The western mainstream media’s role in a promoting any war or conflict can never be underestimated – as history has demonstrated time and time again, with their willingness to blindly promote the international corporate and shadow government’s foreign policy objectives – which always result in the death of countless innocents. It must stop.This is the story about a film which none of were supposed to see. Not because the film wasn’t up to professional journalistic standards, or that it was of poor quality. It was neither of those. Against the odds and the establishment-owned international media syndicate, award-winning filmmaker and journalist John Pilger reveals one of the most damning indictments of American and British mainstream media. The content of this timeless film is stunning, and show beyond any reasonable doubt, that our media are not only complicit in advancing conflict around the globe, but are actively engaged in pushing it on behalf of those who seek to profit from international conflagrations.Note also the text of the letter between Pilger and Noam Chomsky, revealing how even at the highest levels of the ‘liberal left’ there are financiers who act as information controllers and gatekeepers
Brasscheck TVJohn Pilger has made twenty five documentaries, but this one did not receive a warm reception in Barrack Obama’s America.
The makers were dis-invited from the US premiere just 48 hours before they got on a plane to Santa Fe, New Mexico. The sponsor, uber-liberal multi-millionaire, Patrick Lannan, had a flunky send them at ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ e-mail. The reason for the ban? No explanation. Here’s the letter written by John Pilger about what happened…
June 10 2011
An open letter to Noam Chomsky and the general public.
I am writing to you and a number of other friends mostly in the US to alert you to the extraordinary banning of my film on war and media, ‘The War You Don’t See’, and the abrupt cancellation of a major event at the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, in which David Barsamian and I were to discuss free speech, US foreign policy and censorship in the media.
Lannan invited me and David over a year ago and welcomed my proposal that they also host the US premiere of ‘The War You Don’t See’, in which US and British broadcasters describe the often hidden part played by the media in the promotion of war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film has been widely acclaimed in the UK and Australia; the trailer and reviews are on my website http://www.johnpilger.com
The banning and cancellation, which have shocked David and me, are on the personal orders of Patrick Lannan, whose wealth funds the Lannan Foundation as a liberal centre of discussion of politics and the arts. Some of you will have been there and will know the Lannan Foundation as a valuable supporter of liberal causes. Indeed, I was invited in 2002 to present a Lannan award to the broadcaster Amy Goodman.
What is deeply disturbing about the ban is that it happened so suddenly and inexplicably: 48 hours before David Barsamian and I were both due to depart for Santa Fe I received a brief email with a ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ from a Lannan official who had been telling me just a few days earlier what a ‘great honour’ it was to have the US premiere of my film at Lannan, with myself in attendance.
I urge you to visit the Lannan website http://www.lannan.org . Good people like Michael Ratner, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald are shown as participants in discussion about freedom of speech. I am there, too, but my name is the only one with a line through it and the word, ‘Cancelled’.
Neither David Barsamian, nor I, have been given a word of explanation. All my messages to Lannan have gone unanswered; my calls calls are not returned; my flights were cancelled summarily. At the urging of the New Mexican newspaper, Patrick Lannan has issued a one-sentence statement offering his regrets to the Lannan-supporting ‘community’ in Santa Fe. Again, he gives no reason for the ban. I have spoken to the manager of the Santa Fe cinema where ‘The War You Don’t See’ was to be screened. He received a late-night call. Again, no reason for the ban was forthcoming, giving him barely time to cancel advertising in The New Mexican, which was forced to drop a major feature.
There is a compelling symbol of our extraordinary times in all of this. A rich and powerful individual and organisation, espousing freedom of speech, has moved ruthlessly and unaccountably to crush it.
With warm regards,
Watch this incredible piece of film making that totally exposes the culture of lies and deception in US and British media:
Beyond a Doubt: Our Media War Propaganda and The Film You Almost Didn’t SeeMARCH 29, 2014 BY 1 COMMENT21st Century Wire says…The western mainstream media’s role in a promoting any war or conflict can never be underestimated – as history has demonstrated time and time again, with their willingness to blindly promote the international corporate and shadow government’s foreign policy objectives – which always result in the death of countless innocents. It must stop.This is the story about a film which none of were supposed to see. Not because the film wasn’t up to professional journalistic standards, or that it was of poor quality. It was neither of those. Against the odds and the establishment-owned international media syndicate, award-winning filmmaker and journalist John Pilger reveals one of the most damning indictments of American and British mainstream media. The content of this timeless film is stunning, and show beyond any reasonable doubt, that our media are not only complicit in advancing conflict around the globe, but are actively engaged in pushing it on behalf of those who seek to profit from international conflagrations.Note also the text of the letter between Pilger and Noam Chomsky, revealing how even at the highest levels of the ‘liberal left’ there are financiers who act as information controllers and gatekeepers
John Pilger has made twenty five documentaries, but this one did not receive a warm reception in Barrack Obama’s America.
The makers were dis-invited from the US premiere just 48 hours before they got on a plane to Santa Fe, New Mexico. The sponsor, uber-liberal multi-millionaire, Patrick Lannan, had a flunky send them at ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ e-mail. The reason for the ban? No explanation. Here’s the letter written by John Pilger about what happened…
June 10 2011
An open letter to Noam Chomsky and the general public.
I am writing to you and a number of other friends mostly in the US to alert you to the extraordinary banning of my film on war and media, ‘The War You Don’t See’, and the abrupt cancellation of a major event at the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, in which David Barsamian and I were to discuss free speech, US foreign policy and censorship in the media.
Lannan invited me and David over a year ago and welcomed my proposal that they also host the US premiere of ‘The War You Don’t See’, in which US and British broadcasters describe the often hidden part played by the media in the promotion of war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film has been widely acclaimed in the UK and Australia; the trailer and reviews are on my website http://www.johnpilger.com
The banning and cancellation, which have shocked David and me, are on the personal orders of Patrick Lannan, whose wealth funds the Lannan Foundation as a liberal centre of discussion of politics and the arts. Some of you will have been there and will know the Lannan Foundation as a valuable supporter of liberal causes. Indeed, I was invited in 2002 to present a Lannan award to the broadcaster Amy Goodman.
What is deeply disturbing about the ban is that it happened so suddenly and inexplicably: 48 hours before David Barsamian and I were both due to depart for Santa Fe I received a brief email with a ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ from a Lannan official who had been telling me just a few days earlier what a ‘great honour’ it was to have the US premiere of my film at Lannan, with myself in attendance.
I urge you to visit the Lannan website http://www.lannan.org . Good people like Michael Ratner, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald are shown as participants in discussion about freedom of speech. I am there, too, but my name is the only one with a line through it and the word, ‘Cancelled’.
Neither David Barsamian, nor I, have been given a word of explanation. All my messages to Lannan have gone unanswered; my calls calls are not returned; my flights were cancelled summarily. At the urging of the New Mexican newspaper, Patrick Lannan has issued a one-sentence statement offering his regrets to the Lannan-supporting ‘community’ in Santa Fe. Again, he gives no reason for the ban. I have spoken to the manager of the Santa Fe cinema where ‘The War You Don’t See’ was to be screened. He received a late-night call. Again, no reason for the ban was forthcoming, giving him barely time to cancel advertising in The New Mexican, which was forced to drop a major feature.
There is a compelling symbol of our extraordinary times in all of this. A rich and powerful individual and organisation, espousing freedom of speech, has moved ruthlessly and unaccountably to crush it.
With warm regards,
Watch this incredible piece of film making that totally exposes the culture of lies and deception in US and British media:
Brendon O’Connell — via Rebel News Nov 2, 2014
I was arrested on the 30th of October, 2014. A Thursday, at approximately 16:30 hrs.
Now, this is going to get extremely interesting.
6 detectives from State Security came through the door – no warrant.
I am charged with “threat to kill” and publishing a private telephone conversation. That charge is from when I rang Julie Bishops office and spoke with “Tess” the secretary.
It all stems from this blog posting made 20 days ago –
My laptop, phones, hard drives, video camera etc… all gone. I have just got this borrowed laptop going.
The “no warrant” fact is interesting. They claim it is allowed under a clause in the criminal investigation act. That “clause” is to do with an event like a suspect running from their car into their house with police in hot pursuit. So how are they going to explain that one?The “threat” was made 20 days ago? I emailed the blog post to every MP in the State. Its called a “cry for help”.
Its funny how things turn out – back on the 10th of October, 2 hours after the blog post was put up with my “threat to kill” – I was rung by the minister him self. He promised to look into my case personally and meet with me personally two weeks from then. I thought all was well.
Instead, he palmed me back off to the corrupt Justice Intelligence Service who wanted to speak with me. I ended up refusing to see them. Last time I went in I was treated with utter contempt and a physical altercation erupted. I was too scared to go in their alone without a witness and I couldn’t get anyone to come with me.
I said to the minister back on the 10th that I would take the blog down as now I had someone listening to me. The minister said something along the lines of “whatever”. Hence, I just left it up and forgot about it and you can read the following blog posting –
So, nearly three weeks later – after I sent out the blog posting to nearly every MP in the state including the Premieres office – I am raided by 6 detectives – with no warrant – and charged with “threats to kill” and “publishing a private phone call”? Dear God, here we go again. What do I do?
I told the main detective – who was nice about things – that I found the raid interesting as I had spoken twice with the minister previous to it all and all was well. What gives? The detective new nothing about the conversations I had had with the Minister.
Interesting thing happened two days after I spoke with the minister – Inspector Steve Jancec appeared on the telly assuring West Australians that freemasons are lovely people. Apparently he looked nervous. You can see Steve in these two posts –
Then the minister – Joe Francis – was approached by a notorious sex offender near parliament house. A possible breach of security. When Minister Joe Francis first took on the corruption in WA prisons his house was burgled. The Minister is not liked – he is the “Brubaker” of Western Australia.
Interestingly, Detective Gordon Bertwhistle said to a friend of mine in 2005 that, “the pedophile rings in Perth go all the way to the top.” Bertwhislte is the head of the child sex assault unit. He should know. To understand more about this subject please get to know Cathy O’Brian and her story of just how deep and high the child sex abuse goes –
Can you imagine what it will be like in jail for me? Maybe that’s the plan?
Minister Joe Francis and his Commissioner John McMahon are honorable men. I hope this can be sorted quickly.
If anyone thinks I have recorded the phone call I had with the minister – you can rest easy. I don’t record people who I think will treat me with honesty and integrity.
It was certainly a very interesting conversation though.
So, will Mr Cashman be allowed to get away with having me bashed or is the department of corrective services going to do its job? A prisoner – who I knew well – was beaten to death at Wooroloo Prison Farm a month after I left. That could very easily have been me. Am I just supposed to forget about Mr Cashman? Do I just forget about the fact I was warned I was being set up to be bashed and I told the Senior Officer I wasn’t happy about it. I was told to go back to my cell and 5 minutes later I was brutally beaten unconscious? My arm was badly broken – and despite complaining for a month I was ignored. Just how bad does it have to get? Seriously, how bad does it have to get?
I emailed Brian Steels at Curtain University about what I saw in the prisons and he assured me he knew all about it and prison officers setting prisoners up to be bashed and paying prisoners a pouch of tobacco. You can read some of Brians work here – http://www.academia.edu/2344559/Restorative_Prisons_Towards_Radical_Prison_Reform – Brian says people are slowly working towards reform. Thats lovely.
I ask Hami from Press TV to please notify his social network.
If the Western Australian establishment want me to leave the state they will need to give me some money and I will go.
I cant fight them any more. Western Australia is untouchable. They are above the law. They arrest whistle blowers and torment those who seek justice.
I will most likely simply plead guilty to he charges and leave the State. But they may give me serious prison time – this is Western Australia after all.
Its funny, but I was just organizing a large meeting to explain my case to people. I had also contacted the Islamic Council of Western Australia and they said they were willing to speak with me.
I wonder if that upset anyone?
Thats all I have to say on the subject. I simply don’t have the will to fight anymore and I cannot bear the thought of more prison time. They win. They always win.
My conditions on bail are not to “threaten” anyone via electronic means.
Does me reporting what has happened constitute a “threat”?
For the first time in my life I just have to accept defeat.
People can email me here for now – firstname.lastname@example.org – my other emails have not been set up by me on this computer yet.
If anyone knows a lawyer for some advice that doesn’t charge let me know.
I would ask the Perth Islamic Community if they can help me with some basic legal advice. I have a few hundred dollars I was saving for advertising for a meeting.
The entire back ground to my case is here –
Mary Pinchot Mayer, the woman who inspired
JFK to resist the satanic power was also
brutally murdered by the CIA. Their deaths were
part of a continuing program of political assassinations.
In his book, Mary’s Mosaic, Peter Janney has assembled
the puzzle, a picture disheartening yet also inspiring.“Mary’s Mosaic” a book by Peter Janney is a memorial to Mary Pinchot Meyer (1920-1964), JFK’s confidante, adviser and lover.Janney was a boyhood friend of Meyer’s second son, Michael, who died when he was hit by a car in Dec. 1956. Janney recalls how Mary, despite her own grief, comforted him and the motorist who was hysterical. In Janney’s memory, his friend’s mother represented the ideal of womanhood.Janney’s mother and Meyer were classmates at Vassar College. His father, Wistar Janney and Mary’s husband Cord Meyer, whom she divorced in 1957, were both top officials at the CIA.The book is an act of penance because although CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Angleton (left) ordered the hit (because she threatened to expose the CIA) Janney’s own father and her ex-husband were both privy to the decision.MURDER INCORPORATED Despite the injunction against CIA involvement in domestic politics, the book reveals that the JFK assassination was only the most prominent of hundreds of US political assassinations. Consider names like RFK, MLK, JFK Jr., Vincent Foster and Senator Paul Wellstone. J. Edgar Hoover was probably murdered.Two earlier Mary Meyer murder researchers, Leo Damore and John Davis, also died under suspicious circumstances. The CIA has many discreet ways of making murder look natural. Janney quotes William Corson, a CIA insider, ¨Murders are easy, suicides more difficult.”Another Janey source is Toni Shimon, daughter of “police inspector” Joseph Shimon, liaison between CIA, FBI, DC police and the Executive Branch from the 1940’s-1980´s. He told her political assassinations are part of doing business in Washington. He carried out a few himself.Janney also suspects that Philip Graham was murdered by the CIA who then controlled the Washington Post through his wife Publisher Kathleen Graham and Managing Editor Ben Bradlee. This casts into doubt the Post’s role in the Watergate Affair. Janney says the 18-minutes missing from the Nixon tapes included his threat to expose the CIA role in the JFK Assassination.WHO WAS MARY PINCHOT MEYER?
Mary Pinchot Meyer is often described disparagingly as Kennedy´s “mistress.” In fact, by 1963 she was part of his inner circle and perhaps his greatest influence.An American bluebood, her father was a two-term governor of Pennsylvania. She was raised in NYC and travelled in the same social circles as JFK. A statuesque beauty, she was high-minded and had no time for the young Kennedy who was a philanderer like his father.Coming of age during World War Two, she was preoccupied with world peace. She married Cord Meyer, an ex-Marine with a poetic temperament. She shared his commitment to the United Nations as a step toward “world federalism.” These young idealists didn’t understand the real agenda behind world government.
However Cord could’t find a job in academia and Mary found herself the wife of a rising star in the CIA. She socialized with CIA families but was not afraid to voice her disapproval of CIA programs. After her divorce, she became an artist and experimented with LSD.Like Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary, who she visited, she believed that psychedelics were necessary for people to break the shell of socialization and experience divine consciousness. She started a group of Washington women dedicated to turning on the powerful men in their lives in order to prevent war.In 1959, Meyer became reacquainted with Kennedy whose marriage was a sham. Mary turned JFK on to pot and LSD. Kennedy determined to make peace with Russia and Cuba and wind down the Vietnam War. His Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was passed in the Senate. His emissary was meeting with Castro on the day of his assassination.Needless to say, LBJ reversed all of JFK’s initiatives. As a direct result, about 1.5 million Vietnamese died. About 60,000 US soldiers died and $700 billion (in today’s dollars) were wasted in a war which discredited, divided and demoralized the country.Mary was privy to the power struggle JFK had waged with the CIA and military industrial complex. Recklessly she voiced her suspicions of Angleton. She had enough credibility and connections to cause him serious problems.Her murder Oct. 12 1964, two days shy of her 44th birthday, while walking on a canal tow path, was as carefully orchestrated by the CIA as the President’s murder. Mary struggled with her assailant and called out for help but was silenced by bullets to the head and heart. Such is the fate suffered by our truest and our best.Leo Damore was actually able to interview the CIA hitman, now retired, who confessed. This journalistic coup may have cost Damore his life but he had passed the information on to a colleague who gave it to Janney.
THE ILLUMINATI Janney’s 550-page book is 25-year labor of love, meticulously researched and measured. Often the author is quite lyrical, giving it a novelistic page-turner quality.However, Janney does not understand that the CIA ultimately answers to the Masonic Jewish world banking cartel. He refers to an “invisible government” but this is the Illuminati world government. He says James Angleton was a mole but whose mole? The Mossad controlled him for the Illuminati bankers. They weren’t going to let an idealistic President impede their agenda which depends on constant war and ever-increasing debt.The mass media’s complicity in the JFK coverup made possible the CIA-Mossad’s next outrage, 9-11. It makes possible new false flags almost monthly, hoaxes like Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon. To be successful today, you have to collaborate with the satanic forces destroying America, or at least not challenge them. However, I doubt if ultimately the ruling class will enjoy the spoils of treason.Nevertheless, we may find hope in Peter Janney’s courageous achievement. Mary’s Mosaic is an impassioned defense of freedom based on knowing the truth: ¨The shining beacon of America–a promise unlike any other for humanity– was being extinguished…[due to] ignorance…I would do whatever it took, pay whatever price was required, to allow this story this small but essential piece of history—to see the light of day.” (391)No matter how depressing, the Truth is always inspiring and so are people like Janney who risk their lives to tell it.
Sherwood Ross — Rebel News Oct 18, 2013
If Seymour Hersh says in a forthcoming book the tale of the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. SEALS is “one big lie” and “not one word of it is true,” President Obama may be hard pressed to avoid impeachment.
Over a lifetime of journalism, investigative reporter Hersh has acquired a deserved reputation for honesty, accuracy, reliability, and integrity that is unmatched in his profession and if he says the bin Laden account is a fake, you can take it to the bank.
Hersh told “The Guardian,” Britain’s investigative daily, “Nothing’s been done about that story.” A Pakistani report on the killing of bin Laden, Hersh says, was published with considerable U.S. input and is “a bullshit report.” bin Laden allegedly was killed by a U.S. SEAL team in Abbottabad, Pakistan, May 1, 2011.
Hersh is writing a book about national security, “The Guardian” says, and he’s hinted it will include a chapter on the Seals raid in Pakistan that allegedly bumped off bin Laden.
Proving themselves consumate actors/con-artists: Obama, Biden and Hilary Clinton watch the raid on bin Laden’s compound via satelitte, allegedly. Click to enlarge
President Obama’s administration lies systematically, Hersh asserts, yet is never challenged by America’s supine media. “It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy (Obama),” Hersh said.
Hersh claims President Obama is worse than Bush, “Guardian” writer Lisa O’Carroll, who interviewed Hersh, reports.”Do you think Obama’s been judged by any rational standards?” Hersh asks.”Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria?…How does Obama get away with the drone program?… How does he justify it? What’s the intelligence?…Why don’t we find out how good or bad this policy is?”
Hersh concludes, “The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.”
In his bid for re-election in 2012, the Obama campaign milked the bin Laden slaying for all it was worth, making a video narrated by actor Tom Hanks about it. The “Huffington Post’s” Ben Feller at the time wrote an article headlined, “Obama Campaign Using Osama Bin Laden Killing As 2012 Campaign Tool.”
Obama earlier had trumpeted the killing as “the most significant achievement in our fight against Al Quida.”
Yet Hersh says today the “gotcha” story is all “One Big Lie.” Sounds like an investigation may be in order.
Eustice Mullins — The CDL Report, Issue 69 (Nov-Dec 1984)
In December of 1984, it will be forty years since one of America’s greatest heroes, General George S. Patton, was executed by his Communist foes. General Patton was struck down the day before he was scheduled to make a triumphant return to the United States. He had just been removed from his command of the Third Army, which was in charge of governing the American sector of Germany. Because he not only opposed the dismemberment of Germany, but also because he favored military action against the Communists. As the most popular hero of the Second World War, Patton would have been unbeatable in a Presidential race. This was the reason his skulking enemies ordered his execution before he could leave Germany.
The Patton Papers, 1940-45 recently published by Houghton Mifflin Company in Boston, gives ample reasons for the murder of General Patton. A few months before he was killed, his driver for five years, Master Sergeant John L. Mims, was replaced. Patton was asked by Major General Gay to accompany him on an excursion for a few hours the day before he was to return to America. At 11:45 A.M. in clear weather and on a straight stretch of road, the driver of a GMC military truck turned his vehicle directly into the side of the 1938 Cadillac 75 Special limousine in which Patton was the only person injured. He suffered some internal injuries but did not seem to be seriously hurt. On Dec. 21, 1945, it was announced that he had died of an “embolism”, that is a bubble of the blood which is fatal when it reaches a vital organ. It can be introduced into the bloodstream with a syringe by anyone with brief medical training.
Patton was a vigorous sixty years old with enormous reserves of energy, who seldom needed more than a couple of hours sleep a night. Not only did the U.S. Army make no investigation into the “accident” which had put him into the hospital, but no questions were raised about his “embolism”. On previous occasions when attempts were made to kill him investigations were made, despite the fact that he was one of the most popular and most powerful figures in America’s history. He recorded in his diary that on April 20, 1945, while observing the front in his personal plane, which was clearly marked, an RAF Spitfire made three passes at his plane, which attempting to shoot it down, then went out of control and crashed. The story was later put out that a Polish flyer had been piloting the Spitfire. Patton was not injured.
Patton’s military exploits were such that he was the only American general whom the Germans feared. They transferred entire divisions as soon as rumors were spread that he was on a given front. The Germans’ contempt for Patton’s fellow generals was shared by himself, as he proves on many pages of his diary. During much of World War II, Patton survived repeated efforts of his fellow generals, as well as the British leaders, to get rid of him. In 1943, when he had turned the tide in Africa with his brilliant victories at Gafsa and Gela, Patton was removed from command after Drew Pearson printed a story that Patton had slapped a malingerer at a field hospital and called him a “yellow-bellied Jew.” Eisenhower used this incident as an excuse to refuse Patton command of American ground troops in England, giving the command instead to Omar Bradley, whom Patton exposed as a cowardly dullard. We will never know how many casualties Bradleys’ cowardice and incompetence cost us, but it must have been many thousands.
Patton wrote in his Diary Jan. 18, 1944, “Bradley is a man of great mediocrity. At Benning in command he failed to get discipline. At Gafsa when it looked as though the Germans might turn our right flank, he suggested we withdraw corps headquarters to Feriana. I refused to move.”
Patton cited numerous other examples of Bradley’s cowardice. As for Eisenhower, his references to him are always contemptuous. Patton refers to Ike as “Divine Destiny” but more customarily as “fool”. On March 1, 1944 Patton noted in his Diary, “Ike and I dined alone and had a very pleasant time. He is drinking too much.”
Patton was extremely disgusted with Eisenhower’s infatuation with his “chauffeur”, Kay Summersby, and he persuaded Ike not to divorce Mamie in order to marry her. Kay Summersby was a British Intelligence Officer who had been ordered to prostitute herself to Ike so that he would send American troops into the line instead of the British. England had experienced such a terrible bloodletting at the hands of the German armies in World War I that Churchill and the other British leaders determined to sacrifice Americans wherever possible on the Western front. Although Kay Summersby secretly despised Eisenhower, she was a loyal British subject, and she successfully carried off the affair. It is estimated that she cost the United States 100,000 casualties which otherwise would have been borne by the British.
Patton had noted in his Diary, July 5, 1943 before his successful African campaign, “At no time did Ike wish us luck and say he was back of us—fool.”
On July 12, 1944, Patton wrote in his Diary, “Neither Ike nor Bradley has the stuff. Ike is bound hand and foot by the British and doesn’t know it. Poor fool.”
As a result of Patton’s bold advances in France, Field Marshall Montgomery persuaded Eisenhower to issue one of the most amazing military orders in history. All of the Allied Armies must advance exactly abreast, so that no one (meaning Patton) would receive “undue credit.” Throughout the war, Patton achieved his amazing victories by being in the field, whereas the other generals remained far behind the front in their dugout “headquarters” or in luxurious villas far from the sound of gunfire.
During a press conference on May 8, 1945, Patton was asked, “Would you explain why we (the Americans) didn’t go into Prague.” “I can tell you, exactly,” Patton replied. “We were ordered not to.” Patton wrote to his wife on July 21, 1945. “I could have taken it (referring to Berlin) had I been allowed.”
Eisenhower’s refusal to allow Patton to take Prague and Berlin, holding him back while the Russians occupied these critical capitals, remains one of the greatest performances of treason since Benedict Arnold, like Eisenhower, sold out to the British.
Wreckage of the vehicle Patton had been travelling in. Click to enlarge
Patton apparently was writing his own death warrant when he entered his frequently voiced opinion in his Diary on May 18, 1945, concerning the advisability of fighting Russians: “In my opinion the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest ease, because while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of these combined arms; whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”
The danger which Patton presented to his enemies was not merely that he was a great American patriot; he also was impervious to any sort of undue influence. He had married Beatrice Ayer, one of the wealthiest women in America. This made him financially invulnerable, and he was happily married, which made it impossible for him to succumb to the blandishments of foreign agents such as Kay Summersby. He opposed Jews and Communists, not only because they were enemies of America, but, because they were a lower order of human beings. He refers to the fact that the Jew is an Asiatic, devoid of feeling for human life. Shortly before he was killed he wrote in his Diary Oct. 1, 1945, “THE JEWISH TYPE OF DISPLACED PERSON IS, IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, A SUBHUMAN SPECIES WITHOUT ANY OF THE CULTURAL OR SOCIAL REFINEMENTS OF OUR TIME.”
Patton was removed from command in Germany because he actively opposed the swarm of locusts, such as the recently recruited Soviet agent Henry Kissinger, who fought Patton to win control of the Military Government in Germany.
In his Diary, August 29, 1945, Patton wrote, “Today we received a letter in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc.”
On August 31, 1945, Patton wrote to his wife. “THE STUFF IN THE PAPERS ABOUT FRATERNIZATION IS ALL WET. ALL THAT SORT OF WRITING IS DONE BY JEWS TO GET REVENGE. ACTUALLY, THE GERMANS ARE THE ONLY DECENT PEOPLE LEFT IN EUROPE.
Patton noted in his Diary on August 31, 1946, “I also wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson on the questions of pro-Jewish influence in the Military Government of Germany.”
As a result of Patton’s opposition to the Kissingers, who believed they had won the war and should rule Europe, a furious press campaign again was launched against him. A pro-Patton observer named Mason wrote, “The Daniell-Bevin-Morgan plot to destroy Patton was successful because Bernstein of PM was the most powerful force in Germany in 1945 because he had the support of Harry Dexter White, and Henry Morgenthau, Laughlin Curry, David K. Nile and Alger Hiss.”
On Sept. 29, 1945, Patton wrote to his wife, “The noise against me is only the means by which the Jews and Communists are attempting and with good success to implement a further dismemberment of Germany.”
Removed from command by the Jewish plot against him, General George S. Patton would have to return to the United States to work for the good of his country. It was to prevent this that a truck smashed in the side of his car in one of the strangest and most-ignored event in America’s military history. Those who fight for America are always in danger, always thwarted by the plotting and the treachery of the subhumans whom Patton recognized and battled to the end of his life. His story is one which enlightens and inspires us all, and this is why we must, after forty years, remind the American people of the cowards who murdered him.
November 28, 2013
The Illuminati often achieve their goals
by pretending to support the opposite.
It’s counter-intuitive but they advanced
world government by supporting nationalism
in Canada. It boils down to, if you wish to control
the opposition, you have to lead it.
At a meeting in Copenhagen June 10, 1931: Arnold Toynbee, “Director of Studies” at Chatham House, London, said:
“It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.
The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise – lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defense….
We are at present working, discreetly with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time, we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.”
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
(from April 22, 2010)
My original title was “Confessions of a Dupe.” From the age of 18 to 40, I was an ardent Canadian nationalist and member of various “nationalist” groups, including Mel Hurtig’s “Committee for an Independent Canada.” In 1968, I organized a speech for Hurtig (left) at Carleton University. In 1988, when I was rich from Scruples, I contributed about $20,000 to opposing the free trade agreement because of the loss of Canadian sovereignty.
It’s counter-intuitive but the leftist nationalist groups I supported were a front for the New World Order. Their leaders were actually internationalists. Mel Hurtig belonged to the Canadian branch of Arnold Toynbee’s “Royal Institute of International Affairs.” Abe Rotstein, Hurtig’s co-chairman, attended the 1971 Bilderberg Conference. Other so-called nationalists like Mel Watkins, Eric Kierans and Maud Barlow were left wingers. The Left is a front for the Communist New World Order, i.e. big government in the service of big business. The masses are bribed with “social services” and fooled by the “Left – Right” conflict. Both Left and Right serve monopoly capital.
Canada’s socialist party, the New Democrats, is a member of the Socialist International, a Masonic Banker outfit. Their logo is a fist and red roses, Communist and Masonic symbols.
“Nationalism” in Canada blossomed in the wake of the 1968 Bilderberg Conference at Mount Tremblant. A leaked document outlined a plan where Canadian financiers would appear to own Canadian business, but in reality it would be controlled by international lenders, i.e. Illuminati bankers. Canadian nationalism was another psy op.
YOUNG MAN IN SEARCH OF IDENTITY
I was 18 in 1968 and “looking for my identity.” I was looking for it because they had taken away God and religion. They had taken away gender (masculinity) and family. Naively, I sought my identity in “community.” First, I investigated Israel but sensed something wrong with Zionism. Then I devoted myself to Canadian nationalism, majoring in Canadian literature. Little did I suspect i was joining a phony opposition.
In the wake of the 1988 election over North American free trade, I attended a conference of Left-leaning nationalist groups in Ottawa. We had lost. The purpose was to decide on the strategy going forward.
Three things struck me as odd.
1) Fellow organizers here in Winnipeg, who were actually Communists who infiltrated the labor movement, didn’t want me to go. I was puzzled that sincere activists wouldn’t want to include all the talent (or even money) they could find.
2) I was struck by the demeanor of the leftist professors and activists at the Conference. They didn’t seem angry or disappointed by our loss. Quite the opposite. There was a palpable sense of smug satisfaction. They liked their “performance” and were content to return to misleading naive students. These pious people make over $100K “championing the poor” and “fighting the establishment.”
Finally, 3) During the meeting I suggested some militant actions to continue the fight against free trade. The chair of the meeting, Maude Barlow, (left) who is still the chair of the “Council of Canadians” verbally sidelined me by promising to discuss the matter personally later. She never sought me out.
When I approached her, she said she was busy. l had been “finessed” by a pro.
Clearly the liberal and socialist “left” is part of the phony opposition. They don’t represent the people. They are Masons and part of the Masonic two-step leading to banker world government. The “establishment” is complicit in the enslavement of society.
Similarly in the US and Europe, all political parties are run by Masons and ruled by the Rothschild cartel. I doubt if any individual or group gains visibility unless they are puppets.
Our political and cultural life can be compared to the movie “The Truman Show.” (left) We are the Jim Carrey character. Everything is orchestrated and “under control.”
Certainly Ron Paul fits the category of phony opposition. He is a Mason. His wife is a Mason, Eastern Star. His daughters are Masons, Rainbow girls.
The John Birch Society does great research but apparently they were started by the Rockefellers who gave the founder a sweet deal for his grape juice company.
The purpose of the phony opposition is to co-opt the opposition and discourage any genuine grass roots political movement from starting. Their mission also is to fight trivial battles and distract us from the stealth establishment of world government. Remember the year the Republicans spent trying to impeach Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinski? Government ground to a halt.
Do we have any real leaders? You can recognize them if they are marginalized and anathema to the mass media. Our real leaders are the people they slander, bankrupt and imprison or kill.
My source on Canadian Nationalism: “Rockefeller, Rothschild and Mel Hurtig: An Examination of the Committee for an Independent Canada”
a 1972 article by “The Canadian League of Rights.”
(left, Ron Paul in the checkered pants, in the 1980’s.)
First Comment from Dan:
They’ve reduced nationalist consciousness to the level of sports. Franklin Roosevelt liked to refer to himself as ‘the quarterback’.
What a joke – to learn that Ron Paul’s wife and daughters are Eastern Star. I remember an internet radio host asked him point blank, “have you ever been a member of a secret society?” That was 2007. Ron gave a little laugh and said, “I was a member of a fraternity in college, but that was just more like playing pranks on each other and horsing around”. That’s not exactly an honest answer, but it sounds like one.
Now I see that the talk show host was in on it, because the way he asked the question left room to dodge giving an answer. I really don’t think Ron or any politicians goes on cold interviews. Their handlers will require a list of the questions so they can prepare answers. A media entertainer is in the position of weakness because they want to get hot or controversial names on their show.
Later I saw a video of Ron Paul on Morton Downey Jr’s TV show back in 1988 when he was that year’s Libertarian candidate. Aside from being two decades younger, he displayed a completely different personality. He was aggressive and hostile. Too much contrast with the Ron Paul RELOVELUTION of the recent past. He definitely playing a character, just like an actor. 
Ron was a pied piper who made people think he was a nationalist Constitutionalist when he’s really a disciple of Ayn Rand. Rand was Rothschild propagandist. Next time you see a bumper sticker that says “WHO IS JOHN GALT?” you’ll know it was Philip Rothschild. Rand was groomed by him before she was sent to America to preach the Rothschild evangel, with The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
I was always the skeptical devil’s advocate about so many conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds, But when it was revealed that Ron Paul named his son after Ayn Rand, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
By George Orwell | earthblognews | 01.09.2010
A few decades ago, there were thousands of independent media outlets in the US. Today in America, six multinational global media mega corporations run by six individuals control 96% of the content Americans see on TV and watch at the movies; read in books, magazines and newspapers, and hear on the radio.
- Time Warner
- Walt Disney
- News Corp
- General Electric
Click the link below to see the details of who owns what.
These 6 corporations own the major entertainment theme parks, movie studios, television and radio broadcast networks, cable and satellite channels, video news, magazines, book publishers, sports entertainment, integrated telecommunications and the communications satellites themselves, wireless phones, video games software, electronic media, internet, record labels and the music industry, and more.
Everything you believe, more or less, is delivered to you by a monolithic six individuals running these corporations. They play golf together. They plot and scheme together. They are members of the same clubs and organizations. These cretins see the people, the citizens… as donkeys or Muppets who will believe anything. These demi-gods decide in advance what the donkeys should believe and what attitudes they should have about everything.
“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.
12,700,000 Google References
“News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising” – former NBC news President Rubin Frank147,000 Google References
“For better or worse, my company is a reflection of my character, my thinking, my values” – Rupert Murdoch297,000,000 Google References
“We are here to serve advertisers. That is our raison d’etre” – CBS C.E.O. Michael Jordan 308,000 Google References
“We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective” – Michael Eisner, CEO, The Walt Disney Co 364,000 Google References
“We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.” – Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news. 1,360 Google references
“We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” – Katherine Meyer Graham, Washington Post publisher41,500 Google References
“People shouldn’t expect the mass media to do investigative stories. That job belongs to the ‘fringe’ media.” – Ted Koppel – (American broadcast journalist, best known as the anchor for Nightline) 2770 Google References
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”–William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy 167,000 Google References
Following this brief introduction is an attempt to enumerate powerful propaganda techniques being used on the American public and the world population by the corporate or so called “mainstream” (MSM) or mass media.
Having familiarized yourself with these techniques, you will be able to spot them as they are being deployed against you. The best way to counter propaganda is to understand the techniques and how they are used.
Framing [or re-framing] the debate
Debate a legitimate issue, and ostensibly have both sides represented, but instead on the continuum of opinion, have one from the middle and one from an extreme view and thus contain the debate to meet your ideological framing and goals. Alternatively, have a strong debater for one side, and a weak debater for the point of view you would like to suppress.
Framing (social sciences)
A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation — that is, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes—that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In simpler terms, a person has, through their lifetime, built a series of mental emotional filters. They use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their frame or emotional filters.
Alternatively, the power of the media can re frame the entire context of a debate if desired.
Example: a nuclear accident has occurred.
Instead of debating the effects of radiation release, float the idea using one of your “experts” or shills that radiation is good for you. Thus re frame the debate to whether or not radiation is good for you instead of how much it will take to cause cancer and disease.
Example: re frame a debate about torture by instead of debating the legality or morality of torture, debate the effectiveness of torture techniques.
Programming the viewers attitudes
This has become a very widely used propaganda technique. Cover a story, complete with your ideological spin, and then follow up with interviews of “ordinary people” who support your point of view but frame it as the popular point of view or the only point of view. If you have to do 1000 interviews to pick 2, the viewer never knows. The viewer walks away with a powerful form of sub conscious attitude programming as they hear the propaganda point regurgitated by someone “just like them”. This same technique can be used on letters to the editor, emails to TV news hosts, or wherever else cherry picking of public opinion can be conducted without tipping off the viewer, reader or listener. This powerful technique which is basically fraud, if deployed for long enough with consistent messages, can change an entire culture over time.
Instead of covering stories that matter, cover irrelevant, trivial stories about entertainers or celebrities and blow them up into grand productions so you don’t have to discuss anything that really matters, or when something happens that you don’t want to discuss but ordinarily would be forced by popular opinion to discuss, generate a distraction of your own sensational making which you discuss instead. By using the volume and coordination technique, the media monopolists can entirely obfuscate or bury important stories and issues of their choosing.
TV programs often revolve around groups of people delivering the content or opinion because people programmed not to be able to think for themselves instinctively believe groups promoting a certain opinion more than one individual. They all nod their heads in agreement with whatever propaganda is to be pushed on you, and the idea is that you also will nod your head like a brain dead zombie.
This can all be punctuated by “experts”. The group of “experts” will collectively come to the “correct” conclusions for you so you don’t have to think for yourself, even if you still can.
Guided Interpretation for the reader or viewer
In this technique, a journalist or anchorman will tell you what someone else said.
In some cases, quotes will be taken out of context, but in many cases an entirely concocted version of what was said will be passed off as the truth to an unsuspecting reader, listener or viewer.
What was actually said will not be referenced, because if the viewer or reader has access to what the actual content was, it exposes the fraud. That being the case, this technique is dangerous, because if the reader or viewer does have access to the source, the propaganda becomes apparent leaving distrust.
Fluff and ice cream cones
Everyone loves an ice cream cone. Run feel good stories about puppies and teddy bears. Regardless of what really happens or the actual state of affairs, convey the message that all is good, America is great, and things are the same as they always have been. If cities decay, just don’t shoot wide shots of those cities any more. Always project a disneylandish, cartoonish, surreal version of reality.
Leverage what people like and what people are compassionate towards to build trust and leave the viewer feeling happy and complacent. Most importantly, establish trust and goodwill in your enterprise. Do everything necessary to give it the appearance of legitimacy no matter how fraudulent it is. Always.
By framing the entire programming of the network, and by subtle editorializing over news stories, you can create an artificial reality, posing as the truth.
As a media mogul, you drive the programming and choose what to cover and how to cover it through your upper management, programming and editor selections. As a viewer, is is critically important to remember that every word read comes from a teleprompter, and the people who write, edit and select the copy are the ones actually delivering the content. The people who actually read the news to you are in that position because they are experts at reading propaganda and sounding convincing while doing it.
“For better or worse, my company is a reflection of my character, my thinking, my values” – Rupert Murdoch
Good looking, likable, trusted newscaster:
“here is a story about someone who did the right thing”.
According to whom? The programming director?
Ex: xyz is a desired reality or propaganda point….
Good looking, likable, trusted newscaster says on the most widely watched news channel in America:
“I believe xyz and I think the majority of Americans are right there with me”.
Not. This is pure propaganda in it’s most overt form.
“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves” – George Orwell
In this method, a story is covered with the specific intent of a viewer walking away holding a desired point of view. The actual coverage of the story as compared to the truth could range from slightly true to entirely untrue. The story is merely a tool to achieve an end result.
Special interest ads posing as news stories
In this technique, a special interest advertisement will be crafted as if it is a news story and presented as such. Only the astute viewer will be able to spot the fraud.
Video news release
A video news release (VNR) is a video segment created by a PR firm, advertising agency, marketing firm, corporation, or government agency and provided to television news stations for the purpose of informing, shaping public opinion, or to promote and publicize individuals, commercial products and services, or other interests. In this way, VNRs are video versions of press releases.
The big lie technique
Tell a lie so large that no one will question the authenticity because of the size of the lie. This is a time tested, proven propaganda technique and used by the most infamous of media controllers and propagandists.
This is a simple, straightforward and effective technique. For news that doesn’t fit your agenda, or news that might cause your advertisers or special interest supporters to withhold support, for news that might not fit with the overall story line and talking points… just don’t cover the story. Alternatively, if a high profile person carries an opinion or message you would like to suppress, don’t ever invite that person as a guest. Since you and your peers didn’t cover it, it didn’t happen.
This very powerful tool combined with the volume and coordination technique gives a media mogul the ability to decide for everyone else what is and what is not important. Omission is often combined with the distraction technique.
Volume and coordination
This is the opposite of omission. The goal of this technique is to create broad awareness of a propaganda point through a media deluge. This is often punctuated by many or all of the big six joining in unison to promote or hype the same propaganda point, idea or story. In this way, even a small or trivial item can be boosted to the forefront of collective consciousness. If desired, through TV, Magazines, movies and sitcoms, any point can be focused in the forefront of the mind of the population. This technique can be used effectively for short term or more importantly for long term results. As with many techniques in this guide, this technique becomes more effective the more consolidated the media becomes.
Humanization and de-humanization or personalization and de-personalization
If you show dead bodies it generates a reaction. If you humanize a story, you generate sympathy for the victim. Alternatively if you avoid humanization or dehumanize atrocities or awful acts, you can avoid public sympathy being created. This technique is often used to report on war and decide on behalf of the viewer or reader who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”. It doesn’t have to be used in wartime however. Propaganda pieces can be run to humanize bad guys or dehumanize good guys. This technique can and often does go so far as to frame a villain(s) as a victim(s) or vice versa. This is a very powerful technique which has been used with great effectiveness. Friends of the media are good. Enemies are bad.This technique alone can accomplish that goal when used by a skilled group of propagandists.
Repeatedly have as guests, people who strongly support your causes, or alternatively have weak debaters appear to represent causes you don’t support. A weak debater combined with a hostile interview can decimate a legitimate topic of debate or point of view.
Omit unflattering feedback and generate your own positive feedback. Dead people and historical events are a prime target for historical revision in news, movies, mini series, or any other venue where a fictionalized account of the past or a past personality can be configured as truth by the network, studio or publication.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” - George Orwell
Winning the viewer
Attempt to foster goodwill and viewer loyalty by covering fluff stories using likable or attractive people and personalities in a way that ordinary viewers or readers can identify with. In this way, people are more likely to swallow the dope. This extends to using disaster and tragedy for shameless self promotion, ratings boosts, and leveraging of the media empire. Ideally, the consumers of your propaganda will love you as you program them.
“The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering—a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons—a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.” - George Orwell
Emphasis and repetition
Cover stories which match your agenda over and over and over… and over. People will remember repetition and will come to believe anything if it is repeated often enough.
Invite often, people with so called “credentials”, who pose as “experts”, “professors” or other lofty titles who support the network point of view as if it is the truth. Often, these so called experts will have a financial or career interest, or some other political or ideological affiliation regarding their point of view that is not disclosed. The Wikipedia entry below concentrates on “selling goods or services”. It is imperative to note that the “goods and services” could include a point of view, or an ideology, or a political, social or religious position.
A shill is person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services.
Employ “trusted” personalities who pretend to be on the side of exposing media or government corruption and who pretend to represent the common citizen but who is in fact, dealing sophisticated propaganda.
A gatekeeper is defined as someone who controls access to something. It also refers to individuals who decide whether a given message will be distributed by a mass medium.
Repeating a lie
George Orwell along with many infamous propagandists have said that if you repeat a lie frequently enough, people will take it to be true.
Telling the truth
If the media selectively tells the truth on points where an ideological agenda or sponsorship is not at risk, that opportunity can be used to tell the truth and gain viewer confidence. It is critically important to occasionally tell the truth in order to maintain credibility or legitimacy.
Fogging an issue
Sometimes special interest groups or sponsors will have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible, or alternatively that an issue is of little importance. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article or offer a confusing video segment for the purpose of confusing the viewer or reader and obscuring any real issues through confusion or lack of interest. This technique can be used when the story is too big for the distraction or omission techniques.
Vilification and character assassination
This is an important tool that is often used to keep politicians in line by fear and intimidation of what they know has already happened to people with the “wrong” opinion. People or personalities whose opinion or positions are to be suppressed are subtly (or not so subtly) vilified and sabotaged, usually by over blowing a trivial issue relating to something people are sympathetic to. Vilification is most effective when used subtly and over a long period of time, so the audience or readership becomes slowly programmed as to who is “good” and who is “bad”. A broad array of techniques can be used ranging from hiring investigators to “dig up dirt”, then using the volume and coordination technique. The “He Said, She Said” technique is also employed for character assassination. Using this method, the author or newscaster can cast the backlash to someone else and say something they know isn’t true, or isn’t fair, but they want to say it anyway. As a media mogul, your enemies become the people’s enemies and your friends become the people’s friends. You can eject a politician or shame a public personality. This is an extremely effective and important arena. See also “character assassination via the question mark” under “cooking the headlines”.
Keep only team players
If a newscaster, commentator or journalist or editor has the wrong opinion, fire them and replace them with someone who has the correct opinion. The looming threat of un-personing acts as a powerful compliance tool for field reporters and editors. During the past several years in America, there have been a lot of high profile corporate reporters, anchormen and anchorwomen who have been un-personed within 24 hours of uttering the “wrong” opinion. Media mogul pimps hastily un-person rogue reporters because it has a chilling effect on the remainder of their stable of whores.
Embedded editorial views in news stories
In Journalism, the editorial page is where opinion is supposed to be expressed, but editorial views can be subtly introduced into “news” to program the viewer or reader.
As a media consumer, look for opinions which are stated as if they are fact. Facts can be substantiated, opinions cannot.
Also, be on the lookout for subtle inaccuracies, or a dismissive tone. Alternatively, editorial views can be injected into news by subtly misstating a topic, often a serious one, and pretending any objecting or concerned view of the treatment of the topic is silly, unrealistic, or just not necessary. This can become related to deciding who is sane on behalf of the viewer or reader. The more subtly these opinions and distortions can be substituted for facts, the more powerful the propaganda tool of editorialized news. This technique can be punctuated or made more potent by keeping in line with your friends in Government who echo the same views as truth.
The largest and supposedly most respected media outlets in America today routinely sell editorial views as news. Corporate media journalism in America has morphed from informing the public, into something entirely sinister. In spite of this, most Americans remain in the dark as to the fraud and advanced PR techniques being hoisted upon them.
Lies as truth
Run a story or headline that you know isn’t true to support your point of view. In a subtler form, mistranslate or misquote to suit. Alternatively, publish or sponsor polls intended to give a desired result.
Deciding who is sane on behalf of the viewer or reader
Portray points of view you would like to suppress as extreme, crazy, dangerous or not legitimate. If necessary, call in one or more of your “experts” for emphasis.
This effect can be multiplied by ensuring that members of the audience, even though they may have all collectively come to the same opinion, if it is not the desired opinion, you ensure that each viewer believes they are crazy and alone in holding that point of view. This is a potent technique used to form “mainstream” opinion.
Furthermore, as one of the six media owners, you can leverage the “correct mainstream opinion” by “behavior placement” in your sitcoms, magazine articles, and on the radio. In behavior placement, one out of your stable of celebrity actors holds certain behaviors, ideas or attitudes that are either condoned or maligned by the rest of the cast. This could be an attitude, an opinion they hold regarding anything, a product they use, ideas about religion or anything else.
Americans have become enamored with celebrities from decades of Hollywood propaganda. We have been conditioned to want to be like them. Celebrity behavior placement is a very, very powerful tool in the media owners arsenal.
Advertising as news
Run goodwill stories about advertisers, or for that matter about your parent company, as if you are covering news or human interest stories. Effectively as a media mogul you can have free stealth advertising throughout your enterprise. If you own a theme park, have your news division do a “story’ about how great the theme park is. Punctuate that by cherry picking interviews and broadcasting them in the segment so viewers can hear it from others who are “just like themselves”.
The hostile or friendly interview
Interview people whose views you support in a friendly manner. Interview people whose views you would like to suppress in a hostile manner. This technique is most effective when kept low key. A variation of this technique is to invite a guest for an “interview”, then have an aggressive personality talk over them the whole time and repeat as truth things they never said or things they said out of context.
A more advanced variation of this propaganda technique is to invite someone and label them as an “expert” or “professor” or any favorable handle for a “friendly” interview who does not well represent a cause or issue. The important distinction here is that the viewer sees a friendly interview and yet walks away unimpressed by the point of view.
Humor as a propaganda tool
Feature comedians who support your point of view, ideological or religious agenda. As a media mogul, it’s easy to get the Muppets to laugh as you deride and attack your enemies with so called humor from your stable of “comedians”. Use this “humor” for character assassination, vilification or to punctuate your propaganda regarding who is sane and who isn’t. If you tightly control your stable of prime time comedians, people will only laugh at what you want them to laugh at. If a comedian in your A list isn’t with the program, then they disappear forever into obscurity.
Unflattering (or flattering) handles
Corral an entire group of people into a pigeon hole, by crafting handles that carry positive or negative connotations.
He is a “conspiracy theorist” (negative connotation) used to tar anyone who contradicts or attempts to expose the propaganda of the party line.
He is a “goldbug” (negative connotation) used to subliminally encourage the idea that someone favorable to owning gold is a kook or single minded extremist.
A “truther” – negative connotation label applied to any person who questions the government version of 911.
A “right wing (left wing) extremist” – to portray a given point of view as extreme, whether it is or not.
Use the power of words to emphasize or de-emphasize acts or information
The crowd was “peppered” with hellfire missiles.
Trusted anchorman – “They criticize us for using enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding” *. MSNBC 2/22/2010
*Please note that waterboarding is currently defined in international law not as an “enhanced interrogation technique” but as torture. The United States put to death Japanese commanders accused of waterboarding. The public is not OK with torture, so you just re-define it as an “enhanced interrogation technique”, and it’s fine.
Collateral damage – when innocent people are killed in wartime, a suitable, soft term is needed. If an army accidentally inflicts collateral damage, even if that means killing scores, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, a simple two word term called “collateral damage” makes it OK.
Divide and conquer
Create simple minded divisions between groups of people to keep them distracted and arguing among themselves over mostly trivial issues. Use black and white, good and evil, and particularly the faux left and right divide. Leave no room in the middle for discussion as if all opinions and issues are binary. When events happen, don’t ever discuss actual causes. As a media owner, you have your employees discuss the event, and make up the cause in your programming department.
Using anonymous sources
Generate “news” using anonymous sources. This technique could range from mis-quoting, to outright fabrication and lying such as an anonymous source that is entirely fictional and created to generate a certain reaction or artificial reality. Anonymous sources are used heavily in the US media to lay the propaganda groundwork and to manufacture the popular consent for wars of conquest and aggression.
Using guided imagery
This is an advanced technique which is now pervasive in all PR, advertising and corporate programming as well as central banking. The idea is a takeoff on the idea popularized by George Soros which is that “markets influence events they anticipate.” By the same token, there is an assumption that if the people are told something as if it is true, then it will in fact become true. You could call this molding public opinion. An example of this would be saying as if it is fact, “70 percent of the country is in favor of xyz”. The idea is that this repeated, will have the effect of causing the public opinion to actually be that. Another would be “we have green shoots” or “the country is out of the recession”, with the idea being that if you state this as fact, then people will have more confidence and spend and it will become true.
Using music, lighting and effects
Music and lighting effects can be powerful promoters of feelings and emotion. Both are heavily employed, and deployed against the public. For example, when promoting the party line, be sure to have the music set to create all the right feelings and emotions. Wave the flag. Set your color scheme to red, white and blue. Create emphasis by dramatic lighting or by talking loud and fast or soft and somber.
The privilege of being a media mogul means having your personal points of view represented and delivered by people who are “just like” the audience to be programmed.
This technique is practiced by promoting as self sourced or repeating “evidence” that could range from non existent to fabricated. This could include doctored photographs to include, exclude or exaggerate information, audio recordings and video productions, as well as dossiers or written documents. Any or all of which are promoted as “the truth” though they may in fact have only some basis in truth or be entirely fabricated. It could in fact have been an entirely paid for promotion.
The preemptive strike
A journalist, anchor or interviewer attacks at the very outset of the article or segment with the “acceptable” view of the topic, prior to the topic. This is a brute force technique and is easy to spot. It usually involves some sort of angry tirade.
Leveraging the media empire
The media empire can be used by the parent company for advertising, propaganda and goodwill. This is a very broad arena where subtle or overt techniques can be used.
As a multinational media mega corporation, you can use your music empire to promote your viewpoint or more importantly, eliminate alternative points of view. If the musicians on your record label step out of line, quietly retire them. Sign acts that for whatever reason, have a message which you personally like.
You can advertise your theme park in the name of news. You can interview people who wrote books you published, or interview people who produced movies for a subsidiary. You can promote your ideals with a consistent message throughout your subsidiaries and enterprises. You can promote or demote points of view you agree or disagree with. You can use behavior placement in the sitcoms, movies and other programming arenas to produce a consistent message of your choosing. As media empires become ever fewer, ever larger, and ever more powerful, this tactic becomes more and more potent.
Serialization of a related chain of events and the memory hole
This technique works to reconcile incompatible truths by deconstructing all events to a serial chain, and discarding all past information unless not doing so proves particularly useful. This is what George Orwell referred to as the “memory hole”.
If you remember the past version of the truth, then often the current version of the truth is not compatible with that version of the truth; therefore there should be no memory of the past unless it is a reverse engineered version. Otherwise, incongruence is generated. At least the news isn’t covering it. That’s the point.
You are supposed to forget the past and concentrate on what you are being told today. It’s all a serial chain of sound bites and propaganda intended and engineered to give desired current results. There are no causes and effects, only an unrelated serial chain of events.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cooking the headlines
Headline tickers offer endless opportunities for revisionist or deceptive news and fast, efficient propaganda programming. There are more people reading the headline tickers than are following the actual stories. For example, hundreds of people in an airport may be just following the headline ticker… People receiving a news stream on the internet may be only looking at headlines. Therefore, if you can cook the headlines you effectively get “propaganda leverage”. Furthermore, people remember the headlines without necessarily following the actual story;
technique #1. – deceptive headlines designed to convey a certain message, but based on an actual event
technique #2 – false headlines ie “WMD found in Iraq”. Over 70 percent of the US population came to believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and the reason is that headlines were running which repeatedly made that claim, although it was entirely untrue.
technique #3 – embedding propaganda as reasons in headlines, ie “stocks soared today because… (made up propaganda reason follows)”
technique #4 – overplay some headlines and underplay other headlines to decide on behalf of the viewer or reader what is important
Repetition and trust
There are 300 million Americans in the United States and yet spanning the entire corporate media, the people invited on as regulars by the big six could fill a gymnasium. The point is that if “trusted” sources are developed and cultivated by the corporate media, people will come to believe what they say, regardless of what they say or how wrong they have been in the past.
Propagandists are held out by the corporate media to the public as “experts” who do not represent the centrist views of the majority of Americans, have been wrong about nearly everything they have ever said, and these people are never held to account. At the same time, people who have been correct or people who have views that represent mainstream America remain off the people’s radar, never or rarely invited as guests except maybe for a hostile interview.
In sum total this technique can be used to generate a heavy handed dose of artificial reality.
Anything you say while wearing an American Flag lapel pin is patriotic.
The topic of subliminal messages could probably justify a post in itself. In short, at the subliminal level, advertisers and the media like to link things together. In general, they want to link positive things, things you want to be, things you see yourself as, things you support, things you desire or desire to be, to themselves, to the dope they are pushing, or to their advertisers. Music, lighting or sounds can be employed to create subliminal hypnotic effects. Behavior placement can be used for subliminal effects. If they are doing their job well, you will never even be aware it’s happening.
Re-framing the question
By re-framing the question or subtly altering the question, or even by the possible answers offered to the question, a media enterprise can move the discussion to a different realm or even change the answer. This technique is often used for poll results to be used as propaganda. It can also be used to alter the subject of a debate.
Using this brute force technique, camera angles, staged events and engineered real time and post production effects can be added to a video feed to dramatically alter the viewers perception. With the correct camera angle, a small crowd can be made to seem large or vice versa.
If your media company would like to minimize or maximize a protest to suit your ideological agenda, it can be covered using a camera angle minimizing or maximizing the crowd, along with a suitable dialogue which confirms the selected camera angle and desired viewer take away. This can be followed up using other techniques such as cherry picked interviews with participants to deliver whatever message is desired.
Using a laugh track you can program the viewers in terms of what is perceived to be funny. Other audio effects can also be added. Real time audio and video production techniques can augment or add elements to a video feed that weren’t present in the un-doctored feed.
Investigative journalism (or lack thereof) as a weapon or a tool
Using the guise of investigative journalism, corporate media can either bag a victim or let a friend off the hook. This can be used on politicians, people in the public spotlight, or anyone whose views are to be suppressed or promoted.
Of all the controversy surrounding 9/11, one of the most mysterious aspects is that there were very unusual large option bets placed prior to the incident which paid hundreds of millions, if not billions to the account holders who placed those bets. By law, every account holder who places a trade on a US exchange is known and can be easily traced by any federal law enforcement or regulatory body. To date, almost ten years after the event, these profiteers were never identified and there was never any effort by the corporate media using investigative journalism to force the disclosure to the American people, when there easily could have been. This is a glaring example of a lack of investigative journalism being used as a tool and corporate media complicity in nefarious, treasonous deeds.
“People shouldn’t expect the mass media to do investigative stories. That job belongs to the ‘fringe’ media.” – Ted Koppel – (American broadcast journalist, best known as the anchor for Nightline) 2770 Google References
Leading the viewer or reader
This is a powerful, simple technique which is used pervasively to introduce editorial content into news. This works by leading the viewer or reader in a subtle way to a pre-defined conclusion, or to make the subject look awkward for disagreeing with propaganda pre-established by the host.
From the newscaster to the interviewee:
Don’t you think that (thing to be agreed with follows).
Wouldn’t you agree with (high profile “expert” who has never been correct about anything and returns every week to spew propaganda) that (xyz propaganda point).
I know I (propaganda point), what about you?
Most Americans believe (propaganda point) what is your opinion?
Fewer and fewer people (propaganda point).
Everyone wants (propaganda point).
The best case is (propaganda point).
Planting seeds of doubt
Character assassination via the question mark. This is a very powerful technique which can be used for character assassination while avoiding lawsuits. The way it is done is to pose outrageous and libelous character assassination as a question, and thus plant seeds of doubt in the mind of the viewer or reader. This is best illustrated by example:
Ron Paul: Terrorist?
Token Equal Time
The goal of this technique is to create an appearance of fairness. It consists of an article or video segment written or broadcast with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement from the opposing view is mentioned, then immediately refuted. In this way the reader absorbs the intended point of view while at the same time believing the topic has had fair treatment.
The “May Have” Technique
The words “may have” provide endless opportunities for programming a zombie audience. This is a form of character assassination and similar to character assassination via the question mark.
“Iran may have committed a cyber-attack on the BBC”
“AP: Iran may be cleaning up nuclear traces at military site”
“BBC News – Iran ‘may boost nuclear programme’, diplomat warns”
The double-talk “may have’s” convey the LIES (but with plausible deniability):As a viewer or listener, you should be acutely aware of the use of the words “may have” by the media propagandists.
Sex sells news
Pasty faced bimbos with silicone cleavage, bubbly personalities and enough botox to immobilize cattle… as fake as the half baked teleprompter propaganda they’re serving up to a nation of 300 million Muppets.
It doesn’t really matter what they say, and no one really cares… because the men aren’t listening. This is why programs which cater to a male audience like financial news channels are stacked with stacked bimbos who couldn’t tell a debenture from a derivative. Why else would anyone listen to a casino operator pimping their casino day in and day out? Men will go so far as to watch with the sound muted. It’s a cheap trick to gain viewers who otherwise would be disinterested in the endless, incessant propaganda pitch.
In total, when these potent techniques are used synergistically, the entire fabric of a society can be guided, shaped and molded. Your only defenses are awareness and even better, turning it off.
Well, I guess it was only a matter of time, but the IRS is coming after Claire and I over some back taxes which we simply do not have the money to pay. No doubt they are looking to go after everyone else trying to stop the rush to war with Syria. Our PayPal account has been seized, so don’t bother sending in any more donations; send it to RBN.
We have endured this harassment for many years, but I can no longer remain silent, nor should anyone who is dealing with these issues.
In all good conscience, I cannot pay taxes to a government that ignores the will of the people and usurps their wealth to fund wars, bail out bankers, and support foreign governments, while allowing this nation to whither away.
More than that, I have satisfied myself that the 16th Amendment did in fact fail ratification and that the income tax and the Federal reserve are unconstitutional and illegal. In this age of lies about Saddam’s nuclear weapons and Assad’s chemical weapons, Americans are probably ready to accept that the same government also lied about the 16th Amendment in order to steal their money.
I don’t know how this will end. We could wind up homeless, and certainly it may mean the end of whatreallyhappened.com after almost 20 years.
I have been fighting against this government ever since they wrecked my career over the Vince Foster case. It has been very hard through the years and we understood it could likely end very badly.
I did not wish to burden the readers with my personal problems, but the fact is I cannot bring myself to cooperate with this illegitimate government, even if I had the means to do so, and going public seems my only option now.
Today, we are hearing that the Infernal Revenue Service has been targeting political dissidents to a far greater degree than was previously exposed. Going beyond merely delaying tax-exempt status for Tea-Party, Occupy, and conservatives in general, donors to GOP candidates like Mitt Romney have been hit with disproportionate numbers of audits.
All America is now aware that the IRS is acting illegally. After all, such political targeting was an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon. So the time has come to take the discussion to the next level. Is the IRS, clearly acting illegally, itself legal? and the answer is “no”, it is not. The Constitution forbids direct non-apportioned taxation of the people. An earlier version of the Income Tax was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on those grounds.
The Federal Reserve (itself a clearly unconstitutional usurpation of the money-creation authority vested in Congress by the Constitution) and the IRS claim that the passage of the 16th Amendment allows an income tax, but there are several problems with that claim. First and foremost, the 16th Amendment failed ratification! The necessary 3/4 of the states did not ratify the Amendment. Requests for proof that this Amendment was actually ratified are ignored. The IRS considers their enforcement actions the only legal reply they are required to make. And judges in tax courts (who are funded from tax revenues) inevitably refuse to examine the issue and simply declare from the bench that the Amendment was ratified, a power and authority not granted to judges under the Constitution.
There is one notable exception to this judicial legerdemain, and that is judge James C. Fox, who stated quite clearly in the court record for Sullivan Vs United States that the 16th Amendment, on examination, failed ratification. Sadly, however, that was not a tax case, and the judge mentioned the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment as justification for the enforcement of laws that may not have legally been passed, but were presumed valid through long use (i.e. we got away with it this long, so why should we change it now).
Yet another problem with the 16th Amendment is the United states Supreme Court, which ruled in Stanton vs Baltic Mining that the 16th Amendment, even if ratified, did not actually grant any new tax authority to the US Government. For one thing the original Constitutional prohibition against a direct non-apportioned tax is still in effect because it was not explicitly repealed by the hastily-contrived 16th Amendment.
So here we are, with the IRS clearly breaking the law, acting illegally, for all America to see, which is why this is a great time for activists to take the public discussion to the next level and ask if the IRS itself, and its master, the Federal Reserve, are actually legal under the Constitution.
PLEASE REPOST THIS EVERYWHERE!
Global Research, October 05, 2013
Let’s Make 9/11 Truth Go Viral
Global Research is committed to Counter-propaganda.
Forward this article far and wide.
Post it on social media, cross-post it on blog sites and independent media. (GR Editor M. Ch.).
With polls consistently showing that approximately 50% of Canadians and Americans doubt the official story of 9/11, the feat of keeping the lid on a public debate for over 12 years has been nothing short of miraculous.
This article presents a simple case study showing that this miracle is being performed with the assistance of Google and YouTube search engine interference
On September 8, 2013, the popular Russia Today “Truthseeker” program, with over a million subscribers on YouTube, published a 13-minute newscast entitled “The Truthseeker: 9/11 and Operation Gladio (E23).”
Below the video frame ran the caption:
Bigger than Watergate’: US ‘regular’ meetings with Al-Qaeda’s leader; documented White House ‘false flag terrorism’ moving people ‘like sheep’; the father of Twin Towers victim tell us why he backs this month’s 9/11 campaign on Times Square and around the world; & the protests calendar for September.
This paragraph was followed by a list of interviewees, including four people representing three scholarly research organizations: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 9/11 Consensus Panel, and The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The “Truthseeker” video immediately started to gain popularity on YouTube, reaching 131,000 views in the first three days.(The history of the viewing statistics may be seen by clicking on the little graphic symbol under the video frame, and to the right)
Truthseeker posted its program to YouTube on Sept. 8. Russia Today tweeted the YouTube link to its 546,000 followers and to the interviewer, Daniel Bushell, that day:
A MOXNEWS copy of the same newscast was also posted September 8 under the title“Russia Today News Declares 9/11 An Inside Job False Flag Attack!” which in turn started to escalate, with over 80,000 views in the first few days.
Other uploads of the program also appeared, with less traffic, bringing the early viewing total to over a quarter of a million people.
What Happened Next?
In both the RT and MOXNEWS cases, the viewer statistics on YouTube suddenly flat-lined on the morning of September 11 — like a heart monitor when a patient dies.
The YouTube search engine had suddenly failed to locate these videos.
Oddly, although the RT video may still be viewed on YouTube through its direct link (if known) from the Google URL box, it cannot be accessed on YouTube by its title, or by portions of its title, or by searching “Truthseeker.”
The MOXNET version was also decoupled from the YouTube search engine for a period of time after September 11, but has since been restored to normal indexing.
Below is RT’s “Truthseeker” “9/11 and Operation Gladio” reposted on GlobalResearchTV:
How Were the Search Engine Failures Detected and Verified?
Investigations carried out independently by a US engineering colleague and myself revealed the following:
I. YouTube Search Results and Rankings:
· Searching the exact title of the original “Truthseeker” posting (“9/11 and Operation Gladio”) does not yield the original RT post. It does yield other posts with far fewer viewings, but the original, which as we have seen still exists as a URL, is evidently no longer in the YouTube index.
Its viewings have slowly risen over several weeks from 131,000 to 136,000 through the early news reports — but with by far the most views of all the uploads, it should appear at the top of the list.
- Searching YouTube for the URL of the original escalating RT version produces no result either, although as we have seen, the URL is still a functioning direct link. (Experiment: Take any URL from YouTube or Google, plug it into the search box and watch it come up on top of the list — because there is only one.)
- Searching YouTube for the program’s name, “Truthseeker,” displays titles from Episodes 1-22, and also Episode 24, but it fails to show Episode 23, “9/11 and Operation Gladio” in 15 pages of search results.
- Searching for the MOXNET post on the third day of its existence (September 11) produced a similar result. It should have appeared second from the top with its 80,000 views, but it was difficult to get it to appear at all — except through its direct link (if one had saved this earlier).
- Oddly enough, the MOXNET post is once again normally accessible on YouTube (as it was September 8-11) through a search of either: a) its full title, or b) its first few words.
II. Google Search Results and Rankings:
An exploration of the Google Web and Google Video search results revealed the following about access to the RT “Truthseeker” Episode 23:
· Google Web Rankings: On a search of “9/11 and Operation Gladio,” Google Web first brought up several news items, followed by an array of low-volume YouTube uploads that did not include the popular original RT version.
· Google Video Rankings: On the same search, “9/11 and Operation Gladio,” Google Video first listed the “Truthseeker” website page from which the video may also be watched and downloaded (as discussed below). This was followed by a half dozen uploads from other sources, mostly showing 50-200 video views. The original RT video that is still available by direct link and now records 136,000 views, did not show up at all — yet it should have been on top.
· On both Google Web and Google Video, searching the original RT URL failed to bring up the early version of the program that had started to go viral — although its direct link still exists and shows up on several early September news websites.
III. The Truthseeker’s Own Website:
The “Truthseeker” produces a new show every two weeks. As of this writing, the “Truthseeker” home page shows Episode 24, dated September 22, right at the top, followed by Episodes 22, 21, 20, and 19.
Our case-study Episode 23, dated September 8, was displayed at the top of the home page from September 8-11, before it disappeared.
It was then located under a different date — August 1, 2012 — buried on a back page with earlier episodes from over a year ago.
This may have been a simple mistake on the part of a large investigative news network that is attracting personnel and audiences away from Western networks, or it may be the result of hacking or political pressure. [It should be noted that when a September 8 2013 posting is given a new date namely August 1, 2012, it no longer appears on Google News in the days leading up to and following September 11, 2013, the date of commemoration of the 9/11 attacks. This redating of the September 8 also affects is ranking in the search engines].
The bottom line is that at least with regard to the Google and YouTube (which is owned by Google) search engines, something highly unusual has gone awry.
Failure of Email Transmissions Describing the Above Investigation
Perhaps the most disturbing element of this case study is that for more than two weeks after September 11, 2013, it was impossible for some people to transmit by email the link to the original YouTube Episode 23 that had started to go viral.
An email containing this link would at first appear to have transmitted normally, for it would show up in the sender’s Sent Mail. But it would not be received by the addressees — including the sender, if copied to self.
To my knowledge, at least six people, including three IT professionals, experienced the failure of email transmissions containing this particular link.
Of these IT professionals, one concluded, “There is no benign explanation for this.”
Impact and Significance:
1. Impact: How popular videos behave statistically
When videos start to become popular on YouTube, the statistics curve usually continues to rise over time.
Some show an initial burst of interest, with the curve rising quite steeply, then settling into an upward sloping line over time. This may be seen with the 2011 “Ultimate Dog Tease” (145 million).
Others have a slower start, then catch on and build steadily, as did the 2012 “Psy-Gangnam Style” video, the first to be viewed over a billion times.
The same slow-start pattern was seen with the 2007 video, “9/11 Clues EVERYONE MISSED.”
Now compare these graphs with the two flat-line interruptions in the case-study videos whose progress was truncated by search engine failure.
The point is that if a particular video is catching on, and people can see the excitement and enthusiasm for it right there in the viewer stats, they are apt to jump aboard and watch it. They are far less likely to watch a video with 50-200 views that has been rated “ho hum” by the viewing public.
Those who covertly study the impact of “inconvenient” political broadcasts, and who take note and interfere with them, understand these things.
2. The significance of this interference:
The suppression of free political communication in our society has grave consequences for several reasons:
- It is clear that that there is not just spying and data collection going on. There is also electronic interference in our media, search engines, and mailboxes that is suppressing freedom of expression at various levels;
- Media and search engine suppression can be held up for public view, while evidence of individual email tampering, probably carried out by covert state agencies, is frightening. People are naturally reluctant to report it or write about it — for there is no one to report it to;
- In the case of 9/11, which has torn the fabric of humanity down the middle — between Muslims and Christians, and between East and West — it is essential that the evidence backing this event be absolutely correct and open to question at all times;
- The fact that the lid on 9/11 has been nailed down so firmly for so long creates great suspicion that this case study points to possible obstruction of free information transfer by government agencies recently identified through NSA whistleblowers Edward Snowden, William Binnie, Thomas Drake, and others.
This essay is offered to all citizens who believe the government should be investigated when state crimes against democracy are suspected.
It is further offered to all who pay taxes for government care, protection, and the guarantee of constitutional freedoms — and in particular to citizens who may have encountered chilling indications of covert state interference in their lives.
 The number of subscribers may be seen on any episode of “Truthseeker” — by searching YouTube for “RT Truthseeker.” Russia Today’s television outlets are available globally, via cable and satellite at: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ae911truth.org.
 The 9/11 Consensus Panel, consensus911.org.
 Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
 The history of the viewing statistics may be seen by clicking on the little graphic symbol under the video frame, and to the right, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vka7Da6e9LY&feature=youtu.be
 The MOXNEWS posting and viewer history statistics are at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Vi5YHxsLI&feature=youtu.be
That the original two links were going viral may also be seen from an examination of Twitter records during the period September 8-11, 2013, This can be done by searching Twitter using: < 9/11 Operation Gladio > and scrolling down through the results.
 Internet users have long known that the highest-ranking results appear at the top of a search. A simple explanation of how ranking works is available at: YouTube Video Search Ranking Factors: A Closer Look http://www.seochat.com/c/a/search-engine-optimization-help/youtube-video-search-ranking-factors-a-closer-look/.
Elizabeth Woodworth, author and former manager of library services for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, with responsibility for the oversight of library systems database management.
Author’s note: The searches discussed in this essay, unless otherwise specified, were performed October 3, 2013.
Let’s Make 9/11 Truth Go Viral
Global Research is committed to Counter-propaganda.
Forward this article far and wide.
Post it on social media, cross-post it on blog sites and independent media. (GR Editor M. Ch.)
October 5, 2013
Under Presidents Bush and Obama, the US national debt has risen from six to 17 trillion dollars in just 11 years! But debt is not the real issue. Illuminati politicians might upset the apple cart for political reasons.
“[The 1929 Crash] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence … The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”
—-Republican Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, 1920-1931, a staunch critic of the Federal Reserve.The article below was written in July 2011, but could have been written today. Except, in 2011, fears of a US default caused the stock market to tank and gold to reach an all-time high. The crisis was averted in the last minute by a debt reduction agreement,(which was subsequently offset by the Fed’s Program of “Quantitative Easing.”)Today when the US government has shut down, the market is sanguine that our political “leaders” will once again avert disaster by raising the debt ceiling. I am not as confident.Debt isn’t the real issue. As the holder of the reserve currency, the United States can print as much money as it wants. It never has to be repaid. They can buy goods and services for nothing. Why not continue to enjoy this privilege?No, the debt debate is a diversion and a charade. The Tea Party is a creation of the Koch Brothers. Our “leaders” are mostly Freemasons. As in the Great Depression, catastrophe may not be averted, because of the Illuminati agenda of political and social change. Think of the psychological effect of a US default.We will never overcome our problems until we address the underlying cause: society is controlled by the Illuminati, a cabalist cult empowered by the central bankers. Put simply, Satanists don’t care if the people suffer. On the contrary…
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
( from July 24, 2011)
Until recently , the markets were trading higher on robust corporate earnings and the complacent assumption that the US couldn’t possibly default on its debt.
This is an assumption I do not share. After all, we are dealing with the same shady characters who gave us 9-11, Newtown and Boston. They gave us the 2008 credit crisisby removing all regulatory supervision.
And that’s just recent history. The Illuminati bankers are responsible for all wars and depressions. These are mechanisms by which they concentrate power and wealth in their own hands and enact “social change” leading to world government tyranny.
So why wouldn’t their puppets default? The Illuminati motto is order out of chaos, isn’t it!?
For a New World Order, they need chaos. They need to destroy the US dollar and credit worthiness in order to institute a new one-world currency.
They need to destroy Americans’ faith in democracy in order to bring in a new level of international government. They need to disrupt the economy and cause depression in order to make people so desperate they will accept any solution. And they need to make all this seem natural and inevitable.
“I think we’re going to slide into intensified social conflicts, social hostility, some forms of radicalism; there is just going to be a sense that this is not a just society,” Zbigniew Brzezinski told MSNBC July 6, adding that civil unrest would begin when the lower middle class becomes severely affected by the economic fallout and rising unemployment.
In a 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, that seems prescient today, Brzezinski wrote: “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
ACCOMPLICES IN OUR OWN ENSLAVEMENT
Almost six trillion is owed to the Fed. It was created from thin air and should be repaid in kind. Just make a digital notation like they did. The same applies to the nearly$16 Trillion they gave to other banks during the 2008 crisis.
Tony Blizzard, a Patriot veteran, writes that the only way to escape enslavement is to throw them all out and create our own medium of exchange.
Blizzard: “While the federal liars play their “how to keep borrowing” game, … (borrowing the medium of exchange into existence), know that there is absolutely NO NEED for any national government to EVER borrow money, much less “credit” (debt), as national governments are the rightful agents to CREATE the nation’s money. It is not a right to be handed, free of charge, to a cartel of criminal private bankers such as the Federal Reserve.
“Moreover, government-created money is properly NOT loaned into existence at all but SPENT into circulation for legitimate government projects, there to stay and oil the economic wheels and cogs.”
It is comical to see Jesuit- educated Speaker John Boehner championing the cause of debt reduction.Like all politicians, he has advanced the Illuminati agenda- getting the country deeper into debt. As Matt Taibbi shows in “The Crying Shame of John Boehner” (Rolling Stone, Jan 2011) the Speaker built his career by being a conduit for public money going to big corporations.
His major accomplishment was the (at least) $700 billion bailout of the big banks (TARP) which he helped push through, after receiving four million dollars from the financial services industry over his career.
Before that, he helped co-author the “No Child Left Behind Act,” a “grotesquely expensive expansion of federal power” which increased federal education spending by 80%. He also passed the obscene Medicare Part D, which Taibbi calls “a staggering $550 billion handout to the pharmaceutical industry.”
He helped pass the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lowering their rate from 40% to 35% – the lowest rate in the history of the USA.
So while pillaging the public for private interests, Boehner and his crew have tied the government’s hands in terms of revenue. Then, they have the audacity to oppose “tax hikes.”
I doubt Tea Party supporters wanted to shelter huge corporations and the wealthy when they pledged not to raise the debt ceiling.
Obama just has to sit back and let the GOP take the blame for economic chaos. But don’t kid yourself, he is Illuminati and he is playing his part in the charade.
Makow – Fiscal Cliff Increasingly Likely & Desirable?
Related- Obama the Political Equivalent of a Suicide Bomber?
Geithner – “We’re Almost Out of Runway”
“If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible – but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
Robert H. Hemphill, for eight years credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
First Comment by Thom Beecham
This left/right budget/debt ceiling battle all seems to be very intentional and deliberate. Imagine if there are defaults, etc. The globalists can come out of this saying they had nothing to do with it.
Imagine if this goes forward. We could see interest rates rise, and asset prices fall around the world. And the US will be looked upon as the bad guy, which is the plan. Think about the implications.
As I always say, done by design….
Technically are correct but buying things for nothing. However, the debt still is there and someone owns it. I think you and I know who these people are. They are the Globalists, the Synagogue of Satan, the Illuminati, etc.
You and I also know that whoever owns this debt also controls the borrower. This is why we are seeing the United States sink into the abyss. It really has become a satanic nation, and this satanism has contaminated everyone who lives in it. This dark force has usurped control of the US government, education system, media, etc., and I would venture to say that the US is probably now the most evil nation, and that is because the debt holders want it this way.
The debt will never have to be repaid as long as the United States continues to become more and more evil and does whatever these satanists want. If there was a national repentance on par with Jonah and Nineveh, the economy would collapse overnight and the debt would then matter.
The debt may be fraudulent, but the debt is very real to those laboring underneath it. This is why the real economy continues to falter. The cost of the debt is greater than what the economy can service, and monetizing 85 billion a month just cheapens the dollars that are already in circulation. Anyone who doesn’t have assets that can keep up with this monetization will continue to fall further and further behind.Problem – Reaction – Solution
By General Maddox.
What exactly is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher who devised a particular dialectic, or, method of argument for resolving disagreements. His method of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments is a system of thought process still use to this day.
To put it simply, the basis of Hegelianism dictates that the human mind can’t understand anything unless it can be split into two polar opposites. Good / Evil, Right / Wrong, Left / Right.
For example when people are talking about 2 political parties, Labor or Liberal, what they’re actually referring to, without realising it, is the thesis and the antithesis based off the Hegelian Dialectic. The only real debate that occurs is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the issues that neither left or right is discussing. This in particular will become more apparent as the election draws near.
Another form of the Hegelian Dialectic is Problem – Reaction – Solution. Most of us unwittingly fall victim to it all too often and sadly if we don’t stop, we will continue to lose our free will and liberties. It has been widely used by our governments and corporations around the world. You could say that in terms of controlling the masses, and society in general, it’s deployment has been an effective tool in keeping humanity in check.
Almost all major events in history employ the Hegelian Dialectic of:
Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which as been predetermined from the beginning.
A classic example is 9/11.
Only when you break the left/right paradigm and come to the realisation that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole fake, and not to mention contradictory, war on terror was the desired outcome for the neo-conservatives within the Bush administration and the whole military industrial complex. They in fact stated in their own white papers the need for another catastrophic and catalysing event like a “new Pearl Harbour”.
Here’s a more current example of the Hegelian Dialectic is use. In Australia at present both of the main political parties on the eve of the upcoming election on September 7 are discussing “Boat People”. A derogatory term used to describe refugees and asylum seekers displaced by war or other hardships. I don’t believe they constitute what you would call a “crisis” as the statistics clearly show they aren’t, but for the purpose of this example, our Government is telling us they are a problem. The media is used to play up this problem in order to instigate a reaction (debate) in the public domain on how to tackle it. Both the opposition and ruling party offer their solution.
Again we see that the only real debate occurring is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the many other more important issues that neither left or right is discussing.
In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.
Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should ‘fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can’t control’Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. Photograph: Wally McNamee/Corbis
Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.
It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.
Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden. “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.
Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by an “independent” Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny. “The Pakistanis put out a report, don’t get me going on it. Let’s put it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It’s a bullshit report,” he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.
The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” he declares in an interview with the Guardian.
“It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn’t happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.
He isn’t even sure if the recent revelations about the depth and breadth of surveillance by the National Security Agency will have a lasting effect.
Snowden changed the debate on surveillance
He is certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “changed the whole nature of the debate” about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence – although he is sceptical about whether the revelations will change the US government’s policy.
“Duncan Campbell [the British investigative journalist who broke the Zircon cover-up story], James Bamford [US journalist] and Julian Assange and me and the New Yorker, we’ve all written the notion there’s constant surveillance, but he [Snowden] produced a document and that changed the whole nature of the debate, it’s real now,” Hersh says.
“Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn’t touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game,” he adds, before qualifying his remarks.
“But I don’t know if it’s going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America – the president can still say to voters ‘al-Qaida, al-Qaida’ and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic,” he says.
Holding court to a packed audience at City University in London’s summer school on investigative journalism, 76-year-old Hersh is on full throttle, a whirlwind of amazing stories of how journalism used to be; how he exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, how he got the Abu Ghraib pictures of American soldiers brutalising Iraqi prisoners, and what he thinks of Edward Snowden.
Hope of redemption
Despite his concern about the timidity of journalism he believes the trade still offers hope of redemption.
“I have this sort of heuristic view that journalism, we possibly offer hope because the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever … Not that journalism is always wonderful, it’s not, but at least we offer some way out, some integrity.”
His story of how he uncovered the My Lai atrocity is one of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and doggedness. Back in 1969, he got a tip about a 26-year-old platoon leader, William Calley, who had been charged by the army with alleged mass murder.
Instead of picking up the phone to a press officer, he got into his car and started looking for him in the army camp of Fort Benning in Georgia, where he heard he had been detained. From door to door he searched the vast compound, sometimes blagging his way, marching up to the reception, slamming his fist on the table and shouting: “Sergeant, I want Calley out now.”
Eventually his efforts paid off with his first story appearing in the St Louis Post-Despatch, which was then syndicated across America and eventually earned him the Pulitzer Prize. “I did five stories. I charged $100 for the first, by the end the [New York] Times were paying $5,000.”
He was hired by the New York Times to follow up the Watergate scandal and ended up hounding Nixon over Cambodia. Almost 30 years later, Hersh made global headlines all over again with his exposure of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Put in the hours
For students of journalism his message is put the miles and the hours in. He knew about Abu Ghraib five months before he could write about it, having been tipped off by a senior Iraqi army officer who risked his own life by coming out of Baghdad to Damascus to tell him how prisoners had been writing to their families asking them to come and kill them because they had been “despoiled”.
“I went five months looking for a document, because without a document, there’s nothing there, it doesn’t go anywhere.”
Hersh returns to US president Barack Obama. He has said before that the confidence of the US press to challenge the US government collapsed post 9/11, but he is adamant that Obama is worse than Bush.
“Do you think Obama’s been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What’s going on [with journalists]?” he asks.
He says investigative journalism in the US is being killed by the crisis of confidence, lack of resources and a misguided notion of what the job entails.
“Too much of it seems to me is looking for prizes. It’s journalism looking for the Pulitzer Prize,” he adds. “It’s a packaged journalism, so you pick a target like – I don’t mean to diminish because anyone who does it works hard – but are railway crossings safe and stuff like that, that’s a serious issue but there are other issues too.
“Like killing people, how does [Obama] get away with the drone programme, why aren’t we doing more? How does he justify it? What’s the intelligence? Why don’t we find out how good or bad this policy is? Why do newspapers constantly cite the two or three groups that monitor drone killings. Why don’t we do our own work?
“Our job is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say – here’s a debate’ our job is to go beyond the debate and find out who’s right and who’s wrong about issues. That doesn’t happen enough. It costs money, it costs time, it jeopardises, it raises risks. There are some people – the New York Times still has investigative journalists but they do much more of carrying water for the president than I ever thought they would … it’s like you don’t dare be an outsider any more.”
He says in some ways President George Bush‘s administration was easier to write about. “The Bush era, I felt it was much easier to be critical than it is [of] Obama. Much more difficult in the Obama era,” he said.
Asked what the solution is Hersh warms to his theme that most editors are pusillanimous and should be fired.
“I’ll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can’t control,” he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don’t get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say ‘I don’t care what you say’.
Nor does he understand why the Washington Post held back on the Snowden files until it learned the Guardian was about to publish.
If Hersh was in charge of US Media Inc, his scorched earth policy wouldn’t stop with newspapers.
“I would close down the news bureaus of the networks and let’s start all over, tabula rasa. The majors, NBCs, ABCs, they won’t like this – just do something different, do something that gets people mad at you, that’s what we’re supposed to be doing,” he says.
Hersh is currently on a break from reporting, working on a book which undoubtedly will make for uncomfortable reading for both Bush and Obama.
“The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.” And he implores journalists to do something about it.
The Washington scholar who was cited by US leaders calling for a military strike on Syria, only to lose her job for fabricating her academic credentials, has been hired by the office of US Senator John McCain, Foreign Policy magazine reports.
Elizabeth O’Bagy was formerly employed by the Institute for the Study of War, where she quickly became a respected voice on the ongoing conflict between Syrian President Bashar Assad and opposition forces. McCain and US Secretary of State John Kerry once read from an editorial O’Bagy wrote in the Wall Street Journal when advocating for a military strike in front of Congress.
O’Bagy was fired from the Washington, DC based think-tank shortly thereafter, when it was revealed that she did not have a combined masters/PhD from Georgetown University as she had claimed.
“Elizabeth is a talented researcher, and I have been very impressed by her knowledge and analysis in multiple briefings over the last year,” McCain told Foreign Policy in a statement. “I look forward to her joining my office.”
The article McCain and Kerry referenced argued the US should send arms to Syrian rebels, claiming that “contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and Al-Qaeda die-hards.”
Kerry said it was a “very interesting article” and that he was impressed by O’Bagy’s “enormous” experience.
O’Bagy, 26, also spent time as the political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which she failed to disclose to the Wall Street Journal before her opinion piece was published. The Syrian Emergency Task Force is an advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of Syrian rebels in Washington. The newspaper was later criticized for what some journalists said was a delayed reaction in disclosing that affiliation alongside O’Bagy’s column.
O’Bagy has said she was not employed by the group, only working as a contractor, and was not affiliated with any lobbying efforts. She later acknowledged facilitating a meeting between the group and with commanders from the Free Syrian Army.
While she was fired from the Institute for the Study of War for stretching her credentials, Kimberly Kagan, the group’s founder, refused to discount any of O’Bagy’s work.
“Everything I’ve looked at is rock solid,” Kagan told Politico at the time. “Every thread that we have pulled upon has been verified by multiple sources.”
Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani have spoken. And they are on the same page. By that I mean not they agree about the issues dividing the two countries but that they are both ready to move forward, to test each other and see if an agreement is possible.
As tentative as all this is, it is a major breakthrough – as anyone who has paid even a little attention over the past 34 years knows.
However, I do not see this process leading anywhere because the Netanyahu government and its lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are determined to end the process and they have the ability to do it.
They intend to use the United States Congress to cause Rouhani toabandon negotiations by making clear that Congress will accept nothing short of an Iranian surrender on nuclear issues. Unlike President Obama who wants to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is not used to produce weapons, the lobby, which writes the laws imposing sanctions on Iran, insists that Iran give up its nuclear program entirely.
AIPAC listed its demands in a statement last week.
Its bottom line is this: Congress must not consider lifting economic sanctions until the Iranians stop uranium enrichment, stop work on installing new centrifuges, allow international inspection of nuclear sites, and move out of the country its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. In contrast to the administration which, recognizing that Iran (like every other country) has the right to nuclear power for peaceful purposes, AIPAC says that Iran has no such right. (Israel, of course, has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons but, hey, that’s different.)
Not only that, if Iran does not agree to total nuclear surrender, “The United States must support Israel’s right to act against Iran if it feels compelled—in its own legitimate self-defense—to act.”
In other words: the only way for Iran to avoid a military attack is by totally dismantling all its nuclear facilities and potential. (Actually Israel itself addresses the “potential” by repeatedly assassinating Iranian nuclear scientistson Iranian soil). This contrasts with the U.S. view that each step toward compliance by Iran would result in the lifting of some sanctions.
AIPAC is already preparing legislation that will send a clear message to Rouhani: don’t bother reaching out to the West because you will achieve nothing.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who with Robert Menendez (D-NJ), are two of AIPAC’s top lieutenants in the Senate, says that “if nothing changes in Iran, come September or October,“ he will introduce a bill “to authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.” He says that the “only way to convince Iran to halt their nuclear program is to make it clear that we will take it out.”
Senators Menendez, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ) and Graham also sent letters to President Obama urging “full compliance” by Iran before the United States offers anything. In short, led by AIPAC, the senators want “unconditional surrender” by Iran to avoid attack. This is diplomacy? It sounds more like the way the Germans and later the Russians addressed Czechoslovakia.
But why would anyone think the Senate will pass AIPAC’s war bills. The answer is simply that the midterm elections are coming up and that means Members of Congress need campaign cash. And AIPAC provides it.
Remember what AIPAC’s former #2 guy, Steve Rosen (later indicted under the Espionage Act) told New Yorker writer Jeff Goldberg in 2005. Goldberg asked Rosen just how powerful AIPAC is. Goldberg described Rosen’s response.
A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
Obama better be prepared. AIPAC has been pushing war with Iran for a decade. Its bills to achieve it won’t be written on napkins.
**Following Obama’s speech yesterday AIPAC posted a war video, on its website. The martial music is reminiscent of Radio Damascus prior to the ’67 war and succeeds in about a minute at threatening every single one of AIPAC’s, I mean Israel’s, enemies. It is utterly demented.
The New York Times reports that the view in Israel is that “what the Iranians managed to do is to change the whole game.”
And Israelis are pissed. And the Saudis are too. (What a lovely alliance).
…the prospect of even a nonnuclear Iran — strengthened economically by the lifting of sanctions, and emboldened politically by renewed relations with Washington — is seen as a dire threat that could upend the dynamics in this volatile region.
One gulf academic, in a Twitter post, likened the phone call to “the fall of the Berlin Wall.” An Israeli lawmaker said in a radio interview that he hoped that Mr. Obama would not be the next Neville Chamberlain, known for appeasement of the Nazis in 1938.
“There is a lot of suspicion and even paranoia about some secret deal between Iran and America,” said Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist who is close to the royal family. “My concern is that the Americans will accept Iran as it is — so that the Iranians can continue their old policies of expansionism and aggression.”
Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni-dominated gulf countries share a concern about a shift in the balance of power toward Iran’s Shiite-led government and its allies. For Israel, Iran remains the sponsor of global terrorism and of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, both avowed enemies of Israel’s existence.
“They can change the regime, but one thing won’t change and that is the hostility against Israel,” warned Uzi Rabi, chairman of a Middle East studies center at Tel Aviv University. “Part of the plan is to drive a wedge between Americans and Europeans and Israel. I hate to say it, but what the Iranians managed to do is to change the whole game.”
It has barely been a day since Obama rocked their world and already the Israelis and Saudis are in agreement that the whole conflict was not about nukes at all. It is about, as the Saudi journalist said, whether we will “accept Iran as it is.”
Yes, the Saudis, like the Israelis, are falling back to hold a different line now that the nuclear line is crumbling. Maybe the Saudis will demand we attack Iran because of its reactionary policies toward women and gays. Maybe Israel will demand we attack Iran because its name, the Islamic Republic, means that Iran is essentially a state where one religion is dominant over others.
Obama ignores Israel’s chemical weapons abuse while targeting Syrian government that may not be responsible for recent chemical attacks
This Palestinian teenager is one of the victims of the Israeli military’s illegal white phosphorous missile attacks on unarmed civilians, including a UN relief compound set up to shelter and provide medical attention to Palestinian refugees. Israel’s military conducted its own investigation of the incidents, apologized for the attack and called it a “grave error.” A UN fact finding mission overseen by South African lawyer and former justice Richard Goldstone called the use of white phosphorous a “war crime.” [INTERNET PHOTO BY RADEN MAS SOTO]
NEW YORK, NY – Few major mainstream American news outlets exposed the sordid details of a 2009 United Nations (UN) fact finding report that revealed how Israel’s military illegally aimed chemical missiles at a United Nations Relief & Work Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees in a 22-day invasion of the Gaza strip that began in 2008 called “Operation Cast Lead.”
As the U.S. and world media watch to learn if claims that President Barack Obama will execute a military strike against Syria, without a vote of Congress or the support of the UN, the same media outlets are burying information that suggests preparation for war could be premature. Little media attention is being paid to claims from a UN commission that Syrian rebels, not government soldiers under President Bashar al-Assad’s control, were responsible for recent chemical weapons attacks that killed over 300 Syrians.
“During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collect some witness testimony that has made to appear that some chemical weapons were used. In particular, nerve gas,” said Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. ”What appears to our investigation is that this was used by the opposition, by the rebels. We have no indication at all that the Syria government have used chemical weapons.”
What’s also questionable is why Obama has drawn a “line in the sand” over highly questionable allegations that Syrian soldiers used chemical weapons when the Israeli military was proven, and officials have admitted, to using chemical warfare to attack a United Nations relief compound. The facility provided shelter and medical attention to Palestinian refugees in 2009.
Cleveland Challenger obtained a copy of the 575 page 2009 UN report that a fact finding mission headed by ex-South African Judge Richard Goldstone prepared after an investigation of the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead.
The Israeli missile and ground assault on the Gaza strip began on December 27, 2008 and ended on January 18, 2009. The attack resulted in an estimated 1100 to 14oo Palestinian deaths. 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Four died from friendly fire.
The invasion was stimulated by Israel’s claims that rockets were being fired at Israeli’s by Hamas militants. Three Israeli civilians and one soldier were killed by Hamas’ rockets in the days leading up to the assault that led to an estimated $1.3 billion in damage to Palestinian property and businesses. Israel’s military was also accused by the UN fact finding mission of violating war protocols by using Palestinians as human shields, murdering unarmed civilians, destroying water and sewer treatment plants, and wiping out food supplies and production facilities to starve the population.
The UN commission Goldstone led met extensively with Palestinian officials, victims and survivors after the Israeli military assault. The interviews and investigation led to the discovery of information and evidence that Israel’s military deployed missiles containing “white phosphorous” against civilians and the hospital.
White phosphorous is a highly-combustible chemical agent that burns on contact with air. In humans it burns upon contact with skin and creates very deep tissue wounds. It can also cause death when inhaled. It’s customary use has been as a “smoke screen” although it is illegal to use against civilians in times of war. The UN commission found Israel’s use of the burning agent against the hospital to be particularly deplorable.
When first questioned about the white phosphorous missile allegations that struck the UNRWA compound, the Israeli military’s first response was to issue a denial. On January 15, 2009, three days before the attack ended, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the chemical weapon attack a “grave error” and allegedly apologized to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. On the same day, Israeli President Shimon Peres apologized for the attack, but added the false claim that Israeli troops were being fired upon from inside the facility.
South African attorney and former justice Richard Goldstone was blacklisted by Israel after he headed a fact finding mission to investigate war crimes committed against both Israeli’s and Palestinians after Isreal’s military invaded Palestine in a campaign called Operation Cast Lead. Israeli media reported, falsely, that Goldstone promised to “revoke” the report’s findings against Israel. Goldstone, who is also Jewish, was one of South Africa’s liberal justices and credited with working inside the system to undermine apartheid.
In a July 2009 report of its own findings, the Israeli government now led by President Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed the white phosphorous was supposed to have only been used as a smokescreen to protect soldiers from Hamas anti-tank crews that were claimed to have been operating adjacent to the compound. Israeli officials falsely claimed that only missile “fragments” entered the compound.
The UN fact finding group challenged the claims made by Israeli officials and accused them of understating the nature and extent of the chemical missile strikes. They identified 10 strikes inside the UNRWA compound, with seven white phosphorous container shells discharging completely or very substantially in the confines of a very limited space.
“This is not a matter of a limited number of wedges falling inside the compound or shrapnel or parts of shells landing in the compound as the shells exploded elsewhere. It is important to emphasize that we are dealing with shells exploding or discharging inside the compound in areas where hazardous material was stored.”
“Secondly, the claim that this result was neither intended nor anticipated has to be reviewed carefully. In the first place the Mission affirms the result to be reviewed is not fragments and wedges landing in the compound but ten shells landing and exploding inside the compound. It is difficult to accept that the consequences were not appreciated and foreseen by the Israeli armed forces.”
“Those in the Israeli army who deploy white phosphorous, or indeed any artillery shells, expertly trained to factor in the relevant complexities of targeting, including wind force and the earth’s curvature. They have to know the area they are firing at, possible obstacles in hitting the target and the other environmental factors necessary to ensure an effective strike. It is also clear that, having determined that it was necessary to establish a safety distance, the presence of the UNRWA installations was a factor present in the minds of those carrying out the shelling.”
“The question then becomes how specialists expertly trained in the complex issue of artillery deployment and aware of the presence of an extremely sensitive site can strike that site ten times while apparently trying to avoid it.”
Israeli government and military officials took issue with the report, but mainly focused effort at discrediting claims that they “randomly” and “intentionally” targeted and slaughtered Palestinian civilians. UN interviews revealed that Israeli soldiers herded an unarmed family of 29 into a home and bombed it.
Instead of sharing any of the details of the 575 page report with newspaper and magazine readers, and television viewers, the U.S. media concentrated all its attention on Israeli claims that denied the allegations.
Carla del Ponte is a UN fact finder who’s continued to raise doubt that the Syrian military used chemical weapons containing “sarin” gas against the nation’s war weary people. What her commission did find was evidence that Syrian rebels used the illegal gas. So why is the Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pushing to attack the government for a crime a top UN official doesn’t believe they committed?
When Goldstone authored an opinion piece two years later, he said the report would have been different if Israel had cooperated and his fact finding mission had access to its officials and more information. U.S. reporters and columnists with the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post used the statement to discredit the report in its 575 page entirety.
Goldstone’s opinion reflected that he’d only changed his mind about whether or not Israel “intentionally” targeted civilians in the 22 day military invasion of Palestine.
“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
Goldstone also took the opportunity to balance a legitimate Israeli government complaint that his 2009 report concentrated the majority of its criticism on Israel and made little or no reference to Hamas’ attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.
Nothing, however, in Goldstone’s opinion two years later, denounced his fact finding mission’s findings as U.S. reporters seem to have intentionally tried to shield Israel from criticism.
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
Anderson Cooper and CNN have been caught staging fake news about Syria to justify military intervention.
The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments. Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.
While Assad is definitely a tyrant like any head of state, a US invasion of the country is a worst case scenario for the people living there.
By pointing out that the mainstream media is orchestrating their entire coverage of this incident, we are not denying that there is a tremendous amount of death and violence in Syria right now. However, we are showing that the mainstream media version of events is scripted and staged propaganda.
“Syria Danny” has also appeared on many other news programs, and every single time his story on specific events has changed.
This is not the first time that mainstream media has been exposed as propaganda, it happens all the time, especially during times of war.
Some of the most hyped up news images of our time surrounding war were not actually real but were simply public relations stunts, designed as psychological warfare operations.
No one in America can forget the image of Saddam Hussein’s statue being toppled and covered with an American flag, yet few people realize that this was a hoax, a staged psychological operation coordinated between the military and the media. In July of 2004 journalist Jon Elmer exposed an internal army study of the war showing that this whole statue scenario was indeed a set up.
In the article Elmer writes “the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment… The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said. Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets. “
The statue hoax was just one example in a long list of lies and psychological operations surrounding the multiple wars in Iraq. At the onset of Operation Desert Storm in 1990 a public relations firm by the name of Hill and Knowlton spent millions of dollars on the government’s behalf, constructing news pieces that would sell the war to the American public. One of the most moving pranks to come from this push to war was the testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. In a videotaped testimony that was later distributed to the media she said “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital, While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”
Sounds horrible huh? Well, luckily it never happened, this too was a fabricated event designed to dehumanize the Iraqi people. The whole thing was exposed when the journalists discovered that the witness Nayirah was actually the daughter of a US ambassador who was being coaxed by military psychological operations specialists. If the government and media cooperate to deceive the American public during times of war then there should be no doubt in your mind that the same techniques are used during times of peace, and especially elections.
 Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling – The New Standard
White House Correspondent
But Time’s editors are shielding Americans from the demoralizing picture, putting a cheerful, sky-blue photo on the covers of magazines distributed in the United States.
“It’s time to pay college athletes,” says the chirpy, non-political U.S. cover, which shows a ball-carrying football player with arm outstretched.
The cover most Americans saw at the checkout counter safely overlooked a widely perceived fumble by President Barack Obama that left Russia to carry the ball in the Syrian war.
Putin seemingly headed off a U.S. airstrike on his Syrian ally, while Obama, after extensive public agonizing, has seemingly agreed to token compliance with a weapons inspection regime.
The foreign-policy fumble prompted anger, embarrassment and amazement among professionals in the U.S. foreign policy apparatus, who slammed it as the biggest foreign-policy flub since President Jimmy Carter.
But it also prompted derision and delight among America’s enemies in the Middle East, including Iran, which is backing Syria.
The foreign covers acknowledge Putin’s triumph over Obama, telling foreigners that Putin “doesn’t care what anybody thinks of him.”
The protective covers arrive as Time’s managing editor departs for a job working for one of the architects of the Syrian debacle, Secretary of State John Kerry.
In “early summer,” editor Rick Stengel was asked by Kerry, and immediately accepted, the job of running the department’s public diplomacy mission, according to Politico.
Months later, the appointment was leaked to two media outlets.
Throughout the summer, Stengel remained editor of Time while it covered U.S. politics.
Most often, the covers of Time magazine are uniform.
Periodically, Time magazine wraps its magazine in different covers for audiences in the United States, in Asia, in the South Pacific and the large “Europe, Middle East and Africa” marketplace.
Many of the different covers are non-political.
For example, the Nov. 5, 2012 U.S. cover featured the new movie about President Abraham Lincoln. The other three covers showcased the lead actor in the movie, Daniel Day-Lewis.
Time’s July 11 2012, U.S. cover featured an article about medical expenses, while the foreign editions showcased England’s soccer league.
This is not the first time the magazine has downplayed stories that might not put Stengel’s new boss — Obama — in a good light.
On July 2, 2012, the overseas covers featured China’s fast-growing manufacturing sector, while the U.S. cover was about “The History of the American Dream.”
The Dec. 5, 2011 cover featured an alarming picture of Egyptian street protests, while the U.S. cover told increasingly worried U.S. readers that “Anxiety is Good for You.”The BBC will cut comments made by violinist Nigel Kennedy about “apartheid” in Israel when it broadcasts his concert with a PA troupe.BBC LogoArutz Sheva: BBC
The BBC will cut comments made by violinist Nigel Kennedy about “apartheid” in Israel when it broadcasts his concert onBritish television channels next week, Al Arabiya reported on Saturday.
The concert, which was held at London’s Royal Albert Hall last week, featured 17 musicians from the Palestine Strings, a group of Palestinian Authority Arab artists. The troupe performed Vivaldi’s Four Seasons alongside Kennedy.
Kennedy likened the situation in Israel to apartheid in South Africa.
“Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a bit facile to say it but we all know from experiencing this night of music tonight that giving equality and getting rid of apartheid means there’s a chance for amazing things to happen,” Kennedy was quoted by Al Arabiya as having said.
The decision to cut Kennedy’s comment was made due to “editorial reasons” and they removed because of “the way it fitted in with the program,” a BBC spokesperson told Al Arabiya.
“Nigel’s comment to the audience at his late-night prom on August 8 will not be included in the deferred BBC 4 broadcast on August 23 because it does not fall within the editorial remit of the proms as a classical music festival,” the spokesperson said.
Kennedy has previously refused to play concerts in Israel, but has participated in the PA-run Jerusalem Festival in eastern Jerusalem.
In 2007 he told Haaretz, “It’s no coincidence. I became aware of the Palestinian story while I was a student in New York. My girlfriend then was Palestinian, and, through her, I began to familiarize myself with and understand the problem even before the [separation] wall and the other atrocities.
“She had to return home every year or she would lose her citizenship, and, like it was for all of us students, that wasn’t exactly her thing. Then I understood that it was simply a way to harass the Palestinians and prevent them from studying,” he added.
Kennedy dedicated his performance at the Proms to “Palestinians”, according to his introduction as quoted by Al Arabiya.
“The concert tonight is very emotional, because I am performing for people who are imprisoned, to give them two hours of fun and show them that the world has not forgotten about them,” he said.
The BBC is known for its blatant bias against Israel and in the past has deliberately erred on naming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In June, the network insisted that “no offense was intended” after it reported that Tel Aviv is the capital of the Jewish state during a commentary on the UEFA European Under-21 Championship.
BBC has made the same “mistake” numerous times before, most notably during the 2012 Olympic Games when it similarly referred to Tel Avivas the capital of the Jewish state.
Some artists have refused to perform in Israel, citing its “apartheid” policy against PA Arabs, while failing to acknowledge remarks by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that any future Palestinian state will have no Jews or Israelis. At the same time, several artists recently refused pressure to cancel concerts in Israel.
In July, popular rhythm and blues artist Alicia Keys refused to cave in to pressure by anti-Israel activists and gave a sold out concert in Tel Aviv.
Keys announced that she had decided to go ahead with her concert in Tel Aviv despite calls from a number of anti-Israel activists to boycott the Jewish state.
The pop duo Pet Shop Boys also recently rejected calls from pro-Palestinian Authority activists to cancel a Tel Aviv concert. The concert went ahead as scheduled on June 23.
An anti-Israel group had claimed that the act of performing a concert constitutes tacit support for Israel’s “policies of discrimination.”
Pet Shop Boys member Neil Tennant, however, said he did not “agree with this comparison of Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.”
Most recently, Eric Burdon, the former lead singer in the British band The Animals, decided to perform in Israel after all, after having earlier cancelled his performance because of political pressure.Beginning his working life in the aviation industry and trained by the BBC, Tony Gosling is a British land rights activist, historian & investigative radio journalist.
Published time: August 16, 2013 13:06Unemployed young people as they stand in line outside a job centre in central London.(AFP Photo / Leon Neal)
Britain’s shadow minister for borders and immigration, Labour’s Chris Bryant, promised to take on the big corporations this week. But as his embargoed speech was leaked to big business, the nation watched his political resolve melt into nothing.
Friends and corporate funders of the ruling Conservative-led coalition have been sacking thousands of workers. They then market those same jobs to cheaper foreign workers, bringing misery to Labour’s traditional working-class supporters.
Frequently those jobs are not even advertised in the UK. Former employees have to re-apply for their old jobs so long as they’re prepared to accept worse pay and conditions.
Standing nervously behind the workers directly hit by this practice are millions of other apprehensive wage earners. They can see how this further corrodes what has become an increasingly brutal job market.
It is the dedication of staff, not just how much they’re paid, that determines how good a service the public receives. Staff who know they can be sacked at the drop of a hat do what they are told by their managers out of fear, rather than respect. Before long that culture of fear impacts on everything a business touches.
From the voice on the phone, through quality control, to the customer facing staff, as the company’s commitment to the employee goes down, so the glue that holds the business together starts to come unstuck.
The figures, of course, look good on paper. Boardroom presentations with those efficiency graphs zigzagging gradually up accompanied by photographs of smiling staff in neatly-pressed uniforms.
But as well-paid lobbyists for these multinationals successfully demand the erosion of employment rights, trust in these cost-cutting companies is undermined. Trust doesn’t figure on the balance sheet, but it’s the only truly important quality a company has (or doesn’t have).Britain’s opposition Labour party immigration minister, Chris Bryant.(Reuters / Luke MacGregor)
This is one of the chief reasons why recruitment agency Office Angels found last week that over half of Britons in work want out of their present job, for the first time in decades. Off the balance sheet again: an unhappy company is a bad company.
Practices like these are turning the UK into a “conscript economy.” Thirty years of retreat from Labour’s 1970s policy of full employment has tipped the balance between employer and employee off the scales, until the employer holds all the cards.
Yet, despite the slump, there seems no let-up in the flood of economic migrants moving to Britain. Last week’s net migration figures show that in the year to June 2012, 165,000 people, or nearly 500 a day, moved to the UK.
On New Year’s Day 2014, Bulgarians and Romanians too are about to be allowed to work in the UK – boosting the net figure to over 200,000.
This influx is doubly bad, cutting both ways into UK disposable incomes. It helps keep house prices artificially high, and wages artificially low. So Labour has realized that not all critics of immigration are racists and, we are told, is seeing the error of its ways.
Party chiefs, for the first time, have been weighing the rights of the British worker who loses their job against the right of the migrant to work anywhere in the EU. Weighing up, too, the good work an immigrant worker might do, against the cost to the British taxpayer of yet another British family on the dole.
So, for Britain’s opposition party, standing up for dwindling employment rights should have been an open goal.
Yes, migrant labor is justified and welcome when a country has full employment but with, for millions, wages not enough to live on and real unemployment hovering around 10 percent, to low-paid workers bringing in migrant labor just drives them further into poverty.
So Labour’s Chris Bryant was going to weigh in this week to explain that Her Majesty’s Opposition now thought it was wrong. A plea both to the origins of the Labour Party, standing up for the victims of cruel and greedy bosses… and to pragmatism. That it wasn’t racist to discourage economic migration.Reuters / Andrew Winning
“Take the case of Tesco, who recently decided to move their distribution centre….” he was due to say,“…staff at the original site, most of them British, were told that they could only move to the new centre if they took a cut in pay. The result? A large percentage of the staff at the new centre are from the Eastern bloc.”
But Tesco’s friends in the London media tipped them off with a leaked copy of the speech, so after a call to Labour Party headquarters from Tesco this became:
“Take Tesco. A good employer and an important source of jobs in Britain… Yet when a distribution centre was moved to a new location existing staff said they would have lost out by transferring and the result was a higher proportion of staff from A8 countries… Tesco are clear they have tried to recruit locally.”
Rarely do we get the opportunity to see so transparently how meek our politicians have become in the face of corporate lobbying. Tory Tesco effectively rewriting the speech of an opposition politician, no doubt with strong-arming from Labour Party apparatchiks, too.
Bryant’s key allegation about the cut in pay disappeared. Instead, Tesco is “a good employer” that has“tried to recruit locally.” Dead on the cutting-room floor, too, is another fact that many low-paid UK jobs are not even advertised in Britain any more.
To the tune most of us know as “Oh, Christmas Tree” or “Tannenbaum,” Labour Party activists used to traditionally sing “Let’s Keep the Red Flag Flying Here” on May Day, which called for a worldwide, worker-managed utopia with no borders. But when the Labour Party is no longer allowed to criticize practices that take food out of children’s mouths, throw hard-working people out of a job, and possibly onto the streets, that party may as well pack its bags.
If the present leadership is not purged, Labour may go the whole hog and, as in Greece, show its true blue colors by going into a formal coalition with the big corporations.
Last week, UK prime minister David Cameron announced that adult sites would be automatically blocked in order to protect “children and their innocence”. After some digging however (this policy, which was strategically timed to be announced right when the Royal Baby was born) is far from being only about “protecting children”. As usual, a catchphrase that nobody can’t disagree with was used to hide the ugly truth: UK’s policy will, by default, filter out and censor a LOT of material that is deemed undesirable.
After discussing with several UK ISPs, Digital advocacy organization Open Rights Group discovered that the UK web filter will ban by default a wide range of websites including:
– violent material
– extremist and terrorist related content
– anorexia and eating disorder websites
– suicide related websites
More importantly, the filter will also censor websites that mention alcohol or smoking, “web forums” and “esoteric material”. These last categories are the most worrying as their vague nature opens the door to all kinds of censorship. What exactly is “esoteric material”? Are “alternative news” and “conspiracy-related” sites included? Is mentioning the occult elite on a blog warrants a ban from the UK? The censorship possibilities are endless.
In order to unblock these sites, customers must contact their ISPs and ask to be unblocked. According to Open Rights Group, most people will not bother or even known about any of this.
“Making the filters default means most people will keep them, according to Open Rights Group Executive Director Jim Killock. “We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind ‘nudge theory’ and ‘choice architecture’ that is popular with Cameron.”
According to the BBC, the Chinese firm Huawei controls the net filter praised by Cameron. This very company is accused of having close ties with the Chinese government, which maintains one of the most restrictive internet firewalls in the world. While we are led to think that the Western world wants to teach China about “freedom”, China is rather at the forefront of what the Western world is trying to accomplish.
According to Cameron, the new parental control settings will be turned on for all new broadband subscribers “by the end of the year.” In other words, people in the UK, there isn’t a lot of time left to get your voices heard. While it might be possible for a “computer whiz” to hack himself around this super-mega-Chinese-monster filter – it is the principle behind it that’s important. Also, this policy mostly aims the people that won’t do a thing about it: The clueless, apathetic, ignorant masses that won’t even realize that a lot of the internet was filtered out “for their own good”. 1984.Big Brother Weds the Nanny Who’s Pregnant with Internet Censorship.
Here is the real problem with the Internet
The totalitarian tip-toe is tap dancing to tyranny with the proposed Internet censorship bill in the United Kingdom. In the name of keeping children safe from porn, the UK law will impose Internet filters on far more than just porn.
According to Wired:
As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material“, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.
The definition of “esoteric” makes clear that censorship of broad topics is the goal of this so-called ISP filter:
Translation: anything outside the acceptable mainstream narrative will be filtered. In short, the free flow of information is under assault with this law.
The organization Open Rights Group refers to this totalitarian tip-toe as “sleepwalking into censorship“:
What’s clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind ‘nudge theory‘ and ‘choice architecture’ that is popular with Cameron.
The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there’s not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website’s audience.
Open Rights also says the law could be used to play economic favorites, thus undermining the free market on the Internet:
There comes a point that it is simply better to place your sales through Amazon and ebay, and circulate your news and promotions exclusively through Facebook and Twitter, as you know none of these will ever be filtered.
It seems Western government’s voracity for Internet censorship has increased many fold since the Snowden revelations about digital spying.
Direct Internet censorship was imposed on millions of U.S. government computers blocking them from viewing any material related to the Snowden leak, which at the time of the leak and even now represents a large percentage of all political and technical news stories.
And as John Naughton of the Guardian points out today, the real story about the Snowden leak that everyone is ignoring are the implications on Internet freedom, which he lists as the following:
The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.
Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.
Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration’s “internet freedom agenda” has been exposed as patronising cant. “Today,” he writes, “the rhetoric of the ‘internet freedom agenda’ looks as trustworthy as George Bush’s ‘freedom agenda’ after Abu Ghraib.”
As a final note, porn filters already exist for parents in the private marketplace if they choose to use them. So, there is no need for governments to make them mandatory, which indicates that the real agenda behind these new proposed laws is much more about censorship than protecting children.
Downing Street archives reveal Thatcher thought Norman Tebbit’s stance on union reform too timidMargaret Thatcher in 1983, the year before the miners’ strike. Photograph: Chris Capstick/Rex Features
“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty,” Margaret Thatcher speech to the backbench 1922 committee, July 1984.
The Cabinet papers published under the 30-year rule lay bare the scale of Margaret Thatcher’s long-held ambitions to crush the power of Britain’s trade unions even before she had won her historic 144-seat majority landslide victory.
The Downing Street papers from 1983 show she told Ferdinand Mount, then head of her policy unit, that she agreed that Norman Tebbit’s gradualist approach to trade union reform was too timid and that they should “neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership”.
Thatcher told Mount to put the policy work in hand but to keep his trade union reform paper, in which he referred to the unions as “a politicised mafia”, wholly confidential. “We must neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership wherever this corresponds to the wishes of the workforce. We must see to it our new legal structure discourages trade union membership of the new industries,” wrote Mount.
He said that by the end of the century they also hoped to see “a trade union movement whose exclusive relationship with the Labour party is reduced out of all recognition. Again, it is absurd and unjust that millions of Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats should be supporting the Labour party directly or indirectly. This relationship fossilises the Labour party and stultifies the whole political dialogue.”
Although the prime minister responded by saying she agreed with Mount, his demand to ensure that trade union members had to opt in, rather than opt out of the political levy – as now being contemplated by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband – was regarded as a step too far at that time by Thatcher and Tebbit because it revived the argument about the financing of political parties. The Tories feared it could also lead to a quid pro quo ban on company donations.
They were not alone in their determination to take on the unions. As early as January 1983, Nigel Lawson – who had already spent two years as energy secretary building up coal stocks in preparation for the expected showdown with the miners – was telling Thatcher: “If Scargill succeeds in bringing about such a strike, we must do everything in our power to defeat him, including ensuring that the strike results in widespread closures.”
In March, Thatcher’s press secretary, Bernard Ingham, also urged her to take on the miners, telling her: “Events have not, however, challenged the post-war impression of their invincibility, for we have yet to beat a national stoppage … In my view the last thing we should do today is lend credibility to Scargill.”
The cabinet papers released by the National Archives on Thursday show that the preparations – including a debate among Whitehall officials over whether troops should be used during the miners’ strike – were well under way. Lawson also argued for a rapid acceleration in the pace of the pit closures secretly scheduled for 1983/84, demanding that 34 pits, including a dozen in Yorkshire and the Midlands, should be listed, rather than the 20 that eventually sparked the start of the strike in March 1984.
The papers show that detailed discussions on withstanding a coal strike went on in a secret committee of Whitehall officials known as Misc 57 throughout 1983. A good deal of work had already been done in 1982, when it was decided that it was not practicable to use servicemen to move coal by rail.
By that October, in a “secret and personal” note to Thatcher, Peter Gregson, the Cabinet Office deputy secretary, was telling her that using the army to move coal by road would be a formidable undertaking: “4-5,000 lorry movements a day for 20 weeks … the law and order problems of coping with pickets would be enormous … a major risk would be the power station workers would refuse to handle coal brought in by servicemen this way”.
Misc 57 had thought there might be a limited role for the troops in delivering ancillary materials, such as lighting-up oil, under close supervision.
But Thatcher was careful not to close the door on the use of the army to move coal from the working pits to the power stations, and ordered further work to be done. In the following May, the issue was reopened when the Cabinet Office derided such uses of the army as “spectacular gestures which are likely in practice to worsen the situation”.
Brigadier Tony Budd, secretary of the civil contingencies unit in the Cabinet Office, took exception, pointing out that this had not been the case when the army was used for “firefighting, providing an emergency ambulance service, refuse collection and even providing emergency car parking in London”, despite some union “huffing and puffing”.
In the event it was the paramilitary use of the police in pitched battles with mass pickets, rather than the army, that was to lead to some of the bitterest scenes in the miners’ strike.
But the ultimately successful strategy was spelled out by Lawson to his cabinet colleagues in late 1982: to do everything to undermine the miners’ will to continue a lengthy strike by demonstrating that its effects were limited. The preparations particularly focused on ensuring that electricity supplies were not interrupted for a considerable period of time.Most Kiwis of my generation were brought up on the ideal of an egalitarian society. This involved a fair go for all. Photo / Getty Images
In the late 1970s, when I left school, about 5000 Kiwis were unemployed. From 1984, we adopted a market model to organise our economic lives. This involved the privatisation of government assets, the adoption of free trade and the freeing up of markets. The acquisition of money and material possessions became the holy grail of what was considered the good life.
By the early 1990s unemployment had rocketed to almost 200,000. This followed a period of huge economic transformation. Government entities such as railways and phone services had been sold to private owners. They immediately indulged in massive redundancies.
Meanwhile, free trade had wiped out many industries, such as clothing and textiles, creating widespread job losses.
In 1991, the National Government decided that the best approach to reducing unemployment was to make the labour market more “flexible”. It cut benefits to encourage people to seek employment. It introduced the Employment Contracts Act to reduce union power so employers could more easily negotiate wages and conditions directly with individual workers.No longer could people live a life of luxury on benefits. They would have to seek work and employers would have greater flexibility to employ them at whatever wage the market dictated.
In the late 1990s, the Shipley National Government introduced the concept of “dob in a beneficiary”. People were encouraged to phone the authorities if they felt that others were abusing the benefit system. There is little doubt benefit abuse does occur but there has never been any hard statistical evidence about the extent of this problem. Policy in this area has always been based largely on hearsay.
When politicians talk about making the labour market more flexible, it means ensuring that the demand and supply of labour determines the wage rate.
In its purest form this means forcing people to provide their labour regardless of the wages offered. This involves reducing benefits, cutting minimum wages and reducing union power. Cutting benefits and reducing the minimum wage can be achieved by the corrosive effects of inflation. On the demand side it means ensuring employers have the greatest possible flexibility in hiring and firing.
Most Kiwis of my generation were brought up on the ideal of an egalitarian society. This involved a fair go for all. Those who work hard, take risks, start businesses and strive for success should be entitled to the rewards of their endeavours. But those who struggle due to the lottery of birth or misfortunes in life should be given a safety net. Those who work hard but lack the skills or education to achieve a higher income should be entitled to a decent lifestyle.
This ideal has slipped away over the past few decades. We now live in a society where many economic winners feel entitled to enjoy all the benefits of their success regardless of their fellow citizens. There is little regard to equality of opportunity.
What has evolved is a system of economic apartheid that would have shocked many of previous generations. The post-war generation seemed to place a higher value on social cohesion likely due to the shared hardships of two world wars and the Great Depression. It is a sad irony that we continue to celebrate the 40-hour working week on Labour Day. Today, winners live in certain suburbs, send their children to certain schools, and even shop in different supermarkets. They seldom encounter the “have nots”. Our society is becoming polarised.
The Employment Amendment Bill before Parliament is designed to increase the flexibility of our labour market. It aims to reduce the bargaining power of unions. It is not a ground-breaking piece of legislation. It is more a subtle chipping away at the power of workers to negotiate as a group with their employers. The capitalist model of the labour market assumes that workers and employers have equal power in negotiating pay and conditions. Employers compete for workers and workers compete for jobs.
This is the ideal, but the reality is that the power balance is very skewed. Many Kiwis have been conditioned over the past few decades to feel very grateful to have a job.Global Research, July 31, 2013
A hard-hitting investigative report recently published by a prominent German newspaper has uncovered some shocking details about the tactics being used by chemical giant Monsanto in assuming control of global agriculture. According to this thorough analysis, Monsanto appears to be aggressively targeting independent researchers, scientists, activists, and others opposed to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) by utilizing the vast resources and manpower of both the United States federal government and the American military-industrial complex.
The report, which recently appeared in the July 13 print edition of Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), explains in rigorous detail how both individuals and groups opposed to GMOs and other chemical-based crop technologies have been threatened, hacked, slandered and terrorized for daring to digress from the pro-GMO status quo. On numerous documented occasions, pertinent information about the dangers of GMOs or lack of GMO safety data has been effectively blocked from timely release by mysterious forces that many say are the chemical industry in disguise.
“A conspicuously large number of Monsanto critics report regular attacks by professional hackers,” explains an English-translated snippet from the SZ report. “There are (Monsanto) ties with the U.S. secret services, the U.S. military, with very hard operating private security companies and of course, with the U.S. government.”
A telling example of this was when the European environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOTE), together with the German Environmental and Nature Protection Association (BUND), was targeted prior to releasing a damning study on the health-damaging effects of glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. A mysterious virus infected the computer of the study’s main organizer just days before publishing, which threatened to delay several important press releases.
The distinguished GMO truth website GMWatch.org has also been relentlessly targeted with “cyber attacks” since at least 2007, a disturbing trend that the site’s main editor is convinced originates from the biotechnology industry. As we reported back in 2012, some of the strongest attacks against the site came just weeks and days before the historic Proposition 37 vote in California, which would have mandated GMO labeling at the retail level.
Monsanto’s targeting activities made possible through corporate takeover of federal government
As it turns out, Monsanto has many close friends within the ranks of the U.S. federal government these days. Scores of key government positions, in fact, are now held by former Monsanto executives, a strategic move that has given the multinational corporation exclusive access to the types of resources necessary to carry out cyber attacks against its opponents on a massive scale.
Monsanto’s own executives have even admitted in years past that so-called cyber “warfare” is necessary for the purpose of protecting its own economic interests both domestically and abroad.
“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table,” former Monsanto Head of Public Relations Jay Byrne is quoted as saying back in 2001. “Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed.”
These are powerful words, and ones that ring increasingly true as reports continue to emerge about Monsanto’s intimidatory tactics against foreign governments that refuse its offerings. Confidential documents recently made public through Wikileaks, for instance, revealed a plan by government officials to “retaliate” against nations that refused to accept GMOs, even when the people of those nations wanted nothing to do with the technology.
All the sordid details of the U.S. government’s collusion activities with the biotechnology industry are available in the full, English-translated SZ report, which you can read here:
You can also learn more about the dangers of GMOs by visiting:
25 July 2013
I have known my postman for more than 20 years. Conscientious and good-humoured, he is the embodiment of public service at its best. The other day, I asked him, “Why are you standing in front of each door like a soldier on parade?”
“New system,” he replied, “I am no longer required simply to post the letters through the door. I have to approach every door in a certain way and put the letters through in a certain way.”
Across the street was a solemn young man, clipboard in hand, whose job was to stalk postmen and see they abided by the new rules, no doubt in preparation for privatisation. I told the stalker my postman was admirable. His face remained flat, except for a momentary flicker of confusion.
In ‘Brave New World Revisited’, Aldous Huxley describes a new class conditioned to a normality that is not normal “because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does”.
Surveillance is normal in the Age of Regression – as Edward Snowden revealed. Ubiquitous cameras are normal. Subverted freedoms are normal. Effective public dissent is now controlled by police, whose intimidation is normal.
The traducing of noble words like “democracy”, “reform”, “welfare” and “public service” is normal. Prime ministers who lie openly about lobbyists and war aims are normal. The export of £4bn worth of British arms, including crowd control ammunition, to the medieval state of Saudi Arabia, where apostasy is a capital crime, is normal.
The willful destruction of efficient, popular public institutions like the Royal Mail is normal. A postman is no longer a postman, going about his decent work; he is an automaton to be watched, a box to be ticked. Huxley described this regression as insane and our “perfect adjustment to that abnormal society” a sign of the madness.
Are we “perfectly adjusted” to this? No, not yet. People defend hospitals from closure, UK Uncut forces bank branches to close and six brave women climb the highest building in Europe to show the havoc caused by the oil companies in the Arctic. There, the list begins to peter out.
At this year’s Manchester festival, Percy Bysshe Shelley’s epic Masque of Anarchy – all 91 verses written in rage at the massacre of Lancashire people protesting poverty in 1819 – is an acclaimed theatrical piece, and utterly divorced from the world outside. Last January, the Greater Manchester Poverty Commission disclosed that 600,000 Mancunians were living in “extreme poverty” and that 1.6 million, or nearly half the city’s population, were “sliding into deeper poverty”.
Poverty has been gentrified. The Parkhill Estate in Sheffield was once an edifice of public housing – unloved by many for its Le Corbusier brutalism, poor maintenance and lack of facilities. With its Heritage Grade II listing, it has been renovated and privatised. Two thirds of the old flats have been reborn as modern apartments selling to “professionals”, including designers, architects and a social historian. In the sales office you can buy designer mugs and cushions. This façade offers not a hint that, devastated by the government’s “austerity” cuts, Sheffield has a social housing waiting list of 60,000 people.
Parkhill is a symbol of the two thirds society that is Britain today. The gentrified third do well, some of them extremely well, a third struggle to get by on credit and the rest slide into poverty.
Although the majority of the British are working class – whether or not they see themselves that way – a gentrified minority dominates parliament, senior management and the media. David Cameron, Nick and Ed Milliband are their authentic representatives, with only minor technical difference between their parties. They fix the limits of political life and debate, aided by gentrified journalism and the “identity” industry. The greatest ever transfer of wealth upwards is a given. Social justice has been replaced by meaningless “fairness”.
While promoting this normality, the BBC rewards a senior functionary almost £1m. Although regarding itself as the media equivalent of the Church of England, the Corporation now has ethics comparable with those of the “security” companies G4S and Serco which, says the government, have “overcharged” on public services by tens of millions of pounds. In other countries, this is called corruption.
Like the fire sale of the power utilities, water and the railways, the sale of Royal Mail is to be achieved with bribery and the collaboration of the union leadership, regardless of its vocal outrage. Opening his 1983 documentary series Questions of Leadership, Ken Loach shows trade union leaders exhorting the masses. The same men are then shown, older and florid, adorned in the ermine of the House of Lords. In the recent Queen’s Birthday honours, the general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, received his knighthood.
How long can the British watch the uprisings across the world and do little apart from mourn the long-dead Labour Party? The Edward Snowden revelations show the infrastructure of a police state emerging in Europe, especially Britain. Yet, people are more aware than ever before; and governments fear popular resistance – which is why truth-tellers are isolated, smeared and pursued.
Momentous change almost always begins with the courage of people taking back their own lives against the odds. There is no other way now. Direct action. Civil disobedience. Unerring. Read Percy Shelley – “Ye are many; they are few”. And do it.
Russian President Putin presents America with a beautiful sculpture to commemorate the fallen towers of New York City, on the 5th anniversary of 9/11.
Tear Drop “A Gift From the People of Russia to the USA”
Editor’s Note : The Tear Drop Memorial, is a 10 story sculpture designed by one of Russia’s leading sculptors, Zurab Tsereteli, that was given to the United States as an official gift from the Russian government as a memorial to the victims of 9/11.
TomatoBubble.com — Funded by private donations, the work of art called “The Tear Drop Memorial”, consists of a 100 foot tall tower, with a huge open crack running down the center.
Hanging from the crack is a massive “teardrop” designed to drip water.
The base of the monument is surrounded by a marble wall with the names of the 3000 victims engraved in alphabetical order.
The Zionist controlled US media gives the beautiful memorial, dedicated by Putin, a total silent treatment. The monument is barely known, even among local residents of Bayonne!
President Putin’s image on the banner wall has been inconspicuously absent in the controlled media coverage that it has recieved.
(Wiki) Reaction to the monument has been mixed. It was listed as one of the The World’s Ugliest Statues by Foreign Policy magazine, while The New Yorker said from far away it looked like “a giant tea biscuit.”  However reactions from the general public include “Pretty impressive,” said one person and another called it a “breathtakingly beautiful creation”. Read more controversy here.
Learning of the monuments existence by chance, JOHN CRAVEN, describes his Teardrop quest during his visit to New York.
On the trail of New York’s lost Teardrop: John Craven tracks down a forgotten monument to the 9/11 victims
Expression of grief: The huge bronze-clad monument was a gift from Russia to the US and is located on a remote stretch of waterfront with Manhattan as the backdrop: Credit : Daily Mail, UK.
About 50 million people visit New York every year and more than eight million live there but no one seems to have heard of The Teardrop…which is odd because it is a 100ft tall, 175-ton memorial to those who died on the city’s blackest day. Learning of its existence by chance, I tried to discover more from locals at Ground Zero, where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre stood until September 11, 2001, and was met with blank expressions.
The one person who did know was an official guide but he said: ‘I bet 99 per cent of New Yorkers haven’t a clue where it is.’
Our search began at the World Trade Centre station, where a train took us to Exchange Place in New Jersey. From then on, instructions were vague – we had to catch a light-railway tram for eight stops along the Jersey shoreline to 34th Street in Bayonne and ask around.
Eventually someone walked by and kindly offered to call a local taxi firm on his mobile. He’d never heard of The Teardrop but luckily the taxi driver had. He drove us two miles across a wasteland which was once an army base until we came to an isolated quay. And there, high on a mound, stood the monument – a massive bronze-clad block with a great gash down the middle into which is suspended a 40ft, four-ton shiny nickel teardrop.
In the far distance were the skyscrapers of Manhattan. Around the base of The Teardrop were the names of all those who died on 9/11 – including 26 Russians.
Touching: John Craven poses next to The Teardrop (left) in New York. The massive bronze-clad block features a great gash down the middle into which is suspended a 40ft, four-ton nickel teardrop Credit: Daily Mail, UK.
In fact the monument was a gift – an expression of grief – from the people of Russia to the US and officially named ‘To the struggle against world terrorism’.
Vladimir Putin was there when construction began and Bill Clinton attended the dedication ceremony in 2006.
Since then, it has been forgotten.
‘Nobody ever comes here,’ said the taxi driver. Indeed, we were the only visitors.
Surely it hadn’t been snubbed because it was from an old enemy?
I did some research and found that its designer, Zurab Tsereteli – one of Russia’s leading sculptors – went to Ground Zero after the attack. He was told boats and ferries had shuttled survivors across to New Jersey, where many of the victims had lived.
Learning that, he wanted his statue to be on the remote waterfront there with Manhattan as the backdrop. So the explanation for the anonymity of this most touching tribute is probably no more sinister than: out of sight, out of mind – and that needs remedying.
Tribute: The monument was designed by Zurab Tsereteli, one of Russia’s leading sculptors –Credit: Daily Mail, UK
My Teardrop quest happened during my first visit to the Big Apple since 9/11 and the city seemed a less aggressive place, though still full of new surprises. We walked through one of them, the High Line, which meanders for a mile on the West side. It was once an overhead freight line and now it’s full of flower beds and trees.
We stayed at the Soho Grand on West Broadway. It reflects the way the neighbourhood has been transformed from gritty industrial to tasteful, upmarket chic.
Our room had a splendid view across to the Empire State and my favourite skyscraper, the Chrysler Building. Until, that is, the last morning when it was blanked out by an unexpected blizzard.
That’s the thing about New York – it never lets you down with its surprises. The Teardrop was the major one this time.
As I stood next to this enigmatic landmark I was struck by the thought that when passengers sail into Manhattan the first monument they now pass is not the Statue of Liberty but The Teardrop. And none of them will know what it is for.
Tear Drop “A Gift From the People of Russia to the USA” –
Why weren’t we told about Tear Drop?
If Nazi Germany was a NWO prototype for future societies, Britain appears to have taken another step closer to reaching that goal.
It is now looking increasingly likely that Press TV has been banned from You Tube.
Press TV has already been illegally removed from European and American satellites amidst the usual Israeli claims of Anti-Semitism. The following is from Wikipedia:
In July 2013 Press TV and other Iranian channels have been removed from several European and American satellites (amongst others those of Eutelsat and Intelsat), allegedly because of the Iran sanctions, even though an EU spokesman told the channel that these sanctions do not apply to media.
Based on British Ofcom reports and US parliament documentations, The removal of Press TV from satellites was illegal and against the freedom of speech and there where no real legal issue against Press TV activities , But under the pressure of UK kingdom & government and american government capitalistic & imperialistic policies , Press TV was taken off from the satellites . Also the brutal impact of israel zyonist government on western government , directs their policies against religious movements and freedom , specially Islam which is the religious of peace and brotherhood and equality , which is exactly against western imperialistic policies.
No doubt the semi retarded UK population will view this move as favourable, having never watched or viewed Press TV in their life.
In reality you will find more truth in a single broadcast from Press TV than you would in a months worth of BBC broadcasts.
Google disables Press TV Youtube accountGoogle has prevented Press TV from accessing its Youtube page since Thursday, causing a large number of viewers and subscribers to contact the channel to find out what has happened.
“We have not been able to upload any new videos since early Thursday,” said Press TV newsroom director, Hamid Reza Emadi, adding that Google has disabled the channel’s account without giving any explanation.
“Viewers keep emailing Press TV asking why the page is not being updated,” he said.
Emadi said Press TV “has yet to find out whether its Youtube account was blocked on political grounds or there were technical issues that could be resolved and the channel could get back on Youtube very soon.”TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013 AT 1:04PM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon
The interventionist EU, that together with the USA inflicts terror on every piece of land rich with oil and other minerals, decided yesterday that a Lebanese resistance to occupation is terror. It designated the Shia movement as a terror organisation.
The Guardian, once a respected paper, was brave enough to tackle the issue; but rather than presenting a so-called humanist or intellectual and critical approach, it pretended to present an ‘impartial position’. Yesterday it published a debate between war criminal Tzipi Livni and Sami Ramadani.
One may wonder, why is Tzipi Livni, an Israeli politician, a side in this debate? Israel is not part of the EU. Israel is clearly the element that pushes for the EU to brand the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Yet, it is far from being clear why The Guardian asked Livini for her opinion in that particular debate? Maybe time is ripe for The Guardian to decide whether it is the guardian of the truth or the guardian of Israel,
However, at least psychoanalytically, Livni’s argument is fascinating. The Israeli warmonger exhibits what projection is all about.
Livni insists, for instance, that the organization “carries out terror attacks targeting innocent civilians.” But in fact it is Israel and the Government Livni was a member of that was doing exactly that at the time of 2nd Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead.
Livni also refers to democracy and to its values. “History has taught us how necessary it is to set limits and conditions for democratic participation”. But the truth of the matter is that it’s Israel that locks millions of Palestinians in open-air prisons and rid them of any civilian rights.
But Livni is correct when she concludes that “a firm distinction between legitimate political parties and terrorist organisations is crucial for the survival of freedom, democracy and moderation.” Accordingly, it is Israel that should be designated as a terrorist apparatus, once and for all. Israel terrorizes the entire region and continuously threatens world peace.
© Puppetworld Post (Link to this page or at least give the source)
Wikileaks’ leader Julian Assange accepts a CD from Rudolph Elmer which reveals tax evation by wealthy clients of Swiss Bank Julius Baer, a rival of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland.
Puppetworld Post Exclusive, last updated Jan 18 2011
After being made famous, Julian Assange’s first task is to wound a rival bank of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland. The rival is BankJulius Baer, the top Swiss bank for centuries: the competingRothschild Bank AG opened in Switzerland in 1968.
On January 17, 2011, Assange held a press conference at The Frontline Club where Rudolf Elmer, a former employee of Bank Julius Baer, gave Assange private files from the bank’s Cayman Islands’ operation. Elmer said he wanted to expose mass tax evasion before he flies back to Switzerland to stand trial for stealing information from a bank. Although Elmer has not named the tax evaders, he claims the CD files contain information about 40 politicians, many business people, multinational conglomerates and “people who have made their living in the arts.”
Rothschilds’ Swiss Bank Battles: Assange’s press conference was actually a public threat to Bank Julius Baer: Wikileaks first disclosed some of Elmer’s Julius-Baer material in 2008, naming ten clients. At the time, Julius Baer sued and got a court injunction to effectively shut down Wikileaks.org at its web host in California. Subsequently, the law firmFox Rothschild represented Wikileaks, got the injunction overturned, and got Wikileaks.org back on line. Immediately, WL commenced leaking more of Elmer’s documents, which was damaging to Bank Julius Baer.
Bank JB got a lot of negative publicity from its attempt to censor the Internet. When JB lost the suit, their super-elite clients became fearful of being exposed and prosecuted for tax evasion and money laundering. Julius Baer shares dropped 60% during the next ten months. On Dec. 4, 2008, the 52-year-old CEO of Julius Baer, Alex Widmer, was unexpectedly found dead.
“He was the most important person in private banking,” said a Zurich-based trader.
“This is a setback for the bank (Julius Baer),” a Swiss trading analyst said.
Reports of the cause of death were contradictory and vague and an autopsy was never released.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange filming a video for The Economist (a Rothschild publication) which gave him its New Media Award
Wikileaks’ many other links to Rothschilds
The recent imprisonment of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange strains credulity. His arrest by Interpol, his incarceration under draconian conditions for breaking a condom are in themselves highly unlikely events, but the timing of his imprisonment with the release of classified US cables and the campaign against Wikileaks’ funding and website host bear the trademarks of a covert operation.
The Puppetworld Post has uncovered many links between Wikileaks and the international Rothschild network:
–a sister-in-law and second cousin of the Rothschilds posted bail for Julian Assange (Puppetworld Post exclusive)
–The Economist (a Rothschild magazine) gave Assange its New Media Award in 2008
–Wikileaks used the law firm Fox Rothschild to overturn a judge’s ruling to order a web host to shut down the Wikileaks site
– The Guardian and The New York Times, two of Assange’s media partners, are linked to the Rothschilds (PwP exclusive)
–the owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds
–Assange’s lawyer is also Rothschilds’ lawyer
–US Senator Joe Lieberman who was ultimately responsible for making Assange the largest media personality of the decade, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations (a Rothschild organization)
[The Rothschilds are an international family of bankers at the centre of a web of wealthy families who control most the countries through a worldwide network of: privately-owned central banks (masquerading as federal banks), major news chains, trusts, councils, etcetera. An unnamed source has put their monetary worth near $100 trillion—dwarfing the net worth of the likes of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc.]
Zac Goldsmith (married to Kate Rothschild) winning the election with sister, Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith)(right), and mother, Annabel Goldsmith
Socialite, heiress Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) posted 20 000 pounds ($32 000) for the bail of Wikileaks’ leader Julian Assange. She’s genetically related to the Rothschilds and she is a sister-in-law (Daily Mail Online, 10 May 2010). Her father, the late James Goldsmith—British banker, publisher–is a cousin to the Rothschilds. James’ grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith. The Goldschmidts, like their neighbors and relatives the Rothschilds, had been prosperous merchant bankers in Frankfurt Germany since the 16th century (Wikipedia).
Following the Rothschild’s centuries-old edict to interbreed, Jemima Khan’s brother, Ben, wed Kate Rothschild in 2003 and recently her other brother, Zac, a new MP in British parliament had been having an affair with his brother’s sister-in-law, Alice Rothschild (Kate’s sister), up until he divorced his wife four days after he was elected MP. Zac and Alice are presently living together. Khan’s brothers are marrying into Rothschild wealth.
The Rothschilds began grooming Julian Assange in 2008, when Wikileaks was awarded The Economist’s New Media Award. The Economist is the voice of Britain’s establishment (led by the British Rothschilds) which has, for example, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a large shareholder interest in The Economist.
At first blush, it is incredulous that the The Economist, the pinnacle of the establishment, would give their award to Assange knowing full well that he was releasing classified government documents and being overly aware of the havoc this will create in the world. The Rothschilds’ oft- stated goal (over the centuries) is for a One World Government (i.e. The New World Order). To this end they engineer conflict between nations, to create crises that will then be utilized to increase the power of international entities – the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. For example, they (and other closely-related families like the Schiffs) financed the Bolsheviks. In the past, the Rothschild empire have profited by bankrolling both sides of war.
US senator Joe Lieberman is the Rothschild’s point man in America. During the last presidential election, he took his friend, Republican candidate John McCain to Jacob Rothschild’s house for a fund-raiser for McCain. Lieberman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (a Rothschild cabal which is essentially the shadow government of the US). Lieberman’s recent actions resulted in cutting off the money supply of Wikileaks: Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, stopped accepting donations for Wikileaks. Lieberman publicly took credit for censoring Wikileaks’ website by pressuring Amazon to stop hosting the website. The result was that Anonymous hactivists launched attacks on the websites of companies (above) which had discontinued service to Wikileaks. Lieberman’s campaign against Wikileaks had the effect of increasing the martyrdom and hence the popularity of Assange and Wikileaks. Lieberman made Assange a star, nearly becoming Time magazine’s Man of The Year.
Julian Assange’s lawyer is Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, a major London elite law firm. They are the legal adviser to the Rothschild’s prestigious Waddesdon Trust.
Assange’s main media partner is The Guardian. The Guardian has been infiltrated by Rothschilds. The Guardian is controlled by Guardian Media Group whose chairman is Paul Myners a past employee of N. M. Rothschild Limited & Sons Limited. Guardian Media Group is owned by Scott Trust which became a limited private company in 2008 with all trustees becoming directors of the Scott Trust. Anthony Salz was appointed as a trustee of Scott Trust in 2009: He is currently executive vice-chairman of the investment Bank Rothschild.
The Guardian gave the US cables to the current New York Times. The chairman of the NYT is Arthur Sulzberger Jr., a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation (in cahoots with Rothschilds for One World Government).
After a time in a real prison, Assange was “imprisoned” in a countryside mansion at the home of Vaughan Smith, the owner of Frontline Trust, a news organization that seeks to influence TV journalists. Frontline is funded by George Soros’ organization, Open Society Institute, and George Soros is intimately intertwined with the Rothschilds. George Soros has been a frequent business partner with James Goldsmith (father of Jemima Khan and cousin of the Rothschilds). The director of Soros’ Open Society Institute, Richard Katz was director of N M Rothschild & Sons for 16 years. Other board members like Nils Taube also hold positions in Rothschild banks, etcetera. On October 25 and July 27 this year, Assange was a speaker at Vaughan Smith’s Frontline Trust.
Most people seem to believe that current events just happen, that events in the news are chain reactions of accidents, and that people with money and power sit idly by, watching events unfold. However, The Rothschilds thrive on manipulating the markets by having insider information while propagating contrary misinformation. In this way, they make huge profits. Assange has already said that damaging information on one US bank will be released. In this fragile recovery, the crisis could be pivotal. The Guardian and the New York Times have this information so it is available to Rothschilds in order to “short” the bank before the information is released. Wikileaks is an invaluable tool for the Rothschilds to manipulate the financial markets, the whole monetary system, the future of nations, and the public.
The information (or misinformation) from Wikileaks also serves the Rothschild’s aim to increase conflict among nations in order to further their goal of One World Government.21st Century Wire says…Yesterday the world made some sense, but then you wake up today and realise how far-reaching the international white collar mafia truly is…
International financial ratings agency Moody’s is not known for being a political enforcement arm of Washington DC… until now that is.In a move which sets a dangerous precedent of politicizing the world’s markets, Moody’s just made an aggressive move towards global financial warfare between Washington and China, and perhaps the rest of the world as well – by downgrading 9 major Hong Kong banks today.That will wipe a lot off money off a lot of wealthy investors’ balance sheets.So Hong Kong authorities would not to honor U.S. requests to arrest the fugitive Snowden, and then this happens.Just a coincidence? Hardly. Ratings agents appear to have gotten the call from upstairs. This, it seems, is Washington’s last desperate effort to flush out its latest public relations nemesis – the 29 year old NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden.Hong Kong’s economy is booming at present and its banks remain among the highest-rated banks globally, backed by solid levels of capitalization. Hong Kong’s financial wealth is historically linked to Great Britain, so this latest spat reinforces the narrative that the British-hatched Snowden crisis could be a behind the scenes battle between elites in the UK who want intervention in Syria and those in the US who don’t.
IMAGE: Snowden’s limited hangout in Hong Kong has come at a price to investors there.The Snowden affair is being used to set a whole new raft of measures not seen before – which makes us us all the suspicious about the timing and the nature of of this latest international whistleblower – who, like Bradley Manning, hasn’t leaked anything that we didn’t already know.Many already know that Moody’s and the rating gangs are corrupt and work hand in hand – as they did in the subprime mortgage theft, with their partners in crime at the major banks. What happens when international finance goes fully political? History tells us that a world war beckons.Regardless, it’s just another reason for the rest of the world to lose faith in the a highly rigged global financial system run out of New York and London…
Rating Action: Moody’s takes rating actions on nine Hong Kong banks.
Global Credit Research – 24 Jun 2013
Hong Kong, June 24, 2013 – Moody’s Investors Service has changed the outlooks for the bank financial strength ratings (BFSRs)/Baseline Credit Assessments (BCAs) of eight Hong Kong banks to negative from stable, and one bank’s BFSR outlook to stable from positive.
In addition, Moody’s has lowered Wing Lung Bank’s BFSR by one notch, and affirmed all other ratings of the nine banks.
Moody’s has affirmed the deposit ratings of all the nine banks involved in this rating action. However, it has changed the outlooks on the deposit ratings for five of the nine banks concerned to negative from stable, while those for the other four banks are unchanged at stable. Please click here for a list of the affected credit ratings. http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBC_155742. This list is an integral part of this press release and identifies each affected issuer.
The rating actions follow Moody’s decision to revise the outlook for Hong Kong’s banking system to negative from stable.
The change in the banking system outlook reflects the agency’s concerns regarding persistent negative real interest rates and potential property bubbles in Hong Kong, as well as Hong Kong banks’ growing exposures to Mainland China. These factors could result in adverse operating conditions for Hong Kong banks over the outlook horizon…Henry Kissinger actually publicly stated that those who oppose the New World Order are “terrorists”.
Henry Kissinger in a speech given in Istanbul, Turkey on May 31, 2007, while the Bilderberg conference was simultaneously underway, just a few miles down the road.
“In the Middle East, we live in a different world. The nations do not represent historic entities in the same sense that European nations did. Turkey of course does, and Iran in a considerable extent does. But in the region in between, the borders were drawn by the victors of World War I on the basis largely of what would facilitate their influence. So therefore, the identities of these countries, and of their borders, can be challenged more easily.”
“What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system, and they’re trying to regroup it to a radical Islamic fundamentalists kind.”
Senior figures unwilling to accept suicide verdict delivered after death of man who hunted WMDs for Blair governmentDr David Kelly during questioning by a Commons select committee in 2003. Photograph: PA
It was a case of the political becoming personal, only so overwhelmingly, that it crushed a man. A decade ago on Wednesday, just after 3.20pm, Dr David Kelly began a walk from his Oxfordshire home that ended the next morning with the discovery of his body, slumped in a wood.
The Kelly family lost a loved one and a chain of events was set off that damaged trust in the Blair government and decapitated the leadership of the BBC.
Kelly was the distinguished government scientist who hunted down weapons of mass destruction of the kind used by the Blair government to justify the 2003 war with Iraq. The problem was the Saddam Hussein regime did not have them.
A BBC Today programme report claimed the government had embellished or “sexed up” the intelligence it presented to the public in 2003 to justify the war.
A furore erupted between the government, led by chief spin doctorAlastair Campbell, and the BBC, which refused to back down, having failed to spot the flaws in its reporting.
Kelly was outed as the BBC’s source, felt publicly humiliated and was reprimanded by his bosses. A proud man felt let down by them, and that his reputation built up over a lifetime was being irreparably tarnished.
In the days before that final walk Kelly’s family said they had never seen him so low. As news of his death spread, the normally self-assured Blair seemed stunned when a reporter cried: “Do you have blood on your hands?”
Kelly’s death led not to an inquest, but a public inquiry by Lord Hutton, which brought a rare glimpse into the secret worlds of Whitehall, British intelligence, the low arts of high politics, and the workings of the BBC.
Its conclusion largely absolved the government of blame, and surprised observers.
Its criticism of the BBC led to the demise at the corporation of then chairman Gavyn Davies, correspondent Andrew Gilligan and director general Greg Dyke, who on Tuesday said history has proven the broadcaster was right: “Ten years on, it is very difficult to find anyone who believes they did not ‘sex up’ that document.”
Debate still surrounds Hutton’s conclusion that Kelly committed suicide. The inquiry found that Kelly died after cutting an artery, had taken an overdose of painkillers and had heart disease which left his arteries “significantly narrowed”. Thus, said experts, less blood loss may have killed the scientist than that needed to kill a healthy man.
Among those who have called for an inquest or have doubts it was a suicide are former Tory leader Michael Howard, and Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker, who wrote a book saying Kelly was most likely murdered.
A group of doctors say Hutton’s findings should be discarded and a new inquest held. Dr Stephen Frost said: “We have lots of evidence … No coroner in the land would reach a verdict of suicide as Lord Hutton did.”
Experts in forensic pathology point out the sceptics may be expert in their own fields, but not in the science of establishing the cause of death.
Hutton has kept silent since his report, breaking it only to write a letter denouncing the conspiracy theorists. Hutton’s conclusion is supported by the available facts and experts: “At no time … was there any suggestion from any counsel for the interested parties or in any of the extensive media coverage that any of the police officers engaged in investigating Dr Kelly’s death or any of the medical or scientific witnesses was involved in any sort of cover-up or plot to make a murder appear like a suicide.”
Dyke claimed that: “Some of Dr Kelly’s wider family don’t believe it’s suicide.”
But the Conservative-led government has said the evidence for suicide is so compelling there is no need for a fresh hearing.
Ben Page, chief executive of pollsters Ipsos Mori said the row over the 2003 Iraq war was part of a continued lack of trust in government and politicians: “It was part of the continuum of declining trust.”
“It is clear that Dr Kelly and anger over the reason Britain joined in with the Iraq war are intertwined.”
Later this year the Chilcot report is expected, but for ex-BBC boss Dyke, a one-time supporter of Tony Blair, the verdict is in: “History tells us Blair was destroyed by Iraq. Blair will be only remembered for that, just as Sir Anthony Eden will be remembered for Suez.”
July 19, 2013
It’s another example of why you should never trust the government.
Back in April federal officialdom told us Boston bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev was shot in the throat and unable to talk. MassachusettsGov. Deval Patrick was trotted out to confirm this fantasy story. He said Tsarnaev was in “serious but stable condition” and “not yet able to communicate yet.”
Then we were fed a more theatric version where the young Tsarnaev attempted to take his own life when he was supposedly trapped in a boat. “It is thought the teenager placed a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger in a desperate bid to avoid capture and a possible death penalty,” claimed the British version of the National Enquirer, The Mirror. “Reports say the bullet passed through his throat, just missing his spinal cord, and came out the back of his neck.”
Photo: Massachusetts State Police
This Hollywoodesque version dovetailed nicely with the story that the evil Brothers Tsarnaev were in a running gun battle with the cops, flinging home-made pressure cooker bombs at their brave pursuers as the pair attempted to escape the long arm of the law.
Then we were told Dzhokar was being treated by Israeli doctors who “have abundant past experience treating victims of terror… because they’re from Israel.”
“Tsarnaev is in stable condition but that because of wounds to his throat, he may never be able to speak again,” The Blaze reported, feeding the fantasy.
In May, the story changed. It was said Tsarnaev didn’t have a bullet wound in his throat, but was cut by a knife. “I did see a throat injury. To me it looked more like a knife wound,” said Officer Jeff Campbell of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Transit Police SWAT Unit. “It wasn’t a puncture hole. It was a slice where it was spread open, possibly a piece of shrapnel from one of the explosives that they were using the night before. It didn’t look like a bullet wound to me. It looked like a cut of some kind.” Campbell was supposedly part of the team that apprehended Tsarnaev, so if anybody knew about his wounds, it would be Campbell and his fellow SWAT officers.
CNN later edited out the comment about the throat wound made by Campbell.
Now we have a photo of Tsarnaev allegedly surrendering. It was taken by a Massachusetts State Police photographer. CBS Boston reported on Thursday the photographer, Sgt. Sean Murphy, gave the photos to the Boston Magazine because he was upset by the Rolling Stone’s recent “glamorized” cover photo of the suspected terrorist. Murphy is under investigation for releasing photos to the magazine.
Note the absence of a throat wound in the photo.
The photos underscore the fact the government lied about Tsarnaev’s throat wound, as the photo clearly shows. Is there anything else the government is lying about? Is it possible the entire event is a government contrived fiction?
Now it’s time for somebody to release the video frame capture of the Brothers Tsarnaev dropping their bomb-laden backpacks, photos were are assured exist but were never released. Is it possible this is a lie as well?
The mystery of ” God’s banker” Roberto Calvi who was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge has never been fully solved.
Calvi, dubbed “God’s banker” because of his work with the Vatican, was found hanging from scaffolding beneath Blackfriars bridge in London on 18 June 1982. Bricks had been stuffed in his pockets and he had more than £10,000 in cash on him. In the months before his death he had been accused of stealing millions being laundered on behalf of the mafia.
His death was originally ruled a suicide but later judged to be murder.
According to the Guardian, his son Carlo has dedicated his life to uncovering what really happened to his father:
” The murdered man’s 37-year-old son had just two questions:
‘Tell me what you can do and how much will it cost?’
It was the autumn of 1991 and New York investigator Jeff Katz had flown to the US city to meet the dead man’s son, Carlo Calvi.
It turned out that Katz could do quite a lot.
Roberto Calvi, known as God’s banker because of his close ties to the Vatican, was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge, central London, with a length of orange rope woven into a lover’s knot around his neck. He was weighed down by bricks and found with £15,000 in cash in his pockets.
Calvi’s death, in June 1982, was the moment the Italian underworld went overground in London. ‘If you’re going to take this case on it’ll be like dancing in the mouth of wolves,’ a secret service agent told Katz in Rome.
Katz was bitten. ‘
It was a fascinating case,’ he said in London last week. ‘It involved the mafia, the Vatican, P2 [a powerful masonic group]. It had 90 per cent of my time for two years so I was really stuck into it.
‘ The painstaking work, carried out by the New York investigator and 30 others in the early 1990s, is now leading tantalisingly closer to the arrest of key figures in Britain and the recovery of tens of millions of pounds in what was one of the 20th century’s most intriguing murders and financial scandals.
The affair saw Italy’s biggest private bank collapse with debts of $1.4 billion in 1982.
The City of London police working on the case today describe a mosaic of vicious mafia dons, and assets traced all over the world.
But it seems there are plenty of people who still do not want the secrets which supposedly died with Calvi 21 years ago to come to light.
The Italian detective leading the investigation, Luca Tescaroli, recently received a hand-delivered letter containing black powder and two 12-volt batteries with a note saying: ‘This is an ultimatum. Stop.’
But it is too late now.
Evidence has come to light which is leading the investigation to four UK suspects who helped bring about Calvi’s downfall. Three months after Calvi’s death, a small-time drug dealer, Sergio Vaccari, was stabbed in the face, neck and chest more than 15 times. At the time the City of London police saw no link with Calvi.
But Vaccari had possession of masonic papers. And Katz tracked down Vaccari’s former landlord, who, he learned, had demanded that his tenant left his flat. Vaccari agreed on condition that the landlord found him another home. The landlord presented two options, one of which Vaccari picked.
A while later Vaccari wanted details from the landlord of the other place; that flat was in Chelsea Cloisters, the place Calvi stayed in just before he died.
‘From there we began to make other linkages between Vaccari and the Calvi entourage,’ said Katz.
The new City of London investigation, led by Detective Superintendent Trevor Smith, drew on a detailed reconstruction of the last hours of Calvi’s life. The reconstruction, devised by Katz and a forensic expert, Angela Gallop, established conclusively that Calvi was murdered.
The scaffolding that Calvi was hung from, was assembled again, and a man of Calvis’s height and weight climbed along it. Pressure from such weight would have left rust on Calvi’s shoes, but forensic research found no rust stuck to his footwear.
It was decided that Calvi could not have committed suicide, as was first suggested by the City of London police after an investigation that lasted no more than a week. It has long been suggested that it was a masonic influence that led the City police to issue this conclusion, a claim denied by the police.
For Carlo it was not just a case of proving that his father was murdered. A suicide verdict would have meant that the son could not have got access to the $10m life insurance payout.
A second inquest produced an open verdict, which still did not satisfy the insurers. When subsequent forensic work did satisfy them that Calvi had not died by his own hand, his bank’s creditors – owed $1.4bn – were waiting.
Touche Ross, the liquidator, took a significant slice.
Calvi was a haunted man as he entered his final days. As chairman of Banco Ambrosiano, he was in charge of an organisation that laundered money made largely from the heroin trade for the mafia.
He knew the dark financial secrets of the Vatican.
Letters of comfort to offshore companies which he created were signed by Archbishop Marcinkus, a Chicago-born prelate and key Vatican insider who has never faced an interview or charges.
But more ominously Calvi had intimate knowledge of regular payments made by large Italian companies to political parties.
He should have known: the payments went through his bank.
Calvi was on the point of going to prison for violating exchange controls. It was Michele Sindona, once Calvi’s mentor, who ratted on him. Calvi had one chance to avert humiliation. Tell the world what he knew. It was this which led to his death, Katz believes.
‘There was a point at which he threatened that if the Vatican and other people who he had been working with did not get him off the hook for the four years in jail for currency exchange violations, he was going to talk,’ Katz argues. ‘It would have landed the heads of all the major corporations in jail and it would have ended up probably with the indictment of political leaders.’
No mafia killing in London could happen unless it were ordered by Francesco di Carlo. He was one of the first of the Cosa Nostra to realise the need to ‘clean’ criminal profits through the financial system.
Now serving 25 years for heroin trafficking, in 1967 he had met Queen Elizabeth in Italy.
For many years it was assumed that the Calvi mystery would fade into the mists of time. But the City of London police have now established a link between di Carlo and Sergio Vaccari.
And the mists are clearing.”
It was one of the biggest and most intriguing financial scandals of the last century.
Weeks after Roberto Calvi’s murder in June 1982, the Italian bank he chaired, Banco Ambrosiano, went under with a then staggering $1.4 billion debt.
Mafia, Freemasons and the Vatican are implicated in a tale of drug trafficking, money laundering and tortuous financing spanning the world.
Many believe the death of Pope John Paul I in 1978, just 33 days after his election, happened because he wanted to break the murky links between what was then Italy’s largest private bank and the Vatican.
The scandal touched financial institutions around the world and the Italian political elite.
Calvi’s bank built its empire in close association with the Vatican bank, the Institute for Religious Works.
This was headed by Archbishop Paul Marcinkus from Chicago.
While the Vatican never accepted culpability in the collapse of Ambrosiano, it stumped up $250m to creditors.
Some believe Marcinkus may yet face trial now a court case in Italy is progressing.
One of the most influential figures in the Calvi story was Licio Gelli, now 84.
He was Grand Master of the P2 masonic lodge of which Silvio Berlusconi was once a member. Gelli was sentenced to 12 years for fraud in connection with the collapse of Calvi’s bank and is under house arrest.
Calvi’s mentor Michele Sindona was friends with former US President Richard Nixon.
Sindona died in prison in 1986 poisoned by coffee laced with cyanide.
In April 2006, a remarkable letter came to light.
The typewritten note was sent to Pope John Paul II by Calvi just days before he was found hanged.
The letter was written on June 5, 1982.
“Holiness, a possible collapse of the Ambrosiano Bank would provoke a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions in which the Church will suffer the gravest damage.
It must be avoided at all costs.
“It was me, following the mandate of your authoritative representatives, who arranged significant financing of several countries and politico-religious associations in the East and the West.
It was me, in agreement with Vatican authorities, who coordinated across the whole of South America the establishment of numerous banking entities, mainly aimed at countering the penetration and expansion of neo-Marxist ideologies.
“It was me, finally, who is betrayed today by the very same authority for which I have always shown the utmost respect and obedience.”
The letter bore Calvi’s signature.
Google images Michael Hastings, author of “The Operators,” dead at 33.
Hastings’ death in fiery car crash is just the latest in a growing list of dead investigative journos
By Andrew W. Griffin
Red Dirt Report, editor
Posted: June 19, 2013
OKLAHOMA CITY – Talk to any journalist, particularly after they’ve had a few drinks at the bar, and ask them if they are ever nervous or concerned when going up against great power. At first they will probably say “nah, I’m a reporter. I’m just doing my job and they know that.” But if you really press them on the topic – particularly after that third or fourth drink – and they will begin to admit that, yeah, taking on the powerful is a bit stressful and, perhaps, dangerous.
But most of news people know that, inevitably and given the appropriate beat, that we will end up writing stories that call for us to expose the powerful. That’s particularly true, of course, for investigative reporters.
And then think of the investigative reporters that you know who did cross the rich and powerful and ended up dead. Disappeared. Suicided. Murdered. Medical examiners get paid off or told to keep quiet. It happens all the time.
And of course the story is that they were depressed because their work wasn’t being taken seriously or they had some medical issue that was preventing them from doing their best work. Cover stories like that are thrown out there repeatedly.
Best known for dying under suspicious circumstances is former San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb, he of the explosive “Dark Alliance” series (and book) and a guy of such superhuman strength that he was able to shoot himself TWICE in the head in December 2004. Now that’s something.
Webb showed how CIA-backed Nicaraguan Contras smuggled cocaine into the U.S., funneling it into the inner city of Los Angeles as crack cocaine. Webb said the Reagan administration allowed this to happen so as to fund the Contras in their battle against the leftist Sandinistas.
Webb, we now know, will be the subject of an upcoming Focus Features film titled Killing the Messenger starring Jeremy Renner as Webb. We just hope they get it right.
And back in ’91 – again in a motel room – this time in Martinsburg, West Virginia, investigative reporter Danny Casolaro was found dead – of self-inflicted wounds, of course. Suicided. Casolaro was looking into a vast, criminal conspiracy he called “The Octopus.” Seems as though Casolaro may have gone too far.
We hear there will be a film made next year based on the play Danny Casolaro Died For You. Again, we hope they get it right.
Remember J.H. Hatfield dying alone in that motel room in Springdale, Arkansas in 2001? Hatfield, as troubled as he was, exposed George W. Bush’s drug-addled past in Fortunate Son. As Hatfield says in the Horns and Halos documentary, “If anything happens to me, get it out to the press.”
And what of Hunter S. Thompson? The iconic Rolling Stone gonzo journalist who hated Nixon? He reportedly committed suicide back in 2005. But two years earlier, on the verge of the Iraq War, Thompson – a virulent critic of George W. Bush – made cryptic statements about his head getting cut off for refusing to shut up about various topics, particularly those related to his criticism of Bush.
Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart also was murdered, we are convinced. As we wrote in March 2012, as soon as we learned of his passing, Breitbart was on the verge of releasing “explosive tapes featuring Obama.”
And while Breitbart’s current team at Breitbart.com doesn’t talk about it, at a recent blog convention in Dallas RDR attended, there was mention of Breitbart’s murder several times during the weekend. People know.
And now we have Michael Hastings, dead at 33. A “fiery car crash” we are told. The car “jackknifed.” Not sure how that happens. (Oh and it just so happens that Hastings’ car crash occurred the same day a story is released saying that “cyber-terrorists and hackers” can break into your vehicles’ electronics and take over, even while you are driving).
Yeah, it was Hastings’ terrific article on the real Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone in 2010 called “The Runaway General” that got a lot of people’s attention. The Operators went even further, giving readers an intimate look into how the military’s upper echelon really think. Ultimately, a disgraced McChrystal opted for “early retirement” due to Hastings’ work reporting on McChrystal’s activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Now, while we are awaiting the official “accident report,” I should note that in my March 2012 review of The Operators last year, I noted a particularly sinister exchange between Hastings and staffers of Gen. McChrystal.
From The Operators, Hastings writes that as they drank and sang, several McChrystal staff members make subtle threats, saying:
“You’re not going to f*ck us, are you?” asks one staff member.
Hastings responds: “I’m going to write a story; some of the stuff you’ll like, some of the stuff you probably won’t like.”
Another staffer then says: “We’ll hunt you down and kill you if we don’t like what you write.”
Not exactly subtle, in retrospect. Perhaps they followed through with their threat?
One has to imagine that Hastings was looking over his shoulder in the wake of “The Runaway General” piece and The Operators. I saw him on a cable-news program not too many months ago and he comes across as serious and professional.
And now we hear that Hastings’ car “crossed the median, slammed into a tree and bust into flames.” Hastings was found dead at the scene, a’la whistleblower Karen Silkwood in 1974, here in Oklahoma. Will we get the truth of how Hastings’ car went out of control? Granted, a lot of investigative journalists are known to love “living on the edge.”
And while journalism is viewed as one of the worst professions in America, journalists are desperately needed to keep the powerful honest. They need to be the watchdogs. We are so sorry to hear about the death of Michael Hastings. He was a brave and honest reporter.A crowd with posters denouncing “internet censorship” gathered on Saturday in Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park to demand the withdrawal of the policy. The peaceful demonstration in the Southeast Asian city-state was organized by a group of bloggers called “Free My Internet.”The message of the gathering – “the government must trust us, and stop treating us like babies,” said Choo Zheng Xi, the group’s spokesperson. “It is an international embarrassment when governments around the world are working to deregulate the Internet, and Singapore, one of the wealthiest nations per capita, is going in the opposite direction,” the activist told AFP.Under the rules that came into force in June, news websites must obtain annual licenses if they have over 50,000 unique visitors from Singapore every month and publish at least one weekly article on the island’s news over a period of two months.To get the license, they must pay about $39,500. Also, licensed sources will be subjected to government control and will have to remove banned content – such as articles that undermine “racial or religious harmony” – within 24 hours after they get a notification from Singapore’s media regulator.The new regulations have sparked fierce criticism among the city-state’s internet community who accused the government of attempts to introduce online media censorship. Authorities, in response, assured web-users that their personal blogs and many news commentary website will not be affected.According to Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, the websites that are required to get licenses will “have to conform to certain minimum standards as far as we are concerned, and we think it’s not as onerous as what’s been made up by some people online,” he said earlier this week, as cited by AP.The new regulation affects ten websites so far, including Yahoo! News in Singapore.A day earlier, some 162 websites blacked out their content in protest against the licensing rules, Asia One reported. Most of the sites replaced their homepages with a “Free My Internet” message on black screen and information on the Saturday rally.Human Rights Watch also criticized the move in a statement on Friday, saying that the Singapore licensing policy “casts a chill over the city-state’s robust and free-wheeling online communities,” and will limit Singaporeans’ access to independent media.“Singapore is placing its status as a world-class financial center at clear risk by extending its record of draconian media censorship to the digital world,” said Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher at Human Rights Watch, as quoted by Reuters.Margaret Doughty, a 64-year old woman from the UK who has spent the past 30+ years in the U.S., is in the process of applying for United States Citizenship and happens to be an atheist. She is currently a permanent resident running non-profit adult literacy organizations, doing her part to enrich the lives of American citizens. In the process of applying for citizenship, all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America. Ms. Doughty responded,“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms…my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God…I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”Despite being an atheist, Ms. Doughty was told that any conscientious objection must be based on religious grounds, not simply moral objections. So as someone who was not religious, and didn’t believe in a god, she had no basis for objecting. Her statement has been denied and she has been informed that to move forward in the process she must submit a letter from the elders of her church to prove her conscientious objections are religiously based.The USCIS has told her,“Please submit a letter on official church stationery, attesting to the fact that you are a member in good standing and the church’s official position on the bearing of arms.”She has been given until June 21st to show that her objection is religiously-based, or her application will be denied.This is not the first time a non-religious person has raised a conscientious objection to joining the armed forces. In fact, related issues have gone to the Supreme Court and have been ruled in favor of the non-religious objector. In Welsh v. United States, Elliott Ashton Welsh refused to take up arms on a moral objection rather than a religious one. However, under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, one could only object to joining the armed forces based on a religious conviction involving a Supreme Being. The Court agreed that Welsh could be considered a conscientious objector based on his personal moral grounds, and that the exemption being purely religious was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.It appears that Margaret Doughty is facing a very similar First Amendment violation. As a conscientious objector to war, she is basing her position on her personal ethical code rather than a religious one. The response from the INS suggesting her claim must be based on religion is the same sort of First Amendment violation we saw in Welsh v. US.Please join us in spreading the word about this case so that we can fight discrimination against non-believers. Coincidentally, Ms. Doughty’s stepson is Chris Johnson, a New York based photographer. He’s working on a book called A Better Life, which aims to shine a positive light on atheists by featuring 100 nonbelievers who found joy and meaning in their lives without god.
The senior lawyer appointed by the Prime Minister to investigate the GCSB wrote a report which was more detailed and highly classified than the one released.
The existence of the highly classified version of the report was revealed by Air Marshal Sir Bruce Ferguson, who was a former director of the GCSB and consulted on a draft of the report. He said the report released was “a sanitised version”.
“The draft I read wasn’t just sensitive. It was more than that.”
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman expressed surprise over the existence of a more highly classified version of the report. “If it’s true they sanitised the report before releasing it, it means there’s another version somewhere. It means they have not been completely straight with us.”
Sir Bruce said he had been asked to read the first draft of the report before being interviewed by its author, Rebecca Kitteridge, the Cabinet secretary seconded by John Key to carry out the inquiry. He said he read the report at the GCSB where his cellphone was removed before entering the building.
“I sat in [a] room with a guard closely monitoring, making sure I didn’t take photographs, didn’t take notes.”
He was not shown any appendices, which were never released because of their security classification, and sections of the draft were obscured so he could not read them. He said he read the version released publicly and “there was lots missing”.
A spokesman for the GCSB said the production of the final report saw it prepared for public release with classified information moved into the appendices. A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the only copy Mr Key ever received was released in full with classified appendices withheld.
Anything we can do, they can do bigger.
New Zealand’s scandal around the mysterious leak of confidential spy papers was made to look all rather feeble by the Americans over the weekend, as the Guardian revealed slides from a secret presentation that illustrated the massive scale of surveillance undertaken by the National Security Agency, and boasted of direct access to the servers of the biggest internet players – Google, Facebook, Yahoo and more.
While the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden was holed up in a Hong Kong hotel, our own (presumed) leaker, Peter Dunne, went into exile in Johnsonville.
But for all that, the news about America’s Prism and related programmes, and its extensive, indiscriminate scraping of citizens’ phone records, directly informs our understanding of New Zealand’s surveillance operations – and the way they’re being changed in two new bills before Parliament that reconfigure the remit of the beleaguered Government Communications Security Bureau and the rules that enable snooping on New Zealand communications information.
These are not legislative tweaks. According to civil liberties advocate Thomas Beagle, the New Zealand changes could even equip our agencies with powers that outstrip those in America, giving the GCSB “practically unlimited capacity to intercept New Zealand communications”.
With legislators in the US objecting that when they voted in favour of the Patriot Act they did not intend to sanction the style and scale of spying that has this week been revealed, it is no time for New Zealand to rush through new laws that could enable a similar mission creep.
With sales of George Orwell’s great warning 1984 – published 64 years ago this week – soaring in the days since the first Prism headlines, only those with both empty brain and empty life could continue to peddle straight-faced the “nothing to fear, nothing to hide” mantra. To quote one of our own age’s great thinkers, Stephen Colbert: “If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide from the giant surveillance apparatus the Government’s been hiding.”
Nor is there anything innocuous about the collection of metadata, the record of individuals’ activity on the phone and online, minus the content of messages. The NSA is drift-netting this information indiscriminately and without a warrant, and the New Zealand’s GCSB and Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security bills make it much easier to do so here.
It isn’t just as an instructive example that US events should alarm us. Under the Echelon (“Five Eyes”) agreement, New Zealand’s spy agencies routinely share information with the NSA. It is inconceivable that such sharing does not include Prism. John Key has not denied that it does. Indeed, the carefully crafted prime ministerial response to any question on New Zealand agencies, the NSA and Prism has been repeated so often this week it’s become an earworm. What-I-can-tell-you-is-we-don’t-ask-foreign-intelligence-agencies-to-act-in-any-way-that-circumvents-the-law. That’s all you’re getting. Everything else, apparently, is an “operational matter”.
Yesterday’s decision to extend submissions on the GCSB bill by a week to next Friday is a step in the right direction, but fails to meet the request by internet NZ and the Telecommunications Users Association of NZ for at least a fortnight’s grace, in light of the NSA revelations. When Rebecca Kitteridge in her now famous report called for “a public discussion about the powers and functions of GCSB”, it’s a fair bet she wasn’t envisaging a truncated submissions process.
But even that seems insufficient. With every disclosure, the need for a broad-ranging, non-partisan inquiry of New Zealand’s spy agencies and operations becomes plainer.
Changes in the way humans communicate and the techniques for snooping on those communications have left the law seriously out of synch. The right and sensible approach is to start from the ground up, and ask some rudimentary questions. Beginning with the biggie: how much of privacy and liberty are we willing to compromise in the cause of security? Are the safeguards and oversight sufficiently robust? This stuff is central to any durable social contract between the state and its citizens, at the heart of public trust in government.
Along the way, a host of other important questions will crop up, not least: are we happy with the privatisation of surveillance tasks “digital Blackwater”, in the words of one former NSA director – as is now commonplace in the US and may be under way in New Zealand in the example of Palantir?
Conducted as openly as possible, a happy byproduct of a wide-ranging inquiry would be a big boost to New Zealand’s global reputation for transparency and good government.
Whistleblower or not, Peter Dunne remains an important player in all this. As a servant of common sense, he could use his pivotal vote to forestall the passage of these new laws in the absence of a proper public conversation. In so doing, he’d achieve not just an honourable redemption, he’d be a kind of hero.
His first inkling that something was amiss came in summer 2002 when he opened the door to admit a visitor from the National Security Agency to an office of AT&T in San Francisco.
“What the heck is the NSA doing here?” Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, said he asked himself.
A year or so later, he stumbled upon documents that, he said, nearly caused him to fall out of his chair. The documents, he said, show that the NSA gained access to massive amounts of e-mail and search and other Internet records of more than a dozen global and regional telecommunications providers. AT&T allowed the agency to hook into its network at a facility in San Francisco and, according to Klein, many of the other telecom companies probably knew nothing about it.
Klein is in Washington this week to share his story in the hope that it will persuade lawmakers not to grant legal immunity to telecommunications firms that helped the government in its anti-terrorism efforts.
The plain-spoken, bespectacled Klein, 62, said he may be the only person in the country in a position to discuss firsthand knowledge of an important aspect of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance program. He is retired, so he isn’t worried about losing his job. He did not have security clearance, and the documents in his possession were not classified, he said. He has no qualms about “turning in,” as he put it, the company where he worked for 22 years until he retired in 2004.
“If they’ve done something massively illegal and unconstitutional — well, they should suffer the consequences,” Klein said. “It’s not my place to feel bad for them. They made their bed, they have to lie in it. The ones who did [anything wrong], you can be sure, are high up in the company. Not the average Joes, who I enjoyed working with.”
In an interview yesterday, he alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T. Contrary to the government’s depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content.
He said the NSA built a special room to receive data streamed through an AT&T Internet room containing “peering links,” or major connections to other telecom providers. The largest of the links delivered 2.5 gigabits of data — the equivalent of one-quarter of the Encyclopedia Britannica’s text — per second, said Klein, whose documents and eyewitness account form the basis of one of the first lawsuits filed against the telecom giants after the government’s warrantless-surveillance program was reported in the New York Times in December 2005.
Claudia Jones, an AT&T spokeswoman, said she had no comment on Klein’s allegations. “AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers’ privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security,” she said.
The NSA and the White House also declined comment on Klein’s allegations.
Klein is urging Congress not to block Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action suit pending in federal court in San Francisco, as well as 37 other lawsuits charging carriers with illegally collaborating with the NSA. He was accompanied yesterday by lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed Hepting v. AT&T in 2006. Together, they are urging key U.S. senators to oppose a pending White House-endorsed immunity provision that would effectively wipe out the lawsuits. The Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the measure Thursday.
In summer 2002, Klein was working in an office responsible for Internet equipment when an NSA representative arrived to interview a management-level technician for a special job whose details were secret.
“That’s when my antennas started to go up,” he said. He knew that the NSA was supposed to work on overseas signals intelligence.
The job entailed building a “secret room” in an AT&T office 10 blocks away, he said. By coincidence, in October 2003, Klein was transferred to that office and assigned to the Internet room. He asked a technician there about the secret room on the 6th floor, and the technician told him it was connected to the Internet room a floor above. The technician, who was about to retire, handed him some wiring diagrams.
“That was my ‘aha!’ moment,” Klein said. “They’re sending the entire Internet to the secret room.”
The diagram showed splitters, glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One fed into the secret room, the other proceeded to its destination, he said.
“This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style,” he said. “The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T’s customers but everybody’s.”
One of Klein’s documents listed links to 16 entities, including Global Crossing, a large provider of voice and data services in the United States and abroad; UUNet, a large Internet provider in Northern Virginia now owned by Verizon; Level 3 Communications, which provides local, long-distance and data transmission in the United States and overseas; and more familiar names such as Sprint and Qwest. It also included data exchanges MAE-West and PAIX, or Palo Alto Internet Exchange, facilities where telecom carriers hand off Internet traffic to each other.
“I flipped out,” he said. “They’re copying the whole Internet. There’s no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything.”
Qwest has not been sued because of media reports last year that said the company declined to participate in an NSA program to build a database of domestic phone-call records out of concern about its legality. What the documents show, Klein contends, is that the NSA apparently was collecting several carriers’ communications, probably without their consent.
Another document showed that the NSA installed in the room a semantic traffic analyzer made by Narus, which Klein said indicated that the NSA was doing content analysis.
Steve Bannerman, Narus’s marketing vice president, said in an interview that the NarusInsight system is “the world’s most powerful Internet traffic processing engine.” He said it is used to detect worms, as well as to capture information to help authorities stop criminal activity. He said it can track a communication’s origin and destination, as well as its content. He declined to comment on AT&T’s use of the system.
Klein said he decided to go public after President Bush defended the NSA’s surveillance program as limited to collecting phone calls between suspected terrorists overseas and people in the United States. Klein said the documents show that the scope was much broader.
Klein was last in Washington in 1969, to take part in an antiwar protest. Now, he said with a chuckle, he’s here in a gray suit as a lobbyist.
June 9, 2013Edward Snowden, the 29-year old defense contractor who leaked classified documents on U.S. government surveillance programs, revealed himself Sunday afternoon in interviews with The Guardian and the Washington Post.Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton for the last three months, moved to a Hong Kong hotel on May 20, after accessing a trove of classified information from a government office in Hawaii with the intent to reveal information on the controversial classified programs, the Guardian reported.Last week the British paper revealed details on two classified programs—one pertaining to the seizure of all telephone metadata in the United states, and another dealing with an effort to monitor Internet activities overseas using the resources of American technology firms. The Washington Post revealed information about the second program, called PRISM. Both papers confirmed that Snowden passed them the information.1. Snowden was previously a technical officer for the Central Intelligence Agency and worked for Dell at the National Security Agency before being hired by Booz Allen as an infrastructure analyst for the NSA in Hawaii. According to the Guardian, Snowden told supervisors he was seeking treatment for epilepsy and his girlfriend that he would be away for a few weeks before traveling to Hong Kong along with the government secrets he hoped to release. Snowden told the paper that he decided to come forward with the documents because “I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”2. Snowden voted for a third party in 2008, he told the Guardian, but believed in Obama to put an end to some of the surveillance practices. Instead, after a review, Obama continued the program according to administration officials, adding in additional layers of review to prevent abuse. He told the Guardian he “got hardened” after he “watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in.”3. Snowden claimed vast powers to both initiate surveillance and shut down the U.S. programs. “I had full access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all around the world,” he told The Guardian. In a video posted on the website, Snowed claimed that “Any analyst at any time can target anyone … I, sitting at my desk, certainly have the authorities to wiretap anyone — from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President.”Additionally he claimed he said he could shut down the entire system in an afternoon if he wanted to. The revelation that Snowden was a contractor with that wide-ranging access to some of the most closely guarded U.S. government programs is sure to provoke a reexamination of the explosion of contractors filling traditional government jobs in defense and intelligence agencies.4. Snowden told the Post “I’m not going to hide,” but his future is uncertain. Hong Kong and the United States maintain a bilateral extradition treaty, but includes exceptions for political crimes. It is unclear how Chinese government, which maintains significant influence in the special administrative region, will react to Snowden’s presence or how they will treat him. He told the Post, he is seeking “asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Sunday that the investigation has been referred to the Department of Justice. Among the possible outcomes, officials could choose to interrogate him for details on the classified information he acquired, turn him over to the United States, or grant him asylum.21st Century Wire says…As the dust had settled from Bilderberg’s global weekender held at The Grove Hotel in Watford, England, some members of the alternative media stayed on site continuing to dig for answers…Investigative journalists from the UK Column, American Free Press and Sovereign Independentaccidentally wandered into a presentation suite at the Grove – only discover the remnants of a presentation by Thomson Reuters which Bilderberg organisers had neglected to take down after the event. It read “”unleashing the power of our unified platform on financial markets”.Of course this reminds us of a similar international cartel , or syndicate called LIBOR, where bankers successfully gamed global interest rates enabling them to reap easy billions at the expense of the lower classes. Money for nothing. They did so with impunity, all but laughing in public at any attempt to bring any of the gold collar criminals to book for financial fraud and racketeering.It’s no coincidence that LIBOR’s biggest inside player was also in attendance at Bilderberg 2013. The teflon banker himself – the elusiveMarcus Agius, the former Group Chairman of Barclays, and chairman of the British Bankers Association (BBA). It’s worth pointing that LIBOR’s rate scam was being calculated and published by Thomson Reuters on behalf of the BBA.Only days after, events on the news wires – of international banking tycoon gaming the world’s currency markets – provided the connection to this topic discussed behind closed doors between members of the global industrial and political elite.Decide for yourself…
A New Financial Scandal – Bigger Than LIBOR?Mike Robinson
UK ColumnLast Monday, our Malcolm Massey, Neil Foster and Mark Anderson took a post-Bilderberg walk around the Grove Hotel to see what they could see. What they found was a meeting room with a Thomson Reuters display panel.
The display panel with Thomson Reuters logo clearly marked was entitled “unleashing the power of our unified platform on financial markets”.A Bilderberg Agenda Item?
PHOTO: UK Column found Thomson Reuters boards still up from Bilderberg.Why would Thomson Reuters advertise to Bilderberg Attendees? It is easy to see that Reuters would do so at a financial event for City of London traders or casino bank managers, but politicians and industrialists? How likely is it that the attending bankers were not already aware of the implications of Reuters trading platforms?Was this just an advertisement, or were Reuters running some kind of presentation? Those who saw the room first hand certainly left with the opinion Reuters had given a presentation of some kind.If that is the case, then the question becomes what is meant by “unleashing the power … on financial markets?Perhaps some news released by Bloomberg yesterday gives a clue what happens when Reuters trading platform is unleashed on financial markets, for we seem to have yet another global manipulation scandal on our hands, possibly even more significant than LIBOR.Bloomberg reported yesterday that five whistleblowers who have been working as foreign exchange traders have stated that the $5 trillion foreign exchange market is rigged. They allege that the world’s biggest banks have been systematically manipulating the foreign exchange rates used to set the value of trillions of dollars of investments and derivatives. The main target of this has been pension funds all over the world.Not surprisingly the centre of this activity has been the City of London, just as with LIBOR.The traders told Bloomberg that the banks were actively trading against their clients by making use of a 60 second window in which trading is supposed to be paused. The traders told Bloomberg that, “dealers colluded with counterparties to boost chances of moving the rates.”The Financial Conduct Authority, one of the bodies set up to replace the Financial Services Authority, says it is investigating and is speaking to the relevant parties.Which platform is used to distribute the Foreign Exchange rates? None other than Thompson Reuters, as with LIBOR. The same Thompson Reuters which took part in Bilderberg.
by craig on June 10, 2013 9:10 am in Uncategorized
It is not whether the individual had done anything wrong: it is whether the state has done anything wrong. Hague’s plea for the omniscient state is chilling: if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. So it is alright for the state to eavesdrop all our social interactions, to follow our every move? Is there to be no privacy from the prying eye of the state, which can watch me on the toilet, and if I have done nothing wrong I have nothing to hide?
The terribly sad thing is that, by a media campaign which has raised public fear of terrorism beyond any rational analysis of the risk (depending which year you take as the base line, you have between 40 and 300 times more risk of drowning in your own bath than being killed by a terrorist) there is great public acceptance of the intrusive state. This of course depends on the notion that the state is not only omniscient but benevolent. I do urge anyone infected by this way of thinking to read Murder in Samarkand for a practical demonstration of just how malevolent, indeed evil, the state can be.
GCHQ and NSA share all intelligence reports, as do the CIA and MI6, under US/UK intelligence sharing agreements first put in place by Roosevelt and Churchill. That is one of the most widely known of all official secrets – there are probably fifty thousand current or retired civil servants like me who know that, and many academics, journalists etc – but even in the light of the Snowden revelations, you probably won’t see it much in print, and you won’t hear it in Parliament, because it is still a criminal offence to say it. Let me say it again:
GCHQ and NSA share all intelligence, as do the CIA and MI6, under US/UK intelligence sharing agreements first put in place by Roosevelt and Churchill. NSA and GCHQ do the large bulk of communication interception. Now both NSA and GCHQ are banned from spying on their own citizens without some motive of suspicion – though as Edward Snowden has been explaining, that motive of suspicion can be terribly slight, like you have someone as a facebook friend who has a facebook friend whose sister once knew someone connected with an animal liberation group. But in any event, the safeguards are meaningless as NSA and GCHQ can intercept communications of each other’s citizens and they share all information. I have been explaining this in public talks these last ten years – I am happy it is finally hitting the headlines.
We need Edward Snowden and we need Bradley Manning. I had hoped that the barefaced lies of Bush and Blair, leading to a war that killed hundreds of thousands, would make people see that politicians, and the corporate interests that stand so close behind them, simply cannot be trusted.
The world needs whistleblowers. Now more than ever.
The Search for Change by craig on May 21, 2013 10:50 am in Uncategorized The linked long term phenomena of falling electoral turnout and a decreasing percentage of those who do vote, voting for the two main parties, leaves politicians in power with the active support of an increasingly small minority of the population. To date this has not seriously impacted on consent – the Majority are apathetic, and devoid both of interesting sources of useful political information, and of social cohesion. Membership of organisations of horizontal solidarity is also in long term decline. I would love to see an attempt at long term quantification of the difference between the parties in terms of the manifesto policies they offer. I have no doubt that there will be a very sharp reduction in difference, or rather policy convergence between the parties. If you look at 1911 – social insurance, pensions, power of the hereditary aristocracy, 1945 – nationalisation of major industries, initiation of the NHS and full welfare state, and 1983 – privatisation, nuclear weapons – there were very real and sharp political differences that offered voters a distinct ideological choice. The country – and your own future – could be recognisably different dependent on for whom you voted. The last two times our government changed parties, the new party came in to pledge to continue the fiscal measures already projected by the treasury under its predecessors. Anyone who believes the Treasury would be fundamentally different under Balls or Osborne is delusional, and responding to tribalism not real difference. Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour. Who accelerated the “marketization” of the NHS? New Labour. Who vastly expanded PFI? New Labour. Who bailed out the banks? New Labour. In effect, the parties offer exactly the same neo-con policies. NATO, Trident, Occupation of Afghanistan, Privatisation, Tuition Fees – the only apparent alternative at the last election came from the Lib Dems, and the electorate grasped at it in larger numbers than a third party had ever received before, something we have quickly forgotten. The reason that we have forgotten it is that Clegg, who was never any kind of Liberal, dumped the entire radical heritage of his party as soon as he came to power.
There is a much wider point to what happened to the Lib Dems. Two other changes – the introduction of PR for the European Parliament, and the large increase in expenses for MP’s staff – had made a radical change to that party. Lib Dem conferences were suddenly places of power dressing, not woolly jumpers. A great many young professional politicos – MPs research assistants, and staffers from Brussels – were all over the place. Bright, presentable, highly paid, most of them had no connection with liberalism, had never read John Stuart Mill or Hazlitt, had no idea who Lloyd George was and cared less. They had latched on to a rung of paid political work, had become part of the political class – that was the entire purpose of their activity. The woolly jumpered chap who had campaigned about paving stones in Salisbury and passionately wanted to abolish Trident and adopt green energy became sidelined, an amusing anachronism, the subject of the jokes of the sophisticates. Of course, their focus groups showed that the people want policies which the ever shrinking ownership of the mass media promotes, because they are the only policies they have ever heard of. But the people no longer trust the ownership of the media, and the expenses scandal caused a much-needed scepticism of the appalling political class. People are desperate for leaders who look honest and say something different. So do not despise UKIP supporters. They are not vicious racists. They are in fact brighter than those stupid enough to continue voting for the three neo-con parties, despite having their lives crippled for the next three decades to pay unconceivable sums to the bankers. The UKIP voters at least wish to punish the political class and wish to hear of some different policies. The problem is that the only alternative of which the mainstream media is prepared to inform them is Mr Farrage and his simple anti-foreigner maxims. Many of the bankers are keen to leave the EU, as Nigel Lawson told us. So if people want an alternative, that is the one they will be offered. Only in Scotland have people been offered a more radical alternative – and while I do not wish to exaggerate the economic radicalism of the SNP, they are markedly to the left of Westminster on issues like tuition fees, healthcare and PFI. The great question of the day is, how to put before the population, in a way that they will notice, a radical alternative other than simple right wing populism. I have a strong belief that there remains a real desire in society for a more social policy, for a major and real check on the huge divergence between rich and poor, for good public services, for a pacific foreign policy, and for leaders not just in it for the money or to promote wealthy interests. But how do you get that message to people?
Former Child Actor is Let Down After Opening Up to Media: ‘I named names, but they’ve buried my story’Big Media also plays its own shameful role in covering for pedophiles in high places.Patrick Henningsen21st Century WireHas Rupert Murdoch’s Times Newspaper also joined the BBC’s practice of covering for child abusers in high places?LONDON – On Friday Oct 11, former child actor and now investigative journalist, Ben Fellows,published his own sordid account of his personal experiences growing up in show business and working at the BBC. The following week, his story was picked-up by the London newspaper Daily Express on Oct 17th.Ben Fellows on the BBC’s News 24 in 2006.What the public is not aware of however, is that the Murdoch-owned Times newspaper in London had also summoned Fellows to an interview regarding his story the following day on Thursday Oct 18th.(Read Ben’s full account of interview and commentary here)“Since the original story I wrote, a lot of readers, people and other members of the media have been asking me to name names, and actually accusing me of feeding the abuse system by not naming names in my initial story. So when the Times contacted me, it seemed like the ideal opportunity to names names”.Fellows continues, “It’s all rather easy to pin the entire scandal on a deceased, former celebrity like Jimmy Savile, but if you’re going to name the names of currently active entertainment professionals and politicians, you have to go with the biggest and strongest media outlet because you will get sued and the Times told me, ‘You have nothing to worry about, we have the most powerful lawyers in the world’ – and that gave me the confidence to name names”.According to Fellows, he was interviewed by Jack Malvern, a veteran and senior writer with theTimes at the Novotel in Greenwich last Thursday, with the promise that his story would go out in the Saturday morning edition of the Times, but when Saturday arrived, no story appeared – and thus, no names were named. “The fact they haven’t run my story worries me, because they asked me to talk and I did – and now I’m not sure which way to turn”, explains Fellows.“It made me feel like I had been ‘debriefed’ and not interviewed, and that maybe the only reason I was summoned there was to give information to them (the Murdoch press) for their own internal use.”” The irony of this situation is too much to ignore, as the Murdoch empire’s flagship ‘anti-paedophile’ newspaper, The Sun, is pulling no punches with the BBC over their Jimmy Savile cover-up, since the BBC has been exposed for mothballing two internal investigations over child abuse within their state-funded media realm.In the case of Fellows, he appears to have hand-delivered a number of top show business and political personality names to the Times, names whom he has witnessed first-hand to be involved with a wide range of highly inappropriate and illegal activities – including predatory advances on a child actor (Fellows), offering and consuming of Class A narcotics, and the promise of success by top producers in exchange for sex. He maintains that some of the names the Times is currently holding include a few of the most powerful individuals in the entertainment industry.According to Fellows, he had mentioned MP Ken Clarke. Interestingly, Clarke has just been linked to paedophile predator Savile this week, as Savile was handed the keys to Broadmoor secure hospital in 1988 – under the watch of Minister Ken Clarke. Fellows believed that the reason the Times has killed the story is because one of the names he gave was a celebrity who SKY TV has a heavy amount invested in for the coming season.“They wanted me to name names, but not the ones I gave them!” said Fellows.“I had no idea that this person was to be the star of SKY this coming season when I named them in my Times interview. Now they are sitting on the whole story because it conflicts with their organisation’s plans this year. The hypocrisy is clear to see, and very disappointing to say the least.”“What the Times is doing here, is no different than how the BBC is covering for itself. And the end result of both cover-ups is that the public have less knowledge of child abuse in the system. I think our major media outlets are failing the public, and now it’s there for everyone to see.”It appears that now the Times has joined the BBC – in covering-up reported activities of people in positions of power and influence, in their own self-interest.“I was offered an ‘Exclusive’, but I did not respond to what this offer alluded to because it sounded like code for ‘money’, but I fully expected them to run my story with so many high-profile people mentioned”, said Fellows.Tonight’s episode of Panorama on BBC is nothing more than a late move to try to repair what is clearly a broken and corrupt public funded media giant. Ofcom licenses have been pulled for less.Similarly, Tuesday’s appearance at a House Select Committee by George Entwistle, current Director General of the BBC, is unlikely to yield much, as Entwistle, then Director of Programming at the BBC, was also the man who allegedly pulled the BBC’s ‘Newsnight’ investigation into Savile’s unsavoury habits last Dec 2011. Certainly, the BBC will be expected to produce some sacrificial lamb to draw a line under this scandal, but it’s unclear as yet who that will be.
Fellows adds here, “I am concerned that when it’s all said and done, the BBC and the government are just going to have Jimmy Savile ‘done and dusted’ and maybe pin some conviction on an old employee, then close the book on what is clearly an institutional and social disease which has infected the BBC and other corridors of power in Britain”.How long will the Times sit on this story, and if they do run it, will they name the names that Fellows delivered to them?Considering the weight of allegations from the Savile Affair, we all can agree that it’s in a free society’s best interest for any major newspaper to print a story which deals with the protection of children or unethical and illegal behaviour by BBC employees – which is certainly, at least in the opinion of this website - in the public’s interest to know. ….21st Century WireIt seems that the original 1990′s SCALLYWAG Magazine paedophile investigation has popped-up online, included in it the complete exposé of the North Wales Boys Homescandal, and details of a sophisticated child abuse network running through Westminster, and elsewhere. The SCALLYWAG article in questions is as hot today as it was back then, and names X, Y, and Z – including top Tory Party officials, police, along with other detailed information on men surrounding Bryn Alyn Boys Home in Wrexham, Wales. The article states:
“This ‘rent boy’ ring has operated for more than 20 years, and is still in operation at addresses all over Britain, despite the fact that the mastermind behind it all is at present on bail awaiting trail with 10 specimen cases against him…”
At the time, this particular Scallywag Mag in-depth investigative article from the 1990′s contains pieces of information from other investigations in the Observer, Private Eye, HTV and the Independent on Sunday, all of which were under threat of libel of North Wales ex-Supt Angelsea at the time. Some commentators believed that Scallywag had sufficient evidence during the time of their publishing the article, but details are sketchy. Other famous politicans did sue Scallywag, like John Major, over allegations of an extramarital affair. This Scallywag article was very controversial at the time and continues to be so today, with speculation that it may have been connected to the bizarre death of the magazine’s editor Angus James, co-founder of Scallywag, who died in Cyprus in 1994 some time after the magazine was investigating the elite paedophile ring.Photo: Scallywag publisher, Simon Regan
The letter below was penned by Simon Regan, Editor of Scallyway Magazine, and half brother of Angus James Wilson, co-founder of Scallywag, who later died in Cyprus in 1994. Regan laments the tragic cover-up by the Courts and the Establishment – a concerned shared by most of Britain,especially in the wake of hundreds of different Jimmy Savile revelations.
Here’s Regan’s letter…
The Waterhouse Report By Simon Regan 20 February 2000 The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a ‘cult of silence’ is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg….
So why are the Law Lords so eager to shut this case down? Here is a recent interview with survivor Steve Messham, where it appears as if the police deliberately lost the key evidence…
It’s an incredible story, but only a proper resourced, independent investigation can do this kind of story justice. Will we get one this time around?
Good question… good questions.
A SHOCKING INTERVIEW: Wrexham Child Home Abuse Victim Describes Elite Paedophile Sex Parties
The world is run by Satanists. The UK is run by Satanists. In the UK people with influence such as politicians, police, bankers, journalists, corporate “leaders”, tend to be freemasons. Regulars to this website know that Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne, The Royals, Obama, Bush I & II, Kerry, Clinton, all their wives and all their bag-carriers are freemasons or the female equivalent. So it’s not outrageous to state that the UK is run by freemasons. Now look at any masonic monitor, which is the handbook that each masonic lodge issues to new members. They are all pretty much the same as they have to be endorsed by the grand lodge of the order. Page one explains to new masons that freemasonry is not a social club and that it is not a meeting place for people to further their careers. The masonic lodge is a temple and freemasons go there to worship, so new members should behave accordingly while in the temple. What kind of religion that is is made clear in the rest of the monitor, and in the masons’ “bible”, “Morals and Dogma” by Albert Pike.
I recommend everyone read it – you can download it for free and if you can’t be bothered to have a skim through it then you really can’t expect your opinion on freemasonry to be heard. To cut a long book short, freemasons believe that Lucifer is the good god and that the God of the bible is evil. They believe that Lucifer is the light-bringer who tried to bring knowledge and god-like status to humans in the garden of Eden but evil God stopped him and has been stopping him ever since. If freemasons do Lucifer’s bidding then they can bring about Lucifer’s reign on earth and become enlightened, making them gods. The mass of humanity is seen as rough and directionless, and in order for humanity to have value the freemasons must give it direction. That means infiltrating governments and power structures and bringing about permanent war, strife and suffering. They believe that peace and prosperity would make the human race worthless. So freemasonry is Luciferianism, which is the worship of Satan. That’s why it’s fair to say that the UK is run by Satanists. It’s even clearer that the US is run by Satanists when you see all the many photos of Obama and wife, the Bushes, and Clinton and wife brazenly giving the devil’s-head salute at public gatherings.
Go a bit deeper and you see that in fact the hierarchical structures that control politics, the media, commerce, and the military all over the world are run on satanic lines. That’s why the media bombards our kids with satanic imagery 24/7. Now I know a lot of people will say “I don’t believe in God or the Devil, so none of this matters.” But it doesn’t matter what you believe, it matters what the people who control politics, economics, war and public consciousness believe. You might think it’s all bullshit but if everyone who controls your life thinks that they are doing satan’s work then it really does matter. As an aside, I haven’t been capitalising the words Satanist or Satanism, but IE10′s new built-in spell-checker is automatically “correcting” it. I didn’t even ask to download IE10 but here it is, making sure that I pay proper respects to satan’s church. Tell me that Satanism isn’t a real influence over the world. Posted on May 24th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Britain’s Eton College Asks King’s Scholar Candidates to Pretend to Be PM and Justify Army Shooting Protesters Dead
In LEAKSOURCE ORIGINAL NEWS on May 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM04/24/2013 Eton College asked 13-year-old boys competing for a scholarship to pretend to be Prime Minister and justify the army shooting dead 25 protesters as a “necessary and moral” decision, it has emerged. The question, which was put to students applying for the King’s Scholarship in 2011, is entitled “Concerning Cruelty, Clemency and Whether It Is better To Be Loved than Feared”, and follows a passage from Machiavelli. The question tells the teenagers: “The government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but 25 protesters have been killed by the Army.“You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral.” Both the current British Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson went to Eton, Boris was also a King’s Scholar.
To posit that one’s government may be partially composed of unaccountable criminal elements is cause for serious censure in polite circles. Labeled “conspiracy theories” by a corporate media that prompt and channel emotionally-laden mass consent, such perspectives are quickly dispatched to the memory hole lest they prompt meaningful discussion of the political prerogatives and designs held by a global power elite coordinating governments and broader geopolitical configurations.
Cultural historian Jack Bratich terms such phenomena “conspiracy panics.” Potentially fostered by the coordinated actions of government officials or agencies and major news organs to generate public suspicion and uncertainty, a conspiracy panic is a demonstrable immediate or long-term reactive thrust against rational queries toward unusual and poorly understood events. To be sure, they are also intertwined with how the given society acknowledges and preserves its own identity—through “the management and expulsion of deviance.”
In the American mass mind, government intelligence and military operations are largely seen as being directed almost solely toward manipulation or coercion of unfortunate souls in foreign lands. To suggest otherwise, as independent researchers and commentators have done with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA-Contra-crack cocaine connection, and 9/11, has been cause for sustained conspiracy panics that act to suppress inquiry into such events by professional and credentialed opinion leaders, particularly journalists and academics.
At the same time a conspiracy panic serves a subtle yet important doctrinal function of manifesting and reproducing the apt ideational status quo of the post-Cold War, “War on Terror” era. “The scapegoating of conspiracy theories provides the conditions for social integration and political rationality,” Bratich observes. “Conspiracy panics help to define the normal modes of dissent. Politically it is predicated on a consensus of ‘us’ over against a subversive and threatening ‘them.’” These days especially the suggestion that an official narrative may be amiss almost invariably puts one in the enemy camp.
Popular Credence in Government Conspiracy Narratives
The time for a conspiracy panic to develop has decreased commensurately with the heightened spread and availability of information and communication technology that allows for the dissemination of news and research formerly suppressed by the perpetual data overload of corporate media. Before the wide access to information technology and the internet, independent investigations into events including the JFK assassination took place over the course of many years, materializing in book-length treatments that could be dismissed by intelligence assets in news media and academe as the collective activity of “conspiracy buffs”—amateurish researchers who lack a government or privately-funded sinecure to overlook or obscure inquiry into deep events.
Not until Oliver Stone’s 1991 blockbuster film JFK, essentially an adoption of works by author Jim Marrs, Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, did a substantial conspiracy panic take shape as a response to such analysis thrust upon the public in popular narrative form. This panic arose from and centered around Hollywood’s apt challenge to traditional journalism’s turf alongside commercial news outlets’ typically deceptive interpretation of the event and almost wholly uncritical treatment of the Warren Commission Report.
Shortly thereafter investigative journalist Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series for the San Jose Mercury News demonstrated the internet’s capacity to explain and document a government conspiracy. With Webb’s painstaking examination of the CIA’s role in the illicit drug trade hyperlinked to a bevy of documentation and freely distributed online, the professional journalistic community and its intelligence penumbra fell silent for months.
In the interim the story picked up steam in the non-traditional outlets of talk radio and tabloid television, with African Americans especially intrigued by the potential government role in the crack cocaine epidemic. Then suddenly major news outlets spewed forth a vitriolic attack on Webb and the Mercury News that amazingly resulted in the Mercury‘s retraction of the story and Webb’s eventual departure from the paper and probable murder by the US government.
Criticism of Webb’s work predictably focused on petty misgivings toward his alleged poor judgment—specifically his intimation that the CIA intentionally caused the crack epidemic in African American communities, an observation that many blacks found logical and compelling. So not only did Webb find himself at the center of a conspiracy panic because of his assessment of the CIA’s role in the drug trade; he was also causing mass “paranoia” within African American communities allegedly predisposed toward such thinking.
Since the mid-1990s conspiracy panics have increasingly revolved around an effort by mainstream news media to link unorthodox political ideas and inquiry with violent acts. This dynamic was crystallized in Timothy McVeigh, the principal suspect in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, who through the propaganda-like efforts of government and major news media was constructed to symbolize the dangers of “extremist” conspiratorial thought (his purported fascination with white supremacism and The Turner Diaries) and violent terrorist action (the bombing itself). Conveniently overlooked is the fact that McVeigh was trained as a black ops technician and still in US Army employ at the time of his 2001 execution.
Through a broad array of media coverage and subsequent book-length treatments by the left intelligentsia on the “radical right,” the alleged lone wolf McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing became forever coupled in the national memory. The image and event seemingly attested to how certain modes of thought can bring about violence–even though McVeigh’s role in what took place on April 19 was without question one part of an intricate web painstakingly examined by the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee  and in the 2011 documentary A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995.
The Quickening Pace of Conspiracy Panics
Independent researchers and alternative media utilizing the internet have necessitated the rapid deployment of conspiracy panic-like reactions that appear far less natural and spontaneous to neutralize inquiry and bolster the official narratives of momentous and unusual events. For example, wide-scale skepticism surrounding the May 1, 2011 assault on Osama bin Laden’s alleged lair in Pakistan was met with efforts to cultivate a conspiracy panic evident in editorials appearing across mainstream print, broadcast, and online news platforms. The untenable event supported only by President Obama’s pronouncement of the operation was unquestioningly accepted by corporate media that shouted down calls for further evidence and alternative explanations of bin Laden’s demise as “conspiracy theories.”
Indeed, a LexisNexis search for “bin Laden” and “conspiracy theories” yields over five hundred such stories and opinion pieces appearing across Western print and broadcast media outlets for the week of May 2, 2011.
“While much of America celebrated the dramatic killing of Osama bin Laden,” theWashington Post opined, “the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists still had questions. For them and a growing number of skeptics, the plot only thickened.”
Along these lines retired General Mark Kimmitt remarked on CNN, “Well, I’m sure the conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this, about why it was done? Was it done? Is he still alive?”
“The conspiracy theorists are not going to be satisfied,” Glenn Beck asserted. “Next thing you know, Trump is going to ask for the death certificate, and is it the real death certificate? And then all hell breaks loose.”
Like 9/11 or the Gulf of Tonkin, the narrative has since become a part of official history, disingenuously repeated in subsequent news accounts and elementary school history books—a history handed down from on high and accepted by compromised, unintelligent, or simply lazy journalists perpetuating nightmare fictions to a poorly informed and intellectually idle public.
This psycho-symbolic template is simultaneously evident in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Boston Marathon bombing (BMB) events and their aftermaths. Indeed, the brief yet intense Sandy Hook conspiracy panic, and to a lesser degree that of the BMB, revolved at least partially around the “conspiracy theory professor,” who, as a credentialed member of the intellectual class, overstepped his bounds by suggesting how there are many unanswered questions related to the tragedies that might lead one to conclude—as social theorist Jean Baudrillard observed concerning the 1991 Gulf War—that the events did not take place, at least in the way official pronouncements and major media have represented them. It is perhaps telling that critical assessments of domestic events and their relatedness to a corrupt media and governing apparatus are so vigorously assailed.
Yet to suggest that the news and information Americans accept as sound and factual on a routine basis is in fact a central means for manipulating their worldviews is not a matter for debate. Rather, it is an empirically verifiable assertion substantiated in a century of public relations and psychological warfare research and practice. Such propaganda efforts once reserved for foreign locales are now freely practiced in the US to keep the population increasingly on edge.
Still, a significant portion of the population cannot believe their government would lie to or mislead them, especially about a traumatic and emotional event involving young children or running enthusiasts. To suggest this to be the case is not unlike informing a devoted sports fan that her team lost a decisive game after she’s been convinced of an overwhelming win. Such an allegation goes against not only what they often unconsciously accept to be true, but also challenges their substantial emotional investment in the given mediated event.
In a revealing yet characteristic move the reaction by corporate media outlets such as the New York Times, FoxNews, CNN, and in the case of the BMB the New York Times-owned Boston Globe, has been not to revisit and critique their own slipshod coverage of the Newtown massacre or BMB that often bordered on blatant disinformation, but rather to divert attention from any responsible self-evaluation by vilifying the messenger in what have been acute conspiracy panics of unusual proportion.
As a disciplinary mechanism against unsettling observations and questions directed toward political leaders and the status quo, conspiracy panics serve to reinforce ideas and thought processes sustained by the fleeting yet pervasive stimuli of infotainment, government pronouncements, and, yes, the staged events that have been part and parcel of US news media and government collaboration dating at least to the Spanish-American war. Despite (or perhaps because of) the immense technological sophistication at the dawn of the twenty-first century a majority of the population remains bound and shackled in the bowels of the cave, forever doomed to watch the shadows projected before them.“After the 1986 operation into Cooke was disbanded the former officer went to check the file – only to find the pictures had disappeared and any mention of the men involved had also vanished. The former officer said: “It was clear a cover-up had taken place.”The probe into a former Cabinet minister, the notorious paedophile Sidney Cooke, Jimmy Savile and MP Cyril SmithJustin Penrose
Police are preparing to arrest a former Tory Cabinet minister after a woman came forward to claim she had been raped by him as a girl.Links to MP Sir Cyril Smith
Detectives are also investigating claims that he abused boys.
We can reveal that the former minister is suspected of being part of a VIP paedophile ring that was regularly handed boys by child rapist and killer Sidney Cooke for vile sex orgies.
The former high-ranking MP, who we cannot name, is under investigation by Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit.
Sources close to the probe gave details of the new allegations to the Sunday Mirror and investigative news website Exaro.
A former detective who worked on the original investigation into Cooke told the Sunday Mirror that the minister was among those alleged to have been photographed in a 1986 police surveillance on premises where boys had been dropped off.
Cooke, 85 – dubbed Britain’s most notorious paedophile after he tortured and killed 14-year-old Jason Swift in 1985 – would pick the unsuspecting teenage boys up off the streets around Kings Cross.
He would drive them to locations across North London where paedophiles lay in wait to repeatedly rape them.
Last week the former officer, who worked on Operation Orchid which convicted Cooke and his gang, said they had taken pictures of the minister.
The former officer said up to 16 high profile figures were due to be arrested. But the day before they were to be carried out detectives were told the operation had been disbanded.
The revelation means Scotland Yard knew about allegations concerning the Cabinet Minister and Savile in 1986 but did nothing about it, instead choosing to cover up the claims.
A source told Exaro last week that senior officers, including Commander Peter Spindler, the head of the Paedophile Unit, have had a secret briefing on preparations to arrest the ex-minister.
It is understood that the investigation is at an early stage but there is a plan to arrest him in the next few weeks.
After the 1986 operation into Cooke was disbanded the former officer went to check the file – only to find the pictures had disappeared and any mention of the men involved had also vanished.
The former officer said: “It was clear a cover-up had taken place.
“The investigation showed that Cooke would pick up rent boys and take them back to flats or garages where large groups of men were waiting to abuse them.” /> Savile: Linked to other pedo rings
“These paedophiles, which included a lot of high-profile figures that were said to include the former Cabinet Minister, Savile and MP Cyril Smith, all knew each other and all operated together. They would lie in wait and Cooke would turn up with the boy who wouldn’t know what was going to happen.
“We had photographic evidence of these high-profile figures entering or leaving buildings where the abuse was taking place. Everyone knew Savile was a paedo but nothing was ever done.
“Cyril Smith was photographed going into one of the properties with a high-profile film director.
“All of the others were pictured and were going to be arrested before the plug was pulled. I was sickened and to this day I wonder how many children we could have saved if we had been allowed to arrest those men.
“I feel guilty they weren’t arrested but there was nothing I could do at the time as the evidence had gone.”
The Sunday Mirror knows the identity of the paedophiles in the gang but has chosen not to name them.
In 1993 Detective Superintendent Ed Williams tried to track down the Orchid file on Cooke to see if there were any similarities with the abduction and murder of nine-year-old Daniel Handley, but he struggled to find the folder.
He eventually found it in the basement of Arbour Square Police Station in Stepney, East London.
While there were references to a “wider paedophile ring” there were no photographs or names.
Mr Williams said: “I was very upset about the way the Met treated paedophile cases but I was a voice in the wilderness at that time and people thought I was being over-emotional.
“I found the Orchid files where they had been put for storage purposes and somebody had completely forget to send it back to the Yard. I was trying to look for paedophiles and connections with other cases as I was trying to build up a profile of the offender. “The report spoke about boys being passed around from paedophile to paedophile.Sidney Cooke: Ring leader and child killer
“There were no pictures on the file. It did mention that there was a wider ring of individuals but did not mention Jimmy Savile or a cabinet minister.”
Sidney Cooke, along with three accomplices – Leslie Bailey, Robert Oliver and Steven Barrell – was found guilty of the manslaughter of Jason Swift in May 1989. They have been linked to up to 20 murders.
Cooke was believed to have murdered seven-year-old Mark Tildesley but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to bring charges as he was already serving 19 years for Jason’s death.
He was released in 1998, to a public outcry, but was rearrested the following year for systematically abusing two boys in the 1970s and jailed for life.
Savile was exposed last year as one of the UK’s most prolific paedophiles, with 450 victims. Police said he “groomed a nation” by avoiding justice while abusing hundreds of children over 54 years.
Officers on Operation Yewtree, which investigated the claims, have also arrested celebrities including Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr, DJ Dave Lee Travis, publicist Max Clifford and comedian Jim Davidson. All have denied any wrongdoing and not all the allegations involve under-16s.
Scotland Yard said they would not comment on an on-going investigation.
The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan ClarkNicholas Myra 21st Century Wire Nov 13, 2012 You’d better believe that Max Clifford has a lot of skeletons in his filing cabinet. If you have enough money, you too can have your skeletons filed away in these rather seedy archives. In the leaked video that has since gone viral, allegedly filmed before last year, the camera man managed to loosen up Clifford enough to spill a large can of beans. In the video, the legendary PR Guru to the stars and elites let slip that he had successfully hid away the sins of one Tory MP, and ‘diarist’, Alan Clark.Tory MP Alan Clark
Alan Clark’s noted adulterous affair with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African judge, and her two daughters Josephine and Alison, for their tale of the seduction of all three by Clark (to whom he referred collectively as “the coven”) made the Harkesses ‘a lot of money’ according to Clifford. The affair became public knowledge in 1992 after Clark left the House of Commons, and later took its place between the covers of a few best selling seedy novels. Both sides had profited from the affair, but according the Clifford in the video below, it seemed that MP Alan Clark had to bury a rather inconvenient detail which would have landed him in a criminal court. Here are two excerpts from the video which was released by super blog site Guido Fawkes: “He enjoyed it that whole thing, Alan Clark loved the whole thing… they(the Harkesses) made a lot of money out of it, he used them, so they wanted to make money out of it, and had a … so they did, he(Alan Clark) enjoyed it and sold a lot of books.” “The only slightly serious side of it was that he(Alan Clark) actually interfered with those girls from the age of 14…” He seems to be referring to the crime of paedophilia there… If this was indeed the case, then Clark would have also profited from it. Fancy that. Watch the video here:The next line is the real killer though, and one which we should all stop, pause, and consider properly – particularly during the current paedophile upheaval which the BBC and the current government are so anxious to draw a line under. Following the fake duel between the BBC’s Newsnight and much maligned Lord McAlpine, the establishment was hoping that no more high-ranking figures or MP’s would be fingered for paedophilia or child abuse. This much is certain – the elite power brokers want their public nightmare to end with Savile. Casually referring to the volumes of dirt he has tucked away for a rainy day, Max Clifford ignominiously boasts here: “I’ve got all the evidence, I’m the one who’s hidden it from the world, I know where everything is…” If this video is genuine and what it appears to be, then Clifford could eventually become a key figure at the centre of this issue. The Independenthad published a story on this incident entitled, Publicist Max Clifford Denies Covering Up Conservative MP Alan Clark’s Underage Sex Scandal, but then quickly removed it from their website. This is not surprising because Max still wields incredible power on Fleet Street. The full text of their article can be found here, explaining:
“The former government minister Alan Clark had sex with children, according to the publicity agent Max Clifford. In a secretly filmed, three-minute interview posted on the internet last night, the publicist said that the Tory MP and diarist had “interfered” with two 14-year-old girls. But he added, during a discussion of his success in suppressing scandals, that the story had never come out. Last night Mr Clifford, who was unaware his comments were being recorded, strenuously denied that he had told the girls’ family to stay quiet about the allegations.”Max: Keeps ugly secrets safe.
Max Clifford keeps things tidy for the elite, and the dirt he collects keeps him safe from reprisals. It’s a high stakes game, and he is undoubtedly one of the best ever to play it. He knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. Sure, it would be career suicide for his PR business, but if he chose to, he could certainly help towards gaining justice for many sexually abused children. In the end, that’s up to Max Clifford, but because of the nature of his work and the confidentiality which is the currency of his profession – any disclosure on crimes in high places is unlikely to happen. One might ask here, where does Clifford stand morally, or legally for that matter, if he is holding back information about known paedophiles, particularly those in government? Does he have the same sort of protection from disclosure as say, a doctor, or Catholic priest? He has not committing any offense as such, but it’s worth asking here, does he have a duty to report a child abuse case? Critics might charge here, and rightly so, that Clifford is somehow putting his own wealth above the safety of children. If it’s a paedophile in government, then it could be viewed as a national security issue because that public official could be blackmailed by a foreign interest. It would be interesting to know if Sir Jimmy Savile was a past client of Clifford’s, or of another firm. An intriguing question now is: how many more MPs, celebrities and various oligarchs (these are the only people who can afford to retain the services of a high flyer like Max Clifford) have had their sins washed away by Clifford, or other PR firms like his? Since the Savile scandal broke, guess who have been getting flooded with phone calls from ‘frightened’ celebrities who are afraid of being implicated, for unknown offenses and associations with Savile, including – paedophilia. A recent article describes the phenomenon:
Dozens of big name stars from the 1960s and 70s have contacted Max Clifford “frightened to death” they will become implicated in the widening Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal, the PR guru has claimed. He said the stars, some of whom are still big names today, were worried because at their peak they had lived a hedonistic lifestyle where young girls threw themselves at them but they “never asked for anybody’s birth certificate”.
Most celebrities and TV people will use the ‘rock n roll’ get out clause, claiming that children were “throwing themselves at me”, and this tends to work in Britain where morals are now subject to the laws of relativity. But after Savile, the rock star excuse doesn’t hold as much credence. They are all genuinely scared, feeling guilty, because they know they got away with it back them because the system covered for them, but that system is crumbling – that’s why they’re calling Max – to preserve their media value. More girth for Max Clifford’s expanding filing cabinet? More girth in fees too. This couldn’t come at a worse time, as Max Clifford has recently been appointed as the PR Ambassador to the BBC charity, Children In Need. Is a man who makes his living running cover for the rich and powerful the right man to steer a children’s charity? You cannot ignore the spooky echoes of old Esther Rantzen and pal Jimmy Savile and their Child Line panto. Without a doubt, there is a lot to speculate on – is this yet another example where the activities of paedophiles in high places strangely link with these “children’s charities” in Britain? This comment below is from the forum at Mumsnet: Above text states: “Paul Roffey (child protection expert) said that pop stars used their position to manipulate young women to carry out acts which were as illegal then as they are now. Clifford also says he has also been contacted by women claiming ‘all kinds of things’, some of whom want to make money out of the abuse scandal. He actually says that he doubts that 50% of what they have told him is true! And Yet he believes his famous friends who come to him because they are worried about associations with JS and child abuse. He defends clients such as OJ Simpson, Mohamed Al Fayed, David Copperfield, Kerry Katona, Simon Cowell, Shilpa Shetty, the five men who were suspected of killing Stephen Lawrence, Gillian McKeith and Shrien Dewani, the man accused of orchestrating the murder of his wife, Anni in S Africa. I rest my case. MC is, in fact, the perfect, living embodiment of contemporary hypocrisy. God Help us!!” You can try and spin it all you want, but an older folks having sex with a child is morally, and legally wrong. Let’s be honest with ourselves on this issue - paedophillia seems to be acceptable with certain privileged people in power. Therein lies the BIG problem we are facing as a society. …. RELATED: Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Pedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To StopMake of this interview what you will, but what Shrimpton claims about former British PM and Savile pal, Ted Heath, is given in graphic detail, and clearly implicates more than one top ranking government official in murdering children – which was covered-up.
What Do The Taliban And The BBC Have In Common?Before……. and After the TalibanBefore and……and After the BBCYes, that’s right, they both destroy great works of art in pursuit of their closed minded ideology. Banksy, to my mind the UK’s greatest living artist (and actually, yes, I could justify that statement) created a piece of meaningful art outside of BBC Television Centre in central London which summed up just how disillusioned the British public, especially of my generation, feel right now. It was the poignant image of a young boy dropping his ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ medal into a drain. The BBC sent the workmen in to scrub it away. Why ? Because it implied criticism of the corporation. All great art speaks, all great art stimulates thought, all great art, from Giotto via Manet’s ‘Olympia’ and beyond Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ to the present day, has been provocative. The cultural philistines at the BBC can have as many Yentob inspired documentaries as they like but until they put artistic creation above managerial expediency they can never be a Corporation that Broadcasts for the British license fee paying public. And do they own that hoarding ? Does the BBC actually own that piece of hardboard that Banksy chose to place this artwork ? And if the BBC are sued because a precious work of art has been destroyed and they didn’t own the hardboard hoarding opposite BBC Telivision Centre, who pays ? Not the BBC management on their ludicrously high salaries, but all of us who pay the BBC license fee. Just like McAlpine’s £185,000.A wretched mornings viewing this Sunday on BBC1.On ‘The Daily Politics’ there was, for the first time, an item on the Bilderberger Conference, held this year at ‘The Grove’ in Watford, UK. There were large crowds of protesters outside, if somewhat distant from, the hotel itself. BBC coverage managed to make it look like a handful of fruitcakes carrying ventriloquist’s dummies, wearing clown suits and carrying deranged-looking ( to the disinterested observer) placards about paedophilia and the like. Cut to the studio where Andrew Neil interviewed David Aaronovitch and (Blimey What’s This!) Alex Jones about the Bilderbergers. Look at the clip below (to the very end please) and judge for yourselves but for once, and it is once, I have to almost agree with David Aarovitch when he said, re global criminal conspirators manipulating world events, to Jones:“The fact you are here indicates that either that one, they don’t exist or two, you are part of the conspiracy. I say the first.” Anyone who watches the entire sorry performance below will surely go with number two.Could Jones possibly have used this precious time more wastefully. Could he possibly have given a more discreditable performance. God help us!. He was embarrassing to watch and said nothing, in my view, that would tempt the casual government-trusting observer to change their views. Andrew Neil’s gesture at the end was surely, to the average viewer, quite fitting.Jones is the very worst kind of spokesman for those of us who try to educate people about deep manipulation of political processes, the hegemony of finance, and the breathtaking and murderous lies of all our leaders.I admit to having learnt quite a bit from Jones myself but this ‘limited hangout’ artist acts like a fool, looks like a fool and, what’s worse, brings down ridicule on the heads of the rest of us.Most of us quickly grow out of admiring this Zion-funded egomaniac.What was it Lenin said?The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.Looks like Alex, smells like Alex.Must be Alex.For more BBC1 manipulation watch ‘The Big Questions’ on BBC iPlayer (series 6, episode 20), aired this morning also, but not yet online.The debate about Syria was so skewed it was sickening to watch. There were two opponents of ‘our’ intervention in Syria, the main guy being a decent enough military fellow but a bit dim. He pointed out the obvious dangers based on the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan but failed to also make the point out that it was US/UK/EU politicians (with the support of Qataris and Saudis) that kicked off the’Syrian Rebellion’ that these same politicians now find so ‘heartbreaking’. He also did not challenge the picture of a satanic government at war with its own people when NATO’s own research shows that 70% of the Syrian public support Assad, 20% are neutral and only 10% support the rebels. This is a level of support that David Cameron and Barack Obama can only dream about.The (don’t laugh) ‘democrats’ pushing for war far outnumbered these two and were allowed to bang on about our ‘humanitarian duty’ ad nauseam. One also notes that whenever issues of war are debated on the BBC, the Jewish representative from the ‘Henry Jackson Society’ always seems to make an appearance, loathsome dissembling git that he is.Yup, the BBC know how to create the impression they desire. Gotta be the world’s most skilled and practiced liars. Increasing numbers, encouragingly, are seeing through the system. Even Tory MP’s are up in arms about the prospect of our arming ‘the rebels’ (as their party leaders recommend) so these people are getting educated somewhere even if it is not by the BBC.P.S. Here is a powerful report about and appeal for Syria written by Nobel Laureate, Mairead Maguire.
It’s conclusion (below) contains the kind of truth you will never read in the western mainstream media,
http://www.sibialiria.org/wordpress/?p=1517%2024%20maggio%202013AN OVERVIEW:Following many authorized reports in the mainstream Medias and our own evidences I can stress that the Syrian State and its population are under a proxy war led by foreign countries and directly financed and backed mainly by Qatar who has imposed its views on the Arab League. Turkey, a part of the Lebanese opposition and some of the Jordan authorities offer a safe haven to a diversity of jihadist groups, each with its own agenda, recruited from many countries. Bands of jihadists armed and financed from foreign countries invade Syria through Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon porous frontiers in an effort to destabilize Syria. There are an estimated 50,000 foreign jihadist fighters terrorizing Syria.Those death squads are destroying systematically the Syrian State infrastructures (Electricity, Oil, Gas and water plants, High Tension Pylons, hospitals, schools, public buildings, cultural heritage sites and even religious sanctuaries). Moreover the country is submerged by snipers, bombers, agitators, bandits. They use aggression and Sharia rules and hijack the freedom and dignity of the Syrian population. They torture and kill those who refuse to join them. They have strange religious beliefs which make them feel comfortable even perpetrating the cruelest acts like killing and torture of their opponents. It is well documented that many of those terrorists are permanently under stimulant like Captagon. The general lack of security unlashes the terrible phenomenon of abduction for ransoms or for political pressure. Thousands of innocents are missing, among them the two Bishops, Youhanna Ibrahim and Paul Yazigi, many priests and Imams.Colleagues say man who reported alleged drug-dealing boss was investigated before concerns taken seriouslyMichael Blowers fought to keep his identity secret after his arrest on the grounds that publishing his name would cause “extreme hardship” to his family and in his current job. Photo / One News
The detective who blew the whistle on his alleged drug-dealing boss was removed from his squad and investigated before senior police took his concerns seriously.
Michael David Blowers, a former detective sergeant, was later charged with supplying methamphetamine and selling cannabis while in charge of the organised crime unit in Northland.
When Blowers’ identity was made public, Northland’s top officer said the probe which led to the prosecution began after a concerned member of staff came forward.
But the Weekend Herald can reveal the officer was removed from Blowers’ organised crime squad and put under strict supervision after he gave senior police management a report on his boss’ movements.
Disappointed colleagues say the disciplinary action undermines police attempts to encourage a culture where inappropriate conduct is reported to management without fear of reprisal.
The detective became suspicious of Blowers’ behaviour and tailed his visits to the home of a Whangarei woman before handing a dossier – which included covert photographs – to senior CIB management.
But instead of immediately probing Blowers’ movements, police management removed the whistleblower from the organised crime squad and placed him under strict supervision.
He was also subjected to an internal code of conduct inquiry which centred on his use of the National Intelligence Application computer system, which is supposed to be used only on official police business.
Several weeks passed until the detective was cleared of any breaches and attention later switched to Blowers, who became the subject of an internal inquiry.
This was elevated to a criminal inquiry when the woman he was visiting told police he gave her methamphetamine and cannabis taken from the police exhibit locker between June 2011 and June 2012.
He was arrested in April and has denied the charges. At the time, Superintendent Russell Le Prou, the Northland district commander, said the inquiry started when a member of staff came forward with concerns. A source within the Northland police took exception to the statement.
“It’s absolute bull****. [Northland CIB] looked at this detective really hard before deciding to look into [the allegations against] Blowers. It was being swept under the carpet until common sense prevailed.”
In a statement to the Weekend Herald, Mr Le Prou said he could not comment on the treatment of the whistleblower as “internal employment matters” were private between employer and employees.
“As I have stated before, a member of police did have the courage to come forward with concerns about a colleague. These concerns led to an investigation and resulted in some serious charges being laid.
“Northland staff can have confidence that if they do come forward it will be treated seriously.”
But the revelations will damage police efforts to build a culture where inappropriate conduct is reported.
Just 58 per cent of Northland police staff are confident they can raise concerns about colleagues without fear of reprisal – 10 per cent lower than the national average – according to a recent workplace survey.
Blowers was a veteran officer with 20 years’ experience, with particular expertise in battling the drug trade, and resigned two weeks before his arrest.
He fought to keep his identity secret after his arrest on the grounds that publishing his name would cause “extreme hardship” to his family and in his current job.
Name suppression was lifted last month after a High Court judge said the public interest was “perhaps stronger than usual” because of Blowers’ occupation at the time and the nature and circumstances of the charges.
“Moreover, that interest cannot be dismissed as merely prurient; the public has a legitimate right to know about matters potentially impinging on the integrity and proper functioning of our law enforcement agencies and their officers,” said Justice Rebecca Ellis.
Blowers has pleaded not guilty and will appear in the High Court at Whangarei again next month.
Re: I believe the government should be allowed to view my e-mails, tap my phone calls, and view my web history for national security concerns
By 161719 — reddit readers forum June 7, 2013
I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren’t realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn’t about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It’s about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you’re now considered a dangerous person.
With this tech in place, the government doesn’t have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you’re reporting on them to protect your dad.
2) Let’s say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They’re shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won’t be responsible for anyone dying. That’s going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they’re next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.
3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you’ve never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can’t say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn’t feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it’s infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.
You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren’t home. You can’t reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven’t been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn’t there.
4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It’s like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him “fuck you dude what are you laughing at can’t you see I’ve got a fucking wound on my leg?”
“Sorry,” he says. “I just didn’t know anyone read the news anymore.” There haven’t been any real journalists for months. They’re all in jail.
Everyone walking around is scared. They can’t talk to anyone else because they don’t know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they’re sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It’s always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.
You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you’re basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can’t use a phone or email. You can’t get a job. You can’t even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don’t want to lose their jobs. They don’t want to be labeled as traitors.
This all happened in the country where I live.
You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Maybe Obama won’t do it. Maybe the next guy won’t, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn’t about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it’s about your daughter or your son. We just don’t know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?
You know for me, the reason I’m upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant “liberty and justice for all.” You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That’s what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren’t standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?
Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?
I didn’t make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn’t happen in America. But guess what? It’s starting to happen.
I actually get really upset when people say “I don’t have anything to hide. Let them read everything.” People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.
To his former Welsh classmates the soon-to-be soldier was an oddball – a whizz on computers who didn’t quite fit inBradley Manning attended Tasker Milward school in Haverfordwest, Wales, between 2001 and 2005. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Tasker Milward school in Haverfordwest closed a week or so ago for the summer holidays, and its peeling black metal gates on Tuesday opened on to an almost empty car park, the three-storey red brick and cream building nearly deserted in the warm Pembrokeshire afternoon.
In term time, 1,200 pupils mill around the grounds, representing a significant chunk of the young people in the small town of 13,000, situated at the very westernmost tip of Wales.
It is less than a decade since one of those spilling out of these gates in a red polo shirt and bottle green sweatshirt with a red dragon crest was a diminutive blond 17-year-old with a thick Oklahoma twang, just 1.57 metres (5ft 2in) tall and weighing only 47.43kg (7½ stone).
In the years since he left Tasker Milward, Bradley Manning has become arguably the highest profile whistleblower of his generation, the source of the biggest data leak in US military history and will continue to be a hero to some, a traitor to others. Between 2001 and 2005, however, to his Welsh classmates he was just Bradley, the oddball who was a whizz on computers but didn’t quite fit in, who liked political arguments in class, whose mum made “brilliant” beefburgers after school.
Manning today finds himself at the heart of a quite extraordinary episode in US diplomatic, military and legal history. The account of what took him, in less than five years, from the computer club of a west Wales secondary school to US military custody accused of trying to help al-Qaida attack America may be one of the remarkable aspects of the young army private’s story.
Manning doesn’t hold a British passport and doesn’t consider himself to be a UK citizen, but he is unquestionably half Welsh (the Foreign Office, notably, has stressed he is “British by descent”). Though he was born in the US, his parents met when Brian Manning, a US naval intelligence analyst, was stationed in the very southwest tip of Wales; Susan Manning, then Fox, was a local girl from Haverfordwest. An older sister, Casey, was born in Wales; Bradley followed in 1987 after his parents had returned to the tiny Oklahoma town of Crescent where Brian took up a job in a car rental firm. The marriage was not a success, and in 2001, after Brian walked out, Susan returned to her home town with her children.
His new school was around the size of his entire home town, and friends from that time recall a complicated boy who never quite fit, didn’t get the Welsh humour, was hotheaded and unpredictable and sometimes bullied. “An American at a Welsh school is always going to stick out, isn’t he?” his friend James Kirkpatrick has said. “And his personality is unique, extremely unique. Very quirky, very opinionated, very political, very clever.”
Manning’s mother and extended family still live in and around Haverfordwest; they have largely withdrawn from the media and campaigners since the early days of his detention.
Those who have examined closely Manning’s time in Haverfordwest, however, are clear that even while a young teenager there were signs of the young man he was to become. Tim Price spent 10 months talking to Manning’s family members, friends and former teachers as research for a play, the Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, staged last year by the National Theatre of Wales, and remains close to Manning’s mother.
“The people who knew Bradley when he was in Wales say he was an incredibly bright young guy who was also incredibly thoughtful,” says Price. While still at school he built an early social media website called Angeldyne, “and there were stories on there written by a young Bradley Manning that were not written by your average teenager, a story aboutDr David Kelly, for example. He was an unusual teenager, very politically engaged.”
Vicky Moller, who runs a local campaign in support of the soldier, says former teachers have told her of a student who was “highly intelligent, engaged in long political discussions, had a questioning mind”. Moller feels that the Welsh education system – which she says focuses on “civil awareness and a moral approach to the human role in society” – may even have contributed to the actions that Manning would later take.
However bright and engaged, he does not seem to have been particularly happy while in Haverfordwest. Schoolfriends have said they didn’t know at the time that Manning was gay, and on leaving school after his GCSEs, he returned to live with his father and new stepmother, with the promise of a job in software.
But neither the job nor the new family dynamic worked out, and within a year he was sleeping on friends’ couches or in his pickup truck, making ends meet through casual jobs. “Bradley seems always to have been desperate to be wherever he wasn’t,” says Price. “He seemed like a guy who was permanently frustrated with the world.” By October 2007, dreaming of the university future it offered through a military scholarship, Manning had enlisted in the US army.
It may seem a curious decision for the 20-year-old – now openly gay and, say friends, increasingly politicised – and indeed his military career seems to have soured very quickly. Within a month of arriving at his first posting he was on the brink of expulsion; peers have described bullying so severe Manning wet himself on more than one occasion.
A short posting to upstate New York was happier; he met his first serious boyfriend Tyler Watkins, a student at Boston’s Brandeis university, and through him became involved in the Boston hacker community.
But once Manning had been posted to an isolated military base in the Iraqi desert in October 2009, that relationship, too, would quickly disintegrate. Forward Operating Base Hammer was an isolated, depressing place where morale was rock bottom and security slipshod.
Increasingly disillusioned with the US mission, Manning’s behaviour deteriorated, culminating in his punching a female officer in the face and being told he would be demoted and discharged. Within days he had contacted the notorious hacker Adrian Lamo, writing: “If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day, seven days a week for eight-plus months, what would you do?” The rest has been rehearsed exhaustively during an eight-week trial.
In Haverfordwest on Tuesday, views on his actions, however, were mixed. “My view is that he shouldn’t have done it,” said David Thomas, visiting from nearby Swansea. “He took an oath. How naive was he?” To Callum Downes, however, manning a collection stall for a soldiers’ charity called Afghan Heroes, the issue was more nuanced. “Nobody should leak secrets that will let an enemy to get the upper hand, but the government should not keep secrets from its people. All I know is, I have a couple of friends who are out there, and they hate it when they are kept in the dark.”
A respected academic, who just happens to be Muslim, was challenged by a Fox News anchor as to why he was qualified to write about Christ
A car crash television interview during which a Fox News host asked the author of a new biography about Jesus, why he, as a Muslim, feels able to write about the Christian Messiah, has had an unexpectedly positive outcome – with sales of the author’s book increasing by 35 per cent in just two days.
The excruciating 10-minute interview, during which broadcaster Lauren Green was left with egg on her face after she tried to pin down respected scholar Reza Aslan, who just happens to be Muslim, on why he felt capable of writing a book about the life of Jesus, went viral at the weekend after it was posted on Buzzfeed.
Ms Green asks: “You’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”
To which a visibly surprised Mr Aslan responds: “I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim.”
“It’s not that I’m just some Muslim writing about Jesus,” he continued. “I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions.”
But all publicity is good publicity, as they say, and this embarrassing episode for Fox News has had an extremely positive outcome for Mr Aslan whose controversial biography of Jesus, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, has now reached number 1 in the Amazon books charts.
Publishers Random House had to rush to meet a surge in demand for the book, ordering an additional 50,000 copies to be printed on Monday, bringing the total copies in print to 150,000.
The biography, published on 16 July, had already been selling well prior to Mr Aslan’s appearance on Fox News, having reached number 8 in the Amazon book charts on Friday, but Mr Aslan is “thrilled” at the increased exposure on the back of the viral interview.
“I’ll be perfectly honest — I’m thrilled at the response that people have had to the interview,” Mr Aslan told the New York Times. “You can’t buy this kind of publicity.”
The Fox News interview has been watched nearly 4.5 million times on Buzzfeed, which posted the video under the title “Is this the most embarrassing interview Fox News has ever done?”, and Mr Aslan has gained an additional 5,000 Twitter followers since it went out.
The book is to be published in the UK by The Westbourne Press with the ebook available from today and the hardback in bookstores from 15 August.
I motion stabilized the critical frames of the JFK shooting. The shot caused the cameraman to jerk.
You can see that he was hit in the head from the front by an incendiary round, which caught fire, exploded his head, and jerked it backwards.
He was slumped forward from a previous rear shot. The incendiary device struck him in the front of the skull and lodged there. You can see flames shooting out of the front of his skull in each subsequent frame. His skull was jerked sharply backwards over the next quarter of a second, and by the last frame you can see that much of his skull is gone.
Oswald was behind him.
In 1987, former U.S. Marine sniper Craig Roberts, a seasoned veteran of the Vietnam war, stood for the first time at the 6th floor “Sniper’s Nest” window of the Texas School Book Depository. As he looked down into what the U.S. government maintains was the kill zone used by Lee Harvey Oswald, he immediately knew that the Warren Commission’s verdict – that Oswald, acting alone from that position, fired three shots in 5.6 seconds from a bolt-action rifle, with a fatal head shot being the last shot fired – was a lie.
I have a similar WWII Hungarian rifle. The fastest you could possibly reload, and aim through a scope for the next shot is about five seconds. Most people would require ten or more seconds.
This is a mind blowing essay where via a FOIA request, a blogger got ahold of an abridged 500 page FBI file on the five dancing Israelis, (the classified version is 1,800 pages). You won’t find better than this ANYWHERE.
Comment #2 goes over how anyone can get their own copies of these documents on a CD from the FBI (for those skeptics who claim this is “disinfo” – as if I have any time to slug this stuff together). Here is the boilerplate letter I received from the FBI after making the initial request and asking for a fee waiver (my personal info has been whited out).
I’ve saved many the trouble of getting their own documents by posting them on Scribd.com, links are in the notes area. Article begins here:
Section 5, page 42
Above: A snippet from the 2001 FBI files on Urban Moving Systems and the 9-11 Dancing Israelis incident. An employee of UMS dishes on the boss (Dominik Suter?) who not only cheats customers but seems to harbor a huge grudge against the United States.
Here are videos for those unfamiliar with the story:
The controversy around Urban Moving Systems (active as a business since approximately 1996) centers around the fact that it was a Mossad front company, and whether or not the “employees” (agents) knew what was about to go down on September 11th. There were also, according to the FBI report, traces of explosive in the van used in the Dancing Israelis incident. Were members of this group involved in rigging the towers for demolition?
Section 1, page 35
In section 5, page 25 of the FBI report, a male eyewitness who was painting the interior of an apartment spots the Dancing Israelis on a nearby roof “less than 5 minutes” after the first plane hits the WTC. The location of the roof, The Doric Apartments at 100 Manhattan Avenue in Union City, NJ, is a 5 minute drive from Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th Street in Weehauken. This contradicts the statements of the Israelis in the 4th video (starting at 3:55), who claim they began driving to that point after the first plane hit the towers.
Section 1, pages 36-37
There were a number of reasons I retrieved and posted the 4 page police report from the East Rutherford, NJ P.D. and these FBI documents on the 9-11-2001 Dancing Israelis incident (links are below). If any 9-11 researchers had seen them, they failed to make them available for public scrutiny. As a consequence, some individuals have concluded that the Dancing Israelis were an “urban legend”, based only on researchers’ opinions and a slew of seemingly disparate facts.
Section 5, page 41
Fill out an FOIA request, or write a letter, and these public records are yours for a few dollars, or free. So why have we not seen (until now) official documentation on these suspicious events – events that apparently never got a mention in the 9-11 Commission Report?
Section 5, pages 62-63The FBI’s investigation of the Dancing Israelis is close to 550 pages long – redacted pages (not included in the above count), had they been made available, would bring the actual report closer to 1800 pages. Of the released pages, many are partially blanked out. The investigation won’t be completely declassified until 2030 at the earliest; however it appears that date was changed to 2035 (see above stamps that appear on most pages).
Section 5, page 30
The report is in 6 sections. The PDF “search” option does not seem to be working. A brief synopsis of some findings are below, section by section.
Section 1, page 33
Because of time constraints, I have not vetted everything. Please note in the comments area any section/page of interest found in these documents. I have posted some snippets, however, I may have missed a few things, and would appreciate any insights, help etc.
Section 5, page 47
From the official East Rutherford, New Jersey police report, page 4 – suspect claims they were in Manhattan on the West Side Highway during the attack on the WTC (stated as “the incident”)
Section 1, page 65Above: A female witness at 100 Manhattan Avenue spots the Israelis “high fiving” each other while watching the WTC burn. Were they really happy to see the WTC burn, or were they just fans of Seattle’s “High Five’n White Guys”?:The first 9 links below this article under “Related posts” are my own independent research. Some of these articles contain evidence that some actors in this group are still active in the US.
The Doric Apartments, 100 Manhattan Ave, Union City, NJ – “…the Doric stands on the cliffs of Union City offering non-obstructed breathtaking views of the New York City’s skyline” – quote from Doric’s website
One view of Manhattan from the Doric Apartments – from Panaramio.com and Google Maps
The Doric Apartments’ garage rooftop parking area where the Dancing Israelis were spotted on 9-11-01. Below, a promo video for the Doric Apartments.———————————————————-
FBI documents on Urban Moving Systems and the Dancing Israelis (these notes will be updated as time permits)
Regarding the Dancing Israelis connection to the Mossad, here’s an article from the Jewish Daily Forward.
For an interesting analysis of the information in these documents, please see
The “Dancing Israelis” FBI Report – Debunked.
A concise video of the same analysis is here on YouTube.
UPDATE: On Scribd, the documents are available for reading, however Scribd is now charging for downloads. Free downloads are available via this blog.
Section 1 (full text at this link)
Section 1, page 7
Section 1, page 23. An “unscheduled” UMS van is spotted in Plymouth, MA on 9-11-2001 at 6:45 a.m.
Section 1, page 30. AA flight 11 was scheduled to depart Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m.
p. 36 and p. 52-53 – An “unscheduled” Urban Moving Systems van is stopped by Pennsylvania State Police as it is traveling toward the Shanksville, PA hijacked flight 93 crash site:
Section 1, page 36
Section 1, page 30
p. 36 – An “unscheduled” Urban Moving Systems van is found in Nashua, NH on 9-11:
Section 1, page 36
Section 1, page 34 Airline tickets with immediate travel dates found in NJ van.
Section 1, page 39
p. 61-77 – Tenants at 100 Manhattan Avenue apartments are questioned about sightings of Israelis prior to 9-11.
Section 1, page 61. One of the 5 Dancing Israelis was spotted at 100 Manhattan Ave. on 9-10-01. Was he helping the mysterious couple (below) move out of their apartment?
Section 1, page 71 – Manager at 100 Manhattan Ave.
regarding tenants moving out using a UMC truck on 9-10-01
Section 1, page 73 – Urban Moving sighted at 100 Manhattan Ave. 9-10-01
Section 1, page 73. Did the mysterious tenant who moved on 9-10-01 “work” at the WTC?
Hoboken PATH Station
1 Hudson Place, Hoboken, NJ 07030.
Served by Newark-World Trade Center, Hoboken – 33rd Street, and Hoboken-World Trade Center lines.
Section 1, page 96 – a few of the odd photos found
Section 1, page 100 – flight itinerary – 12 Sept departure
pages 128-129 – addresses in Missouri and Texas
Section 2 (full text at this link)Section 2 covers insurance papers for Urban Moving Systems.
Section 3 (full text at this link)
Section 3, page 28. A 9-16-01 memo details a new UMS warehouse location at 73-75 Gould Street in Bayonne, NJ. I exposed this warehouse and the UMS connection to Israeli mall sales of Zoomcopters in an article in 2009
9-11, Mossad Mall Spies, Zoomcopters and Dominik Suter
Section 4 (full text at this link)
Section 5 (full text at this link)
P 21: female employee of UMS arrives at work at 8:58 am (shown on punched time card). A co-worker brings her some cookies – she estimates this happened about 5 minutes after she clocked in (9:03) She talks with co-worker for “a few more minutes” and then hears someone in the building shout “Oh my God a plane just hit the World Trade Center.” She then heads into the dispatch room of Urban Moving Systems (where the shout came from) and sees “a still picture on a computer screen of a plane hitting one tower”.
p. 25: A painter at the Doric Towers, 100 Manhattan Ave, Union City, NJ is informed by a partner of the disaster “less than 5 minutes” after the first plane hits the north tower”. He “stands up from painting the baseboard, looks out of the window, and notices 3 young men taking video and still photographs from atop the roof of the parking garage adjoining Doric Towers. (ed. note: Urban Moving Systems is a 5 minute drive from 100 Manhattan Ave.)
Section 5, page 27 – cigarette butts as evidence
Section 6 (full text at this link)p 8: foreign names and names of obscure towns in India and Nepal.p 30: report on Israeli art vendor arrested in Mercer county. Found traveling in the vicinity of the FAA center in Pomona, NJ and also taking pictures of bridges and freeways:
Section 6, page 30 Below, video on Israeli “art sales”:
p 33: four Israeli nationals arrested by Mt. Holly Police dept on 8 14 2001
p 38: FBI declares Israelis innocent
p 40: phone number found in notes connected to individual in S. America with “ties to Islamic militants in the ME”P 41: another phone number is connected to a hash dealer in NY – this info is considered moot.p 43: FBI admits wide discrepancies in suspects stories
Section 6, page 45 – witness describes video camera
Section 6, page 47 Dancing Israelis, Classic International Movers and the 19 hijackers
Section 6, page 48 – Dancing Israelis heading to NJ at 7:48 a.m. on 9-11-01. From Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (A) to Urban Moving (B) – an 18 minute commute that passes by the WTC and also uses the Lincoln Tunnel (map below).
p 63: FBI references antiwar.com
p 89: items not claimed by suspects destroyed
And the aftermath continues:
<a title="The Experts Are<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Starting To Say The 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be Right" href="http://anonym.to/?http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17897">The Experts Are Starting To Say The 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos May Be RightTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 AT 2:06PM GILAD ATZMON
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:
A few weeks ago some of us were rather amused to see Max Blumenthal, in conversation with Paul Jay (The Real News Network), deliver the usual anti-Zionist Zionist (AZZ) spiel. After the program many Palestinian solidarity and anti-warcommentators were outraged and demanded that Jay provide me with a right to reply. So Jay approached me, asked to clarify a few issues and promised to come back to me shortly with an answer. I didn’t hold my breath because since the incident I had learned a little about Jay’s political affiliations and motivations.
Yesterday, he came back with his answer (see below) which he manages to stuff with a pile of confused and jumbled arguments that convey profound intellectual ignorance and are riven with a host of embarrassing contradictions. But one thing was for sure. Gilad Atzmon would not be appearing on Jay’s show. Why? Because, above all, Jay is a coward and must have realised that he doesn’t stand a chance of countering my ideas in front of a camera, not even in his own studio.
I define Jewish Power as the power to divert the attention from Jewish Power and Paul Jay clearly engages in just such an endeavour. In fact, my main contribution to this discourse is probably my capacity to expose this very power and the manner in which it is wielded (Actually, all I do is hand the microphone to my detractors and let their symptoms speak for themselves).
But Jay’s muddled text cries for attention because it is an invaluable glimpse into the deeply corrosive and dishonest attitude that currently contaminates Palestine solidarity, the anti-war movement and the entire peace movement.
Jay attempts to build his entire argument around the notion that I am an ‘anti Semite’ only to eventually admit that actually I am not.“Since the late 19th century the term (anti Semitism) has been used to mean hatred of Jews….Do I believe you (Gilad) hate all Jews? No. But your theory leads to that”
Well, I have some news for Jay & Co. ‘Theories’ do not hate, ideas do not kill, it is people who hate and people who kill. My ‘theories’ are there to enlighten people, including Jews. My ideas offer Jews, even the so-called progressive Jews such as Jay himself, an opportunity to self-reflect and, hopefully, to correct that which needs correction. But here we have a problem. As I explore in The Wandering Who, Jewish identity politics is a general state of blindness, a detached collective mind-set which Jay himself proudly exhibits. We know that the Israelis will accept no criticism and their Jewish so-called opponents react exactly the same. Time after time, they kill the messengers – or at least attempt to do so. This is why I am not at all angry with Jay, in fact I feel for him. He is trapped – metaphysically, spiritually and intellectually. Jay’s plight is the Jewish tragedy – a disastrous tale I explore fully in my writing. From a psychoanalytical perspective the man is in ‘denial’ and, like other progressive Jews, he, for the time being, resists therapy.
Now, before I let you read Jay own words, allow me to address some of his mistakes:
Jay fails to grasp the obvious distinction between ‘Judaism’ (the religion), ‘Jews’ (the people) and ‘Jewishness’ (the Ideology). In my work I concentrate on Jewish ideology and since I believe that every ideology and politics must be subject to criticism, this obviously includes Jewish identity politics. Jay, on the other hand, tries to block any criticism of Jewish politics and ideology. Is this because he believes that Jews are chosen? You be the judge.
Jay proclaims “the internalization of racism is not inherent in identifying ones cultural and ethnic roots as being Jewish, and to do so, is nothing uniquely Jewish.” Now, if Jay is correct, what is it that makes the ‘Jewish state’ Jewish? And what is it that makes JVP (Jewish Voice for peace) Jewish? Moreover, How many Goyimserved as the secretary of JVP or ‘Jews for Justice’ in the last decade? Not one is the answer, and the reason has much to do with racial and ethnic qualification. Sooner or later even Jay will have to admit that by its very nature, Jewish politics is exclusivist.
Jay, who goes on for six pages about my criticism of Jewish politics, apparently doesn’t understand a thing about Judaism, Zionism and their relationship with Jewish textual heritage. For example he is particularly concerned my interpretation of the following Biblical verse: “Then when the Lord your God brings you to the land he promised your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you – a land with large, fine cities you did not build, houses filled with choice things you did not accumulate, hewn out cisterns you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant – and you eat your fill.” Deuteronomy: Six: 10 –11. No one who reads the above can turn a blind eye to the continuum between the Biblical call for plunder, the Zionist project and the Israeli practice. But Jay simply attempts to smokescreen this glaring fact.
Interestingly enough, in my latest book The Wandering Who I try to rescue Judaism out of this continuum. But Jay, being a secular Jew, doesn’t want anyone to fiddle with his cultural heritage in spite of the fact that he himself is totally unfamiliar with any Jewish text, let alone its cultural meaning.
So here is the story Jay seems to miss: Judaism is not driven by the Torah – the Talmud is a central text of Judaism. It was actually Zionism that revised and revolutionized the relationship between Jews and their forming texts and made the Torah into its primary text. Hence, Biblical plunder is deeply rooted in the new Hebraic culture, Israeli politics and legislation, a topic about which Jay is obviously clueless which may explain his obvious fear of facing me on his show.
It takes six pages for Jay to spit out his banal, materialist, Marxist clichés regarding Israel and its origin. “Israeli state is a product and significant piece of the system of international capital”. But here is the problem Jay is unable to integrate into his system. Israel defines itself as “The Jewish State”, its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols and, as I write these lines, its Jewish Lobbies are pushing for, on its behalf, a war in Syria. And as if this were not enough, the Jewish progressive network invests all its energy in trying to stop us from discussing it at all. This is the reality Jay attempts to disguise. But he can’t. No one can, not anymore. If anything Jay’s conduct in this affair only reveals the destructive and sinister power of Zionism within media in general and within the anti war movement in particular.
Paul Jay to Gilad Atzmon
CC: Alison Weir, Harvie Branscomb Jeff Balnkfort, Monir Deeb Shahram Vahdany, Janet Mcmahon, Delinda C. Hanley, Paul Latudee and others
source:http://therealnews.com/Dear Gilad,, you asked for a chance to respond to Max Blumenthal’s accusation that your views are anti-Semitic. I promised to read some of your work and then reply. I’ve now read enough to give an answer.First let me make a few things clear about my point of view.I think any state based on religion or ethnicity is racist and inherently anti-democratic. Israel fits that bill, as do others.I think the occupation of the West bank and siege of Gaza is illegal. In the brutal wars against the Palestinian people, Israel has committed countless war crimes.If this was 1948, I would be opposed to the establishment of the State of Israel. A democratic, secular, inclusive state where everyone who was living on the territory of Palestine could become a citizen is what should have been created.That is what should happen now. If Palestinians vote for a two-state solution that is their right, but it’s also their right to demand one-person one vote and thus transform the current Israeli state into a truly democratic one.Now, let’s turn to your thesis.I do not think that Zionism grows out of “Jewish ideology”. In fact, I reject the concept that there is something one can call a generic Jew or a Jewish ideology.In your book The Wandering Who, you define Jewish ideology as someone who politically identifies as a Jew, “Jewishness is an ethno-centric ideology driven by exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation”.In Israel, where national character and Jewish identity merge given the ethnic/religious basis of the state, this argument may have some merit, but it has nothing to do with the national and class ideology of thousands of Jews around the world who have little to no affinity with Israel and do not begin their political equation with “what’s good for the Jews”.I’m not suggesting there are no such Jews, probably a majority at least when it comes to support for Israel. As odious as this is, this type of chauvinism is nothing unique, whether it’s Aryan, Han, Japanese, Russian, Saudi or American. Many nationalist cultures consider themselves to be “chosen” and “exceptional”.Polling shows younger generations of American Jews are increasingly more distanced from feelings of affinity with Israel. Of course, they may adopt the religion or ideology of Americanism in its place (an ideology, in spite of its crimes, you seem to have no problem with as it’s not Jewish).The point is that the internalization of racism is not inherent in identifying ones cultural and ethnic roots as being Jewish, and to do so, is nothing uniquely Jewish.Just as it is pointless talking about a generic Catholic without taking into consideration country of origin, national psychology, and most importantly class – it’s meaningless talking about a generic Jew.There are Catholics whose politics begin with “what’s good for the Catholics” . . . mostly to be found in the Vatican, but not exclusively. There are many Muslims who say the same about Islam.But millions of people identify as Catholics and Muslims who do not start their political equation from identity politics. There is no “Catholic ideology or Muslim ideology” above national and class interest. The world view of a Sri Lankan catholic peasant has far more in common with an Indian Hindu peasant than with a Brazilian catholic finance capitalist. That’s not to say there are no instances of tribalism that influence sections of the population, but again, nothing uniquely Jewish about it.There is no generic Jew.A Canadian of Jewish Ashkenazi East European origin, who has no religious beliefs but identifies as a cultural Jew, opposes the Israeli occupation, has some nostalgic feelings about grandparents who spoke Yiddish and made chicken soup on Fridays, and most importantly understands that the Nazis made no differentiation between believers and non-believers when they knocked down the door . . . has far more in common, shares more of a world view with a progressive Muslim Canadian, than with an Israeli Jew who is dripping with racist hatred for Palestinians.Hitler and the Zionists created a vision of a generic Jew with a metaphysical identity, transmitted by blood or the product of a Jewish soul. The Zionists concocted that this “identity” necessarily leads to support for the State of Israel. That’s why they promoted Hebrew as a modern language and virtually suppressed Yiddish – to invent an identity out of time and place.Your thesis is the same as the Zionists. Your “Jewish ideology” exists only in abstract form and you also conclude it necessarily leads to support for Zionism. Unless a Jew renounces being a Jew, as you have, they must believe in “exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation” . . . in one form or the other. Your definition transcends nation and class, because for you, the Jewish identity trumps all other factors.You write on the comments section of TRNN, “My scholarship is not concerned with Judaism (the religion) nor am I referring to Jews (the people). I am critical of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish ideology. I elaborate on Jewish-ness and Jewish culture as opposed to Judaism. Race, genetics or biology have never been part of my study. If anything, I am critical largely of Jewish secular politics and culture rather than the Jewish religion.”Your writing is so self-contradictory that I’m sure you can find a quote that will deal with all criticisms, even if your statements are opposed to each other.You write in your email to me and elsewhere, “Zionism is a dynamic continuation of Jewish-ness: it (Zionism) is racist, exclusive, supremacist and self- centered, yet it is not Judaic. It has very little to do with Judaism. It may be messianic in a territorial sense, yet it lacks the Judaic divinity. In fact, in this sense, Zionism opposes Judaism. (The Wandering Who footnote 46, P’197)Yet in the same email you write, “However, it is rather obvious and very embarrassing to admit that the Judaic God, as portrayed by Moses in Deuteronomy 6:10, is an immoral and evil God. It is a God who leads his people to plunder, robbery and theft.”
Further down you write “In short, it is actually impossible not to see the continuum between Deuteronomy 6:10 and the crime against the Palestinian people that is committed by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish people”.
So Jewish ideology is not Judaic, but its roots are to be found in a continuum from Deuteronomy 6:10.
You claim this is an attack on an ideology, not Jews themselves, but I think it’s mental gymnastics. Certainly you admit to hating your own “Jewish ideology”, and when you assert that all those who ascribe to a Jewish identity necessarily have this ideology – it amounts to the same thing.
One could say, as the Catholic Church does, they don’t hate homosexuals, only their behavior, but it is completely disingenuous. Just as the Church is homophobic, your position is anti-Jewish.
Anti-Semitic because even though technically Semites include those from the region, since the late 19th century the term has been used to mean hatred of Jews. So I think Max Blumenthal’s charge is justified.
Do I believe you hate all Jews? No. But your theory leads to that.
I think you are rejecting a vicious form of racism that permeates Israeli society. For that I applaud you. It’s not easy to break with the pressure put on Israelis to fit the mold and give up any independent thinking.
This racism does express itself amongst some people of Jewish origin in North America and elsewhere, who as a result of experiencing the WWII genocide, or in a desperate search for meaning in their lives, or to create business alliances or advance their careers, have latched on to a fictitious poisonous brew cooked up by Zionist leaders to win support for the occupation.
But there are people who identify as Jews around the world, who reject all of this and share most, if not all, of the positions of the Palestinian solidarity movement.
Your “Jewish ideology” also has nothing to do with the brave Israeli Jews who put their lives and freedom on the line working in the solidarity movement, or refuse to join the armed forces, and other forms of resistance. Most of them could leave but choose to stay and fight. They don’t have to renounce their identity as a Jew to denounce the racist nature of the state and call for an end to the occupation.
You have many critics who are activists and Jews in the Palestinian solidarity movement. You seem to have special venom for them, denouncing them as just another form of Zionist ideologues.
But you have also been denounced by leading Palestinians. In a statement of which you must be aware, signed by twenty-three Palestinian activists, it says: “Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist”. I don’t think these leading Palestinian activists can be accused of basing their critique of you on their “Jewish ideology”.
I’m going to post this letter in the comments section under the Blumenthal interview. As far as you answering Max goes, or responding to this letter, you are free to write a response and have it posted there. But I will not interview you about these issues.
I believe your theories have no historical or factual basis. I share the view that your theories serve Zionist propaganda and divide the solidarity movement. I concur that your thesis is anti-Semitic at its core. I don’t think a debate about these issues is called for or serves any kind of useful intellectual endeavor. I will not get into a drawn out back and forth with you on this.
While I appreciate much of your critique of the Israeli state, your theoretical work on the roots of Zionism is just not a serious analysis.
Your hatred for all things politically left, especially Jewish and left, is superficial and banal. I quote your email to me, “Sadly we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political discourse both on the left and right. The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution. I better stay out of it. “
It’s beyond me how you can’t see that the Israeli state is a product and significant piece of the system of international capital, something you seem anxious to defend from “Progressive Jewish robbers”. Here you reveal your ideological roots as a defender of the “ruling class”.
Your grandfather would have been proud; you describe him in your book as a “. . . veteran Zionist terrorist. A former prominent commander in the right-wing Irgun terror organization”. You write, “More than anything, though, my grandfather hated Jewish leftists”.
When you equate the militarist Zionist state’s occupation of Palestinian lands with those who want a more equitable society, and call them all plunderers who share this “Jewish ideology” – then you also hate Jewish leftists “more than anything”. You hate them more than Zionism and building a united front against it.
Senior Editor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uaglEdB7CDsWhen Father Ted had to kick Bishop Brennan up the arse (as a forfeit for cheating in a football match) he expected to get away with it.He knew that the suggestion he had kicked his excellency up the arse WAS SO UNSPEAKABLE IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE SUCH AN OUTRAGE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED.And so it proved for a while.In spite of the fact that the exact moment of the event was photographed by Ted’s assistant, Fr. Dougal………in spite of the physical evidence showing at least six inches of Ted’s boot invisible between the cheeks of the good Bishop’s buttocks…….it was safe to say……..IT NEVER HAPPENED.
AND TO MOCK ANYTHING AND ANYONE THAT SUGGESTED OTHERWISE.And thus do the mainstream media treat state-sponsored outrages.There is silence about the devastating physical evidence relating to 9/11, 7/7 and any number of other terrorist hoaxes crafted to promote the neo-Imperialist agenda under the guise of the phoney ‘War on Terror’.
This same silence applies to the fact that the privately-owned parasitic international banksters, being afforded the privilege of creating our money out of nothing, now effectively own our governments also (of course, these financial interests own our entire mainstream media too).
We can also be sure that hell will freeze over (or the system will be overthrown) before physical evidence challenging the existence, in Auschwitz particularly, of human gas chambers during WW2 will be aired and fairly debated in the public domain.It is worth noting that at the end of the aforementioned episode, Bishop Brennan finally realises the truth and kicks Father Ted’s arse up and down the length of Craggy Island.Banksters, media shills
The day will come.
News Brief — Sept 26, 2013
First the Western media used a mistranslation of a speech President Ahmadinejad to promote the idea the he wanted to “wipe Israel off the map“
Now CNN has been caught fabricating President Rouhani’s replies during an interview with Christiane Amanpour. The passage in question occurs when Christiane Amanpour asks:
“One of the things your predecessor (President Ahmadinejad) used to do from this very platform was deny(ing) the holocaust and pretend(ing) it was a myth, I want to know you, your position on the holocaust, do you accept what it was, and what was it?”
According to Fars News an exact translation of Rouhani’s reply reads:
“I have said before that I am not a historian and historians should specify, state and explain the aspects of historical events, but generally we fully condemn any kind of crime committed against humanity throughout the history, including the crime committed by the Nazis both against the Jews and non-Jews, the same way that if today any crime is committed against any nation or any religion or any people or any belief, we condemn that crime and genocide. Therefore, what the Nazis did is condemned, (but) the aspects that you talk about, clarification of these aspects is a duty of the historians and researchers, I am not a history scholar.”
However CNN’s translation reads:
“I’ve said before that I am not a historian and then, when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust, it is the historians that should reflect on it. But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that Nazis committed towards the Jews as well as non-Jews is reprehensible and condemnable. Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn, the taking of human life is contemptible, it makes no difference whether that life is Jewish life, Christian or Muslim, for us it is the same, but taking the human life is something our religion rejects but this doesn’t mean that on the other hand you can say Nazis committed crime against a group now therefore, they must usurp the land of another group and occupy it. This too is an act that should be condemned. There should be an even-handed discussion”.
Fars News notes that the Yellow parts have been added or completely altered. while the Orange parts seem to be the result of conceptual, and imprecise translation.
However, Ms Amanpour should know better. The daughter of an Iranian Muslim father and an English mother, she spent her early years in Iran before leaving to attend boarding school in England aged 11.
Proving her knowledge of Farsi, Ms. Amanpour has appeared in many videos on the internet speaking Persian fluently and then even translating it into English for her audience.
This may just be sloppy journalism but as Fars News notes, CNN has yet to explain the mistranslation or even apologise for it.
Although it won’t have anywhere near the same impact as the now notorious “wipe Israel off the map” mistranslation it shows how the Western corporate media works. They are literally putting words into President Rouhani’s mouth and calling it news. Presenting an entirely fictitious account of events as factual reporting.
Millions of private details are being swapped between Government agencies every year, including your name, birth date, income, IRD number, citizenship, travel plans, ACC claims, home address and phone numbers. The list goes on.
This New Zealand Herald interactive graphic maps out the different relationships between each department, what information they share and the reasons why.
Hover over each link to find out what they know about you.Have Your Say! Rate This Film!Rating: 4.7/5 (78 votes cast)
UD admin note: This is a fascinating look at one of the most lied about periods in the history of mankind. It has a some controversial content. A friend advised me not to post it, saying it was too objectionable. The film maker takes a neutral to pro-Hitler stance. In keeping with our motto, “Free movies, free minds, free speech,” I’ve decided to post it and ask that “You watch, you decide.”
This documentary chronicles the rise of Germany from defeat in WWI, communist attempts to take over Germany, hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic, widespread unemployment and misery, and Hitler’s rise to power.
It also reveals a personal side of Adolf Hitler – who he was, his family background, his artwork and struggles in Vienna and what motivated him to come to power.
There’s too much hidden history to recount here – FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Soviet brutality, the root causes of WWII, etc. You will have to watch, do your own research, and decide what to believe.
This is the filmmakers new website:
Hidden History: In Feb. 1943, the German wives of about 1800 Jewish men who had been rounded up for deportation protested for days outside the building on Rosenstrasse in Berlin where they were confined. This demonstration of courage and love resulted in the release of the fathers and husbands, and was the only anti government protest in Germany during the Nazi period. Most of the Jewish men survived the war.“Let Our Husbands Go!”
From the book, “A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violent Conflict”
by Peter Ackerman & Jack DuVallOn February 27, 1943, SS soldiers and local Gestapo agents began seizing the Jews of Berlin in an operation called “the Final Roundup.” They were loaded onto trucks and taken to the Jewish community’s administration building at Rosenstrasse 2-4, in the heart of the city. The goal was finally to make the city judenfrei (free of Jews), necessitating the forcible collection of Jews with German spouses and their Mischling (mixed ancestry) children. For two years these Jews had escaped the jaws of the Holocaust because they or their German spouses were essential for the war effort, and the regime wanted no unpleasantness on the home front. But the stunning military defeat at Stalingrad earlier that month shattered German morale and led Hitler to call for “Total War,” against Jews inside Germany as well as Allied armies.Word spread quickly about the abductions in Berlin, and before long a group of non-Jewish German women had gathered on the Rosenstrasse with food and other personal items for their Jewish husbands and children, whom they believed were being held inside. One of the women, Charlotte Israel, arrived and found 150 women already huddled outside. She asked one of the guards for her husband’s potato ration cards, which he went to get. On the back of a card, her husband Julius wrote, “I’m fine.” Other women began asking for personal effects to confirm that their husbands were inside and, soon after, began demanding their release. One woman’s brother, a soldier on leave, approached an SS guard and said, “If my brother-in-law is not released, I will not return to the front.” The crowds grew considerably despite the winter chill, and soon women waited outside day and night, holding hands, singing songs, and chanting “Let our husbands go!” By the second day of the protest, over 600 women were keeping a vigil on the Rosenstrasse.This was not the first time many of these women had voiced dissent. For over a decade they and their families had challenged Nazi racial policies through letters and small demonstrations, insisting that the regime would be hurting fellow Germans by persecuting their Jewish spouses. Hitler and his circle had always tried to minimize unrest and avoid the kind of domestic opposition that German rightists saw as the “stab in the back” that had crippled the German effort during World War I. Until this point the regime had largely managed to keep the genocide against the Jews a secret. But when it affected a group who were unafraid to speak out against Nazi policies, that secrecy was jeopardized.
What gave further resonance to the wives’ protest was that it was happening in the heart of Berlin, a city that had never been enthusiastic about Nazism. Cosmopolitan Berliners always saw it as a crude Bavarian aberration. Moreover, Berlin was the German base for foreign news organizations that still operated during the war. If political malcontents or the wire services were to get wind of the protest, the myth of the omnipotent Nazi state could be exposed. In fact, London radio did report on the demonstrations.
By the third day SS troops were given orders to train their guns on the crowd but to fire only warning shots. They did so numerous times, scattering the women to nearby alleyways. But the wives always returned and held their ground. They knew the soldiers would never fire directly at them because they were of German blood. Also, arresting or jailing any of the women would have been the rankest hypocrisy: According to Nazi theories, women were intellectually incapable of political action. So women dissenters were the last thing the Nazis wanted to have Germans hear about, and turning them into martyrs would have ruined the Nazis’ self-considered image as the protector of motherhood.
The campaign soon expanded to include women and men who were not in mixed marriages. The ranks of protesters bulged to a thousand, with people chanting to let the prisoners go and taunting the SS soldiers. Joseph Goebbels, seeking to stop more from arriving, closed down the nearest streetcar station, but women walked the extra mile from another station to reach Rosenstrasse 2-4. By the end of the week Goebbels saw no alternative but to let the prisoners go. Some thirty-five Jewish male prisoners, who had already been sent to Auschwitz, were ordered to gather their belongings and board a passenger train back to Berlin.
Without fully realizing what they had done, the Rosenstrasse women had forced the Nazis to make a choice: They could accede to a limited demand and pay a finite cost – 1,700 prisoners set free, if all the intermarried Jewish men were released. Or they could open a Pandora’s box of heightened protest in the center of the capital and brutalize German women in the bargain. For the Nazis, maintaining social control was more important than making sure every last Jew made it to the gas chambers. The regime that terrorized the rest of Europe found itself unable to use violence against a challenge on its very doorstep. The Nazis were savage but they were not stupid.
As it happened, many more than thirty-five Jewish men were eventually set free. The protest confronted Nazis officials with an unresolved question: what to do with other intermarried Jews. Goebbels wanted them deported from Berlin so he could tell Hitler the city was judenfrei. Himmler prevented the deportations, but Goebbels lied and told Hitler that it had happened – and then tried to get Jews still in Berlin to stop wearing the Star of David. A month later Adolf Eichmann’s deputy in Paris wanted to know what he should do about French intermarried Jews. On May 21 Himmler’s deputy released them all, everywhere, from the camps. Five years earlier Gandhi had been asked about the Nazis. “Unarmed men, women and children offering nonviolent resistance,” he predicted, “will be a novel experience for them.”
In February 1943 Ruth Gross was a ten-year-old girl who went down to the Rosenstrasse so she could catch a glimpse of her father, one of the Jewish men interned there before being shipped for a time to the camps. One day she saw him, and he waved back. “This thing with Rosenstrasse,” she said years later, “that was always a bond between us, my father and me.” When she would visit him in the hospital at the end of his life, each time she left he would stand up and wave at her. “I have always been convinced, that he too was always thinking about this scene there on Rosenstrasse. About how he stood there and waved.” When love comes to rescue life, no one forgets.
On the Rosenstrasse in 1943, in the center of the century’s greatest cyclone of killing, the violence that could have been visited on protesting German women and on almost 2,000 Jews was neutralized – by a few hundred wives who refused to go home. The Nazis’ will to violence was notorious. But superiority of military force did not make them invulnerable: They were frightened of protest at the seat of their power, and the cost of suppressing that with violence – while trifling in blood and time – was far too high politically to pay. So the evil they embodied was, in that place and at that moment, impotent.
Originally posted on Floating-voter:
SHOCK: District’s ‘critical thinking’ assignment led at least 50 students to conclude Holocaust never occurred
An eighth-grade English assignment that was meant to develop students’ critical thinking skills has, instead, created some 50 new Holocaust deniers.
In May, Rialto Unified School District leaders came under intense criticism after it was revealed the district’s roughly 2,000 eighth-grade students were given an in-class essay assignment in which they were asked to consider if the Holocaust was “an actual historical event” or if it might have been “a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
Students were directed to “research” the issue and take a position on it, supporting their conclusion with “textual evidence” – printouts of information culled from three websites, one of which was a Holocaust denial site.
When news of the assignment broke, Rialto Unified school officials attempted to…
View original 21,354 more words