How Zionist Israel is Robbing America Blind! (video)

 

The fact that America is funding Israeli expansionism is not new, however, in this must watch episode Jake Morphonios delves into the scale of that broad daylight plunder of Americans’ taxpayers’ money. I highly advise Americans and everyone else to watch to this superb work of investigative journalism:

Blackstone Intelligence Network writes:

“It doesn’t matter if you are a hard-working American. YOU are not entitled to keep your own income. YOU are a cash cow for the Zionist state of Israel. America’s labor force is Israel’s Golden Goose. And I am going to show you the financial statistics to prove it.”

 

Advertisements

Gordon Thomas on Robert Maxwell/Mossad espionage project in the USA and beyond

 

As time goes by it seems as if Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was just the tip of the iceberg. America has been riddled and infiltrated by Israeli spies at the highest possible level for decades. You must listen to this interview with Gordon Thomas:

Watch the extended interview:

Conspiracy Theories From the Elders of Zion to Epstein’s Youngsters

elders to younger.jpg

Following Jeffery Epstein’s alleged suicide last week we have been deluged by a tsunami of narratives that do not adhere to the shifting official reports of his death. Presumably a few of the intimate secrets of the most powerful people on this planet will be buried with Epstein. While it is rational to believe that people powerful enough to impoverish continents or launch world wars that kill tens of millions could easily arrange the death of a single registered sex criminal in a NY prison cell, anyone who advanced such a scenario, however plausible, was immediately denounced as a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ 

https://youtu.be/eQmfd-KSJSQ

‘Conspiracy theory’ is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs from their reporting of the official line.  What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical musings?

The labelling of a theory as ‘conspiratorial’ is an attempt to discredit its author/authors and deny its validity. A ‘conspiracy theory’ usually involves an explanatory thesis that points to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party.  The term ‘conspiracy theory’ has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.

Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed to academic or scientific reasoning.

But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn’t just ‘conspiracy theories’ that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can’t be scientifically falsified or validated.  Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx’s ‘scientific’ predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred.  I have personally never come across anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as ‘conspiracy theorists.’  ‘Resisting falsification’ and “reinforced by circular reasoning,” are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only to ‘conspiracy theories.’

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as “the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event”.

The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by influential parties.

The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and explanatory than the official competing narratives.  Such theories have a tendency to ascribe blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news outlets and even by the current American president.  It is possible that the rapid rise in popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.

The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide is illustrative. The official narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.

The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called ‘conspiracy theories’? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be ‘free’ is threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?

In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of ‘conspiracy theories’ per se.  You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a ‘climate change denier.’  You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free to speculate about Kennedy’s assassination as long as you don’t mention the Mossad.  You can even survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however, the suggestion that ‘Israel did 911’ will  get you into serious trouble. Examining ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as a fictional, however prophetic, piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler’s agreement with the Zionist agency will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused of being at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .

I suspect that one is allowed to deviate from the official narrative and speculate on hidden plots on any given topic except probably the Jewish related ones.

This is where things become complicated because there are no Jewish conspiracies, all is done in the open.  Israel, Zionism, Jewish institutions and individuals operate in the public eye and don’t conceal their actions.  AIPAC doesn’t attempt to hide its agenda nor do America’s elected politicians make an effort to cover their shameless capitulation at AIPAC conferences. Labour Friends of Israel is acting against  the Labour party and its democratically elected leader is mainstream news. The Israeli jets that attacked the USS Liberty on 8 June 1967 were decorated with Jewish symbols. Jeffery Epstein didn’t disguise his ‘Pedophile Island’. He operated in the open. I am afraid that there is not much evidence of Jewish conspiracies. But there is plenty of evidence of institutional suppression of any attempt to discuss any of this. AIPAC’s agenda is openly avowed, criticising its agenda is strictly forbidden. The same applies to other Israel Lobby activity, Israeli war crimes and even crimes committed by Jewish individuals. Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress discussion of Jewish power.

For obvious reasons Jews are alarmed by theories that focus on their politics, culture, religion, folklore etc. It seems that Jewish bodies have been sufficiently forceful to silence most attempts to criticise Jewish and Israeli politics. That leads to the question of why Jews, Zionism, Judaism and Jewishness are so often the subject of conspiratorial theories. Is it that anti Semitic prejudice again or is there perhaps something about Jewish ideology, culture and politics that invites such theories?  It is worth consulting Jesse Walker’s The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory. According to Walker there are five kinds of conspiracy theories:

  • The “Enemy Outside” refers to theories based on figures alleged to be scheming against a community from without.

  • The “Enemy Within” finds conspirators lurking inside the nation, indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.

  • The “Enemy Above” involves powerful people manipulating events for their own gain.

  • The “Enemy Below” features the lower classes working to overturn the social order.

  • The “Benevolent Conspiracies” are angelic forces that work behind the scenes to improve the world and help people.

It is fairly easy to figure out that each of Walker’s conspiracy types describes an openly manifested aspect of Jewish politics, culture or religion.

The  ‘Enemy Outside’ could be a legitimate American patriotic/nationalist reaction to foreign domination of American foreign policy. This kind of argument is supported by well-researched academic studies such as that of Mearshehimer and Walt as well as that of James Petras who studied the Israel Lobby and its impact.  Such hostile foreign domination has been explored by various media outlets including Al Jazeera’s exposé of the Israel Lobby in both Britain and the USA. The current American administration and its biased policy in favour of Israeli positions gives credence to those who see Israel as the ‘enemy outside.’ Yet, none of the above has ‘conspired’ behind the scenes. All is done in the open. You just can’t discuss it in the open.

The ‘Enemy Within’ could easily point at  the intensive work of Israel advocates, Jewish  Lobbies (AIPAC, J Street, etc.) and Israeli stooges within American politics  and other Western countries (Britain, France etc). Similarly, those who uphold deep Christian values may identify Jewish progressive elements  as the enemy of their conservative life style. The same applies to anti immigration advocates who see Jewish pro immigration supporters as their enemies from within. The prominent role of Kushner and his proximity to the president doesn’t help gainsay doubts about the so called ‘enemy within.’  But the Jewish Lobby in America is loud and provocative and Jewish  progressive and pro immigration supporters are at least as loud. Kushner doesn’t hide his affiliation with Chabbad or his Zionist sympathies.  There is no hidden plot, yet, you can’t discuss this openly.

The ‘Enemy Above’ is an apt description of Epstein’s close orbit and its high connectivity within the world’s ruling classes. And, as we know, Epstein didn’t bother to conceal his operation. Calling his Boeing 727 the Lolita Express was little short of titling his private fleet ‘Pedo Air’ or  ‘United PedoLines.’  Bernie Madoff falls within the same rubric. The man who was at one point NASDAQ’s Chairman, didn’t work that hard to disguise his Ponzi scheme, in fact Madoff admitted that he was surprised by law enforcement’s failure to uncover his crimes.  Some might regard George Soros as a prototype of the ‘enemy above.’ Soros is a Jewish billionaire who uses his wealth to fund identiterian causes and social changes that are not exactly welcomed by the conservative/nationalist crowd. Again, Soros doesn’t hide a thing. He does his funding through his Open Society Institute. Yet, for some reason, criticism of Soros’ agenda is frequently denounced as perpetuating ‘conspiracy theories’.

The ‘Enemy Below’ can be illustrated by Jewish involvement with revolutionary movements, human rights campaigns, the gender revolution, the feminist movement, LGBTQA  advocacy and so on. Again none of this occurs behind a curtain. Jews often boast of their prominent role in these liberal and humanitarian causes. But criticism of these movements, and especially their supporters, is pretty much forbidden.

‘Benevolent Conspiracies’ are demonstrated by Tikun Olam‘s philosophy: the idea that it is down to the Jews to ‘fix the world and reinstate its ethics.’ Those who refuse to ‘be fixed’ may well see Jewish elements at the core of a progressive cause and may see a malevolent dark force in such altruism.

Most ethnic or interest groups fit into only one or two of the types described by Walker’s  Conspiracy Theory Model, Jewish politics fit with them all. In the eyes of ardent bigoted European nationalists such as Tommy Robinson, Muslims immigrants represent an ‘Enemy Outside.’ Racists who hate Black people may see those with dark skin as the  ‘Enemy Within.’ Those who disapprove of Gays and their culture may find them to be the ‘enemy below.’ Still it is bizarre how easily Walker’s entire five conspiracy theory types can be found among Jewish politics, individuals, institutions, activist networks and campaigns.

How is it possible that one relatively small ethnic group manages to embody all the types of ‘conspiracy theories?’ In my recent book Being in Time, I argue that Jews tend to dominate the discourses that are relevant to their existence and interests. I refer to it as Jewish survival instinct. Jewish activists and intellectuals also tend to dominate the dissent to problematic symptoms associated with their group identity: Jews are often, for instance, associated with capitalism, banking and wealth in general, and Jews are also equated with Marxist and socialist opposition to capitalism, banking and wealth. Obviously, many Jews are associated with the Jewish State and the Zionist project but it is no secret that Leftist Jews also dominate the anti Zionist discourse and politics. Jews, at least in the eyes of some, are leading pro immigration advocates. But some of the most vocal anti immigration and anti Muslim campaigners are also Jewish. In Being in Time I argue that the fact that Jews dominate both polls of pretty much every topic relevant to their existence isn’t necessarily ‘conspiratorial.’ It is only natural for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street. It is also natural based on their history, for Jews as a group to simultaneously oppose and support immigration. Natural as it may be, the presence of Jews in key ideological, political, cultural and financial  positions is undeniable. It is more than likely that their domination on both sides of so many crucial political debates invites conspiratorial thoughts.

Jewish economist Murray Rothbard  contrasts “deep” conspiracy theories with “shallow” ones. According to Rothbard, a shallow theorist observes an event and asks, who benefits? He or she then jumps to the conclusion that the posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly influencing events. Under this theory, Israel benefiting from the events of 9/11 made it into a prime suspect.  This is often a completely legitimate strategy and is exactly how detective and investigative researchers operate. In order to identify the culprit, they may well ask who would benefit from the crime. Of course this is only a first step towards substantiation.

According to Rothbard the “deep” conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out evidence.  Rothbard describes deep conspiracy theory as the result of confirming whether certain facts actual fit one’s initial ‘paranoia.’ This explanation pretty much describes a lot of how science works.  Any given scientific theory defines the realm of facts that may support or refute its validity.  Science is a deductive reasoning process, so that in science, it is the theory that defines the relevance of the evidence. Would Rothbard describe Newtonian physics as ‘deeply conspiratorial’? I doubt it. My guess is that, bearing Rothbard in mind, attributing a ‘conspiratorial nature’ to a theory is an attempt the deny the relevance of the evidence it brings to light.  If for instance, the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent is ‘conspiratorial,’ then the facts that he was a business partner of Ehud Barak and involved in a company that uses Israeli military intelligence tactics become irrelevant. The same applies to former Federal Prosecutor Alex Acosta’s admission that Epstein belonged to intelligence  and that was why he was the beneficiary of a laughable plea deal. If, for example, the theory that it was the Jews who led the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is ‘conspiratorial,’ then the facts regarding the demography that led the revolution and its criminal nature are of no consequence. The labelling of a theory as conspiratorial is an attempt to erase uncomfortable evidence by reprioritising the relevance of certain facts.

It seems that Rothbard and others have failed to produce categorical criteria to identify or define Conspiracy Theories. We may have to accept that as of now, there is no categorical standard to define a conspiracy theory. We may have to learn to live with the fact that some theories are superior; simpler and more elegant than others. We will have to accept that some of these theories make a few people pretty uncomfortable and they will explore every avenue to discredit such theories and their authors. Attributing a conspiratorial nature to an explanatory theory is just one of these methods.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

Paul Findley: A Man of Courage

Global Research, August 14, 2019

Paul Findley one of the most remarkable Congressmen that the US House of Representatives had produced since the Second World War passed away on the 9th of August 2019. He was 98 years old. He was first elected to Congress in 1960 from a district in Illinois once represented by Abraham Lincoln, his immortal hero.  Findley was elected 11 times from that constituency until his defeat in 1982.

As a Congressman, he played a significant role in the formulation of the War Powers Act which required the US president to notify Congress of foreign military engagements. He was also critical of wasteful pentagon spending. He was one of a handful of early legislators who opposed the Vietnam War.

But Findley’s “notoriety” is associated with something else. He was a consistent critic of the influence of the Israel Lobby over Congress. He could see how the Lobby shaped US policies especially in West Asia. He was very much aware of the tactics the Lobby employed to silence anyone who questioned even mildly the biasness of the US position in the Israel-Palestine/ Arab conflict.

Findley himself was a victim of the Lobby’s vicious targeting. Because of his concern over the conflict he had visited the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, who was then regarded by the US government as a “terrorist.” That visit became cannon-fodder for the Israel Lobby to mount a massive campaign against Findley which was one of the main reasons for his defeat in the 1982 Congressional election.

Following his defeat, he wrote a couple of books about the power of the Lobby in US public life and how institutions and individuals were confronting the Lobby. They Dare to Speak Out had a bigger impact outside the US than within. His next book, Deliberate Deceptions, revealed the nexus between US and Israel forged through money, corporate links and personal relationships. Findley was now perceived by the US Establishment as a staunch opponent of Israeli power over the US.

His explorations into Israeli and Zionist power in the US invariably compelled him to look into how that power determined public perceptions of Islam and Muslims in general. His tentative perspective on the issue received a boost when he was invited to participate in a workshop in Penang, Malaysia on perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the Western media organised by JUST in October 1995. That workshop, as Findley had observed many times since changed his outlook on not only Islam but also the West’s relationship with a civilization which often invoked negative sentiments especially among the ‘educated.’ He began to realise that the roots of the antagonism towards the religion and its followers were deeply embedded in the West’s history and entangled with the crusades and colonialism  and post-colonial structures of global power and dominance.

On his return he produced a Friendly Note on his Muslim Neighbour which was widely circulated and later authored a book entitled Silent No More that sought to demolish America’s false images of Islam and Muslims. The book sold 60,000 copies.

As Findley’s mission to combat ignorance about, and prejudice against, another civilisation was beginning to make some progress, it suffered a severe setback through two major events at the start of the new century. Both the destruction of the twin towers in New York on the 11th of September 2001 — the infamous 9-11 incident — which was the rationale for the US helmed ‘War on Terror’ and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March 2003 made bridge-building between Christians and Muslims a monumental challenge. Nonetheless, Findley persevered. He continued to lend support to the work of the Council on American—Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such causes.

His last correspondence with me was in January 2016. He had written an article for the JUST Commentary January 20, 2016 entitled, “Truth Seeking About Islam.”  He lamented that his eye-sight was failing — though his spirit was still high.

Findley was a man of extraordinary courage. The positions he adopted on Israeli power or on Palestinian rights or on justice for Muslims in the US incurred the wrath of many. He was often isolated and marginalised. But he never abandoned his principles.

The tenacity with which he adhered to them was what made him a man of integrity and dignity. He knew the price would be heavy.  But it was a price he was prepared to pay.

It is this — his moral conduct in the face of adversity — that will be his lasting legacy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Roth, Dylan and the Nobel Prize

Introduction by GA: The other day I found the following comment under my  Predators United article on unz.org. I am not in any position to validate or refute the explanation offered in regard to the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature to Bob Dylan. Whether the story offered here is truthful or not, it seems as if Jewish power (pressure, relentless lobbying, the obsession with anti-Semitism etc.) is gradually becoming a comic act.

nobel.png

schrub says:

I recently heard a rather revealing story about Phillip Roth.

In or 2015 or 2016 the committee that was to chose the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature came under intense pressure to award the prize to the then-ailing Roth since Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded after a recipient’s death. Besides the scheduled time had come to award a Jew the prize.

Committee members absolutely abhorred the idea of Roth getting the award. Several felt that he was merely an extremely parochial and increasingly bigoted Jewish writer rather than an American one. These committee members had so far refused to acquiesce to the pressure that had been mounting for over a decade on them from Jewish groups worldwide to award Roth the prize.

Charges then started being made that the only reason for the refusal to award Roth the prize was because of antisemitism. This charge made many the committee members panic because of the potential effect that this charge might have on their own social standing and careers. A quick solution was sought.

Committee members quickly decided that only the choice of another Jew as the prize winner could neutralize the charge made against them.

These committee members then started looking far and wide for a suitable Jewish substitute.

Initially, their efforts were unsuccessful. Some potential candidates were dismissed as either being lousy writers or too obscure. Others were dismissed because of their active or tacit support of Israeli government’s policies towards the Palestinians.

Oddly enough, others were similarly dismissed from consideration because of their often virulent opposition to Israel’s governmental policies. This was done because it was felt that such a choice could potentially start another controversy and potentially reignite the dangerous charges of antisemitism. A Nobel prize might also give the newly selected writer a platform popularize this or her “dangerous ” beliefs.

One of the committee members suddenly came up with an absolute brainstorm of a candidate in the form of Bob Dylan to be the eventual prize winner. True, he wasn’t really a writer in the conventional sense, just a songwriter. His abbreviated scribbling would never be confused with those of Shakespeare’s or even a Whitman’s.

He had two significant attributes however besides his Jewishness: he was well known and his beliefs regarding current Israeli government policies were unknown if in fact he had any at all.

In a word, he was ideal. After all, who in the younger generation even reads full-length books now.  Songsand songwriters like Dylan appeal more to younger people with their increasingly short, action game driven attention spans.

The Nobel Prize committee members were nervous about their choice of Dyaln. Would the public accept their rather bizarre choice.?

It turns out they had no reason to worry.

Leonard Cohen is probably now on the shortlist for a future Nobel prize in literature/song writing.

Americans Are Consigning Themselves to the Trash Bin of History

Related image

July 26, 2019

Paul Craig Roberts

Image result for paul craig roberts

The Democrats are even more insane than I thought.  The Trump-hater Nadler had a press conference with other Trump-hating Democrats and claimed, despite the absence of any evidence from Mueller, that Trump is a criminal.  Reassured by this certitude, the Democrats will continue their impeachment investigation, says Nadler.  

Among the most crazed elements of the Democrats, Mueller is no longer the hero. Mueller sold out to Trump in order to protect himself, as Trump was going to have Mueller assassinated if Mueller did not clear him.  This conspiracy theory comes from those who ridicule skeptics of the official 9/11 story and various of the school shootings. The dastardly Mueller, more concerned with protecting himself than with cleansing the government of the Trump evil, suppressed the evidence of Trump’s guilt in order to save his own ass.  

Image result for Americans Are Consigning Themselves to the Trash Bin of HistoryIn other words, the Democrats, deserted by their hero, cannot let go of the orchestration we call “Russiagate.”

It is enough to drive a person to despair that among the abundant evidence of American election interference, no attention is given by Democrats to interference by the Israel Lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, the oil lobby, the Wall Street Lobby, the military/security complex lobby.  Sheldon Adelson, a single individual with a fortune from casino gambling of $33 billion, 300 million dollars, has more clout on the outcome of US presidential elections than Putin. These few lobbies mentioned above have resources berween them in excess of the GDP of Russia.  It is totally impossible for Russia to outbid them.

Assume that Russia, whose Gross Domestic Product is overshadowed by the resources of the Forbes 400, would try to compete with, for example, the Israel Lobby, in determining US foreign policy.  If Russia could compete with the Israel Lobby in controlling American political outcomes, would the Middle East have been destroyed by Washington, with millions of displaced and dispossessed refugees overrunning all Western countries? Surely not. Is Russia happy that the destabilization of the Middle East threatens the Muslim provinces of the Russian Federation with jihadists? Obviously not.  Nevertheless, the instability that Washington has introduced into the Western world serves the rise of Russia and China, not America and its empire. 

One has to wonder how it serves the image and power of the United States to be portrayed, as it is portrayed, as fighting Israel’s wars for domination of the Middle East. How does the world avoid seeing the US of A as a two-bit vassal of Zionist Israel? Doesn’t Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, and Trump’s Jewish son-in-law make this perfectly clear every day? The President of the United States is nothing but the punk two-bit vassal of Zionism.

The US Department of State formerly was in the hands of “Arabists.”  Today it is in the hands of Zionists. Washington in its total incompetence has alligned with a tiny percentage of the population against the majority in the Middle East. This will come to no good result.

What Tulsi Gabbard’s caving in to the Israel Lobby really shows

The Saker

July 24, 2019

What Tulsi Gabbard’s caving in to the Israel Lobby really shows

Yes, Tulsi Gabbard’s name was not found in the list of those members of Congress which voted “no” to the resolution condemning the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.  This is the full list as reported by The Forward: Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), Andre Carson (D-Indiana), Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Illinois), Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), Barbara Lee (D-California), Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin), Bobby Rush (D-Illinois), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-New Jersey).

Thank you, so-called “US free and independent media”!

Truth be told, the Israeli Lobby did a superb job focusing what is left of the mind of those who expose themselves to the corporate Ziomedia’s propaganda on nonsensical pretend-issues such as who is in the so-called “squad”  (Reps. Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Rashida Tlaib), on Ilhan Omar alledged anti-Semitism (what else is new?) and on Trump’s brilliant idea to send her “home” (only to disawow it later – in typical Trump style).  As a result, a major chunk of the First Amendement has now been chipped away.

I also note with interest that these 17 Democracts prove that the most pro-Zionist party is the GOP, not the Democrats.  I salute the courage of Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky)!

There were plenty of other signs that showed that for all her very real qualities and her likely sincerity, Tulsi Gabbard does not really dare to speak truth to power.  Here is a very good example of that:

I agree with the slogan she chose: the Kremlin’s darling?  Think again!

A very wise friend of mine wrote this about why Gabbard had to cave in:

I told you she is a single issue politician. It’s about wars without end. Everything else is Realpolitik and nothing is more real than Zionists controlling the politics and legislation in Washington.  She would have no hope of surviving the next round of laws. They are going to make anything “anti-Israel” equal “anti-Semitic” and that will be a crime like it is in France. She has high ideals on only a single issue. It’s a great issue. But you cannot count on a politician to be a noble warrior. Forget anyone doing the right thing all the time.  She shines bright on one issue. If she was really wise or clever, she would have abstained. So, she is neither. 

Again, I can only agree with him.

My personal conclusion from all this is that this is yet another strong indication that the US political system is completely unreformable.  And, furthermore, any political system which cannot adapt to new realities and reform itself is simply condemned to a sudden, catastrophic (and often violent) collapse.

This being said, Gabbard is still the only running candidate who wants to legalize cannabis (at least as far as I know), she wants to reform what is justly called the “US Gulag” system and she backs Medicare For All.  I still think that she is very likable and probably sincere.  But she sure does not have what it takes to tackle what is by far the worst problem of the United States: they are just a subservient and voiceless colony of the last openly racist state on the planet and that is a moral issue.  This is the type of issue in which no compromise is possible, at least for an honest person.  Gabbard chose to compromise on that, and this makes her useless to those who want to free the United States and restore in full their full sovereignty.

Too bad.

The Saker

 

%d bloggers like this: