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?

UN Drops Syria Truth Bombs! Wow!

Truth Warriors — July 2, 2017

No, Virginia (Dare) the SPLC Was NEVER A “Civil Rights Stalwart”

James Fulford — The Unz Review July 16, 2017

Morris Dees

Some Respectable Right people have finally noticed the horrors committed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, basically because it has begun attacking mainstream Christian groups for “homophobia,” “transphobia” etc. etc. But this is invariably accompanied by pious claptrap about how the SPLC used to be OK. Nonsense. It was always a nasty racket.

Thus the Wall Street Journal recently featured an op-ed by Weekly Standard writer Jeryl Bier:

How did the SPLC become the default journalistic resource on purported hate speech, racism and extremism? Morris Dees, still the SPLC’s chief trial attorney, founded the organization in 1971 along with Joseph Levin Jr., now an emeritus board member. In its early years , the SPLC made a name for itself by winning some high-profile cases against the KKK and other white-supremacist groups. But over time its mission changed. In recent years it has focused on “tolerance education,” hate-group tracking (including an online “hate map”) and fundraising. [The Insidious Influence of the SPLC, June 21, 2017. Emphasis added]

And Politico, while conceding that the SPLC has gone overboard, called it a “Civil Rights” stalwart. [Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?, By Ben Schreckinger, July/August 2017]

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The Politico article is illustrated by a sort of group photograph of the SPLC headquarters (the famous Poverty Palace”) and two other historic sites in Montgomery, AL (see right). Caption:

A Hub for Civil Rights

The SPLC’s sleek six-story headquarters stands out in downtown Montgomery, a city rich in history. Not far away are the state capitol, a plaque marking the spot where Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to white passengers and the Baptist church where Martin Luther King Jr. helped launch the Montgomery bus boycott.”

Well, all those things are indeed in Montgomery, which is after all, the capital of the State of Alabama. But they have nothing to do with one another. Rosa Parks was arrested in 1955, the Bus Boycott was in December that year—but the SPLC wasn’t even founded until 1971. (If you’ve forgotten, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.)

Of course, a whole generation has grown up under the delusion that pre-Martin Luther King America was Nazi Germany. And in 1971, there might conceivably have been some legitimate “Civil Rights” targets left in Alabama. But by 1979, when the SPLC began its “litigation strategy” of attacking white organizations whose members committed arguably unrelated crimes with the intention ruining them, there weren’t anymore. The “Civil Rights Movement” as such was over—it had won, thanks to massive Federal government support from LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Any actual Klan violence could be and was dealt with by both Federal and local authorities.

The SPLC’s lawsuits were based on holding white racial organizations financially responsible for any and all acts of their members—something that never happens, for example, to violent labor unions, because they’re specifically protected by law.[ Above the Law: Unions are often exempt from laws on extortion, identity theft, and whistleblower protection, by CRC Staff, By Kevin Mooney, Capital Research Center, October 1, 2013]. Here’s an example from Wikipedia SPLC article:

United Klans of America

In 1987, SPLC won a case against the United Klans of America for the lynching of Michael Donald, a black teenager in Mobile, Alabama.[37] The SPLC used an unprecedented legal strategy of holding an organization responsible for the crimes of individual members to help produce a $7 million judgment for the victim’s mother.[37] The verdict forced United Klans of America into bankruptcy. Its national headquarters was sold for approximately $52,000 to help satisfy the judgment.[38] In 1987, five members of a Klan offshoot, the White Patriot Party, were indicted for stealing military weaponry and plotting to kill Dees.[39] The SPLC has since successfully used this precedent to force numerous Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups into bankruptcy.[40]

The “lynching”—actually a murder, since it was committed clandestinely by four men—was a serious crime, for which one white man was executed, and another jailed for life [Murder Of Michael Donald, Wikipedia, July 16, 2017]. It was totally unjustified and I won’t defend it. I mention this because there are plenty of Black Lives Matter types who will defend the killers of white cops.

Nevertheless, the SPLC sued the United Klans of America, on behalf the victim’s mother, and got a judgement of $7 million. This, of course, bankrupted the organization, but the mother only got the deed to their clubhouse, a building in downtown Tuscaloosa, worth a total of $52,000.

Why would the SPLC sue an organization with total assets of $52,000 for the sum of $7 million?

Well, (A) because it’s a tactic to invoke the power of the State to suppress an organization dedicated to Wrongthink; and (B) because the SPLC can use it for fundraising. (SPLC FY 2016 Revenues $51.8 million, Endowment $319.3 million)

The mother of Michael Donald got the $52,000., which she used to buy a house—Morris Dees gets the rest of the money, and has a much bigger house.

This is why we frequently refer to the organization as the $PLC. VDARE.com’s Patrick Cleburne has done a series of reports on the SPLC’s remarkable finances. He was somewhat startled by their “Endowment Fund”, writing

Contemplating the “Endowment Fund” reveals a great deal about the motives and outlook of the $PLC`s management.

In brief, they appear obsessed with manipulating money to make money. This is particularly in view of recent changes evident in the 2009 reports. The structure of the portfolio looks like it could belong to a retired Goldman Sachs Partner, or possibly a very aggressive Family Office managing the fortune of an ultra-rich clan. There can be very few legal charities with this extraordinary appearance.

In the New York Times in 1996, an interviewer described the SPLC tactics this way:

Mr. Dees and his colleagues have been credited with devising innovative legal ways to cripple hate groups, including seizing their assets.

[Conversations/Morris Dees;A Son of Alabama Takes On Americans Who Live to Hate By Kevin Sack, NYT, May 12, 1996]

But John Derbyshire described the same phenomenon differently in National Review Online (!) in 2000:

Another instance showed up last week in Idaho, when the leader of the Aryan Nations white-supremacist group was ordered to pay $5.1 million in punitive and compensatory damages to two people who were run off the road and shot at by guards outside the AN compound. The guards, who had mistaken the plaintiffs’ truck backfire for a gunshot, are currently serving stiff prison sentences for the assault (in which nobody was seriously hurt — this is one of those million-dollars-per-bruise judgments). The civil lawsuit was brought on the plaintiff’s behalf by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left activist group, explicitly as a means of destroying Aryan Nations. Now, the AN folk are a bunch of yahoos; but when they break the law, the law can deal with them, as is proved by the incarceration of the guards in this case. To bring a civil action with the expressed aim of bankrupting AN is an act of plain malice, and ought not be countenanced by a court system committed to our ancient liberties.

[ First Thing We DoNational Review Online, September 12, 2000]

That Aryan Nations case, in which the SPLC seized a “compound”—I.E. a 20-acre farm belonging to an elderly man in Idaho—produced this story from CNN:


Dees and SPLC fellow Ellen Bowden outlined the strategy in the February 1995 issue of Trial magazine: “Although the leaders of hate groups often have assets in their possession, the damages we seek in these cases would bankrupt the groups 10 times over,” they wrote.

They wrote that most hate-crime perpetrators are “youths who are only marginally employed and have no resources of their own. Those with assets before the crime are likely to spend them on their defense at their criminal trials. As a result, the victim frequently has no defendant worth suing. …

“The key to finding a defendant who can both pay the debts on a judgment and have an impact on hate crimes overall often lies in locating those whose behind-the-scenes actions might render them vicariously liable for the perpetrator’s actions. Those people are often the leaders of hate groups.”

Attorney Morris Dees pioneer in using ‘damage litigation’ to fight hate groups, By Raju Chebium, CNN., September 8, 2000

Of course, even the leaders of such groups generally don’t own anything but their home—and that’s what the SPLC takes. The Aryan Nations “compound” was no use to anyone, so the SPLC has donated it as a “Peace Park”, which I suppose is just what’s needed in rural Idaho.

Also, the SPLC managed to grab a ranch off a Ranch Rescue guy on the border, suing on behalf of some illegals who said he was unkind to them as they were entering the US illegally across his land [Paramilitary Compound Goes to SPLC Clients ,SPLC, January 27, 2006]. The clients were illegals who got temporary legal status because they were “victims” of a “crime”:

Dees has used this method successfully over the years. In lawsuits similar to the one against Butler, the SPLC has won more than $40 million from nine KKK factions and other hate groups.

In 1990, Dees won a $ 12.5 million judgment against the White Aryan Resistance and its leaders, Tom and John Metzger.

In 1998, he won a $21.5 million judgment in South Carolina against the Christian Knights of the KKK, said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.

Attorney Morris Dees pioneer in using ‘damage litigation’ to fight hate groups, By Raju Chebium, CNN.com, September 8, 2000

Remember, the SPLC didn’t receive any of this money in damages, and neither did the people they represent. They did if because of hate—their hate, not their victims’ hate—and for fundraising. Remember, 2016 revenues $51.8 million, Endowment $319.3 million. (And Mark Potok’s salary for the most recent year was $192,000.)

It’s part of what, in the form of hate crime prosecutions, Nicholas Stix called Washington’s War Against White Working Class Dissent.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Ironically, on the theory the SPLC has pioneered, it is itself liable because of the SPLC-inspired attack on the Family Research Council in 2012, and equally-SPLC inspired shooting of Steve Scalise just the other day.

Recently Nati onal Review cuckservative Never Trumper David French found himself in the crosshairs of the SPLC, because he belongs to a Christian group (the Alliance Defending Freedom) with normal Christian beliefs about sodomy, “transgenderism”, and the Sexual Revolution. In a July 13 piece headlined Media Beware: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Become a Dangerous Joke, French wrote

What’s the solution? The media should stop using it as a source — unless the SPLC again starts focusing on its original valuable mission of exposing and combating racist terrorists and white supremacists. Enough is enough. The SPLC has lost its integrity. Media outlets who use the SPLC to assess Christian speech expose only their own bias and incompetence. There is no justification for its vicious hate. [Emphasis added]

You’ll notice that French, whose weepy cuckservativism on any issue involving race is legendary, thinks that “white supremacists” are the same thing as “racist terrorists” and that both are legitimate targets of the SPLC—but he isn’t.

It was a famous anti-Nazi German who said that oft-repeated line about First they came for the Socialists”, etc. It sounds a little weird to say “First they came for the Nazis”, although I see Google says that there are 61,000 uses of that phrase on the web, some from people making the same point I’m making here, and some from people who go on to say “and I was like “Well, yeah. They’re f—ing Nazis.”

But it doesn’t matter what the target is—as John Derbyshire said, if an organization like the SPLC can go around doing these suits out of “plain malice” then they are a threat to “our ancient liberties.”

So remember, the SPLC was never a “Civil Rights Stalwart.” It was always “a dangerous joke”—even when it was attacking David French-approved targets like us here at VDARE.com.

James Fulford [Email him] is a writer and editor for VDARE.com.


Turkish Media Reveals ‘Sensitive’ Info on US Forces in Syria, Pentagon Outraged

Introduction — July 19, 2017

The US military bases that Sputnik reports are being established in Syria are part of a wider proliferation of such bases. Others have also reportedly been built in Iraq, Jordan, Yemen Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.
The Pentagon is said to be “outraged” by the disclosure of its Syrian bases but that’s only because part of its wider strategy in the Middle East has now been exposed.
The U.S. supported and Saudi funded ISIS (Daesh, ISIL, Islamic State) was simply a ruse. Providing a pretext to establish a network of military bases from which the US could dominate the Middle East.
Although that may have been the Pentagon’s original plan it has now been superseded by recent events. In particular Russia’s intervention in Syria has dramatically altered things.
It appears that the U.S. had been in engaged in a strategy of regional conquest by stealth. Using a network of bases, ostensibly to contain ISIS, it was planning to dominate the region and isolate Iran.
However, that’s all changed but we suspect that U.S. hawks haven’t relinquished their desire for regional dominance. Ed.
Satellites have detected a string of recently built U.S. bases across the Middle East. Apart from Syria they've also been spotted in Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. Click to enlarge

Satellites have detected a string of recently built U.S. bases across the Middle East. Apart from Syria (pictured) they’ve also been spotted in Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. Click to enlarge

Turkish Media Reveals ‘Sensitive’ Info on US Forces in Syria, Pentagon Outraged

Sputnik News — July 19, 2017

According to the media, two air bases in the area of ​Rmeilan of the province of Hasakah have been operating since October 2015. In March 2016, a helicopter base was opened in the Harab Isk village near the city of Kobani, which also serves as a staging post on one of the routes for delivering military aid to the Syrian Kurds.

In addition, three more military points are mentioned in the province of Hasakah. On one of them hosts some 100 US servicemen and the other about 150. These bases are focused on the struggle with Daesh terrorist group. Two more points of deployment of the US troops are located in the town of Manbij, where operations are conducted against the forces of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The outlet also reported about three more posts in the north of the province of Raqqa. On two of these hosts French troops alongside US personnel. The third is used for transferring equipment to Kurdish forces, as well as being a communication center of the US-led coalition forces.

Anadolu noted that the locations of the US forces are often designated as “closed zones” and are classified. Troops help airstrikes and shelling, train local forces and conduct operational planning. Some units also participate in active combat operations.

The bases are equipped with highly maneuverable artillery batteries, rocket launchers, mobile reconnaissance equipment and armored cars, Strykers in particular.

The release of sensitive military information by Turkish media could potentially disrupt US-led operations against Daesh, Defense Department spokesman Eric Pahon told Sputnik.

“The release of sensitive military information exposes Coalition forces to unnecessary risk and has the potential to disrupt ongoing operations to defeat ISIS [Daesh],” Pahon said.

“For operational security reasons, we do not disclose the locations of Coalition forces operating in Syria to defeat ISIS,” Pahon said. “While we cannot independently verify the sources that contributed to this story, we would be very concerned if officials from a NATO ally would purposefully endanger our forces by releasing sensitive information. We have conveyed these concerns to the Government of Turkey.”

Ankara considers the PYD and the YPG to be affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist organization in Turkey. However, the PYD and the YPG, as well as the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have been receiving support from the United States in fighting Daesh terrorists in Syria.

On May 9, the US Defense Department announced that President Donald Trump had approved a plan to arm Kurdish YPG in order to better fight against terrorism in Syria despite objections from Turkey.



Also see:

Satellites Reveal Secret U.S. Bases Emerging in the Desert

The massacre of Mosul: 40,000 feared dead in battle to take back city from Isis

Patrick Cockburn — the Independent July 19, 2017

A picture taken July 9 2017 shows the destruction in Mosul's old city. Click to enlarge

A picture taken July 9, 2017, shows the destruction in Mosul’s old city. Click to enlarge

More than 40,000 civilians were killed in the devastating battle to retake Mosul from Isis, according to intelligence reports revealed exclusively to The Independent – a death toll far higher than previous estimates.

Residents of the besieged city were killed by Iraqi ground forces attempting to force out militants, as well as by air strikes and Isis fighters, according to Kurdish intelligence services.

Hoshyar Zebari, until recently a senior minister in Baghdad, told The Independent that many bodies “are still buried under the rubble”. “The level of human suffering is immense,” he said.

“Kurdish intelligence believes that over 40,000 civilians have been killed as a result of massive firepower used against them, especially by the federal police, air strikes and Isis itself,” Mr Zebari added.

Mr Zebari, a native of Mosul and top Kurdish official who has served as the Iraqi finance minister and prior to that foreign minister, emphasised in an exclusive interview that the unrelenting artillery bombardment by units of the Iraqi federal police, in practice a heavily armed military unit, had caused immense destruction and loss of life in west Mosul.

The figure given by Mr Zebari for the number of civilians killed in the nine-month siege is far higher than those previously reported, but the intelligence service of the Kurdistan Regional Government has a reputation for being extremely accurate and well-informed. Isis prevented any monitoring of casualties while outside groups have largely focused on air strikes rather than artillery and rocket fire as a cause of civilian deaths. Airwars, one such monitoring group, estimated that attacks may have killed 5,805 non-military personnel in the city between 19 February and 19 June.


Mr Zebari accuses the government in Baghdad, of which he was until recently a member, of not doing enough to relieve the suffering. “Sometimes you might think the government is indifferent to what has happened,” he said. He doubts if Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and other minorities, who have lived in and around Mosul for centuries, will be able to reconcile with the Sunni Arab majority whom they blame for killing and raping them. He says some form of federal solution for future governance would be best.

Reading from Kurdish intelligence reports, Mr Zebari says that a high level of corruption among the Iraqi military forces occupying Mosul is undermining security measures to suppress Isis in the aftermath of its defeat. He says that suspect individuals are able to pass through military checkpoints by paying $1,000 (£770) and can bring a vehicle by paying $1,500. He says corruption of this type is particularly rife in the 16th and 9th Iraqi army divisions and the Tribal Volunteers (Hashd al-Ashairi), drawn in part from the Shabak minority in the Nineveh Plain.

The ability of Isis militants to remain free or be released from detention by paying bribes has led to a change in attitude among people in Mosul whom Mr Zebari says “were previously willing to give information about Isis members to the Iraqi security forces”. They are now wary of doing so, because they see members of Isis, whom they had identified and who had been arrested, returning to the streets capable of exacting revenge on those who informed against them. Several anti-Isis people in Mosul have confirmed to The Independent that this is indeed the case and they are frightened of these returnees and Isis “sleeper cells” that continue to exist.

An elderly displaced Iraqi woman carries a baby in Mosul. Click to enlarge

An elderly displaced Iraqi woman carries a baby in Mosul. Click to enlarge

Civilians in Mosul say they do not fault the behaviour towards them of combat units that have borne the brunt of the fighting, such as the Counter-Terrorism Service, but they are concerned about what to expect from less well-disciplined troops. A belief that Isis fighters and officials detained in Mosul are later able to bribe their way free explains why soldiers, most of whom are not complicit in bribery networks, have summarily executed Isis prisoners, sometimes by throwing them off high buildings.

Corruption by the occupying military forces takes different forms, according to Kurdish intelligence information cited by Mr Zebari. Some people are “being charged $100 for removing a body from the rubble and others $500 to reoccupy their house”, where it is still standing. Iraqi army and militia units have always been notorious for exacting fees and protection money from civilians, with trucks moving goods on the roads being a particularly profitable target when they pass through military checkpoints.

Much of the blame for the calamitous level of destruction in west Mosul has been put on air strikes, but it is evident at ground level that a lot of the damage was caused by artillery shells and rockets. This is confirmed by an Amnesty International report issued last week titled At Any Cost: The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq, which points to a greater and more indiscriminate use of its firepower by pro-government forces in the final stages of the attack on east Mosul, starting in January 2017 and continuing over the following six months during the assault on west Mosul. It says that Iraqi government and US-led coalition forces “relied heavily upon explosive weapons with wide area effects such as IRAMs (Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions). With their crude targeting abilities, these weapons wreaked havoc in densely populated west Mosul, where large groups of civilians were trapped in homes or makeshift shelters”. The UN estimated that Mosul had 1.2 million inhabitants at the start of the siege.

In addition, Isis snipers killed great numbers of civilians trying to escape. The militant group was using civilians as “human shields”, though in the event their presence shielded very little. Mr Zebari said that intelligence had even intercepted messages “from Isis fighters to their commanders saying they were tired of killing civilians”.

Mr Zebari says that he is disappointed by the lack of Iraqi government plans to reconstruct Mosul. As finance minister in Baghdad until late last year, he had made provision for $500m in the budget for rebuilding Mosul. He says: “I wanted $500m upfront to encourage other donors, but now the government has withdrawn from the fund and used the money elsewhere. This was not an encouraging sign.”

Even if there is reconstruction, Mr Zebari, who grew up in Mosul and still has a house in the east of the city (though long confiscated, first by Saddam Hussein and later by Isis), laments that “the soul of Mosul has gone and its iconic buildings are destroyed”. He says he cannot imagine Mosul without the Nabi Yunus mosque (the tomb of Jonah) that Isis blew up as a heretical shrine in 2014 and the al-Nuri mosque, with its 12th century leaning minaret, which Isis destroyed in the last stage of the battle to prevent its capture by government forces. In addition, there is “an unimaginable level of human suffering with more than one million people displaced”.

He agrees that the government has won a big victory by destroying Isis as a state structure controlling extensive territory. But he warns that the militant group has shown that it is capable of “adapting themselves to new realities”. He says that the arms and heavy equipment from three Iraqi army divisions that Isis captured when it seized Mosul in June 2014 has never been fully accounted for. He says that there have been reports that much of it was hidden by Isis in tunnels, gorges and valleys in the arid wastelands of western Iraq and eastern Syria. “This is where they came from when they started their attacks,” he says.

Asked if the self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is alive or dead, Mr Zebari said he did not know. But he added that, if Baghdadi was dead, it was strange that no new caliph or Isis leader had been declared since part of the ideology of such movements is that they do not rely on a single human being. Successors had been quickly announced when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in a US air strike in 2006 and Osama bin Laden was shot dead by US special forces in Pakistan in 2011. Moreover, he says that there “has been no sign of a change in the Isis command and control structure”.

Read more from Patrick Cockburn’s series on the Last Days of the Caliphate


Netanyahu accidentally reveals Israel has struck Iran-backed fighters in Syria ‘dozens of times’

Adam Taylor — Washington Post July 19, 2017

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara. Click to enlarge

It has never been a particularly well-kept secret that Israel has conducted clandestine airstrikes in Syrian territory over recent years. But this week, Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to not only admit that these strikes had occurred, but that they had occurred “dozens” of times.

The Israeli prime minister made this admission accidentally — all thanks to a hot mic.

Netanyahu’s remarks came during a meeting with Eastern European leaders in Budapest on Wednesday. Although the meeting occurred behind closed doors, the Israeli leader’s microphone remained on and his voice was transmitted to headphones given to reporters earlier.

Speaking to the leaders of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, Netanyahu said Israel had specifically targeted Iranian weapons shipments to the Lebanese militia Hezbollah in Syria, where Hezbollah is helping bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in the ongoing civil war.

“We blocked the border not only in Egypt but in the Golan Heights,” he said, according to an account from Haaretz newspaper. “We built the wall because there was a problem with ISIS and Iran trying to build a terror front there. I told [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, when we see them transferring weapons to Hezbollah, we will hurt them. We did it dozens of times.” ISIS is an alternative acronym for the Islamic State militant group.

It’s not quite the first time that Israel has acknowledged carrying out military actions in Syria. In late June, Israel announced that it had struck three Syrian army targets in the Golan Heights after errant fire landed in Israeli-controlled territory.

In April, the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported that an Israeli airstrike had hit buildings being used to store weapons for Hezbollah near Damascus International Airport. That evening, Israel said it was forced to deploy its Patriot missile defense system to intercept an incoming projectile from Syria — an apparent attempt at retaliation.

But, generally, Israel has declined to talk about such actions. Despite the country’s long-standing animosity with the Syrian government and a tense border in the Golan Heights, Israel has tried to keep itself out of Syrian affairs for fear of inadvertently aiding extremist groups such as the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

It was only recently, as the Syrian war has dragged on, that the situation has evolved. Israel now seems more concerned about the threat posed by Hezbollah and other Iran-backed forces helping Assad in Syria, who could end up occupying territory near Israel’s border as conflict slows down.

Netanyahu’s comments about Syria came in the midst of a broader conversation about the European Union — an institution that he has deemed “crazy” for the way it deals with Israel. “The European Union is the only association of countries in the world that conditions the relations with Israel — that produces technology in every area — on political conditions. The only ones. Nobody does it,” Netanyahu said, adding that Russia, China and India remained willing to separate their economic ties from politics.

The incident in Budapest is just the latest moment in Netanyahu’s problematic relationship with microphones. In May, his wife, Sara Netanyahu, was overheard making disparaging remarks about the media to President Trump during the latter’s visit to Israel. “The majority of the people of Israel, unlike the media, they love us, so we tell them how you are great and they love you,” she was caught on camera saying.

Years earlier, the Israeli leader was on the receiving end of a hot-mic comment. “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy told President Obama during a Group of 20 meeting in Cannes in 2011 — apparently unaware that his microphone remained on. “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied.



1940 NYC Fair False Flag Terror

henrymakow.com — July 19, 2017

1940 psy-op

Click to enlarge

On July 4, 1940, with throngs of holiday visitors at the New York World’s Fair,  a time bomb planted in the British Pavilion exploded, instantly killing two NYC policemen and badly mauling five others. Was [BSC Chief William] Stephenson behind the blast in an attempt to frame Nazis and their American sympathizers?
Were these officers sacrificed to win American sympathy and draw a reluctant United States into the Second World War?

Did Brits Kill New York City Cops to Get U.S. into WWII?

By Marc Wortman — (abridged by henrymakow.com)

The sequence of events appears to tell a damning story: On June 4, 1940, Nazi Germany shoved the last British troop off the Continent at Dunkirk. Adolf Hitler moved his forces into position for a final cross-Channel invasion and occupation of England.
That same month the new British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, dispatched a shadowy figure, Sir William Stephenson, left, to set up a spy shop for Britain’s MI6 in midtown Manhattan. A hero of World War One and self-made multi-millionaire, Stephenson and Churchill believed that nothing was more important to their nation’s survival than American entry into the war against Hitler.
Then, on July 4, 1940, with throngs of holiday visitors at the New York World’s Fair, a time bomb planted in the British Pavilion exploded, instantly killing two New York City policemen and badly mauling five others. Was Stephenson behind the blast in an attempt to frame Nazis and their American sympathizers? Were these officers sacrificed to win American sympathy and draw a reluctant United States into the Second World War?
This past Independence Day marked the seventy-seventh anniversary of the unsolved crime. “It’s a cold case, but still an open case,” New York City Police Lieutenant Bernard Whalen tells me. He has scrutinized the original bombing case files while researching two books he wrote on the history of the NYPD. “There was a massive investigation at the time. The FBI was involved.” No effort was spared–except to get at those he believes were likeliest to have knowledge of the bomb, the security staff of the British Pavilion itself.
Although the United States was officially neutral, in the midst of a world at war, it was fast becoming a shadowy battlefield. New York teemed with spies, political agitators, and foreign agents, many with violence in mind for their enemies, some desperate enough to go to any length to sway American public opinion. While Whalen won’t pin blame on any single possible culprit, he says after his own studies of the case, “You could draw the conclusion that it was an inside job.” At one point the NYPD suspected as much, but were stopped from getting to the bottom of the case.


Continues …

Trump Risks War With New Iran Sanctions

Paul D. Shinkman — U.S. News.com July 19, 2017

President Donald Trump has elevated the risk of war with Iran following new sanctions announced this week and more that potentially could follow, according to experts in the region.

After reluctantly confirming that Iran has complied with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, limiting its nuclear program, the Trump White House has repeatedly declared this week that Iran has violated the spirit of the agreement, and slapped Iran with new sanctions on Tuesday targeting the hardline Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, and its supporters.

The administration is reportedly considering separate economic sanctions, which Iran has blasted as in violation of the 2015 agreement brokered by the Obama administration which would allow foreign countries to trade with Tehran provided it complies with the deal.

Experts fear that Trump’s insistence on punishing Iran as he promised repeatedly on the campaign trail only brings the U.S. closer to conflict in an already violent part of the world.

“If this path is continued down, we risk having a scenario where Iran ignites its nuclear weapons program … and once again risks putting the U.S. and Iran at war,” says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization that seeks to improve relations between the two countries. “That’s what we’re gambling with here. It would be a very different conversation if the Iranians were in violation, if the Iranians were cheating.”

“This only leaves the impression Trump is seeking confrontation regardless of what Iran does or doesn’t do.”

American military and intelligence officials routinely cite Iran as one of the most malicious and dangerous actors in Middle East conflicts. The U.S. designated it a state sponsor of terror in 1984 and has since documented its support for terrorist groups throughout the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

The JCPOA was designed largely to restrict Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, not to undercut its terrorism activities – those efforts remained intact. Trump as a candidate routinely pledged to tear the the agreement that he considered “the worst deal ever negotiated.”

Following reports Trump intends to impose new sanctions, top Iranian leaders threatened U.S. troops if the administration follows through, particularly if it targets the IRGC or other elite units loyal to Tehran, like the zealous Quds Force.

“Putting the IRGC in one single class with the terrorist groups and imposing similar sanctions against the IRGC poses a major risk to the U.S., its bases and forces deployed in the region,” Maj. Gen. Mohammed Hossein Baqueri, the chief of staff for Iran’s armed forces, said on Monday, according to Iranian state news.

American officials have acknowledged these threats, particularly as thousands of U.S. forces continue to operate in Iraq in support of the central government’s war against the Islamic State group and affiliated terrorist groups.

“We will have to posture ourselves to be ready for that,” Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Tuesday, “but I don’t think we should take that threat and keep it from taking action against the Quds Force.”

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group did not respond to requests for comment in time for this report regarding whether American forces had observed any uptick in activity by Iranian troops in Iraq or Iranian-backed militias, or if they had had been directly targeted. U.S. warplanes attacked believed Iranian-backed militia near the Syrian town of At Tanf at the Iraqi border in May when they approached a U.S. special operations forces’ camp.

Sanctions the Trump administration has imposed and is considering imposing are also limited because they appear strictly punitive, not aligned with a public strategy to contain Iran or to bolster diplomatic initiatives to undercut its nefarious activities.

“The president is painting himself into a corner by slapping the Iranians around rhetorically,” says Michael Desch, a former congressional and State Department official, now a professor at the University of Notre Dame.

The New York Times reported that Trump’s most senior top military officials – Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, both open critics of Iran’s activities in the region – were the most staunch opponents of Trump’s original decision to declare that Iran was in violation of the JCPOA, indicating that the White House likely would not follow through on military action against Iran.

The sanctions, Desch says, allows the White House to say it accomplished something without actually changing much.

“This is a bit of Kabuki theater, both because the president is sort of a liverish guy, the Iranians have not endeared themselves to him, but also because slapping the Iranians around rhetorically is a no-lose proposition in American politics. Nobody loves the Iranians,” he says. “Given what America’s interests are, and particularly given that Iran hawks like Mattis and McMaster were on the other side of the recertification issue, that leads me to think that cooler heads will prevail.”



ILLUMINATI LEADERS? Now Angela Merkel makes ‘that sign’ with Royals Kate and Wills

Jon Austin — The Daily Express July 19, 2017


ILLUMINATI conspiracy theorists have been left in disbelief after Angela Merkel made her “secret hand sign” in the presence of royalty.

The German chancellor was snapped making the gesture as she met Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, at chancellery in Berlin, during their official visit to Germany and Poland.

The “diamond” hand gesture, Mrs Merkel, is often seen making, is described by conspiracy theorists as a secret code to other members of the alleged Illuminati.

It is alleged by believers of the Illuminati that it is a secret organisation made up of world government and business leaders and celebrities, which actually run all world governments from behind the scenes, and intend introducing a New World Order which will see just one government running the entire world.

The conspiracy varies, but, at its most extreme, the Illuminati is allegedly a Satanic group which uses hand signals to identify members to each other.

One version supported by ex-BBC Grandstand presenter turned conspiracy theorist, David Icke, even claims that members of the world’s royal families, such as Kate and Wills, are actually reptilian aliens disguised as humans.

The sight of Mrs Merkel making the sign before the royal couple will convince believers of this far-fetched theory there is something in it.

The German chancellor is known for making her infamous “diamond” hand sign, which has been branded of masonic-style and a symbol of the alleged Illuminati by conspiracy theorists.

However, the royal couple did not return the gesture.

Mrs Merkel’s use of the sign often attracts attention and she was last seen doing it at the G20 talks earlier this month.

That was seen as of particular significance as conspiracy theorists believe the summit is an Illuminati-run show of strength and part of the plan to introduce a world army and global government known as the New World Order.

The G20 Summit is identified on several conspiracy theory websites as a key Illuminati meeting, alongside the World Economic Forum and the secretive Bilderberg Meeting.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Others photographed using the hand sign in the rhombus shape have included British Prime Minister Theresa May and European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker.

The sign is often referred to as a Merkel Diamond, due to her frequent use of it.

Mrs May was snapped imitating the ‘Merkel diamond’ while giving a speech outside the Palace of Westminster on July 11 last year.

Continues …

Merkel discretely displays the hand-sign at 0:26.

Haaretz editor declares war on Zionism

David Rosenberg — Israel National News July 18, 2017

Haaretz editor declares war on zionism

An editor of the left-wing Haaretz daily chastised French President Emmanuel Macron for calling anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism, praising anti-Zionism as “resistance” against racism and apartheid.

Asaf Ronel, the world news editor for Haaretz, criticized Macron’s recent statement that anti-Zionism was a ‘reinvention’ of anti-Semitism.

“We will never surrender to the messages of hate; we will not surrender to anti-Zionism because it is a reinvention of anti-Semitism,” said Macron on Sunday.

Responding to Macron’s comments via Twitter, Ronel rejected the comparison, and denounced Zionism as being ‘inherently racist’. Ronel also praised anti-Zionism for ‘resisting’ the evils of modern Zionism.

“Dear president Emmanuel Macron, you are wrong – anti-Zionism is resisting the racism inherent in today’s Zionism. It’s not antisemitism.”

In a back and forth with French-Israeli foreign policy expert Emmanuel Navon, Ronel later accused Zionism of apartheid.

Do you know “what is the difference btwn blaming Zionism 4 oppression&apartheid & believing the protocols of the elders of Zion,” Ronel asked rhetorically, later answering his own question by writing that as opposed to the mythical Protocols, Zionist ‘apartheid’ was “reality”.

But unlike many radical left-wing critics of Israel, Ronel did not cite Israel’s 1967 liberation of Judea and Samaria as an example of the alleged ‘apartheid’, instead denouncing the very establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.

“& the apartheid refers to 48, not 67.”

On Monday, Ronel took to Twitter again to complain about criticism of his comments after Honest Reporting documented his aforementioned tweets.

“Pro-Israel activists attack my newspaper for something I wrote. Explains a lot about their understanding of free media & freedom of speech.”

Ronel raised the issue again with a tweet Tuesday morning, attacking the “conflating” of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, while accusing Israel of “whitewashing Zionist anti-Semites”.

“Conflating antiSemitism w antiZionism only hurts the fight against antiSemitism. Also true for Israel’s whitewashing of Zionist anti-Semites.”



Behold, A Pale Horse: Its Rider Is Named Neocon And Hell Follows Him

Paul Craig Roberts — paulcraigroberts.org July 18, 2017


Glenn Greenwald finds the implications of the reunion of the Democratic Party with the neoconservatives to be “profound and long-term.” Essentially, it means more expensive wars for Americans who lack health care and pensions, leading to direct military confrontation between the US and Russia and China, which will mean the end of the world. As the Rubio, McCain, Lindsey Graham wing of the Republican Party is also united with the neoconservatives, there is no existing political force, excepting the Bernie Sanders part of the Democratic Party, to counter the neoconservative war agenda.

As Greenwald writes: “Neocons have done far more damage to the U.S., and the world, than any other single group — by a good margin. They were the architects of the invasion of Iraq and the lies that accompanied it, the worldwide torture regime instituted after 9/11, and the general political climate that equated dissent with treason.

“With the full-scale discrediting and collapse of the Bush presidency, these war-loving neocons found themselves marginalized, without any constituency in either party. They were radioactive, confined to speaking at extremist conferences and working with fringe organizations.

“All of that has changed, thanks to the eagerness of Democrats to embrace them, form alliances with them, and thus rehabilitate their reputations and resurrect their power and influence. That leading Democratic Party foreign policy officials are willing to form new Beltway advocacy groups in collaboration with Bill Kristol, Mike Rogers, and Mike Chertoff, join arms with those who caused the invasion of Iraq and tried to launch a bombing campaign against Tehran, has repercussions that will easily survive the Trump presidency.

“Perhaps the most notable fact about the current posture of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is that one of their favorite, most beloved, and most cited pundits is the same neocon who wrote George W. Bush’s oppressive, bullying and deceitful speeches in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq and the war on terror, and who has churned out some of the most hateful, inflammatory rhetoric over the last decade about Palestinians, immigrants, and Muslims. That Bush propagandist, David Frum, is regularly feted on MSNBC’s liberal programs, has been hired by The Atlantic (where he writes warnings about authoritarianism even though he’s only qualified to write manuals for its implementation), and is treated like a wise and honored statesman by leading Democratic Party organs.”

Read Greenwald’s article here: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-continue-to-rehabilitate-and-unify-with-bush-era-neocons/


Advaita Junkies, A Curse in Miracles and It Came from Beneath the Valley of the Waking Dead

Smoking Mirrors — July 19, 2017

Dog Poet Transmitting…….
Thank god Justice is being done; backwards and forwards and with some ropes and pulleys. Here is what passes for training wheels in Justice Discipline School. There really is quite a selection. The problem with Justice is that it doesn’t want to behave and so it must be made to behave. Justice is all screwed up in the head and has these archaic beliefs about fair play. Here is justice as we used to see her and here she is these days. I never used to understand why Justice was blindfolded. Now I figure it is so she can’t identify who is sexually assaulting her.
There’s a lot of pushback these days about running roughshod over the sexual mores of the majority. You can still get the real story from Russia Today. I posted this article purely because of the comments that follow. You can see where most of the world is at. It’s an interesting dichotomy, what is taking place in the world. A huge majority of the public does not approve of what has been happening. The ones dictating the perception of how things look in the world are the same people behind this epidemic. They are behind pretty much anything that most of us do not like or approve of.
What is surprising is not that it is happening. What is surprising is not that we don’t approve of or like it. What is surprising is that we see it, we acknowledge that its bullshit …and then we swallow it without chewing; fletcherizing is one of the keys to good health. Have you ever wondered why there are so many zombie movies and why a redundant, murderously retarded compilation of the same limping retards we have seen since “Night of the Living Dead”, called “The Walking Dead” is so popular? It’s popular because ‘they’ tell you it is popular; just like they tell you the Kardashians are entertaining. That entire family is a fabrication and every plot development has been constructed ahead of time. This same thing is taking place at every level of what they package and then microwave and then serve to you, just like the walking dead, because from the sun-drenched shores of Walmart to the star studded nights of culinary ecstasies at the Golden Corral, it’s all designer debris and haute (gag) cuisine, even when it is you, being delivered on a platter to the walking dead. I’ve been told that the walking dead eat there on a regular basis. I have never been. I see the signs on the highway, announcing the exits where these establishments can be found. They are not usually future exits. They aren’t exits at all. They are cul de sacs. They are sweeping, circling, looping repetitions of dead seagulls held up by thermals or modern day technology… or aliens? Yeah… maybe aliens.
Look, my friends… I’ve been a little under the water lately. I’ve been trying to dog paddle in a riptide. Those of who have experienced this, usually unwillingly know that it is not unlike trying to body surf in a washing machine. Of course there is a big difference between the wash and spin cycles. You would not need to experience this to know it.
So … and I seem never to remember how it started or ended. One day I am on the other side of it and now it’s receding, thank God. It’s a tough line of work. I’m not sure it’s supposed to be like this generally but then I hear that it often is. I don’t know what the percentages are of those who have more of a cruise experience. Maybe what it is is, ‘no pain, no gain.’ It could be that this is just one of those occasional reminders of things that were and places we have been; a reminder of the costs that were paid to get beyond the need to continue suffering. Maybe it’s something like a cross between an echo and a memory, if that makes any sense.
I’ve been trying to understand how it is that enough of the world cooperates in regular catastrophe, like the sinking of Atlantis, if that’s what happened, the flood that Noah allegedly survived; whatever Armageddons have come and gone outside the reach of recorded history. We’re referring to them as regular events, even though there is a considerable distance between them. In the Hindu tradition it is said that civilization routinely gets ended at intervals and that the universe moves into a state of quiescence. This goes on for a long time, as do the periods of animated life, in between the periods of sleep. Apparently it’s all programmed and life is some combination of a dream and a joke and other things I’ve yet to identify but it all combines as some kind of gestalt.
Certain periods are collectively blissful and others are quite the opposite. It seems as if those who are fortunate, for whatever the reason may be, have managed to migrate to better regions during the times that this plane is in one of those less pleasant conditions; like now.
From what I can see, having studied the trends that came and went during my brief residence, it appears that humanity is being herded, very much like livestock but… not toward a location as much as toward a state of being and there is more than one direction being taken. It looks like some mass of humanity is being herded into a place of collective insanity, by increments so that one can’t tell what they are progressing into until the insanity has taken over.
There are obvious relationships than can be identified and the zodiac is a key. For instance we are at the entry way of the Aquarian Age and this is where all the gender fluid /gender confusion is coming from and all the people who are reacting materially to spiritual forces and so they are acting out sexually when they should be responding spiritually and …instead of walking through the right portals when they appear… they are in the throes of a devolutionary force acting out in the directions set by a reversed Kundalini. This is one of the primary themes of the insanity that is moving toward a tragic end and it is being manipulated by a particular group of Satanists, under the guidance and orders of the arch-demons who serve the core intelligence of the darkness. They consider themselves as a kind of liberated entrepreneur but they are completely possessed while remaining unaware of it.
I do not know if certain souls are doomed out of the long ago. I do not know how much of this is programmed as well. I do not think it would matter to me. I would continue to strive. I have had people tell me there is no difference between the light and darkness. These are the Advaita Junkies. I’m not at war with those who want to drink the Kool Aid. It’s something the New Age Operators have latched on to along with the latest evolutions of MKUltra and Tavistock. This is all programming too. I’ve made my choice and I am being programmed as well, by the ineffable.
What I do think is that I know the difference between those who talk this game but are nowhere near a deep and abiding awareness of it. If you are it, then you live it and you don’t have to say much and you don’t argue with people about it. It radiates off of you with an undeniable presence.
In reverse——————————————-
It’s like the people who push “A Curse of Miracles” on me and never bothered to look into who the authors were or what happened to them or… especially, most especially, the backgrounds they came out of. The thing I notice most prominently about every major expression of the New Age… every variation on the theme, each new packaged, instant pop up, Pop Tart (‘it’s the same thing, only different.’) is some version of us telling ourselves we are God. I am not in dispute with this either because there is a particular way that this happens to be true but NOT in the way these people are promoting it. Surely God is indwelling. Surely we are (can be) the direct extension of the ineffable. However, God can only be experienced in humility and through surrender, not by gliding around through life in a white outfit and imagining and trying to act like you are The Be All and End All.
Marianne Williamson (an old article) was preaching A Curse of Miracles on Oprah Radio by way of the false Sirius network (grin). I don’t know if she’s still doing it. I know she ran for office in one of the richest Jewish enclaves and didn’t win. Somehow when you are God there are no limits on your behavior or how you project yourself. One thing I do know is, if it is real and you are real then character defines you; not flash and hype and lots of word dancing around the rich and their money.
I know there are people completely convinced about certain means and methods and I am not here to argue with them. Time will tell and we shall see, of that I am certain. I can only hope and pray that a sweeping awakening will come and that it will come in time for each of us who are struggling after the light to be discovered by it. I know that everyone who truly seeks after the light within will be ‘found by it.” It will not come to those who parade around as if it were already in their possession.
End Transmission…….
Thanks for sticking with me people. It’s not easy being me sometimes and I suppose the same is true for you as well. It’s better today and will be much better tomorrow, God willing



Washington Post Worries About “Islamophobia” After Somali Cop Kills White Woman

Paul Joseph Watson — Infowars July 18, 2017

After a Somali police officer in Minneapolis shot dead 40-year-old Australian Justine Damond in what appears to be a senseless murder, the Washington Post’s primary concern was to fret about “Islamophobia” and a “backlash” against the Somali community.

Yoga teacher Damond was gunned down by Somali-American police officer Mohamed Noor after she called the police to report a crime on Saturday night near her upscale Minneapolis home.

Details about the shooting are scarce because both officers involved in the incident claim they did not have their body cameras recording at the time.

Damond, who was set to marry her American fiance Don Damond next month, was in her pajamas talking to Noor’s colleague on the driver side of the police vehicle before Noor leaned over from the passenger side and shot Damond multiple times.

Noor was already under investigation for ‘violently’ forcing a woman to hospital and two other complaints had been made about him. He was previously celebrated as a poster child of multiculturalism after becoming the first Somali to join the Minnesota police force.

In an article entitled After Minneapolis officer in police shooting is named, Somali community braces for backlash, the Washington Post’s Katie Mettler prevaricates on issues of “Islamophobia and innuendo about terrorism” that the Somali community will face as a result of the shooting.

“Already, hateful posts criticizing Islam and sharia law are filling social media in response to the police shooting. Several far-right blogs featured sensational headlines that blamed the officer’s ethnicity for the deadly use of force,” writes Mettler.

Despite being under numerous different investigations, the Post pushes the narrative that Noor was a “role model” for multiculturalism and Muslim integration.

The tone of the piece is similar to those we see after every single terror attack in Europe, where worries about hurt feelings are placed above concerns about people literally being blown up by Islamic terrorists.

The primary concern here should be to immediately suspend Noor while an investigation into the shooting takes place, not mean tweets and criticism of Islam on social media.

The very fact that the Washington Post would choose to highlight this front and center illustrates how hysteria over political correctness is clouding rationality and preventing society from tackling the root causes of violence.


UK Column News July 17, 2017

UK Column — July 17, 2017

Mao Zedong Murdered 70 Million Chinese

henrymakow.com — July 18, 2017

Communism is a satanic ruse, a troubling thought when we consider that it is indirectly sponsored by the central banking cartel, the people creating our currency and credit.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was founded as an eastern branch of Soviet Communism, carrying out the imperialism of the Russian Red Army. The CCP constitution passed by the First Congress of the CCP was formulated by the Comintern. 
Edgar Snow introduced Mao and Zhou En lai to American readers in 1937 in his book, Red Star Over China, shortly after the Chinese Red Army’s rout by Chiang Kai-shek in 1934. “The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the Chinese Communists have been under the close guidance, if not positive direction, of the Communist International, which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the Russian Communist Party. “

Mao: the Ugly Reality Behind an Icon

By Marjorie Kehe — (henrymakow.com)  

MaoTheUnknownStoryIt is hard to single out the most chilling aspect of Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (2005). To dive into this hefty biography of China’s “great Helmsman” is to feel alternately shocked, angry, and, finally, just plain sick at heart.
The story of man’s inhumanity to man is, of course, not new and much about Mao’s life is already familiar to readers.
But the level of detail offered by this exhaustively researched book (the labor of more than a decade for novelist Jung Chang and her husband Jon Halliday) creates a compelling portrait of Mao that will still shock many, as will a handful of revelations.
The whole of the former chairman’s life is covered in this book, beginning with his birth to a peasant family in 1893 (in hills so remote that when the Chinese emperor died in 1908, it took two years for news of his death to arrive there) up through his frustrated and self-pitying final days in 1976.
In between, the authors offer a thorough analysis of Mao’s rise to power, his actual achievements (or lack thereof) as a military man, the relentlessness (and cruelty) with which he strove to push China to world domination, and the endless and ruthless scheming he resorted to in order to retain power.
Chang and Halliday are able to offer a remarkable level of detail throughout their narrative, due to the impressive breadth and depth of the primary sources they tapped. (A short list includes former US Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, present and former communist dignitaries and officials throughout the world, one of Mao’s official photographers, one of his translators, one of his nurses, a woman who washed his underwear, and the Dalai Lama.)
The result is a portrait that may rattle even those who long ago shed any vestige of reverence for Mao. This man who was a hero to many and a god to some comes across as lazy, callous, self-indulgent, clever rather than wise, and as careless of his own children as he was of the Chinese people.
Mao’s seeming indifference to the suffering of others is perhaps the hardest aspect to grasp, although Chang and Halliday do a good job of offering a context for his lack of feeling.
Views he expressed at the age of 24, they say, “remained at the core of Mao’s thinking throughout his life,” and, even as a young man, Mao’s egotism was shocking.
Was this because he was coddled by a gentle mother and then angered by the demands of his father? The authors don’t try to blame Mao’s crimes on his childhood.
But they do offer us his youthful words, statements like, “People like me have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.”
Mao must have firmly believed this. There is little else that could explain his tranquility in the face of the suffering triggered by his policies. Jung and Halliday estimate that he caused the deaths of 70 million Chinese.
“There are 2.7 billion people in the world,” he once calculated at a world summit with other Communist leaders. “One-third could be lost; or a little more, it could be half … I say that, taking the extreme situation, half dies, half lives, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.”
Yet despite his willingness to sacrifice others, Mao is not portrayed as a particularly devout believer. Chang and Halliday paint him as a pragmatist who simply found himself in the right place at the right time.



Continues …

Billions of dollars’ worth of arms against Syria

Thierry Meyssan — Voltairenet.org July 18, 2017

Over the last seven years, several billion dollars’ worth of armament has been illegally introduced into Syria – a fact which in itself is enough to disprove the myth according to which this war is a democratic revolution. Numerous documents attest to the fact that the traffic was organised by General David Petraeus, first of all in public, via the CIA, of which he was the director, then privately, via the financial company KKR with the aid of certain senior civil servants. Thus the conflict, which was initially an imperialist operation by the United States and the United Kingdom, became a private capitalist operation, while in Washington, the authority of the White House was challenged by the deep state. New elements now show the secret rôle of Azerbaïdjan in the evolution of the war.

How were the jihadists of Aleppo supplied with Bulgarian weapons?

During the liberation of Aleppo and the capture of the Saudi military staff who were on site, Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva noted the presence of weapons from her country in nine warehouses abandoned by the jihadists. She carefully noted the information on the boxes, and once she returned home, she investigated the way in which the weapons had been delivered to Syria.

Since 2009 – with the short exception of the period between March 2013 to November 2014 – Bulgaria has been governed by Boïko Borissov, a highly colourful character from one of Europe’s main criminal organisations, the SIC. Let’s remember that Bulgaria is a member of both NATO and the European Union, and that neither of these two organisations offered the slightest criticism concerning the accession to power of a Mafia lord who had been identified as such a long time previously by the international police services.

It is therefore clearly at the risk of their lives that Dilyana Gaytandzhieva uncovered the organisation, and the editors of the Sofia daily, Trud, published her article [1]. While Bulgaria was one of the main arms exporters to Syria, it received help from Azerbaïdjan.

The gigantic CIA arms traffic against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and India

Since the beginning of the Arab Springs, a gigantic arms traffic was organised by the CIA and the Pentagon in violation of a number of resolutions by the UNO Security Council. All the operations that we will be mentioning here are illegal under international law, including those organised publicly by the Pentagon.

As far as arms traffic is concerned, even when individuals or private companies are used as shields, it is impossible to export sensitive equipment without the authorisation of the governments concerned.

All the weapons we will be mentioning, apart from the electronic intelligence systems, are ’Soviet-type’. By definition, even if we pretend that the armies supplied with NATO-type weapons are indeed the final recipients, this is an impossibility. These armies serve only to cover the traffic.

We already knew that the CIA had contacted the SIC, and that Boïko Borissov had been called upon to manufacture an emergency quantity of Captagon destined for the jihadists, first in Libya, then in Syria. Since Maria Petkova’s investigation, which was published in the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), we knew that between 2011 and 2014, the CIA and the SOCOM (Pentagon Special Operations Command) had bought 500 million dollars’ worth of weapons from Bulgaria on behalf of the jihadists. Then, later, we learned that other weapons were paid for by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and transported by Saudi Arabian Cargo and Etihad Cargo [2].

According to Krešimir Žabec, of the Zagreb daily Jutarnji list, at the end of 2012, Croatia delivered 230 tonnes of weapons to the Syrian jihadists for a value of 6,5 million dollars. The transfer to Turkey was handled by three Ilyushins from Jordan International Air Cargo, and the weapons were then parachuted by the Qatai Army [3]. According to Eric Schmitt of the New York Times, the whole system had been created by General David Petraeus, director of the CIA [4].

In 2012, when Hezbollah attempted to unearth the CIA / SOCOM network, an attack was perpetrated against a number of Israëli tourists at Burgas airport, the nerve centre of the traffic. Ignoring the Bulgarian police enquiry and the report of the medical examiner, the Borissov government blamed the crime on Hezbollah, and the European Union labelled the Lebanese Resistance as a « terrorist organisation » (sic). We had to wait for the provisional fall of Borissov before the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kristian Vigenine, pointed out that this accusation is without foundation.

According to a source close to the PKK, in May and June 2014, the Turkish secret services chartered special trains to deliver Ukranian weapons to Rakka – which was then called the Islamic Emirate in Iraq and Syria, and is now known as Daesh. The weapons were paid for by Saudi Arabia, as were more than a thousand Hilux vehicles (double cabin pick-ups) specially altered to resist desert conditions. According to a Belgian source, the purchase of the vehicles had been negotiated with the Japanese firm Toyota by the Saudi company Abdul Latif Jameel.

According to Andrey Fomin of the Oriental Review, Qatar, which did not want to be left out, bought the most recent version of the Air Missile Defense Complex “Pechora-2D” from the Ukranian state company UkrOboronProm, for the jihadists. The delivery was made by the Cypriot company Blessway Ltd [5].

According to Jeremy Binnie and Neil Gibson of the professional arms magazine Jane’s, the US Navy Military Sealift Command launched two tenders in 2015 for the transport of arms from the Romanian port of Constanta to the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The contract was won by Transatlantic Lines [6]. It was implemented on 12 February 2016, just after the signature of the cease-fire by Washington, in violation of its engagement.

According to Pierre Balanian of Asia News, this system was extended in March 2017 with the opening of a regular maritime line by the US company Liberty Global Logistics, linking Livorno (Italy) / Aqaba (Jordan) and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) [7]. According to geographer Manlio Dinucci, it was mainly used to deliver tanks to Syria and Yemen [8].

According to Turkish journalists Yörük Işık and Alper Beler, the last contracts of the Obama era were implemented by Orbital ATK, who organised, via Chemring and Danish H. Folmer & Co, a regular line between Burgas (Bulgaria) and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia). For the first time, we are now talking not only about weapons produced by Vazovski Machine Building Factory (VMZ) (Bulgaria), but also by Tatra Defense Industrial Ltd. (Czech Republic) [9].

Many other operations took place in secret, as demonstrated by the affairs of the cargo Lutfallah II, inspected by the Lebanese Navy on 27 April 2012, or the Togolese cargo the Trader, inspected by Greece on 1 May 2016.

The total of these operations represent hundreds of tonnes of weapons and ammunition, perhaps even thousands, mainly paid for by the absolute monarchies of the Gulf, allegedly to support a « democratic revolution ». In reality, these petro-dictatorships only intervened to dispense the Obama administration with having to explain themselves to the US Congress (Operation Timber Sycamore) and cement their belief that the moon is made of green cheese [10]. All of this traffic was under the personal control of General David Petraeus, first of all via the CIA, of which he was the director, then via the financial investment company KKR, for which he worked thereafter. He benefited from the assistance of senior civil servants, sometimes under the presidency of Barack Obama, and then – massively – under that of Donald Trump.


The secret rôle – until now – of Azerbaïdjan

According to Sibel Edmonds – ex-FBI agent and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition – Azerbaïdjan, under President Heydar Aliyev, from 1997 to 2001 hosted in Bakou the number 2 of Al-Qaïda, Ayman el-Zawahiri. This was done at the request of the CIA. Although officially wanted by the FBI, the man who was then the number 2 of the international jihadist network travelled regularly in NATO planes to Afghanistan, Albania, Egypt and Turkey. He also received frequent visits from Prince Bandar ben Sultan of Saudi Arabia [11].

To its security relations with Washington and Riyadh, Azerbaïdjan – whose population is nonetheless mainly Chiite – adds Sunni Ankara, which supports it in its conflict with Armenia concerning the secession of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh).

Heydar Aliyev died in the United States in 2003, and was succeeded by his son Ilham Aliyev. The USA-Azerbaïdjan Chamber of Commerce thus moved into Washington’s backyard, with, alongside President Aliyev, stood Richard Armitage, James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Brent Scowcroft and John Sununu.

According to Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, in 2015, Minister for Transport Ziya Mammadov placed the state company Silk Way Airlines at the disposition of the CIA , at the expense of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, minimally scrupulous Elmar Mammadyarov, sent requests for official recognition of « diplomatic flights » to several of his embassies, which protected the flights from being searchcd under the Vienna Convention. In less than three years, more than 350 flights benefited from this extraordinary privilege.

Although, according to the international treaties, neither civil nor diplomatic flights are authorised to carry military material, requests for recognition as « diplomatic flights » require the explicit detailing of the cargo transported. However, at the request of the US State Department, at least Afghanistan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bulgaria, Congo, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Israël, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Turkey and United Kingdom closed their eyes to this violation of international law, just as they had ignored the CIA flights to and from their secret prisons.

In less than three years, Silk Way Airlines transported at least one billion dollars’ worth of armament.

One thing leading to another, journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva uncovered a vast system which also supplied the jihadists not only in Iraq and Syria, but also in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Congo – also paid for by the Saudis and the Emiratis. Some of the arms delivered in Arabia were redirected to South Africa.

The arms transported to Afghanistan were delivered to the Talibans, under the control of the US, which is pretending to fight them. Those delivered to Pakistan were probably destined to commit Islamist attacks in India. We do not know who were the final recipients of the arms delivered to the Republican Guard of President Sassou N’Guesso in the Congo, or those delivered to South Africa under President Jacob Zuma.

The main arms dealers were the US firms Chemring (already mentioned), Culmen International, Orbital ATK (also mentioned) and Purple Shovel.

Apart from the Soviet-type arms produced by Bulgaria, Azerbaïdjan, under the responsibility of Minister of the Defence Industry Yavar Jamalov, bought stocks in Serbia, the Czech Repûblic and also in other states, declaring each time that Azerbaïdjan was the final recipient of the merchandise. Concerning the electronic intelligence material, Israël placed at their disposition the firm Elbit Systems, which pretended to be the final recipient, since Azerbaïdjan does not have the right to buy this type of equipment. These exceptions attest to the fact that the Azerbaïdjani system, although requested by the United States and Saudi Arabia, was controlled from start to finish from Tel-Aviv.

The Hebrew state, which pretended to be neutral during the whole of the Syrian conflict, nonetheless bombed the Syrian Arab Army on many occasions. Each time Tel-Aviv recognised the facts, it pretended that it had destroyed the arms destined for the Lebanese Hezbollah. In reality, all these operations, with perhaps a single exception, were coordinated with the jihadists. So today we learn that Tel-Aviv supervised the deliveries of arms to these same jihadists, so that although Israël limited itself to the use of its air force to support them, it did in fact play a central rôle in the war.

According to the international conventions, the falsification of certificates of final delivery, and the supply of weapons to mercenary groups who overthrow legitimate governments, or destroy recognised states, are considered to be international crimes.

Operation Timber Sycamore, in its various aspects, is the most important criminal case of arms trafficking in history. In the updated parts, it involves at least 17 states and represents several tens of thousands of tons of weapons.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

[1] “350 diplomatic flights carry weapons for terrorists”, Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, Trud, July 2, 2017.

[2] “War Gains : Bulgarian Arms Add Fuel to Middle East Conflicts”, Maria Petkova, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, December 21, 2015.

[3] “TAJNA LETOVA JORDANSKIH AVIONA S PLESA Sirijski pobunjenici dobivaju oružje preko Zagreba!”, Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 23 veljača 2013. «TRANSFER HRVATSKOG ORUŽJA POBUNJENICIMA U SIRIJI Sve je dogovoreno prošlog ljeta u Washingtonu!», Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 26 veljača 2013. “VIDEO: JUTARNJI OTKRIVA U 4 mjeseca za Siriju sa zagrebačkog aerodroma Pleso otišlo 75 aviona sa 3000 tona oružja!”, Krešimir Žabec, Jutarnji list, 7 ožujak 2013. “PUT KROZ ASADOVU SIRIJU Nevjerojatna priča o državi sravnjenoj sa zemljom i njezinim uništenim ljudima: ’Živote su nam ukrali, snove ubili…’”, Antonija Handabaka, Jutarnji list, 9 ožujak 2013.

[4] “In Shift, Saudis Are Said to Arm Rebels in Syria” and “Airlift To Rebels In Syria Expands With C.I.A.’S Help”, C. J. Chivers & Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 26 and March 25, 2013.

[5] “Qatar and Ukraine come to deliver Pechora-2D to ISIS”, by Andrey Fomin, Oriental Review (Russia), Voltaire Network, 22 November 2015.

[6] “US arms shipment to Syrian rebels detailed”, Jeremy Binnie & Neil Gibson, Jane’s, April 7th, 2016.

[7] “Jordan strengthens military presence on border with Syria and Iraq”, Pierre Balanian, AsiaNews, April 11, 2017.

[8] “From Camp Darby US weapons for the war in Syria and Yemen”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 18 April 2017.

[9] “The Pentagon is following through on arms agreements that Obama made with Jihadists”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 30 May 2017.

[10] “U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels”, Mark Mazzetti & Matt Apuzzojan, The New York Times, January 23, 2016.

[11] Classified Woman. The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir et The Lone Gladio, Sibel Edmonds.



Certify and punish: U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran after saying Tehran was complying with nuclear deal

Tracy Wilkinson — Los Angeles Times July 18, 2017

A day after declaring that Iran was obeying international restrictions on its nuclear program, the Trump administration went in the opposite direction and slapped new sanctions on the Tehran government for separate alleged transgressions.

The Treasury Department on Tuesday blacklisted 18 individuals and entities for supporting Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guards Corps, accusing them of trying to build ballistic missiles and steal U.S. computer software and of harassing U.S. naval vessels.

The sanctions mean it is illegal for American citizens or companies to do business with those on the list, and any assets they have in the U.S. can be seized.

The back-to-back actions reflect the policy crosscurrents for President Trump in trying to reconcile his campaign promises with the realities of foreign policy governance.

As a candidate, he vowed to “rip up” the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, which was brokered by the United States with five other countries and the European Union. It required the Islamic Republic to get rid of most of its nuclear material and to refrain from nuclear weapons production for a decade.

The United Nations has repeatedly said Iran is complying.

But the administration has sought a way to thread the needle between not walking away from the deal — which would have potentially disastrous international consequences — and holding Iran accountable for other behaviors, such as its support for militant groups in Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran, along with Russia, also backs Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the U.S. accuses of numerous atrocities against his citizenry.

“The United States remains deeply concerned about Iran’s malign activities across the Middle East, which undermine regional stability, security and prosperity,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Tuesday.

The nuclear agreement’s terms are limited to the nuclear weaponry issue. It does not address Iran’s ballistic missile program or any other aspects of its military activities or human rights record. Diplomats said at the time it would have been impossible to reach the nuclear agreement if the other issues were mixed in.

At a midnight deadline Monday, the Trump administration certified that Iran was complying with the nuclear deal. By law, the U.S. must issue certification every 90 days. This is the second time Trump’s government has done so. It came with last-minute drama this time, as Trump balked at certification — against the wishes of his principal national security advisors, according to by a person close to the White House who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

On Monday, after talking points for certifying Iran’s compliance already had been distributed within the administration, Trump told senior advisors he was having second thoughts and wanted other options.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson came to the Oval Office around 1:30 p.m. for a previously scheduled and unrelated meeting with Trump, but the discussion was dominated by what to do with the Iran deal.

Tillerson argued that allies needed more notice before stating Iran wasn’t complying with the deal. Trump national security advisor H.R. McMaster and other senior advisors present, including Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also made the case for holding off.

But Steve Bannon, Trump’s strategic advisor who keeps a list of Trump’s campaign pledges on a white board in his White House office, said Trump should follow through with his promise to tear up the deal.

After nearly an hour, Trump agreed to support certification, but demanded a plan for getting tougher on Iran. Facing the midnight deadline to inform Congress, advisors were still were tweaking the wording of the announcement as late as 9:30 p.m.

Hours after the certification, the administration announced the new sanctions for Iran’s separate actions. The penalties are the latest in a long list of attempts to punish Tehran.

“Iran’s other malign activities are serving to undercut whatever ‘positive contributions’ to regional and international peace and security were intended to emerge from the” nuclear agreement, Nauert said.

Besides Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the new sanctions target the military’s support of so-called “fast attack boats,” which are the small vessels Iran uses to harass U.S. ships in the region’s waters.

Most of those sanctioned Tuesday were Iranian, but one company is based in Turkey and one individual is a Chinese national.

The sanctions “send a strong signal that the United States cannot and will not tolerate Iran’s provocative and destabilizing behavior,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said.

As part of the nuclear accord, numerous international sanctions on Iran were lifted, allowing it to export oil and rejoin the global financial system.

The State Department also reissued calls for the release of U.S. citizens arrested in Iran.


The Khazarian Bankster Cult That Destroyed Libya

Jonas E. Alexis — Veterans Today July 16, 2017

The Neocons and AIPAC treat us all, including the Libyan people, as subjects or sub-humans. You can say that this is the premise upon which they build their entire ideology. The Neocons used America to dispose Gaddafi because they thought that he was basically challenging the Neocon hegemony in Libya.

gaddafi and putin

Putin and Gaddafi. Click to enlarge

by Jonas E. Alexis and Mariam Alfatah

Mariam Alfatah graduated from the London School of Economics. She is a Libyan and has witnessed how the Powers That Be and their marionettes obliterated her country. You may disagree with just about everything Alfatah is going to say, but try to understand some of the arguments and evidence that she is going to put forth and interact with them responsibly.

We agree that ideas should be proved or disproved by reason and logic, not by emotion or name calling. If what she is saying lacks logical consistency, explanatory power, explanatory scope, and historical context, then readers are welcome to provide serious evidence to the contrary. The interview is a little long largely because Alfatah had to explain a number of issues and present evidence to support her claims.

Jonas E. Alexis: You said that there was a “Holocaust” and “a genocide” in Libya in 2011. Virtually everyone knew that the invasion was a Neocon war.[1] In fact, long before the war got started, thirty-seven Neocons sent Obama a letter saying that Gaddafi must go.[2] Neocon talking-head Bill Kristol himself said on eve of the invasion:

“Our ‘invasions’ have in fact been liberations. We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.”[3]

More importantly, virtually every serious scholar knows by now that the Neoconservative movement is a Jewish ideological enterprise which has never been good for America.[4]

Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, themselves philo-Semitic scholars, declare that the Neoconservative movement is “in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”[5]

Jewish legal scholar Stephen M. Feldman argues that the Neocons got their political and intellectual position “by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nations in the 1930s.”[6]

What Feldman is implicitly or reluctantly saying is that the Neocons essentially attacked the moral and political fabric of America and progressively turned the country into an empire that always looks for monsters to destroy in the Middle East and elsewhere.[7] This came into full bloom during the Reagan administration.[8]

These warmongers have told us ad nauseam that they were trying to establish “democracy” and “freedom” in places like Libya. Obviously Libya has been in chaos ever since these “geniuses” landed in the country. Describe for us why these warmongers were and still are worse than psychopaths. You can also talk about what really happened when they invaded Libya.

Mariam Alfatah: First of all, it must be stated that the Neocons and AIPAC treat us all, including the Libyan people, as subjects or sub-humans. You can say that this is the premise upon which they build their entire ideology, and I will prove that throughout this interview.

The Neocons used America to dispose Gaddafi because they thought that he was basically challenging the Neocon hegemony in Libya. This is an important point. One of the writers at VT, David Swanson, talked about this in one of his articles, which was published by the Guardian itself.[9]

Keep in mind that Libya, under Gaddafi, controlled its own oil. I agree with Swanson completely when he said that “The Libyan government controls more of its oil than any other nation on earth, and it is the type of oil that Europe finds easiest to refine. Libya also controls its own finances.”[10]

What was more interesting was that Gaddafi challenged African countries to follow his lead![11] He helped establish satellites in many African nations. Some of those nations used to get their satellites from the French, which cost them millions of dollars. Now they were getting them at a fairly reasonable price from Gaddafi. To the warmongers and psychopaths, that was a dangerous move.

There is more: Gaddafi challenged African nations to stop importing what one may call GMO food from the West. He also said that Italy should compensate the Libyan people for their colonization from 1911 until 1945. Finally, Gaddafi had a plan to transform Libya into a second Dubai, where tourists would flock there by the millions. In his view, this would have created a shining monument for all of Africa. So, if you peel back the ideological onion, you can easily see why Gaddafi was a target.

There was no way for Gaddafi to survive the Neocon onslaught without serious backup from other countries. The Neocon system in the West, particularly in America, certainly didn’t want to stop their aggressive expansion in Libya and indeed in Africa. Therefore they had to summon pathetic lies and use false pretexts to invade Libya in 2011. Since the fall of the Jamahiriya, Libya has not experienced any political, financial or even social stability. None at all. Practically overnight, Libya was transformed from one of the richest growing countries in the world when it comes to oil and other resources to a failed state.

After the invasion, the West put “Abdulhakim Belhaj” in charge, one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. If you don’t believe me, you can even go to Wikipedia and it will tell you a little bit about Belhaj. He joined the Taliban and was even associated with al-Qaeda. The Gaddafi government warned the West about Belhaj right after the 9/11 attack. That was back in 2002.

The Gaddafi government even presented strong evidence which suggested that Belhaj was a terrorist and was advancing his ideology and covert activity at an alarming rate. Once again, even Zionist media like the BBC would agree with what I’m saying here. The BBC fairly reported in 2011 that Belhaj was in “Jalalabad, Afghanistan, from where he ran and financed training camps for Arab mujahideen fighters.”[12] We all know that the mujahideen are terrorists, even though the United States funded and trained them.[13] This is from Wikipedia—and it gets really interesting:

Tracked by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), after a tip-off from MI6 gained from London-based informants, Belhadj was arrested with his pregnant wife in 2004 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia. Transferred on the same plane to Bangkok, he was then placed in the custody of the CIA, where he was retained at a secret prison at the airport. Returned to Libya on the rendition aircraft N313P, he was held at the Abu Salim prison for seven years.”

Now this is the guy that the Neocons put in power in Libya! This is the kind of democracy and freedom that they are imposing on us Libyans. What were the results of the Libya invasion? Well, over 100,000 civilians lost their lives, including women and children.

It gets worse. At least 2 million Libyans had to move out of the country; some went to Tunis, Egypt, Algiers, and the UAE. The living conditions from 2011 till 2014 in Tripoli was tolerable but Benghazi and the eastern part of Libya became a living hell. Kidnapping, raping, and shooting were like playing video games in those regions.

The invaders even used Sarin gas in Ban Walid, but no Zionist Media covered that vital story. Sirt, a city in Libya, was invaded by ISIS, which we all know got their financial backing from the US, Qatar, Turkey, and even Israel. Al-Qaeda also took over Benghazi.

I could go on and on, but the main point here is that since the invasion in 2011, Libya has never been the same. The UN began to implement draconian ideas which the Libyan people rejected. Let me finish answering your question by saying that Gaddafi wanted to live. It is said that he told the invaders that he was willing to go into exile in the desert if they would not bomb Libya and turn the country into rubble. The response was: “We want you dead, not in exile, as we know you will fund a coup d’état. No, we will bomb Libya and rebuild it.”

In March of 2011, Qaddafi’s son, Saif, came out on national TV and very angrily said that he would find every single traitor (he called them “rats”) and killed them all. I think CNN broadcast his announcement with, of course, the usual editing to make it sound like he was ready to cause a massacre.

The assassination of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was an inside job, an order from the American administration, carried out by ragged rebels who were trained by American agents. By the way, there were 36 CIA agents who were saved by Qaddafi’s army; even though we had lost the war we still saved the asses of the Americans; what an irony.

The next US Ambassador, Safira Deborah, did everything in her power to finance and assist the so-called “Libyan Dawn,” which was but a faction of a terrorist group known as LIFG. They were also financed by Qatar and Turkey. Deborah praised Belhaj till she had to run for her own life in July of 2014.

Deborah fled first to Tunis then later to Malta. While in Malta she did a lot of bad mistakes which probably caused her to be fired. After Deborah, the new ambassador kept quiet and didn’t show his face much. It was no coincidence that Libyan officials began to sign contracts with Israel.

Abdulhakim Belhaj. Click to enlarge

Abdulhakim Belhaj. Click to enlarge

Jonas E. Alexis: Vladimir Putin has specifically condemned the United States and NATO for invading Libya. He has obviously observed that the United States has a history of using categorical lies and fabrications to invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. Do you know if Putin ever corresponded with Gaddafi?

Mariam Alfatah: In 2011 Putin was only a prime minister and Medvedev was the president of Russia.  Gaddafi seemed to have spoken with Putin during a UN conference. As I understand it (from people who were in the room) Putin told Qaddafi that Russia would say NO to the “no fly zone.” I have no reason not to believe my sources.

Medvedev also seemed to have agreed with Putin. But it seemed that the elitists put an ideological spell on Medvedev and blackmailed him; so he basically ignored what was really taking place in Libya. Libyan officials knew that Medvedev wanted to be liked by the Americans. The result was total catastrophe.

Both Russia and China lost billions of dollars by not politically or militarily mobilizing against the Powers That Be; they knew from the get go that the Neocon “no fly zone” was a farce. Russia helped Libya as much as they could without breaking international rules. So, Gaddafi was in contact with Putin but how often I do not know.

Jonas E. Alexis: In your view, do you believe that the vast majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi’s leadership? For example, Assad won the Syrian election by a landslide.[14] Was that the case with Gaddafi?

Mariam Alfatah: Yes. At the time of the bombing Libya’s population was over 6.5 million, and Qaddafi had the support of 6.3 million. Even the Washington Post reluctantly admitted that “Many Libyans appear to back Gaddafi.” Take it from their own pen—and this was when the invaders were creating chaos virtually everywhere:

“But six days into the allied bombardment of Libyan military targets, it is clear that Gaddafi can count on the fierce loyalties of at least a significant segment of the population in the vast stretches that lie beyond the enclave of rebel-held territory in the east…

“Even Gaddafi’s opponents, who dare murmur their dissent only out of earshot of regime loyalists, concede that the man who has governed Libya for nearly 42 years does command genuine support.”[15]

But the Washington Post knocked itself out by saying, “That a man who boasts he lives in a tent and whom Ronald Reagan once dubbed ‘the mad dog of the Middle East’ still commands devotion four decades into his rule is one of the enduring mysteries of this idiosyncratic country.”[16]

That is really worse than stupid. How can they say this is an example of “enduring mysteries” when the vast majority of Libyans knew that Gaddafi, despite his faults, really helped the country? This is not an example of “enduring mysteries;” this is a classic example which conclusively shows that the Neocon ideology has always been in opposition to the vast majority of the people on this planet. So, people like you, Jonas, are right in calling this ideology satanic.

There was a rally in July of 2011 in Tripoli. I was there. There were also over 3 million people in Green Square! There is a video on my blog that you can access and see for yourself.

If the West had allowed Libyans to vote freely, Qaddafi would have won by a landslide like Assad. You see, if we didn’t want Gaddafi we would have removed him from power a long time ago. He would have been assassinated. You have to understand that we follow our tribe leaders.

I am sure if any of the tribe leaders didn’t want him, they would have taken him out. What’s also important about these issues is that the UN and Western allies refused to talk to those leaders! If I can use a rough analogy, it would be like the United States going to war with another country without contacting Congress.

Qaddafi had succeeded in uniting nearly all the tribes. This was almost an impossible task because you just couldn’t get those people to sit down at the same table. They sometimes fought against each other. But Gaddafi was able to unite them.

Note: It took us 3 years to get the majority of the tribe leaders in one room and to agree that we cannot leave Libya to foreigners or to installed puppets. Now do you see what the Neocons did to my country?

Jonas E. Alexis: Business Insider has been a Zionist outlet, but I think they were somewhat fair to publish your letter. I was quite surprised when they declared: “But even as Qaddafi commits atrocities, the rebels are engaged in some of the same violence. And Washington has been forced to look the other way.”[17]

In your letter, you told Business Insider that “Personally, I do not care about Qaddafi but what you are doing is wrong. You are not telling the truth. You are lying to your readers.”[18] Can you expand on that for us?

Mariam Alfatah: My political views are democratic; Qaddafi was a military leader. That is what I meant. People may think that I am an apologist for Gaddafi. That would be categorically false. Gaddafi “nationalized” my father’s business and for 10 years my father was basically out of job.

But I was also furious with NATO and the West precisely because they wanted to decide our fate. They told us ad nauseam that the Libyan invasion was a true revolution. Total nonsense. If it was a revolution, why did the terrorists and blood-thirsty animals have to get help from NATO?

We knew that there were 200,000 people who were in exile and were against Qaddafi. Most of them were religious fanatics and scumbags who stole from the Libyan people. I may not like Gaddafi but I cannot lie about what he did. He did a lot of good things. Under Gaddafi, education was free and it was obligatory that people get a decent education. In 1969, prior to the revolution, we had an 80% illiteracy rate. Under Gaddafi, that percentage dropped dramatically. Let’s not forget that though Qaddafi was brought in by the CIA, he would kick them out a few years later.

Qaddafi was no threat to Europe or America. On the contrary, he was the one keeping the refugees and “migrants” out of Europe.[19] Beginning in 1970, Libyan women started gaining their freedom.  Unlike some other Arab countries, we could travel on our own, we could buy lands, etc.

Gaddafi even made a law which said that women or teenagers are not to be forced to marry anyone. Women who were forced to marry could go to the police; the police would examine the situation and, if a particular woman is found to be telling the truth, then the marriage would be rendered invalid.

Yes, we had our ups and downs, but we didn’t deserve this current chaos. We had our own kind of democracy but it was not the democracy that the war machine wanted. Ironically, we Libyans had more freedom than any American now has. The only thing we couldn’t do publicly was to criticize the Qaddafi family. But Libyans had free health care, free education, no water bills, etc.

For example, in Europe I bought a car that cost me 16,000 euros; in Libya I would have bought the same car for 8,000 euros. So, we were perfectly comfortable with not being able to criticize Qaddafi publicly precisely because we had the things we needed. Why would anyone unfairly criticize a government that puts a roof over your head? Isn’t that why the average Russian now loves Vladimir Putin? Do you think they would love to see him dead? I don’t think so!

Free speech is overrated in the West; here in Europe and in the US people talk about free speech all the time, but we all know the role that the CIA, FBI, and the NSA can play when you don’t join the party line. Look what happened to Edward Snowden and other genuine whistleblowers.

Some US spies were even saying that they would love to see Snowden’s head on a silver platter. One NSA analyst said in 2014: “In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself. A lot of people share this sentiment.”[20] So much for “freedom of speech” in the West!


Jonas E. Alexis: As already suggested, disagreement on rational ground is fair. But everyone ought to agree that Libya, like Iraq, is now run by a number of terrorist scumbags. You may say that Gaddafi was bad, and obviously he had his shortcomings, but the country was generally much better under his command. As retired US Army General Paul Vallely put it last year:

“Libya is just another one of those countries with too much interference from outside sources. In my opinion Gaddafi should have remained in power, because he was some kind of a stabilizing force. The problem today is we have these diplomats that don’t understand world affairs – they’re really not good at it. That is in many different countries. That was one of the biggest problems in Benghazi, as our State Department is getting involved in things they should not have been involved in.”[21]

You can now read the Zionist outlets and virtually every single one of them will reluctantly agree that Libya is in chaos.[22] Even CNN, of all places, said last year that

“Five short years ago, Libya was one of the wealthiest and most stable nations in Africa. The country had been led by Colonel Muammar Gadhafi for more than 40 years, since he seized power in a 1969 coup, and its six million citizens enjoyed the benefits of the country’s vast oil wealth.”[23]

But listen to how CNN actually twisted the actual facts: “After years of uncertainty and upheaval allowed ISIS militants to gain a foothold in the country, the U.S. has begun carrying out airstrikes to try and oust them.”[24] What CNN was implicitly saying was that ISIS militants were exclusively responsible for the chaos! The Neocons and warmongers could then wash their hands off.


[1] See for example David Swanson, “Libya: another neocon war,” Guardian, April 21, 2011; Michael Lind, “The neocons are trying to talk us into war — again,” Salon, March 9, 2011.

[2] Jim Newell, “Neocons Write Nice Letter Asking Obama for War in Libya,” Gawker, March 15, 2011.

[3] Quoted in Howard Kurtz, “Libyan War and the Media’s Reaction,” Daily Beast, March 21, 2017.

[4] See Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Murray Friedman,The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 18, 2006.

[5] Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 12.

[6] Stephen M. Feldman, Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy (New York and London: New York University Press, 2013), 1.

[7] Patrick Buchanan has rightly criticized this version of America. Patrick J. Buchanan, A Republic, Not an Empire (WA: Regnery Publishing, 1999).

[8] See Patrick J. Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004).

[9] David Swanson, “Libya: another neocon war,” Guardian, April 21, 2011.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ronald Bruce St. John argues that Gaddafi made arrangements with at least 10 African states and was asking for political and economic partnership. Many African leaders applauded him for his commitment to help the oppressed people in Africa. Ronald Bruce St. John, Libya: From Colony to Revolution (Oxford: One World, 2012), 229.

[12] See “Profile: Libyan rebel commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj,” BBC, September 5, 2011.

[13] See “Frankenstein the CIA created,” Guardian, January 17, 1999.

[14] Nabih Bulos, “Syria’s Assad wins third term as president in landslide victory,” LA Times, June 4, 2014; “Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on,” Guardian, June 4, 2014; “Bashar Assad wins Syria presidential election with 88.7% of vote,” Russia Today, June 4, 2014.

[15] Liz Sly, “Many Libyans appear to back Gaddafi,” Washington Post, March 24, 2011.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Gus Lubin, “LIBYAN REBEL WAR CRIMES: The Videos America Doesn’t Want You To See,” Business Insider, April 18, 2011.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Bruce St. John, Libya: From Colony to Revolution, 274.

[20] Paul Szoldra and Michael B Kelley, “Some US Spies Are Saying They Would Love To Kill Edward Snowden,” Business Insider, January 17, 2014.

[21] “‘Post-Gaddafi Libya in chaos as Plan B was missing,’” Russia Today, October 20, 2016.

[22] “Four Years After Revolution, Libya Slides Into Chaos,” National Public Radio, January 13, 2015; “Chaos in Libya,” Hoover Institution, August 20, 2014; Rajan Menon, “Libya in Chaos,” National Interest, June 27, 2012; “Libya chaos: Islamic State battles militias in Sirte,” BBC, August 11, 2015; Richard Spencer, “How Libya descended into faction-fighting and chaos,” Telegraph, November 8, 2014; Richard Spencer, “World turning blind eye to chaos in Libya, Amnesty charges,” Telegraph, October 30, 2014.

[23] Bryony Jones and Anastasia Beltyukova, “Libya’s chaos, explained in five graphics,” CNN, August 4, 2016.

[24] Ibid.



R Kelly Dubbed a “Master of Mind Control” as Allegations Claim He is Holding Women Against Their Will in “Cult”

Vigilant Citizen — July 17, 2017

R Kelly
New allegations claim that R Kelly has been keeping at least six women (some minor) under total control in “guest houses”, denying them contact with the outside world. His ex-assistant describes R Kelly as a “master of mind control and a puppet master”.
R Kelly’s taste for underage girls has been making headlines for decades. In 1994, Kelly (who was 27 at the time) married his 15-year old protégé Aaliyah for whom he wrote the album disturbingly entitled “Age Ain’t Nothing but a Number”. The marriage certificate listed Aaliyah as being 18 years old. In February 1995, the illegal marriage was annulled by Aaliyah’s parents. Up until her untimely death at age 22 due to a plane crash, Aaliyah would never speak about R Kelly. Her spokesperson  stated:
WHen R. Kelly comes up, she doesn’t even speak his name, and nobody’s allowed to ask about it at all.”
In 2002, Kelly was indicted on 21 counts of child p*********y after a video surfaced allegedly showing Kelly having sex with and urinating on an underage girl. Despite this fact, R Kelly was acquitted on all accounts in 2008.
Over the years, Kelly has settled over a dozen civil lawsuits accusing him of abusing his position of fame and influence to pursue illegal sexual relationships with underage girls. As a settlement, Kelly often offered cash payments under the under the condition that the girls signed a nondisclosure agreement.
However, controversies involving R Kelly and young girls are far from over. A Buzzfeed News article indicates that the singer never stopped preying on young girls. Even worse, he appears to have established “cult-like” system of control, where young women are lured into his entourage with promises of being “mentored” by him, to then end up living in one of his guest houses and “servicing” him on a regular basis.
Witnesses use terms such as “mind control” and “brainwash” to describe R Kelly’s hold on these girls. Is R Kelly an actual mind control handler? When one reviews the various methods of mental, physical and sexual control used on these girls, the least we can say is that he knows a thing or two about mind control.

A “Master of Mind Control”

Continues …

Your Indoctrination

You Tube — 2012

Southern Poverty Law Center brands some peaceful groups as ‘hate groups’

Fox News — July 14, 2017

SPLC campaign advert. Click to enlarge

SPLC campaign advert. See The Hate Group That Tracks Down ‘Hate Groups’ (linked)

The left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center has come under fire for its labeling of a Christian nonprofit organization — dedicated to defending “religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family” — as a hate group.

But the Alliance Defending Freedom isn’t the only conservative, traditional-value organization the SPLC smears as a hate group. Fox News found at least six other groups that are conservative and explicitly nonviolent but branded as hate organizations by the SPLC.

The SPLC – based in Montgomery, Ala. – is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation, dedicated to “fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. “

On June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech to members of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious freedom group, prompting some media outlets, like ABC and NBC News, to label the ADF a “hate group.”

The networks reportedly base that characterization on the assessment of the SPLC.

The SPLC list includes several genuine hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. But the organization’s list also includes many conservative groups that — while socially controversial — are peaceful organizations that say they do not advocate hate or violence.

A hate group, by definition, is one that promotes and practices hatred, hostility, or violence toward members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation.

A number of the socially conservative organizations the SPLC labels as hate groups, because of their views on LGBT issues, have beliefs about such issues that are strikingly similar to those of the Roman Catholic Church.

In addition to the Alliance Defending Freedom, the SPLC also includes these socially conservative groups on its “hatewatch” list:

— Family Research Council, a nonprofit, charitable and conservative Christian group and lobbying organization. It says its mission is “to advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview.”

— American Family Association, a nonprofit group that promotes fundamentalist Christian values and opposes same-sex marriage, pornography and abortion.

— American College of Pediatricians, a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other health-care professionals. The group was founded in 2002 as a protest against the American Academy of Pediatrics’ support for adoption by gay couples.

— Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based, nonprofit that states it has “… one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse.”

— World Congress of Families, a coalition that promotes Christian right values internationally and opposes same-sex marriage, pornography and abortion.

 Liberty Counsel, an international litigation, education and policy organization that says it’s dedicated to advancing religious freedom and protecting the sanctity of life.