Boston Bombing: Tsarnaev Guilty….. but Who Made the Bombs?

April 15, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

April 13, 2015 by

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev now faces the sentencing phase of his trial, even with some crucial questions about the case left unanswered.

 

Referencing “bomb-making” paraphernalia seized from Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s apartment, Chakravarty told the court that, “there is evidence, at least in part, that the bombs were built at 410 Norfolk Street.”

What the jury didn’t know is that in May 2014, prosecutors said they had no evidence the bombs were constructed at Norfolk Street, and in October 2014, a year-and-a-half after the bombings, the FBI said it still had no idea where the bombs were built, or who actually built them.

A remnant of the pressure-cooker bomb that exploded at the 2013 Boston Marathon.

The government’s own witness, FBI explosives expert David McCollum, testified he could not determine where the bombs were constructed—a fact seemingly forgotten by Chakravarty during closing arguments Monday.

And when prosecutors tried to explain away the total lack of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s fingerprints on the ‘bomb making’ materials, they simply tossed aside the pressing issue of who really constructed the marathon bombs and where:

Inspire magazine [an Al Qaeda publication] advises to wear gloves when building bombs—it could mean the defendant was wearing gloves,” said Chakravarty. “But more important than who built the bombs is how they used the things.”

While no one was expecting anything other than a guilty verdict for Tsarnaev, the question of who built the bombs and where is a salient one. It should concern anyone who would seek to prevent future bombings.

In the rush to condemn Dzhokhar to death, why is the government seemingly content to ignore evidence that might point to the involvement of others in the planning and execution of the attack? What is their overall objective here?

For context, see this article in the Christian Science Monitor, on a recent case in which the FBI lured an unstable young man into a bomb plot and then practically handed him a bomb—albeit one that, at least in that case, was inert. This follows a long history of the FBI “helping” those expressing anger at the US to fulfill their wildest fantasies of revenge, before busting them. That the FBI was in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the now-dead elder brother of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, prior to the Boston bombings, obviously deserves much more attention given the uncertain provenance of the bombs themselves.

 

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT: WHO WHAT WHY

The Lincoln Assassination and Cover-Up: Part of an On-Going Story

April 15, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

April 14, 2015 by

Was John Wilkes Booth a hired assassin?

The 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s murder is one more reminder from the past of a distinctive feature of the American system. This is that some American presidents reach office by assassination, not by election. More importantly, when this happens, a lot of facts are usually going to be left at best unexplained, and often covered up.

Few Americans know, for example, that in 1991 the body of President Zachary Taylor, who died in 1841 after a year in office, was exhumed and found to contain suspicious amounts of arsenic. But the New York Times announced that further analysis showed the amounts of arsenic were no more than what is normally found in the body, confirming that Taylor died a natural death.

Same Junk Science used in JFK Assassination

Wikipedia claims that this is proven by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, citing an article on the Lab website that is forbidden to the public. Wikipedia does not mention that NAA analysis on the same Isotope Reactor was used four decades ago to analyze the bullets killing John F. Kennedy. (The use of NAA analysis of lead in bullets, once used to bolster the “single bullet theory” of Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt, has since been decisively discredited by other U.S. Government experts at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. In November 2007 the FBI announced that it would no longer rely in criminal cases on the inaccurate evidence produced by comparative bullet lead analysis.)”

Even more mysteries surround the assistance provided Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth. In a recent article, the Washington Post described Booth as “embittered,” the term used by Psychology Today to “analyze” Lee Harvey Oswald. Other more scholarly studies have argued that Booth was originally plotting not the murder but the abduction of Lincoln, Vice-President Johnson, and Secretary of State Seward. This was part of a coherent strategy to throw the determination of the next president into the hands of the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Roger Taney had already shown in the Dred Scott case that he was pro-slavery and sympathetic to the South.

2Speculation of a cover-up about Booth has abounded since the time that four of his associates in the crime were swiftly hanged. A benign explanation for the cover-up would be the desire to avoid dealing with the possibility that Booth had been guided or at least assisted in his plotting by the Confederate Secret Service. This was suspected almost immediately when a Vigenère Cipher table (a code used by the South) was discovered among Booth’s effects. At that time a strong need to restore unity to a divided nation would have been an ample motive to present Booth, like Oswald a century later, as an embittered loner.

It is now pretty well established, by historian Thomas Goodrich and others, that Booth had traveled widely to Canada and elsewhere as a spy and courier for the Confederate Secret Service. Other historians have concluded, in the words of David Herbert Donald, that “at least at the lower levels of the Southern secret service, the abduction of the Union President was under consideration.”

Whether Booth was following orders in his activities or was acting on his own is less clear. But it is certain that Booth was able to elude capture for 12 days after the assassination by using safe houses in Virginia along an escape route which the Confederate Secret Service had previously organized.

The cover-up about Booth has long survived any original motive for it. Only in the last half century have we begun to see books like William Tidwell’s Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. Yet from time to time we still continue to hear from authors like Jim Bishop and Bill O’Reilly, who write profitable best-sellers, one arguing that Booth, the other that Oswald, was essentially a loner.

An egregious attempt to present Booth as a loner was that of former CIA Director Allen Dulles, at an early executive session of the Warren Commission on January 16, 1964. Dulles explained that, according to a book he was handing out to members of the Commission, European assassinations were the work of conspiracies—but American assassins acted alone.

Given that two of Booth’s targets, Lincoln and Seward, were killed almost simultaneously in different parts of the city (Seward was stabbed by Lewis Powell in his bed during the Lincoln assassination), John J. McCloy promptly objected, arguing that “the Lincoln assassination was a plot.” Undeterred, Dulles shot right back: “Yes, but one man was so dominant that it almost wasn’t a plot.” Dulles was using his authority to indicate what he thought the Commission should conclude. Seven months later the Warren Report amply fulfilled his wish and declared that the death of Kennedy was, too, the work of a loner.

Same Old Story—False, Ongoing, and Interconnected

READ THE REST AT WHO WHAT WHY

Unscrupulous Special Interests and Their Vaccine Crusade

April 7, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

06.04.2015 Author: F. William Engdahl

Polio or Something More Sinister?

342432111Polio is something I have more than a passing acquaintance with. Two days before my fifth birthday a medical doctor in Minneapolis diagnosed me with polio. I only learned decades later that it was not polio, poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis as it was also called. It was shortly after World War II. Then a few years later we were presented Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, and the world believed that because of that vaccine and the Sabin variant, polio had been stamped out. The reality was that polio was not and is not a “virus,” nor did the vaccines of Salk or Sabin eradicate.

The symptoms that were given the name “polio” had dramatically declined several years before the first vaccine and Salk claimed the credit for his vaccine which was released in 1955. The symptoms that got the name polio came from a team at the Rockefeller University in 1910. Those symptoms were listed as fever, severe headache, stiff neck and back, deep muscle pain. Pretty vague.

Many, many things can cause fever and such symptoms in a small child, for example being raped by someone they thought loved them or experiencing other trauma. It has been suggested that there was a major wave of in-family child rapes as soldiers returned from the traumas of their own war experiences in World War II. It was convenient for some to label the upsurge in such symptoms as polio and create a national media scare that was to most Americans in the early 1950’s more terrifying than Joe Stalin and communism. The drug industry got a huge boost and today, even newborns are jabbed multiple times in the first weeks of their fragile lives with concoctions that have been documented not to prevent viral infection but to make weak, sick and in some tragic cases autistic or even dead children.

The Rockefeller University in New York had begun literally playing around with children with the symptoms later formalized as polio as far back as 1910. Simon Flexner, first director of the predecessor to the Rockefeller University, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, had produced the symptoms later named polio. He did that in a rhesus monkey which then transmitted the disease from one animal to another. Flexner was a close friend and advisor of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., son of the founder of the Standard Oil trust.

Albert Sabin, creator of the Sabin polio vaccine had come out of the Rockefeller University. Human experiments with untested versions of the polio vaccines were done on already crippled children in care homes, on children in homes for the mentally insane and on that Rockefeller family plantation for human experiments, Puerto Rico.

Since that time the Rockefellers, some of the world’s most ardent financial backers of eugenics, have been at the center of the developments around what was named polio and its “vaccine.”

Eugenics was a fraudulent social theory that a “better society” could be created by eliminating “undesirable” human blood lines and promoting the desirable types like those of Rockefellers or DuPonts or their likes. To the present day eugenics is the guiding ideology of the very rich, loveless American oligarchs including Bill Gates and David Rockefeller. To this day the major financial backers of the criminal activities of the UN WHO (World Health Organization) and their fraudulent swine flu pandemic scares are the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Gates, GAVI and Murder Inc.

Several years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and a group of pharmaceutical companies, united all in something called GAVI and set out to bring massive polio vaccination first to India. GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance was founded by the Gates Foundation in 2000 as a “public-private partnership” to unite in assaulting poorer developing countries with the Big Pharma vaccine industry they would otherwise be spared.

In India Gates, Rockefellers and WHO with their Big Pharma partners convinced the Indian government to spend some $8 billion of their scarce funds, along with a tiny amount of “seed” money from GAVI partners, to vaccinate Indian children.

The result?

An article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012 concluded, “In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.” Instead, Gates and Company proclaimed India “polio” free.

They ignored the fact their “polio” vaccines were killing and paralyzing 48,000 Indian children because the WHO definition of polio allowed them the casuistry. NPAFP stands for Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis. The medical-industrial complex are masters at coming up with names.

By calling it non-polio, they defined polio as eradicated in India. But their vaccines are killing and paralyzing tens of thousands of children. So by the WHO semantics the GAVI vaccines did not caused a single case of “polio.” It did cause 48,000 cases of something far deadlier and more damaging, Acute Flaccid Paralysis, a condition the WHO admits is clinically indistinguishable from polio and which occurred in direct proportion to the doses of polio vaccine received.

A similar phenomenon took place at the same time in neighboring Pakistan. In 2011 the Paktstan Tribune reported, “A government inquiry has found that polio vaccines for infants funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation are causing deaths and disabilities in regional countries including Pakistan. Geneva-based officials of GAVI, Jeffrey Rowland and Dan Thomas, were contacted by e-mail but they did not respond. “ GAVI spent a mere 7.8% of the total cost of the mass vaccination in Pakistan, of Rs26 billion. The Tribune continued, “Pakistan will be spending Rs24.2 billion from its own resources on the purchase of new and under-used vaccines at much higher cost as compared to their equivalent vaccines.” The Gates-Rockefeller-WHO polio vaccination program in Pakistan killed an estimated 10,000 and crippled tens of thousands more.

Now the focus has moved to another US warzone, Syria.

Polio in Syria?

For two decades Syria has been polio-free. Now, beginning 2013 in the wake of their criminal efforts in Pakistan and India, the WHO has declared the presence of polio outbreaks in Syria and accused President Assad of refusing vaccine teams – the previous ones in Pakistan, laced with CIA agents.

The “polio” spreading in war-ravaged Syria, where the CIA and Pentagon and their assets such as ISIS and CIA-funded opposition have destroyed homes and driven millions into refugee status, is vaccine-caused, just as in India and just as in Pakistan. The polio spreading through Syria is “vaccine-derived polio,” specifically, the same strain of “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” as in India and Pakistan that coincided with the mass vaccinations with Sabin oral vaccines by GAVI. The vaccine originated from the oral polio vaccine developed by former Rockefeller University researched, Sabin, which contains an attenuated vaccine-virus or active polio virus along with unknown adjuvants or boosters the drug companies prefer not to reveal.

Kindah al-Shammat, Syrian Minister of Social Affairs, said at the time that, “The virus originates in Pakistan and has been brought to Syria by the jihadists who come from Pakistan.”

WHO Rockefeller Tetanus abortions

If this sounds improbable take a close look at a recent expose by a concerned group of Kenyan doctors about a vaccine developed by WHO in conjunction with the Rockefeller and Gates foundations. The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association discovered an antigen that causes miscarriages in a tetanus vaccine that is being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Since 1972 the Rockefeller Foundation has worked in secrecy with the WHO and various pharmaceutical companies to fund a WHO program in “reproductive health.” There they developed an innovative tetanus vaccine.

In the early 1990’s, according to a report from the Global Vaccine Institute, the WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program. When they tested numerous vials of the vaccine they, like in Kenya today, found they contained the same Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or HCG. They found that to be very curious in a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds. Tetanus is also rather rare, so why a mass vaccination campaign and that for only women of child-bearing age?

HCG is a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated the formation of antibodies against HCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion.

The pattern is clear. The global agenda of Rockefellers, Gates, Clintons, Bushes and their very rich loveless friends is racist. It calls for elimination of non-white populations, genocide. Their tools of choice include wars everywhere from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. It includes campaigns of massive select vaccinations in war-torn countries. It includes setting the CIA and Mossad to the job of creating fake Islamic “jihadist” terrorists to kill and main and create the cover for a Washington “war on terror.” Their only problem of late is that these strategies are failing. That’s bad news for the paranoid oligarchs, good news for sane remnants of the human race, human beings.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/04/06/polio-or-something-more-sinister/

Ukrainian Anti-Russian, Jew-Hating, Overt Nazi Given Key Military Post

April 6, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

 

by Stephen Lendman

Overt Nazi Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh openly boasts about “fighting Jews and Russians till I die.” He’s a wanted man.

In July 2014, Interpol issued a warrant for his arrest for “public incitement to terrorist and extremist activities involving the use of mass media.”

Russia issued criminal charges against him for inciting extremist activities. Its Supreme Court banned Right Sector activities on Russian territory.

Yarosh openly urges “more active resistance against Russia.” He calls Moscow “an enemy.” He threatened to blow up gas pipelines between both countries.

He was part of US-orchestrated Maidan protests ousting Ukraine’s legitimate government in February 2014.

He was directly involved in the May 2014 Odessa massacre killing hundreds – shooting them in cold blood, bludgeoning them to death, butchering them with axes, throwing them out of windows.

He rejects Minsk’s ceasefire terms. He vows to continue fighting.

Despite his overt Nazism and criminal record, he’s a member of Ukraine’s parliament.

Over the weekend, state-controlled television reported:

“Chief of the General Staff Viktor Muzhenko and the leader of the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps agreed to appoint Dmytro Yarosh adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”

“They also squared a format of cooperation between (his Right Sector fighters) with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”

“Muzhenko and Yarosh agreed about that at yesterday’s meeting at the General Staff of the Ukrainian army.”

On April 3, Poroshenko advisor Yuri Biryukov said Right Sector thugs will be incorporated into Ukraine’s army as contract soldiers.

So-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps (DUK Right Sector) members will be part of its 79th air mobile brigade. They’ll be used as death squad assassins – targeting Donbass freedom fighters and any other anti-regime elements.

According to Kiev’s defense ministry, they’ll be “subordinated to (Ukraine’s) military leaders.”

They’ll obey central command orders. Yarosh said “DUK is ready to perform common tasks with the Army, ready to obey the army leadership in matters relating to national defense against an external enemy, which enables every patriot to protect Ukraine.”

Code language for his intention to continue committing cold-blooded murder – targeting anyone nationwide against fascist rule.

He’ll introduce legislation legalizing private military groups – death squads by any standard.

“I think it could be a good option for people who can’t get back from war inside their heads,” he said.

“This will provide jobs for many people and stability in the country,” he added.

Right Sector thugs and likeminded groups will be officially authorized to continue Ukraine’s so-called “anti-terrorist operation” – cold-blooded murder by any standard, war crimes too serious to ignore.

A Final Comment

On April 6, Sputnik News reported on Forbes magazine’s Russian edition claiming Poroshenko asked Putin “to take Donbass.”

He refused suggesting it be declared an independent territory. Sputnik News said the offer supposedly came during February Minsk ceasefire talks.

Forbes quoted its unnamed source saying:

“He (Poroshenko) said to me (Putin) directly: ‘Take Donbass.’ I (Putin) answered him: ‘Are you nuts? I don’t need Donbass.’ ”

” ‘If you don’t need it, declare it independent.’ ” Putin said Kiev isn’t ready to oblige.

End economic blockade and restore pensions and social benefits, he added.

Forbes said another Minsk participant explained the comments between both leaders differently.

Saying “Poroshenko offered Russia to take Donbass for financial support. Putin said that it would only be possible if Donbass becomes part of Russia.”

As long as “Donbass is part of Ukraine, all the payments shall be done by the Ukrainian side.”

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov commented as follows:

“It is not very good that some participants of the meeting have revealed the content of their conversation with the president.”

“Leave it to their own conscience whether it was truth or untruth. I am not going to comment on it.”

Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Aleksandr Shokhin head claims Putin’s comments were distorted, saying:

“The conversation was about the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, about the adherence to the Minsk agreements, but I am not going to retell his words.”

“This was a wrong interpretation and I have no intention to either comment on it or retell it.”

Whatever Putin said or didn’t say in Minsk, Donbass remains a self-declared autonomous part of Ukraine.

Kiev’s dirty war didn’t end. It slowed ahead of plans to escalate it at Obama’s discretion.

US combat forces are working directly with Ukraine’s military. They’ll begin training its Nazi death squads later in April.

They want to kill Russians. Direct confrontation may follow.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Socialist French President François Hollande set to Outlaw “Conspiracies Theories”?

March 27, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

Or just the ones the State doesn’t care for?

What lies behind the anti “conspiracy theorist” discourse

The State Against The Republic

At the request of President François Hollande, the French Socialist Party has published a note on the international “conspiracy theorist” movement. His goal: to prepare new legislation prohibiting it to express itself. In the US, the September 11, 2001 coup established a “permanent state of emergency” (Patriot Act), launching a series of imperial wars. Gradually, the European elites have aligned with their counterparts across the Atlantic. Everywhere, people are worried about being abandoned by their States and they question their institutions. Seeking to retain power, the elites are now ready to use force to gag their opposition.

 

JPEG - 22.5 kb
January 27, 2015, President François Hollande made “conspiracy theorists” responsible for the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe. He called for a ban on their freedom of expression.

The President of the French Republic, François Hollande, has assimilated what he calls “conspiracy theories” to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.

Thus he declared, on January 27, 2015 at the Shoah Memorial:

[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst “(…)” [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce” [1].

Several ministers also decried what they called conspiracy theorists as so many “fermenters of hate and disintegrators of society.”

Knowing that President Hollande calls “conspiracy theory” the idea that States, whatever their regimes – including democracies – have a spontaneous tendency to act in their own interests and not in that of their constituents, we can conclude that he presented this confused amalgam to justify a possible censure of his opponents.

This interpretation is confirmed by the publication of a note entitled “Conspiracy theories, current status” by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, a Socialist Party think tank of which Mr. Holland was the first secretary. [2]

Let’s leave aside the political relations of François Hollande, the Socialist Party, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, its political radicalism Observatory and the author of the note and let’s focus on its message and its ideological content.

Definition of “conspiracy theories

The terms “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorism” have developed in France in the wake of the publication of my book on US imperialism post-September 11, titled The Big Lie [3]. At the time, we had trouble understanding what the terms meant because they referred to American political history. In the United States, are commonly called “conspiracy theorists” those according to whom President Kennedy had not been assassinated by one man but by many, forming a conspiracy (in the judicial sense). Over time, these expressions entered in the French language and have overlapped with memories of the 30s and the Second World War, those of the denunciation of the “Jewish conspiracy“. These are therefore now polysemous, sometimes evoking the law of the state-Stator silence and, at other times, European anti-Semitism.

In its note, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation gives its own definition of conspiracy theorism. It is

an ’alternative’ narrative that claims to significantly upset the knowledge we have of an event and therefore competes with the “version” which is commonly accepted, stigmatized as “official”” (p. 2).

Observe that this definition does not apply solely to the delusions of the mentally ill. Thus, Socrates, through the myth of the cave, affirmed his challenge to the certainties of his time; Galileo with his heliocentric theory challenged the prevailing interpretation of the Bible of his time; etc.

For my part, and since they see me as the “pope of conspiracy theorists” or rather the “heretic” in the words of Italian philosopher Roberto Quaglia, I reaffirm my radical political commitment, in keeping with the French republican radicalism of Leon Bourgeois [4], of Georges Clemenceau, [5] of Alain [6] and of Jean Moulin. [7] For me, as for them, the state is a Leviathan which by nature abuses those it governs.

As a radical Republican, I am aware that the state is the enemy of the common good, of the Res Publica; which is why I wish not to abrogate it, but to tame it. The republican ideal is compatible with various political regimes-including monarchies, as was enacted by the authors of the Declaration of 1789.

This opposition, which the current Socialist Party disputes, has so shaped our history as Philippe Pétain repealed the Republic to proclaim the “French State“. Immediately after his assuming presidential office, I denounced Hollande’s Petainism [8]. Today, Mr. Hollande claims to be of the Republic to better fight it and this inversion of values ​​plunges the country into confusion.

Who are the “conspiracy theorists“?

The “conspiracy theorists” are thus citizens who oppose the omnipotence of the State and who wish to place it under surveillance.

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation describes them as follows:

[It’s] a heterogeneous movement, heavily entangled with the Holocaust denial movement, and which combines admirers of Hugo Chavez and fans of Vladimir Putin. An underworld that consist of former left-wing activists or extreme leftists, former “malcontents”, sovereignists, revolutionary nationalists, ultra-nationalists, nostalgists of the Third Reich, anti-vaccination activists, supporters of drawing straws, September 11th revisionists, anti-Zionists, Afrocentricists, survivalists, followers of “alternative medicine”, agents of influence of the Iranian regime, Bacharists, Catholic or Islamic fundamentalists “(p. 8).

One will note the amalgams and abuse of this description aiming to discredit those it designates.

Myths of the “conspiracy theorists

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation continues its vilification by accusing “conspiracy theorists” of ignoring the realities of the world and naively believing hackneyed myths. Thus, they would believe in the “World Zionist plot“, the “illuminati conspiracy” and the “Rothschild myth” (p. 4). And to credit these three statements, it cites an example solely on the “Rothschild myth“: blogger Etienne Chouard – whose work is not simply about the Republic, but goes beyond to treat Democracy [9] – says the Pompidou-Rothschild 1973 law is the source of the debt of France. And the Foundation goes on to refute this assertion by quoting an article published by Libération.

One will note here that the example of Étienne Chouard leaves one unsatisfied about the two other cited myths. Especially, the Foundation addresses ignorant people who have neither read the response from Mr. Chouard to Libération [10] nor the contribution of the “conspiracy theorist“, former Prime minister Michel Rocard. [11] Indeed, in this debate, it is clear that the 1973 law allowed the explosion of the French debt in favor of private banks, which would have been impossible before.

The “conspirasphere

For the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, conspiracy intellectuals would be

essentially North Americans. Particular mention is made of Webster Tarpley and William Engdhal (both former members of the US political-sectarian organization led by Lyndon LaRouche), Wayne Madsen (WayneMadsenReport.com), Kevin Barrett (VeteransToday.com) or Michel Chossudovsky (Mondialisation.ca ). With their European counterparts, they form a kind of International to which Thierry Meyssan, president of Voltaire Network, tried to give concrete form in November 2005 in Brussels, bringing together an “anti-imperialist conference” – “Axis for Peace “- the list of participants of which reads like a who’s who of conspiracy authors most prominent at the time” (p. 8).

First, let’s observe that the Fondation Jean-Jaurès must only read in French and English, and have barely skimmed over the participants’ lists of Axis for Peace, to believe that the phenomenon it describes only concerns France, Canada and the United States. In fact it includes a very large literature in Arabic, Spanish, Persian and Russian; languages ​​which are also in the majority in Axis for Peace.

Let’s note also the malicious nature of the reference to “the politico-sectarian American organization led by Lyndon LaRouche.” Indeed, William Webster Tarpley and Engdhal quit this organization more than 20 years ago. And at the time when they were members, this party was represented in France at an extreme-left organization’s congress.

A little further on, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation does not fail to mention the comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, whose shows the State seeks to prohibit, the sociologist Alain Soral, whose website (EgaliteEtReconciliation.fr ) obtains audience records in France, and Alain Benajam (facebook.com/alain.benajam), chairman of Voltaire Network France and representative of the Novorossian Government of Donbass.

JPEG - 15.5 kb
In 1989, the former head of US intelligence in Europe, Irving Brown, revealed to reporters Roger Faligot and Rémi Kauffer that he had recruited Jean-Christophe Cambadélis when he militated in Lambertists Trotskyists. 25 years later, Mr. Cambadélis became First Secretary of the French Socialist Party.

The political ideas of “conspiracy theorists

After these appetizers, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès comes to the heart of the debate, that of political ideas. It defines those of the “conspiracy theorists” thus:

- “the erasure of any distinction in kind between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes (deemed more “totalitarian” than the worst of totalitarianism)”;
- “[Opposition to] any anti-racist legislation under the pretext of defending “freedom of expression“;
- “[Rejection of] the relevance of the left-right divide, the real divide is the one between” the system “(or” Empire “or the” oligarchy “) and those who resist it“; (P. 8)
- “the idea that Zionism is a project of world domination” (p. 9).

The Jean-Jaurès Foundation specifically targets areas of conflict, but exaggerates to discredit its opponents. For example, no one is opposed to all anti-racism legislation, but only and exclusively to the Fabius-Gayssot law that punishes by imprisonment any debate about the extermination of the Jews of Europe [12].

What is Zionism?

The Foundation then engages in a very long analysis of my works on Zionism. It disfigures them, then comments:

Thierry Meyssan’s anti-Zionism bears no resemblance to the criticism of a situation, that of the governments that have been able to succeed each other at the head of the State of Israel. It does not arise from an anti-colonialism that would be resolved by Israel’s withdrawal from the territories occupied after the Six Day War and the creation of a Palestinian state. It also does not proceed from an internationalism that would hold in suspicion, in principle, any national movement wherever it comes from, precisely because it does not liken Zionism to a national movement. This paranoid anti-Zionism does not pretend to fight Zionism in the diversity of its historical expressions, but as a fantastic hydra that is the source of evil in the world.

In wanting to conclude this debate by giving it considerable space in its analysis, the Jean Jaurès Foundation highlights its importance. I indeed defend a position thus far absent in the Western political debate [13]:

- The first head of state who stated his intention to bring together Jews from around the world in a state that would be theirs was Lord Cromwell in the seventeenth century. His project, clearly explained, was to use the Jewish diaspora to expand English hegemony. This project has been defended by all successive British governments and registered by Benjamin Disraeli in the agenda of the Berlin Conference.

- Theodor Herzl himself was a disciple of Cecil Rhodes, the theorist of the British Empire. Herzl originally proposed to create Israel in Uganda or Argentina, not in Palestine. When he succeeded in having Jewish activists adhere to the British project, he bought land in Palestine by creating the Jewish Agency whose articles are a carbon copy of the Rhodes society in Southern Africa.

- In 1916-17, the United Kingdom and the United States reconciled themselves by committing together to create the state of Israel through the Balfour Declaration in London and Wilson’s 14 points in Washington.

It is therefore perfectly absurd to claim that Herzl invented Zionism, to separate the Zionist project from British colonialism, and to deny that the State of Israel is a tool of the common imperial project in London and Washington.

The position of the Parti socialiste on this subject is not innocent. In 1936 it proposed with Léon Blum to create the state of Israel on the territory of the Lebanon mandate [14]. However the project was quickly dismissed because of the opposition of the French High Commissioner in Beirut, Damien de Martel de Janville.

Concluding remarks

In 2008, Professor Cass Sunstein, an adviser to President Barack Obama and husband of the US Ambassador to the UN, had written a similar note [15].

He wrote:

We can easily imagine a series of possible answers.
- 1. The government can ban conspiracy theories.
- 2. The government could impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
- 3. The government could engage in a contrary discourse to discredit conspiracy theories.
- 4. The government could initiate credible private parties to engage in a discourse against conspiracy theories.
- 5. The government could engage in informal communication with third parties and encourage them.

Ultimately, the US government had decided to fund individuals, both at home and abroad, to disrupt the forum websites of conspiracy theorists and to create groups to contradict them.

This not having sufficed, France is called upon to take authoritarian measures. As in the past, the French elites, of which the Socialist Party forms the pseudo-left wing, have placed themselves under the orders of the main military power of the time, in this case, the US.

Let’s not be naive, we are approaching an inevitable showdown. It remains to be determined which instance, necessarily administrative, will be in charge of censorship and what will be its criteria.

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

Is Military Exercise JADE HELM 15 Preparation For “Martial Law”?

March 27, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

Seems like an extension or a ramping up of the “Urban Shield” drills

View image on Twitter

Here are the corporate sponsors of Urban Shield.

 

Jade_Capture

 

JADE HELM 15 is a (SOC) Special Operations Command (RMT) Realistic Military Training planned drill for the South Western United States covering seven states which broke in alternative media almost a week ago. Freedom Outpost’s Joe McMaster covered this on March 20, 2015. I will not sit idly by and allow our alternative media to be portrayed as “conspiracy theorists” by those that are ignorant or liars. I stand in defense of all the alternative media that have reported and helped to expose this very real “exercise/drill,” JADE HELM 15, to the American Public. I challenge the propagandists, liars, and PSYOP’s to debunk this!

Military.com “Army SpecOps Command Pushes Back Against Alarmist Claims on Exercise” states:

Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a USASOC spokesman, confirmed that there is an upcoming exercise called Jade Helm 15 which is scheduled to take place this summer at locations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, California and Nevada. But he denied the event is preparation for some sort of military takeover.

“That notion was proposed by a few individuals who are unfamiliar with how and why USASOC conducts training exercises,” he said in an email. “This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.”

He said the only thing unique about this particular exercise, which is slated to take place between July 15 and Sept. 15, is “the use of new challenging terrain” which was chosen because it is similar to conditions special operations forces operate in overseas.

Really? And just when are they planning on taking LEO’s, DHS, FBI, and other “Inter-agency Partners” to go overseas at a moments notice? Does that even sound plausible?

Read more at FreedomOutpost

 

Fears of martial law as special ops set to swarm Southwest in massive military exercise

March 27, 2015 by legitgov

Mexico Oil, the US and “Narco – Terrorism‏”

March 10, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

mexico-energy-oil-pump (1)

 

 

 

 

 

March 9, 2015 by

Who What Why

Will Mexico’s Oil Give the U.S. Another Excuse for Covert Intervention?

The drug war brought U.S. commandos into Mexico, but the opening of the country’s once publicly-owned energy resources to foreign investors may provide justification for the secretive American presence there to escalate—especially if the cartels are successfully painted as “narcoterrorists.”

Energy resources can never be ignored in geopolitics. And an often forgotten fact is that Mexico is its northern neighbor’s third-largest source of foreign oil—enticingly located right next door.

Mexican petroleum and gas are about to hit the big time, with estimates that as much as $50 billion in new investments could flow into the country by 2018. The bidding began last year, and financiers are looking past today’s sharp drop in oil and gas prices at a lucrative future.

Naturally, outsiders who come drilling will expect a stable environment for profit. Companies do not want blocked shipments, bombed transit routes, kidnapped executives, or other interference from the cartels.

They want certainty, and military action is one way to provide it. Already, the Mexican Army is escorting contractors from Weatherford International, an oilfield services firm founded in Texas. And there is every reason to wonder if Pentagon or U.S. security contractors are assisting in such protection missions. Even members of the U.S. Marshals Service have taken part in operations dressed as Mexican Marines.

Set aside the oilfields, and there is still a lot of money on the line. Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, with half a trillion dollars crossing the border in 2013. Since 2000, U.S. foreign direct investment into the southern country stands at about a third of a trillion dollars.

The official line from the Pentagon is that there is no unusual activity caused by anything. Northern Command, covering the period from 9/11 onward, told WhoWhatWhy, “We do not have a permanent military presence in Mexico, other than those assigned to the U.S. Embassy” and “all other U.S. service men and women only go to Mexico for short duration exchanges on temporary duty.”

 

“But They Are There”

A private memo WikiLeaks obtained from the intelligence firm Stratfor—analyzed for the first time by WhoWhatWhy in an ongoing investigative partnership—states that United States special forces were conducting joint operations with Mexican special forces in 2011.

The internal document sources this information to someone the firm code-named “US714”: Texas Ranger Captain Aaron Grigsby, then head of the Border Security Operations Center in Austin. It is staffed by intelligence contractors from Abrams Learning & Information Systems, founded by Gen. John Abrams. Grigsby oversaw nearly 300 analysts and their surveillance programs. The job put him in a good position to see what commandos were actually doing in Mexico. [Email-ID 5359940, Feb. 17, 2011]

Here’s what Grigsby told Stratfor. (Note that the document begins with the firm’s standard header information for “insights” and includes the judgment that the source is highly reliable and the information highly credible (Email-ID 1547931)):

Email-ID 1547931: “But They Are There”Date: June 15, 2011
From: Korena Zucha
To: Secure List of Senior Analysts
Subject: INSIGHT-MEXICO-US special forces in Mexico-US714Source Code: US714
ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security Source
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Officer with direct oversight of
border investigations
SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
SOURCE HANDLER: Fred [Burton] U.S. special operations forces are currently in Mexico. Small scale joint ops with Mexico’s, but they are there.

Grigsby did not explain why the commandos were engaging in joint operations with Mexican special operators.

National security policy for energy resources is built across decades, regardless of the dates laws are passed. So it is not unusual that the Stratfor memo was sent two-and-a-half years before December 2013, the month Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed into law constitutional amendments authorizing foreign and private investment into oil and gas fields for the first time in 75 years.

Mexican “energy reform” has been on the U.S. radar for at least a decade. According to a 2006 classified diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, Tony Garza, then the ambassador to Mexico, raised the issue at a private dinner with then-President-elect Felipe Calderón. Garza told him: “To draw the investment and energy needed to jump-start Mexico’s economy, foreigners and Mexicans alike [have] to be reassured that the rule of law [will] prevail.”

Calderón launched a military war against the cartels as soon as he took office and only a month later indicated to potential investors that the certainty of law would come. He told the Financial Times that the “underlying strategy” of the operations was “to emphasize not just the issue of security but also that of the rule of law” and that taking on the cartels would provide “an indispensable element for broadening confidence in Mexico and generating much greater investment.”

 

Dollars and Doom?

The energy resources in Mexico are certainly sizable enough to appeal to big business. U.S. Geological Survey figures from 2012 show the country has about 65 billion barrels of unexploited oil, 118 trillion cubic feet of unexploited natural gas, and about 7,200 million barrels of unexploited liquid natural gas. According to a conservative WhoWhatWhy calculation (some estimates place the figures even higher) based on 2012 prices, this translates into $6.6 trillion of oil and gas.

Note that these lowball amounts already add up to nearly half the 2012 market value of unexploited petroleum and gas in Iraq—a country the U.S. recently resumed bombing, galvanized by the need to protect oilfields from the terrorist Islamic State militants.

Mexico suffers a similar problem in the scope of violence carried out by the drug cartels. On top of the physical danger the narcos pose, they are believed responsible for thefts of pipeline fuel worth $790 million in 2014 alone.

Yet without terrorism as a rallying cry, U.S. “management” of Mexico has to be framed in terms of the drug war—which itself has increasingly become subordinated to counterterrorism—unless, perhaps, U.S. policymakers are able to portray the cartels as “narcoterrorists,”  effectively fusing the War on Drugs with the War on Terror.

The term “narcoterrorism” was launched in the United States largely by Rachel Ehrenfeld, who sits on the Committee on the Present Danger, a hawkish organization that advocates for amping up military budgets. In the 1980s, she portrayed the infamous Colombian cartels as Marxist-Leninist elements of a Soviet-directed global conspiracy. Political scholars found the claim far-fetched, but had it gained more traction, it could have been used as a justification to increase support for Cold War-based U.S. intervention in Central and South America.

After the Soviet Union collapsed and the post-9/11 era began, Ehrenfeld started claiming Mexican drug cartels were tied to terrorists and provided them easy access to the United States. Althouh there is little to no proof of this, the idea itself could build a firmer basis for military action in Mexico.

Indeed, for decades and especially after 9/11, the Drug Enforcement Administration, various members of Congress, the Pentagon, state intelligence centers, police organizations along the border, the media, and others have, with some success, tried to raise the profile of the “narcoterrorism nexus.” That’s the notion that drug traffickers and terrorists are inextricably linked together.

The obvious objection is that one-size-fits-all efforts against the two groups cannot work because they differ wildly. Terrorists are motivated by ideology and try to scare opponents they cannot otherwise defeat into taking self-destructive actions. Narcos are lethal black market businessmen who have one concern: profit. That’s why, with some exceptions, the “narcoterrorism” concept has never truly lifted off—yet.

But with resource corporations now moving into Mexico, preparing to profit hugely from forthcoming production-sharing agreements, the country may see more U.S. commandos stalking its cartels.

Obama Declares Venezuelan Democracy a Threat to US National Security?

March 10, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

by Stephen Lendman

Obama finds new ways to disgrace the office he holds. He gives rogue state governance new meaning.

TeleSUR reported Obama committed “aggression” against Venezuelan sovereign independence. Its model democracy is the hemisphere’s best.

It shames America’s sham system. Elections when held are farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

Duopoly power rules. It’s totally beholden to monied interests – Wall Street and other corporate crooks. What they say goes.

Ordinary people are entirely shut out. Another article explained their electoral choice is between death by hanging or firing squad.

Jimmy Carter calls Venezuela’s electoral process the world’s best. America’s is the best money can buy.

Venezuela represents the threat of a good example. Obama fears its spread – maybe awakening Americans to demand rights and benefits Venezuelan constitutional law mandates.

He finds new ways to reveal America’s vile dark side. He’s waged war on freedom throughout his tenure.

It’s disappearing in plain sight. His global wars threaten humanity’s survival. Confronting Russia could launch nuclear war.

On Monday, he issued a lawless anti-Venezuelan executive order. It features a litany of Big Lies.

It targeted seven Venezuelan officials – freezing their assets and blocking their entry into America. Individuals named include:

  • Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) official Antonio José Benavides Torres;
  • Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) director Gustavo Enrique González López;
  • Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana president Justo José Noguera Pietri;
  • Venezuelan Public Ministry prosecutor Katherine Nayarith Haringhton Padron;
  • Bolivarian National Police director Manuel Eduardo Pérez Urdaneta;
  • Bolivarian armed forces official Manuel Gregorio Bernal Martínez; and
  • Bolivarian armed forces inspector general Miguel Alcides Vivas Landino.

On the one hand, Obama violated core international law. It prohibits nations from interfering in the internal affairs of others.

Security Council members alone may impose sanctions – not individual countries for any reason.

On the other, Obama systematically lied. He absurdly declared a “national emergency” when none exists.

He did so “with respect to the (nonexistent) unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United Sttes posed by the situation in Venezuela.”

He ludicrously claimed “(w)e are committed to advancing respect for for human rights, safeguarding democratic institutions, and protecting the US financial system from the illicit financial flows from public corruption in Venezuela.”

On Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest lied claiming Venezuela’s government “intimidat(es) its political opponents…criminaliz(es) dissent, (and) violates human rights and fundamental freedoms…”

Fact: President Nicholas Maduro’s government is polar opposite US fascist rule.

Fact: It considers rule of law principles inviolable.

Fact: It respects other nations’ sovereignty.

Fact: It champions fundamental civil and human rights.

Fact: It provides all Venezuelans from birth with vital social benefits Americans can’t imagine.

Fact: It doesn’t wage wars on other nations.

Fact: It doesn’t torture prisoners like America.

Fact: No nation in world history did more harm to more people over a longer duration than America.

Fact: None operate more lawlessly.

Fact: None are more venal and corrupt.

Fact: None more reveal fascism’s ugly face.

Fact: None more greatly threaten humanity’s survival.

Obama’s executive order became effective March 9 at 12:01 AM Eastern time. In response, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said:

“We will soon make Venezuela’s response to the extent and reach of these statements.”

Maduro said Obama’s executive order followed his foiled February coup plot.

A previous article explained US plans included orchestrated street violence, assassinations, and terror-bombing strategic Caracas targets.

Followed by ousting Maduro, maybe killing him, and installing “transitional” governance ahead of full-blown fascist rule.

“After we dismantled the coup attempt…the US and President Barack Obama…decided to personally fulfill the task of ousting my government,” said Maduro.

“(M)any meetings were held between the Department of State and the White House” to plot Obama’s scheme, he added.

He called his executive order “a Frankenstein, a monster.” Targeted Venezuelans are “heroes,” he said.

“I congratulate them. It’s an honor” be be included on Washington’s sanctions list. No nation more greatly threatens humanity, he stressed.

America is “the real threat. (It) “trained and created Osama bin Laden. (Y)ou are the people who created Al Qaeda.”

Maduro challenged Obama to “(d)efend the human rights of black US citizens being killed in US cities every day.”

In the past year, Washington issued 105 anti-Venezuelan statements. Most explicitly supported opposition fascist elements.

“I’ve told Mr. Obama, how do you want to be remembered,” Maduro asked? Like Richard Nixon, who ousted Salvador Allende in Chile?”

“Like President Bush, responsible for (trying to oust) President Chavez?…Well President Obama, you already made your choice. (Y)ou will be remembered like President(s) Nixon” and Bush.

Venezuelan intelligence discovered a coup plot hatched last December between Washington and fascist opposition elements.

Maduro said Obama launched economic war on Venezuela last year. It began political war after Chavez’s 1998 election.

US hypocrisy is longstanding. It says one thing. It does another. It refuses to ratify the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court.

It never ratified other important human rights agreements, including:

  • the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child;
  • Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming to the abolition of the death penalty; and
  • Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Torture is official  US policy. Thousands of political prisoners languish in its global gulag. It’s at war with Islam.

US streets are battlegrounds. Killer cops murder blacks and other people of color with impunity.

Immigrants of color are ruthlessly persecuted. Unprecedented levels of public and private grand theft persist in high places. America’s best friends are some of the world’s most ruthless despots.

Washington’s “war on terror” is its war OF terror on humanity. One country after another is ravaged and destroyed. Millions of corpses attest to America’s barbarity.

Its nuclear capability may preemptively end life on earth. Venezuelan policy is polar opposite.

Its Foreign Ministry recalled its embassy officials from Washington for consultation. Neither country had ambassadors since 2008.

Last December, Congress passed S. 2142: Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 unanimously by voice vote.

Not a single profile in courage opposed what demanded rejection. On December 18, Obama signed S. 2142 into law.

It has no legal standing whatever. It spurns international and constitutional law. It usurped power afforded solely to Security Council members.

The world’s leading human rights abuser targeted one of its staunchest defenders guaranteeing fundamental rights for all its citizens.

All Venezuelans are considered “equal before the law.” Polar opposite US governance for its privileged elites alone. Democracy exists in name only.

Hugo Chavez established Venezuela’s model system. Maduro carries his torch. He’s targeted for doing the right thing.

Chavismo lives! Preserving it matters – protecting it from America’s dirty hands.

 

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Putin Bashing Crowd in Overdrive Over Nemtsov Killing (CIA False Flag?)

March 2, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

by Stephen Lendman

Throughout his tenure, irresponsible Western officials and complicit media scoundrels bashed him relentlessly. Any excuse will do.

Stuff made up out of whole cloth is held against him. Whatever he does is wrong no matter how right.

His months of efforts to save Europe from the scourge of more war is treated like he intends to wage it.

The reason, of course, is his opposition to US imperial adventurism.  Its plan to colonize planet earth, steal its resources, and enslave its people as serfs paid poverty or sub-poverty wages.

To let Western monied interests and war-makers control everything for their own benefit at the expense of all others.

To transform nations into exploitable assets. To crush all opposition to its agenda. To let bankers steal everyone’s wealth.

To wage permanent wars because they’re so profitable. To risk destroying planet earth to own it. To commit genocide all in a day’s work.

Putin’s vision is polar opposite. He wants peace, not war. He believes in nation-state sovereignty inviolability.

He says rule of law principles are meant to be obeyed – especially when world peace is at stake. Over 85% of Russians support him.

Why anyone besides rich elites profiting at the expense of others supports Obama they’ll have to explain.

Nemtsov’s killing aroused the bash Putin crowd – despite knowing he had nothing to with it.

Odds strongly indicate a CIA false flag – much like many others it instigated throughout its sordid history.

Jack Kennedy once said he wanted “to splinter (it) in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds” – reason enough to kill him.

For sure over wanting war in Vietnam ended. Obama can’t wait to wage another one. His desire for imperial conquest is insatiable.

As this is written, smaller crowds mourning Nemtsov than Putin bashers hoped for turned out in Moscow and St. Petersburg – around 7,000 in each city growing incrementally throughout the afternoon.

Sputnik News estimated a Moscow 21,000 turnout. Nemtsov supporters hoped for 50,000 or more.

NBC News hyped “immense crowds.” The New York Times ludicrously said after Nemtsov’s killing, “(t)here are no longer any limits.”

Ignoring no-holds-barred US domestic and global barbarism throughout its sordid history – especially post-WW II. Most of all post-9/11.

Nemtsov was a widely disliked self-serving opportunist. The Times ludicrously called him a “standard-bearer of Western liberalism.”

Putin bashing followed. The Times irresponsibly accused him of an “aggressive foreign policy…labeling his opposition a ‘fifth column,’ (and using) state television (to whip) up a militant, nationalistic fervor…”

It quoted a Putin critic saying “(t)he fact that they (meaning Russia’s government) killed him is a message to frighten everyone…”

“This is what happens to people who go against the government of our country.”

Despite knowing Putin had nothing to do with Nemtsov’s killing, The Times published this rubbish – willful Big Lies intended to deceive.

The neocon controlled Washington Post headlined “Russian opposition leaders allege Kremlin links to Nemtsov slaying.”

On the one hand, WoPo flat-out lied. It knows nothing suggests Putin’s involvement. On the other,it hyped a nonexistent threat for political advantage not achieved. More on this below.

At the time of his death, Nemtsov was a political nobody. Polls showed his RPR-PARNAS party had less than 5% support. His personal popularity was around 1%.

You’d never know it based WaPo hyperbole calling him “a towering figure of post-Soviet politics.”

Perhaps he was a legend in his own mind – in very few others in Russia wanting nothing to do with him.

WaPo practically blamed Putin for his death. It called his killing “by far the highest-profile assassination during” his tenure.

Despite no evidence suggesting it, WaPo claimed opposition elements “reasoned that, at minimum, the security services that blanket Red Square must have had advance warning of Nemtsov’s fate.”

Putin had every reason not wanting him or other opposition figures killed. Political smearing alone would follow.

Plenty of unjustifiable criticism – much like what’s happening now. Besides nothing suggesting Putin believes it’s OK to order someone killed.

No evidence suggests he maintains a kill list like Obama – deciding who lives or dies. Ordering people killed by presidential diktat. Acting extrajudicially as judge, jury and executioner.

Heading a regime more abusive of fundamental civil and human rights than any government in history. Making state terror official US policy.

WaPo irresponsibly quoted Nemtsov ally Vladimir Milov absurdly calling his killing “connected to the authorities.”

Another opposition figure was quoted claiming an “aggressive atmosphere created by the Kremlin…could lead to murder” – without citing a shred of corroborating evidence.

None exists. Don’t expect WaPo to explain.

Wall Street Journal neocons hyped Nemtsov’s “political assassination” as “the new reality of Putin’s Russia.”

Again no corroborating evidence, Just baseless accusations and hype about “Russia’s now-dimmed an tarnished hopes for democracy and reform…”

During his 2012 presidential campaign, Putin warned about dark forces “abroad…looking for a sacrificial victim from among prominent people.”

“They would rub him out and then blame it on the authorities. I know about this. I’m not exaggerating,” he said.

What happened was exactly as he envisioned. Perhaps to be followed by similar CIA-staged false flags irresponsibly blamed on him.

The good news is Washington’s best laid plans fell flat. The Saker reported no opposition elements blaming Putin for what happened.

Many indicated a provocation – the term Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov used meaning a false flag intended to blame Kremlin authorities unjustly.

The area around the seat of government is heavily surveilled for security reasons. The Saker expects an arrest in a week at most, likely sooner.

If evidence shows US involvement, he believes it won’t be made public. Instead it will be used quietly behind the scenes, he said.

Expect little or no effect on Putin’s popularity. It won’t stop lunatics in Washington and media scoundrels from bashing him relentlessly.

By this time next week or sooner, they’ll find other reasons to vilify him unjustly. It doesn’t matter what he does or doesn’t do.

A Final Comment

March 1 marks the one-year anniversary of Donbass anti-fascist resistance. Freedom fighters risked all for fundamental democratic rights everyone deserves.

What began as a protest against Kiev’s ban on Russian language use developed into full-blown rebellion against fascist rule – notably in Donetsk and Lugansk.

Activists from Russia, other parts of Ukraine and elsewhere joined rebels against the scourge of fascism they deplore – perhaps inspired by the Lincoln and other Spanish Civil War brigades.

Freedom-fighting rebels want Novorossiya freed from fascist tyranny.  They overcame enormous odds so far.

Their liberating struggle continues. It has miles to go. Washington deplores democracy. Expect all-out US efforts to crush it in Donbass.

Maybe by US-led NATO war – turning Novorossiya into a killing field like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Maybe initiated by a US-instigated Ukraine 9/11 followed by shock-and-awe bombing.

Fascists running America want hardline rule established everywhere. No matter how many millions of corpses it takes to accomplish their objective.

No matter how much human misery follows. No matter if nuclear war risks mass annihilation.

Lunatics in Washington may end life on earth to own it. No greater threat in history matches what humanity faces today. No greater urgency than ending it before it ends us.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Obama-Netanyahu “Fallout” (+Obama shoot down) is Theater – Planned in 2009 (Brookings Policy paper)

March 2, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

 

This Dog and Pony show will also help to insure that JEB and the GOP get the uninitiated Jewish vote in 2016 (as planned)

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned “diplomatic row” to justify “unilateral” Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost – up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution’s policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retropspect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength – which according to Brookings – is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest – considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel – is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a “unilateral” Israeli first strike on Iran – an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves 

The Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible “peaceful” options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran – as admitted to by Brookings themselves – is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely “superb offer.” The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy – one for public consumption (making “superb offers”) and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

At one point in the policy paper, Brookings would state:

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Here, Brookings policymakers openly conspire to undermine global peace by “goading” another nation into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from. Provoking a nation that poses no threat to the national security of the United States is a clear violation of international law – with the Brookings paper serving as a literal signed confession.

Yet despite this open admission, conspiring against world peace, what is of more interest is the United States’ plans to disavow any responsibility for an attack it would use its regional proxy, Israel, to carry out in its place. It states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:

…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives). 

To no one’s surprise the British Daily Mail now reports in an article titled, “President Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iranian nuclear facilities last year, claim sources,” that:

President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

Netanyahu will be in Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama’s cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran. 

Here, the Daily Mail repeats a growing narrative that dovetails neatly into long-standing US foreign policy described by the Brookings Institution’s report in 2009 – down to the letter. In fact, the prospect of “shooting down” Israeli planes was discussed as one of many props used in this geopolitical theater.

The US, as prescribed by Brookings, is portrayed as desperately trying to hammer out an almost unreasonably accommodation with Iran, while “mad dog” Israel seeks to unilaterally attack Iran – thus giving the US the plausible deniability it openly claimed it would disingenuously attempt to create ahead of any Israeli attack on Iran. It should be noted that the summation of Israel’s military might is a result long, extensive, and continuous US military support meaning that Israeli military operation is even possible without it.

Also of interest is Israel’s habitual, belligerent, serial acts of inhumanity against both its own people and the Palestinians whose land Tel Aviv has seized and continues to occupy. The nature of these acts is not one of self-preservation, but of intentional provocation – creating predictable political divides across the West easily manipulated particularly at times like these where a “regrettable” attack made upon Iran, a nation the West has thus far failed to topple with terrorism, US-backed sedition, sanctions, and covert provocations, is now in the cards.

It is also clear that the 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” policy paper still represents a vivid window into a much deeper and well-entrenched doctrine still to this day being used to reorder the Middle East into alignment with Western special interests.  It is a signed confession of a now evident conspiracy against global peace and stability. It should be read, in full, before the United Nations Security Council  before those who wrote it and the corporate-financier interests who sponsored it are brought to international justice.

Anything less proves that the United States and its regional proxies, not Iran, are the rogue states, working against global peace and stability, with many standing examples already of their atrocities on display, and more – apparently – still to come.

Next Page »

jbroku