in occupied Jerusalem, in addition to dozens of police officers, invaded Wadi al-Jouz and demolished the building.

The demolished property consisted on three apartments, three stores and two adjacent sheds.

Silwanic stated that the soldiers invaded the property two days ago, and handed al-Malhi the demolition order, informing him that it will be carried out within 48 hours, before he contacted his lawyer to file an appeal, but the soldiers carried the demolition out after removing some of his property from the buildings.

Al-Malhi said that the first floor of the building, was constructed twenty years ago and consisted of a Garage, a car-wash facility and stores, while the second floor consisted of three apartments, which were built five years ago, and the third was still under construction.

One of the apartments was rented out to a family from Silwan, and the second was supposed to be inhabited by al-Malhi’s son.

The City Council in occupied Jerusalem also ordered the family to pay a fine of 160.000 Shekels.

Also in Silwan, a Palestinian man from Silwan had to demolish his own home to avoid excessively high fines and fees after the City Council decided to destroy the property for “being built without a permit.”


Permitting Apartheid: Israeli House Demolitions in Jerusalem

30 JAN
4:38 AM

The demolition of the Shawmreh and Abu Rameilah’s homes, July 19, 2018. Photo credit: Afif Amira for WAFA.

Israel demolished 20 percent more Palestinian-owned homes in Jerusalem in 2018 compared to 2017.

Israeli authorities presented Ayman Naim Kawasbeh of Jerusalem with a terrible choice in October 2018: demolish your own home or pay 40,000 shekels (10,000 dollars) for Israeli forces to destroy it. After demolishing his own home, Kawasbeh lamented, “We live a real-life tragedy. Winter is around the corner and we have no home, no shelter. I don’t know what I will do in the coming days.” Eight people, including five children, lived in his home in Jerusalem.

Israeli forces unexpectedly arrived at Hanadi Abu Rammouz’s door and abruptly demolished her apartment in Jerusalem in February 2017. She described the conduct of the Israeli soldiers: “Immediately after storming into our house, they evacuated us by force and prevented us from taking out personal items. They did not even allow us to drink water. The soldiers threatened my husband with their weapons and pointed them at his stomach.” This demolition displaced seven people, including five children.

Said al-Abbasi explained the financial cost of house demolition after losing his home in Jerusalem in December 2016: “I have lost over 500,000 shekels [$130,000]… on construction, fines, lawyers and architect fees.” “Despite this loss,” Abbasi concluded, “I will never leave my hometown.”

These are just some of the voices of Palestinians whose homes in Jerusalem were demolished by Israeli authorities. The amount of people who are subjected to such tragedy continues to grow: Israel demolished 20 percent more Palestinian-owned homes in Jerusalem in 2018 compared to 2017.

The status of Jerusalem

The United Nations (UN) 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine declared Jerusalem a “corpus separatum,” meaning as an international city that would be administered by the UN. However, in 1948, Zionist paramilitaries and Israeli forces captured West Jerusalem and 40 nearby Palestinian villages, along with 78 percent of Historic Palestine. Palestinians call this event the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe.” During the Nakba between 750,000 and one million Palestinians were expelled from their homes, including between 64,000 and 80,000 in the Jerusalem area.

After the 1948 war, Jerusalem was divided into east and west. The Israeli army controlled 85 percent of the city in the west; the Jordanian army controlled eleven percent of the city in the east; the remaining four percent was designated as “no man’s land.” Two years later, in 1950, Israel passed the Absentee Property Law, which defined the property of Palestinians had who fled during the Nakba as “abandoned” and therefore under the ownership of the new Jewish state.

In 1967, Israel captured the remaining 15 percent of Jerusalem and expelled another 26,000 Palestinians from the city. Israeli authorities quickly implemented policies to institutionalize the military occupation and establish a Jewish majority in Jerusalem.

Israel formalized its 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 when it passed Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel. In December 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump also legitimized the annexation when he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The international community affirms Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents as protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN Security Council maintains that all legislative measures and actions taken by Israel to alter the character and status of Jerusalem are null and void under UN resolutions 242, 267, 471, 476, 478.

The Moroccan Quarter: Israel’s inaugural demolition

Shortly after capturing East Jerusalem in 1967, Israeli forces demolished the Moroccan Quarter (Harat al-Maghariba) in the Old City, a roughly 10,000 square-meter neighborhood that was home to 650 people and two mosques. Many of the residents who were forced to flee the neighborhood ended up in Shuafat Refugee Camp, north of Jerusalem.

The residents who lost their homes were issued eviction and expropriation orders only months after demolitions took place. In place of the Moroccan Quarter, Israel built what is known today as the Western Wall Plaza.

Permitting Apartheid

Since 1967, Israeli officials have continued the practice of demolishing Palestinian properties in Jerusalem. However, Israel has developed a legal system to act as a fig leaf for the destruction of Palestinian-owned homes.

Israeli land use designations in East Jerusalem. Graphic by UN Human Settlements Program.

Israel demolishes most Palestinian-owned property in Jerusalem under the pretext that the structures were built illegally, meaning without Israeli-issued construction permits. However, Israeli authorities almost exclusively issue construction permits to Israeli Jewish neighborhoods and settlements. This is because the city has not approved an urban plan for East Jerusalem and zones only 8 to 13 percent of the area as for Palestinian residential construction.

In recent years, only eight percent of all building permits in the city were issued to Palestinian neighborhoods, according to the Israeli human rights group Ir Amim. As a result, Palestinians build without permits to avoid overcrowding. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel found that 20,000 homes in East Jerusalem – or 39 percent of all homes in East Jerusalem – lack Israeli construction permits and therefore live in perpetual threat of abrupt homelessness.

The demolition of Ashraf Fawaqa’s home in Sur Bahr in May 2017 exemplifies the personal and financial hardship faced by Palestinians living under Israel’s discriminatory permit system. Fawaqa explained to the AIC:

In 2011, I applied to get a permit to build a home for four family members. I submitted all the necessary documents and the municipality rejected my request. Because of the urgent need shelter my family, I built the home. I paid 60,000 NIS in fees for doing so. Then in the beginning of 2017 Israeli authorities took me to court and issued a demolition order for the house. I paid another 25,000 NIS to the municipality to postpone the demolition. But, on April 4, 2017, the court ruled in favor of demolishing my house and Israeli forces carried out the process.

Housing in East Jerusalem graphic. Photo credit: Peace Now!

Meanwhile, Israeli construction permits find themselves easily in the hands of Israeli-Jewish settlers, developers and municipal authorities. Each year, the Israeli government issues hundreds – and occasionally thousands – of tenders for settlement homes in East Jerusalem. Overall, since 1967, Israeli authorities have confiscated 38 percent of East Jerusalem to build Jewish-only settlements, according to Israeli human rights group Ir Amim.

The numbers

Israel demolished approximately 20 percent more Palestinian homes in 2018 compared to 2017, according to data published by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the occupied Palestinian Territories. This latest increase is in line with an emerging trend: Israel progressively demolishes more Palestinian-owned homes in the holy city.

In five years, Israel has demolished 785 Palestinian-owned structures in Jerusalem. In 2018, Israel demolished 177 Palestinian-owned structures in Jerusalem. The number of demolitions for previous years are as follows: 142 in 2017; 190 in 2016; 79 in 2015; 99 in 2014; and 98 in 2013.


If Palestinian families do not demolish their homes themselves after receiving a demolition order, the Israeli municipality informs them that they nevertheless have to evacuate the house and pay 40,000 for Israeli forces to carry out the demolition.

“It is so difficult and sad for me to demolish the house that I built and paid for,” said Faisal Mohammad Jom’a when he demolished his home in Jabal al-Mukkaber in March 2018. “But when the occupation’s court decided to demolish it under the pretext of lacking permits and said that the cost of the demolition would be around 20,000 dollars, I could not pay. So, I did the demolition myself.”

A political problem

Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem are the target of Israeli settlement plans, which aim to link four concentric circles of settlements, starting with the Old City, followed by the “Holy Basin” (Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah, a-Tur, Mount Zion, and the Kidron Valley), Jerusalem’s annexation border, and finally the West Bank.

The realization of these settlement plans would sever the northern West Bank from the southern West Bank with a contiguous block of settlements stretching across its center. Dividing Palestinian cities, towns and villages into restricted enclaves flanked by settlements on all sides is key to maintaining what Israeli authorities euphemistically call a “demographic balance” in Jerusalem – that is, restricting the Palestinian population to 30 percent of the city’s total population.

Increasing rates of demolitions in Jerusalem suggest that US President Donald Trump’s decision to transfer the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has emboldened Israeli authorities to realize their settlement plans in defiance of Palestinian life.

Opinion/Analysis 01/20/19 Justin Trudeau’s Description of BDS: ‘A Pack of Lies’ 

Recent move by Facebook, Apple and YouTube to ban conspiracy theorists on Jews

Last Speech of Professor Robert Faurisson

Heroic Holocaust Revisionist Dr. Robert Faurisson Has Passed

Dr. Robert Faurisson was a heroic truth-teller who paid the price for holding unpopular, illegal views, but he continued onward regardless.

McCarthyism at Sydney University


Stephen Garton 30f29

On 4 December 2018, Sydney University suspended academic Tim Anderson from his position – banning him from university grounds and demanding no contact with staff or students. The suspension is a prelude to having Anderson sacked.

His crime? Purportedly offensive comments and misconduct. According to Provost Stephen Garton, Anderson has failed his obligation to his employer by remarks claimed to be “intemperate … not fair and reasonable”, etc.

Anderson outlines here the background to this affair with select excerpts from relevant correspondence.

Any association with Tim Anderson would confront that he is anything but intemperate. He is uncompromising in his views but sober in their enunciation and forthcoming with grounds in their defense.

The quality of Anderson’s teaching and of his writing has not been canvassed. Rather, Anderson’s crime is that he has the wrong views.


Anderson is supportive of Syrian sovereignty. Heavens! This stance is unacceptable in the freedom-loving West.

Anderson travelled to Syria in late 2013 as part of an Australian delegation. Incidentally the delegation met President Bashar al Assad. The Murdoch press went ballistic. In April 2017, Anderson and others organised a conference on Syria at Sydney University. Other media joined in with condemnation.

Here is an academic using his privileges to support a ‘brutal dictator’. Anderson has responded thus: “I have always made it clear that solidarity is always with people, not governments.”

The media has led the attack on Anderson. Provost Garton’s attribution to Anderson of offensive statements and misconduct refers to Anderson’s setting the record straight regarding the errors of facts in the journalistic reporting, and to Anderson privately taking to task the then Dean of Arts for divulging private information to the media.

The Australian mainstream media is addicted to reproducing the conventional wisdom regarding global affairs manufactured by the American-Anglo media. Its emphasis and its content (Russia-gate, Skirpal, Ukraine, MH17, Syria, Venezuela, etc.) constitutes essentially fake news. Those allergic to the Murdoch press can find little solace in the alternative mainstream media outlet Fairfax/Nine Entertainment (‘Independent. Always’) whose reporting of international affairs has been appalling – glibly reprinting rubbish from the New York TimesWashington PostAP & Reuters, etc. The public ABC television station, under financial and direct political pressure, has also fallen into line, if less strident.

Thus if the mainstream media claims that Assad has initiated numerous chemical attacks it must be true. No matter that various authoritative sources highlight that no evidence to date supports that claim.

Since 2011, Syria is experiencing not a civil war but a foreign invasion. What domestic weaponised opposition exists is minor compared to the occupation of foreign forces and their sponsored jihadi militias – the latter given financial, logistic and materiel support by the former.

The permanent Syrian representative to the United Nations, the eloquent Bashar Ja’afari, makes perennial speeches highlighting the hypocrisy of endless anti-Syrian resolutions by UN member bodies and calling for respect for Syria’s sovereignty. Thus his speech to the UN Security Council, 7 September 2018, here (p.21). Regarding the essence of Syria’s experience, Ja’afari notes:

“It has become common practice for three Western countries that are permanent members of the Security Council to use their presidency of the Council to rally others against my country and Government. … For the thousandth time, we underscore in this Chamber that the Governments of those three Western countries and their tools in the region are the main and direct cause of the suffering of our people inside and outside the country. They fuel the conflict in Syria and do their utmost to perpetuate by investing in the takfiri, Wahhabi and Saudi terrorism that they invented in the 1980s. … They use such groups as a tool of their foreign policy to exact revenge from countries that reject their diktats.”


Then there’s Israel, of which Tim Anderson is not fond – another significant black mark.

The pro-Israel lobby has Anderson in its sights and the media is happy to oblige. Thus we have Michael Koziol, Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald5 December, describing Anderson as ‘controversial’ (a sub-editor has added ‘notorious’ to the title of the digital version, a label typically reserved for drug-dealers and bent cops). Representative of Koziol’s partisan and inaccurate coverage, Koziol accuses Anderson, during visits to Syria and North Korea, of expressing “… solidarity with their dictatorial regimes”. An exemplar of gutter journalism.

Anderson is condemned for a graphic supposedly depicting a swastika imposed on an Israeli flag.There is artistic license in interpretation here, while ignoring the substantive import of the graphic that highlights the civilian casualties of a representative massacre by Israel of the Gazan population.

In any case, should anyone want to find some parallels with Nazi racism and the intrinsic racism of the Israeli apartheid state (not in inverted commas), they would be in respectable company. Thus the letter published in the New York Times in December 1948, signed by 28 prominent Jewish citizens (including Albert Einstein), denouncing the emergence in Israel of the Freedom Party of Menachem Begin, then visiting the US, as having fascist and murderous origins. The letter writers’ fears were subsequently fully justified.

Sydney University has no problem with Israel. It has links with Hebrew University (through the annual Sir Zelman Cowen award) and the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (through student placements), although both institutions are implicated in the Occupation.

The links these days, previously trumpeted, are low key. Jake Lynch, chair of Sydney University’s Centre (now Department) for Peace and Conflict Studies, pushed to have these links severed, to no effect.

The principled Lynch was left to hang out to dry by the University when he was sued in 2014 by the Israeli law firm Shurat HaDin for presumed racial discrimination after he declined to support an application for a visiting fellowship by a Hebrew University academic. By default, a crowd funding campaign assisted Lynch in the litigation, with the Court deciding in his favour, partly because it was not in his power to decide.

In 2015, Sydney University experienced the heated Kemp affair. Some staff had invited British Colonel Richard Kemp to speak, Kemp being then in Australia courtesy of sponsorship by the United Israel Appeal. Kemp’s topic was ‘Ethical Dilemmas of Military Tactics in Relation to Recent Conflicts in the Middle East: Dealing with non-state armed groups’. Kemp had previously expressed unqualified confidence in the IDF’s claimed success in minimising civilian casualties in its customary devastating Gazan onslaughts. Predictably, Kemp’s appearance aroused protest (the University had only recently barred several invited speakers from appearing on campus).

An all-staff email sent by Vice Chancellor Michael Spence characterised the University’s investigation into the incident as a response to ‘concerns over anti-Semitism on campus’. At the same time, an online petition, calling on the University to sack prominent protester Jake Lynch (falsely claiming Lynch to be anti-Semitic), was organised by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), with the petition text claiming that its authors were acting ‘in close liaison with the Vice Chancellor of the University of Sydney’. The University made no public statement refuting the AUJS claim of ‘close liaison’ with the Vice Chancellor or his office.

Sydney University never confronted the moral dilemma of extending the right of free speech to one militantly committed to a rogue state’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. The University ultimately laid all opprobrium for the fracas on the protesters. I wrote a four-part series on the controversy, here.

Professor Suzanne Rutland, head of Sydney University’s Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, retired in 2015. A gathering at the University celebrated her contribution. Provost Stephen Garton praised Professor Rutland’s moral courage. Garton continued:

“Even more noteworthy her effort (sic) to engage the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies the heartland of the BDS movement on this campus. In a sometimes hostile environment Suzanne certainly at some cost to herself has braved the environment to seek tolerance and respect at the Centre.

If we’re looking for intemperate expression, this statement surely qualifies. The gratuitous denigration of the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies is abrasively partisan. If one sought to construct an index of moral courage at Sydney University CPACS would be in the forefront. Promoting cultural understanding, tolerance and respect was and is its modus operandi.

On 15 September 2009, CPACS hosted a meeting as part of an ongoing process involving interested University staff and students responding to the Israeli massacre of Gazans at the turn of 2008-09.

Rutland turned up with a handful of, to my mind, brainwashed charges. Taking advantage of the formal tolerance of meeting procedure, Rutland’s student flock disarmed the meeting from productive exchange on its purpose. Finding intolerable a brash declamation of various hasbaracatechisms from one of these ill-informed students, male, I walked out in disgust.

It takes a great deal of moral courage, it seems, to defend poor put-upon Israel.

The fundamental problem is how a university deals with the state of Israel – an apartheid state by construction. It is supported globally by a powerful multi-tentacled lobby with a massive propaganda apparatus (c/f the 2016 documentary The Occupation of the American Mind).

The propaganda comprises, of necessity, an aggregation of lies which thus runs directly counter to everything a university stands for. It is to be expected that the odd academic might feel compelled to take issue with the propaganda, using the principles by which s/he became and acts in that role.

This the pro-Israel lobby cannot tolerate. Thus the perennial pressure by the lobby to have sacked or discredited those critics privileged with an academic post who expose the nature of the beast, of which locally Jake Lynch and Tim Anderson. The lobby has had considerable success in this regard (Norman Finkelstein’s fate as salutary), which merely fuels its fervour.

I have followed comparable events in France. The academic and research institute director Pascal Boniface is an important witness, both as analyst and victim. I summarised in ‘The Israel Lobby and French Politics’ (2014) a Boniface book on the hold that the pro-Israel lobby has on French politics and society. I outlined in ‘France and the Antisemitism Canard’ (2018) Boniface’s experience as a long term victim. The lobby has been trying to discredit Boniface and have his research institute dismantled ever since 2001 – a salutary lesson in dishonesty and villainy.

In a note written for internal distribution by Boniface within the Parti Socialiste in 2001, which spawned his victimisation, Boniface wrote:

“The intellectual terrorism that consists of accusing of anti-Semitism those who don’t accept the politics of Israeli governments (as opposed to the state of Israel), profitable in the short term, will prove to be disastrous in the end.”

I have summarised elsewhere the draconian implications:

“Genuine anti-Semitism has been instrumentalised by ersatz anti-Semitism. The state of Israel is the beneficiary and the Palestinians the immediate victims. The defenders of truth are secondary victims – the Bonifaces of this world scapegoats in this ongoing comedy. Jewish communities in general, including the French community, are also victims of their unsolicited inclusion in Israel’s criminality and in its institutionalised protection which hides behind the canard of ersatz anti-Semitism.

“But the hasbara, an attack against facts, reason, humanity, language – even sense itself – is a crime against all.”

What is a conscientious academic to do but point out the obvious. For following academic principles, preserving one’s integrity in the process, the lobby wants such individuals comprehensively silenced.

The corporate university

Tim Anderson is also an irritant as an active critic of the corporate university.

Anderson has been a long-time critic of Sydney University’s United States Studies Centre (videAustralian Universities Review, 2010, No.2). The USSC was created in 2007, following concerns with anti-American sentiment in Australia after the 2003 Iraq invasion. Allegedly via intercession by the ubiquitous Rupert Murdoch, the then Howard Government handed over $25 million as a kick starter (meanwhile initiating the strategic underfunding of the university system in general). The USSC is an arm of American ‘soft power’. The Australian media expresses alarm about Chinese soft power while ignoring its precedents.

Anderson also expresses concern with Sydney University’s 2017 Memorandum of Understandingwith Thales Australia. Thales is Australia’s largest defence contractor, having acquired the privatised (the Howard Government again) Australian Defence Industries partially in 1999 and fully in 2006. It happens that the University’s Chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson, is currently Board Chairman at Thales Australia. Meanwhile the reigning Australian federal government (son of Howard) wants to dramatically escalate the scale of Australia’s military exports.

In this context, Sydney University has had a long-term interest in acquiring the cashed-up Ramsay Centre’s offer of a program in ‘Western civilisation’ to select students. Private hospital magnate Paul Ramsay built a fortune from his Ramsay Health Care corporation, cherry picking the routine and profitable medical procedures that piggy-back the take-all-comers public health system. Profit-driven Ramsay appears to have had a late-in-life conversion to matters intellectual. The Australian National University said no thanks to the Ramsay Centre offer. At Sydney University, it has fallen to Provost Stephen Garton to manage the negotiation process.

Although some staff are supportive, the overwhelming majority of relevant staff have been opposed to the project in toto. Considerable internal exchange has taken place, recently bursting back into life. A Government Department member highlighted that a sometime colleague had published a work titled The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization (John Hobson, 2004). Well I never! Who would have thought it? Others have highlighted, naturally, that a good deal of Western ‘civilisation’ is undeserving of the epithet.

In a letter to staff, 22 October 2018, Garton acknowledged concerns, and claimed that subsequent modifications to the Memorandum of Understanding had been effected. Garton claimed that the university will control all aspects of any program. Garton concludes:

“My own view is that it would be very difficult, in reputational terms, to justify the refusal of funding, otherwise than on the grounds that doing so would compromise our academic freedom. It has never been University policy to reject funding from a donor simply on the basis that we did not like the politics of the people on the Board of the funding body. No reputable university in the world would conduct its philanthropy campaign on such a basis.”

There is no doubt about ‘the politics of the people on the Board’ – centred on the reactionary and anti-intellectual twosome John Howard (Prime Minister, 1996-2007) and Tony Abbott (Prime Minister, 2013-15). Howard and Abbott’s original unbalanced intent has been made clear, so others have subsequently been added to the Board to muddy the waters. Meanwhile, Wollongong University senior management has jumped the gun, bypassing staff consultation. Will all the money ultimately go to the most opportunist recipient?

Regardless, the Ramsay proposal is, in its essence, insulting to university staff. ‘Western civilisation’ is already being taught, in context and thus critically.

* * *

Tim Anderson (and others) is a conscience of the University. But the corporate university doesn’t want a conscience. Indeed, it can’t afford a conscience if it is to maintain ‘respectability’ and to ensure that the dough keeps rolling in.

So Anderson is expendable.

Anderson’s suspension is a scandal. University management can’t hope to implement his sacking without permanent damage to the reputation of Australia’s oldest university.

*(Professor Stephen Garton, the Provost. Image courtesy of Honi Soit)



Poland: Jews Among Whites

Poster for one of the many “educational” trips to Poland sponsored by Jewish groups. Their effect is to strengthen in-group solidarity for Jews by making them see Whites as enemies and persecutors.

JEWISH BEHAVIOR is the same the world over. This report is from Poland, where Jewish teenagers are often sent on pilgrimages to “experience” the alleged wartime mistreatment of Jews at the hands of evil Whites.

“It happens sometimes that, somewhere between Majdanek and Treblinka, the hotel service has to collect human excrement from hotel beds and washbasins. It happens sometimes that hotels have to give money back to other tourists, who cannot sleep because Israeli ‘students’ decided to play football in the hotel corridor — in the middle of the night. It happens sometimes that young Israelis spend their time (and ample stipends) on illegal striptease” (or sex “performances,” almost certainly using trafficked or coerced “labor,” and almost certainly featuring mentally or physically abused Whites, some of them children) “ordered via the hotel telephone.”

And it happens sometimes that local Whites are mistreated, even beaten, by Israeli “security agents.”

This is an extract from the Polish magazine, Prze Koj.

* * *

The list of losses Israeli teenagers’ visits leave behind is long and costly.

ROBERTO Lucchesini, originally from Tuscany, for several years now a resident of Krakow, hasn’t been sleeping well recently. Before he will be able to move his arms normally again, he will have to go through long rehab treatment. All this because of how he was treated, in broad daylight in front of passers-by — and in front of several Jewish teenagers who were hermetically closed in their coach-buses. Israeli bodyguards, equipped with firearms, wrenched and bound his arms behind his back and over his head with handcuffs. In Krakow, in the middle of the street. A moment before, the Italian was asking the Jewish tour’s coach drivers, who were parked in front of his house, turn their engines off: ‘The Israelis handcuffed me, threw me on the ground, my face landed in dog excrement, and then they were kicking me’. After that the perpetrators simply left, leaving Roberto bound and incapacitated. The Italian had to be freed by the Polish police.

Lucchesini had moved to Kazimierz, a district of Kraków, that used to be a Jewish commune of which the only things left now are synagogues and memories, often painful. He found an apartment with a view on the synagogue. ‘Back then I had thought this was the most beautiful place on Earth’ – he says – ‘after some time I understood that the place is indeed beautiful, but not for today’s residents’.

Kicking instead of answers

Another resident of Kazimierz, Beata W., an office worker, is of similar opinion. Israeli security searched her handbag on one of the streets, without telling her why.

‘When I asked what was this all about, they told me to shut up. I listened, I stopped talking, I was afraid they’d tell me to get undressed next’ – she says annoyed.

Even a young Jew residing in Poland was mistreated by intruding, overbearing Israelis. He went to pray in his synagogue a couple of months ago, asked why he was being accosted by Israeli security men, and received no answer. Instead of an answer, he got kicked. ‘I saw this with my own eyes’ – says Mike Urbaniak, the editor of Forum of Polish Jews and correspondent of European Jewish Press in Poland. ‘I saw how my friend is being brutally attacked by security agents from Israel, without any reason.’

The justification given is “Israeli children’s safety.”

‘For Poles it may be difficult to understand, but security agents accompany Israelis at all times, both in Israel and abroad’ – explains Michał Sobelman, a spokesman for Israeli embassy in Poland. ‘This is a parents’ demand, otherwise they wouldn’t agree for any kind of trip. Poland is no exception.’

Professor Moshe Zimmermann, head of German History Institute at Hebrew University in Jerusalem thinks however, that the problem is not only in the security agents’ behaviour. He thinks Israelis basically think that Poles aren’t equal to them — not just that they think Poles can’t ensure their children’s safety.

‘They are not equal partners to any kind of discussion. It applies also to our common history, contemporary history and politics. In result Israeli youth see Poles as second category people, as potential enemies’ – he explains bluntly.

An instruction book on conduct in Poland given to visiting Israeli students confirms the professor’s opinion. It contained this paragraph: ‘Everywhere we will be surrounded by Poles. We will hate them because of their participation in Holocaust’.

‘Agendas of our teenagers’ trips to Poland are set in advance by the Israeli government, and are not flexible,’ says Ilona Dworak-Cousin, the chairwoman of the Polish-Israeli Friendship Association in Israel. ‘Those trips basically come down to visiting, one by one, the places of extermination of Jews. From that perspective Poland is just a huge Jewish graveyard. And nothing more. Meeting living people, for those who organise these trips, is meaningless.’

A resident of Kraków’s Kazimierz district, who is of Jewish descent, says that there is nothing wrong with that: ‘Israelis don’t come to Poland for holiday. Their aim is to see the sites of Shoah and listen to the terrifying history of their families, history that often is not told to them by their grandparents, because of its emotional weight. Often young people who are leaving, cry, phone their parents and say “why didn’t you tell me it was that horrible?”. To be frank, I am not surprised they have no interest in talking about Lajkonik’ [a Polish folk festival].

‘They start to think it was the Poles who created concentration camps for Jews, that it is the Polish who were and still are the biggest anti-Semites in the world,’ adds Dworak-Cousin, who is Jewish herself.

Teenagers behaving badly

‘Someone in Israel decide, that our children going to Poland have to be hermetically surrounded by security,’ says Lili Haber president of Cracovians Association in Israel. ‘Someone decided that young Israelis cannot meet young Poles, and cannot walk the streets. Basically these visits aren’t anything else but a several-day-long voluntary prison.’

‘Moreover, as it turns out, the children are too young, to visit sites of mass murders,’ adds Dworak-Cousin. Traumatic experiences that accompany visits in death camps have its consequences. Kids become aggressive. And instead of getting to know the country of their ancestors, in which Jews and Poles lived in symbiosis for over 1000 years, Israeli teenagers cause one scandal after another.

It happens sometimes that, somewhere between Majdanek and Treblinka, the hotel service has to collect human excrement from hotel beds and washbasins. It happens sometimes that hotels have to give money back to other tourists, who cannot sleep because Israeli ‘students’ decided to play football in the hotel corridor — in the middle of the night. It happens sometimes that young Israelis spend their time on illegal striptease ordered via the hotel telephone.

Six-year-old Krzys from Kazimierz played football too. On Sunday night on 15th April, after shooting two goals, he wanted to go home, as usual. He lives near a synagogue, in front of which hundreds of young Israelis gathered. Just before Szeroka street he was stopped by some not-so-nice men. ‘This is a semi-private area today. There is no entry,’ he was told. It didn’t help when he told them his mum would be upset if he wasn’t home on time.

The security officers guarding the Israeli Jews were Polish this time — and accompanied by the Polish police. They also denied access to the area to a Dutch couple, who had reserved a table at one of the restaurants on Szeroka street six months before. ‘Is this a free country?’ one of the tourists asked.

On a normal day you can access Szeroka street from several sides. That evening from none. I tried to get through myself, without any success. After a long time, the police eventually helped me to pass the security line.

‘There are no official restrictions here,’ they tried to convince me a moment later, although the “unofficial practice” was different.

‘We have only set certain restrictions in place,’ Sylvia Bober-Jasnoch, a spokeswoman for Malopolska Region Police press service, explained to me later.

The police cannot say anything else. Polish law does not allow residents to be denied access to their own streets. Even during mass events (however the Jewish doings on Szeroka did not have that status) residents have the right to go back to their homes and tourists have the right to dine in a restaurant. And Israeli security agents certainly have no right to stop or search passers-by, nor do Israelis have the right to direct the actions of the local police.

