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 (, Kevin Barrett ( or Michel Chossudovsky ( ). 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 ( ) obtains audience records in France, and 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 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! “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
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Officer with direct oversight of
border investigations
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

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

Visit his blog site at

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

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

Visit his blog site at

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.

Malcolm X: The Power Structure is International (50 Years after Assassination)

February 23, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

In observance of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, TRNN shares a speech he gave in Detroit on February 15, 1964, one week before he was killed –   February 22, 2015

In the early morning of February 14, 1965, Malcolm X’s home was firebombed and the house was destroyed. One week later he was assassinated. This was the last public speech Malcolm X gave before his murder.

The FBI visits Malcolm X in 1964. Malcolm knew that they were coming so he hid a tape recorder under his couch. The agents identify themselves as Beckwith and Fulton from the New York office of the FBI.

FBI Agent: Well, what we are interested in, basically, are the people who belong. The names of the members.

Greece Surrenders to Troika (Rejoins EU money men, SYRIZA campaign pledges proved hollow)

February 21, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary


by Stephen Lendman

Instead of renouncing its odious debt and walking away, Athens agreed to pay bankers first, maintain austerity, and let long-suffering Greeks continue taking the hindmost.

SYRIZA campaign pledges proved hollow. Pleasing Brussels and Washington matter more.

After weeks of negotiations, Greece got what the Wall Street Journal called “a tenuous agreement for a four-month extension of its bailout Friday removing immediate concerns over a potential exit from Europe’s currency union but setting the stage for more tense negotiations over the country’s financial future.”

A Troika statement said:

“Greek authorities commit to refrain from any rollback of measures and unilateral changes to the policies and structural reforms that would negatively impact fiscal targets, economic recovery or financial stability, as assessed by the institutions.”

Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem said Athens “unequivocal(l)y commit(ted) to honor (its) financial obligations.”

Rolling over Friday shows what’s likely coming. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble suggested it saying “(n)ow we hope that trust can grow again.”

Markets signaled approval. The Stoxx Europe 600 reached its highest level since November 2007. Even the weak euro gained against the dollar and yen.

US equities rose. The Russell 2000 small company index hit record highs.

Candidate Alexis Tsipras pledged relief from Troika-imposed harshness. Prime Minister Tsipras proved he’s no different from other Greek politicians

Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis tried putting a brave face on capitulation saying “(o)ur pre-electoral program was about four years. This deal is about four months.”

Left unexplained are likely worse Greek financial conditions months ahead than now.

Its debt is too onerous to repay. It won’t get easier ahead. Under Friday’s agreement, Greece must indicate more budget cuts and austerity by Monday.

Its plan must be acceptable to Troika officials. Popular needs don’t matter.

Once agreement is reached, Athens will get another 7.2 billion euros making its debt burden more onerous than already.

It’s unclear when funds will be released. On the one hand, both sides must reach agreement by April. On the other, Greece may be broke by March.

ECB officials said they’re willing to resume normal lending to Greek banks for their day-to-day operations. Weeks could pass before funds arrive with no guarantee how much or for how long.

An unnamed ECB official said normal lending won’t start until “there is a great likelihood of a positive conclusion of the programme.”

In other words, until unconditional surrender is abslutely clear. On Friday, Athens agreed to “refrain from any rollback (or) unilateral changes” of existing policies.

Greece’s debt level remains unchanged. Tsipras promised to cut it while campaigning.

Athens can opt out of some austerity measures as long as it substitutes others having just as much financial and economic impact.

Varoufakis was less than candid saying “(a)s of today, we’re beginning to be co-authors of our destiny, co-authors of the reforms that we want to implement.”

If he meant it, they’d be implemented already. Athens would forget about Troika help.

Plenty without austerity strings is available from Russia, China, and perhaps other BRICS countries.

The Financial Times hailed the “11th-hour deal…” Saying it ended “weeks of uncertainty that threatened to spark a Greek bank run and bankrupt the country.”

Troika policies bankrupted Greece. It’s a zombie country waiting for its obituary to be written.

It can rise from the ashes through responsible policies not taken. Long-suffering Greeks face continued impoverishment, unemployment and human misery as far as the eye can see.

Friday’s deal commits Athens to observe earlier agreed on bailout terms. What SYRIZA campaigning rejected.

No strict compliance, no payout, said Germany’s Schauble. According to the FT:

“The decision to request an extension of the current programme is a significant U-turn for Alexis Tsipras…”

While campaigning, he promised to kill existing bailout terms. He showed SYRIZA promises were empty.

According to Schauble, Athens “will have a difficult time to explain the deal to (its) voters.”

Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith said “(t)here is no way of putting a pretty face on” Friday’s agreement. “It represents a huge climbdown for Syriza.”

“Despite loud promises,” it capitulated to existing bailout terms. Even SYRIZA supporters know far it fell from grace.

It showed “a propensity to over-promise and under-deliver,” said Smith. It faces an enormous challenge ahead to salvage anything out a rotten deal agreed to.

Open Europe economist Raoul Ruparel said Greece “folded this hand but the game of poker continues.”

Its government is “now short stack and living hand to hand (day to day).”

“It continues to be in a very tough position, and how the evaporation of the vision which SYRIZA sold at the election will go down at home is a crucial and potentially explosive unknown.”

Eurogroup finance ministers expressed appreciation to Greek governments over the past few years for addressing banker priorities ahead of popular ones.

They welcomed SYRIZA officials agreeing to continue along the same path as its predecessors – to honor their financial obligations to foreign creditors above all else.

To assure Western monied interests matter most of all no matter how much pain and suffering ordinary Greeks endure.

Capitulation best explains Friday’s agreement. James Petras wrote a masterful account of how Greece got into its present day mess.

He explained he was former Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou’s advisor from 1981 – 1984. Like Tsipras, he rose to power on promises of radical change.

“He…ended up capitulating to Brussels and NATO and embracing the oligarchs and kleptocrats in the name of ‘pragmatic compromises,’ ” said Petras.

It remains to be seen how Greeks react when they realize they again were had.

Petras hopes Tsipras will change tactics and avoid another Greek tragedy. It’s hard imagining a major turnaround after such a disgraceful climbdown.

The best time to strike a good deal is straightaway. The worst time is after surrendering too much hoping later to recoup.


Stephen Lendman lies in Chicago. He can be reached at

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

Visit his blog site at

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

Big Pharma Dangles Life and Death Over Patients’ Heads – Cure (you fund w/ tax, subsidies) for a price

February 19, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary

Breakthroughs in gene therapy mean a single shot could cure you … permanently … but for a price.

February 19, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LocalOrg)Gene therapy involves identifying and replacing faulty or missing genes, or engineering augmentations for existing genes to permanently cure a wide number of conditions and illnesses ranging from cancer and diabetes, to regenerative processes like rebuilding hearts or storing sight and hearing.

A breakthrough clinical trial in 2012 saw several patients stricken with incurable leukemia put into permanent remission using gene therapy. The actual process of creating re-engineered cells taken from a patient and reintroducing them costs approximately $15,000, and such procedures are still in the experimental phase. While this cost does not include the required intensive care required to bring a patient from the brink of death back into full health, it is likely the costs in the near future will be drastically lower than current and far less effective cancer treatments are today.

The transformative power of this new technology spells the end of big pharmaceutical monopolies who wallow in billions in profits year to year, enabling them to continue dominating modern medical practice through the skewing of regulatory bodies, the stacking of academic studies, and even the expansive, global bribery of doctors and other medical practitioners to push big pharma’s products.

As gene therapy enters into mainstream medicine, big pharma has attempted to control it. In order to continue reaping the unwarranted profits, influence, and power big pharma has accumulated over the decades, they plan to compensate for the drastic drop in prices and the fact that many conditions will now be permanently curable, cutting patients off from a lifetime of dependency on big pharma’s cocktails.

Essentially, they have announced that patients will be placed essentially into lifetime debt in exchange for single treatments that will cure them – cures that will be priced at around $1 million.

Indeed, Reuters would report in an article titled, “Insight – Paying for gene therapy: are annuities the next big thing?,” that:

Drugmakers contend that a one-time cure, even at a price of more than $1 million, would save money over the long term. But there are concerns that health insurers will balk at covering that kind of upfront cost.

The therapies do not cost $1 million, keeping big pharma a monopoly does. Reuters also includes in their article insurers demanding exorbitantly priced medications be discounted, and under pressure, big pharma was able to cut prices by as much as 50% and still stay in business.

The Solution – Decentralize Healthcare
Gene therapies are a focus of a much larger, emerging field of applied science called “synthetic biology.” Synthetic biology is the use of synthesized DNA rather than the mere cutting and pasting of it to engineer biological solutions much more precisely. There is also a dimension of greater standardization, which is being done by organizations and institutions driven by an ethos of open source information, software, and hardware.

While many institutions and corporations are involved in synthetic biology, it is not as inaccessible as biotech has thus far been. In fact, universities, high schools, and independent local “do-it-yourself” labs are engaged in practicing and contributing to the field of synthetic biology.

For those that believe big pharma is a problem, the solution is not merely vocally opposing their business models and practices, but also directly challenging them and undermining them by contributing to and building up an open synthetic biology movement.
For readers, their first step should be looking up more information online – Wikipedia is a good starting point. For those lucky enough to live near a DIYbio lab, they should stop by and see about participating in their next workshop. Universities are also involved in public outreach and may have workshops or classes available.
For those who feel they are unable to directly contribute, simply helping to raise awareness is the next best thing. The more people that understand this new emerging technology, the more voices there will be calling for it to be driven in the right direction for the right reasons.
Gene therapy and other breakthroughs driven by a greater understanding of our genome belong to everyone. That big pharma stands now before humanity, dangling life and death over our heads for an arbitrary $1 million like a cartoon-style villain, shows that we have terribly misplaced our trust and this responsibility in their hands. It is time to take it back, and do with it what should have been done long ago – use it to save lives and improve humanity, not merely feed off of it.

The NATO agenda behind the Copenhagen shooting

February 15, 2015 by  
Filed under Commentary


Denmark will use the pretext of fighting ‘Islamic Terrorism’ to increase military spending. But surprisingly, most of the newly re-enforced military will be used to fight Russia -not ISIS. The Danish Military will increase its air patrols and naval presence in the Baltic Sea to counter the increased recent Russian naval presence.


By Mario Andrade

We’re starting to see the usual indicators of a false flag attack carried out in the form of a Charlie Hebdo-style shooting at a pro-Israel ‘free-speech’ event in Copenhagen. The initial reports of the incident mentioned two shooters, but later authorities backtracked and said there was only one suspect involved. The Danish intelligence services admitted that the suspect was under their surveillance prior to the shooting. There was a noticeable presence or private security contractors during the incident. And finally this morning, Danish police issued a statement mentioning that the suspect has been killed. Dead men tell no tales.

The shooting has all the hallmarks of an incident intended to enrage (not terrorize) people of many countries. The ‘free speech’ event chosen by the suspect to carry out a mass shooting included speakers from many countries. The controversial anti-Mohammed cartoonist, Lars Vilks was there. Anyone going to an event where this character goes should be very nervous because he’s the bait that attracts these so-called Islamic extremist attacks. Authorities believe that he was probably the main target (surprise!). But strangely enough, he survived yet again another attempt on his life. Reportedly, other attendees included one of Russia’s controversial Pussy Riot band members.

Like a chapter taken out of the Boston bombings, this morning, the people in Copenhagen woke up with armored vehicles and special police units patrolling the streets, going door to door looking for the suspect. Shortly after these search operations took place, the suspect was shot, in a similar fashion as the Boston bomber: While he was trying to shoot at police to avoid capture.

The authorities refuse to release the suspects name, but he was described as Middle Eastern-looking. Local media reported that the suspect’s name might be Omar El-Hussein, a local 22-year old criminal. The talking heads on television are beginning to mention the words ‘radical Islam’, and ISIS-inspired lone wolf attacks, such as the ones in France, Canada, and Australia. There’s also speculation that the young suspect might’ve travelled to Syria or Iraq to meet with ISIS, although there are reports that he was just released from jail two weeks ago for stabbing a train passenger.

Predictably, the Danish Government will condemn radical Islam, ISIS, Syria or others for this horrendous shootings (in which reportedly only one person died so far). They will mention the fact that many young Muslims have been radicalized and are travelling to Syria to fight the ‘Assad’s regime’. The politicians and military leaders will later make things appear like they are fighting terrorism; however, in reality, their NATO agenda is quite different. Denmark will increase its NATO budget, but for the purposes of fighting Russia in the Ukraine and the Baltic region.

In fact, Denmark will not be the only country that will begin participating in these military tactics against Russia: Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Iceland will also participate. This new Northern European military operation will fall under an organization called ‘ NORDEFCO’ or Nordic Defense Cooperation.

The birth of a new Cold War

NORDEFCO’s naval battle group, previously known as the Nordic Battle Group (or NBG) currently has over 1,600 troops. Now that the program has been shifted to high gear, the battle group is recruiting pro-NATO countries from the Baltic states like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and it’s changing its name from NBG to NBBG or Nordic-Baltic Battle Group, potentially increasing their troop numbers and military hardware assets to fight Russia.

Six new NATO command and control military bases have been established in Baltic countries like Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland

According to, “NORDEFCO  has evolved from being an intra-Nordic forum for contact and dialogue on defense and security policy matters to an organization that not only pursues greater military interoperability and cooperation in armaments, but also strengthened collaboration within the Nordic defense industry sector.”

The same article further describes how this new organization will focus on projects that will create ‘plug and play’ joint military units that can be ‘facilitated’ or ‘offered’ to NATO when there’s a need for them. These new joint plug-and-play units would include special operations teams, air patrol squadrons, naval battle groups and mine warfare flotillas. On the other hand, Russia has responded with increasing its naval military air presence in the Baltic Sea and the English Channel.

« Previous PageNext Page »