The Deep State Routinely Rigs Elections

The Deep State Routinely Rigs Elections

May 12, 2018


Another ultra-left cultural Marxist, Michael D. Higgins, won the 2011 Irish presidential election by a landslide, even though he was 19 points – yes 19 points! – behind in opinion polls conducted two days before the vote. Even more surprisingly, the RTE Teletext service, Eirtel, mistakenly published the exact margin of his victory before counting had begun. Seen with Bernie Sanders who had the 2016 Democratic nomination stolen from him in the primaries.

The uncanny ability of corporate media outlets to predict the precise outcome of elections and referendums before counting – or in some cases, even before voting – starts, recurs again and again. 

“Somehow, when push comes to shove, the popular populist never proves quite popular enough: In the end, David Duke bombed in 1992, just as Pat Buchanan bombed in 1996. Ditto Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002, Ron Paul in 2012, Nigel Farage in 2015, Gert Wilders in 2016, Marine Le Pen in 2017, Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries, and Roy Moore in the Alabama special election. Beginning to spot a pattern yet?”

(See the mind blowing First Comment by Kevin Boyle below the article.)

by Jude Duffy


Dublin- Elections are rigged. Don’t take my word for it: listen to U.S. presidents and presidential candidates, past and present.

In 2013 Jimmy Carter said America was no longer a functioning democracy (1). More than 50 years earlier JFK told Gore Vidal that Zionist mobsters stole the 1948 Presidential election for Freemason Harry S Truman ( 2) Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John McCain have all said fraud is widespread and game-changing in US elections (3).

When asked if he believed Presidential elections were above board, Rudy Giuliani put the matter succinctly: “Only a moron would say that.” (4).

It’s not just candidates who believe the deck is stacked: Donna Brazile, the former head of the Democratic National Committee admitted that the Dems rigged the 2016 primaries in order to shaft Bernie Sanders, and Democrat Senator, Elizabeth Warren agreed (5).

According to Robert F Kennedy Jr: “They [the Republicans] stole it [the Presidential election] in 2000 and they stole it in 2004” (6).


And it’s not just Americans: Nigel Farage insisted that his party’s defeat in a crucial 2015 UK by-election had been achieved through fraud (7), a view given credence by a British High Court Judge’s statement that Britain’s voting system would “shame a banana republic” (8).

And it’s not just the losers: Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai accused the BBC and the UN of rigging the 2009 presidential vote in his country (9). Sour grapes on his part? Not quite – he won the election!

Hard proof of election rigging abounds. The UK sovereignty campaigners Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson spotted blatant evidence of ballot stuffing in an English count center during the British general election of 2010. When they brought it to the attention of the authorities, they were threatened with arrest (10).

In the 2009 Irish European parliament elections, a chance recount of votes revealed that an anti-globalist candidate had 3,000 votes stolen from him and given to another candidate (11). In the context of a small country like Ireland, 3, OOO is a lot of votes.

Yes, the skeptics will retort, but a few examples don’t prove the whole system is rigged. Maybe not, but the non-reaction of the state and media surely does. The media and the Irish police completely ignored the recount story, a clear indication that they themselves collude in the rigging of Irish elections and referendums (ibid.). In any case, such examples could be multiplied a hundredfold – from Ireland, from the UK, from the US, and from just about every other western nation.

Sticking for the moment with Ireland, when lifelong Rothschild agent and radical lesbian feminist, Mary Robinson, supposedly won a surprise victory in the 1990 Irish presidential election, RTE, the Irish state TV network, reported that ballot boxes in rural and deeply conservative areas of the Irish midlands contained no votes for candidates other than Robinson – about as likely a scenario as David Duke topping the poll in Tel Aviv mayoral elections.

Another ultra-left cultural Marxist, Michael D. Higgins, won the 2011 Irish presidential election by a landslide, even though he was 19 points – yes 19 points! – behind in opinion polls conducted two days before the vote. Even more surprisingly, the RTE Teletext service, Eirtel, mistakenly published the exact margin of his victory before counting had begun.

Likewise, Reuters reported the exact margin of victory in a 2012 Irish referendum on a fiscal treaty imposed on the country by the global bankers – again before counting had begun (12).

This uncanny ability of corporate media outlets to predict the precise outcome of elections and referendums before counting – or in some cases, even before voting – starts, recurs again and again. The American vote fraud investigator Jim Condit Jr. has documented just how often the American TV networks accidentally broadcast the correct results of elections prior to polls closing, and sometimes even days in advance of the vote taking place (13).

Such eerie predictive powers often dovetail with an even eerier uniformity of official voting outcomes. Obama – who has admitted that both big parties in the US rig wholesale (14) – gained a whopping 100 percent of the votes in 59 districts in Philadelphia in the 2012 election (15). In the 2009 second Irish Lisbon EU referendum, there was a uniform 20 per cent swing to the pro-EU side in every single constituency.


In a nutshell, the issue of whether the Deep State rigs elections can be split into three sub-categories: Would they? Could they? Do they?

Let’s take the ‘Would they? question first. Those who organise and oversee elections and referendums in the western world are, broadly speaking, the same folk that organise and oversee the Neocon wars that kill millions; the same folk that promote abortion, euthanasia, transgenderism, paedophilia, nation destroying immigration, mass surveillance, false flag terror, bankster larceny, the pornification of society and much much more.

To know that they do all this stuff, and to then assume that they would draw the line at fixing elections and referendums is like expressing shocked disbelief upon being told that Charles Manson occasionally swiped french fries from his cellmate’s lunch plate. In the scale of globalist crimes, rigging elections and referendums is very small potatoes indeed.

The ‘Could they?’ question is even easier to settle. Combine hugely wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Goldman Sachs and Soros, with compromised public officials, cops on the take and politicians on the make, and you have a well-nigh infallible recipe for vote fixing.

Moreover, modern algorithm technology and the 21st-century craze for laying bare political and cultural allegiances on Facebook, Twitter and online forums, make rigging a piece of cake. If social media Deep State snoops don’t unearth your voting intentions, you can bet the embedded microphones and cameras in tech gadgets will. Google Chrome knows what food you get your pet hamster, so it’s safe to assume it also knows how you vote. With such information, planning the margins of vote fakery becomes something a maths major could formulate in an evening

Notice moreover that no matter how advanced the tech becomes, it never becomes quite advanced enough to facilitate the transparent online monitoring of elections and their aftermath. In a world of ubiquitous surveillance, the one thing that never gets surveilled is the counting of votes.

Who exactly is going to expose rigging? Corporate journalists? The same corporate journos that lied through their teeth about Saddam’s WMD and Ghaddafi “slaughtering his own people”? The same presstitutes that cover up or even justify the mass culling of Palestinians in the occupied territories? The same presstitutes that collude in the Deep State’s sponsorship of Isis and Al Qaeda, and the huge waves of nation -changing migration that flow from it? The same degenerate crew that promotes transgenderism for 7-year-olds?

Alternative types sometimes use the metaphor of ‘the rigged casino’ to describe modern western politics. True enough; the Anglo-Masonic Zio-Deep State controls the media, the banks, big business, the NGOs on left and the right, the courts, the publishing industry, the movie industry, the music business, the unions, the churches, and just about everything else. But what kind of rigged political casino would go to such lengths to grab all these levers in society, and yet somehow ignore the most important lever of them all – the voting lever? That would be like a mafia operation signing up all the menial staff at a casino – from the bartenders to the cleaners – but neglecting to recruit those who organize and oversee the business end of things – the roulette, the craps, the baccarat.

The ‘Do they’ question is the easiest of them all: As previously noted, the big players themselves not only admit that rigging goes on, they even admit that their own side does it. Sometimes they even admit that they personally do it themselves: one of James O’Keefe’s notorious video stings shows senior Democrat operatives bragging of rigging (16).

And far from regarding it as a crime, political bigwigs see vote tampering as a duty; In a leaked audio, Hillary deplored the West’s failure to rig elections in Palestine in order to keep Hamas out. (17). Hardly surprising, since she and her erstwhile boss, Obama, both revere the Marxist strategist of subversion, Saul Alinsky – a man who openly espoused cheating and fraud as political tools.

It’s not just a Democrat thing by the way: this culture of exalting ends over means also pervades the crypto-Trotskyist Neocon Republican Party.

John Perkins, former globalist insider and the author of ‘Confessions of An Economic Hitman’, says rigging elections is one of several go-to methods the global banking cabal use to maintain and extend their control over the nations of the world (15) – a statement genially confirmed by the former head of the CIA, and avid Neocon, James Woolsey, during a recent interview with Laura Ingraham (18).

Indeed almost everyone in the know acknowledges that outcome changing rigging is a matter of course in western elections. According to Harvey Wasserman, a liberal leftist, and author of“Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections’, “the scale of [vote] theft is unfathomable”, with a vast array of different rigging methods deployed (19).

Computer programmer Clint Curtis testified on oath that he had rigged voting machines on behalf of then Speaker of the Florida House, Tom Feeney (20).

Princeton Professor, Andrew Appel demonstrated how an electronic voting machine could be hacked in seven minutes (21).

However, don’t run away with the idea that fraud only happens in countries where electronic voting is the norm: John Turner, Chief Executive of the British Association of Electoral Administrators, admitted that “fraudulent activity [in Britain] is easy to perpetuate” (22). Voting is still done by paper ballot in the UK.

What more evidence do people need? Footage of rigging taking place? As it happens that exists too – in shedloads. During the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum count, videos emerged of vote counters stuffing ‘Yes’ votes into ‘No’ piles (23). At the 2009 EU Lisbon Treaty referendum vote count in the Republic of Ireland’s second largest city, Cork, a man was filmed leaving the centre with a ballot box in his hand – with nary a police officer, security guard or accredited count supervisor to be seen anywhere in the large hall (24).


The old saw that elections don’t matter is so much empty blather. Do mega-wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson, Soros and Goldman Sachs give billions to their poodle candidates purely on a whim, and then leave the outcome to chance?

Advertising and media brainwashing sway some voters, no question, but such methods guarantee nothing. When it comes to ensured outcomes, the counting is what counts.

Elections don’t just matter, they are the ultimate psy-op, the black pill of black pills. When Mary Robinson “won” the Irish presidency in 1990, the Irish Rothschild media crowed that Ireland had changed forever, a prophecy they meant to be self-fulfilling. On cue, many hitherto conservative Irish politicians jumped on the liberal globalist bandwagon, and Irish Catholics and nationalists sunk into a swamp of defeatist torpor from which they have not yet emerged.

Likewise, Tony Blair’s three successive election victories wrought a cultural Marxist revolution in the UK that shred the very fabric of the country, while Bill Clinton’s triumphs in the US completed the Zio-feminist takeover of the American left.


On the other hand, the oft-repeated failure of anti-globalist candidates to make good on the hopes invested in them drains the spiritual, intellectual and physical vitality of their supporters. Somehow, when push comes to shove, the popular populist never proves quite popular enough: In the end, David Duke bombed in 1992, just as Pat Buchanan bombed in 1996. Ditto Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002, Ron Paul in 2012, Nigel Farage in 2015, Gert Wilders in 2016, Marine Le Pen in 2017, Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries, and Roy Moore in the Alabama special election.

Beginning to spot a pattern yet?

You may not like some of these folk – indeed you may not like any of them – but the point is that, very luckily for the Deep State, they and their ilk never get to close the deal on the day that matters. To return to the casino analogy, what would we think of a gambling joint where the ball on the roulette wheel landed on red every time we played black?

In contrast to the populist perennial losers, charmless, charisma-free Rothschild poodles like Macron and Mary Robinson frequently spring from nowhere and grab the big prize on polling day – thereby rapidly accelerating the descent of their nations into Zio-globalist slavery.

But hold on, I hear you say, what about Brexit and Trump? To which I reply, what about them? Contrary to the myth, much of the British Zio-establishment, including most Neocons, and most of the popular press, supported Brexit. In any case, the evidence suggests that Brexit probably really won by around 75 percent: it suited the Deep State to keep the margin down in order to play off one side against the other in classic Hegelian dialectic fashion.

As for Trump, plenty of Neocon zealots backed him too: Sheldon Adelson, Rudolph Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Conrad Black, and David Horowitz, to name just a few; not surprising he’s a professed Israel Firster with deep family ties to Chabad Lubavitch.

It’s also possible that Trump’s prediction that the vote would be rigged in favor of Hillary spooked the globalists into letting him win – in order to forestall populist skepticism about the integrity of the voting process from going viral.

Whether we like it or not, elections and referendums shape the culture of all nominal democracies, politically, psychologically and above all spiritually; the validity or otherwise of the result does not affect this process one jot. As long as everyone takes the outcome at face value, a rigged election or referendum transforms a nation just as much as a valid one would. Election results frame how the western masses view their country, and even how they view themselves as individuals. No one likes being in a minority, and the smaller that minority is – or seems to be – the greater the feelings of depression and alienation. Election and referendum results thus become self-fulfilling, as everyone, including the losers, seek – in the tell-tale modern cliche – ‘to get with the programme’.

Arguably the main reason countries like Poland and Hungary have remained spiritually and societally much healthier than western Europe, is precisely because their 20th-century histories made them alive to the reality of a rigged system – in contrast to the western masses who still delude themselves that they live in representative politics.

Far from prompting us to opt out of the political process, systemic vote fraud should make us all ‘election truthers’ – i.e. exposers of the fraudsters. Ignoring election stealing won’t make it go away; to paraphrase an old line about communism, you may not be interested in vote rigging, but the vote riggers are certainly interested in you. (see Notes below First Comment)

First Comment from Kevin Boyle 

Hi Henry,

The open door for electoral fraud in the UK is the fact that postal votes (20% of total) must BY LAW be mixed with ordinary voyes before counting.

This law was introduced after the 2003 General Election when it was noticed by many that postal votes in marginal constitiencies (then counted separately) were overwhelmingly for Tony Blair’s Labour Party, to a point way beyond any reasonable statistical improbability.

The solution was imposed meaning a field day for MI5 who will now routinely decide who wins our elections.many, including myself, believe they made a big miscalculation with the Brexit vote by underestimating the strength of feeling in the country. The official vote was 52-48% for Brexit. Those who traveled around the country and spoke to people tend to believe that the real majority was much greater, probably 70+% for Brexit at least, though this clearly cannot be proven.


(1) ‘Jimmy Carter: US has no functioning democracy’., July 18, 2013

(2) Apropos Magazine Scotland,

(3) ‘Rigged Election Talk Didn’t Start With Trump: The Washington Post, October 17, 2006

(4) ‘Trump warns of ‘rigged’ election as Giuliani makes racially charged claims; The Guardian, October 16, 2016

(5) ‘Donna Brazile Admits Cheating, But Clinton Campaign Has Yet To Apologize; Observer; O3/20/17

(6) ‘Was the 2004 election stolen?’: Common Dreams, June 1, 2006

(7)’Nigel Farage says Labour’s Oldham victory ‘bent”:; 4 December, 2015

(8) ‘Judge slates ‘banana republic banana republic’ postal voting system’; The Guardian May 2, 2010

(9) Afghan President Karzai accuses UN over election fraud; news, April I, 2010

(10) Controversial TV: Theo Chalmers interview with Mike Robinson of UK Column

(11 )’Vote Manipulation in Ireland in run up to Lisbon 2:, Sep 22,2009

(12) ‘Reuters knew result of Irish referendum before the count:, June 6, 2012

(13) Network America News – Vote Fraud: July 28, 2000

(14) ‘Watch Obama in 2008 Boasts ‘it helps that Dems are ‘in charge of voting machines’; Breitbart, 18 October, 2006

(15) ‘Romney earned zero votes in some urban districts in Philadelphia; CBS News, February 8, 2013

(16 ) ‘Rigging the election: VideoIII: Creamer confirms Hillary was PERSONALLY involved: Youtube, 24 October 2016

(17) ‘Hillary discusses rigging election in leaked audio’;; October 28.

(18) ‘Confessions Of An Economic Hitman’; Berrot-Koehler; 2004

(19) ‘Former CIA Director admits to US Foreign meddling, laughs about it; Youtube; 25 February, 2018

(20 )’Computer programmers testifies he helped rig voting’; Mint Press; March 7, 2016

(21) ‘Princeton Professor, Andrew Appel bought an election voting machine online and hacked it in 7 minutes; Politico Magazine, August 5, 2016

(22) ‘Postal Voting Surge Brings Warnings of Electoral Fraud’:; The Guardian, May 2, 2010

(23) ‘Scotland Independence: Vote Rigging Caught On Video’;, September 19, 2014

(24) Irish Referendum Count at Cork City Hall:, October 7, 2009


Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning “Regime Change” In Iran

Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning “Regime Change” In Iran

Zero Hedge – May 10, 2018

It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying.

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon

The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy.

For now – at least – overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran – and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.” 

The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.”

That will likely change, however.

One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change.

The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.”

The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.”

John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.

That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months:

Battle Beagle 🇺🇸 🇬🇧@HarmlessYardDog


Battle Beagle 🇺🇸 🇬🇧@HarmlessYardDog

John Bolton – We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019

>You can’t say you weren’t warned



All sides of the complex battle in the Middle East are concerned

All sides of the complex battle in the Middle East are concerned

Robert Fisk — The Independent May 10, 2018

Israeli missile attack on Syria

In the West, it’s easy to concentrate on each daily drama about the Middle East and forget the world in which the real people of the region live. The latest ravings of the American president on the Iran nuclear agreement – mercifully, at last, firmly opposed by the EU – obscure the lands of mass graves and tunnels in which the Muslim Middle East now exists. Even inside the area, there has now arisen an almost macabre disinterest in the suffering that has been inflicted here over the past six years. It’s Israel’s air strikes in Syria that now takes away the attention span.

Yet take the discovery of dozens of corpses in a mass grave in Raqqa, Isis’s Syrian “capital”. It garnered scarcely three paragraphs in Arab papers last month, yet the 50 bodies recovered were real enough and there may be another 150 to be recovered. The corpses lay under a football pitch near a hospital which Isis fighters used before they fled the city – under an agreement with Kurdish forces – and could only be identified by markings which gave only their first names (if they were civilians) or their nom de guerre if they were jihadis. Who killed them?

Even less space was given to another gruesome discovery last month in tunnels beneath the Syrian town of Douma, east of Damascus. This vast stone warren of underground streets wide enough for cars and trucks was found to contain 112 bodies, 30 of them Syrian soldiers, the rest probably civilians, many killed long ago, presumably by the Jaish al-Islam group which fought for the town for many years. Were they hostages for whom the Islamists wished to exchange prisoners? And then murdered when no deal was struck?

My colleague Patrick Cockburn investigated an even more terrible mass killing outside Mosul which occurred in 2014, most of the victims Shia Iraqi soldiers. We know this because Isis filmed their appalling end, shot in the head and then tossed carelessly into the blood-stained waters of the Tigris, some of them floating far south towards Baghdad. History has not been kind to these lands. In 1915, when the Turks were massacring Armenians, many of the Armenian corpses drifted down the Tigris and reached Mosul – the very execution site which can be seen in the Isis video, taken, of course, 99 years later.

Like the vast mass graves of Europe after the Second World War – especially in the Soviet Union – the memory of this savagery will not be forgotten. Which is why the Iraqi authorities (largely Shia in the case of “judicial” trials which meet no international standards) have been hanging Isis suspects like thrushes on prison gallows, 30 at a time, in the south of the country. The Kurds appear to be behaving much more humanely outside Raqqa where court hearings have a modicum of justice, albeit unrecognised in the West. And so it goes on.

And to whom does one turn for justice? Or peace? The Russians in Syria, interestingly enough, have just started publishing a monthly newspaper for joint Syrian and Russian forces in the country. It has a touch of the old Soviet Union about it. The title is “Together, We Make Peace” – which might not convince the Syrian government’s opponents – and there are photographs of Russian troops feeding refugees (flat, Arab bread), of red-bereted soldiers patrolling front lines and a very large front-page photograph of both Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad.

Intriguingly, just below, is a colour photograph of perhaps Russia’s top soldier in Syria: General Aleksander Juravlov, much bemedalled and in his dark blue dress uniform, staring unsmilingly at the camera. We may hear more of him as the weeks go by. Because Russia’s presence in Syria is far from over.

Copies of the newspaper in Arabic also attempt to teach Syrian soldiers basic Russian – the Russian version teaches Arabic. And there’s even (in the Arabic print run) a guide to Moscow, maps of Russia and stories about Second World War weapons. In the top left of each front page is another Soviet-style symbol: two hands clasped together. One hand is coloured in the red, white and black banner of Syria, the other in the red, blue and white of Russia. Yes, the Russians are going to be around for quite a while.

So are the Israelis. Their earlier attack on Iranian forces in Syria – of which there appear to be far fewer than the West imagines, although there are many pro-Iranian Hezbollah fighters still in the country – came suspiciously close to the Trump announcement reneging on the US nuclear agreement with Iran. And an Israeli statement that the Iranians had missiles in Syria was surely made in concert with the Trump administration – it came within hours, and coincidences don’t run that close in the Middle East.

The latest overnight Israeli air strikes, supposedly at Iranian forces in Syria after a supposed Iranian rocket attack on Israeli forces in Golan – and it’s important to use the “supposed” and not take all this at face value – must have been known to the Americans in advance. The Russians, too. And it’s clear that any Israeli plans to create a “security zone” (ie occupation zone) inside Syria and along the border of Golan – along the lines of the “security zone”, equally occupied and patrolled by local militias, in southern Lebanon until the year 2000 – would meet with American approval.

So it’s a moment when all sides are now staring at each other with increasing concern. Oddly, in all the coverage of Lebanon’s largely peaceful election last weekend, hardly anyone commented upon one of the successful Shia candidates in the Baalbek-Hermel district. He’s a familiar name – Jamil Sayyed – and he used to be Lebanon’s head of general security. He was also a loyal friend of Syria. The West had him locked up for three years after the inquiry into ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri’s murder but he was released without any evidence found against him. After which, General Sayyed has been a frequent visitor to Damascus.

“Robert,” he said to me over coffee there some months ago, “why do you hate me?” That was a bit of a breath-taker, and your correspondent hastened to deny any such emotion. Then came an invitation to the restaurant he owns in Beirut.

The point, of course, is that General Sayyed’s election means that one of Syria’s most trusted friends now has a seat in the Lebanese parliament. His speeches will be listened to with deep interest by his parliamentary colleagues. Odd, though, how we go on missing these developments. Out in the West – or Trump’s Wild West – mass graves, Russian alliances and Lebanese elections just don’t get the coverage they deserve.


“We Know Where Your Kids Live”: How John Bolton Once Threatened an International Official

“We Know Where Your Kids Live”: How John Bolton Once Threatened an International Official

Mehdi Hasan — The Intercept March 29, 2018

Who better to advise the bully-in-chief, Donald Trump, on when to make war and kill people than another bully? It’s difficult, after all, to avoid the label — that of a bully — when thinking of John Bolton, the former Bush administration official-turned-Fox News pundit who Trump recently picked as his national security adviser.

“John Bolton is a bully,” José Bustani, the retired Brazilian diplomat and former head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, told me when I reached him by phone in Paris earlier this month.

There are a number of people who claim to have been bullied or intimidated by Bolton — including Bustani. The latter’s criticisms of the famously moustachioed hawk have been public for many years now, but some of the details of his tense encounter with Bolton at the OPCW have never been reported before in English.

In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on Bustani to quit as director-general of the OPCW — despite the fact that he had been unanimously re-elected to head the 145-nation body just two years earlier. His transgression? Negotiating with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to allow OPCW weapons inspectors to make unannounced visits to that country — thereby undermining Washington’s rationale for regime change.

In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to Bustani, thanking him for his “very impressive” work. By March 2002, however, Bolton — then serving as undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs — arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization’s chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn’t mince words. “Cheney wants you out,” Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. “We can’t accept your management style.”

Bolton continued, according to Bustani’s recollections: “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.”

There was a pause.

“We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”

Bustani told me he was taken aback but refused to back down. “My family is aware of the situation, and we are prepared to live with the consequences of my decision,” he replied.

After hearing Bustani’s description of the encounter, I reached out to his son-in-law, Stewart Wood, a British politician and former adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Wood told me that he vividly remembers Bustani telling him about Bolton’s implicit threat to their family immediately after the meeting in the Hague. “It instantly became an internal family meme,” Wood recalled. Two former OPCW colleagues of Bustani, Bob Rigg and Mikhail Berdennikov, have also since confirmed via email that they remember their then-boss telling them at the time about Bolton’s not-so-subtle remark about his kids.

Another former OPCW official, then-Special Assistant to the Director-General for External Relations Gordon Vachon, who was in the room for the meeting with Bolton, has confirmed that the Bush administration official implicitly threatened Bustani. The OPCW chief “could go quietly, with little fuss and restraint on all sides and ‘without dragging your name through the mud,’” Vachon recalled Bolton saying, in an email to The Intercept. “I cannot say from memory that I heard Mr Bolton mention DG Bustani’s children, probably because I was reeling from Mr Bolton’s thinly-veiled threat to DG Bustani’s reputation.”

I reached out to John Bolton and the White House for a response to these allegations. Rather than issue an outright denial, the White House responded via a press spokesperson that referred me to a section of his 2008 memoir, “Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations,” which deals with Bustani and the OPCW. In the book, Bolton said the U.S. viewed Bustani as a “management disaster” (without mentioning Powell’s praise) but claims to have offered him “a gracious and dignified exit” — if, that is, he went quietly.

To call Bolton’s rhetoric undiplomatic is an understatement. He visited Bustani in his capacity as a top U.S. State Department official, yet his behavior was more thuggish. How on earth can a senior diplomat, representing a democratic government, justify implicitly threatening the children of an international official in order to win a political argument? How is such a person now fit to hold the office of national security adviser — the most senior position in the U.S. government that doesn’t require an election win or Senate confirmation?

“The problem with this man is that he’s so ideological, so brutal; he doesn’t open the door to dialogue,” the former OPCW chief told me on the phone. “I don’t know how people can work for him.”

bolton protest

Bolton’s history of bullying, in fact, is well-documented. Carl W. Ford Jr, the State Department’s former intelligence chief, called Bolton “a serial abuser” of junior employees and “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.” Testifying before the Senate in 2005, Ford discussed the case of Christian Westermann, the former chief bioweapons analyst at the State Department who had refused to sign off on a speech accusing Cuba of possessing a secret bioweapons program and had been “berated” by Bolton, who “then tried to have him fired.”

Melody Townsel, a former U.S. Agency for International Development contractor, said she was harassed by the short-tempered Bolton, then a lawyer in the private sector, on a visit to Kyrgyzstan in 1994: “Mr Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel — throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman,” she later recalled, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

According to Time magazine, his former boss Colin Powell privately warned Republican senators in 2005, during the confirmation hearings for Bolton’s controversial nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that “he had been troubled by the way Bolton had treated subordinates who did not agree with him.”

Yet the big problem is that Bolton — the “madman,” the “serial abuser,” the “bully” — happens to also be pretty effective at getting things done. This is perhaps what makes him so dangerous. Take the case of Bustani and the OPCW: Bolton succeeded in having the Brazilian removed from his post. Only a few weeks after the U.S. official’s visit to the Hague, the OPCW chief was “pushed out of office” in an extraordinary meeting of the organization’s member countries (and in a decision, incidentally, that an administrative tribunal of the International Labour Organization would later call “unlawful”).

Bolton himself proudly recalled in his memoir how then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., criticized his views while praising his abilities during the 2001 congressional hearings to confirm him as undersecretary of state. “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent,” Biden remarked, according to Bolton. “I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.

Now, therefore, is the time to panic; now is the moment to sound the alarm. The bullies have come together. The “ideological” and “brutal” Bolton is about to be given a desk a few feet away from the Oval Office. As national security adviser, he’ll be the first one in the room and the last one out. “Trump is utterly ignorant of the world, prone to making impulsive decisions, and tends to defer to the most forceful voice in the room, especially when it conveys information with confident bluster,” observed Damon Linker in The Week. “That would give Bolton enormous power to shape policy — which means the power to get the United States to launch big new wars as well as expand the numerous ones we’re already waging across wide swaths of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.”

Is it any wonder, then, that Bustani — who did so much to prevent the threat of conflict and the proliferation of chemical weapons before being ousted by Bolton — believes the latter’s appointment as Trump’s national security adviser could spell “disaster” for the world?


George Osborne speaks of his delight after discovering he is Jewish

George Osborne speaks of his delight after discovering he is Jewish

Robert Mendick — The May 11, 2018

Clarisse Loxton-Peacock and grandson George Osborne. Click to enlarge

George Osborne, the former chancellor of the Exchequer, has discovered that he is Jewish.

The former Tory MP revealed his maternal grandmother Clarisse Loxton-Peacock – a glamorous Hungarian emigre – was a Jew who came to Britain before the war.

Mr Osborne, 46, was informed by his youngest brother Theo who had begun investigating his maternal grandmother’s background after falling in love with a Jewish woman.

Theo Osborne, 33, an investment manager, had embarked on the lengthy process to convert in order to marry his American fiancée Justine Fisher in an orthodox Jewish ceremony.

But part way through a conversion that can take several years, he uncovered documents that proved his grandmother – born Clarisse Feher – and her family had been members of a synagogue in Budapest.

Other evidence, thought to have included Hungarian birth certificates, also demonstrated the family’s Jewish origins.

A rabbinical court – known as the Beth Din – examined the documents and ruled Theo was Jewish. Under orthodox rabbinical law, the Jewish faith passes down through the maternal line, meaning Theo had no need to convert.

That allowed him to marry in an orthodox ceremony that took place last Sunday in the grand setting of the Wormsley estate in Buckinghamshire, owned by the Getty family.

The catering was kosher and the married couple celebrated with traditional Jewish wedding dances.

The ex-chancellor, who stood down as an MP last year and now edits the London Evening Standard, has spoken of his delight.

“The whole family was thrilled to be at my brother Theo and Justine’s wedding on Sunday and to have enjoyed all the tradition and splendour and energy of a great Jewish wedding,” he told the Telegraph.

The Osbornes had never known that their grandmother Clarisse – known to all as Klara – was Jewish. She died in 2004 aged 90 without mentioning to her grandchildren that they were technically Jewish.

“It wasn’t something she ever talked about,” a family friend said.

“She never discussed her Jewish roots. She had never suggested she was Jewish. She hadn’t come to Britain as a refugee from the Nazis or anything like that. She came in the 1930s to study at art college and then stayed. Her parents came from Budapest after the war and settled in London.”

The friend said: “George and Theo were delighted to discover they were Jewish. Their grandmother already had an interesting background but this makes it just that bit more interesting.

“Theo’s girlfriend is from an orthodox Jewish family and Theo had been more than willing to convert but thought it was worth investigating his grandmother. Theo did a bit of digging and found out from various sources that she was Jewish – things like synagogue records that survived in Hungary. The Jewish authorities were happy and so he didn’t need to convert.”

Continues …

Elevator Pitch 4: The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan

Elevator Pitch 4: The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan

Irish Savant — Sunday, 6 May 2018

Coudenhove Kalergi. Click to enlarge

Virtually everyone on this blog will be familiar with the objectives of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. It’s knowledge that we can put to good use in the right circumstances. To do so we need to be able to demonstrate three things. First the broad outlines of the plan itself. Second the fact that the Plan attracted major financial and political support – it wasn’t just someone’s plan. Third that implementation of  the Plan’s recommendations started shortly after WW II and continues to this day. All three components are essential in making our case.
The plan proposes to miscegenate Europeans out of existence and replace them with European/African/Asian hybrids. ‘The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals.’ Can’t be much clearer than that!
Kalergi* makes one exception to this mixed-race fate: Jews. ‘Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats.‘ Kalergi makes clear that this ‘new elite’ will rule over the dumbed-down mixed-race helots in a supposedly benign but fundamentally undemocratic system. (Count Coudenhove-Kalergi himself was not Jewish but his main benefactors and two of his wives were). A good summary of his plan be read here and is strongly recommended.
coudenhove-kalergi-planFrom the very outset Kalergi attracted support from massively wealthy and powerful Jews. Baron Louis Nathaniel de Rothschild became his personal friend and introduced him to mega-bankers Max Warburg who in turn introduced him to extravagantly wealthy Jewish financiers Paul Warburg (Max’s brother), Bernard Baruch, and Baruch’s brother Felix. These connections provided lavish funding and political support to Kalergi on an ongoing basis.
Such support inevitably lead to  practical results and, capitalising on the carnage of WW II the plan’s sponsors began to change the face of Europe and other White countries. The Charlemange Prize, often referred to as the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize (although as the goyim awaken this association is being downplayed) became Europe’s most prestigious, and, straight from the Orwellian playbook was awarded ostensibly to the person who did most to ‘promote European cohesion’. Not surprisingly the Count himself was the recipient of the first Award in 1950. Subsequent winners represent a rogues’ gallery of nation-wrecking traitors including Churchill (presumably for his efforts in destroying Europe during the war), Kissinger, Blair, Clinton, Merkel, Trichet and the current Pope. Since that first Award tens of millions of brown and black invaders have flooded all over the White world, rendering vast swathes of it unrecognisable from what they’d been less than fifty years earlier. And, spurred by an endless barrage of propaganda, the miscegenation project is in full sway, with Kalergi’s mystery meat everywhere we look. Meanwhile our Jewish puppet masters pull the strings from behind the curtain.
This is powerful stuff. Provided we can get it out there among the general public. Which is where the Elevator Pitch comes in. But how can we possibly compress it into a meaningful and convincing pitch that lasts about half a minute? Well here’s my first cut.
“Did you know that the whole EU project is based on a plan originally drawn up in the 1920s by a Japanese-European Count? He said that the European man of the future would be of mixed White, African and Asiatic race ruled over by a Jewish elite. The proposals attracted massive financial and political support from powerful Jews and the EU from its beginning directly follows the Plan’s proposals’.
In itself this will not convince anyone. But the objective is to lead people to further question the Ordained Narrative. You’ll notice that I downplay the Jewish role for the Pitch. Remember that White goyim have been brainwashed to the point of altered brain chemistry when it comes to the JQ. It must be introduced with care.
*I suggest shortening the Count’s full name to Kalergi in general conversation. Brevity is the essence of the Elevator Pitch!


The Saker: The Skripals will most likely never be allowed to talk

The Saker: The Skripals will most likely never be allowed to talk

The Saker – May 11, 2018

[This column was written for the Unz Review]

Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Click to enlarge

There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow, Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi Germany. How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria for a second time, while still in Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate to serve food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe? The man is clearly batshit crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said that it is not the Russian responsibility to “protect” Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own capital. That makes it even worse.
[Interestingly, while whining about “Nazi Iran” Netanyahu did say something truly profound and true. He said “an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has to push back against it before it is too late”. That is indeed exactly what most people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming “too late” and that the consequences for our collective cowardice – most of us are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords – will cost us all a terrible price.]
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran’s full compliance and in spite of the fact that the USA does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the USA and the rest of the world whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the USA in its rabid subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their “sophisticated” “strategy” is primitive to the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow “OI VEY!!!” with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a “6 million people” figure, and get the USA to attack Syria.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can’t think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States have now completely lost sovereignty and are now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. I am not sure that “betrayed the people” is fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.
It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the form of a major war.
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case. There is one outright bizarre thing which I initially dismissed, but which really is becoming disturbing: the fact that the Brits are apparently holding Sergei and Iulia Skripal incommunicado. In other words, they have been kidnapped.
There was this one single telephone call between Iulia Skripal and her sister, Victoria, in which Iulia said that she was okay (she was clearly trying to reassure Victoria) but it was clear that she could not speak freely. Furthermore, when Victoria mentioned that she would want to visit Iulia, the latter reply ‘nobody will give you a visa’. After that – full silence. The Russian consulate has been making countless requests to have a visit, but all that the Brits have done since is have Scotland Yard post a letter which was evidently not written by Iulia and which said “I have access to friends and family, and I have been made aware of my specific contacts at the Russian Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can. At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services, but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them”. What friends?! What family?! Nonsense!
Her sister tried to contact her many times through various channels, including official ones, and then in total despair, she posted the following message on Facebook:

Skripals Facebook post

My darling sister, Yulia! You are not communicating with us, and we don’t know anything about you and Sergey Victorivich. I know that I have no right to interfere in your affairs without asking your permission, but I worry too much. I worry about you and your dad. I also worry about Nuar. [Nuar is Yulia Skrial’s dog, whom she left to stay at a kennel center, while she was traveling to the UK.] He is now at the dog hotel, and they want to get paid. We have to decide something what to do with him. I am ready to take him and to take care of him until you come back home. Besides Nuar, I am concerned about your apartment and your car. Nothing has been decided about their safety and maintenance. We can help with all that, but I need your power of attorney in my or my sister Lena’s name. If you think that all of these is important, draw up a power of attorney form in a Russian consulate in any country. If you won’t do that, we will understand and won’t interfere in your affairs.
No reply ever came.
I just entered the following query into Google: “Skripal”. April 10th has an entry saying that she was released from the hospital. That is the most recent one I have found. I looked on Wikipedia, the same thing, there is nothing at all.
I have to admit that when I first heard the Russian complaints I figured that this was no big deal. I thought “the Brits told the Skripals that Putin tried to poison them, they are probably afraid, and possibly still sick from whatever it is which made them sick, but the Brits would never outright kidnap two foreign citizens, and most definitely not in such a public way”.
I am not so sure anymore.
First, let’s get the obvious one out of the way: the fear for the security of the Skripals. That is utter nonsense. The Brits can organize a meeting between а Russian diplomat in the UK at a highly protected UK facility, with tanks, SAS Teams on the standby, helicopters in the air, bombers, etc. That Russian diplomat could speak to them through bullet-proof glass and a phone. And, since the Russians are all so dangerous, he can be searched for weapons. All which the Skripals need to do is to tell him/her “thank you, your services are not needed”. Conversation over. But the Brits refuse even that.
But let’s say that the Skripals are so totally terrified of the evil Russians, that they categorically refuse. Even by video-conference. It would be traumatic for them, right? Okay.
What about a press conference then?
Even more disturbing is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody in the western corporate media is asking for an interview with them. Snowden can safely speak from Russia and address even large conferences, but the Skripals can’t speak to anybody at all?
But here is the worst part of this: it has been two months already since the Skripals are held in total secrecy by the UK authorities. Two months, that is 60 days. Ask any specialist on interrogation or any psychologist what kind of effect 60 days of “specialized treatment” can do to a person.
I am not dismissing the Russian statements about “kidnapping” anymore. What I see is this: on substance, the Skripal false flag has crashed and burned, just like MH17 or the Douma chemical attack, but unlike MH17 or Douma, the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has the potential to result in a gigantic scandal, not just for the May government, but for all those spineless Europeans who showed “solidarity” with Britain. In other words, the Skripals will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must either be killed or totally brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a scandal of planetary magnitude.
I can’t pretend like my heart goes out to Sergei Skripal: the man was an officer who gave an oath and who then betrayed his country to the British (he was a British agent, not a Russian one as the press writes). Those holding him today are his former bosses. But Iulia? She is completely innocent and as of April 5th (when she called her sister Victoria), she was clearly in good health and with a clear mind. Now she has disappeared and I don’t know which is worse, the fact that she might never reappear or that she might one day reappear following months of British “counseling”. As for her father, he paid for his betrayal and he too deserves a better fate than being poisoned, used and then disappeared.
In the big scheme of things (the Zionists war against our entire planet), two individuals like Sergei and Iulia Skripal might not matter. But I think that the least we can do is to remember them and their plight.
This also begs the question of what kind of society we live in. I am not shocked by the fact that the British state would resort to such methods (they have always used them). I am shocked that in a so-called western “democracy” with freedom, pluralism and “European values” (whatever that means) the Brits could get away with this.
How about some “solidarity” with the Skripals – you, Europeans?!
The Saker




Donald Trump and Lynn de Rothschild.

Forbes’ list of the world’s most powerful people 2018 places Xi Jinping in the top position.

The World’s Most Powerful People 2018 – Forbes.

There is a belief that the Rothschilds have some influence in China.

“The Rothschild family came to China as long ago as the 1830s, when it set up a small gold and silver trading business in Shanghai.

“In 1953, Rothschild was one of the first major Western banks to establish relations with the country.”

China’s fascination with the Rothschild family

Here we list some of the people who are said to be the most powerful in the world.

1. The Rothschild family

(Rothschild saved Donald Trump)

Rockefeller (Rockenfelder) 
Oppenheimer family

Goldsmid/Goldschmidt/Goldsmith family
Sassoon family
Warburg (del Banco) family

Richest 1% now owns half the world’s wealth.

Cohen family
Schiff family
Morgan family
Lazard family
Schröder family

Bush (Scherff) family
Disney d’Isigny (“from Isigny”) family
Collins family

Jeffrey Epstein’s Black Book contains the names of top people – including Edward de Rothschild, Evelyn de Rothschild, David Rockefeller and Donald Trump

2. Saudi (The House of Saud) family

Koch family

George Soros

Ronald Lauder.

Donald Trump shakes hands with Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress. Lauder was one of the biggest backers of a secretive group that spent millions of dollars on targeted campaign ads predicting a Muslim takeover of the United States.

3. Sheldon Adelson

4. Jeff Bezos –

5. Bill Gates – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

6. Larry Page and Sergey Brin – Google Alphabet

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan.

7. Mark Zuckerberg – Facebook

8. Jamie Dimon – JPMorgan Chase

9. Benjamin Netanyahu

10. Rupert Murdoch, 87, News Corp


11. Stephen Schwarzman, 71, Blackstone Group

12. Lloyd Blankfein, 63, Goldman Sachs Group

13. Michael Bloomberg, 76, Bloomberg

14. Michael Dell, 53, Dell



Lord Alistair McAlpine, who was at the centre of the child abuse scandal in the UK, is listed.

Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book contains the names of people who could be described as being a mixture of the Feudal Elite, Robber Barons, Zionists, Nazis and members of the security services.

Here are some of the better known names:

Edward de Rothschild
Evelyn de Rothschild

David Rockefeller

Henry Kissinger

Edgar Bronfman
Edward Koch
Michael Bloomberg
Rupert Murdoch

Ehud Barak

A Saudi prince

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman

Prince Andrew
Charlie Althorpe
Viscount William Astor

Lord Alistair McAlpine

Ernst Hanover
Marie Hapsburg

Senator Edward Kennedy
John Kerry
Jimmy Buffet
Peter Soros

Constantine Niarchos (Billionaire).
Laurie Oppenheim

Jose Aznar (former Spanish Prime Minister, Director of the Friends of Israel Initiative. Under his watch the Madrid Train Bombings occurred).

Danny Baker
Sir Anthony Bamford

Baron Bentinck
Conrad Black
David Blaine
Tony Blair

Lauren Booth
Richard Branson

William and Carina Carey
John Cleese
Nicholas Coleridge
Clive Cook
Sophie Dahl
David and Linda Davies

Alan Dershowitz

Jonathan Dimbleby
Bernie Ecclestone

Ben Elliot
Chris Evans
Brian Ferry
Ralph Fiennes
Rocco Forte

Mathew Freud
David Frost
Mariella Frostrup
Lloyd Grossman

Lord Hanson
Marie Helvin
Mr Heseltine
Nick Hurd
Liz Hurley

Michael Jackson
Mick Jagger

Ted Kennedy Jr
Bobby Kennedy

Simon Le Bon
David Linley
Courtney Love

Lord Rothschild and Lord Mandelson

Peter Mandelson
Eric Margolis
Ghislaine Maxwell
Kevin Maxwell

John Micklethwait (Editor in chief of the Economist)

George Milford Haven
Rosa Monckton

Andrew Neil

David Puttnam
Bill Richardson

Gerald Ronson
Charlie Rose
Jessica Rothschild
Hannah Rothschild

Jeffrey Sachs
Edmund Saffra
James Sainsbury

Rupert Soames

Harry Sutherland
Hugo Swire
Alfred Taubman
Ivana Trump
Barbara Walters
Les Wexner
Shaun Woodward
Toby Young

More names from Epstein’s Black Book:

Adam Dell (Dell Computers)

Elie_Wiesel (Holocaust campaigner)

Philip Dunne (UK Conservative MP)

Bernie Ecclestone and Flavio Briatore (Formula One)

Ambassador Fairweather (former British ambassador to Angola and Albania)

Honorable Rupert Fairfax (additional assistant Private Secretary to HRH The Prince of Wales between 1986 and 1988)

RalphFiennes (actor)

Princess Firyal, wife Prince Muhammad bin Talal of Jordan

Steve Forbes (Forbes magazine)

Katie Ford (former CEO of Ford modeling agency.

Rocco Forte (CEO of Forte Group, friend of Tony Blair, son of Lord Forte who was a Knight of Malta SMOM)

Hon. Robert Hanson (linked to the Rothschilds)

Freddy Heineken (Heineken beer)

Mark Katzenellenbogen (financier)

Christopher Lawford (son of Peter Lawford)

Mallinckrodt (German Jewish Schroeder money)

Trump has proven himself to be the US version of Gaddafi

Trump has proven himself to be the US version of Gaddafi

Robert Fisk – The Independent May 9, 2018


I was trying to think a few hours ago – after his shameful, outrageous, insane breaking of a solemn international treaty – just who Donald Trump reminded me of. I used to think about the boastful, gung-ho racist Theodore Roosevelt, the ‘Rough Rider’ who enjoyed war (and threats). But Theodore Roosevelt actually did win the Nobel Peace Prize. And then I realised.

The political leader who most resembles Trump is the late Colonel Gaddafi of Libya.

The parallels are quite creepy. Gaddafi was crackers, he was a vain, capricious peacock of a man, he was obsessed with women, he even had a ghostwriter invent a ‘Green Book’ of his personal philosophy, just as Trump had his business manual written for him. Gaddafi was vengeful towards his opponents but his views on the Middle East were odd, to say the least. He once advocated a one-state solution to Israel and Palestine which – in all seriousness – he suggested should be called ‘Israel-tine’. A bit like moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Tony Blair and Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2009. Click to enlarge

Trump’s White House is now like Gaddafi’s tent, which the Libyan leader took with him everywhere. Trump’s late-night television viewing was not unlike Gaddafi’s insistence that business must be done in his tent. Gaddafi’s handshake was legendary – so was his kiss from Tony Blair, who was as obsequious to Gaddafi in Libya as Theresa May was to Trump in Washington. Much good did it do Blair or May.

Gaddafi ran his business dealings through his family – now there’s a thought – and even maintained good relations with Russia. His speeches were interminable – he liked the sound of his own voice – and although he constantly lied, his audience was forced to listen and to fear his wrath. Above all, Gaddafi was completely divorced from reality. If he lied, he believed his own lies. He believed that he kept his promises. He believed in the world he wanted to believe in, even if this was non-existent. His Great Man Made River Project was supposed to Make Libya Great Again.

If all this seems flippant, there is a weird parallel between Trump and other Middle Eastern leaders – the ex-Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes to mind. He claimed that a holy cloud appeared over his head when he spoke at the UN and then denied he’d said this – until an Iranian political opponent produced the videotape. I wonder, after Trump’s latest, disgraceful performance, we’ll soon hear from Ahmadinejad again. The only other man whom we might compare to the American president, I suppose, is Korea’s “little rocket man” himself – whom a few hours ago appeared to be the man who might provide Trump with that Nobel Prize. Dare one utter the obvious words: Ye Gods!

Of course, we know what Trump’s breaking of the Iranian nuclear deal means – quite apart from his lies and fraudulent arguments about the original agreement: the United States is now a part of Israel’s foreign policy. The Arabs used to say that Israel was an American state. Now the US has become part of the Israel state. That infamous speech contained seven references to “terror” in relation to Iran – “state sponsor of terror”, “supports terrorist proxies”, “reign…of terror”, “a regime of great terror”, “funds…terrorism”, “support for terrorism”, “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” – and so on and so forth. This is almost as good as Benjamin Netanyahu’s speeches at the UN.

And we are supposed to believe, like children, that Shiite Iran is supporting Sunni Muslim al-Qaeda – when it’s been fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria. We are supposed to believe that Iran’s long-outdated “intelligence documents” provide “definitive proof” that Iran’s promise of not pursuing nuclear weapons is a lie. But what is America worth now – in the Middle East or anywhere else (North Korea comes to mind) – when it can so blatantly tear up an international treaty agreed by the US government itself. That used to be what some European leaders – one in particular – did in the first part of the 20th century.

Just play the scenario backwards and switch the characters in this obscene drama. Imagine that the American government managed to forge an international nuclear agreement with Iran. But then consider what would happen if Iran’s reaction to Trump’s presidency was to announce that the Islamic Republic would shred the agreement. The Mays and the Macrons and the Merkels would line up – perhaps even with Russia and China – alongside Trump to denounce this act of perfidy. How could Iran break so binding an international treaty, we would ask ourselves? What kind of regime runs Iran? It would almost be enough to call it a ‘terrorist regime’.

That’s why I most enjoyed Trump’s expression of love for Iranians. All US presidents say how much they love the people they are about to invade. Bush said the same about the Iraqis. So did Reagan before he bombed Gaddafi’s Libya. Now Trump feels sorry for the “long-suffering Iranians”. Trump reminded us all of a time when Iran “prospered in peace” and “commanded the admiration of the world” – and no-one has spotted that he was referring to the Shah’s Iran whose Savak secret police kept Iranians in a state of permanent fear and terror through a programme of obscene tortures.


A topnotch site

Truther's World

News and reviews brought to you from around the world

CO2 is Life

The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax

Shooting the Messenger

As dissed on Fox News

Fabrication in BBC Panorama 'Saving Syria’s Children'

Analysis of the 30 September 2013 BBC Panorama documentary 'Saving Syria's Children' and related BBC News reports, contending that sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a nearby school are largely, if not entirely, staged.


ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS

Historical Tribune

The Factual Review

Desultory Heroics

A Chronicle of Dystopia and Resistance

Astute News

The Science Of News And Analysis

Taking Sides

Thinking Through and Against Received Opinion

The Last Refuge

Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info:

Citizen WElls

Obama eligibility, Obama news

Burst Updates

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

tomfernandez28's Blog

A topnotch site

The Free

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

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! !..."

Jim Campbell's

"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."~ Bruce Lee - by F. Kaskais

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

%d bloggers like this: