Straight WNBA star: Lesbian culture broke my spirit

Straight WNBA star: Lesbian culture broke my spirit

Mark W. Sanchez — New York Post Feb 21, 2017

Candice Wiggins with the Liberty in 2015. Click to enlarge

Candice Wiggins was a college star at Stanford, the third pick of the 2008 WNBA draft and a 2011 champion. And at the mountaintop of her basketball career, her sexuality marred the moment.

There is a “very, very harmful” culture running throughout the WNBA, she says, which saw her get bullied during her eight-year career because she is heterosexual.

Wiggins, who last played in the league in 2015, said she retired prematurely to leave a league that she estimated — wildly — is 98 percent lesbian, and which is played in such isolation that it weighs on the people on the court.

“It wasn’t like my dreams came true in the WNBA. It was quite the opposite,” Wiggins said in an extensive San Diego Tribune story published Monday. “… I wanted to play two more seasons of WNBA, but the experience didn’t lend itself to my mental state. It was a depressing state in the WNBA. It’s not watched. Our value is diminished. It can be quite hard. I didn’t like the culture inside the WNBA, and without revealing too much, it was toxic for me. … My spirit was being broken.”

The 30-year-old couldn’t take it anymore — being harassed for being straight and fighting for attention in a league that is starved.

“Me being heterosexual and straight, and being vocal in my identity as a straight woman was huge,” Wiggins said. “I would say 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are gay women. It was a conformist type of place. There was a whole different set of rules they [the other players] could apply.”

Wiggins, who played for the Lynx, Shock, Sparks and Liberty, claimed the issues revolve around the lack of attention the league has garnered as the WNBA struggles with ticket sales and TV ratings. For the 2016 season, the WNBA said its average attendance was 7,655 — its highest since 2011.

“There was a lot of jealousy and competition, and we’re all fighting for crumbs,” Wiggins said. “The way I looked, the way I played – those things contributed to the tension.

“People were deliberately trying to hurt me all of the time. I had never been called the B-word so many times in my life than I was in my rookie season. I’d never been thrown to the ground so much. The message was: ‘We want you to know we don’t like you.’ ”



US finally admits: ‘NO EVIDENCE’ Assad used sarin gas

US finally admits: ‘NO EVIDENCE’ Assad used sarin gas

Seraphim Hanisch — The Duran Sept 11, 2018

US Marine Corps General James Mattis. Click to enlarge

Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated on or about February 2nd, 2018 that the United States has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people in attacks in 2013 and 2017.  The most recent one provoked a massive Tomahawk strike ordered by President Trump that was quite provocative in the eyes of the Russian Federation and of course the Syrian government.

Secretary Mattis’ assertion is in direct contradiction to the White House Memorandum which was rapidly written and declassified to justify the Americans’ strike.  However, the Secretary offered no specifics to his statement.  He did discuss the fact that there were aid groups and other people, including NGOs and other fighters operating in the area that had provided evidence and reports of what happened with the Sarin strike. Their information stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit.

“I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”

The reporting on this is highly suspect, though.  NewsweekReuters and the Washington Post are three American publications that all have run pieces pointing out this contradictory matter.  At this time, FoxNews has nothing on its site about this matter, but ZeroHedge does.

Gen. Mattis, known affectionately as “Mad Dog” Mattis, is known for an uncompromising approach to dealing with America’s enemies:

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

He was an outspoken critic of President Obama’s Middle East policy, naming Iran as the single most serious threat to stability in the region.

By all accounts, then, the General is faithful to the idea that projecting American power abroad is a good thing.  Seen with this context, the general’s statement seems unusual, and the media outlets that have a less than favorable view of Donald Trump as the American President have been quick to jump on board the train to point out that the General disagrees with his CO, the President.

Sadly, if this issue is able to gain traction, it is only going to do so as long as it serves the media’s narrative that President Trump is crazy or stupid, and should not be trusted with the leadership of the nation.  No doubt this will be spun as 25th amendment material, since the President “could in a moment of passion, decide to nuke someone.”

It is important also to consider that the statement that Gen. Mattis gave is not that he says he disagrees with the Trump decision to launch the Tomahawk strike.  He is only saying there is no evidence in his possession that confirms that the Syrian government was behind these attacks.

Furthering this point, it is difficult at times to get hard evidence of such things in an active war zone.  Contextually, there are three possible agencies that could have done this attack: (1) the Syrian government, (2) the fighters of whichever group, like Al-Nusra or ISIS who elected to use this to frame the Syrian government, and (3) the US, in an attempt to frame the Assad regime.

The Americans were not invited to help Assad, so their presence in Syria is an inconvenient truth – Syria cannot expel them, but they were never wanted, and even by the American people, involvement in yet another Middle Eastern nation is not high on the “things I want my country to do” list for most Americans.

The loser in this situation is the United States, because of the mishandling of this conflict.  While most of the conflict and the American action in it took place during the Obama era, it is probably the case that if the USA simply gathered all its troops and equipment and retreated to Israel or the Mediterranean Sea, or just plain left, the result might be a great deal worse for the Russian and Syrian national forces already there.

The problem here is that there may well be a serious intelligence breach or failure that created or allowed the decision to launch that Tomahawk strike. Russia Today also ran the Mattis piece, because to do so suits the Russian narrative that there is no way Bashar Assad would use gas on his own people. Indeed, it does not make rational sense to a Westerner how a dictator retains power when his country is already a war zone and watched by world powers.  To do a mass killing of one’s own citizens under such a watchful eye seems a highly absurd course for any leader to take.

The further problem is the reality of conditions on the ground.  As this report points out, the Americans may be in a situation where foolish decisions by previous administrations and maybe even this one, have created a situation where they cannot leave.


World IQ Figures: A Complete Chart with Notes and Comments

World IQ Figures: A Complete Chart with Notes and Comments

Lasha Darkmoon — Feb 11, 2018

world iq map

This work of reference was originally published on the Darkmoon site in January 2012. It has now been completely revised and updated, with new sections added on Jewish, Chinese, Indian and super-genius IQ levels. For another excellent world map showing average IQ by country, click HERE.

Afghanistan ….. 83
Albania ….. 90
Algeria ….. 84
Angola ….. 69
Antigua & Barbuda ….. 75
Argentina ….. 96
Armenia ….. 93
Australia ….. 98
Austria ….. 102
Azerbaijan ….. 87
Bahamas ….. 78
Bahrain ….. 83
Bangladesh ….. 81
Barbados ….. 78
Belarus ….. 96
Belgium ….. 100
Belize ….. 83
Benin ….. 69
Bhutan ….. 78
Bolivia ….. 85
Botswana ….. 72
Brazil ….. 87
Britain (See U.K.) 
Brunei ….. 92
Bulgaria ….. 93
Burkina Faso ….. 66
Burma (Myanmar) …..  86
Burundi ….. 70
Cambodia ….. 89
Cameroon ….. 70
Canada …..  97
Cape Verde ….. 78
Central African Republic ….. 68
Chad ….. 72
Chile ….. 93
China …..  100
(See notes on East Asian IQ below)
Colombia …..  88
Comoros ….. 79
Congo (Brazzaville) ….. 73
Congo (Zaire) ….. 65
Costa Rica ….. 91
Côte d’Ivoire ….. 71
Croatia ….. 90
Cuba ….. 85
Cyprus …..  92
Czech Republic …..  97
Denmark …..  98
Djibouti ….. 68
Dominica ….. 75
Dominican Republic …..  84
Ecuador …..  80
Egypt ….. 83
El Salvador ….. 84
Equatorial Guinea …..  59
Eritrea …..  68
Estonia …..  97
Ethiopia …..  63
Fiji …..  84
Finland ….. 97
France …..  98
Gabon …..  66
Gambia ….. 64
Georgia …..  93
Germany …..  102
Ghana …..  71
Greece …..  92
Grenada ….. 75
Guatemala ….. 79
Guinea …..  63
Guinea-Bissau ….. 63
Guyana ….. 84
Haiti ….. 72
Honduras …..  84
Hong Kong …..  107
Hungary …..  99
Iceland ….. 98
India …..  81
(See notes on Indian IQ below)
Indonesia ….. 89
Iran …..  84
Iraq …..  87
Ireland …..  93
Israel …..  94
(See notes on Jewish IQ below)
Italy …..  102
Jamaica …..  72
Japan …..  105
Jordan…..  87
Kazakhstan …..  93
Kenya …..  72
Kiribati …..  84
Korea . . . 105-106
(NK = 105;  SK = 106)
Kuwait …..  83
Kyrgyzstan …..  87
Laos …..  89
Latvia ….. 97
Lebanon ….. 86
Lesotho …..  72
Liberia …..  64
Libya …..  84
Lithuania …..     97
Luxembourg …..  101
Macedonia …..  93
Madagascar …..  79
Malawi …..  71
Malaysia …..  92
Maldives …..  81
Mali …..  68
Malta ….. 95
Marshall Islands …..  84
Mauritania …..  73
Mauritius …..  81
Mexico …..  87
Micronesia …..  84
Moldova ….. 95
Mongolia …… 98
Morocco …..  85
Mosambique ….. 72
Myanmar (Burma) ….. 86
Namibia ….. 72
Nepal …..  78
Netherlands ….. 102
New Zealand ….. 100
Nicaragua ….. 84
Niger …..  67
Nigeria …..  67
Norway …..  98
Oman ….. 83
Pakistan …..  81
Panama ….. 84
Papua New Guinea …..  84
Paraguay …..  85
Peru …..  90
Philippines ….. 86
Poland …..  99
Portugal ….. 95
Puerto Rico …..  84
Qatar …..  78
Romania …..  94
Russia ….. 96
Rwanda ….. 70
Samoa (Western) …..  87
Sao Tome/Principe …..  59
Saudi Arabia ….. 83
Senegal …..  64
Seychelles ….. 81
Sierra Leone …..  64
Singapore ….. 100
Slovakia …..  96
Slovenia …..  95
Solomon Islands …..  84
Somalia …..  68
South Africa …..  72 
Spain …..  99
Sri Lanka …..  81
St. Kitts & Nevis …..  75
St. Lucia ….. 75
St.Vincent/Grenadines …..  75
Sudan …..  72
Suriname …..  89
Swaziland …..  72
Sweden …..  101
Switzerland …..  101
Syria …..  87
Taiwan …..  104
Tajikistan …..  87
Tanzania …..   72
Thailand …..  91
Togo …..  69
Tonga …..  87
Trinidad & Tobago …..  80
Tunisia …..  84
Turkey …..  90
Turkmenistan …..  87
Uganda …..  73
Ukraine ….. 96
United Arab Emirates ….. 83
United Kingdom (U.K.) …..  100
United States (U.S.)  …..  98
Uruguay …..  96
Uzbekistan …..  87
Vanuatu …..  84
Venezuela …..  88
Vietnam …..  96
Yemen …..  83
Yugoslavia …..  93
Zambia …..   77
Zimbabwe …..  66




ASHKENAZI  JEWS: Unlike the “average” Jews in Israel whose IQ is given above as 94, Ashkenazi Jews are said to have an average IQ of 110-115, sometimes as high as 117. This is 10 points above the Hong Kong Chinese (107), 20 points above the Canadians (97), 30 points above the Mexicans (87), and 50 points above the Nigerians (67). 
The simplest explanation for the huge IQ difference between the fair-skinned Ashkenazi Jews and the darker Jews of Semitic appearance is a so-called conspiracy theory known as the “Khazarian thesis”. Popularized by Arthur Koestler in The Thirteenth Tribe and accepted by some notable Jewish scholars (e.g. Professor Shlomo Sand), this basically states that the Ashkenazi Jews are “false Jews” or aliens of an entirely different race, masquerading as Semitic Jews. Originating in a region known as “Khazaria”, these Turko-Tartaric tribes converted to Judaism in the 8th century. So they were “Jews” only by religious conversion, not by blood. As such, being essentially “false Jews”, they have no historic link to the Holy Land and no Biblical claim whatever to Palestine.
Descended from the Khazars, a Turkic race originally from Central Asia and related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes, the ancestors of the Ashkenazi “Jews” had settled in Khazaria in the Black Sea/Caspian Sea area at some point in the Dark Ages. (See THIS MAP). Of wholly Asiatic origin, they became “Jews” later only by religious conversion in the 8th century. This is controversial and disputed.  If true, it means that Ahhkenazi Jews have no ancestral links with the Holy Land. Abraham and Moses were therefore not their ancestors by bloodline. Any ownership claims to Palestine on Biblical grounds by Ashkenazi Jews—who comprise the bulk of Israel’s population today—would therefore be spurious claims.
The Khazarian thesis of Koestler has been rejected by other notable scholars who have argued convincingly that modern population genetic studies have proved conclusively that widely dispersed Jewish groups, who do not resemble each other in any way physically, are nevertheless extraordinarily similar genetically. Others however argue that “genetic similarities” between Ashkenazi Jews and other widely dispersed Jewish groups (with darker skins) do not necessarily disprove the Khazarian thesis of Koestler. This is because intermarriage between the fair-skinned Ashkenazis and the darker-skinned “Semitic” Jews was frequent in Khazaria from the 8th century onward, and indeed anywhere else in the world where the fair-skinned Khazarian “pseudo-Jews” mingled with and married the darker-skinned Semitic Jews.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, Koestler was to write that it was based “on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims.” The story of the Khazar Empire, he went on to add, gave an entirely new twist to “the distorted view that all Jews were genetically related and belonged to the same Semitic race.” This began to look, he concluded sensationally, “like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.” — See The Thirteenth Tribe, Part 2, “The Heritage.
In regard to Jewish IQ, a learned correspondent comments:
“If we look at the Israeli national average for IQ, it is only 94. Prof. Lynn in Ireland is the ultimate authority on IQ differences. In a semi-private conversation at an AR conference (Feb. 2001), he said that the Jewish IQ outside of Israel is only 103-104 (i.e., this is the IQ of someone expected to graduate from higher education, only slightly above the average European IQ of 100). Prof. Lynn stated: “I don’t understand why there is this push to say 110-115, by my colleagues, when there is no scientific study that proves that.” 
It’s worth noting therefore that one of the world’s foremost IQ experts, Prof. Richard Lynn, questions the exceptionally high IQ figure of 110-115 that is commonly given to Ashkenazi Jews, putting it much lower at 103-104. If correct, this would make the Ashkenazi Jews slightly less intelligent than the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans with their average IQ of 105.
For my part, I am not in a position to comment convincingly on the Khazarian thesis of Koestler. To pronounce judgment on this question would require a specialist knowledge of genetics which I lack. Suffice to say that most fairer-skinned Ashkenazi Jews, whether they are Jews in the strict genetic sense or pseudo-Jews masquerading as Jews, are nevertheless of far higher intelligence than the average Euro-American. It is precisely because of their greater intelligence, or resourceful cunning in the acquisition of wealth and power, that Ashkenazi Jews have managed to do so well in the Darwinian struggle for existence — otherwise known as the Survival of the Fittest.

It would appear that the sub-average IQ in India of 81, though applicable en masse to the population of the subcontinent as a whole, is not applicable to the closely inbred brahminical classes of Bengal and Tamil Nadu (and other such areas) which have been practicing their own highly idiosyncratic form of eugenics for centuries. These high-caste Indians are reported to have the world’s highest IQs in the 115-120 range. A well-informed correspondent offers this comment:
“Besides the Ashkenazi Jews with their high average IQ, another interesting group is Indian Brahmins, who have an ancient culture of learning and are strictly endogamic, which would tend to breed for intellect. There is an interesting article touching on this subject on Steve Sailer’s blog. Here the average IQ of North Indian Brahmins is estimated at 115 and that of South Indian Brahmins at 120. If that is true, they would surpass even the Ashkenazis.”
For more details, see Steve Sailer’s 2008 article: India’s Average IQ in 2100?
If the above details are correct, it would not be unreasonable to apply the same tentative logic to China, leading us to speculate that the IQ of the highly bred Chinese scholar classes or mandarinate—the equivalent of India’s brahminical caste—may be far higher than the average Chinese IQ of 105+
Another point worth noting, in regard to Indian IQ, is that it is hard to believe that the average IQ of Indian immigrants to Western countries is as low as 81. The average IQ of Indian immigrants certainly equals, and often exceeds, the average IQ of the local white indigenous population. Some of the most gifted children in British schools today have highly educated Indian parents. Moreover, even in India itself, the children of the educated classes who attend expensive boarding schools have higher-than-average IQs, often going on to Oxford and Cambridge for further education.
The highest mathematical genius who has ever lived is arguably an Indian who died tragically at the early age of 33 before he could realize his full potential. I refer to Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose powers were so extraordinary that even the most preeminent mathematicians in the West regarded Ramanujan’s mathematical wizardry as inexplicable, almost verging on the paranormal. (See Paul Davies, The Mind of God, pp. 153-54.)

IQs of less than 20 : Idiots.
20-49 : Imbeciles.
50-69 : Morons (feeble-minded).
These are official statistics. According to an old British legal statute, an “idiot” is an individual with an IQ of less than 20, an “imbecile” has an IQ of between 20 and 49, and a “moron” an IQ between 50 and 69. (See here).
IQs of 70-80 : Subnormally intelligent or “retarded”. 
80-90 : Dull-witted or “slow”.
90-100 : Slightly below average.
100-110 : Slightly above average.
110-120 : Superior intelligence. (Fit for higher education).
120-140 : Highly intelligent. (Fit for 1st Class Honours). 
132 and above : within the top 2% of the population.
140-plus : Near-genius level.
150+ : Genius.

5 Reasons Why the 2018 Grammys Were a Catastrophic Failure

5 Reasons Why the 2018 Grammys Were a Catastrophic Failure


The 2018 Grammys exemplified exactly how the Hollywood elite is completely out of touch with the American public.

Stale, boring, annoying, hypocritical, out-of-touch, moralizing, heavy-handed. No, I am not describing an ex – but the 2018 Grammys. And, if you’ve read my previous articles about the Grammys, my long-term relationship with this awards show has caused me great pain and suffering.

This year was even worse than usual. Of course, we were expecting a bucketload of virtue signaling from our new moral superiors: Sanctimonious Hollywood. But we did not expect this 3.5 hours-long brainwash session to be that awkward and heavy-handed. Nearly every single pseudo-celebrity that was given the mic had to give a sermon.

Despite all of this talk, nobody had a truly personal opinion, nobody had an original outlook, nobody even brought nuance or personal reflection. Everybody was parroting the same few catchphrases they were allowed to say. When Luis Fonsi performing Despacito becomes welcomed relief, you know that something is terribly wrong.

Here are the top 5 reasons why the 2018 Grammys failed so miserably.

#5: U2? Really?

Despite the fact that U2 was nominated for exactly zero Grammy awards this year, the band was trotted in and out of the stage not once, not twice, but three times. U2 was there at the very beginning with Kendrick Lamar, they were brought back near the end to announce the album of the year and they performed a new single that nobody really wants to hear: Get Out of Your Own Way.

The performance took place in front of the Statue of Liberty as eyes we projected around the band.

The song takes aim at the United States and its immigration policy.

At the end, Bono grabbed a US-flag megaphone and started yelling things.

The above screenshot is highly symbolic. It says that Bono is speaking for Americans … although he is Irish.

The music video of this song – created by movie makers from Israel – conveys specific messages that are also appearing in other “trendy” videos as well.

The video features images such as the Statue of Liberty crumbling as a molotov cocktail goes off.
It also features American currency burning. Justin Timberlake’s video Supplies also featured molotov cocktails and American currency burning (read my article about it here). They are telling us something here.

Despite the intense promotion, the song is not a hit. It barely reached 1 million views on YouTube, even after the Grammy performance. Maybe they should force 500 million iTunes users to download the song so they can listen to it. Oh, wait, they already did this creepy stunt in 2014.

So why was U2 all over the Grammys? Why was this specific song performed? The answer can be found in the following picture.

Bono and George Soros at the World Economic Forum.

George Soros is one of the most influential people shaping the world’s economy, politics and social issues. His Open Society Foundations operates on a budget nearing a billion dollars per year and is heavily implicated in the social policies of nearly all nations of the world. I won’t go into all of the ways this Foundation shapes modern society, but one of its core issues is the promotion of open borders.

Bono is very close to Soros (here’s a video of him singing his praise for 3 minutes). Get Out Your Own Way is basically an infomercial for the Soros agenda. That is why it was promoted during the Grammys while other songs and performers were ignored.

Although Bono loves to clothe himself in the garments of “charity”, he does not practice what he preaches. In 2006, the band caused controversy when it moved its operations from its native Ireland to the Netherlands to avoid paying taxes. In 2017, Bono was mentioned in the Paradise Papers for investing in companies that were evading taxes.

In short, U2 needs to get its preachy butt out of the way.

#4- Hillary Clinton? Really?

One of the worst moments of the cringefest that was the Grammys was Hillary Clinton’s “surprise” appearance. Her reading about Donald Trump eating at McDonald’s was petty politics at its worst – an unentertaining, heavy-handed piece of political propaganda that still managed to miss its mark. All it truly accomplished was reminding the world that Hillary was the only alternative to Trump.

Even weirder was the over-enthusiastic cheering when Hillary appeared on screen.

“Yaaaay! It’s Hillary Clinton! Cheer!”

I wonder what would have been the public’s reaction if it was shown this picture…

“Hey, that’s Harvey Weinstein! Boooooo! Hashtag MeToo! Hashtag Time’s Up! Boooo!”

OK, now, what if the public was shown these pictures…

“Yaaaay Hillary! Wait, I mean booo Weinstein! Wait, I mean …”  * Head explodes *

A couple of weeks before the Grammys, another powerful figure drew cheers and applause after a very sanctimonious speech.

“Yaaaaay Oprah! So courageous! Oprah for President!”
“Yaaaay Oprah! I mean, booo Weinstein! I mean …”  * Head explodes again*

#3: Kesha Praying

I actually feel for Kesha. For years, I reported on how she was forced to sing songs she hated and on her abuse at the hands of Dr. Luke. There is no doubt that the message behind her song Praying is powerful. However, the sad fact is: She is still under the control of Dr. Luke and his record label Kemosabe Records. Kesha attempted to break away from her contract last year and it was rejected by the court.

The all-seeing eye on Kesha’s hand: The visible proof that she’s under industry control.

In my article entitled Kesha’s “Praying” is a Sad Reminder That She is Still Owned by the Industry, I explained how the video (directed by industry favorite Jonas Akerlund) symbolically reveals that she is still an industry slave. While Praying is about Kesha “freeing” herself from Dr. Luke, a portion of every album sale still goes right into the pockets of Dr. Luke.

After the performance, Sony Music, the parent company of Kemosabe Records, posted a tweet praising Kesha … to then delete it.

The whole thing was a perfect example of hypocrisy in the music industry.

#2 Grammy Chief Accused of Sexism

Despite crafting one of the most intense virtue-signaling events of all time, Grammy President Neil Portnow still found a way of being accused of sexism. After he was asked about the low number of female nominees and winners, Portnow answered:

“It has to begin with… women who have the creativity in their hearts and souls, who want to be musicians, who want to be engineers, producers, and want to be part of the industry on the executive level,” he said. “[They need] to step up because I think they would be welcome.”

Pink, Sheryl Crow, Kelly Clarkson and others fired back at Portnow, claiming that they did not need to “step up”. Portnow then backtracked, apologized and even announced some kind of “action plan” to address gender bias in music (or whatever).

This did not stop some celebrities to demand Portnow’s resignation, as a petition with over 10,000 signatures circulated online.

The entertainment industry created for itself a climate that is so tense and vindictive that the virtue-signalers are actually clawing each other to death. It is a rather pathetic sight to see.

Meanwhile, fewer Americans than ever care about any of this.

#1 The Lowest Rated Grammys Ever

The 2018 Grammy Awards recorded the smallest audience in the show’s history in the key demographic of adults 18-49. In total, the ceremony was watched by 19.8 million viewers, a 24% drop compared to last year’s ceremony.

Various theories attempt to explain the reason of this sharp drop.

There will be a number of theories to explain the decline. Though the Grammys had a lineup of big performers — including Kendrick Lamar, U2 and Rihanna — many superstars, including Taylor Swift, Drake and Kanye West, did not show up.

Awards shows have also gotten increasingly political, with celebrity presenters and winners playing the role of firebrands at town-hall meetings. The Grammys, which are broadcast on CBS, were no different on Sunday, with several performers bringing up immigration and the #MeToo movement. U2 performed on a barge just outside the Statue of Liberty, a performance not exactly subtle in its symbolism, and Hillary Clinton showed up in a taped segment, reading about President Trump’s preference for McDonald’s food from Michael Wolff’s best-seller, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, gave voice to proponents of the “shut up and sing” side of the debate. “I have always loved the Grammys but to have artists read the Fire and Fury book killed it,” Ms. Haley wrote in a tweet during the event. “Don’t ruin great music with trash. Some of us love music without the politics thrown in it.”
– The New York Times, Ratings for Grammy Awards Drop 24 Percent

As if they were expecting viewers to be tempted to kill themselves after this debacle, rapper Logic was brought out to sing about the suicide hotline.

You are not alone … The Grammys truly sucked.

The sharp drop in viewership was probably a combined result of everything cited above. More importantly, it is symptomatic of a growing divide in America where a great portion of the public simply does not relate to the obvious agenda that is being pushed by mass media. As stated above, this agenda does not come from “the people”, but from a globalist elite that is seeking to create a borderless, genderless and spineless world.

The values, the outlook and the priorities of many Americans simply do not with coincide those seen on TV. Mass media has lost its relevance and its credibility. Many see right through the superficiality and the hypocrisy of Hollywood’s virtue signaling. And they are sick of it. They realize that most of these people only “show concern” when the camera is rolling.

Here’s an idea: Instead of parading around with black dresses, roses, ribbons, pins or whatever else, how about denouncing the rampant child abuse that has been happening in Hollywood for decades? How about getting authorities to act upon this horrific practice with actual investigations, arrests, trials, and sentences? How about stopping with the hashtags and the sermons and actually taking action?

But that would be too real. And Hollywood doesn’t deal with real.

An Honest Assessment of Putin

An Honest Assessment of Putin

Introduced by Paul Craig Roberts — Feb 2, 2018

Here is an assessment of Putin by Sharon Tennison who for 20 years ran a NGO in Russia funded by USAID and the US Department of State.
From the questions Tennison asks at the end about the US projecting its own bad behavior onto Putin, it is obvious that Tennison is unaware that Russia is targeted for two main reasons. One is that the military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its enormous budget and power. The other is that the neoconservatives who control US foreign policy believe in US hegemony over the world, and Russia is able to block US unilateralism.
Nevertheless, Tennison’s assessment of Putin is honest. It demonstrates clearly the lies we are told by “our” government and “our” media.

Is Putin profoundly corrupt or “incorruptible?”

Sharon Tennison — Aletho News Jan 28, 2018

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.

He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.

Like others who have had direct experience with this little-known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.

I’ve been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders.

As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).

I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.

If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992

Putin with Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of St. Petersburg, early 1990s. Putin was one of Sobchak’s deputies from 1992-96

It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.

For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.

My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.

He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.

I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.

This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.

Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!

I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.


U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help.

I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.

I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast since it had never been done before––but Jack overruled).

Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin leaves the Kremlin on the day of his resignation, December 31 1999. Prime Minister Putin (second left) became acting president. Click to enlarge

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.

On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo.

Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”

Further, I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.

It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer:

What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.

This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.

After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:

They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.

This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!

She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).

He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this because Lena said:

Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.

My next question was:

What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?

Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:

If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will be in prison in a couple of years.

I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life-changing. Last, each was asked:

So what do you think of your new president?

None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.

Next question:

So, how much did it cost you?

To a person, they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:

We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’

Late 2000

Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspicious that he would be antithetical to America’s interests––his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful.

When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.

She did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.

Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:

When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??

Without hesitating the answer came back:

The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”

I questioned WHY? The answer:

I could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”

I offered that Bush #I was head of the CIA. The reply was

That would have made no difference, he was our guy.

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward, when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:

No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

Putin demonised as the new Hitler. Click to enlarge

From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.

No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.

Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long-term but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia:

In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China).

Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now commonplace––and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.

We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge supermarkets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations look like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared.

It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady Macbeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their teleprompters. This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There is a well-known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at


WHITE HELMETS: Channel 4, BBC, The Guardian – Architects of ‘Humanitarian’ War

WHITE HELMETS: Channel 4, BBC, The Guardian – Architects of ‘Humanitarian’ War

Vanessa Beeley
21st Century Wire

As Fewer Companies Control Our Media, Why Documentaries Matter More Than Ever”. This was the title of a Huffington Post article, written in 2014, by Morgan Spurlock, documentary filmaker, producer and screenwriter. Spurlock informs us, “Films are incredible things. Magical things. Windows into worlds that we may never get to see and connecting with us on such deep emotional levels that we are forever affected by them and their messages. Films cannot only entertain but can shift public perception in ways we never thought possible.”

As if on cue, a vast number of documentaries have flooded the media market. The huge majority have conveyed a very one-sided perspective of the conflict in Syria and have, almost invariably, supported the US Coalition regime change narrative, which has prolonged the destabilization project in the region for the last seven years. Are these documentaries any more accurate than the corporate media they might replace?

For example, on April 5, 2017, National Geographic released a preview of its film, Hell on Earth: The Fall Of Syria And The Rise of ISISby filmmaker Sebastian Junger and producing partner Nick Quested. This film was prematurely released to coincide with the alleged and controversial Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapon attacks in Syria, on April 4th. However, as Paul Larudeerevealed, the film preview was a fraudulent misrepresentation of the war in Syria:

“The [opening] scene shows a missile destroying a residential building with a thunderous explosion.  Imposed over the footage are the words, ALEPPO, SYRIA…[…] The original source footage comes from 2014, and is from the Israeli operation that took more than 2,200 Palestinian lives that summer”

“Shifting public perception” is, indeed, one of the roles of modern documentary makers, who, in many instances, take their funding from the same Time WarnerAOL and Walt Disney  media investment pools in order to produce heart-stopping, emotion-wringing perception-changers for a western public whose opinions on state foreign policy is undoubtedly, hugely influenced by these ostensibly ‘factual’ documentaries.

Publicity still from Last Men in Aleppo.

During the 7 year-long US Coalition-engineered, financed and armed Syria project, very few organisations have been so feted in political, media and Hollywood circles, as the NATO member-state-financed White Helmets.

Last year’s Oscar award for the Netflix documentary on the White Helmets is followed by the 2018 nomination for Last Men in Aleppo, the latest glossy, emotionally-charged promotional movie, featuring members of the alleged “first response” group doing what they do best – clambering over rubble, terrorist cheerleading and gazing skywards at imaginary helicopters.

The function of these movies – is to ensure that the Al Qaeda affiliated White Helmets come up smelling of roses from the rubble of areas of Syria occupied by terrorist and extremist groups lorded over by Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria).

Taken from the Syria Campaign website, just one of their “achievements” in their long-running campaign to “change the story on Syria” 

Syria Campaign is effectively the White Helmet PR agency, seed-funded by UK resident and Syrian oil magnate, Ayman Asfari, who, incidentally, has also financed Theresa May’s Conservative government and is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office in the UK, having been already sanctioned in Italy for insider trading. He can, most certainly, be described as an interested party in the outcome of the Syrian conflict with openly declared political ambitions once the UK FCO-endorsed “regime change” is secured – plans that have been thwarted by a secular Syrian resistance with the support of their regional and geopolitical allies.

According to one of their many job offers, Syria Campaign have focused their advocacy efforts on the White Helmet organisation (emphasis added):

  • Created award-winning films that have been viewed by tens of millions of people and shown in the White House.
  • Generated thousands of media stories about Syria around the world.
  • Unlocked tens of millions of dollars in aid through targeted advocacy.
  • Placed key aspects of the conflict at the top of the political agenda.
  • Raised millions of dollars in direct support for life-saving Syrian heroes.
  • Built a community of more than 500,000 people across the world taking action in solidarity with Syria’s heroes.

Who Defends the White Helmets Unconditionally?

1. The Guardian

“The bravery of the White Helmets in Syria is beyond dispute” ~ Charlie Phillips, Guardian Documentary Maker 

Olivia Solon, a San Francisco-based Guardian previously unknown junior was recently commissioned to pen a hit piece on all those who have been to Syria to expose the role of the White Helmets as an Al Qaeda embed in the terrorist occupied zones that are shrinking across Syria as the Syrian Arab Army and its allies advances towards a full and final military victory over the UK/US/Gulf State/Turkish/Israeli/EU costly and failed, neocolonialist project.

Solon’s blatant lack of expertise and reliance upon statements from those who are a part of the White Helmet apparatus, demonstrated the degree to which the Guardian would live up to its name as the Cerberus for the UK FCO’s underworld policy in the Middle East.

So now he admits to being part of the state propaganda operatus?..his stinging attack against @VanessaBeeley @EvaKBartlett on Syria was simply mind-blowing…

Monbiot gushed over Solon’s article as if it was some groundbreaking investigative journalism. It was no more than words from those who support the White Helmets & regime change. Whilst throwing mud at anyone who dared counter their view. Either Monbiot has issues or is a fraud.

Whenever the Guardian should come under attack from a public incensed by their flagrant aggrandizement of the White Helmets, comments are deleted or simply disallowed. The White Helmets have become the “untouchables” – the corporate media act as gatekeepers, defending this construct from criticism. The Guardian is a leading promoter of the neocon “humanitarian war” concept and what better organisation to head up that concept than a US/UK-state controlled “humanitarian” NGO?

Infographic produced by Prof. Tim Anderson of Hands Off Syria. 

2. The BBC 

The BBC has been another stalwart of White Helmet protectionism, rarely, if ever, deviating from the scripted responses when pushed to explain their partisan stance. The BBC has never examined the other, less palatable side of the White Helmet coin, nor paid heed to the accusations levied at the White Helmet organisation by the Syrian people liberated from Nusra Front/WhiteHelmet occupation in East Aleppo.

Perhaps when East Ghouta is finally liberated and the White Helmets leave on the green buses, sat next to the terrorist factions who are occupying the eastern suburbs of Damascus, there will be another chink opened-up in the White Helmet carapace – but will the BBC report it?

Recently BBC Panorama ran a “groundbreaking” report on the UK FCO suspected financing of  terrorism in Syria via the ‘Free Syrian Police’. They lied by omission. They failed to explain that the Free Syrian Police have their headquarters next door to the White Helmets wherever they operate, and that those centres are invariably neighbouring or sharing Nusra Front buildings and military centres. 21st Century Wire accurately predicted what the BBC would omit from their report and the White Helmets was top of the list of unmentionables.

21st Century Wire Article: White Helmets & ‘Local Councils’ – Is the UK FCO Financing Terrorism in Syria with Taxpayer Funds?

3. Channel 4 (UK)

Channel 4 showcased messages from the White Helmets in support of the firefighters at Grenfell Tower tragedy, despite the fact the White Helmets had been filmed climbing over murdered and dismembered corpses of SAA POWs only days before. 

Now we come to the flagship promoter of the White Helmets and their narratives from within the terrorist occupied enclaves dotted across Syria, particularly in East Aleppo. Channel 4 has specialised in cheerleading for this simulated humanitarian NGO, even showcasing them alongside terrorists described as “rebels” in their infamous “Aleppo, Up Close with the Rebels”report – which was removed from their website after members of the public had pointed out they were filming the terrorist group Nour Al Din Zenki, beheaders of 12 year old Abdullah Issa, and also whitewashing the group’s vicious suicide bomb attacks on civilian areas of West Aleppo.

I recorded Channel 4’s terrorist apologism for posterity, at 21st Century Wire: Channel 4 Joins CNN in Normalising Terrorism, Then Removes Their Own Video

Prior to The Guardian/Solon broadside against journalists and analysts who have exposed the darker side of the White Helmets, Channel 4 had already trained its “fact check” guns on independent journalist Eva Bartlett in an attempt to shut down criticism of the seemingly untouchable White Helmets. It failed when Bartlett recently responded to their aimless shot in the dark with a resounding volley of fact and blistering on-the-ground analysis.

“Had the Guardian had honest intentions regarding the White Helmets article, they might have actually investigated the many members of the White Helmets with ties to al-Qaeda and affiliated extremists. Here is but one example showing the allegiance of over 60 White Helmets members to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” 

I think “honest intentions” are off limits for all these colonial media outlets whose ‘intentions’ are to present the corrupt, the criminal, the Nusra Front ‘civil defence’ as exalted “heroes” and “saviours of all humanity” while the evidence to the contrary gathers dust on the cutting room floor.

During the SAA liberation of East Aleppo from terrorist occupation, we saw Channel 4 grinding away at the White Helmet produced grist. Jon Snow never deviated from the narratives they produced even when a simple Google Map analysis would have exposed the White Helmet account of events in Jib Al Qubbeh for the criminal cover-up it really was.

Read Vanessa Beeley’s on-the-ground report: WHITE HELMETS: The Jib-Al-Qubeh War Crime in Aleppo, Denied by Channel 4

We can add CNN, Huffington Post and many more to the mix but I have identified the three most prominent White Helmet champions, influencing public opinion in the UK and further afield. Here is Becky Anderson of CNN interviewing Last Men in Aleppo director, Firas Fayyad in Davos, after the film’s public screening.

Anderson never questions the absence of Nusra Front from the Last Men in Aleppo storyline despite their occupation of East Aleppo during the time that Fayyad was allegedly filming in the eastern districts as the SAA advances forced the Nusra Front-dominated terrorist forces to retreat and relinquish their grip on the civilian areas. This hideously one-sided documentary is accepted as an irrefutable portrayal of life in East Aleppo by corporate media “journalists” who do not deviate from a Hollywood approved neocolonialist script.

What’s it like to live in hell? Syrian filmmaker @firasfayy was captured and tortured while filming his Oscar nominated documentary “Last Men in Aleppo”.

A fine example of a scripted reposte to any questioning regarding the sinister activities of the White Helmet was provided by Andrew Mitchell, former secretary of state responsible for the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, in response to Afshin Rattansi’s probing questions on the UK FCO’s financing of terrorist groups in Syria under the pretext of providing “non-lethal” aid for the “Syrian opposition”.

Watch this segment of the interview on RT’s Going Underground: 

YouTube Video Preview

So, we have ascertained that globally, the corporate media universally protects the White Helmet organisation from attack and that the primary gatekeepers appear to be The Guardian, BBC, and Channel 4. The scripts they adhere to, emanate from the Syria Campaign PR agency, the White Helmets themselves and the ex-military, British “private security”operative, James Le Mesurierwho established the White Helmets in Turkey in March 2013. Nobody deviates from these scripts even when presented with counter-evidence that cannot be refuted. Examples of Le Mesurier script reading can be found here and here at the BBC.

Listen to Martin Quinn of the Tipperaray Peace Prize cling stubbornly to the White Helmet script in the face of unusually challenging questions from RTE’s Audrey Carville, on Morning Ireland. Carville asks how Quinn can verify the White Helmet claims of 100,000 rescues carried out by this group – Quinn basically tells the audience that this information comes from the White Helmets and has therefore not been authenticated, but must be true.

Carville keeps departing from the script, as she brings up the evidence of White Helmet participation in terrorist executions of civilians in Syria – and naturally Quinn brings the discussion back on script by blaming any criticism on “Russian troll/Assad propaganda”, despite the fact that the White Helmets have themselves admitted that their members have carried out these crimes, saying they were “sacked” for participating in the murder of civilians and SAA POWs and the dismemberment of their corpses.

I ask, again, would Red Cross officials be let off murder with a good “sacking” or would they be hauled before a human rights tribunal and their sponsors held accountable? In the case of the White Helmets – the sponsors are the US, UK, EU, Netherlands, Germany, Qatar, Turkey, New Zealand, Australia and other members of the US Coalition waging a hybrid war against Syria, combined with a number of outreach funding agents such as Syria Campaign, the Jo Cox Fund, Independent Diplomat, Mayday Rescue.

It is worth listening to this RTE interview to comprehend the extent to which the White Helmet “script” has been diffused and embedded in the psyche of those who are tasked with defending this organisation – we must also ask if this ‘maintaining of the party line’ is consensual or coerced, or have we really descended into such a moral abyss where murder, torture and child exploitationis nothing more than a “sackable” offence?

Once you identify the scripted responses, it is easy to cross-link them to every single interview or article written about the White Helmets and it should raise the question – is this a genuine narrative or a prefabricated marketing campaign?

But who is behind the actual pre and post-production, marketing and enabling of the White Helmet fleet of promotional projects?

Cue Doc. Society, formerly Britdoc, a UK & New York based “non profit, founded in 2005, committed to enabling great documentary films and connecting them to audiences globally”.

Britdoc’s rebranding exercise, renamed as Doc Society. 

Doc Society: The White Helmet Svengali?

Their mission“We bring people together to unleash the transformational power of documentary film. We stand in solidarity with filmakers and work to unite them with new friends and allies, building new models globally. We aim to innovate, share and innovate again”.

“BRITDOC [Doc Society] are at the forefront of international documentary development. From Ping Pong to Virunga they have pioneered new ways of engaging with audiences” ~ Patrick Holland, BBC

Starting January 2018 Doc Society will administer the BFI Documentary Film Fund. We couldn’t be more proud and more ready to get to work for the UK’s documentary community. 

Doc Society’s “five strategic areas” are:

1: Helping good films be great.

2: Engaging new partners.

3: Building new audiences.

4: Doing and measuring.

5: Sharing our learning.

These five objectives are achieved by and through the following elements of the Doc Society apparatus:

1: Our films – “we are feature documentary experts, helping good films be great: 5 Oscar nominations and one win.”

2: Our funds – “Granting £ 500k per year with Bertha Foundation and others: £ 4.96m granted to films since 2005.”

3: Good Pitch – “Where the world’s best social change filmakers meet new allies and partners: $29m raised at 34 Good Pitch events.”

4: Something Real – “Weekly doc recommendations – the best cult and classics online”

5: Doc Academy – “Free classroom resources for teachers”

6: Doc Impact Award – “Celebrating the documentaries making the greatest social impact”

7: Impact field guide – “Comprehensive guide for using film for social change”

I have added emphasis to the three aspects that I will be focusing on in my research into who is driving the White Helmet promotional vehicle to such unprecedented and dizzying heights for a simple “humanitarian” NGO.

‘Good Pitch’

IMAGE: Joanna Natasegara and Orlando Einseidel of Violet Films and Grain Media – Netflix White Helmets.

Joanna Natasegara and Orlando Einseidel of Violet Films and Grain Media, respectively have collaborated on a number of projects, most notably in 2014 on Virunga (based in the Congo) and then in 2016 when they directed and produced the Netflix White Helmet “documentary”. In reality, they sat on the Turkish side of the border with Syria and had the footage supplied to them by the White Helmets with no verification process to ascertain the authenticity or context of the material they converted into the Oscar winning promotional feature film.

Virunga was made two years before the White Helmets and was also heavily promoted by both Doc Society and Good Pitch.

The post production team that worked on the Netflix White Helmets movie was a company called Molinare – “I have the privilege of leading our highly talented and dedicated creative teams, and am constantly amazed by what the team can achieve in post to make a production look and sound its absolute best.” ~ Julie Parmenter, Managing Director. Molinare is also featured on the “Good Pitch” page of Doc Society as is Violet Films.

“We were extremely proud to be included in the prestigious Sundance Institute / Britdoc run ‘Good Pitch‘ event held at the Royal Institution. We were there to pitch to over 400 people about a very exciting project we’re working on.” ~ Grain Media June 2013

It is worth noting that both Grain Media and Violet Films work closely with the BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera and Channel 4 on a number of projects.

Threshold Foundation

Doc Society submits films to the Threshold Foundation that they consider worthy of a grant. One such film was the Netflix White Helmets documentary.

In October 2016, I received a confidential email from someone who was concerned about an NGO’s funding going to the White Helmet film – “It has become clear to me that at minimum the White Helmets are for regime change as they themselves call for a no fly zone which is an act of war, at worst a totally fraudulent organization and the centerpiece of a public relations campaign of deception”.  Shortly after I received this email, the following statement appeared on the Threshold Foundation website:

The other day, while in the midst of my research into Doc Society, I went back to the Threshold Foundation website and found that the statement had been removed and replaced with a congratulatory statement on the White Helmet Oscar success. The Wayback machine showed me that the statement had been removed during March 2017, so just after the White Helmets had been given the Academy award for whitewashing Al Qaeda in Syria.

The statement is still available on Google Drive.

What coercion was brought to bear upon the Threshold Foundation to maintain their unwavering support for the White Helmet construct? Was the statement published by a rogue element within the organisation who objected to the White Helmets being a “centrepiece” in the “humanitarian war” designed to reduce Syria to another failed state, like Libya? We may never know.

‘Last Men in Aleppo’

Good Pitch has also been instrumental in the promotion of Last Men in Aleppo (LMIA), directed by Firas Fayyad (image, left), an “exiled” Syrian, living in Denmark. Good Pitch has managed the entire incubation and delivery process for this film.

Firas Fayyad and his Last Men in Aleppo were converted from abstract to Oscar nomination in the blink of an eye, thanks to Doc Society.

Good Pitch introduced Fayyad to Danish Larm Films and to French Foreign Office construct, Aleppo Media Centre that has produced much of the Al Qaeda-approved narrative from East Aleppo, including the Omran Daqneesh “humanitarian” coup de grace. Good Pitch then midwived the entire LMIA project from start to finish.

Soren Jespersen, the producer of LMIA:

“We hope that our film will bring the suffering of the civilian population in Aleppo onto the agenda and hopefully put some pressure on the politicians, diplomats and the people in power to actually do something. Good pitch is a network and a connection to people who are experts or have access to people in power and can help us get our film screened in important places – so, Good Pitch is very much about meeting the right people. They get things done.”  (emphasis added)

“Doing something” means NATO-enforced ‘No Fly Zones’ and escalated “humanitarian” conflict. It means the protraction of the war for the Syrian people. It means the derailing of any peaceful or diplomatic resolution in Syria and the region.

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland at the Good Pitch Europe Programme 2017:

“We believe change is needed, we know change is needed and one way to bring about change is to tell a good story” (emphasis added)

That transformational narrative is so relied upon by those invested in “humanitarian R2P wars” that have led to the serial devastation of sovereign nations from Libya to Iraq to Syria and beyond.

Last Men in Aleppo winning the Sundance Film Festival Award in 2017. Director Firas Fayyad & Assistant Co-Director and Editor, Steen Johannessen.

Last Men in Aleppo won the following awards shortly after its release through the Good Pitch channels:

1: The documentary had its world premiere in January 2017 at the Sundance Film Festival, where it won the World Documentary Grand Jury Prize.

2: March 2017 – CPH:DOX Festival “Top Prize”.

3: March 2017 –  Grasshopper Films took over the rights to Last Men in Aleppo

4: October 2017 – received the prize for Most Innovative Documentary at the second annual POV Critics’ Choice Documentary Awards.

5: January 2018: Documentary Feature nomination for the 90th Oscars, March 2018.

It seems that Good Pitch lived up to its moniker.

I believe it’s safe to conclude that there is a vast, well-financed PR machine operating behind the scenes of the White Helmet organisation, whitewashing their discredited image and mapping out their political, media and Hollywood trajectory – in lock-step with the PR campaign is a media defence force headed up by Channel 4, The BBC and The Guardian. The hub of the film and PR sector is Doc Society.

Now this is where it becomes really interesting. Who partners Doc Society?

Doc Society Partners

Founding partner is Channel 4 and major partners are the BBC, Ford Foundation and Bertha Foundation.

Only The Guardian is missing, or is it?

The Guardian is partnering with Bertha Foundation to tell international documentary film stories with global impact. We are commissioning a series of 12 short documentary films from independent filmmakers. The series covers global stories with a focus on films that have the ability to advance the contemporary issues they address and raise awareness of people and movements making a difference in the world.” (Emphasis added)

The Last Men in Aleppo won the Sundance Film Festival Award 2017, hardly surprising, considering that Sundance is also a major partner of Doc Society:

Robert Redford is President and Founder of the Sundance Institute.

The Sundance Documentary Film Program supports non-fiction filmmakers worldwide in the production of cinematic documentaries on contemporary themes. Established in 2002 with founding support from Open Society Foundations“.

Add to that the Bertha Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, CNN Films and National Geographic, among others.

We come full circle back to Morgan Spurlock of Huffington Post, and we’ll add a little more of the celebrity cult status into the mix:

We find that the Open Society Foundation sponsors of the Sundance Institute are also fans of the Good Pitch concept, “made by Doc Society”:

Good Pitch has created a community of like-minded change makers who believe in the power of using stories to drive social justice throughout the world

On the Edge of the Precipice 

review of the Sundance Film Festival described the three ‘Syrian’ entries as “three documentaries on the ravaging of Syria“, naturally there is no reference to the ravaging of Syria by the US/UK nurtured terrorist groups who have infested this sovereign nation, financed, armed,equipped and promoted by 74 UN member states, the Gulf States and Israel. Last Men in Aleppo achieved its primary objective:

Last Men in Aleppo follows the White Helmets during the last months of that bombed-out city’s existence, as they go about their heroic task of scanning the skies for Russian and Syrian bombers, racing in jury-rigged trucks to newly collapsed buildings, and digging through the rubble to pull out the few living and many dead. In the evenings they worry about getting their own families out of Syria and about the family members who are already refugees in Turkey and Western Europe. They are some of the most amazing people you will ever see on the screen.”

Last Men in Aleppo has eradicated Nusra Front crimes against the Syrian people in East Aleppo and throughout Syria by simply refusing to recognise their existence. All those families who were starved, deprived of medical aid, tortured, abused, raped, imprisoned and used as hostages or human shields by the 5o brigades of extremists and terrorist factions that occupied East Aleppo, have been erased from a collective Western conscience. Audiences can go to the cinema, eat their popcorn and marvel at the “heroic rescue work” of the White Helmets without once remarking on their allegiance to the terrorist factions that ruled these decimated civilian areas with a rod of ideological iron.

Last Men in Aleppo has also airbrushed the REAL Syria Civil Defence who are battling not only the effects of war in their own country – the RSCD are battling terrorism, sanctions and crippling shortages of water, electricity, equipment. Much of their equipment was stolen by the extremist factions, from whose ranks, emerged today’s White Helmets. The genuine Last Men in Aleppo are the SYRIAN Civil Defence, established in 1953 in Syria (not in Turkey), who are rebuilding their centres after the terrorists fired more than 10 mortars per day into their yards, killing and maiming crew members.

When I visited these true rescuers in January 2018, crew members told me how Nusra Front snipers preyed upon the Layramoun centre in the midst of the terrorist held areas during the almost five year occupation. These true heroes who never abandoned the Syrian people are not honoured by Last Men in Aleppo. LMIA honours their murderers and abusers.

One of the ambulances in the REAL Syria Civil Defence yard in Layramoun, East Aleppo, sniped and targeted by the terrorist factions in Bani Zaid and surrounding areas. January 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The REAL “Last Men in Aleppo” are the mentally handicapped and disabled who were abused and weaponised by the terrorist factions in East Aleppo, brainwashed into being suicide bombers, according to Dr Bassem Hayak, Director of the Ibn Khaldoun Psychiatric Hospital that is only just managing to repair and restore its premises after a series of terrorist occupations and murder of staff and patients.

I visited this hospital during my recent time in Aleppo in Dec/Jan 2018. Where were the White Helmets when these Syrian civilians were being punished & tortured for their vulnerability?

One of the terrorist-destroyed buildings at the Ibn Khaldoun Psychiatric Hospital in Aleppo. January 2018. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The Last Men in Aleppo were not the White Helmets – they left with Nusra Front on the green buses organised by the Syrian government to evacuate all the armed terrorists and their families in December 2016. The REAL “Last Men in Aleppo” were the civilians, emaciated, traumatised and broken by the ordeal they had been forced to endure for 4.5 years. An ordeal that the White Helmets had compounded and profited from. Children who were forced to watch the public crucifixion of their family members do not consider the White Helmets to be their saviours – they worked in solidarity with the terrorists who committed these heinous crimes.

The REAL “Last Men in Aleppo” are those civilians, now returning to the burned out shell of their previous, peaceful existence. The White Helmets are the arsonists who set fire to these lives and then portray themselves as the firefighters. An image that is reinforced by the corporate media in the West.

The REAL “Last Men (and women) in Aleppo” are many but they are not the White Helmets.

The Oscar awards and nominations may give a veneer of respectability to these terrorist henchmen among the ruling elite but it will never erase their crimes in the eyes of the Syrian people and these days, history is not written by the most powerful, it is written by the people whose voices will no longer be silenced.

White Helmet propaganda has seduced droves of human beings with a genuine humanitarian reflex that has been exploited by this “centre-piece” perception-changing construct. The story told by the White Helmet media and PR agencies has elevated this Al Qaeda support group to celebrity cult status. The world has fallen in love with what should most horrify it, while the people of Syria have their voices asphyxiated by Hollywood glamour and transformational mass communication.

A world has been created in which it’s possible for Al Qaeda’s ‘Civil Defence’ to be honoured on the stage at the Carnegie Hall, a world in which the architects of war are heralded as the Ambassadors for Peace. This world would not be possible without The BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian who are at the centre of the propaganda web that is engineering the terrifying truth out of the dirty war on Syria.

During his breathtaking 2005 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Harold Pinter read his own poem, entitled “Death”.

“Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.”




BBC and Guardian Whitewash of UK FCO Funding Scandal in Syria
What to Expect From BBC Panorama and Guardian’s Whitewash of UK Gov’t Funding Terrorists in Syria

White Helmets Evidence Presented at Geneva Press Club:
Vanessa Beeley Presents Exposé on White Helmets at Swiss Press Club in Geneva

‘Global Britain’ – UK Funding a Shadow State in Syria
‘Global Britain’ is Financing Terrorism and Bloodshed in Syria and Calling it ‘Aid’

White Helmets – Hollywood Poster Boys:

WHITE HELMETS: State Sanctioned Terrorism and Hollywood Poster Boys for War

21st Century Wire:
New Report Destroys Fabricated Myth of Syria’s ‘White Helmets’

Initial Investigation into White Helmets:
Who are Syria’s White Helmets?

21st Century Wire article on the White Helmets:  
Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception ~ the “Moderate” Executioners

Who Funds the White Helmets?
Secret £1bn UK War Chest Used to Fund the White Helmets and Other ‘Initiatives’

Original investigative report:
The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist-Linked Imposters 

Irish Peace Prize Farce
Tipperary’s White Helmets Peace Prize: A Judas Kiss to the Antiwar Movement and Syria

White Helmets Executions
WHITE HELMETS: Severed Heads of Syrian Arab Army Soldiers Paraded as Trophies

CNN Fabricate News About the White Helmets
A NOBEL LIE: CNN’s Claim That ‘White Helmets Center in Damascus’ Was Hit by a Barrel Bomb

White Helmets Links to Al Nusra
WHITE HELMETS: Hand in Hand with Al Qaeda and Extremist Child Beheaders in Aleppo

Report by Patrick Henningsen
AN INTRODUCTION: Smart Power & The Human Rights Industrial Complex

Open Letter by Vanessa Beeley
White Helmets Campaign for War NOT Peace – Retract RLA & Nobel Peace Prize Nominations

Staged Rescue Videos
(VIDEO) White Helmets: Miraculous ‘Rag Doll Rescue’

White Helmets Oscar Award Farce:
Forget Oscar: Give The White Helmets the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Best War Propaganda Film

Cory Morningstar report:
Investigation into the funding sources of the White Helmets, including Avaaz, Purpose, The Syria Campaign

Open letter to Canadian MPs from Stop the War Hamilton (Canada):
Letter from the Hamilton Coalition to Stop War to the New Democratic Party in Canada ref the White Helmet nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Open letter to Canada’s NDP Leader on Nobel Prize:
Letter to NDP from Prof. John Ryan protesting White Helmet nomination for RLA and Nobel Peace Prize.

READ MORE WHITE HELMETS NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire White Helmets Files

READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Syria Files

How anyone who questions the White Helmets became victims of the Guardian propaganda

How anyone who questions the White Helmets became victims of the Guardian propaganda

Introduction — Jan 14, 2018

Anyone who looks beyond what they are told by the corporate media knows that there are many unanswered questions about the Syrian White Helmets.
However, we do know that they were originally founded by James Le Mesurier, a Sandhurst trained former British intelligence officer, who seems to operate in a twilight zone filled with highly paid contractors, double agents and terrorists.
Despite its dubious origins, or perhaps because of them, the Syrian White Helmet has managed to obtain funding from Britain and the U.S. to the tune of £200 million.
What’s more the corporate media is now playing its part to ensure that nobody asks the wrong questions about the Syrian White Helmets. So the Guardian now argues that anyone who dares question their origins and integrity is doing so with the support of the Russian government.
Seriously. Elements in the corporate media are as much a part of the problem as Western covert ops and those in their pay who have been masquerading as “aid workers.” Ed.

How anyone who questions the White Helmets narrative became victims of the Guardian propaganda machine

Catte — Off-Guardian Jan 13, 2018

The bogus and Western-backed "humanitarian" group, the Syrian White Helmets pose for the cameras. Click to enlarge

As many of our readers know the Guardian recently published an article by Olivia Solonmaking the claim that all criticism of the White Helmets in Syria was part of a disinformation program ‘propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government’.

The article exhibits minimal research, has been deconstructed and rebutted many times over (see here and here and here on our own site), and is little more than a clumsy, mostly fact-free hit piece. In terms of journalistic politics the fact it was given to Solon – a “technology journalist” with no previous experience in Syria or related matters, suggests it was an article in search of an author and may well have been passed down to Solon from more senior or experienced people who did not want their names associated with anything quite so flagrantly anti-factual – just in case (as seems possible) the entire White Helmets mythology were to collapse irretrievably and force even the MSM to stop calling them heroes and start calling them terrorist-enablers.

As usual with the Guardian’s most unapologetically propagandist stories, this piece produced a strong negative reaction, both in social media and elsewhere. Many people were appalled at the standard of journalistic integrity on display and were quick to call for explanations.

None were forthcoming. In fact, the Guardian went into the siege mode that seems to be its new default response to any serious challenge to its favoured narratives. If comments were ever open on the Solon piece they were quickly closed and disappeared. Letters of complaint and even requests for space to make a reasoned reply to the libellous allegations went unanswered. Even when one of those directly attacked in the piece (Vanessa Beeley) sent in a response, there was nothing but silence from the official Guardian. – Though not from Solon herself, who took vociferously to social media and, in the words of Tim Hayward

allowed herself to promote her piece while simply blocking critical voices.

Unsurprising perhaps, but arguably a new low in terms of accountability. But that was not the end of it. Soon afterwards no less a personality than George Monbiot leapt into the fray, tweeting impressively insulting rhetoric against those who dared question the White Helmets as the heroes of the hour.

When challenged to rebut the evidence in their own propaganda of WH links with terrorists he responded memorably:

What part of the evidence, that the have produced demonstrating their own terrorist activities, are you able to refute George? Waiting ..

Did you, er, read the report I linked to? While I’m at it, could I ask a genuine question? How do you make your living? Thanks.

Yes, that’s right. George Monbiot, respected Guardian journalist, actually resorted to an only slightly more sophisticated version of “what’s the weather like in St. Petersburg?” Lowest common denominator trolling reinvented as serious analysis. George, if you’re reading this, it’s you, not Hayward and Robinson, who has disgraced himself here.

The irony is that while he was taking these schoolboy pot shots at her, Beeley was actually on the ground in Syria, risking her life again to document the real experience of the people there. But George and Olivia probably think she was in that overcrowded Russian troll house where everyone who ever questions, well – anything is now apparently based.

In response to these egregious smears by Guardian journalists together with a denial of a platform to reply, the ‘academic Working Group on Syria, Propaganda & the Media’ wrote a formal letter of protest to ‘Comment is Free’ at The Guardian on 23 December.

The Guardian didn’t publish or respond to it.

So they sent a follow-up letter on January 5, this time to the Guardian Readers’ Editor.

The Guardian didn’t publish or respond to that one either.

Well, in fairness, the Guardian Readers’ Editor must be pretty these busy days – editing Guardian readers and slipping their comments down that Memory Hole. So maybe he’ll get round to replying when he has a moment.

We are reproducing both these letters in a separate post. When or if the Guardian recalls its responsibilities to journalism enough to volunteer a reply to these courteous and reasonable requests we will let our readers know.

And before anyone asks – none of us in the troll house know what the weather is like in St. Petersburg – because we’re never allowed outside.


Humanity will live in a ‘hellish dystopia’ as robots takes over billions of jobs

Humanity will live in a ‘hellish dystopia’ as robots takes over billions of jobs

… leaving people to lead meaningless and miserable lives, claims scientist

Shivali Best and Joe Pinkerton — Daily Mail Jan 15, 2018

Artificial IntelligenceAs the capabilities of robots and AI continues to grow, a leading scientist has warned that the machine takeover will lead mankind into a ‘hellish dystopia’.

Dr Subhash Kak, a computing expert at Oklahoma University, says employment provides people with a sense of self-worth and value.

He believes this self-worth will be lost as robots take control, leading humans into a life of ‘meaningless’ misery.

He claims the US opioid addiction and the rise of extremist groups are an early omen of a dystopian future

Dr Kak, a professor of electrical and computer engineering told the Daily Star Online: ‘The beginnings of the dystopia are already there.

‘There will be massive unemployment. People want to be useful and work provides meaning, and so the world will sink into despair.’

This is already happening, he said.

A report last year claimed that 800 million workers could be replaced by machines by 2030.

Dr Kak said: ‘Policymakers have begun to speak of a minimum guaranteed income with everyone provided food, shelter, and a smartphone, and that will not address the heart of the problem.

‘In my view, the current opioid and drug epidemic in the US is a manifestation of this despair.

‘Likewise, phenomena such as ISIS are a response to the meaninglessness that people find in a world devoted only to the cult of the body,’ said Dr Kak.

In November, management consultancy firm, McKinsey, published a report called ‘Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation’.

The report focused on the amount of jobs that would be lost to automation, and what professions were most at risk.

The report suggests that cap: the report suggests that physical jobs in predictable environments – including machine-operators and fast-food worker – are the most likely to be replaced by robots. Click to enlarge

Talking about the continued evolution of AI, Dr Kak said: ‘Some say that current phase of automation will create new kinds of jobs that we cannot even think of.

‘The current revolution is replacing the thinking human and so its impact on society will be enormous.’

The report claimed that there will be enough work to maintain full employment until 2030, but there will be challenging transitions ahead and that in about 60 percent of jobs, at least one-third of activities could be automated.

It said: ‘We estimate that between 400 million and 800 million individuals could be displaced by automation and need to find new jobs by 2030 around the world.’

The report suggest that while some occupations will grow, others will decline, and new ones we are yet to envision will be created. Click to enlarge

And while the report suggested that new jobs will be available, it highlighted that people may need to learn new skills to get them.

The report said: ‘Of the total displaced, 75 million to 375 million may need to switch occupational categories and learn new skills.’

The report suggested that workers in China are likely to be most affected by the switch to automation.

It said: ‘In absolute terms, China faces the largest number of workers needing to switch occupations – up to 100 million if automation is adopted rapidly or 12 percent of the 2030 workforce.

‘While that may seem like a large number, it is relatively small compared with the tens of millions of Chinese who have moved out of agriculture in the past 25 years.’

But the countries facing the biggest change are the US, Germany and Japan, according to the report.

It added: ‘For advanced economies, the share of the workforce that may need to learn new skills and find work in new occupations is much higher: up to one-third of the 2030 workforce in the United States and Germany, and nearly half in Japan.’

In terms of jobs, the report suggests that physical jobs in predictable environments – including machine-operators and fast-food workers – are the most likely to be replaced by robots.

But it added: ‘Collecting and processing data are two other categories of activities that increasingly can be done better and faster with machines.

Continues …

Jews- Neither Race nor Religion but Cult

Jews- Neither Race nor Religion but Cult

January 17, 2018

Uri Shapir - Israeli Jewish Artist.jpg

This is not Michael Berg. But, like this blue-eyed Israeli, Berg found that his DNA test results show NO trace of Non-European or Semitic DNA. His DNA test shows that despite coming from a multigenerational Jewish family,  his DNA is 98.7% Northern European, mostly Germanic and the rest is Celtic etc.
Judaism (much like Freemasonry) isn’t really a race and a folk in the traditional sense but a secret society – a Satanic cult – whose main goal is to enslave mankind. “Race” and “Nation” are used as covers to keep the brainwashed mixed race “Jewish” masses following the Satanic agenda.

By Michael Berg

I was born in Israel in 1985. My parents are European Jews.

In the following article, I would like to make the point that Jews are mixed-race population and are as much as victims of the Satanic Cabalist-Talmudic agenda as anybody else.


The Talmudic Jews refer to negative behavior as “Yerida L’tzorich Aliya” which means “Descent for the Purpose of Ascent” (the same philosophy was also embraced by the Frankists.)  In other words, you can engage in all form of evil things and the lower you descend, the higher you ascend. They believe that their Messiah will only come once Humanity is totally morally degraded hence they attack the only normal, healthy, natural and God-given form of Sexuality i.e. Heterosexuality (Opposite-Sex Attraction = Marriage) and promote Homosexuality (i.e. Same-Sex Attraction), Zoosexuality (Human Animal Attraction), Pedophilia (Adult-Children Attraction) and incest.


Many people believe that ordinary Jews are spared the Satanic influence of the Jewish Masonic NWO. This isn’t true. Jews are as much victims
as anybody else. We have to remember that the agenda is SATANIC by nature. The Agenda is indeed directed by Jewish forces but these forces could not care less about ordinary Jews. Ordinary Jews are being used to serve the agenda of International Jewry.

The rulers won’t be ordinary Jews or ordinary people but the Elite. They don’t care about Jews in general since Jews aren’t really a race in the traditional sense (as shown below) but a Satanic cult.

Judaism, much like Freemasonry, is only a means to push the NWO agenda. The Rothschild and the rest of the Jewish Elite are willing to throw ordinary Jews under the bus if it serves their agenda.

Ordinary Jews are affected by the same social ills that affect the west today. Feminism, Abortion, Divorce and LGBT deviancy are
also promoted and tolerated in Israel. Jews are also poisoned by Feminism. in Israel it is very difficult to find a good woman. Half of the women in Israel care only about money and their ego. They don’t care about getting married and starting a family.

Women are also put into military service in combat units which degrades the quality of the military. Feminism had made these women so difficult to start a relationship with.


In terms of multiculturalism, Israel is even more multi-racial in the real sense of the word than any other country in the world.

500,000 gentile Russians have been converted to Judaism and had become Jews legally, along with 120,000 Blacks from Africa who also converted and became “Jews”.There are about 1.5 Million Arabic & Iranian Jews, 2 Million North African Jews and about 4 Million European Jews – and all of these “Jews” don’t look the same as there are Nordic, Turkish, Iranian, Arabic and African looking Jews.

Article intro - Jewish Men (1).jpg(Four Jewish men –  members of the Jewish extremist Chabad cult)
The Talmud indeed speaks of non-Jews as “animals”. However, once a non-Jew is being converted into Judaism they suddenly receive a “Jewish Soul” and become “God” along with every cell of their DNA. (Suddenly, DNA turns “Godly”).
This is further proof that Jewish racism against non-Jews is not a biological racism – anybody can become Jewish – but rather a spiritual racism. You are “God” as long as you are part of the “Club”. If you are a non-Jew, you can become a “Jew” and part of the “club” by conversion and thus you get a “Godly Jewish Soul”. If you chose to remain a non-Jew, that means you have a “Satanic soul.” Of course, they are the ones embracing Satan.

As already stated, Israel is by no means a racially pure country – fact that the powers-that-be know very well. Jewish marriage laws aren’t based on biological racism. Anybody can be converted into Judaism and allowed to marry a Jew. If you are not a Jew, you cannot marry a Jew but if you converted to Judaism you can.  This proves to me that Judaism (much like Freemasonry) isn’t really a race and a folk in the traditional sense but a secret society – a Satanic cult – whose main goal is to enslave mankind. “Race” and “People” are used as covers to keep the brainwashed mixed race “Jewish” masses follow the Satanic agenda.


While I was in the United States not long ago, I did a DNA test to find out who I really am in terms of my blood. I was simply curious to know since I read that it is possible to do a DNA test and trace one’s ancestry based on their DNA. I was told by my parents that my grandparents on both sides told them (who were secular Jews in Germany) that their ancestors lived in Germany for many generations and that they were “Jews” all that time. They also told me the area their ancestors originate from in Northern Germany, which to my surprise – I later found out thanks to the internet – was not known to be inhabited by Jewish communities……This is where I felt that something just doesn’t add up.

bar-rafaeli-bio-gty.jpg(left Israeli Jewish model, Bar Rafaeli) 
Furthermore, physically I don’t look like a “typical” Jewish person. I look like an ethnic German person i.e. I have white skin, blue eyes, blond hair and Nordic facial features. Both of my parents have blond hair and blue eyes as well and since I now realized that the story my grandparents on both sides told my parents just doesn’t add up since there were no Jewish communities in that area of Northern Germany. I decided to do a DNA test to find out who I am through my blood.
I got the result of the test a few weeks ago, My DNA test results show NO trace of Non-European or Semitic DNA. My DNA test shows that I’m 98.7% of Northern European blood. Mostly Germanic and the rest is Celtic etc. While there’s only 1.3% deviation (which is well within a margin of error). I am a “Jew” but my DNA says “Germanic”.
To be frank, I wasn’t surprised at all. Things now started to make sense to me. Accepting the “Jews” as a “one unified race” was always a paradox to me, given the immense differences between different Jewish groups. Studies show that European Jews contain huge amounts of European DNA in addition to Turkish and Semitic DNA and many of them are total converts whose ancestors lived in European towns who were totally converted into Judaism during the past 500-1000 years.

European Jews started out Kazhars (Turkish People) converting to Judaism after they mingled with Semitic Jews. These Kazhars (Mixed with Semites) who initiated European Jewry then mixed and added more converts from among the Slavic and Germanic populations with whom they contacted. European Jews of today are basically a mixed-race people made up of largely Kazarian (Turkish), Germanic, Slavic elements. Since there are Nordic blond blue-eyed Jews, Brown Arabic Jews, Black Jews from Africa etc I came to the conclusion that present-day Jews cannot be regarded as a race in the traditional sense.

So what do they base their identity on? Simply put, You are a “Jew”
if you are a member of the “Club”. What club? A Satanic Cult whose main goal is to enslave mankind as I’ve shown in my previous articles.
Jews present themselves as a religion and a race when they are obviously neither.


(examples of “ethnic Jews”)

As the pictures above prove, Jews are comprised of all the worlds races – There are White Jews, Brown Jews, and Black Jews. There are Jews in all shapes and colors. Yet Jews are brainwashed into believing that they are a “race” and a “people”.
All Jews are not the same race as all Christians are not the same race.
Judaism Is a Satanic Cult – Not a race – whose main goal is to enslave mankind. It’s a secret society that keeps its followers under control by selling them the lie that they are a race (a Biological absurdity as I’ve shown) in order to make them unite and keep the club going – The club in the service of Satanism i.e. Judaism.
————————– Your Life Before and After This One 
————————   The Devil & the Jews 

‘No power for member states’, Nigel Farage reveals ‘the EU’s SCARY plans’ for Europe

‘No power for member states’, Nigel Farage reveals ‘the EU’s SCARY plans’ for Europe

Aurora Basotti — Daily Express Jan 15, 2018

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. Click to enlarge

NIGEL FARAGE claimed the European Union is seeking to create a “unified” union taking away all power from the current member states, days after Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel revealed his shocking vision that would see Brussels take over the continent.

Mr Farage also called on Remainers to finally “come clean” about the real purpose of the European Union.

The staunch anti-EU politician said: “There is a real reluctance for anyone on the Remain side to really come clean about what Europe is. It is about the creation of a new state.

“Barnier said to me: ‘We are not building a federal Europe. We are building a unified Europe.’

“That’s actually scarier because a federal Europe would mean that the individual states would have – rather like America perhaps – quite a lot of say, quite a lot of power over their own lives.”

Speaking during his weekly Sunday show on LBC, Mr Farage suggested the British public would “heavily reject” EU plans to further integrate the union had they voted in favour to stay a member of the institution.

He continued: “The idea of a unified, unitary state I think it’s one that, if the British people really understood it, would reject heavily.”

The shocking claim appears to fall into line with statements made by German Foreign Affairs minister Sigmar Gabriel during a meeting in Brussels earlier this week.

The fervently pro-EU politician suggested European countries in the future will only be able to exercise self-control through the European Union.

Mr Gabriel claimed even Germany – the EU’s largest and strongest financial contributor – would have to accept more EU rules in the coming years.

He said: “In the world of the 21st Century, Europe will only be able to act on a sovereign basis via the European Union, by winning back sovereignty through the European Union.

“Even Germany, big and strong as it is, in tomorrow’s world will not have a voice by itself. Our children and grandchildren will have the choice of having no voice to be heard or a common European voice.”

The German politician’s vision echoes the proposals EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker presented during his State of the Union speech in September.

Proposals included taking more decisions on joint foreign policy by majority vote, rather than unanimity, and setting up a European Monetary Fund complete with a eurozone finance ministry and minister.


A topnotch site

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

Journal of People

Peasants and workers

%d bloggers like this: