رسالة موجهة من قنديل إلى زاسيبكين: نأمل أن يتسع صدر القيادة الروسية للتعامل مع هذه العريضة المرفقة كتعبير صادق عن الصداقة

الصديق العزيز المحب لشعوبنا والمناصر لقضايانا

سعادة السفير الكسندر زاسيبكين المحترم

تحية الصداقة وبعد

Photo of في ذكرى اغتصاب فلسطين اقتراح للتفكير… ومبادرة سلام القدس عليكم وصباح القدس لكم

في ضوء تكرار بعض وسائل الإعلام في روسيا لتعامل خارج عن المهنية والموضوعية ومخالف لمدوّنات سلوك الإعلام الحر بالمعايير العالمية، وهو ما نؤمن به ونتمسك بحمايته، ونشرها معلومات مفبركة تسيء للدولة الروسية وللعلاقات الروسية العربية، أو فتح المجال لضيوف مبتذلين لا يمثلون شيئاً ليقوموا بالإساءة للقضايا العربية، ورموزها، وفي مقدمتهم صديق روسيا وحليفها الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، فيما يجري الالتزام باحترام سائر قادة الدول بمن فيهم خصوم روسيا، وفقاً لموجبات القانون والمدونات المهنية، ما يشكل عملاً مبرمجاً لاستثارة الغضب والإيحاء بأن روسيا لا تقيم اعتباراً لمفهوم سيادة الدول وشرعيتها الدستورية، وهو العنوان الذي تحرص الدولة الروسية على تحصينه وتثبيته، وقد جعلته عنواناً لمشاركتها وتضحياتها في الحرب على الإرهاب في سورية، وقدّمت علاقتها بسورية كدولة وشرعية وسيادة نموذجاً لعلاقات التحالف وللعلاقات الدولية في آن واحد، في مقابل نوعية العلاقات القائمة على الاستعلاء والوصاية التي تسود التعامل الأميركي مع من تسميهم بالحلفاء، ما استدعى قيام عدد من السياسيين والمثقفين والإعلاميين والنخب في سورية والبلاد العربية من خيرة أصدقاء روسيا ومحبيها، التحرك لإسناد موقف القيادة الروسية في السعي لوضع القانون والسلوك المهني أساساً في مواصلة حماية الإعلام الحر في ظل ديمقراطية تعتز بها روسيا ونساندها.

سعادة السفير الصديق

الموقعون على هذه العريضة هم خيرة أصدقاء روسيا في العالم العربي ويعتقدون أن ما يفعلونه يعزز رؤية القيادة الروسية وعلى رأسها الرئيس الاستثنائي فلاديمير بوتين الذي نعتز به رمزاً للعالم الجديد، ووزير خارجيته المحترف السيد سيرجي لافروف، الذي نعتبره بحق وزير خارجية كل الدول المظلومة وفي مقدمتها سورية.

سعادة السفير المحترم

نأمل أن يتسع صدر القيادة الروسية للتعامل مع هذه العريضة المرفقة كتعبير صادق عن الصداقة، من مناضلين يؤمنون بأن صديقك مَن صدقك لا من صدَقَك، وأملنا أن تقوموا بإيصالها إلى المعنيين في الدولة الروسية، وأن تلقى الآذان الصاغية.

لقد شرّفني زملائي برفع هذه العريضة عبركم، كما سيقوم زملاء في عواصم عربية أخرى، بتقديمها لسفارات روسيا الاتحادية.

مع الشكر والتقدير سلفاً

ناصر قنديل – نائب لبناني سابق – مقرّر لجنة الإعلام والاتصالات النيابية سابقاً

رئيس سابق للمجلس الوطني للإعلام المرئي والمسموع

رئيس تحرير صحيفة البناء اليومية السياسية القومية

بيروت في 14-5-2020.

AngloZionist controlled media bans SouthFront

The Saker

AngloZionist controlled media bans SouthFront

Dear friends,

Here is the email I got in my inbox today:
——-

Dear friend,

Once again, SouthFront faced an unprecedented censorship.

On April 30, our Facebook page with about 100,000 subscribers was deleted without any notifications or an option to appeal the decision:

On May 1, YouTube terminated SouthFront’s channels with approximately 170,000 subscribers. The main YouTube channel in English had over 152,000 subscribers, 1,900 uploaded videos and about 60,000,000 views.

This happened despite the fact that our YouTube channels had zero active strikes. We cover conflicts in the Middle East. This is a sensitive topic. Therefore, we strictly follow YouTube’s Community Guidelines and comply with the Terms of Service. There was no so-called “coronavirus conspiracy” content on our YouTube channels.

SouthFront’s YouTube channels were terminated without any warning. All that we got was a single automated email regarding the termination ofour inactive channel in Farsi “SouthFront Farsi” that included several translations of our war reports. However, even this email provides no details regarding the decision and just claims that “SouthFront Farsi” violated YouTube’s Terms of Service without any elaboration.

For over 5 years of our work, SouthFront repeatedly faced attempts to censor our coverage, analysis and videos. However, the current blatant and illegal ban of our activity is an unprecedented case.

The explanation may be that US authorities ordered YouTube and Facebook to cleanse the media sphere of sources of objective coverage and analysis on the Middle East region as a part of the ongoing preparations for a war with Iran.

We think that the current situation deserves attention of the international public, including the journalistic community beyond individual ambitions of separate media organizations and journalists.

We ask you to cover this situation and, if you have an opportunity, to provide us with informational or juridical help.

Sincerely yours,
SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence

——-

What can I say?

First, the fact that the AngloZionist controlled media wants to silence SouthFront is a sign of how effective SouthFront’s work has been.  They can wear that as a badge of honor.

Second, I don’t believe that there is anything that should/could be done.  The First Amendment only applies to situation in which the state silences somebody, not when corporations do it.

Third, I strongly believe that we all (those in overt resistance to the Empire) should never become dependent on the good-will or decency of AngloZionist controlled media/hosting outlets.  Expect no decency or mercy from these people, they are servants of Satan, quite literally!

Please try to help SouthFront either financially or by lending them a helping hand.  These are good people, doing an important job and, unlike so many others, they have always repaid us with their faithful support and friendship.

By helping SouthFront you help all of us, including the entire Saker Community!

Please do the right thing.

Kind regards

The Saker

A few recent political developments which should not go unnoticed

THE SAKER • MARCH 25, 2020


Russian Army Trucks in Italy

The COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is, by any measure, an immense planetary crisis which will probably change the world we live in forever. Still, there are other issues which are maybe not quite as dramatic and important, but which deserve not to be forgotten. Here are some of those

The grand betrayal of Tulsi Gabbard

It was pretty clear to most observers that Tulsi Gabbard, being the only real “peace candidate” would never be allowed to get the nomination, nevermind make it into the White House. It was also clear that Tulsi, for all her very real qualities, simply did not have what it takes to take on “The Swamp”. Still, in spite of this all, her candidacy and campaign were like a huge pitcher of cool water in the middle of an immense and dry desert. Her uniqueness amongst all the candidate is what make her betrayal even more painful for those who respected or even supported her. Once it became clear that she would never get the nomination, not only did she not run as an independent (something which Hillary seems to fear a lot), she endorsed Uncle Joe, the clearly senile, totally corrupt and generally repugnant frontman for the Clinton gang. This endorsement of Biden is something which she did not have to do, but she did it.

When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other) reasons. Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core, which is hardly big news, but which is dramatically confirmed by Gabbard’s profoundly immoral decision. Why do I say that? Because Biden is the ultimate “anti-Gabbard”, she should have endorsed either Bernie, or even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the MIC.

At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of this debacle.

The AngloZionist Empire – as clueless as ever

I have forced myself to listen to the daily COVID19 briefings from the White House and I have to say that Trump’s constant flag-waving and self-worshiping is almost physically painful to watch. The worst parts of these briefings are when Trump, or Pompeo, speak about the US “leadership” as if the entire planet was desperately expecting the US to help. It does not. In fact, most of the planet is disgusted by US action, be it the denial of vitally needed meds to countries like Iran or Venezuela, to the attempts are buying off German vaccines, to the mantric repetition about how great the US private sector is and how Amazon and Walmart will help us weather this crisis.

The truth is that this worldwide pandemic will allow us all to compare how different political systems, countries and cultures have reacted to the threat. In a year or so, we shall all know how free-market capitalism and libertarianism compared with social-democracies, socialist and even communist countries when their population needed protection and assistance.

True, other countries have responded with truly amazing incompetence (including several EU countries), so the inability to protect its citizens is not a purely US problem, it really affects all the countries currently subjugated by the Empire.

Finally, it appears that the China-bashing strategic PSYOP has largely failed. Most fake-news about China was quickly and rapidly debunked, and even the legacy corporate ziomedia could not completely obfuscate the fact that China is, so far, the only country on our planet which defeated COVID19.

Will there be an “ideological lessons learned” once the crisis subsides? I sure hope so!

For the time being, the Empire does what it always does, it plans to deny even more civil rights to its own people which has true patriots like Ron Paul extremely worried. What else is new?

Capitalism with a human face?

Nope, that sure ain’t gonna happen this time around.

Serbia betrayed by Europe (again!) while Russia provides vital aid to Serbia and Italy

Serbia has been betrayed by the Europeans, again. This time around, the Europeans did not bomb Serbian civilians, they simply refused to sell the meds needed to respond to the crisis. President Aleksandar Vucic has now officially declared that the EU solidarity “exists only on paper“. He then openly appealed for China to help, and help China did – the Chinese sent aircraft filled with much needed medical equipment and doctors. Then Russia followed suit and sent 10 heavy transporters filled with gear and specialists.

Even more amazing (and appalling) is the fact that the Empire does not even help its own subjects – in Italy, it was Russia again which organized a major air bridge (over 15 heavy transporters!) and now we see Russian Army units deployed in northern Italy to help the struggling Italians. Check out these short videos reports by the Russian military. You don’t need to understand Russian to see the size of the air-bridge the Russian Aerospace Forces have established or to how grateful the Italian officials are!

I have to say that the Serbs have been fantastically naive to trust the very same people who bombed them, in total illegality, for 78 days, murdering scores of innocent civilians (including those murdered in the TV stantion). For example, the Serbs could have considered how the EU has been lying to Turkey, for decades. But no, the Serbian elites now seem to think that they will be able to fill their pockets with lucrative contracts with the EU.

Hopefully, what these events have demonstrated shall not be forgotten when the next elections take place in Serbia.

That also goes for Italy.

And, finally,

The situation in northern Syria and Iraq

The situation in northern Syria and Iraq has developed pretty much as expected. So far, the Turks have been unable to re-take full control of the M4 highway. As a result of that failure, the joint Russian-Turkish patrols have not been able to move along the full length of the highway as spelled out in the agreement between Russia and Turkey. Clearly, Turkey lacks either the will, or the capability, or both, to remove the Takfiri forces from the M4 highway. So far, the Russians and Syrians have very kindly agreed to wait a little longer, but the recent visit of Russian Defense Minister Shoigu to Damascus clearly shows that big decisions are being worked on:

As for Iraq, the various Shia militias are doing exactly what everybody had predicted, they are executing limited but very disruptive strikes against US forces in Iraq. Here is a good infographic by the Institute for the Study of War which sums it up very nicely:

What we have hear is a small trickle of attacks which do not yield any major victory to the Iraqi forces, but which over time will tremendously demoralize US forces. Finally, such “death by a thousand cuts” strategy also will severely limit the operational capabilities of the US forces in Iraq: when you are mostly busy protecting yourself, you have less time to murder locals.

Still, sooner or later the Shias will have to step up their attacks because forcing the occupation forces to hunker down and actually kicking them out of your country are two very different propositions. These small strikes are very useful, not only because they demoralize the enemy, but because by forcing him to stay inside fortified “secure” areas only makes them better targets for a bigger missile strike.

This is a very sound strategy against which the US forces have no good option, other than throwing in the towel and leaving, which they will have to do anyway (except that they call it “declare victory and leave”, but its the exact same thing).

Lebanon Coronavirus Debate: Thank You Iran or Thank You Italy?!

coronavirus test

March 19, 2020

Marwa Haidar

Shortly after the Lebanese Health Ministry announced first confirmed coronavirus case in the country earlier last month, anti-Hezbollah local factions politicized the matter.

The ministry made the announcement on February 21, saying that the patient was a pilgrim who returned from Iran. These factions, along with their affiliated media outlets took aim at the resistance and the Islamic Republic, blaming them for “sending” the contagious virus to Lebanon.

“Thank you Iran for letting a plane carrying coronavirus infected people to enter our airspace,” MTV channel, which is close to the Lebanese Forces Party, started its news bulletin at that day.

“As if what Iran offers to Lebanon is not enough?! So it has sent the corona to finalize its favor,” the Lebanese channel said, wondering: “Is this cooperation? Is this the support which Iran promises?”

As the anti-Iran propaganda campaign has continued, reports by local media emerged, showing the real figures and how the deadly virus was spreading across the country.

In a report broadcast by independent Lebanese channel LBC, on March 14, number of coronavirus patients who came from Iran reached 12. The report said that 5 other patients contracted the disease from those pilgrims. The report added, citing sources at the Lebanese Health Ministry, that one infected person who was in Italy transmitted the disease to other 34 patients, which is double the number of patients who contracted the virus from pilgrims returning from Iran. It is worth mentioning here that the toll of the infections with coronavirus at that day (March 14) was 93.

First Coronavirus Case Reportedly Transmitted from Italy

Later on Wednesday (March 18), Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar revealed that the first coronavirus case was transmitted by a monk who was in Italy and returned to Lebanon between February 15 and February 20, few days before the case from Iran was announced.

Al-Akhbar’s Maysam Rizk reported that a team tasked by the health ministry with monitoring the pandemic has been following up this issue. She said that the monk, whose identity is still unknown or at least unannounced, took part in a religious ceremony at Saint Joseph Monastery in Beirut’s Achrafieh.

Rizk added that the monk transmitted the disease to several monks, noting that the monastery kept silent on the matter of the religious ceremony.

One of the deaths caused by coronavirus was the teacher Maroun Karam, who contracted the disease from the monk, according to the report.

However, and honestly speaking, this debate is meaningless. For Lebanon, it doesn’t matter whether the coronavirus was transmitted by passengers who were in Iran or in Italy. What really matters is how the Lebanese people can combat this disease. So let’s put the politics aside, forget to “thank” neither Iran, nor Italy, and just pray for both of them, pray for Lebanon and for the entire world!

Source: Lebanese media

Related

Being Ahead of Time

 BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

https://www.unz.com/

In my recent book, Being in Time, I analyse Jewish controlled opposition. I argue that some self-identified Jews end up being on both polar extremes of every debate that is even mildly relevant to Jewish existence: Those who have recently been disturbed about the Jews who are at the centre of the impeachment trial have also found that Jews hold key positions on Trump’s defense team. Those who accuse Jews of pushing immigration and multiculturalism can’t deny that Trump’s senior policy advisor on immigration is Stephen Miller and that breitbart.com was “conceived in Jerusalem.” The Palestinians’ solidarity movement is dominated by a few well organized Jewish solidarity groups that do little but divert the discourse from the Palestinian right of return and exhaust the movement in their relentless witch-hunting of truth speakers and seekers.

In Being in Time, I point out that as soon as an issue or event is identified as a potential Jewish problem, a Jewish satellite dissent emerges to ‘calm things down.’ As soon as Corbyn became the modern Amalek (‘existential threat’), Jews for Jeremywas formed to dismantle the idea that Jews hate Corbyn collectively. Those who view Capitalism as a Jewish construct are similarly reminded that Marx was also a Jew. In Being in Time I argue that none of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It is only natural for Jews to denounce the crimes that are committed on ‘their behalf’ by a state that defines itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ The same applies to Jews who are genuinely tormented by the vast over representation of Jews in some problematic spheres. Yet, the outcome of all this is potentially volatile: every crucial debate regarding the West and its future; Globalism, Neocons wars, capitalism, immigration, multiculturalism, Israel and so on, is too frequently reduced into an internal Jewish exchange.

It was therefore just a matter of time before some Jews would admit that the involvement of a few prominent Jewish celebrities in some spectacular sex crimes is becoming rather embarrassing and even dangerous for the Jews.

It seems as if Jonah Goldberg has launched the ‘Jews against pedophilia’ campaign. Today, The Jewish World Review published an article titled “French pedo flap a cautionary tale for OUR cultural aristocrats.” In the commentary, Goldberg digs into the activities of Jewish radical ideology, along with those of the notorious paedophile, Gabriel Matzneff.

Goldberg was triggered by a New York Times article that examined the rise and fall of the paedophilia devotee. Matzneff is 83, an old man now, but he has been the darling of the French literary world and media for decades: his work was supported by leading newspapers and literary publications. “He’d appear on highbrow TV shows,” Goldberg writes, where he’d “regale interviewers and audiences with the sublime pleasures of having sex with children in France and on sex tours of southeast Asia.”

In his book “Under 16 Years Old,” Matzneff wrote, “To sleep with a child, it’s a holy experience, a baptismal event, a sacred adventure.”

But the contrast Goldberg draws between Jeffrey Epstein and Matzneff is surprisingly clumsy: “The well-connected billionaire spent vast sums to keep his sexual abuses at least somewhat secret. Matzneff not only confessed to his crimes, his confessions were celebrated as literary contributions.” I feel the need to remind Goldberg that nicknaming one’s plane the “Lolita Express” is hardly an attempt to hide one’s sexual morbidity and crimes. If anything Matzneff is like Epstein in that both celebrated a peculiar sense of impunity. Needless to mention, no Jewish outlet denounced either of them or their not very secretive activities before they were caught and charged.

Jewish Radicals and the role of the Orgasm

Next comes the ‘rationalisation.’ “Matzneff was a Child of 68,” Goldberg writes, “a product of the left-wing ‘May 68’ movement that shook France in the 1960s. These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism or bourgeois morality was backward. Conventional sexual morality was part of the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism.”

Goldberg doesn’t approve of the ‘Jewish radicals and their ideology. He reminds us that “a few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a.k.a. Dany le Rouge), the famous former radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He (Cohn-Bendit ) dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying they were merely intended to provoke.”

Goldberg is a well-known and successful writer, he could have published his criticism of Matzneff and Jewish radicals in numerous national American news outlets but, presumably he made the decision to use a Jewish outlet. Whether intentionally or not, Goldberg provides an insight into Jewish survival strategy in general and Jewish controlled opposition in particular. Criticizing radical philosophy and the advocacy of pedophilia on ideological grounds by Jews in a Jewish media outlet conveys the image that Jews can deal with their problems. The goyim should let it go or, even better, move on.

But Goldberg’s account is either mistaken or misleading. The sex revolution that branched into advocating paedophilia wasn’t invented in 1968. Its radical Jewish roots take us back to the 1920-30s and, in particular, to the early work of Wilhelm Reich.

The Following is an excerpt from Being in Time in which I delve into Wilhelm Reich and his ‘genital utopia.’

In his 1933 work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Jewish Marxist and Freudian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of ‘reactionary’ Fascism over ‘progressive’ Communism. Reich was desperate to rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism. In order to do so he formed a new ‘post Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.

According to Reich, the attraction of reactionary and conservative politics and the inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian patriarchy which affects the family, parenting, primal education and eventually, society as a whole.
Of course, the remarkable popularity of fascism in Europe could have provided the scientifically-orientated Reich with a clear refutation of Marxist working class politics, theories and predictions. After all, dialectical Marxism had failed as a social theory as well as a methodical prophecy. But for some reason, he, like many other Jewish intellectuals of his time, decided to stick with Marx. Hoping to rescue what was left of dialectical materialism, and insisting that true communist political revolution would prevail once sexual repression was overthrown, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud into a ‘Sex Revolution.’

Wilhelm Reich posited that sexual liberation on a mass scale would save Marxist dogmatism and working people as well. In chapter five of The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he declared war on the patriarchal and conservative family which he saw as being at the core of mass conservatism: “From the standpoint of social development,” Reich wrote, “the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it.” The traditional family is a “central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.”

In the eyes of the neo-Marxist affection, both romanticism and traditional family values were obstacles to socialist reform and Reich’s vehicle towards the new world order was … orgasm! In his 1927 study, The Function of the Orgasm, he came to the conclusion that: “there is only one thing wrong with neurotic patients: the lack of full and repeated sexual satisfaction.” In the hands of Reich, the Marx-Freud hybrid was leading to what some critical cynics dubbed “genital utopia.”

Reich believed that for women within the patriarchal society, sex was within the realm of duty and/or restricted to procreation. “The maintenance of the authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as far as possible in women and children. The woman is not supposed to be a sexual being, only the producer of children.”(The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich pg 56 37. Ibid pg 56)

Within the traditional society, the woman was robbed of any libidinal consciousness: “This idealization of motherhood is essentially a means of keeping women from developing a sexual consciousness and from breaking through the barriers of sexual repression, of keeping alive their sexual anxieties and guilt feelings. The very existence of woman as a sexual being would threaten authoritarian ideology; her recognition and social affirmation would mean its collapse.” Women were mere baby factories, who had only an instrumental role because: “Imperialistic wars require that there be no rebellion in the women against the function that is imposed on them, that of being nothing but child-bearing machines.” This description of the woman and the family fits the traditional Jewish orthodox family rather better than, say, the German, French, Italian or Spanish family cell.

But Wilhelm Reich wasn’t only a dialectic social revolutionary, he was also a pragmatist. He invented the Orgone Energy Accumulator, a wooden box about the size of a telephone booth, lined with metal and insulated with steel wool. The Orgone itself was a vague concept: an esoteric energy, a universal life force that was massless yet omnipresent and promised to charge up the body with the life force that circulated in the atmosphere and which he christened “orgone energy.” His Orgone box promised to improve “orgastic potency” and, by extension, physical and mental health Thus, the newly liberated Western subject was invited to experience the true meaning of Marx and Freud through sweating towards full emancipation by means of accumulating ‘Orgone energy’ in this wooden box.

Those who watched Woody Allen’s comedy film Sleeper (1973) probably remember the Orgasmatron – the orgasm inducing machine. In Allen’s satirical take on Reich’s Orgone box, it is actually the authoritarian regime that encourages its citizens to emancipate themselves by means of their genitalia. In Allen’s prophetic movie, the orgasm, like consumerism is a reward from the oppressive regime that diverts the masses’ attention from their existential misery.

The ‘authoritarian’ Germans, both fascist and communist, quickly expelled Reich from their ranks. By 1934, even Freud didn’t want anything to do with Reich. The progressive Americans however, tolerated his ideas, at least for a while. Reich was eventually arrested and died in an American prison leaving behind some radical minds, still convinced that the Orgone box was acting as a greenhouse for cosmic, libidinal energy. Within the free-ranging pornographic realm in which we live, the universe has become an extended Orgone container: pornography is free to all; genital sex is deemed almost Victorian; heterosexuality, at a certain stage, was on the verge of becoming a marginal adventure. And yet authoritarianism hasn’t disappeared. Quite the opposite; to borrow Marx’s metaphor – it is sex and pornography rather than religion that have become the opium of the masses. And yet, this ‘progressive’ universe in which we live didn’t defeat the inclination towards violence. We are killing millions by proxy in the name of moral interventionism and Coca Cola.

Donate

Kevin Barrett interviews the Saker

February 13, 2020

Dear friends,

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kevin Barrett.  Here is where you can listen to our interview:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/33954379

https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_the-saker-on-our-fundamental-disagreement-about-wwii-hitler-jews-and-race/

I want to use this opportunity to sincerely thank all those Nazis who angrily defended Hitler and the Nazis – they made my case better than I ever could!  Thank you guys for doing exactly what I thought you would do 🙂

Hugs and cheers,

The Saker

Feb 12 at 6:39am

The Saker on “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race”

Western views of Jews, Jewish identity politics, and Zionism are extremely polarized these days. The mainstream world seems enslaved to Zionist propaganda caricatures; while perhaps in reaction to the appalling lies and omissions of the MSM, increasing numbers of alt-right dissidents have gravitated toward severely anti-Jewish views. 

The Saker—one of the anglophone world’s most important voices on Russia-related strategic issues—recently incited a constellation of controversies with his new article “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race.” He wrote me: “Do you know that I never got as much hate mail as for that article about Russia and Jews…I REALLY pissed a lot of people off.”

What are the Saker’s fundamental disagreements with the people sending him angry comments and emails? “First of all, there is my philosophical position: that Jews share common humanity with all of us. I don’t see them as a separate group that has some kind of unique, different quality.” He goes on to assert that Westerners who don’t like Jews “are actually the mirror image of what they accuse Jews of doing. They say Jews are supremacists, and then they say, at the same time, that Jews are somehow fundamentally different. Well, that’s denying our common humanity. And I don’t care who does it. If it’s done by a rabbi or if it’s done by a nazi, the message is the same: ‘There are some people who are better and more important and more valuable than others.'”

Among the many other points raised in this interview:

*The Russian monarchy wasn’t overthrown by Jews or (80% Jewish) Bolsheviks, it was overthrown by freemasonic Russian elites.

*19th century Russian radical movements were not dominated by Jews the way Bolshevism was.

*Historically, Poland and Polish-occupied Ukraine witnessed a much more intense and fraught relationship between Jews and non-Jews than Russia did.

*Many of the nations that fought in World War II committed horrific atrocities; but however we evaluate them, one thing the Nuremburg Tribunals got right was to establish forever the fact that aggression is the worst war crime, the ultimate war crime, the one that includes and entails all of the others.

*Putin’s attendance at the World Holocaust Forum in Occupied Jerusalem was about mourning victims of World War II, not endorsing Zionist ideology.

*But yes, Russia does unfortunately tilt toward Israel more than Palestine, because Russia has a significant and powerful Jewish population but no Palestinian/Arab population.

*Russia perceives NATO, not Israel, as its biggest threat: “Russia has been preparing for a full-scale conventional and/or nuclear war with the West for at least five years now. They hope to avoid it. They will do their utmost to not give (NATO) a pretext (to attack). But they know that this is the ultimate danger. And they’ve bought enough time. Now Russia is basically non-attackable by the United States…so the next level is, what about a local conflict? Iran is the clear example now, with the murder of Gen. Soleimani. The Russians do see that Israel has a hand in that. But I don’t think they think that Israel always is the single explanation for everything the Empire does.”

*”I’m absolutely convinced that everyone in Russia knows that 9/11 was an inside job. But they also realized that saying that openly was absolutely suicidal for them, because they could never prevail, no matter what kind of proof they present, and it would just be dismissed.”

Lies, Newsweek and Control of the Media Narrative: Tareq Haddad’s First-Hand Account

By Tareq Haddad

Source

Newsweek_OPCW_82ecf.jpg

A mafia runs editors. Freedom of the press is dead. Journalists and ordinary people must stand up.

  • Introduction
  • Syria
  • Newsweek Suppression: A Timeline of Events
  • Editors at Fault
  • Is Rep. Ilhan Omar a Spy?
  • External Control of the Media Narrative

INTRODUCTION

Until several days ago, I was a journalist at Newsweek. I decided to hand my resignation in because, in essence, I was given a simple choice. On one hand, I could continue to be employed by the company, stay in their chic London offices and earn a steady salary—only if I adhered to what could or could not be reported and suppressed vital facts. Alternatively, I could leave the company and tell the truth.

In the end, that decision was rather simple, all be it I understand the cost to me will be undesirable. I will be unemployed, struggle to finance myself and will likely not find another position in the industry I care about so passionately. If I am a little lucky, I will be smeared as a conspiracy theorist, maybe an Assad apologist or even a Russian asset—the latest farcical slur of the day.

Although I am a British citizen, the irony is that I’m half Arabic and half Russian. (Bellingcat: I’m happy to answer any requests.)

It is a terribly sad state of affairs when perfectly loyal people who want nothing but the best for their countries are labelled with such preposterous accusations. Take Iraq war veteran and Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for example, who was the target of such mud slinging for opposing U.S. involvement in Syria and for simply standing up to the Democratic Party’s most corrupt politician, Hillary Clinton. These smears are immature for a democracy—but I, in fact, welcome such attacks.

When the facts presented are utterly ignored and the messengers themselves are crucified in this way, it signals to right-minded people who the true perpetrators of lies are and where the truth in fact lies.

That truth is what matters most to me. It is what first drove me to journalism while I was working in Jersey’s offshore finance industry after completing my degree from Binghamton University’s School of Management in upstate New York. I was so outraged when I grew to realize that this small idyllic island I love and had grown up on since the age of nine, a British Crown dependency fifteen miles off the coast of France, was in fact a hub for global tax evasion. This realization came to me while the British people were being told that austerity had to continue—public funding for schools, hospitals, policing and all matter of things were to be slashed—all while the government “recovered” after bailing out the banks following the 2008 crash. That austerity lie was one I could no longer stomach as soon as I came to understand that my fairly uninspiring administrative role was in fact a part of this global network of firms to help multinational companies, businessmen, politicians and members of various royal families in avoiding paying trillions in tax—all under a perfectly legal infrastructure that the government was fully aware of, but kept quiet about.

In my naivety, as I left that industry and began my journalism training, I wrote a piece that detailed some of this corruption in hopes of changing the public awareness around these issues and in hopes that they no longer continued—albeit I did so in a manner of writing and sophistication I would be embarrassed of presently—but to my disappointment at the time, the piece was hardly noticed and the system remains little changed to now. Nonetheless, since that moment, I have not once regretted speaking truthfully, most especially for my own mental wellbeing: I would not have been able to regard myself with a grain of self-respect had I continued to engage in something I knew was a lie. It is the very same force that compels me to write now.

There is also another, deeper force that compels me to write. In my years since that moment when I decided to become a journalist and a writer, although I suspect I have known it intrinsically long before, I have come to learn that truth is also the most fundamental pillar of this modern society we so often take for granted—a realisation that did not come to us easily and one that we should be extremely careful to neglect. That is why when journalistic institutions fail to remember this central pillar, we should all be outraged because our mutual destruction follows. It may sound like hyperbole, but I assure you it’s not. When our record of where we come from is flawed, or our truth to put it more simply, the new lies stack on top of the old until our connection to reality becomes so disjointed that our understanding of the world ultimately implodes. The failure of current journalism, among other factors, is undoubtedly linked to the current regression of the Western world. In consequence, we have become the biggest perpetrators of the crimes our democracies were created to prevent.

Of course, for those who pay attention, this failure of mainstream journalism I speak of is nothing new. It has been ongoing for decades and was all too obvious following the Iraq war fiasco. The U.S. and U.K. governments, headed by people who cared for little other than their own personal gain, told the people of their respective countries a slew of fabrications and the media establishment, other than a handful of exceptions, simply went along for the ride.

This was something that consumed my interest when I was training to be a journalist. How could hundreds of reputable, well-meaning journalists get it so wrong? I read numerous books on the issue—from Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent and Philip Knightley’s The First Casualty to work by Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer-prize-winning former foreign correspondent for the New York Times who was booted out for opposing that war (who I disagree with on some things, for the record)—but still, I believed that honest journalism could be done. Nothing I read however, came close to the dishonesty and deception I experienced while at Newsweek. Previously, I believed that not enough journalists questioned the government narrative sufficiently. I believed they failed to examine the facts with close enough attention and had not connected the dots as a handful of others had done.

No. The problem is far worse than that.

SYRIA

In the aftermath of the Iraq war and during my time studying this failure of the media since, I was of course extremely aware of the high likelihood that the U.S. government narrative on Syria was a deception. For starters, there were the statements made by the retired four-star general, General Wesley Clark, to Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman in 2007, four years prior to the beginning of the Syria conflict. The following is worth watching to in full.

Nonetheless, once I joined IBTimes UK in 2016, after training with the Press Association and working at the Hull Daily Mail (both of whom I am eternally indebted to for giving me an excellent foundation for starting my career) I solidly understood that journalism was not the profession of making unverifiable claims. I, or any journalist for that matter, could not out-right say that the nature of the Syrian conflict was based on a lie, no matter how strongly we suspected it. To do so, we would need unshakeable evidence that pointed to this.

Through the years, good journalists did document evidence. Roula Khalaf, who will soon take over from Lionel Barber as the editor of the Financial Times, wrote one such piece alongside Abigail Fielding-Smith in 2013. It documented how Qatar provided arms and funded the opposition of Bashar al-Assad’s legitimate government to the tune of somewhere between $1 and $3 billion from the outset of the conflict, rubbishing claims that it was a “people’s revolution” that turned violent. Footage captured by Syrian photographer Issa Touma—made into a short film titled 9 Days From My Window in Aleppo—similarly showed how Qatar-funded jihadists from the Al-Tawhid Brigade were present in the streets of Syria’s capital from the very outset of the war.

“Fighters re-enter my street,” Touma says as he films covertly out of his window. “They look different. They are heavily armed men with beards. I had only heard about them before. This is Liwa al-Tawhid. National television calls them terrorists. The international press calls them freedom fighters. I don’t care what they call it—I refuse to chose a side. But it’s a lie that the revolution started peacefully everywhere. At least in my street, Al Said Ali Street, it started with guns. It didn’t start peacefully at all.”

Veterans of the trade Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk also poked holes in the U.S. government narrative, but their treatment by other journalists has been one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the press.

Hersh—who exposed the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, the clandestine bombing of Cambodia, the torture at Abu Ghraib prison, in addition to telling the world the real story of how Osama Bin Laden died—was shunned from the industry for reporting a simple fact: Bashar al-Assad’s government is not the only actor with access to chemical weapons in Syria. After a sarin attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in 2013, he was further smeared for reporting that Barack Obama withheld important military intelligence: samples examined in Britain’s Porton Down did not match the chemical signatures of sarin held in the Syrian government’s arsenals.

Fisk, writing days before the Syrian conflict escalated, in a piece that asked Americans to consider what they were really doing in the Middle East as the ten-year anniversary of 9/11 approached, also raised important questions, but he too was largely ignored.

I also did my best to document evidence that poked holes in the narrative as best I could. In 2016, I wrote how Egyptian authorities arrested five people for allegedly filming staged propaganda that purported to be from Syria. Though I’m not aware of any evidence to suggest that the two are connected and I make no such claims, these arrests came to light after The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Sunday Times revealed that a British PR firm, Bell Pottinger, was working with the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council and received $540 million to create false propaganda in Iraq a month prior.

The following year, after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, I documented the intriguing story of Shajul Islam, the British doctor who purported to have treated the alleged victims and appeared on several television networks including NBC to sell the case for retaliation. He gushed with heroism, but it was not reported he was previously charged with terror offences in the U.K. and was in fact considered a “committed jihadist” by MI6. He was imprisoned in 2013 in connection with the kidnapping of two Western photo-journalists in northern Syria and was struck off Britain’s General Medical Council in 2016. Why he was released without sentencing and was allowed to travel back to Syria remains a mystery to me.

I also refused to recycle the same sloppy language used, inadvertently or not, by a number of other publications. Al Qaeda and their affiliates had always been referred to as terrorists as far as I was aware—why the sudden change to “rebels” or “moderate rebels” for the purposes of Syria? Thankfully, the news editor I worked with most frequently at the time, Fiona Keating, trusted my reporting and had no problems with me using the more appropriate terms “anti-Assad fighters” or “insurgents”—though one could arguably say even that was not accurate enough.

When buses carrying civilian refugees hoping to escape the fighting in Idlib province were attacked with car bombs in April of 2017, killing over 100, most of them women and children, I was disappointed with the Guardian and the BBC for continuing with their use of this infantile word, but this was not the language I felt to be appropriate in my report.

At roughly the same time, in light of the Khan Sheikhoun attack, confronted with an ever-growing list of irregularities and obvious falsifications—such as increasing evidence that the White Helmets were not what they purported of being, or the ridiculousness that the Western world’s de facto authority on Syria had become 7-year-old Bana al-Abed—I wrote an opinion piece that came short of calling the narrative around the Syrian conflict a lie, but simply pleaded that independent investigations of the alleged chemical weapons attack were allowed to take place before we rushed head first into war. I still believed honesty would prevail.

That piece was ultimately declined by IBTimes—though I covertly published it in CounterPunch later—but the rejection email I received from the editor-in-chief at the time makes for interesting reading.

I was sad to hear that asking for an independent investigation into a chemical weapons attack was an “incendiary theory,” but I was forced to move on.

By that summer, I was let go alongside a number of other journalists from the publication after the Buzzfeed-style model of click-bait-aggregation journalism was heavily punished by a new Google algorithm and had largely failed: page views plummeted and editors couldn’t seem to understand it was because we weren’t doing any real journalism. Having felt frustrated with the industry, I decided to not pursue another position in reporting and decided to move to mainland Europe in hopes of pursuing my other passion—literature—with aspirations of being able to write more freely.

Fast forward to 2019, I decided to return to journalism as I was feeling the pressure to have “a grown-up job” and could not count on my ability to be a novelist as a means of long-term career stability. So when I joined Newsweek in September, I was extremely thankful for the opportunity and had no intention of being controversial—the number of jobs in the industry appeared to be shrinking and, besides, the Syrian conflict appeared to be dying down. As soon as I arrived, Newsweek editor-in-chief Nancy Cooper emphasised original reporting and I was even even more pleased. I wanted to come in, get my head down and start building my reputation as a journalist again.

Then on October 6, President Donald Trump and the military machine behind him threw my quiet hopes of staying well clear of Syria into disarray. He announced the decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the country and green-lit the Turkish invasion that followed in a matter of days. Given my understanding of the situation, I was asked by Newsweek editors to report on this.

Within days of the Turkish invasion into Syria beginning, Turkey was accused of using the incendiary chemical white phosphorus in an attack on Ras al-Ayn and, again, having pitched the story, I was asked to report on the allegations. This spurred a follow-up investigation on why the use of the substance—a self-igniting chemical that burns at upwards of 4,800 degrees Fahrenheit, causing devastating damage to its victims—was rarely considered a war crime under the relevant weapons conventions and I was commended by Nancy for doing excellent journalism.

It was while investigating this story that I started to come across growing evidence that the U.N.-backed body for investigating chemical weapons use, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued a doctored report about an alleged chemical attack in Douma in April of 2018, much to the anger of OPCW investigators who visited the scene. Once Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday published his story containing a leaked letter that was circulated internally from one of the disgruntled OPCW scientists, I believed there was more than enough evidence to publish the story in Newsweek. That case was made even stronger when the letter was confirmed by Reuters and had been corroborated by former OPCW director-general Dr. Jose Bustani.

Although I am no stranger to having story ideas rejected, or having to censor my language to not rock the ship, this was a truth that had to be told. I was not prepared to back down on this.

Let me be clear: there is evidence that a United Nations body—whose jurisdiction was established after the world agreed to never repeat the horrors of World War I and World War II, such as German forces firing more than 150 tons of chlorine gas at French colonial troops in Ypres—is being weaponized to sell the case for war.

After OPCW experts found trace levels of chlorine when they visited Douma—i.e. no different than the levels of chlorine normally present in the atmosphere—or raised concerns that the canisters may have been tampered with or placed, both of which were reflected in their original reports, they made protestations because this information was withheld from the final report that was released to the world’s media. Instead, the final wording said chlorine was “likely” used and the war machine continued.

This is not a “conspiracy theory” as Newsweek sadly said in a statement to Fox News—interestingly the only mainstream publication to cover my resignation. Real OPCW scientists have met with real journalists and explained the timeline of events. They provided internal documents that proved these allegations—documents that were then confirmed by Reuters. This is all I wanted to report.

Meanwhile, OPCW scientists were prevented from investigating Turkey’s alleged use of white phosphorus. This flagrant politicization of a neutral body is opening the world up to repeating the same horrors we experienced in those two devastating wars.

This is unacceptable and I resigned when I was forbidden from reporting on this.

NEWSWEEK SUPPRESSION: A TIMELINE OF EVENTS

I first became aware of the Mail on Sunday report on Monday, November 25, and this is when I raised it with Alfred Joyner, Newsweek’s global executive producer, who had been my main point of contact for pitching stories.

Following a conversation with Alfred, he asked me to write the pitch in a note to him and Newsweek’s foreign affairs editor, Dimi Reider, on the company’s internal messaging system. The following is a copy and paste of that pitch, alongside the conversation that followed in the next few days.

Dimi Reider Alfred Joyner Chat.pdf

Once I returned to the office on Thursday, November 28, I proceeded to have a conversation with Dimi, but to my disappointment, he did not address any of my protestations against why the article could not be published. He made the famous joke about former Soviet politician Leonid Brezhnev irrelevantly, one he had already made to me a couple of weeks before, and after listening to my reasoning for wanting to have the story published for several minutes, all he had to say was: “I’m sorry, but I’m afraid it’s a no.”

The following morning, feeling incredibly frustrated, I wrote an email to Nancy and Newsweek’s digital director and London bureau chief, Laura Davis, to express my concerns.

Several stressful days passed where I did not hear from either Laura or Nancy, but in the meantime, as I tried to continue as best as I could with my every day reporting role, I noticed how an entertainment editor by the name of Tufayel Ahmed began to pick up most of the following stories I wrote.

In my experience of working with editors in the past, if an issue ever arose with a story, we would have a perfectly civil conversation, I would make the relevant adjustments where necessary and the article would be published without further problems. That was not my experience with Tufayel.

At first, when he sent me long, overly critical and often hostile criticisms on articles I wrote, I considered asking him to step into a meeting room in order to ask him whether I had inadvertently done something to offend him. Having come from a newspaper background where mistakes in articles required embarrassing apologies printed in the paper the next day, and having held the belief that editors were your best friend and should always be kept on side, I always prided myself in filing copy that was free of any errors and throughout my career, I was frequently commended for doing exactly this.

In my time at the Hull Daily Mail for example, regarded as one of the U.K.’s best regional newspapers, I do not recall a single correction being printed on any of the articles I wrote. That was the case despite covering murder trials, rape cases and numerous other sensitive stories.

On the eve of the Brexit referendum, despite still being a trainee reporter, I had built such a reputation for my accurate journalism and my attention-to-detail skills that I was even entrusted to single-handedly edit and publish copy from two politics reporters to the publication’s website, while managing the live blog, all social media channels and filing my own stories on national developments as the results came in. The following morning, following a short nap, the editor was so impressed with my efforts that I was asked to conduct the interviews with the local leaders of each political party, despite being one of the most junior reporters on the team.

Brexit.pdf

Furthermore, in close to 1,000 published articles for IBTimes UK, I can only recall one incident where an article required a correction. An Israel lobby group—forgive me for being unable to recall which one—objected to my use of the word “settlements” and requested that it be replaced with “settlement units” instead. This was a reasonable request and the article was updated to reflect this without further incident.

I do not say these things to be self-congratulatory. I say these things because I was deeply saddened and disturbed. Because when I finally received a response from Laura about the OPCW story on December 5, six days after my initial email and after repeated attempts to speak to her in person, only one paragraph was devoted to the leaked letter and the rest of the email attacked my capability as a journalist.

It listed all the instances that Tufayel had criticised me on, unfairly mischaracterising my actions, in addition to listing one genuine mistake I made in the course of everyday reporting—something not to be unexpected when every day I was expected to write four stories, often about complicated topics, sometimes with no prior experience in them. Nonetheless, even for this story, I had taken immediate action needed to resolve and had apologised to editors at the time, the characterisation of what took place in Laura’s email was deeply maligned.

That was the moment I knew beyond doubt what my gut had been telling me before: there was no valid reason for this OPCW story not to be published. It was simply being suppressed. I was being attacked for pushing back against this.

As I have nothing to hide, I will publish Laura’s response in full.

You will see my full response in due course, but first, some further comments about Laura’s criticisms must be addressed.

EDITORS AT FAULT

My first “indiscretion” is rather simple to address. I believe—however I must admit I am not certain, as the information was never published—that the article Laura is referring to this. Regardless of which piece it was, the following events took place.

In 2018, confirming the earlier reporting by Hersh, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that the Pentagon has no evidence to support the allegations that the Syrian government used sarin in Ghouta, as reported here by the Associated Press. As Newsweek did not report this fact (more evidence of suppression?) I linked to an opinion piece on our website that addressed that report. The first line of that piece links back to the AP story. When questioned by Tufayel why I did this, I explained that I was simply trying to link to references on our website, explaining to him the source was AP—ironically, I was trying to help Newsweek gather more clicks. The information which was ultimately removed from my article was not badly sourced.

The second point listed by Laura—the only occasion out of 156 stories written during my two-month stint at Newsweek where an article required a correction—raises another serious problem at the publication: editors tell journalists what to report.

This article was assigned to me by Alfred on Newsweek’s internal messaging system, as is commonplace for editors to do, and I felt obliged to report the story, although I had concerns and it is not one I personally would have chosen to do. I raised these concerns with Alfred—whose background is in video editing, not journalism—but instead of ditching the story, a new angle was suggested and a new headline was provided too. Feeling that I couldn’t challenge his authority any further without being rude, I proceeded as best as I could, but in the course of doing so, I made two mistakes: One, I neglected to reach out for comment on two of the five parties involved (thinking Facebook, who I contacted, would comment on behalf of the remaining). Two, I wrongly reported that some funds were donated by Mark Zuckerburg as opposed to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

When the Facebook spokesperson returned my request, she simply pointed me in the direction of tweets made by the remaining individuals and asked if I could update accordingly. The tweets did not criticize our reporting, but of the original reporting done by Popular Information, the source assigned to me by Alfred to base my reporting on.

Once their statements came to my knowledge (which reflected the concerns I had about the article in the first place), I alerted Alfred immediately and did my best to redress. Laura’s criticism also neglected to mention that Newsweek’s chief sub-editor—whom I will not name as he has been among a handful of editors to treat me fairly—was the one to look over the article and he had no problems in publishing my piece.

This practice of editors telling journalists what to write, with what angle and with headlines already assigned is completely backwards and is the cause of numerous problems. How can journalists find genuine newsworthy developments if what to write has already been scripted for them?

I spoke to several Newsweek journalists about this very problem prior to my departure and they shared the same concerns. This was the very same problem that led to Jessica Kwong’s firing a week before my resignation.

Kwong, who I do not know, wrote a story titled “How is Trump Spending Thanksgiving? Tweeting, Golfing and More,” a day before the day in question—only for it to emerge that Trump made a surprise visit to Afghanistan. No proper journalist would have written that piece by their own volition—it was only done because editors were on their tireless crusade for clicks.

In the end, she was fired because she did not approach the White House for comment, although all the information came from the president’s public diary.

“Dear press office,” her email should have read supposedly. “I am writing a piece that is of no useful public information, but will be criticising the president for what he choses to do in his leisure time on Thanksgiving. Can you please provide a statement at your earliest convenience.”

For goodness sake, whatever your opinions are of President Trump, what were most of you doing on Thanksgiving Day?

Most appallingly, in a team meeting between the New York and London offices following the firing, where “lessons to be learned” were discussed at length, the editor in question tried to make a joke along the lines of: “Don’t worry guys! I’ve learned my lesson! I’ll happily edit the story ‘What’s Trump doing on Christmas Day?” Silence followed. You should have seen the faces of the journalists in the room.

A final note on the contents of Laura’s email, for the rest is addressed in my response.

Yes. I did make adjustments in the content management system and republished some articles. Journalists are permitted to do this if they spot small mistakes—such as in spelling or grammar, for example—but I did not editorialise as the email claims. And yes. On the white phosphorus story, I did question an editor’s judgement. It was Nancy’s in fact.

After the article had been published, she amended the headline so that it was more attention grabbing, but the grammar she used made it non-sensical and she also didn’t abide by Newsweek’s own house style in doing so. (She wrote “US” not “U.S.”) I didn’t want an article I spent three weeks working on to be ruined because of sloppiness. Is there something so wrong with that? For the record: I am still unhappy with the headline on the piece as it stands.

Now, before I return to my response and to my ultimate resignation, there were several other important things to note.

IS REP. ILHAN OMAR A QATARI SPY?

On Saturday, November 30, a day after I sent my initial email to Laura and Nancy, I was working a weekend shift and there had been a change in the rota: Tufayel was to be the news editor for the day. There was nothing demonstrably unusual about this, but what did strike me as odd is how I was immediately assigned a story about some relatively unknown congressional candidate who had been kicked off Twitter for tweeting something in relation to the Democratic Congresswoman of Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, and allegations that she was a spy.

The nature of the story was not odd in itself, but only seemed strange because of Dimi’s earlier refutation of my OPCW piece.

“It’s not just about Syria,” he wrote. “This was part of my reluctance to put take up this weird story going around since yesterday about Ilhan Omar being a Qatari spy. Not a single serious U.S. site picked it up, which confirms my hunch it’s BS.”

At the time, not knowing about the story, I thought that was fair enough—it seemed like a ridiculous claim. In fact, when I had seen that line written in Dimi’s refutation, it further enraged me: why was my provable story about the existence of this leaked letter (verified by Reuters!!!) being smeared by being placed next to this?

Regardless, when I was assigned the story by Tufayel, I did my best to be professional and I did what I always did: I pulled up as many resources as I could find on the matter at hand and began to research and fact-check. That was when I was shocked to discover this report in Al Arabiya about Ilhan.

The publication acquired a 233-page legal deposition, made to a U.S. district court, by a Kuwaiti-born Canadian businessman by the name of Alan Bender. He gave evidence against the Qatari emir’s brother, Sheikh Khalid bin Hamad al-Thani, after al-Thani was accused of ordering his American bodyguard to murder two people and after holding his hired American paramedic prisoner. In that deposition, Bender claimed to have high connections among Qatari officials—presumably why he was asked to testify—and it was there that he made the Ilhan spy allegations.

Now, I have no further evidence to support Alan Bender’s claims—I will be the first to admit I know very little about Qatari politics—but surely a well-connected businessman’s deposition in a U.S. court of law did not justify Dimi’s “hunch it’s BS” without providing further evidence. If Alan Bender’s claims are untrue and he is lying under oath, he has to answer for them. I suddenly realised that this was a test.

Would I get the hint and do my reporting in line with management orders? Or would I continue to report perfectly publishable details that are in the public interest?

Of course, there is the possibility I was assigned the article by mere happenstance, but what took place after I submitted my draft copy to Tufayel for editing was revealing. The draft I submitted was as follows.

All reasonable journalists, I hope, will not find anything wrong with my reporting here. Despite this, following the submission of my draft, all references to Alan Bender were scrubbed from my piece, and so too was the link to the Al Arabiya’s story. All that was left of the newsworthy information I provided on the matter were the words “baseless claims”.

How was Tufayel so certain that the claims were baseless? Did he have information to the contrary of what Alan Bender said? Or was there any other journalistic justification for removing information that was provided in a court of law, although I clearly stated there was no other evidence to currently support the claims? Was there any good reason at all? I suspect not, other than the fact that it could be deeply damaging if the allegations emerged to be true, and that management orders had been to suppress anything Alan Bender said, as was the same across most media organizations across the U.S.

Curiously, Nancy later amended the article again, this time changing the word “baseless” to “unverified”—softening the language, I imagine, in order to not draw unnecessary attention to it.

This is shown by the content management system (CMS) logs that capture all changes made.

EXTERNAL CONTROL OF THE MEDIA NARRATIVE

While all this was going on, and while I waited for a response from Laura, I started to have strong suspicions that something wasn’t quite right with Dimi, the so-called foreign affairs editor. For starters, he rarely did any foreign affairs editing. He rarely did any editing at all.

Newsweek has a system where reporters paste the relevant CMS link of draft articles ready to be edited into a “publishme” channel of the internal messaging system and editors make their way down the list, picking up stories that reporters had filed. Once they are looked over and published, editors dropped them in another channel called “published_stories” for all to see.

I made a habit of watching this list closely—it was useful to know what other reporters had filed in order to be able to link to their stories and also for ensuring articles were not repeated accidentally. In the two months I spent at Newsweek, I saw Dimi post in the “published_stories” channel only a handful of times. This is odd as most editors publish several stories a day. Instead, his most active contributions to the messaging system were with funny tweets or articles in the “general” thread. Sadly, I do not have physical evidence to support this, but the journalists I worked with will know this to be true.

The only times Dimi appeared to be involved is when a story had the potential to be controversial. He worked on my white phosphorus investigation, made the decision to not publish anything about the original Ilhan spy claims and rejected my attempts at publishing the OPCW leaks.

While working on that white phosphorus story, before I was fully aware of his background, he spoke to me of how he co-founded +972 Magazine—a liberal Israeli publication that started out by covering the 2008-2009 Gaza War. I glanced at his resume and was honored to be working with such an accomplished foreign affairs journalist. I had genuinely hoped to build a closer relationship to him.

That was why I was so bewildered when he flatly refused to publish the OPCW revelations. Surely any editor worth their salt would see this as big? Of course, I understood that the implications of such a piece would be substantial and not easy to report—it was the strongest evidence of lies about Syria to date—but surely most educated people could see this coming? Other evidence was growing by the day.

But no. As the earlier messages showed, there was no desire to report these revelations, regardless of how strong the evidence appeared to be. Dimi was simply happy to defer to Bellingcat—a clearly dubious organization as others have taken the time to address, such as here and here—instead of allowing journalists who are more than capable of doing their own research to do their job.

It was this realization that made me start to question Dimi. When I looked a little deeper, he was the missing piece.

Dimi worked at the European Council on Foreign Relations from 2013 and 2016—the sister organization to the more prevalent think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Some may be asking why this matters, but the lobbying group—the largest and most powerful in the United States—is nicknamed “Wall Street’s think-tank” for a reason, as the book by Laurence H. Shoup with the same title explains.

To understand just how influential the body is, it is worth noting that 10 of George H. W. Bush’s top 11 foreign policymakers were members, as was the former president himself. Bill Clinton, also a member, hired 15 foreign policymakers with CFR membership from a total of 17. George W. Bush hired 14 CFR members as top foreign policymakers and Barack Obama had 12, with a further five working in domestic policy positions.

Its European sister act is also highly influential, as this graphic from its website about current members demonstrates.

It is also worth noting that the CFR’s current chairman is David Rubenstein, co-founder and executive chairman of the Carlyle Group—the same Carlyle Group which previously described itself as the “leading private equity investor in the aerospace and the defense industries,” until it probably decided it was not a good look to boast about its war profiteering, though its investments in those industries remain.

It is the same Carlyle Group that hosted Osama bin Laden’s brother as the guest of honor for the group’s annual investor meeting in Washington D.C. the same day the Twin Towers fell. George H. W. Bush, an informal advisor to Carlyle, was also present.

Furthermore, one of the CFR’s most notorious exports was former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—a man famously described by Christopher Hitchens as America’s greatest ever war criminal. His long list of crimes against humanity cannot be summarized quickly.

Jeffrey Epstein was also a member from 1995 to 2009 and in a PR push, the CFR recently announced its decision to donate $350,000 to help fight sexual trafficking victims, equivalent in amount to the donations received from him. It may be obvious to state, but the Epstein story is another that’s not being investigated adequately by the media.

For those wanting to learn more about the influence of the CFR over the years, there is more in this paper published in the political science journal Reviews in American History.

But what about the think tank’s influence on journalism?

I’m unaware if what I will report here is common knowledge to the rest of the industry, but what I discovered when researching this topic is unacceptable to me.

I learned that aside from a large number of prominent journalists holding membership, I discovered that the CFR offers fellowships for journalists to come work alongside its many State Department and Department of Defensive representatives. A list of historical fellows includes top reporters and editors from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and CNN, among others—not forgetting journalists from Newsweek.

The most prominent CFR member to join Newsweek’s ranks was Fareed Zakaria. After stints at Yale and Harvard, at the age of 28, Zakaria became the managing editor of Foreign Affairs—the CFR’s own in-house publication. From there, he became the editor of Newsweek International in 2000, before moving on to edit Time Magazine in 2010.

 

When CIA intelligence analyst Kenneth Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, Zakaria lauded the work and described Pollack as “One of the world’s leading experts on Iraq.”

Zakaria’s Newsweek columns prior to the war also make for interesting reading. “Let’s get real with Iraq,” one headline reads as early as 2001. “Time to take on America’s haters,” another one goes on. Others include “It’s time to do as daddy did,” and “Invade Iraq, but bring friends.” I could go on.

Interestingly, once the war had started in 2003, Foreign Affairs—where Zakaria writes to this day—was ranked first by research firm Erdos and Morgan as the most successful in influencing in public opinion. It achieved the accolade in 2005 and again in 2006. Results for other years are not known.

Scrolling through LinkedIn and Twitter, numerous individuals listed as journalists have taken the same path Zakaria has taken. They complete State Department-funded “diplomacy” degrees from prestigious universities—such as Harvard, Yale, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins, or at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London—before gritting their teeth at publications or think tanks funded by the CFR or Open Society Foundations. Once their unquestioning obedience is demonstrated, they slowly filter into mainstream organizations or Foreign Affairs.

It also emerged that this is the same path that Dimi has taken. +972 Magazine’s biggest funder is the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund, whose president and CEO, Stephen Heintz, is a CFR member. In addition to his work with the ECFR, Dimi is also listed as a research associate at SOAS.

This conflict of interests may be known to other journalists in the trade, but I will repeat: this is unacceptable to me.

The U.S. government, in an ugly alliance with those the profit the most from war, has its tentacles in every part of the media—imposters, with ties to the U.S. State Department, sit in newsrooms all over the world. Editors, with no apparent connections to the member’s club, have done nothing to resist. Together, they filter out what can or cannot be reported. Inconvenient stories are completely blocked. As a result, journalism is quickly dying. America is regressing because it lacks the truth.

The Afghanistan Papers, released this week by the Washington Post, showed further evidence of this. Misinformation, a trillion dollars wasted and two thousand Americans killed—and who knows how many more Afghanis. The newspapers ran countless stories on this utter failure, however, none will not tell you how they are to blame. The same mistakes are being repeated. The situation is becoming more grave. Real journalists and ordinary people need to take back journalism.

This was the letter I sent to Newsweek when I resigned.

Twitter Suspends Syrian Presidency Account after Broadcasting Assad Interview with Italian TV

Twitter

Source

December 10, 2019

Twitter on Monday temporarily suspended the account of Syrian Presidency after it broadcasted an interview with President Bashar Assad conducted by RAI News 24 but was not aired by the Italian TV.

“During the broadcast of President Assad’s interview, which RAI News 24 refrained from airing, Twitter suddenly suspended the account of the Syrian presidency and without giving justification,” the Syrian Presidency announced on its Facebook account.

Later on Monday the account was enabled.

Assad’s office said the president gave the interview to RAI 24 on November 26 and that both parties agreed that the interview would air on Dec. 2, on both Italian RAI News 24 and Syrian national media outlets.

It added that RAI asked that the interview be postponed twice and Assad’s office said that it will broadcast the interview in full, on Monday (December 9), which they did.

RAI later issued a statement saying the interview wasn’t commissioned by any of the RAI news organs “thus it was impossible to agree in advance about a date to broadcast it.”

Source: Agencies

Related

 

Western counter-revolution tragically on display at gas price hike protests

A picture taken on November 17, 2019 shows a scorched gas station that was set ablaze by protesters during a demonstration against a rise in gasoline prices in Eslamshahr, near the Iranian capital of Tehran. (By AFP)

A picture taken on November 17, 2019 shows a scorched gas station that was set ablaze by protesters during a demonstration against a rise in gasoline prices in Eslamshahr, near the Iranian capital of Tehran. (By AFP)

Western counter-revolution tragically on display at gas price hike protestsBy Ramin Mazaheri

Thu Nov 28, 2019 08:18AM [Updated: Thu Nov 28, 2019 08:24AM ]

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 Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism.’

 

A simple question for you: are there, for lack of a better word, “counter-revolutionaries” in Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Syria? By that I mean: do those nations have people on the far extremes of the political spectrum who will provoke, take advantage of, and even relish in violence against their governments?

Obviously, only a liar or somebody foolishly playing devil’s advocate would not respond that, yes, in these nations there are many such persons — the proof is overwhelming.

So why would it be so hard to believe that there are such persons — counter-revolutionaries — in Iran, and that they hijacked recent protests over gas price hikes to provoke, take advantage of, and devilishly relish in death and violence against the government? Iran, unlike the nations I listed — and unlike almost every nation, period — actually had a popular revolution for extremists to counter in the first place.

Iranians are reminded of their exceptionalism when, for example and for certain, such far-right groups drove on a motorcycle to a gas hike protest, fired on the crowd, and fled.

Such vicious, armed people — the allies of the governments of many of those reading this article — are obviously the worst, most anti-democratic type of criminal. Their goal is just as obvious: to foment a counter-revolution in Iran.

What is unfortunate regarding the West’s coverage of the national tragedy which was the violence at the Iranian gas hike protests is that there isn’t the barest mention of this very real, very life-and-death, very accurate reality.

The term “counter-revolutionary” staggers the Western mind in its tracks — they seem to think it has been consigned to history? Or because there are no revolutionary countries in the West, and many ones filled with neo-imperial propaganda, perhaps they cannot even conceive of the existence of counter-revolutionaries?

The impact of such naivety is profoundly deadly.

Iranian counter-revolutionaries are aware of this yawning Western blind spot, and so they know that every single Iranian death — when reported by Amnesty International or Western journalists — will be blamed on the government and national security forces even though every Iranian knows that this is false and impossible.

The sweet, good-hearted innocents at Amnesty and the desk-only journalists in London, Paris, and New York City simply do not have the experience, or maybe even the editorial approval, to write this truthful question asked by every Iranian: how many innocent deaths were caused by counter-revolutionaries, and how many counter-revolutionaries pushed their far-right views all the way to their own demise?

We don’t know, as an official government report of the deaths has not yet been released. But everyone in Iran has an idea of the answer — a lot of them.

And there were many innocent deaths of protesters, too. This is why the gas hike protests are a tragedy.

And we know, because no one denies the right to self-defense, that the government simply had to fire back: when somebody drives by on a motorcycle and opens fire… what is the alternative for any civil servant working in security?

What needs to be impressed on non-Iranians is that there are regular protests in Iran and that they are not violent. Iran is not Cuba, which has no protests besides the “Ladies in White.” Iran is also not China, which has almost too many protests to keep track of. Iran is also not the US, which seemingly forgot how to protest in between the end of their Vietnam invasion and the election of Donald Trump. So if Iran has many protests which do not get violent, why did these?

The gas price hikes were launched without warning, and I assume it is because the government knew that they would be very unpopular… but they didn’t want them to be explosive.

And by “explosive” I mean that they didn’t want the old-money monarchists, the insane MKO who are even less popular than the criminal monarchists, ISIL (an attack of theirs caused 70 innocent casualties in Tehran in 2017), the cynical mercenaries bought by Western nations and their Arab monarch puppets, the secret service agencies of such nations which of course target Iran (is this is not a great number of people, already?) to have time to plan their drive-by shootings, building bombings and arsons at a  moment of heightened social unrest. I would say it’s not that the government wanted to catch the Iranian people by surprise, but to catch these illegitimate, undemocratic, far-right, definitely “counter-revolutionary” forces by surprise.

Were there legitimate protests against the gas hikes? As I mentioned, of course, and nor were they unusual or unexpected.

But attacking a police station, probably to get weapons — it is a normal journalistic question to ask if these are the works of counter-revolutionaries or “normal protesters,” regardless of the passport such attackers hold? Take a moment to imagine what the Western mainstream response would be be if French Yellow Vests did that — the idea that any of them would receive the barest sliver of public support is preposterous.

Just like with the Yellow Vests, the West lies about the true authors of protest violence

This should be stating the obvious to anyone with a rudimentary political awareness, but in the Iranian context, a “far-rightist” is synonymous with a “counter-revolutionary.” This is the case of every society which had a revolution since 1917, and Iran is no different. There is no “far-right” party in China, Cuba, Iran, or in any revolutionary nation because revolutionary nations all banish/declare war on far-right forces, after all.

It is difficult for Westerners to understand the recent Iran protests because they are denied this historical-political honesty and context about Iran. Their difficulty is further compounded by the fact that the top NGOs and the Western mainstream media cannot or will not admit that in Western nations the far-right is firmly a part of their establishments, unlike in Iran.

Look at the Yellow Vests in France: across the West, they have been portrayed as violent, far-right thugs masquerading as protesters. The reality is — and I have been there nearly every Saturday and can testify — the scenes of extreme violence always come from Black Bloc members who infiltrate the protests. Black Bloc is totally detrimental to the legitimate pro-democracy and socioeconomic demands of the Yellow Vest protesters; their ultra-left anarchism is totally unwanted; they are easily infiltrated by rogue cops, who merely have to wear black; French riot cops don’t lift a finger to stop Black Bloc’s vandalism — they are either colluding or, certainly, told to allow violence to occur in order to discredit the Yellow Vests.

The Yellow Vests are innocent protesters, just like the Iranian gas hike protesters — they are unarmed and cannot possibly stop people from committing unreasonable violence. Therefore, how can the West blame the Yellow Vests for violence they disavow and have no part in? I don’t know… but that is certainly what they have done for a calendar year.

The real violence comes not from Iranian gas price hike protesters nor Yellow Vests (who started following a gas price hike) in either of their situations, but from outside, unwanted, self-interested forces with incredibly dubious democratic intentions.

It is crystal clear: just as the West doesn’t report that it is Black Bloc committing violence and not the Yellow Vests protesters, the West also doesn’t report that it is far-right/counter-revolutionaries who are the authors of violence in Iran.

The Iranian government must absolutely punish police wrongdoings whenever proven. They must not be like France, which last week finally opened their first trial for police brutality despite the full calendar year of incredibly calculating repression. Iran has had a short-lived paroxysm of violence — the French government cold-bloodedly wages police brutality with sadistic regularity and precision.

However, comparing France and Iran is to compare apples and bowling balls. France’s government doesn’t have to spend one second thinking about catching “anti-France” forces “by surprise.” France is not beset by many rich, far-right groups / nations / monarchs / ex-monarchs / terrorists who get out of bed in the morning with the sole goal of destabilizing their national system.

Iranians, unlike the French, know this article is full of truths.

They know that because they know what propaganda is: France just had its bloodiest day since being kicked out of Beirut some 40 years ago, as 13 French soldiers died while fighting in Mali. President Emmanuel Macron immediately tweeted, “These 13 heroes had just one goal: To protect us.” Now that is laughable propaganda about France’s “one goal!”

Nobody can believe that, but many in France and the West do — all part of the “war on terrorism,” right? But Malians know better: a January 2018 poll in the capital of Bamako revealed that 80% of respondents believe that France’s army is in Mali only to defend its own interests. Which is, of course, obviously the case. Macron immediately and robotically made his phony “war on terror” claim because he knows such scaremongering propaganda is desperately needed to stop honest discussion.

Just as many Westerners will believe Macron’s false propaganda, many Westerners will believe 100% that the Iranian government is responsible for every recent death. The emphatic, self-righteous certainty with which Western propaganda insists this falsehood and inaccuracy is appalling.

Iranians believe otherwise — some told me the majority of the dead were ardent counter-revolutionaries. This is a common perception, but it cannot be verified yet — what’s certain is that innocents did die, and that is a tragedy.

US clarifies its ‘diplomacy:’ allow a counter-revolution or starve to death

The real economic problem in Iran is the Western sanctions blockade. Such sanctions are made to create instability to the point of civil war. The West also funds groups which are designed expressly to create the most sparks precisely at times of heightened dissatisfaction and difficulty.

Those are all facts, and why would they not have been on full display at the gas price hike protests?

They were, but honest analysis of Iranian politics has few forums available. This article has discussed and analyzed these rarely-discussed realities which Iranians know well and will not deny.

In Iran, the violence comes from an ultra-violent right but the West naively acts as if such a political sector in Iran does not exist. The West also naively acts as if within their own nations there is not establishment support of far-right, conservative, certainly “counter-revolutionary” ideas and groups. It should thus be clear why the West is so unwilling to support revolutionary Iran in maintaining its revolution.

The West allies with the far-right across the world. Iranians know this, and they also pay the price. They pay the price at the gas pump, as the West’s blockade has undoubtedly forced the recent price increase, and they pay the price in so very many liters of blood, just as they have done ever since the beginning of the Western-forced invasion by Iraq in 1980.

Why can such realities not be even be broached in Western media or by Western NGOs? To this, I have no satisfactory answer.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo just said, essentially, that Iran has to have a counter-revolution if “they want their people to eat.” As Yemen proves (in case North Korea did not do this already), the US is fine with starvation as a “legitimate” political tactic.

What is certain, sadly, is that no Western journalist called Pompeo a “far-rightist,” a “fascist” or a “counter-revolutionary” — they all simply nodded and reported what he said without question, contestation, or a hint of shame.

The counter-revolutionaries lost in Iran recently, again; Iran mourns that they still keep trying. The nation mourns most of all because of the West’s never-ending blockade against Iranian self-determination.

The terroristic inhumanity of their starvation-strangulation-sanction policy is something which cannot be broached in Western media, NGOs, governments or among many Western citizens, as well.

 

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

 

Report Showing ‘Iranian Military’ Hit by the Israeli Air Raid Near Damascus!

 

Beit Saber Damascus western countryside - israeli missile strikes house killing civilians

Everything Israel bombs in Syria sells it to the fools who believe its propaganda as ‘Iranian military targets’, and especially ‘Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ facility, as if that is not a breach of international law by itself.

On the ground and in reality it’s totally the opposite. Everything you hear from Israeli sources reflects totally the opposite to cover their crimes.

The US Taxpayers should watch this following report to see how their money is used by Israel. They must be satisfied with the ‘achievements’ of their 51st unofficial state living completely on their account.

Mohammad al-Khodr from the Lebanese Al Mayadeen news channel paid a visit to the village of Beit Saber, an agricultural village about 50 kilometers from the Syrian capital Damascus which was struck by one of the Israeli missiles two days ago, and also visited Qudsayya, another suburb near Damascus which was hit by another Israeli missile and this is their findings:

 

The video is also available on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/7chXUEzARh1E/beit saber damascus countryside israel missile strike house killing civilians

Israel was always present to lend a hand to terrorists fighting their unholy fake ‘jihad’ war against the Syrian state and the Syrian people under the US leadership. Whenever they need support help comes from their brethren in the IDF terrorist organization, and whenever the US wants to increase the pressure on Syria, the terrorist attacks would mount, foreign parties would increase their negative intervention, EU stooges will increase their sanctions against Syria, and Israel will be there for the dirty work.

From yesterday’s NATO terrorist attacks against Aleppo which never stopped throughout the Syrian crisis:

 

Note that Israel carries out its bombings against all targets after midnight, and from across borders, and in many cases hiding behind civilian airlines, showing the heinous nature of its war criminal leaders.

Those who believe Israeli media, similarly to who believed other Pentagon mainstream propagandists and fell for the Iraqi WMDs lie, then Libya lie, then countless other lies across the planet will continue to fall for the same lies by the same liars. There is a saying in America: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, so big shame on the US fools.

Social Media Censorship Reaches New Heights as Twitter Permanently Bans Dissent

Mnar Muhawesh speaks with journalist Daniel McAdams about being permanently banned from Twitter, social media censorship and more.

Most recently, it was revealed that Twitter’s senior editorial executive for Europe, the Middle East and Africa is an active officer in the British Army’s 77th Brigade, a unit dedicated to online warfare and psychological operations.

In other words: he specializes in disseminating propaganda.

The news left many wondering how a member of the British Armed Forces secured such an influential job in the media.

The bombshell that one of the world’s most influential social networks is controlled in part by an active psychological warfare officer was not covered at all in the New York TimesCNNCNBCMSNBC or Fox News, who appear to have found the news unremarkable.

But for those paying attention and for those who have been following ’MintPress News’ extensive coverage of social media censorship, this revelation was merely another example of the increasing closeness between the deep state and the fourth estate.

Amazon owner, and world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos was paid $600 million by the CIA to develop software and media for the agency, that’s more than twice as much as Bezos bought the Washington Post for, and a move media critics warn spells the end of journalistic independence for the Post.

Meanwhile, Google has a very close relationship with the State Department, its former CEO Eric Schmidt’s book on technological imperialism was heartily endorsed by deep state warmongers like Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair.

In their book titled, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business, Eric Schmidt and fellow Google executive Jared Cohen wrote:

What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century…technology and cyber-security companies [like Google] will be to the twenty-first.”

Another social media giant partnering with the military-industrial complex is Facebook. The California-based company announced last year it was working closely with the neoconservative think tank, The Atlantic Council, which is largely funded by Saudi Arabia, Israel and weapons manufacturers to supposedly fight foreign “fake news.”

The Atlantic Council is a NATO offshoot and its board of directors reads like a rogue’s gallery of warmongers, including the notorious Henry Kissinger, Bush-era hawks like Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, James Baker, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security and author of the PATRIOT Act, Michael Chertoff, a number of former Army Generals including David Petraeus and Wesley Clark and former heads of the CIA Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell.

39 percent of Americans, and similar numbers of people in other countries, get their news from Facebook, so when an organization like the Atlantic Council is controlling what the world sees in their Facebook news feeds, it can only be described as state censorship on a global level.

After working with the council, Facebook immediately began banning and removing accounts linked to media in official enemy states like Iran, Russia and Venezuela, ensuring the world would not be exposed to competing ideas and purging dissident voices under the guise of fighting “fake news” and “Russian bots.”

Meanwhile, the social media platform has been partnering with the U.S. and Israeli governments to silence Palestinian voices that show the reality of life under Israeli apartheid and occupation. The Israeli Justice Minister proudly revealed that Facebook complied with 95 percent of Israeli government requests to delete Palestinian pages. At the same time, Google deleted dozens of YouTube and blog accounts supposedly connected to the government of Iran.

In the last week alone, Twitter has purged several Palestinian news pages, including Quds News Network — without warning or explanation.

Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote, 

This alarming act of censorship is another indication of the complicity of major social media firms in Israel’s efforts to suppress news and information about its abuses of Palestinian rights.”

 

Alternative voices not welcome

The vast online purge of alternative voices has also been directed at internal “enemies.”

Publishers like Julian Assange and whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning are still being held in solitary confinement in conditions that international bodies and human rights groups call torture, for their crime of revealing the extent of the global surveillance network and the control over the media that Western governments have built.

As attempts to re-tighten the state and corporate grip over our means of communication increases, high-quality alternative media are being hit the hardest, as algorithm changes from the media monoliths have deranked, demoted, deleted and disincentivized outlets that question official narratives, leading to huge falls in traffic and revenue.

The message from social media giants is clear: independent and alternative voices are not welcome.

One causality in this propaganda war is Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a public advocacy group that argues that a non-interventionist foreign policy is crucial to securing a prosperous society at home. McAdams served as Senator Paul’s foreign affairs advisor between 2001 and 2012. Before that, he was a journalist and editor for the Budapest Sun and a human rights monitor across Eastern Europe.

McAdams, who spent much of his time on Twitter calling out the war machine supported by both parties, was recently permanently banned from the platform for so-called “hateful conduct.” His crime? Challenging Fox News anchor Sean Hannity over his hour-long segment claiming to be against the “deep state,” while simultaneously wearing a CIA lapel pin. In the exchange, McAdams called Hannity “retarded,” claiming he was becoming stupider every time he watched him.

Yes, despite that word and its derivatives having been used on Twitter over ten times in the previous minute, and often much more aggressively than McAdams used it – only McAdams fell victim to Twitter’s ban hammer. Something didn’t make sense about this ban. One only needs to read the replies under any of President Trump’s tweets to see far more hateful speech than what McAdams displayed to suspect foul play.

I spoke with McAdams about the ban and began by asking him if he accepts the premise of the ban, or if he believes something else was afoot.

Feature photo | Spirit Boom Cat | Shutterstock

Mnar Muhawesh is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

MTV Chairman Michel El Murr to Be Tried on Dec. 9 on Charges of Public Funds Embezzlement, Tax Evasion: Al-Ahed Website

lvl220191114020423127

November 14, 2019

The Chairman of MTV Channel and “Studio Vision” Company, Michel Gabriel El Murr, will be tried at the Court of Appeals on December 9 on charges of public funds embezzlement and tax evasion, according to a report posted by Al-Ahed News Website.

The report clarified that El Murr is accused of infringing on the public telecommunication system by pirating the international phone calls which, by law, are monopolized by the government, adding that he was acquitted in 2018 and that the authorities appealed the verdict later.

Judiciary sources told Al Ahed Website that El Murr may never be acquitted at the Court of Appeals because documents and solid proof condemn him for depriving the state’s treasury of big amounts of money, the report added.

The story started in 2012, when El Murr purchased an E1 line which allows him to have a wide range of communication services via the Internet, installing special equipment and receivers to redirect the international phone calls from the government’s communication posts to his company.

Accordingly, his line will turn the expensive international calls to cheap local one, depriving the treasury from hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In this war, El Murr also sells the phone callers for half of the cost they pay it to the government in return for the international phone calls, according to the report.

The judiciary sources added that proofs and pieces of evidence El Murr’s E1 line witnessed a weird rise in the number of calls and the value of bills in comparison with other main companies, like LBCI and Blom Bank.

The sources pointed out that in May , 2016, the line was deactivated for two days and that El Murr realized at that time that he was caught red-handed because the number of calls after the deactivation is much less than that before it.

The following table shows how the calls fell from 5137 on 10/05/2016, one day before the line was deactivated, to 118 on the first day of the line’s reactivation.

The judiciary sources also pointed out that El Murr is accused of tax evasion because the large amounts of money he got out of this conspicuous piracy did not pass through the legal procedures of the government; thus, he avoided paying the taxes which come in this context.

Finally, the judiciary sources stressed that El Murr may never be able to be acquitted because the documents and proofs are enough to sentence him for three years in jail and force him to repay the financial losses he inflicted upon the state’s treasury (estimated to be around one million US dollars).

Source: Al-Ahed News Website (Edited and translated by Al-Manar English Website)

Related

Abu Mohammad Salama Killed? Did Zionists & Kurds Deceive President Trump? Or Is This the Beginning of the End of Israel?

November 4, 2019

TEHRAN – Robert David Steele, a former Marine Corps infantry officer and CIA spy as well as an activist for Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE), regularly answers questions for Tehran Times.

Q. Within minutes of President Donald Trump’s announcement of an alleged raid that allegedly killed an alleged ISIS leader known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, skeptical commentary emerged. What is your summary appreciation?

A. Let me begin by saying that people I trust tell me that the raid was very real, with helicopters flying 50 feet above the ground at 130 knots. The cost of the raid has been estimated at $30 million. What does not appear to be real are the actual location, and the actual identity of the person we claim was killed.

I am among those who denounced the fake Bin Ladens including the last one provided by the Pakistani military as a gift to help Barack Obama win re-election. We sent men to their death for political theater. I knew immediately that this latest alleged raid was a fake, but chose to start with a headline, “Russia says Baghdadi killing faked by US [& Israel],” credited to Gordon Duff, founding editor of Veterans Today.  Gordon, whom I know personally, has a rich network of contacts on the ground, including Russian military commanders as well as honest Jews who despise Zionist provocations and lies. The official Russian denunciation of the raid as having never happened is a matter of record.  To that I add the earlier reported death of Al-Baghdadi in 2015 in an Israeli hospital, and the alleged but credible aspect of al-Baghdadi being a Mossad operative and Israeli citizen named Elliot Shimon, and you have the perfect storm. I believe the Zionists and the US neo-conservative lied to President Donald Trump, faked the entire raid, faked the alleged DNA testing, and have now put the President in a terrible spot.

Accepting that our Special Forces carried out a raid – somewhere — either al-Baghdadi / Elliot Shimon is still alive as Gordon suggests, and the death was faked; or al-Baghdadi died in 2015 and this new death was faked – someone else was killed. I think our President has been lied to.

A deeply suspicious person would also wonder if this is not a potential “kill shot” by Benjamin Netanyahu against Trump – here is what Ha’aretz says, in “Trump Basks in al-Baghdadi’s Bloody Assassination, but the Festivities Will End Shortly,”

Trump is bound to be criticized for his blood-thirsty style, as well as the fact that he hurried to announce al-Baghdadi’s demise before the Pentagon had signed off on final and incontrovertible DNA proof that the ISIS leader had indeed been killed. On the extremely unlikely chance that al-Baghdadi will emerge somewhere safe and sound, which has happened before, Trump would instantly transform, not into a lame duck but into a dead duck.

The above tells me two things: that the DNA was not confirmed as the President claimed; and that Benjamin Netanyahu might well choose one day to “resurrect” Elliot Shimon aka al-Baghdadi, as a reprisal for the Miriam Adelson Medal of Freedom that set the stage for her public denouncement of Netanyahu’s wife as crazy and Netanyahu as a servant to his wife – this cost him dearly.

Interestingly, a separate new story has emerged about Israel now considering Donald Trump an unreliable enemy of Israel, and the likelihood that LtCol Alexander Vindman is a Zionist tool – he is a Jewish-American now betraying the President with false testimony to Congress favoring impeachment. I am inclined to agree with this assessment and believe that Benjamin Netanyahu has Elliot Shimon aka al-Baghdadi tucked away for re-emergence – a miniature “Samson option” against the President.

Pablo Escobar, writing in The Saker, “Caliph closure: ‘He died like a dog’,” says this:

According to ground sources in Syria, a prevalent rumor in Idlib is that the “dead dog” in Barisha could be Abu Mohammad Salama, the leader of Haras al-Din, a minor sub-group of al-Qaeda in Syria. Haras al-Din has not issued any statement about it.

I conclude that the raid happened, that Mossad operative Elliot Shimon aka al-Baghdadi was not present; that the Kurds, on behalf of the Zionists, provided fake DNA samples before and after; and that whoever died was not in fact, the alleged target, who was not a real terrorist leader to begin with.

The worst case analysis is that President Donald Trump has been “schlonged” by Benjamin Netanyahu personally, the Zionists generally, and their controlled Kurdish paramilitary servants.

There is, however, a best case analysis that the French shadow foreign minister has shared with me, and I include it in the spirit of deference to the opinion of others. His view is that this was a deliberately fake raid intended to not only achieve a political bounce across a largely ignorant public, but to set the stage for the “treasure trove” of intelligence actually obtained elsewhere, that crucifies Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Brennan and Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer among others, for having created ISIS and conspired with Israel as well as Saudi Arabia to destroy Syria.

My French colleague observes that the surprise travel of Pelosi and Schiff to Jordan and Afghanistan; the closure of all Israeli embassies and consulates immediately after the raid (ostensibly over a labor dispute, but 100% closure suggests government direction), and the resurfacing of the Epstein story with what I consider to be a falsified autopsy conclusion of murder all suggest that in conjunction with the forthcoming FISA criminal indictments, President Trump is getting ready for a coup d’grace against the Democratic leadership and its Zionist state sponsors. He concluded his observation by sharing the below post from Majestic 12, a Q Anon affiliate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1120482314067349504/pe_bdFXz_bigger.pngMajestic 12‏ @TS_SCI_MAJIC12 Oct 30

Majestic 12 Retweeted Israel in Atlanta

Ending the Endless Wars is bad for Israel.

#UnsealEpstein is bad for Israel.

#DrainTheSwamp is bad for Israel.

#Disclosure is bad for Israel.

Why?

Q. Apart from the Russians, who have very sophisticated S-400 target acquisition radars covering the entire region, who else is saying this is a fake raid that never happened?

A. As you might imagine, because the Zionists control most mainstream media enterprises, and this fake raid serves both the Zionists and the warmongering neo-conservatives in the USA that want to keep ISIS alive, keep stealing Syrian oil, and continue to undermine Syrian sovereignty, almost no one else is challenging the narrative with two exceptions: the Daily Star in the UK has run two pieces, “Shock claim top ISIS leader is ‘Israeli spy’,” and “ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ‘not killed by US military’ Russia claims; and citizen journalists everywhere are pointing out the obvious flaws in the story. My favorite comes from a Nordic country, where an alert citizen quickly noticed that Google Earth, which updates on a monthly to yearly basis, not a daily basis, shows the alleged raid site as having been destroyed in the past, not recently. In addition Newsweek has run with a story, “Obama White House Photographer Suggests Trump Situation Room Photo of Unfolding al-Baghdadi Raid Was Staged,” a story I agree with.

I have no doubt that the Americans carried out a real raid with live ammunition and real dead.  Everything else about this appears to have been faked, a terrible embarrassment to our President, unless of course this is a deliberately fake event that he has authorized in detail.

Q. You have been a Marine Corps infantry officer; a clandestine operations officer or spy; the senior civilian responsible for creating a new national intelligence analysis center; and a J-2 intelligence analyst in Afghanistan. What other “indicators” do you personally see that suggest this story is completely false?

A. I personally continue to believe that President Donald Trump has been lied to, and is not a party to the total deception that has been imposed on him by a combination of Zionists and neoconservatives including members of his own staff who failed to defend him – in my view this terrible situation demonstrates that his new National Security Advisor – a very talented and nice person – is not up to the task of protecting the President from being lied to by the military-intelligence complex that is still in a state of treason, selected officials not-withstanding.  The Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency as well as the Secretary of State have all failed the President by going along with a false narrative that they probably knew was false but allowed to go forward because of some combination of political opportunism, Zionist bribery and blackmail, and the President’s own ego – he fell into this one, made it his own, and in so doing has disgraced himself in the eyes of Xi and Putin.

I see two levels of indicators that persuade me that this story is completely false. At the strategic level this strikes me as a blatant attempt by the Zionists and their CIA collaborators who hate President Trump to keep the Kurds whom they are arming and training and leading, in the game. The Daily Beast published “The Kurds Spotted Baghdadi. The U.S. Abandoned Them Anyway” early on, and then I saw “Baghdadi’s death underscores what we’ve lost by abandoning Syria’s Kurds,” from The Washington Post, and a series of CIA-sponsored stories about how the Kurds continued to provide leads “even after Trump abandoned them” – below is from The Economic Times of India, “CIA got initial tip-off from one of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s wives and a courier: Report,”

American officials told the newspaper that the Kurds continued to provide information to the CIA on Baghdadi’s location even after President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the American troops left the Syrian Kurds to confront a Turkish offensive alone.

The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, one official said, provided more intelligence for the raid than any single country.

All this suggests that in combination, the Zionists and their treasonous allies in the US Departments of State and Defense and the CIA, are all seeking to block the President from fulfilling his campaign promise to get our forces out of the Middle East, and attempting to keep the Kurdish rebellion against the lawful Syrian government alive.

Given that al-Baghdadi has been reported dead seven times, I have to ask myself, is it possible that CIA and DoD and State did not know this? Or that their Middle East action officers are all Zionists, many dual US-Israeli citizens, and some being bribed and blackmailed directly by the Zionists? From where I sit, the President has fallen victim to a grand deception and he has no one – least of all the treasonous FBI – that he can rely on to protect him from traitors within our own ranks.

At the tactical level there are too many false notes across the entire story, to include dogs, an alleged tunnel with no exit, a site that has clearly been destroyed in the past, instantaneous DNA testing with the samples provided by the Kurds who are controlled by the Zionists, and more.  The similarities with the false final Bin Laden raid that led to many US deaths after the fact as part of the cover-up, are startling to include – I am not making this up – throwing the alleged target’s body parts into the ocean.  I keep waiting for CIA to release a photo of al-Baghdadi’s library before the alleged hide-out was allegedly flattened, it would not surprise me at all to learn that the long-dead al-Baghdadi was allegedly reading Orange Man, the new book by America’s greatest conservative cartoonist.

Pablo Escobar’s article, “Caliph closure: ‘He died like a dog’, provides the best over-all appreciation of the total context and the likely fraud perpetuated within that context. This entire story cannot be understood without accepting the very high probability that this was a reverse false flag – a fake target created for political theater, with the President of the United States of America being made a fool of by a combination of traitors in Israel and the USA, and well-intentioned loyalists who simply do not know what they do not know about the ability of the Zionists and their Kurdish servants to lie to great effect.

We did not kill al-Baghdadi, we certainly killed someone else, probably Abu Mohammad Salama or one of his deputies – none of them ISIS leaders, but rather leaders of Haras al-Din, an al Qaida affiliate.

Q. What anomalies have you not mentioned, that have emerged since you were first invited to comment on this very strange Presidential declaration of triumph over what appears to be a fake person?

Apart from Pablo Escobar’s piece, the single best commentary I have seen is from James Corbett, whose video, Something Big Has Happened! points out both the similarities with the fake raid to kill the fake final Bin Laden, with the many claimed deaths of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was deliberately turned into a fake threat by US propaganda. Four things jump out from various alternative media reports – the US and European media continue to lie about this raid and parrot the official narrative:

01 The alleged location of the raid in Idlib, which is not friendly ground for the alleged target, has been pointed out by many as incongruous. Privately my military colleagues are saying that the raid was launched either from the sea or from Israel, and Idlib was picked for the fake raid precisely because it was near the sea.

02 The frantic effort to “authenticate” what are probably lies about instant DNA analysis (DNA tests take between 24 and 72 hours although some capabilities may exist that can do a preliminary test in hours) suggest that the Pentagon is now very uneasy with the entire narrative including the President’s comments on whimpering. Never mind that the US has no idea if the original DNA was genuine, it could easily have been pre-matched to the intended patsy destined for future duty as a “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

02 The injured dog – when no one else was injured in a tunnel with no exit where the blast of a suicide vest would certainly have killed the dog and soldiers would also have been wounded if not killed by the blast that could only go in one direction appears to be pure theater. The classification of the dog’s photo and name as Top Secret takes this to new heights of ludicrousness. I have published a counterpart account, with photos, of the CIA’s Top Secret stealth cat in the spirit of engagement with the official narrative.

03 The underpants allegedly stolen by Kurds from deep within territory hostile to them – has generated a lovely thread on “false flag underpants” – are so unbelievable I have to question the sanity and professionalism of everyone who allowed this narrative to go forward. In combination with everything else, this strikes me as truly depraved Mossad humor, giving the Americans a pair of used underpants – probably including sperm – as a form of screwing with the goyim shiksas – the Zionist term for non-Jewish girls who can be treated as whores.

04 The alleged burial at sea of body parts – a suicide vest leaves the lower body – is so reminiscent of the ocean burial of the last Bin Laden that it suggests that those behind this narrative are absolutely certain we are all stupid.

05 This is all about oil and keeping ISIS alive as a joint Mossad-CIA operation. I am quite sure at this point that President Trump knows he has been manipulated into making a fool of himself, and I speculate that he is privately talking to President Putin about how to continue his plans to totally withdraw US forces from the region.  I am reminded of the private conversations of John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, where they both agreed that their own worst enemies were their own generals who wanted war, not one another. Today I do not believe the Russian generals want war, but too many of the American generals are posturing pimps for war because that is how they earn their retirement jobs – they are also lying to the Secretary of Defense and the President about our readiness for war – not only are we not ready for sustained war away from the USA, but we will absolutely lose any war that includes Russia or China as a committed adversary. It is my hope that the President will realize that he has been treated with such scorn by Israel and the Kurds and that this gives him the strength to fire all those who were complicit in these lies, withdraw entirely from Syria, and rebuild our military here at home.

06 I have just read “Seven takeaways from the CENTCOM commander’s hot wash of the Baghdadi raid,” and I have to say that I simply do not believe that six men “suited up” in suicide vests when a supposedly surprise “breach”  took place.  While I have no direct experience my training and broad experience suggests that the action is over in 30 seconds. I also do not believe that the alleged al-Baghdadi dragged children into a “hole” with him.

07 ISIS confirming the death and naming a new leader is for me consistent with ISIS being a fake terrorist organization responsive to US direction – if President Trump wants a fake death confirmed and a new leader named, it is his to command.

This raid may indeed serve the President well, but the anomalies are troubling.

Q. This apparently falsified “triumph” against ISIS – and in favor of the Kurds and the US keeping military troops and even tanks on top of the Syrian oil fields – comes just as Trump appears ready to criminally indict Obama, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, and Page, among others. How do you assess Trump’s prospects for the next months?

A. This falsified event will play well across America, and commentaries like mine and those of Gordon Duff and Pablo Escobar and James Corbett will not be noticed. For all practical purposes, this event is a political triumph, never mind that it is rooted in lies. The Chinese know this is a fake attack, the Russians know this is a fake attack, by now Trump knows this is a fake attack. There are now media reports that Trump has ordered the release of the video of the alleged attack, when it comes I expect it will be picked apart the way the video from the Christ Church false flag in New Zealand was picked apart.

On a positive note, my colleague Ben Fulford, a long-time observer of high finance and low crime based on Tokyo, has published “Third (fourth?) death of Mossad agent Shimon Elliot “al-Baghdadi” actually signifies major Middle East change,” and strikes a very upbeat note that I am prepared to embrace. The view of his Pentagon sources is that this event is going to lead to increased US-Russian collaboration in cutting off illegal oil, arms, human, and drug trafficking in the Middle East that all benefit the Zionists and the Deep State. I must emphasis that there are seven or more US military and intelligence leadership networks, some purely evil, some committed to the President’s success.  All those networks are at war with one another.  I believe the President and the White Hats will triumph in time.

If the President wants to make lemonade with these lemons, he should declare victory against ISIS and leave Syria.  His occupation of Syrian oil fields is both unconstitutional within the USA and illegal in relation to international treaties and conventions.

You mention the criminal indictments.  I published “SPECIAL: Game-Changing Court Filing by Michael Flynn Defense Lawyer Sidney Powell…PLUS DoJ Criminal Inquiry Plus Seth Rich Murder Central Brennan Task Force Plus Stone & Manafort to Get Off?” a few days ago and it has gone viral in part because Sidney Powell, the attorney for my colleague General Michael Flynn, has filed a detailed federal court document that itemizes the many crimes committed by all those seeking to fabricate the narrative of Russian election interference and Donald Trump as a Russian asset. The murder of Seth Rich is now part of the conspiracy led by President Barack Obama, and complicity in murder is on the table for all those who committed treason in mis-directing secret intelligence against then candidate Donald Trump.

I will end on a most positive note: while I would like to see our President do more to defend the US Constitution (especially  the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments), to bring all our troops home from all over the world; and to address the huge problems facing the working class and people of faith in the USA, on balance I believe that in the next few months the world will see political, legal, economic, and cultural triumphs by our President that could not have been imagined since the days of John F. Kennedy.

Unlike JFK, our President cannot be assassinated.  He will triumph. It is my hope that Iran will understand that behind the political theater and completely apart from our President’s continued tolerance of traitors in key positions, there is a house cleaning going on. From election reform to military tribunals to a global currency reset and a national debt jubilee to the reinstatement of family values and civic virtue, “Orange Man” is on a path pre-ordained by God, who absolutely has a sense of humor.

Q. Do you have an opinion on how the impeachment campaign will end, and who the Democrats will nominate to run against President Trump, if you are certain he will run? Are there any “wild cards.”

A. The impeachment campaign will not end well for the Democrats.  It is only in the news because the Deep State wants it to be in the news and is manipulating the polls.  In the Heartland everyone agrees that this is a “lynching” and those giving false testimony against our President are committing treason. It merits comment that so many Republicans are retiring precisely because they see the future: the public is going to turn against both of political parties that have betrayed the public trust and fronted for the Deep State. If President Trump implements #UNRIG (the election reform act championed by Dr. Cynthia McKinney and myself that the Zionists worked so hard to destroy), not only will he win with a landslide, but he could carry a whole new congress with him. Certainly by 2022 I expect four to five vibrant parties with blocks of elected representatives in Congress and at the state and local level. There are riots all over the world – the public is fed up with the corruption and demanding new honest governments.

Once the FISA criminal indictments are processed, in time for the beginning of the presidential campaign that does not really start until 1 February 2020, I believe the President will be assured of winning, and if he creates the truth channel and/or uses legal measures to force the media and social media to stop violating the 1st Amendment and Title 7 (anti-discrimination), the outcome will be clear by 4 July 2020.

The Democrats not only know they cannot win with anyone now running, but they have been quoted as saying that they collect more money in donations if President Trump is re-elected.  I believe the Democrats are preparing to “throw” the Presidential election while seeking to take back the Senate.

Tulsi Gabbard is the wild card.  This young person was a Congressional staffer who appears to have joined the military with a clear political intent. She started as a military police enlisted person and then became a medical specialist – a form of nurse administrator. Not only is she not a combat veteran in the correct sense of the word, but she is also in direct violation of all US military regulations against use of her appearing in uniform as part of her political campaign.  She has been keeping these two facts secret. Now here is what most do not know: not only is she Hindu, but she is also a Brahmin, the India version of 1%.  There is no difference between Hillary Clinton’s calling all of us “deplorables,” and Tulsi Gabbard viewing all of us as “untouchables” – as an avowed Hindu she must believe that caste divisions should be the law. All indications are that the Deep State is thinking hard about a possible run by Bloomberg – a Zionist at heart – and Gabbard, a cosmetic bimbo whose shallowness may not survive a Presidential campaign. However, if President Trump continues to ignore Independents, Libertarians, blacks, Latinos, suburban woman, the young, and the elderly on the West and East coasts, then Bloomberg-Gabbard is a winning ticket and – if they win – the US Constitution will be discarded with the end of free speech, the confiscation of guns, and a police state where local mass surveillance is the norm.

I do not think Hillary Clinton will run as much as she may delude herself into thinking she could win. Apart from the high probability of her being indicted soon, even if this is done secretly to avoid a public battle with the left, for high crimes including hundreds of millions of dollars taken in bribes from the French for Libya, from the Saudis for Syria and Yemen, and from the Russians for Uranium One, she is deeply vulnerable on the pedophilia front, and the election machines are being secured at the same time that all illegal aliens are being stripped from the voting rolls – three million illegal aliens voted for her in 2016, that is not going to happen again.

America is in the middle of a civil war between those who favor pedophilia, bestiality, transgenderism, and transhumanism, and those who favor faith, family, and community. The conservatives are losing that war because the Zionists – our worst enemy – control entertainment, the media, and the communications and computing networks that they use for espionage and insider trading.  I am not certain the President is fully familiar with the depth and breadth of the Zionist threat within the USA, one reason I value the opportunity to publish in Tehran Times.  He and his family have received briefings from me that bring together distinguished authors – my Memoranda for the President: 9/11 Truth is the stake in the heart of Zionism in the USA along with my memo on the Epstein case, the “Nine Veils of Evil,” and my collected Tehran Times articles, many censored in the USA, that I published as TRUMP vs. THE DEEP STATE: Recent Reflections of a Former US Spy & Marine Corps Officer. At Thanksgiving the President and his intimates will soon be receiving a copy of my new book, EYES ONLY: For the President (and the Public): Everything the Deep State Does Not Want You To Know.

Iran is correct is insist on the end of Israel – an invented state rooted in lies, bribes, blackmail and genocide – and the restoration of Palestine to the Palestinians.  Similarly here in the USA we must insist on the death of the Deep State and its Zionist underbelly so as to restore of integrity to our Constitutional Republic. I will pray for the day that our President meets the Supreme Leader, in Tehran, to “make the deal.” Be assured of the coincidence of interest between patriotic American conservatives, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We will win this fight, using ethical, legal, non-violent means, Insha’Allah. It helps us here in the USA if Iran and the Palestinians triumph in the Middle East – and vice versa. Iran and the USA have a common enemy: the Zionist state of Israel.

استقالة الحكومة: الحراك للانتصار أم للانتحار؟ Government resignation: Al-Harak (The protest movement) for victory or suicide?

استقالة الحكومة: الحراك للانتصار أم للانتحار؟

أكتوبر 30, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– استقال الرئيس سعد الحريري وتحقق للحراك المطلب الرئيسي الذي افترض كثيرون أنه سيكون بابا للحلول، بالتمهيد لولادة حكومة جديدة، أسموها حكومة إنقاذ. فهل نحن نقترب من فجر الخلاص ولو باستعادة قدر من الاستقرار في منطقة وسط يمكن أن يلتقي فيها الأطراف الثلاثية الذين يصنعون المشهد اليوم، شارع الحراك والشارع الموازي الغاضب الآخذ بالتبلور بمعزل عن دعوات الترحيب والإدانة، والقوى السياسية الكبرى الممسكة بالسلطة على اختلافها وتنوّعها وتفاهماتها وخصوماتها؟

– العقدة الأولى ستكون تسمية رئيس جديد للحكومة، مع استعصاء وجود اسم يولد من رحم الحراك يلبي شعار الحراك الذي تختصره معادلة كلن يعني كلن . وقد صار الحراك أسير شعارات لم تولد مع يومه الأول مع الانتفاضة الشعبية ومشهدها الرائع وطنياً، والآفاق التي فتحتها لتغيير جدي حقيقي ناضج في الحياة السياسية وقدرتها على فرض إصلاحات اقتصادية ومالية جذرية، كنا نسمع خلالها مطالب الناس المتصلة بشجاعة بمحاكمة الفاسدين، واسترداد المال المنهوب، وإحياء وتزخيم القروض السكنية، وضمان الشيخوخة، وفتح باب النقاش بقانون الانتخابات النيابية نحو الدائرة الواحدة والنسبية خارج القيد الطائفي، حتى جاء يوم الإثنين، عندما نجحت الانتفاضة بفرض الإصغاء على الحكومة وانتزاع مطلب عدم فرض أي ضرائب ورسوم جديدة في موازنة 2020، ومجموعة من الوعود التي من حق الناس عدم الثقة بتحقيقها وفرض الرقابة والضغط لتحويلها من أقوال إلى أفعال وإذ بالشعارات تتبدّل ونبرة الحراك تتغيّر، فخرجت عملية تسييس واضحة رسمت خطة للانتفاضة نجحت بتسويقها عبر ماكينة إعلامية عملاقة، وصارت تتردّد على ألسنة المتظاهرين حتى صارت هي خريطة طريق الحراك، وعنوانها ركيزتان، الأولى حكومة إنقاذ وطني من خارج الطبقة السياسية الفاسدة ، والثانية قطع الطرقات تحت شعار الضغط لفرض استقالة الحكومة، ومجيء الحكومة الإنقاذية.

– في الظاهر كان يبدو السعي منطقياً. وهذا دليل أنه مدروس، خصوصاً أنه في الواقع مفخّخ، يحمل بذور القضاء على الحراك، الذي كان إنقاذه فرصة للبنان لدخول مرحلة جديدة من الحياة السياسية والخطط المالية والاقتصادية. فشعار حكومة الإنقاذ من غير السياسيين، متلازم مع استقالة الحكومة، لأن الاستقالة بلا بديل متفق عليه بين القوى الأساسية في الحكم والحراك سيعني فراغاً يبقي الحكومة المطلوبة استقالتها حكومة تصريف أعمال لشهور. وهذا ما يحدث الآن، ففي لبنان أسهل شيء هو استقالة الحكومة وأصعب شيء هو تشكيل حكومة، فما هي سيناريوات حكومة الإنقاذ؟

لأن مصداقية الحراك في الشارع ترتبط بعدم تمييزه للرموز السياسية الحاكمة، وإصراره على شعار كلن يعني كلن ، يفترض البحث أولاً عن رئيس حكومة من خارج الطقم السياسي تحت مسمّى تكنوقراط. وهذا هو باب الاستعصاء الأكبر، فأين هو الاسم الذي يلقى لخبرته ونظافة كفه وسيرته الوطنية ونجاحاته المبنية على عصامية تشبه سيرة الرئيس سليم الحص، ليقبل به المعنيون في السلطة ويرضى به الحراك؟ ويكفي لتظهير المأزق الإشارة إلى أن بعض جماعات في الحراك صارت تتداول أسماء من نوع السيدة ليلى الصلح، شقيقة الأمير السعودي الوليد بن طلال، أو صاحب إحدى المحطات التفزيونية، أو أسماء لناشطين حقوقيين أو نواب معارضين، معلوم سلفاً أن الانقسام حولها سيكون سهلاً وسريعاً وتحقيق الإجماع حولها من الحراك لترشيحها مستحيل. فكيف بضمان موافقة القوى الأساسية في الحكم؟

هذا الاستعصاء الانتحاري يواكبه مخرج أشدّ انتحارية، وهو استثناء رئيس الحكومة سعد الحريري من فيتو مشاركة السياسيين البارزين، والمشاركين في الحكم، بحيث يصير لحكومة الإنقاذ مسمّى واحد، وهو إخراج حزب الله من الحكومة بصورة يحتفل بها الأميركي كإنجاز حققته الانتفاضة كما بشرت صحف أميركية عديدة، وإخراج رئيس التيار الوطني الحر من الحكومة، بصورة تمنح القوات اللبنانية فرصة احتفال موازٍ بالانتصار. وبالتالي سقوط الحراك بالتحوّل إلى أداة سياسية لمشاريع داخلية وخارجية دأب الحراك على نفي تخديمه لها، وها هو يقع فيها بعيون مفتوحة وأقدام ثابتة، فينتحر لأنه يفقد نزاهته ونظافته ويصير البحث عن مخرج من فخّ وضعه لنفسه اسمه حكومة إنقاذ، مدخلاً لوضع البلد في قلب لعبة سياسية داخلية وخارجية هدفها تحجيم وإضعاف تحالف حزب الله والتيار الوطني الحر، وتقديم فرصة نصر لأعداء المقاومة وخصوم التيار الوطني الحر، من دون أي تقدم نحو إصلاح سياسي أو اقتصادي، والإصرار مستمرّ على نفي تهمة سرقة الحراك نحو تحويله إلى أداة للتخديم السياسي، ولأن التوازنات الحاكمة لن تسمح بهذا الخيار فينتهي تكليف الرئيس الحريري مجدداً برضا الحراك وقيادته غير المعلنة إلى تصريف أعمال طويل وانتظار طويل لولادة حكومة جديدة. وهذا مخرج لا يقلّ انتحارية بالنسبة للحراك، لذلك فإن الطريق المسدود سيصير مغلقاً بإحكام ولزمن طويل ويصير الانتحار في منتصفه طوعياً.

– في حال بقي الحراك مخلصاً لطلب حكومة من غير السياسيين والحكام، رئيساً وأعضاء سيبقى الاستعصاء، أو ارتضى إعادة تسمية الرئيس الحريري وانتظار ولادة حكومة ترضية، فإن الأداة الضاغطة التي يملكها هي قطع الطرق وتصعيدها بخطوات أشدّ تأثيراً على الناس والحركة الاقتصادية، والحركة مستوحاة من تجارب حزبية للضغط المتبادل، لم تستطع الاستمرار ولا حققت أهدافها، لأنها قامت على معاقبة المواطنين واستخدام لقمة عيشهم وسيلة ضغط على فريق سياسي يملك قدرة تحمل أكثر من الناس، ويملك قدرة ردّ موازية، فكيف عندما يصير الضغط على كل السياسيين، القادرين على التحمل أكثر من الناس، والناس تصير وقود ما يُفترض أنها ثورتهم، وتبدأ النتائج الكارثية بالظهور، قهراً وخوات وفلتاناً مالياً وتجارياً وفقداناً للسيولة وغضباً شعبياً وتعباً في الساحات، ونقصاً في المشاركة، ومناشدة للجيش والقوى الأمنية بفض الاعتصامات في الطرق، وهي اعتصامات يفسّرها عملياً القلق من عدم مشاركة الناس في الإضراب الذي يراد فرضه بالقوة. وهذه ديكتاتورية مقنعة بلباس الديمقراطية. فالثورات تستند إلى إضراب الجامعات والمدارس والمؤسسات الاقتصادية بطلابها وأساتذتها وموظفيها، وليس بفرض الإضراب القسري بالإقفال، والحاصل الطبيعي للقهر هو الانفجار، وثورة ضد الثورة، بدأنا نراها بأمّ العين أمامنا مع أحداث متكررة كانت أقساها مشاهد ساحة رياض الصلح وجسر الرينغ أمس، مهما اختلفت التسميات التي تمنح لها، وبالنتيجة هذا انتحار للحراك.

– للانتحار اليوم طريق عنوانه قبول دخول الحراك تحوّله أداة للعبة سياسية محلية وخارجية عبر التنازل عن حكومة إنقاذ برئيسها وأعضائها من غير السياسيين تلقى الإجماع، نحو تعديل حكومي يُخرج حزب الله ورئيس التيار الوطني الحر من الحكومة فيحقق نصراً لخصومهما في الداخل والخارج، أو قبول تسمية الرئيس الحريري مجدداً ودخول نفق الانتظار الطويل، والتآكل الأقصر والأسرع، ودائماً مواصلة الضغط عبر قطع الطرق، نحو حكومة تلتزم شعار كلن يعني كلن برئيس منهن أو مش منهن ، وصولاً لطريق مسدود يتآكل معه زخم الحراك، ويصير فتح الطرق، الذي طلب الحريصون على الحراك أن يكون طوعيّاً من القيّمين عليه، قسرياً بما يعادل هزيمة الحراك كله وكسر إرادة التغيير التي بشّر بها.

– للأسف ليس هناك مَن سمع نداء السيد حسن نصرالله، ليتلقاه بتواضع ويعيد التفكير نحو التمسك بعنوان الإصلاح السياسي والاقتصادي، بالبقاء في الساحات وتزخيمها، وفتح الطرق طوعاً، ورسم أهداف من حجم أولوية فرض تطبيق الحكومة لوعودها، ومحكمة للفساد يحمي مهمتها رفع الحصانات ورفع السرية المصرفية، وتعمل وفقاً لجدول زمني واضح، والبدء بالضغط لصالح قانون انتخاب على أساس لبنان دائرة واحدة وفقاً للنظام النسبي، ليصير بعده ومعه، ثمّة قيمة للحديث عن انتخابات مبكرة، وبالتالي حكومة من غير المرشّحين تشرف على الانتخابات، التي تفتح طريق حكومة جديدة وفقاً للأصول الدستورية تنبثق عن الانتخابات وتحترم نتائجها، فتحكم الأغلبية وتعارض الأقلية، وينتهي زمن حكومة كلن وتستقيم الديمقراطية.

قد يكون البعض يحتفل بما يصفه بالإنجاز الآن، لكنه في الداخل يرتعد رعباً، كما كل اللبنانيين، من النفق المظلم الذي تدخله البلاد، والذي يخدم خيارات مجهولة، حيث لا خريطة طريق واضحة، ومن لا يسكنه القلق جاهل أو ساذج أو لا تعنيه البلد مهما قال فيها شعر وأنشد من الأغاني الثورية.

Translation with Word 2019

Government resignation: Al-Harak (The protest movement) for victory or suicide?

October 30, 2019

Nasser Qandil

– President Saad Hariri resigned and fulfilled the main demand, which many assumed would be the door to solutions, in preparation for the birth of a new government, called a rescue government. Today’s scene, Al-Harak Street and the angry parallel street that is taking shape independently of the calls for welcome and condemnation, and the major political forces holding power, diversity, understandings and rivalries?

– The first node will be the naming of a new head of government, with the difficulty of having a name born from the womb of the movement that meets the slogan of movement that is shortened by the equation of all means. Mature in political life and its ability to impose radical economic and financial reforms, during which we heard the demands of the people courageously related to the trial of the corrupt, the recovery of looted money, the revival and the privatization of housing loans, the guarantee of ageing, and the opening of the debate on the law of parliamentary elections towards the circle One and relative outside the sectarian constraint, until Monday, when the uprising succeeded in imposing listening to the government and extracting the demand not to impose any new taxes and fees in the 2020 budget, and a set of promises that people have the right not to trust in achieving and impose censorship and pressure to turn it from words to deeds and With slogans changing and the tone of the movement changing, a clear politicization process came out that drew up a plan for the intifada that succeeded in marketing it through a giant media machine, and became hesitant on the tongues of the demonstrators until it became the road map of the movement, and its title is two pillars, the first of which is a government of national salvation from outside the corrupt political class, The second is to cut off roads under the slogan of pressure to force the resignation of the government and the coming of the rescue government.

This is evidence that it is well thought out, especially since it is in fact a booby-trapped, carrying the seeds of the elimination of the movement, whose rescue was an opportunity for Lebanon to enter a new phase of political life and financial and economic plans. The government, because resigning without an agreed alternative between the main forces in government and movement will mean a vacuum that keeps the government required to resign a caretaker government for months. This is what is happening now, in Lebanon the easiest thing is the resignation of the government and the hardest thing is to form a government, what are the scenarios of the rescue government?

Because the credibility of the movement in the street is linked to its non-discrimination of the ruling political symbols, and its insistence on the slogan of the whole meaning, it is assumed that the first search for a head of government from outside the political group under the name of technocrats. This is the door to the greatest difficulty, where is the name given to his experience, clean ness of his palm, his national biography and his successes based on a self-made that resembles that of President Salim al-Hass, so that those concerned in power can accept him and be satisfied with the movement? It is enough to confirm the impasse to point out that some groups in the movement are circulating names such as Mrs. Leila al-Solh, sister of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, or the owner of a tv station, or names of human rights activists or opposition deputies, it is known in advance that the division around it will be easy and quick and achieved Unanimity around her from the movement for her candidacy is impossible. How can the key forces in government agree?

This suicide attack is accompanied by a more suicide exit, which is the exception of Prime Minister Saad Hariri from the veto of the participation of prominent politicians, and those participating in the government, so that the government of salvation has one name, which is to remove Hezbollah from the government in a way celebrated by the American as an achievement achieved by the intifada as Several U.S. newspapers, and the removal of the head of the Free Patriotic Movement from the government, have heralded a way to give the Lebanese forces a parallel celebration of victory. Thus, the fall of the movement by turning into a political tool for internal and external projects, the movement has been denying it, and it falls into it with open eyes and fixed feet, and he commits suicide because he loses his integrity and cleanliness and becomes the search for a way out of a trap that he put for himself a rescue government, an entry point to put the country at the heart of a political game. Internal and external aims to reduce and weaken the alliance of Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement, and provide a chance victory for the enemies of the resistance and opponents of the Free Patriotic Movement, without any progress towards political or economic reform, and insist on continuing to deny the charge of stealing the movement towards turning it into a tool for political service, and because the balances The governor will not allow this option, and president Hariri’s mandate to re-establish the will of the movement and his undeclared leadership will end in a long and long wait for the birth of a new government. This is a way out of no less suicidal for the movement, so the impasse will become tightly closed for a long time and suicide will be in the middle of itvoluntarily.

– If the movement remains faithful to the demand of a government of non-politicians and rulers, president and members will remain intractable, or accept the renaming of President Hariri and wait for the birth of a government of appeasement, his pressing tool is to cut off roads and escalate them with more severe steps affecting the people and the economic movement, The movement is inspired by partisan experiences of mutual pressure, it could not continue or achieved its objectives, because it was based on punishing citizens and using their livelihood as a means of pressure on a political team that has the capacity to bear more than people, and has the ability to respond parallel, how when the pressure on all politicians, able to Tolerance more than people, people become fuel of what is supposed to be their revolution, and the disastrous results begin to appear, by oppression, fear, financial and commercial inaction, loss of liquidity, popular anger and fatigue in the squares, lack of participation, and an appeal to the army and security forces to break up sit-ins on the roads, which are Sit-ins are practically explained by concern that people will not participate in the strike, which is to be imposed by force. This is a disguised dictatorship in the guise of democracy. The revolutions are based on the strike of universities, schools and economic institutions with their students, teachers and staff, not by imposing a forced strike by closing, and the natural outcome of oppression is the explosion, and a revolution against the revolution, we began to see with the eyes in front of us with repeated events that were the harshest scenes of Riad al-Solh Square and Jisr The ring yesterday, no matter how different the labels given to it, and as a result this is suicide for the movement.

– Suicide today is a way of accepting the entry of the movement and turning it into a tool for the domestic and foreign political game by ceding a rescue government with its president and its non-political members received consensus, towards a government amendment that will take Hezbollah and the head of the Free Patriotic Movement out of the government and achieve a victory for their opponents at home And abroad, or accept the nomination of President Hariri again and enter the tunnel of long wait, and corrosion shorter and faster, and always continue the pressure through the bandits, towards a government that adheres to the slogan of all means all of them or not of them, to reach a dead end with which the momentum of the movement is eroded, and become the opening of roads, which became the request of those keen to The movement must be voluntary from the custodians, forced to defeat the whole movement and break the will for change that he has promised.

– Unfortunately, no one has heard the call of Mr. Hassan Nasrallah, to receive him humbly and rethink towards sticking to the title of political and economic reform, to stay in the squares and to plan them, to open roads voluntarily, and to draw goals of the priority of enforcing the government’s implementation of its promises, and a corruption court protecting its mission to lift immunities. And raise bank secrecy, and work according to a clear timetable, and start lobbying in favor of an election law based on Lebanon one constituency according to the proportional system, to become after him and with him, there is value to talk about early elections, and therefore a government of non-candidates oversees the elections, which opens the way to a new government In accordance with constitutional principles that emanate from the elections and respect their results, the majority will open and oppose the minority, and the time of the Government of The Klan ends and democracy is upright.

Some may be celebrating what he describes as achievement now, but at home he shudders in horror, as all the Lebanese, from the dark tunnel entering the country, which serves unknown options, where there is no clear road map, and those who are not inhabited by anxiety are ignorant or naïve or the country does not mean no matter what he said poetry and singing from revolutionarysongs.

RELATED VIDEOS

Related Articles

Iranophobic propaganda factory of fake martyrs: the case of the Blue Girl

Iranophobic propaganda factory of fake martyrs: the case of the Blue Girl

by *Ivan Kesić for the Saker Blog

September 30, 2019

In the last two weeks, a heartbreaking story from Iran hit the world’s headlines. The storyline goes something like this: a female football fan, nicknamed as the Blue Girl, tried to enter the men-only Tehran’s Azadi Stadium in March this year and she was arrested by the security guards only because she was a woman. Six months later, more precisely in early September, she was ordered to attend a court in Tehran and after she found out about the prison sentence, she poured petrol on herself and set herself on fire outside the courthouse. She died in hospital one week later due to the third-degree burns. These reports in the Western media quickly gained a vast readership and triggered numerous reactions. Some compared her to Jan Palach, some wrote to international sports organizations seeking sanctions against Iran, and some went so far as to argue that the case would cause mass unrest or even revolution.

As is almost always the case with Western stories about Iran which target the audience’s emotions, by fact-checking the story details and comparing them with the statements of victim’s family given to the Persian-language media, it turns out that virtually all of the claims are incorrect, or even contrary. First of all, she was not arrested because she was a woman who wanted to go to the stadium, but because she violently attacked the policemen at the stadium gates, after refusing the security check. According to her sister, strife erupted when she told the security guards that they shouldn’t touch her because she is a girl from a conservative family. It means that the alleged liberal feminist, implied as such by the Western media, in reality was someone completely opposite, a conservative girl from the holy city of Qom. Most important of all, she did not attack the guards due to any sort of political protest, but because she was a mentally ill girl who had a hysterical attack. Unfortunately, she was alone so there was no one to explain her about the stadium rules, or to the guards about her mental health.

Unknowing about her medical record, police placed her in three-day detention, which led to a worsening of her mental condition. Her family came from Qom to Tehran, paid bail and showed documents about her health. When her scheduled trial came six months later, the judge was away so no verdict had been issued. There is no sentence of six months or two years in prison, as falsely claimed. Whether it’s due to a judge’s absence, rumors about potential penalties or something else, eventually setting fire to herself outside the building. It had nothing to do with football, politics or verdicts, only her mental disorder and an unfortunate set of circumstances. Her family further noted about her suicide attempt several years ago when she was a university student and was hospitalized for a while, adding that all related medical documents also exist. All these information were systematically ignored in the Western mass media. Even alleged image of the victim wearing a blue hat, circulated widely on the Internet, is false. It actually shows a transgender boy.

Her death is undoubtedly a tragedy and it provoked a number of reactions within Iran, especially among fans of the Esteghlal FC. Some public figures have criticized security guards for treating her as a normal citizen, and some also criticized the Iranian judiciary for the alleged prison sentence, which proved to be only a rumor. Still, these public criticisms have nothing in common with a distorted story from the foreign press, based on the misinformation by political activists who recognized the tragedy as the perfect opportunity to spread propaganda and manipulate the emotions of the world public. Their main focus was on sex-segregation in certain football stadiums and they have been seeking to stir an online outcry to call on the world football’s governing body to ban Iran from international competitions.

The hypocritical sex segregation debate

Speaking of sex segregation, which is completely irrelevant to this case, it is true that certain sports venues implement a policy of sex separation. Some have exclusive male audiences for men’s team matches, others have special sections for both men and women, while third ones are mixed. However, anyone who has visited Iran can testify that the country is far from some kind of segregationist society, since it does not exist in universities, theaters, cinemas, restaurants, urban transport, offices, mosques, holy shrines, etc. Certain football stadiums are rare exceptions, along with prayer halls, schools and public baths.

Furthermore, there are a number of problems in defining “discrimination,” whether at Iranian or international level. All those who are holding moral lectures about “discriminated women banned from stadiums” forget or intentionally ignore the fact that, in their own words, there are also “discriminated men banned from stadiums.” To be more precise, as there are stadiums for men’s matches with a men-only audience, there are also stadiums for women’s matches with an exclusively female audience. One example is the Ararat Stadium in Tehran, used by the Iran women’s national football team.

Debates over two-way segregation in stadiums are being waged within Iran itself, but foreign individuals and organizations operating under the guise of human rights and equality are always hypocritically invoking one-way segregation, specifically female spectators at men’s matches. The reason is apparent; the advocacy of this kind fits perfectly into the archaic Orientalist narrative about “oppressed women,” long propagated in the West and covered extensively in academic literature. The same one-way argument can be applied, for example, to the male-only schools in Iran, ignoring the fact that there are also female-only schools, or that there are plenty of single-sex schools in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and other countries.

One may say that the focus on female spectators is due to the popularity of men’s football, which is partly true. For example, the match between Iran and Belarus at Ararat Stadium in last March was attended by less than one hundred female spectators. Even women’s matches in other countries are not better attended, but this tells us about the global discrimination against women’s football and sports in general. Advocating alleged equality by seeking mixed audience for single-sex matches is a bit ironic itself, despite the fact that female football players can hardly physically compete with their male counterparts. Similar justification is however difficult to find for sports segregation in numerous international motor racing competitions, which implicitly suggest that women are bad drivers. But this is not the case in Iran, its female racing drivers like Laleh Seddigh and Mitra Fallahpour competed against their male counterparts and won medals, which is a hard-to-find example in most countries of the world.

The only valid argument about sex segregation in football stadiums is the fact that Iran is one of the rare exceptions in a global context. Nevertheless, as in the example of the aforementioned female racing drivers, Iran is also a rare exception in various other fields of women’s emancipation. For example, Iran has women like Zohreh Sefati in the highest level of clergy, while the vast majority of other countries, including Western ones, have none. There is still no media circus or public debate on the issue. Another example is that despite being 4-5 times less populous, Iran has more female students at technical universities than the five largest EU countries combined, or twice as many as the second-ranked United States. Therefore, if you feel morally superior to give Iran lectures on the topic of women in stadiums, keep in mind that Iran can also do the same, but on much more serious topics. And if you believe that female cheerleaders are a better indicator of women’s emancipation than female engineers, then you have a serious problem in understanding gender equality.

The last ones who have a moral right to participate in this public debate are precisely those who were among the first and the loudest about the Blue Girl case, namely counter-revolutionary activists and the Saudi media clique. The former ones because in the pre-revolutionary period only a quarter of Iranian women were literate, and the latter ones because they represent the country with the most rigid sex segregation in the world, present in virtually all public places. This fact did not hamper The Independent, a half Saudi-owned British newspaper, from being among the first to publish a heartwarming false story, based largely on rumors by the apologists of Pahlavi regime.

The propaganda factory of fake martyrs

A particularly intriguing case is the role of the United States and the United Kingdom whose mass media and PR agencies have a long tradition of manufacturing fake martyrs for Iranophobic propaganda purposes. Notable cases include Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, executed in 2005 for allegedly being “gay lovers,” Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, allegedly sentenced to death in 2010 because of “her love for another man,” Zahra Bahrami, alleged “democracy activist” executed in 2011, and Hashem Shabani, an alleged “poet and human rights campaigner” executed in 2014. In reality, the first two were sentenced for raping a 13-year-old boy, the second one for murdering her husband, the third one for drug trafficking, and the fourth one for Takfiri terrorism. These criminals were misrepresented as brave individuals who stood for freedom, and the Internet contains tons of heartbreaking reviews, fake biographies and quotes, calls to action, and so on.

All these cases have a lot more in common: they all emerged during the fiercest tensions between Iran and the United States, they all followed the same propaganda modus operandi, and all were promoted by the same media, organizations and individuals. For example, if you intend to learn more about these controversies on the highly popular English Wikipedia, do not expect anything credible in most cases and bear in mind that literally all articles were arranged by the same person, a pro-Israeli activist nicknamed as Plot Spoiler, who got indefinitely banned only since last year after administrators had uncovered that he was paid for contributions. The current version of the Blue Girl article is arranged by a user who openly declares himself as a monarchist and a hater of the Iranian political system. Do not expect much more from Internet search engines because fake news stories from the days of media hypes will appear at the top, while relevant critical reviews and scholarly articles are technically “hidden” for ordinary people.

In all the above cases, a propaganda campaign followed the same order. First, a particular judicial case was selected, to which rumors and false information were added. Secondly, a distorted version was released in the mass media, causing a moral crusade which involves politicians, organizations, celebrities and others. Everyone is asked for an (emotional) reaction. Thirdly, after the official Tehran denies false information, they accuse it of hiding facts or seeking excuses. A media hype thus keeps going on, along with demonization in the eyes of the world public. Such repetitive method was also used on the eve of aggression against Iraq, misinformation were repeated and the public debate has been prolonged until the majority of Americans were misled that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction and military invasion was justified. A propaganda campaign sometimes includes a fourth step: when certain trial does not end in line with false sensationalist announcements, they claim that Iran has withdrawn under international pressure. This gives an impetus for a new round of same games, particularly among benevolent but manipulated activist volunteers, who believe that their babbling on social networks has an impact on the Iranian judiciary.

There is no shortage of resources for such games and potential “martyrs,” especially pseudo-feminist ones, as there are currently 7,440 women in Iranian prisons. It is easy to dig up domestic news, turn numerous stories upside down, and claim that trials are “dubious” or “unfair.” Theoretically, it is, even more, easier to do the same with the United States, considering there are 211,870 women imprisoned in that country or proportionally seven times higher than in Iran, but in practice virtually no one bothers with such facts and all find it quite normal when Americans are holding moral lectures. One may wonder whether it is because of the well-known “credibility” of the US courts, the same ones that seized billions of Iranian assets, delivered a verdict holding Iran responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and ordered the sale of Iranian antique art from American museums. Or perhaps many find the US trustworthy because their official criticism is always confirmed and joined by “eminent” Human Rights Watch?

Human Rights Watch (HRW), as well as similar US-funded organizations allegedly in charge of “promoting human rights,” plays an already seen game. Their modus operandi is to act in symbiosis with the mass media and Washington’s politics: at the beginning of propaganda campaigns, they back the biased claims and timely participate in provoking mass outrage, but after the media circus passes and its purpose was served, then they publish a more factual review, thus building the reputation of a credible and neutral institution. In this particular case, the HRW’s report about the Blue Girl contains a false balance, i.e., they do mention her mental illness and certain statements by her sister, but the title and most of the text deals with unfounded criticism, thus serving as a reference for the more aggressive mass media. Later, they can simply deny earlier allegations or the whole story; however, media coverage will then be absent. The most (in)famous example of such modus operandi is the false testimony of a Kuwaiti girl that helped build public support for the First Persian Gulf War. Both Human Rights Watch and their British equivalent Amnesty International initially supported the story of Iraqi tearing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and issued corrections only after the war. In other words, they fulfilled the task of their governments, and as “truthful organizations that acknowledge their own mistakes,” they continued to fulfill the same tasks later.

Even if the Blue Girl was a sane girl and immolated herself in political protest, which is definitely not the case, the United States would be among the last in a position to criticize. In just a few months before the self-immolation of Czech student Jan Palach, a celebrated anti-Soviet dissident who gained huge media coverage in the West, eight US citizens self-immolated themselves in protest against the Vietnam War. The media coverage of these American examples was negligible, as was in cases with ten other US citizens who later set themselves on fire in various political protests. On the other hand, no such case has been recorded in Iran, with the exception of two rumors based on dubious dissident sources.

The only valid criticism of the Iranian authorities over the Blue Girl case is that they treated her as an average sane person in the first three days. The security forces defended themselves that they did not know about her mental condition, further explaining that it was not even possible to know in given circumstances, which can be seen as a valid excuse. Even with regard to the treatment of people with a mental health condition, the United States would be the last candidate to sit on a high horse. We do not have to deal with hypothetical questions about what would happen if someone refuses a security check and violently attacks policemen at the US stadium gates, it is enough to recall the empirically confirmed cases of Artogi Groshe, Kevin Thorpe, Ronald Madison and many others. All of them were shot for resisting the police, and the responsible police officers later confronted them with fact that they killed people with mental disabilities, not arrogant criminals.

Exploiting the tragic death of a mentally ill person for political purposes of any kind is disgustingly shameful and below any human level. The same goes for this article, its purpose is not to justify any state policy, security guards or stadium rules, but merely to point out lies, hypocrisy, double standards and mass propaganda. Out of respect for the victim and her family who criticized the intense politicization in the foreign media, the identity of Blue Girl is deliberately not mentioned in the text. It’s not hard to notice that these media manipulations emerged in the midst of US-Iranian tensions and warmongering propaganda, orchestrated by the same group of people who called Iranians as “a terrorist nation,” sanctioned Iranian humanitarian organizations like Setad, along with child cancer patients and flood victims. They had previously manipulated the emotions of the world public with the aim of provoking a war with hundreds of thousands dead, and judging by their latest actions, they would be happy to repeat it all. Ultimately, we should remember that one of the basic points of John Bolton’s policy towards Iran included “a close cooperation with the media.” He may be gone, but his policies and old manipulation methods are still alive.

Ivan Kesić is a Croatia-based freelance writer and open-source data analyst. He worked as a writer at the Cultural Center of Iran in Zagreb from 2010 to 2016. His articles has appeared on the Consortium News, the Anti War, the Strategic Culture, the UNZ Review, & Mintpress News among the many.

Venezuela – Take 2

September 28, 2019

Venezuela – Take 2

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

It is tacitly assumed that that the American information industry produces notices and descriptions of actual events. Whereas it routinely delivers a narrative of adulterated facts and improbable fiction – the whole blended with a top-down imposition of Zionist ideology masquerading as national interest. I say ‘Zionist’ because a country in which the word of command comes from elsewhere is nothing more than a province. Which may explain many events unequivocally alien to American interest.

All this the world well knows – at least the unknown percentage of those who like to think. However, especially with Venezuela, there has been, among media outlets and pundits, a remarkable recrudescence of the presumption of imbecility in the American public.

But it is unjust and unrealistic to blame large social groups for their assumed gullibility. No one can indict a people. Individuals are caught up in the workings of a mechanism that forces them into its own pattern. Only heroes can resist, and while it may be hoped that everybody will be one, it cannot be demanded or expected.

Nor the trend is limited to America. Western European media figures and sundry politicians, having been taught the art of the ridicule – often in ‘prestigious’ States-side universities – seldom fail to signalize themselves by zealous imitation.

Were we not dealing with the suffering of a people and the economic strangling of a nation to steal her resources, the sallies and patent ridicule of the puppets and puppet-masters involved would be a recurrent fund of merriment.

Nevertheless, it commonly happens to him who endeavors to obtain distinction by ridicule or censure, that he teaches others to practice his own arts against himself.

Trump and his cabal or cartel have tried inventive ways to revile the Venezuelan government. So far they have only succeeded in ridiculing themselves. And their narrative has reached peaks of paradox and parody, in the comical effort to give their news a semblance of credibility.

I will mention but a few instances later, so as not to leave a statement unproven, though most readers may already know some.

Still, for the contemporary Pangloss there may be a measure of consolation in the Trumpian Cabal’s orgy of ridicule. For the domineering powers are literally terrorized by the alternative narratives, official and unofficial, reaching the discerning public through social media, directly from Venezuela.

Therefore they wage a grotesque battle, a Waterloo of fake-news, attempting to choke the liberty of expression – which, in the instance, amounts to curbing the liberty of intelligence.

Given that the flux of alternative news is still relatively marginal, this censorious obsession shows that, even in the secret enclaves of power, some believe that we are nearing a turning point in collective perception, a consummation devoutly to be wished by us, and unwished by them.

It is historically interesting that in the 1960s the Jewish political-ideological machine was clamoring for freedom of expression, and succeeded in having the US Supreme Court declare that pornography is free-speech.

In turn, this opened the flood to a Weimar-Republic-style mass acculturation whose consequences do not need description – see Weinstein as emblem of Jewish Hollywood, and Epstein as emblem of Jewish pornography and pornomania.

But sixty years later, and in total control of all media channels – the same forces find free-speech hateful, and want their adversaries insulted without self-defense and censored without apologists. Witness the erasure of hundreds of alternative information channels from the web.

Meanwhile, that just about all Western European countries have joined in pretending to believe Trump’s charade, is no support for his credibility.

For “Western European countries” means their politicians. And all know well that avarice is an insatiate and universal passion – since the enjoyment of almost every object that can afford a pleasure to the different tastes and tempers of mankind, may be procured by the possession of wealth. Consequently, politicians at large rarely cease to follow the easiest path to keep, maintain and increase their wealth and emoluments. And shameless servility to the moment’s master is the commonest formula.

For one thing, the Trump cartel assumed that any populace worldwide, with its immemorial and traditional levity, would applaud any change of masters, if accompanied by suitable fanfare and the promise or prospects of bread and circuses.

Hence they believed that the Venezuelans would promptly switch their allegiance to the service of a US appointed puppet. While the fanfare could adequately dissemble the plotters’ appetite for plunder.

In one of his often-quoted related pronouncements, Trump said that,

“The problem with Venezuela is not that socialism was poorly implemented, but that socialism was faithfully implemented.”

Far from me to oppose an “ism” with another. The various ‘isms’, as used, are not fruitful principles, nor even explanatory formulae. They are rather names of diseases, for they express some element in excess, some dangerous and abusing exaggeration.

Consider ‘globalism’, ‘neo-liberalism,’ ‘fascism’, ‘communism’, ‘socialism,’ ‘radicalism’, etc. If there may be something positive in them (and there is some good sometimes in sundry “isms”) it slips through these categories.

To compare, traditional medicine classified men according to whether they were ‘sanguineous’, ‘bilious’ or ‘nervous’. But someone in good health is none of the above. Equally, a state contains (or should contain) opposing points of view, holding them as in a chemical combination, much as all colors are contained in a beam of light.

But for Trump and the deep state behind him – though it has been the same since Reagan – neo-liberal capitalism is a dogma, which to dispute is heresy, and to doubt infamy.

The recurrent self-praising claim by media pundits and politicians about America being a democracy is either misleading and cretinous information or bold and imaginative fiction. Whereas actually, in some ways, the United States is a socialist state.

For example, government statistics, easily verifiable online, show that in 2018 there were 40 million people on food stamps (read ‘very poor’). And social programs with different names but similar scope exist in every state, to provide healthcare for those on food stamps and others. Furthermore, the very ‘social security’ system has socialism imprinted in its name.

Applying the same broad analysis to the economy at large, let’s say that in one case a state-owned enterprise produces something needed. In another case a private company lobbies the state to receive the same money that the state company would have spent to manufacture the same product.

Given that both instances involve human beings, is one state ‘socialist’ because it produces directly what it needs, and another ‘capitalist’ because it lets a non-state-owned company produce the same thing?

This is not advocating one method versus another – but only to suggest that a state-owned enterprise does not imply that the state itself is ‘socialist’. In fact in many countries, including the US, the state owns many enterprises, partially or completely.

The argument is purely theoretical, and it excludes many related insoluble dilemmas and controversial questions. For example whether a state or a privately owned enterprise is more subject to corruption, etc.

Nevertheless, I do not think that Venezuela’s ‘socialism’ is the cause of Trump’s uncouth bullying, contempt and coarse insults. For, as much as it is concealed, Venezuela is actually a mixed economy.

Now, cause and effect in history can be more-or-less arbitrary patterns into which we can weave events to render them significant. Nevertheless, in the instance, greed for Venezuela’s resources cannot be, in my view, the sole explanation.

Behind Trump’s contempt and insults there is a psychological engine and the whole weight of the historical-cultural machine that actually keeps America running.

Especially the Americans (and the fever began with the industrial revolution), know very little of a state of feeling that involves a sense of rest, of deep quiet, silence within and without, a quietly burning fire, a sense of comfort, existence in its simplest form. And I apologize for the generalization that always excludes the many exceptions.

For them life is devouring and incessant activity. They are eager for gold, for power, for dominion; the aim is to crush men and to enslave nature. They show an obstinate interest in means, but little thought for the end. They confound being with individual being, and the expansion of the self with happiness — while tending to ignore the unchangeable and the eternal.

It could be described as living at the periphery of our own essence for being unable to penetrate to its core. They are excited, ardent, positive, because they are also superficial. ‘Superficial’ may suggest less intelligent but the opposite is true. Superficiality and intelligence are anything but incompatible.
Why so much effort, noise, struggle and greed? It seems a mere stunning and deafening of the self.

When death comes they recognize that it is so. — why not then admit it sooner?

Activity is beautiful when, in some ways, it also partakes of the divine in the Greek sense — that is to say, when it is spent in the service of that which does not fade and transcends the mere domain of matter.

Some readers may argue that what is true for America also applies elsewhere, in Europe for example. As I repeat, short of dogmatic assertions, the idea here is but an attempt to find a cause for a culture.

For, unlike America, Europe had, in the XIX century, the romantic movement, which thoroughly influenced millions across the continent. Its literature affected the mode of thought of multiple generations in different countries. Romanticism swept through Europe at the very time when education became universal. And I include the Russian classics as powerful agents for suggesting or imprinting images and perceptions of a view of life that could not possibly be more un-American.

Before virtually crossing to the Venezuelan shores and interpreting their view of things I should add another qualifying proposition.

An analyst or interpreter of current events (just as any historian of the past), depends on his own judgment as to what is important in human life. Even when he rigorously confines himself to one selected political or cultural phase of a country, he still has decided on what constitutes the best outcome of that phase, and on what constitutes an outcome of degradation.

The whole judgment on ideas and actions (in the instance on what happens in Venezuela), depends upon such implicit presuppositions. You cannot rate wisdom or folly, progress or decadence, except in relation to some standard of judgment and to some end in view. For, in considering the flow and the history of ideas, the notion of mere knowledge is an abstraction. Accessories of emotion and purpose always accompany knowledge.

In the instance and for what is worth, an image still comes to my mind, when I compare Venezuela with other South-American countries. In 2014 Brazil held the world’s soccer championship. Multiple TV stations from different countries could not mask on their screens that, not many yards away from a stadium, began the favelas, living emblems of almost unimaginable degradation.

Considering that stadiums and infrastructures built for such colossal events routinely decay into ruins after little time of use, a question arises as to their intrinsic and extrinsic worth.

In contrast, and even according to UN official statistics, the so-called Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of people in dire poverty, while almost eliminating illiteracy. That programs of such scope are costly requires no demonstration. Whether it is preferable to invest in mass sports or in the relief of masses from illiteracy and degrading poverty, is a question that only single individuals can answer.

But it took the spirit and guts of Hugo Chavez to affect such a veritable revolution, possibly at a time when the US was not paying much attention, engaged as it was in bombing Yugoslavia and in establishing whether Clinton had or never had sex with that woman.

He who applauds the resurrection of a people, otherwise condemned as the irrelevant accessory of idle elites – who use the poor as a gauge to affirm their own ‘betterness’ – cannot feel but some sympathy towards the Bolivarian revolution. And he would feel so even without awareness of the enormous challenges and mixture of successes and defeats that accompany all epoch-making upheavals.

As for the Trump’s Cabal it would be interesting, anthropologically speaking, to understand the grotesque sociology of this flock. Their manners, as exhibited towards Venezuela, have shown a remarkable display of depravity – uniting the crimes that typically prevail among those immune from self-analysis, with the vices that spring from the abuse of power and immunity from prosecution.

Among the clowns of the Cabal, Marco Rubio deserves a special (dis)honorable mention, as the representative of a world upside-down. Including his showing a picture of Gheddafi assassinated and covered in blood, while threatening Maduro with the same outcome, should he not accede to American demands. As if the despotic power – which could take Gheddafi’s life without a trial and stigmatized his memory without proof – had any claim on using patent murder as an example of righteousness to be replicated.

Actually, I strongly doubt whether Rubio would even understand the implication of his words and gesture. Either he is a moron with the entertainment value of a tap-dancing oyster, or his head is as empty as a eunuch’s underpants.

Rubio is a senator (!) and, if I am not mistaken, was even spoken of as a candidate for president (!). Which prompts me to agree with Pythagoras that souls of animals infuse themselves into the trunks of men.

The happily departed Bolton is an equal competitor for the Olympic medal of ridicule. In the latest failed coup attempt, he proclaimed that Maduro was about to leave Venezuela for Cuba when ‘the Russians’ prevented him from boarding the plane.

As Jose’ Rodriguez – Venezuela’s Minister of Information – explained and documented on television, that ambulating Pinocchio called Guaido’ had assured Bolton that he had already corrupted and paid-off a sufficient number of generals so as to make the coup a done-deal. That wasn’t true but Bolton believed it.

All the while, the succeeding events of the failed coup make up the script of a proper farce.

Including Mike Pence’s outstanding arrogance when, in the UN assembly, had the gall to tell the Foreign Minister of Venezuela that he should not be there. As if the US had a divine right to make and unmake world governments at will. With his performance Mike Pence demonstrated to be worth less than six pence.

Of Pompeo it could perhaps be said what the historian Napier said of the British ambassador to Germany during the 1930s, “He is obtuse enough to be a menace, and yet not stupid enough to be innocuous.”

All in all, the Trump’s Cabal includes ambitious individuals, seemingly untaught or unable to observe, reason, deduce and infer, unless observation be blindness and madness logic.

Trump keeps labeling Nicolas Maduro as ‘corrupt’ and a ‘dictator’. Both words belong to the no-man’s-land of lexical ambiguity.

As for dictatorship, there have been six presidential elections, in Venezuela, since 2002. And, as readers who have followed the events know, in the last 2018 elections, the Trump Cabal ordered the opposition not to present candidates, after they had formally agreed to do so.

I will not offend the readers by proving what they already know – that charges of dictatorship may be levied against Trump and sundry predecessors on much stronger grounds.

The issue of corruption is trickier. I doubt if anyone who worked in, or had to do with, large corporations or government, never met with evidence of corruption. Without even touching on lobbying, a peculiar institution for bribing, bulldozing, and corrupting the legislators who are supposed to represent the people’s interests. Or on ‘financial engineering’, an inventive euphemism to suggest monetary genius instead of monetary fraud.

For what is worth, unable as I am to find a reliable method for measuring and assessing corruption, I pretend to do what Balzac did when he wrote his novels, though I write none.

He kept on his desk the Dictionary of Physiognomy – a monumental work in four massive volumes, written by the Swiss Abbot Johann Lavater, in the 18th century. In his novels, Balzac used Lavater’s physiognomy extensively. So that his characters, being accurately described as they are, cannot but logically behave as they do.

Physiognomy had its era of success and popularity before being dismissed as a pseudoscience. Though I suspect that many use it unconsciously when forming their first impression of an individual.

With all necessary reservations, amateurishly and therefore inaccurately, I suggest that Trump’s physiognomy reads, “Everything has a price and money buys everything. Conscience is but a word that cowards use to keep the strong in awe. Power (via money acquired from any source) is my conscience, my tool of operation and my law.”

For brevity’s sake I will not describe individual facial components of the specific physiognomy – as Lavater does in his work.

As a corollary derived from Trump’s physiognomy, “twitting” is the ideal communication tool and perfect match for his character. In his hands a ‘tweet’ means “I say so because it is and that’s it.”

By the way I am not passing judgment – however difficult it may be, the application of physiognomy should not be affected by emotional or philosophical preferences.

In fact, assuming his physiognomic profile correct, Trump is ethically consistent. Whereas, in my view, the other members of his Cabal are not. Routinely, they cannot even pretend to the smooth face of hypocrisy. They are sincere only when they are arrogant.

Again I do not pretend to be right. Two men observing the same person, or even object, will describe it diversely, according to the point of view from which either beholds it. Still, truth being the legitimate object of observation and history, it is better that she should be sought-for by many than few, lest for want of seekers, among the mists of prejudice and the false lights of interest, she’d be lost altogether.

Comparing Trump with Maduro, the difference could not be greater. Maduro’s physiognomy suggests that he takes his job as a mission. And that he has a frightful understanding of what Venezuela would revert to, if the Anglo-Zionists and their ‘lameculos’ took over. His oratory is incomparable with Trump’s. It is helped by the inherent majesty of the Spanish language, but is also evidence of a long and careful self-training and study. A remarkable achievement in itself, considering that Maduro’s political path began as a union leader among bus drivers.

For their own self-respect, we may think that the Venezuelan opposition should contain characters with greater respectability than what the world has seen so far.

The ‘interim’ president Guaido’ was recently shown holding an empty milk jug in the air while claiming that he had not enough money to buy milk for his daughter. Almost simultaneously, Venezuelan intelligence had caught Guaido’s assistant Marrero texting with other coup organizers. They were arguing about how and to assign and distribute among themselves the hundreds of millions that Uncle Sam had confiscated from the accounts of the Venezuelan bank in the US. A bank that is (was) necessary to handle the sales of Venezuelan oil to the US.

Among other exploits, Guaido’ had already ridiculed himself for believing the two Russian pranksters (’bromistas’ in Venezuelan Spanish), who faked a call from the President of Switzerland. In which the ‘president’ asked Guaido’ if the accounts of the Venezuelan government in Switzerland should be reassigned to Guaido’s name, and he agreed. And, when prompted by the bromistas, he also agreed to support the Russian pro-US candidate Navalny in a future attempt to unseat Putin.

In a theater, bad actors feel embarrassed towards the audience for their poor performance. With Venezuela it’s the audience that feels embarrassed for the actors.

Following the developments of the ongoing attempted Venezuelan coup, also yields some unusual and curious perspectives, along with the possibility of discovering other interesting Guaido’-style characters.

Readers may remember Victoria Nuland, Obama’s and Hillary’s factotum in Ukraine – passed into history for her “F-the-Europeans” pronouncement, while discussing which puppets to appoint in the US-financed, post-coup Ukrainian government.

Maybe some readers do not yet know that Victoria Nuland has a Venezuelan equivalent in the shape of a Vanessa Neumann, familiarly referred-to in the European press as “The Cracker from Caracas.”

As Wikipedia explains, Neumann is the “Venezuelan” (meaning Guaido’s) ambassador to “the court of St. James” (meaning England). Though Wikipedia modestly adds that, “The administration of Nicolás Maduro does not recognize Guaido’s diplomats.”

Besides also being Jewish, Neumann has the usual impeccable curriculum of the Vanity-Fair intellectualoids, who can read and therefore believe they can think, ever swimming with the tide of pomp that beats upon the high shores of the world. And of whom French author George Bernanos said that, “The intellectual is so often an imbecile that we should consider him as such, until he (or she) has demonstrated the contrary.”

Like others of that ilk, Neumann is the apotheosis of fake, but I mention her here for her involvement in a not-so-well-known ramification of the so-far unsuccessful coup in Venezuela.

Between Venezuela and Guyana there is a disputed territory, apparently an Eldorado of natural resources, called the Essequibo. The roots of the dispute lay in the 1600 when the Northern Provinces of Holland declared independence from Spain. The sequence of events being intricate, a summary is mandatory.

When Venezuela declared independence from Spain in 1810, thanks to Simon Bolivar, she also claimed the Essequibo as successor to the Spanish empire. For the Spaniards had originally discovered the region, established their sovereignty, settled and exercised political control.

In the meantime England also laid claims, and since England had helped Venezuela in her struggle for independence, Venezuela did not, at the time, interfere with the British claim.

Jumping many intermediate steps and disputes, in 1966 there was an agreement between Venezuela and the now independent Guyana, to delay a final decision on the settlement of the Essequibo. Even so, Venezuela maintains her claim to the rightful ownership of the territory.

Vanessa Neumann comes into the picture thanks to a telling conversation on the Essequibo between her and an assistant to Guaido’ called Manuel Avendano (link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjaSN_Hiq1I).

It appears that Neumann, or Guaido’, or both had already agreed – even prior to the attempted coup – to give ownership of the Essequibo to various American companies for exploitation.

Neumann tells Avendano that during her participation to an impending meeting of the so-called “Group of Lima” (read, the South-American countries supporting a coup in Venezuela) she will not answer any questions on the subject of the Essequibo, raised by the Guyana representative. Apparently the representative had already asked her about the related post-coup government’s intention. Or rather, officially, as she explains, “we will continue to uphold the line that we intend to appropriate ourselves of the Essequibo” – whereas they have already given it away to the American multinationals.

The current legitimate Venezuelan government has declared that the Neumann-Guaido’s arbitrary pronouncement on the Essequibo is evidence of treason by the ‘coupistas.’

Why Maduro allows Guaido’ to roam free in Venezuela, while he continues to plot for her subjugation by the US, is a puzzle for me and (I think) for those unfamiliar with the subtle tools of diplomacy. Though it is reasonable to guess that the more Guaido’ speaks and moves, the more he makes an ass of himself, hence discomposing his own cause – but it is only a supposition.

Given that Russia and China openly support and assist Venezuela, we may still hold some hope that evil may not prevail. While waiting for the verdict of time, that infallible controverter of false opinions.

Promoting War, Opposing Peace, How Establishment Media Operate

By Stephen Lendman

Source

Establishment media never met a US war of aggression against a nonbelligerent/nonthreatening state they didn’t wholeheartedly cheerlead.

When the US goes to war or in their run-up, they operate as virtual Pentagon press agents — complicit in US high crimes of war and against humanity by their actions.

Since Iranians ended a generation of US-imposed fascist dictatorship in 1979, establishment media have been militantly hostile toward Tehran.

They joined the anti-Iran chorus in support of the Trump regime’s war by other means on the country, targeting its economy, harming its ordinary people most — reporting US disinformation, Big Lies and fake news about the country.

Not a shred of credible evidence suggests Iran seeks nuclear weapons, a nation at peace with its neighbors that never attacked another country preemptively, threatening none now, fostering cooperative relations worldwide.

No evidence suggests Iran had anything to do with striking key Saudi oil facilities on September 14 — what Yemeni Houthis claimed responsibility for.

The NYT is militantly hostile toward nonbelligerent Iran. In one article, it contradicted itself about the week ago attack on Saudi oil facilities, saying:

The “attack (came) from an unknown source, evidently using missiles and drones…Trump…blames Iran,” adding:

“The Iranian government ordered it because it views Trump as a weak negotiator who is afraid of war.”

More meaningless mumbo jumbo rubbish followed, including nonsense that “Iran may be betting that Trump will back down (by) escalating the situation…”

It’s hard believing editors allow the above rubbish to be published, not remotely reflecting reality.

Separately, the Times slammed Trump for not retaliating after Iran downed its spy drone last June — failing to explain it entered Iranian airspace illegally, didn’t respond to multiple demands to leave, before IRGC forces acted in self-defense, the legal right of all nations to hostile actions.

Attacking Iran earlier or any time preemptively is naked aggression under international law, ignored by the Times in its piece.

The Times: “Three months later, some of Mr. Trump’s own allies fear the failure to follow through was taken by Iran as a sign of weakness, emboldening it to attack oil facilities in Saudi Arabia this month (sic).”

Instead of stressing there’s no evidence supporting the claim, the Times also failed to ask obvious questions:

What was a US spy drone doing in Iranian airspace illegally? Why did it ignore repeated Iranian demands to leave? The incident was a hostile US action the Times and other establishment media failed to explain.

The Times quoted far-right official of the undemocratic Foundation for Defense of Democracies Reuel Gerecht, saying Trump’s “repeated failure to militarily respond to Iranian actions has been a serious mistake.”

Anything advancing peace over war warrants high praise, a notion rejected by the Times and other hawkish US media. 

Trump’s reluctance to strike Iran militarily hasn’t deterred his aggression in multiple theaters. Nor did it soften his all-out war on Tehran by other means — the same high crimes committed against Venezuelan social democracy, the real thing absent in the West.

CNN, the most distrusted name in television propaganda masquerading as news, slammed nonexistent Iranian “malign activity (not) thinning out,” claiming what doesn’t exist is “expanding.”

The Wall Street Journal falsely claimed Yemeni Houthis “warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia’s oil industry a week ago” —  citing unnamed sources that lied or don’t exist.

On Saturday, Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam debunked the Journal’s Big Lie. Another followed, saying:

“In recent days, (so-called) people familiar with the matter said Iran let Houthi fighters know that they wanted their support in carrying out more attacks across the region (sic).”

The London Guardian accused Trump of “dithering over Iran,” saying it “makes America look weak and foolish” — promoting war like other Western chickhawk media instead of denouncing aggression.

Anti-Iran propaganda war wages. Without establishment media support, it would fall flat.

Unexplained is why nonbelligerent Iran at peace with its neighbors would change policy.

What possible strategic aim could it achieve by becoming an aggressor, giving the US a pretext for possible war?

Iran would have much to lose and nothing to gain by attacking the Saudis or another regional country.

What’s obvious goes unreported by establishment media, falsely blaming Iran instead about what no evidence suggests it had anything to do with.

On Criticism of Palestinian Resistance

 

Palestinian Ghandi.jpg

by Eve Mykytyn*

The Oxford definition of ‘terrorism’  is: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”    Although the term could apply to the belligerents in many wars, the term ‘terrorism’ takes on its everyday meaning when violence is perpetuated by the weak in resistance to the powerful.

What other form of resistance is available to an oppressed people?  One does not have to search hard to find a Jewish source begging for the peaceful resistance of a Palestinian Gandhi or King.

The request itself is odd, it invites a comparison to the conditions Gandhi and King fought, and is an implicit, although perhaps unintended,  admission that Israel represents another oppressive racist regime.

It takes chutzpah to complain about the form of resistance employed by the people you are oppressing. Why are the Palestinians obliged to meet violence with nonviolence? Certainly  you have to take your victims as they are.

Gandhi wrote about the uses of nonviolent resistance and King referred to Gandhi’s writings. For Gandhi and King nonviolence was not an end in itself, it was a strategy, a means to achieve a goal. Despite later deifications, neither Gandhi nor King was a saint,  they were leaders who employed non violent resistance because it was effective under their circumstances.

Both men were vastly outpowered by the brutal regimes they opposed. Nonviolence did not allow them or their followers  to escape injury or death, their battles required at least as much physical bravery as for any soldiers.

Both Gandhi and King deliberately provoked their enemies and then refused either to back down or to physically fight back. The decision to meet violence with nonviolent resistance was a powerful tool used to expose the brutality of the regime. The march to Selma would have amounted to little without the press. What they ‘achieved’ was  an unforgettably painful display of violence. To the extent nonviolence succeeded for King, it was because the ‘soldiers’ on the other side gave Americans a clear picture of the savagery to which blacks were subjected. It became increasingly difficult for those who had long averted their eyes to claim ignorance.

One reason the Palestinians are portrayed as ‘failing’ to meet the standard set  by Gandhi or King is that their use of the tactic of nonviolence has not attracted sympathetic coverage, it has not been effective enough in exposing Israel’s brutality. There are, of course, numerous examples of peaceful Palestinian resistance. One example is commemorated on ‘Land Day’ remembering the day in 1976 that Israel killed peaceful Palestinian protesters. Another occurred during the first intifada, as Neve Gordon writes in 972, when the “Palestinians adopted massive civil disobedience strategies, including daily protests” against Israel’s occupation. Israel responded with violence and  mass incarcerations. While they could easily provoke violence through peaceful protest, the Palestinians could not win the media nor shame the Israelis into change.

This, of course, begs the question of control of the media. King  was extensively covered in the media.  Do the Palestinians have access to the same?  At best, Haaretz might decry the proportionality of Israel’s violence, but will it explore the true meaning of Palestinian protest, both the original and the ongoing taking of their property and destruction of their society? Would  the international press do any better?

As I was writing this I realized that Palestinian nonviolent protests in Gaza have had perhaps a small effect on public opinion. The mainstream media in the US is universally favorable to Israel, but although they tried, the media was not entirely successful in creating sympathy for the  Israeli snipers. For example, The Guardian, in reporting that one year into the protest, the Israelis had killed 190 and wounded 28,000, noted that, “Children, journalists and medics have been killed, even when they were standing far back from the fence.”  Spin that one. Here’s an attempt by Eric Yoffe,  a self-described ‘liberal’ American Jew,  to justify killing protestors who had not killed a single Israeli.  “If 100 Jewish bodies were strewn across southern Israel, would the American left more readily forgive Israel’s defensive actions against an angry mob of tens of thousands propelled by the murderous, anti-Semitic terrorists of Hamas?”  This is simply a variation on the “I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first” defense. Perhaps the need to resort to such a  feeble rationale helps explain why we finally have a tiny Congressional support group for the Palestinians. Seventeen were so daring as to vote against an anti BDS bill.

Further, Israel has shown little sign that it is willing to change its basic  oppressive policies in response to any actions or restraint by the Palestinians. This is an interesting video in which Israeli ‘settlers’ are asked if they would move if told to do so by their government and knowing the move would mean peace in the region.  Their responses are variations on “No, I would not, it is my land.” Perhaps they are merely following the lessons of their religion.

In the story of Exodus, recounted annually even by many secular Jews at Passover, Moses unsuccessfully begs the Pharaoh for his peoples’ freedom. The lesson to be learned: Jewish liberation comes only after Egyptian civilians are subjected to terrible brutality.

A Dinner with the Devil: The Suspicious Links of the Independent’s Owner with MBS

A Dinner with the Devil: The Suspicious Links of the Independent’s Owner with MBS

By Staff, The Guardian

Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard, hosted a private dinner for the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman [MBS], raising further questions about the media mogul’s links to the de facto ruler of the Middle Eastern kingdom.

Lebedev’s news outlets are being investigated due to public interest concerns over a mysterious Saudi investment made through a web of offshore bank accounts, with the UK government suggesting that the Independent and Evening Standard are now part-owned by the Saudi state. The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, has until Friday to decide whether or not to appeal against a court ruling that the UK government missed a deadline to intervene in the deal.

The revelation that Lebedev had a personal relationship with MBS raises further questions about the connections between the two men. According to the Guardian, MBS had taken time out of his brief state visit to London in March 2018 – when he was hosted by the then prime minister, Theresa May, and the Queen – to spend time with the Russian oligarch’s son, who is thought to have hosted the dinner at his house in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace.

Leading business and media figures were also in attendance at the event, including the Virgin co-founder Richard Branson, whose spokesperson confirmed his attendance, saying: “Richard went to dinner as he was invited by Lebedev, who he knows well. At that time Virgin was discussing an investment with the [Saudi national investment fund] PIF in Virgin Galactic, which was later called off by Richard. The dinner was a personal one and not focused on business.”

Lebedev’s spokesperson declined to comment on the dinner but insisted MBS had no personal role in arranging the disputed investments in the London-based news outlets. At this time MBS was still attempting to project a modernizing image of his country, work that would be largely undone later that year when he was implicated in the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Questions remain over why a Saudi state bank decided to buy a 30% stake in two British news outlets and how the deal was arranged. Multiple sources told the Guardian the Independent chairman, Justin Byam Shaw, had previously claimed he had discussed the initial Saudi investment with the former Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2017.

Tony Blair’s Institute has since received millions of pounds from the Saudi Research and Marketing Group – a state-controlled media business which now runs a Saudi franchise of the Independent – while Saudi sources also said Blair had met Prince Mohammed later that year.

Both Lebedev’s spokesperson and Blair denied that the former Labor prime minister was an adviser on the investment. However, neither side would comment on claims that Byam Shaw had informally met and discussed the deal with Blair in 2017.

May’s government unexpectedly launched a formal investigation into whether the Saudi investment in the Evening Standard and Independent should be investigated on public interest grounds, with a court hearing claims that the man originally presented as the main investor, an unknown businessman named Sultan Mohamed Abuljadayel, was merely a frontman for the Saudi state.

The decision to launch an investigation, made in the dying days of May’s leadership, could prove to be a headache for Boris Johnson as he has close links to both Lebedev and the Evening Standard editor, George Osborne, whom he is currently promoting as a possible new boss of the International Monetary Fund.

When questioned about the Saudi investment earlier this year, Osborne insisted the titles retained editorial independence: “The days when British newspapers were owned by British people living in Britain disappeared 50 years ago. It is a reality that newspaper ownership is very diverse in this country.”

The prime minister has separately declined to answer questions from the Guardian about whether he abandoned his security detail to attend parties hosted at Lebedev’s Italian villa earlier this summer.

As a result of the deal the Independent has launched a series of foreign language websites aimed at Middle Eastern audiences. The Independent-branded sites are staffed and run by employees of Saudi Research and Marketing Group – the same company that later funded Blair’s institute. Some of the journalists producing the content are based in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, which has one of the lowest rankings for press freedom in the world.

Although the foreign-language Independent sites take some articles from the main English-language websites, London-based Independent employees have noted that stories critical of Saudi Arabia often fail to be translated. Lebedev’s spokesperson said they were aware of concerns from some UK staff but noted the overseas sites “are licensed properties” not directly under their purview.

بين حروب الكلام… وقوانين الحرب

Image result for Avivim strike

سبتمبر 4, 2019

ناصر قنديل

بين حروب الكلام… وقوانين الحرب

– حجم التهالك الذي يعيشه الحلف الذي تقوده واشنطن، ويشكل كيان الاحتلال عموده الفقري ورأس حربته، وعنوان قوته، وقدرة ردعه، بلغ حداً صارت الحروب عند كلمنجية العرب في السياسة والإعلام، حروب كلام، ولعبة خداع بصري، وذكاء اصطناعي. ففي مرحلة سبقت الحشود الأميركية في الخليج، كان كل الحشد الكتابي والكلامي والخطابي يجري تحت عنوان، الويل والثبور وعظائم الأمور، وها هي إيران تواجه ساعة الحقيقة والعقاب آتٍ، والحشود العسكرية تأتي للحرب أو للتلويح بالحرب، وهذا هو الردع. ولكن إيران لم تمتثل ولم تفت في عضدها لا الحشود الحربية ولا التهديدات، ووقعت أول مواجهة وأسقطت إيران أهم الطائرات الأميركية في العالم، وصمتت واشنطن وهربت من المواجهة، وبدأت تتحدّث عن استفزاز إيراني لجرها إلى حرب لا تريدها، دون أن تفسر إذن لماذا جاءت بالحشود. ثم تفتقت عبقرية الكلمنجية عن تسخيف إسقاط الطائرة، والبعض قال إنها خدعة أميركية لكشف الدفاعات الإيرانية، ومعلمهم دونالد ترامب قال إنه خشي من الرد على الضربة لأنها ستزهق أرواح مدنيين.

– في تداعيات ما فعله جيش الاحتلال عبر العدوان المزدوج في سورية ولبنان، وأسفر عن شهيدين للمقاومة، وخرق عدواني للأجواء اللبنانية، وإعلان المقاومة عزمها على الرد، عادت حشود الكلمنجية لصف الحكي، واجترار الكلام ذاته، لبنان معرض للدمار بسبب مغامرات حزب الله، أو حزب الله لن يجرؤ على الرد لأن إيران في حال مفاوضات، أو خطر الحرب وشيك وخطير وكبير، أو أن حزب الله كما محور المقاومة يكثرون الكلام عن حق الرد، ولكنهم يحتفظون به في ثلاجة مبردة طويلة الأمد، لكن ماذا حدث عندما وقع رد المقاومة بما فيه من جديد نوعي يتمثل باستهداف موقع للاحتلال في فلسطين المحتلة عام 48، وتهرب جيش الاحتلال من الرد، مكتفياً بقذائف القشرة كتقليد عسكري لكل الجيوش بعد كل تعرض للاستهداف لا يعتبر رداً، الذي حدث أن كيان الاحتلال انكفأ تحو حرب الكلام، ومن ورائه هبت حشود الكلام، تارة تسخف العملية، وتنسى أنه لو أطلقت طلقة عبر الحدود، وخصوصاً نحو فلسطين المحتلة عام 48 قبل سنوات أو من غير حدود لبنان لخاض كيان الاحتلال حرباً. وكما أغرقوا الناس بطوفان من الشائعات والفبركات بالتشكيك بكون الطائرتين للكيان وجيشه، صارت القضية عدم وقوع قتلى أو إصابات في جيش الاحتلال كما في الطائرة الأميركية في هرمز، لكن الحقيقة بقيت، أن الضربة التي تلقاها الأميركي والإسرائيلي قد أصابته في صميم قوة ردعه، لكنها رغم الألم أقل مخاطرة من الحرب، فيبحث عن ذريعة للهروب، الحقيقة التي باتت قانون حرب، هي أن واشنطن ومثلها تل أبيب تريدان الحرب على محور المقاومة ولكنهما تخشيانها، وأن محور المقاومة لا يريد هذه الحرب لكنه لا يخشاها.

– ببساطة الردع مهابة، وإعلان جهوزية لدخول الحرب عند مجرد تخطي الآخر الخطوط الحمراء، والهزيمة اختراع الذرائع والمبررات للتهرب من خوض حرب جرى التهديد بخوضها رغم دوس الآخر على الخطوط الحمراء، وثمة مهابة تتمرغ بالوحل ومهابة تعانق عنان السماء.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: