The more Juif becomes Theresa, the more antisemitic becomes Britain.

February 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Today, the Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported that the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain in 2016 were the highest on record. The CST’s statistics show that there were 1,309 incidents of ‘Jew hatred’ last year — a 36 per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

Of course, the CST is not a reliable source and its‘antisemitism figures’ have been debunked numerous times before. However, if these statistics are accurate, they suggest only that the more the British government invests in fighting anti-Semitism…. the more antisemitic Britain becomes.

This is easy enough to explain. The fight against antisemitism is now a profitable industry.  Every day, we learn of some new Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism and to hunt down the Jew haters, and all at the expense of the British tax payer*.

And, as always in the case of Israel and Zionism, these organisation are financially sustained by the very Jewish hatred they seek to oppose. And, when there is no Jew hatred to be found, they will either induce, or even invent some.

For instance, we learned in the last few weeks that Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) launched a war against popular cult figure David Icke. The same Stephen Silverman who launched this war also launched a war against musician Alison Chabloz for expressing her thoughts on Holocaust religion by means of a cabaret performance.

These ugly campaigns against British truth-seekers are unlikely to make UK Jewry popular. Quite the opposite. Both these campaigns immediately backfired – Alison’s work went viral and the campaign against Icke proved only that Icke’s investigation into Rothschild Zionism is not only legitimate, it is actually essential.  These campaigns clearly are not going to silence Icke or Chabloz but they will confirm  that Jewish institutions here in Britain do not subscribe to the notion of freedom of thought and elementary human rights.

Dave Rich, Deputy Director of Communications at the CST told the JC: “I think there is an overall climate rather than one specific thing that is responsible for the rise in (antisemitic) incidents.”

Rich is wrong. There is one crucial factor in the rise in opposition to Jews and their politics: Jewish power has lost all its subtlety. It is now crude and vulgar and manifested right out in the open: whether it is the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party or theIsraeli embassy crudely interfering with British party politics or the constant hunting of critics of Israel or even the impunity of suspected child molester Lord Janner – more and more Brits are now reading between the lines. They have had enough.

If the British government is really concerned about antisemitism, it could eliminate it in no time at all. It must immediately strip Jewish organisations of any special treatment and funds and  must stop spending millions on the CST and all the other Jews-only paramilitary organisations operating in the kingdom.

We all agree that racism is a bad thing, so let’s fight it in a universal manner rather than following the whims of one particular tribe.

* Theresa May vowed recently to allocate more than 13.4 million pounds annually to Jewish security matters.

Reporting from Cuba: The absence of right…wing politics

by Ramin Mazaheri

It is with great regret that I have to leave Havana after 1 month of special-assignment reporting for Press TV in order to return to Paris.

That may surprise a lot of people, but think of what type of work I am returning to: Stories about unabashed capitalism, chauvinistic neo-imperialism, anti-Muslim xenophobia and the upcoming presidential contest in which the only 2 serious contenders are a right-wing candidate and the far-right National Front.

Why is reporting in France (leftist reporting) considered easy? I cannot count the number of times I have been tear-gassed in the last year while covering on France’s anti-government protests, due to ineffective austerity policies.

Let’s not forget that France is still (14 months now) a police state of emergency, one step short of marital law. The government’s power grab due to just 2 terror attacks continues to undermine France’s claim of democracy (the Nice tragedy was a crazed lone wolf and not organized by any terror group).

And yet it was Cuba which was described as “militarist”, “tyrannical” and “dictatorial” across the West following the recent death of Fidel Castro.

Well, working in Cuba has been totally free of the reactionary violence which is a daily occurrence in France. It has been a celebration of leftist resistance, and the honoring of amazing advances in the face of the genocidal US-orchestrated international Blockade.

I was quite happy to spend 1 month of my life to defend the modern democratic will of the Cuban people and thus the ongoing Cuban Revolution. About all I am looking forward to in France is the bread.

Cuban bread – the type the average person eats and which I regularly bought at local, state-run panaderías – is an offense to bread everywhere. Cubans rightly pointed out that it was the best they can do when the Blockade makes things like oil, butter and salt scarce. Sure, a piece of the subsidized “staff of life” costs just one-fourth of one US penny, and it did keep me from hunger many nights, but I will remember it only as the bitter taste of omnipresent US imperialism, which tastes bad even when dipped in evaporated milk.

In France I defend more than just the culinary endowments of Western Europe’s geographical breadbasket, I defend the democratic will of the people (when France isn’t being reactionary and racist). However, I am part of a very small minority, both socially and as a journalist. In Cuba, I am not, and it has been wonderful.

Why is it like this? Why is France so rich and yet so troubled? Why do I have such trouble finding positive stories there? I have an idea:

In Cuba a far-right simply does not exist – racism, xenophobia and such reactionary stupidities are banned. If you call that “tyranny”, all I can say is that I side with the Cubans in refusing to defend to the death your right to spread inequality, hate and regression.

And what I cannot stress enough is the enormous effect the absence of a right-wing clearly has on the hearts, minds and daily bearing of the Cuban people.

You cannot simply chalk up to the weather the yawning difference between the open-hearted Cubans and the cold, unfriendly, excessively forma and pessimistic French. Surely it is more due to the corrosive cultural effect of tolerating right-wing thought.

Just imagine for yourself what your Western nation would be like if there was no far-right influence? If the goals of racial solidarity and economic equality simply could not be questioned, and had to be promoted?

That’s what Cuban culture has that the West does not, and such cultural gold is both beyond measure and incredibly rare anywhere in 2017.

It clearly gives many French the jollies to insult, denigrate and promote competitiveness, but I assume this is why the silent majority is nauseated, depressed and reportedly adulterous.

But right-wing thought is more than just tolerated across the West, it is avidly promoted by both government and media. From chauvinistic nationalism to capitalist neoliberal dogma which has no factual grounding in reality to “on what moral ground could you possibly claim” humanitarian interventionism – with such ideological tent poles, how can any Western nation claim to be more “modern” or “humanistic” than Cuba?

And yet, the total war against leftist thought means that it’s the French who are considered “modern” and “advanced”. Paris is city full of rich old people who can afford to live in the past – Havana, so close to the belligerent United States, cannot afford such illusions.

People said I could not “report from Cuba”

The idea was something like that I would be prohibited, spied on, redacted and thought-controlled.

Nothing like that happened remotely. It was quite simple, and here is how you do it: You work with the government, not against it.

You don’t sneak into the country on a tourist visa and do a halfway job – you get a formal journalist visa and follow their laws. You provide the government with a list of story ideas and be upfront about what type of journalism you want to do. You meet with them a few times. You talk with them as equals. You remind them that they know more about their own society than you do, and welcome their ideas. You act like what you are – a guest, and not some zealot missionary there to spread light and truth amid darkness and lies.

This is all to show the government that…you are not one of the very many advocating the destruction of their society and culture.

If you cannot understand why Cuba would be vigilant in this respect, you are not smart enough to be permitted to report from here and I hope your visa request is denied!

If you say “such governmental oversight proves the press is not free”, I encourage you do just a bit of research to find out how Iran’s Press TV, to give one example, has been banned, hounded and subverted in places like France, the UK and the US.

There is a crucial difference here: I don’t ever recall Cuba claiming to be a beacon of free press. I have heard the same false claims from the three Western countries just mentioned.

Bottom line: The Cuban Center for International Press was only helpful in my work, and never once did they do anything which I considered remotely infringing on my press freedom.

They permitted me access wherever I wanted to go, helped find me appropriate analysts, and if I had more time here they would have been even more help. They did not redact anything, nor did they have the chance to as they never even asked to see my final products – my work was published without any oversight from the Cuban government whatsoever.

What did I learn from 1 month reporting in Cuba?

If you only read one paragraph, read this:

I talked to dozens of people here, maybe over 100, and from all ages and backgrounds: What seems rock-solid to me is that Cuba is not changing, post-Fidel. He gave up power 9 years ago anyway, so there is no huge sea change due to his death, just a profound sadness for a national hero. I repeat – if you think Cuba is an island adrift, come visit and talk to the people.

Let’s make one key idea clear: The Cuban Revolution is clearly supported en masse.

Their wrong hypothesis is: That the Cuban Revolution was the work of just one exceptional man, Fidel, instead of the combined, sustained efforts of millions of people.

My hypothesis: Not one but two generations have grown up under a total Blockade, so how could they not support the Revolution? Who could go without so long under the gun of a blockade, being deprived of so many basic opportunities, and not be converted? They have no illusions here that the US can or should be trusted; they are committed to independence, anti-imperialism and solidarity with and for all.

This is the main point I take away from Cuba: The Cuban Blockade is an absolute crime against this noble, modern culture.

If you had to rank it, you could place slightly behind the Nazi genocide against Jews, and the Israeli genocide against Palestinians. But the Cubans justifiably call the blockade “The longest genocide in history”. Are not all three the attempt to kill an entire people and destroy an entire culture? This is exactly what is going against Cuba.

Let’s dispense with another idea: The Cuban government/Communist Party also has widespread support because Cuba has been able to do so much despite such total aggression.

Gaping tourists appear slightly more idiotic in Cuba than elsewhere, because the lack of infrastructure is a surprise. This is a poor country, and that is obvious everywhere.

This country is so impoverished that there should be widespread famine – there isn’t, as the people appear very robust. There should be widespread begging in Havana – there is literally none, save one or two drunks. They should be illiterate and jobless and sick – they aren’t.

The lack of these things amid such poverty perfectly explains why Communist Party has justifiably earned the support of the people.

And I could go on here about how Cuba’s system is, in fact, democratic, with popular votes, easy access to candidature, bans on election campaigning, mechanisms for recall, etc., but this is not a dissection of Cuba’s system of communist democracy, which is not at all a contradiction. It is, however, all there in black and white and in the law for those who want to learn more about it.

Anyway, we need space to discuss the fact that one need not even confuse the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban government: to do so is an attempt to construct a strawman argument, and this is precisely what anti-Cuban or anti-Castro forces do (and all they do).

Recall that I am coming from a place where the president has a 4% approval rating, and where his policies are so unpopular, so undemocratic, that he cannot even stand for re-election. This only confirms my thesis that nobody actually likes their government anywhere in the world and that complaining about any and every government is as natural a pastime as talking about the weather.

But despite all the people who hate Donald Trump, does anyone in the US really push for overturning the American Revolution of 1776? Of course not – it is the same here: You can be pro-revolution and anti-government without contradiction, if you insist.

If you are anti-Cuban government as well as anti-Cuban Revolution…you are just a reactionary fascist. The Cuban Revolution, undoubtedly, restored power, land and life to the people. It ended tyranny and foreign domination.

Now, if you do not realize that you should support the Cuban people’s popular choice of government in order to also give much-needed support their Revolution…well, then you are just an average Western fake leftist.

Yes, nobody here every told me that the Cuban government was the most effective, efficient group of men and women who levied taxes and monopolized the use of force, but you’ll never hear that anywhere. If you are looking for such “insights”, I suggest tuning into Washington-funded propaganda outlet Radio and TV Marti.

A government working amid the US-led Blockade genocide

Just as Sartre said that to understand communism must one first embrace its ideals, to truly understand the Cuban government (and by extension Cuban culture) one must first embrace the idea that they have provided food, health, education and security despite the orchestration of a trans-national blockade for nearly 60 years.

And what is the Blockade? Firstly, it is not what the US claims it is – simply a bilateral “embargo”. The US ruthlessly persecutes any nation which tries to do business or even aid Cuba.

It should be stunning to find out that any ship which docks in Cuba cannot dock in the US for 6 months. Cuba is an island nation, after all, hugely reliant on maritime shipping. But how many shipping companies can afford to bypass the world’s largest market just 100 kilometers away in order to work with Cuba?

The Blockade bans any 3rd party from importing products with Cuban sugar or nickel, their only natural resource. The Blockade bans half of all new, world-class drugs, causing innumerable deaths.

Cuba is locked out of the international banking system, crippling their ability to buy and sell goods.

The US even obstructs charitable donations!

This is total war against Cuba, given that invasion already failed at the Bay of Pigs.

The Cuban government deserves an incredible amount of accolades for providing the equal standard of living that they currently have.

Perhaps I am especially sensitive to all this as I am an Iranian citizen – I thought the US sanctions on our country were bad, but Cuba is another level. Iran benefits from increased distance from the US, 6 times more people, and plenty of oil, but innumerable Iranians have died due to the same lack of medication, modern technology and other aggressions against our popular, democratic revolution.

Iran’s development has skyrocketed since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, but even if you could import 10,000 Macintosh computers to Cuba you would find very few buyers because there is simply no money on the island.

It’s not just Cuban cars which are stuck in a time warp: Seemingly everything here dates from 1959, and that’s the new stuff!

That’s what happens after 6 decades of being unable to sell goods; 6 decades of having foreign investors scared off by the United States.

This is what the Communist Party has been up against for so intolerably long, and yet they still lead the hemisphere in many respects.

Obama apologists will point to Cuba as a success – don’t believe it

Opening an embassy was not gutting the Blockade, which he could have via executive order. Full stop. Obama apologists lose, alongside 11 million innocent Cubans. Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.

He also waited too long to even try – less than $400 million in goods have been exported to Cuba since 2014 – and now there are no “economic realities on the ground” which could prevent Trump from reversing everything, as he has promised.

Yeah I’m sure Cuba did go slow, but the dangerous of immediate US economic domination should be obvious. They also largely insist on productive joint ventures, not typical capitalist exploitation.

Exports to Cuba (mostly food) have actually fallen since restrictions were “eased”, and yet less food for Cuba is somehow a success?

Obama had a ton of executive power at his disposal and his main contribution will be to simply reopen communication, but there should be no doubt that he also strengthened the genocide.Even after restoring relations in 2014 his administration levied billions in fines against French and German companies for “blockade violations”.

The message was clear: there is no thaw in relations, and Cuba stays under our thumb.

Obama did not end subversive US programs, bans on imports and exports, a little torture chamber called Guantanamo on Cuban soil which he promised to close and didn’t – all could have been ended by executive order.

At the 11th hour Obama has just repealed the preferential “wet foot/dry foot” immigration policy. Kudos, better late than never. But by waiting so long he added to the US “brain drain” of Cuba for 7 years, 11 months and 51 weeks – he squeezed the most he could out them, I guess.

Try as his apologists might, Obama cannot be transformed into a leftist, because any clear-eyed analysis shows he’s not even a centrist. As is typical of his entire presidency he only represented a change in form and color, not a change in US tactics.

I was able to console Cubans with, “Iranians say the same thing”: They don’t report any changes following a so-called “historic thaw in relations”.

Getting started is always the most difficult, but going from 0 to 1 on a scale of 10 is not a major advance nor worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

In fact Obama just added 10 more years of sanctions against Iran, and he did it in his typical “form over substance” method: He didn’t sign the bill, but he allowed it to pass. This is the same thing but now he has plausible deniability.

Now his apologists can say that the sanctions are only the result of an “obstinate Congress”. It’s best to remember that it was assumed he would sign the bill, but this change of tactic was a surprise.

One step forward, 11 steps back, look good doing it, stress racial/identity politics – peaked on election night 2008, no doubt. No wonder many in Cuba support Trump, even though the Donald really only talked tough against Iran and Cuba.

I had so many stories left to do!

3,500 Cubans killed by Miami-based terrorists and not 1 American by Cuban revolutionaries; the occupation of Guantanamo Bay (the only far-right in Cuba, LOL); who will the US seek to assassinate now that Fidel has passed from natural causes; Raul is stepping down next year after two 5-year terms, what’s his legacy; who is Miguel Diaz-Canal, the 55-year old engineer tipped to become the new Communist Party leader; and much more!

But I am glad to have made my small reports. It is too bad that capitalism and imperialist forces dominate the West so thoroughly that pro-Cuban reports – i.e. reporting what the majority of Cuban people believe – are such an outlier in the English language; it’s too bad that so many English-language journalists are so heavily-indoctrinated that they look askance at any report which isn’t “balancing” the Blockade with accusations of tyranny and dictatorship.

I doubt I have made many friends in the Little Havana area of Miami – that’s no problem, because I don’t expect a warm reception in the Iranian-exile dominated area of Beverly Hills, either.

But enough about me and more about Cuba!

And this where Cuba deserves some criticism: They are failing terribly in the information war.

They have not realized that Cuba needs an international media presence like Iran’s Press TV, Venezuela’s TeleSUR and Russia’s RT/Sputnik.

In a place where technological development has been so forcibly retarded, I hypothesize that Cuba simply doesn’t realize that the Internet means that Cuba can finally broadcast their own story to the world; no longer is the world dominated by AP, Reuters and the New York Times.

Yes, such a media costs money, and Cuba is rightly focused on providing for the basic needs of their own people, but I know the world’s leftists are starving for information about Cuba, that Cuba has so many amazing stories to tell and that Cuba has so many fascinating programs to reveal.

Cuba is certainly the leftist leader of the Western Hemisphere – their history of resistance, geographic location and modern culture also makes them a global leftist leader. They need an international media which reflects that, for the good of international leftism. Granma is, after all, just 8 pages long.

Cuba is undoubtedly has a third-world economy – and that’s an unforgiveable crime created by the Blockade – but it is undoubtedly a first-world culture.

I leave Havana convinced that post-Fidel Cuba will not be regressing, and will remain an amazing place for so many of the right leftist reasons.


One final note of interest I’d like to include:

As the longtime correspondent of Iran’s Press TV in France I take a special interest in Muslims – if I don’t cover the bottom of France’s social pyramid, who will? There are only 10,000 Muslims in Cuba, but I visited Havana’s main mosque and not one person said they had ever encountered governmental or even societal discrimination due to their religious belief. One person said he converted 13 years ago and had never heard any Muslim make such a complaint.

This is the exact opposite of what Muslims report in France, as well as much of supposedly “tolerant” Europe.

Of course, the idea that Cuba is anti-religion has been outdated for 2 decades – John Paul II was here in 1998. It’s only promoted by establishment media because it’s another form of anti-Communist propaganda.

Banning religion has clearly not been a long-term success for Communism anywhere, and Cuba recognized that and changed.

Yes, some hugely annoying (and US-based) evangelistic groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been banned, but perhaps they should consider not knocking on everyone’s door to aggressively convert people. When I lived in Gary, Indiana, they disturbed my Saturday morning too many times to count.

I’m not condoning religious oppression and I didn’t care to dig that deep into it, but I was reminded that seemingly every society has some religion that gets oppressed: Scientologists are harassed in Germany (even though I doubt many even know what its tenets are – I don’t), the US killed 82 Seventh-Day Adventists at Waco, Texas, Muslims are attacked in Burma, Jews are targeted for attacks in France, and the list goes on.

The biggest religion in Cuba may be Santeria – a distinctly Cuban-African mix. I visited the homes of White/Aboriginal people who put up elaborate altars to this West African religion, with pictures of Jesus and some Catholic saints added in. It’s pretty telling about the open-mindedness of Cuban culture that non-Blacks have widely embraced a religion which started among the Yoruba of today’s Nigeria.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

Don’t Israel my Facebook

Actually forget FB,  move to  NOW!


Germany’s Only Independent Newspaper Says Germany’s Gov’t. Is Controlled by US Gov’t

Germany’s Only Independent Newspaper Says Germany's Gov’t. Is Controlled by US Gov’t

ERIC ZUESSE | 04.01.2017 |

Germany’s Only Independent Newspaper Says Germany’s Gov’t. Is Controlled by US Gov’t

Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN), or German Economic News — an online daily news service for Germans, which has vigorously fought against the U.S. CIA’s longstanding (and now intensifying control over Germany’s ‘news’ media, and which has also helped to promote a book by an editor for the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung who publicly exposed and denounced his previous subordination to the CIA, and who is now being blackballed by Germany’s ’news’media for reporting such things — is finally going behind a pay-wall to sustain its independence, and alleges that the reason for doing this is that financial pressures from the Establishment’s ’news’media require that this be done, or else DWN will be forced to shut down service altogether.

Germany, as an outpost of the U.S. Empire, has its ‘news’media seeking to crush ‘fake news’, just as is the case inside the Empire’s center — the U.S.

Here is the announcement, translated by me:


German Radio Defames DWN: Please support us!

German Economic News  |  Released:29.12.16 01:08 Clock

The Deutschlandradio has tried to defame the DWN — with a smooth counterfeit. Please support the independence of DWN with a subscription.

Dear readers,

From now on, three articles of the German Economic News are free to read other articles only after completing a subscription of 7.99 € [currently around $8] per month [or else $80/year]. You do not enter into any obligation, the subscription can be terminated at any time.

The first successes in the subscription show us that you, dear readers, want to support us: We have immediately won our first sponsors. Numerous readers even support us with donations, which are clearly above the subscription price. We would like to thank you very much!

This action is necessary because the German media market is distorted by the massive presence of public service broadcasters. The broadcasters have an annual budget of € 8 billion from a taxpayer-funded budget. The DWN recently had to take note of the fact that broadcasting fees are not only used for the [German Radio’s] program [service], but also for the denunciation of other media. In an article in which German Radio has uncritically reported the boycott call by an employee of Scholz & Friends on numerous websites, German Radio denounced the DWN — in however an unusually clumsy way: The German Radio has quite boldly falsified a quotation, to defame DWN. In response, we have proceeded legally and have sought a preliminary injunction from the Landgericht Berlin, against German Radio, on pain of a fine of up to 250,000.00 Euro, to prohibit [their] continuing to spread the hoax.

The situation is grotesque: money from their broadcasting is used to falsify quotations. This type of action by a public broadcaster, against DWN, in connection with a report on the advertising industry is potentially threatening.

The situation is critical because Facebook is rapidly breaking the economic base of critical and independent media. US platforms such as Facebook and Google have largely overriden the classic advertising model. This has several reasons.

The US corporations are already making the most of the growth in online advertising. Facebook and Google do not know any separation between advertising and editorial content. Due to their inscrutable system of «algorithms», they are unrestrainedly able to manipulate their readers, and to offer themselves to many commercial and politically interested parties as an «advertising platform». This benefits many companies: they can hide their advertising messages in seemingly unsuspicious postings, or can manipulate themselves in Google search results. The public broadcasters also make massive use of this. In practice, this means that broadcasting fees from Germany go to US corporations, so that the public-law media [German-government media] in the search results stand above the independent media [which consequently suffer greatly].

Another trend is that purchased media are directly competing with the purely journalistic media. The advertising agency WPP has been registered with the US magazine vice. This allows WPP to redirect its advertisers to their own «product». WPP, on the other hand, is the parent company of the advertising agency Scholz & Friends — the agency has been discredited in recent days because one of its employees denounced critical websites such as those of Henryk Broder or Roland Tichy. Broder has reportedly lost significant ad sales.

The business model of many [such] alternative media is out of the question for DWN: they finance themselves by selling texts as promotional measures for books, magazines, events or political activism. Many NGOs [‘non-profits’] also seem to be making journalistic offers to promote their core business — political campaigns [propaganda].

Twitter, Facebook and Google offer all sorts of possibilities for disinformation and manipulation: secret services, lobbyists, parties, corporations, associations, states and speculators run accounts that appear to be informative, but actually serve bare manipulation. This model also destroys the classic advertising model, because it is now easy for a company to create the field for commercial interests via a seemingly «journalistic» channel.

This development has led to a dramatic decline in online advertising across all critical-journalistic products. It is cheaper and more efficient for advertisers to address their audience through covert channels.

All these circumstances are presented by the media — and it is not just the question of DWN — about the central question: Is there a demand for our offer? We openly address this issue to you, dear readers: You are the only public who really have an interest in a prosperous future of DWN — specifically as a medium that reports critically and completely independently. Against the backdrop of the above-mentioned presence of PR, spin-doctors and disinformation, critical and independent reporting has become even more complex: all important documents in the financial sector are in English. Most EU papers are in EU-English. It is only possible to report on the Syrian War if one can read Arabic and Turkish sources in the original. For a well-founded Europe coverage, one has to master 27 languages —and not just that: you must have a team that is familiar with the political and cultural context of these countries in order to correctly classify what the linguistic messages really mean.

These costs usually arise in areas where there is neither advertising nor political support: Who wants to pay for research and articles on geopolitics, central banks, raw materials, war, corruption, deception and manipulation? The core business of DWN is exactly these issues at the interface between business and politics. We do not deal with any problem-free [safe, uncontroversial] subjects.

We want to be quite open at this point: Only you, dear readers, can secure the future of DWN. It is a sort of publicist referendum to which we submit: We ask you if the DWN is worth 7.99 € per month. The result is open. It is in the nature of the market economy that it is not our discretion to accept the result of this referendum or not. If there are not enough subscribers, then there is also no market for the DWN. However, if enough readers hold the DWN for an important voice in Germany, put us in the position to forcefully raise this voice with your subscription. A democracy needs free and incorruptible media. There is no alternative.

We sincerely request your support.

The editorial office

USA Govt., chief purveyor of #fakenews, passes Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal

Obama Signs Christmas Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal


Study the history of Bolshevik USSR & you see the future for the USA, unless changes are made

Crackdown on free speech in the USA, the new USSR?

Under Zionism the USA becomes the new USSR, filming police actions to be illegal

USA the new USSR, Police State Violence Behind Ferguson Protests

USA the new USSR, Obama Administration Increasing Censorship rather than Increasing Transparency

USA the new USSR, Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.

USA rapidly turning into a new USSR

The USA is becoming the new USSR, complete with public surveillance, censorship and gulags

Obama signs bill making alternative media illegal

President Obama has just quietly signed into law a bill that makes it illegal to run an alternative media website in the U.S.

On Friday, just two days before Christmas, Obama signed the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017” bill into law. reports:

This bill will “Criminalize ‘Fake News, Propaganda’ on the Web,” a key piece of legislation meant to crack down on free speech and independent media. In Layman’s terms, the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda.” The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.

The “right to free speech and freedom of the press,” is guaranteed by the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution. It is a foundation of American values, put in place by our Founding Fathers to protect our liberties, is now being endangered by this new law.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.” – John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Bowdoin (1780). Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is not the first time that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was used to disguise a piece of legislation. Back in 2012, Obama signed a law that allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens” without a judge or jury. Then in 2013, Obama signed an NDAA bill that packaged an end to the Smith-Mundit act that prevented the government from using propaganda against its own citizens enabling the government again to legally produce propaganda.

What does that mean for you if you are an independent journalist or blogger? You can read more here, but it means that for simply writing this and asking questions and pointing out that Obama always signs these bills around the holidays like I did in this poem, if I am accused of “fake news” or propaganda, I could face criminal charges.

In other words the stage is now set for the U.S. government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the they deem to be “foreign propaganda.” The ministry of truth is setup. Welcome to 1984.

In a statement, Obama said that:

Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Israeli Art

December 14, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Israeli art students who produced this image is now subject to police investigation…


The Whole World is Looking for an Alternative

Darko Lazar

If one is to believe western neoliberals and their media outlets, the world is flooded with Putin’s agents. They are everywhere – in the media, in the parliaments of several countries, and one of them is about to move into the White House.

The Whole World is Looking for an Alternative

Listening to this paranoid rhetoric, one almost gets the impression that Russia is gearing up to destroy the planet. This is perhaps the only excuse that the European Parliament has for equating the Russian media to head-chopping terrorists in its non-legislative resolution, which calls for the EU to “respond to information warfare by Russia.”

MEPs in Strasbourg declared Russia Today and the Sputnik news agency as being among the most dangerous “tools” of “hostile propaganda,” in a move that marks another step towards restricting Russian journalists from reporting in the west.

The defeated are stronger than ever

The resolution passed in Strasbourg was not the result of Russian media breaking any laws. It was passed because the Russian media committed the ultimate sin – it dared to disagree with the ‘democratic’ picture of a unipolar world, which is promoted by CNN, the BBC, Deutsche Welle and many others.

Since appearing on the international arena these ‘evil’ Russian media outlets produced a very different picture – one where the ‘good guys’ were not all that good. And in just under a decade, RT and Sputnik have managed to break the western monopoly on information, garnering an estimated billion followers worldwide.

In order to counter the Kremlin effect, the west created ‘Putin’s agents’.

Anyone who appeared on RT was automatically placed into this category, while those who dared to advocate cooperation with Moscow were simply accused of hating ‘western values’.

Years earlier, when relations between the west and Moscow began to sour, the Russian president had attributed this trend to “competition”.

The western world was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the pace of Russia’s development, as well as the Kremlin’s changing attitude, which demanded that its global status equal its economic and military strength.

For the self-declared victors of the Cold War, such requests were unacceptable. After all, they didn’t spend the last few decades celebrating a victory just to realize that those they defeated are stronger than ever and are actually imposing their own demands. How dare the Russians raise their heads now, when the corporate profits are so sweet and democracy is spreading around the globe faster than ever before?

Western fantasies

Outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry was among the first western officials to rebel against Russian media. In 2014, Kerry attacked RT over its coverage in Ukraine, saying that the channel had, “been deployed to promote President Putin’s fantasy about what is playing out on the ground”.

In early 2015, Washington’s top diplomat cited RT’s influence, asking US lawmakers for more money for propaganda and “democracy promotion” programs around the world.

“Russia Today can be heard in English; do we have an equivalent that can be heard in Russian? It’s a pretty expensive proposition. They are spending huge amounts of money,” Kerry told the House Appropriations Subcommittee, apparently forgetting that Voice of America has been broadcasting in Russian since 1947.But western news sources have long since lost their credibility, mainly due to their bias and for openly towing the establishment’s line. The west failed to alter people’s perceptions by lamenting about how state-sponsored RT is no better. Resolutions in the European Parliament and the US Congress have not helped much either. The world has gotten a good dose of Washington’s point of view and is now looking for an alternative.

And this brings us to today’s new political reality. If the outcome of the US presidential election is anything to go by, then a wave of similar changes should be expected across Europe. Alternative political movements have already matured in a long list of European states including Bulgaria, Macedonia, Moldova, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic, France and the UK.

It is worth noting that a shift towards conservatism may not necessarily translate into better relations with Moscow, but it is becoming more apparent that this movement goes hand-in-hand with a more pragmatic approach to both foreign and domestic policy issues.

The role of the Russian media in bringing about these changes should not be exaggerated, although RT and Sputnik certainly played a part. Many people across Europe have simply come to terms with the fact that the fall of the Berlin Wall resulted in enslavement rather than freedom, and instead of communism, they are now being governed by multinational capital masking as a democracy.

Fewer naive people across Western Europe

Unlike during the first Cold War, today the Russians are not just communists. They are also aggressive imperialists who advocate ‘backward’ traditional values. This western media narrative has been relatively well-received in some parts of Eastern Europe, but in the western part of the continent, fewer people have turned out to be so naive.

Thus, the mainstream media has been forced to employ drastic measures, warning of imminent Russian aggression, as NATO deployed tanks and rockets along Russia’s western border. Meanwhile, a German children’s radio station launched a campaign, promoting Angela Merkel as the only person who can save the world from Russian aggression. Baltic states have been turned into NATO bases, and are constantly playing US-organized war games, while urging their citizens to stock up on supplies, including sugar and matches. Brochures warning of a Russian invasion are most commonly distributed to women and children in schools.

In France, too, Putin has apparently cast his shadow over the Élysée Palace, following the outcome of the country’s first-ever conservative presidential primary, in which François Fillon emerged as the winner. Fillon, who held nine high-ranking government positions since 1992, is better known – much like Donald Trump – for being ‘Putin’s agent’. As such, the French electorate will likely have a choice between two Putin ‘agents’ during the final round of voting, since the leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, acquired the label several years ago.

Interestingly, being labeled as a ‘Putinist’ appears to have helped Fillon in securing nearly 70% of the vote. As such, European politicians may already be arriving at the conclusion that towing the Kremlin line gets you a lot of votes these days. It is becoming increasingly clear that people in the west are gladly voting for Putin’s agents in spite of the anti-Russian propaganda – and maybe thanks to it.

Source: Al-Ahed News

03-12-2016 | 10:22

%d bloggers like this: