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?

Manchester, Berlin, Paris, Nice, London, New York: Passports and IDs Mysteriously Discovered in the Wake of Terror Attacks

Prof Michel Chossudovsky — Global Research May 27, 2017

Nov 13 terrorist passportThis article reviews the “mysterious” phenomenon of IDs and Passports of terror suspects routinely discovered (often in the rubble) in the wake of a terrorist attack.

In most cases the alleged suspect was known to the authorities.

Is there a pattern?  The ID papers of the suspect are often left behind, discovered by police in the wake of a terrorist attack.

According to government and media reports, the suspects are without exception linked to an Al Qaeda affiliated entity.   

None of these terror suspects survived. Dead men do not talk. 

In the case of the tragic events in Manchester, the bankcard of the alleged suicide bomber Salman Abedi was found in his pocket in the wake of the explosion. 

Legitimacy of the official stories? The UK is both a “victim of terrorism” as well as a “State sponsor of terrorism”. Without exception, the governments of the Western countries victims of terror attacks, have supported, directly or indirectly, the Al Qaeda group of terrorist organizations including the Islamic State (ISIS), which are allegedly responsible for waging these terror attacks. Amply documented Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. 

Below is a review of the circumstances and evidence pertaining to passports and IDs discovered in the wake of selected terror attacks, with links to Global Research articles and media reports (2001-2017). (This list is by no means exhaustive)

From NYC on 9/11 to Manchester, May 2017

In reverse chronological order

emphasis added

The Manchester Terror Attack,  May 2017.

Manchester Bomb Suspect Said to Have Had Ties to al Qaeda …

NBCNews.com–May 23, 2017 MANCHESTER, England — Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old British man … in a suicide-bomb attack, had ties to al Qaeda and had received terrorist training … was identified by a bank card found in his pocket at the scene of the ...

Manchester Attack as MI6 Blowback?

By Evan Jones, May 26, 2017

A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the … Daesh has claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, but without …”

Screen-Shot-2017-05-26-at-12.11.21-768x458

No image of the alleged bankcard is available.

Ironically, the suspect Abedi was first identified by Washington rather than UK police and security. How did they know who was the culprit 3 hours after the explosion? According to Graham Vanbergen:

In the early hours of the morning of the 23rd May – approximately 02.35BST   NDTV via the Washington Post stated quite categorically that:

“U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, identified the assailant as Salman Abedi. They did not provide information about his age or nationality, and British officials declined to comment on the suspect’s identity.

This was published at a time when British police and security services were refusing to make any statements as to who they thought the perpetrators were because at the time, they were dealing with the immediate aftermath of the event.

Berlin Truck Terror Attack, December 2016.

The Berlin Truck Terror Suspect and the Curious Matter of ID Papers Left Behind

By WhoWhatWhy, December 22, 2016

The Berlin Truck Terror Suspect and the Curious Matter of ID Papers Left Behind. By WhoWhatWhy. Global Research, December 22, 2016. Who What Why 21 ….:

The suspect’s identity papers were found inside the truck used in Monday’s attack on a Christmas market, which left 12 people dead, German security officials said.

The suspect was known to German security services as someone in contact with radical Islamist groups, and had been assessed as posing a risk, Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia Ralf Jaeger told reporters.

Berlin terror truck attack

The Nice Terror Attack July 2016 

The Nice Terror Attack: Towards a Permanent State of Martial Law in … the alleged perpetrator is dead and conveniently left behind his ID.

Nice, 14th of July Massacre: Towards Martial Law? The Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) Claims Responsibility?

By Peter Koenig, July 15, 2016

According to Peter Koenig in relation to the Nice terror attack:

During last night’s celebration of the French National Holiday, around 11 PM, a speeding truck plowed into a crowd of thousands who were watching the fireworks along the Mediterranean Boulevard Anglais. The driver of the truck, was simultaneously and  indiscriminately shooting into the crowd. He was able to run for 2 kilometers before being stopped by police, which instantly shot and killed him.

A horrendous terror attack, killing hordes of people, spreading pain, misery, fear and outrage in France, Europe – the world over.All indications signal the Big Script of yet another false flag; yet again in France.

The young truck-driver was identified as a 31-year-old Frenchman, resident of Nizza, with Tunisian origins. As in previous cases, ‘coincidence’ has it that his identity papers were found in the truck.

The young man is instantly killed by the police. Dead people cannot talk. A pattern well known by now.

Paris Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack, January 2015

Police found the ID of Said Kouachi at the Scene of the Charlie Hebdo Shooting. Does this Sound Familiar?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 10, 2015  

“According to news reports, police found the ID of Said Kouachi at the scene of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Does this sound familiar? Remember, authorities claimed to have found the undamaged passport of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers among the massive pulverized ruins of the twin towers.”

Paris Bataclan Terror Attack, November 2015

The Paris Terror Attacks and 911: Similar “Evidence” Makes it Suspicious

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, November 20, 2015 

The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) declared that it was responsible for the latest attacks in Paris as did Al-Qaeda who also claimed responsibility for 911. … However, there are similarities between the terror attacks in Paris and New York City on September 11th.

First, Syrian and Egyptian passports from two of the suicide bombers were found at the scene of the stadium attack in the northern part of the city. After both suspected terrorists detonated their explosive devices, their passports were still found.

This brings us back to the September 11th terror attacks where U.S. officials recovered a passport intact a few blocks from the World Trade Center which did belong to one of the hijackers,

Magic Passports Redux: Syrian Passport Allegedly Discovered on Paris Suicide Bomber

By 21st Century Wire, November 14, 2015

In the context of the enquiry about the Paris massacres, a Syrian passport was found next to one of the kamikaze bombers of Stade de France. After being pointed out as responsible for the attacks by President Hollande, ‘the Islamic State’ claimed that they had engineered the onslaught. The French executive, that had already stated that they wanted to take action in Syria allegedly against ISIS, but actually against Bachar El Assad, who ‘has to go’, sees in this a significant clue that comfort their military expedition.

London 7/7 Terror attack, July 7, 2004

The 7/7 London Bombings and MI5’s “Stepford Four” Operation: How the 2005 London Bombings Turned every Muslim into a “Terror Suspect”

By Karin Brothers, May 26, 2017

On Tuesday, July 12th, Lindsay’s wife Samantha Lewthwaite had called police to report her husband Germaine (“Jamal”) missing.  Police searched their home immediately. The next day, on July 14th, police announced that they had Lindsay’s ID and he was the fourth bomber. Lewthwaite was incredulous and refused to believe the accusation without DNA proof.  The police identification was stunning because they had been claiming that all of the suspects looked Pakistani; there was no way anyone could mistake the big, black Lindsay for an Asian. What had police been looking at?

9/11 Terror Attacks: September 11, 2001

Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?

By David Ray Griffin, September 11, 2016

9/11 Truth and the Joint Congressional Inquiry: 28 Pages of Misdirection on the Role of Saudi Arabia

By Dick Atlee and Ken Freeland, September 11, 2015

For years the 9/11 Truth movement (9TM) has been vainly pleading with ….. FBI agent Dan Coleman explains how the passport of 9/11 hijacker …

9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage

By David Ray Griffin, May 09, 2008

9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage … It also contained a Saudi passport, an international driver’s license, …

In the official version for 9/11 the FBI claimed that they found the unscathed passport of one of the pilots near one of the towers that were reduced to ashes by explosions whose heat melted even the steel columns in the buildings’ structure. The fourth plane’s crash near Shanksville also yielded a passport which, though scorched, still made it possible to read the person’s first name and surname and to see his ID photo. This is all the more disturbing as nothing at all was left in the crater, no part of the plane or of the people travelling in it, only this partly scorched passport.

Confirmed by Dan Rather CBS News, “a passerby found the passport of one of the hijackers” on the street just hours after the 9/11 attacks. (1′.23″)

According to Who What Why:

The Visa of Satam al-Suqami: This identify document of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers somehow survived unscathed a few blocks from the twin towers, though the plane itself was virtually obliterated.

Visa-belonging-to-Satam-al-Suqami-300x212

The Passports belonging to Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi: The passports of two alleged hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 supposedly survived the fiery crash in Pennsylvania that left the aircraft itself charred and widely scattered—with one passport entirely intact.

Passport-of-Saeed-al-Ghamdi

.

Source

Sinister Sites: The Sansevero Chapel

Vigilant Citizen — May 26, 2017

Sansevero

Local legends about the Sansevero Chapel of Naples claim that the astonishing works of art it contains are the result of sorcery and black magic. The sculptures appear impossible to create by hand, while a macabre display featuring two actual human bodies is said to be the result of ritual killings. Also, adding to the occult aura surrounding the chapel, it is filled with Masonic symbolism.
At first glance, Capella Sansevero is your typical Italian chapel from the 17th century, tastefully filled with paintings and sculptures of a religious nature. However, a closer look at the various items in the chapel reveals that something is “off” about this place. Some sculptures are so “organic-looking” that they lead many to believe they were the result of a supernatural process. Furthermore, the enigmatic symbolism found around the chapel heavily hints to an allegorical esoteric message.
And, when visitors climb down a few stairs, they see this:

sansevero2

What the?
The chapel has on display two actual human remains with their entire nervous system on display. Creepily dubbed “Adam and Eve” – and even more creepily referred to as “anatomical machines” – this bizarre display has been the subject of all kinds of occult rumors.
To fully understand what is going on with the chapel, one must understand its creator: Raimondo di Sangro, the Prince of Sansevero. While he was considered a brilliant inventor and philosopher by many, others believed that he was a cruel black magician who killed people to conduct bizarre experiments.
A visit to his Sansevero Chapel gives credence to both points of view as it puts on display all of di Sangro’s alchemical genius … and madness. Before looking at the bizarre works of art on display at the chapel, let’s first look at the man behind it all.

Raimondo di Sangro, the “Sorcerer Prince”

Continues …

The True Cost of Israel

Philip Giraldi — The American Conservative April 12, 2017

zz usa israel

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) concluded its annual conference late last month, triggering the usual debate in various alternative media outlets. Why does so much U.S. taxpayer money go to a small and not particularly useful client state that has a vibrant European-level economy and is already a regional military colossus?

Those who support the cash flow argue that Israel is threatened, most notably by Iran; they claim the assistance, which has been largely but not completely used to buy American-made weapons, is required to maintain a qualitative edge over the country’s potential enemies. Those who oppose the aid would counter that the Iranian threat is largely an Israeli and Saudi Arabian invention, used to justify continued American support for the national-security policies of both countries. And they would add that Tel Aviv is more than able to defend itself and pay for its own military establishment.

In truth, American aid to Israel is something like a pot of gold that keeps on giving. Both sides in the discussion would probably agree that the domestic Israel Lobby has been instrumental in sustaining the high level of aid, though they would undoubtedly disagree over whether that is a good or bad thing. The operation of “The Lobby,” generally regarded as the most powerful voice on foreign policy in Washington, led Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer to ask, “Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security … in order to advance the interests of another state? [No] explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the U.S. provides.” They observed that “Other special interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country—in this case, Israel—are essentially identical.”

Since the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, it has been “the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II,”  according to the Congressional Research Service. The United States has provided Israel with $233.7 billion in adjusted for inflation aid between 1948 through the end of 2012, reports Haaretz. Current discussions center on the Obama administration’s memo of understanding with Israel that promised it $38 billion in military assistance over the next 10 years, a considerable sum but nevertheless a total that is far less than what is actually received annually from the United States Treasury and from other American sources.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), speaking in the most recent legislative discussion over Israeli aid, stated that the $38 billion should be regarded as a floor, and that Congress should approve additional funds for Israeli defense as needed. It has, in fact, done so. At its most recent meeting, AIPAC announced the latest windfall from America, applauding “the U.S. House of Representatives for significantly bolstering its support of U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation in the FY 2017 defense appropriations bill. The House appropriated $600.7 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.” And there is a long history of such special funding for Israeli-connected projects. The Iron Dome missile-defense system was largely funded by the United States, to the tune of more than $1 billion. In the 1980s, the Israeli Lavi jet-fighter development program was funded by Washington, costing $2 billion to the U.S. taxpayer before it was terminated over technical and other problems, part of $5.45 billion in Pentagon funding of various Israeli weapons projects through 2002.

The admittedly unreliable former Congressman James Traficant once claimed that “Israel gets $15 billion per year from the American taxpayers.” Indeed, how Israel gets money from the United States is actually quite complex and not very transparent to the American public, going well beyond the check for $3.8 billion handed over at the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. Even that check, uniquely given to aid recipient Israel as one lump sum on the first day of the year, is manipulated to produce extra revenue. It is normally immediately redeposited with the U.S. Treasury, which then, because it operates on a deficit, borrows the money to pay interest on it as the Israelis draw it down. That interest payment costs the American taxpayer an estimated $100 million more per year. Israel has also been adept at using “loan guarantees,” an issue that may have contributed to the downfall of President George H.W. Bush. The reality is that the loans, totaling $42 billion, are never repaid by Israel, meaning that the United States Treasury picks up the tab on principle and interest, a form of additional assistance. The Bush-era loan amounted to $10 billion.

Department of Defense co-production projects, preferential contracting, “scrapping” or “surplusing” of usable equipment that is then turned over to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), as well as the forward deployment of military hardware to an Israeli-run base in Israel (used to support local military operations), are considerable benefits to Tel Aviv’s bottom line. Much of this assistance is hidden from view.

In 1992, AIPAC President James Steiner bragged how he “got almost a billion dollars in other goodies [in negotiations with Secretary of State Jim Baker] that people don’t even know about.” In September 2012, Israel’s former commander-in-chief, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, admitted at a conference that between 2009 and 2012 American taxpayers had paid for more of his country’s defense budget than had Israeli taxpayers. Those numbers have been disputed, but the fact remains that a considerable portion of the Israeli military spending comes from the United States. It currently is more than 20 percent of the total $16 billion budget, not counting special appropriations.

Through tax exemptions, the U.S. government also subsidizes the coordinated effort to provide additional assistance to Israel. No other lobbying effort to promote the interests of a foreign country benefits in like fashion, and, indeed, most similar groups are required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has learned to his chagrin regarding Turkey.

Most organizations and foundations that might reasonably be considered active parts of the Israel Lobby are generally registered with the Department of the Treasury as 501(c)3 tax-exempt educational foundations. Grant Smith, speaking at a conference on the U.S. and Israel on March 24, explained how the broader Israel Lobby uses this legal framework:

Key U.S. organizations include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Hundreds more, including a small number of evangelical Christian organizations, play a role within a vast ecosystem that demands unconditional U.S. support for Israel. In the year 2012 the nonprofit wing of the Israel lobby raised $3.7 billion in revenue. They are on track to reach $6.3 billion by 2020. Collectively they employed 14,000 and claimed 350,000 volunteers.

The $3.7 billion raised in 2012 was largely tax exempt and it does not include the billions in private donations that go directly to Israel, as well as the billions in contributions that are regarded as covered by “religious exemptions” for groups that don’t file at all. There are also contributions sent straight to various Israeli-based foundations that are themselves often registered as charities. The Forward magazine investigated 3,600 Jewish tax-exempt charitable foundations in 2014 and determined that they had net assets of $26 billion, $12–14 billion in annual revenue, and “focuse[d] the largest share of [their] donor dollars on Israel.” That share amounted to 38 percent of total income. The Forward adds that it is “an apparatus that benefits massively from the U.S. federal government and many state and local governments, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants, billions in tax-deductible donations and billions more in program fees paid for with government funds.”

Some pro-Israel foundations are in-your-face about their goals. The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, which “Support[s] the wellbeing and education needs of Israel’s brave soldiers,” is a registered tax-exempt charity that conducts fundraisers throughout the United States. Money being fungible, some American Jews have been surprised to learn that the donations that they had presumed were going to what they regard as charitable causes in Israel have instead wound up in expanding the illegal settlements on the West Bank, an objective that they might not support. It was recently reported that Donald Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner has a family foundation that has made donations to Israel, including funding of West Bank settlements, which is illegal under U.S. law.

Israel also benefits in other ways, frequently due to legislative action by Congress. It enjoys free and even preferential trade status with the United States and runs a $9 billion trade surplus per annum. Its companies and parastatal organizations can, without any restrictions, bid on U.S. defense and homeland-security projects—a privilege normally only granted to NATO partners—which has given it dominance in some U.S. law-enforcement, telecommunications, and travel-security sectors. Its involvement in the development and use of classified military technologies developed by U.S. arms producers has sometimes led to claims that Israel has adopted and adapted—or even stolen—proprietary information and then used it to develop its own arms industry, which is now ranked sixth in the world by volume of sales. Ironically, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized an Israeli industry that then competes directly with American companies, producing a loss of jobs in the United States.

There has also been considerable collateral damage derived from the relationship with Israel, including the Arab Oil embargo and possibly even some blame for the ruinous cost of Iraq, which many believe to have been fought in part for Israel. But even without that war, the U.S.-Israeli bilateral relationship has been an expensive proposition for Americans. Whether Israel is a strategic liability or not, or whether its complicated geostrategic situation merits virtually unquestioning support from the United States, the reality is that it has a lopsided relationship with Washington. This has long been and continues to be largely paid for by the United States taxpayer, who is not as well off as he once was.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is yet another instance where the perceived needs of an American “ally” take precedence over genuine national interests. Tens of billions of dollars need not necessarily be spent to placate a wealthy foreign country and its powerful domestic lobby. Indeed, other options to employ the money closer to home—in the form of schools, highways, and hospitals—may become increasingly attractive to American voters.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Source

Syria – Truth Slips Through In The New York Times – NATO Preps to Fight Iran And Russia

Moon of Alabama — May 26, 2017

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting piece about east Aleppo. Robert Worth visited it recently and talked to people there. The NYT editors/censors inserted many of their standard slander against the Syrian government, but the can not drown out the realities described therein.

Thus the piece is headline: Aleppo After the Fall but one of the key sentences in it says just the opposite:

Yasser said he was one of the first people to come back [to east-Aleppo], right after what he — like everyone else I met — called the liberation.

Jihadi propaganda claims of government bombing of random hospitals without reason “verified” by a Skype call to some al-Qaeda propagandist in Idleb- are mixed with reality based on-the-ground reporting:

On my second day in the city, I went to see the Aleppo Eye Hospital, a sprawling compound that the rebels had used as a military headquarters. As we walked through the burned and shattered building, my government minder and the soldiers guarding the place kept picking up markers of the rebels’ Islamist leanings. They weren’t hard to find. A fire-blackened car out front still had the Qaeda logo on its hood. …

Unfortunately the piece also includes factual errors:

The reporter, an Aleppan named Rida al-Basha, described the neighborhoods where [looting] had taken place and named the militias, including the notorious Tiger Forces, whose leaders include well-known thugs.

I do not doubt that looting has taken place after the liberation of east-Aleppo. Those who supported the “rebel” invasion of their city will have lost everything. But looting by the Tiger Force “militia”? The Tiger Force are the Special Operations Division of the Syrian Arab Army, not a “militia”. It is led by highly professional officers, not by “thugs”. Its leader, General Suheil al-Hassan, has been in the army for over 26 years. The division is armed with Russian T-90 tanks and other heavy assault equipment. It is an offensive unit which has been very busy on various fronts. It is not a mopping up or occupation force for urban areas that would have time for organized looting in Aleppo. The quoted claim is inconsistent with those facts.

But still – the Magazine piece is filled with detailed story of real people who factually tell what the “rebels” have done to their city. How they looted every factory and house down to the copper electricity wire and sold everything off to Turkey. Wherever the story is based on real reporting it confirms the view and position of the anti-Islamist Syrian majority which supports its government. After years of claiming the opposite in its hundreds of anti-Syrian propaganda pieces one wonder how the NYT editors let this pass.

One anecdote even reveals who the Syrians will choose as their future leader:

My Syrian businessman friend told me that he twice gathered about a dozen people for dinner and offered them a hypothetical in strict confidence. It is up to you to name the next president of Syria, he said. Whom would you choose? The guests were all Syrians, and none supported the regime. To his surprise, almost all of them named Assad.

And that, dear reader, is why the U.S. and its proxies are against truly democratic elections in Syria. Their nemesis would easily win and prevent the planned neo-liberal looting of what is left of the Syrian state.

The Islamic proxy forces of the “west”, al-Qaeda under its various disguises, Ahar al-Sham and even ISIS are mostly done. The latest especially is no longer a capable military force but is reverting to guerilla levels of operation. Its final defeat will take a long time but it must and will be achieved by local forces.

Despite that the U.S. pressed on NATO members to let the NATO organization join its “fight against ISIS”. The single NATO members were already part of the U.S. coalition. But NATO as an organization brings large scale command and control capabilities as well as additional resources. (All under U.S. control.)

Make no mistake – “fighting ISIS” is not the real purpose of the move. The U.S. wants NATO support to invade Syria from the north in Idleb as well as from the south near Deraa and from the south-east starting at the al-Tanf border station to Iraq. Syria and its allies will now be fought under the disguise of “fighting ISIS” which factually can no longer be the purpose. Thus NATO, together with Wahhabi Gulf forces, will now be engaged in an expanded war not only against the Syria government but especially against its Russian and Iranian allies. Trump’s endorsement of anti-Iranian rhetoric on his visit in Saudi Arabia served a similar purpose.

Syria and its allies will try to prevent a further invasion by cutting off al-Tanf and holding on to Deraa city – thereby blocking any wider military moves. But those measures will probably be in vain. Unless some sane voices intervene we are now at the beginning of a far wider and more dangerous war that can easily slip out of anyone’s control.


Moon of Alabama needs your support to continue publishing. Please consider a donation.

Source

Non-Western Immigrants Consume 59% Of Denmark’s Tax Revenue

National Economics Editorial — May 23, 2017

Study Shows Non-Western Immigrants & Their Descendants Cost Denmark 33 Billion Crowns Annually

A recent study conducted by Denmark’s Ministry of Finance concluded that in 2014, immigrants and their descendants cost Danish taxpayers at net loss of 28 billion Crowns per year.

Furthermore, when Western immigrants were removed from the equation, the net cost rose to 33kr billion.

Compare this to tax receipts from ethnic Danes, who contributed a surplus of 56kr billion in 2014.

The data below is from the study itself, although English translations have been provided.

Danish immigrant study. Click to enlarge

Danish immigrant study. Click to enlarge

The report shows conclusively that immigration has been an economic disaster for Denmark.

In short: 59% of the tax surplus collected from native Danes is spent on ethnic minorities, who are a massive drain on the system.

This would be roughly equivalent to America’s federal government spending $2.1 trillion per year on immigrants—a number so large it defies all logic and reason.

Such shocking findings are often greeted with denial.  Is the study legitimate?  How is this possible?

First, the study was conducted internally by Denmark’s own finance department, in order to see exactly where Danish taxes were being spent.  Furthermore, the methodology is explicit, and the data transparent.

The study is good.

Second, although the data is shocking, it is believable.

Consider that ethnic minorities, who are by definition immigrants to Denmark, represent 84% of all welfare recipients, as of 2016.

Denmark also spends inordinate sums on crime committed by immigrants—8 of the 9 ethnic groups most represented in Danish prisons are non-Western immigrant groups, specifically Islamic immigrants.

In fact, non-ethnic Danes are 2-3 times more likely to commit crimes than Danes, and if their crime profile is anything like that of immigrants in Sweden, then it is likely that the crimes they commit are also generally more serious in nature.

Likewise, healthcare costs for immigrants groups are proving significant.  For example, 40% of patients in Denmark’s largest mental health hospital have immigrant backgrounds.

Why might this be?  Because of the prevalence of consanguineous marriages among Islamic immigrants, which greatly increases the risk of mental health problems.

In fact, when accounting for population, Muslim immigrants to Denmark are over-represented in mental health facilities by 1,300%

Regardless of these ancillary statistics, the takeaway point is that non-Western immigration has not benefited Denmark economically, nor has immigration benefited Germany—despite what open-borders advocates claim.

Source

CIA Manufactured Modern US Literature

henrymakow.com — May 26, 2017

Miles Mathis says that modern culture is essentially mental programming by the CIA, an arm of the Illuminati banking cartel. The systemic destruction of traditional art is intended to promote “alienation,” the satanic view that human life is inherently meaningless, incoherent, trivial and ugly.
The satanist is the origin of the modern “anti hero” – the man who denies the moral order and therefore feels an outcast in society and in the universe.

Satanism is the inversion of all spiritual ideals-
ErnestHemingway

Ernest Hemingway was a CIA agent. The CIA admits this on their own website . See Mathis’ full expose.

Mathis: “By a constant stream of top-down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself.”
Makow comment- Mathis is a brilliant and prolific writer. Although his claims that many sensational murders were faked seem outlandish, his assertions about modern culture are credible.  As a Ph.D. in literature, I always felt modern culture was fraudulent. This confirms it.  I feel betrayed by the education system and society. An highly organized satanic cult has recast Western society in its image.   Contrary views are not funded or publicized. Another example of de facto Communism, and how we have been unwittingly inducted into a satanic cult.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

from March 28, 2015 

by Miles Mathis From Theosophy to the Beat Generation
(excerpt by henrymakow.com)

A reader alerted me to an article just published at the Chronicle of Higher Education by an English professor at Providence College, Eric Bennett. This article is about the Iowa Writer’s Workshop, at which he was a student from 1998 to 2000.
He admits that the writing programs at the University of Iowa have long been underwritten by the CIA, via the Farfield Foundation, the ACCF, [The Artists and Community Collaboration Fund] and the Rockefellers.
The sentence in the article that is most useful here is this one: Creative-writing pedagogues in the aftermath of World War II, without exception, read Partisan Review, The Kenyon Review, The Hudson Review, and The Sewanee Review .
riteofpassageThey breathed the intellectual air of New Critics, on the one hand, and New York intellectuals on the other. These camps, formerly enemy camps–Southern reactionaries and Northern socialists at each other’s throats in the 1930s–had by the 50s merged into a liberal consensus that published highly intellectual, but at the time only newly “academic,” essays in those four journals, all of which, like Iowa, were subsidized by the Rockefeller Foundation.
As we have seen and will see, they were also subsidized by many other CIA front organizations. The government used the purse-strings to exert control over these programs, keeping them in little pens that Bennett says serve “to venerate and fortify the particular, the individual, the situated, the embedded, the irreducible.”
Or, in other words, to keep them small and disempowered. By a constant stream of top-down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself.
A 2012 Salon article by Joel Whitney tells us the Partisan Review and the Paris Review [were linked to the CIA] as well.
Peter Matthiessen, the magazine’s founder, has now admitted that in interviews, such as this one  … that he was recruited by the CIA right out of Yale in 1953, and that the Paris Review was his “cover.” That information has been added to the Paris Review page at Wikipedia, but it is a bald admission with no commentary as to how it must affect everything to do with the magazine.
Both Matthiessen and George Plimpton, left, have tried to maintain that Matthiessen was the only one who knew, but–given what we now know from the CIA itself (see Tom Braden)–that isn’t believable in the least. When various writers were pleading ignorance back in the 1960’s and 70’s, Braden flipped the leak, outing them.
He said that all these writers and artists knew exactly what was going on, and [Francis Storer] Saunders’ book [The Cultural Cold War] confirms that over and over. So does the article at Salon , which outs both Plimpton and Nelson Aldrich as members of the  [CIA-front] ACCF.

INDOCTRINATION

 

Continues …

UPDATE: Wall around Obama’s DC home complete!

Kyle Olsen — American Mirror May 25, 2017

As Barack Obama waxes eloquent about the supposed negative impact of walls on humanity, crews have completed the wall surrounding his Washington, DC home.

Grabien reports:

Sitting alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President Obama lectured the current administration about its immigration policy Thursday. 

While not mentioning President Trump by name, Obama made clear to whom he was leveling his criticism.

“In this new world that we live in we can’t isolate ourselves,” Obama said. “We can’t hide behind a wall.”

But that’s exactly what Obama is doing in his Washington, DC and Chicago homes.

Crews have completed the brick and metal wall surrounding his home in the tony Kalorama neighborhood in DC.

They began in January:

 

 

Obama’s DC home isn’t the only one protected by walls.

The former president’s Chicago neighbors are begging Chicago leaders to take down the barriers that have been blocking their street, even though he is no longer in office.

DNA Info reported in February:

Leaders at KAM Isaiah Israel, the synagogue across the street from Barack Obama’s Chicago home, say the heavily secured block in Kenwood should be reopened to the public.

Interim Executive Director Debra Hammond said Monday the synagogue at 1100 E. Hyde Park Blvd. wants the gates and barricades that block Greenwood Avenue at Hyde Park Boulevard removed to send a message of openness and inclusivity.

“If we could have it the way we wanted it, it would be open at Hyde Park Boulevard,” Hammond told DNAinfo. “We want to be more of a place of sanctuary.”

Photos show the neighborhood is still very much fortified, despite Obama’s public opposition to walls:

 

 

Perhaps Obama forgot to tell the Germans, “Walls for me, but not for thee.”

 

Source

Is this Why UK is “Furious” over Intell Leaks?

From the Washington Post via NDTV — First posted May 23, 2017

Aftermath of the Manchester bombing. Click to enlarge

Aftermath of the Manchester bombing. Click to enlarge

In the early hours of the morning of the 23rd May – approximately 02.35BST   NDTV via the Washington Post stated quite categorically that:
“U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, identified the assailant as Salman Abedi. They did not provide information about his age or nationality, and British officials declined to comment on the suspect’s identity.”
So, 4 HOURS AFTER THE EVENT AN AMERICAN NEWSPAPER NAMED THE MANCHESTER BOMBER!
This was published at a time when British police and security services were refusing to make any statements as to who they thought the perpetrators were because at the time, they were dealing with the immediate aftermath of the blast.
Yet U.S. officials were already naming the chief suspect!!! How did they know so quickly while emergency services were still picking up the pieces and police investigations had barely even begun?
Is the why UK authorites are reportedly “furious” over the intelligence leak? Because it exposes their complicity in the bombing?

Manchester Bombing Suspect Identified, US Officials Say; ISIS Claims Responsibility

The Washington Post | Griff Witte, The Washington Post | Updated: May 24, 2017 07:25 IST — via NDTV

MANCHESTER:  The Islamic State claimed Tuesday that one of its “soldiers” carried out an apparent suicide blast in Manchester that killed at least 22 people, including teenagers and others streaming out of a pop concert.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, identified the assailant as Salman Abedi. They did not provide information about his age or nationality, and British officials declined to comment on the suspect’s identity.

Islamic State’s claim came as British investigators intensified their search for possible accomplices and police teams fanned out across the northern city after the worst terrorist strike in Britain in more than a decade.

The Islamic State did not give any details about the attacker or how the blast was carried out late Monday. Its statement was posted on the online messaging service Telegram and later noted by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant websites.

The Islamic State often quickly proclaims links to attacks, but some previous claims have not been proven.

British Prime Minister Theresa May called the carnage a “callous terrorist attack.”
“This attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives,” she said, speaking outside her Downing Street offices, where flags were lowered to half-staff.

Authorities believe they know the identity of the assailant, May added, “but at this stage of their investigations, we cannot confirm his name.”

Condemnations also poured in from other leaders around the world.

The Greater Manchester Police said in a statement that they arrested a 23-year-old man in south Manchester in connection with the attack, as hundreds of officers swarmed the city in the aftermath of the blast.

In Washington, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said Tuesday that despite the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility for the Manchester attack, “we have not verified yet the connection.” He noted in a Senate hearing that “they claim responsibility for virtually every attack.”

The casualties included children as young as elementary school students. Police said that among the 59 people injured, a dozen were younger than 16

 

Continues …

Footnote — May 27, 2017

Our correspondents has been unable as yet to confirm the exact time the Washington Post story was published. So for the time being we withhold making any final conclusion. Ed.

‘Sorted by MI5′: How UK government sent British-Libyans to fight Gaddafi

Amandla Thomas-Johnson, Simon Hooper — Middle East Eye May 25, 2017

Salman Abedia. Click to enlarge

Salman Abedia. Click to enlarge

The British government operated an “open door” policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders, Middle East Eye can reveal.

Several former rebel fighters now back in the UK told MEE that they had been able to travel to Libya with “no questions asked” as authorities continued to investigate the background of a British-Libyan suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Monday’s attack in Manchester.

Salman Abedi, 22, the British-born son of exiled dissidents who returned to Libya as the revolution against Gaddafi gathered momentum, is also understood to have spent time in the North African country in 2011 and to have returned there on several subsequent occasions.

British police have said they believe the bomber, who returned to Manchester just a few days before the attack, was part of a network and have arrested six people including Abedi’s older brother since Monday.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said that Abedi was known to security services, while a local community worker told the BBC that several people had reported him to the police via an anti-terrorism hotline.

On Wednesday, authorities in Tripoli said that Abedi’s younger brother and father, who had resettled in Libya after the revolution, had also been arrested on suspicion of links to the Islamic State (IS) group, which claimed responsibility for Monday’s attack.

Sources spoken to by MEE suggest that the government facilitated the travel of Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents and citizens keen to fight against Gaddafi including some who it deemed to pose a potential security threat.

‘No questions asked’

One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was “shocked” that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted.

“I was allowed to go, no questions asked,” said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.

“They didn’t have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across,” said the source.

But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.

“These were old school LIFG guys, they [the British authorities] knew what they were doing,” he said, referring to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi Islamist militant group formed in 1990 by Libyan veterans of the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The British government listed the LIFG as a proscribed terrorist organisation in 2005, describing it as seeking to establish a “hard-line Islamic state” and “part of the wider Islamist extremist movement inspired by al-Qaeda”. Former members of the LIFG deny that the group had any links with al-Qaeda and say it was committed only to removing Gaddafi from power.

Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under ‘Schedule 7′ counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. Schedule 7 allows police and immigration officials to detain and question any person passing through border controls at ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.

He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK’s domestic security agency: “Are you willing to go into battle?”

“While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi,” he told MEE.

Travel ‘sorted’ by MI5

British national Rashad Brydan from Manchester looks over at some fellow rebel fighters before getting into a car leaving Ajdabiya heading for the frontline as the sun sets, April 5, 2011. Brydan, 35-years-old, a dual national of Britain and Libya told AFP that he had bought his flack jacket on e-bay and decided to join his comrades to fight against regime leader Moamer Kadhafi's forces. Click to enlarge

British national Rashad Brydan from Manchester looks over at some fellow rebel fighters before getting into a car leaving Ajdabiya heading for the frontline as the sun sets, April 5, 2011. Brydan, 35-years-old, a dual national of Britain and Libya told AFP that he had bought his flack jacket on e-bay and decided to join his comrades to fight against regime leader Moamer Kadhafi’s forces. Click to enlarge

As he was travelling back to Libya in May 2011 he was approached by two counter-terrorism police officers in the departure lounge who told him that if he was going to fight he would be committing a crime.

But after providing them with the name and phone number of the MI5 officer he had spoken to previously, and following a quick phone call to him, he was waved through.

As he waited to board the plane, he said the same MI5 officer called him to tell him that he had “sorted it out”.

“The government didn’t put any obstacles in the way of people going to Libya,” he told MEE.

“The vast majority of UK guys were in their late twenties. There were some 18 and 19. The majority who went from here were from Manchester.”

But he said he thought it was unlikely that Abedi, who would only have been 16 at the time, would have been recruited as a fighter.

“The guys I was fighting with would never put a 16-year-old boy anywhere near the frontline.”

Younis said he did not think that the policy of allowing British-Libyans to fight againt Gaddafi had been a contributing factor in Monday’s attack, pointing out that IS was not present in the country at the time – and said he had no regrets about his decision to fight.

“What inspired me to go to Libya was the liberty of civilians. There’s no way that that can morph into killing children,” he said.

Another British citizen with experience of fighting in both Libya and in Syria with rebel groups also told MEE that he had been able to travel to and from the UK without disruption.

“No questions were asked,” he said.

The majority of the fighters flew to Tunisia and then crossed the border into Libya, while others travelled via Malta, he said.

“The whole Libyan diaspora were out there fighting alongside the rebel groups,” he added

One British-Libyan man from Manchester who also wished to remain anonymous told MEE that he had travelled frequently to Libya during the 2011 revolution to undertake humanitarian aid work.

“I never got prevented from going to Libya or stopped when I tried to come back,” he said.

The man said that he had come across Salman Abedi at their local mosque in the Didsbury neighbourhood but that he had “kept himself to himself” and was not an active member of the community.

His family, who were originally from Tripoli, had returned to Libya, he said.

“I guess if your family is away from you that sense of belonging dissipates. For us Libyans in Manchester – they’re trying to imply we knew. He was just an individual and he’s nothing to do with us.”

Another person who knew Abedi described him as a “hot head” with a reputation for involvement in petty crime.

“Yesterday they’re drug dealers, today they’re Muslims,” he said, adding that he believed Abedi had also been friends with Anil Khalil Raoufi, an IS recruiter from Didsbury who was killed in Syria in 2014.

‘Elite SAS training’

One of the British-Libyans spoken to by MEE described how he had carried out “PR work” for the rebels in the months before Gaddafi was overthrown and eventually killed in October 2011.

He said he was employed to edit videos showing Libyan rebels being trained by former British SAS and Irish special forces mercenaries in Benghazi, the eastern city from where the uprising against Gaddafi was launched.

“They weren’t cheap videos with Arabic nasheeds [songs], they were slick, professional glossy films which we were showing Qataris and Emiratis to support troops who were getting elite SAS training.”

He was also tasked by rebel commanders with training young Libyans to use cameras so that they could sell packages to international media.

On one assignment at a rebel base camp in a Misrata school, he came across a group of about eight young British-Libyans. After joking about their northern accents he found out that they had never been to Libya before.

“They looked about 17 or 18, maybe one was 20 at most. They had proper Manchester accents,” he said. “They were there living and fighting and doing the whole nine yards.”

Many Libyan exiles in the UK with links to the LIFG were placed on control orders and subjected to surveillance and monitoring following the rapprochement between the British and Libyan governments sealed by the so-called “Deal in the Desert” between then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gaddafi in 2004.

According to documents retrieved from the ransacked offices of the Libyan intelligence agency following Gaddafi’s fall from power in 2011, British security services cracked down on Libyan dissidents in the UK as part of the deal, as well as assisting in the rendition of two senior LIFG leaders, Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, to Tripoli where they allege they were tortured.

Belhaj later returned to Libya and was a leading figure in the uprising against Gaddafi, while another former Libyan exile subjected to a control order in the UK was later tasked with providing security for visiting dignitaries including British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, MEE understands.

Senator John McCain and Belhaji. Click to enlarge

Senator John McCain and Belhaji. Click to enlarge

‘When the revolution started, things changed’

Ziad Hashem, an LIFG member granted asylum in the UK, said in 2015 that he had been imprisoned for 18 months without charge and then restricted to his home for a further three years based on information he believed had been supplied by Libyan intelligence.

But he said: “When the revolution started, things changed in Britain. Their way of speaking to me and treating me was different. They offered to give me benefits, even indefinite leave to remain or citizenship.”

Control orders were introduced as part of counter-terrorism legislation drafted in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings.

They allowed authorities to restrict the activities of people suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities by requiring them to remain at a registered address for up to 16 hours a day, subjecting them to electronic tagging, limiting their access to telephone and internet communications, and banning them from meeting or communicating with other people deemed to be of concern.

At least 50 people were subjected to the measure with at least 12 Libyan exiles among them.

Control orders were replaced with Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), which allow authorities to impose many of the same restrictions while limiting their term to two years, in 2011.

The Home Office told MEE it did not comment on individual cases. It said that TPIMs were a robust and effective means for dealing with terrorism suspects who could not be prosecuted or deported.

It said that arrangements involving the police, the Home Office and the Security Service (MI5) had been put in place in 2011 during the transition from control orders to TPIMs to ensure that national security was maintained.

Areeb Ullah contributed to this story.

Source

Salman Abedi had connections to gangs and terrorists in Manchester

Manchester bombers family also linked to terror networks and MI6

Introduction — May 25, 2017

Two men walk past graffiti painted on a wall in Tripoli that pays homage to the so-called "Manchester Fighters", in reference to a group of British-born Libyans who joined the rebel fighting against late Libyan leader Gaddafi. Click to enlarge

Two men walk past graffiti painted on a wall in Tripoli that pays homage to the so-called “Manchester Fighters”, in reference to a group of British-born Libyans who joined the fight against Libyan leader Gaddafi. Click to enlarge

The links between Manchester suicide bomber and British intelligence are becoming more and more obvious.
However the following Guardian report reads like disinformation contrived by British Intelligence in order to minimise those links. Readers will note how it subtly shifts focus onto Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, and “criminal gangs” in the city.
At the same time it omits to mention that Salman Abedi’s father, Ramadan had originally been an officer in Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence. Even more significantly, it also omits to mention that Ramadan had been recruited by MI6 in 1991 in an attempt to overthrow Gaddafi.
When that failed Ramadan and his family fled to Saudi Arabia from where they were granted asylum in the UK, in part one assumes because of Ramadan’s cooperation with MI6 in the failed attempt to oust Gaddafi.
Later Ramadan returned to Libya where he has been linked to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was fighting to oust Gaddafi. According to former British intelligence officer David Shayler and two French intelligence experts, the LIFG was covertly backed by MI6.
Ramadan’s sons, Salman and his brother Hashem, have also been linked to the LIFG which may explain why they made frequent trips to Libya.
Crucially, they were allowed in and out of the North African trouble spot and back into Britain with no questions asked by customs or security. Why? Had they been given clearance by MI6?
Ramadan Abedi and his sons are not alone in this. Many other Libyan nationals are reporting a virtual open doorpolicy between Britain and Libya.
Why? Given the fact that the Western backed ousting of Gaddafi has turned the oil rich North African nation into a haven for terrorists you would think that the authorities would be a little more careful. So why are Libyan exiles reporting a virtual “open door” policy between Britain and Libya?
That question is all the more pressing given that many of those being given a free pass are involved in the conflict there. So why are they being given seemingly preferential treatment?
Just as the Western elite turned a rich and stable North African nation into strife-torn breeding ground for terror, they now trying to import the same into Europe, either as migrants or activists like Salman Abdi and his family. Ed.
WARNING: What follows is corporate media bullX!”!

Salman Abedi had connections to gangs and terrorists in Manchester

Bomber linked to criminal gang in south of city, while his father in Libya says he cannot believe his son could have carried out the attack

Nazia Parveen, Steven Morris, Helen Pidd, Josh Halliday and Kate Connelly — Guardian May 25, 2017

The Manchester suicide bomber's father Ramadan Abedi. Click to enlarge

The Manchester suicide bomber’s father Ramadan Abedi. Click to enlarge

The Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, had close connections with criminal gangs as well as known and suspected terrorists in the city, it has emerged.

Abedi, 22, associated with a gang that has for years waged war with a rival grouping in south Manchester, the Guardian has learned after speaking to members of the local community.

He is said to have been deeply upset when one of his close friends became embroiled in an alleged gangland feud – and some friends have suggested that this trauma could have added to his sense of disillusionment and anger.

Meanwhile, details of how Abedi travelled back to the UK from Libya, where his parents live, before the bombing have been revealed. He returned via Turkey and Germany, prompting authorities there to examine his previous visits.

In an interview, Abedi’s father said he did not believe that his son could have carried out the attack and said he had told him he was going to Mecca.

While condemning the bombing, he criticised the British authorities for the way they had forced their way into his former home and suggested that security forces were unfairly targeting the Libyan community in Manchester.

In south Manchester, community leaders have become increasingly worried that young men of Libyan heritage are being drawn into gang warfare in south Manchester.

In February, the Manchester Evening News reported rising tensions between a notorious south Manchester gang and members of another gang made up largely of people of Libyan and Somali heritage.

In 2015, Ayub Mabrouk, the son of a Libyan diplomat, was jailed for hiding guns and ammunition for gangsters in Hulme, south Manchester.

One community leader, who asked not to be named, told the Guardian: “There is a growing gang culture among young Libyans. It is a huge worry in the community.”

He said that many of the Libyan gang members – like other inner-city gangsters – grew up with distant or missing fathers: “Abedi is like that. His father left for Libya when he was around 17. He’s had five years without strong paternal guidance.”

A family friend, Ahmed Boshaala, said Abedi could have been affected by the gangland trouble his friend was involved in.

Continues … 

Details Emerge On The Manchester Blowback From Britain’s Terror Support

Moon of Alabama — May 25, 2017

There are now a few more details on the Manchester attack and how it relates to British support for Takfirs in its wars on independent countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. The picture has not changed though from the one we painted yesterday. The attack was a blow back from the British use of Takfiris to take down governments it dislikes.

In 2011 when the British, French and the U.S. waged war on Libya, the British government sent British-Libyan Takfiris to fight against the Libyan government forces:

Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under ‘Schedule 7′ counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. …

He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK’s domestic security agency: “Are you willing to go into battle?”

“While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi,” he told MEE.

Known Libyan radicals were released from control order in Britain, given their passports back and hauled off to Libya. There British special forces were on the ground and British fighter planes in the air to support their fighting against the legitimate Libyan government. MI-5, the domestic British spy service, “sorted” the fighters sent from Britain. The responsible British Home Secretary at that time? One Theresa May, now the British Prime Minister.

The father of the Manchester assassin fought in Libya in a gang related to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known al-Qaeda entity. His son, then 16 years old, joined him:

In 2011, when Abedi was still a teenager, he traveled to Libya and fought alongside his father in a militia known as the Tripoli Brigade to oust Gadhafi as the revolts of the Arab Spring swept North Africa and the Middle East, a family friend said.

The son returned to Manchester but became a well known danger to society. Members of Libyan exile society in Manchester reported him at least five times as a dangerous Jihadi to the local authorities. There were no reactions. Additionally:

Abedi’s own family background might also have been a red flag to authorities. His father was a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

France’s interior minister said the 22-year-old had “proven” links with Islamic State and that both British and French intelligence services had information that the attacker had been in Syria.

According to the Financial Times Salman Abedi came back to Britain a few days before the attack via Turkey and Germany. He had come from Libya to Turkey but probably stayed a few days in Syria to receive his last orders.

All these attacks by Takfiris, in Paris, in Brussels, Berlin and Manchester as well as in Libya, Syria and Iraq, have their ideological roots in Wahhabism, the extreme version of Salafist Islam promoted in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The roots of such terrorism are in Riyadh and Doha and will have to be fought there.

But the Saudi and Qatari rulers pay extraordinary amounts of protection money in the form of weapon purchases from British and U.S. companies. As long as they keep doing so they will be kept in place as useful props in the bigger scheme.

For the ruling classes in Britain and elsewhere the victims in Manchester are just collateral damage in their quest to rule the world with help of the Wahhabi storm troopers.

Meanwhile “western” media and news agencies continue to promote life in al-Qaeda country, Now with Arabian horse races !, and incite more youngsters into joining the deadly cult.

Source

UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades

Tony Cartalucci — Land Destroyer May 24, 2017

Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe – including both in France and Belgium – the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.

The Telegraph in its article, Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber – what we know about him,” would report:

Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

While initial reports attempted to craft a narrative focused on a a “lone wolf” attacker who organized and executed the blast himself, the nature of the improvised explosive device used and the details of the attack revealed what was certainly an operation carried out by someone who either acquired militant experience through direct contact with a terrorist organization, or was directed by a terrorist organization with extensive experience.

A Thriving Terrorist Community in the Midst of Manchester 

The same Telegraph article would also admit (emphasis added):

A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.

Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda.

Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making. 

Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi.

Thus, the required experience for the recent Manchester attack exists in abundance within the community’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) members.

LIFG is in fact a proscribed terrorist group listed as such by the United Kingdom’s government in 2005, and still appears upon its list of “Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations,” found on the government’s own website.

The accompanying government list (PDF) states explicitly regarding LIFG that:

The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.

Thus, astoundingly, according to the Telegraph, a thriving community of listed terrorists exists knowingly in the midst of the British public, without any intervention by the UK government, security, or intelligence agencies – with members regularly travelling abroad and participating in armed conflict and terrorist activities before apparently returning home – not only without being incarcerated, but apparently also without even being closely monitored.

LIFG also appears on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Astoundingly, it appears under a section titled, “Delisted Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” and indicates that it was removed as recently as 2015.

Elsewhere on the US State Department’s website, is a 2012 report where LIFG is described:

On November 3, 2007, [Al Qaeda (AQ)] leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced a formal merger between AQ and LIFG. However, on July 3, 2009, LIFG members in the United Kingdom released a statement formally disavowing any association with AQ.

The report also makes mention of LIFG’s role in US-led NATO regime change operations in Libya in 2011 (emphasis added):

In early 2011, in the wake of the Libyan revolution and the fall of Qadhafi, LIFG members created the LIFG successor group, the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (LIMC), and became one of many rebel groups united under the umbrella of the opposition leadership known as the Transitional National Council. Former LIFG emir and LIMC leader Abdel Hakim Bil-Hajj was appointed the Libyan Transitional Council’s Tripoli military commander during the Libyan uprisings and has denied any link between his group and AQ.

Indeed, a literal senior Al Qaeda-affiliate leader would head the regime put into power by US-led military operations – which included British forces.

McCain and Belhaji

Not only this, but prominent US politicians would even travel to Libya to personally offer support to Bil-Hajj (also spelled Belhaj). In one notorious image, US Senator John McCain is seen shaking hands with and offering a gift to the terrorist leader in the wake of the Libyan government’s collapse. Click to enlarge

The US State Department’s report regarding LIFG ends with information about its “area of operation,” claiming (emphasis added):

Since the late 1990s, many members have fled to southwest Asia, and European countries, particularly the UK.

For the residents of Manchester, the British government appears to have categorically failed to inform them of the threat living openly in their midst. While the British population is divided and distracted with a more general strategy of tension focused on Islam, Muslims, and Islamophobia, the very specific threat of US-UK sanctioned terrorists living and operating within British communities is overlooked by the public.

However – for British security and intelligence agencies – it is unlikely that such an obvious security threat was merely “overlooked.” That extremists thrive within British communities without government intervention indicates complicity, not incompetence.

LIFG Terrorists Are Anglo-America’s Helping Hands

The Guardian in a 2011 article titled, “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – from al-Qaida to the Arab spring,” would claim:

British intelligence and security service interest in Libya has focused for 20 years on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), whether it was opposing Muammar Gaddafi and working with al-Qaida, later renouncing its old jihadi worldview – or taking part in the armed uprising that has now overthrown the regime.

The article in reality is nothing more than an attempt to portray a listed terrorist organization as “reformed” ahead of increased public awareness regarding the true nature of Libya’s US and British-backed “rebels.”

LIFG members would not only assist the US and British governments in the 2011 overthrow of the Libyan government, they would also move on – with Western arms and cash – to NATO-member Turkey where they staged an invasion of northern Syria.

The Telegraph in a November 2011 article titled, “Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”

The article would continue by reporting:

The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli’s streets said yesterday that “hundreds” of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime. 

Revealed once again is a convenient intersection of terrorist and US-British interests – this time in pursuit of regime change in Syria in the wake of successful US-UK backed regime change in Libya.

Confirming that these plans to send Libyan extremists to fight in Syria were eventually executed is CNN’s 2012 article, “Libya rebels move onto Syrian battlefield,” which reported:

Under the command of one of Libya’s most well known rebel commanders, Al-Mahdi al-Harati, more than 30 Libyan fighters have made their way into Syria to support the Free Syrian Army rebels in their war against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Al Harati’s army of Libyan terrorists would expand to hundreds, possibly thousands of fighters and later merge with other Syrian militant groups including Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise – Jabhat Al Nusra. In Libya, LIFG fighters have divided themselves among various warring factions, including Al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates.

Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG, leading Libyan terrorists in Syria. LIFG terrorists would pass through NATO territory in Turkey on their way to Syria’s border. ISIS “coming to” Libya is simply LIFG terrorists returning from their NATO-backed expeditionary mission. Click to enlarge

Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG, leading Libyan terrorists in Syria. LIFG terrorists would pass through NATO territory in Turkey on their way to Syria’s border. ISIS “coming to” Libya is simply LIFG terrorists returning from their NATO-backed expeditionary mission. Click to enlarge

As these terrorists filter out of Syria and back home, those hailing from LIFG are mainly returning to the UK where they have been known by US and British security and intelligence agencies for years to exist. With them they will be bringing back the technical knowledge and experience needed to carry out devastating attacks like the recent blast that targeted Manchester.

It is terrorism that follows as a direct result of British foreign and domestic policy – supporting terrorists abroad and deliberately refusing to dismantle their networks at home – all as they feed fighters and resources into the US-UK proxy war still raging in Syria.

The British government is directly responsible for the recent Manchester blast. It had foreknowledge of LIFG’s existence and likely its activities within British territory and not only failed to act, but appears to have actively harbored this community of extremists for its own geopolitical and domestic agenda.

The recent blast will only reinforce the unsophisticated “tolerance versus bigotry” narrative that has gripped British society, entirely sidestepping the reality of government sanctioned terrorism wielded both abroad and against its own people – not for ideological or religious purposes – but purely in pursuit of geopolitical hegemony.

That the US and UK are using terrorists to expedite their respective geopolitical objectives should come as no surprise – particularly in regards to LIFG – since the organization itself branched out of Washington’s mercenary fighters used against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

What is surprising is that the Western public continues to react emotionally to each terrorist attack individually rather than rationally, seeing the much larger picture and pattern. And until the Western public sees that bigger picture and pattern, fear, injustice, murder, and mayhem will continue to dominate their lives and futures.

 

Source

The Sabbatean Frankist Origins of Illuminati

henrymakow.com — May 25, 2017

To eliminate the opiateRabbi Marvin Antelman  (193?-2014) deserves credit for exposing the origin of the modern Illuminati in a “heretical”  Cabalist Jewish movement named after its progenitors Sabbatai Zvi (1626-1676) and Jacob Frank (1726-1791.)
This mostly Jewish movement which includes Freemasons assumes  the identity of the target population and subverts it from within. A Jewish authority, Gershom Scholem, describes them as “demonically possessed.”
They are the satanists behind Terror, Communism and the NWO. Trump is one.
Read this first, if you haven’t already- The Satanic Cult that Rules the World

Is The Protocols Of Zion  A Sabbatean Document?

By Jack Manuelian — (Abridged by henrymakow.com)

Certainly the Frankists and their friends belonged to an “elite” new aristocracy.
Marvin Antelman writes: “The Frankist elite consisted of a circle of very gifted intellectuals, theologians and men of letters, as well as a group of men of great financial means who were for the most part great merchant bankers and exerted tremendous influence in their day in the highest financial circles of Europe… the same pattern continuously emerges. Brilliant, wealthy people addicted to power, anxious to assimilate (if they were born Jewish), to destroy religions, to indulge in radicalism, to live cryptic two-faced lives sometimes posing as religious Jews, Catholics, or Protestants but indulging their revolutionary radicalism in secret…”
Gershon Scholem, considered the foremost Jewish authority on the Cabala, said the Frankists went underground around 1820, as their emissaries went from town to town and from family to family to collect their secret writings…As the years passed, the economic and intellectual position of the Frankists strengthened. They built factories and became active in Masonic organizations. They were known to have secret gatherings on the Ninth of Av [August] which they celebrated as a holiday, which is the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of both Temples.
“The center of Frankist activity changed from Frankfurt-Offenbach to Prague and then to Warsaw. The Frankists in Warsaw who were now concentrated among seemingly Catholic families maintained contact prior to World War II with the Turkish Donmeh Sabbatians, who were centered in Turkey and in Salonika, Greece. The Donmeh was active in the Committee for the Progress and Unity of the Young Turk Movement.”
“The Frankists today [1971] no longer call themselves by that name. The Organization has grown into an international group labeled by outsiders as the Cult of the All-Seeing Eye.”

DECEPTION

 

Continues …

Why You Should Definitely Keep Talking About Seth Rich

Caitlin Johnstone — Medium.com May 24, 2017

A statement purportedly authored by Seth Rich’s parents has been published in the CIA-funded Washington Post titled “We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.” I don’t really know what is meant by this slogan about “politicizing” Seth Rich’s murder which mainstream outlets keep repeating and which Rich’s parents have oddly begun parroting, but speaking for myself I am not pushing any political agenda at all by reporting on the Seth Rich case. I’m pushing the prevention of a world-ending nuclear holocaust.

This is unsurprisingly getting zero mainstream attention, but all the Russia hysteria that has engulfed American discourse has actually placed all terrestrial life in grave danger. Dr. Stephen Cohen, easily the foremost American authority on US-Russia relations, said in an interview with RT last week that this may be the most dangerous that tensions between the two nations have ever been in his lifetime. Cohen was born in 1938.

.

After exchanging a few wisecracks with the host about mainstream America’s attitude towards RT (friendly reminder for perspective that CNN recently staged a fake interview featuring a seven year-old girl reading scripted war propaganda to manufacture consent for regime change in Syria), Cohen said the following:

“You know it’s easy to joke about this, except that we’re at maybe the most dangerous moment in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever. And the reason is that we’re in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia’s border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen.”

Again, this man is an internationally renowned expert in this field. If you disagree with what he’s saying, you can safely assume that you are wrong, get the fuck over yourself and start absorbing this new information. Cohen is a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations, has authored countless books, articles and essays about US-Russia relations, and has served as a consultant on Russian affairs for major news networks both on and off camera. When he says we should be getting nervous about the possibility of near-term human extinction because of tensions along these three cold war fronts, we should listen to him.

The still unproven accusation that the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks were originally taken by Russian hackers was what began the manufacturing of support for these escalations. Americans generally didn’t think much about Russia until the mainstream media started telling them to, but now even local town halls which have nothing to do with foreign policy are dominated by this dangerous Russia hysteria. It was these hacking allegations that manufactured support for Obama’s provocative sanctions and increase of troops along Russia’s border at the end of his term, which Rachel Maddow has openly said cannot be pulled back without making Trump appear guilty of collusion with the Kremlin.

Do you see how this works? Does anyone get this? The fact-free Russia hysteria is being used to pressure Trump into maintaining these omnicidal tensions in the Baltic region, Ukraine and Syria which could blow up any second and lead to a chain of events which see a nuclear warhead being deployed by either side accidentally, on purpose, or a mixture of the two in the chaos of armed conflict, and once one goes off, they all do. As Cohen rightly pointed out in an interview last month with Democracy NOW, imagine how much more dangerous the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been if Kennedy had had to deal with such a situation while also juggling insane pressures to never back down in any area from his own government?

A 2014 report published in the journal Earth’s Future found that it would only take the detonation of 100 nuclear warheads to throw 5 teragrams of black soot into the earth’s stratosphere for decades, blocking out the sun and making the photosynthesis of plants impossible, starving every terrestrial organism to death that didn’t die of radiation or climate chaos first. The United States and Russia currently have about 7,000 nuclear warheads apiece that we know of.

And this is why it is frankly irrelevant what Seth Rich’s family thinks of the public interest in his case. Obviously yes, leave the family themselves alone; don’t contact them, don’t harass them, leave them be. But if Rich was the DNC leaker, the life of every single living organism on earth may depend upon the public gaining access to that knowledge. This is infinitely more important than one family’s feelings about American public discourse. If there’s even the slightest chance that these dangerous escalations can be drawn down by the public learning that Russia was not the source of the DNC leaks, no one on earth has any business telling us to stop looking into that possibility.

So keep talking about Seth Rich. If anyone tries to tell you not to, ask them if they’re willing to risk the life of every living organism on earth in order to silence this controversy. If they bring up WaPo’s article about his parents or the factually erroneous statement given to Fox News by Aaron Rich, ask them if a family’s feelings and opinions are more important than the life of every terrestrial life form combined. Push this issue. Insist that they address it clearly and rationally. Make them explain in detail why a family’s feelings should take precedence over this very real risk.

America’s power establishment desperately does not want you talking about Seth Rich, which is another very good reason to keep talking about Seth Rich. The frantic attempts of the establishment propaganda machine to silence the questions (in a nation which legalized the use of media psy-ops upon its own citizens in 2013, by the way) have already reached cartoonish, hysterical levels; think how desperate they’ll get if we keep pushing this thing? We can force them to overextend themselves and do some really ridiculous things, which will expose even more plot holes in their narrative. Already we’ve got WaPo preemptively claiming that even if Seth Rich does turn out to be the DNC leaker it won’t stop Russiagate, and we’re just getting started here.

So keep talking about Seth Rich. Remember, the best way to bring democracy and justice to America is to constantly attack the deep state’s propaganda machine, and we’ve really got it against the ropes with this one. Even if it’s just tweeting “#SethRich died under extremely suspicious circumstances” every few hours, you’re throwing that much sand in the gears of the machine. Every little bit helps.

And of course there will still be accusations of corrupt financial ties between Trump and Russia, and I personally am fine with that. Please investigate any possible improper relations with any foreign governments in all officials in both parties; I think that would turn up a lot of juicy things. Why not take it even further and shine a big bright spotlight on the fact that many of America’s elected officials have dual citizenships with other countries, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and lead Russiagate instigator Rep. Adam Schiff? These men have access to a lot of classified information, and if being a citizen of another nation isn’t a conflict of interest I don’t know what would be. Investigate all possible areas of corruption and conflicts of interest, just stop the baseless xenophobia and threatening all life on earth by making Russia an enemy for no good reason.

Keep talking about Seth Rich. The reason the American deep state (which the corporate media is generally considered part of) wants you to shut up about Seth Rich is because it is devastating to the Russiagate narrative they’ve been pumping all their energy into since the November election. Trump has been painted into a corner by America’s unelected power establishment where he has to take a strong stance against Russia or it’ll be politically disastrous for him; even taking Obama’s position on Russian affairs is now unacceptable to everyone riding the Russiagate train. By applying this pressure America’s oligarchs can force Trump into pushing toward the Syria regime change they’ve been salivating over for decades and strangling Russia with sanctions to hurt Putin’s popularity so they can depose him.

This goal is an open and established fact, by the way. One of the most aggressive promulgators of the Russiagate narrative in Washington, Rep. Eric Swalwell, told Fox’s Tucker Carlson in March that the plan to punish Russia for the unproven hacking offense is to “squeeze their economy” with “tougher sanctions” to the point that it “cuts off Russia from the rest of the world” in order to “hurt [Putin’s] popularity”. And this is exactly what is happening; Russia has already had to slash its military budget by 25 percent in order to stay afloat under the weight of the crushing sanctions. And you’re still supposed to be terrified of Putin.

The American oligarchy wants Putin gone because he pushes back against US attempts to dominate that part of the world. The Crimean peninsula is a crucial strategic location, and at the request of the Crimean people Russia annexed it from America’s puppet regime in Ukraine. Syria, longtime ally of Russia, happens to occupy a crucial location in the fossil fuel battles, and instead of bowing to Washington’s hunger for regime change Putin is helping Assad kill the terrorist factions that America has been arming and training to destabilize the nation. Finally, Moscow and Beijing have been collaborating to undermine the hegemony of the US dollar in that region, which, since power only exists in the relative absence of power for everyone else, threatens the dominance of the US oligarchs.

The oligarchs want to prevent that, and so they need you to shut up about Seth Rich. That’s why they’re pumping out a nonstop “shut up about Seth Rich” campaign in the CIA trade rag Washington Post, that’s why they’re pressuring Fox News to back away from the story, that’s why Reddit is saturated in coordinated upvote and downvote brigades on the subject, and that’s why all your brainwashed liberal friends keep telling you that you’re not allowed to talk about this thing. We’ve got to keep talking about it though. Our lives may literally depend on it.

— — —

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, or even tossing me some money on Patreon so I can keep this gig up

Source

Rebels living in England claim UK government let them travel to Libya to fight Gaddafi

Gareth Davies — Daily Mail May 25, 2017

Salman Abedi's younger brother  Hashem (pictured)  has also reportedly been linked to ISIS. Click to enlarge

Salman Abedi’s younger brother Hashem (pictured) has also reportedly been linked to ISIS. Click to enlarge

Rebels living in England have claimed the UK Government waived travel bans to let them fight Colonel Gaddafi in Libya as investigators probe the Manchester bomber’s visits to Tripoli.

Fighters which included Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents have described how MI5 operated an open door policy for those willing to travel to North Africa to topple the dictator.

It comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted Salman Abedi, who killed 22 and injured at least 119 people when he blew himself up at Manchester Arena, was known to counter-terror authorities.

Those who travelled to Libya to fight alongside Islamic rebel groups have described how, even though they were subject to counter-terror orders banning them from leaving their homes because they posed a security threat, they were allowed to travel to the hostile warzone.

When they returned to the UK, having spent months alongside groups thought by British intelligence to have links with Al-Qaeda, rebels were said to have been allowed back into the country without hesitation.

Libyan officials have backed up the claims, saying the British government were ‘fully aware’ of young men being sent to fight, turning the North African country into an ‘exporter of terror’.

Abedi’s father Ramadan and younger brother Hashem were in custody in Libya last night after being arrested by counter-terror police a day after elder brother Ismail, 23, was detained in Manchester.

Detectives said Hashem had links to ISIS and was planning to carry out a terror attack in Tripoli.

Hashem was accused of having known about his brother’s murderous plans for more than a month, while it emerged his father had been a revolutionary fighter against Gaddafi who publicly voiced support for an Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria.

In the wake of Monday night’s atrocity, former rebel fighters have talked of how easily they were able to slip free from their travel bans and leap into battle.

Sources, some of whom met Abedi and described him as a hothead, told the Middle Eastern Eye claim these trips were facilitated by the British government, something the Home Office said it could not comment on when contacted by MailOnline.

One Brit who travelled to Libya despite being on house arrest over fears he would join militant groups in Iraq expressed his surprise at being given the green light.

‘I was allowed to go, no questions asked,’ the source told MEE.

He described how he fought alongside people from Manchester and London as well as local rebels from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which descended from a group of Islamist militants thought to have links with Al-Qaeda, according to MI5.

Another British fighter told how he was stopped entering the UK having visited Libya in 2011, but when he told them the name of the MI5 officer he had talked to about fighting in the war-torn country, he was allowed to board the plane and said the security services had ‘sorted it’.

The bulk of the fighters, described to be in their late teens or early 20s, flew to Tunisia before crossing the border while others went via Malta.

‘The whole Libyan diaspora were out there fighting alongside the rebel groups,’ another source told MEE.

One source said he met Abedi at their local mosque in Didsbury, and another said he was a ‘hot head’ with a reputation for involvement in petty crime.

A statement from the rival interim government in Beida, Eastern Libya, and separate to the Government of National Accord in Tripoli appeared to back up the sources’ reports.

It said: ‘The Libyan government denounces the terror attack that occurred in Manchester.

‘This cowardly attack was an imminent result of terrorist groups’ actions that have been operating for decades in the UK.

‘That includes the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which has been recruiting Libyan and Muslim youth in the UK and Europe and sending them to Libya and other countries to deliver terrorism and death with the prior knowledge of the British government which provided a safe haven.

‘These groups have been destroying our cities and towns in an attempt to shape Libya into an exporter of terror to the whole planet.

‘Whilst British officials are fully aware of what the legitimate government of Libya and the Libyan National Army are conducting in fighting and combating these organisations and the terrorist militias they harbour, they insist deliberately to support these groups and encourage them to operate and attempt to control the Libyan people and their resources.

‘It is now crucial and imperative for all countries to establish and begin fighting terrorists and their financers through a clear partnership that the Libyan government is willing and ready to participate in.’

Last night, attention focused on how the bomber had been allowed to slip through the net. Key warnings about his descent into jihadism were apparently overlooked.

Yesterday it was alleged that two calls about his conduct had been made to a police anti-terror hotline and that his family had repeatedly raised concerns he was ‘dangerous’.

It was also claimed the university drop-out had travelled extensively in the Middle East and received terror training in Syria and that he returned to the UK from Libya just days before the attack.

Meanwhile, the bomber’s father Ramadan Abedi was arrested yesterday outside his home in a suburb of the Libyan capital Tripoli.

A witness said the 51-year-old, who had earlier insisted his son was innocent of the Manchester bombing, was handcuffed by armed men and whisked away. An official did not explain why he was arrested.

Earlier he had claimed his son seemed ‘normal’ when they last spoke five days ago and insisted: ‘We don’t believe in killing innocents.’

A former Libyan security official Abdel-Basit Haroun said Ramadan, a former airport security worker, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group in the 1990s. The group had links to Al-Qaeda.

Although the LIFG disbanded, Haroun said the father belongs to the Salafi Jihadi movement, the most extreme sect of Salafism and from which Al-Qaeda and ISIS hail

He once worked for the Gaddafi regime’s security apparatus before turning towards hardline Islam: one of his associates once ran a group called the Islamic Martyrs’ Movement.

He had also publicly voiced his support for an extremist group fighting in Syria. He posted photos of soldiers clad in black uniforms from the Al-Nusra Front, which was the official Syrian branch of al Qaeda until it broke up last July, on his Facebook page five years ago.

Underneath the photo, he wrote: ‘Victorious against the infidels…say Amen!’

Ramadan, a former airport security worker in the UK, also published a picture of Hashem holding a machine gun while wearing a Nike t-shirt and combat trousers. Underneath the picture he write: ‘The lion Hashem… is training’.

Ramadan fled Tripoli in 1993 after Moammar Gadhafi’s security authorities issued an arrest warrant and eventually sought political asylum in Britain.

Blair and Gaddafi

Blair and Gaddafi. Click to enlarge

Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair that if he was removed from power Islamic extremists would take over Libya with the ultimate goal of conquering Europe.

Newly released transcripts of 2011 phone calls between the pair reveal the ousted Libyan leader’s anxieties about the growing influence Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were having in Africa and the Middle East.

He warned jihadis were already wreaking havoc in the North African state despite his governance – and that if he was to be toppled it would pave the way for the rise of an Islamic State that would open the doors to a deluge of migrants heading for mainland Europe.

Blair contacted the dictator and urged him to flee for a ‘safe place’ in two calls on February 25 2011, eight months before he was beaten to death after being found in a sewer.

Transcripts of the conversations were published for the first time yesterday and MPs said the dictator’s fears extremists would take Libya may have been ‘wrongly ignored’ because he was usually ‘delusional’.

However, hindsight appears to prove the former dictator foretold the rise of ISIS – and the knock-on effect it would have on displacing the Libyan people and millions more across Iraq and Syria.

Source

Manchester Attack as MI6 Blowback

Voltaire Network — May 25, 2017

ISISrael patsy Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

According to Scotland Yard, the attack on the crowd leaving the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, 22 May, has been perpetrated by Salman Abedi. A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the mutilated corpse of the ‘terrorist’.

This attack is generally interpreted as proof that the United Kingdom is not implicated in international terrorism and that, on the contrary, it is a victim of it.

Salman Abedi was born in the UK of a family of Libyan immigrants. He has travelled to Libya several times in the last couple of months, with or without his father.

His father Ramadan Abedi, with whom Salman lived, is a former officer in [Gaddafi’s] Libyan Intelligence Services. He specialised in the surveillance of the Islamist movement, but two decades later has failed to notice that his son has joined Daesh (IS).

In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfiltrated by MI6 and transferred back to the UK where he obtained political asylum. He moved in 1999 to Whalley Range (south of Manchester) where there was already resident a small Libyan Islamist community.

In 1994, Ramadan Abedi returned again to Libya under MI6’s direction. In late 1995 he is involved in the creation of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a local branch of Al-Qaeda, in conjunction with Abdelhakim Belhadj. The LIFG was then employed by MI6 again to assassinate Gaddafi, for a payoff of £100,000. This operation, which also failed, provoked heated exchanges within British Intelligence, leading to the resignation of one David Shayler.

Other former members of the LIFG have also lived at Whalley Range, including Abedi’s friend Abd al-Baset-Azzouz. In 2009, this last joined Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and became a close associate of its chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In 2011, al-Baset-Azzouz is active on the ground with the NATO operation against Libya. On 11 September 2012, he directs the operation against the US Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, assassinated at Benghazi. He is arrested in Turkey and extradited to the US in December 2014, his trial still pending.

Nobody pays attention to the fact that Ramadan Abedi has linked LIFG members to the formation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and, in 2011, he takes part in MI6’s ‘Arab Spring’ operations, and in LIFG’s role on the ground in support of NATO. In any event, Abedi returned to Libya after the fall of Gaddafi and moves his family there, leaving his older children in the family home at Whalley Range.

According to the former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar, Abdelhakim Belhadj was involved in the assassinations in Madrid of 11 March 2004. Later, he is secretly arrested in Malaysia by the CIA and transferred to Libya where he is tortured not by Libyan or American functionaries but by MI6 agents. He is finally freed after the accord between Saif al-Islam Gaddafi [Gaddafi’s son] and the jihadists.

During the Libyan war, Belhadj, who had been living in Qatar, returned to Libya, courtesy of the Qatari Emir, and commanded the operations on the ground in league with NATO. On 28 July 2011, he organised the assassination of General Abdul Fatah Younis who claimed to have joined the ‘rebels’, but who Belhadj accused of overseeing the struggle against the LIFG during the 1990s.

In September 2011, Belhadj was named military governor of Tripoli by NATO. In 2012, seconded by the Irish-Libyan Mahdi al-Hatari, he created the Free Syrian Army, then returns again to Libya. On 2 May 2014, he is received officially at the Quai d’Orsay [the French Foreign Ministry].

In December 2013, following the discovery in the archives of Gaddafi’s Libyan regime of a letter from the former chief of MI6, Belhadj launches proceedings in London against the UK for having kidnapped and tortured him nine years earlier. British Intelligence then illegally places his lawyers under phone-tapping, although it is ultimately constrained to destroy the intelligence obtained.

According to Egypt’s Prosecutor General, Hisham Barakat, in May 2015, Belhadj becomes Daesh’ most senior figure in North Africa, this claim taken up by Interpol. Belhadj installs three training camps for Daesh in Libya at Derna (in the former property of Abd al-Baset-Azzouz), at Syrte and at Sebrata. In October 2016, he launches in London new legal proceedings regarding his kidnapping and torture, this time nominally against the former director of MI6, Sir Mark Allen.

Daesh has claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, but without describing Salman Abedi as a ‘martyr’. After the assassination, Ramadan Abedi has declared his opposition to jihad in a telephone conversation with journalists. He has also claimed that his son had intended to spend the month of Ramadan [beginning 26 May] with him in Libya and that he is convinced of his innocence.

Translation
Evan Jones

Source

Iran says it has built third underground ballistic missile factory

Parisa Hafezi — Reuters May 25, 2017

IRGC underground missile facility. Click to enlarge

IRGC underground missile facility. Click to enlarge

Iran has built a third underground ballistic missile production factory and will keep developing its missile program, the semi-official Fars news agency quoted a senior commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard as saying.

The development is likely to fuel tensions with the United States in a week when President Donald Trump, on his first foreign trip, has called Iran a sponsor of militant groups and a threat to countries across the Middle East.

“Iran’s third underground factory has been built by the Guards in recent years … We will continue to further develop our missile capabilities forcefully,” Fars quoted Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guard’s airspace division, as saying.

Since taking office in January, Trump has imposed new sanctions on Iran in response to its recent missile launches, putting Tehran “on notice”.

Iran has reacted defiantly. Newly re-elected pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday: “Iran does not need the permission of the United States to conduct missile tests”.

Iran’s Sunni Muslim Gulf neighbors and its arch-enemy Israel have expressed concerns over Tehran’s ballistic missile program, seeing it as a threat to regional security.

In 2015, Iranian state TV aired footage of underground tunnels with ready-to-fire missiles on the back of trucks, saying the facility was one of hundreds of underground missile bases around the country.

“It is natural that our enemies America and the Zionist regime (Israel) are angry with our missile program because they want Iran to be in a weak position,” Hajizadeh said.

Most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran were lifted last year after Tehran fulfilled commitments under a 2015 deal with major powers to scale back its nuclear program – an agreement that Trump has frequently criticized as being too soft on Tehran. But Iran remains subject to a U.N. arms embargo and other restrictions.

Two months after implementation of the deal, the Guards test-fired two ballistic missiles that it said were designed to be able to hit Israel

Iran says its missile program is not in defiance with a U.N. resolution that calls on it to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years.

“Along with improving our defense capabilities, we will continue our missile tests and missile production. The next missile to be produced is a surface-to-surface missile,” said Hajizadeh, without elaborating.

In retaliation for the new U.S. sanctions over its ballistic missile program, Iran this month added nine American individuals and companies to its own list of 15 U.S. companies for alleged human rights violations and cooperation with Israel.

Source

Terror Distracts from Traitors Within

henrymakow.com — May 24, 2017

Manchester bombing Netanyahu quote

“Our fight is your fight,” Bibi Netanyahu. Click to enlarge

What do the Protocols of Zion say about terror? 
‘IT IS FROM US THAT THE ALL-ENGULFING TERROR PROCEEDS.’  Protocols of Zion, 9-4
Terror is mentioned about a dozen times in the Protocols of Zion as a way of ensuring total submission to Masonic Jewish world government. 
“The GOYIM are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? ”  Protocols of Zion, 24-4

Terror We’re Being Suckered

Updated from July 16,2016 — by Henry Makow Ph.D.

I am amazed by the universal acceptance of the narrative that we are under attack by “Islamic terrorism.”  We are under attack alright, by our own traitorous colonial “elite”.
“Islamic terrorists,” like the nail bomber in Manchester, are controlled by intelligence services who serve the Masonic Jewish bankers and their world “super government.”
ISISrael patsy Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

ISISrael patsy Salman Abedi. Click to enlarge

Naturally Abedi died at the scene. The patsy always dies so he can’t reveal who put him up to it. The media, both corporate and alternate, are complicit in this criminal treason by promulgating the false narrative.
At the same time as ISIS is blamed for attacks in Manchester, Paris, Orlando and Nice, evidence emerges daily that ISIS is funded and controlled by the CIA and the Mossad.  The Israelis have even stated they don’t want to see ISIS defeated. In other words, they are complicit in the wanton terror afflicting the West as well as all other heinous atrocities by ISIS. No one comments on the contradiction.
In The Other Side of Deception (1994) Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky describes how the Israelis routinely supplied explosives to European extremists. (pp.3-4)
What do the Illuminati hope to achieve by a “massacre” like Manchester purports to be?
  1. Satanists rejoice in killing people. 2. Terror is conducive to empowering the government which is controlled by the perpetrators of the terror. 3. The Christian and Muslim goyim must fight each other and not notice the puppet masters. At the same time as they promote Islam as a bogeyman, they import millions of Muslim migrants, increasing the pressure to explosion.

THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION

 

Continues …

Are we now paying the price for the chaos Cameron unleashed in Libya?

John Bradley — Daily Mail May 25, 2017

David Cameron visits Syrian refugee camp, Nov 7. 2012. Will the impact of the refugee crisis be his REAL leagacy? Click to enlarge

David Cameron visits Syrian refugee camp, Nov 7. 2012. Will the impact of the refugee crisis be his REAL leagacy? Click to enlarge

NATO’s decision to launch a ferocious bombing campaign to help Islamist rebels overthrow Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 hangs over Britain today like a toxic cloud. For the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, hailed from a Libyan family accused of being aligned to one of the many jihadist movements in that country.

The strategy to send in the RAF against Gaddafi’s forces was most enthusiastically promoted, to his eternal shame, by then Prime Minister David Cameron. His reckless policy brought about regime change as the Islamists came to power, along with their violent henchmen.

As was the case with opposition groups in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria before the so-called Arab Spring, those who were set against Gaddafi’s rule were extreme in their ideology, blinded by a hatred of secularist, non-religious governments.

But despite all evidence to the contrary, Cameron and his deluded European partners lied to us that they were actually pro-democracy Western allies, champions of tolerance and plurality.

Some of us — including me and other Middle East experts writing for this paper — warned repeatedly that their agenda was far more sinister, and we would pay a terrible price for Cameron’s naivety.

For those of us who had studied the history and lived in the region, it was obvious that, despite their internal divisions and rivalries, all those disparate jihadist groups in Libya had one overriding and very dark ambition: to replace Gaddafi’s secular regime with one based on their own mercilessly hardline interpretation of Sharia law, before seizing the country’s oilfields and finally cutting all ties with Western countries they openly despised.

For this reason, the groups had been banned and their members ruthlessly persecuted by Gaddafi and other secular Arab leaders, and they were viewed with deep suspicion in the West — with one notable exception.

The British government welcomed Salman Abedi’s father Ramadan into our country with open arms in 1993 as part of a reckless liberal policy of granting political sanctuary to Islamist activists from Libya and other Arab nations.

The misguided belief was that they would warm to the host nation that offered them sanctuary, and modify their opinions through the new experience of living in an open democracy.

Instead, many of them not only continued stirring up rebellion in the countries they came from, but called openly for Islamist rule in their adopted homeland. Successive British governments turned a blind eye to this treachery.

And finally, after being given refuge here to cultivate their hatred of everything we hold dear, the Islamists found the perfect dupe in David Cameron as they sought to fulfil their dream of creating an Islamist state in Libya.

Salman Abedi’s father returned to Libya in 2011 to fight alongside Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces against Gaddafi, supported by Nato airstrikes. After Gaddafi was killed, the Abedi family spent more time in Libya.

gaddafi

Gaddafi: David Cameron was instrumental in his overthrow, which brought chaos to Libya and turned it into a breeding ground for terror, and opened the way for a flood of migrants to Europe. Click to enlarge

Thanks to Cameron, they could at last immerse themselves in what was now a blood-soaked, chaotic country with no functioning government, awash with arms seized from abandoned Libyan Army depots and mired in tribal and religious upheaval which each day left hundreds of corpses lining the streets. And it was one where the Islamists were about to emerge triumphant.

Astonishingly, it was at this juncture that Cameron travelled to Libya to glory in his great ‘victory’, hailing the dawn of a new democratic era before abandoning it to a chaotic, impoverished and blood-soaked fate.

Like Tony Blair in Iraq, he had neither understood nor considered the aftermath of enforced regime change.

Shell-shocked Libyans were bequeathed a new and terrifying reality by Cameron and his Nato allies, as Libya became a breeding ground for Islamist terror.

In some ways, the consequences of that have culminated in the Manchester bombing. For this insanely ungovernable Libya is where Salman Abedi, paying frequent visits to his family, was able to cultivate his murderous hatred of the West.

(We now learn, too, that his father is said to have fought with a group linked to Al-Qaeda, and his younger brother is alleged to have Islamic State connections.)

That loathing for our values came to a horrifying climax this week, just days after he travelled back to Manchester from Libya.

The benighted country has taken on a growing significance for Islamist jihadis as the self-declared caliphate of Islamic State in Syria, and Iraq has gradually been overwhelmed by a Western coalition. Islamic State hoped to establish a new base in Libya, where Al-Qaeda also has a strong presence.

As Islamic State territory elsewhere shrank, thousands of jihadis fled towards Libya in the hope of establishing another Islamist redoubt, from where murderous attacks — like that which took place in Manchester — could be launched against Europe.

Jihadist leaders sought to forge a sort of corridor between Libya and Syria — where Cameron, as Prime Minister, was also itching to overthrow secular dictator Bashar Al-Assad, while championing the cause of non-existent ‘moderate’ rebels.

So it was that the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, found himself immersed in a Libya fast becoming the new crucible of terror on Europe’s doorstep.

Abedi — as part, it now appears, of a wider British-Libyan jihadi cell — was able to use the ‘jihadi corridor’ to travel between Libya and Syria and receive additional and extensive training in Syrian terror camps.

And his get-of-out-jail-free card? A prized British passport, which meant he could fly back to this country from Libya whenever he chose, free to unleash death upon his fellow citizens.

As well as the terrorists who now operate with impunity in Libya, the country has become a major arms-dealing hub and the centre of a massive smuggling operation in which hundreds of thousands of migrants have been sent across the Mediterranean in boats to flood into Europe virtually unchecked.

This, then, is Mr Cameron’s legacy — though Tony Blair must take some of the responsibility for unleashing chaos in Iraq by helping to topple Saddam Hussein, whose old generals were involved in the creation of Islamic State.

These revelations are a huge embarrassment for the political leaders and military strategists who orchestrated the Libya debacle in 2011. Our current Government and intelligence leaders should be furious they have been left to face the terrible consequences.

To say Cameron has the blood of the Manchester victims on his hands may be too stark a conclusion. What is indisputable, though, as our country remains on its highest state of terror alert and the remaining jihadi cell members are hunted down, is that if wiser heads than David Cameron’s had prevailed six years ago, the suicide bombing in Manchester would probably not have taken place.

Source

Justin Murphy’s “The Psychology of Prohibiting Outside Thinkers”

Kevin McDonald — The Unz Review May 24, 2017

Prohibiting outside thinkers

Here is Justin Murphy describing his background, research, and activism:

Why is there not more rebellion against status quo institutions? How have economic and political processes pacified our capacity for radical collective action? As a political scientist, I am interested in the roles played by information, communication, and ideology in the pacification of political resistance and conflict. Before joining the faculty of Politics and IR at the University of Southampton in the UK, I did my PhD at Temple University in the US. There I was active in Occupy Wall Street, some civil disobedience and shutting down of things, some longer-term campaigns against the big U.S. banks, and sundry other works and deeds, including a radical warehouse project where I lived for nearly three years.

So Murphy is an academic on the left. He is therefore part of the establishment, a card-carrying member of the institutional structure that dominates intellectual discourse in the West. But, unlike the vast majority of his academic brethren, he is quite aware that the left is now the status quo and that it is doing everything it can to preserve its elite status — and that its self-preserving tactics are at base nothing more than irrational assertions of power and privilege. Murphy makes these claims in a blogpost: “The psychology of prohibiting outside thinkers.” Part of the subtitle says it all: “The real motivation of respectable progressivism is managing guilty conscience and conserving bourgeois privileges.”

What’s so refreshing about this is that instead of “exclud[ing] independent right-wing intellectual work on moral grounds,” he would actually “enjoy thinking” with intellectuals on the right. Indeed, moral indictments have become the stock in trade of establishment intellectuals — as noted in my three-part “Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival.” Moral condemnations are easy. No intellectual heavy lifting required. All one need do is appeal to conventional moral intuitions as shaped by the the same institutions that are now the status quo — the media and academic culture. As I note, those who dissent from the status quo are “not only misguided, [they are] malevolent … consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon, or so goes the stereotype And that’s the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society — ‘a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.’”

Back to Murphy:

Very simply, [“institutional intellectuals”] are imposing a cordon sanitaire that is instrumentally necessary to the continuation of their unjustified intellectual privileges in the institutional order. I am increasingly convinced there is simply no other public function to this political repetition compulsion. The reason this is important, from the left, is that this cordon sanitaire is straightforwardly a mechanism to conserve the status quo, everything progressives pretend to be interested in overthrowing. This is why neo-reactionary intellectuals speak of the status quo political order as dominated by a left-progressive “Cathedral.” …

The religious analogy is quite apt. Like moral pronouncements, religious dogmas are not refutable and need not be justified empirically. They are nothing more than intellectually shoddy ex Cathedra pronouncements that take advantage of a pre-existing intellectual consensus.

First, it seems to be a fact that the genuinely intellectual wings of the alt-right or neo-reaction (NRx) or whatever you want to call it, are probably too intelligent and sophisticated for bourgeois intellectual workers to engage with, let alone compete with. … So if those essays are actually pretty smart and a legitimate challenge to your institutional authority as a credentialed intellectual—you are functionally required to close ranks, if only with a silent agreement to not engage.

Now, as soon as anyone from this non-institutional world produces effects within the institutional orbit, it is actually a really serious survival reflex for all institutionally privileged intellectuals to play the morality card (“no platform!”). If all these strange, outside autodidacts are actually smart and independently producing high-level intellectual content you don’t have the time to even understand, let alone defeat or otherwise control, this is an existential threat to your entire livelihood. Because all of your personal identity, your status, and your salary, is based directly on your credentialed, legitimated membership card giving your writings and pontifications an officially sanctioned power and authority. If that door is opened even a crack by non-credentialed outsiders, the whole jig is up for the respectable bourgeois monopoly on the official intellectual organs of society.

This comment really strikes home with me. I wrote three books on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective, the first of which was reviewed positively in academic journals; the second was less widely reviewed, and the third was basically ignored apart from a favorable review by Frank Salter in the Human Ethology Bulletin. Instead I was subjected to a vicious witch hunt spearheaded by the SPLC, joined by a great many of the faculty in the College of Liberal Arts, especially the Jewish faculty. In all of the exchanges on faculty email lists there was never any attempt to deal with the academic soundness of these books. Labels like “anti-Semitic” sufficed. So now, nearly 20 years after publication, Culture of Critique remains ignored by the academic establishment even as it gains traction on the Alt Right.

The same can be said about Murray’s The Bell Curve. It is referenced at times but almost always with the adjective ‘discredited’ even though the data are rock solid. I know a liberal academic who commented, “I don’t have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve.”

Murphy:

An interesting question is, because respectable intellectuals are often pretty smart and capable, why are they so fearful of outside intellectual projects, even if they are as evil as some fear? They are smart and capable intellectuals, so you’d think they would embrace some interesting challenge as an opportunity for productive contestation. Why don’t they? Well, here’s where the reality gets ugly. The reason respectable intellectuals so instinctively close ranks around the moral exclusion of NRx intellectuals is that currently working, respectable intellectuals privately know that the intellectual compromises they have made to secure their respectability and careers has rendered most of their life’s work sadly and vulnerably low-quality.

I suspect this is quite true. There is a replication crisis centering on psychology and particularly in social psychology, the most blatantly politicized field within psychology. This is my summary of Prof. Jonathan Haidt’s comments on the topic:

when scholarly articles that contravene the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become super rigorous. More controls are needed, and more subjects. It’s not a representative sample, and the statistical techniques are inadequate. This use of scientific rigor against theories that are disliked for deeper reasons is a theme of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique where it was also noted that standards were quite lax when it came to data that fit the leftist zeitgeist.

Whole areas of education and sociology doubtless have similar problems. For example, in education, there have been decades of studies “discovering” panaceas for the Black-White academic achievement gap — without any success. But, as Prof. Ray Wolters notes (“Why Education Reform Failed,” The Occidental Quarterly [Spring, 2016]), hope springs eternal because there are always new wrinkles to try. Fundamentally the field fails to deal with IQ or with genetic influences on IQ and academic performance.

The same is likely true of huge swaths of the humanities where verbal brilliance, post-modern lack of logic and rigor, and leftist politics have created wonderlands of inanity. All this would be swept away if the outsiders triumphed. I strongly suggest following @RealPeerReview on Twitter to get a feeling for what is now going on in academia. Remember, these people are getting jobs and students are paying exorbitant tuition to hear them lecture.

Murphy:

To convince status-quo cultural money dispensers to give you a grant, fourr instance, any currently “successful” academic or artist has to so extensively pepper their proposal with patently stupid words and notions that knowingly make the final result a sad, contorted piece of work 80% of which is bent to the flattery of our overlords. But we falsely rationalize this contortion as “mature discipline” which we then rationalize to be the warrant for our privileged status as legitimate intellectuals.

And then, twisting the knife:

Because we know deep down inside that our life’s work is only half of what it could have been had we the courage to not ask for permission, if there ever arise people who are doing high-level intellectual work on the outside, exactly as they wish to without anyone’s permission or money, then not only are we naturally resentful, but we secretly know that at least some of these outsiders are likely doing more interesting, more valuable, more radically incisive work than we are, because we secretly know that we earn our salary by agreeing to only say half of what we could.

Can’t think of a better way to end it. What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it’s not so surprising given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field? Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.

(Reprinted from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)