Airplane interior left “looking like a battlefield”

The Polish-Italian couple, Robert Lucchesini, his wife Anna, and their two-year-old daughter, cannot understand the Polish government’s attitude. Which, quite the opposite of the Israeli government, is not able to ensure the safety of its citizens. Safety is not the only thing among the pair’s priorities, but also peace and quietness. They are, however, being woken up every morning by the loud noises of the engines of the coach-buses loaded with groups of Israeli youth. Their drivers break driving regulations all the time. They’re allowed to park at the square near the synagogue (in front of Robert’s house) only for up to 10 minutes. They stay there much longer, even hours. With their engines turned on. Reason? Jewish youths’ safety” – they would be able to leave quicker in case of a threat. And because “Israeli kids need to be served coffee.” Even though Kazimierz is full of cafes, Israeli teenagers don’t go there. They are being told: no contacts with “the environment,” no talking to passers-by, no smiles nor gestures.

This has been going on for years. Israeli groups make contact with Poles only there where they have to. First in airplanes.

‘A plane after such group has landed, looks like a battlefield,’ admits a worker for LOT Polish Airlines who asked that his name not be published. ‘The worst thing is these kids’ attitude to Polish staff. Recently a stewardess was slapped by a teenager in her face because he had been “waiting for his Coca-Cola too long.”‘

Leszek Chorzewski, LOT spokesman, admits that Israeli youths make difficult customers. ‘They demand not only more attention then other passengers, but also more security precautions.’

Katarzyna Łazuga, a student from Poznań, could see that first hand. She participated in tourist guides’ training in one of Poland’s airports. ‘Young people from Israel entered the room we were in,’ she recalls. ‘Our group was then made to stop classes and rushed out of the room. Israeli security officers told us to go out, right now and without any talking. Because… we were “staring” at their clients. Yes, we were looking at them.’

By necessity young Israelis see Poles also in Polish hotels, if any hotels will still have them. Most of those in Kraków don’t want to any more.

‘We have quit admitting Israeli youth once and for all,’ says Agnieszka Tomczyk, assistant manageress in a chain of hotels called System. ‘We could not afford to sustain the losses after their stays any more’.

These losses being: demolished rooms, broken chairs and tables, human excrement in washbasins or trash bins, or, as in the Astoria, another hotel in Kraków, burned carpet. The Astoria has also backed out from hosting Israeli groups. One of the reasons is that the teenagers’ “security agents” were ordering other guests, whom they didn’t like, to leave.

‘I understand that Israeli security agents are over-sensitive to any disturbing signals. They are coming from a country where bombs explode almost daily, and young people die in terrorist attacks,’ states Mike Urbaniak. ‘But Poland is one of the safest countries in Europe. Here, excluding a tiny number of incidents, Jews are not being attacked, and Jewish institutions don’t need security, which is very unusual on a world scale.’

This year 30,000 Israeli teenagers are coming to Poland, and they will have 800 security agents to protect them.

‘The results of the investigation of Lucchesini’s beating is of some importance,’ says Dworak-Cousin. ‘What matters most though is if the youth that visit Poland will still treat it as a hostile and completely alien country.’

* * *

Source: David Sims, Prze Koj, and National Vanguard correspondents


Is Any White Nationalist Stupid Enough to Take Advice From David Cole?

by Hadding Scott

TAKI’S MAG on 1 December 2016 published an essay by Jew and former Holocaust Revisionist David Cole titled, “See, This Is Why We Can’t Have White Things.” The essay pretends to advise White nationalists about how best to present themselves. Even apart from the question of whether David Cole really has the best interests of White nationalists at heart, it is clear that this is a very dishonest essay.

Rhetorically, it is a venerable technique to begin an address by making points that you know your audience will find agreeable. That is what Sinon the Greek did in Vergil’s account of how the wooden horse full of Greek soldiers was introduced into Troy. Sinon told the Trojans that the Greeks were terrible people, and the Trojans were impressed with his truthfulness. Behold, an honest Greek! After that, Sinon could lie to the Trojans and they would believe it. You establish credibility with an otherwise skeptical audience by telling them what they already believe.

That is how David Cole begins this essay, by saying things that he knows will meet with approval. After an unflattering story about Hillary Clinton, he launches into criticism of Richard Spencer’s performance at the now notorious NPI conference of 19 November. He says that Spencer should not have made quasi-hitlerian utterances and gestures “in a spirit of irony” while expecting the media to portray it, and the public to understand it, as irony. This is self-evident common sense. I have said the same myself.

It does not appear that Cole really examined what Spencer said, since he uncritically repeats the false report that Spencer referred to Jews as golems (rhetorically questioning whether they were human) when this comment was clearly about Republican strategists.

Cole then says that any association with Hitler and National-Socialism is toxic to public relations. There is certainly some truth in that, but Holocaust Revisionists, of whom Cole once claimed to be one, see this as largely due to misrepresentation.

Cole acknowledges that there are people who see Hitler’s bad reputation as undeserved, but these people, he advises, are unhelpful to the White nationalist cause:

Their ultimate goal is only partly to make things better for whites in the here and now; they also want to reach back in time and provide a little image repair for good old Adolf.

Thus Cole tells us that revising the history of Adolf Hitler is an unnecessary distraction from White advocacy, a waste of time. Certainly we have heard this annoying refrain before, usually from people whose motives could be questioned. Often it seems to be cowardice, mental laziness, or a conflict of interest masquerading as prudence. What is always evident, however, is that they cannot defend their position in a discussion. But surely Cole’s motives are beyond reproach! Surely a swarthy Jew, a member of the ethnic group that bears primary responsibility for the defamation of Adolf Hitler and for Cultural Marxism generally, wants to make things better for Whites!

The clear necessity for White nationalists to challenge the Jewish Holocaust story was explained convincingly in Richard Harwood’s seminal Did Six Million Really Die? as long ago as 1974:

Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as “neo-Nazis”. Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then — Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated, peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished. [R. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die?, 1974]

In the event that one is not quite convinced of the lack of utility in revising Hitler’s reputation, Cole argues that it is not even possible anyway, because, it turns out, Hitler really is the Devil! In support of that position, to make his argument credible, he quotes three nationalist sources. The problem is that he quotes all three in a misleading manner.

Cole quotes a statement from an essay by James Harting reposted by National Vanguard (from Stormfront) that says that Hitler saw himself as a leader only of the Germans:

It must be said that Hitler did not consider himself as any kind of a world leader of Aryandom. Rather, he saw himself as the political leader of the German nation, and perhaps more generally the symbolic leader of all of the Germanic peoples. [James Harting, “Adolf Hitler: German Chancellor or Pan-Aryan Leader?”, Stormfront, 14 December 2013]

Cole omits the subsequent explanation that Hitler acquired broader significance:

Increasingly as the War went on, Hitler found himself as the de factohead of all of the Aryan peoples of Europe, and not just of the Germans or of the Germanics.

In fact it is Harting’s thesis that Hitler really was “the symbolic leader of the whole of the Aryan race.” By quoting a concessive statement out of context, Cole has inverted the essay’s overall meaning.

Cole quotes from Himmler’s essay of 15 May 1940 , about the treatment of the inhabitants of German-occupied Poland, the words “dieses Untermenschenvolk des Ostens.” Cole omits to mention that the essay also proposes to allow children of Slavic national origin to be educated in Germany, if their parents wish and if they meet racial standards. The takeaway is that not all Slavs were regarded as Untermenschen.

However, even with the proviso that it does not mean every Pole, Himmler’s generalization may seem absurdly harsh to American ears in the 21st century. The seeming egregiousness of Himmler’s view is dispelled when one considers what some others had to say about the Poles in that era. An American reporter for the Chicago Tribune gives a very unflattering account:

Paul Super was an American who worked for many years to help Poland. He was director of the American Young Men’s Christian Association. […] After working 18 years among Polish boys, he told me the thing which horrified him most was “The Pole’s lack of respect for property.” To put it more plainly: that there were so many thieves in Poland.

In his campaigns in the United States to raise money to help Polish youth, Super mailed tens of thousands of appeals to American firms and individuals. One of these, which he presented to me, was a small mimeographed leaflet. It contained a fearful indictment of the Polish government. It runs as follows:

“I know a city — which has a population of 600,000 — but — it has water-works and no sewer system. It’s Lodz, Poland. It is probably the largest cotton-mill center on the continent of Europe. 1064 smoke-stacks belching smoke. Most of these are cotton mill smoke stacks. Tens of thousands of Mill-hands. Each one a person. There is utterly inadequate provision for decent recreation, physical exercise, vocational education, wholesome boy life. Owing to general conditions this city is a splendid breeding place for: discontent, radical socialism, bolshevism, tuberculosis, social immorality, irreligion. Young men born there hardly have a fair chance at life’s real values: education, christian character, personal growth, health, a chosen vocation, citizenship, enjoyment of beauty, home life.”

He continues to tell how the YMCA (that is himself) succeeded in organizing some of the unselfish citizens of Lodz in 1922, how they obtained promises and enrolled 1,200 members of whom 340 were attending classes, and how they founded a library with 3,376 books which were read by 1,096 persons each month. He urged Americans to help widen YMCA work in Poland. Through this and other appeals Super collected money to build a modern YMCA building with a swimming pool for Lodz. He erected three such institutions in Poland, the other two being located in Warsaw and Krakow.

But the point I am driving at is this: this appeal was mailed to America in 1934. The conditions he portrays as existing in Lodz were also to be found in many other Polish cities and towns. After 14 years of national existence the Polish government had been unable to improve such conditions. Neither in Lodz, nor any other town.

Pride has always been a dominating characteristic of the Poles. At the receptions and parties I attended I was invariably asked how I liked Poland and I very frankly stated that I did not like the country at all. This always shocked the questioner. When I explained the living standard of the inhabitants of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was far higher then [sic] in Poland, that the streets of Baltic cities were not overrun with beggars, that the Baltic peoples could afford to buy soap and liked to use it and kept themselves, their homes, their cities and streets spotlessly clean, the Poles were very much surprised.

They were proud of their culture. That culture was much more of the past than of the present. For instance: they made much of the Poles’ love for horses. I have traveled much but I have never seen so many blind and starved horses as I have seen on city streets and country roads in Poland. In fact, there were so many that I questioned a number of veterinary surgeons. They told me the average Polish peasant is so lazy and cruel that he frequently blinds a nervous, high-strung horse rather than take the trouble of breaking it properly to harness.

At one of these receptions a titled Polish woman became impatient with me. “Please remember Mr. Day, that Poland is a backward country. A century ago Poland was culturally 200 years behind France. Today we are still two hundred years behind France and very possibly we shall be still two hundred years behind France a hundred years hence.” France was the ideal of the average Pole.

She continued:

“Let me tell you a true little story which will show you how backward we really are. It was told to me by our minister of health. Last year he issued an order directing the policemen throughout the country to make a monthly inspection of the village latrines. You see, usually a Polish village has only one latrine for the entire community and if it is a larger village sometimes there will be two. One policeman, making his usual inspection of the latrines in his district, discovered one to be clean and in good order. He complimented the Starastvo (village elder). A month later to his amazement he discovered the latrine was still in the best of order. He asked the Starastvo to tell him how he managed to keep it so clean, so he could inform the other village leaders, thus relieving him of the necessity of imposing fines each month. ‘That is easy,’ said the Starastvo, ‘I keep it locked up.’”

The Polish lady did not display the slightest trace of shame when she told me this anecdote. A few minutes later when she asked me what I thought of Polish women, I decided it was my turn to shock her. I said I found them “Beautiful, but dirty.” [Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers, pp. 66-67]

Cole quotes Ernst Zündel saying at a conference of the IHR in 1994 that he encountered Russians who were irritated about the fact that “Soviets” had been called Untermenschen during the Second World War. This requires some explanation.

German prosperity and Polish poverty (1920).

First, the National-Socialist use of the term Untermensch comes from the American writer Lothrop Stoddard. In his book The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Under-Man, Stoddard said that Bolshevism was possible where there were many degenerate men, whom he called the Under-Man. In German this was rendered as der Untermensch. It was Lothrop Stoddard’s theory, then, that Untermenschen were the cause of the Soviet Union. One could thus generalize that the “Soviets” were Untermenschen.

Now, if some or many Russians were brutes who supported Bolshevism, it does not mean that all were like that. (In fact the Bolsheviks, at the time of their takeover, relied heavily on non-Russian muscle.) We have already seen that Himmler did not regard every Slav as an Untermensch. Even the SS publication Der Untermensch does not say that Slavs categorically, or any Slavic nation, are Untermenschen.

The false claim that the National-Socialists regarded all Slavs as Untermenschenwas propagated during and after the war, along with the claim that they were being gassed by the millions in Auschwitz. (The fact that some Slavic nations, Slovakia, Croatia, and Bulgaria, were allied with Germany, and that many others were recruited into foreign legions of the SS and Wehrmacht, has been overlooked and forgotten — except when Jews wanted to accuse a Pole like Frank Walus or a Ukrainian like John Demjanjuk of war crimes. To make Soviet rule seem preferable to German occupation, the most extreme lies had to be told. Thus, it is not a bit surprising that Ernst Zündel encountered Russians in 1994 who believed this. But it does not reflect reality.

In spite of racial doctrine, the Germans appeared as liberators to many Slavs and others in the USSR.

Finally Cole suggests that if nationalists want to succeed they should strenuously avoid any hint of association with Hitler.

The wisdom of this advice depends on what one wishes to accomplish. If one is trying to be elected to public office, then one has to take care not to buck existing public opinion too much. If, however, one’s purpose is to alter public opinion, then one must not revere public opinion as it is. One must be willing to violate taboos.

There is this famous observation about the phases in the introduction of a new truth, attributed (perhaps spuriously) to Arthur Schopenhauer:

All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Anybody who wants to change the world must be willing to endure belittlement and hostility. Anybody who thinks that it is smarter to avoid all that trouble, or gives up because he encounters opposition, is not going to be able to change very much.

On the other hand, if NPI is to be taken seriously as a think-tank, and if  bourgeois respectables like Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow are to continue appearing at those conferences, then the gratuitously provocative touches in Spencer’s presentation were unwise and damaging to NPI’s mission, but it is not clear that any net harm was done to White nationalism as such. There is always something to be said for stretching the Overton window, and really people should not be shocked and appalled at the sight of a Roman salute (formerly practiced in the USA as the Bellamy salute), but I believe that vastly greater benefit is derived from persuasion with national-socialist ideas than from direct efforts to normalize National-Socialist symbols.

The specific taboo of association with Adolf Hitler is one that nationalists ultimately cannot avoid. This was discovered by Enoch Powell in 1968 when he called for non-White immigration to Britain to be curtailed, and it was used against Donald Trump during the year prior to his election — backfiring in this instance, because Trump had a substantial core of supporters who would not desert him in any case, due to the recognized necessity of his agenda.

Cole, as a Jew, obviously could have no interest in the success of White nationalism. If he drew attention to himself in the early 1990s as “the Jewish Holocaust Revisionist” by capitalizing on the work of others after Auschwitz had already been debunked, it was only a few years later that he was reined in by other Jews, including not only the Jewish Defense League but his own family. Since then, by adopting the artificial Semi-Revisionist position that the Holocaust in general was real even if Auschwitz was fake (which is hard to take back), he has more or less fallen back in line with Jewish ethnic interests.

Cole says:

In my entire life, I’ve never uttered a single pro-Hitler sentiment….

No surprise there, Colenstein! It is a rare Jew (Roger Dommergue, Benjamin Freedman) who is capable of putting aside ethnic bias to that degree, and also has the courage to buck the pressure that Jews place upon other Jews to conform.

Maintaining the demonization of Adolf Hitler, who certainly was a prominent opponent of Jewish power regardless of whether any Jew was gassed, is an obvious Jewish ethnic interest. Correspondingly, the rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and his government is  an essential interest of White people, but it cannot be accomplished while heeding the advice of David Cole.


Trump’s IQ Under 90: Trump Campaign Says It’s ‘Preparing’ To Sue Cliff Sims Over Tell-All Book

Featured Investigations The Gordon Duff Files

Editor’s note:  So many are trying to represent Trump in a positive light.  Truth is, even Congress, the biggest pack of morons yet, has written him off even though he has widened the feeding trough of the GOP with his climate denialism and massive fake military spending.

What is coming is a book that simply describes a White House of losers that sit around and act tough, grab each others dicks and, just like Trump, brag about women they’ve paid for.

Too many of us are beginning to think this is exactly the government America deserves.  America, all that is left, is a ‘state of mind,’ no longer a nation, that some who love individual freedom and accomplishment, who love human values and sacrifice, still hold dear.

We are the real 1%.

Daily Beast: President Trump’s re-election campaign said Monday that it is preparing to sue former White House staffer Cliff Sims for violating his non-disclosure agreement in his new tell-all book about his experience in the White House.

“The Trump campaign is preparing to file suit against Cliff Sims for violating our NDA,” Michael Glassner, the chief operating officer for the Trump 2020 campaign, tweeted Tuesday morning. President Trump called Sims a “gofer” whom he hardly knew in a tweet, all while the author was live on CNN.

The book, Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House, includes a number of new revelations. Sims responded to Trump’s Twitter attacks on-air: “My identity is not wrapped up in being a Trump staffer… It doesn’t matter to me what Donald Trump or anyone else says I am.”

McCain May Be Dead, but ‘Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran’ Still Resounds

Pompeo and Bolton both stand by McCain’s ‘Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.’



Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

In 2007, when making a speech during his bid for the presidency of the United States, the late Senator John McCain spoke about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons’ programme and when questioned as to whether there might be US reaction to such allegations responded by singing “That old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran… bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.”

This jovial retort about killing people by bombing them was not surprising to those who remembered that during the US war on Vietnam McCain was shot down on a mission to bomb a power generation plant in Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam, in the course of the entrancingly-named Operation Rolling Thunder.  If he hadn’t been shot down before he released his bombs there would almost certainly have been civilian casualties and deaths. Power stations in cities are not manned by soldiers, after all, and around the Hanoi plant there were houses that would doubtless be struck by errant bombs.

But who cares about civilians who are killed or maimed in bombing or rocket attacks?

In Syria, for example, in October 2018 “the US-led coalition was responsible for 46% of civilian casualties from all explosive weapon use in Syria.”  And in November Reuters reported that “At least 30 Afghan civilians were killed in US air strikes in the Afghan province of Helmand, officials and residents of the area said on Wednesday, the latest casualties from a surge in air operations aimed at driving the Taliban into talks.”

Forbes records that “the US has never dropped as many bombs on Afghanistan as it did this year. According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command data, manned and unmanned aircraft released 5,213 weapons between January and the end of September 2018. The UN announced that the number of civilian casualties in the first nine months of 2018 is higher than in any year since it started documenting them in 2009.”  On January 25 Defense Post reported that “Afghanistan is investigating reports that at least 16 civilians including women and children were killed in an airstrike in southern Helmand province, the defense ministry said in a statement.” On and on its goes — Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Afghanistan.

There’s nothing new in this, so far as US Secretary of State Pompeo is concerned. As a member of Congress in 2014 he made it clear that he was one of the bombing club. As The Nation reported, “Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), participating in the same [Foreign Affairs Committee] roundtable, urged the United States and its allies to strongly consider a pre-emptive bombing campaign of Iran’s nuclear sites. He said ‘In an unclassified setting, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces’.”

The fact that when Pompeo was asked at a US Senate hearing in April 2018 if he was supportive of a preemptive strike on Iran he declared “I’m not. I’m absolutely not” is indicative only of the fact that he is given to duplicity.

Which brings us to Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who has been an advocate of bombing for many years.  He is the man who declared in November 2002 that “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq” and four weeks before the US invaded Iraq, according to Israel’s Haaretz newspaper in February 2003, “US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.”

Iraq was duly bombed and rocketed and reduced to chaos, and Bolton was totally unrepentant. In an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph in 2016 he pronounced that “Iraq today suffers not from the 2003 invasion, but from the 2011 withdrawal of all US combat forces. What strengthened Iran’s hand in Iraq was not the absence of Saddam [Hussein], but the absence of coalition troops with a writ to crush efforts by the ayatollahs to support and arm Shi’ite militias. When US forces left, the last possibility of Iraq succeeding as a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional state left with them. Don’t blame Tony Blair and George W Bush for that failure. Blame their successors.”

In November 2016 Bolton was aptly described by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough as “a massive neocon on steroids” but the Financial Times argues that he is not a neocon, because “Neocons believe US values should be universal. Mr Bolton believes in aggressive promotion of the US national interest, which is quite different.”  Be that as it may, there are some things that are certain, such as that Bolton is a rabid warmonger who avoided serving in Vietnam just like Donald Trump and George W Bush and Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney and many others. (And here it has to be said that my feelings are strong about this, having served in Vietnam in the Australian Army in 1970-71.)

As noted by the Daily News of his Alma Mater, Yale, “though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he declined to enter combat duty, instead enlisting in the National Guard and attending law school after his 1970 graduation. ‘I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy,’ Bolton wrote of his decision in the 25th reunion book. ‘I considered the war in Vietnam already lost’.”  But now that it is obvious that Washington lost its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bolton is ready for another one.

In July 2018, while tension between the US and Iran was heightening, the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, warned Washington about pursuing a hostile policy against his country, saying “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret… America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”  That was a red rag to a bull, and Trump responded in his normal way by tweeting “To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)”

That is frightening.  Any world leader who tweets such things as “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen” is verging on the psychotic. And, in his own words, the demented.

Trump’s former foreign policy officials were not altogether in favour of having Iran and North Korea suffer unspecified by obviously terrifying consequences for having expressed its views on Trump policy, but now, as the BBC notes, “Mr Trump has built a foreign policy team that is largely on the same page — his page.”

That’s the Fire and Fury Page, and it’s being proof-read and expanded by Pompeo and Bolton.  Stand by for Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.


Satanistic John Bolton Wants Blood In Venezuela

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Neocon hothead and ethnic cleanser John Bolton has his diabolical eyes on Venezuela. Bolton has a history of grabbing his Zionist binoculars and starting to point fingers at countries that he thinks the United States needs to destroy.

Back in 2015, Bolton wrote an article in the New York Times explicitly declaring that in order “to stop Iran’s bomb,” the United States needed to “bomb Iran.”[1]

In order to make his diabolical case, Bolton had to produce categorical lies, such as the following: “Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident.”[2]

The simple fact is that even the intelligence community declared that Iran abandoned that plan long ago. In fact, the evidence that Iran was somehow building a nuclear program was non-existent. As scholarly documentation shows, this was clearly the invention of Israel.[3]

If we ought to give credit where credit is due, it was the Obama administration who finally made a reasonable deal with Iran.[4] Bolton tried to overturn that deal by saying that “President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.”[5]

Bolton wanted blood in Iran. He wanted mothers and fathers to mourn for their young ones. But he didn’t get blood. President Obama let Bolton dry. So Bolton had to move to a different territory. He wanted to attack North Korea, Syria, and now Venezuela.

Bolton has recently showed up a White House briefing with a yellow legal pad with the following inscription: “5,000 troops to Colombia.”[6] Well, who is going to pay for this, Mr. Bolton? You? Your children? You grandchildren? Or the average American and other decent people who are trying to feed their families? Didn’t you support the Iraq war, which sent a six-trillion dollar bill to the average American?[7]

You see, a Satanist is an apt description of who Bolton really is because he is not willing to submit his appetite and passion to reason and the political order. He wants to steal, kill, and destroy.

It has been reported that “1 million veterans injured from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.”[8] And “Afghanistan and Iraq veterans are ‘the most damaged generation ever.’”[9] There is more:

“More than half of the 2.6 million Americans dispatched to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan struggle with physical or mental health problems stemming from their service, feel disconnected from civilian life and believe the government is failing to meet the needs of this generation’s veterans.”[10]

We should Satanists like Bolton responsible for this. Americans have had enough of these people. Perhaps it is high time for people to rise up and say, “No, we ain’t gonna take it anymore.”

  • [1] John Bolton, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” NY Times, March 26, 2015.
  • [2] Ibid.
  • [3] See Gareth Porter, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Charlottesville, VA: Just World Books, 2014); Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).
  • [4] Trita Parsi, Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017).
  • [5] Bolton, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” NY Times, March 26, 2015.
  • [6] Deirdre Shesgreen, “John Bolton’s notes on ‘5,000 troops to Colombia’ spark speculation about military intervention in Venezuela,” USA Today, January 28, 2019.
  • [7] Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
  • [8] H. A. Goodman, “6,845 Americans Died and 900,000 Were Injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say ‘No’ to Obama’s War.,” Huffington Post, April 14, 2015
  • [9] “The shocking cost of war: Afghanistan and Iraq veterans are ‘the most damaged generation ever’ with almost HALF seeking disability benefits,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2012.
  • [10] Rajiv Chandrasekaren, “A legacy of pain and pride,” Washington Post, March 29, 2014.

Following Israel’s expulsion of UN observers from the occupied West Bank yesterday, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has requested the international body to ensure the safety of Palestinians until Israel ends it “belligerent occupation”.

PA calls on UN for protection after Israel expels international observers

A Palestinian man shouts during a protest against closure of a road by Israeli troops south of the West Bank city of Hebron on November 10, 2017. Photo by Wisam Hashlamoun

A Palestinian man is seen during a protest against closure of a road by Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Hebron on November 10, 2017 [Wisam Hashlamoun/Apaimages]

Following Israel’s expulsion of UN observers from the occupied West Bank yesterday, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has requested the international body to ensure the safety of Palestinians until Israel ends it “belligerent occupation”.

The UN should “guarantee the safety and protection of the people of Palestine” until “the end of Israel’s belligerent occupation,” said Palestinian official Saeb Erekat.

The top diplomat made the remarks in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to renew the mandate of the international observatory task force that has been monitoring the situation in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron for twenty years.

Known as the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), the UN monitoring group was established in 1997 as part of the Oslo Accords’ Hebron Protocol. A report published by the UN observers in December found that Israel regularly broke international law in Hebron, which is home to 200,000 Palestinians and around 1,000 illegal Israeli settlers.

Palestinian residents of Hebron often say that they are living under an apartheid Israeli system. The Old City of Hebron is completely divided through the presence of barriers, closures, military zones and settlements, to accommodate some of Israel’s most extreme settlers.

Details of the report – which was published by Haaretz – said that Israel was clearly in “severe and regular breach” of the right to non-discrimination, as well as the obligation to protect the population living under occupation from deportation. The Israeli settlement in Hebron is a violation of international law and “radical Israeli settlers” make life in the Israeli-controlled area difficult for its Palestinian residents, the report added.

Over 40,000 “incident reports” were compiled over the years TIPH has monitored Hebron, with the organisation concluding that Hebron is moving in the opposite direction to that which was agreed upon by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the Hebron Protocol.

READ: Israel settlers attack Palestinian farmers in southern Hebron

In a statement announcing his decision to expel the UN group, Netanyahu said: “We will not allow the continuation of an international force that acts against us.”

Erekat called Netanyahu’s announcement “an additional step towards Israel’s nullification of all signed treaties” and “further evidence that Israel is a rogue state that abhors international legitimacy and places itself above and beyond international order and the international community”.

The PA representative accused Netanyahu of taking advantage of the upcoming Israeli general election, which is slated to take place on 9 April. “As part of their parliamentary elections, Israeli politicians are waging an immoral dehumanization campaign against Palestine and the Palestinians that constitutes an imminent danger to our safety and security,” he charged.

No UN response to the PA’s plea to extend the stay of international observers has been reported, but the UN human rights office in Geneva, Switzerland was quoted as saying that Israel – as the occupying power – must protect Palestinian civilians from settler violence in the occupied West Bank, while decrying an attack in which a Palestinian father of four was killed over the weekend.

READ: Palestinian rejects $100m Israel offer to buy his Hebron home


Israel’s Netanyahu to eject foreign observers in flashpoint Hebron

Image of Israeli forces harassing Palestinian worshippers attending Ibrahim Mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron on 15 February 2011 [File photo]

Israeli forces harassing Palestinian worshippers attending Ibrahim Mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron on 15 February 2011 [File photo]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday he would eject a foreign force set up to help safeguard Palestinians in a flashpoint city in the occupied West Bank, accusing the observers of anti-Israel activity, Reuters reports.

“We will not allow the continued presence of an international force that acts against us,” Netanyahu said in a statement announcing that the Temporary International Presence in Hebron’s (TIPH) mandate would not be renewed.

The statement did not elaborate on the alleged misconduct of TIPH, which draws staff from Norway, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. The TIPH website says the force works on six-month mandates but did not specify when the current one expires.

A force spokesman declined to comment. Palestinians denounced the move.

READ: Israel forces held Palestinian child overnight then abandoned him far from home

“The Israeli government’s decision means it has abandoned the implementation of agreements signed under international auspices and given up its obligations under these agreements,” said Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose peace talks with Netanyahu stalled in 2014. Conservative Israeli commentators had accused the TIPH of agitating against Jewish settlers who live under heavy Israeli army protection in Hebron, a biblical city with an overwhelmingly Palestinian populace.

The TIPH was set up after a settler killed 29 Palestinians at a Hebron shrine holy to both Muslims and Jews in 1994.

Since Israel partially withdrew from Hebron in 1998 under interim peace deals with the self-rule Palestinian Authority, the TIPH has “observe(d) and report(ed) on breaches of the agreements (and) violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law,” the force’s website says.

Most world powers consider Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, where Palestinians want a state, to be illegal. Israel disputes this, and the rightist Netanyahu has played up his pro-settler credentials as he seeks reelection in an April 9 ballot.

READ: Israel minister calls to expel international observers from Hebron

“They want to uproot us from here. They will not,” he said in separate remarks on Monday at another West Bank settlement.

“There’s a line of thought that says that the way to achieve peace with the Arabs is to be extirpated from our land. That is the certain path to achieving the opposite of this dream.”

“Based” Katie Hopkins Visits Hebron, Where a Jew Mass-Murdered Muslims, and Kvetches About Islamic Terrorism

In 1994 an “American”-Israeli named Baruch Goldstein went into a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 people (including children) and wounded 125. Katie Hopkins, who is hailed as a heroic voice for Whites by many retarded right-wingers, recently visited a closed down street in Hebron known as “Martyr Street” in order to kvetch to Rebel Media’s audience about Muslims extremism in their open air concentration camp.

I wonder why Katie Hopkins felt such “hate” when visiting this area.

In 2015 Israeli troops were ordered to demolish the shrine that had been constructed in honor of Baruch Goldstein, where many jews would pay homage to their mass-murdering hero.

Anyway, I want to pummel anyone who thinks Katie Hopkins is fighting for “our side”.


Shiite leader threatens of ‘expelling US troops by force’ from Iraq

Qais Al-Khaz’ali, the leader of the Iran-backed Asaib Ahl Al-Haq (AAH) Shia militia

Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, urged the government to provide a more formal, long-term border protection role for the militias.

“The United States (US)’s troops may eventually be driven out by force if they do not yield to the will of the Iraqi people,” the head of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl Al-Haq Shiite group warned yesterday.

Qais Al-Khazali told the Associated Press (AP) he was “certain and confident” that a parliament vote would be carried out next month demanding the withdrawal of the US troops in the country.

“I think more than half the members of parliament reject the presence of American military forces as a matter of principle, Al-Khazali noted, stressing that Iraq would “drive the US troops out of the country [Iraq] by force,” if they imposed its presence by force and bypassed the Iraqi constitution and parliament.

Pointing to the US presence’s alibi of confronting the military danger posed by Daesh in Iraq, the Shiite leader stressed that the threat was “eliminated.” “What is the justification for keeping this number [of troops] now?”

Read: Dozens of homes swept away by floods in Iraq’s Najaf

Al-Khazali, 45, suggested that a small “contingent of advisers and trainers for logistical matters” could remain in Iraq as determined by a joint committee that would specify their numbers and locations. “Anything other than that will be considered an infringement on sovereignty by the Iraqi parliament, the Iraqi people and political factions, including ours, and we won’t allow it,” he said.

The US President Donald Trump, during his visit to the US troops late December, said he had no plans to withdraw the 5,200 troops in the country and that Iraq could be used for US airstrikes inside Syria after the US withdraws its troops from there. His visit was criticised by Iraqi politicians as Trump visited American forces at a base in western Iraq without meeting with any Iraqi officials.

Asaib Ahl Al-Haq in one of the most important elements of the Iraqi state-sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces.  During last year’s parliament elections, it made significant gains, is now represented by a 15-member bloc in the parliament. The group’s forces fight in Syria alongside President Bashar Al-Assad’s troops.

2001 – Nayirah False Flag Testimony

Nurse Nayirah was a young Kuwaiti woman who, in the run up to the 1990-91 Gulf war, gave fraudulent testimony to a non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990. She was presented as a 15 year old volunteer nursing assistant who needed to hide her identity for security reasons. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was al-Sabah and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and member of the Kuwaiti royal family who had been sitting just a few feet from her as she gave her evidence. It was further revealed that she was not in Kuwait at the time of the invasion and her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by the advertising and PR firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government.

Anthrax: The Forgotten Iraq War Lie


Al-Sadr bloc warns against moving forward with Basra-Aqaba oil pipeline project

Iraqi Shia cleric and opposition leader Muqtada al-Sadr [File photo]

Leader of Iraq’s Sadrist Movement, Muqtada Al-Sadr [File photo]

Muqtada al-Sadr’s Sairoon Bloc warned on Tuesday of moving forward with an economic project which would extend an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan without reviewing it by the parliament.

MP Sadiq al-Sulaiti of Sairoon called to present the Basra- Aqaba pipeline agreement to the concerned parliamentary committees for review, saying that “Jordan wants to harvest the fruits of this agreement without paying anything”.

Al-Sulaiti added that the Basra- Aqaba pipeline project is estimated to cost $18 billion; most of it will be paid by the Iraqi side.

Read: Dozens of homes swept away by floods in Iraq’s Najaf

He added that the agreement indicates that “the section passing through Jordan will be a property of Jordan, yet will be paid by Iraq”.

“The cost of transporting a barrel is expected to be $4, which is four times higher than the cost of extracting one barrel” al- Sulaiti said.

The Iraqi lawmaker warned the oil ministry not to proceed with agreements that may cause wasting public money, and demanded to submit the project to the Parliament and the oil and energy parliamentary committee to study its feasibility.


Brewing Brexit Brawl: Crucial vote on amendments to May’s failed deal will decide Britain’s fate

Sergei Skripal’s niece to demand Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen, be declared missing

Yulia Skripal

© facebook.com/julia.skripal
Yulia Skripal at her ‘press conference’

Viktoria Skripal, the niece of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal, will demand that Russian law enforcement agencies declare his daughter Yulia Skripal, who is a Russian citizen, a missing person, the newspaper Izvestia reported on Tuesday.

“In February it will have been a year since I last heard Yulia’s voice. At the moment no one knows where she is and in what situation she is now. I am now going to collect all necessary documents in order to go to Russian law enforcement agencies next month in regard to Yulia’s disappearance. I will take steps to have her declared a missing person and also to get our structures to start investigating her disappearance. Yulia is a citizen of the Russian Federation, and it is unacceptable that even Russian diplomats didn’t have access to her,” Viktoria Skripal told the newspaper.

According to Izvestia, Viktoria Skripal also thinks that London is using Yulia as a hostage in order to advance its own interests.

The “poisoning” of Sergei Skripal and his daughter was required in order to put a further strain on relations with Russia, she said. Therefore, Viktoria said, it is not ruled out that the West, including the United Kingdom itself, could have staged the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia using a military-grade nerve agent in order to impose further anti-Russian sanctions and destabilize the international situation, according to the newspaper.

In early March 2018, a former Russian military intelligence officer, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia were found in critical condition in the British city of Salisbury. British Prime Minister Theresa May told parliament that the Skripals had been poisoned with the nerve agent novichok (A-234) developed in Russia. Moscow has dismissed the accusations, saying that Russia finished disposing of its chemical weapons in 2017 under the supervision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.


Alison McCourt 845f0

Forget all those conspiracy theories about the “Skripal Hoax”, tales of doorknobs and toxic perfume bottles, “GRU agents” and Salisbury cathedral. Forget too the stories of “Novichok” and “BZ” and the Institute for Statecraft, of Bellingcat, Chepiga and Mishkin.

These attempts to explain or to conceal one of the biggest criminal mysteries of modern times may now be forgotten, in the light of new and definitive evidence from a prime source – the Chief of Nursing for the British Army, Colonel Alison McCourt.

Seemingly imbued with team self-confidence at having pulled off the most successful covert operation since 9/11, Colonel McCourt has outed herself to a Salisbury local radio station as themystery nurse who first attended to Sergei and Yulia Skripal when they passed out on a  bench in The Maltings at 4.15 pm on Sunday 4th March.

Ten months of enquiries as to who this nurse was have yielded nothing, as following the possibly life-saving care Alison McCourt and her daughter Abigail afforded the poor Skripals, they slipped out of sight and mind, like the poisoning victims themselves.

There was a very good reason for this. Had the credentials and position of Nurse McCourt emergedat the time, questions may have been asked; not the right questions of course, but obvious questions such as why someone with Colonel McCourt’s experience had failed to diagnose the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning so as to warn emergency and hospital staff of the contamination dangers from contact with the patients.

At the time, on Sunday evening, there was however no apparent knowledge that such a nerve agent was responsible, and in fact this was not public knowledge for another 24 hours. The local Salisbury Journal treated it as “the possible first case of Fentanyl poisoning in Salisbury”, going on peoples’ observations of the Skripals, and statements of emergency services.

Colonel Alison McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army on 1st February 2018. This followed a CBE for her work in charge of the field hospital set up in Kerry Town in Sierra Leone in October 2014 to fight the Ebola outbreak. She would have been acutely aware of the dangers of infection and contamination, and necessity for great care in approaching people displaying unusual symptoms and incapacitation. While the symptoms and treatment for Ebola and other “biological agents” may be different from those of nerve agents and related chemicals, the similarity in the precautions necessary is similar.

Reflecting this relationship it is no surprise to discover that Porton Down was closely involved in dealing with the Ebola outbreak and in “Operation GRITROCK” as the UK’s campaign in Sierra Leone was called. As commanding officer of this deployment and operation of the “22 Field Hospital”, Lieutenant Colonel McCourt would certainly have worked in close coordination with Porton Down, whose experience in dealing with Ebola dates back more than 40 years, at which time its function was research into Chemical and Biological Weapons, their development and countermeasures.

Nowadays Porton Down is rebadged as the DSTL – Defence Science and Technology Laboratories – and described in benign terms in a Government hand-out – “the truth about Porton Down”. Apparently focused on countering certain rumours and conspiracy theories about its activities, it says (and I must include this!):

Alien Bodies: No aliens, either alive or dead have ever been taken to Porton Down or any other Dstl site.

Cannabis Cultivation: Dstl and its predecessors do not and have never grown cannabis at Porton Down.

But on the subject of this particular conspiracy and the Ebola connection, it says:

“DSTL has an active research programme on Ebola and played an important role in the UK’s support to Sierra Leone during the recent outbreak. DSTL’s scientists provided advice on the biological and physical aspects of the virus, as well as deploying highly skilled research scientists to the diagnostic laboratory at the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Unit.”

Following the success of the campaign by November 2015, the running of the UK facilities in Sierra Leone was taken over by Save the Children, and Colonel McCourt returned to the UK, where:

On promotion to Colonel in Dec 2015 she assumed an appointment in the newly established Senior Health Advisors department and has been the lead for Assurance and now Health Strategy in that area.

Given her home base is at Larkhill, one of a number of military-dominated towns in the “Salisbury Plains” area, that include Tidworth  – home of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, Warminster and Porton, one can assume that one of McCourt’s roles would be as liason between military health facilities at Porton Down and Salisbury District Hospital. In fact one can hardly imagine otherwise. SDH has had a covert relationship with Porton Down since the fifties, and specifically over Porton Down’s Sarin testing program.

Before her deployment in Operation GRITROCK, Alison McCourt had twenty years’ experience running field hospitals with QARANC, including two stints in Southern Iraq, in Bosnia and Kosovo. Interestingly in 2001 she helped set up a joint US-UK hospital in Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, at the same time as James Le Mesurier of White Helmets notoriety was there setting up a local “security force”.

So what happened? How is it possible that a dedicated nurse as competent and as experienced as Colonel McCourt, awarded the highest distinctions and made Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army, could be engaged in such egregious malpractice?

As McCourt’s true actions on that sunny Sunday afternoon in March remain unrecognised by the media and public, and unacknowledged by Government and its agencies, we need to go over the details of that crucial event, as they were reported by the Times on May 3rd, and accessible on the Police Federation website noted above. This is the relevant extract:

Offering new details on the March 4 attack, a source with knowledge of the case revealed that the first person to respond to the Skripals when they passed out was an off-duty army nurse who had worked on the ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. The nurse, a commissioned officer who has asked to remain anonymous, treated them before the emergency services arrived, and was vomited on but is not thought to have suffered novichok poisoning.

The treatment of patients thought to have been subject to nerve agents like Sarin and VX is comprehensively described in this document from the Royal Army Medical Corps. The first and most important action of the responder is decontamination of the victim, before making any contact, both to prevent further absorption of the agent by the victim and to prevent any effects on the responder.

Without sufficient protective gear, or self pre-treatment with antidote, the danger to any first responder is enormous. Abigail McCourt’s description of “putting the (victims) in the recovery position”, leave alone giving mouth to mouth, can mean only one thing, as her mother would never have allowed her daughter to be so endangered; she clearly knew there was no danger – at least from exposure to a highly toxic nerve agent.

Lieutenant Colonel McCourt first deployed to Iraq at the very beginning of the US invasion, at a time when there was much talk of Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons, even though they appeared to have largely been destroyed by 2003. Whether she encountered any cases of chemical poisoning at that time is unknown, but as the RAMC journal shows this was an essential aspect of training for soldiers in general. The use of a Combo Pen of antidotes developed at Porton Down for emergency treatment of nerve agent victims also remains an essential part of that training, and of a soldiers’ equipment – even when off-duty.

But let’s not beat about the bush any longer, or get too taken up with speculation on the specifics of the Skripals’ poisoning. The questions of when they were initially poisoned, where and by whom, and with what drugs or chemical agents may never be revealed. What matters for this case is that the UK government’s story, on which multiple punitive actions have been taken, resulting in an unknown number of innocent deaths in Syria and elsewhere, is false on ALL counts.

First, the Government claims the poison contamination was on the Skripals’ doorknob, and it was this that was sampled by the OPCW. The whole story of the GRU agents’ trajectory is about their visit to Sergei Skripal’s house, around midday, and four hours before they were given “treatment” by Chief Nursing Officer McCourt. This is NOT possible.  Had the Skripals made skin contact with a lethal nerve toxin like VX (Novichok remains a theory at this point) and survived for four hours with no antidote, then they would certainly have recovered consciousness within days after suitable hospital treatment.

The only alternative explanations for the serious symptoms as described, with Yulia unconscious and apparently needing an emergency tracheotomy, all rule out any possibility of Russian involvement while incriminating part or all of the UK leadership, military and intelligence services in an elaborate conspiracy. By her own admission, Colonel McCourt was a party to this crime, and present in the area where it took place – in Salisbury Maltings shopping centre. The two Russian tourists accused of the attempted murder were long gone however, as Luke Harding notes:

At 1.50pm the suspects were seen at Salisbury station, going through the ticket barriers on their way back to London. Nobody paid them much attention. By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.

It won’t matter how many files are destroyed and identities changed in the corridors of GCHQ and Whitehall, in a desperate attempt to disclaim this crime as a rogue operation – as is currently being done by the “Two Eyes”; the game is up.

And perhaps as a final act of penance and service to the nation, Colonel Alison McCourt will come forward to tell “the Nurse’s Tale” – at a full public enquiry into this monstrous crime against humanity, and her co-conspirators will bear the consequences.


US threatens ‘serious consequences’ if Venezuela arrests ‘president’ Guaido

US threatens ‘serious consequences’ if Venezuela arrests ‘president’ Guaido
al Security Advisor John Bolton has threatened the government in Caracas that he denounced as “illegitimate” not to lay a finger on Juan Guaido, the opposition figure Washington considers to be Venezuela’s president.

“Let me reiterate – there will be serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy and harm Guaido,”Bolton tweeted on Tuesday, addressing the “illegitimate former” attorney general of Venezuela who he said threatened the self-proclaimed president.

John Bolton


We denounce the illegitimate former Venezuelan Attorney General’s threats against President Juan Guaido. Let me reiterate – there will be serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy and harm Guaido.

Bolton’s threats came after Venezuelan AG Tarek Saab announced that Guaido would be investigated for “serious crimes that threaten the constitutional order.” The authorities may freeze Guaido’s bank accounts and seek to prevent him from leaving the country, local media reported.

On Monday, Bolton and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the US would seize all assets of Venezuela’s oil company PDVSA, and channel them into accounts that would be accessible only by Guaido or a new elected government the US would approve of.

John Bolton


Treasury Department


Treasury sanctions Venezuela’s state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A (PdVSA) to intensify pressure on Maduro regime and regime insiders: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm594 

Guaido declared himself president earlier this month, with the backing of Venezuela’s National Assembly – the legislature last elected in 2015, which the government in Caracas considers lapsed with the 2017 election of the Constitutional Assembly. President Nicolas Maduro was re-elected in May 2018, but the US-backed opposition has denounced him as a “usurper.”

The US, Canada, Australia and most of the OAS members have recognized Guaido as president, while Russia, China, Cuba and Bolivia have gone on the record in support of Maduro.

Maduro has denounced US meddling as an attempted coup and told the Trump administration on Monday to keep its “hands off” Venezuela.

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Hands off Venezuela’: Maduro slams Trump in English (VIDEO)Bolton’s threats come on the heels of his comments at the White House on Monday that many Venezuelan officers are considering defecting to Guaido’s side, and the excitement about a strategically visible scribble in his notepad about “5,000 troops to Colombia.” The government in Bogota, however, says it has no knowledge of any US troops arriving.

The US appears very serious about regime change in Caracas. Last week, the State Department appointed Elliott Abrams, a convicted Iran-Contra participant with a long sordid history in Latin America, as its point man on “bringing democracy” to Venezuela.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Maduro US e7630

Washington has chosen a president for Venezuela. I wonder if Trump saw the black humor in doing to Maduro what the Democrats and presstitutes are doing to him.

Few Latin American governments have ever had a government that represents the majority of indigenous people or a president who was not of Spanish descent. Chavez in Venezuela perhaps was the longest lasting indigenous leader. His successor Maduro is also indigenous.

Indigenous Latin American leaders are unacceptable to Washington because they tend to be reformers who represent their country’s people instead of American business and financial interests. Consequently, when a Latin electorate elects a leader who will put them first, Washington overthrows the leader. This is the history of US/Latin American relations.

In the 21st century alone Washington has overthrown the elected presidents of Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela and overturned the independence of Ecuador that had provided asylum protection for Julian Assange. Washington’s coup with the Spanish elite against Chavez in Venezuela initially succeeded. Chavez was in captivity, but before he could be murdered the Venezuelan people and military forced his release.

Chavez, either because he lacked the power to move against the traitorous Spanish elite or because he chose to display magnanimity, did not hold those responsible who participated in the coup against his life and Venezuelan sovereignty. Washington’s agents, the Spanish elite, were not arrested and retained their control over the media and the economy. Venezuela has substantial oil revenues, but they do not reach the government’s budget or protect the value of the currency. I do not know who controls the Venezuelan oil, but it appears the revenues are being stolen. As it seems unlikely the Spanish elites would permit the indigenous people to control the oil business, possibly the oil revenues are what funds, along with Washington, the anti-Maduro opposition. If the Maduro government is stealing the revenues, then the government is committing suicide.

Consequently, Washington and its Venezuelan vassals have had a free hand against Maduro. The whores who comprise the Western media have served Washington’s demonization of Maduro, an elected president that Washington calls a dictator. In the election that re-elected Maduro, Washington instructed the traditional Venezuelan oligarchy to boycott the election. That allowed Washington to claim that Maduro was not legitimately elected.

Of course, if there had been any chance of Washington and its Spanish vassals winning the election, they most certainly would not have boycotted it. But the whores who constitute the American media have no integrity and thereby no problem in overlooking the fact that Venezuelans prefer Maduro to Washington’s Spanish vassals.

Washington using sanctions and economic punishments has been trying for years to destabilize Venezuela in order to bring down the government and install Washington’s agent as president. This policy has cruelly punished the Venezuelan people, but nevertheless, they have clung to their indigenous leadership. The other day Washington organized a military coup, but few participated and it was easily put down.

Defeated on these fronts, Washington had Trump and Pence declare that Maduro was not the president of Venezuela and that Washington recognized its agent in the legislature as president. Pence called for the newly anointed president to overthrow the Maduro government and threatened Maduro with invasion if he acted against Washington’s designated president.

Maduro’s response, a number of years late, was to order all US diplomats out of Venezuela. Washington replied that as Washington does not recognize Maduro’s government as legitimate, Maduro lacks the authority to throw them out. The US diplomats will remain and continue the conspiracy against Maduro.

Here we have a situation in which Washington, not the Venezuelan people, has chosen the president of Venezuela and refuses to accept the Venezuelan government’s break of diplomatic relations.

As I write, indications are that Washington’s vassals in Canada and Europe are also withdrawing recognition from the legally elected government of Venezuela, conferring recognition instead on the unelected agent of American business and financial interests selected by Washington.

What does this say about the West? The West regards itself as the home of integrity, human rights, democracy, truth, and goodness. But in fact, the West is committed to supporting Washington’s suppression of Venezuelan self-determination.

What Washington is doing to Venezuela is a good lesson for the gullible Russian Atlanticist Integrationists and the gullible pro-western Chinese youth. As China’s Global Times put it: “For a long time, the US has been eager to replace international law with its geopolitical interests and values so as to legalize its interference” and hegemony over the world.

Putin expressed his support for the legitimacy of Maduro’s government and said that the Venezuelan internal political crisis was “provoked from outside the country.”

Will Washington announce tomorrow that the US has decided that Alexei Navalny, not Vladimir Putin, is president of Russia? Will Washington announce that the US no longer considers Xi Jinping to be China’s president, as his one party regime makes him illegitimate, and has replaced him with Tsai Lng-Wen?

How long will other powers tolerate Washington’s illegality and aggression?

How long will Americans tolerate the shame that Washington heaps upon their shoulders?

*(Artwork credit: Carlos Latuff/ Mintpress News)