Archive | October 20th, 2016

Has World War III Already Started?

German Tanks Once Again Advancing towards Russia’s Border

It took 3 million soldiers, 3,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery pieces, and 2,500 aircraft…

“Operation Barbarossa” was the code name for Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

It was the largest military operation in human history.

The Nazis had already conquered most of Europe. Hitler had grown overconfident from his recent military victories.

Now he was hunting for big game… Stalin’s USSR.

Throughout history, many European invaders, including Napoleon, suffered monumental defeats when they took on Russia. Despite this, Hitler thought he could succeed where they had failed.

The idea was to inflict a total defeat on the Soviets in a matter of months, before the notoriously brutal Russian winter began.

At first, it looked like the Germans might succeed. The Soviets were taken by surprise and were disorganized.

But those initial victories wouldn’t be enough. Thanks to stubborn resistance and a large number of Soviet troops, Operation Barbarossa stalled.

The Germans didn’t make it to Moscow before winter. The ruthless cold weather would prove to be a far more effective weapon than anything in the Soviet arsenal. Hitler’s hopes of quickly taking out the USSR perished in the brutal cold. It ultimately turned the tide of the war against Germany.

But the Soviet victory cost millions of lives. By the end of the war, the Soviets had lost over 20 million people. Some estimate they lost many millions more. By comparison, the U.S. lost around 400,000 people.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Russians get a little prickly when a foreign military starts marching toward their borders.

And recently… for the first time since Operation Barbarossa, German tanks are once again advancing on Russia’s border.

You probably haven’t heard this extraordinary piece of news. That’s because the mass media has basically ignored and obscured it. They’ve been busy covering far more important things… like transgender issues and Kim Kardashian’s latest stunt.

That’s why I want to tell you about Operation Anaconda 2016.

It’s the largest war game in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. It’s essentially a rehearsal to secure a quick NATO victory in the event of war with Russia.

It was launched from Warsaw, Poland, recently and involves 31,000 NATO troops.

Operation Anaconda 2016 is one of the most important stories you’re not hearing about. It shows how perilously close the world is to another global war.

I found out about Operation Anaconda 2016 while in Warsaw with Doug Casey earlier this year.

Operation Anaconda 2016 is controversial even within NATO. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently said:

“Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.”

Although Steinmeier said Operation Anaconda 2016 is symbolic, he failed to mention exactly what it symbolizes.

First, an Anaconda is a giant snake. It kills its prey by squeezing it. From the Russian perspective, they’re the ones who feel squeezed. This is precisely what the U.S. has been doing by fomenting so-called colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia (both on Russia’s periphery) and trying to absorb them into NATO.

Second, this unprecedented “tank parade” on Russia’s borders symbolizes nothing less than World War III.

According to Doug Casey:

It’s provocative, and actually quite insane. The Western media paints the Russians as the aggressors, which—let me shock you by saying this—is the opposite of the truth.

Russia is an economic minnow, producing nothing but oil and gas, and mostly unprofitably, at current prices. Its population is in permanent decline, and it’s actually a disintegrating empire with a dozen secession movements. Its only serious industrial sector is manufacturing weapons, but even the most advanced Sukhois and MiGs (like the F-22 and F-35) are artifacts of a bygone era.

The Russians aren’t in a position to threaten anyone—entirely apart from the fact that conquering neighboring countries no longer makes sense. In today’s world, you’re no longer acquiring an asset to be looted, but taking on a liability.

As for NATO, it’s outlived its usefulness by over 25 years. The huge military bureaucracy is just a hammer in search of a nail. It should be abolished before it gets everyone in a lot of trouble.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted to Operation Anaconda 2016 with alarm. At a recent press conference, he warned Western mainstream media journalists that the world is sleepwalking into World War 3, saying:

We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger—this is what worries me.

How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.

U.S. politicians like to use Putin as a piñata to show how tough they are. Hillary Clinton has declared Putin to be the new Hitler. This is the kind of thinking that fueled Operation Anaconda 2016.

Now, we’re not referees charged with deciding which political players are good guys and which are bad guys.

However, the portrait of Putin as a Hitler or a crazy man leading his country toward disaster—the picture you get from the mainstream media and from many politicians—is suitable only for propaganda posters.

I don’t give two you-know-whats about what happens in Eastern Europe, except to the extent it might spark World War 3 and cause us to get vaporized in a nuclear exchange.

Albert Einstein once said,

“I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

IM Editor’s note:

It’s always been true, as Bourne said, that “war is the health of the State.” But it’s especially true when economic times get tough. That’s because governments like to blame their problems on outsiders; even an imagined foreign threat tends to unify opinions around those of the leaders.

Since economies around the world are all weakening, and political leaders are all similar in essential mindset, there’s good reason to believe the trend toward World War 3 is accelerating.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can do to practically change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible and even profit from the situation.

That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

Posted in UKComments Off on Has World War III Already Started?

Is “Postcapitalism” On the Horizon?


Paul Mason is a leading British economic journalist, currently a columnist for The Guardian. He is also a long time left political activist. His new book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. New York, 2015) is a challenging, sometimes obscure, sometimes brilliant, eminently worthwhile read, and an optimistic take that the left might, once again, be marching in tune with the forces of history.

Mason is, to say the least, highly original and idiosyncratic. His book is partly addressed to the orthodox Marxist left, endorses and builds upon the labour theory of value, takes seriously the possibility of a planned, non market economy, and pays tribute to the traditions of radical working-class socialism. At the same time, he is emphatically non Leninist, sees networked knowledge workers as the key contemporary agents of social change, and draws heavily on pro capitalist thinkers from Schumpeter, to management theorist Peter Drucker, to contemporary cheerleaders for the supposedly transformative knowledge and network based new knowledge economy.

The argument begins with the crisis of contemporary neoliberalism dating back to the financial and global crisis of 2008. Together with many left economists, Mason envisages a dismal future of secular stagnation, ever more extreme income inequality, massive job losses due to technological change, unsustainably high levels of public and private debt, and chronic global trade imbalances. He argues that capitalism faces an acute impasse due to catastrophic climate change and pending massive defaults on debt.

Mason argues that capitalism has periodically radically mutated and morphed into new forms in response to crises, but that this is unlikely to recur given that political opposition to neoliberalism has been so weak due to the decline of the labour movement. Further, new technology and new relations of production this time around will not boost profits or revive investment. Neither a Schumpeterian style new wave of innovation nor a social democratic style fix are on the horizon of plausibility.

The most original part of his argument is that the info tech revolution and the emerging network information economy (the changing forces and social relations of production in Marxist terms) are not ultimately compatible with a capitalist economy, Capital is doomed to crisis, decline and decay since it increasingly cannot capture the value created by the emerging new knowledge economy.

Four Key Strands to the Argument

First, the new economy has seen the emergence of goods and services that have zero or very low marginal costs. Information can be readily copied and shared. For example, Apple provides most of the world’s digital music (more than 70 per cent) and could in principle provide almost all existing recorded music to everybody in the world at near zero marginal cost. Pricing power only exists by virtue of low prices applied to a monopoly share of the market and fragile and contestable intellectual property rights.

The major digital economy companies which have disrupted major economic sectors survive by creating inherently unstable and vulnerable monopolies such as Google (search engines), Apple (music and other digital media within a corporate walled garden), and Facebook (social media). They may be profitable today, but the economic logic they are based upon tends toward zero prices and zero profits (hence, one can add, as the author does not, the stress of corporate interests on securing intellectual property rights in new investment agreements such as the TPP.)

Second, the new economy has seen the autonomous, non commercial rise of free and almost free goods and services. A mobile phone with an internet connection provides near zero price access to knowledge (farewell to many commercial media) and access to non commercial products such as Wikipedia and open source software which are produced to be shared rather than as a source of profit. The network economy enables individuals to produce and widely circulate blogs, music, works of art, movies, e-books and to generally share free knowledge largely outside the commercial sphere and the price system. Wikipedia is a key example of gift exchange and peer to peer production growing relative to market exchange.

Third, less and less labour is needed to produce goods and services in the age of the intelligent machine and robots. This ultimately undermines profitability since direct labour input is (on Marxist grounds) the ultimate source of value. In any case, automation and the displacement of workers by machines polarizes a shrinking workforce between knowledge workers and low paid workers in “bullshit jobs” (a useful new technical term.) Changes in production relations undermine effective demand, and emerging info- capitalism cannot resolve the increasingly chronic labour displacement/underconsumption problem.

Fourth, production is increasingly driven by knowledge, and knowledge is free and shared through networks. This stands in fundamental contradiction to the hierarchical control of knowledge within the capitalist corporation. “The main contradiction of modern capitalism is between the possibility of free, abundant socially produced goods and a system of monopolies, banks and governments struggling to maintain control over power and information. That is, everything is pervaded by a fight between network and hierarchy.”

Transition to Socialism

Mason envisages a long transition to socialism analogous to the gradual emergence of capitalism and markets within the shell of feudalism. He rejects Stalinist style central planning, and makes much of the ability of sophisticated computer technology and networks to plan in a relatively decentralized way, perhaps eventually moving beyond market allocation. The key institutions of a socialist economy will be a socialized financial system and socialized large monopolies combined with decentralized forms of social ownership such as co-ops and networked small producers. There will be a radical reduction of working time due to automation and a gradual shift to a non scarcity economy in which allocation of goods and services takes place outside of the labour market through some form of universal income.

All of this is presented with great brio, punctuated by penetrating insights and a remarkably eclectic marshalling of obscure debates and texts such as Marx on knowledge and machines in the Grundrisse.

An intellectual influence is Alexander Bogdanov, the Bolshevik economist and author of the science fiction novel Red Star featuring a socialist Mars where knowledge workers manage a totally automated economy providing abundance for all. They choose to destroy Earth on the grounds that its inhabitants are too stupid to embrace socialism. (Definitely next on my reading list.)

But the whole is less convincing than many of the parts.

Mason fails entirely to engage with the argument of Robert Gordon that the networked information technology/automation revolution is too small to drive the economy as a whole, as shown in part by dismal labour productivity growth. In effect, he presents us with a socialist gloss on the myriad techno-optimists. That said, it is hard to contest the fact that knowledge based corporate monopolies which operate at or near zero marginal costs indeed make up an increasing share of the economy and have a growing impact on how the overall economy functions

Mason also fails to elaborate any political strategy for transformation. He writes off the traditional working-class in an almost elegiac chapter devoted to the history of the labour movement, stressing past attempts to build islands of worker power in factories and communities. But he says little or nothing about political movements of precarious workers or about how networked knowledge workers might indeed be won to socialism. He says rather little about the impact of new technologies on work. But info capitalism is very far from displacing socially necessary labour, even if it may be tending in that direction, and it is hard to imagine universal displacement of labour by knowledgeable machines.

None of these criticisms detract from a very provocative and engaging attempt to engage with contemporary capitalism and to assess the prospects for radical change. •

Posted in UKComments Off on Is “Postcapitalism” On the Horizon?

Welcome to the EU of Returned Sovereignty!

Adelina Marini

The thing that got a little neglected at the June EU summit because of the referendum in Great Britain and the migrant crisis in the EU was the taking away (or perhaps the return) of powers from the European Commission in the negotiations of trading policies with third countries. At that point, member states insisted that the approval of the trade agreement with Canada (one of the most certain ones) is not performed solely by the European Commission and the Council, but by national parliaments as well. This was the reason for the famous statement by the Canadian Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland: “If the EU cannot do a deal with Canada, I think it is legitimate to say who the heck can it do a deal with”, she said point blank in the beginning of June.

The return of national sovereignty over trade policy, which happened somehow unnoticed together with the referendum in Great Britain, now also has its consequences – a regional parliament in Belgium rejected the deal, which blocked it completely. The subject will be one of the main issues on the agenda of the October EU summit, which begins on Thursday. European Council President Donald Tusk (Poland, EPP) placed the subject second on the leaders’ agenda for the first day. Discussion on this subject will proceed along two lines. The first one will be finding a solution together with Belgium on how to overcome the veto of the Walonia regional parliament, and the second one will be a more general discussion on a change of the Union’s trade policy.

According to the team of President Tusk, there is way too much ideology in the debate on the Union’s international trade policy, while actually there needs to be more pragmatism. The solution is regaining the trust of EU citizens that trade policy on the European level has the one and only purpose of protecting the people’s interest. The discussion will continue on Friday as well, when the leaders will discuss trade defence mechanisms in the event of unfair trade practises. The focus of the summit will be free but fair trade. “For trade to be free, it needs to be fair. The European Council will therefore discuss the modernisation of trade defence instruments and our ongoing negotiations of free trade agreements with key partners”, is said in the invitation letter of Donald Tusk to leaders.

He does not expect to achieve consensus at this summit, but hopes that everyone agrees that the negotiations on these instruments at the ministers’ level cannot go on for three more years.

There will be one more subject at the summit this week, which demonstrates a clash between national sovereignty and the common European interest. The Dutch Prime Minister is expected to discuss with his colleagues the possibilities for overcoming the result of the April referendum in the Netherlands, when the majority of voters denounced the ratification of the comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine. The options are not at all favourable for the integrity of the Union and the future of Ukraine, which is locked in a heavy geopolitical conflict with Russia. According to The Financial Times, Prime Minister Mark Rutte needs several key concessions in order to secure the ratification by the Dutch parliament. Among them are the military relations between the EU and Ukraine, the future EU membership of Ukraine, and guarantees that no money of the Dutch taxpayers will be sent to Kiev under any circumstances.

These requests are too many and too important to be easily swallowed by the other 27 member states, which have already ratified the agreement, further to military cooperation being so important for the Baltic States, Poland, and other countries, providing the possibility for adequate resistance against Russian aggression.

And the reason behind all of the reinstatement of national sovereignty over common European issues – the Brexit – will be touched on during the summit, but not much attention will be paid to it. For British PM Theresa May this will be a debut in European Council summits. According to high-ranking diplomatic sources, however, the British problems will not be at the centre of attention. Leaders expect Mrs May to officially announce her intention to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty for the EU in March of next year, which will give the start of the negotiations on the exit of the United Kingdom. Leaders are expected to turn a deaf ear to all other issues, exactly like they were doing for years to David Cameron’s until the date of the referendum approached.

Russia – the consolidator of the EU?

Despite it being such a paradox, the only subject that so far succeeds in unifying the EU is Russia. For the first time relations with this country are going to be the leading subject of a summit, and with no need for making a decision on continuation or broadening the scope of sanctions. The expectations of President Tusk are for the discussion to be wide and deep, expecting the focus to fall on Ukraine and Russia’s role in the war in Syria. There will be no decisions made on this subject, which is going to be served at dinner on Thursday evening. Decisions are expected to be made at the December European Council summit. According to The Financial Times, it is expected that the issue of financing extreme parties within the European Union will be raised, but it is not set as a subject on the agenda. It will be open for discussions, should a member state raise the question. Tusk himself has no intention of raising it.

Following the illegal annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea peninsula and the achieving of a difficult European unity on imposing sanctions on Russia, this unity has begun shaking badly. The Russian intervention in Syria, however, once again united member states, which for the first time hardened the tone towards Russia in the conclusions of foreign ministers from Monday. They will be presented by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, but there are separate conclusions expected to be drafted by the leaders on this subject.

Saving Private Renzi

The first point on the agenda is the migrant crisis. As was explained by a high-placed source in the EU, this is not another emergency summit on the subject, because numbers are looking good. The inflow of refugees has dropped by 98% along the Eastern Mediterranean route. This is why the focus will be on the Central Mediterranean route, where the number of migrants is the same as was over the last two years. The subject, however, is important, for it will allow the EU to satisfy at least one of the demands of Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, whose fate depends on the strategic December referendum in Italy on Mr Renzi’s large political reform. Despite the reform being important, the vote looks like it is going to be a vote of no confidence for the government of the Italian Prime Minister. This is why he desperately needs a victory at the European front at least.

Matteo Renzi insists on fiscal rules being stretched even more, so his accounts can balance on the national level, but after this year’s decision for sanctioning Spain and Portugal for systemic non-compliance with EU budgeting rules, the Commission will find it almost impossible to come up with argumentation for giving Matteo Renzi one more chance. Thus, the only option left for appeasing him is accepting his idea for creating migration compacts. His proposal dates back to last spring and some of the ideas in it were adopted by the EC. It is expected that leaders will discuss it in more detail during the Thursday summit. Renzi’s proposal included the EU proposing investment projects with high social and infrastructure impact to migrant source countries.

Another idea of his is the creation of special EU-Africa bonds to ease the access of African countries to EU capital markets. The proposal also included the creation of quotas for third country workers, resettlement schemes, and common migration bonds. All of these are subjects, opposed by the Visegrad

Four countries, especially Hungary.

Although there will for sure be heated discussions on this subject, it is not expected that the question of the Hungarian referendum will be raised.

Enough talking! 

The big piece of news at the October Council this year will be the report on the implementation of the adopted decisions. The rotating Council Presidency, which is now in the hands of Slovakia, will report on the implementation of the tasks, which the leaders of the 27 member states (excluding Great Britain) set at the informal summit in Bratislava. Among the subjects that will be reported on by Slovak PM Robert Fico are the entering into force of the Paris climate agreement and the creation of the European Border and Coast agency. It would be well if this report does not boil down to just the roadmap from Bratislava, but it also encompasses all commitments, made by the leaders at their official summits as well.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev 

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Welcome to the EU of Returned Sovereignty!

Traycho Traykov: EU Should Have a Single Contact Point with Russia

Adelina Marini

Exactly two days prior to the presidential elections in the USA, on November 6th, Bulgarians too will be voting for president. This would have hardly mattered, if it wasn’t for the competition in anti-democratism and scandalising society. Some would say that the behaviour of the Republicans’ candidate Donald Trump wins this symbolic contest, but in fact Bulgaria is way ahead in the “how to mess up the electoral process” category. Despite the presidential institution in the country having mainly ceremonial functions, this year’s elections are a turning point. They are another proof for the failure of the attempt to build a quality democracy in Bulgaria 27 years after breaking the shackles of Communist totalitarianism and close to ten years after joining the EU.

Unlike in the US, there have not been any elections in Bulgaria in recent years without changes in the election code – sometimes several times a year, and already twice during the campaign itself as well. The large surprise this year was the limiting of the possibility for opening polling stations abroad, adopted at the request of the nationalist and xenophobic party Patriotic front – a coalition partner in the government. This week, Bulgarian ex-pats in London were outraged by the limitation. In order to avoid the disintegration of the ruling coalition, the already queer month-long vacation (in a weird time of the year) of Parliament got cancelled, so the new amendments to the election code, restoring the right of Bulgarians abroad to open as many polling stations as they register for, are urgently voted on.

Right in the eye of the London storm, one of the few “normal” candidates in this campaign appeared. Why normal? This year the majority of candidates are people of, mildly speaking, dubious reputation. Among them is former Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski, who got famous with his attempt to appoint the media mogul and inexplicably rich young businessman Delyan Peevski as boss of the most powerful security agency in the country – DANS – which unleashed a wave of unprecedented in duration mass protests in 2013. Plamen Oresharski was nominated by an initiative committee. Another committee nominated Bisser Milanov, a.k.a. The Stain – a man of several criminal convictions, who was thought to be employed by authorities in 2013 to organise counter-protests. A totally controversial figure in an integrity point of view.

Yet another controversial figure on the list is the initiative committee candidate backed by the leadership of the Bulgarian Socialist Party – general Rumen Radev, who can, mildly speaking, be named a Eurosceptic. He is an avid Putin-ophile, backing Bulgaria’s exit from the EU and NATO. Among the rest of the candidates there are extreme nationalists, xenophobes, businessmen with dubious affairs. The only candidate to appear in London for a meeting with the Bulgarian diaspora prior to the elections was Traycho Traykov, nominated by the Reformist Block (who also participate in the ruling coalition and are an EPP member).

Due to its specific profile and the emergence of a strong pro-Russian line in the election campaign, euinside is mainly focusing on European subjects in this interview.

Traycho Traykov arrived on a very early flight. He looks exhausted, but finds the time to talk to me for half an hour on subjects like the future of the EU, Euroscepticism, euro area membership, relations with Russia, enlargement, Macedonia. Whether due to lack of sleep, or the nature of the subjects, he thought out very carefully his every word, being especially cautious and even unsure on some subjects like the relations with Russia, should Greece lift its veto on negotiations with Macedonia, the illiberal march in Hungary and Poland. He felt most confident when speaking about his top priority, if elected President – the judicial reform.

Bulgaria must start over with democracy

According to the candidate of the reformists, Bulgaria should start over from the foundations of the state, for in the 27 years since the beginning of the transition and nine years after we joined the EU we are once again talking about basic values like rule of law, fair administration of justice, protecting the rights of the individual, and institutions strong enough to guarantee that rules are the same for everyone. The cure is a radical judicial reform. Traycho Traykov is optimistic, because for the first time the subject extended beyond professional circles and is now in the centre of public attention. He also placed the judicial reform in the centre of his presidential campaign.

Part of Bulgaria’s economic problems, but also its demographic ones, he attributed to this failure of the transition, for, as he explained, people are not leaving the country because they have nothing to eat, but in order to “secure a life perspective for themselves and their children”. Despite seeming deeply convinced in what he is talking about, he gave no straight answer to the question of what he thinks of the march towards illiberalism in Hungary and Poland and whether he sees parallels with Bulgaria. He thinks that what is happening in the EU right now is a “sort of sliding and separation of several tectonic plates in the EU”, which in turn reveals problems in the EU, that have been neglected for years. “On one side, we have the richer Northern states, we have the Southern ones, and we have a part of the Central Eastern Europe states. And those having different problems, differing current priorities, seems completely normal to me. What is not normal is that they are not being solved adequately enough in the form of common European decisions”, he said.

The presidential candidate would not be worried by criticism from the EU on problems that Bulgaria has with justice, corruption, and organised crime. “Every criticism is welcome”, he said and added: “I note with regret, that the greatest progress in Bulgaria was marked on the subjects, which were scrutinised by our EU partners. We cannot expect this to be the permanent driving force in Bulgaria, so I believe that if there is one thing we need to start with it is the curing of the judicial system. It will cure all the rest.”

For a common foreign minister and a common euro area budget

Traycho Traykov is probably the sole pro-European candidate in the presidential contest this year. So much so, that he believes every problem must have a European solution. Moreover, Mr Traykov supports the idea that the EU should have a full-fledged foreign minister, who would have more powers than the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. He is not concerned that this is a sort of giving up additional national sovereignty, for a common foreign minister could transform the economic influence of the EU into a political one, which would reverse the paradox of former Belgian PM Marc Eyskens, according to whom the EU is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm. Traycho Traykov also said that it is imperative that the EU has a common face in the relations with Russia – someone to deal with Russia in the name of the entire Union.

During our interview the candidate voiced serious concerns that the Brexit will make the euro area even more dominant, and weaken the periphery. “More and more important decisions are made within the euro area, which do however affect countries outside it as well.” He is, however, adamant that Bulgaria’s future is within the euro area. He did not wish to commit to a definite deadline for such accession, but is of the opinion that this depends on Bulgaria, because the country almost covers the entry criteria for the exchange rates mechanism (ERM II) and should it wish so, it could join. “And the fact that Bulgaria has not yet taken steps to join the banking union and the common banking supervision, which is a low-hanging fruit right, within grasp, and could happen very quickly, but it is not, shows that this is not a priority of the current government. This needs to change.”

He agrees with the positions of Lithuania and Latvia, who were the last to join the euro area, even before the currency club crisis was over, that this is the last step of their integration, which guarantees them security. Traycho Traykov is no advocate to the concept of United States of Europe, but does believe that in all cases more instruments must be sought for convergence within the euro area. This includes a “something like” euro area budget, as it is provided in the five presidents’ report. Most importantly, he stressed, is not allowing disintegration of the Union along the line economic development.

Traycho Traykov was quite critical towards the manner in which the bosses of key European institutions are appointed. In his opinion, this is happening along the line of least resistance, not only in the EU itself, but involving Russia as well. He believes this is one of the reasons why the EU is in today’s unenviable position. “Those are usually not the people with the best set of qualities for the position, but ones, who no one objects to overmuch. And not only within the EU, even Putin does not object”, he stated, but refused to name a specific person. How should people for these positions be chosen, I asked. His reply was rather general – the EU should be able to speak in a single voice on key issues with third countries.

Cautiousness towards Russia

On the subject of Russia the right-wing candidate was extremely cautious. In his opinion, Russia is not a threat yet, but could prove to be one. Otherwise to Bulgaria, as well as to Europe, Russia will always be the most important, or one of the most important neighbours. It must not be crossed out as an economic partner, but for that there needs to be equality in positions, “which Russian leaders must most categorically understand they owe to their European partners. Because it is no secret large EU countries think they can play Mr Putin’s game as equals, one on one, while it is not so with the smaller ones”. This is exactly the reason why the EU needs to communicate with Russia through a single contact point.

Traycho Traykov agreed that there is external intervention (outside the EU) in feeding Euroscepticism within the EU and especially in Bulgaria.

Greece needs to lift its veto against Macedonia

The candidate’s opinion on enlargement was quite general and he avoided going into detail. He believes enlargement must go on, but did not answer the question whether considering today’s heavy geopolitical pressure anything should change in the enlargement policy, neither what should be done with the countries, which are detaching themselves from European values. In his opinion, enlargement has not yet lost its attractiveness, the proof of that being in the fact that those, who attempt to make it look so are sending their children to study in the EU. Traycho Traykov was a little more specific regarding Macedonia. To the question was it a mistake to block Macedonia starting EU membership negotiations by levying a veto, Mr. Traykov preferred answering with the safe cliché that Macedonia has a lot of work to do until it reaches the necessary level, which would allow its quick progress through the negotiations.

Later in the conversation, however, he stated that the Greek position could be softened and in his opinion this should be the role of the rest of the European states. Macedonia, however, needs to reciprocate by following the rules, which also “includes some norms of civilised conduct between states”. It was evident in the course of our conversation, that he does not feel comfortable discussing this subject.

The Bulgarian nation includes Bulgarians abroad

Regarding the upcoming negotiations on Great Britain’s exit, Traycho Traykov was adamant that Bulgaria will not allow any violation of the rights of Bulgarians living in Great Britain. “This is absolutely certain.”

You can watch the full interview with Traycho Traykov in Bulgarian here

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Traycho Traykov: EU Should Have a Single Contact Point with Russia

Israel’s bogus history lesson

Israel's bogus history lesson vs reality

By Jonathan Cook

It was presumably intended as an Israeli history lesson to the world. A video posted to social media by Israel’s Foreign Ministry shows an everyday Jewish couple, Jacob and Rachel, in a home named the “Land of Israel”. A series of knocks on the door brings 3,000 years of interruptions to their happiness. First it’s the Assyrians, followed by the Babylonians, Hellenists, Arabs, Romans, Crusaders, Mamluks, and Ottomans – all straight out of Monty Python central casting.

Jacob and Rachel are forced by the warring factions to relocate to ever smaller parts of their home until finally they have to pitch a tent in the garden. Their fortunes change only with the arrival of a servant of the British Empire, who returns the title deeds. A final knock disturbs their celebrations. On the doorstep are a penniless Palestinian couple, craning their necks to see what goodies await them inside.

Chauvinism and denial

The chauvinism in portraying Jacob and Rachel as the only normal folk, stoically enduring barbarians butchering each other in their living room, is ugly enough. But it is harder still to take seriously an account in which the Palestinians suddenly appear out of nowhere in 1948, as Britain departs.

A mile from my home in Nazareth are the ruins of Saffuriya, a centuries-old Palestinian town until the Israeli army expelled the inhabitants in 1948 and blew up their homes. More than 500 villages were similarly razed.

In places where buildings were left untouched, it is Jews – not Palestinians – who squat in someone else’s home. But the falsification runs deeper.

… contrary to Israel’s version of history, the most violent clashes… coincided with invasions by Europeans, whether the aggressive sectarianism of the Crusaders, or the British-backed creation of an ethno-religious “Jewish state” by Zionists.

Next to the rubble of Saffuriya lies the much older Roman city of Sephoris, where Jews settled nearly 2,000 years ago after their failed revolts against the Roman empire. A surviving synagogue’s mosaic floor reveals that the Jews of Sephoris worshipped the sun, so close had they grown to the area’s pagan population.

Other entanglements abound. In Nazareth’s old city is the world’s only “synagogue church”, where Jesus reputedly delivered his first sermon. It is a reminder that many local Jews would soon be calling themselves Christians, and later Muslims. Farther north, in the town of Bokaya, an ancient synagogue can be found next to churches and mosques. For centuries the Abrahamic faiths lived alongside each other in a communal harmony unknown in Europe.

In fact, contrary to Israel’s version of history, the most violent clashes – aside from the Jewish revolts – coincided with invasions by Europeans, whether the aggressive sectarianism of the Crusaders, or the British-backed creation of an ethno-religious “Jewish state” by Zionists. More usually, Palestine’s past was marked by cultural tolerance and genetic diversity. Conversions and intermarriages meant the region was a melting pot of identities and beliefs.

Peddling tribalism and dogma

Israel, of course, prefers to obscure that history, because it leads to an obvious conclusion: the region needs less, not more, tribalism and dogma of the sort Israel favours.

The Jewish majority in Israel lives almost entirely apart from the Palestinians who stayed on their land and are today nominally citizens. Meanwhile, in the West Bank – known to Israelis as the Biblical kingdoms of “Judea and Samaria” – Jewish settlers lord it over a ghettoised Palestinian population subject to military rule.

In a sign of the prevailing mood, Israel’s Education Ministry has recently banned from the curriculum two novels featuring romantic attachments between Jews and Arabs.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been drafting a basic law defining Israel as belonging to a globalised “Jewish nation”, not the country’s citizens. And he insists that peace talks take place only once the Palestinians under occupation recognise Israel as such a Jewish state – a condition that, once viewed as risible, has now been adopted by Washington.

In a sign of the prevailing mood, Israel’s Education Ministry has recently banned from the curriculum two novels featuring romantic attachments between Jews and Arabs. At the same time, the “green line” that once demarcated the occupied Palestinian territories has been erased from Israeli classroom maps, implying instead that it is all Greater Israel.

Faced with Israel’s zero-sum policies and diplomacy, Palestinians have grown increasingly anxious about the future.

Erasing Palestinian heritage

Last week a resolution from UNESCO, the UN’s scientific and cultural body, gave voice to their concerns. It highlighted Israeli threats to the most important Muslim and Christian heritage sites under occupation.

Recognising the importance of Jerusalem “for the three monotheistic religions”, the resolution nonetheless warned that Israel was exploiting its illegal control to erase the Palestinians’ connection to such sites, especially Al-Aqsa mosque.

Hoping to deflect attention away from these criticisms, Israel railed against the UN for denying primacy to its narrative. Al-Aqsa must be billed equally as Temple Mount, Mr Netanyahu insisted, referring to a long-lost Jewish temple believed to be buried under the Jerusalem mosque.

But the ruined temple’s likely location leads to the opposite conclusion Mr Netanyahu has reached: not that the Jews have a stronger claim to sovereignty, but that the region’s peoples and religions are impossibly intertwined.

That should be the chief lesson for the current Jacobs and Rachels, many of them living in armed and relentlessly expanding colonies on stolen Palestinian territory.

This land was always shared, and there will be no peace until it is again.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Israel’s bogus history lesson

UK anti-Semitism report tries to whitewash Zionism

Home Affairs Select Committee meeting

By Stuart Littlewood

The Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, the lower house of the British parliament, has just issued its report, Anti-Semitism in the UK, in response to concerns about “an increase in prejudice and violence against Jewish communities” and “an increase in far-right extremist activity”. It was also prompted by allegations of anti-Semitism in political parties and university campuses.

The following observations are based on the report’s Conclusions and Recommendations, which is as far as most people will read.

  • Israel is an ally of the UK government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy.

Hardly. It is no friend of the British people. Nor is it remotely a Western-style liberal democracy. We share few if any values.

  • Those claiming to be “anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic”, should do so in the knowledge that 59 per cent of British Jewish people consider themselves to be Zionists. If these individuals genuinely mean only to criticise the policies of the government of Israel, and have no intention to offend British Jewish people, they should criticise “the Israeli government”, and not “Zionists”. For the purposes of criminal or disciplinary investigations, use of the words “Zionist” or “Zio” in an accusatory or abusive context should be considered inflammatory and potentially anti-Semitic.

The Israeli regime’s inhuman policies are driven by Zionist doctrine. I doubt if justice-seekers are in the least swayed by how many Jews consider themselves Zionists. Or how many Christians do, for that matter.

  • Universities UK should work with appropriate student groups to produce a resource for students, lecturers and student societies on how to deal sensitively with the Israel-Palestine conflict, and how to ensure that pro-Palestinian campaigns avoid drawing on anti-Semitic rhetoric.

For the sake of evenhandedness, who will ensure that pro-Israel campaigns avoid drawing on hasbara lies and false claims to Palestinian lands and resources?

  • Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including anti-Semitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate anti-Semitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a “safe space” for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people.

The abusers, and others with vile attitudes, may well be provocateurs bent on making Corbyn look bad. In any case, why should he or anyone else feel obliged to “separate” anti-Semitism from other forms of racism?

  • The Chakrabarti Report is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and anti-Semitism… [its recommendations] are further impaired by the fact that they are not accompanied by a clear definition of anti-Semitism, as we have recommended should be adopted by all political parties.

Who needs a special definition or actually cares about differentiating anti-Semitism from racism? They are two of the same stripe, and I suspect most of us regard them with equal distaste and have no reason to put one above the other. In short, we know racism when we see it and that’s enough.

  • The Labour Party and all political parties should ensure that their training on racism and inclusivity features substantial sections on anti-Semitism. This must be formulated in consultation with Jewish community representatives, and must acknowledge the unique nature of anti-Semitism.

Unique? Racism is racism.

  • The acts of governments abroad are no excuse for violence or abuse against people in the United Kingdom. We live in a democracy where people are free to criticise the British government and foreign governments. But the actions of the Israeli government provide no justification for abusing British Jews.

We tend to take a dim view of those who support states that terrorise others. Jews themselves have warned that Jews everywhere may suffer as a result of the Jewish state’s unacceptable behaviour. This is unfortunate as many Jews are fiercely critical of the regime’s misconduct and, to their great credit, actively campaign against it. By the way, how does the Select Committee suggest we treat those inside our Parliament who promote the interests of a foreign military power with an appalling human rights record?

  • In an article for The Daily Telegraph in May, the chief rabbi criticised attempts by Labour members and activists to separate Zionism from Judaism as a faith, arguing that their claims are “fictional”. In evidence to us, he stressed that “Zionism has been an integral part of Judaism from the dawn of our faith”. He stated that “spelling out the right of the Jewish people to live within secure borders with self-determination in their own country, which they had been absent from for 2,000 years – that is what Zionism is”. His view was that “If you are an anti-Zionist, you are anti everything I have just mentioned”.

The chief rabbi is flatly contradicted by the Jewish Socialists’ Group which says:

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not anti-Semitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the anti-Semites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

On the chief rabbi’s other point, what right in law do the Jewish people have to return after 2,000 years, forcibly displacing the Palestinians and denying them the same right? Besides, scholars tells us that most returning Jews have no ancestral links to the Holy Land whatsoever.

  • CST [Community Security Trust – a Jewish vigilante and disinformation and propaganda body with close links to the Israeli security service Mossad] and the JLC [Jewish Leadership Council – an Israeli stooge organisation] describe Zionism as “an ideological belief in the authenticity of Jewish peoplehood and that the Jewish people have the right to a state”. Sir Mick Davis, Chairman of the JLC, told us that criticising Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, because: “Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself, and is so associated with the right of the Jewish people to have their own country and to have self-determination within that country, that if you attack Zionism, you attack the very fundamentals of how the Jews believe in themselves.”

The Select Committee is careful to say that “where criticism of the Israeli government is concerned context is vital”. The committee therefore need to understand that the so-called Jewish state is waging what amounts to a religious war against Christian and Muslim communities in the Holy Land. Ask anyone who has been on pilgrimage there. And read The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a joint statement by the heads of Palestinian Christian churches. It says:

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation…

In seeking to defend Zionism the Select Committee fails to put the opposing case – for example, that many non-Jews regard it as a repulsive concept at odds with their own belief. There is no reason to suppose that Zionist belief somehow trumps all others.

  • Research published in 2015 by City University found that 90 per cent of British Jewish people support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and 93 per cent say that it forms some part of their identity as Jews…

Did researchers ask British Muslims and Christians about the Palestinians’ right to their own state?

This research sounds like a swipe at people who are accused of “delegitimising” Israel by questioning its right to exist. Actually, Israel does a very good job of delegitimising itself. The new state’s admission to the UN in 1949 was conditional upon honouring the UN Charter and implementing UN General Assembly resolutions 181 and 194. It failed to do so and repeatedly violates provisions and principles of the charter to this day.

Israel cannot even bring itself to comply with the provisions of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement of 1995, which makes clear that adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and “respect for human rights and democratic principle constitute an essential element of this agreement”.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague ruled that construction of what’s often referred to as the Apartheid Wall breached international law and Israel must dismantle it and make reparation. The ICJ also ruled that “all states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction”. Israel nevertheless continues building its hideous wall with American tax dollars, an act of hatred against the Palestinians and a middle-finger salute to international law.

Here at home powerful Friends of Israel groups are allowed to flourish in all three main parties in the UK. Their presence at the centre of government and in the fabric of our institutions is considered unacceptable by civil society campaign groups and a grave breach of the principles of public life. The backlash to growing criticism of Israel’s stranglehold on its neighbours and increasing influence on Western foreign policy is mounting intolerance, Hence the Inquisition, which lately has been directed against Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, an easy target for orchestrated smears given his well known sympathy with the Palestinians’ struggle and his links to some of Israel’s (not our) enemies.

The shortcomings of the Select Committee’s inquiry are obvious. Its report doesn’t properly consider the opposite view. It is half-baked. It is lopsided. It is written in whitewash.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on UK anti-Semitism report tries to whitewash Zionism

On the Edge of Nuclear World War?

Clinton Propaganda Distracts from Criminality and Imminent Attack on Russia
lllusion and Collusion

As nuclear war with Russia over Syria is being planned in earnest and craved by New World Order fanatics including the Clintons, the Obama administration and the Bushes, a “civil war” is being waged ahead of the US presidential election. The future of the entire planet is at stake.

The efforts to control the narrative, and the eventual outcome, are desperate and unprecedented, as has been the resistance to the imperial propaganda effort.

A Hillary Clinton presidency is being pushed down the collective throats of humanity with massive psy-op, a global “wag the dog”. The end game of the elites—nuclear war with Russia, the long-awaited conquest of the Eurasian subcontinent, and a criminal succession must not be derailed. A Trump victory and a popular revolt pose threats to this end game, and must be thwarted at all costs.

Aligned against the New World Order is an unprecedented anti-establishment resistance, represented by Trump and his movement, exemplified by Wikileaks, DC Leaks, Anonymous, the alternative media, and the urgent warnings of whistleblowers and seasoned observers who know the Clintons, and individuals such as Cindy Sheehan and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who warn that a Hillary Clinton presidency poses and immediate threat of world war.

Tensions are reaching the breaking point. Within the US, there is intense volatility on all fronts, and divisions at every level.

The Clintons’ dirty propaganda tidal wave

The Clinton/Bush/New World Order forces and their worldwide corporate media apparatus have concocted a propaganda construct of massive proportions—an alternative reality made up of smoke and mirrors, false narratives.

The entire mainstream media, from the international and national to the local levels, is functioning as nothing more than a propaganda bull horn for Clinton, a weapon of around-the-clock mouth-foaming character assassination against Trump, and an all-out propaganda attack against Russia. In lockstep, the Washington criminal establishment led by the Clinton and Bush factions, and the corporate media that they own, pummel the war drums around the clock, demanding collective obedience and surrender.

Trump is the immediate target, but Russia is the larger and more important one.  Russia must be set up as the justifiable target for war. Russia is being systematically blamed for Donald Trump and “interference” with the election, for a total infiltration of America. Russia is blamed for Wikileaks and all counter-Clinton resistance.

It does not get more Orwellian than this, or more dangerous. Reality has been turned upside down. Trump is portrayed as a fascist madman. The headline of a recent editorial penned by former Clinton official Robert Reich, typical of what is found across the mainstream media today, screams: “Failing to vote for Clinton puts our future in jeopardy. This nonsense spews forth, when in fact Hillary Clinton is the neocon, the war criminal, the fanatic who is demanding for nuclear war with Russia. In fact,Hillary Clinton puts all of humankind in jeopardy immediately. In fact, there will be no future at all when nuclear war breaks out. 

The degree and depth of the collusion, the bald-faced nature of the deception, has never been more evident. The sheer number of Clinton/Bush surrogates, mouthpieces and gatekeepers, astounding. Hollywood and the entertainment world, controlled by the same forces and CIA assets as the news media, are also is out in force. The Trump-bashing, the “Trump as pervert” allegations, the pro-Clinton cover-up and fantasy spinning is around the clock, from snarky pro-Clinton Saturday Night Live skits to the glib talk show hosts and entertainment “reporters”.  An upcoming episode of the TV series Law and Order, to be shown before the election, is being specially produced to depict a Trump-like sexual predator who is running for office.

The Clintons destroyed Bernie Sanders and stole the Democratic Party nomination using a variety of criminal means.  What Sanders suffered is nothing compared to what is being dealt to Trump.  The combined forces of the Clintons and Bushes—virtually the entire New World Order and its networks—are aiming their weapons at Trump. The dissent and resistance that he represents is to be smashed and silenced. They will stop at nothing.

Destroying Trump

Days before the second presidential debate, it seemed that Donald Trump’s campaign had been neutralized by the Hillary Clinton sleaze machine.

Following a first debate in which the Clintons blatantly and criminally cheated, the Clintons went directly to what they do best: more dirty tricks. The “bombshell” designed to end Trump was a mysteriously recorded audio clip from 2005 in which Donald Trump was caught using “lewd locker room” language about women. The actual source of the leak is not known. Suspects could include any number of Clinton-connected CIA assets within NBC and/or Republican operatives (connected to Paul Ryan or the Bushes) working with the Clintons to remove Trump from the presidential race.

NBC executive producer Rob Silverstein claims that he was not the leak, while acknowledging that he knew about the tape. What is known is that Washington Post asset David Fahrenthold, a fervent anti-Trump pro-Clinton attack dog who was responsible for creating the furor over alleged improprieties within Trump’s charities, somehow obtained the clip from the leaker.  The Washington Post, like much of the corporate media, is an Establishment propaganda organ, rife with CIA assets, dominated by Clinton and Bush plants, and devoid of “journalism”.

Trump’s private conversation (likely illegally taped) was with Billy Bush, host of NBC’s Access Hollywood and host of Miss Universe pageants. Billy Bush is the nephew of George H.W. “Poppy” Bush. He is the cousin of Jeb Bush, son of Jonathan Bush, who is the brother of “Poppy”, and a manager of some of the Bush family’s many banking interests, including the CIA-connected Riggs Bank, which specialized in money laundering.

It is not known if Billy Bush was directly and knowingly involved in setting the trap on Trump, or if he has any played any direct political role from his convenient position within NBC. The tape’s release was no surprise. Bush not only remembered the recording but bragged about it to NBC colleagues during the Rio Olympic Games in August 2016. Given the enduring connection between the Clintons and Bushes, and their shared hatred of Trump, a Bush presence in the middle of an anti-Trump operation does not appear to be a coincidence. Billy Bush is in the process of leaving NBC (after being “suspended” for having laughed along with Trump), and is negotiating a lucrative severance package. The rest of the Bush family, however, is no doubt chortling with glee over Trump’s demise, and proud of Billy for playing the fall guy. Here was one manifestation of the Bush “throat cut” warning to Trump. There will be more to come.

So desperate is the New World Order for a Hillary Clinton White House that the Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, are willing to risk their own political seats to get rid of Trump. Some fifty Republicans immediately withdrew support for Trump.

The furor over this original Trump tape has been followed by an onslaught of other Trump-as-pervert-sexual predator accusations that the media and its legions of operatives have dutifully and aggressively trumpeted and repeated.

The accusations are transparently deceptive, the accusers likely paid off by Clinton operatives. They are baseless, unwitnessed, out of nowhere claims from decades ago, some by individuals who have already been proven to be liars. Although the Trump campaign has responded to each smear with legal action, the corporate media has continued to apply overwhelming pressure, endless air time, endless ink, and an endless parade of accusers.

As exposed in the Wikileaks dump of emails to John Podesta, longtime Clinton operative Bill Ivey wrote that “we’ve all been content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”.

Distract a dumbed-down and brainwashed American populace, occupy them with salacious tabloid garbage, imprison them sex gossip from which they never emerge. Make sure they stay dumb and don’t look up facts or read book. Make sure the warnings about Clinton are not heard.

Facts are rendered meaningless, while fakery, illusion and propaganda rule. The magnitude and scope of the deception is unprecedented.

With just one month until the election, the nightmare is just beginning, not only for Trump but for all who oppose the New World Order. This writer predicts that in the coming weeks, the Clinton sleaze machine will dredge up new and more outlandish material to scandalize Trump. And worse.

The resistance strengthens

Inside the confines of the Clinton/Bush propaganda bubble, it would seem that things are in order. The election is over already. Donald Trump is a sexual predator. Hillary Clinton’s lead is “insurmountable”. Hillary is the “overwhelming” champion of debates (that she did not win), the “overwhelming” leader in polls (that are rigged and compiled deceptively by pro-Clinton media and services that purposely oversample pro-Clinton voters). The election will be stolen, regardless, but thanks to manufactured reality, Trump is gone, resistance is squashed. It’s over.

But in reality, the deception has not worked. In many ways, it has backfired.

The smear campaign did not work. Trump is not only fighting back with even more pointed attacks but he has more popular support than ever.  He is in full attack mode.

In reality, Trump leads Hillary. According to a Rasmussen poll (that is, unlike the Hillary-rigged polls of CNN, NBC, etc. fairly sampled and more accurate)  Trump led Clinton even after the release of the Trump tape. According to a more recent Daybreak poll taken at the time of this writing, Trump’s lead is growing.

Wikileaks has unleashed bombshells about Hillary Clinton on a daily basis, with more to come.

Daily releases have exposed Hillary Clinton from all angles as a criminal.  Any one of the revelations should have the power destroy her politically, indict her as a criminal, send her to prison, and remove her from public life.

Hillary Clinton has now been caught funding the Islamic State. This evidence proves that she, her State Department, the Clinton Foundation, the CIA, the Obama administration literally created ISIS terrorism, in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to destabilize the Middle East and topple Syria, towards the nuclear war with Russia that she wants to wage. It is pure treason. Hillary Clinton is a terrorist. The abuse of power at the State Department, Benghazi, the emails, the Clinton Foundation, election fraud, the —all of it is treason. And add to that the host of criminal lies about Hillary’s health and documents exposing illegal Machiavellian operations of Clinton operatives.

Trump is attracting support, his events are attended in the thousands. While Clinton’s support is smoke and mirrors and illusion: thinly-attended, staged, rigged, and even faked for the cameras. The Clinton campaign even struggles to employ campaign workers.

There is a good reason why Wikileaks, DC Leaks, Anonymous and other sources of genuine investigative journalism and truth have almost exclusively focused their efforts to stop Hillary Clinton and not Trump.  It is because Clinton and the criminal establishment she represents is the genuine threat to humanity.

Even Cindy Sheehan and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein have declared that Hillary Clinton is more dangerous than Donald Trump, and warn that Hillary Clinton could start a nuclear war.

The Trump smears may also be backfiring on the Clintons. It has opened the door for Trump to address expose Bill Clinton’s known history as a sexual predator and a rapist, and Hillary ‘s history of intimidation against Bill’s victims.  Four of Bill Clinton’s rape victims came to Trump’s defense. Many more victims of the Clintons are coming forward. The “Bill Clinton is a rapist” counter-movement is not going away.

Hillary herself is a sexual predator, and a deviant, according to many. There is plenty of rich material exposing Hillary’s personal history, such as the accounts of former Clinton insiders, Secret Service agents, and rape victims such as former CIA asset Cathy O’Brien, who claims to have been raped by Hillary as a young girl.

(The O’Brien story holds the potential for utterly destroying Hillary Clinton, but has not been mentioned by the Trump forces, nor has it made it into any corporate media reporting. It has not even been prominent in the alternative media. This writer believes that the O’Brien story is too dangerous to be wielded in a mass public fashion, because it not only exposes the Clintons, but also the Bushes, CIA criminal covert operations, and Iran-Contra.)

The New World Order is desperate to force their trickery but they have not been able to shut down the Internet, where the resistance thrives. The Internet is at present too open, too fast, too democratic, too “dangerous”, and offer too many avenues to the truth. This is why the government and its corporate fronts are engaged in efforts to eventually shut down the Web. Google and YouTube, for example, are currently engaging in outright censorship of political content but have not fully shut down all dissent.

While much of America remains dumbed down and brainwashed, more people are waking up. This scenario is unacceptable to the elites.

Surviving the smear, winning the debate

Trump won the second presidential debate, in spite of the fact that the Clintons rigged it, in spite of the clear and aggressive attacks by “moderators” Anderson Cooper of Clinton-controlled CNN (and a CIA intern) and ABC’s Martha Raddatz (White House correspondent in the George W. Bush administration).

They attempted to make the event a referendum on Trump’s behavior. They constantly interrupted Trump, but let Hillary filibuster. They refused to let Trump finish sentences. Cooper went after Trump, accusing him of being a sexual predator. “Do you deny that you groped women?” (laying the groundwork for the accusations of rape that would follow after the debate).

Raddatz inserted herself into the argument for Syrian regime change, demanding Trump to address (what she believes is) the need for an “armed humanitarian occupation of Syria. She argued with Trump, and squealed in anger at his statements.

Their assistance to Hillary was so blatant that Trump said, “it’s one on three”.

Hillary robotically went about her talking point presentation. She badgered Trump on “character”, pronouncing herself “good”, and took every opportunity to launch unfounded attack Russia and Putin. She blamed Russia for the Syrian crisis, terrorism and cyberattacks, blamed Russia as the force behind Wikileaks and Trump. While stating that as president, she would not deploy “ground forces” in Syria, but promised to send Special Forces, and covert operations (therefore contradicting herself cleverly), and promised a no-fly zone (at act of war).

But Trump owned the most memorable moments of the night (“You’d be in jail”) and unnerved Clinton by promising to appoint a special prosecutor to go after her.


  • Exposed Bill Clinton as a rapist
  • Went after Hillary’s emails
  • Went after Benghazi
  • Addressed Clinton and Obama as the creators of ISIS and a “disastrous” Middle East full of terrorism (but did not mention the CIA, or Anglo-American management of Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS)
  • Addressed how Clinton wants open borders that allow jihadists to move about freely and enter the United States (but again, no mention of CIA agenda that purposely allows its assets to be moved around strategically)
  • Mentioned Wikileaks but did not go into specifics
  • Slammed Clinton for 30 years of ineffectiveness (but did not mention her specific crimes)
  • Successfully deflected attacks on his tax returns by pointing out that Hillary and her Wall Street friends including Warren Buffett and George Soros also evade taxes
  • Mentioned Bill Clinton colluding with Loretta Lynch to shut down the investigation into Hillary
  • Correctly stated that Hillary has “ lot of hate” but did not go into detail, failed to mention Clinton’s known history of mental instability and poor character

Trump’s most important exchange was about Russia, in which he openly disagreed with the anti-Russia stance of his running mate Mike Pence.

“It would nice to be friendly with Russia so we can fight ISIS together. Russia is killing ISIS, Syria is killing ISIS, Iran is killing ISIS.”

He also clarified that he “doesn’t know Putin”, has no business dealings with Russia. “The reason you keep blaming Russia is to attack me”.

Trump trounced Clinton, took the lead over Clinton after the debate, but Clinton’s media machine pronounced her the overwhelming winner via numerous fake polls and fake focus groups.

The criminal past

The Clintons’ criminal history also offers a treasure trove of damning material. The “elephant in the living room” is this legacy. Their criminal activities in Arkansas, their Iran-Contra/CIA drugs collaboration with the Bushes, their enduring relationships with the neocons and the CIA, the long string of political murders stretching back to the 1980s, their many financial swindles, the White House scandals of the 1990s, the war crimes.  The partnership of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton is notorious and blood-soaked.

There are countless individuals who know in specific detail what the Clintons are about. There are the former Clinton operatives and insiders, the staffers, the bodyguards and the Secret Service agents who were there to witness their crimes. Many, who remain among the living, have spoken out and continue to speak out. There are the political colleagues who were betrayed, the insiders and whistleblowers who have been marginalized. Many of these individuals have spoken out and written books, and their stories are readily available.

The question is how far Trump and his operatives dare go into this history, if they dare let Cathy O’Brien speak out, and if the truth galvanizes a resistance among the knowing—a revolution that not even a massive criminal apparatus can control.

October Surprise: World War III?

While the popular anti-New World Order/anti-Clinton movement aligned with Trump continues surge in the reality not reflected by the corporate media fantasy world, all hopes could be rendered a moot, if the criminal forces have their way.

The greater danger comes from those in power right now, who, unlike either presidential candidate, hold the power to create immediate chaos and calamity.

full blown nuclear war with Russia would change everything. It would result in the literal destruction of the planet. Fanatics are on the marchThe resistance knows it.

A false flag event on the magnitude greater than even 9/11 may be in the works.

The Obama administration has declared that it will retaliate against a fake non-existence cyberattack by Russia, against a fake non-existent Russian infiltration of the US presidential election. A massive financial crisis, coinciding with a world war, is also a possibility, given the collapse of Deutsche Bank, a major criminal (CIA-connected) bank and lynchpin of the world financial system, and the inability of the New World Order to maintain control of its “vassals”, as evidenced by Brexit.

The more successful the anti-Clinton efforts of Trump, Wikileaks and resistance movements, the more likely the empire resorts to violence and humanity-ending calamity.

The Obama administration might choose to start the war before the election, to cancel the election.

Or with a Trump win, start the war before Obama leaves office, preventing Trump from taking office. Or with a Hillary win, start the war in a more “orderly” sequence, when the “queen” takes the throne.

A genuine nightmare scenario is upon us. It is no longer “unthinkable”, it is happening.

Those who refuse to passively accept the possible end of the world must act now, with what little time is left.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on On the Edge of Nuclear World War?

Nauru, Refugees and Australia’s “Torture Complex”


Two items of interest have tickled the airwaves and triggered some commentary over the last few days. The first was an ABC Four Corners program covering the fate of refugees in the detention facility on Nauru, known euphemistically as a “processing centre” costing $35.3 million a year to the Australian tax payer.

The Four Corners program was, in turn, informed by a significant Amnesty International report, aptly titled Island of Despair, which was released on Monday night.[1]  That report examined the rather ghoulish extent the Australian government, with its Nauru satraps, has been going about the business of “processing” boat arrivals.

In the sobering words of the report, Australia’s government had furthered “a policy to deter people arriving by boat” calculated to inflict “intolerable cruelty and the destruction of the physical and mental integrity of hundreds of children, men and children,” an approach “chosen as a tool of government policy.”

As the author and research director for Amnesty, Anna Neistat, noted, attendance by refugee children in local schools was poor for one obvious, abysmal point: “No matter how horrible the detention was – and the conditions in detention were – quite a few families and children themselves told me that now they’re in the community, they feel less safe because they’re subjected to attacks by the local population.”[2]

Material had also been supplied by the contractor, Broadspectrum, formerly of Transfield fame, to an Australian Senate select committee citing 67 allegations of child abuse in Nauru, 12 of which found their way to the Nauru police.  The police, true to form, have dragged their feet on the issue.

Australia’s morally impervious Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, remains rigidly opposed to any suggestion that Nauru has become an exemplar of torture for refugees, a continuum that stretches from the camp itself to the community that despises them.  “I reject the claim totally,” claimed the prime minister in fully rehearsed Newspeak.  “It is absolutely false.  The Australian government’s commitment is compassionate and it’s strong.”[3]

Turnbull, along with his counterparts in Parliament, has taken a vaccine against refugee processing on Australian shores.  The vaccine operates across the board, against incriminating reports, against ghastly revelations, and, generally, against any alternative that is not purposely cruel.  The point is not to save lives but make the lives of the living unbearable.

The Republic of Nauru, bought and complicit in the entire venture, decided to attack the entire premise of the investigative report, using its propaganda arm (the “media and public information” unit) to argue that the children had been “coached” and interviewed in a “stage-managed” way.

What the statement from the same unit insisted upon was the conclusiveness of appearances, the triumph of embalmed truths.  What you saw was what you, without doubt, got.  “[V]iewers could clearly see that the refugees were well dressed, well-groomed and healthy.”  Where, went the suggestion, was the squalor, the degradation, the hostility?

A closer look at the spectacle that is Nauru’s processing facility suggests a few illusions which the propaganda preachers have been at pains to engender. The pedantic will draw upon the point that those in the facility are not technically detained, being allowed, like protected animals in an enclosed safari park, to wander around – within reason.

Nauru authorities have insisted that the children are not held in any case, being allowed to live with families in appropriately safe accommodation, close to shops and decent amenities, including a new school and the “new $27 million state-of-the-art medical facility to which refugees have unrestricted and free access”. The environment is near idyllic, free of violence, or at any rate less violent than Australia.

With insistent smugness, the statement goes on to sociologically dump on Australian conditions, a reverse psychological approach that deems Terra Australis the place of nightmares: “There are fights in Australian schools on a daily basis and there is crime in Australia.  The Australian news shows acts of crime each night that are far more violent than anything Nauru has experienced.”

Having raised the Nauru wilderness to the status of a welcoming refugee utopia, the unit statement goes on to aim at the Four Corners program, which it claims “should be campaigning for no refugees to be allowed into such a violent society as Australia.”

With cruel perversion, an indigent, pseudo-colonial entity like Nauru becomes more appropriate than the funder of this grandiosely macabre vision, the Australian government.  The journalists of Four Corners had refused to play along, instead falsely portraying “Nauru as an unsafe nation, which it is not.”

Nauru had, effectively, been taking up a heavy, dark man’s burden, while in the mind of its officials, a scurrilous ABC had been promoting “biased political propaganda and lies” disseminating a report that was, “From start to finish… denigrating, racist, false and pure political activism.”

While this turn of the comic absurd will make some in Canberra squeamish, disturbing the odd conscience, the points on this clownishly brutal episode are clear: the torture facility that is Nauru is here to stay, a defiant reminder that humanitarianism towards the stateless and the fleeing is a fiction advanced by those who trumpet it as they deny it.   

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email:


Posted in EuropeComments Off on Nauru, Refugees and Australia’s “Torture Complex”


Exclusive Milestone 1.
To help Israeli lawyers to bring awareness to their work against corruption in Israel

It is difficult to watch, painful and harrowing at times.  But these are the true stories from Israel of people who are fighting corruption against tax, gas, police, welfare, courts, judges and have nowhere to go but to international arenas for lawsuits or the UN or Hague.  Their plight is unknown due to the political smokescreens.  One in 3 children are hungry, over a million Israelis cannot leave, and foreign nationals also held against their will.  They want a better country, and are still loyal to the land.

These articles I publish are focussed on Israeli people, and not on the political landscape which so often hides what is happening to them.  They are crying out to the world to listen, but due to censorship very little is known.

##israel #justice #law #prison #children #UNCRC #UN #corruption #poverty #child trafficking, #judicial corruption, #childrens rights, #Israel, #Justice, #mens rights, #children, #mothers at risk, #welfare, #UNCRC

Risks and Challenges

It is always a risk for me to write the stories given to me by the Israeli people themselves. They risk their freedom and sometimes their lives. I don’t know each time I travel that I will be allowed to enter into Israel. Speaking against the system is not to speak against the people, for they are not their government. There is no independent ombudsman for the people to go to, and over the years they are growing in numbers as they want to tell their stories. The Israeli government more often will censor the articles written inside the country and therefore there is no option but to publish outside so the stories can be taken back into Israel. Activists and bloggers are constantly targetted, arrested and convicted for speaking out. It is a challenge for readers to believe what is written, but the articles come from the people themselves and are always verifiable by leading lawyers in Israel. I need support to continue this work, as it can and does save lives.


AL-KHALIL (HEBRON): A week in photos

4-10 October 2016
Learning Delayed 

Pictured here: Nazi Border Police prevented thirty-eight children and two teachers from passing through the checkpoint for almost thirty minutes. As a result, students not only witnessed their teachers’ detention, but they were also late to school.
(October 6, 2016)
Military Bureaucracy

Pictured here: Nazi Border Police stop and demand IDs of any teachers passing through the checkpoint who are not on their list. The principal of the Ibrahimi school, who has taught there for four years, is also not on this list.
(October 6, 2016)
Settler Tour I

Pictured here: The weekly Jewish Nazi settler tour through Hebron’s old city saw heavily armed soldiers escorting a group of Zionist children. Jewish Nazi Settlers and prospective settlers who come on this tour often make their presence felt by harassing Palestinian residents.
(October 10, 2016)
Settler Tour II

Pictured here: The weekly Jewish Nazi settler tour through Hebron’s old city saw heavily armed Nazi soldiers preventing Palestinian children from riding their bikes outside their homes. Palestinians who live, work, or pass through the Old City must stay out of the way or take alternate routes.
(October 10, 2016)
Armed Jewish Nazi Settlers

Pictured here:  Al-Shuhada Street has been closed to Palestinians since 1994, and is heavily guarded by Israeli soldiers. Even so, Jewish Nazi settlers who walk on it often choose to carry rifles.
(October 6, 2016)
Settler Disruption

Pictured here: On Fridays, CPT monitors the road by the Kiryat Arba illegal Jewish Nazi settlement, the largest in Hebron. An armed settler took offence to our presence and tried to prevent us from taking any pictures or filming.
(October 7, 2016)

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on AL-KHALIL (HEBRON): A week in photos

Shoah’s pages


October 2016
« Sep   Nov »