Jo Cox, Her Assassination, the White Helmets, “Humanitarianism,” and Regime Change

Jo Cox, Her Assassination, the White Helmets, “Humanitarianism,” and Regime Change

Vanessa Beeley and Whitney Webb — Mint Press July 30, 2018

Labour MP Jo Cox, who was allegedly murdered by Thomas Mair. Click to enlarge

Just over two years ago, the senseless and savage murder of British Labour Party MP Jo Cox stunned Britain and much of the world. After her death, families, friends and colleagues pledged that her memory would live on, thanks in part to the memorial funds posthumously set up in her honor.

Among those memorial funds, the Jo Cox Fund is by far the most notable, having greatly surpassed its £1.5 million ($1.97 million) fundraising goal. That money, according to the fund’s GoFundMe page, was divided among three organizations that had been “close to her [Cox’s] heart:” the Royal Voluntary Service, Hope Not Hate, and the White Helmets of Syria, with funds raised in excess of that goal being used to establish the Jo Cox Foundation.

Though Jo Cox was undeniably a vocal supporter of all three of those causes, the past two years have revealed a concerted effort on the part of powerful interests, including globalist billionaires and prominent figures of the Western political elite, to exploit Cox’s death for the purpose of furthering the long-standing Western agenda of effecting regime change in Syria.

These figures – George Soros, Bill Gates and the Clintons among them – have used their influence and their vast resources of capital in order not only to help enact the “humanitarian” regime change model in Syria, but to shield from criticism their assets in the country, including suspected child traffickers profiting from the misery of Syrian children.

The crux of this effort centers around the controversial “humanitarian” group that fraudulently calls itself the Syrian Civil Defense, better known as the White Helmets, whose ties to both terrorist elements within the Syrian opposition and Western governments pushing for Syrian regime change have been well-documented.

Through their receipt of money raised from the Jo Cox Fund and the group’s well-publicized efforts aimed at commemorating Cox’s death, the murdered MP’s posthumous and saint-like reputation has been instrumental in shielding the group from legitimate criticisms both within the U.K. and beyond, preventing genuinely independent inquiries into the group’s dubious activities in Syria and its documented receipt of over £38.4 million ($50.3 million) in U.K. government funds.

Who was Jo Cox?

Prior to her untimely and tragic death, Jo Cox was a “tireless advocate” for the Syrian opposition following the 2011 outbreak of the Syrian conflict, even going so far as to promote Western military intervention to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, Cox consistently called for the U.K. to unilaterally establish a “no-fly zone” in Syria with U.S. support and argued that the U.K. military could achieve an “ethical solution” to the Syrian conflict by intervening in the war in order to “compel” the Syrian government to negotiate.

Cox was deeply connected to the Fabian Society, the claimed representative of “modern Labour” in the U.K. This society has certainly furthered U.K. imperialist politics, which included the “patriotic funding of war machines,” according to author Dr. P. Wilkinson, who analyzed the impact of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader in 2015 upon the Blairite factions within the party. While the Fabian Society can lay claim to some good work on child poverty, as an example, more recently it has been instrumental in the expansion of Global Britain’s economic and military interests.

In pursuit of U.K./NATO military intervention, Cox vocally denounced Assad and — throughout her short career in Parliament — had maintained that the Syrian president had “helped nurture ISIS [Daesh] and been its main recruiting sergeant.” She had also asserted that the Syrian government had killed seven times more civilians than the infamous terror group and the hundreds of other militant, extremist groups and foreign mercenaries in Syria at the behest of their backers among NATO member states and Gulf States with Israel as their hospital wing, treating armed militants, including Nusra Front in Israeli medical centres.

Cox’s precarious positioning of facts upon a mountain of misleading information has been discredited over time, as the Syrian Arab Army and its allies have waged a successful and authentic “war on terror” inside Syria and on its borders. All such wild accusations and Coxian theories have been eroded with each liberation of occupied Syrian territory and reintegration of armed militants into Syrian society via the Russian-brokered Amnesty and Reconciliation agreements.

Cox failed to pinpoint the U.K. Government’s involvement in the bankrolling of the various extremist and terrorist factions that invaded Syria from 2011 onwards. Armed militants, who have committed all manner of atrocities against the Syrian people, Cox claimed to defend. Cox, like so many regime-change promoters, had never been to Syria. She relied upon the narratives emerging from Syria produced by the U.K. FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)-manufactured and financed White Helmets and a number of other U.K. state-funded entities on the ground in Syria. The U.K. Government was engineering a shadow state inside the borders of a sovereign nation and Cox supported this blatant violation of international law either deliberately or unwittingly.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Cox claimed that Syria was not another Iraq. This is a familiar mantra often repeated by those who support the regime change war in Syria and one that is verifiably false. It appears that Cox had never perused the Bush/Blair communications revealed in the Chilcot report that demonstrated the progression from Iraq to Iran and Syria in the U.K./U.S. drive towards hegemony in the region. Syria was in Bush’s crosshairs, as described in a TIME article, as far back as 2006 but this was overlooked by Cox. Tony Blair must have been proud of the efforts made by Cox to expand “Global Britain’s” interests inside Syria:

Syria and Iran doc

Above is a presentation slide showing just one of the Bush/Blair communiques as revealed by the Chilcot report. Blair suggests offering Syria and Iran a “chance at a different relationship,” one that would be soured by President Assad’s refusal to comply with the conditions of that “different relationship” — conditions included favoring the Qatar/Turkey oil pipeline preferred by the U.S. coalition. Assad said “no,” and he said “no” to abandoning his allies in the region or reneging on his commitment to the Palestinian cause. In 2002, Blair had even included an honorary knighthood in his early sweeteners to persuade Assad to embrace the “different relationship.” Blair soon changed tack when it was recognized that Syria would not abandon its principles so easily. Plan B, which was regime change, was put into effect.

Cox voted against the proposed bombing of Syria in 2015, not because she thought it was a bad idea but because she wanted David Cameron’s government to go further and send British troops into Syria to save the “moderates.”

In October 2015, Cox co-wrote an article with Andrew Mitchell, former Conservative Secretary of State for International Development (2010-12) and Libya war-hawk. The article was published in The Guardian, whose record on manufacturing consent for U.K. state “humanitarian” intervention is legendary. The title said it all – “British Forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria” (emphasis added).

Cox and Mitchell argued that Syria was this generation’s moral test, its “responsibility.”  With little regard for the reality on the ground in Syria, Cox and Mitchell merged the threat of international terrorism with the perceived threat from the Syrian government and Syrian Arab Army. The Labour and Tory MPs laser-focused on the refugee “crisis.” No context was provided, only emotional humanitarian flag-waving that ignored the fact that the refugee crisis was actually caused by a far greater percentage of non-Syrian refugees driven from Libya, Central Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq by previous NATO “ethical interventions.”  Cox and Mitchell erased the U.K. government’s criminal record under international law with customary virtue-signalling.

…[T]here is nothing ethical about standing to one side when civilians are being murdered and maimed. There was no excuse in Bosnia, nor Rwanda and there isn’t now.”

Like so many neocons, Cox fundamentally argued that the only pathway to peace was the removal of Assad and victory for the “rebels.” They gave little or no consideration to the reality that this would inevitably lead to the rise of violent sectarianism under an alleged “moderate” Islamist governance, which would plunge Syria into the same terrorist vacuum that Libya has been dealing with since NATO’s “ethical solution” reduced that prosperous sovereign nation down to a failed state.

Even after Cox’s untimely death, her colleagues insisted that her “legacy” should be Britain going to war in Syria. Just prior to her death, Cox had been working on a paper entitled “The Cost of Doing Nothing.” Posthumously this paper was completed by Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, ex-military chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, and Alison McGovern, a Blairite MP who was elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group “Friends of Syria,” founded and previously chaired by Jo Cox.

According to a report by journalist and academic Paul Dixon, “the report was due to be published on the day of the Chilcot inquiry on 6 July 2016, to counter growing British scepticism about foreign military interventions.” Tugendhat, in particular, had argued (in a 2015 paper entitled  Clearing the Fog of Law”) against the human-rights laws that, in his opinion, curtailed and restricted British military action, he argued that “judicial imperialism should urgently be reversed.”

In an article written for the Telegraph, Tugendhat stated that “his friend” Jo Cox would “never want Britain to withdraw from the world — we must be ready to intervene.” A jingoistic argument was deployed by Tugendhat to justify British imperialism:

We wanted to show that Britain’s history of intervention, military and otherwise, is common to both our political traditions and has been an integral part of our foreign and national security policy for over two hundred years.”

During her life, Cox had been an advocate of war to bring peace in Syria. Furthermore, as this article series will show, her monstrous murder has been weaponized and politicized by the neocon war hawks in British politics in order to further the imperialist ambitions of the U.K. government in Syria and beyond. Significant media coverage, for instance, has been given to Cox’s “compassion,” but little coverage has been given to her pro-interventionist policies — which she often promoted in apparent ignorance of reality and historical context. The use of the “humanitarian” pretext to promote war is hardly a new concept, but the sudden and shocking death of Jo Cox has been exploited in order to elevate it and shield it from honest criticism. Indeed, one could argue that to criticize Jo Cox posthumously is akin to questioning a “Saint.” Who could find fault with her campaign against “genocide,” her pleas for safe havens for refugees, her apolitical stance on the world’s “inhumanity?”

Nevertheless, despite the possibility of being labeled insensitive and cynical, the question that should be asked is who determines the meaning of the terms so liberally used by Cox and her colleagues? What are the implications of this humanitarian hyperbole for U.K. government policy? Indeed, in the past, misplaced or even misleading “compassion” has been used to encourage us not only to betray the principles of international law but also to justify the escalation of armed conflict that has brought only greater inhumanity.

In the case of Syria, such pro-interventionist “humanitarians” have largely promoted policies that have only deepened the suffering for the vast majority of Syrian people. What diplomatic efforts have been deployed? What rational, Syria-centric, political resolution has been proposed for discussion? What respect has there been for the self-determination of the Syrian people?

White Helmets No fly Zone

As an example, both Cox and the White Helmets were committed advocates of a No-Fly Zone over Syria — the White Helmets still are, of course. Despite the very real risk of escalating tensions with Russia, which intervened at the request of the Syrian government in September 2015, Cox argued strongly, in 2015, for a No-Fly Zone, defying even possible UN vetoes:

This is not about escalating a conflict directly to take on Russia. This is about a deterrence effect to stop the Syrian regime targeting their own civilians.”

A “No-Fly Zone” is recognized by many acclaimed journalists and analysts as nothing less than a “declaration of war.” Even Hillary Clinton, neocon warhawk extraordinaire, conceded the certainty that a No-Fly Zone would kill more Syrian civilians:

To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”

The precedent of Libya stands as a horrifying example of the death and destruction that is a consequence of such a policy, yet Cox was willing to endorse such wholesale devastation, which would inevitably affect more innocent lives in Syria and further fragment an already destabilized nation. Notably, she did so by promoting “humanitarianism,” despite the clearly inhuman consequences of such a policy.

Furthermore, Cox campaigned tirelessly for refugee rights. However, she did not highlight the British Government’s role in creating the refugee crisis in Syria by financing, promoting and equipping the “moderate” opposition that drove civilians from their homes and into refugee status. Neither did she highlight the British government’s role in NATO-member-state interventions that further exacerbated the refugee crisis in countries like Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Africa.

Beyond the conflict itself, Syrians have endured almost eight years of crippling economic sanctions, sanctions that were imposed by the U.K. and its allies in the U.S. regime-change coalition. As history has shown time and again, sanctions never damage a target government but instead wind up punishing the innocent people who resist any kind of foreign meddling in their sovereign affairs. These particular sanctions have decimated the Syrian state medical sector, by destroying hospitals and reducing the nation’s ability to treat its population for all manner of chronic illness and to counter the trauma of an externally waged war. Why did Jo Cox never argue that these sanctions should be lifted if she truly cared for the plight of the Syrian people? Indeed, why were the solutions she supported largely policies that — in practice — would deepen and prolong the conflict, and why did she invoke the well-being of the Syrian people to promote them?

Jo Cox and the White Helmets

Beyond her public calls for intervention, Cox also founded and co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) “Friends of Syria” from 2015 until her death a year later.  She was again partnered in this endeavor by Andrew Mitchell, who was also co-chair of the APPG.

During that time, Cox hosted several events on behalf of the group, many of them promoting pro-regime-change speakers from groups like the European Council on Foreign Relations and the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. Morerecent events hosted by the group have included speakers from the U.S. think-tank Atlantic Council, largely funded by U.S. weapons manufacturers; and the filmmakers of the second Oscar-nominated White Helmets documentary, Last Men in Aleppo, a revisionist project that attempted to erase from public consciousness the existence of Nusra Front and over 50 other extremist groups that occupied East Aleppo for almost five years.

Watch | Channel 4 tribute to Jo Cox, honoring the White Helmets as “impartial, neutral rescuers”

 

In promoting the White Helmets, the “Friends of Syria” group was following Cox’s lead, as Cox herself was a vocal supporter of the group and was instrumental in getting the group nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016. Indeed, a few months before her death, Coxhad written a “heartfelt” letter to the Nobel Prize committee, asserting that “in the most dangerous place on earth these unarmed volunteers [of the White Helmets] risk their lives to help anyone in need regardless of religion or politics.”

Cox’s promotion of the White Helmets to win the Nobel Peace Prize gained the support of several notable celebrities – George Clooney and Daniel Craig, among others – as well as 20 other British MPs. The group was eventually nominated for the prize as a result but failed to muster enough support to win the award, which instead went to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos for the FARC peace deal.

Thus, the inclusion of the White Helmets as beneficiaries of the Jo Cox Fund is certainly in keeping with the Syria policy and narratives that Cox had promoted during her time as a public figure. However, what stands out is not only the extent to which the Jo Cox Fund has been posthumously exploited to continue funding the White Helmets. What is perhaps more striking is the history of the fund’s originators and their deep connections to some of the world’s most powerful individuals and influential  “philanthropic” organizations.

Instant exploitation

Within five days of Cox’s murder, the White Helmets PR agency, Syria Campaign, had produced another in a long line of slick marketing campaigns. This time they announced, “8 Reasons why Syrians will never forget Jo Cox.” Those eight reasons tied in perfectly with the U.K./U.S. Coalition “regime change” agenda. They included calls for “real action” to protect the Syrian “people;” not seeing Syria as Iraq; the root cause of killing and extremism in Syria is…. Assad; breaking the ubiquitous sieges (those allegedly created by Assad, not by the extremist factions, naturally); welcoming refugees; lobbying the UN to support unlawful intervention; and ensuring that U.K. foreign policy objectives of toppling the elected Syrian government are not allowed to fall from the parliamentary agenda.

What a perfect example of exploitation of a dramatic and shocking event by an organization established by a Syrian-in-exile oil baron, Ayman Asfari who has also provided financial backing to the Conservative Party in the U.K. Almost £ 700,000 since 2009.  Asfari is a member of the Leaders Group, an “elite circle of donors” who are regularly invited to lunch with Tory Party influencers in return for £50,000 per year.  Asfari is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Squad (SFO) in the UK on allegations of extensive bribery and corruption in the oil and gas industry for the last three years, according to the Electoral Commission.

British MP Wafic Saïd left, former Prime Minister David Cameron, center, and Ayman Asfari, right. Photo | Saïd Foundation

Asfari is another elite mover and shaker whose influence over the view of the Syria conflict landscape packaged and presented in the West is considerable, particularly within sectors that will influence UK Government policy or support it.

Andrew Mitchell, perhaps best known in the U.K. for the “plebgate” saga, has systematically used Cox’s untouchable status to counter public concern over the true role of the White Helmets in Syria and their status as a “complete propaganda construct,” as described by eminent journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger.

The ever-increasing evidence of the White Helmets’ allegiance to Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria) and a plethora of other equally brutal extremist groups; their participation in sectarian, extra-judicial executions by the “moderate” armed groups; and their lobbying for war in Congress, the UN and in Parliament are dismissed with the broad brush of Jo Cox’s living endorsement of this very British organization. Cox’s death has been exploited to render any investigation into the White Helmets an inhumane practice. In life and apparently even in death, Cox was and is an integral part of the White Helmet protection cartel.

The seamless transition from Jo Cox to a number of her acolytes and colleagues who have carried her interventionist baton forward has been remarkable. Following glowing tributes from global luminaries — such as former U.S. President, and drone warfare advocate, Barack Obama —  significant others have moved into pole position to ensure the longevity of Cox’s policies.

Sara Brown, wife of former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, stepped up to praise the “female” White Helmets who appeared miraculously, shortly after criticism that the group was a sectarian, extremist and fundamental organization that would do nothing to further women’s rights in Syria. At the same time as Brendan Cox (Jo’s husband) was special advisor to Gordon Brown (2009-11), Jo Cox had helped Sara Brown to establish the Maternal Mortality Campaign, which aimed to raise awareness of babies dying needlessly in pregnancy and childbirth.

Move forward to 2017 and the creation of the Jo Cox-inspired centrist campaign group “More United,” which crowdfunds to support “progressive” election candidates across all parties in the U.K. According to Bess Mayhew, chief executive of More United:

We are doing something unheard of in British politics: we want people across the political spectrum to agree and unite around the values we share. We have supporters, we have money, we have a long-term plan, and we’re mobilising a digital disruption of the politics of the status quo.”

Crowdfunding for “ethical” intervention-approved candidates who will ensure the protection of Global Britain’s imperialist roadmap and all its associated constructs, including the White Helmets.

With the Jo Cox Fund, public sentiment has been harnessed and monetized for the benefit of establishment elite “charity” schemes that effectively fund the assets who are enabling a violent regime-change war that has been waged for almost eight years inside Syria.

The billionaires behind the Jo Cox Fund

The Jo Cox Fund was set up, only 24 hours after the MP’s death, by four of Cox’s “friends” in London, who said they had set up the fundraiser in “close collaboration” with Cox’s husband, Brendan Cox. Cox’s “friends” that co-founded the fund are as follows, along with the organizational affiliations they freely provided on the fund’s page: Nick Grono (CEO, The Freedom Fund), Tim Dixon (MD, Purpose), Mabel van Oranje (Chair, Girls Not Brides), and Gemma Mortensen (Chief Global Officer, Change.org). Two of those four, Nick Grono and Mabel van Oranje, would go on to serve on the board of the Jo Cox Foundation.

However, these four figures — upon closer examination — are clearly much more than just four grieving friends of the late MP who just happen to also serve prominent roles on well-known non-governmental organizations and charities. In reality, all four are deeply connected to some of the most powerful interests in the world, many with nefarious agendas, that have long sought to hijack NGOs and other humanitarian organizations and weaponize them in the service of major political goals, including regime change targeting “rogue states.”

Of the four founders of the Jo Cox Fund, there is perhaps no one that epitomizes these types of connections more than Mabel van Oranje, nee Wisse Smit. Though often touted as a human-rights advocate for her role in organizations like Girls Not Brides and War Child Netherlands, a closer examination of van Oranje’s history reveals not only deep connections to some of the world’s most powerful people but also past connections to previous Western-backed regime-change operations.

Nick Grono, left, Mabel van Oranje, second left, and Tim Dixon, right stand on stage with others at a a Jox Cox commemoration at Trafalgar Square in London. Alastair Grant | AP

Van Oranje and Cox were both “recognized” by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Cox was honored posthumously as a WEF Young Global Leader while van Oranje was named a WEF Global Leader for Tomorrow in 2003 and listed among its Young Global Leaders in 2005. The overlap of mutual award ceremonies among the organizations and individual players who form the ever-expanding imperialist network are brought into sharp relief by this examination of the Jo Cox Fund and those who breathed life into it. Certainly, there are very few globalist entities that epitomize the well-heeled financial, economic and corporate mafia sectors more than the WEF.

However, van Oranje is much more notable among the soft-power complex elite — not for her role at Girls Not Brides nor other NGOs — but for co-founding the European Council on Foreign Relations, a globalist pan-European think-tank whose members are a mix of EU politicians and top figures in the European media. However, the ECFR is more than just a think-tank, given that it is essentially an extension of one powerful and controversial billionaire, George Soros, whose Open Society Foundation was largely responsible for providing the ECFR’s initial funding.

The Soros connection only deepens as one examines van Oranje’s past. Indeed, van Oranje was the director of EU Affairs of Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) beginning in 1997 until 2002, when she became International Advocacy Director for the Open Society Institute’s branch in London. Notably, George Soros is one of the chief funders behind the most prominent NGOs and other “humanitarian” organizations that have consistently promoted Western military intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Furthermore, van Oranje’s private life makes her connections to some of the world’s leading globalists even more clear. In 2004, while working for the OSI, Mabel Martine Wisse Smit (maiden name) married the late Prince Fiso of the Netherlands, son of Queen Beatrix — a regular Bilderberg attendee — and the grandson of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands – the German-born Dutch royal who co-founded the Bilderberg Group in 1954.

Yet, of van Oranje’s innumerable connections to powerful billionaires and the global elite, her most striking connection — in the context of Syria at least — was perhaps one of her first. In 1993, van Oranje — at the age of 25 and just out of university — founded the European Action Council for Peace in the Balkans and served as its CEO until 1997, when she left to join Soro’s OSI.

Despite its name appearing to advocate for “peace” in the Balkans, the group van Oranje founded was instead stocked with powerful U.S. political figures who advocated for anything but peace in the Balkan states. For instance, some of the members of the group’s executive council included Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; Frank Carlucci, Deputy CIA Director under Carter and National Security Advisor and Deputy Secretary of Defense under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan; Max Kampleman, head of Reagan’s nuclear weapons team; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Other key members and influencers working within the upper echelons of van Oranje’s council include Morton Abramowitz, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and board member of Human Rights Watch, and Aryeh Neier, co-founder of Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 1978 and long-time president of Soros’ OSI. Human Rights Watch is a prominent NGO that uses its “humanitarian” exterior to push pro-intervention agendas that are promoted by the governments and billionaires who fund and support it. For instance, HRW was awarded $100m to expand its global presence over a 10 year period by Soros and his associated organizations in 2010 and has formed a critical part of the “humanitarian” pro-military intervention lobby since the 1990s. HRW also has close ties to U.S. intelligence and is one of the many CIA outreach agents designed to provide, yet again, cover for the Pentagon’s military fist inside the velvet glove of “humanitarian” concerns.

Infographic produced by Professor Tim Anderson, a long-time peace activist and author of The Dirty War on Syria. Click to enlarge

How van Oranje was able to furnish her newly founded action council with such powerful figures, particularly just after finishing her senior year of college only months prior, is a testament to the strength of her connections, even before she began work for Soros’ elite power-protectionist group or became a member of the Dutch royal family.

Unsurprisingly, the European Action Council for Peace in the Balkans issued a call in 1995, under van Oranje’s leadership, for “an end to the arms embargo against Bosnia, the withdrawal of the UN forces from Bosnia and an effective NATO air campaign.

Despite being an alleged “council for peace,” the van Oranje-led group demanded that any “air campaign” be both “strategic and sustained,” not “pinprick strikes.” In other words, this group called for an intense, brutal and long-lasting bombing campaign of the country, much like the type of bombing campaign promoted for use in Syria by groups like Crisis Action — with members such as van Oranje and Mortensen of the Jo Cox Fund, as well as Jo Cox herself before her death. At the time, the van Oranje-chaired group on the Balkan conflict had also asserted that “a failure to act will be disastrous for the people of Bosnia, for the U.S., and for our vital interests in Europe” — the familiar clarion call to war in the interests of a “national security” under no threat from the country in the crosshairs.

Nick Grono and the Clintons

Van Oranje is hardly the only Jo Cox Fund co-founder with a well-heeled foothold in the elite camp. Nick Grono, another co-founder of the fund, had worked with Jo Cox at an anti-slavery NGO, the Freedom Fund. Grono, who was appointed the group’s CEO in January of 2014, had also previously served in key posts at the NGO Walk Free, also aimed at ending modern-day slavery. Grono had also been Deputy President and Chief Operating Officer at the cutting edge “conflict resolution and prevention” cartel commonly known as the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Nick Grono greets Pope Francis in 2013. Photo | Freedom Fund

The ICG board is comprised of a cadre of well-known elites such as Frank Giustra, longtime philanthropic partner of Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation; Carl Bildt; Emma Bonino; former NATO Chief Wesley Clark; George Soros; Alexander Soros — the list is extensive of those who are immensely influential in the globalist circles.  Furthermore, the funding for ICG is paid by the United States government through the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and grants made on behalf of the U.S. Congress to foreign political organizations. Other Western countries, like the Netherlands, also contribute. Notably, Mabel van Oranje is also a past member of ICG. Once encased in such a gilded cage, it is easy to build upon such connections and to expand, as a philanthrocapitalist, into the most lucrative areas of humanitarian need.

The Freedom Fund was first announced by former U.S. President Bill Clinton at the 2013 annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York. It was founded with $30 million provided by three “philanthropic” foundations of powerful billionaires and financial interests: Humanity United, a foundation funded by Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pamela; the Legatum Foundation, the development arm of the Legatum Group, a global private investment firm connected to mega-banks JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs; and the Minderoo Foundation, the foundation of Australian mining oligarch and the country’s richest man Andrew Forrest and his wife Nicola.

The Freedom Fund was described as an “ambitious seven-year effort to raise and deploy $100 million or more to combat modern-day slavery.” It was Bill Clinton who announced the fund’s creation, stating that “This is a huge deal and we should all support this.” Nick Grono was given the helm early on in the fund’s voyage, serving as its inaugural CEO. It is worth mentioning that the sincerity of Clinton’s enthusiasm for combating slavery and human trafficking is suspect, given that he was a regular visitor on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet and has intervened on at least one occasion to protect known child traffickers.

Grono is also on the board of van Oranje-chaired group Girls Not Brides and was the inaugural CEO of the anti-slavery NGO Walk Free, which conveniently interlocks with the anti-slavery movement contained within Freedom Fund. Notably, Tim Dixon, another Jo Cox Fund founder, is co-founder of Purpose Europe, a branch of the Avaaz-fosteredbehavioral-change experts that market themselves as a “non-profit” while accepting donor contributions from some of the most influential foundations and political “change” drivers, such as Google. According to Cory Morningstar, a pioneer researcher into the NPIC (Not for Profit Industrial Complex):

“Where, under the organization Avaaz, the public hasn’t acquiesced to an airstrike on Syria, the New York public relations firm Purpose Inc. has stepped in.”

Tim Dixon, pictured left, co-founded Purpose Europe.

Dixon’s connections will be covered in greater depth in Part 2, but it is worth noting here that Dixon also connects into the van Oranje network. Under Dixon’s tutelage and according to his LinkedIn profile, Purpose “incubated” van Oranje’s Walk Free Foundation that is now listed among the high-profile “partners” on the Purpose website.

The flotilla of anti-slavery activists and sponsors who floated Freedom Fund were Humanity Utd, Minderoo, Legatum Foundation who were then joined by the Stardust Fund, the C & A Foundation, and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), which granted $10 million to the Freedom Fund over five years “to scale its anti-slavery work, with a particular focus on tackling the exploitation of children.”

These groups continue to back Freedom Fund, which also receives significant fundingfrom the U.K. government and UBS, the multinational Switzerland-based investment bank.

A seminal paper written by Janie A. Chuang, an American professor of law, highlighted the pitfalls and risks involved in this particular area of philanthrocapitalism, a term Chuang invented in her essay. Chuang argues that “deep financial resources and access to powerful networks” give the philanthrocapitalists tremendous power to “shape the future trajectory of the anti-trafficking movement.” However, Chuang warns that this also gives these soft power moguls the ability to reconfigure and distort the landscape of global anti-trafficking policy-making and to contain it within a very limited power base that will monopolize the “market” and control the outcome.

The more sinister aspect of this overlap is that these capitalist NGO chains depend upon their ability to generate a revenue stream that sustains their positioning at the top of the fundraising pyramid. To what extent is the control they have over sectors of human suffering influenced by their need to meet the pay grade of their directors and board members? To what extent will these foundation-controlled NGOs sacrifice the agendas of their wealthy and powerful sponsors in favor of integrity and genuinely humanitarian objectives? In a nutshell, these anti-trafficking organizations depend upon human trafficking for their success, status and impact in an oversubscribed market.

In the next installment of this series, the role of these NGOs, and the Jo Cox Fund, in particular, will be examined as it relates to the Syrian conflict. As described above, many of the very players involved with the Jo Cox Fund and associated NGOs are much involved with the public-relations campaign to elevate and protect groups like the White Helmets and other dubious elements of the Syrian opposition, an effort that has its origin in the NATO intervention in the Balkan states in the 1990s. As will be explored, the current efforts of those groups and individuals within Syria not only act as a cover for Western intervention but also cover the dark side of these “humanitarian” NGOs, particularly their possible involvement in the trafficking of Syrian children.

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist, peace activist, photographer and associate editor at 21st Century Wire. Vanessa was a finalist for one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team. Support Vanessa via Patreon.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Source

Advertisements

Back to the Future

Back to the Future

A fictional story by Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk Sept 2, 2018

Judea Declares War on Britain

Neither Britain nor the rest of the world was surprised by last week’s election results. For the last six months Corbyn and the Labour Party have led in the polls and during that time no one doubted that Corbyn would become Britain’s new prime minister, the only question was when. And yet, Corbyn’s increasing popularity wasn’t a smooth shift in British politics, it resulted instead from a gradual increase in British unity in opposition to an obnoxious foreign lobby. The nastier Corbyn’s enemies were, the more Brits sided with him. At a certain stage it became clear that it was the Zionist Lobby, rather than Corbyn himself, that united the Brits behind Corbyn.
The more the Jewish self-appointed ‘leadership’ pushed: the more they equated Corbyn with Enoch Powel and even Hitler, the more the Brits responded by siding with the old anti racist. In the months leading up to the election the picture became clear, a wide spectrum of Brits were expressing fatigue with the manner in which a foreign lobby was crudely intervening in their national politics.
But in spite of the many signs that Britain had had enough, the British Jewish so-called ‘leadership’ didn’t stop pushing.  Not a day passed without a rabbi using the BBC to spread the message of Jews’ right to live in ‘peace’ on someone else’s land.  Every day we read a Guardian interview with an influential Jew who threatened to make Aliya and take his or her shekels with him. The Brits weren’t impressed, on social media some offered departing Zionists piggy back rides to Heathrow.
Commentators agreed that the escalation in British Jews’ troubled relationship with the rest of the nation was a very dangerous development. Corbyn, for his part, repeatedly stated that Labour would fight all forms of racism including antisemitsm. But the Jewish leaders’ concerns didn’t abate. “We didn’t ask him to fight racism, we want him to fight antisemitism.” Corbyns’ assurances were totally dismissed by the Jewish bodies. His motto, ‘For the Many not the Few,’ that excited so many Brits was interpreted by Zionist Jews as “for the Many not the Jew.”  It became clear that no one within the Jewish community knew how to calm things down. On the contrary, the self-appointed Jewish ‘representative’ bodies, seemed to compete amongst themselves to see who could drip more oil into the blaze.
Two weeks before the election, when it was widely accepted that Corbyn was about to become a PM and there was no force that could stop him, not even the Jewish Lobby, violence was employed. In early January, MI5 was tipped off about a possible  plot to physically attack  the Labour leader. According to Israeli media a few arrests were made in North West London. The British press was restricted from passing that story on to the citizens of the kingdom.
In a desperate move two weeks before the election, AIPAC, CRIF and other overseas Jewish pressure groups joined local Zionist bodies in stating that a Labour win would lead to an immediate international call by Jews for a boycott of Britain. The Guardian was quick to publish an extended commentary by George Soros, its favorite ‘currency analyst,’ who lectured the Brits on what would happen to their pound if they were stupid enough to allow Corbyn into 10 Downing Street.
AIPAC and CRIF delivered. Less than 24 hours after the election, the two influential Jewish lobbies called for immediate and severe financial measures against Britain. Wealthy Jews were urged to withdraw their funds and investments from the City. The US administration was implored to stop trade with Britain immediately. President Trump, hanging on a thread and battling likely impeachment, promised to seriously consider the demands of the Lobby that has dominated American foreign policy for more than three decades.
The situation in Britain did indeed deteriorate immediately as Soros predicted.  Within a day, the pound lost 45% of its value against the dollar and this after the dollar lost 20% of its value against the Iranian Rial a week earlier (due to an EU-Chinese-Russian deal with Iran).
Brits weren’t happy at all. In fact, many of them were devastated. Corbyn, now a PM in the process of forming his government, was put in an untenable situation. It was just a question of time before nasty scenes of violence erupted. I guess that we have seen it all before…

Source

 

The Dog That Didn’t Bark — Science Matters

This post gets into political territory, but continues a theme on the importance of evidence in attesting whether a claim is true or false. The topic of course is the investigation into election collusion (itself not a crime) between Russia and Trump. Here is a status report following convictions yesterday. George Neumayr writes in American […]

via The Dog That Didn’t Bark — Science Matters

How To Connect To The FREE INTERNET And Live As A CRYPTO LIFER with FREOS — Truther’s World

Press For Truth Published on 16 Jul 2018 SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/donate Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth Follow me on DTube ➜ https://d.tube/#!/c/pressfortruth “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You […]

via How To Connect To The FREE INTERNET And Live As A CRYPTO LIFER with FREOS — Truther’s World

Corporate crime: Five biggest financial scams of all time — WebInvestigator.KK.org – by F. Kaskais

image edited by Fernando Kaskais Cast member Norbert Leo Butz, depicting former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling, performs during a dress rehearsal of the play “Enron” in New York © Lucas Jackson / Reuters When it comes to big money there’s a whole lot of room for screw-ups, cover-ups and everything in between. The business world […]

via Corporate crime: Five biggest financial scams of all time — WebInvestigator.KK.org – by F. Kaskais

Seymour Hersh on novichok, Russian links to Donald Trump and 9/11

Seymour Hersh on novichok, Russian links to Donald Trump and 9/11

Youssef El-Gingihy — The Independent August 1, 2018

seymour hersh

I’m about to interview the 81-year-old doyen of investigative journalism Seymour Hersh. Sy Hersh – as he is affectionately known by those close to him – was once described by the Financial Times as “the last great American reporter”. Hersh has brought out his memoir Reporter covering the span of his career as one of the iconoclastic journalists of the 20th century – the man who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and who later brought the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in the Iraq War to the attention of the world.

Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Click to enlarge

Hersh has recently been in London for a talk at the Centre for Investigative Journalism at Goldsmiths. It makes for a raucously entertaining two hours in which he holds court on everything from Vietnam and the war on terror to the Skripal novichok poisoningTrump and the alleged Russian hacking of the election. Octogenarian Hersh is already back in Washington by the time we speak on the phone.

He has been ploughing his furrow since long before I was born. It is hard not to be in awe of the man. You could say that I am just a tad nervous. His street-wise Chicago demeanour means that he can be a tough interviewee. Luckily for me, Hersh is in a good mood – he is extremely jovial and spends most of the interview chuckling as he regales me with tales of his illustrious career.

During the 1970s, Hersh covered Watergate for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. And in what he describes as “the big one”, he also uncovered the CIA’s large-scale domestic wiretapping programme surveilling the anti-war movement and other dissident groups (in contravention of its charter not to spy on US citizens). He has consistently been a thorn in the side of the establishment.

Along with Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, Hersh is perhaps responsible for the glamorous image of the investigative reporter – shirt sleeves rolled up making calls for the latest scoop or meeting anonymous sources on deep background in undisclosed locations. The reality is undoubtedly far less glamorous and largely consists of hard graft. As Hersh relates in his memoir, he inherited his industrious work ethic from his father and never knew any other way of living.

The story of how Hersh came to write his memoir after swearing never to write about family matters is typically Hershian. He was working on a book on Bush vice president Dick Cheney when the backlash against whistleblowers meant that he could no longer protect his sources. As a result, he offered to sell his pied-à-terre in order to pay back the generous advance but Sonny Mehta – the editor-in-chief of Alfred Knopf – persuaded him to write an autobiographical account.

Reporter reads like the cross-pollination of Saul Bellow’s The Adventures of Augie Marchand All the President’s Men. Hersh grew up in the Chicago suburbs and was forced to take over the running of the family laundry business in his teens after his father died of lung cancer. He did not shine at school and was not destined for an intellectual life, seemingly stumbling into a career as a newspaperman.

Serendipity would have it that he answered the phone the morning after an all-night poker game in which he lost all of his money. The call was from City News. He happened to be staying at his old apartment that night having forgotten to inform his future employers that he had changed address. And so began inauspiciously one of the most remarkable careers in journalism. If it was not for Hersh’s penchant for all-night poker games, we may never have known about all manner of deep state malfeasance.

In fact, he struggled for many years to find secure employment. The My Lai stories changed everything. Hersh’s writing has been seared into history. From the mother of one of the soldiers telling him, “I sent them a good boy, and they made him a murderer.” Or one of the other soldiers, who begins his account by stating plainly, “It was a Nazi-type thing.”

The descriptions of babies being tossed up in the air and bayoneted or of soldiers arriving for their first tour to find a military jeep speeding by with human ears sewn to its dashboard are bone-chilling. The My Lai story brought home the brutality, depravity and monstrosity of the American war machine fuelling the anti-war movement.

Yet even with a Pulitzer Prize in hand, he still could not land his dream job at The New York Times. His cantankerous tendencies may not have helped, having hung up twice on executive editor Abe Rosenthal.

Hersh is honest enough to admit that today he might not have made it. He worked during the heyday of American journalism – when he was paid handsomely for exposes and when media outlets had the financial muscle to fund serious writing. When he covered the Paris Peace Accords for The Times, he was put up at the world famous five-star deluxe Hotel de Crillon.

It is not long before we discuss contemporaneous events including the alleged Russian hacking of the US presidential election. Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is “a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous.” He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public… yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defence establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. “When the intel community wants to say something they say it… High confidence effectively means that they don’t know.”

Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime.” The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions – though this flies in the face of the UK government’s position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – “a trimmer … articulate [but] … far from a radical … a middleman”. During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11. He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: “Sy you still don’t get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks.” It is a delicious if cryptic aphorism.

I ask about how the war in Syria has been a divisive issue for the left. Hersh wrote a series of controversial long reads for the London Review of Books insinuating that the Assad government might not have been responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. He had been writing for decades at The New Yorker, which turned down these pieces leading to a falling out.

In “The Red Line and the Rat Line”, Hersh argued that both sides had access to chemical weapons. He even went one better and postulated that the rebels or even the Erdogan Turkish government may have carried out a false flag attack to twist Obama’s arm into escalating US involvement as this would have crossed his self-imposed red line.

Hersh also highlighted that a “rat line” of arms had been set up between Libya and Syria by the CIA with the involvement of MI6 using front companies. This was designed to supply the Syrian rebels including jihadi groups in their efforts to oust Assad – startling revelation considering that the US is prosecuting a war on terror and intending to neutralise Islamic State.

Hersh deals with criticisms of the Assad regime one by one. He brusquely tells me: “If Assad loses he will be hanging from a lamp-post” with his wife and children alongside him. He elaborates that, “Heinous things happen in war”, recounting the Allies’ firebombing of Japanese and German cities as well as the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War. His point is that all sides commit war crimes.

In fact, he tells me that the US has also deployed barrel bombs. One could obviously add much more to this catalogue including the use of Agent Orange and other chemicals in Vietnam as well as the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Iraq. “Where is the moral equivalence?” Hersh asks. All of which reminds me of gung-ho US General Curtis LeMay’s infamous statement that if he had lost the Second World War, he would have been tried for war crimes.

Hersh tells me that this is “as close to a just war” because Assad is fighting to prevent an Islamist takeover and the imposition of Sharia law. Critics will rebut that this is a reductively simplistic analysis of the situation with moderate forces on the ground. And surely there is no doubt that the Baathist Assad regime is a brutal dictatorship? Hersh casually drops into the conversation that he met Assad five or six times before the war – a reminder of the astonishing life that he has led meeting the good, the bad and the ugly.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski with Col Tim Osman aka Osama bin Laden. Click to enlarge

We move on to talk about the covert funding and arming of Islamists going back to the Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. This was overseen by western intelligence agencies as well as the Saudis and Pakistanis. Hersh recounts how Jimmy Carter’s fiercely anti-communist national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinskiplanned to lure the Russians into their own Vietnam – a quagmire that would catalyse the downfall of the Soviet Union.

During the Goldsmiths event, Hersh vaguely alludes to a funding programme that he has come across but does not divulge further. Most well-informed people are aware of the origins of this story. Very few realise that this has been a wide-scale secretive programme, which extended into the former Soviet states as well as across the Middle East and Africa up until the present day. It has been designed to facilitate geopolitical aims presumably on the basis that the ends justify the means. I mention 1950s British intelligence documents with the stated aim of neutralising Arab socialism and nationalism. “Imperialism is imperialism,” Hersh retorts.

In another article, “Military to Military”, Hersh disclosed top secret high-level communications between the military powers engaged in the Syrian theatre. When the US joint chiefs of staff bypassed Obama in order to pass on important intelligence in the fight against Islamic State, an Assad friend responded that they should bring him the head of Bandar to demonstrate good faith. Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the former Saudi ambassador to the US and the director general of the Saudi intelligence agency GID. According to reports in The Wall Street Journal, he acted as the lynchpin in arming the jihadis fighting Assad. Bandar remains close to the Bush clan. Unsurprisingly, the Americans declined the offer.

I enquire about the role of Bandar in various deep events including acting as the go-between in the CIA arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the BAE Al Yamamah arms deal notorious for massive bribes and kickbacks as well as Iran Contra. He even pops up in multiple instances in the 9/11 report, including in relation to payments from his wife Princess Haifa’s bank account being wired to a contact of two of the hijackers. Hersh does not dwell on this but believes that the Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman may well turn out to be worse than Bandar.

Sensing that Hersh may still be preoccupied with the Bush-era having abandoned his Cheney book, I ask about an article he wrote in 2007 in The New Yorker entitled “The Redirection”. He tells me it is “amazing how many times that story has been reprinted”. I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralise the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney “had it in for Iran”, although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: “They were providing intel, collecting intel … The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran”.

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I’m sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory. Hersh was at a meeting in Jordan at some point in the last decade, where he was informed that “you guys have no idea what you are starting” referring to the bloody sectarianism that was about to be unleashed in Iraq.

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethnosectarian partitioning of Iraq. Hersh ruefully states that: “The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far.”

We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved.

Hersh tells me: “I don’t necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don’t have an ending to the story. I’ve known people in the [intelligence] community. We don’t know anything empirical about who did what”. He continues: “The guy was living in a cave. He really didn’t know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later… How’s it going, guys?”

The concept of perpetual war is not exactly unintentional. The Truman doctrine hinged on this. His successor Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex”. In 2015, giant defence contractor Lockheed Martin’s CEO stated that the more instability in the Asia Pacific and the Middle East the better for their profit margins. In other words, war is good for business.

Obama, Seymour Hersh  and bin Laden (inset). Click to enlarge

We also cover his recent work on the purported mythology surrounding Bin Laden’s death in his previous book The Killing of Osama Bin Laden. Hersh tells me: “He escaped into Tora Bora. My guess is the Pakistani intelligence service picked him up pretty early. It was likely that he was in Abbottabad [the military garrison town where he was eventually killed] for 5-6 years according to ISI [Pakistani intelligence] defectors.” At the same time, he states that the Americans did not know. “Nobody knows … Someone walked in and told us,” he says, referring to the Pakistani defector who picked up most of the bounty worth £25m.

Hersh has taken a lot of flak over recent years regarding his articles on Syria and Bin Laden. He has been accused of being an apologist for Assad and the Russians, though he maintains he is seeking out the truth.

Critics have also argued that Hersh is a conspiracy theorist, though notably in his John F Kennedy biography The Dark Side of Camelot, he writes that Oswald was the probable lone assassin. Several years ago, I grilled Hersh on this and he responded that he simply could not find anything more on Oswald whilst researching the book. It seems that this position is adopted by others on the left too such as Noam Chomsky, who views JFK as a liberal war hawk rather than a threat to the establishment.

I have to say I’m perplexed, to say the least that a man who has spent his entire career dealing with covert action and spies buys the official version report hook, line and sinker. In Reporter, he warmly relates his dealings with Hollywood director Oliver Stone in the late Eighties. However, when Stone begins to expand on his thesis that Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA conspiracy in what would eventually become his tour de force magnum opus JFK, Hersh is completely dismissive, telling Stone that the idea is preposterous – to which Stone replies that he always knew Hersh was a CIA agent and walks off.

Hersh shows no signs of slowing down. He clearly has plenty of work in progress with the tantalising prospect of reporting on the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the US election. And who knows? Maybe that Cheney book will eventually see the light of day. It looks like there might still be a chapter or two to add to his memoir after all.

Source

The Holocaust and its Deniers

Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk Aug 3, 2018

Concentration camps Nazis and in Gaza

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’
This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.
In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.
If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust’s message.
Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.
In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.
Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.
On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”
Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.
Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’
The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.

Source

Maurice Joly Plagiarized “Protocols of Zion” (not vice-versa)

Maurice Joly Plagiarized “Protocols of Zion” (not vice-versa)

August 3, 2018

M.Joly_(cropped).jpg(image: Maurice Joly 1821-1879, was a Jew named Joseph Levy with a history of plagiarism.)

The assumption is that since Protocols appeared some 40 years after Dialogue
it plagiarized the earlier work. But the Protocols actually predatedDialogue 
and Joly borrowed from it. In other words, far from being an anti-Semitic ruse, 
the “Protocols of Zion” are authentic.  
 
The Protocols are the basis of the New World Order (Communism)
which seeks to induct mankind into Satanism by “destroying every collective force not our own” 
(Protocols 16-4), namely race, religion, nation, and family. This is the explanation
for the promotion of gender dysphoria (destroy marriage & family), migration & miscegenation (race) and globalism (nation.)  Meanwhile, the church (religion) has been sabotaged and the word “God” banned from public discourse. 
 
 
 
From July 30, 2008
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

It is forbidden to mention  the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (1905) without the Disclaimer that, of course, they are a “forgery” of Maurice Joly’s “Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”(1864.)

The assumption is that since Protocols appeared some 40 years after Dialogue, it plagiarized the earlier work. But the Protocols actually predated Dialogue and Joly borrowed from it. In other words, far from being an anti-Semitic ruse, the “Protocols of Zion” are authentic.

I have already argued that the two documents are neither similar nor derivative, although they have some lines and words in common. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is essentially a brilliant Master Plan for dispossession and tyranny, i.e. the New World Order. It is the key to understanding our present predicament. (This is not a condemnation of all Jews, only the nucleus of bankers and high-level Masons directing this diabolical war against the human race.)

“Dialogue in Hell” was a veiled Masonic Jewish attack on Napoleon III, an example of how they championed liberalism to undermine the Old Order and usurp power, as described in the Protocols themselves. (The author of Protocols is contemptuous of liberalism and all egalitarian programs. They are just gimmicks to manipulate the masses.)

 
KERRY BOLTON

Reading Kerry Bolton’s monograph “The Protocols of Zion In Context” (Renaissance Press, 2003) it became obvious that Joly was plagiarizing from The Protocols and not vice-versa.

Joly, a Jew whose real name was Joseph Levy, was a lifelong Mason and member of the “Lodge of Mizraim” where the Protocols document originated. He was the protege of Adolph Cremieux (Isaac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880) the head of the lodge, founder of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and a Minister in the Jewish-backed government of Leon Gambetta.


The plot is described in the Protocols as “centuries-old.” It most likely predates “Dialogue.” Joly was well versed in the Protocols and borrowed from it to flesh out the unpopular authoritarian position of Machiavelli, which he ascribed to Napoleon III.

Joly, who committed suicide in 1879, was in the habit of “borrowing.” He is accused of plagiarizing a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely “Les Mystères du Paris.” (1845) Also, his work is predated by another of Cremieux’s proteges, Jacob Venedy,  entitled, “Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau.” (1850)

In 1884 Mme. Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian General living in Paris, hired Joseph Schorst, a member of Joly’s  Mizraim Lodge to obtain sensitive information.  For the sum of 2500 francs, Schorst provided Glinka with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” He was subsequently tracked down and murdered in Egypt.

200px-Serge_Nilus_2_Wrk.jpgThe Tsarist government, already heavily infiltrated, sat on the document. Glinka subsequently gave it to a friend who passed it on to Professor Sergius A. Nilus, left, who published it for the first time in 1901.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, Nilus was arrested in Kiev in 1924, imprisoned and tortured. The President of the Court told him he had “done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols.” (“Waters Flowing Eastward” by Paquita de Shishmareff, 1999, pp.74-76.)

CONCLUSION

If your plan for World Domination leaked out, what would you do? Would you admit it? “You got me! My bad!”

No, you’d employ an army of ciphers to convince everyone the document is a hoax motivated by “prejudice” and “anti-Semitism.” They have executed this “damage control” perfectly, a measure of their power to deceive even in the presence of the truth.

quote-personally-i-am-more-than-ever-inclined-to-believe-that-the-protocols-of-the-learned-nesta-helen-webster-100-39-83.jpgThis is the only Conspiracy that has prevailed in spite of the Blueprint beingfreely available. It demonstrates the credulity (or venality) of the intelligentsia and the masses.

They have colonized our minds first. We cannot name our oppressor for fear of being accused of “anti-Semitism.” It’s as though Black slaves working on cotton plantations were taught it was “racist” or “bigoted” to mention the White slave driver. Since the majority of Jews are ignorant of this plot, and are manipulated like everyone else, racism is a ploy to divert attention from a very dire problem.

The Illuminati (top-rung Masonic Jews and their non-Jewish allies) have distributed some wealth and power to the masses (liberalism, socialism) as a way of securing ultimate power for themselves. According to the Protocols, they will eventually withdraw these benefits once their “invisible government” is invincible. The “war on terror” should be seen in this context.

In my view, “Protocols Deniers” are complicit in this Conspiracy, which is responsible for most human suffering and will lead to a great deal more. As a Jew, I don’t want this responsibility on my head, or on other innocent Jews or Masons.

Related –  Protocols- Introduction and Synopsis

 

New Jersey’s Eye-opening Autism Facts Everyone Really Must Know — zaidpub

By Catherine J. Frompovich There are facts and, then, there are factoids, which are a brief or trivial item of news or information; an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact [online Dictionary], which can apply, in my opinion, to the pseudoscience published by the HHS, CDC, FDA […]

via New Jersey’s Eye-opening Autism Facts Everyone Really Must Know — zaidpub

A topnotch WordPress.com site

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.

WEB OF DEBT BLOG

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: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com

Citizen WElls

Obama eligibility, Obama news

Burst Updates

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

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

"The way to defeat an enemy is to divide them." ~ Sun Tzu

WebInvestigator.KK.org - 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

Journal of People

Peasants and workers

Counter Information

Uncovering the mainstream media lies

%d bloggers like this: