Who Are The Illuminati?

Who Are The Illuminati?

By Richard Stone 

“A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires” (Paul Simon).
“The world is governed by far different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes” (Benjamin Disraeli).
“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes the laws” (Mayer Rothschild).

Conspiracy theory is the theory that most of the world is secretly governed by a small group of men who operate behind the scenes. Conspiracy theory is now an accepted turn of phrase but sometimes one hears the expression, sometimes whispered rather than spoken. “The Illuminati”.

What does this mean? Who are the Illuminati? They are, in essence, a cartel of international bankers and industrialists based in Western Europe and North America. The names of certain families persist over long periods of time. Some of the most important names are Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Lazard, Warburg, Schroder and Schiff.

The pivotal family is probably the house of Rothschild, the descendants of Mayer Rothschild (1743 – 1812) of Frankfurt. The male descendants of this family, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. The family established banking institutions in Vienna, London, Naples and Paris as well as Frankfurt. Ever since the middle ages, these families have been building their power by lending money at rates of interest to the monarchies and governments of Europe who were forever in debt, particularly in times of war. Sooner than tax the population to raise funds, always an unpopular measure, they usually preferred to borrow money from the money-lenders. This was the birth of the concept “the national debt.” The countries of the world are forever in debt but where there is a debtor there is a creditor – who is this money owed to? It is owed to this coterie of international bankers.

By the nineteenth century the power of the Rothschild family was immense. They increased their wealth with great cunning and cleverness, while maintaining a low public profile. A notable example of their methods was their exploitation of the battle of Waterloo. The Rothschilds had spies watching the course of the battle and as soon as became evident that Wellington had won, a Rothschild agent traveled at maximum speed to London, arriving hours before Wellington’s own messenger. Rothschild received the messenger and began conspicuously selling his stocks. The whole stock exchange assumed that Wellington had lost and Napoleon had won so everybody started selling, at this point, other Rothschild agents bought up huge stocks at give-away prices. Thus an already massive fortune was massively increased.

The Rockefeller family may be equally important. The pivotal figure in this family was J.D.Rockefeller, who made his fortune out of Standard Oil or Esso in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He also controlled the railroads. When rival road transport systems were established he attempted to block them by parking his trains across the roads at level crossings. His basic business technique was the elimination of competitors at all costs, followed by the establishment of a monopoly, followed by profit taking. He rapidly gained a name for huge wealth, secrecy and hard and dirty business practice. In his later years he had a harsh and gaunt appearance, so to counter his bad “public image” JD more or less invented the PR industry. He had short films of himself made, calculated to charm the public, himself playing golf with a pretty little child for instance. This film was shown on TV recently. It has a rather false and amateurish air but was very effective with the public of the day.

The Rockerfellers currently have controlling interests in Exxon (the world’s biggest company) and the Chase Manhattan Bank, which turns over trillions of dollars a week. With so many billions in their hands already, what does more money mean? Obviously it means more power and more control over other human beings, but to what end and in whose name?

Apparently in the name of Lucifer, the fallen angel also known as the bringer of light, hence the name “Illuminati”, which means “the enlightened ones”. Lucifer is also known for the characteristics of pride, deception and impermanence. The illuminati were apparently founded in Bavaria in 1770 by one Adam Weisshaupt, a student of the Jewish philosopher Mendelsohn, and backed by the Rothschild family. The society has always been based on the lodges of Freemasonry, which was taken over at the highest levels during the course of the eighteenth century by agents of the Illuminati. Freemasonry is a very secretive institution, to the extent that members at one level do not know what members at another level are doing. Hence it is an organisation which is full of bonhomie and good deeds at the lower and middle levels, while its motives and deeds at the highest levels veer towards the dark side.

Both Freemasonry and Judaism have strong roots in the ancient Egyptian systems of religious belief, and it was this very similarity which attracted the illuminati to Freemasonry, for most of them were Jewish. It is a source of controversy today to speculate whether or not they are still predominantly Jewish. No unfair racism intended – they either are or they aren’t. Certainly there is much evidence to suggest that they are not, George Bush for instance, a prominent illuminati figure and obviously not Jewish.

The all seeing eye on the U.S. Dollar Bill

The United States of America is more or less a creation of Freemasonry. The symbol of Freemasonry was placed on the cornerstone of the Whitehouse, while the assembled Freemasons lodges stood and watched the ceremony. The famous all-seeing eye in the pyramid appears on the one dollar bill. It is one of the main symbols of Freemasonry. This bill also bears the inscription, in Latin, “1776, the year of inception of a new world order”. If one joins the dots formed by the stars of the thirteen original states one obtains an exact Star of David.

The goal of the IlIuminati is total control of the world. The only nations, which are holding out against their power, are some Islamic nations and China but this resistance is limited because the Illuminati have crushing economic power.

There are certain methods of subjugation and control which are indispensable to this power. The first is, of course, complete control over all financial systems, all borrowing and lending. All banks, all building societies, all insurance companies have to be under their control. At the lowest level even the smallest bank will be forced to toe the line. At the highest level the World Bank decides the fate of countries. It is an interesting and amazing fact that both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England are controlled by these Illuminati dynasties, in spite of the names of these banks, which suggest that they are run for public benefit. It is said that both Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy wanted to change this system.

The second essential component is control of the media. It is controlled through business fashion. If the board meeting, or the management meeting, or the sales meeting, or the training meeting suggests that facts should be presented in a certain way, who is going to present them differently? There is an implied threat to one’s job and one’s career. Few people would gladly face demotion, retrenchment or the dole and most people are so ambitious they will do nearly anything “reasonable” to court favour with their superiors. This is how business is controlled and the media is the most important part of business, for it controls people’s minds. People are very suggestible and often lend more credence to what they see on “the box” than to what happens on their own street. The Illuminati know this and use this suggestibility factor to the full. Lenin’s key move during the Russian revolution was the capture of the radio station.

The third factor in the control system is the universities, and through them the whole education system. Particular effort is put into the schools of sociology, politics, economics and education, hence “liberal” systems of education which are often degenerate and even violent. Their men are inserted into the universities through the power of funding by big business. They then spread their influence downwards through tertiary to secondary and primary education.

The fourth factor is the enormous influence wielded by two similar organisations, The Council of Foreign Relations in the USA and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England. These institutions are schools for statesmen, Illuminati statesmen. They are the stamping grounds of men such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Lord Carrington. These two “think tanks” have a crucial influence on all US and British governments, no matter which party is “in power”. The statesmen produced by these institutions can and do decide the fate of nations.The tax-exempt foundations are also instruments of Illuminati power. The Ford foundation and the Rockefeller foundation are two prominent examples of this type of “charitable” institution. They were heavily involved in supporting various communist powers when the cold war was at its height. Communism versus capitalism arms race = more money and power for the Illuminati. So these are some of the structures through which the Illuminati work but what methods do they use?

Pitting one side against the other, using a theory devised by Hegel, which is: Thesis versus antitheses – synthesis.

Every force tends to have an opposite counterforce. The conflict between the two results in a new situation, the synthesis. The illuminati make it their business to be the synthesis. Thus no problem situation is ever “nipped in the bud” it is rather fostered and used, just as the Soviet Union was fostered and used.

The insertion of immigrant groups into countries is a variation of this divide and rule process. Each group can be played off against the other.

“Double talk” and “double think”. George Orwell knew instinctively what was going on when he invented these two expressions:
I categorically deny = it will happen a bit later.
Peace = war by another means.

To say one thing and do another is fundamental to Illuminati practice. They believe that the public will accept these lies through laziness and wishful thinking. Unfortunately they are usually correct.

“Keep them busy busy busy, back on the farm with the other animals.” We are kept so busy with business (or busyness) that we do not understand or participate in the decisions and events that will crucially affect our future.

When a real power move is made it is usually done secretly and suddenly often with the pretence that nothing has happened. There is preparation for opposition, but conflict is often not necessary as most people have been trained to be so passive that they will probably not create an effective opposition.

Use of front men in important positions. These front men have the characteristic of “servile obedience”, probably because of a blot or blots on their character which they are anxious to conceal. Most of the Presidents of the USA fall into this category. The current situation springs to mind. Behind the opponent stands the man with real power, who has long been groomed for this position. Men like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Bush are in this category.

The assassination of opposing leaders as quietly and as secretly as possible, so as to simulate a natural death. If this is not possible due to time constraints or other limited circumstances, surrogates are used and the lines of suspicion are covered by deception, false accusation and if necessary, multiple assassinations. Induced heart attacks, fake motor accidents and apparent suicides are also favoured methods of assassination.

Social engineering. An easily manipulated rabble is what is required. Mixed population groups with weak morals, weak traditions, low educational standards and weak group willpower are the aim. Those with special aptitudes can be taken out and trained to serve the illuminati for technical purposes, security purposes or as part of the propaganda apparatus. The middle class will become surplus to requirements and will be reduced to relative poverty.

Mockery and submission of the manners and morals of societies which show any resistance. Control of the media, the fashion industries and the education systems are essential components in this strategy. “Free love”, the cult of youth, mockery of the Christian and Muslim faiths also fall into this category. “I don’t give a rats ass about Jesus Christ” is one recent masterpiece from one of Hollywood’s biggest starts. He probably didn’t realise what he was saying, which makes him a “useful idiot’. A “useful idiot” is much more effective than a conscious supporter. By these means of subversion societies and nations are conquered from within and open battle is usually not necessary.

The conduct of unrelenting economic warfare. This is the real war and continues even while the bombs are falling and the bullets are flying. The important part is the control of the enemy’s economy after the conflict. The recent economic crash in the far-eastern countries is in reality an assertion of the Illuminati’s economic power, an expression of economic dominance. The Illuminati now control 10-15% of the Japanese economy. This is public knowledge, that is what has been bought at bargain prices. In reality they probably control much more.

Control and exploitation of the standards of public health. The sale of prescription drugs is a huge business generating mega profits. Medical operations and treatments can also be very profitable to big business. These extreme treatments have their place but are over-used for the sake of profit.

In fact big business, particularly the big drug companies, have a vested interest in the ill health of the population. These companies, working through the US Food and Drug Administration, have tried to suppress the health food industry. In this they have largely failed but now the game is to own it and control it so that health foods can only be afforded by the elite.

Argument through defamation of character. The factual debate is ignored while characters are defamed. This is usually a very effective technique as many human beings are very suggestible and seem reluctant to use their reasoning abilities. Thus a “smear campaign” can easily draw attention away from the facts.

To conclude, it is growing increasingly evident that a world government is developing, and many would say that it is probably no bad thing, but few have asked for what purpose this “new world order” is created. Nor have they asked themselves what the consequences will be. These consequences (or some of them) will probably be as follows:

• Increasing profits for big business, increasing poverty for the middle class (who they despise). A rapid decline in moral standards and the promotion of social decay.

• Transience. Jobs that don’t last; neighbourhoods that don’t last.

• Increasing levels of crime and violence.

• Decline and demise of public services; replacement by private enterprise – good service for the few who can afford it.

• Ongoing ill health for the bulk of the population because of stress; poor quality foods; food additives; genetic engineering; pollution and drugs. There may be good health for those who can afford it – only the rich and well informed.

• The gradual phasing out of national governments, which will have powers more like the regional governments of today.

• The formation of several conglomerations like the United States.

In time a world leader will be announced, a real one this time. A pity he will have a cynical contempt for the most of humanity. Do we deserve it?

Kushners Near Deal With Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower

Introduction — May 22, 2018

Jared Kushner
The following was sent in by a contributor who noted:
Qatar asked to help save Kushner property empire in NY. Qatar refuses.
Qatar declared an enemy by Trump (my cousin was teaching there last year. Shops emptied in about three days. Westerners panicked and got out asap [including her]).
Qatar saves Kushner property empire.
Declared friend.
Stress over.
This may all be slightly incidental to the bigger Saudi/Qatar/USA picture but these creeps use their positions to fill their pockets. should be big scandal really.

Kushners Near Deal With Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower

By Charles V. Bagli and Jesse Drucker — New York times May 17, 2018

The company controlled by the family of the White House adviser Jared Kushner is close to receiving a bailout of its troubled flagship building by a company with financial ties to the government of Qatar, according to executives briefed on the deal.

666 Fifth Avenue. Click to enlarge

666 Fifth Avenue. Click to enlarge

Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority.

Charles Kushner and his son Jared, President Trump’s son-in-law and one of his key advisers, bought the office tower, which is between 52nd and 53rd Streets, 11 years ago for a record-setting $1.8 billion. But the building today only generates about half its annual mortgage payment, and 30 percent of the 41-story tower is vacant.

The Kushner family had been searching the globe for a partner for the building, including meeting as recently as last year with a billionaire from Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani, the country’s former prime minister.

The Kushner Companies declined to comment. Both Brookfield and the Qatar Investment Authority, the sovereign fund of the oil-rich Middle Eastern emirate, said the Investment Authority had no knowledge of the deal. A spokesman for the Investment Authority said the fund “has no involvement whatsoever in this deal.”

But the Qatar Investment Authority is the second-biggest investor in Brookfield Property Partners, Brookfield’s real estate arm.

The deal is likely to raise further concerns about Jared Kushner’s dual role as a White House point person on the Middle East and a continuing stakeholder in the family’s company. Mr Kushner in February lost his top-secret security clearance amid concerns that foreign governments could attempt to gain influence with the White House by doing business with his firm. In January, The Times reported that his firm last year received a $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, a large Israeli insurer, just a few days before Mr Kushner flew to Israel for his first diplomatic trip to the region.

Although he resigned as chief executive of the family’s company when he joined the White House in January 2017, Mr Kushner retained most of his stake in the firm. He shed some of the assets — including his stake in 666 Fifth Avenue — by selling them to a trust controlled by his mother. His real estate holdings and other investments are worth as much as $761 million, according to government ethics filings.

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Mr Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said, “In consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, Mr Kushner has had no role in the Kushner Companies.” He said Mr Kushner “divested himself from the 666 Fifth Avenue building before joining the government. He is walled off from any business or investment decisions and has no idea or knowledge of these activities.”

The Qatar Investment Authority bought a $1.8 billion stake in Brookfield Property Partners in 2014, and is the second-largest investor in the company, ranking only behind Brookfield Asset Management. And the Qatar fund and Brookfield have teamed up on several real estate deals in the United States and elsewhere in recent years, including Brookfield’s retail and apartment complex, Manhattan West, now under construction on Manhattan’s West Side. Brookfield and Qatar also control the Canary Wharf office complex in London.

The Qatar Investment Authority is one of the world’s largest sovereign funds, with $320 billion in assets under management, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. In 2015 the fund announced plans to invest $35 billion in the United States, and it has since become a sizable commercial real estate investor, taking part in roughly $7 billion in real estate deals and buying up properties around New York and Los Angeles, according to CoStar Group, a real estate research firm.

Charles and Jared Kushner bought the tower at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007, when, with a partner, they borrowed $1.75 billion for the purchase. The tower served as the price of admission to elite Manhattan real estate circles for a developer previously known for building and operating suburban garden apartment complexes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

But if the father and son team believed that they had purchased a real estate trophy in one of the most desirable locations in the city, the debt-laden tower turned out to be more of an albatross.

At the time they bought it, the building only generated enough cash to pay two-thirds of their annual debt payments. But they were betting on a quick turnaround and a big jump in rents.

The Kushners sold 666 Fifth Avenue’s prime asset — its Fifth Avenue retail space — for $525 million. But office rents fell during the recession, and two of the building’s biggest tenants left. In 2012 the Kushners were forced to restructure their loans, and Vornado Realty Trust bought 49.5 percent of the building’s office space and gave the Kushners an $80 million high-interest loan. Vornado later bought the Fifth Avenue retail space for $707 million.

In late 2016, Charles Kushner and his son were close to a much different kind of deal with Anbang, a giant Chinese insurance company with ties to the country’s ruling elite, and Mr. Al-Thani. That plan involved demolishing the existing building at 666 Fifth Avenue and erecting a $7.5 billion luxury super tower. But the deal collapsed a year ago, amid criticism from legislators over the connection between Jared Kushner’s political role and the family business.

The Kushners were facing a ticking clock: The $1.4 billion mortgage on the building comes due early next year, but most analysts say the office space is worth less than the mortgage.

If the deal goes through as planned, the Kushner company will buy out Vornado’s share of the office space and pay Vornado $120 million to settle the loan.

The Kushner firm has also done other deals with firms backed by Qatar. Late last year, the company received a $184 million property loan from a real estate investment trust controlled by Apollo, the large private equity firm. The Qatar Investment Authority is one of the trust’s biggest investors.

Brookfield, which will take over leasing and operating 666 Fifth Avenue, plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to give the 61-year-old building a major face-lift: stripping off the distinctive aluminum facade, installing floor-to-ceiling windows, renovating the lobby and installing new elevators, according to the executives.

Brookfield has been both a lender and a partner of the Kushners in the past. Three years ago, the two formed a partnership to redevelop the Monmouth Mall in Eatontown, N.J., into a mix of rental apartments, entertainment, restaurants, offices and shops called the Heights at Monmouth.

Brookfield was also a lender on the Kushners’ $295.3 million purchase of a block of office space in 2015 at the former headquarters of The New York Times on West 43rd Street. That loan has since been paid off.

Maggie Haberman and Kate Kelly contributed reporting.


Trump’s New Campaign Against Iran Will Not Achieve Its Aims

Moon of Alabama — May 21, 2018

Mike Pompeo, former CIA Director and now U.S.Secretary of State. Click to enlarge

Mike Pompeo, former CIA Director and now U.S.Secretary of State. Click to enlarge

The Trump administration made it perfectly clear today that it wants regime change in Iran by whatever means it has.

In a well-promoted speech at the Heritage Foundation Secretary of State Pompeo laid out twelve demands towards Iran. He threatened the “strongest sanctions in history” if those demands were not fulfilled.

But the demands do not make sense. They only demonstrate the incompetence of the Trump administration. The means the Trump administration laid out to achieve its aims are not realistic and, even if they were implementable, insufficient to achieve the desired results.

Iran is asked to stop all uranium enrichment. Stopping enrichment is a no-go for Iran. The program has wide support in Iranian politics as it is seen as an attribute of its sovereignty.

Pompeo demands that Iran closes its heavy water reactor. Iran cannot close its heavy water reactor. It does not have one. The one it was building in Arak was disabled under the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). Concrete was poured into its core under the supervision of IAEA inspectors. How can the Secretary of State of the United States make such a fact-free demand in a prepared speech?

Another demand is that Iran ends its support for the Palestinian resistance. This is also a no-go for Iran as long as the Zionist occupation of Palestine continues. There is a demand that Iran does not develop “nuclear capable” missiles. Iran had already committed to that under the JCPOA Trump killed. Another demand is that Iran pulls back all troops from Syria, and ends all interference in Iraq, Yemen,  Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Together these demands ask for a wholesale change of Iran’s national character and policies. It is apparently supposed to become Lichtenstein.

The Trump administration has no way to achieve that goal.

With painstaking work, the Obama administration managed to get much of the world to agree to sanctions on Iran. It was possible because the other countries trusted Obama’s assurances that he would keep his side of the deal and seriously negotiate. International unity and trust was necessary to achieve the nuclear agreement.

Now Trump wants much more but he has no united international front behind him. No one trusts his word. The Europeans are enraged that Trump s threatens them with secondary sanctions if they stick to the agreement they signed and continue to deal with Iran. While they may eventually fold and to some extent stop dealing with Iran, they will also try to circumvent those unilateral U.S. sanctions.

Neither China nor Russia nor India will stop doing business with Iran. For them, the unilateral U.S. sanctions are opening new markets. The French oil company Total announced that it will stop the development of Iran’s South Pars gas field to avoid secondary U.S. sanctions on its other interests. China said “thank you” and took over the work. Russia will likewise jump in where it can. Its agricultural industry will deliver whatever foodstuff Iran wants and needs. It will continue to sell weapons to Iran. China, India and others will continue to buy Iranian oil.

The Trump administration will cause some economic pain. It will also make the U.S. and Europe weaker and Russia and China stronger. The threat of secondary sanctions will eventually lead to the creation of a sanction-secure parallel global economy. The SWIFT banking information exchange which routes international payments between banks can be replaced by country to country systems that do not depend on a sanctionable institutions. The U.S. dollar as a universal exchange medium can be avoided by using other currencies or barter. The nonsensical use of economic and financial sanction will end up destroying the U.S. ability to use them as a tool of foreign policy.

The Pompeo speech will unite the people in Iran. The moderate neoliberals around the current president Rouhani will join the nationalist hardliners in their resistance. The demands go way beyond what any Iranian government could concede. An Iran in which the will of its people counts will never agree to them.

The only way the Trump administration could possibly reach its aims is by regime change. But regime change has already been tried in Iran and it failed. The “green revolution” was strongly supported by Obama. But it was easily derailed and failed. Various assassination campaigns within Iran did not change its policies. Iran’s size and geography make a direct military campaign like in Libya impossible. Iran can retaliate against any strike by hitting U.S. interests in the Gulf.

The U.S. can and likely will continue to attack Iranian forces and interests in Syria and elsewhere. Its military will hassle Iran in the Gulf. The CIA will try to fuel internal Iranian unrest.  Mounting sanctions will damage the Iranian economy. But none of this can change Iran’s national spirit as expressed in its foreign policy.

A year or two from now the Trump administration will find that its sanction campaign failed. There will be a push for a direct military attack on Iran. But plans for such an attack were also made under George W. Bush. Back then the Pentagon advised that such a war would cause it very serious losses and was still likely to fail. I, therefore, doubt that it will ever happen.

What else then is there that the Trump administration can do when its announced Plan A has failed?


Churchill Had Stalin Killed, US Bombed Russian Far East in 50s – Top Russian Official

Inessa S. — Russia Insider May 17, 2018

What if everything you think you know about Joseph Stalin isn’t true?
Similarly, what if the icon you perceive Winston Churchill to have been – is a mere illusion of history?
Anomalies in the way history is written is nothing new; the more or less objective truth is published many years later.

Stalin Churchill

In this episode, Mikhail Poltoranin, former Head of the Government Committee on the Declassification of KGB Archives and Deputy Prime Minister (Wikipedia) talks about the way that the US air force bombed Soviet bases in 1950 – in reaction to Stalin’s power. But they didn’t stop until their mission was complete – that is the death of Stalin.
It’s even possible that others within the Soviet system were asked to take responsibility for his death – given the many theorists who took on that claim, as explained by Poltoranin.
Joseph Stalin has been attributed many crimes against humanity – the figures are in the hundreds of millions according to some liberal sources. In reality, contemporary Russian historians cannot account for even a fraction of the said deaths he is thought to have ordered.
That is not to say that he never did such a thing – the current figure is around 100,000 people over the course of his leadership (compared to many millions attributed to him in common text books.) But, in the words of President Putin himself – Stalin must be judged by the era that he lived in.
In a time when the country faced almost sure defeat, jeopardised by the fifth column – “enemies of the state” were done away with. Is this correct according to contemporary human rights law? Surely not – but I struggle to find an example of another country that faced the choice between survival, or its ultimate destruction at the hands of foreign powers and its internal accomplices in the most critical of times.
Stalin turned a mostly agrarian society into a force to be reckoned with in the defeat of Nazi Germany – albeit at a high human cost. But does that make him a dictator? For many Russians, it is a very personal question and is highly contested. Stalin is a figure about whom much is written – but not much of it is based on fact.
What remains, is that just 16 years after the USSR was reduced to rubble by the Germans – the Soviet Union won the space race, by launching the first man into space. Against a country that has never seen destruction on its own soil, together with the economy.
Very little about Stalin written in Western literature is true – you could test it now by doing a simple google search for “Stalin quotes”. Not one image that shows up is attributed to a real text. Why might the USSR not have publicised such crucial information earlier? Or even the modern Russian state?
In my personal opinion – nobody wants to admit defeat. If the MI6 was able to carry this out, this means the intelligence was somehow better equipped or more richly resourced to have been successful.
Of course that’s not hard, when international bankers have their bets on you.


In 1950, the U.S. Air Force attacked Soviet bases in Eastern Russia destroying over 100 Soviet aircraft.
Following these events Stalin was poisoned with cyanide leading to his untimely death.  
In order to keep this secret, Stalin’s secretary, and even the corner that examined Stalin were killed and the house of the latter searched. 
These events were carried out upon the orders of Churchill because he feared a strong USSR.


You were the head of the committee on declassifying KGB archives, tell us, is it true that US Air Force bombed are Soviet bases in the Far East in the 1950s?

-Yes, it’s true.

-And we hid this from the rest of the world?

-We hid a lot of things. Actually, we live in a fog of historical myth…

-But you’ve seen the documents, so we will try to dispel some of those myths…

What did they bomb and when?

-Their group of fighter jets bombed our Naval bases…

-Which year?

-It was October 1950, and F80 group attacked our Naval bases

-How many of them?

-Four fighter jets

They bombed 5 of our bases…

-Where are these bases?

-30 km from Vladivostok. They destroyed a hundred and three aircraft.


-Yes, a hundred and three.

The Americans destroyed 103 of our aircraft, on our territory, when there wasn’t a war?

-Yes, in 1950.

-What was Stalin’s reaction?

-This actually has to do with why they killed Stalin…

-What do you mean they killed Stalin?

-It’s exactly what I mean.

-Was Stalin poisoned?

-Yes he was

-Are you making an official statement, as the person who used to head the committee on declassifying KGB archives, under Yeltsin?


-Joseph Stalin was poisoned?

-Joseph Stalin died an unnatural death… In 1981, the American, Stuart Cahan who was the nephew of Lazar Kaganovich, Stalin’s close associate, visited Lazar in Russia… Lazar described him how Stalin was killed…

-Lazar’s niece, Roza Kaganovich, was a Kremlin doctor. Stalin was (allegedly) given a pill-the equivalent of today’s medicine would be a thrombo ASS pill, to prevent blood clotting. But when you change the composition, it becomes poison. Like rat poison.

This is what Kaganovich himself bragged about to Kahan.

-So who was it that killed Stalin?

-So listen…

-But I didn’t believe this statement.

Then there were the statements of various officials – there was enverhoxha (Albanian president) when Mikoyan (Soviet statesman) came to visit A hoxha congress – he made a statement that the leadership of the USSR are ‘cynical conspirators’

So the likes of Mikoyan traveled the world and bragged about the way they (allegedly) killed Stalin. When I went to look into it myself, what actually happened…

-the archives themselves?

-yes, the materials themselves…

-So what’s being hidden from us? What’s being hidden from us is that Stalin was poisoned. That it was special operation, which was prepared over a long time.

Because by then, a new number of people from Stalin’s close circle had already been removed; Poskrebysheb (Stalin’s secretary), Vlasik (head of security), the Kremlin commandant (Kosynkin) strangely died

-who was very close to Stalin

Then (Lavrentiy) Beria appointed a new head of the Kremlin clinic, responsible for all medicines.

In February 1953 – Stalin began to feel unwell at his holiday home. (It may have come) from a drink of water, or he used to wet his finger when he turned pages – he used to read a lot – maybe that’s how it got in… we don’t know…

But we do know what the blood and urine samples showed. Well, firstly there was an enlarged liver – this shows toxicity. His leucocytos were four times the norm. This is the white blood cell that fights against toxins.

-He experienced vomiting with blood in it, and his skin was a bright pink color with dark patches under the arms, etc…

-was it cyanide?

-What was the medicine he was given?

-We looked through his medical log, all his checkups were in it. He was a healthy guy – he had mild first stage hypertension and some rheumatism in his knees.

-And nothing else?

-And nothing else…

-And all of the sudden these symptoms are documented. But a conclusion whether he’s poisoned – it wasn’t written…

-But there was one person, professor Rusakov, who carried out the anatomical examination of Stalin’s body – and he wrote a report to the new head of the Kremlin clinic. The new one, that Beria had appointed…

-He wrote that Stalin was poisoned. Poisoned by cyanide, cyanic acid. All the symptoms pointed to that – and when the body was examined, his airways and mucus membranes were damaged with dots of cyanic acid.

Three days after the report – this person died.

Professor Ruskov?


-But not only did he die – his house was searched and all the documents in it were destroyed. But, through insufficient diligence, although the majority of his documents on Stalin were destroyed, Rusakov had another copy of the report.

-So a copy remained intact elsewhere? And you’ve had that in your own hands?

Yes, I read it with my own eyes. So there you go…

-So then the question is – why did they poison Stalin? What kind of act is this? So I started to research reports from the main headquarters of the intelligence services…

-We have a myth – that the USSR didn’t know war was coming. This is why we mentioned Richard Sorge (Soviet spy, working as undercover German journalist) it was Richard Sorge that said that Germany will attack the USSR on 22 June, (1941)

-Well, I looked at the reports of our agents from March – April… goodness! It said everything we needed to know.

-Hitler wanted to start the war in May – but Denmark and Belgium had a bad crop season. Hitler said “let them work the fields first in the USSR and then we will begin our offensive”

-So let them plant, but we will eat it!

-Yes, of course, it was in their own interest.

-I was most impressed by the work of our informant in aviation. He described everything – which cities would be attacked first, with which forces. Moreover – he even mentioned who the guy would appoint as Gauleiters (official governing district under Nazi rule)

-In Kiev, Minsk, even Moscow…

-Our intelligence worked well! Were there German agents in the USSR too in 1941?

-I can say that it was very difficult to be a foreign agent ( in the USSR) in Stalin’s time.


-Very difficult…

-It’s not that long ago that the theory arose, which said that powerful western forces were behind the death of Stalin.

-It’s true that the USSR victory over fascist Germany raised the authority of the state in the world to unprecedented levels

-Communist parties had a widespread influence not only on countries of the socialist camp but on Europe at large.

-Both Italy and France experienced a lot of good feelings toward the USSR. This did not sit right with the “global behind the scenes” who started this war…

-How to fix the situation? The simplest thing is to remove the leader of the victors. This required the bringing of Winston Churchill to the role of Prime Minister for the second time who was known for his antipathy toward Stalin.

-Two weeks after the death of Stalin – Winston Churchill was knighted with the order of the Gartor. (Nikolai Starikov, historian)

take note, we think of Churchill of as one of the victors of world war two. But in May 1945 – Instead of honors – he was removed from office having apparently lost the elections. He didn’t receive any government honors.

-Because he had nothing to receive them for. As per the envisaged plan of the “global behind the scenes” and Britain, the war was supposed to end in the destruction of the USSR, then the destruction of Germany itself, leading to an entirely different configuration of political power on the world arena.

-Our tanks in Berlin didn’t fit into the plan of our British friends. So here you have a British Prime Minister – during the reign of which the USSR obtained half of Europe – of course, wasn’t so popular with Britain’s elite.

-Churchill won his respect much later. A number of years later, his party wins the elections, and he once again becomes Prime Minister – “the second coming” of Churchill.

-The main task of his was to correct the mistake. What was the mistake of Churchill? It was Stalin’s Soviet Union. How can one fix it? By killing the leader, that is moving his country forward in the right direction and you can’t stop it, so long as Josef Stalin is at the helm.

-I am absolutely assured that the government coup, of which the aim was the murder of Stalin, relied on some internal forces – Khruschev of which was certainly won. But in equal measures it was done with the use of foreign powers, and most likely the British intelligence MI6.

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Russia’s Navy Establishes Permanent Presence in Mediterranean Sea

Peter Korzun — Strategic Review May 20, 2018

Russian cruise missile strike June 23 2017

Russian President Vladimir Putin said a naval standing force, including warships with Kalibr long-range land attack cruise missiles, will be permanently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. The statement was made at a meeting with top military officials and defense industry leaders that took place in Sochi on May 16. One of the missions is delivering strikes against terrorist targets in Syria. 102 expeditions of ships and submarines are planned in 2018. The force will go through intensive training.

The Russian Black Sea Fleet has become a much different force in comparison to what it was just three years ago. Since 2015, the year the operation in Syria was launched, it has received 15 new ships, including two frigates and six conventional submarines armed with Kalibr cruise missiles. With S-400 and S-300V4 air defense systems, Krasukha-4 electronic warfare systems and shore-based anti-ship Bastion batteries deployed on the Syrian coast, the ships in Eastern Mediterranean operate in a relatively safe environment. Kalibr missiles have already been fired from frigates and submarines at terrorist targets in Syria.

Last July, a 15-strong Mediterranean Task Force was established to be based out of Tartus, Syria’s leased naval facility. The ships provide a buffer on the southern flank of NATO. Russia needs to counter aggressive activities of the bloc in the region, including the Black Sea. Maintaining robust presence in the Mediterranean is the best way to defend Russia’s Black Sea borders.

Russian navy launches cruise missiles at Islamic State militants in Aleppo, Syria. Click to enlarge

Russian navy launches cruise missiles at Islamic State militants in Aleppo, Syria. Click to enlarge

All southern Europe, including such NATO military assets as Allied Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy, Combined Air Operations Centers in Larissa, Greece, and in Poggio Renatico, Italy, Headquarters Allied Land Command and Air Power Command in Izmir, Turkey, NATO Incirlik air base in Turkey, Graf Ignatievo and Bezmer air bases in Bulgaria used by US Air Force as well as a lot of other key NATO defense infrastructure sites happen to be within the range of Kalibr missiles installed on the platforms patrolling the Mediterranean Sea. They’ll all be knocked out with first salvos in case a Russia-NATO war starts.

The Fleet’s operations are not limited to the Black Sea basin and the Mediterranean. It is on the way of transition from a green-water naval formation to a blue water force, demonstrating the Russian flag as the ships move beyond the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal on the way to the World Ocean.

The establishment of a permanent naval presence in the region can be explained by a number of rational calculations. The Mediterranean Sea is Russia’s only exit to the open ocean for the Black Sea Fleet. The permanent presence is a logical step in view of Russia’s growing political influence in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Foreign Ministries are not the only ones to shape external policy. Any port call is a diplomat mission, providing an opportunity for official meetings and public diplomacy, with the events covered by media. Take the famous German Kiel Week or Kieler Woche in German, the biggest annual maritime festival and international forum visited by about three million people coming from all over the world. Warships from many countries are an important element of the event. Ships also take part in the Irish maritime festival at Drogheda Port. Russian frigate The Shtandart, a replica of the man-of-war built by Peter the Great in 1703, will visit Drogheda on June 10-11 this year.

The naval visits reflect foreign policy trends. In 2017, Russian ships made 46 port calls to drop anchor at 28 ports of 27 countries worldwide. The list includes five Western or West-friendly states: Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Japan and South Korea, which account for 19% of the countries visited by Russian ships. Nine (33%) of the states on the list belong to the Asia-Pacific region, with other 13 (48%) situated in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. The 81% vs.19% ratio illustrates Russia’s rebalancing from the “collective” West toward other countries and power poles. The Russian Navy also conducted six international exercises, demonstrating its global presence and power projection capability.

The growing trade brings to the fore the task of sea lanes’ protection. Russia has longstanding economic ties with many Mediterranean states, including Greece, Libya, Cyprus, and Algeria. The relations include defense cooperation.

US Navy deployments in support of ballistic missile defense are viewed as provocative moves to downgrade Russia’s strategic nuclear capability. With Russia’s continuous presence in the region, Aegis ships, as well as aircraft carriers, become sitting ducks for state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles.

Like it or not, the Mediterranean Sea has ceased to be a “NATO Lake” dominated by US 6th Fleet. American vessels don’t own these waters anymore. As a great power, Russia has its own interests in the region and it has a powerful naval force permanently deployed to defend them.


Sweden distributes ‘be prepared for war’ leaflet to all 4.8m homes

Jon Henley — Guardian May 21, 2018

Swedish be prepared for war pamphlet. Click to enlarge

Swedish be prepared for war pamphlet. Click to enlarge

The Swedish government has begun sending all 4.8m of the country’s households a public information leaflet telling the population, for the first time in more than half a century, what to do in the event of a war.

Om krisen eller kriget kommer (If crisis or war comes) explains how people can secure basic needs such as food, water and heat, what warning signals mean, where to find bomb shelters and how to contribute to Sweden’s “total defence”.

The 20-page pamphlet, illustrated with pictures of sirens, warplanes and families fleeing their homes, also prepares the population for dangers such as cyber and terror attacks and climate change and includes a page on identifying fake news.

“Although Sweden is safer than many other countries, there are still threats to our security and independence,” the brochure says. “If you are prepared, you are contributing to improving the ability of the country to cope with a major strain.”

Similar leaflets were first distributed in neutral Sweden in 1943, at the height of the second world war. Updates were issued regularly to the general public until 1961, and then to local and national government officials until 1991.

“Society is vulnerable, so we need to prepare ourselves as individuals,” said Dan Eliasson of the Swedish civil contingencies agency, which is in charge of the project. “There’s also an information deficit in terms of concrete advice, which we aim to provide.”

The publication comes as the debate on security – and the possibility of joining Nato – has intensified in Sweden in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and recent incursions into Swedish airspace and territorial waters by Russian planes and submarines.

The country has begun reversing military spending cuts and last year staged its biggest military exercises in nearly a quarter of a century, as well as voting to reintroduce conscription and unveiling joint plans with Denmark to counter Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation.

Continues …

Britain’s Nazi obsession betrays our insecurity – it’s time we moved on

Simon Jenkins — The Guardian Sept 2011

What is the matter with us? We seem unable to get the Nazis out of our system. Earlier this summer the curtain rose on Berlioz’s The Damnation of Faust at the London Coliseum, and my heart sank. The stage was alive with stormtroopers and jackboots. The banality was crashing: Faust, the Devil … Hitler, get it? By act two we were deep in the Holocaust. This week the same opera house launched Weinberg’s The Passenger. It is set in Auschwitz.

At the same time, ITV is fighting the first world war from Downtown Abbey. The BBC has spent the week immersed in Stalin, Spitfires and “Entertaining the Troops”. Radio 4 has decamped to the eastern front where we must hear the Ukrainian novelist, Vasily Grossman, enduring unimaginable privations. Monday’s entire edition of Start the Week was devoted to presenting his Life and Fate as a 1940s War and Peace.

Small wonder Hitler is now the ruling obsession of the national curriculum. I remember my son asking me, after a punishing term of the Weimar Republic, if there was a second world war when was there a first? The GCSE history website scores 417,000 mentions of Hitler against just 157,000 for Henry VIII and the Tudors.

Now on my doormat crashes the latest opus from the stalwart Max Hastings, entitled All Hell Let Loose. It is, need we ask, a history of the second world war. It follows his Overlord, Armaggedon and The Finest Years on the same subject. It will sell tens of thousands. Antony Beevor recently added his magisterial D-Day to his harrowing accounts of wartime Paris, Stalingrad and Berlin. Andrew Roberts entered the lists with Hitler and Churchill, Masters and Commanders and the thunderous Storm of War. They are few among many.

The British book-writing, book-selling and book-buying public seems obsessed with recounting its forefathers’ triumphs over the Germans, even if, as with Hastings, the accounts are far from triumphalist. In 2000 there were 380 English-language titles on the Third Reich, adding to some 30,000 with the word Hitler in the title. We might have hoped that the new century would see this phase of Germany’s past set in some historical context. It was not to be. Last year the tally of Hitler books rose by 850. Some 80% of these were written by Britons and published in Britain.

Topics ranged from reputable if repetitive histories to studies of Hitler and the occult, guides to SS uniforms, Nazi flying saucers and, according to a recent BBC documentary on the phenomenon, collectable spoons of the Third Reich. The programme floundered among specialists on Himmler and the Knights Templar, how astrology guided Hitler’s armies, and the confessions of a bunker masseur.

 Image result for Video games NazisNeedless to say, Nazis are still a favourite topic of that cultural wild west, the video games industry, with little sign of their being replaced by Russians or mujahideen. When not killing mutants or aliens, players kill Germans. Perhaps understandably, Germany bans such horrors as Mortyr, Wolfenstein and KZ Manager (which puts players in charge of a concentration camp). Britain does not. The IGN video game website remarks that “the number of Nazis in video games probably exceeds the number of people that have ever lived on this planet”. It puts this down to a lack of a need for moral relativism towards Nazis and the efficient Wehrmacht as a worthy enemy for the forces of good.

The enduring Nazification of evil was best summed up by the American Mike Godwin in his “law of Nazi analogies”. This stated: “As any online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%.” The topic is immaterial, but someone will sooner or later characterise someone else’s point of view with a reference to the Nazis, or “reductio ad hitlerum”.

Godwin’s sardonic comment is all too familiar to readers of newspaper letters and blogs. It applies to any commentary on wars of intervention, especially involving Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and Gaddafi. During the Falklands, it saw “Argies” identified with the Nazis. Arab spring cartoonists distorted swastikas with abandon.

What is extraordinary is that the use of the Third Reich as an all-purpose metaphor for evil extends to every area of culture. The sculptors, the Chapman brothers, seem to derive some artistic drive from Nazism. Theatre directors feel obliged to pump up Richard III, Macbeth, even Hamlet’s Denmark, by depicting them in 1940s Germany. The parallel has gone beyond cliched to seem obsessive and shows no sign of relenting. Only football supporters seem at last to have moved on.

I am baffled as to what it must be like to be a German in modern Britain – as if I were living in Paris awash in references to Hundred Years War atrocities. German friends respond with a weary patience, like the Fawlty Towers guests suffering Basil’s antics at their expense. Nor is it just a matter of the constant identification of Germany with the Third Reich. There is little attempt to set it in proportion to other more creditable aspects of German history. This is strange given that Anglo-Saxons were nothing if not Germans. As Simon Winder notes in his entertaining book Germania, Britain and Germany are “the mad twins of Europe, Protestant, aggressive… with superiority complexes of a kind that have, for good or ill, reshaped the world”.

Last year came one instance of blessed relief. The Welsh National Opera staged a superb production of the Meistersingers of Nuremberg, set in the middle ages rather than, as so often, under the Nazis. In the competition scene, I spotted a German diplomat in the audience with tears in his eyes. The director had not depicted the final hymn to German art as a rerun of the Nuremberg rally but as Wagner wrote it, as indeed a hymn to German art, complete with portraits illustrating Germany’s contribution to the arts down the ages.

Only insecure nations should rely on creating or memorialising “necessary enemies”, as Britain appears to do with Nazism. Only frightened people seek sustenance from ancient rivalries and past victories. At present Germany has significance in European affairs unprecedented in peacetime. This is due to that country’s economic strength and requires a remarkable generosity towards the other peoples of Europe. The resentment of the embattled Greeks is already palpable, even as they demand that German banks go easy on their loans and German taxpayers go heavy on their subsidies.

I must not fall foul of Godwin’s law, but the demands now being made of Germany “to show leadership” come with ghostly overtones of reparation for past guilt. Nothing is more likely to incur German resistance than to imply that rescuing Europe is somehow an obligation on a present generation of Germans for the deeds of a past one. Misreading Germany was a lethal failing of Europe’s 20th-century leaders. It is surely time to consign the Nazis, not to oblivion but at least to history.


Getting Out of The Matrix

henrymakow.com — May 22, 2018

To a mind that is still ... Click to enlarge

To a mind that is still … Click to enlarge

“Can’t stop thinking; can’t stop drinking; can’t stop smoking; can’t stop eating; thinking is a greater addiction than any of these.”   Eckhart Tolle
In an increasingly depraved and crazy world, we need to discover our true identity or go crazy ourselves. 

Thinking is an Addiction (Updated from Jan 26, 2016)
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

When I say thinking is an addiction, I’m NOT referring to thoughts based on independent observation and analysis, or intuition or inspiration.
I’m referring to the compulsive stream of worry, judgment, chatter, and trivia that usually fills our minds. Most stress is mentally-induced.
I used to depend on the mass media for my image of reality. As a result, I was dysfunctional.
Like sickness, war and poverty, dysfunction is systemic (inherent in society.) They are profitable.
Illuminati member Harold Rosenthal spelled it out:  “We have converted the people to our philosophy of getting and acquiring so that they will never be satisfied. A dissatisfied people are pawns in our game of world conquest. They are always seeking and never able to find satisfaction. The very moment they seek happiness outside themselves, they become our willing servants.”  Harold Rosenthal The Hidden Tyranny


Continues …

EU Commission: ‘Europe Will Never Be a Fortress’, Mass Migration ‘Here to Stay’

Virginia Hale — Breibart.com May 21, 2018


Europe is set to absorb massive waves of migration “for the decades to come”, the EU Commission has declared, vowing the continent will “never become a fortress”.

Speaking in Brussels on Wednesday, EU migration chief Dimitris Avramopoulos stressed that the European Commission would oppose any plans to build a fence on the Greek-Turkish border.

“We are against building fences, on the contrary, we are in favour of building bridges with neighbouring countries,” he said, after news that more than 6,100 people have entered Greece illegally over the Turkey land border so far this year — a nine-fold increase from the same period in 2017.

“The EU will never be a fortress. Migration will stay not only in Europe and the world for the decades to come, and we have to be well prepared. No country can manage this situation alone,” he told a news conference.

Discussing plans for a common EU policy which would see asylum seekers spread across the bloc, Avramopoulos said that no corner of the continent will be allowed to escape third world migration, insisting that “solidarity has to be maintained and be upheld by all member states”.

On Tuesday, the Greek commissioner was accused of “unacceptable interference” in Italian affairs amidst ongoing coalition talks after he demanded the nation’s borders stay open.

Slammed by Lega leader Matteo Salvini, who stated “now is the time” for the country to change course on migration policy, Avramopoulos later claimed he had “not wanted to interfere with national politics” but insisted Italy must continue playing its “very important role in Europe” as an entry point for the world’s migrants.

“I have no comment on the formation of the government in Italy, on the ongoing process and political dialogue in Europe, but I repeat what I said yesterday, I think that Italy will continue on the road travelled until now on all issues,” he said.

“Italy is one of the founding countries of the EU and I am sure that Italians are committed to this European perspective and we are fully confident in President Mattarella, in the Constitution and in the Italian Republic,” added the globalist Greek.

With populist, anti-mass migration Lega and the anti-establishment Five Star Alliance party in talks about forming a government which commentators have said would “terrify” Brussels, Avramopoulos’s confidence over the “European perspective” winning out may sound worrying to Italians tired of EU interference in the country’s politics.

The bloc previously toppled Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for failing to make reforms demanded by Brussels in 2011, when they parachuted in EU former Commissioner Mario Monti to take his place days after pulling off a coup in Greece along very similar lines.


Ken Livingstone quits Labour after antisemitism claims

Press Association — May 21, 2018

Ken Livingstone has announced that he is resigning from the Labour party, saying the issues around his suspension for alleged antisemitism had become a distraction.

The former London mayor and Labour MP said he was leaving the party he first joined 50 years ago with “great sadness” but would continue to work for a government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

In a statement on Twitter, he said: “After much consideration, I have decided to resign from the Labour party. We desperately need a Corbyn-led government to transform Britain and I’ll continue to work to this end.”

Livingstone, 72, has been suspended since 2016 in a row over anti-semitism that erupted after he made comments linking Adolf Hitler and Zionism, but a new Labour party disciplinary process was due to begin this week.

The veteran politician said he was quitting after his lawyers advised him that if he lost his case and was expelled, it would take at least two years before any legal challenge was resolved.

However, while he apologised for his controversial remarks which offended many in the Jewish community, he denied that he was guilty of anti-semitism.

“I do not accept the allegation that I have brought the Labour Party into disrepute – nor that I am in any way guilty of anti-Semitism. I abhor antisemitism, I have fought it all my life and will continue to do so,” he said.

“I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.”



Mike Pompeo threatens ‘strongest sanctions in history’ and vows to ‘crush’ Iranian proxies

Ben Riley-Smith, Nick Allen — Telegraph.co.uk May 21, 2018


U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Click to enlarge

Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, threatened Iran with the “strongest sanctions in history” and vowed to “crush” the regime’s proxies around the world.

Mr Pompeo also called for a new nuclear treaty with Iran to replace the Obama-era deal that Donald Trump withdrew from earlier this month.

But the top US diplomat issued a list of  12 requirements for such a deal, many of which Iran would be unlikely to agree to.

He said the US would apply “unprecedented financial pressure” on Iran and send teams of specialists to allies around the world to explain US policy.

Mr Pompeo said if Iran makes “major changes” the US was willing to lift all sanctions.

Iran deal was a ‘loser’

Delivering his first major foreign policy speech since taking the job, Mr Pompeo doubled down on the United States’ decision to quit the Iran nuclear deal earlier this month.

He framed the 2015 deal as allowing Iran to increase its malign influence across the Middle East on the back of funding from renewed trade with the West.

Mr Pompeo accused the Iranian regime of “playing with house money that has become blood money”. And he told the regime: “Understand your current activities will be met with steely resolve”.

He added: “The Obama administration made a bet.  That bet was a loser with massive repercussions.

“The bet was a bad one for the US, for Europe, and for the world. Iran’s leaders saw it as a starting gun for the march across the Middle East.”

He added: “We will track down Iranian operatives and their proxies around the world and we will crush them.”

America ‘open’ to a new deal

Mr Pompeo called for a new treaty with Iran, ratified by Congress, that ends enrichment and gives inspectors access .

He said Iran must “stop enrichment” of uranium, which was allowed within strict limitations under the 2015 deal.

Iran must also allow nuclear inspectors “unqualified access to all sites throughout the country”.

The Iranians must also declare all previous efforts to build a nuclear weapon, he said.

Mr Pompeo also demanded that Iran must end support for Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, withdraw all forces from Syria, halt support for Hezbollah and stop threatening Israel.

It must also release all US citizens missing in Iran or being held on “spurious charges”.

Mr Pompeo said if Iran made “major changes” the US would be willing to lift all sanctions, restoring full diplomatic and commercial ties.

The US. would even support the modernisation of Iran’s economy and help it reintegrate into the global financial system, he said.

He added: “A treaty would be our preferred way to go.”

Pompeo reaches out to European allies

Mr Pompeo reached out to European and Middle Eastern  allies to help ramp up economic pressure on Iran.

He said: “We want the support of our most important allies,” adding that he welcomed backing from any other nation “sick and tired” of Iran.

He said the plan “may seem unrealistic” but what the US was pursuing was the global consensus before the 2015 Iran deal.

“Our ears are open to what may be possible,” he said, adding that progress with North Korea showed what could be achieved.

Other signatories of the 2015 Ian deal – Britain, France, Germany, the European Union, China, Russia and Iran – have said they will try to keep the agreement alive.

Mr Pompeo said: “I know our allies in Europe may try to keep the old nuclear deal going with Tehran. That is certainly their decision. They know where we stand.”

The future of the 2015 deal remains in the balance, with Iran saying it will only keep to the agreement if the economic benefits gained from it remain in place.

American allies have been clamouring for the Trump administration to explain its ‘Plan B’ approach to Iran after unilaterally quitting the deal.

US ‘fully prepared’ to respond if Iran resumes nuclear programme

Mr Pompeo said the US was ready if Iran chose to resume its nuclear programme.

He said: “Our demands on Iran are not unreasonable – give up your programme.

“Should they choose to go back, should they begin to enrich, we are fully prepared to respond to that as well. I hope they will make a different decision, choose a different path.”

He did not say what the US response would be.

European businesses would have to cut ties with Iran

Much of the effectiveness of the Trump administration’s reimposition of sanctions depends on European businesses cutting economic ties with Iran.

Firms in the EU have taken much more advantage of the 2015 waiving of sanctions to sign contracts increasing business in Iran than those in America.

The EU exported over €10.8 billion (£9.4 billion) worth of goods to Iran in 2017, half of which was made up of machinery and transport. That is up from €6.5 billion (£5.7 billion) in 2015

Senior Trump administration officials have threatened to impose ‘secondary sanctions’ on European businesses if they refuse to cancel their contracts.

In return, the EU has moved to reimpose a “blocking statute” originally meant to circumvent the US embargo against Cuba in the 1990s that would protect European businesses.


The Messiah is Here

Israel Shamir — The Unz Review May 20, 2018

Israel independence anniversary

Perhaps the Jewish Messiah is already here, though we are not aware of his coming? All Jewish dreams and desires were fulfilled this mid-May. Well, almost all. Two great world power leaders competed in their benevolence to Jews, while ordinary Israelis had fun and exhilarating soft target practice shooting unarmed Gazans or at least cheering the sharpshooters. Iranians gnashed their teeth but did nothing. The US Congress deemed that the Poles should pay the Jews $300 billion in tribute. And an exceedingly obnoxious Jewish wench got the crown of the European art scene, accidentally ensuring that the new capital of Israel, Jerusalem, will be the location of a prominent international gathering next year.
If you think that some of this benevolence should drip to you and that your lot should be somewhat better, think again. Nobody promised you a rose garden. The Jewish Messiah is good for the Jews, while non-Jews should just work harder and prepare for divine vengeance. There are arguments about whether all the goyim will be hit by vengeance, or whether some should survive to buy retail. However, benevolence towards non-Jews is not a striking feature of this arrangement.
I was quite apprehensive in the beginning of May. The schedule appeared scary. The Iranians had established themselves in Syria, the Russians were prepared to equip Syria with their best S-300 system (it is more reliable than the new and fancy S-400). The Palestinians planned to demonstrate on the 70th anniversary of their Nakba loosely coinciding with the US Embassy move to Jerusalem and with beginning of Ramadan. A war with Iran and Hezbollah, riots in the Palestinian territories, loss of the God-given right to fly and bomb as we wish all over the Middle East – dangers galore were stored for the first half of May. With all my critical attitude, the utter destruction of the beloved land is not my wet dream.
Prudent people would tread cautiously, preferring to minimize their risks in such a situation, but Jews are all for maximising them. If we must have trouble, let us have all the trouble now to have it done with, said Netanyahu. And all troubles – the Iran nuclear deal collapse, the Nakba anniversary, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the confrontation in Syria, the beginning of Ramadan – were unloaded at once. Israel passed it with flying colours. There was no big war.


True, some 60 Palestinian demonstrators were shot dead, the same number as were martyred in the Sharpeville Massacre, but what a difference! South Africa turned into a pariah state overnight, and the global campaign to dismantle apartheid began in earnest. The Gaza Massacre has been whitewashed by the obedient mainstream media, reported the RT. This event proved once again that mass media and social networks all over the world are in the Jewish grip, firm and invisible. Governments, parties, diplomats can and did protest, but the general public was insulated from the event.
The global system of mass information has changed a lot since 1960. There is an incredible abundance of information, a veritable flood that washes off everything. People think only what they are told today, and mass campaigns are produced by media and think tanks, they do not produce themselves. People are being told every day about, say, the Holocaust, or about Assad’s atrocities, or Putin’s meddling so it is kept in their minds. The moment the campaign is turned off, interest flags and the matter is totally forgotten, like the Skripal Affair was forgotten after it had been played to full capacity. Now Skripal has been disappeared by the British Secret Services, but this is not mentioned, outside of this publication.
And the mass murder in Gaza is already on its way to oblivion. They wanted to remind the world that they are buried alive in the grave of Gaza, and now they are dead. The people of Gaza have been locked up there for 70 years; the last 12 years were the worst, as the Gaza Strip has been under siege by Israel since they voted for Hamas. Gaza is almost unliveable, as Israel has bombed its power station, its sewage plants, its harbour and airfield. They can’t even fish, as Israeli boats machinegun the fishing boats. They can see their homes and fields taken from them just because they aren’t Jews, and they can’t reach them. This expulsion, dispossession, imprisonment of three generations, and siege are a unique Jewish sin.
Perhaps, the Holocaust was a divine punishment for Jewish treatment of Gaza, since for God, time sequence is of no importance. In the Torah, there are no earlier or later events, בתורה מאוחר ואין מוקדם אין, teaches the Talmud, and it is true. One can be punished for the sins not yet committed, and if they will not be committed, the punishment will be undone, too. If the Jews wouldn’t torture Gaza, there would be no Auschwitz.
Gaza is a noble place despite its depredation. In many countries, children of rulers are turning into billionaires. The daughter of the Angolan president is the richest woman in Africa: she is the only mobile telephony provider in diamond-rich Angola. But there is another tradition, of the children of the rulers being first to war. That is the tradition of Gaza. Among those shot by Israeli sharpshooters, there were thee children of Gaza’s leaders.
The son of the ex-Prime Minister of Gaza, Ismail Haniye, Maaz, has been among the heavily wounded. Ahmed al-Rantisi, the son of Abd el Aziz al-Rantisi, the founder of Hamas, has been killed. His father, called the Lion of Palestine, was been assassinated by the Jews in 2004, when an Israeli helicopter gunship launched a missile at his car in the centre of Gaza, killing him, his bodyguards and wounding passers-by. And now his son has followed him. Izz al-Din al-Sammak, son of Musa al-Sammak, a Hamas leader, was killed, and he was only 14 years old.
Altogether over a hundred boys and young men, the flower of Palestine, have been reaped in these unarmed demonstrations of April-May. A purpose of this killing spree was to show that non-violent resistance is futile. It is more fun to kill an armed opponent, if you are much better armed. When you kill an unarmed one, it is obviously not cricket. But such consideration has never stopped a Jew.
The reason is the serious doubt in the humanity of non-Jews that is planted in the centre of the Jewish religious Weltanschauung. A good Israeli who condemns Gaza killings most probably is a vegetarian, who objects to the killing of animals, too. Such good Israelis are often anti-male, and prefer to use a feminine form of nouns, like Zochrot. Such good Israelis usually are anti-native, and support unlimited immigration of Africans to Palestine. Such people can’t be numerous, and they aren’t.
As for other Jews, they learned from the Matrix protagonist, Neo (Keanu Reeves), who had been taught to (dis)regard obvious dangers as maya, as a mirage created by the Matrix, and he jumped from skyscrapers and dodged bullets. Jews apparently have a similar attitude to reality. One day it won’t work, to their surprise, but this time it worked.
The transfer of the US Embassy had been described as the main reason for the bloodshed. However, this is a line of @neverTrump brotherhood. This spiteful decision had done a lot of good, as it ruined the carefully nurtured fiction of the US as an honest broker. Very few Palestinians cared about this Trump decision, a few dozens demonstrated against it in Jerusalem and other places, while the mammoth demonstration in Gaza was unrelated to Trump, as described above. It is not Trump who declared siege on Gaza, it is not Trump who expelled Palestinians from their homes, it is not Trump who perpetuated the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe. Trump undermined the Machiavellian tactics of the State Department and made it hard for the Arab stooges to follow Washington, and this is not bad.


Iran is a big, far away country, and there is no practical reason for Israel to quarrel with them. But Iran is the last and only country in the Middle East that is not subject to Jewish hegemony. Netanyahu did its best to set the US upon Iran by doing a Colin Powell act. Jews prevailed upon Trump to take his country out of the nuclear deal of six powers, and after that, in the moment of highest tension, Israel bombed so-called Iranian bases in Syria. Nothing happened. Iranians, upset and annoyed, still submit to the laws of the Matrix, and they aren’t going to jump from skyscrapers or counterattack Israel and experience Trump’s fury. For this president is a tame elephant for the Jews.
The best gift God Almighty gave the Jews this season is the Matzo balls of president Trump. The Chosen people have got him by the balls in more ways than one. He had been caught with a loose woman, just like President Clinton, and he was justifiably afraid of impeachment. In this moment of sorrow he decided to surrender to Jewish mercies, and to do all they asked.
He tore up the Iran nuclear deal, just as Bibi Netanyahu asked. He promised to heap sanctions on Iran until they surrender and change their regime for an Israel-friendly one. And then he delivered on his promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. A fat lot of good that did him.
I do not envy Trump. The Jewish mode of support for a leader is a form of waterboarding: the leader is allowed to survive, but only just. The Jewish logic works like that: if we shall save him, he will forget about us and disregard our wishes. So he should be saved but left imperilled. This is what happened to the US President. Jews, and even Israelis were strategically located between the Stormy wench and Trump’s Cohen; they have the heights of the Attorney General’s office and strong positions in the Congress. Like in waterboarding, Trump remains of the verge of drowning, and he has to do the wishes of his persecutors.
Israel will continue to goad Iran, hoping to cause an American-Iranian war. This is a given. If Trump is clever, he won’t strike Iran. Instead, he should strike the Mueller-Gestapo. While Rouhani is the President of Iran, probably Iran will not respond to the Israeli/US provocations, but Rouhani’s position is precarious. Iranians feel that Kim the King of the North managed the American threat better, and they may change their ruler and take a Kim line as a guidance. Israel as a forward base of the US Empire can come under threat.
The best thing about Trump’s Iran policy is that it broke the seemingly unbreakable link between the US and Europe. Where Obama would try to patch differences, Trump enlarged the gap, and even docile Europeans came to the conclusion that they have to be more independent from Washington. This can bring a disconnect between the US banks and European banks, and allow the Europeans to disobey the US sanctions against Iran and Russia. This process is not close to its completion, but it has started. Iran, Russia and European businesses will be the beneficiaries, while the US will find itself out of this game.


The strongest voice against Israeli brutality was that of President Erdogan of Turkey. He sent Israeli ambassador home, called back his own ambassador, and organised a meeting of Muslim states’ leaders to deal with Israel. Independence of Israel had been Erdogan’s hallmark for a long time: he argued with Shimon Peres at Davos years ago, and the recent attempted coup against him also had some Israeli support.
If you are against Israel, you have to be against the US, the bigger Jewish state. This suits Erdogan. Because of this animosity, no American plane took off from the Turkish NATO base to bomb Syria. The Turkish fight against Kurdish separatists undermined the US will to stay in Syria by all means, and now there are strong indications that Trump intends to dry up financing of the rebels’ enclave in NW Syria, unhappy Idlib. Israel is likely to find itself facing a united and rebuilt Syria, a prospect it hardly cherishes.


The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, could throw a wrench into the Israeli plans. He is heavily invested in Syria; he needs Iranian troops there, for without them, he’d have to send Russian infantry to dislodge Islamist rebels from the ruins of Syrian cities. He had been humiliated by the US as they had stricken Syrian bases and cities while the Russians sat on their hands. His Chief of Staff said that Syria would get the S-300, and then woe betide the Israeli and American transgressors.
Israelis took this threat in their stride. The Israeli Minister of Defence Avigdor Lieberman said that Israelis would take out the S-300 (“even S-700”, he added) if it would be on our way. And Netanyahu made a strong political gesture – he flew to Moscow and he spent the whole of May 9th with the Russian president.
May 9 is the Russian V-day; it became the biggest and most important Russian holiday under Putin, as the old Soviet feasts had been cancelled while the new ones were in the process of gestation. This was the day when Russians would love to receive prominent guests of honour, but they weren’t coming. This was the Lonely Putin Day. Very few leaders responded to his invitation to come and to review the military parade on the Red Square.
The choice of the holiday was not a natural one: the war is a distant event for vast majority of Russians. Their allies in the war are their present adversaries, the US and England. World War Two has been privatised by the Jews, at least in Western public opinion. For the Westerners, this was the war for the Jews and against the enemy of Jews. There are few references to the war where the Holocaust hasn’t been mentioned. Being aware of these narrative deficiencies, the Soviet leaders didn’t make much out of V-day.
Putin for his nation-building needed a holiday to unite people, to co-opt the pro-Soviet majority without antagonising the anti-Soviet groups. He took V-day and made it into a big event, discounting its faults.
The arrival of Benjamin Netanyahu on that day was a heaven-sent gift for Putin. Here was the man who could call upon the US Senate, who can deal with the US President, and now he came in person, Mr World Jewry personified, supporting the Russian narrative of history. Bibi pinned up the black-and-orange St George ribbon, the mark of a Russian patriot and Putin’s loyalist, he took a poster with a portrait and a name of a (Jewish) war hero and marched next to Putin in the Immortal Regiment parade. Grateful Putin acknowledged the Holocaust and declared friendship with Jewish people.
Netanyahu repaid his host by a missile strike upon Syria, almost right away. This is a standard Israeli procedure: upon any high-level meeting with the Russians, bomb their allies, so they would know who is more important. They bombed Syria while Russian Defence Minister Shoygu’s jet was still in flight from Moscow to Tel Aviv.
Putin swallowed it, and promised to refrain from supplying S-300 to Syria, despite his Chief of Staff’s words. Soon, Israel attacked Syria in force; according to Israel, they attacked Iranian bases; according to Iranians, there are no such things; there are no Iranian bases and no Iranian troops. However, this Israeli attack remained without response.
Since that fateful May 9th day, Russian media has been treating Israel very cautiously. Even the Gaza massacre didn’t bring many condemnations in the Russian media, though the Russian Foreign Office condemned this brutal act. The official state agency RIA reported that Israeli soldiers shot at “especially aggressive individuals”. The second state news agency TASS minimized its reporting about the massacre.
The Russians in power are not keen on Iran and Iranians, an Iranian friend told me. Though Iran would like to buy everything the Russians are willing to sell, the Russians drag their feet. The volume of trade between Russia and Iran is the same as between Russian and tiny Israel, less than $2 billion per annum. Israel has a lot of supporters in the Russian elites, Russians visit Israel by their thousands, while Iran is an unwanted partner.
In short, the Jews overcame their problems by mid-May 2018, and emerged as a leading polity on the planet Earth, in perfect rapport with both superpowers and in control over mind of billions. The massacre of Gaza furnished the proof they can kill with impunity. Yet, until now, the Jews always exceeded a good measure and brought calamity upon themselves. There is no reason to doubt it will happen this time, too. More about it, about the Jewish assault on Poland and on European aesthetics in the next piece.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Flashback: Abortion tied to sharp decline in women’s mental health

Ryan Jaslow — CBS News Sept 11, 2011

Do women who have an abortion risk their mental health?

A provocative new study shows that women who have an abortion face an increased risk for mental health problems including substance abuse, anxiety, and depression.

“Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the September 1 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 877,000 women, including 164,000 who had an abortion. They found women who had an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental problems.

Women who had an abortion were 34 percent more likely to develop an anxiety disorder, 37 percent more likely to experience depression, 110 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, 155 percent more likely to commit suicide, and 220 percent more likely to use marijuana.

Nearly 10 percent of the problems could be attributed to abortion, the authors concluded.

“There are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counseled prior to an abortion,” Dr Priscilla Coleman, professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University, told the Daily Telegraph

About 827,000 women have an abortion in the U.S. each year.

Previous research hasn’t found a definitive link between an abortion and a woman’s mental health.

In 2008, the American Psychiatric Association charged a task force to review scientific evidence on the link between abortion and mental health. They acknowledged women may experience sadness, grief, depression, and anxiety following an abortion, but could not find evidence of abortions – and not other factors – caused these effects.

“The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,” Dr Brenda Major, chair of the task force, said in a 2008 written statement. “The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”


Austrian man jailed up for glorifying Nazism after cops found “joke” Hitler-branded wine in his home

Sophie Evans — The Mirror May 17, 2018

Hitler wine. Click to enlarge

Hitler wine. Click to enlarge

An Austrian man has been locked up for glorifying Nazism after cops found multiple bottles of Hitler-branded wine at his home.

The 31-year-old, from the western state of Vorarlberg, was discovered to own several bottles of the increasingly popular wine.

He was jailed for six months after being found guilty of glorifying the activities of the Nazis – a crime in countries like Austria and Germany.

The sentence will be added to a non-related 18-month prison term for an offence against drugs laws he was convicted of earlier this month.

Austrian investigators found multiple bottles at the home of the man, whose name was not made public due to strict local privacy laws.

The items featured the image of Adolf Hitler on the side, a court heard.

The bottles were labelled with messages such as: “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer” (“One People, One Empire, One Leader”), “Hitlerwein” (“Hitler Wine”) and “Die Anhangerschaft von Hitler” (“The Fanbase of Hitler”), according to the prosecutor.

The man admitted he had found the wine amusing upon purchasing it. But he said he had lost interest and described himself now as “rather left-wing orientated”.

According to local media, the defendant bought the bottles of wine in Italy, where they still remain legal to sell and buy.

In many other European countries, such as Austria and Germany, the “use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations” or “re-engagement in National Socialist activities” are forbidden by law.

Benito Mussolini’s 1930s Italy was the breeding ground for the ideology of fascism, but there are still plenty of “Il Duce” supporters around today.

On the Italian side of the Brenner Pass linking the country to Austria, where Hitler and Mussolini met three times in the 1940s, fascist ‘souvenirs’ are still widely sold. But they are forbidden across the border in Austria.

One souvenir shop owner claimed, “it was mainly youngsters” buying such items, saying “there is a huge demand” for wines with the labels of Mussolini, Hitler and other fascists and Nazis.


Twitter Suspends Me for 12 Hours for Retweeting This

henrymakow.com — May 20, 2018

twitter censorship
Suspended for 12 hrs because of the following because it “promotes hate and violence.”  I cannot update the latest news.
Despite being only 1-2% of the population, sodomites are responsible for approximately one-third of all child sexual abuse offenses, meaning that, statistically, 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester as opposed to 1 in 495 heterosexuals. https://t.co/VYhnv9amu3
7:42 AM – 12 May 2018
We have determined that you have violated the Twitter Rules, so we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features. While in this state, you can still browse Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending Direct Messages to your followers — no Tweets, Retweets, or likes. Your account will be restored to full functionality in:
11 hours and 52 minutes.
I have sent almost 50,000 tweets in my six years on Twitter and this gets me banned? (I also had to delete it in order to be reinstated tomorrow.)
  • ” Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.”  Source 
This means that Twitter reads every post to decide if it is acceptable according to their terms. I’ll bet if the post said that Catholic priests are 10 times as likely to be pedophiles as Jewish rabbis, I wouldn’t have been suspended.
I will be migrating to Gab. Please open an account with www.gab.ai 
Please retweet this to your followers on Twitter



How Democracy Ended

Eric Zuesse — Strategic Culture May 19, 2018

What killed democracy was constantly lying to the public, by politicians whose only way to win national public office is to represent the interests of the super-rich at the same time as the given politician publicly promises to represent the interests of the public — “and may the better liar win!” — it’s a lying-contest.

When democracy degenerates into that, it becomes a dictatorship by the richest, the people who can fund the most lying. Such a government is an aristocracy, no democracy at all, because the aristocracy rule, the public don’t. It’s the type of government that the French Revolution was against and overthrew; and it’s the type of government that the American Revolution was against and overthrew; but it has been restored in both countries.

First here will be discussed France:

On 7 May 2017, Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France with 66.1% of the vote, compared to Marine Le Pen’s 33.9%. That was the second round of voting; the first round had been: Macron 24.0%, Le Pen 21.3% Fillon 20.0%, Melenchon 19.6%, and others 15%; so, the only clear dominator in that 11-candidate contest was Macron, who, in the second round, turned out to have been the second choice of most of the voters for the other candidates. Thus, whereas Le Pen rose from 21.3% to 33.9% in the second round (a 59% increase in her percentage of the vote), Macron rose from 24.0% to 66.1% in the second round (a 275% increase in his percentage of the vote). In other words: Macron didn’t just barely win the Presidency, but he clearly dominated both rounds; it was never at all close. But once in office he very quickly disappointed the French public:

On 11 August 2017, Le Figaro bannered (as auto-translated by Google Chrome) A hundred days later, Macron confronted with the skepticism of the French, and reported that 36% were “satisfied” and 64% were “dissatisfied” with the new President.

On 23 March 2018, Politico bannered Macron’s approval ratings hit record low: poll and reported that, “Only 40 percent of the French population said they have a favorable opinion of Macron, a drop of 3 percentage points from last month and 12 percentage points from December, while 57 percent said they hold a negative opinion of the president.”

On 22 April 2018, Europe 1 reported that 44% were “satisfied” with Macron, and 55% were “dissatisfied” with him; and that — even worse — while 23% were “very dissatisfied” with him, only 5% were “very satisfied” with him.

So, clearly — and this had happened very quickly — the French public didn’t think that they were getting policies that Macron had promised to them during his campaign. He was very different from what they had expected — even though he had won the Presidency in a landslide and clearly dominated both rounds. That plunge in support after being elected President required a lot of deceit during his campaign.

Second, is US:

The situation in the US was very different in its means but similar in its outcome: it was a close election between two candidates, each of whom had far more of the electorate despising him or her than admiring him or her. Neither of the two candidates in the second round was viewed net-favorably by the public. The key round of elimination of the more-attractive candidates was in the primaries; and, after that, it became merely a choice between uglies in the general election. Any decent (or even nearly decent) person had already been eliminated, by that time. Consequently, the ultimate winner never had the high net-favorable rating from the US public, that Macron did from the French public.

America’s system of ‘democracy’ is very different than France’s: Throughout the primaries-season — America’s first round — the most-preferred of all candidates in the race was Bernie Sanders, who, in the numerous one-on-one polled hypothetical choices versus any of the opposite Party’s contending candidates, crushed each one of them except John Kasich, who, throughout the primaries, was the second-most preferred of all of the candidates (and who performed far better than did Trump did in the hypothetical match-ups against Clinton). In the hypothetical match-ups, Sanders beat Kasich by 3.3%, whereas Kasich beat Clinton by 7.4% — that spread between +3.3% and -7.4% is 10.8%, and gives a pretty reliable indication of what the Democratic National Committee threw away when rigging the primaries and vote-counts for Hillary Clinton to win the Party’s nomination. Sanders beat Trump by 10.4%, whereas Clinton beat Trump by 3.2%. That spread was only 7.2% in favor of Sanders over Clinton; but, in any case, the DNC cared lots more about satisfying its mega-donors than about winning, when they picked Clinton to be the Party’s nominee. (Ms. Clinton’s actual victory over Mr. Trump in the final election between those two nominees turned out to be by only 2.1% — close enough a spread so as to enable Trump to win in the Electoral College (which is all that counts), which counts not individual voters but a formula that represents both the states and the voters. Sanders would have beaten Trump in a landslide — far too big a margin for the Electoral College to have been able to go the opposite way, such as did happen with Clinton. This fact was also shown here and here. That’s what the DNC threw away.)

Hillary Clinton received by far the biggest support from billionaires, of all of the candidates; Sanders received by far the least; and this is why the Democratic Party, which Clinton and Barack Obama (two thoroughly billionaire-controlled politicians) effectively controlled, handed its nomination to Clinton. On 7 June 2016, the great investigative journalist Greg Palast headlined and documented How California is being stolen from Sanders right now, and four days later a retired statistician’s review of other statisticians’ statistical analysis of data from all of the primaries and caucuses, reaffirmed their findings, that the Democratic nomination had been stolen by the Democratic National Committee, and he concluded that “the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don’t agree [politically] with him.” A more detailed study was published on 1 August 2016, titled Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries. Basically, what had happened is that the most-preferred of all the candidates got deep-sixed by Democratic Party billionaires, who ultimately control the DNC, just as Republican billionaires control the RNC. The US Government is squabbles between billionaires, and that’s all. That’s what’s left of American ‘democracy’, now.

On 12 August 2016, Julian Assange noted: “MSNBC on its most influential morning program, Morning Joe, was defending Bernie Sanders. Then Debbie Wasserman Schultz [head of the DNC] called up the president of MSNBC. Amazingly, this is not reported in the US media. It is reported in the US media that they called up Chuck Todd who’s the host of Meet The Press. Something much more serious is not reported — that Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself personally called up the president of MSNBC to apply pressure in relation to positive coverage about Bernie Sanders on Morning Joe.” That was typical of what went on.

Hillary Clinton’s favorable rating, by Election Day, was 40.3%, her unfavorable was 55.3%. Donald Trump’s favorable was 39.8%, unfavorable was 53.4%. Bernie Sanders, as of the end of the primaries on 29 June 2016, was 50.8% favorable, 39.6% unfavorable, and it has been getting steadily better afterward. But the suckered Democratic Party voters (the ones who were counted, at any rate) voted slightly more for Hillary than for Bernie. Even despite Sanders’s having had support from few if any billionaires, he almost won the Democratic nomination, and that’s remarkable. He might actually have received more votes during the primaries than Hillary did, but we’ll never know.

So: America is a dictatorship by the billionaires. And this means that it operates by fooling the public. France is similar, though it achieves this via a different way. And, in both countries, deceit is essential, in order to achieve its dictatorship. Fooling the public is now what it’s all about, in either case. Democracy can never be won by fooling the public; because fooling the public means removing the public’s ability to control the government. So, calling such a nation a ‘democracy’, is, itself, deceiving the public — it’s part of the dictatorship, or else support of the dictatorship.

In former times, this system was rationalized as ‘the divine right of kings’. Now it’s rationalized as ‘the divine right of capital’. But it’s also become covered-over by yet another lie: ‘democracy’. This is a ‘democratic’ aristocracy; it is an ‘equal opportunity’ aristocracy. In it, each citizen has ‘equal rights’ as every other citizen, no matter how wealthy. It’s just a castle of lies. And its doors are actually open only to the few richest-and-well-connected.

Here, a former CIA official tries to describe how the American dictatorship works — the enforcement-part of the system, and he does (even if only by implication) also touch upon the financial sources of it. Starting at 1:07:35 in that video, he discusses his personal case: why he could no longer tolerate working for the CIA. But his description of how he, as an Agency official, saw the system to function, starts at 3:45 in the video. Key passages start at 12:45, and at 20:15. Maybe any American who would email this article to friends who don’t understand how the system functions, will come under increased US surveillance, but that CIA official’s career and family were destroyed by what the system did to him, which was lots worse than just surveillance. Remarkably, he nonetheless had the courage to persist (and thus did that video). However, when one sees how politically partisan (and so obtuse) the viewer-comments to that video are, one might be even more depressed than by the account this former CIA official presents. But, even if the situation is hopeless, everyone should at least have the opportunity to understand it. Because, if the aristocracy are the only people who understand it, there can’t be any hope for democracy, at all.


The Philip Cross Affair

Craig Murray — craigmurray.org May 18, 2018

UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing if it is one individual:

philip cross affair

The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes, this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control Wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right-wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right-wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper foursquare into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So is Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.

There is no doubt that Kamm, leader writer of Murdoch’s Times, is close to the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple personas. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.

Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.

What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is, in fact, an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.

What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation are very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

jimmy wales tweets

In response, many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

emma tweet

craigmurray tweet

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That exchange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”

julian tweet

has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:

George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.

My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact, the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one-man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right-wing fanatic.

Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.

In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:


Continues …

How Jews Celebrate Murder

Brother Nathanael Kapner — Real Jew News May 21, 2018

celebrating murder

‘WHEN GENOCIDE IS PERMISSIBLE’ read the Headline on Sheldon Adelson’s The Times Of Israel (Israel Hayom) calling for the murder of Palestinians.

“Hamas idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life,” wrote the bloodthirsty Jew.

“What other way is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than to obliterate them completely,” the genocidal Jew concluded.

The notion that Jews “celebrate life” is laughable.

Abortion in Israel is rife and assaults on Palestinians by Israelis sanctioned by World Jewry (don’t be fooled by Gallup polls where Jews publicly posture as being against Israeli violence) is evidence of Judaism being a religion of death.

What’s galling about the latest genocidal rout against the Palestinians’ peaceful “Great March Home” protests in concert with the opening of Trump’s Embassy in Jerusalem is how the Jew-owned Main Stream Media either ignored or justified it.

Any outrage over 2700 wounded and 60 unarmed dead Palestinians at the Gaza 1950 Armistice line (not a border, Israel has no defined borders) deliberately executed by the Jews in just one day was non-existent, but the Jew-pleasing rant by Nikki Haley, “Israel used restraint,” was plastered everywhere.

Most, if not all of the thousands of dead, maimed and wounded unarmed Palestinians, including paramedics, press journalists, old men, women and children shot by Israeli snipers in the past six weeks, were hundreds, even thousands of feet away from the ‘Gaza prison fence,’ and posed no threat to anyone.

There is NO “border” marking off the Gaza Strip from the rogue state of Israel, there’s an armed prison fence along the armistice line, and an ambiguous militarized free-fire zone extending deep into Gaza’s Palestinian farmlands, making it still Israeli-occupied territory.


JEWISH ENABLED HEADLINES—detached from the Gaza reality—whitewashed the Israeli massacre.

Headlines like “Dozens Die In Gaza” (were Gazans sick? were they old?) and “Clashes Erupt During US Embassy Opening” (did both sides commit “clashes?”…when only the Israeli side did) fool the reader into thinking that Israel, though troubled, is still a peace-loving place.

The Jew-owned media also ignores all the murderous rallies of the Jews in Israel that call for “Death To The Arabs!”

Israel’s long-running practice of brutally killing Palestinians at every pretext, a people with no standing army of their own but an irregular people’s resistance with inferior, home-made weapons and under Israel’s high-tech military boot…

…is in fact, a message to the Arab world — “Don’t mess or this will happen to you.”

And of course, there’s always the Samson Option given Jewry’s stash of nukes in Israel that’s under NO international oversight. (Hitler had it right: “All the Jews want in Palestine is a central organization for their world swindle with no intention of living there.”)

The question is, “Why do Jews get away with murder?”

JEWS ARE EXEMPT not only from criticism of their pernicious influence-peddling in the US but of any censure of their committing of murder against innocent human beings.

All one has to do is follow the money to know why.

Jews wield the bucks in America; own the press; control the information (Google is owned by The Mossad since its inception), and cuts the checks of the military brass via the Federal Reserve Bank which the Jews own; and bribe and blackmail the hacks on DC.

Some positive things can come of it — US hypocrisy for camouflaging the criminal deeds of Jews is being exposed for all the world to see and to react effectively against it.

Jews are getting nervous.

Thus they de-rank, ban, curb donations, and restrict searches of alternate narrations.

Intense censorship is coming. But the backlash will be worse than ever.

Hitler couldn’t be heard. But today more and more are on to the Jews.

Everyone will say, “Jews deserve it”…no ‘innocent victims’ next time around.

Jews won’t be celebrating, but all the world will.


See: Why Israel Gets Away With Murder Here

Dirty Tactics Of The Jewish Lobby Here

Israel’s Desperate Hour Here

Symbols Of Rachel Corrie’s Murder Here

Dress Rehearsal For The Antichrist Here

Rise Of The Three Israels Here

Why Israel Should Not Exist Here

Who Is The True Israel? Here

The Jews Who Rule America Here


Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Online donation system by ClickandPledge

Support +BN On Patreon

Donate Via Network For Good

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com



Special Service’s Agent: Attack On Russia is Being Prepared

Vaska — Off-Guardian May 20, 2018

While the Pentagon accuses Russia of fomenting false fears of a Daesh/ISIS threat in Central Asia – see Sputnik’s article on this — new reports of an American push to attack Russia militarily via Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and are now emerging.  We’re reposting here Catehon’s May 19 article on this topic by Andrey Afanasyev.

Sources in the Russian law enforcement agencies, citing data from closed communication channels with the Defense Ministries of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, say that the operation to prepare a large-scale hybrid offensive against Russia through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is in the final phase.

Reports of this have been received earlier, in particular, this was mentioned at a recent security conference held in Tashkent. Then the head of the Tajik Foreign Ministry Sirodzhiddin Aslov openly announced the activation of terrorists in the region:

The activation of terrorist groups, their advancement to the northern regions of Afghanistan, especially in the territories bordering Tajikistan, the increase in the number of ISIS supporters, as well as the participation of a certain number of citizens of the post-Soviet republics in the terrorist groups and movements present in Afghanistan … causes our serious concern

This problem was also voiced at the Seventh Conference on International Security, held recently in Moscow. According to Russian intelligence agencies, at the moment the combat potential of the Islamic State ranges from 2500 to 4000 people. This is also confirmed by sources from the Ministry of Defense of China. The Chinese military claims at least 3,800 militants operating in 160 terrorist cells. Their greatest concentration is in the province of Nangarhar, in which the Islamic State increases the production and smuggling of drugs, as well as creates an infrastructure for the training of terrorists and recruits local people.

The plan

According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing the sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country. Representatives of the top leadership of the radicals are located in the Achin district.

In addition, it is noted that since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says:

All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on.

Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan — through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab.

The executor

Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal, personally oversees militant activities in the region, which plans to expand its influence over other regions of the country at the expense of the radicals. In addition, he actively participates in the financial activities of the Islamic State, receiving significant profits. The network informs that any protest actions of the population dissatisfied with the activities of the Islamic State are “severely suppressed by the provincial authorities, including through punitive operations against whole settlements.”

Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him “the hope of Helmand province,” which Mangal previously headed.

According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future, the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1,200 militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people.

It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly worth considering as a coincidence.

At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries:

The probability of an exacerbation in Central Asia

Why do Americans do this?

Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran if necessary.is extremely high. It will happen synchronously with the exacerbation in several directions. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with “color revolutions” that will continue in the post-Soviet space and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia.


British Patriot Jez Turner faces a prison sentence for criticizing Jews

Darkmoon — May 20, 2018

Sourced from the Jewish website
Campaign Against Antisemitism


jez Turner

Moments ago, neo-Nazi leader Jeremy Bedford-Turner was unanimously convicted by a jury of incitement to racial hatred over a speech he gave in 2015 at a demonstration called to protest against the “Jewification” of Golders Green.
The sentence has not yet been handed down.
Private email of Lasha Darkmoon (May 19) to selected correspondents:
I know Jez personally, but only as an online correspondent. We’ve exchanged several friendly emails. A nice guy who wouldn’t harm a fly. I had no idea Jez was a “neo-Nazi”. Never once in his correspondence with me did he mention Hitler or Nazi Germany or say anything even vaguely inflammatory. He was always courteous and restrained, with a sunny disposition and a great sense of humor.
Too bad they’ve manufactured a reason to throw him in prison! When he emerges, he will have have a prison record. He will find it hard to get a job. He will no longer be invited to give lectures. Anyone who associates with him will be regarded as a leper, a neo-Nazi sympathizer. His freedom of speech will be severely curtailed, and he will have to watch every word he says from now on.
And yet we told that it is an “antisemitic canard” to talk of “Jewish power”. Jews are the Eternal Victims, facing endless pogroms and persecutions and fighting back valiantly against shocking calumnies. So we are instructed daily by the mass media.
Apologies for speaking out. I broke my own rule of being a “silent reader” on this forum! I did it for Jez’s sake, because I know he shouldn’t be in prison and that this is a cruel miscarriage of justice. There are others being similarly mistreated right now: Ursula Haverbeck, Monica Schaefer, Alison Chabloz. Who is next in line for the guillotine I shudder to think!
This certainly doesn’t increase our respect for the law.

The article by Campaign Against Antisemitism continues:

The prosecution was blocked for two years by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), forcing Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) into a long legal battle which culminated in the CPS having to reverse its decision not to prosecute Mr Bedford-Turner.
CAA welcomes the verdict and the clear and strong message that it sends that stirring up racial hatred against Jews will not be tolerated, but the key question now is why the CPS got this case so dismally wrong.
In July 2015, neo-Nazis sought to march through Golders Green. Campaign Against Antisemitism stopped their march, and instead they gathered in Whitehall, Westminster in central London, on 4th July. In his speech to neo-Nazis surrounded by police, Mr Bedford-Turner said that:
“…all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.”
Evoking medieval libels which claimed that Jews drank the blood of non-Jewish children, Mr Bedford-Turner told his followers, of whom one third were from the violent extreme-right National Rebirth of Poland group, that the French Revolution and both World Wars were massacres perpetrated by Jews. He concluded that England was “merry” during the period of the expulsion of Jews from England and demanded: “Let’s free England from Jewish control.” The speech was filmed and posted on YouTube, where it remains.
LD: The article neglects to mention that Jez’s reference to England being known as “merry” during the long period of Jewish expulsion was not something Jez made up himself in order to mock the Jews; he was simply referring to a witty and well-known quote by Nesta Webster.
Under cross-examination on Friday, Mr Bedford-Turner defended his speech. Asked about his views on Jews, Mr Bedford-Turner said: “I would very much like them to leave England.” When asked if this applied to Jewish children, he answered: “Ideally, yes”, reasoning that “Jewish power would have no power if there were no Jews.” He also claimed that Jack the Ripper was a Jew but Jewish power covered this up to the consternation of Judge David Tomlinson. Mr Bedford-Turner’s supporters initially enthusiastically filled the public gallery, but their numbers dwindled over the course of three days in court.
Mr Bedford-Turner was only prosecuted because we forced the CPS to defend British Jews, against its will. The CPS was expertly represented by Louis Mably QC during the trial, but though the prosecution cannot be faulted, the CPS itself has behaved appallingly to try to stop this prosecution from taking place. Mr Bedford-Turner was only prosecuted because we forced the CPS to defend British Jews, against its will.
After CAA reported the speech to the Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Bedford-Turner was interviewed by police officers and a file was passed to the CPS, but after more than five months, senior lawyers from the CPS’s Counter Terrorism Division finally confirmed that they would not to prosecute the case. The CPS told us that there was no realistic prospect of a jury finding that Mr Bedford-Turner’s speech amounted to incitement to racial or religious hatred, defined by law as using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intention (or likely consequence) of stirring up racial or religious hatred. CAA’s Chairman, Gideon Falter, who had witnessed the speech, applied for Victims’ Right to Review, but was told by the CPS that he was not a victim and had no victim’s rights.  
Faced with no alternative, CAA took the unusual step of issuing judicial review proceedings to submit the CPS decision to the scrutiny of the High Court. CAA was partly motivated by a growing concern that the CPS is failing to take antisemitic crime seriously. 2015, the year in which the crime was committed, was amongst the worst years on record for antisemitic hate crime. Yet of 15,442 prosecutions of hate crimes by the CPS that year, only 12 were prosecutions of antisemitic hate crime. In the years since, as antisemitic crime has surged, the CPS has continued to prosecute only a paltry number of antisemitic crimes.
We have since been told by a source at the CPS that it was the Director of Public Prosecutions who personally interceded to overrule a senior prosecutor who had advised going ahead with the prosecution. Whilst waiting for the High Court to decide whether to allow CAA to proceed, the case was brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Executive of the CPS, but we have since been told by a source at the CPS that it was the Director of Public Prosecutions who personally interceded to overrule a senior prosecutor who had advised going ahead with the prosecution.
In the end, on 6th January 2017, the Hon. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave gave CAA’s judicial review permission to proceed on all grounds and limited CAA’s cost liability to zero. He held that this case “raises potentially important issues for society in this growing area of racist and religious hate crime.” The case was expedited to be held before a Divisional Court of the Administrative Division of the High Court on Wednesday 8th March 2017, but on the eve of the hearing, after more than a year of maintaining that her decision was correct, the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed that the decision should be quashed and taken again by a more senior lawyer.
CAA was represented pro bono by leading counsel Brian Kennelly QC, junior counsel Jamie Susskind, and solicitor David Sonn, to whom we are immensely grateful, and without whom Mr Bedford-Turner would have escaped justice.
Now that Mr Bedford-Turner has been convicted, CAA has been entirely vindicated.
More than half of British Jews believe that the CPS is doing too little to fight antisemitism. CAA’s latest Antisemitism Barometer research shows that following a 45% surge in antisemitic crime and a 36% drop in charging of antisemitic crime:
Almost one in three British Jews have considered leaving the UK due to antisemitism. Only 59% of British Jews feel welcome in the UK, and 17% feel unwelcome. 37% of British Jews have been concealing their Judaism in public.
Only 23% of British Jews think the CPS does enough to protect them. More than half of British Jews believe that the CPS is doing too little to fight antisemitism.
64% of British Jews felt that the authorities were not doing enough to address and punish antisemitism. Only 39% of British Jews have confidence that if they reported a hate crime, it would be prosecuted if there was enough evidence.
For more on Jez Turner, see “The Trial of Jez Turner: A Jewish Witchhunt“, which is an abridged version by Lasha Darkmoon of an excellent article by Andrew Joyce on the Occidental Observer.
gideon-falter-1 Gideon Falter (pictured), Chairman of CAA, said: “We are delighted by this result, Jeremy Bedford-Turner has been unanimously convicted by a jury of incitement to racial hatred.
The real question is why the Director of Public Prosecutions and CPS got this so dismally wrong. CAA had to battle the CPS in court since 2015 to force them to prosecute this case, but a speech that took us and a jury moments to understand as a clear-cut case of incitement, was repeatedly and wrongly dismissed by the CPS as not only not an offence of incitement, but not even a lesser offence. This was always a matter of basic law and common sense.
The question now is why the CPS seems to demonstrate such incompetence in dealing with cases of antisemitism. Despite record levels of antisemitic crime, there are dismally few prosecutions of antisemites in Britain every year. Antisemites are becoming bolder and British Jews are losing faith in the authorities. The CPS must stop making excuses and prosecute antisemites with zero tolerance. If they do not, we will continue to hold them to account in court.”

Source: Campaign Against Antisemitism

We need proper constables – not these swaggering gunmen

Peter Hitchens — Daily Mail May 20, 2018

Armed police at Victoria Station, London. Keeping the public safe from "terror" and "hate crime", but not necessarily from rape, burglary and common assault. Click to enlarge

Armed police at Victoria Station, London. Keeping the public safe from “terror” and “hate crime”, but not necessarily from rape, burglary and common assault. Click to enlarge

The mere sight of an armed police officer in this country makes me instantly furious and miserable. Sometimes I just have to look away, while I collect myself. Then I hurry off, as fast as I can.

This is instinctive and emotional. But it is not irrational. The reasons for it run deep. I was brought up in a country which was actively proud that its police were not armed.

Now I am told that rural police are to be armed on the excuse that this will guard our shires against terrorism. It is a pretext. It just means that, like everywhere else, our police will routinely have firearms. This will be the end of Britain as it was.

We used to think that other, less happy nations might need to use guns to keep order. We did not. And for many years I returned from travels abroad and rejoiced at this difference between my home and foreign lands.

As George Orwell said, the beer was bitterer and the coins were heavier. And the police were different. They weren’t the unapproachable scowling army of the state, they were the police of a free, peaceful population, our allies against crime and disorder.

Then, after an especially long stint overseas, I came back, looked for the familiar constables I was used to, and I found that we now had cops instead. It was the beginning of one of the most profound changes in our society that has ever taken place, one about which we were not consulted, and which was never openly discussed.

They stopped walking, except occasionally in pairs. They zoomed about in cars, they wore flat caps and big boots, handcuffs, clubs and a mass of ironmongery hung from their big belts. And, affected by this transformation, they had begun to swagger and scowl as well. No wonder. All this clattering stuff said clearly that they did not like or trust the public any more.

Bit by bit it grew worse. Even in my peaceful hometown, I began to see cops with sub-machine guns standing grimly outside court buildings. The flat caps gave way to baseball caps.

And in the capital, I learned to expect to see armed officers, on the excuse (which I think is thin) that they are guarding embassies and other sensitive buildings. If the threat is really that great, then the Army should guard them. If not, then taking police constables away from their real jobs, and employing them as sentries, should end.

People will tell me that ‘lives would have been saved’ if armed police officers had been present at some recent supposed terrorist incidents. But my researches show that almost all these events were the work of deranged individuals out of their minds on drugs. The fast-spreading abuse of drugs is, pretty certainly, the main single reason for the much higher levels of violence we now have.

It is so obvious. People in their right minds recoil from serious violence. But mind-altering drugs make them capable of terrible actions. If every violent criminal (and suicide) was checked for his use of marijuana, steroids or antidepressants, I think the connection would rapidly become undeniable. But powerful, rich lobbies fear such checks.

If we had a proper patrolling police force of the old kind, many of these incidents would never happen. Such a force would apply the boring laws on drug possession which our armed and scowling gendarmes, and their soppy, pseudo-intellectual chief officers, think are beneath them. Through their intimate knowledge of their beats and their frequent contact with the law-abiding, they would be aware of the strange behaviour of such people long before it became a danger.

For an unarmed, modest, old-fashioned police force, which walks quietly among us, has millions of willing eyes and ears, in the shape of a friendly and supportive public.

But an armed state militia, dressed for combat with its face set in a rigid frown and its hands ever reaching for gun, club or handcuffs, such as we now have, is a stranger to the people. And as well as making us look like a foreign despotism, it will fail in its task.