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?

Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity

Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk July 16, 2018


In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates — to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange.  I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary.  We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’
Yesterday I was interviewed  by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia.  Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia.  Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called ‘Islamophbes,’  I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with ‘Islamophobia,’ I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.
‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.
But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land.
 Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’  then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be  the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.
It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’  But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?
However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.
My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.
* Bigotry – hating X for being X (Hating Muslims for being Muslims, Hating Gays for being gays, Hating Jews for being Jews etc.)



UK unveils new Tempest fighter jet to replace Typhoon

Rob Davies — The Guardian July 16, 2018

Model of the Tempest fighter unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show. Click to enlarge

Model of the Tempest fighter unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show. Click to enlarge

The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, has unveiled plans for a new RAF fighter jet, the Tempest, which will eventually replace the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Speaking at the Farnborough airshow, Williamson unveiled a model of the sixth-generation fighter jet the Ministry of Defence (MoD) expects to emerge from its new combat air strategy, designed to maintain the UK’s status as a so-called “tier one” military power after Brexit.

“This is a strategy to keep control of the air, both at home and abroad, to remain a global leader in the sector,” Williamson said.

He said he wanted the Tempest to be flying alongside the existing fleet of Typhoons and the US-made F-35s by 2035.

The government said it would spend £2bn to develop the aircraft between now and 2025, using money set aside in 2015 for future combat air technologies.

The jet will potentially be able to operate unmanned, according to plans released by the MoD, and will have next-generation technology on board designed to cope with modern threats.

This will include “swarming” technology that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to hit its targets, as well as directed energy weapons (DEW), which used concentrated bursts of laser, microwave or particle beam energy to inflict damage.

Tempest will be built by a consortium composed of the British defence firm BAE Systems, the engine-maker Rolls-Royce, the Italian aerospace company Lombardo and the pan-European missile manufacturer MBDA.

However, there will be no confirmation on the phalanx of suppliers required to build the jet until 2025, with operational capability due to follow a decade after that.

Williamson said the government’s combat air strategy would help ensure the UK was a world leader in the combat air sector, which supports 18,000 UK jobs.

“The British defence industry is a huge contributor to UK prosperity, creating thousands of jobs in a thriving advanced manufacturing sector and generating a UK sovereign capability that is the best in the world,” he said.


Antifa and MSM Openly Conspire to Crush Debate

James Kirkpatrick — The Unz Review July 15, 2018


It’s not that Main Stream Media journalists support Antifa—MSM journalists ARE Antifa. The alliance between the System’s street enforcers and its Narrative enforcers has become clearer than ever in recent weeks as MSM operatives denounce a new bill—sponsored by four Republican white males—that would impose harsh Federal penalties on the use of masks while undertaking political terrorism. [“Unmasking Antifa” Act Introduced In Congress: 15 Year Sentence For Masked Mayhem, ZeroHedge, July 10, 2018]
With few exceptions, every story about the proposed bill adoringly quotes Antifa organizers and favorably describes their activities. For example:
antifa handbookThe Daily Beast’s coverage of the bill lovingly quotes Dartmouth lecturer Mark Bray’s defense of the group. However, this is self-refuting. Bray himself writes in his book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook:
Our goal should be that in twenty years those who voted for Trump are too uncomfortable to share that fact in public. We may not always be able to change someone’s beliefs, but we sure as hell can make it politically, socially, economically, and sometimes physically costly to articulate them.
[DNC’s Keith Ellison lines up with Antifa terrorists, WND, January 4, 2018]
Thus, by Bray’s own words, it’s not “Nazis” who need to fear masked extremists who feel entitled to take the law into their own hands—it’s half the country.
Letting a group like this operate isn’t just extreme, it’s a recipe for civil war.
Yet there is a theory of action behind Antifa organizing. The group’s ideology maintains certain kinds of speech and political organization are violent in and of themselves. As the definition of “racism” also seems to expand continuously, this means more and more people can be defined as aggressors.
After all, though I’m not very old, I’m old enough to remember when being “colorblind” was the very definition of anti-racism, rather than (as now) proof of racism.
Thus, today we are at a point where visible signs of support for the President of the United States will open you up to physical attack on the streets of just about any major city.
Of course, major outlets like The New York Times have already been paving the groundwork in recent years for peaceful political speech to be considered “violent” or “hate speech” and thus worthy of restriction. For example:
But once one grants the premise that “speech” can be “violence,” it necessarily follows that people should be able to defend themselves. Therefore, attacking people to engage in them is not aggression, but “community self-defense.” These kinds of MSM editorials and Op Ed articles make street violence inevitable.
Of course, logically speaking, right wingers could start operating this way under the same premises. After all, Communism killed more people in the 20th century than any other ideology. If we should “punch Nazis,” it follows that we should apply similar standards to Communists or anything that might potentially lead to Communism.
However, this never seems to come up. It is evidently morally superior to execute people because they are part of the wrong class than the wrong ethnic group.
But the solution is not for right wingers to start acting like Antifa; regardless of any ethical concerns, it simply wouldn’t work in today’s circumstances [Political violence is a game the right can’t win, by David Hines, Jacobite, June 14, 2018]. The solution is for the GOP to begin defending freedom of expression for everyone. The only alternative is violent conflict.
As with immigration, this doesn’t just mean pushing for new legislative tools but for enforcing the laws already on the books. As it stands today, this isn’t happening. Most of those charged with various offenses from the Inauguration Day riots were let off the hook. One of the key ways this was done was by the judge ruling that the terms “Antifa” and “black bloc” were not allowed to be used by prosecutors and witnesses, even though these are the terms the movement uses itself.
And the MSM continues to champion even the most indefensible actions. In April 2017, Eric Clanton, a college professor, was caught on video smashing a man on the head with a bike lock in an apparently unprovoked attack.
He was masked and quickly ran back into the ground after delivering what could have been a deadly blow. He was only caught after anonymous Internet users on /pol did the job Berkeley police just won’t do and hunted him doing using photographic and video evidence.
Rolling Stone, no stranger to both making things up and to romanticizing anti-American terrorism, penned a sympathetic piece about Cantor’s plight in response. One key excerpt:
We had spent much of the weekend going back and forth about using nonviolence to confront the right. Clanton had been adamant: Showing up unarmed and unprepared to protest people who were willing to hurt others was simply too risky. While peaceful demonstration might serve to dispel Antifa’s critics, Clanton says he isn’t interested in giving up his safety, or that of his friends, to seize the moral high ground, which he dismisses as a notion created by the “narrative class.” Nor does he put much stock in the right’s high-minded assertion that it’s fighting for free speech. “Was [Yiannopoulos coming to Berkeley] defensible in terms of free speech? It is an open question,” he says. “But what is not defensible is outing undocumented students in a way that, if not directly advocating, suggests or sort of incites violence against them.” Lou [another Antifa] is more direct: “Free speech is being used to [cover for] a very violent message. What they’re trying to protect is hate speech and calls for genocide.”
[Antifa on Trial: How a College Professor Joined the Left’s Radical Ranks, by Alan Feuer, Rolling Stone, May 15, 2018]
When harmless political performance artists like Milo Yiannopoulos are equated with people calling for “genocide,” Leftists have lost the plot. Rolling Stone’s Feuer accuses the Right of “wielding free-speech rhetoric as a cudgel,” something evidently more offensive than wielding actual cudgels.
In this climate, one can’t be surprised if Professor Cantor somehow ends up being let go. After all, Deandre Harris, the black man literally caught on video caught hitting a man with a flashlight at Charlottesville’s Unite The Right protest last August, was let off by a judge.
Meanwhile, many Unite The Right participants, who simply wanted to hold a legally-sanctioned rally, are still ensnared in a civil lawsuit alleging they engaged in a deliberate “conspiracy” to harm nonwhites [Judge allows federal lawsuit against neo-Nazis to proceed for violence in Charlottesville, by Tess Owen, Vice, July 9, 2018]. This is incredible considering that an independent report basically proved that there really was a conspiracy by state and local officials to create violence at the rally by refusing to separate the different sides and in some cases, literally pushing combatants together.
Needless to say, given that patriots do not enjoy unlimited financial resources, free legal help, and a sympathetic press, it is likely Antifa and the government officials who quite openly organized to commit or permit violence will ever be held accountable.
Some Republicans are still screaming about the need to further investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails. They’d be better served by calling for a federal investigation about what the Commonwealth of Virginia and the city of Charlottesville did last August—and the emerging pattern of Totalitarian Leftist repression across the country. While radical groups like the Democratic Socialists of America quite openly take over the Democrat Party, supporters of the President of the United States’ immigration agenda can’t even hold a meeting at a private location in this country.
While the Left is becoming more militant tactically and ideologically, Congressional Republicans are still mostly stuck in the past with endless Watergate-style investigative reruns.
The rise of an American Totalitarian Left is a new issue. But, as a well-known Republican once said, “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” The First Amendment is now under threat. If Republicans, with total control of the entire federal government cannot recognize this and figure out how to protect free debate—or if they are really too afraid of the MSM/ Democrat howling—one has to wonder what is the point of them at all.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.
(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)

The Cult of Unreality

Mark Windows — Windows on the World July 15, 2018


Signature in the Cell and Intelligent Design

Fred Reed — The Unz Review July 15, 2018

human evolution
A question that never ceases to fascinate is that of how life originated, and how and why it has progressed as it seems to have. The official story and de rigueur explanation is that that life came about through spontaneous generation from seawater. Believing this is the mark of an Advanced Person, whether one has the slightest knowledge of the matter. In academia researchers have been fired and careers ruined for questioning it. If you doubt that scientists can be ideological herd animals, as petty, intolerant, vindictive, and backstabbing as professors, read Heretic, by the PhD biotechnologist and biochemist Matti Leisola, who fell on the wrong side of the herd. Ths establishment’s continuing effort to stamp out heresy looks increasingly like a protracted desperatoon.
The other, more intuitive view of life is that of Intelligent Design. When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it. There is much evidence for this, certainly enough to intrigue those of open mind and intelligence. Those of a philosophic bent may note that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are equally relics of Nineteenth Century determinism, and that Darwin wrote when almost nothing was known about much of biology. Note also that the sciences are tightly constrained and limited by their premises, unable to think outside of their chosen box. Others, wiser, wonder whether there are not more thing in heaven and earth.
The theory of ID is seen by the official story as a form of biblical Creationism of the sort holding that the world was created in 4004 BC. This is either wantonly stupid or deliberately dishonest. There is of course no necessary connection between ID and Buddhism, Islam, or the Cargo Cult. There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence. Some IDers are Christians, which does not affect the validity, or lack of it, orf what they say. To judge by my mail, many people have serious doubts about the official explanation without being zealots of anything in particulr.
(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)
To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.
Two difficulties affect the presentation of ID to the public. First, most of us have been subjected to thousands of hours of vapid “science” programs and mass-market textbooks. These tell us that doubters must be snake-handling forest Christian with three teeth. The second is that following the argument requires more technical grasp than most have. Trying to explain the question to a network-news audience is hopeless and makes those attempting it seem foolish.
Yet discussion has to be fairly technical to avoid degenerating into vague generalities. Following many of the authors requires familiarity with, or the ability to pick up quickly, such things as the nature of information, both in the Shannon sense of a reduction in uncertainty and of specified information as found in DNA and computer code. Some experience of programming helps as does a minor familiarity with organic chemistry and a nodding aquaintance with early paleontology.
And, alas, much of dispute turns on the mechanics of cell biology: DNA’s structure, codons and anticodons, polymerases and transcriptases, the functions of ribosomes, chirality of alpha amino acids, microRNA, protein folding, ORFans, developmental gene regulatory networks, Ediacaran and Cambrian paleontology (so much for 4004 BC BC), and similar technoglop, It isn’t rocket science, but it takes a bit of study to pick up. Most of us have other things to do.
The less one knows about cellular biology the easier it is to believe in spontaneous generation. Darwin knew nothing. Since then knowledge of biochemistry and molecular biology has grown phenomenally. Yet, despite a great deal of effort, the case for the accidental appearance of life has remained one of fervent insistence untainted by either evidence ofrtheoretical plausibility.
What are some of the problems with official Darwinism? First, the spontaneous generation of life has not been replicated. (Granted, repeating a process thought to have taken billions of years might lack appeal as a doctoral project.) Nor has anyone assembled in the laboratory a chemical structure able to metabolize, reproduce, and thus to evolve. It has not been shown to be mathematically possible.
This is true despite endless theories about life arising in tidal pools, on moist clays, in geothermal vents, in shallows, in depths, or that life arrived on carbonaceous chondrites–i.e., meteors. It has even been suggested that life arrived from Mars, which is to say life came from a place where, as far was can be determined, there has never been any. Protracted desperation.
Sooner or later, a hypothesis must be either confirmed or abandoned. Which? When? Doesn’t science require evidence, reproducibility, demonstrated theoretical possibility? These do not exist. Does not the ferocious reaction to doubters of the official story suggest deep-seated doubt even among the believers?
Other serious problems with the official story: Missing intermediate fossils–”missing links”– stubbornly remain missing. “Punctuated equilibrium,” a theory of sudden rapid evolution invented to explain the lack of fossil evidence, seems unable to generate genetic information fast enough. Many proteins bear no resemblance to any others and therefore cannot have evolved from them. On and on.
Finally, the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Over the years, cellular mechanisms have been found to be ever more complex. Darwin thought that in a warm pond, bits of goo clumped together, a membrane formed, and life was off and running. Immediately after Watson and Crick in 1953, the chemical mechanics of cellular function still seemed comparatively simple, though nobody could say where the genetic information came from. Today thousands of proteins are known to take part in elaborate processes in which different parts of proteins are synthesized under control of different genes and then spliced and edited elaborately. Recently with the discovery of epigenetics, complexity has taken a great leap upward. (For anyone wanting to subject himself to such things, there is The Epigenetics Revolution. It is not light reading.)
Worth noting is that that the mantra of evolutionists, that “in millions and millions and billions of years something must have evolved”–does not necessarily hold water. We have all heard of Sir James Jeans assertion that a monkey, typing randomly, would eventually produce all the books in the British Museum. (Actually he would not produce a single chapter in the accepted age of the universe, but never mind.) A strong case can be made that spontaneous generation is similarly of mathematically vanishing probability. If evolutionists could prove the contrary, they would immensely strengthen their case. They haven’t.
Improbabilities are multiplicative. The currents of exponentiation seem to be running ever more heavily against the monkey. If this is not true, evolutionists have not shown it not to be true.
Herewith a few recommendations for those who may be interested. Whatever one might conclude after reading the various authors on ID, you will quickly see that they are not “pseudoscientists,” not lightweights, and have serious technical credentials. They try to explain their subjects as they go along. Some succeed better than others.
The most accessible are Darwin’s Black Box, which I highly recommend, and The Edge of Evolution, both by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. He puts the heavy-duty tech in the end notes. The intelligent reader will have no problem with these.
Also clearly written and carefully explained, are Signature in the Cell (mentioned above) and Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen Meyer (geophysicist, PhD in history and philosophy of science, Cambridge University.) The (again) intelligent reader will find these good but challenging. A third possibility in Undeniable, by Douglas Axe (Underrgad biochemistry, Berkeley, PhD. CalTech, chemical engineering) While very sharp, he uawa analogy so much to keep things simple that the science can be lost. Ann Gauger, Science and Human Origins, has a degree in biology from MIT, a PhD in developmental and molecular biology from the university of Washington, and has done postdoc work at Harvard (on the drosophila kinesin light chain, which I don’t know what is.)
Anyway, Meyer takes the reader clearly and comprehensively through the question of the origin of life from, briefly, ancient times through the research of Watson and Crick and then into the depths of the cell in detail. Of particular interest is his discussion of the the probabilistic barriers to spontaneous generation. Right or wrong, it is, again, assuredly not “pseudoscience,” and is extensively documented with references.
Should you order any of these books, ask Amazon to ship them in boxes labeled Kinky Sex Books or Applied Brestiality so nobody will know that you are reading ID.
Here, allow me a thought that the writers above do not mention: Maybe nature is more mysterious than even the ID people think: The insane complesity of life might suggest a far deeper level of non-understanding than even the ID folk suspect.
Suppose that you saw an actual monkey pecking at a keyboard and, on examining his output, saw that he was typing, page after page, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, with no errors.
You would suspect fraud, for instance that the typewriter was really a computer programmed with Tom. But no, on inspection you find that it is a genuine typewriter. Well then, you think, the monkey must be a robot, with Tom in RAM. But this too turns out to be wrong: The monkey in fact is one. After exhaustive examination, you are forced to conclude that Bonzo really is typing at random.
Yet he is producing Tom Sawyer. This being impossible, you would have to conclude that something was going on that you did not understand.
Much of biology is similar. For a zygote, barely visible, to turn into a baby is astronomically improbable, a suicidal assault on Murphy’s Law. Reading embryology makes this apparent. (Texts are prohibitively expensive, but Life Unfolding serves.) Yet every step in the process is in accord with chemical principles.
This doesn’t make sense. Not, anyway, unless one concludes that something deeper is going on that we do not understand. This brings to mind several adages that might serve to ameliorate our considerable arrogance. As Haldane said, “The world is not only queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think.” Or Fred’s principle, “The smartest of a large number of hamsters is still a hamster.”
We may be too full of ourselves.


US Deep State Hits Putin-Trump Summit with Preemptive Strike as Russiagate Fizzles Out

Robert Bridge — Strategic Review July 15, 2018

US Deep state

In order to save face over an investigation that has failed to produce a smoking gun regarding charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, the US elite have opted to indict Russian intelligence officials for election meddling. Yet the evidence, once again, is missing in action.

Amid harsh criticism at home for its failure to provide proof of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election, at the very same time that Trump is preparing to meet with Vladimir Putin for a summit in Helsinki, the US Deep State has resorted to playing spoiler with the most overplayed hand in modern political history: the ‘Blame Russia’ card.

On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced indictments against 12 members of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, also known as GRU, for “conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

According to the 29-page indictment, the defendants devised fictional online personas to compromise computers affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, as well as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The purported ‘hack’ led to the release of tens of thousands of stolen emails by WikiLeaks. These communications revealed what amounts to criminal behavior on the part of the DNC, including overt bias against Democratic presidential nominee Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence that Clinton was fed the questions to public debates against Donald Trump. Those very serious findings have been sidelined amid the storm known as Russiagate.

The Russian Foreign Ministry vehemently rejected the accusations, saying it was a coordinated effort by “influential political forces in the US that are opposed to the normalization of relations between our countries and have spread open slander for the past two years.”

“The goal of this ‘information attack’ is obviously to spoil the atmosphere prior to the Russian-American summit,” the ministry said, referring to the forthcoming meeting between Putin and Trump.

Indeed, the accusations leveled against the Russians ring hollow for several credible reasons.

First, the claims do not flush with WikiLeaks’ account as to how it came to possess the information. WikiLeaks founder and editor, Julian Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years for fear of being extradited to the US, has denied that any state player was responsible for the “leak.”

“We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party,” Assange told Sean Hannity of Fox News. “Normally, we say nothing at all.”

“We have … a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out,” Assange added.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is now an affiliate of WikiLeaks, revealed that he knows the identity of the source.

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

For those who prefer to see evidence before they jump the gun and wrongly accuse someone – in this case a nuclear-armed power – they share the approach of Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee, who said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

Second, according to an independent analysis carried out by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), the DNS servers were compromised not through a ‘hack’ from some outside party, but rather through a ‘leak,’ that is, an ‘inside job.’

“After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device,” the group, who counts among its members William Binney, a former NSA analyst turned whistleblower, wrote in a letter it sent to President Trump. “Key among the findings … is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the US”

The group says the mainstream media refuses to report on its findings.

Third, the FBI never had possession of the original DNC server to conduct its own forensic work but relied instead upon a copy of texts provided by CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company hired by the DNC – the target of the investigation – to conduct its internal investigation for the DNC. In other words, the possibility that the evidence was tampered with is certainly not beyond the realm of reality.

“We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute,” then-FBI director James Comey told a House Intel session in January 2017.

Consider this: The FBI was happy to proceed with its investigation of Russia-Trump collusion without ever gaining access to the primary evidence, which were the DNC servers, allowing a clearly biased third party to distribute the goodies as it saw fit. Now compare that breathtaking disregard for professional standards with regards to the Clinton email investigation to the way the FBI manhandled Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s personal attorney. On the suspicion that Cohen had made a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to hush up an alleged decades-old dalliance with Trump, FBI agents raided Cohen’s law office in midtown Manhattan in an effort to seize evidence. Now why in the world was similar force of action not taken against Hillary Clinton and the DNC, especially considering the significance of the case? Clearly, there appears to be no small degree of political bias here.

Finally, the FBI itself is now under investigation for possible bias in the course of Russiagate investigation from at least two of its members Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of the FBI and Lisa Page, a lawyer at the FBI who was also Strzok’s mistress. The lovers somehow managed to exchange some 50,000 text messages throughout the 2016 presidential election and the first year of Trump in power, many of them containing fiercely anti-Trump sentiments.

Strzok was involved in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server (no charges were brought against her, despite clearly breaking the law with regards to her handling of government communications), as well as the investigation into possible connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia (ongoing).

This is the sort of political climate that the Trump administration has been forced to deal with for almost two years – a non-stop full-court rush from the Democrats.

And now, when there is a chance for the smallest breakthrough in US-Russia relations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rolls out charges against 12 Russian military officials, thereby severely polluting the atmosphere for the Putin-Trump summit.

Clearly, something has got to give one way or the other. The fate of relations between the world’s two premier nuclear powers can no longer be held hostage to poor-sport Democrats who simply do not know how to lose an election with grace.


Novichok ‘was in perfume bottle and victim may have sprayed herself with nerve agent’

Introduction — July 15, 2018

Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess. Click to enlarge

Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess. Click to enlarge

The following is an example of journalism for dummies. It doesn’t inform of enlighten, it merely echoes the official narrative without question.
It claims that the deadly Russian nerve agent that killed Dawn Sturgess has been found in a perfume spray bottle. Instead of asking the obvious, the following Sunday Mirror report puts the cart before the horse and asks whether Dawn Sturgess had sprayed herself with the Novichok.
This neatly sidesteps questions about how the nerve agent got there in the first place. It also avoids asking whether the novichok allegedly responsible for Sturgess’s death had been concocted at Porton Down, Britain’s foremost chemical and biological weapons laboratory.
The fact that Sturgess was poisoned in Amesbury, which is only seven or so miles from Porton Down, should at least raise questions about its proximity. However, the following Mirror article doesn’t even mention Porton Down.
That suggests that the writers are trying avoid mentioning obvious questions about proximity, which makes what follows disinformation rather than journalism. Ed.

Novichok ‘was in perfume bottle and victim may have sprayed herself with nerve agent’

Patrick Hill and Danya Bazaraa — The Sunday Mirror July 15, 2018

The nerve agent which poisoned two people in Amesbury was inside a perfume bottle, the brother of one of the victims claims.

Matthew Rowley has revealed that his brother Charlie – who remains seriously ill in hospital – said he’d picked up the perfume bottle, the BBC reports.

Labourer Charlie and his partner, Dawn, 44, fell ill at his home on June 30 after being exposed to Novichok, the nerve agent used to poison Russian spy Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia in nearby Salisbury in March.

Mum-of-three Dawn died last Sunday and a murder investigation was launched.

The claim the substance was in a perfume bottle raises the question of whether Dawn sprayed the perfume on herself, the Telegraph reports.

Police on Friday revealed they had found a small bottle of the substance inside Charlie’s property but when contacted by the Mirror today they offered no further comment.

Matthew said yesterday that he’d visited his 45-year-old brother in hospital after he’d come round and said he barely recognised him.

He added: “I wiggled his toes and said to him, ‘Are you OK, Charles?’

“He was semi-woken and said, ‘They killed my girlfriend, they killed my ­girlfriend.’ He was very angry and crying.

“I could hardly recognise him, I nearly cried. He’s skin and bones as he obviously hadn’t been able to eat.”

Continues …

Power without Scrutiny: The Jewish Privilege that Poisons Democracy

Tobias Langdon — Occidental Observer June 22, 2018

Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.

Two wings, one vulture

Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.
Aspiring prime minister Sajid Javid. Click to enlarge

Aspiring prime minister Sajid Javid. Click to enlarge

You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, the chief speaker will be either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. At least, that always used to be the case. But Jeremy Corbyn has threatened the tradition. As I’ve pointed out before, he isn’t in politics to become a millionaire, so Jewish money doesn’t interest him.

Iran vs Israel

But it certainly interests the Tories. And that’s where Ehud Sheleg comes in. Who is he? He’s an Israeli-born art-dealer with a British passport who is about to become Treasurer of the Conservative party, replacing Sir Mick Davies, former chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council. But Sir Mick will remain Chief Executive of the Tories. This is a very interesting situation. If people with strong Iranian or Russian connections held such important positions in the Tory party, would the British media have something to say about it?
You can bet they would. If Ehud Sheleg were an Iranian citizen called Mahmud Sharif instead, he would now be under very close scrutiny. Where do his true loyalties lie? That’s what the media would be asking. If an Iranian citizen had given hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Tories, as Ehud Sheleg already has, the media would ask whether the Tories were now pursuing Iran’s interests rather than Britain’s. Journalists would be crawling all over an Iranian treasurer’s past, probing his business interests, investigating his regular trips to Tehran and his meetings with Iranian officials, speculating about or exposing his connections with Iranian intelligence.

The dogs that don’t bark

And such scrutiny would be perfectly reasonable — indeed, the media would have a duty to investigate and speculate. If the Treasurer of the Tory party were an Iranian Muslim who still had strong ties to Iran, that Iranian Muslim might well try to influence government policy in favour of Iran. The media, as watch-dogs of the national interest, would have a duty to put him under very close scrutiny. But the Treasurer of the Tory party isn’t a Muslim called Mahmud Sharif. At present he’s a Jew called Sir Mick Davies who will soon be replaced by a Jew called Ehud Sheleg. And that makes all the difference. The British media have shown very little interest in asking questions about Jewish power in British politics.
I’m reminded of the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze” (1892), which is about a mysterious death and a missing race-horse. Fans of Arthur Conan Doyle will remember that this story contains “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” What was curious is that the dog did nothing. It did not bark at a criminal because it knew the criminal. Similarly, the British media are not barking at either Mick Davies or Ehud Sheleg. The media know the rules that apply to the ever-powerless Jewish community. Sycophancy directed at Jews is always acceptable, but scrutiny and criticism never are. What would happen to anyone who suggested that Mick Davies and Ehud Sheleg are fostering Israel’s interests rather than Britain’s? A lot. And none of it would be good.

For whom the Bell tolls

If you want to see what happens to those who challenge Jewish interests in modern Britain, take a look at the Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell. He’s a virtue-signalling liberal idiot, as his reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly showed, but British Jews don’t object to his liberal idiocy. What they do object to very strongly is his criticism of Israel. After an Israeli sniper killed a young Palestinian female paramedic called Razan Al-Najjar in June 2018, Bell drew a pious cartoon in response. It portrayed the British prime minister Theresa May hosting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at 10 Downing Street while an image of Razan Al-Najjar burns in the fireplace behind them.
Spiked Guardian cartoon of Razan al Najar. Click to enlarge

Spiked Guardian cartoon of Razan al Najar. Click to enlarge

Bell then submitted the cartoon to Katherine Viner, the possibly Jewish editor of Guardian, who rejected it on the ground that it was anti-Semitic and equated Israel’s behaviour with that of Nazi Germany. He then took the highly unusual step of publishing the rejected cartoon and the email he sent to Viner in condemnation of her decision. It’s hard to disagree with what he said:
I cannot for the life of me begin to understand criticism of the cartoon that begins by dragging in ‘wood-burning stoves’, ‘ovens’, ‘holocaust’, or any other nazi-related nonsense. That was the last thing on my mind when I drew it, I had no intention of conflating the issues of the mass murder of European Jews and Gaza. It’s a fireplace, in front of which VIP visitors to Downing Street are always pictured (see page 12 of today’s Times), and the figure of Razan al-Najjar is burning in the grate. It’s a widely known photograph of her, becoming iconic across the Arab world and the burning is of course symbolic. She’s dead, she was shot and killed by the IDF [Israeli Defence Force] while doing her job as a medic.
I’m sorry you didn’t think it appropriate to talk to me yesterday, and I fear Katherine Butler [a deputy editor at the Guardian] bore the brunt of my outrage, for which I apologise to her, but forgive me for suspecting that the reason that you did not get in touch was because you did not really have an argument. The cartoon is sensitive, not tasteless, not disrespectful, and certainly contains no anti-Semitic tropes. It should have been published as it stands, but if you are still obdurate that it should remain unpublished, then I feel a duty to my subject to try and salvage something from this fiasco, and will resubmit it to you later this morning in a form that may get around some of the criticisms (to my mind wholly unjustified) that were made last night. (The Guardian censors cartoon in memory of Razan al Najjar: cartoonist Steve Bell responds, Public Reading Rooms, June 2018)
Photogenic but ignored: the tragic victim Razan Al-Najjar

Photogenic but ignored: the tragic victim Razan Al-Najjar

 Bell’s cartoon clearly condemns the killing of Razan Al-Najjar and criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu and his ally, the shabbos shiksa Theresa May. Equally clearly, it is not in the slightest degree anti-Semitic and makes absolutely no reference to Nazism. But Steve Bell has been censored regardless: no version of his cartoon has appeared in the Guardian. The message is clear: “Thou shalt not challenge Jewish interests or criticize Jewish behaviour.”

See No Ehud

That’s why the killing of Razan Al-Najjar has been largely ignored by the British media. It’s also why the British media have largely ignored the important news about Ehud Sheleg. Yet another Jew has risen to the top of the Conservative party, but I’ve managed to find only two substantial references to Sheleg’s forthcoming appointment as Tory treasurer. One reference was in the Jewish Chronicle, which noted that “Mr Sheleg, who is now based in north London, is said to be a donor to several community [i.e., Jewish] charitable organisations.” The other reference was by the muck-racking political blogger Guido Fawkes, who takes his nom de guerre from the conspirator who tried to blow up the House of Commons in 1605. Guido’s blog exposed something that the rest of the media have ignored:
The new Treasurer of the Conservative Party is a director of seven companies which are late filing their accounts, Guido can reveal. Ehud Sheleg, who runs a Mayfair art gallery, is set to be appointed to the role after giving the Tories half a million pounds before the last election. Sheleg is a director of The Halcyon Gallery Ltd, Washington Green Fine Arts Group, Artica Galleries, Halcyon Fine Art Group Holdings, Washington Green Retail and Halcyon Fine Art Group Ltd, all of whose accounts were due last month and have not been filed according to the Companies House website. Another company of which Sheleg was a director, Goldend Ltd, was struck off after failing to file its accounts or confirmation statement on time. The six companies which are still active now face potential fines totalling thousands of pounds. Bodes well… (New Tory Treasurer is Director of 7 Companies With Overdue Accounts, Guido Fawkes, 21st May 2018)
The Guido Fawkes blog was once famous for its unruly and anarchic comments section. Five years ago the news-item above would have prompted lots of comments about Jewish power and Jewish control of the Tory party. And quite rightly so. But in 2018 one has to echo the Bible and say: “Ichabod!” (1 Kings, 4:21). The glory is departed from the Guido Fawkes blog. Like Breitbart and the London Spectator, it has purged its “anti-Semitic” commenters and imposed strict censorship on discussion of Jewish topics. You can ladle sycophancy on the Jews at those three sites, but you cannot subject Jews to any critical scrutiny, let alone suggest that they have harmed the Western world in any way.

Spiv and Take

But give Guido his due: although he hasn’t dared to name the Jew, he has dared to name the spiv. That’s a useful (if old-fashioned) British term for a crooked wheeler-dealer, particularly on the black market. Like muggers or rapists, spivs can belong to any race, but just as muggers and rapists are drawn disproportionately from the Black community, so spivs are drawn disproportionately from the Jewish community.
Under the shabbos goy Tony Blair, the Labour party’s chief fundraiser was a Jewish spiv called Michael Levy, who had made millions in the music business. Levy was at the centre of a scandal about Jewish and West-Asian businessmen buying honours from Labour. He escaped prosecution on a legal technicality, left his role as Labour treasurer, and was replaced by a Jew called Jonathan Mendelsohn. Then Labour were succeeded in government by the Tories and the part-Jewish David Cameron became prime minister. His money-man was a Jewish businessman called Andrew Feldman, who became Chairman of the Conservative party as Lord Feldman, serving first with the Muslim non-entity Sayeeda Warsi, then with the Jewish businessman Grant Shapps.

Sycophancy, not scrutiny

Are Jonathan Mendelsohn and Andrew Feldman spivs? I don’t know. But I do know that Grant Shapps is a spiv. He had to resign as Tory chairman after being accused of making large sums of money using disguise, trickery, plagiarism and testimonials from “people who seem not to exist.” Now the Jewish art-dealer Ehud Sheleg seems to be ready to put the “spiv” back into Conservative. Guido Fawkes has certainly suggested so, but he won’t dare to ask questions about Sheleg’s Jewish background and loyalty to Israel. Nor will anyone else in the mainstream media. All well-trained goyim know the rule: “Sycophancy, not scrutiny!”
One goy who certainly follows that rule is Tommy Robinson, the “Islamophobic extremist” who has been jailed for “contempt of court” while reporting on a Muslim rape-gang on trial in the Yorkshire city of Leeds. While constantly criticizing Islam, he has nothing but praise for Jews and has toured Israel as the guest of some Israeli supporters. That’s why White nationalists have criticized Robinson strongly as a Zionist agent and Judaeophile.

The World’s Most Important Question

But he gets many thumbs-up on the World’s Most Important Question: Is he “Good for the Jews”? Yes, some powerful Jews think that he is. Otherwise his arrest and imprisonment would not have won so much attention around the world. But many other Jews give him a thumbs-down on the World’s Most Important Question. The repulsive Blair-o-phile and Iraq-war fan David Aaronovitch, an influential journalist at the London Times, has decided that Robinson is not “Good for the Jews.” And that is the only criterion that matters to Aaronovitch:

Once, we’d have seen Mr Robinson coming

When Tommy Robinson makes anti-Muslim statements, we should be careful not to jump on board says David Aaronovitch. …
Do British Jews share Tommy Robinson’s view of Muslims as essentially unassimilable and alien? Because that it is what he thinks. Like [the Dutch politician] Geert Wilders … Robinson argues that Islam is itself an incorrigible religion, with religious intolerance, violence and misogyny at its scriptural heart. Its followers are therefore enjoined to be incorrigible too, and thus negative aspects of behaviour of some Muslims — female inequality, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, grooming gangs, jihadi terror, gender segregation, sectarianism and homophobia — are at the very least latent characteristics in all of them.
Robinson regards it at his crusade to open the eyes of a docile and over-tolerant majority to the demographic disaster happening all around them. That’s why he visits courts during ongoing trials to make films there, that’s why he used to tweet every single negative story that featured a Muslim in it (while leaving alone any other people’s infractions). The result is propaganda not dissimilar to what would happen if you took every bad story about Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Britain and then generalised from them. You want to talk about gender segregation? Gay rights? Weird inward-looking schools? That’s Jews for you. …
Once the unassimilable aliens were us. Once the Tommy Robinsons were warning about us. Once any self-respecting Jew with a sense of history would have seen a man like him coming. Now some don’t. Idiots. (Once, we’d have seen Mr Robinson coming, The Jewish Chronicle, 1st June 2018 / 18th Sivan 5778)
If David Aaronovitch doesn’t like Tommy Robinson, I think that’s a strong point in Robinson’s favour. Robinson has broken a strong Jewish taboo: he has criticized a sacred minority and stood up for abused White girls. And he may well lose his life for doing so. Like Gert Wilders, another Judaeophile who is risking violent death for opposing Islam, he may or not recognize the truth about the central Jewish role in Muslim immigration. If he does recognize it, he is saying nothing to expose it.

White Tide Rising

But clearly David Aaronovitch and many other Jews don’t like Robinson’s scrutiny of Muslim pathologies. They know that it is a dangerous step towards scrutiny of Jewish pathologies. Jews always want a buffer-zone of privileged minorities between themselves and the White goyim. When Whites tolerate bad behaviour by Muslims and other non-Whites, it soothes Jewish paranoia and reassures Jews about their own safety. That’s why Jews have been so insistent on minority worship. Whites must never criticize minorities or defend their own interests.
But Tommy Robinson has criticized a minority and tried, however imperfectly, to defend the interests of Whites. He might say that he includes Jews among Whites, but Jews like David Aaronovitch don’t believe him. And even if Robinson is a sincere Judaeophile, he is unleashing forces that Jews cannot control. More and more goys know which group has been the chief architects of mass immigration. I myself began to sense two years ago that the political tide had turned in favour of Whites. The big demonstrations in support of Robinson, like the rise of nationalist governments across Europe, confirm my optimism. The White tide is rising and the Jewish imperium is beginning to quake


Israel lobby seeks to erase occupation from Virginia schoolbooks

Nora Barrows-Friedman — The Electronic Intifada June 29, 2018

Human rights activists in Virginia are fighting to protect the quality and accuracy of schoolbooks as Israel advocacy organizations seek substantial changes to the texts.

The suggested changes would distort the way Israeli history is depicted, deliberately whitewashing its military occupation and ongoing policies of land theft, apartheid and expulsion of Palestinians.

These changes have been proposed to the Virginia Department of Education by the California-based Institute for Curriculum Services – a “strategic initiative” of the Jewish Community Relations Council, an organization with an active Israel lobby.

ICS director Aliza Craimer Elias recently boasted in a video interview that her firm works “behind the scenes” with textbook publishers to edit entries about Jews, Judaism and Israel and to train classroom educators with ICS curricula.

Elias said that many of the major textbook publishers “often come to us to work with them on manuscripts and development,” adding that about 85 percent of their proposed edits end up getting accepted.

While some of their suggested edits address issues of Holocaust denial and offensive stereotypes of Jews and Judaism in biblical references, others address the way Israel’s establishment has been explained, as well as Israel’s current policies of discrimination, occupation and land theft.

In the video, Elias bragged that ICS had successfully changed a textbook entry to omit reference to Israel’s forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the lead up to and after the state of Israel was declared.

She claimed that ICS had succeeded in having textbooks entries changed which blamed the foundation of Israel for displacing Palestinians, suggesting that such displacement was simply the outcome of a war fought in 1948.

Other proposed edits include replacing the words “occupied territories” as “captured areas” when referring to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, according to Jeanne Trabulsi, an educator in Virginia who was interviewed for The Electronic Intifada Podcast.

She was joined in conversation with Paul Noursi of the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights and Michael Fischbach, a history professor at Randolph Macon College.

The word “settlers” would be replaced with “communities,” Trabulsi added, and “wall,” in reference to Israel’s illegal wall in the West Bank, would be replaced with “security fence.”

ICS claims that it has already made more than 11,000 edits to US textbooks used in all 50 states.


When Virginia activists learned of the proposed edits, in April, they were “very disappointed and alarmed,” Noursi said.

The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights, which represents 16 Virginia-based peace groups, have joined more than a dozen educators to urge textbook publishers Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall/Pearson, National Geographic and others not to accept what they say are factually challenged, biased and exclusionary recommendations.

The coalition has appealed to the state’s leadership as well, asking Governor Ralph Northam to “freeze the suggested changes” to Virginia social studies textbooks and “not incorporate them until a panel of qualified and nonpartisan academic experts is consulted.”

The governor’s office has not yet responded to the coalition’s letter, Noursi said, but activists say they will meet with officials with the Virginia Department of education and other state lawmakers.

One textbook publisher, Pearson, replied to the group saying it intends to critically review the proposed edits, according to Noursi.

“Detrimental effects”

“We felt we had to do something” about ICS’s current suggestions to Virginia’s textbooks, Noursi told The Electronic Intifada Podcast.

Students are learning information that they might not have much of an opportunity to critically analyze, later on, Noursi explained, so the accuracy of the information they receive is crucial.

Information that obscures or deliberately misinforms students on the issue of Palestine “could really have detrimental effects far beyond Virginia,” he said.

Fischbach said he was troubled to see the way that language has been manipulated to distort basic facts and call them into question.

“This kind of thing is insidious because it undermines … the very nature of the role of education [which] in a democracy is to inform people,” he said.

Fischbach explained that Israel advocates understand that they have lost the public relations battle “and what they’re now trying to do instead of fight this discourse on the facts is simply, literally, to rewrite it – to frame a new narrative for a new generation of young people.”

In 2016, Israel advocates pressured textbook publisher McGraw-Hill Education to withdraw and destroy all copies of a textbook that featured four maps of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. The maps showed the accurate progression of loss of Palestinian land from 1946 to 2000 as Israel continues to expand its settlements and colonial control.

“Supporters of Israel have fought the use of these maps elsewhere and quickly urged McGraw-Hill to change or withdraw the textbook,” reported Inside Higher Education.

“Call things what they are”

Despite the efforts by Israel advocates to rewrite history – and, at the same time, intimidate, harass and silence students and academics who speak out against Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights – Virginia activists say that the strength of their campaign is growing.

“This is a fairly straightforward issue,” Noursi said. “Let’s call things what they are: illegal settlements are illegal settlements, they should be called out as such. Military occupation is military occupation, it needs to be called out as such, it needs to be taught as such in the textbooks.”

Listen to the interview with Paul Noursi, Michael Fischbach and Jeanne Trabulsi via the media player above.

Theme music and production assistance by Sharif Zakou


Reclaiming Male Power

henrymakow.com — July 16, 2018

The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman affirms both his masculinity and her femininity.

The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman affirms both his masculinity and her femininity.

Women used to align their interests with those of men and society. But humanity has been colonized by a satanic cult, the Illuminati. Cabalist Jewish bankers and their Masonic flunkies (Communists, Satanists) convinced many women that serving the people they love, their families, is “oppressive.” They need to be “independent” instead.  As result, millions of women are deprived of their natural biological and social role
Heterosexuality is based on power. Men must ignore “toxic masculinity” and #MeToo propaganda by reasserting their power.  A man must enlist (not petition) the right woman, his future wife, to realize his vision for life. A woman must surrender to the right man, her future husband. This is how women love.
Men represent the active principle; women the passive. We have the power and if we don’t use it constructively, we will continue to fail women.”
Men should focus on women who “look up” to them. If you’re looking for your “equal,” you’re probably still looking for yourself. 

Reclaiming Male Power in the Viagra Age

by Henry Makow Ph.D. — (slightly revised from Oct 24, 2001)

reclaimingYou’ve heard of the “Stone Age,” the “Iron Age” and the “Information Age.” This is the “Viagra Age” — the era of male impotence. Television commercials say 1/3 of all men suffer from “erectile deficiency” attributed to high blood pressure, prostate cancer, or diabetes.
I suspect that often the real culprit is feminism. Women should empower men but for a long time, they’ve been doing the opposite. Instead of taking the Viagra pill, men need to reclaim their masculine power.
In the workplace, a man can accept leadership from a competent woman. But in the intimate sphere, a man who takes orders from a woman is not a man, and usually can’t perform like one. He sees his mother and feels like a child again.
Power is synonymous with masculine identity. Impotent literally means “powerless.” We would never say a woman is “impotent.” Rather, she is “infertile” or “frigid” reflecting her passive or receptive role.
A man cannot love if he does not have power. He exercises his power on behalf of his wife and family. Women take away male power and wonder why they aren’t loved.


Continues …

‘Israeli rockets’ strike Syrian military positions near Aleppo – state media

Russia Today — July 15, 2018

Israeli missile attack on Syria

Syrian military positions near Aleppo airport have come under a missile strike, state media reports, blaming Israel for the attack.

The strike targeted “one of our military positions north of the airport in Aleppo,” a military source told the Syrian Arab News Agency, stressing that the damage from the aggression was “limited to material.”

The source denounced the raid as a “desperate attempt to support the defeated terrorist groups” in Daraa and Quneitra, where the Syrian army is actively working to defeat them. Furthermore, the publication accused the IDF of being “directly involved” in raising the morale of militants from al Nusra and other terrorist groups.

The Israeli military refused to immediately comment on the report, neither confirming nor denying carrying out the strike.

On Wednesday, the IDF targeted three military posts in Syria, justifying the raid as a retaliation for the infiltration of a Syrian UAV, which was intercepted by the IDF. While Israeli engagement in Syria intensified over the last months, the strikes focused mainly on positions around the Israeli controlled Golan Heights and the suburbs of Damascus. The IDF does not comment on every engagement on its neighbor’s territory, but previously acknowledged targets by Israel in Syria included weapons storage facilities, logistics sites, and intelligence centers.

While Tel Aviv insists that strikes are designed to protect its sovereignty over a perceived Iranian threat on its borders, the Syrian government considers Israeli aggression as a means to support the Western agenda to topple President Bashar Assad. Damascus has repeatedly stated that only Iranian military advisers are currently present on the ground, with no active military taking part in the operations. Israel, however, maintains that it has a right to intervene in Syria whenever it deems it necessary to prevent an Iranian or Hezbollah military build-up.


West scrambles to evacuate White Helmets from Syria amid assassination threats

Press TV — July 15, 2018

The Syrian White Helmets rehearse another staged 'chemical weapons attack'. Click to enlarge

The Syrian White Helmets rehearse another staged ‘chemical weapons attack’. Click to enlarge

Western countries have reportedly been scrambling to evacuate “volunteer” White Helmets from Syria, who have been accused of cooperating with Takfiri terrorists and staging false flag gas attacks.

CBS News broadcasting service reported on Saturday that White Helmets members are in danger of assassination and in need of rescue as the Syrian army intensifies its counter-terrorism operation in the country’s southern part.

The report said the issue of the White helmets’ withdrawal from Syria had been raised with US President Donald Trump in multiple conversations with allied countries on the sidelines of the July 11-12 NATO summit in Brussels.

The Netherlands, Britain, France, Canada and Germany have been trying to find a way to get an estimated 1,000 White Helmets volunteers and their family members out of Syria, the report added.

British Prime Minister Theresa May brought up the issue during her meeting with Trump in the UK, and that the topic may also be discussed at Trump’s upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The White Helmets was founded in Turkey in 2013 by former British MI5 officer James Le Mesurier.

Since its establishment, the group has received at least $55 million from the British Foreign Office, $23 million or more from the US Office of Transition Initiatives and untold millions from Qatar.

US officials and Western diplomats say the evacuation has not been formalized on the agenda of the July 16 Trump-Putin meeting due to uncertainty about the Russians’ help in the process, The CBS News said.

“We are not there yet at all in terms of firming up the necessity to have a discussion with Putin,” a Western diplomat said. “If we run out of options, and the only option left is the Russians, then it is worth pursuing.”

A US government official stressed that efforts to evacuate the White Helmets from Syria is in line with the Trump administration’s plans for a withdrawal from the Arab country.

“This effort says we are in the evacuation phase. It is an admission that the regime is going to regain control of the country and the White Helmets can’t remain,” he said. “Or else the regime will take repercussions on them.”

Back in March, Trump ordered the State Department to suspend $200 million in recovery funds for Syria, including aid to the White Helmets, amid a review of the future of the US role in the war-torn country.

The Syrian White Helmets with their terrorist friends. Click to enlarge

The Syrian White Helmets with their terrorist friends. Click to enlarge

Three months later, however, Trump authorized the release of $6.6 million in previously frozen funding for a volunteer organization, without referring to the $193.4 million that remains frozen.

Both Damascus and Moscow have accused the volunteer group of having staged the suspected chemical weapons attack in the town of Douma in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta region on April 7.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad described the White Helmets as “a branch of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra” militant groups and a “PR stunt” by the US, the UK and France.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the group claims to be a humanitarian NGO, but actually supports terrorists and covers up their crimes.

“The White Helmets not only feel at home on Jabhat al-Nusra and Daesh-controlled territories but openly sympathize with them and provide them with information and even financial support. How is that for double standards? There is documentary evidence of the White Helmets’ involvement in some of al-Nusra’s operations and cover-up over civilian deaths,” she said.


The Holes in the Official Skripal Story

Craig Murray — Strategic Culture July 14, 2018

Biological warfare team in the aftermath of the Skripal's poisoning. Click to enlarge

Biological warfare team in the aftermath of the Skripal’s poisoning. Click to enlarge

In my last post I set out the official Government account of the events in the Skripal Case. Here I examine the credibility of this story. Next week I shall look at alternative explanations.
Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs.
The only backing for this statement by Boris Johnson is alleged “intelligence”, and unfortunately the “intelligence” about Russia’s secret novichok programme comes from exactly the same people who brought you the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programme, proven liars. Furthermore, the question arises why Britain has been sitting on this intelligence for a decade and doing nothing about it, including not telling the OPCW inspectors who certified Russia’s chemical weapons stocks as dismantled.
If Russia really has a professional novichok assassin training programme, why was the assassination so badly botched? Surely in a decade of development they would have discovered that the alleged method of gel on doorknob did not work? And where is the training manual which Boris Johnson claimed to possess? Having told the world – including Russia -the UK has it, what is stopping the UK from producing it, with marks that could identify the specific copy erased?
The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously.
It seems remarkable that the chosen target of an attempt that would blow the existence of a secret weapon and end the cover of a decade long programme, should be nobody more prominent than a middle ranking double agent who the Russians let out of jail years ago. If they wanted him dead they could have killed him then. Furthermore the attack on him would undermine all future possible spy swaps. Putin therefore, on this reading, was willing to sacrifice both the secrecy of the novichok programme and the spy swap card just to attack Sergei Skripal. That seems highly improbable.
Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals.
The nub of the British government’s approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the “novichok” class of nerve agents, the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility in Uzbekistan in 2002.
Furthermore, it was the USA who decommissioned the facility and removed equipment back to the United States. At least two key scientists from the programme moved to the United States. Formulae for several novichok have been published for over a decade. The USA, UK and Iran have definitely synthesised a number of novichok formulae and almost certainly others have done so too. Dozens of states have the ability to produce novichok, as do many sophisticated non-state actors.
As for motive, the Russian motive might be revenge, but whether that really outweighs the international opprobrium incurred just ahead of the World Cup, in which so much prestige has been invested, is unclear.
What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia.
There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal’s MI6 handler Pablo Miller’s work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump.
Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia had the motive, are massive lies on both counts.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow.
In an effort to shore up the government narrative, at the time of the Amesbury attack the security services put out through Pablo Miller’s long term friend, the BBC’s Mark Urban, that the Russians “may have been” tapping Yulia Skripal’s phone, and the claim that this was strong evidence that the Russians had indeed been behind the attack.
But think this through. If that were true, then the Russians deliberately attacked at a time when Yulia was in the UK rather than when Sergei was alone. Yet no motive has been adduced for an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone. Furthermore, it is pretty natural that Russian intelligence would tap the phone of Yulia, and of Sergei if they could. The family of double agents are normal targets. I have no doubt in the least, from decades of experience as a British diplomat, that GCHQ have been tapping Yulia’s phone. Indeed, if tapping of phones is seriously put forward as evidence of intent to murder, the British government must be very murderous indeed.
Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International Space Station. They can kill an old bloke in Salisbury. Why did the Russians not know that the dose from the door handle was not fatal? Why would trained assassins leave crucial evidence lying around in a public place in Salisbury? Why would they be conducting any part of the operation with the novichok in a public area in central Salisbury?
Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours, and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknob, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again? If Rowley and Sturgess had direct contact straight from the container, why did they not both die quickly? Why had four months searching of Salisbury and a massive police, security service and military operation not found this container, if Rowley and Sturgess could?
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British government and its corporate lackies.
My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.



Thousands protest across Scotland as Trump plays golf

Introduction — July 14, 2018

I was in Edinburgh on the day of the anti-Trump marches. Apart from disrupted bus services caused by the protests it seemed like a normal Saturday morning. I travelled from the outskirts of southern Edinburgh, to Comely Bank, in Edinburgh north. From there I went for lunch in St. Andrews Square in central Edinburgh.
Normally, I would have caught a bus back to my home in the Scottish Borders but because of the anti-Trump march over North Bridge that route was closed. So I had to take a taxi to Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Pool, from where buses to the Borders departed during North Bridge’s closure.
During that time, between 11 am and 1.00 pm when protesters were reportedly gathering, I saw four — repeat FOUR — anti-Trump protesters outside a specialist cheese shop in Stockbridge. I could tell they were part of the anti-Trump demonstration because they carried Scottish flags and wore T-shirts with anti-Trump slogans.
Just like the people in this Evening Standard report, they were white, middle-aged and looked well-heeled too.
I wasn’t on North Bridge so I can’t say how many finally gathered for the march. However, I had lunch in St Andrews Square, a few hundred metres from North Bridge and my taxi took me through adjoining streets and I saw nothing of the “thousands” of anti-Trump protesters who reportedly took part.
On the evidence from my trip to the Scottish capital and photos of the protest, I would estimate that no more than a few hundred took part. In other words the media is inflating the number of protestors TENFOLD.
I write that as an independent observer, not a “Trump supporter”, but what does that say about our news media? Ed.
anti Trump protest2

Not exactly “thousands” of protesters. Just some placard carrying demonstrators who are almost outnumbered by police. Click to enlarge

Thousands protest across Scotland as Trump plays golf

Libby Brooks — The Guardian July 14, 2018

Thousands of people have protested on the streets of Edinburgh against Donald Trump’s visit to the UK as the US president played golf at his Turnberry resort, on the west coast of Scotland.

Trump was seen playing golf with his son, Eric, on the Ailsa championship course.

Earlier, the US president tweeted his golfing plans for the weekend.

The US president said he had arrived in Scotland for “meetings and some golf”.

Trump and his wife, Melania, arrived in Scotland on Air Force One on Friday evening, before travelling by motorcade to the Trump Turnberry resort in Ayrshire.

By lunchtime, about 50 protesters had congregated by the police cordon on Turnberry beach. Just before 2 pm, the US president appeared on the golf course and waved at the gathering on the beach, to be met with booing and chants of “no Trump, no racist USA”. Meanwhile, close to 10,000 marchers were streaming through the streets of Edinburgh, ending up in Meadows Park to the south of the city centre, where families sat in the sunshine and enjoyed picnics, music and speeches from local activists.

Continues …

Trump Should Fire Rosenstein Immediately

Paul Craig Roberts — paulcraigroberts.org July 13, 2018

Does Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly hacking Hillary’s emails and interfering in the US election have any purpose other than to throw a monkey wrench in President Trump’s upcoming summit with Putin?

Don’t forget that Rosenstein is implicated in the orchestration of Russiagate as a weapon against Trump, a weapon that serves the interests of the Democratic Party and the military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us 56 years ago to no avail. Rosenstein’s indictment of 12 Russians for allegedly hacking computers is a political indictment aimed at President Trump. The indictment is otherwise pointless as the Russian government will certainly not turn over its military personnel to a Washington kangaroo court. The indictment serves no purpose except to poison the atmosphere of the summit.

If you read the indictment, you will see that it consists of nothing but improbable accusations. There is no way on earth that the US Justice (sic) Department would be able to acquire the information in this fictional story that Rosenstein has presented. Moreover, there is no sign whatsoever of any evidence in the indictment. Rosenstein knows that he needs no evidence because the accused will never be brought to trial. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-12-russian-intel-officers-indicted-in-special-counsels-probe.html

Rosenstein has thrown red meat to the presstitutes, who are assets of the military/security complex and Democratic Party, and the presstitutes will pressure the Republicans to get behind Rosenstein’s call for a united front against Russian interference. You can imagine what would happen if Trump and Putin were to have a successful summit and normalize the relations that Washington ruined between the two countries. If your imagination is not working, consult here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/10/the-view-of-russia-in-the-west-paul-craig-roberts/

During the presidential election campaign, I pointed out that Trump was not Washington savvy, did not know who would support his positions, which were antithetical to the interests of powerful interest groups such as the military-security complex and global offshoring corporations, and that Trump ran the risk of being destroyed by his own appointments.

Rod Rosenstein is a Trump appointment. Moreover, when Trump’s Attorney General ordered Rosenstein’s resignation, Trump refused to accept it and kept Rosenstein in office. Trump’s miscalculation is so enormously wrong that he deserves the knife in the back that Rosenstein just delivered.

If there were a valid indictment of 12 Russians, for the sake of the summit’s success, a normal functioning deputy attorney general would have held the indictment until after the summit results and, if the summit were successful, would have deep-sixed the indictment regardless of whether there is a basis for it. My 25 years in Washington tells me clearly that Rosenstein has knifed Trump in the back. If Rosenstein has caused the summit to fail, Rosenstein has raised the risk of thermo-nuclear warfare.

There is an alternative to the explanation above. The alternative is that Trump, being a bully, was convinced by those in his administration, who most certainly do not want any normalization with Russia, that the indictment would put Putin on the spot and give Trump the advantage in the bullying arena. I can hear the CIA and John Bolton telling Trump that the indictment would put Putin on the defensive and permit Trump to pressure him into a summit outcome favorable to Washington’s hegemony.

This is a clever way of setting Trump up for failure in his meeting with Putin that could possibly poison the relations between the countries ever further without the failure being blamed on Rosenstein. Thus, Rosenstein’s position as Trump’s political assassin would not be threatened. He would still be running Russiagate with a recused Jeff Sessions sitting there useless.

Professor Stephen Cohen is a premier expert on US/Russian elections. His considered view is compatible with mine:



Bohemian Grove: Illuminati Meet This Week for Satanic Rituals

henrymakow.com — July 15, 2018

(Camp New World Order, 1977 confab). Click to enlarge

(Camp New World Order, 1977 confab). Click to enlarge

Mankind has been subverted by a satanic cult, the Illuminati based on Cabalism. 
Bohemian Grove has flown under the radar but each year the Illuminati meet during the third week of July for depraved rituals that ensure conformity to their sick agenda.  2018 is no exception. 
“My purpose at the Grove was sexual in nature, and therefore my perceptions were limited to a sex slave’s viewpoint. As an effective means of control to ensure the undetected proliferation of their perverse indulgences, slaves such as myself were subjected to ritualistic trauma.” Cathy O’Brien

by Henry Makow Ph.D. — Updated from July 21, 2010

The Satanist cult that has colonized mankind is meeting this week at Bohemian Grove, 80 miles north of San Francisco.
Over 2000 members —  the political, corporate, cultural and military elite of the US — will be gathered for Satanic rituals, possibly including human ritual sacrifice. They have been meeting here since the 1880’s.
According to “Treee,” a young Las Vegas woman who claims to have contacts inside the secretive club, a ritual sacrifice of Mary Magdalene took place Tuesday, July 21, 2010; and the ritual sacrifice of Jesus Christ took place Wednesday, July 22. A human body or effigy was burned in front of a large owl symbolizing Moloch, the pagan Canaanite God. Alex Jones filmed a similar ceremony called “Cremation of Care” on July 15, 2000. It can be viewed here.
If having our world leaders belong to a satanic cult weren’t bad enough, the Las Vegas woman says the Illuminati are actually an alien reptilian species that occupies human bodies and feeds off our energy. I find this hard to believe, but then I would also find it hard to believe the world leadership is sacrificing babies and making sacrifices to owls. So, I reserve judgment.
Bohemian Grove gathering. Click to enlarge

Bohemian Grove gathering. Click to enlarge

This reptilian species is called “Sangerians;”  they are a “fourth dimension race” and make up 3% of the world’s population. She claims to have met “more than one, more than once.” They have three-hearts, shift shapes, are cold-blooded, but are developing human feelings from devouring human flesh and blood.
“Ten percent now get their blood from the Red Cross.” Except for sacrifice, their every ritual involves sex. Queen Elizabeth is a leading reptilian. “It all sounds sci-fi and unbelievable,” the woman says. “But everything fits.”
Treee planned to demonstrate outside the gates of Bohemian Grove dressed in luminescent robes. She invites people to join her. She said we must send the Bohos the message that we know who they are. She said humans must open a dialogue with these creatures or else both species are doomed.



Continues …

Big Brother is watching: China’s AI CCTV can recognise ‘anyone, anywhere’

Sean Martin — Express.co.uk July 14, 2018

CHINA has moved one step closer to an Orwellian society in which Big Brother is constantly watching after a new type of artificial intelligence was revealed which can recognise anyone, anywhere.

Beijing firm Megvii, which is being backed by the Chinese government, is expanding the places in which its powerful Face++ software is rolled out.

The company secured a distributor in Thailand after Chinese police were able to use the software in China to locate and arrest more than 3,000 fugitives.

The technology works by identifying 106 different features on people’s faces, so even if the face is partially covered, by a balaclava for example, it should still work.

Face++ is already worth an estimated £1.5billion, according to Business Insider, and Megvii are in talks with commercial banks and building managers to deploy it for security purposes.

This would mean that buildings which use ID cards could do away with them and the technology would instantly recognise the workers’ faces.

Megvii vice president Xie Yinan told Business Insider Face++ is already used by private and commercial real estate firms in China so they can decide who is allowed in a building.

He also says that in the future, bosses may use it to track how long employees are in the office.

When asked if he was concerned that the security might be overbearing, Mr Xie said it was the government’s concern.

He said: “We don’t have access to the data. What we do is sell them a server loaded with Face++. That’s all.”

Megvii’s next step is to expand from software to hardware by developing surveillance cameras with built-in AI.

Mr Xie said: “We want to enhance these ‘eyes of the city’ and make them intelligent.

“So that ‘footage of the city’ become ‘data about the city’.

“It’s just like in the films. The police no longer need to manually look for someone from thousands in the camera.

“The video network automatically detects and alerts them to situations so that greatly enhances their efficiency.”


IT BEGINS: Lesbians are now protesting transgenders as LGBT goes to war with itself

Ethan Huff — Natural News July 14, 2018

lgbt protest

Trouble is brewing in LGBTville where some of the community’s earliest members, the “Ls,” are struggling to maintain the attention spotlight amid growing numbers of newer members that they perceive as an existential threat – mainly the “Ts.”

According to reports, a group of angry lesbians disrupted the recent “Pride” event in London over this very issue, complaining about how the continued influx of transexuals into the LGBT movement is rapidly making them obsolete.

More specifically, it’s biological men who decide to transform themselves into “women” that are really ruffling the feathers of these homosexual females, some of whom are demanding that the T be removed from the LGBT acronym.

“A man who says he’s a lesbian is a rapist,” one of the lesbians screamed as she was hauled away by law enforcement officers trying to keep the peace.

The phrases “Transactivism erases lesbians” and “Lesbian = Female Homosexual” were also seen on large banners held up by the other seven lesbians who were reportedly present at the disruption incident, which was carefully planned for maximum impact along the parade route.

Ultimate irony: Lesbians discriminate against transgenders during Pride parade

Several other lesbian groups were also present at the event to raise hell over the presence of transgenders. Members of “Get The L Out,” “Object,” “Mayday 4 Women,” “Critical Sisters,” and “Lesbian Rights Alliance” reportedly handed out pamphlets along the parade route emphasizing the ways in which lesbians are feeling marginalized by transgenders.

“The trans movement is … coercing lesbians to have sex with men,” read one of the pamphlets. “We firmly condemn this vicious form of anti-lesbianism disguised as progress.”

Speaking to reporters, one of the lesbians handing out these pamphlets actually tried to make the case that transgenderism, which is a personal choice, represents a type of “conversion therapy.”

“Conversion therapy is wrong,” this deranged individual stated, implying that transgenders are somehow being forced to pretend as though they’re the opposite biological sex.

“Only women can be lesbians,” this individual firmly stated, discriminating against transgenders in the process. “A man who has surgery can never be a lesbian.”

Another piece of Obama’s legacy being erased as LGBT self-destructs

But wait: Aren’t LGBT people allowed to self-identify as whoever or whatever they want, no questions asked? That’s long been a key tenet of LGBT philosophy and dogma, after all – the idea that a person can choose to be anything he, she, ze, it, etc. wants without having to face any discrimination.

This glamorized banner of “tolerance” worked pretty well when gays and lesbians were still the center of attention in LGBTland. But now that transgenders are stealing the LGBT spotlight, these older relics of sexual deviancy are demanding that their former positions in the rainbow hierarchy be restored – which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

“The incident is the latest in a string of clashes between activists who demand all sexes, genders, and sexual preferences be included under the LGBTQIA+ banner, and those who say they’re left feeling marginalized by gay rights groups’ shifting priorities,” writes Emily Zanotti for The Daily Wire.

“The lesbian activists who disrupted the parade said they’ve felt left out of Pride events this year, after noting to organizers that lesbians prefer sex with only biological females, not transgender men who might dress and live as women but who have not completed gender reassignment surgery.”

It’s hypocrisy at its finest – and the rotting fruit of Obama’s aggressive LGBT agenda during his tenure in the White House. The irony is that 44’s pro-trans push seems to have become the lynchpin that’s on the verge of setting off the LGBT grenade, leading to the movement’s total self-destruction.

For more news about the implosion of the left, check out Libtards.news.

Sources for this article include:




Senate Committee Approves AIPAC Bill to Give Israel $38 Billion Over 10 Years, With Additional Perks

Michael Wilder — via Information Clearing House July 12, 2018

A Senate panel approved a bill on Tuesday endorsing a decade-long aid package to Israel brokered by the Obama administration.

The US-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 authorizes a memorandum of understanding negotiated in 2016 between the two governments which will provide Israel with $38 billion in military aid between 2019 and 2028.

A bipartisan majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the legislation, allowing it to proceed to the full Senate floor. The bill also authorized the president to establish a US-Israeli counter-drone program, expand collaboration on the peaceful exploration of space, and produce an assessment on Israel’s precision-guided defense needs with respect to threats from Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which pioneered the legislation, applauded its progress in a statement.

The bill “ensures that Israel has the means to defend itself, by itself, against growing and emerging threats – including Iran’s presence close to Israel’s northern border,” AIPAC said. “This bipartisan legislation authorizes agreed-upon increases in Israel’s security assistance and encourages expanding weapons stockpiles.”

The Israel advocacy group also pointedly celebrated the committee’s rejection of an amendment, proposed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, which called for phasing out aid to the Jewish state.

This article was originally published by “Jerusalem Post

Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes

Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon July 14, 2018

As Trump flies into Britain like an emperor visiting one of his badly run colonies, Theresa May blinks and trembles in her boots
Sun headline. Click to enlarge

Sun headline. Click to enlarge

A scare story published yesterday in Britain’s bestselling newspaper The Sun was dismissed later on by Donald Trump as “fake news”. This bore the sensational headline: “MAY HAS WRECKED BREXIT . . . US DEAL IS OFF!” 
Note however that everything Trump is reported to have said in that exclusive interview with the Sun was actually recorded. The president was in no way misquoted. Whatever he said, moreover, was a reflection  of the truth as seen by the 17.4 million Brits, myself included, who had voted for Brexit and now feel cruelly betrayed by the most two-faced and treacherous prime minister since Tony Blair. For sheer double-crossing duplicity, Theresa May wins the shame prize. 
Trump said that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who had resigned in a huff after seeing Brexit betrayed, would make a “great Prime Minister”. Anything wrong with that? No, it was just Trump’s cheeky way of saying that Boris (pictured here) would make a far better prime minister than the traitor Theresa May who has just stabbed the British public in the back with a Florentine stiletto, à la Lucrezia Borgia, after assuring them she was about to lead them into the Promised Land — outside Europe.
Her oft-repeated mantra  “BREXIT MEANS BREXIT” now rings hollow in the ears of 17.4 millions Brits who voted for a clean break from Europe. It belongs in the same category of Orwellian doublespeak slogans like “WAR IS PEACE”,  “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”, and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”. Madam May has turned out to be a hypocrite of the first order, it would seem, and Donald Trump has had the imperial chutzpah to out her as the hypocrite she is, without actually calling her a hypocrite to her face.
Brilliant! Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant! . . . Well, not quite. There’s still hope of rescue from this dire situation, provided the Brits can unite behind a great leader of principle, lurking in the shadows and awaiting his Palm Sunday moment. I refer to the inimitable Jacob Rees-Mogg — the only man in Britain who could slay the Dragon Lady masquerading right now as a prime minister.
The Brits voted for a clean Brexit, not an unclean one. They voted to leave Europe, not to half leave it.
Here are the people speaking. They do not mince their words. Listen carefully. Each is a different voice, all adding up to a caterwauling chorus of complaint:
—  “Not only has the Chequers agreement betrayed the electorate. It also shows that the Government has lied over the past two years.”
—  “The agreement that came from Chequers manifestly fails to implement the referendum result. It has all the hallmarks of a deceitful politician.”
—  “We are being double-crossed and ignored by the traitors on the Tory party. So much for the will of the people. Democracy is dead in this country.”
—  “I used to admire Mrs May, with her poise, style and strength of character…. I now realise she has misled the people for the past two years. That is unforgivable.”
—  “After hiding behind the settee throughout the UK referendum campaign and then crawling into the Premiership, Theresa May has finally revealed herself as the Quisling for our times.
—  “I don’t think I’ve ever felt so betrayed. We won the referendum, but never have we felt more like losers.”
—  These are frightening times. The Chequers proposal has made it likely we will become a vassal state to the EU. Mrs May and the Remainers are laughing at democracy and enjoying every moment. The electorate count for nothing in their eyes.
—  “Theresa May has let us all down and I will never trust her again. If she is not replaced fast, the consequences could be dire.”
Sourced from The Daily Mail, Your Anger over Brexit Betrayal, 12 July 2018, pp. 24-25
Voices wailing in the wilderness … shrieking from the rooftops. So sad. These misguided wretches actually believe that voting makes a difference. That we in the West live under model democracies. If only they knew! We are little better off than Uzbekistan where they boil people alive on the slightest pretext.
—   §   —
President Trump has now come to the rescue of the Brexiters. His brutally honest comments have severely damaged Theresa May. The two-faced lady is still licking her wounds and wondering how to deal with this smug orange-haired emperor from overseas.
The Emperor has accused EU leaders of destroying European  culture and identity by allowing in millions of unwanted migrants. He has said that former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson would make “a great Prime Minister”, thereby implying that Theresa May makes a lousy one.  He insists on maintaining friendly relations with Vladimir Putin instead of slagging him off at every opportunity. He has embarrassed the hell out of European leaders for not spending enough money on the defence of Europe, insisting that they double and even triple their current parsimonious contributions.
Above all, Trump has proved a thorn in the flesh to Theresa May by telling her in no uncertain terms that she has failed to take his imperial advice on Brexit, that she has betrayed the British people by giving them the opposite of what they voted for at the referendum, and that she has shown scant respect for democracy.
Migration is “killing Europe”, Trump said. Was he lying? Of course not! He was spot on. He has started to crack down on mass immigration in America and naturally wonders what is making Theresa May so complacent about its viral effects in the UK.  Is May so incredibly dense, like Germany’s deranged Chancellor Angela Merkel, that she remains unaware of the fact that Europe’s borders need to be protected — if necessary by gunboats — from foreign invaders masquerading as “refugees”?
“I told May how to do Brexit but she didn’t listen to me!” Trump complains. If May had listened to him, she would now have a trade deal with America that would have been second to none. Free trade —no tariffs! By clinging to the EU’s skirts, May has chosen to go slogging on as a vassal state of Europe.
Trump was indeed brutally honest. Hardly a diplomat. More like an enfant terrible nonchalently speaking his mind to a tedious subordinate. Trump tells us archly that Mrs May does not bore him, the very disclaimer itself suggesting that she probably does. This is the lady who is so humourless that, when asked what the naughtiest thing she had ever done in her life was, replied woodenly: “Running through fields of wheat as a child — the farmers weren’t too pleased.”
It’s a wonder how such a saintly lady, a vicar daughter forsooth, can suddenly morph into a female version of Judas Iscariot.
Truly, you can’t make this up.
—   §   —
Here is what a former critic of Trump has to say about him now:
“Bashing Trump is certainly fashionable. But there’s a narrow-mindedness and bigotry to the attacks that is both unintelligent and unattractive.
Is there another side to the story?
Because of the snobbery and bias of much of the British media who look down their noses at Trump because he’s a businessman not a policy wonk, because he likes McDonald’s not haute cuisine — and because he speaks in plain English instead of the highfalutin’ bureaucratic claptrap you normally get from politicians, I suspect most people in the UK get a uniformly negative presentation of the Trump presidency.
Back in 2016 I thought Donald Trump would make a better president than Hillary Clinton for three main reasons.
FIRST, Trump promised to get the economy moving, to reverse the decades-long slump in jobs and incomes that was the result of the elitist policies pursued by Democrats and Republicans. Trump promised to slash red tape and cut taxes.
He has delivered spectacularly: A massive reduction in regulations and a dramatic tax reform have led to a transformation in business confidence and investment.
That translated into the first significant pay rises for ordinary Americans for decades, and historic falls in unemployment — including the lowest unemployment rates ever recorded for black Americans.
The SECOND big argument for Trump was his pledge to control immigration. The elitists focused on his harsh rhetoric. But working Americans understood what none of the establishment politicians was prepared to admit: That uncontrolled immigration meant an uncontrolled flow of cheap, imported labour that undermined wage rates.
Again, Trump has delivered. Immigration enforcement has been stepped up and the overall numbers are down. Trump wants to go further but needs Congress to get its act together.
The THIRD key promise was to “Drain The Swamp”. By this he meant taking on the system of cronyism and corruption in Washington DC that puts the real power in the hands of big business, wealthy donors, shadowy lobbyists and faceless bureaucrats in the “Deep State”.
Here too there has been progress. There is more to do but the Trump administration has implemented the toughest ever clampdown on federal government employees leaving their jobs to lobby from the private sector.
And the biggest change of all might turn out to be Trump’s assault on the unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats of the Deep State — not just by cutting regulations but by appointing judges at every level who are committed to reining in the power of the bureaucracy.
All this go-ahead drive and energy is such a contrast with Theresa May’s lacklustre and uninspiring drift.
Whether you love or loathe Donald Trump — and remember, in America he has the second highest own-party approval ratings of any president since World War Two — everyone in Britain should hope that Theresa May picks up some of his positive, pro-enterprise exuberance.
— Steve Hilton in The Sun, 13 July 2018
Enough from me. I have said many bad things about Trump in the past, some of them possibly true. Who hasn’t? But I will say this. Perceptions change, and new events give rise to new thoughts. Trump’s visit to Britain has done his image a great deal of good, especially in the eyes of his fellow Americans who like to see their statesmen behave presidentially, with aplomb and panache, with pomp and circumstance.

Melania Trump May

“I am a very stable genius.” — Donald Trump

Trump now begins to look — dare I say it? — like the parody of a great president! Napoleon has nothing on this guy. If he isn’t the genuine article, he is at the very least a consummate actor.