Ali Abunimah — Electronic Intifada May 19, 2013

In an unprecedented act of political censorship Al Jazeera English has deleted an article by noted Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad after coming under intense criticism from Zionists in recent days.

Massad told The Electronic Intifada that he had “received confirmation” from his editor at Al Jazeera English that “management pulled the article.” The Electronic Intifada was able to independently confirm that the article was pulled.

The piece, “The Last of the Semites,” published on 14 May, was taken down from the main Al Jazeera English site Sunday morning – the link now redirects to Al Jazeera’s main page. It has also disappeared from Massad’s personal page on the Al Jazeera website.

The article had been one of the most viewed and emailed articles on the site and had been tweeted hundreds of times.

Al Jazeera has yet to offer any public explanation for its action.

Intense criticism

Since its publication, the article generated intense criticism from Zionist extremists, including a columnist in the virulently anti-Palestinian Jerusalem Post, and condemnation on Twitter from President Barack Obama’s favorite Israel lobby gatekeeper and former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg:

Jeffrey Goldberg ✔ @JeffreyGoldberg

Congratulations, al Jazeera: You’ve just posted one of the most anti-Jewish screeds in recent memory: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/201351275829430527.html …

John Podhoretz, editor of the neoconservative anti-Palestinian Zionist magazine Commentary, tweeted about Massad: “Congratulations, donors to Columbia University, for paying this monstrous fuckhead’s salary!”

The backlash has been so intense precisely because Massad goes to the core of Israel’s claim to represent Jews and to cast its critics as anti-Semites by showing that indeed it is Israel and Zionism that partake of the same anti-Semitism that targeted European Jews.

In doing so, Massad pulls the rug from under Zionists and Israel lobbyists by demonstrating that they are the anti-Semites and taking away the most formidable weapon they wield against critics of Israel: the accusation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

By neutralizing this ideological weapon that Israel has used so effectively in the Western media to cover up its colonization of Palestine, Massad’s pro-Jewish position and strenuous attack on Zionist anti-Semitism is clearly understood by Israel lobby figures such as Goldberg as a complete obliteration of their ideological arsenal.

Zionism and anti-Semitism: two sides of the same coin

Goldberg’s claim that Massad’s article is an “anti-Jewish screed” could not be further from the truth.

Massad has long argued – convincingly – that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin. It is a theme he develops with great erudition in his 2006 book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, and one to which he returns in his latest article, “The Last of the Semites,” published on Al Jazeera on 14 May, which opens thus:

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question.” What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

Last December, in another piece for Al Jazeera, Massad explained how “Zionist leaders consciously recognized that state anti-Semitism was essential to their colonial project” in Palestine, a recognition epitomized by the notorious Transfer Agreement Zionist leaders signed with the Nazi government of Germany in 1933.

A theme that Massad develops in his latest piece is that European, and especially Germany’s, support for Israel after 1948, is no break with the anti-Semitic past:

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s.

The “The Last of the Semites” was based on a lecture Massad gave at a conference in Stuttgart (PDF), Germany, to a largely German audience, just last week:

Censorship

Although Qatar-based Al Jazeera receives much criticism, and often deserved, for reflecting Qatar’s foreign policy, the censorship of Massad’s article for political reasons is unprecedented because the English-language website had, until now, enjoyed complete editorial independence.

It is well understood that Al Jazeera’s red lines have always been criticism of Qatar or its Emir, and yet, Massad has even published several articles on Al Jazeera English that harshly criticized both Qatari foreign policy (See here, here and here) and the Emir himself without ever being censored.

And Massad has written plenty of articles that have enraged Zionists.

This indicates, without doubt, that the decision to remove Massad’s article today was taken at the highest level.

But why would this happen now?

One reasonable interpretation would be that the removal of Massad’s article reflects a tightening of the editorial line as the network launches its new channel, Al Jazeera America, which will rely – for access to cable systems, and “mainstream” credibility – on forging good relations with US elites.

An illustration of what this process might look like was on display when Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of Al Jazeera’s international operations and the official responsible for setting up Al Jazeera America, recently visited Chicago – which will be home to a major Al Jazeera bureau.

While in the city, Al Shihabi struck up a cozy relationship with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff.

Emanuel, a major powerbroker in America’s ruling Democratic Party, is, of course, also notorious for his hardline pro-Israel positions.

It is unknown if Al Shihabi had anything directly to do with the removal of Massad’s article – that decision would almost certainly have been taken at an even higher level in Doha – but his dalliance with Emanuel is a good indicator of who Al Jazeera is out to impress.

Until late Sunday, Massad’s piece could still be read in full on Al Jazeera’s mobile site, but by late evening, that too had disappeared.

Here is a PDF image of the censored article.

The Last of the Semites – Joseph Massad – Al Jazeera Engli

Source

Courtesy Shamireaders

Nafeez Mosadeq Ahmed — Ceasefire Magazine May 16, 2013

A whistleblower has revealed extraordinary information on the U.S. government’s support for international terrorist networks and organised crime. The government has denied the allegations yet gone to extraordinary lengths to silence her. Her critics have derided her as a fabulist and fabricator. But now comes word that some of her most serious allegations were confirmed by a major European newspaper only to be squashed at the request of the U.S. government.

In a recent  book Classified Woman, Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI, describes how the Pentagon, CIA and State Department maintained intimate ties to al-Qaeda militants as late as 2001. Her memoir, Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, published last year, charged senior government officials with negligence, corruption and collaboration with al Qaeda in illegal arms smuggling and drugs trafficking in Central Asia.

In interviews with this author in early March, Edmonds claimed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with U.S. military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as ‘Gladio B’. Al-Zawahiri, she charged, as well as various members of the bin Laden family and other mujahideen, were transported on NATO planes to various parts of Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilisation operations.

According to two Sunday Times journalists speaking on condition of anonymity, this and related revelations had been confirmed by senior Pentagon and MI6 officials as part of a four-part investigative series that were supposed to run in 2008. The Sunday Times journalists described how the story was inexplicably dropped under the pressure of undisclosed “interest groups”, which, they suggest, were associated with the U.S. State Department.

Shooting the Messenger

Continues …

John Kaminski — Rebel News May 10, 2013

‘THE FETCH’ GETS THE HEAVE FROM TALKSTREAMLIVE

Candor and forthrightness about the perils and perversions of Jewish influence on society are not exactly welcomed throughout most of the worldwide media spectrum, both mainstream and alternative.

In fact, the subject is so taboo that virtually all Internet websites that insist they are government critics and major players in the opposition self-censor themselves on the use of the kosher word and dupe a majority of their listeners and subscribers into believing that they are genuine members of the opposition, when by their exclusion of the word “Jew” in relation to virtually all news stories, they prove they are not.

The latest act of coercive kosher censorship happened last Saturday when the Internet radio provider Talkstreamlive informed popular radio host Dennis Fetcho that his services would no longer be needed, after only one appearance on that network.

The Fetch’s guest on that show was, of course, yours truly.

Continues …

Introduction — April 19, 2013

Different news agencies gave this story a marked difference in prominence.

For example, Russia Today featured the story below on its main web page.

The BBC however, placed this story in its World News regional section, halfway down its Middle East page. Below a report on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s warning that Israel would “act on Syria’s weapons“. Beneath a story on how the United Arab Emirates had arrested “al Qaeda suspects” and with even less prominence than a report on Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinian runners from Gaza to participate in a marathon near Bethlehem.

As if the BBC was literally trying to cover the report and Assad’s warning that the West would pay for “supporting Al Qaeda”.

In fact Assad’a accusation was itself buried beneath the headline: “Syria crisis: Bashar al-Assad says West will ‘pay price‘”.

Observant readers will note that the crucial words: “supporting Al Qaeda” was omitted from the headline. So the casual observer might have missed the fact that Assad was explicitly accusing the West of aiding Al Qaeda.

This is news management of the most duplicitous kind. But just so no one can accuse the BBC of censorship, the corporation posts the story and then buries it beneath a welter of other seemingly more important, but actually far less significant reports.

To add insult to injury, for this kind of “news coverage” Britons are legally required to pay over £100 per annum.

West will pay for ‘supporting Al Qaeda’ – Assad

Russia Today — April 18, 2013

Syrian President Bashar Assad has cautioned in a TV interview that the West will pay a heavy price for allegedly helping Al Qaeda extremists in the country’s two-year uprising, adding that the government’s defeat is out of the question.

In the statement that was made on Wednesday to state channel Al Ikhbariya, Assad warned that “The West has paid heavily for funding Al-Qaeda in its early stages. Today it is doing the same in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price in the heart of Europe and the United States.”

He stressed that “from the first day, what is happening in Syria is dictated from abroad.”

Assad’s interview also comes within a week of jihadist extremists the Al Nusra Front swearing support to Al Qaeda’s commander Ayman al-Zawahiri, who’s idea it had been initially to turn Syria into an Islamic state.

The president continued to say that Syria was “facing a new war, a new method, with fighters, some of whom are Arabs, not Syrians,” and that the “army is not fighting a war to liberate Syrian territory, but a war on terror.”

While the president did say that progress was being made, he also pointed toward some “big powers, in particular the United States, that do not accept countries to be independent; they want them to be submissive.” Although the West has claimed on occasion not to be supporting Al Qaeda, Assad added that “everyone who carries weapons and attacks civilians is a terrorist, be they Al-Qaeda or not.”

The president went on to say that the defeat of his government would herald Syria’s downfall, and therefore he could and would not surrender. “The truth is there is a war and I repeat: no to surrender, no to submission”, he said.

“There is no option but victory. Otherwise it will be the end of Syria, and I don’t think that the Syrian people will accept such an option,” he added.

When questioned about his own future, he only said that the decision should be up to the people of Syria.

“The position (of president) has no value without popular backing. The people’s decision is what matters in the question of whether the president stays or goes”, which could mean the president’s intention to run for another term in next year’s elections.

Assad turned to the topic of Jordan – which currently holds around a half-million Syrian refugees – blaming the country for condoning the free movement of rebels to and from Syria. He had the following to say on the matter:

“I cannot believe that hundreds (of rebels) are entering Syria with their weapons while Jordan is capable of arresting any single person with a light arm for going to resist in Palestine.” He also gave a word of caution.

“We would wish that our Jordanian neighbors realize that… the fire will not stop at our borders; all the world knows Jordan is just as exposed (to the crisis) as Syria.”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel meanwhile addressed Congress with the intention of deploying 200 US troops to Jordan in order to contain cross-border violence and thwart any supposed chemical weapons attack that might take place inside Syria. Amman’s Information Minister Mohammed Momani spoke of the plans:

“The deployment of the troops is part of US-Jordanian military cooperation to boost the Jordanian armed forces in light of the deteriorating situation in Syria,” Momani told AFP. The precise date of the deployment remains unclear.

Spokesman for the Executive Intelligence Review Magazine Lawrence Freeman believes that regime change has always been on the minds of the West, but that the scope of the war effort is much wider than a confrontation with Syria.

“The reality is that President Obama and Tony Blair…have been very intent on regime change in Syria, and their target is broader than Syria. The target is confrontation – a game of ‘chicken’ with Russia and China to back down and submit to US – NATO policy control over the region and globally.”

Despite this, Freeman added that certain members of the American military actually argue completely against the idea of military intervention, saying it would be detrimental to the entire regional peace effort.

Freeman also makes a connection between the Middle Eastern strategy of Western powers and the collapse of the European banking system, seeing a direct correlation with the escalation of tensions in the region:

“It’s not unrelated to the fact that the European financial system is in a state of collapse – as we’ve seen in Spain and Greece and are now seeing in Cyprus. As this system collapses, which comes out of the City of London financial empire crowd, you’re going to see more and more creeping towards actual escalation of war as a way of dealing with the collapse of their financial system.”

Freeman drove the point home by explaining that “the people behind this financial system want to neutralize the Russians and the Chinese, so they are no longer an obstacle…it’s much bigger than [removing] Assad.”

One of Syria’s closest allies, Russia, meanwhile warned that the Friends of Syria group, who are opposed to the government in Damascus, are playing a “negative” and are not helping the situation progress. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Istanbul, in reference to the 2012 agreement on ending the conflict by diplomatic means that “right now we see this process is making a negative contribution to the (Geneva) decisions.”

The next meeting of the Friends of Syria is scheduled to take place on Saturday in the Turkish capital.

The bloody uprising that has gripped Syria for two years now has taken the lives of over 70,000 people and displaced over a million.

Source

Daily Mail — April 18, 2013

An article on 29 January reported allegations on the internet that the US Government had backed a plot to launch a chemicals weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.

The reports made reference to an email said to have been from David Goulding, the Business Development Director of Britam Defence, to company founder, Philip Doughty. The email had been published on the internet after Britam’s computer system was illegally hacked in Singapore. It referred to a proposal that Britam would deliver chemical weapons to Syria for enormous financial reward and suggested that the directors were willing to consider the illegal proposal.

We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity.

We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.

Source

In the wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting public incredulity with the official version of events led to numerous speculations on what really happened. In short order corporate media marshalled pundits to disparage such alternative interpretations as “conspiracy theories” and the work of deranged and even malevolent Sandy Hook “truthers.”

The now-prevalent phenomenon where only the narratives authorized by law enforcement and government authorities are worthy of serious consideration suggests the unmistakable extent to which public discourse has declined. In such an ideational system journalists and academics are expected to either fall silent or perform the rearguard action of deflecting criticism from the state.

Events such as Aurora or Sandy Hook have profuse informational gaps and a multitude of questions authorities have not begun to adequately address. Regardless of political stripe journalists and academics especially should be instinctively distrustful of such momentous incidents. Unfortunately many put short term interests of preserving reputation and livelihood above the obligatory search for truth.

Today’s project of policing the public sphere for unorthodox thoughts is a form of stealth authoritarianism that combines the weight of academic or journalistic expertise with a phony liberalism (or conservatism) to confirm the often unexamined perspectives of a specific political constituency. Such a technique is most readily employed against the apparently irrational ideas, beliefs and practices of a foreign other. In this regard “conspiracy theorists” and “truthers” typically play the “straw man” role.

For example, a recent piece by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan exhibits anxiety over major media’s attention toward individuals critical of what authorities have told them to believe about Sandy Hook.[1] Nyhan is fearful that research into the Newtown massacre contradicting the government’s official narrative—what he emphatically terms “conspiracy mongering” and “obscure myths”–may be given a platform by more “prominent advocates” from the political realm. From here the dangerous notions could gain the support of the unenlightened–“credulous believers” and “new adherents who would not otherwise have been exposed to or persuaded by false claims.” Such verboten ideas, Nyhan argues, should instead be allowed to “wither and die.”

The problem with this stance is that it consciously paves the way for the official false claims and myths that powerful political entities and corporate news and entertainment media are capable of forcing upon the public mind and collective memory, be they Osama bin Laden masterminding the 9/11 attacks, babies being thrown from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, or North Vietnamese forces firing the first shots in the Vietnam War. Such a position is not unusual from a palace court intellectual; whether it is morally sound and faithful to the liberal tenet of speaking truth to power is a matter for another day.

In reviewing other articles of those using this form of defamatory innuendo toward the Sandy Hook truth community I encountered numerous poorly reasoned arguments and claims that could not withstand serious scrutiny and amounted to a bulwark for the official narrative–indeed, arguments most appealing to those with a dangerously unexamined faith in state power and lacking the inclination to consider alternative perspectives or investigate the event for themselves.

This prompted me to contact several notable “conspiracy theory” decriers and request an interview with each of them. Instead of mere name-calling, I remain sincerely interested in better understanding why such apparently intelligent individuals have come to arrive at their conclusions and become the self-appointed guardians of legitimate public exchange. I thus set about assembling a set of questions on a wide array of “conspiracy”-related issues and phenomena.

I figured I would begin by reaching out in a collegial manner to Professor Nyhan himself. “Sorry, not interested,” he replied, rather tersely. I next contacted Ben Smith and C J Lotz, staff writers at the popular liberal website Buzzfeed.com, who wrote a piece remarkably similar to Dr. Nyhan’s titled, “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward the Mainstream.”[2] Smith and Lotz never responded to my emails.

Undeterred, I contacted the operators of the well-known liberal “fact check” website Snopes.com. “I’m sorry, I’m afraid we just can’t,” Barbara Mikkelson replied. “I fear this is the downside of having a small operation.”

Next I dropped Salon.com political writer and ThinkProgress assistant editor Alex Seitz-Wald a line. The youthful Seitz-Wald prides himself as being one of today’s foremost “truth” skeptics. Since early January he has written a series of articles generally disparaging Sandy Hook researchers. “I’m writing one more story on this,” he said, “but really not interested in getting back into this subject or enduring more hate mail.”

I moved on to career anti-conspiracist and former High Times editor John Foster “Chip” Berlet. Calling himself a progressive and champion of liberal democracy, Mr. Berlet wrote profusely on the resurgence of the so-called “new right” throughout the 1990s.[3] “I do not spend time with people promoting crackpot conspiracy theories,” he replied, somewhat peevishly. “It is annoying, counterproductive, and gives me a headache. Nevertheless, I support your First Amendment right to waste bandwidth and electricity.”

Just when I was about to give up hope Jonathan Kay, editor at Canada’s National Post and author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Conspiracist Underground [4] responded favorably to my interview request. “Sure,” he said, much to my delight. Yet when I provided Kay with the questions he balked. “Just about all the answers to these questions are in my book,” he replied. I countered that very few of the questions were actually addressed in the book. “I get the sense that my perspective wouldn’t really be that meaningful to you. I’m going to pass on this.”

In the end while skilled at defending the varied machinations of our out-of-control police state by helping to confirm their immediate audiences’ prejudices, none of the foremost conspiracy cynics and debunkers opted to have a dialogue–one where they would likely be compelled to interrogate their own claims and assumptions.

Could it be that what these commentators desire in lieu of dialogue is a one-way transmission of their ideas devoid of critique or interpretation–one where the pursuit of “truth” itself is caricatured as a fool’s errand? If liberalism is based in part on a free and open exchange perhaps some of the foremost figures and media outlets touting themselves as progressive and liberal, and purporting to preserve and defend rational discourse, really aren’t so open-minded after all.

The following are the questions I was hoping my would-be interlocutors would address.

• The main thrust of John Milton’s Areopagetica is that in a fair exchange an argument based on the truth will triumph over lies and deception. Do you think that the major media’s use of terms such as “truther” or “conspiracy theorist” to designate individuals or groups with ideas and theories that differ from government and/or corporate entities is a productive part of the journey toward truth and enlightenment Milton envisioned?

• To what degree do you think citizens and the press should hold government officials accountable for momentous events such as the terror attacks of September 11, 2001?

• What characterizes a conspiracy theory? How can we distinguish between a conspiracy theory and a valid assessment of a specific phenomenon, issue, or event?

• US political leaders uniformly maintain that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were the sole agents behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission’s report attributed this set of events to “a lack of imagination” in terms of government agencies’ preparation. In your view, what are the most compelling pieces of evidence to support this official explanation of the 9/11 events?

• Historian Richard Hofstadter argues in his well-known essay, “The Paranoid Style of American Politics,” that regardless of how much evidence the conspiratorially-minded gather and present on a topic or phenomenon they are not worthy of a hearing as their views may endanger rational political discourse and consensus. Does such a position potentially jeopardize effective and honest journalistic practice?

• In your estimation, is the tendency to entertain or proffer conspiracy theories a sign of a potential psychiatric condition? Along these lines, are at least some conspiracy theorists inherently dangerous?

• In 1977 Carl Bernstein reported that through “Operation Mockingbird” and related activities many major news organizations were infiltrated by CIA operatives or consciously aided the CIA in intelligence gathering activities and “planting” stories in the press. CIA document 1035-960 suggests how the agency went about thwarting criticism of the Warren Commission’s examination of President Kennedy’s assassination by utilizing intelligence assets in news outlets to bolster the Warren Commission’s legitimacy and labeling critics “conspiracy theorists.” In your estimation, is the intelligence community’s penetration of the press an ongoing phenomenon? Is it more widespread today or has it subsided to any significant degree?

• Political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith cites The Declaration of Independence as a conspiratorial document and asserts that the ideology of America’s founders was in many ways motivated by paranoia toward British rule. In fact, the notion of conspiracy has been a consistent theme in American politics. With this in mind, what is it about modern forms of governance that render such impulses and worldviews irrational, obsolete, and perhaps even dangerous?

• The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City brought into public consciousness the notion of “homegrown terrorism.” At the same time the event provided the pretext for laws compromising Americans’ civil liberties and paved the way for the PATRIOT Act that was enacted in the wake of 9/11. Is it reasonable for the public to conclude that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the sole or principal agents in the bombing? Have you examined the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee’s 2001 report on the incident? If so, would you consider its findings to be sound and cause for a new judicial interrogation of the event?

• The official theory of what transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 involves 20-year-old Adam Lanza going on a murderous rampage that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and 7 adults. Major media outlets appear to have unquestioningly gone forward with this scenario. In your estimation, have law enforcement and medical authorities produced evidence sufficient to support this theory of events?

• There are a variety of public figures and websites that deem themselves as “alternative” sources of political news and analysis, such as Alex Jones and Infowars.com, and Dr. Webster Tarpley of Tarpley.net. Why do you believe such individuals are frequently held up as promoters of conspiracy theories? In your view, what is it that makes these commentators and sources of analysis less reliable than, say, CNN’s Piers Morgan, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, or the editorial and op-ed pages of a regional or national newspaper?

• Philanthropic foundations contribute large sums to a wide array of non-governmental organizations and media outlets in the United States. What role, if any, do you believe such entities play in shaping public discourse and opinion around controversial issues and events?

Notes

[1] Brendan Nyhan, “Boosting the Sandy Hook Truther Myth,” Columbia Journalism Review, January 22, 2013. Dr. Nyhan speaks dismissively of this author yet it is difficult to find a conventional article addressing independent Sandy Hook analysis that does not. I chose this piece to aid in analyzing its argument and a specific sociocultural tendency rather than its author. CJR seeks “to encourage excellence in journalism in the service of a free society” and its “major funders” include George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Family Fund.

[2] Ben Smith and C J Lotz, “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward the Mainstream,” Buzzfeed.com, January 22, 2013.

[3] For example, see the barely concealed political tracts Chip Berlet (editor), Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, Boston and Somerville MA: Political Research Associates and South End Press, 1995, and the quasi-academic Too Close for Comfort: Right Wing Populism in America, New York: Guilford Press, 2000.

[4] Jonathan Kay, Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Conspiracist Underground, New York: Harper Collins, 2011.

Source

A call to arms to all anti-NWO activists: Resist royal cyber-bullying with all available means

Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offence: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.

 Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive those email I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site. 

Continues …

No, I am not making this up.

My memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye describing my five years in the Brussels lunatic asylum came out as an eBook at the end of January,

Today, March 5, nine policemen arrived unannounced at my front door armed with a warrant to search our home.

Much of my book details my efforts on behalf of the taxpayers of SE England to expose the gross misuse of public funds by the EU, and hold them accountable.

Such an unusually fast reaction by Brussels tells me they are both very angry and terrified. My book is obviously causing them trouble.

The police team were from the Economic Crime Investigation Team based in Netley, Hampshire. They were led by Robert Cooper (1234) and financial investigator Nigel Hopkins (11276)

The search warrant, indecipherably signed only yesterday by a JP, is apparently based on the EU’s accusation that I used public funds to investigate them!

No, I am still not making this up.

It seems I should not have paid anyone to assist my work – not anti-EU organisations, whistleblowers, current and former members of EU staff, forensic accountants, a leading constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, no less, or any other lawyers – to say nothing of the scores of individuals with knowledge of wrong-doing who sought me out over the years.

The police took away a few documents which they thought relevant – but one was from the EU itself threatening action!

But they also took every penny of cash they found in the house on the grounds that this was a “money-laundering” exercise! This afternoon I couldn’t even pay the milkman!

Happily my book is already doing well. Now it might do even better. If you haven’t seen it yet, my new blog website has all the details:

http://amoteinbrusselseye.blogspot.co.uk/

Rupert Murdoch apologised on Monday for a “grotesque” cartoon in his London-based Sunday Times newspaper depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a bloody wall trapping the bodies of Palestinians, after complaints from Jewish groups.

The image, which shows Netanyahu holding a trowel dripping blood, was published on Holocaust Memorial Day and carried the caption “Israeli elections. Will cementing peace continue?”

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the cartoon was “shockingly reminiscent of the blood libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently anti-Semitic Arab press”.

The so-called “blood libel” – accusations that Jewish peoples murder children and use their blood in rituals – go back centuries and have led to persecution and attacks.

The wall image by the weekly paper’s cartoonist Gerald Scarfe was a reference to the barrier that Israel has been building for a decade on West Bank territory.

The project was launched at the height of a Palestinian uprising and was billed as a way to stop suicide bombers from penetrating the country.

The Sunday Times’s acting editor was due to meet Jewish community leaders in Britain on Tuesday to express his regrets over the cartoon, said a spokesman for Murdoch’s News International, the paper’s publisher.

Murdoch said Scarfe had never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. “Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon,” he said in a Twitter message.

The Board of Deputies, representing Jewish communities in Britain, said it had lodged a complaint over the image with the Press Complaints Commission, an industry-run watchdog.

“Its use is all the more disgusting on Holocaust Memorial Day, given the similar tropes levelled against Jews by the Nazis,” the board added.

The paper denied the cartoon was anti-Semitic, saying it was aimed at Netanyahu and not the Israeli people. It said the timing of its publication was linked to the victory of Netanyahu’s party in last week’s Israeli elections.

“The last thing I or anyone connected with the Sunday Times would countenance would be insulting the memory of the Shoah (the Holocaust) or invoking the blood libel,” said Martin Ivens, who was appointed as the paper’s acting editor earlier this month.

“We are however reminded of the sensitivities in this area by the reaction to the cartoon and I will of course bear them very carefully in mind in future,” he added.

Ivens was expected to tell Jewish leaders that the cartoon was a case of “bad taste and extremely bad timing”, the News International spokesman said.

Scarfe told Britain’s Jewish Chronicle he had been unaware it was Holocaust Memorial Day on Sunday and regretted the timing of the cartoon’s publication.

(Editing by Jon Hemming)

Source

Greetings from Davos, the annual shindig of world leaders and chief executives in a valley by a Swiss mountain. Or perhaps the site of a global conspiracy of the power elite. Or perhaps the place where a Swiss professor imposes his quaint euro-views on “stakeholder capitalism” on US corporations. Or perhaps one giant cocktail party.

The fact that the World Economic Forum has been going since 1971 and can pull 2,600 professionals away from their desks without knowing precisely why they come is quite an achievement. Any event that can charge SFr22,000 ($23,600) per seat – and up to SFr500,000 for membership – has things to teach rivals.

Quartz, the business news publication, this week unveiled the “confidential” list of Davos attendees, reinforcing the notion that the 0.1 per cent is up to no good. “It allows bankers or people in business to meet and make deals they couldn’t legally do in their offices,” says Richard Saul Wurman, founder of the Ted conferences.

But why travel all the way to Davos to fix prices? Most people here spend their days debating corporate social responsibility and the global economy, and their nights rubbing shoulders with fellow guests over drinks and dinner. The WEF is not a conspiracy; it is infotainment.

Continues …

Comment – June 24, 2013

No doubt having been granted an ‘all-expenses’ trip to the luxury Swiss resort, the writer of the above only confirms what John Swinton, one of the foremost journalists of his day once described journalists as: intellectual prostitutes.

The fact that this appears in the Financial Times – a publication that requires payment for regular visits – only confirms that John Gapper works for a whorehouse.

Still we shouldn’t be too harsh. After all he is obviously enjoying attending an event that costs over US $20,000 with all that goes with it for free. By Gapper’s own admission that includes: “rubbing shoulders with fellow guests over drinks and dinner” at a luxurious Swiss resort.

Who wouldn’t enjoy such on the job perks? But it only underlines John Swinton’s assertion that most journalists are little more than intellectual whores and that John Gapper is a prime example.

In the process Gapper even challenges us to defy logic. What he asks: “can pull 2,600 professionals away from their desks without knowing precisely why” … and … “charge SFr22,000 ($23,600) per seat” to do so?

What indeed?

That is a prime example of journalism as disinformation. So should we believe John Gapper when he describes the meeting at Davos as “infotainment”?

Somehow we think not. After all this comes from a journalist, like most in the corporate media, whose services as a propagandist and persuader are paid for by the very forces that fund the summit at Davos.

Prominent American blogger and computer prodigy Aaron Swartz, who spoke against US President Barack Obama’s “kill list” and cyber attacks against Iran, has been found dead in New York.

Police found the body of the 26-year-old in his apartment in New York City borough of Brooklyn on Friday, said a spokeswoman for the city’s chief medical examiner.

Brooklyn’s chief medical examiner ruled the death a suicide by hanging, but no further detail is available about the mysterious death.

Last year, Swartz openly criticized the US and the Israeli regime for launching joint cyber attacks against Iran.

The blogger was also vocal in criticizing Obama’s so-called kill list and other policies.

Obama has been reportedly approving the names put on the “kill lists” used in the targeted killing operations carried out by US assassination drones.

Every week or so, more than 100 members of the US national security team gather via secure video teleconference run by the Pentagon and go over the biographies of suspects in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, and “nominate” those who should be targeted in the attacks.

Obama is then provided with the identities of those put on the “kill list” and signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia as well as the risky strikes in Pakistan.

Swartz was also widely credited for co-authoring the specifications for the Web feed format RSS 1.0 (Rich Site Summary) which he worked on at age 14.

RSS is designed to deliver content from sites that change constantly, such as news pages, to users.

Swartz was critical of monopoly of information by corporate cartels and believed that information should be shared and available for the benefit of society.

“Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves,” he wrote in an online “manifesto” in 2008.

Based on that belief, the computer prodigy founded the nonprofit group DemandProgress.

The group launched a successful campaign to block a 2011 bill that the US House of Representatives called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Had it been approved, the bill would have allowed court orders to restrain access to some websites considered to be involved in illegal sharing of intellectual property.

DemandProgress argued that the thwarted Stop Online Piracy Act would have broadly authorized the US government to censor and restrict legitimate Web communication.

ASH/HSN/MA

Source

This post began the way a good number of them do: an enterprising Israeli noticed a newspaper article had been available online for an hour or a day or a year and then, all of a sudden, it disappeared. What happened? Who ya gonna call (to paraphrase Ghostbusters)? Who else? So thanks to David Sheen, the enterprising videographer, and documentarian of Israel’s anti-African race hate, for noting the following mysterious disappearance.

A Jerusalem Post report from 2010 featured some especially noxious remarks by Shas founder, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, likening non-Jews to donkeys whose job was to serve Jews in the days of the messiah. This Nana-Channel 10 report features video of the former chief rabbi’s original statements. Here are a few passages translated:

The Goyim were only created to serve us. If that wasn’t the case they [Goyim] would have no place in the world.

…Jews earn eternal life in the days of the messiah. Goyim don’t. Like all people, they must die. But they earn long life. Why? Think about someone’s donkey. If it dies, he loses it, the money. The same with a servant [ or "the one who serves you"]. You also lose money [when he dies]. That’s why Goyim are given long life so they may work well for the Jews.

…Why do Goyim exist? So that they work [for Jews]. They thresh, they plant, they harvest, while we [Jews] sit like effendi and eat [our fill]. That’s why Goyim were created.

The remarks are especially important in the context of the Israeli work force which is filled with poor migrant labor from around the world, but especially from Asia and Africa. Without this cheap, victimized workd force, Israel’s economy (especially the agricultural sector) couldn’t function.

It’s no accident that some of the most virulently racist language attacking African refugees in Israel has come from the Shas interior minister and disciple of Rabbi Yosef, Eli Yishai. In this sense, Yishai is giving license to his followers to incite such hate through sermons like this one.

The remarks also impact (or should) the close relationship between the evangelical Christian Zionist movement and the Likud-settler political agenda. Though it’s doubtful anything can break the hold of this ideological kinship, at least true believers like Hagee and his flock should know that they’re held in deep disdain by Rabbi Yosef and tens of thousands of his true believers.

In the past few weeks the Post article, which had been publicly-accessible since publication, vanished. When clicked, the old link brought a reader back to the Post’s main page. There wasn’t even a Page Not Found message. Just gone. Why?

I called the Post and spoke briefly to the editor of the online edition, who asked me to send an e mail. After I did, I received a response from Steve Linde, the editor, who wrote that he ordered the article expunged after receiving a condemnation of the Rabbi’s remarks from a reader who was affronted by them and believed they would encourage anti-Semitism. Because of the supposed danger that this posed to Jews and the Post’s own responsibility for fomenting such violence, the central European reader, in stilted Germanic-phrased English, insisted that it be removed:

The speech [by Rabbi Yosef] is frightening and should be removed from access. The content is (1) not true Judaism and (2) harmful to the Jews all over the world.

1. His sayings violate the European Convention on Human Rights – which Israel is committed to.

2. Such speech is doubtless to be categorized as definite hate-speech, it would be prosecuted due to Criminal Law in European States.

We, the Jews in the Galut, seek protection by law enforcement against hate speech nowadays from Muslims and Nazis. We, Jews, should therefore not be excepted from those standards, we claim for.

3. We, the Jews in the Galut, are sensitive against Hate Speech specialy in Europe, after experiences of Nazism and Antisemitism.

4. That Rabbi is irresopnsible about the Jews in the Galut, but also for the Jews living in Israel. Any withdrawal or correction of his words is missing. Your distribution extends the broadcasting.

5. The source and proof of his sayings is not retraceable as based on thora. It is contradicting to core principles of humanity and equal diginity of men…

7. The resonsibility of Broadcasters is to be claimed, for distributing Hate Speech uncontrolled. We criticise muslim media for broad-casting hate against jews. How are ours ?

8. It is the responsibility of competing media, as JP, to claim, that such “nonsense thora” which is merely “succed out of the fingers;” deserves to be daemonized.

9. It is in the responsibility of the Official Israel, the Cabinet, to mark clearly and expressively her distance from such speech, which its intentions are not and against the standards of a “Jewish State of Israel” they claim for. Because : R. Yossef is not just a irrelevant “stibl darschan”.

10. It is the obligation of Israeli Prosecutors to investigate and check the criminal charge of the speech, as they would have to act in case of a muslim hate speech of that category.

11. It is the responsibility of the Chief Rabbanut to correct and to eliminate such pseudology as being not part of the Jewish Religion and Jewish Self-understandig.

Further they have to provide to the public in the future responsible content, which is correcting that wrong attituded ideology.

12. That Rabbi destroys any credibility of believers in Judaism. Belivers and Chilonim have the duty and obligation to ban explicite and clearly such poisoning snaky bits.

13. I cannot understand, why that Rabbi is harming the identity of Jews all over the world, which do have to stand their belive in the eyes of toleant goim and against the critic friends of jews. If due to his curled logic, we deserve to be humiliated – in retorsion.

14. I cannot understand, why I have to defend my suchwise discredited jeopardized Jewishness against goim, who will refer to his authoratiative Speech.

15. Expecting some consequences, pls delete your report from J.P. accessibility

Though I sympathize with some of the arguments offered by the reader, especially the ones critical of Yosef’s tenuous connection to actual Jewish sources, the stance of the reader and the Post’s subsequent actions should be seen in a far different context. What is the purpose of a newspaper? Or to be more explicit, a Jewish newspaper? Are those purposes different? If so, why?

Is it the responsibility of a Jewish newspaper to protect the sensibilities of its readers? To censor from its pages news that is either disturbing or troubling or even possibly dangerous in some ill-defined way (I’m not talking about an article that reveals personal information that might put a specific person in danger)? Is the Jewish periodical’s primary duty as a journalistic enterprise to Judaism or journalism? What if there is a conflict between the two?

Clearly, the Post editor chose the easy way out on this one. He could’ve engaged with the reader’s suggestions and asked for an editorial denouncing Yosef’s comments. He could’ve even asked for another news article in which the reporter queried the police as to whether the rabbi’s drasha violated Israeli law. He couldn’t asked for comment from Israeli religious authorities on the statements to put them into a more critical context.

Instead, he opted to take the article down. Among the many reasons that this was a terrible idea: a newspaper is the media forum of record for a community. It tells us what we did and said on any given day in time. It is a reflection of who we were at that moment. If we decide to fudge and shape that record by removing the nasty bits then we will leave a distorted record of who we were. Instead of showing the real people of our time, we show a prettied up version. One that doesn’t rock the boat. That doesn’t overly upset anyone. It’s history gussified, a photo retouched in order to remove wrinkles and other blemishes.

If Jewish leaders espouse racist views should we expunge them from the record and pretend they didn’t happen? Or should we address them head on and rebut them vigorously? Do we take the easy way or the hard? Does it serve the nation for Israel’s leading English-language paper to refinish and retouch contemporary Israeli reality?

I don’t mean only to single out the Post here since all Jewish media, almost without exception, is guilty of this practice in one form or another. The allegiance isn’t to journalistic principle, accuracy or even truth, but rather to some polite, unthreatening consensus of who we are as Jews. Jewish newspapers don’t rock the boat. They generally tilt pretty far to the right in terms of pro-Israel views, but they try to avoid the extremes (at least as they see them). Don’t offend the sensibilities of the readers, seems to be the rallying cry.

This isn’t journalism. It’s boosterism. It’s looking at our existence as Jews through blue and white colored glasses. It does no one any favors.

Sarah Benton of Jews for Justice for Palestinians pointed out that Haaretz covered this same story in 2010 and thankfully has different journalistic standards, as its story remains available here.

When Jewish historians looks back in 100 years over these times, the publications that will be least useful to them will be the ones that pulled their punches, that censored or tailored their coverage to what they thought people wanted to read instead of what really happened.

In the particular case of this story, Linde’s decision was especially unfortunate. Yosef is a former chief rabbi and the founder of the most powerful religious party serving in the Knesset. He is a political king maker. Even Bibi Netanyahu consults with the rabbi and solicits his blessing for an attack on Iran. What this man says has vital bearing on Israeli society. If he’s a stark-raving racist lunatic, then expunging his remarks from the online record does a terrible disservice to the Israeli public who ought to have a record of his remarks to consult.

When pro-Israel advocates point to the perceived outrages of the nation’s Arab enemies they love to talk about anti-Semitism, racism, genocide. All the normal tricks of the trade of the political spinmaster. But the Post has done political debate a great disservice by making it less possible for researchers to know that there is as much racism and ignorance on the Israeli side as there is in the Arab world. The only way we can come to an accommodation in the long run is by recognizing that each side is wrong and each side is right. None is all wrong, none all right. To know this, to understand that we are each flawed, allows us to come to terms with each other eventually. What the Post has done has made it harder for Jews to recognize their own flaws in order to combat and rectify them.

Further, Israel is in the middle of election season. Shas, Yosef’s political party, promises to play a key role in determining the next government. Again, voters deserve the right to know everything the candidates and their mentors say on issues of import to the nation.

One may argue that at his advanced age, Yosef may be barely in control of his mental or verbal faculties (his speech is barely intelligible and required Hebrew subtitles for TV viewers). Like Pat Robertson, he’s prone to frequent embarrassing gaffes of this type. These incidents invariably hold the Rabbi and his movement up to scorn. But they do nothing to distance his followers from him. Their adoration has no bearing on logic or reason. Which is part of the danger of the movement he leads.

Despite his infirmities, what Yosef says matters. It has impact on the nation. It should not be cleansed. It should be seen and read and debated.

Finally, lest any bona fide anti-Semites be reading this, know that Ovadia Yosef is about as authentic a representative of any authentically Jewish tradition as any radical Islamist cleric is of Islam or John Hagee is of Christianity. In other words, before you make the claim that what Yosef says represents what most Jews believe you better be ready to make the same claim of Muslims and Christians. We know that these individuals, no matter how noxious their views and how many followers they have, do not represent more than a small minority of the adherents of their particular faith.

I do concede that Yosef is especially dangerous because he is well-connected both religiously and politically. His views do reflect those of many Israelis, (but not of most Jews, not nearly). It’s one of the special themes in fact of this blog: warning readers of Israel’s decline into a vortex of racism and hate. But let’s be careful not to overgeneralize.

I’ve captured a screenshot of the Google cache version of the page and featured it here so you can read the original story.

Source

Last month Guido reported that the BBC were refusing to respond to a Freedom of Information request asking for the names of scientists who attended the now infamous climate change seminar in 2006, that was convened to decide BBC climate change policy. The BBC Trust admitted that the evidence given at the seminar led to an unprecedented editorial decision to no longer give equal airtime to opponents of the climate change . At the time Guido wondered why the BBC was spending a six-figure sum to keep the names of the specialists who dictated their editorial policy secret? So who was there?

Well if the BBC had their way we would never know, they are still trying to fight the publication of this list, however what is believed to be the complete who’s who has now been acquired by legitimate sleuthing by Maurizio Morabito:

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events

What you might call fair and balanced: the conference was billed as bringing together “the best scientific experts”. Scientists, “scientists” and hippy campaigners, but what the Beeb will be most embarrassed by is the representative from the disgraced Climatic Research Unit who were exposed three years later for manipulating data to fit their arguments.

Emails from Mike Hulme, second on that list, were at the heart of the Climategate scandal.

No wonder the BBC are wasting your money hiding this…

Source

This is perhaps the biggest Trojan Horse-oriented story I may ever write.

I use the term “I” advisedly because much of what goes on here at The Daily Bell is a team effort. But it’s my mug that goes on these editorials. And I stand behind them.

It is THE story The Daily Bell was created to write.

There is a storm coming. It is not hyperinflation I’m speaking of. It’s not even global government.

It is the KIND of global government that is being created.

Follow along with me and you will understand EXACTLY what “they” are doing and how they intend to do it.

We arrive at these conclusions as we always do, using facts to intuit patterns.

The patterns are what we call the dominant social themes of the elite.

There are a number of recent patterns we’ve identified that we haven’t been able to put into a fully cohesive order. That’s how it is when you spend your time watching the top elites, the ones that control central banking and are worth collectively many TRILLIONS of dollars.

They are not exactly a different species. But F. Scott Fitzgerald had it right. The “rich” … the REAL rich are different than you and me.

They spend their professional lives on elaborate plots that shake the world. They think nothing of displacing or even murdering mass numbers of people.

They plan inter-generationally. They operate an “open conspiracy.” They control almost the entire world with the exception perhaps of Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Only recently have they hammered Iraq and Libya and are in the process of instituting forced Islamic conformity in Syria – all under the cloak of instituting “democracy.”

And now they are making their move. What we call the Internet Reformation has forced their hand, in my view.

They are moving quickly to create world government.

This article is about the KIND of world government they are creating.

I became aware of this while doing research on RT, rapidly emerging to join the world’s leading TV and ‘Net-based TV networks. I’ve appeared on RT but scaled back my appearances over the past year – despite very kind requests for interviews – because I was vaguely uncomfortable.

Now I know why.

What I discovered is that RT is part of a Hegelian Dialectic to implement a certain kind of world government. Top leaders of Russian-based media moguls affiliated with RT behind the scenes appear to come from the former KGB (along with Vladamir Putin). Additionally, they are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, Chatham House and other elite facilities. That’s a fact. Look it up.

And lately RT has begun using the language of Occupy Wall Street, apparently a George Soros-funded and controlled false-flag operation.

RT supports programs by Julian Assange, a former writer for the British Round Table (Rothschild) controlled Economist magazine, which used to award him prizes. WikiLeaks is probably another false flag, in our view.

RT, one of the fastest growing media conglomerates in the world, is a Russian Intel operation that puts libertarian faces on their channel for purposes of credibility, in my humble opinion. But it is not a free-market channel.

Yes, dear reader, I believe it is part of a pincer movement to create a certain kind of world government and simply another cog in the international media matrix – right up there with the CNNs and Fox News networks of the world. They are just playing at the margins – closest in appearance to free-market biased news reporting.

I am not going to appear on RT anymore. Libertarians and freedom-loving types in the alternative media should think hard before participating in RT programs, as well.

Leave RT appearances to the “other part” of the alternative media.

I won’t name names, but strip out the libertarian appearances and you are left with a certain kind of “alternative media” guest.

– It is a guest raging against Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and the corruption of capitalism.

– It is a guest seeking government control of money.

– It is a guest who seeks to use the genocidal power of the US penitentiary Gulag to “punish” Wall Street bankers.

– It is a guest who seeks “control” of central banking rather than its downfall.

– It is a guest who would not be opposed to neo-Pecora hearings of the sort that started the full-fledged downfall of modern capitalism in the 1930s. These hearings are apparently already being prepared in the bowels of Washington DC committees.

These hearings are of integral importance because they will fully bring capitalism under control of the public sector. Today’s Wall Street is bad enough. I have no sympathy for it. Henceforth, politicians will control all aspects of finance under the further control (at arm’s length) of the top banking elites.

The government being formed in the US is the government that will rule the world. It will be run by the power elite from the City of London, the Vatican, Washington DC and probably Jerusalem with sub-nodes in Brussels, Moscow and Beijing.

All these entities shall be powers unto themselves, enclaves separate from the nation-states in which they reside.

The government now being formed will have a certain character.

– It will be a government where legalisms outweigh natural law.

– It will be globalist but highly nationalist in its vocabulary.

– It will be free-market in its positioning but in actuality, control will reside with the government itself when it comes to money and other issues of real import.

–  It will control all aspects of people’s lives including, most importantly, their consumption of energy.

Now that I understand RT’s involvement, the strategy is clear. Just like the increasingly controlled non-libertarian and leftist portion of the alternative media, at least some of RT’s rhetoric directly or indirectly bolsters efforts to:

– Undermine what is left of the capitalist system via Occupy Wall Street and other such movements.

– Jail the domestic banking class.

– Create a national central bank under control of the “people.”

– Put money under control of the “government.”

– Put industry under control of the government (see GM) but let it function with some day-to-day latitude.

– Elevate the status of the military and make a cult of its “heroes.”

– Further develop an invasive security apparatus to protect people from “terrorism.”

Are you getting the picture yet? All this is speculative but it fits together.

The government being formed is a totalitarian NAZI-style government. Not a communist one as people have been led to expect … and fear.

And eventually, it will devolve into mere totalitarianism and even genocide.

But the “ism” is important for now because it is going to be how we will get there.

The totalitarian state is being built as I write. Over at LewRockwell.com, Paul Rosenberg recently posted an article entitled It’s Happening Faster Than Even I Thought. It begins as follows:

2012 has been a banner year for amoral marketers and soul-dead overseers, and the situation is probably much worse than you realize. Allow me to illustrate it briefly:

• · The NSA is spying on every American, and very deeply spying on us.
• · A surveillance system has been installed inside of Facebook.
• · AT&T has been giving all of its Internet traffic to the NSA since at least 2006.
• · Union thugs have no problem intercepting emails.
• · Newspapers are having no problems intercepting emails.
• · Stores are now installing face recognition systems.
• · The FedGuv is paying big bucks for systems to “predict crime.”
• · The FBI is building a nation-wide facial recognition system.
• · Biometric identification is being rolled out in grammar schools.

 The power elite likes to work with opposites. Peace is war, prosperity is inflation, etc.

Nazi Germany has been pilloried in the West for 75 years. But it lives through the reflective political regime that is now being put into place in the US and eventually throughout the world.

It is the regime the power elite prefers because it maintains a pretense of capitalism within a government that is highly adaptable to the mercantilist control the power elite likes to exercise.

In other words, the elites shall run their neo-Nazi government behind the scenes. The only real difference will be that Hitler ran it out front. We’ve written about this National Socialist model here: Poison of Neo-National Socialist Public Banking. So has economist Gary North.

The current power elite was behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Swiss banks administered, sheltered and assisted in funding it. The US Bush family had some of its assets seized over support of Nazi Germany.

In a 2010 article entitled Cheerleader for Hitler’s Economics, Gary North persuasively laid out the modern parallels between the government fiat-money crowd and pre-World War II boosterism for National Socialist economics. He writes:

Ellen Brown is a lawyer by profession, a Greenbacker by confession, and a fan of Adolf Hitler’s economics by consistency.

She is quite open about her support for National Socialism’s economics, as I shall demonstrate. What is depressing is this: she is getting a respectful hearing in Tea Party circles. Her book, The Web of Debt (2006), is widely cited on the World Wide Web. As of early October, 2010, a Google search for “Ellen Brown” and “Web of Debt” generated close to 600,000 hits. This is huge.

Here is a tactical problem. For two generations, conservatives have been shouted down by the Left with this accusation: “Fascist!” Ellen Brown is now making this accusation plausible. Yet the great irony is this: Ellen Brown is a Leftist. There is nothing even remotely free market or conservative about The Web of Debt. It is a call for a Federally funded welfare state. She praises the New Deal. She praises John Maynard Keynes. She has only one objection to their recommended programs: governments borrowed money to fund them. She wants a welfare state that is funded entirely by paper money printed by Congress. She is about as conservative as Nancy Pelosi.

It is this movement that RT seems to be covertly supporting. Were Gary North to write another article on the subject (he wrote so many so well that Ms. Brown refuses to debate him anymore), he might focus on how the power elite of the day was behind the rise of National Socialist economics in the US.

Personally, I’m no expert on the 1930s but I believe I can see elite handprints all over this modern-day revival.

For me, it is no coincidence that George W. Bush named his most invasive, anti-freedom security apparatus “Homeland Security” with its echoes of the “Fatherland.” The Nazi model with its emphasis on eugenics and invasive state supervision of the private sector is the preferred model of the coming world government.

It will not be built upon a platform of the current regulatory democracy.

Nor will it be socialist.

Or communist.

Our overlords are planning global Nazism of the kind they first installed and then destroyed in Germany.

They are nearly there, in my view. China’s model is already a Nazi one. Russia’s, too, in many ways. The BRICs have similar models.

The EU has been compared to the USSR but Nazi Germany might be a better model.

We write a lot about the Internet Reformation here at The Daily Bell. My hope is that the free-flow of information will create a pushback that will disallow the creation of a global Nazi regime.

I’m doing my part by writing this article.

Sure, maybe it will go down the memory hole. But one day people will remember.

Make no mistake. It was the power elite that helped fund Hitler, just as the Internet has revealed to us that the West funded what became the Soviet Union.

The intergenerational power elite always has preparatory runs. But I think the future world government will be based on the Nazi model – if it gets that far. I hope it won’t.

The same great families are now re-erecting what they first built in Europe 75 years ago. Oh, and please do not bother writing feedback asking us to list names. We do not do that here at The Daily Bell. However, feel free to search “who is the power elite” and you will undoubtedly find many suggestive answers. 

Let me add that it is truly difficult to write this editorial, as I enjoyed the people I met working with RT, especially their international news producer with whom I had regular contact. I have no doubt there are many genuinely well-meaning individuals working for RT. As with any big media organization, only the few at the top know the real agenda. But I cannot sit by silently and not share my opinion.

The Daily Bell is where I will continue to publish and share my thoughts.

Come hell or high water we will continue to spell out what we see as gross violations against individualism and humanity as a result of power elite manipulations.

Help spread the word about The Daily Bell. Let people know we know. Let THEM know.

They are deathly afraid of the Internet Reformation – or should be.

It is our hope. And yours, too.

Source

It’s important to return to the story about AP’s nuclear Iran “exclusive” which I wrote about yesterday. Although it was intuitively obvious that the graph trumpeted by AP as scary and incriminating of Iran’s nuclear program was actually a farce, there is now new, overwhelming, very compelling scientific evidence that is the case. Whether as victim or recklessly culpable participant, AP helped perpetrate a dangerous hoax, and owes an explanation and accounting for what took place, including identifying the “officials from a country critical of Iran’s atomic program” who made false claims about what this is.

To begin with, the graph AP touted as reflecting some sort of nefarious, highly threatening and complex nuclear calculation is, in fact, widely available all over the Internet in the most innocuous places. Just consider this side-by-side comparison of the AP graph on the left, with the graph on the right on this harmless site designed to teach beginner users how to use Microsoft Excel:

At the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS), Yousaf Butt and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress on Wednesday night wrote: “Graphs such as the one published by the Associated Press can be found in nuclear science textbooks and on the Internet.” Similarly, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at USC and expert in Iran’s nuclear program, told Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olum that “too many graphs like this can be generated by a competent undergraduate student.” So what AP presented to the world as some sort of highly complex, specialized document was, in fact, nothing more than a completely common graph easily found in all sorts of public venues.

Even worse, the calculations reflected on this graph are patently ridiculous. Butt and Dalnoki-Veress document that the graph “does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax” [emphasis added]. That’s because, they explain, “the diagram features quite a massive error, which is unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level”; namely:

“The image released to the Associated Press shows two curves: one that plots the energy versus time, and another that plots the power output versus time, presumably from a fission device. But these two curves do not correspond: If the energy curve is correct, then the peak power should be much lower – around 300 million ( 3×108) kt per second, instead of the currently stated 17 trillion (1.7 x1013) kt per second. As is, the diagram features a nearly million-fold error.”

This error is patently obvious to anyone versed in nuclear physics. Nima Shirazi yesterday spoke with Dr. M. Hossein Partovi, who teaches courses in thermodynamics and quantum mechanics at Sacramento State, and he echoed the BAS scientists:

“[Dr. Partovi], noting that the graph is plotted in microseconds, explains that ‘the graph depicted in the report is a nonspecific power/energy plot that is primarily evidence of the incompetence of those who forged it: a quick look at the energy graph shows that the total energy is more than four orders of magnitude (forty thousand times) smaller than the total integrated power that it must equal!’”

Notably, the nuclear expert quoted by AP in its article, David Albright, also seemed to be trying to tell AP that the graph contained this same obvious, glaring error, yet AP – eager to believe, or at least lead others to believe, that it had some incriminating evidence – either failed or refused to understand its significance. Buried in the AP article was this passage:

“‘The yield is too big,’ Albright said, noting that North Korea’s first tests of a nuclear weapon were only a few kilotons.”

But AP never indicated that this error strongly suggested that no real nuclear scientist would have prepared it, and immediately went back in the very next paragraph to touting the document as some sort of scary evidence of Iran’s threatening nuclear weapons machinations.

Then there’s the obvious crudeness of the graph itself, which I noted yesterday. Professor Sahimi told Silverstein: “The graph itself looks low quality, as if it has been drawn by hand.” And the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists authors noted the same thing: “the level of scientific sophistication needed to produce such a graph corresponds to that typically found in graduate- or advanced undergraduate-level nuclear physics courses.” Indeed, they added: “no secrets are needed to produce the plot of the explosive force of a nuclear weapon – just straightforward nuclear physics” [emphasis in original]. They continued:

“Though the image does not imply that computer simulations were actually run, even if they were, this is the type of project a student could present in a nuclear-science course. The diagram simply shows that the bulk of the nuclear fission yield is produced in a short, 0.1 microsecond, pulse. Since the 1950s, it has been standard knowledge that, in a fission device, the last few generations of neutron multiplication yield the bulk of the energy output. It is neither a secret, nor indicative of a nuclear weapons program.”

It is, to put it as generously as possibly, completely reckless for AP to present this primitive, error-strewn, thoroughly common graph as secret, powerful evidence of Iran’s work toward building a nuclear weapon. Yet from its inflammatory red headline (“AP EXCLUSIVE: GRAPH SUGGESTS IRAN WORKING ON BOMB”) to the end of the article, this is exactly what AP did. And it did so by mindlessly repeating the script handed to it by a country which AP acknowledged is seeking to warn the world about the dangers of Iran. This is worse than stenography journalism. It is AP allowing itself, eagerly and gratefully, to be used to put its stamp of credibility on a ridiculous though destructive hoax.

The obligation of journalists to protect the identity of their sources to whom they have pledged anonymity ends when the “sources” use them purposely to disseminate falsehoods. Indeed, the obligation to protect these sources not only ends, but a different obligation arises: to tell the public who fed them the hoax. This was exactly the issue that arose when it became clear that multiple sources had falsely told ABC News’ Brian Ross in late 2001 that government tests had linked the anthrax attacks in the US to Saddam’s chemical weapons program, a story that Ross spread far and wide – thus, as intended, heightening fears of Iraq, but which turned out to be completely false from start to finish. As numerous journalists argued then, Ross had the obligation to tell the public who was behind the hoax he so damagingly spread.

AP has that same obligation here. At the very least, they have the duty to respond to this scientific and documentary proof that the graph they trumpeted, and certainly the claims they made about it, are misleading in the extreme. On Wednesday afternoon, I asked AP to comment on these issues and have thus far received no response.

As both Shirazi and John Glaser document, the AP writer responsible for this absurdity, George Jahn, has a history of similar behavior. That includes producing an equally hyped and equally absurd report back in May featuring a cartoon-like drawing that, as Jahn put it, “was provided to The Associated Press by an official of a country tracking Iran’s nuclear program who said it proves the structure exists, despite Tehran’s refusal to acknowledge it.”

As the Iraq War proved, there are few things more irresponsible and dangerous than having a large media outlet trumpet extremely dubious claims from anonymous sources designed to hype the threats posed by some targeted foreign regime. That is exactly what AP is doing here, and given how obvious the sham is, it is inexcusable. AP owes a clear explanation of what happened here.

The real story here is not this inane graph, but the behavior of AP and its “sources”. That someone is purposely feeding this influential media outlet obvious hoaxes shows two facts: (1) the evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program must be very thin if fabrications of this type are needed; and (2) someone from an unnamed country or countries is very eager to scare the public into believing this weapons program exists and is vigorously proceeding, and is willing to use fraud to advance those fear-mongering ends.

UPDATE

Here, in its entirety, is the response sent by AP to all of the objections raised to its story:

“We continue to report this story.”

It’s hard to decide which is worse: the original story or their “response” to the very serious flaws in their reporting.

Source

In Canada, Zionist Jews, acting at the behest of the B’nai Brith International (a secret Jews-only masonic order formed by Rothschild agents ), had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arrest Arthur Topham  in May, 2012. The charge that was committing a “hate” crime.

As a result of a “hate crime” complaint,  laid by B’nai B’rith operatives  Richard Warman and Harry Abrams , Topham was put in jail and his home  invaded by the “BC Hate Crime Team.”  His computers and electronic files were stolen by the “Hate Crime Team” led by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and  Cst. Normandie Levas.  

Topham was never formally charged. Nevertheless, Wilson arbitrarily imposed severe restrictions on Topham before releasing him after 12 hours in a cell. He was ordered not to go on the internet or email anyone other than those few individuals who he was working with in a private business venture.

Foremost was the order not to post any more articles on the web. The reason for this? According to the police, this was to stop him from committing further offences. 

In other words, he was already guilty of  the alleged “crime” and so was prohibited from committing more offenses!

 But the real reason was to keep him quiet while the police were busy going through all of his private communications with associates from around the world. He had thousands of letters stored in his machine that the police were desperate to get a hold of and snoop into. So desperate in fact that they were willing to obtain an illegal search warrant from a Judge based upon erroneous evidence in order to justify their actions.

Continues …

Brian Barret – Gizmodo July 29, 2012

The Kronen Zeitung is Austria’s largest newspaper, with a daily readership of around three million people. Yesterday, those readers were treated to the image on the left of war-torn Aleppo, bombed out and desperate. Except, as one sharp-eyed Redditor points out, that wasn’t the scene at all. It was just another Photoshop job.

Just to be clear, the family in the photograph is, in fact, in Syria; the original photo (on the right) came from the European Pressphoto Agency. But merely fleeing a city ravaged by guns and mortars apparently isn’t quite dramatic enough on its own. The editors of the Krone—as it’s commonly called—needed this baby to sing.

Using Photoshop to make actresses and models look unrealistically attractive is bad enough. Using it to make a part of the world that has enough problems as it is look even more apocalyptic? That’s just disgraceful.

Source

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.

Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”

It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.

Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving them the O.K.

Stuart Stevens, the senior Romney strategist, is fond of disparaging political opponents by quoting authors like Walt Whitman and referring to historical figures like H. R. Haldeman, Richard Nixon’s chief of staff. But such clever lines later rarely make it past Mr. Stevens.

Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them. No one said the editing altered the meaning of a quote. The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary, they said.

Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ ” said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”

It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.

“We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”

The Obama campaign declined to make Mr. Plouffe or Mr. Messina available to explain their media practices. “We are not putting anyone on the record for this story,” said Katie Hogan, an Obama spokeswoman, without a hint of irony. She pointed to the many unrestricted interviews with campaign officials every day on television and when the press corps travels with the president.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the White House has made a concerted effort to make more officials available to the news media. “We have a lot more people talking a lot more often now,” he said.

Both presidential campaigns are keenly aware of what can happen when they speak too freely. Damaging sound bites can live on in the news cycle for days. Mr. Obama’s remark last month during a televised news conference that “the private sector is doing fine” landed almost immediately in attack ads. And Eric Fehrnstrom’s “Etch A Sketch” comment on CNN, about softening some of the harder positions Mr. Romney took during the primaries, continues to haunt the Romney campaign five months later.

Reporters who have covered the Obama presidency say the quote-approval process fits a pattern by this White House of finding new ways to limit its exposure in the news media.

“We realize there’s a caution and a wariness about stray comments driving the news cycle,” said Caren Bohan of Reuters, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “The argument we make is that if a president or a candidate is out there more, I think these things are less likely to be as glaring.”

Modern White Houses have long had “background briefings,” gatherings of top officials who speak to reporters under the condition that they are quoted anonymously. With time, the restrictions have become broader, often bordering on the absurd.

In 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney outed himself in a briefing the White House intended to be anonymous during an overseas trip. “I’ve seen some press reporting says, ‘Cheney went in to beat up on them,’ ” the vice president told reporters, according to the official transcript, adding, “That’s not the way I work.”

Though reporters with him protested, the vice president’s office refused to allow them to identify Mr. Cheney by name — even though it was clear who was speaking.

Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels.

The White House’s latest innovation is a variation of the background briefing called the “deep-background briefing,” which it holds for groups of reporters, sometimes several dozen at a time. Reporters may paraphrase what senior administration officials say, but they are forbidden to put anything in quotation marks or identify the speakers.

The White House held such a briefing after the Supreme Court’s health care ruling last month with officials including Mr. Plouffe, Mr. Carney and Dan Pfeiffer, the communications director. But when reporters asked to quote part of the conversation, even anonymously, they were told no. Even the spokesmen were off limits.

Source

In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories.  For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for “quote approval” before they will be published.  If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign.  The goal is to keep the campaigns as “on message” as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost.  But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns.  According to the New York Times, “quote approval” has become “commonplace throughout Washington”.  In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it.  This is another sign that “the free and independent media” in this country is a joke.  What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves.  People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

The following quote comes from the recent article in the New York Times mentioned above and it is absolutely jaw dropping….

Continues in full …

Checkout this video just made by Paul Joseph Watson (a UK rep of Alex Jones’ ‘Prison Planet)  http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=51588   about how the BBC is trying to rope him into participating in a new ‘conspiracy’ program about the London Olympics.

My article ‘Israeli Terror Threat to London Olympics’ went up on the Truthseeker on the 28th, then the BBC’s decision to make this program seems to have been made IMMEDIATELY after that – with PJW putting up this video about it on the 30th.

About four minutes into PJW’s video, he relates the BBC attempting to cajole him – saying that they had the likes of Ian Crane and Tony Farrell on board, and ‘if we could have you too that would be the icing on the cake.’

NO WAY have either of these gentlemen agreed to participate in a BBC program. (I phoned Tony Farrell up just to check).

In other words the BEEB is lying yet again.

The BBC will no doubt have its own hired stooges to appear on its programs. It evidently wants to have Ian Crane, Tony Farrell and PJW – but, it can’t have them, owing to its persistent reputation for outright and unbridled mendacity in putting the official government’s view and trashing any ‘outsiders.’

PJW comments on his video, ‘…after their litany of previous ‘documentaries’ on conspiracy theories which turn out to be nothing but hit-pieces;’ owing to the way the MSM mainstream media has completely ignored the explosive revelations of Lee Hazeldean, – facts not conspiracy theories, PJW emphasised – and Hazeldean being a ‘veteran undercover journalist’ – facts about eg the evacuation of London, or at least contingency plans for this.

PJW correctly evaluates the BBC email he has received, as being from someone who is either ‘completely deluded, or he’s lying.’ Each of the BEEB’s ‘conspiracy’ programs, has an Editorial team which interviews the ‘conspiracy theorists; but also they had he explains ’FIVE ‘executive-level directors’ who, after the program is made, ‘go in and make the edits.’ Any prominent truth-activist has some very reasonable-sounding people approaching, who will tend to be young i.e. not some grizzled media-hack –  like a spider trying to lure a fly into the web, then after the program is made – these executive directors will swing into action

PJW had an interesting comment on an upcoming ’7/7 Conspiracy Road Trip’ – where I and everyone I know of involved in 7/7 truth had declined to participate – that he had interviewed John Scoby of ‘We are Change’ Birmingham. This young man had been told by the producer words to the effect that it was going to be a ‘biased hit-piece’. It doesn’t sound like they have any one in that program, who knows thing much about the subject – hardly surprising considering their track record. It is due out in October.

Our group was contacted in April by Emma Hughes, working for BBC-3 who was making this program, saying ‘We are offering five people, who doubt the official version of events, the chance to share their beliefs about what they think really happened.’  Quote – ‘Ian Crane was asked to take part and turned them down flat! ‘ – but it seems the BBC feels at liberty to say otherwise to PJW. I sought advice as to whether or not to participate (being rather gullible) and Mr J.A. kindly advised me:

“The BBC are a shower of propagandists whose entire raison d’etre is to bolster the government’s globalist paradigm.
I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the time in a clock factory.
No matter how succinct, accurate or erudite you are, they will twist it to make you (and all the rest of us) look like, tinfoil hat wearing loons.”

That’s really all there is to say.

Source