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?

The Looming US War on Russia

Finian Cunningham — Sputnik News June 22, 2016


Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comparison of increasing US-led NATO aggression towards Russia to the attack by Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union is advisedly apt.

Putin was addressing the Russian State Duma this week on the occasion 75 years ago when the Nazi Third Reich launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.

Nazi Germany’s aggression, which led to the Great Patriotic War in which up to 30 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in order to gain victory against that fascist power, was at bottom an attack by Western imperialism. As Putin reminded, this fundamental fact is often omitted in Western commentary.

In that way, the significance of NATO’s current military buildup – what else is that but aggression? – on Russian territory is all too often absent in Western media. And, by extension, Western public appreciation is lacking on how sinister the unfolding situation is.

Russia’s history over centuries is replete with examples of where Western imperialist powers have tried – and failed – to subjugate Russia with military attack from its Western flank.

It is consistent with historical precedent that Putin should describe “increasing aggression” by the American-led NATO military alliance in the same context as the repugnant Nazi assault on Russia.

The burgeoning US-led aggression towards Russia – in the form of provocative political campaigns to demonize and vilify with false accusations, economic sanctions and the spurning of diplomacy and dialogue, as well as the expansion of military forces, including the deployment of missile systems – is in a long, reprehensible tradition of Western belligerence towards Russia, going back to, among others, French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.

This congenital aggression towards Russia stems from the dynamic of the Western economic system of capitalism, which in turns begets imperialism as its necessary tool for expropriating natural resources and subjugating foreign nations.

Russia is not the only target of Western aggression, of course. But the largest nation by land mass on Earth is and always has been a prime target.

The little-known historical record – at least in Western media – is that Nazi Germany was fomented by American and British capitalism as a proxy with which to vanquish the Soviet Union. The subsequent Western alliance with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany was merely a cynical damage-control move by the Western powers who were witnessing their Nazi attack dog being muzzled and liquidated.

How could anyone who has a sound understanding of history – as opposed to the anesthetizing non-history common in the West – be not perplexed by the current US-led military menace on Russia’s Western flank?

It should be a matter of deep concern that even Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week denounced the largest-ever NATO war exercises being conducted in Poland as “warmongering”.

What underscores the alarm is that Washington and certain NATO allies are pushing this confrontational agenda without the slightest discussion in Western media or among the Western public. As President Putin pointed out, people in the West are oblivious to the dangers of potential global war because the Western media is committing a huge disservice by not informing accurately on developments.

US troops en route to NATO drills in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Click to enlarge

US troops en route to NATO drills in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Click to enlarge

There are any number of flash-points where NATO’s military could combust into all-out war with Russia. The Baltic region, Eastern Europe, Ukraine, the Southern Caucus region, or the Black Sea where US warships continue to penetrate in violation of international treaties. Certainly, historical precedent strongly suggests this geographical swathe.

As the US presidential election swings towards Democrat contender Hillary Clinton, that portends ominously for relations with Russia. It was Clinton who as Secretary of State in the first Obama administration in 2009-2013 plunged bilateral relations into the freezer and who set the course for the present geopolitical tensions.

Of further concern is Clinton’s likely selection to head the Pentagon. It is hotly tipped that Clinton will appoint Michele Flournoy as the first female Secretary of Defense. Flournoy (56) is a prominent Pentagon insider, with close links to the military and CIA. We can be sure that this duo will keenly push a bellicose agenda towards Russia.

Only last week, Flournoy made strident calls for increased US military intervention in Syria. She wants to deploy large numbers of American troops and openly use military force to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Under Obama, regime change has been a covert enterprise through proxies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a menagerie of terrorist militia. Under Clinton, the signs are that regime change in Syria will be made an overt military objective.

Flournoy is calling for the use of cruise missiles to hit Assad targets, including those of allied Russian forces in Syria.

“If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets,” she told the military publication Defense One.

Flournoy said the US should jettison the pretense of fighting terror groups, and instead direct its efforts to remove Assad from power in Syria.

In blatant contravention of international law and UN resolutions on Syria, the probable next White House administration is declaring war on Syria. Such a move is an unabashed aggression towards Russian strategic interests and calculated explicitly with military strikes on Russian forces in Syria. In short, a wider war with Russia.

Whether the Middle East proves to be the flash-point of American aggression towards Russia remains to be seen over the coming months. But one thing seems irrefutably clear by now. Washington is already on the path of war.

An American war on Russia is looming. Maybe the people of the US and Europe can stop that outcome by threatening political ad social revolt, on the streets if necessary since the electoral process seems to be stacked against the democratic will.

On the solemn anniversary of Nazi Germany’s ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union 75 years ago, it is astounding that such horror seems largely forgotten in the West. The criminal, reckless aggression by US-led NATO forces towards Russia is a sign of the dangerous ignorance and apathy in the West.

Russia is once again facing a recurring historical pattern of Western aggression. President Putin is correct in his contextualization of NATO’s actions and attitude alongside the historic Nazi war on Soviet Russia. Only those who have been brainwashed by banal Western disinformation would consider such a warning as “alarmist”.

The beast that is Western capitalist imperialism is salivating for war again. The positions of war are aligning, and certainly Syria is among the most volatile, especially if Hillary Clinton takes over as Commander-in-Chief.

Russia will stand strong, as Putin firmly stated in his address to the State Duma.

But this time around any war would involve a global arsenal of nuclear weapons that has no precedent. This really would be war to end all wars – and the planet too, as we know it.

In the name of peace and humanity, the onus is on the Western public to bring the warmongering system to an end – once and for all – by slaying the beast that is capitalism and its monstrous twin imperialism.



Do We Really Want War with Russia?

Eric Margolis — The Unz Review June 25, 2016

Do we Really Want War with Russia

War with Russia appears increasingly likely as the US and its NATO satraps continue their military provocations of Moscow.

As dangers mount, our foolish politicians should all be forced to read, and then re-read, Prof. Christopher Clark’s magisterial book, ‘The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.’ What is past increasingly appears prologue.

Prof. Clark carefully details how small cabals of anti-German senior officials in France, Britain and Russia engineered World War I, a dire conflict that was unnecessary, idiotic, and illogical. Germany and Austria-Hungary of course share some the blame, but to a much lesser degree than the bellicose French, Serbs, Russians and British.

We are seeing the same process at work today. The war party in Washington, backed by the military-industrial complex, the tame media, and the neocons, are agitating hard for war.

US and NATO combat forces are being sent to Russia’s western borders in Ukraine, the Baltic and Black Sea. NATO is arming, financing ($40 billion so far) and supplying Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Prominent Americans are calling for the US to attack Russian forces in Syria. US warships are off Russia’s coasts in the Black Sea, Baltic and Pacific. NATO air forces are probing Russia’s western air borders.

Some of this is great power shadow boxing, trying to cow insubordinate Russia into accepting Washington’s orders. But much appears to be the work of the hard right and neocons in the US and Europe in spite of the desire of most Americans and Europeans to avoid armed conflict with Russia.

Hence the daily barrage of anti-Russian, anti-Putin invective in the US media and the European media controlled by the US. Germany’s lapdog media behaves as if the US postwar occupation is still in force – and perhaps it is. Germany has not had a truly independent foreign policy since the war.

In an amazing break with Berlin’s normally obsequious behavior, German’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, just demanded that Washington and NATO stop their ‘sabre-rattling’ against Russia. He speaks for many Germans and other Europeans who are deeply alarmed by the alliance’s provocations of Russia.

In fact, many Europeans want to see the end of NATO-imposed sanctions against Russia that were ordered by the US. No one in Europe cares about Russia’s re-occupation of Crimea. The sanctions have been a big backfire, seriously hurting EU exports to Russia at a time of marked economic weakness. Nor are any Europeans ready to fight a war, or worse, even court nuclear war, for such dark-side-of-the-moon places as eastern Ukraine’s Luhansk or Mariupol.

America’s numb-brained Republican members of Congress, who could not find Crimea on a map if their lives depended on it, may be counted on to beat the war drums to please their big donors and hard right religious donors.

The only Republican to buck this trend is Donald Trump who, for all his other foolish positions, has the clear sense to see no benefit for the US in antagonizing Russia and seeking war in Europe or the Mideast.

What the US and its sidekick NATO has done so far is to antagonize Russia and affirm its deeply held fears that the west is always an implacable enemy. But it seems very unlikely that the tough Vlad Putin and his battle-hardened nation is going to be cowed into submission by a few thousand US and NATO troops, a few frigates and some flyovers. Ever since Frederick the Great, wise European leaders have learned not to fight with Russia.

Not so President Obama’s strategic Walkures, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and, until recently, Hillary Clinton. They proved the most bungling military-strategic leadership since Madame de Pompadour was briefly given command of France’s armies by King Louis XV and proved an epic disaster.

One shudders watching Hillary Clinton aspire to be a commander-in-chief.

It’s also inevitable that land, sea and air provocations against Russia will eventually result in accidental clashes and a stern Russian response. All one needs is a Sarajevo II terror incident to spark a big shooting war between nuclear powers.

(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)



Russia Defense Report: PAK-FA Nearing Service Entry

Third World Tsunami Sinks EU

henrymakow.com — June 27, 2016

migrants clash with police
Europeans have awakened to the genocidal agenda of their traitorous leaders.

by Dan — (henrymakow.com)

We must not forget for minute that the BREXIT referendum was a gamble, a reaction of the political class to losing control of the narrative, and thus the British public.  The Brits have been coming out of the consensus trance they’ll been held under for seventy years.  The owners of the Bank of England and the BIS in Brussels only rule as long as the public believe they do.
The EU is falling apart because they didn’t meet their true goals before the general public got wise to its real agenda.  Too many people know the goals now: the extinction of the indigenous European, and disintegration of the Nations, in the Biblical sense of the word.  The decision to flood Europe with combat age savages in a hurry was clearly a major error, probably a fatal one for EU masters.
Dees: European migrant crisis. Click to enlarge

Dees: European migrant crisis. Click to enlarge

Remember; there were nationalist riots in London in May 2015 with the re-election of Cameron. There were riots in 2014.  Cameron gambled that a BREXIT referendum would fail.  If it had, his government could have claimed to beneficiary of the people’s mandate and proceed to use force against rising opposition.
We anticipated exactly what to expect for the rest of the year.  Media will blame the British public for the economic collapse that’s been in progress anyway.  The Crown will shuffle its deck of puppets to hold onto Number 10 Downing Street.   While eyes are on Boris Johnson initially, he’s already under suspicion, so more likely they’ll use a new broom.  Probably Tory MP Theresa May.
Theresa May is the only Tory who can stop Boris Johnston becoming PM
Her ‘cred’ is having given a speech against rampant immigration, but when you examine the fine print, she’s lying.  Like Cameron, for three years she’s been pushing the notion that Britain could have it’s cake with the EU and eat it too.  (For a reminder how that sort of thing pans out, see Trump’s story about the lady and the snake.)
Here’s Theresa May trying to sell some snake oil on BBC in 2013
Nigel Farage vs Theresa May (06 Oct13)  liar politicians



Continues …

Watch the futuristic Rolls-Royce ‘roboship’ that will be sailing the seas by 2020 – without a crew

Georgie Barrett — The Mirror June 27, 2016

Rolls-Royce have unveiled plans to build entirely robotic ships, that will be controlled remotely on land.

By 2020 the car manufacturing company hope to have a fleet of drone ships sailing around the world, without a single sailor on-board.

The video marks the final stage of research that will inform the shipping design concept, labelled as the ‘oX’ operator experience.

The film shows how the ships will be controlled from a remote operation centre, specifically designed for unmanned vessels.

Just two captains can operate the entire ship from a central “holodeck”, using a range of technology that will monitor and control the vessel.

Drone inspections will record what is happening on-board and around the ship, whilst detailed vessel data will give the crew enhanced situational awareness and operation summaries.

Despite the crew being firmly based on land, they will still be able to see and hear what’s happening on-board.

Microphones will let them hear sounds from the vessel and windows will double as augmented reality screens to alert operators to hazards, including icebergs and other ships.

The video released looks much like a scene from a sci-fi movie. The high-tech setup sees the operators interacting with smart screens, voice recognition systems and holograms.

The research project was first announced in 2014.

Rolls-Royce, working with VTT and University of Tampere research centre TAUCHI, drew inspiration from other industries that regularly use remote operation such as aviation, energy and space exploration

Oskar Levander, the Vice President of Marine Innovation at Rolls-Royce, said: “This is happening. It’s not if, it’s when. The technologies needed to make remote and autonomous ships already exist.

“We will see a remote controlled ship in commercial use by the end of the decade.”

In a white paper exploring their research, the company explained how they could use the latest digital techniques to create safer and more energy efficient ships.

“With the demands of environmental legislation and rising operating costs, ships are going to become more complex.

“Unmanned ships open up exciting possibilities to redefine the way a ship is designed and functions.

“When there are no people on board, many constraints are removed.”

Questions around how the ship will be able to complete unforeseen repairs, protect itself against hijackers and find appropriate insurance policies, are yet to be fully explored.


Who Is Britain’s EU Policy Chief Oliver Letwin?

Introduction — June 27, 2016

Oliver Letwin. Click to enlarge

Oliver Letwin. Click to enlarge

The following article omits to mention one salient fact about Oliver Letwin. Apart from having been appointed to oversee Britain’s exit from the European Union, the former advisor to Margaret Thatcher had also been a director at N.M. Rothschild and sons, the City of London merchant Bank.
Letwin was obliged to resign his £100,000 a-year position in 2003 following a row over conflict of interest.
Obviously the Eton-Cambridge educated Letwin did the right thing by resigning. However that was more than a decade ago and there’s no gaurantee that he’s not still be in the pay of the Rothschilds. Ed.

Who Is Britain’s EU Policy Chief Oliver Letwin?

Josh Lowe — NEWSWEEK June 27, 2016

In 1985 and 1986, in the backrooms of Margaret Thatcher’s government, a young adviser stuck his neck out for a policy he believed in, one he insisted could work despite widespread doubts.

That man was Oliver Letwin, according to Cabinet Office papers released in 2014, and that policy was the so-called “poll tax,” rioting over which ultimately contributed to Thatcher’s downfall.

On Monday, Letwin, now the U.K.’s minister for government policy, was placed in charge of preparations for Britain’s forthcoming EU exit negotiations, leading a special cross-government unit set up by outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron. It is leading many to look back over a chequered career.

From his time working in Thatcher’s policy unit between 1983 and 1986, Letwin has been an influential figure in the Conservative party.

Letwin’s thinking firmly favors free enterprise and the smaller state. In 1988, he co-authored a Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet on NHS reform, titled “Britain’s Biggest Enterprise,” that has served as a blueprint for successive Conservative administrations for introducing more partnership between the NHS and the private sector. Any left-wingers who voted for Brexit to rebel against the “neo-liberal” European Union are unlikely to be happy at news of his appointment.

Like David Cameron and Boris Johnson, Letwin is an old Etonian, and his traditionalist views have got him into trouble in the past. In 2003, he claimed he would rather beg on the street than send his children to a state school in London. In 2015, a row erupted over newly-released Cabinet Office papers from the 1980s in which he linked rioting in British cities to race, saying: “The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth ‘alienation.’ or the lack of a middle class. Lower class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale.” He apologized “unreservedly” after the comments came to light.

And he’s not immune to a good-old, traditional gaffe, like the time in 2011 when he was caught dumping correspondence from constituents in a bin near Downing Street.


EU must stop others following Britain out of the door, Merkel warns

Julian Robinson — Mail Online and Associated Press June 27, 2016

merkelAngela Merkel has said the EU needs to stop other countries following Britain out of the door amid market fears that the bloc is ‘no longer governable’ after Brexit.

The German Chancellor told her conservative party board in a conference call that it was necessary to prevent other European Union members going down the same path as Britain.

Merkel is also said to have revealed that international financial markets are concerned the EU is ‘no longer governable’ in the wake of Britain’s exit vote.

She added that it was not the right time to pursue a quick deepening of cooperation between euro zone member states.

The EU should instead act on popular concerns such as securing the bloc’s borders, creating jobs and improve internal security, she said.

Her comments were reported by two sources who took part in a telephone conference of the board of the Christian Democratic Union.

A German government spokesman said today there will be no informal discussions between Britain and the European Union before the British government has invoked formal divorce proceedings.

Steffen Seibert, spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the UK first needed to make the formal Article 50 request – the legal mechanism for the withdrawal of a member state from the EU.

‘One thing is clear: before Britain has sent this request there will be no informal preliminary talks about the modalities of leaving,’ he said.

‘Only when Britain has made the request according to Article 50 will the European Council draw up guidelines in consensus for an exit agreement,’ he added.

Guenther Oettinger, a German member of the EU’s executive European Commission, also issued a warning.

‘Every day of uncertainty prevents investors from putting their funds into Britain, and also other European markets,’ he told Deutschlandfunk radio. ‘Cameron and his party will cause damage if they wait until October.’

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken a softer line. She says she will not battle now over the timeframe and has underlined the need to continue a positive trade relationship with Britain, a big market for German carmakers and other manufacturers.

But a Merkel ally, Volker Kauder, made clear the exit negotiations would not be easy. ‘There will be no special treatment, there will be no gifts,’ Kauder, who leads Merkel’s conservatives in parliament, told ARD television.


Fallujah, the ‘resistance’ city, is liberated yet again

Robert Fisk — The Independent June 26, 2016

Iraqi government forces reenter Fallujah. Click to enlarge

Iraqi government forces reenter Fallujah. Click to enlarge

There’s a truism long held in the Arab world:  when the bad guys proclaim victory, they’re probably telling the truth.  When the good guys proclaim victory, there’s usually just a little bit more fighting to be done before the promise is fulfilled;  meaning another few days’ fighting, another week, another month…  So when the Iraqi commander tells the people of Iraq that Fallujah has been “liberated” – for the fourth time in a decade, by my count – it’s time to use the critical faculties that politicians and armies so often lack.

Fallujah, you may remember, was the “city of mosques” whose Sunni people liberated themselves from Saddam’s rule a few days before their American liberators turned up in 2003 to tell the world they had themselves freed Fallujah from the evil Saddam.  Then the city decided it didn’t want the American version of liberation and its resistance forces began attacking US troops who found themselves fighting – you guessed it – “terrorists” in Fallujah.

In two street protests in 2003, the American 82nd Airborne managed to kill 19 Iraqi civilians. They claimed – like the British 1st Parachute Regiment in Derry in 1972 – that they had been fired on by the protestors, but human rights groups said they could find no evidence of this.  Nor could journalists who visited the scene.   Come early 2004, and four armed American mercenaries in Fallujah, betrayed by a local Fallujah cop, were hauled from their vehicles and murdered.  The Americans decided that the city should be ‘liberated’ again – and the Marines, in the preposterously named ‘Operation Vigilant Resolve’, laid siege to the city in March.  They then handed it over to local Iraqi army troops formally loyal to Saddam – who promptly handed it back to the resistance (or ‘terrorists’).  In November, therefore, it was time for the even more ridiculously named ‘Operation Phantom Fury’ in which hundreds of ‘terrorists’ were supposedly killed, along with dozens of US Marines.

The Americans denied using white phosphorous in the battle – then admitted they had indeed used phosphorous. And when Iraqi mothers in the city subsequently suffered a small a plague of stillborn and grossly deformed babies, their families blamed this on the use of American phosphorous shells. But in 2004, the Americans claimed they had discovered evidence of torture chambers in Fallujah and freed at least two hostages, one of them the chauffeur of a French journalist.  There was no reason for surprise.

Fallujah had become “resistance city” for the army of rebels – Saddam veterans, foreign fighters and a growing al-Qaeda force in Iraq – over many months.  In early 2004, I bought a series of videotapes on sale outside one of Fallujah’s largest mosques;  they showed the beheading of Russian troops in Chechenya by bearded Islamists, each soldier led into a bare room where his throat was cut open in  camera close-ups.  They were training tapes;  the Isis-to-be rebels of Fallujah were being taught the skills of a butcher — how to decapitate prisoners.

The lessons were put to swift use.  The mortuaries of Baghdad filled each morning with headless corpses – one arrived with a dog’s head sewn onto the torso – and Fallujah became a no-go city.  Fallujah was not a beheading centre, but it was an untamable city.  In 2012, I visited the families of the malformed but still living children born after “Phantom Fury” – all bravely saying that they would care for their sons and daughters until they died because they were a gift from God – but my journeys around the city were guarded by black-uniformed Iraqi cops.  One of their colleagues had just been murdered in an al-Qaeda ambush;  al-Qaeda used another policeman’s radio to claim responsibility for the killing.

So when Isis overran Mosul three years later, Tikrit, Fallujah and the neighbouring city of Ramadi were bound to return to Sunni rebel rule, although many of the armed groups were tribesmen rather than Isis members.  Tikrit was recaptured last year by a deeply pessimistic (and wounded) Iraqi Shiite lieutenant general called Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi who feared that Shiite militias had murdered several prisoners and complained that his country would be divided if his men were not better trained and armed.

A month ago, the Shia Iraqi government, supported by both the US and Iran as well as local Shia militias from southern Iraq, announced an even more ill-informed ‘Operation Breaking Terror’ and laid siege to Fallujah all over again, sending thousands of civilians fleeing for their lives and taking away for ‘interrogation’ at least 60 Sunni civilians, who are now suspected of being murdered by Shia militias. As usual when Fallujah is being ‘liberated’ US air strikes were called in to smash many ‘terrorist’ buildings to rubble.  A week ago, the Iraqi prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, claimed that Fallujah had been ‘liberated’ after city hall, a brown concrete block at the very entrance to Fallujah, had been captured.  Then the shooting went on.

Until a few hours ago when the very same Lieutenant General Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi of Tikrit fame announced that his men had “fully [sic] liberated” Fallujah.  Not much of the city left, unfortunately – it’s been rebuilt twice already – but then yet further shooting was heard. What was that truism again?  When the good guys proclaim victory…


Russia Defense Report: Kuril Islands Dispute

Hello Rapallo! The Inevitability of a New German Treaty of Economic Cooperation with Russia

By John Helmer, Moscow — Dances with Bears June 26, 2016

German Treaty with Russia1

Secret negotiations have been under way for some time between high German and Russian officials, to which Chancellor Angela Merkel has been excluded. Warned by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and in a recent coded communication from outgoing President Barack Obama that she must act to save her authority, and enforce European Union sanctions against Russia, Merkel has also received an ultimatum from her cabinet and party. This was delivered in the form of a page torn out of an Old German bible in which a large black spot had been inked. Either she step aside in secret, Merkel understood the signal, or she will be forced to resign in public.

For more details of the meaning of the Black Spot, read this.

Excerpts of the new treaty, which has been drafted by ministry-level officials Merkel has been unable to stop, have been leaked by sources close to the two sides in the secret talks.

Treaty-of-RapalloThe sources claim the plan of negotiations commenced after the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble (lead picture, 2nd from left), and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (centre), agreed that Merkel’s hatred of President Vladimir Putin had become an unprecedented political liabilitity for Germany and themselves. Russian sources close to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (1st left) and Kremlin chief of staff Sergei Ivanov (right) believe Merkel’s backing for the US war against Russia threatened direct military clashes along Germany’s eastern front and in the Baltic Sea; further flooding of Germany with refugees from the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Syria, and Turkey. The German officials have been dismayed, Swiss sources report, by escalation of US Treasury threats against German banks; and by reports from German business lobbies, labour and farm unions of billions of Euros in commercial losses they attribute to the US and European Union (EU) sanctions.

The sources also claim the Dutch referendum vote on April 16, 2016, to reject the EU agreement with Ukraine was the “first shot in Merkel’s head”. To follow details of that vote, read this.

Intelligence reports from German agents based in London, warning that the British referendum was likely to go against remaining in the EU, reinforced German interest in talking secretly and at a senior level with Moscow. The Brexit result on June 24 was, according to these sources, “the coup de grace for Merkel”. For details of the Brexit vote, click.

German sources now claim their talks with the Russians have been following the outline of the Treaty of Rapallo. Signed between German and Soviet representatives in Italy on April 22, 1922, that pact followed the collapse of British, French and American efforts at regime change in Moscow and expanded military occupation of German territory. To open the original Rapallo pact, click. The German Chancellor, Joseph Wirth (pictured 2nd from left) and Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau led the German delegation; Georgy Chicherin (centre), the Peoples Commissar for Foreign Affairs, led the Soviet delegation.

For analysis of Russian strategy towards Germany, read this; and of Russian strategy towards the US, this.

When Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (below, left) met Putin on June 17 in St. Petersburg, he was overheard as saying off-mike: “Vediamo a Rapallo!”

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52180

Excerpts of the new treaty currently in drafting have been leaked as follows:

“ARTICLE 1(b): Legal relations in public and private matters arising out of the state of war, including the deployment on the territory of the one Party, threatening the territory of the other Party, of forces and weapons belonging to parties not adhering to this Treaty, shall be settled on a basis of reciprocity and guarantees of non-aggression between the Parties, including between memberships of groups directly or indirectly aimed at the other. “

“ARTICLE 5: The two Governments shall co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries and the removal of all barriers to the free movement of capital and trade between them. In the event of a fundamental settlement of the above question on an international basis, an exchange of opinions shall previously take place between the two Governments. The German Government, having lately been informed of the proposed agreements of private firms, declares its readiness to give all possible support to these arrangements and to facilitate their being carried into effect.”

The sources responsible for the leaks request anonymity. No official comment from the German and Russian governments can be expected, yet.


Iran’s Trying to Rebuild Its Air Force

David Axe — The Daily Beast June 27, 2016

Sukhoi Su-30. Click to enlarge

Sukhoi Su-30. Click to enlarge

After decades of financial and technological strangulation, the Iranian air force—at one time among the most advanced in the world—finally has an opportunity to modernize and potentially become a serious aerial opponent for the United States and other rivals.

The gradual lifting of international sanctions on Iran that began in January—a reward for Tehran agreeing to scrap its nuclear program—means the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force could, in theory, buy new jet fighters to replace its existing, mostly antiquated planes.

Don’t hold your breath.

Sure, sanctions are ending. But Iran’s own bewildering internal politics could prevent the Iranian air force from re-arming any time soon—or ever.

Before the nuclear deal, Iran’s air arm was sliding toward extinction. After the nuclear deal, nothing much has changed. At this point, probably nothing can stop the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force from wasting away.

In the 1970s, Iran was a strong ally of the United States and its leader, King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi—the “shah”—loved American airplanes. “He’ll buy anything that flies,” one American official said of the shah. In 1972, U.S. president Richard Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger visited Tehran and offered the shah a proverbial blank check. Any U.S.-made plane the Pahlavi wanted, Washington would permit him to buy—a privilege even America’s closest European allies did not enjoy.

The shah promptly bought 80 F-14s—those powerful, swing-wing interceptors made famous by the 1986 action flick Top Gun. Seventy-nine of the F-14s had arrived by the time restive Iranians, including a strong core of Islamist hardliners, overthrew the shah in 1979, kidnapping 52 Americans in Tehran and overnight transforming Iran from a U.S. ally to one of America’s bitterest enemies.

Washington and indeed most of the industrialized world quickly imposed tight economic and military sanctions on the new Islamic Republic of Iran. Lacking a domestic aerospace industry, for the next 40 years the Iranian air force mostly had to make do with its F-14s and other, older American-supplied planes, plus a few jets Tehran more or less stole from Iraqi pilots fleeing the 1991 Gulf War.

Today the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force possesses 348 fighters, making it the ninth most powerful air arm in the world, on paper. But the F-14, F-4 and F-5 fighters in its possession are old and in poor repair. “Most require upgrading or replacement,” Babak Taghvaee, a expert on Iran’s air force, wrote in Combat Aircraft, a trade magazine.

Over the past 15 years, Iran has repeatedly tried to buy new fighters from Russia, but each time officials in Moscow caved to pressure from their counterparts in Washington and cancelled the deals. Now with the gradual lifting of sanctions—all restrictions on weapons-sales to Iran are on schedule to end in 2021—Tehran is trying again.

Russian and Iranian officials began meeting to discuss a fighter sale several years ago. By late 2014, the Iranian air force had decided which plane it wanted—Russia’s cutting-edge Su-30, a twin-engine fighter comparable to America’s F-15. Tehran and Russia agreed to a deal for 48 Su-30s, with deliveries beginning in 2018—three years before the final end of military sanctions.

Thomas Shannon, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, objected to the deal and threatened to take his complaint to the U.N. Security Council. “We would block the approval of fighter aircraft,” Shannon said in April.

The Su-30 sale could be in limbo until at least 2021. And even then there’s no guarantee it or any similar deal will go through. For starters, Su-30s are expensive—no less than $50 million per copy, perhaps too much for Iran. “The Iranian air force is not well-funded,” Kash Ryan, author of Air Combat Memoirs of The Iranian Air Force Pilots, told The Daily Beast via email.

Cash isn’t even the main problem. Military officials can negotiate all they want and even sign contracts, but Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran’s top religious leader, has final say over arms deals. “In a country like Iran where a dictator like Khamenei rules with an iron fist, the air force won’t have much say in actual decision-making,” Ryan said.

The air force is low on Khamenei’s list of priorities. The ayatollah has a habit of only approving arms deals that boost his own political allies, especially within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the religious branch of the Iranian military. “Economic interests of a few, kickbacks and corruption decide what should or can be purchased,” Ryan said.

Most recently, Khamenei nixed the (non-religious) Iranian army’s attempt to buy new T-90 tanks from Russia. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does not operate significant numbers of armored vehicles or manned aircraft and, unlike the mostly-secular army and air force, would have little use for high-tech T-90s and Su-30s, instead favoring special forces, ballistic missiles and drones.

There’s a middle ground between the air force’s desire to buy Su-30s from Russia and Khamenei’s own intention to limit the flying branch’s spending. Iranian officials have proposed licensing the Su-30 design from Russia and producing the planes locally using mostly cheaper, Iranian-made components. Local production might also help Tehran thread the ever-loosening sanctions and avoid a U.S. veto at the United Nations.

That’s a nice idea for boosters of the Iranian air force. But it, too, is unlikely to work within Iran’s labyrinthine political system, Tom Cooper, author of several books about Iranian air power, told The Daily Beast via email.

“Although the necessary companies, most of the tools, and especially know-how are available or could be purchased from abroad, there is not enough coherence/unity between different cliques,” Cooper explained, “resulting in a situation where Iran can’t launch series production of such complex arms systems.”

In short, the air force Iran has—and has had since the late 1970s—is probably the same air force it will have for many years to come. An increasingly worn-out one that possesses less and less combat capability by the day.

The Iranian air force is going extinct, and even the end of decades of sanctions probably won’t save it.


Brexit- What is the Hidden Globalist Game?

henrymakow.com — June 26, 2016

Boris Johnson's stepmother Jenny, the second wife of his father Stanley, is the stepdaughter of Edward Sieff, the former chairman of Marks & Spencer

Boris Johnson’s stepmother Jenny, the second wife of his father Stanley, is the stepdaughter of Edward Sieff, the former chairman of Marks & Spencer

The prompt acceptance of the narrow referendum win should make you suspicious. Brexit is supposed to be a blow to the masonic Jew World Order. But all the usual suspects including the mass media supported it. What trick do the globalists have up their sleeve?

By Northsider — Brexit- Another Jewish Dialectic? (henrymakow.com)

There is great rejoicing in much of the so called alternative media over the “Brexit” result in yesterday’s British referendum on membership of the European Union. If more proof were needed that the alternative media is often misinformed and credulous, this is it.
Alternative types, from David Duke to David Icke, have of course been insisting for months that the Brexit movement represents a mighty blow against Zio-globalism. There may be some excuse for Duke to believe this guff: he is, after all, an American and presumably relies on British “white nationalists” for information about such matters. There is little or no excuse for British white nationalists themselves, or for British critics of Zionism like Icke, to be so deceived.
Unless they have been paying very scant attention indeed, they should have noticed that the Brexit movement is overwhelmingly dominated not just by common or garden variety Zionists, but by hard-core Zionist ultras of a particularly toxic variety. For example, Boris Johnson, the part-Jewish de facto frontman for Brexit, describes himself as “a passionate Zionist” and supports with an equal passion both the corrupt City of London and mass migration to Europe.
gove zionistBut compared to Michael Gove, the other leading Tory Brexit spokesman and senior British cabinet member, Boris is a veritable peacenik. Gove has never seen a Zio-war he didn’t like. A former journalist with the Zionist London Times newspaper, he once penned the following excruciating line about war criminal Blair: “I can’t help myself! I love Tony!”.
t’s worth pointing out, by the way, that Johnson, and more especially Gove, are close personal friends of British Prime Minister David Cameron, which makes it, therefore, more than plausible to suggest that their dispute over Brexit is pure political theatre for the gullible masses and nothing more.
Chris Grayling, another senior Tory Brexiter, is a member of British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), a Zionist lobby group. When he was secretary of state for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Grayling declared war on “extremists”, the working definition of which, he made clear, amounted to anyone who criticized Israel or the War on Terror.
Theresa Villiers, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Brexiter, is an “officer” of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and ardent Zionist.
Iain Duncan Smith, a long standing supporter of Brexit, who resigned recently from his senior ministry in the Cameron government, also belongs to the CFI, as indeed do nearly all the leading Tory Brexiters.
Then there’s Liam Fox, left, another Neocon ultra, who was forced to resign from his job as Secretary of State for Defence, after it was revealed that billionaire Israeli arms dealer, Poju Zabludowicz, was funding his jet setting playboy lifestyle, and that of his erstwhile “adviser” Adam Werrity.
It isn’t just on the Tory side where Brexit goes with passionate Zionism. One of the small handful of Labour Party Brexit supporters was Gisela Stuart, a German born Zionist, and a member of the Neocon “Henry Jackson Society”. Stuart received lavish media coverage throughout the campaign – courtesy of her Zionist friends at the BBC. Other Labour Brexit supporters like Kate Hoey and Frank Field, also strongly support Israel.



Continues …

Why the British said no to Europe

John Pilger — johnpilger.com June 25, 2016

The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media.

This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life.

A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale.

Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – irst Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel.

The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centrepiece of modern “globalisation”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicised civil servants.

All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more.

The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as “neoliberalism”.

The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain’s second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, “experiencing the effects of extreme poverty” and 1.6 million are slipping into penury.

Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about “leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland.

On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to “Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people” are the majority of Britons.

The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war.  The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses. “Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood – just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. ” … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.”

The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs for is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored.  Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status quo in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed.

On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the “remain” campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron’s “dignity” and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday. He said nothing about Cameron’s divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about “protecting” the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three.

In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin’s speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War.

Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia’s western borders to the Third Reich’s Operation Barbarossa. Nato’s exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. On the eve of the referendum, the quisling secretary-general of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe.


Haaretz Confirms: Britain Has Been Operating As An Israeli Puppet Within The EU

Reported by Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk June 26, 2016

 “With Brexit, Israel Loses a Major Asset in the European Union,” Haaretz reports today
“Britain helped moderate and balance EU decisions about the peace process, blunt criticism and even harness the member states against anti-Israel moves at the UN; voices sympathetic to the Palestinian cause could now become more dominant.”
The Israelis have started to recognize that the Jewish State: “has lost a significant asset in the European Union…, Britain leaving would not serve Israeli interests, especially on the Palestinian issue.”
But why was Britain an Israeli asset? How was Britain reduced to act as an Israeli colony? Simple. British foreign affairs are dominated by the Jewish Lobby.
According to the Israeli paper, PM David Cameron met leaders of the Jewish community in London a few days before the referendum.  Cameron asked the Jewish oligarchs, “do you want Britain – Israel’s greatest friend – in there opposing boycotts, opposing the campaign for divestment and sanctions, or do you want us outside the room, powerless to affect the discussion that takes place?”
At least 52% of the Brits felt neglected by Cameron’s government. Clearly the Jewish community leaders weren’t. Their foreign interests were looked after.
However, the Jews were not totally convinced by Cameron’s plea.  “Quite a few of the participants in the discussions argued that Britain’s leaving the EU would actually serve Israel’s interests.” The official cited one argument to the effect that “Britain’s leaving would considerably weaken the EU and its institutions, reduce its international influence, and take the sting out of its Israeli-Palestinian decisions.”  Another argument was that “Britain’s leaving would undermine the EU’s stability and require its institutions and members to direct their energy toward unifying the ranks, rather than toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Maybe Brussels needs to familiarize itself with the elements within the UK Jewish lobby that seek to weaken or even dissolve the EU. I guess that the Brits can see that their politicians repeatedly compromise their national interests. The emergence of Boris Jonson, Michael Gov and Theresa May is not going to change this fact. The Israeli press has already confirmed that these three are the most devoted Zionist enthusiasts in the Kingdom and beyond.



BREXIT FALSE FLAG: Jo Cox’s family… What’s wrong with this picture?

False Flag Fatigue

The Death and Transfiguration Scam

false flag fatique

John Kaminski — June 26, 2016

I have yet to see a competent story written by a reputable observer indicating the so-called gay massacre in Orlando was in any way a real event. It follows without saying that public perception of this unending series of choreographed terrorist events no longer accepts these smelly melodramas as authentic threats to public safety. The structural similarity of this string of manufactured catastrophes reveals them as complicated fabrications for which far too many public officials have lied through their teeth about what was actually happening.

First, as with 9/11, so many of these engineered public spectacles of death and transfiguration have followed the same formula. They’re holding a drill — 7/7 in London, Boston Marathon, FEMA in NYC 9/10 — and at the last minute the gig becomes real, and the cops manufacture a scenario that covers up their planted provocateurs and frames some predesignated patsy, who is supposedly killed as the cops miraculously burst in and save the day.

These echoes continue to resonate from Brussels and Paris to Oklahoma City and Bali among places that have felt the pain of a senseless bombing, which at first seem like random events done by frustrated terrorists, but with the passing of time become secretive plots by intelligence agencies following the demonic rules of the Jewish destabilization template.

Essential to the completion of this scam are criminally complicit media, who regurgitate the implanted terror myths in our minds as they endlessly praise the tireless efforts of our law enforcement heroes, who these days are mostly involved with manipulating low IQ adolescents into attempting senseless acts of violence and claiming these events as triumphs of their professionalism while solving the crimes that they themselves have created.

This is the al-Qaeda theory of world politics, that our designated enemy is hired from amongst the world’s disaffected young people, paid substantially well to become terror crisis actors in scenes filmed in Las Vegas for faux beheading propaganda films, and used generally in violent destabilization exercises that gain some substantial advantage for Israel and the worldwide Jewish terror apparatus. Hey, it’s the Mossad motto! By deception shall we do war. No surprise to anyone anymore.

Notice how this ISIS group never attacked Israelis.

It’s over a hundred years now, and the American people still have not picked up on that, due mainly to the power of the media, filtered into schools and churches that very Jewish philosophy — whatever we do is right and whatever the other guy does is wrong . . .

. . . because only we can possibly be right, so let’s kill those who disagree with us. Let’s claim they’re ‘less than human’. This is the new American direction crafted right out of the bloody pages of the Talmud.

Please, I’ve had enough of this throat-gagging political theater, forever trying to convince us to give up our guns.

Once and for all, people! Repeat after me.

Personal ownership of firearms is the one fact that keeps America relatively free, and most importantly free from the unlawful laws of foreign criminals who have taken over the government and, frankly, mean to exterminate us.

Threats of using our firearms have produced no response from the forces of tyranny, except to constantly introduce new laws that diminish our ability to protect ourselves. Thomas Jefferson said it long ago that to prove our point it probably will be necessary to shed blood, because our adversaries for more than two thousand years have proved they cannot be reasoned with, and will persist in their criminal parasitic activities that have destroyed every nation which has fallen prey to their tantalizing and addictive dramas since the dawn of time.

The American people need to remember its so-called government consider them and you and me its enemies. The American people should consider first before anything else that its own government is their greatest enemy because it has — and wields capriciously and maliciously — the power to destroy you for reasons that do not have to be true.

If reputable, forthright citizens with no goal other than to make the machinery of civilization run more smoothly and beneficially for everyone, cannot manage to run the world in a decent fashion, then we have no hope of anything, and the animals among us will continue to clamber to the top and abuse the rest of us.

We allow those whom we are not allowed to talk about to run our lives, and to also allow us to maintain our own perceptions of what the world is all about, as long as our conclusions don’t complicate the fictional scenario they have created for us as their slaves.

Despite the reverberations that have spread throughout the country as a result of the mainstream acceptance of the original mass murder story, the country has extended carte blanche acceptance of the LGBT community, coding what some health experts say is a mental illness into an intrinsic part of our collective personality recognized by the public as acceptable behavior.

Like the proscriptions of talking about the Holocaust in some European countries, publicly disagreeing that transgenderism or homosexuality are not mental illnesses can get you heavily fined or thrown in jail for blaspheming political correctness, which more and more begins to sound like a regimentation of mind approved by the government, which is run by people who are trying to kill us.

Death and transfiguration scam: Government creates disaster, but then it rescues us from it, becoming heroes in the media. This is what happened to all those creeps who were in charge on 9/11, the greatest military failure in U.S. history — and they all got promoted, went on to distinguished careers in industry feeding the war machine as it machineguns the whole world on behalf of its Israeli masters.

Down at the mall, there aren’t too many people who understand what I’m saying, which is . . . our government will never protect us from itself. We must do that ourselves, no matter what the cost.

The same thing happened to the Indians, who were then mostly exterminated. The same thing is happening to us. Our government has forced us not to trust it.

“What does it matter if the product comes from Israel?” the people ask innocently. And they look up at you wondering what you’re talking about.

“Wait . . .” they say, “surely you don’t mean that our own government would slaughter its own people like that . . . ?”

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.








Holocaust imposter and historical fraud

“According to [Joseph Hirt’s nephew] Michael Hirt, his uncle was born in Horodenka, Poland, on July 10, 1930, to Jewish parents.”

— Lancaster Online

With an Afterword by revisionist historian Michael Hoffman

Holocaust imposter and historical fraud 

By  Andrew R. Reid –8 June 2016

Joseph Hirt. Click to enlarge

Joseph Hirt. Click to enlarge

Dear Editor

It gives me no pleasure to inform you and your readers that Mr. Joseph Bernard Hirt  –   who recently gave a presentation in Lowville on the night of 15 April 2016 in which he told of his alleged experience of being a survivor of the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp  –   is a Holocaust imposter and historical fraud.
I attended Mr. Hirt’s presentation that evening. As a local History teacher, I also encouraged my students to attend. However, as a trained historian and teacher, several of his claims did not sound quite right. I believed I had a duty to my students, the community, and the truth, so I began researching Mr. Hirt’s claims and in doing so accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves the majority of his story is false, including all of his alleged experiences related to the Auschwitz concentration camp.
The following are some examples of Mr. Hirt’s untrue claims and the historical facts (all of which can be easily verified by the public online) which prove they are false:
(1) Mr. Hirt was never at Auschwitz during World War II  –   the Auschwitz prisoner list is available online at the Auschwitz- Birkenau State Museum website and there is no record of a Joseph Hirt. The number he has tattooed on his arm  –   which he claims was his prison ID  –   is the real number of another prisoner from 1944. Camp records show only one escape in the months surrounding Mr. Hirt’s alleged date of escape, and tha t  person was not Mr. Hirt; (2) Mr. Hirt claims to have come “face -to- face” with Dr.  Josef Mengele while a  prisoner at Auschwitz concentration camp before escaping 31 March 1942  –   it is well-documented that Mengele did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 1943; (3) the picture of an emaciated man on a stretcher that he claims is him right before he escaped is, in fact, one that was taken by a soldier in the U.S. Army, Mickey Martin, a member of the 42nd Infantry “Rainbow” Division  of the U.S. Army which liberated the Dachau concentration camp in 1945.
 All of this and much more is laid out in over 20 pages of evidence I have amassed as a result of my research. I have provided the editor of this publication (which unknowingly advertised and covered Mr. Hirt ’s presentation) with a digital copy of this research  –   please feel free to contact the editor and request a copy.
Lastly, I want to be clear  –   I am not a Holocaust denier. In fact, the man who hired me for my first teaching job many years ago was a survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and it is partly in his memory and for the preservation of the truth of what millions of people endured that I have taken upon myself the task of exposing Mr. Hirt’s shameful deception.
It is my hope that Mr. Hirt will voluntarily recant his fraudulent claims and cease his public presentations.
Regretfully Yours,
Andrew R. Reid
3087 State Route 12D Boonville, NY 13309
Excerpts from Mr. Reid’s personal note to Joseph Hirt:  He said if Hirt does not take any action, he will petition the district attorneys in Lancaster and Lewis counties to launch a criminal investigation. “Much of your activity fits the legal definitions (in both the states of New York and Pennsylvania) of felonies and misdemeanors such as fraud, identity theft, and forgery,” Reid wrote to Hirt. “I am not particularly interested in seeing you punished — I am mostly interested in (1) stopping you from continuing your false claims and (2) seeing you make things right with people whose trust you have abused,” Reid wrote.

Man who claimed to have escaped Auschwitz admits he lied for years

The Guardian (UK) • June 24, 2016

A Pennsylvania man who claimed for years to have escaped from Auschwitz, met track and field star Jesse Owens and Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, confessed on Friday that he had fabricated the entire story.
“I am writing today to apologize publicly for harm caused to anyone because of my inserting myself into the descriptions of life in Auschwitz,” Joseph Hirt, 86, wrote in a letter sent to his local paper, LNP, this week. “I was not a prisoner there. I did not intend to lessen or overshadow the events which truly happened there by falsely claiming to have been personally involved.”
“I was wrong. I ask forgiveness,” he added. “I determined at that moment to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of the truth about wartime life (and death) at Auschwitz.”
For years, Hirt gave public speeches about his experiences in the second world war, including his Jewish family’s flight from Poland to Belgrade. But he also told people that he was arrested by the Nazis, sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz, and met Mengele, the SS physician who tortured prisoners of the concentration camp. Hirt claimed to have escaped under an electric fence at the camp.
He added an extraordinary prologue and epilogue to the story, saying that he saw Adolf Hitler turn his back on Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and that he met Eleanor Roosevelt and Owens after his arrival in the United States.
In his letter, Hirt said that he realized “it wasn’t about me”, and that he was motivated to lie by his fears that the history and horror of the camps would be forgotten. He said that he was shocked to find that Auschwitz, now a museum and memorial, had become a “clean and polished tourist destination” where visitors laughed and joked about “propaganda”.
Flagrant denial and ignorance of the truth made me determined to keep the memories alive,” Hirt said. “I used poor judgment and faulty reasoning, risking a sullying of the truth I was trying to share.”
Hirt did not immediately reply to a request for an interview. Earlier this year, New York history teacher Andrew Reid became suspicious of Hirt’s story and wrote a refutation of many of Hirt’s points.
The names of concentration camp victims and survivors are publicly available, and there is no record of Hirt at Auschwitz or elsewhere. Hirt admitted in his letter that he had tattooed the camp number of Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi, the acclaimed author and chemist, on his left forearm – “in no way an attempt to take on his identity, but in an effort to incorporate his symbol as a way of remembering him”.
Reid also found that Hirt’s escape story did not fit with camp records, that Mengele did not arrive at the camp until after the alleged escape, and other lies, errors and far-fetched claims in Hirt’s account. He was a six-year-old Polish boy and extraordinarily unlikely to be anywhere near Hitler at the Olympics, for instance, and Owens’ biographer found the snub was likely a fabrication, possibly conflated with another black sprinter’s story.
“I want to be clear – I am not a Holocaust denier,” Reid wrote in his own letter, noting that he got his first job from a concentration camp survivor. “It is partly in his memory and for the preservation of the truth of what millions of people endured that I have taken upon myself the task of exposing Mr Hirt’s shameful deception.”
Hirt is not the first to fabricate or exaggerate a Holocaust story, worrying historians who fear these voices encourage people who deny the deaths of six million people. Herman Rosenblat, a Polish survivor, embellished his 1993 memoir and made up some parts entirely, including the love story at its heart. At the time, historian Ken Waltzer wrote in the New Republic that he was alarmed by how quickly people accepted the story… (emphasis supplied)


Afterword by Michael Hoffman:

According to the local Pennsylvania media (Lancaster Online) it has been alleged that on at least one occasion Mr. Hirt received monetary compensation for one of his “Holocaust Survivor” speeches:
“In 2014, Joseph Hirt spoke at an event hosted by the Caernarvon Historical Society. According to an official at the society, the event at the Caernarvon Fire Hall drew an estimated 1,000 people. The society made a donation to Hirt, and a general offering was taken on his behalf. Hirt also spoke at Lititz Area Mennonite School at least once in 2012. Retired teacher David Siegrist said he did not want to comment on hosting Hirt as a guest speaker.”
At the Great Holocaust Trial of publisher Ernst Zündel virtually every so-called “Holocaust Survivor” who testified for the Crown Prosecution that was endeavoring to send the defendant to prison for printing skeptical books, was shown to have lied, fantasized or otherwise compromised the truth.
The missing dimension in the reporting about Mr. Hirt’s lies is the aspect of his having given false witness against the German people. We have grown so accustomed to accusing the Germans of every crime under the sun that we often overlook the fact that lies like those of Mr. Hirt constitute a transgression against one of the Ten Commandments.
Furthermore, everyone has the right to doubt Judaic tales. The fear-inducing “Holocaust denier” smear is an intimidation tactic to prevent us from considering facts which overthrow idols and expand human knowledge. Christians like Mennonite John Ruth who naively acted as a colleague of Mr. Hirt, and those at the Lititz Area Mennonite School, who sponsored his speech, should be more cautious in the future about the anti-German libel they are so quick to endorse.
For further research:

Putin crushes CNN smartass Fareed Zakaria on Donald Trump and US elections

Exile in Thailand Better Than Exile at Home – US Retiree

henrymakow.com — June 25, 2016

pad-thaiMarcus who retired to Bangkok says the many drawbacks are manageable compared to the increasing “insanity of the West.”
(Disclaimer– We are not endorsing sexual mores described herein.)

by Marcus — henrymakow.com

I am a retired businessman from the USA, now living in Thailand for 10 years.  This is encouragement for other white men that escape is possible and life outside The West can be safe and pleasant.
 My primary goals in escaping were:
  1. Escape from the worship of Negros that has overwhelmed my country, the USA. 2. Escape from Femi-Nazis.  Escape from the social construct that females are always right and men are always wrong.  3. Escape from the suffocating insanity of political correctness, “PC”.  4. Escape from the mushrooming “security state”.  Everywhere cameras, security inspections, ID badges, and the overwhelming gloom of suspicion.
 I’ve found that life outside The West can be far more safe, and very pleasant, too. albeit not heaven on earth.  For the first year, my yearnings for warm weather, exotic food, available women, etc, were totally satisfied here.  But then, slowly, things began to go change.  My honeymoon here came to an end.
The smiling mask of “welcome” started to come off once the locals realized that I was living here, not just visiting.  They had been happy to see me staying at an expensive hotel, eating in tourist restaurants, spending big money, and leaving tips.  But they were not so pleased to see me at the local supermarket buying bread, cheese, and mayonnaise to make lunch at home.   I hadn’t expected that change in attitude.
Staying in a hotel is wonderful:  inviting swimming pool, maid service every morning, room service 24 hours.  On the other hand, renting a local apartment is quite different.   Yes, a swimming pool, but the water is dirty green because the filter hasn’t been cleaned in months.  Hiring a maid to to clean and do laundry is awkward if you don’t speak her  language.   Plus, finding a maid who won’t steal too much is even more difficult.  Those cheese sandwiches are far less glamorous than room service.  So full time living here is not at all like a vacation holiday.  Still, compared to the risks “back home”, I’ll stay here.


Continues …

US Navy trains its sights on electromagnetic cannon that could change face of ground warfare

AFP — June 25, 2016

The U.S. Navy has developed an electromagnetic weapon that "launches and accelerates conductive projectiles along pairs of metal rails using the effects of a strong magnetic field; it can accelerate a seven pound projectile to a speed of 5,600 miles per hour." Click to enlarge

The U.S. Navy has developed an electromagnetic weapon that “launches and accelerates conductive projectiles along pairs of metal rails using the effects of a strong magnetic field; it can accelerate a seven pound projectile to a speed of 5,600 miles per hour.” Click to enlarge

The US Navy is quietly pushing ahead with a radical new cannon that one day could transform how wars are fought, even though some Pentagon officials have voiced concerns over its cost and viability.

Named the railgun, the weapon in question represents a paradigm shift in ballistic technology. Instead of using gunpowder and explosive charges to shoot a shell from its barrel, it employs vast amounts of electromagnetic energy to zoom a projectile along a set of copper-alloy rails.

Thanks to four small fins on its rear, the hefty round can then be guided toward a moving object – such as an enemy ship, drone or incoming ballistic missile – relying purely on the kinetic energy from its vast momentum to destroy the target.

Ultimately, scientists expect the railgun rounds to travel at speeds up to Mach 7.5, which at 9,100km per hour is more than seven times the speed of sound, and cover a distance of about 160km.

“The railgun is revolutionary in terms of how much it can accelerate the bullet,” said Tom Boucher, the railgun programme manager for Office of Naval Research, as he displayed six interconnected steel plates that all had been shredded by a single test round.

“Powder guns have been matured to the point where you are going to get the most out of them. Railguns are just beginning.”

The futuristic weapon has long been a darling of the navy’s research wing, along with other game-changing technologies such as laser beams that can track a boat in choppy water and blast holes in its hull.

Yet the railgun, which so far has cost more than US$500 million, may find itself becoming something of a victim of its own success – even before it is made operational.

That is because of its special shells designed to hurtle through the skies at jaw-dropping speeds.

These rounds, called High Velocity Projectiles (HPVs), can be guided in flight. They can also be fired from a conventional five-inch cannon.

Though the HVPs would travel slower than they would out of a railgun, they still outperform regular shells, making them a tempting proposition for the Navy to deploy across its fleet.

“It turns out that powder guns firing the same hyper-velocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail un, and it’s something we could do much faster,” Deputy Defence Secretary Bob Work told US lawmakers last month.

Each HVP eventually will cost about US$50,000 – still considerably more expensive than a conventional shell but an order of magnitude cheaper than guided missiles such as the Tomahawk, that cost more than US$1 million apiece.

Currently, it requires about 25 megawatts of energy to power a railgun. That kind of juice, and the space needed to generate or store it, rules out many vessels from hosting it, but researchers are optimistic the technology will grow more compact.

The navy hopes to install a railgun on the USS Zumwalt, a brand new guided-missile destroyer that produces the large amounts of power needed to charge the weapon.

The railgun has also suffered from technical setbacks during its development.

The enormous forces generated by the HVP leaving the gun caused early versions to fail after only a few shots, but scientists say they are now working toward a solution that could see the barrel last for thousands of rounds.

Brocher said he is optimistic the gun will ultimately end up being operationally deployed, probably within a decade.

“We are going to be OK,” he said. “We are showing our progress, and the proof will be in what we do.”

It’s not just the Navy with its sights on the railgun. The army would one day like to put the electric blasters on its tanks, but is currently constrained the gun’s power requirements.

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley this week said he envisions a time in the not-so-distant future where railguns and lasers are deployed on land.

“We are looking at all those technologies,” he said. “My professional opinion is that I think we are on the cusp of a fundamental change in the character of ground warfare.”