“Shame on You, New York Times!” Scientists Speak Out Over Media Disinformation on China

By Alan Macleod

Source

“Our quotes are intendedly twisted casting shadows over important scientific work.” — Danish epidemiologist Thea Kølsen Fischer

ATexas teenager has been forced to use her entire college savings to prevent her single mother from being evicted after she lost her job amid a raging pandemic. Alondra Carmona of Houston made the appeal on crowdfunding site GoFundMe, noting that she had been accepted into prestigious New York university Barnard College, but that she used the money she had saved for tuition in order to save her mother.

Some of the world’s top scientists are condemning The New York Times for what they describe as a highly misleading hit job on their recent visit to Wuhan, China.

New York Times Wuhan

The Times latest hit piece on China | Feb 12, 2021

On Friday, the Times published a bombshell report titled “On WHO Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data.” The article, subtitled, “The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics,” claims that Chinese authorities put up “continuous resistance” to the group’s attempts to understand the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic that has now killed over 2.4 million people worldwide. China, it says, “stymied” their progress, “refusing to hand over raw data” that the Times implies would show that the outbreak began earlier than December 2019, a finding that “would leave China open to more criticism” and another example of a supposed Chinese “cover up” of the outbreak. China’s obstinance, it claimed, was so overwhelming that it led to shouting matches between the international team and local authorities.

Yet the report was immediately lambasted by many of the world’s leading scientists, including some who the Times spoke to and quoted in the article. “This was NOT my experience on the WHO mission,” said Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance in New York. “As the lead of the animal/environmental working group, I found trust and openness with my China counterparts. We DID get access to critical new data throughout. We DID increase our understanding of likely spillover pathways.” Daszak went on to explain that he was given a very wide range of data and his investigation was unvetted throughout.

Danish epidemiologist Thea Kølsen Fischer, another source on which the Times’ report was based, chimed in with a similar message:

This was NOT my experience either on the epidemiological side. We DID build up a good relationship in the Chinese/international epidemiology team! Allowing for heated arguments reflects a deep level of engagement in the room. Our quotes are intendedly twisted casting shadows over important scientific work.”

“Hear! Hear!,” replied Daszak. “It’s disappointing to spend time with journalists explaining key findings of our exhausting month-long work in China, to see our colleagues selectively misquoted to fit a narrative that was prescribed before the work began. Shame on you, New York Times!”

Dr. Hume Field, an epidemiologist and veterinarian who co-led a previous WHO investigation into the origins of the 2002-2004 SARS pandemic, also condemned the Times’ reporting. “Collaboration is all about mutual trust and respect. If you don’t have that, no one is going to share data with you,” he stated, “we urgently need to jettison the political crap. Hopefully there is enough enduring personal goodwill for us to effectively proceed.”

“Political crap”

Unfortunately, “political crap” has been getting in the way of an effective COVID-19 response since the outbreak began in late 2019. While most of the media, including The New York Times, has constantly claimed China intentionally covered up the coronavirus for political gain, the world’s medical and scientific community has been adamant that Beijing’s response was exemplary. A statement published in The Lancet, often considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, commended China’s “remarkable” effort in “working diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak, putting in place significant measures to reduce its impact, and sharing their results transparently with the global health community.”

It also condemned the “conspiracy theories” about a possible man-made COVID-19 origin, noting that the “overwhelming” evidence for this strain of the coronavirus originates in wildlife. Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, also lauded China’s actions, claiming he had “never seen the scale and commitment of an epidemic response.” “The challenge is great, but the response has been massive and the Chinese government deserve huge credit for that response and for the transparency in which they have dealt with this,” he added.

This is not how COVID-19 has been presented in Western media, with China overwhelmingly presented as having failed to contain its international spread. An October poll of 14 developed countries found that in every one, citizens believed their own government’s response was superior to that of China’s, even in countries with over 500 times the per capita deaths. The upshot of the coverage has been a surge in anti-Chinese sentiment worldwide and an increase in hate crimes against Asians. Amid growing tensions, both the Trump and Biden administrations have pushed forward with aggressive actions towards China, leading to what many have described as the beginning of a second Cold War.

The New York Times has spent much of 2020 covering and condemning COVID conspiracies and fake news. For their next article on coronavirus misinformation, perhaps they could look a little closer to home for inspiration.

Nuking Itself… How Russophobia Led the U.S. to Bomb its Own Citizens

Finian Cunningham October 26, 2020

Generations of countless Americans have been contaminated and sickened by the first-ever atomic bomb test. The Trinity explosion on July 16, 1945, was carried out in the New Mexico desert. Three weeks later, two A-bombs were dropped on Japan, killing up to 200,000 people.

But the number of American victims caused by radiation fallout from the Trinity test is reckoned to be also imponderably high. The American government conducted the explosion in secret, unbeknownst to the population of New Mexico. That was in spite of warnings from Manhattan Project scientists of a high risk to public health from the extreme radiation. Without a warning to the public and because of a cover-up about the event, countless Americans were exposed to carcinogenic radiation.

In a recent interview with Karl Grossman, New Mexican resident Tina Cordova tells how her community has been campaigning for decades to find out the truth behind the Trinity test and to seek reparations from the federal government. Incredibly, there has never been a federal investigation into establishing the human health impact from that atomic test explosion. But Cordova and her community estimate that the number is huge. She is the fourth generation in her family to have suffered from cancer. Countless others tell of high numbers of infant mortality over the decades and other morbidities that stretch across the entire state of New Mexico.

A combination of factors conspired to wreak a heavy toll on the people of New Mexico. It is one of the poorest states in the U.S., with large numbers of native Americans and Latinos. In selecting the test site for the A-bomb, there was a tacit racism among planners in Washington who viewed the area and its population as expendable. By not warning the people of the explosion, local populations were given no chance to take protective measures such as evacuation or avoiding consumption of contaminated water and food produced from the soil. The people were deceived into continuing their livelihoods as normal following the explosion, drinking contaminated water and breathing radioactive air. The New York Times was instrumental in the cover-up, issuing reports that the explosion was due to a conventional munitions incident. It was only after the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 an 9 that the people of New Mexico realized what had really happened at the Trinity site. Even then they were kept in the dark by Washington stonewalling about the event for decades to come.

Still another factor that maximized the damage on public health was the rush by the American government to weaponize the A-bomb technology. As Karl Grossman points out, the rationale behind the Manhattan Project was said to be to preempt Nazi Germany. But by July 1945, Nazi Germany was defeated and imperial Japan was on its knees. The inescapable implication is that President Harry Truman and the Pentagon wanted to display the new awesome weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union in what would be a chilling demarcation of the postwar globe according to American power.

Truman eagerly awaited the news of the Trinity test while attending the Potsdam allies’ conference in Germany along with Britain’s Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin. On receiving news of the successful explosion, Truman immediately adopted a more strident attitude towards Stalin. In that moment, a new Cold War was born.

Thus, it was Russophobia among the American ruling class that rushed the Trinity A-bomb explosion, even though that event would lead to generations of American citizens stricken with fatal diseases from the fallout. In a very real and frightening way, the U.S. rulers took a decision to “nuke” their own people such was their obsession with confronting the Soviet Union.

Subsequent U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s was conducted in remote areas of Nevada and in the Pacific Ocean. Those tests also took a deadly toll on the environment and local populations on Pacific islands.

But the recklessness and callous conditions of the New Mexico test is unparalleled in the toxic exposure it imposed on unsuspecting populations.

The stone-cold willingness to, in effect, bomb its own citizens by the federal government is a shuddering testimony as to the nefarious lengths the planners in Washington were prepared to go in their obsessive Russophobia.

When we survey the relentless fixation today in Washington and the U.S. political class with blaming Russia for all sorts of alleged malign intent, one can easily discern that this endemic Russophobia among America’s rulers has not waned.

The barbarity of what happened in New Mexico 75 years ago is alive and well. If it can be inflicted without apology on American citizens, then what does that say about the danger to the rest of the world?

Come what may, I must reveal the identity of the NY Times’ Trump tax leaks

Come what may, I must reveal the identity of the NY Times’ Trump tax leaks

September 29, 2020

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

So there I was again on the “Job Creator’s Red-Eye” (NYC to Silicon Valley) and I made this fateful, election-shaping decision.

The reality is that as a big-time CEO we all knew this was coming – it was announced at the last Bilderburg meeting and re-confirmed at Davos. Trump was there, and he objected, and even though I hate Trump with the same postmodern fury of a nose-ringed, 95-pound Brooklyn barista (8 pounds in tattoo ink and 2 pounds in glasses) I cannot allow such obvious political manipulation to go unchecked.

The New York Times refuses to admit who gave them more than two decades of Trump’s tax returns, and just two days before the first Trump-Biden debate no less.

I wonder how many days Joe will be sequestered from the media after he drinks his now-usual pre-dabate Long Island Ice Tea cocktail of beta-blockers, amphetamines, vitamin B12, anabolic steroids and Chinese rhinoceros horn? I was told the same amount doesn’t give Joe the same kick like before – that’s a problem. If Joe wins I guess we’ll have to grind up all the Chinese rhinos in the world just so Joe can hold a press conference with the King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf? More concerning than the rhinos is that if we add in too many psychedelics Joe will try and pull off something folksy like, “So you are the first King Carl but you are the 16th Gustaf? Howzatwork? And is it ’16 Gustafs’ or ‘16th Gustaves’?”

Back to the tax returns: the bottom line is that Americans will be shocked and appalled to discover that rich people successfully and legally avoid paying their taxes.

So in order to protect my fellow CEOs I must keep this rough worldly knowledge from the virgin ears of the average American, and thus I must reveal the source of the Times leak:

The source of Trump’s IRS tax information is none other than my neighbour who lives two doors down, Lemuel Sherbockowicz.

It’s true.

Firstly, I want to point out just how much Lemuel has been through under four years of Trump: Lemmy, you see, is a minority. Therefore, his integrity cannot be questioned.

Firstly, he’s left-handed. Do you realize how few stores carry left-handed scissors? The strips he uses in his papier-mâché artworks are terribly crooked.

Lemmy is red-headed. I wish Lemuel had been an albino, in order to strengthen his case here, but Biden has promised to add red-headedness to Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Code in exchange for a major score of rhino horn. (They really have Joe chasing the dragon, it seems.)

Lemmy, despite his last name, is Black. He was adopted. By immigrants. One of whom had gender-reassignment surgery, before reversing it. The other was diagnosed with serious social anxiety disorder unfairly inflicted by a repressive patriarchal society after being unable to urinate in full public view on a bet. Both parents overcame teenage acne.

So… Lemmy is bulletproof – his intentions and actions are beyond any possible reproach. The only thing you should be asking regarding Lemuel Sherbockowicz is: why haven’t you apologised to him yet?

But how did he get Trump’s tax returns?

This is how it happened: just as Democrats called up elderly Green Party supporters in Montana 25 times in order to harass them into recanting their signatures on a petition aiming to get the Greens on the presidential, congressional and local ballots (allowing third parties to actually exist obviously undermines the US claim of having free and open elections – those votes are owed to Democrats (if the voter is a real leftist) or Republicans (if the voter is a Libertarian)), Lemmy said somebody from the Times kept calling and calling and calling him to say that he had to personally hand what they claimed were Trump’s tax returns to a Times reporter.

Lemmy kept asking why the Times needed anyone to personally hand over documents which were not theirs to a Times reporter? The caller – who only identified herself as “No Throat” (because throats are merely a social construct, the caller insisted) – said that the rules of good journalism prohibit journalists from making false claims themselves… but good journalism says that relaying false claims by others is totally fine.

Lemmy said this didn’t sound like “the rules of good journalism” to him.

No Throat said the Times does this all the time in the Trump era, and then she shamed him into doing it by calling him a “traitor to his handedness” and an “Uncle Righty”.

No Throat thanked Lemmy after he gave up because he was tired of answering the phone (it’s his own fault – for still having a land line) because now the Times was able to publish just some of Trump’s tax records.

No Throat rejoiced that the people who already hate Trump will cast their one vote against Trump even harder.

And those on the fence, No Throat was sure, would surely adore the Times for working with the Internal Revenue Service to manipulate American democracy – Americans in flyover country love the tax man, right? Another savvy move from the East Coast elite – they must live in Harlem, they are so hip.

And No Throat said that by breaking to the flyover inbreds the shocking, unheard news that Trump was not actually 100% morally upright, nor as great a businessman as he wildly claims to be, would surely prove to them that Biden and his Clintonista faction must be morally upright… somehow. Lemmy said that he didn’t see this connection, but he was happy he was making some people happy they would be voting harder.

But Lemmy – being as much a Sherbockowicz as any of the Sherbockowiczes – pushed the boundary: he asked if there was some nobody like him behind the Times many, many other anonymous-based stories? Lemmy actually said, “Anonymous sources have negatively or at least questionably influenced the election more than Julian Assange or the Russians ever possibly could.”

No Throat nearly choked with righteous fury – how could Lemmy possibly question the integrity of The New York Times, especially after being intimidated into accepting their report based on totally unproven facts?! For which Lemuel Sherbockowicz is most certainly the source!

Anyway, No Throat insisted, the point is all about Trump: he is a liar. Democrats finally got a limited sample of Trump’s tax returns to prove that – despite his hundreds of millions in assets and the ability to contract loans worth hundreds of millions – he is not actually a “rich person”.

Lemmy – being a Sherbockowicz – had no reply to such logic.

Lemmy then pointed out that – like half of all Americans – he wasn’t going to vote anyway, but he’d do anything to stop these damn political robocalls! And he was too busy trying to pay the bills created by the coronavirus hysteria and resulting Great Lockdown to care all that much about the Chinese rhino population, either.

Since 2016 I have become a fanatical Russophobe – it was my patriotic duty – and I desperately want to believe that Trump is a poor person, but I simply had to relate the source of the Times’ Trump tax leaks.

Why? Because the integrity of American democracy depends on it! And on a steady supply of rhino horn for Joe.

***************

This totally unserious piece is dedicated to my beautifully serious friend, mentor and colleague, Andre Vltchek. He tragically died of natural causes at only 57, but after a life overflowing with inspirational leftist journalism that was seemingly without peer. Andre left us too soon, but he left us with so very, very, very much. Read himwatch himlisten – you will remember him.

Rest in Peace comrade.

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

NYT Report: Trump Paid No Income Taxes In 10 Out Of 15 Years Beginning In 2000

NYT Report: Trump Paid No Income Taxes In 10 Out Of 15 Years Beginning In 2000

By Staff, Agencies

US President Donald Trump paid no federal income taxes whatsoever in 10 out of 15 years beginning in 2000 because he reported losing significantly more than he made, according to an explosive report released Sunday by the New York Times.

In both the year he won the presidency and his first year in the White House, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes, the NYT reported.

Detailing payments gleaned from more than two decades of tax information, the NYT report outlined extensive financial losses and years of tax avoidance that deal a blow to the business-tycoon brand Trump has built his political career on.

At a White House briefing Sunday, Trump denied the New York Times story and claimed that he pays “a lot” in federal income taxes.

“I pay a lot, and I pay a lot in state income taxes,” Trump claimed.

He also added that he is willing to release his tax returns once he is no longer under audit by the Internal Revenue Service, which he said “treats me badly.”

Trump, however, is under no obligation to hold his tax returns while under audit, despite his repeated claims otherwise.

The US President also refused to answer how much he has paid in federal taxes in the briefing and walked out to shouted questions from CNN’s Jeremy Diamond on the topic.

The expansive NYT report paints a picture of businessman who was struggling to keep his businesses afloat and was reporting millions in losses even as he was campaigning for President and boasting about his financial success.

According to the newspaper, Trump used the $427.4 million he was paid for “The Apprentice” to fund his other businesses, mostly his golf courses, and was putting more cash into his businesses than he was taking out.

The tax information obtained by the NYT also revealed that Trump has been fighting the IRS for years over whether losses he claimed should have resulted in a nearly $73 million refund.

In response to a letter summarizing the newspaper’s findings, Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten told the Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate” and requested the documents.

The New York Times said it will not make Trump’s tax-return data public so as not to jeopardize its sources “who have taken enormous personal risks to help inform the public.”

The tax-return data obtained by the newspaper does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019.

Trump’s taxes have been largely a mystery since he first ran for office.

During the 2016 campaign, the then-candidate broke with presidential election norms and refused to produce his tax returns for public review. They have remained private since he took office.

The NYT reported Sunday that Trump’s tax information reveals specific examples of the potential conflicts of interests between the President’s business with his position.

Trump has collected an additional $5 million a year at Mar-a-Lago since 2015 from new members. A roofing material manufacturer GAF spent at least $1.5 million in 2018 at Trump’s Doral golf course near Miami while its industry was lobbying the government to roll back federal regulations, according to the Times.

Trump has denied the accusations, labelling the report as ‘fake news’ but the NYT said all of the information obtained was “provided by sources with legal access to it.”

“New world order pledged to Jews” 80 years ago

Source

September 21, 2020 – 11:43

Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”). But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism. The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.

The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.” 

Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon. Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it. It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.” The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.” Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition. In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.  A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.

If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong. Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project. When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.  

During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war. In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: 
“I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […]. There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […] It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.” 

As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.” Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration. The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here). 

The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer. He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president. In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration. In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler. 

Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the  “Greenwood Pledge”:

New York Times, October 6, 1940

NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;

Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here

RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN

English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War

In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”

Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.” He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.

The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening. 

Intention to Right Wrongs

Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world. He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.” Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: 
“The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion. The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.

“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.

New World Order Forecast

“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace. In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted. 

“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”

In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.” There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere. The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government. “This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”

[1] According to a 1937 report of the Palestine Royal Commission, quoted by Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 18-21.

[1] Martin Kramer, “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” June 5, 2017, on mosaicmagazine.com

[1] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[1] David Irving, Churchills War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, pp. 76–77.

[1] Thanks to M.S. King, who made this information known here: http://www.tomatobubble.com/nwo_jews.html

RELATED NEWS

“Poisoned” Kremlin Critic Flown to Germany as German-Russian Nord Stream 2 Nears Completion

Source

The perfectly timed poisoning of unpopular, ineffective Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny and the involvement of Germany comes as Washington sought to place maximum pressure on Berlin to cancel the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 

August 25, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny – according to German doctors – was allegedly poisoned but is expected to survive. If Navalny was poisoned and the goal was to assassinate him, it was a poorly conceived, poorly executed, and most of all – poorly timed plan. 

Navalny’s sudden reappearance across the Western media comes just at the height of US attempts to place maximum pressure on Germany to cancel a pipeline – Nord Stream 2 – it is jointly constructing with Russia. The pipeline would move Russian hydrocarbons into Western Europe directly, bypassing Ukraine now fully destabilized by US and NATO intervention. 

Just last week German state media DW in an article titled, “US senators threaten Germany’s port town of Sassnitz over Nord Stream 2 gas project,” would highlight the nature of US pressure, reporting that: 

Three US senators are threatening the ferry port on the island of Rügen with “crushing” sanctions to prevent the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Fearing financial ruin, the people of Sassnitz are defiant.

This latest threat from the US against their own German “allies” comes after a long, concerted campaign to pressure Germany into cancelling the joint pipeline with Russia. 

Earlier this year, the New York Times in an article titled, “A Russian Gas Pipeline Increases Tension Between the U.S. and Europe,” would report: 

…the State Department moved to potentially impose economic penalties on investors and other business participants in the project, an expansion of existing sanctions.The new measures were “a clear warning to companies” that “aiding and abetting Russia’s malign influence projects will not be tolerated,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters. “Get out now, or risk the consequences.”

The New York Times would note that growing US pressure faced condemnation from European leaders who accused Washington of interference in their sovereign affairs and specifically in regards to European energy policy. 

The pipeline is already well over 90% completed. 

Perfectly Timed Political Stunt 

The New York Times in a more recent article titled, “Aleksei Navalny, Putin Critic in a Coma, Was Poisoned, German Doctors Say,” deliberately trumps up the incident. 

Indeed Navalny is in a coma, but according to the German hospital currently treating him in an official statement, it was a medically induced coma. The statement read: 

Since his admission at the weekend, Alexei Navalny has been receiving treatment at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The patient is being treated in intensive care and remains in medically induced coma. While his condition is serious, it is not currently life-threatening.

The New York Times in its article notes how unpopular and ineffective Navalny has been as an opposition figure in Russia over the years, admitting that: 

Mr. Navalny’s needling criticism of Mr. Putin has never posed a serious electoral threat to the Russian leader, and Mr. Putin remains popular with many Russians.

It should be noted that Navalny himself and the anemic opposition he leads is a product of the US State Department with virtually ever organization and individual in it the recipient of US government money channeled through Washington’s notorious regime change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).  

Navalny’s US Backing 

Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow – with the Fellowship recently releasing statement in solidarity with Navalny after this latest incident – and in his profile it states (emphasis added):

Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is a US NED-fund recipient, implicating Navalny as an agent of US-funded sedition. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list DA! among many of the “youth movements” they support operating in Russia:

DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.

That this funding is nowhere on NED’s official website and is admittedly withheld from public knowledge by the funding’s recipients indicates that full disclosures are intentionally not being made and that clandestine US funding is most likely much more widespread across Russia’s “opposition” as well as for individuals like Navalny himself.  
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout the Western media. 
The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian “activist” opposition group.
Ilya Yashin leads the Moscow branch of the People’s Freedom Party and is a leading member of the “Strategy 31” campaign whose ranks are filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED-funded NGOs. Deleted from the official NED.org website was Strategy 31’s US funding which read:

Moscow Group of Assistance in the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords $50,000 

To draw greater attention to the issue of freedom of assembly in Russia and to the “Strategy 31” movement, which seeks to protect this fundamental right. The organization will train a network of regional activists and coordinate their activities through mini-seminars and field visits, and conduct an information cam­paign through press conferences, posters, and educational handouts pertaining to freedom of assembly, to be distributed to the general public by regional partners.

Also deleted was a NED “Democracy Digest” article titled “Strategy 31: A sign of civil society’s resilience.” In it, the “Moscow Helsinki Group” is explicitly stated as leading Strategy 31 marches and that the group is a “long-time grantee of the National Endowment of Democracy.”
Martyrdom to Boost a Fading Brand
It is documented fact that Navalny was funded by and specifically to serve US interests through the NED and a variety of other US-based programs and fellowships and clearly promoted throughout the entirety of the Western corporate media. 

His inability to catalyze the sort of disruptive opposition the West seeks to create within Russia to undermine and eventually overthrow the nation’s current political order represents a poor return on investment. 
Navalny’s fading brand is admitted openly even by his most eager supporters in the Western media – most recently in the above mentioned New York Times article describing his alleged poisoning.

German-Russian relations are particularly important for both nations at the moment – and perhaps more so for Moscow which seeks ways to circumvent full spectrum economic warfare waged against it by the United States. 
The completion and use of Nord Stream 2 with its German partners would do much to cement Russian-European ties, perhaps even irreversibly short-circuiting US efforts to sabotage them. 
The notion that the Kremlin would order Navalny’s assassination at this time defies common sense and logic. 
The fact that a Western NGO with opaque funding called “Cinema for Peace” organized Navalny’s transportation out of Russia and to Germany specifically at this critical time for German-Russian relations – according to an article published by the US State Department’s Voice of America – the one European nation whose ties with Russia are under greatest scrutiny at the moment by the Western media – appears more than coincidental.  
An investigation and forthcoming facts may help better shape the full truth around this most recent incident – but at the moment – especially for “activists” backed by a palpably desperate US – they must consider who would benefit most from their harm or demise – the nations they are ineffectively opposing, or the nations who have invested millions into their cause and have not gotten the results they desire.

Then these “activists” must determine whether they are worth more to their disappointed foreign sponsors as living, ineffective, and unpopular opposition figures, or worth more by being potentially impactful – if even for a moment – as martyrs. 

How Western Media Fabricate The “China Experts”

How Western Media Fabricate The “China Experts”

August 06, 2020

by Thorsten J. Pattberg for The Saker Blog

NEW YORK – A media professional from China asks: “Why do the Western media always promote the same ‘China experts’ who preach China doom, over and over again?” The answer is quite simple: The game of ‘expert testimonials’ is rigged.

‘Expert testimonials’ is not a level playing field. Never was. It is no coincidence that you will always see the same China experts and the same Chinese dissidents paraded in the news. Our key media are collusive. It means they act in concert.

If they act in concert, they project power. Here’s a definition of power by Hannah Arendt: “Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.”[i]

Yes, our media are corrupt beyond hope. And society is largely to blame: We often feel intimidated by the manipulative press, and powerless. We condemn cronyism, misconduct, and cheating in business, politics, and sports. But exposing the rampant corruption in the media and education? That remains a taboo.

Nobody knows exactly why they get away with it. Of course, they won’t report their own corruption. Also, journalism is inherently feminine (not the gender, the characteristics!); so manipulative journalism is always defensible, is always right, is always the victim.

Expert testimonials in journalism are witnesses that support the argument or mouth-piece what the journalist wants to say. For example, the New York Times will not directly call for violent riots in Hong Kong; instead it will offer expert testimonials that violence is indeed justified.[ii]

The expert testimonials in journalism are not the same as the ‘expert testimony’ used in the legal system. The press is illegitimate; it is not a governmental institution; it is not under oath, and it is absolutely not required to be neutral.

Most persuasive pieces of journalism have at least two testimonials. There are three kinds of testimonials. The first and most vital one is the ‘expert testimonial’. Without quoting a real expert, the journalist, who is by definition a non-expert on anything except journalism, is simply not credible. The second kind of testimonial is ‘plain folks’. That’s the taxi driver, the man from the corner shop, ordinary people. This creates sympathy. The third kind of testimonial is what this author calls a ‘negative-positive’. It means that someone with an opposing view, negative, is quoted, but in such an manipulative way, that it actually helps the journalist, hence the “positive.”

Plain folks are almost always made-up. Negative-positives are a manner of writing. But the expert testimonials shouldn’t be fake. That “expert” should ideally be consulted by the journalist.

Here’s an example (you may want to skip this exercise, if in hurry, and continue in the main text below) of three testimonials in one article. See, if you can guess which kind of testimonials they are. It’s from a British Guardian propaganda piece,[iii] by a certain Adam Gabbatt. The Guardian rushes to the defense of Chris Buckley from the New York Times, who’s a notorious propagandist. Since this is the global Western anti-China coalition, if one of their press soldiers gets into trouble in China, the others will naturally close ranks:

A: “I regret that Chris Buckley has been forced to relocate outside of China despite our repeated requests to renew his journalist visa,” Abramson said. [Ms. Abraham, a Harvard graduate, is the chief executive editor of the New York Times.]

B: Lawyers for Wen Jiabao’s family denied reports of their riches as untrue in October. “Some of Wen Jiabao’s family members have not engaged in business activities. Some were engaged in business activities, but they did not carry out any illegal business activity. They do not hold shares of any companies,” the statement said.

C: Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the piece “smears China’s name and has ulterior motives”, later insisting that the China’s critics were attempting to destabilize the country and were “doomed to failure”.

As a general rule, for every New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Guardian, The Diplomat, or Forbes piece (etc.) there should be at least one expert testimonial in it! [Other testimonials are optional.] That said, you can image that there must be, in theory, a huge market for expert testimonials out there. Right?

Now, think: Does it not make perfect strategic sense, since tens of thousands of China articles must be mass-produced every year in the West, for the Western media to have a ‘ready-made’ stall of loyal experts to ask for phony testimonials any time they want? Better still, how about jointly fabricating EXACTLY the experts (and dissidents) we later want to see at the top!

So they fabricate experts. It’s not illegal, see. And not just any experts: Their buddies and friends and mutual benefactors. Those are the David Shambaugh, Ezra Vogel, Minxin Pei, Orville Schell (now out of favor, it seems), and Roderick Macfarquhar, to name a few.

Now, of those five experts mentioned, all of them are associated with Harvard University, and all were prominently featured in the New York Times. So, understandably, many readers get very upset every time they spot such obscene, shameless favoritism. For example when Harvard man and New York Times journalist Michael Forsythe prominently features a fellow Harvard man, Minxin Pei.[iv] Or when Evan Osnos, a Harvard man from The New Yorker, prominently features all of them Harvard experts in his book. So that he can get “conversations”[v] with them. And his buddies promote his book in The New York Times.[vi] Or the Guardian.[vii] Or Mr. Forsythe’s spouse, also Harvard, also New York Times, miraculously gets to promote her own book in the New York Times.[viii] Yes, the New York Times people are not stupid: they try to disguise cronyism. So NY Times Kirsten Didi Tatlow gets to write about NY Times Mr. Forsythe’s wife’s book.[ix] And NY Times Christ Buckley gets to interview David Shambaugh, alright.[x] NY Times Javier C. Hernandez, also Harvard, gets the Ezra Vogel interview.[xi] And NY Times Austin Ramzy interviews Evan Osnos, right![xii]

Journalists are un-elected. They enjoy relative low status in society in exchange for the privilege of fools. Some hang around with politicians and pose as ‘political analysts’. Others pose as ‘intellectuals’ by collaborating, say, with enough “Harvard” scholars: The journalists get artificial respectability, the scholars gets gratuitous media coverage. For them, it’s a win-win situation. The big loser, of course, is the global audiences to whom – not even talking about US colonialism – the vanity and the arrogance of these few privileged men is sold as “correct” information and news about China.

Remember when back in the old days the media set out to expose the corruption of the elites? Well, they didn’t. They joined the corrupt elites.

It gets worse. Think about this: Why would the New York Times EVER change the status quo? They have absolutely no incentives to do so. They would be stupid to reform. In fact, upon reading this, they will probably even tighten the status quo. Out of pure spite.

This all reminds your author of the following story from the Mahabharata: There’s this great guru, Drona, who promised prince Arjuna to make him “the greatest archer in the world.” Then one day they go into the forest and meet Eklavya, who trained all by himself under the idol of Drona. Eklavya is clearly the better archer! But Drona cannot tolerate this, because it would completely ruin the royal narrative. So they politely ask Eklavya to cut off the thumb of his right hand. Which he reluctantly does. To preserve the status quo. Uninterruptedly, Drona now goes on to fulfill his promise and make Arjuna “the greatest archer in the world.”

This is exactly how it is: The New York Times & Co act in concert and are systematically empowering their own buddies and protégées from Harvard as “the greatest China experts in the world.” And to the rest of the world, especially to the 1.3 million Chinese: cut your talented limbs off, will you!

The author is a German cultural critic and frequent commentator on Sino-Western affairs.  He describes himself as “Thorsten J. Pattberg, Asia specialist, PhD comparative literature and linguistics, unbeknownst writer, polyglot, monster, idiot”.

[i] Hannah Arendt, On Violence (1970), Harcourt Brace & Company, New York

[ii] http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/why-the-ny-times-promotes-violence-in-hong-kong/
[iii] The Guardian, China forces New York Times reporter Chris Buckley to leave country, Dec 31, 2012, London
[iv] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Minxin Pei on the Future of Communist Rule in China, Feb. 29, 2016, New York
[v] http://www.livestream.com/roosevelthouse/evan-osnos-chasing-fortune
[vi] The New York Times, Q & A: Evan Osnos on the ‘Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China’, May 13, 2014, New York
[vii] The Guardian, Age of Ambition; The New Emperors reviews – two studies on modern China, July 6, 2014, London
[viii] The New York Times, China’s ‘Leftover’ Women, Oct. 11, 2012, New York
[ix] The New York Times, Rejecting the ‘Leftover Women’ label, April 24, 2013, New York
[x] The New York Times, Q. and A.: David Shambaugh on the Risks to Chinese Communist Rule, March 15, 2015, New York
[xi] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Ezra F. Vogel on China’s Shifting Relations With Japan and Taiwan, Nov 12, 2015, New York
[xii] The New York Times, Q & A: Evan Osnos on the ‘Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China’, May 13, 2014, New York

Russophobia Goes Viral Again… And Fatally No Cure

Russophobia Goes Viral Again… And Fatally No Cure – The 21st Century
REUTERS Lucas Jackson

Source

July 31, 2020

This week saw U.S. media reports claiming that Russian military intelligence is spreading disinformation about the coronavirus to sow discord ahead of the November presidential election. Such reports are nothing but more bombast and reprehensible Russophobia as part of a chronic mental condition which seems to have no cure.

Meanwhile, British media reported claims that Russia and China were targeting Germany with interference campaigns in order to undermine the transatlantic alliance. More bombast and reprehensible Russophobia augmented with Sinophobia.

Hardly a week goes by without some such lurid Western media “report” of malign Russian or Chinese plot to subvert Western democracy. Suitably, in this time of global pandemic, the political phobia seems to be going viral.

It can be reasonably posited that as certain nations undergo severe political and economic disruption from the coronavirus pandemic, there is a tendency to find a scapegoat as a means to “explain” the crisis. The United States and Britain stand out as the globe’s worst casualties from the pandemic. President Donald Trump in particular has seen his much-vaunted “economic success” turn to dust. Out of trauma to his ego, Trump has taken to blaming China for “the plague”. Trump’s cheap-shot politicization also resonates with a deeper political agenda to create a Cold War with China.

The pandemic has also exacerbated an explosion in popular protests across the U.S. over systemic police brutality and racism. The mix has created a climate of chaos and discontent in American society not seen for decades. Thrown into the mix is sharp partisan rivalry between supporters of this president and his opponents. The bitter factionalism is set to intensify as the nation heads to presidential elections in less than 100 days.

Given the upheaval and turmoil, it is all too tempting to find a distraction in the form of “foreign interference”. A Cold War legacy of Russophobia and Sinophobia is being resurrected to provide a convenient political escape route for deep-seated structural problems.

Both sides of the American political divide seem adept at playing the xenophobic interference card. Republican Trump this week claimed that foreign interference would abuse mail-in voting systems and suggested the election should be postponed. There is no evidence for such concern.

Likewise, Trump’s opponents in the Democratic party and their sympathetic news media outlets are adept at playing the same nefarious game.

Ever since Trump was elected to the White House in 2016, his opponents have obsessed over alleged Russian interference without ever providing any evidence for their outlandish speculations.

Chief among the exponents of such conspiratorial thinking is the New York Times, the so-called “newspaper of record”. The Times is a diehard pro-Democrat and “never-Trump” organ. The paper also has a long history of serving as a conduit for U.S. intelligence agencies. Its nadir of propagandist functioning was making the false case of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the genocidal U.S. and British war on that country. Indeed, some of the journalists who peddled that propaganda are still working at the paper and penning the most recent Russophobic articles.

In recent weeks, Russophobia at the Times has become feverish. On June 26, it launched a series of stories, amplified across U.S. media, claiming that Russian intelligence was operating a “bounty-hunter” scheme for assassinating American military in Afghanistan.

On July 16, the Times headlined with “Russian hackers trying to steal coronavirus vaccine research”.

This week, the “paper of record” announced “Russian intelligence agencies push disinformation on pandemic”.

The fiendish thing about such “stories” is the cleverly disguised lack of evidence. They all rely on unsubstantiated allegations made by anonymous sources who hide their vacuous “details” behind national security pretenses. This is an audacious affront to journalistic standard and ethics, but the one “advantage” is that the claims are sealed off from being definitely critiqued and disproven because the lack of evidence precludes a specific rebuttal. The upshot is the innuendo is permitted to linger and sow doubts.

The problem for the propagandists, however, is that the credibility of the “reporting” becomes threadbare with each cycle of unsubstantiated allegations. The increased frequency of the cycle indicates the propagandists are realizing their diminishing potency in the eyes of the public and hence try to compensate by narrating ever-more lurid stories.

In the final analysis, the political and economic problems facing the United States and Britain are endemic. The abysmal failure over the coronavirus pandemic is but one accelerant of a chronic collapse. The chaos and division in those societies is of their own making from the corruption of the political and economic system. Trying to resurrect a Cold War with Russia or China is a futile attempt to postpone a reckoning over inherent problems.

President Trump’s indulgence in conspiracies about China is consistent with his conspiracies about quack medical remedies. His conspiratorial psychosis is reflected in the derangement of his Democrat opponents and their media concerning alleged malign Russian interference. The chaos and division attributed to foreign powers is actually a bipartisan vice for avoiding the radical challenge facing the U.S. and its Western vassals like Britain.

A virus without a cure can become fatal. Russophobia is a virus without any cure as far as the Western political establishments are concerned. The result can be deadly. But deadly mainly for their own societies from not addressing real problems.The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

%d bloggers like this: