If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk March 21, 2017

Paletines horizonJewish history is a chain of disasters: inquisitions, holocausts and pogroms. Time after time, throughout their history, Jews find themselves discriminated against, persecuted and expelled and, to most Jews, this continuum of tragedy is largely a mystery. Yet one would expect that Jews, clever people for sure, would peer into their past, understand it and take whatever measures necessary to change their fate.
I was born and raised in Israel and it was many years before I realised that Israel was Palestine. When I was a young Israeli boy, the Holocaust and Jewish suffering were somehow foreign to me and my peers. It was the history of a different people, namely the diaspora Jews and we young Israelis didn’t much like their Jewish past. We didn’t want to associate ourselves with those people, so hated by so many, so often and in so many different places. Erasing two thousand years of imaginary ‘exile’, we saw ourselves as the sons and daughters of our Biblical ‘ancestors.’ We were proud youngsters and we were disgusted by victimhood.
So Jewish suffering has, in many ways, been a riddle to me. But yesterday, at the London School of Economics (LSE), I witnessed a spectacle of Jewish bad behaviour, so incredible, that much that hitherto had been unclear, suddenly became all too clear.
Yesterday, at a talk given by one of the greatest humanists of our generation, Professor. Richard Falk, it took Israel-advocate Jonathan Hoffman just sixty minutes of intensive hooliganism to cause him to be ejected from the hall.  As Hoffman and his associate were thrown out of the building, the entire room expressed their feelings by shouting “Out, out, out”
Hoffman wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill thug. Waving his Jewish nationalist symbols, he was acting openly as a Jewish-ethnic activist. Later I learned that he is associated with many Jewish and Zionist institutions: BOD, Zionist Federation and so on.
Behaving as he did with total disrespect to an academic institution, did Hoffman think that the LSE was some kind of yeshiva or perhaps just his local synagogue? I guess not. My guess is he just assumed that, like so many spaces in our country today, the LSE was simply ‘occupied’. It seems that merely the presence in a room of just one Zionist is enough to transform that room into occupied territory.
Never in my life have I seen an entire room so united in its outrage and if anyone within the Jewish community believes that hooliganism a la Hoffman & co is going to make Jews popular, they are wrong. Judging by the reaction I witnessed in the LSE yesterday, there is now total fatigue with Zionist thought control, book burning and brutality.
But I would also like to use this opportunity to issue a sincere apology. In Falk’s book launch yesterday, I suggested to a Palestinian supporter that, rather than reading Jewish historian David Cesarani on the Holocaust, he may like to give David Irving a try. Some Jewish students were outraged by my comment so I would like here to correct my statement, to make it more inclusive and categorical. Don’t just read David Irving. If you genuinely want to understand the world around you, make sure you hear every voice these people want to suppress and read every text these people try to burn.
If they want to burn it, you want to read it!
Once you’ve read it, you decide whether the text should make it to your bookshelves – or to the pyre.
So to Jewish thought-controllers and book burners, both Zionist and ‘anti’: You have clearly launched a war against academic freedom. You are engaged in thought-control and book burning. You have begun a fight with core Western values: openness, scholarship, tolerance. All those things associated, not with Jerusalem, but with Athens. I have no doubt that in this war you may win some battles, you may manage to cancel a talk here and there, you may even manage to burn a book or two.  But you will lose the war. Freedom will prevail, for the yearning  for freedom is engraved in the human soul.
I urge Jews and Jewish institutions to consider carefully whether their behaviour really serves Jewish interests. As the author of the most read book on Jewish identity politics, I can see in the making, a disaster.
Beware.

Source

CIA, FBI Confirm Wikileaks Was Right, It Wasn’t The Russians

Lisa's leaks - 'Madness in the Magnolias'

Well, it seems as if the CIA and FBI have finally decided to ditch the MSM’s narrative of ‘Russians hacked and leaked,’ and are now admitting (by launch of a “insider” manhunt) that perhaps Wikileaks had it right all along.  A traitor on the inside was the real hack and leak!

CBS reports:

“CBS News has learned that a manhunt is underway for a traitor inside the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA and FBI are conducting a joint investigation into one of the worst security breaches in CIA history, which exposed thousands of top-secret documents that described CIA tools used to penetrate smartphones, smart televisions and computer systems.

Sources familiar with the investigation say it is looking for an insider — either a CIA employee or contractor — who had physical access to the material. The agency has not said publicly when the material was taken or how it was stolen.

Much of the material…

View original post 487 more words

There Are No Rape Charges Against Julian Assange in Sweden. There Are Espionage Charges Against Julian Assange in the USA.

There Are No Rape Charges Against Julian Assange in Sweden. There Are Espionage Charges Against Julian Assange in the USA. 

A few months ago I asked Julian whether he expected that Donald Trump would end the case against him in the United States. WikiLeaks had after all published the DNC and Podesta emails, which revealed the corruption at the heart of the Clinton campaign and the way the Democratic primaries had been rigged against Bernie Sanders.

Julian replied that no, he expected the opposite to be true. Trump would feel the need to be openly active against Assange to show that there had been no relationship between him and WikiLeaks. Julian was of course right, and Trump’s Attorney-General has announced that the United States wants to extradite Assange on charges of espionage related to the Snowden revelations of mass illegal government surveillance.

It is worth noting that this is not really new. The Obama administration was sitting on sealed indictments against Assange for years. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other President in history. Having come to power promising to take action against senior CIA figures for waterboarding, the only person his Administration prosecuted – and jailed – over it was John Kiriakou for blowing the whistle on waterboarding.

Obama’s policy of not confirming or denying the charges against Assange in the States, enabled the media propagandists to pour scorn on Assange’s repeated insistence he was in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid extradition not to Sweden, but to the USA. That is now undeniable.

There are no rape charges against Assange in Sweden. There are espionage charges against Assange in the USA.

The evidence in the Swedish Assange allegations was originally reviewed by the chief prosecutor in Stockholm who declared there was no case to answer. It was then taken up – as allowed in the Swedish system – by a second prosecutor, Marianne NY, who has a campaigning third wave feminist agenda.

The European Arrest Warrant against Assange was signed not by any court, but by Marianne Ny. It was not on the basis that he was charged with any offence, but that he was wanted for questioning by the prosecutor. This can never happen again – UK law was subsequently changed so only a court, not a prosecutor, must sign the warrant.

Questioning is now complete. Assange has still not been charged. And yet his legal status according to the UK government is still that he is pending extradition for questioning – even though the questioning finished in the Ecuador Embassy last November.

The sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden have always been risible when considered in detail. The physical evidence against Assange is faked. The condom he allegedly wore and furtively ripped during intercourse with Anna Ardin contains none of his DNA – a physical impossibility had he worn it.

Assange’s DNA is present in another condom provided by Sofia Wilen, but there is no dispute the pair had consensual sex with that condom. What is alleged is that after drowsing off post-coitus, Assange initiated sex a second time while Wilen was still, in her own words “half asleep”, so she was not able to give fully informed consent. Assange adamantly denies this.

The women were questioned six years ago, as was Assange. All the physical evidence was collected and assessed. For five years Assange has been proclaiming his willingness to be questioned by Swedish authorities inside the Ecuadorean Embassy. Marianne Ny did nothing. The fact that there was no viable case against Assange and no genuine investigation in progress, was a determining factor in the decision of the extremely eminent international jurists of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, that Assange is being arbitrarily detained and should be freed. The UK and Swedish governments accepted the UN process and fully participated in it, and then appealed and lost again, but still refuse to accept the result. Neither the UK nor Sweden has ever failed to support any other decision of the UN Working Group.

Eventually Marianne Ny was forced by legal action by Assange to assure the Swedish Supreme Court she would move the investigation forward. Finally last November a Swedish prosecutor and Swedish policeman questioned Assange, over two days, in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Remember this was a follow up to his initial interview in Sweden six years ago. Julian also at the questioning in November gave an extremely comprehensive written statement.

The questioning was in November. It is now nearly May. The police and prosecutor had had six years to assess and analyse all the other evidence – including the testimony of the women and their text messages, which are crucial to the case. The follow up Assange questioning was the last thing Marianne Ny had to drag it out.

Yet there are still no charges. There are still no charges. Assange’s status is still that he is wanted for questioning, even though the questioning is all done. The Swedish establishment, an extremely tight knit and closed apparatus, appears unwilling to bite the bullet of admitting the whole has been nonsense. The tactic appears to be to sit it out another couple of years until the statute of limitations kicks in, and thus avoid admitting there was never a case.

You would have to be profoundly deaf not to hear the tramp of authoritarian boots currently marching all over the body politic of western societies. With racism, intolerance and the security state in the ascendant, now we need whistleblowers (and their publishers) more than ever. Those on the left who were distracted by the CIA’s “rape” dog whistle need to rediscover their critical faculties and get behind WikiLeaks.

There are no rape charges against Julian Assange in Sweden. There are espionage charges against Julian Assange in the USA.

The lies against Assange and WikiLeaks are no longer tenable.

Banker: I Was Told To Sacrifice Children At An Illuminati Party

Nwo Report

Dutch banker Ronald Bernard was asked to sacrifice a child at a party. That is when he quit the Illuminati.

Dutch banker Ronald Bernard was asked to sacrifice a child at a party. That is when he quit the Illuminati.

Describing his experiences in the banking Illuminati in an gut-wrenching TV interview, Ronald shared details about the way the cabal uses child sacrifice to test and blackmail its members.

“I was warned off when I got into this – don’t do this unless you can put your conscience 100% in the freezer. I heard myself laugh at it back then, but it wasn’t a joke at all.”

“I was training to become a psychopath and I failed.”

Describing the period his “freezer began to malfunction”, Ronald tells a story about crashing the Italian economy and bankrupting companies leading to suicides and destruction – a success worth celebrating, according to his banker colleagues.

“One of my colleagues said, ‘Ronald, you remember that case with the Italian lira? Do you remember…

View original post 1,005 more words

Why Not a Probe of ‘Israel-gate’?

Why Not a Probe of ‘Israel-gate’?

Robert Parry — Consortium News April 20, 2017

Trump at 2016 AIPAC conference

The other day, I asked a longtime Democratic Party insider who is working on the Russia-gate investigation which country interfered more in U.S. politics, Russia or Israel. Without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Israel, of course.”

Which underscores my concern about the hysteria raging across Official Washington about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 presidential campaign: There is no proportionality applied to the question of foreign interference in U.S. politics. If there were, we would have a far more substantive investigation of Israel-gate.

The problem is that if anyone mentions the truth about Israel’s clout, the person is immediately smeared as “anti-Semitic” and targeted by Israel’s extraordinarily sophisticated lobby and its many media/political allies for vilification and marginalization.

So, the open secret of Israeli influence is studiously ignored, even as presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both appeared before AIPAC in 2016, with Clinton promising to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship “to the next level” – whatever that meant – and Trump vowing not to “pander” and then pandering like crazy.

Congress is no different. It has given Israel’s controversial Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a record-tying three invitations to address joint sessions of Congress (matching the number of times British Prime Minister Winston Churchill appeared). We then witnessed the Republicans and Democrats competing to see how often their members could bounce up and down and who could cheer Netanyahu the loudest, even when the Israeli prime minister was instructing the Congress to follow his position on Iran rather than President Obama’s.

Israeli officials and AIPAC also coordinate their strategies to maximize political influence, which is derived in large part by who gets the lobby’s largesse and who doesn’t. On the rare occasion when members of Congress step out of line – and take a stand that offends Israeli leaders – they can expect a well-funded opponent in their next race, a tactic that dates back decades.

Well-respected members, such as Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy (both Republicans from Illinois), were early victims of the Israeli lobby’s wrath when they opened channels of communication with the Palestine Liberation Organization in the cause of seeking peace. Findley was targeted and defeated in 1982; Percy in 1984.

Findley recounted his experience in a 1985 book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, in which Findley called the lobby “the 700-pound gorilla in Washington.” The book was harshly criticized in a New York Times review by Adam Clymer, who called it “an angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents.”

Enforced Silence

Since then, there have been fewer and fewer members of Congress or other American politicians who have dared to speak out, judging that – when it comes to the Israeli lobby – discretion is the better part of valor. Today, many U.S. pols grovel before the Israeli government seeking a sign of favor from Prime Minister Netanyahu, almost like Medieval kings courting the blessings of the Pope at the Vatican.

During the 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama, whom Netanyahu viewed with suspicion, traveled to Israel to demonstrate sympathy for Israelis within rocket-range of Gaza while steering clear of showing much empathy for the Palestinians.

In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney tried to exploit the tense Obama-Netanyahu relationship by stopping in Israel to win a tacit endorsement from Netanyahu. The 2016 campaign was no exception with both Clinton and Trump stressing their love of Israel in their appearances before AIPAC.

Money, of course, has become the lifeblood of American politics – and American supporters of Israel have been particularly strategic in how they have exploited that reality.

Sheldon Adelson. Click to enlarge

One of Israel’s most devoted advocates, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, has poured millions of dollars in “dark money” into political candidates and groups that support Israel’s interests. Adelson, who has advocated dropping a nuclear bomb inside Iran to coerce its government, is a Trump favorite having donated a record $5 million to Trump’s inaugural celebration.

Of course, many Israel-connected political donations are much smaller but no less influential. A quarter century ago, I was told how an aide to a Democratic foreign policy chairman, who faced a surprisingly tough race after redistricting, turned to the head of AIPAC for help and, almost overnight, donations were pouring in from all over the country. The chairman was most thankful.

The October Surprise Mystery

Israel’s involvement in U.S. politics also can be covert. For instance, the evidence is now overwhelming that the Israeli government of right-wing Prime Minister Menachem Begin played a key role in helping Ronald Reagan’s campaign in 1980 strike a deal with Iran to frustrate President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages before Election Day.

Begin despised Carter for the Camp David Accords that forced Israel to give back the Sinai to Egypt. Begin also believed that Carter was too sympathetic to the Palestinians and – if he won a second term – would conspire with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to impose a two-state solution on Israel.

Begin’s contempt for Carter was not even a secret. In a 1991 book, The Last Option, senior Israeli intelligence and foreign policy official David Kimche explained Begin’s motive for dreading Carter’s reelection. Kimche said Israeli officials had gotten wind of “collusion” between Carter and Sadat “to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Kimche continued, “This plan prepared behind Israel’s back and without her knowledge must rank as a unique attempt in United States’s diplomatic history of short-changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation.”

But Begin recognized that the scheme required Carter winning a second term in 1980 when, Kimche wrote, “he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.”

President Jimmy Carter signing the Camp David peace agreement with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin. Click to enlarge

In a 1992 memoir, Profits of War, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe also noted that Begin and other Likud leaders held Carter in contempt.

“Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,” Ben-Menashe wrote. “As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel’s back.”

So, in order to buy time for Israel to “change the facts on the ground” by moving Jewish settlers into the West Bank, Begin felt Carter’s reelection had to be prevented. A different president also presumably would give Israel a freer hand to deal with problems on its northern border with Lebanon.

Ben-Menashe was among a couple of dozen government officials and intelligence operatives who described how Reagan’s campaign, mostly through future CIA Director William Casey and past CIA Director George H.W. Bush, struck a deal in 1980 with senior Iranians who got promises of arms via Israel in exchange for keeping the hostages through the election and thus humiliating Carter. (The hostages were finally released on Jan. 20, 1981, after Reagan was sworn in as President.)

Discrediting History

Though the evidence of the so-called October Surprise deal is far stronger than the current case for believing that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign, Official Washington and the mainstream U.S. media have refused to accept it, deeming it a “conspiracy theory.”

One of the reasons for the hostility directed against the 1980 case was the link to Israel, which did not want its hand in manipulating the election of a U.S. president to become an accepted part of American history. So, for instance, the Israeli government went to great lengths to discredit Ben-Menashe after he began to speak with reporters and to give testimony to the U.S. Congress.

When I was a Newsweek correspondent and first interviewed Ben-Menashe in 1990, the Israeli government initially insisted that he was an impostor, that he had no connection to Israeli intelligence.

However, when I obtained documentary evidence of Ben-Menashe’s work for a military intelligence unit, the Israelis admitted that they had lied but then insisted that he was just a low-level translator, a claim that was further contradicted by other documents showing that he had traveled widely around the world on missions to obtain weapons for the Israel-to-Iran arms pipeline.

Nevertheless, the Israeli government along with sympathetic American reporters and members of the U.S. Congress managed to shut down any serious investigation into the 1980 operation, which was, in effect, the prequel to Reagan’s Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of 1984-86. Thus, U.S. history was miswritten. [For more details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen NarrativeSecrecy & Privilege; and Trick or Treason.]

Looking back over the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, it is clear that Israel exercised significant influence over U.S. presidents since its founding in 1948, but the rise of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party in the 1970s – led by former Jewish terrorists Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir – marked a time when Israel shed any inhibitions about interfering directly in U.S. politics.

Much as Begin and Shamir engaged in terror attacks on British officials and Palestinian civilians during Israel’s founding era, the Likudniks who held power in 1980 believed that the Zionist cause trumped normal restraints on their actions. In other words, the ends justified the means.

In the 1980s, Israel also mounted spying operations aimed at the U.S. government, including those of intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard, who fed highly sensitive documents to Israel and – after being caught and spending almost three decades in prison – was paroled and welcomed as a hero inside Israel.

A History of Interference

But it is true that foreign interference in U.S. politics is as old as the American Republic. In the 1790s, French agents – working with the Jeffersonians – tried to rally Americans behind France’s cause in its conflict with Great Britain. In part to frustrate the French operation, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In the Twentieth Century, Great Britain undertook covert influence operations to ensure U.S. support in its conflicts with Germany, while German agents unsuccessfully sought the opposite.

So, the attempts by erstwhile allies and sometimes adversaries to move U.S. foreign policy in one direction or another is nothing new, and the U.S. government engages in similar operations in countries all over the world, both overtly and covertly.

It was the CIA’s job for decades to use propaganda and dirty tricks to ensure that pro-U.S. politicians were elected or put in power in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa, pretty much everywhere the U.S. government perceived some interest. After the U.S. intelligence scandals of the 1970s, however, some of that responsibility was passed to other organizations, such as the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

NED, USAID and various “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) finance activists, journalists and other operatives to undermine political leaders who are deemed to be obstacles to U.S. foreign policy desires.

In particular, NED has been at the center of efforts to flip elections to U.S.-backed candidates, such as in Nicaragua in 1990, or to sponsor “color revolutions,” which typically organize around some color as the symbol for mass demonstrations. Ukraine – on Russia’s border – has been the target of two such operations, the Orange Revolution in 2004, which helped install anti-Russian President Viktor Yushchenko, and the Maidan ouster of elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

NED president Carl Gershman, a neoconservative who has run NED since its founding in 1983, openly declared that Ukraine was “the biggest prize” in September 2013 — just months before the Maidan protests — as well as calling it an important step toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2016, Gershman called directly for regime change in Russia.

The Neoconservatives

Neoconservative all starsAnother key issue related to Israeli influence inside the United States is the role of the neocons, a political movement that emerged in the 1970s as a number of hawkish Democrats migrated to the Republican Party as a home for more aggressive policies to protect Israel and take on the Soviet Union and Arab states.

In some European circles, the neocons are described as “Israel’s American agents,” which may somewhat overstate the direct linkage between Israel and the neocons although a central tenet of neocon thinking is that there must be no daylight between the U.S. and Israel. The neocons say U.S. politicians must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel even if that means the Americans sidling up to the Israelis rather than any movement the other way.

Since the mid-1990s, American neocons have worked closely with Benjamin Netanyahu. Several prominent neocons (including former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and Robert Loewenberg) advised Netanyahu’s 1996 campaign and urged a new strategy for “securing the realm.” Essentially, the idea was to replace negotiations with the Palestinians and Arab states with “regime change” for governments that were viewed as troublesome to Israel, including Iraq and Syria.

By 1998, the Project for the New American Century (led by neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan) was pressuring President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, a plan that was finally put in motion in 2003 under President George W. Bush.

But the follow-on plans to go after Syria and Iran were delayed because the Iraq War turned into a bloody mess, killing some 4,500 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Bush could not turn to phase two until near the end of his presidency and then was frustrated by a U.S. intelligence estimate concluding that Iran was not working on a nuclear bomb (which was to be the pretext for a bombing campaign).

Bush also could pursue “regime change” in Syria only as a proxy effort of subversion, rather than a full-scale U.S. invasion. President Barack Obama escalated the Syrian proxy war in 2011 with the support of Israel and its strange-bedfellow allies in Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni-ruled Gulf States, which hated Syria’s government because it was allied with Shiite-ruled Iran — and Sunnis and Shiites have been enemies since the Seventh Century. Israel insists that the U.S. take the Sunni side, even if that puts the U.S. in bed with Al Qaeda.

But Obama dragged his heels on a larger U.S. military intervention in Syria and angered Netanyahu further by negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program rather than bomb-bomb-bombing Iran.

Showing the Love

Obama’s perceived half-hearted commitment to Israeli interests explained Romney’s campaign 2012 trip to seek Netanyahu’s blessings. Even after winning a second term, Obama sought to appease Netanyahu by undertaking a three-day trip to Israel in 2013 to show his love.

Still, in 2015, when Obama pressed ahead with the Iran nuclear agreement, Netanyahu went over the President’s head directly to Congress where he was warmly received, although the Israeli prime minister ultimately failed to sink the Iran deal.

Trump and Netanyahu. Click to enlarge

In Campaign 2016, both Clinton and Trump wore their love for Israel on their sleeves, Clinton promising to take the relationship to “the next level” (a phrase that young couples often use when deciding to go from heavy petting to intercourse). Trump reminded AIPAC that he had a Jewish grandchild and vowed to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Both also bristled with hatred toward Iran, repeating the popular falsehood that “Iran is the principal source of terrorism” when it is Saudi Arabia and other Sunni sheikdoms that have been the financial and military supporters of Al Qaeda and Islamic State, the terror groups most threatening to Europe and the United States.

By contrast to Israel’s long history of playing games with U.S. politics, the Russian government stands accused of trying to undermine the U.S. political process recently by hacking into emails of the Democratic National Committee — revealing the DNC’s improper opposition to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s campaign — and of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — disclosing the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street and pay-to-play aspects of the Clinton Foundation — and sharing that information with the American people via WikiLeaks.

Although WikiLeaks denies getting the two batches of emails from the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community says it has high confidence in its conclusions about Russian meddling and the mainstream U.S. media treats the allegations as flat-fact.

The U.S. intelligence community also has accused the Russian government of raising doubts in the minds of Americans about their political system by having RT, the Russian-sponsored news network, hold debates for third-party candidates (who were excluded from the two-party Republican-Democratic debates) and by having RT report on protests such as Occupy Wall Street and issues such as “fracking.”

The major U.S. news media and Congress seem to agree that the only remaining question is whether evidence can be adduced showing that the Trump campaign colluded in this Russian operation. For that purpose, a number of people associated with the Trump campaign are to be hauled before Congress and made to testify on whether or not they are Russian agents.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other establishment-approved outlets are working with major technology companies on how to marginalize independent news sources and to purge “Russian propaganda” (often conflated with “fake news”) from the Internet.

It seems that no extreme is too extreme to protect the American people from the insidious Russians and their Russia-gate schemes to sow doubt about the U.S. political process. But God forbid if anyone were to suggest an investigation of Israel-gate.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com)

French Embrace Rothschild Flunkie

French Embrace Rothschild Flunkie

April 23, 2017

Comment-Emmanuel-Macron-est-tombe-amoureux-de-sa-femme-a-17-ans_portrait_w674.jpg
(Macron married his highschool teacher, the victim of a facelift mishap, 24 years his senior. 
She is now 63. There are rumors he is a homosexual)
A Rothschild frontman seems poised to 
become the next president of France.
The French embrace national suicide. 
“Terror” wasn’t even an issue. The 
Rothschilds continue to
govern through blackmailed cutouts. 
 
Source — Originally appeared at Vzglyad; Appeared in Bulgarian at Memoriabg, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront
(Abridged by henrymakow.com) 
Emmanuel Macron, the photogenic 39-years-old financier with an amazing career became the leader of the presidential race in France with 23.8% of the vote, followed by Marine Le Pen with 21.7%. According to opinion polls, he will reach the second round with Marine Le Pen, where he will win 66 percent of the votes.
Emmanuel Macron … has no real political experience. He has not been elected anywhere before….He is an investment banker specializing in mergers and acquisitions and was successful in his career. He graduated from the National School of Administration, a leading university for the French elite. He worked for several years as an inspector at the Ministry of Economy. Then in 2007, a crucial year in his career, the promising 29-year-old economist was groomed by [Rothschild’s Jewish lickspittle] Jacques Attali.

atali.jpg

Jacques Attali (left) is a philosopher-globalist, a writer of colorful utopias of how all nations and states will disappear from the face of the earth during bloody conflicts, and the survivors of humanity will unite under the banner of democracy and under the control of a World Government. Moreover, for many years Attali was well received at the Elysee Palace and is one of the most influential advisers of generations of French presidents, from François Mitterrand to Francois Hollande. Local media, calling him “the true president of France” is hardly exaggerating.
It is Jacques Attali who created the link between financial capital and the elite of the ruling Socialist Party, which he supports. He is exceptional in his ability to skillfully wrap the predatory plans of the bankers in beautiful leftist slogans.
MIGRATION = LOW COST LABOR
In 2008, the Attali Commission presented to President Nicolas Sarkozy “300 proposals to change France” – a plan for modernization of the economy meant to save it from the long years of stagnation. The main idea can be formulated as follows: to avoid losing its competitiveness in the global market, the country must drastically reduce the cost of labor. One way for this to happen is to increase immigration to France; low-paid recent immigrants, who will not be able to get organized in trade unions, will displace the local workers from manufacturing and services. Also, the plan includes the proposal to drastically reduce government spending on health, education and pension provision. Sarkozy did not dare to accept this radical plan.

david-de-r.jpg

During his stay at the Commission, Macron managed to win the sympathy of Attali, who soon introduced him to his friend, Francois Enron. Enron, in turn, is the best friend and main partner of David de Rothschild, left. In 2008 Macron was hired by the Rothschild’s & Co Banque where he rose from analyst to partner. His commissions exceeded more than one million euros per year.
Macron’s biggest heist was his involvement in the purchase by Nestle of the US drug maker Pfizer’s baby food division (for $ 11.85 billion). At that time, Matthew Pigasse, director of the French branch of the Lazard Brothers bank, who wanted to make the same purchase for his client, Danone, but failed. So Macron found his greatest enemy in the face of Matthew Pigasse.
In 2010, Pigasse who is a leftist banker and a friend and patron of the French socialists, planned to become an economic adviser to Francois Hollande but the ubiquitous Jacques Attali recommended Emmanuel Macron to Hollande.  For several years Macron, perfectly fluent in English and German, was liaison between the top-socialist of France and the foreign financial circles. As the Guardian noted maliciously, while Hollande was shouting at rallies “My main enemy is the financial capital!” the banking officer of Rothschild, Macron, was flying to London City to assure bankers that under President Hollande everything would remain as usual.
In 2012, Hollande became president and Macron left the Rothschild Bank. He was appointed deputy secretary general of the Elysee Palace. In 2014, in his position of “young reformer”, he headed the Ministry of Economy and Industry (taking the place of longtime friend and business partner of Pigasse, Arnaud Montebourg). Hollande gives him carte blanche for activities related to the modernization of the economy and Macron presents a bill with more than 300 sections, providing for the liberalization of the French market. Experts say that the nature of the law of Macron embodies all the ideas of the Attali commission. In it, embedded and encouraged are immigration, downsizing of employees, increased competition within the various professions, indirectly increased is the working day at the expense of Sundays and night shifts.
The working people in France did not approve this bill. The discussion was accompanied by massive protests. There was no chance to pass the law in parliament. Hollande then exercised his right to adopt certain bills without the approval of parliament and in August 2015 approved the “Law of Macron”. Interestingly, before becoming president, Hollande sharply criticized this presidential law and even called it “fascist”.
YET ANOTHER DARK HORSE
In 2016, when the rating of Hollande was embarrassingly low something unusual started to happen around Emmanuel Macron. Thus, out of nowhere a movement, “Youth for Macron” arose. It is difficult to even imagine the youth uniting suddenly around such an unpopular minister of economy in a country with depressed economy. However, several thousand people turned out to participate in the new movement.
Macron founded his own party with the vague name “Forward!” (En marche!) The rallies began to gather huge crowds and this at a time when the socialists gathered with great effort several hundred people at their events. Macron’s program was also unclear.  Condemning the terrorist attacks, he has no plans to close borders or restrict immigration; promising to increase the country’s military spending he does not distance it from NATO. In fact, Macron remains the same globalist, an exemplary pupil of Jacques Attali, focusing on the slogans of European unity. He criticized both the left and right, trying to distract voters who traditionally vote for the Socialists, and also to attract those for whom the National Front of Marine Le Pen is too radical.
With his sudden appearance in politics Macron got off at an incredible rate. Journalists literally carry him in their arms. Women’s magazines call him a new sex symbol and a dream for any French woman. Influential newspapers highlight the advantages of his centrist position. Sociologists predict his victory. And no one reveals something serious to discredit him. In January, when some criticism undermined the chances of his main competitors, Marine Le Pen and Francois Fillon, Macron stayed out of any scandals.
PRIVATE LIFE 
Paradoxically – and thus potentially “lethal” for a French politician – may seem the private life of Macron but the media painted a purely romantic story out of it. The point is that the wife of the favorite in the presidential race (Brigitte Trogneux, editor’s note.) is 24 years older than him. In 2007, on his wedding day he was 29 and she was 53 years old. Macron told reporters that he fell in love with his future wife when he was 15 years old, when she taught French in his school. Meanwhile, he graduated from high school and university, travelled the world, built a career, but during all these 14 years he is faithful to his first love.
Despite its implausibility, the story appeals to journalists. Pictures of Macron, walking hand in hand with his wife, or Macron with a bottle of baby food, feeding her grandchildren were published by all the newspapers in the country. Fashion magazines proclaimed his wife for “an icon of style”. In terms of political technologies this was a good move: France is aging, and more ladies in retirement are among voters.  For them now there is an abundance of movies in which young handsome men fall in love with an old lady. The family idyll of Macron is designed for them and projected on them. It is also true that the tabloids periodically run rumors that Macron’s lover is the President of Radio France, Matthew Galle, but there is no evidence.

– See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/04/french-embrace-rothschild-status-quo.html#sthash.Ibzwkf7B.dpuf

George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was Cold War Propaganda

George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was Cold War Propaganda

April 22, 2017

cartoon-sales-1984.jpg
Liberals compared Trump’s victory to
some Orwellian nightmare when in fact 
totalitarianism has been the policy of the deep state for many decades.
Here, John Hamer traces the source of Orwell’s “success”
to the Cold War and the CIA’s desire to tar Communism. 
Ironically, Orwell’s accurate prophecy of human servitude 
was a product of the Ministry of Truth.
 
 
The Cold War was a false dialectic; Freemasonry was/is behind both East and West. Despite 1984-style mass surveillance, people don’t appreciate that Orwell’s vision has come true. The West has transitioned to Communism without the fuss and bother of a revolution, but the downside is that no one has noticed.
 
 
 
by John Hamer
(henrymakow.com) 
 
Many are now comparing the Trump administration to ‘Big Brother’ and his cohorts in George Orwell’s dystopian vision of the future, ‘1984.’
Ironically, Trump, despite originally being seen as a ‘new broom’ to sweep clean the filthy Augean stables known as American politics, has in fact turned out to be simply the latest in a long line of ‘puppet’ Presidents whose election promises were immediately discarded. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
The truth is that far from being a  democratic society, what we have in place is a situation akin to that of Orwell’s ‘1984,’ whereby politicians are not elected, but selected and represent only the Elite powers who operate clandestinely, anonymously behind the scenes.

1984-Big-Brother.jpg

‘1984,’ a grim novel of future totalitarianism and Orwell’s satirical novel, ‘Animal Farm,’ described state oppression succinctly. But ironically, Orwell had unknowingly fallen into the clutches of the very propagandists and distorters of truth he vilified. His publisher, Fredric Warburg, was a secret CIA asset who later produced the CIA propaganda magazine ‘Encounter,’ for one of the CIA’s countless ‘front’ organizations, Congress for Cultural Freedom.
‘Animal Farm’ was published in the same month of the German surrender, May 1945, the perfect moment to launch a concerted attack on Soviet policies.  The Cold War propaganda campaign embraced Animal Farm, which rapidly became a best-seller.
In 1948, the Information Research Department (IRD) was formed by the British Foreign Office, as an adjunct to MI6. ‘Animal Farm’ was in fact a core IRD project.  It was broadcast on ‘Voice of America,’ and Orwell helped the IRD strategize its vast worldwide circulation.
Orwell died of tuberculosis. But four months earlier, he had married Sonia Brownell, fifteen years his junior and subsequently, Warburg persuaded his widow to unwittingly sell the movie rights of 1984 and Animal Farm to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination (OPC,) a creation of Allen Dulles.  Sonia allegedly ceded the film rights toAnimal Farm only upon the promise of a ‘date’ with Clark Gable.CIA official Joe Bryan made the arrangements, ‘as a measure of thanks.’
The head of OPC was none other than E. Howard Hunt, future member of the Watergate gang of criminals who was also involved in the assassination of JFK.
 A British animation company, Halas and Batchelor, who during WW2 were heavily involved with government training and propaganda films, were awarded the contract to create the film and it was completed by a team of eighty animators, in April 1954.

AnimalFarm01.jpeg

It was in order to meet the CIA’s objectives, the film ended with other animals mounting a successful revolt against their rulers.  There was no mention of the humans in the film’s conclusion.  Had he lived to see it, Orwell would no doubt have been horrified at the way his ideas had been twisted to make political capital.
The film was a box office ‘hit’ but much of the book’s original intentions had been omitted.  It was later distributed around the world by the United States Information Agency through their overseas libraries. They then produced 1984 in Britain in 1956.  Inevitably, Orwell’s message was distorted and perverted again by the CIA.  The CIA’s ironically ‘Orwellian’ sabotage of two of the most powerful political works in literature was a masterstroke.
PROPAGANDA
By sabotaging the books’ real messages in the movie versions, the CIA effectively prevented the vast majority of people from ever learning of the true relevance of Orwell’s writings, to their own situations.
1984 has had a profound effect all around the world.  Since its first publication many of its concepts have entered modern day parlance, ‘Big Brother,’ ‘Doublethink,’ ‘Thoughtcrime,’ ‘Newspeak’ and ‘Room 101’ are all derived from its pages.  And perhaps even more significantly, ‘Orwellian’ has now become a term that describes official deception and manipulation by a totalitarian state.  Orwell’s vain hope was that by writing 1984 he would help stop such a state ever coming to pass.  Oh, the irony.

Orwell1984andTrumpsAmerica-690.jpg

However, 1984 is more than just a story, it is a prophecy and vision of what is planned for all of us.  The invisible yet ‘all-powerful’ ‘Big Brother,’ is now representative of the planned New World Order, of which Trump is the incumbent stooge.
‘Newspeak,’ as Orwell referred to it, is the authoritarian government’s weapon of choice for deceit and it works by placing a different meaning, or ‘spin,’ on events by altering words and replacing them with something which softens them and evades the truth. Modern politicians are without doubt trained in this facility and indeed have become thoroughly expert in its utilization, President Trump included.
The corporate state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the mainstream media, the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the materialism, devours us from the inside, out.  It owes no allegiance to us or our nations and it feeds greedily upon us.
But now the façade is crumbling and as Trump’s rapid, dramatic ‘fall from grace’ has demonstrated, more and more people are reaching the conclusion that they have been systematically duped and robbed, and realize that we are moving swiftly towards the world depicted in ‘1984.’
Ironically, the fact that we were given 1984  in the first place, was part of the process it describes.

– See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/04/1984-was-cold-war-propaganda%20.html#sthash.JFr2sjin.dpuf

Robust relationship between solar wind speed and North Atlantic Oscillation discovered

Watts Up With That?

Interdisciplinary studies reveal relationship between solar activity and climate change

Solar impacts on earth’s climate are most sensitive in polar and tropical Pacific regions and the monsoon activity plays a crucial role in the propagation of solar signal between different latitudes. CREDIT Ziniu Xiao

INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

The solar flux is considered the fundamental energy source of earth’s climate system on long time scales. In recent decades, some studies have noted that the tiny variations in solar activity could be amplified by the nonlinear process in climate system. Therefore, the astronomy factors, such as solar activity, present intriguing and cutting-edge questions to better understand climate change.

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this subject, studies in this field were insufficient in China. In 2012, China’s National Basic Research Program examined the impacts of astronomy and earth motion factors on climate change. Led by Prof. Ziniu…

View original post 339 more words

FBI Director James Comey ‘distrusted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch because she tried to play down the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails’

YOUR PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY

LAWLESSComey reportedly believed Lynch played down investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email and provided Clinton with political cover

  • During meeting in September 2015, Lynch reportedly called on Comey to use the word ‘matter’ instead of ‘investigation’ when publicly discussing the Clinton case
  • It was also revealed that Lynch did not want Comey to send a letter to Congress about the discovery of new emails relating to Clinton email investigation
  • Comey’s letter informed lawmakers emails were found in separate FBI probe into former Rep Anthony Weiner, husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin
  • After Clinton’s shocking defeat in the presidential election, she and her aides blamed the FBI and Comey as one reason why they lost 

MORE:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4436450/Comey-distrusted-former-Attorney-General-Loretta-Lynch.html

WEINER HUMA 1111111111111

View original post

A topnotch WordPress.com site

Historical Tribune

The Factual Review

Desultory Heroics

A Chronicle of Dystopia and Resistance

Astute News

The Science Of News And Analysis

70news

sharing news that matters to you

Taking Sides

Thinking Through and Against Received Opinion

The Last Refuge

Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com

Citizen WElls

Obama eligibility, Obama news

Burst Updates

Burst Updates, an explosion of news, politics, and opinions.

tomfernandez28's Blog

A topnotch WordPress.com site

The Free

blog of the post capitalist transition.. Read or download the novel here + latest relevant posts

The Writing of John Laurits

Insurgent journalism. Poetry. Weaponized Mathematics.

Hwaairfan's Blog

"We are all pieces of the puzzle of Truth, one piece missing and our self image is incomplete...Tawhid! !..."

whatyouthoughtiwentaway.wordpress.com/

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.”~ Ronald Reagan.

WebInvestigator.KK.org

Web Investigator.KK. org... is one web investigative resource for searching thousands of online sources, and public databases. This blog will change your life!

Johnsono ne'Blog'as

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Nwo Report

Nwo News, End Time, World News and Conspiracy News

Journal of People

Peasants and workers

Counter Information

Uncovering the mainstream media lies

pundit from another planet

the best news you can get without a security clearance

%d bloggers like this: