Archive | January 23rd, 2017

LIBYA After Gaddafi: The Humiliation & Horror of the ‘Failed State’



The nightmare that is post-Gaddafi Libya is showing no signs of improving any time soon.
Libyans who were promised democracy and progress by NATO and the international powers that rained bombs down across the country in 2011 have in fact been given nothing of the sort.

I have already chronicled the 2011 Libyan catastrophe at length in this book (still free to download), which comprehensively illustrates the international conspiracy conducted against Gaddafi and the Libyan people and decisively tears apart all of the false narratives about what was going on in Libya in 2011 in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

So what is the reality of this ‘brave new Libya’ that was supposed to have been created through all the lies and bombs of 2011? We are now four years beyond the uprising and the murder of Gaddafi. For most of those intervening four years, the same corporate/news media that was so adamant about how terrible Gaddafi was and how necessary the international intervention was has been almost completely silent about Libya, declining to report on the country or to send anyone to Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte or anywhere else.

It was as if the media’s role was simply to demonise Gaddafi and once he was dead and the ‘regime change’ accomplished, the matter was over. It hasn’t been until the last nine months or so that mass-media organisations have reluctantly started to talk about Libya again, partly due to the fact that the increase in migrant deaths in the Mediterranean waters have made it impossible to pretend everything’s alright – because the Libyan tragedy has now directly caused a European crisis.

The reality is that the fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the south of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast an uncontrollable hub for illegal migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya (Tunisia is now even building an Israeli-style wall to cut itself off from Libya). This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that completes the picture of post-Gaddafi Libya.  This is Hilary Clinton and co’s gift to the Libyan people.

And the biggest joke is that the great ‘National Transitional Council’ that was propped up by the Western powers to replace the old republic is already history and there hasn’t been a proper government in Libya since Gaddafi’s death; now instead we have multiple rival ‘governments’ trying to assert themselves as the authority while the Western nations and the UN have absolutely no idea who to recognise, how to help or what to do.

Perhaps now, belatedly, some of our officials and diplomats might find themselves thinking back to all those offers Gaddafi and the old officials had made to negotiate a compromise.

And from 16th May 2014 (and ongoing) a Second Civil War has been going on in Libya, with the various factions who’d united to end the Gaddafi era now having turned on each other, as they were always bound to. Is anyone surprised by that? Did NATO and the West expect to fund, arm and unleash that level of bloodlust, violence and anarchy and then expect it to stop when Cameron or Obama clicked their fingers? Our governments, even the UN, simply left the Libyans to it after 2011. The killing never stopped. But the Hilary Clintons, the David Camerons and Nicolas Sarkosys of the world washed their hands of it and didn’t care anymore.

And instead of trying to fix the horror story they’d created in Libya, they all moved onto trying to create the same horror story in Syria, hoping for the same ‘victory’. And while the world’s attention turned to the vast Syria crisis (which itself sprang partly from the Libya crisis), Libya was sliding even further into the abyss.

Since 2011 Libya has been experiencing a refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions, a financial crisis, an environmental crisis and an infrastructure crisis. The country hasn’t been rebuilt from all the NATO bombing.


Benghazi is currently facing a major, ongoing humanitarian crisis. How bad is it? A petition was recently being circulated, started by a group of Libyan activists, demanding that Benghazi be declared a “disaster zone”. Benghazi, you will recall, was the initial focal point of Western ‘intervention’ in early 2011, thanks to a false narrative concocted by Western governments and mainstream media that Gaddafi had been “about to” carry out a “massacre” in the city, when in fact he had simply been attempting to retake the city from foreign-backed terrorists and gangs. Now the city that the French-led NATO forces bombed almost five years ago in order to protect the terrorist groups from the Libyan Army is “a disaster zone” at the mercy of ISIL/Daesh.

France, Britain and any other government can talk all they like now about the danger of ISIL being in Libya and the need to intervene – but never forget for a moment that the terrorists are only there because *our governments* sent NATO forces to ensure their victory.

NBC goes further and defines Libya as a “failed state”. 

It has in fact been called a “failed state” several times recently by various analysts. A ‘failed state’? Who *made it* a ‘failed state’? Libya was the most prosperous, successful nation in Africa. NATO, the US, France, the UK and every other nation involved in the intervention in Libya took a successful, self-reliant nation and TURNED IT INTO A ‘FAILED STATE’ through bombing, the arming and supporting of terrorists and through targeted assassination. And now those same leaders, and the same corporate media propagandists who encouraged and celebrated the murder of Gaddafi and the intervention in Libya, have the gall, have the nerve, to casually label it ‘a failed state’, as if it’s somehow some mere, unfortunate thing that has happened because Arabs and Africans aren’t very good at managing things.


In fact, it was precisely because Gaddafi was making so much progress – not just in Libya, but in Africa – that the Western officials unleashed the Libyan apocalypse. See here for a comprehensive portrait of what Libya had been during the Gaddafi era; a poor, Third World country that was utterly transformed to the extent that in 2010 – just months before the 2011 ‘uprising’ – the UN rated Libya No.1 on its global index of ‘human development’. To fully understand the scale of the tragedy here, you have to understand what Libya *was* prior to the international ‘intervention’.

And what is Libya now?

This BBC piece on ‘Lawless Libya’ reflects how dire the situation is in the country. Numerous militias each govern their own patches of territory, with successive “governments” struggling to exercise control. Libya has essentially been turned into a mixture of the Wild West and the kind of tribal/warlord dynamics that defined Afghanistan during the 9/11 era. There are lots of different armed groups – up to 1,700, according to some sources – with entirely differing goals. But money and power are what is said to be motivating most forces and parties, with religious extremism motivating the others.

‘Libya continues to suffer from a chronic absence of security, with almost daily assassinations, bombings and kidnappings.’ This sounds like an absolute copy-and-paste of what much of Iraq was like following the US-led invasion. Which is of course what Gaddafi said would happen; “they will turn Libya into another Iraq, another Somalia…” he had said in February 2011.

The Libyan tribes, what’s left of the Libyan National army and the elected Parliament in Tobruk are working hard to rid their country of the Al-Qaeda, LIFG, Ansar al-Sharia, ISIS/ISIL and other extremist/terrorist brigades that Western governments imported into Libya in 2011 (or in the case of ISIL/Daesh, came into Libya after to take advantage of the utter helplessness of the country). But the Western-backed terrorist infestation of the country has proven impossible to cleanse.

And the lack of definitive government makes the problem even more impossible. Karim Mezran of the Atlantic Council wrote a particularly grim blog post titled ‘Deepening Polarization in Libya, No Agreement in Sight’.  In an irony of ironies, Libya’s PM was allegedly threatening protesters with troops just last year – the precise crime that Gaddafi was accused of having committed (but which he hadn’t); except this time no Western government was jumping all over that threat, demanding ‘intervention’.

As if things weren’t bad enough, the emergence of ISIL/Daesh in Libya has only exacerbated the nightmare.

‘Daesh in Libya’ is regarded to have emerged in Derna in 2014 as Libyan jihadists and mercenaries who’d been waging their Western-backed terror campaigns in Syria were returning to the fallen country that had been their first arena in 2011. Declaring allegiance to the ‘Islamic State’, they declared eastern Libya theirs.


While Libya was used as the springboard for the Syrian rebellion, many of the jihadists and Western-backed mercenaries never left; and the same gangs and militias who’d fought the 2011 rebellion against Gaddafi and the state simply decided to start fighting each other and trying to control territory and resources. Eastern Libya had long been an area where Islamists and jihadists had sought dominion, but the strong Libyan state under Muammar Gaddafi had kept jihadism suppressed up until 2011 when foreign governments, aided by NATO, bombed the Libyan state into oblivion in direct aid of the various jihadist and terrorist groups, paving the way for the establishment of these extremist ‘caliphates’.

NATO and the international forces bombed the way for Al-Qaeda and the other jihadist groups in 2011, entering into a direct alliance with them; it has made the subsequent ISIL/Daesh takeover inevitable.

The Libyan people themselves have had all of their weapons taken away by NATO and its on-the-ground proxy militias; and are therefore largely unable to defend themselves. The irony is that Gaddafi and the old government had tried to directly arm the Libyan civilians during the 2011 crisis – precisely so that they could defend themselves and their homes from the roving brigades of terrorists. Even very late in the 2011 crisis, Gaddafi had tried to negotiate an agreement with Western agencies that would’ve had him give up the fight and go into exile – his only condition was that a portion of the Libyan Army be allowed to stay in the country and continue to try to fight off the various terrorist gangs and foreign mercenaries that had been imported in. He was refused, even in this.

ISIL being able to take over Sirte and other Libyan cities isn’t surprising, given the utter absence of security or even a functioning state. NATO and the Western governments disarmed the Libyan population, making resistance close to impossible; moreover they left Sirte, as with most of the rest of the country, in ruins and with no functioning system of government or law-enforcement.


But the truly horrific post-script to the fall of Gaddafi was already unfolding long before ISIL arrived; it was unfolding, in fact, from before even Gaddafi’s brutal murder.

The entire, delicate social and cultural fabric of the country fell apart with Gaddafi’s death. While Gaddafi loyalists were tortured or killed, an unending process of crime and retaliation ensued, militias and splinter-groups broke off and tried to do their own thing, and religious extremism flourished as the Al-Qaeda-led terrorists who’d mostly fought the war continued to establish their ‘caliphates’ (just as Gaddafi had tried to tell Western media would happen), and impose their extreme religious law. Any sense of the national unity or identity that had been so key in the Gaddafi era was gone, along with any sense of secularism or inclusiveness. Instead, as in Syria and Iraq, sectarian lines formed and the violence spiralled.


All thought of African unity or development, so central to Gaddafi’s vision, was now gone. And indeed Black Africans in Libya were persecuted or murdered en masse by the Salafist-inspired jihadists. Aside from mass lynching of Black people that followed Gaddafi’s fall, Christians were also being persecuted once Gaddafi was gone.

Things like this and this didn’t happen in Gaddafi’s Libya, of course, as Gaddafi was vehemently opposed to sectarianism in general and to Islamic fundamentalism in particular; the character of the Green Revolution, while not completely secular in the Western sense, certainly wasn’t sectarian. The old Libya was all about national unity and identity. Post-Gaddafi Libya is the exact opposite; national identity is gone, while the religious extremists – many of them foreign and not Libyan – have free reign in much of the country. It’s the same, of course, in Syria and Iraq; wherever the foreign proxy terrorists go, minorities and Christians are persecuted or killed and the inter-cultural fabric is torn apart.

Following the end of Gaddafi’s rule, there were reports of attacks also against sites of Sufi Muslims. In late 2011, a Sufi school in Tripoli was stormed by armed men who “burned its library, destroyed office equipment and dug up graves of sages buried there,” and “turned the school into a Salafist mosque.” Sufism, by the way, is one of the oldest, most traditional interpretations of Islam; a minority sect in places like Libya, it is under attack from the various Salafi-inspired groups who want a puritanical, intolerant version of Islam to wipe away all other schools of thought. The Sufi Muslims traditionally place more emphasis on the spiritual, mystical side of the religion, somewhat comparable perhaps to the old Gnostics of early Christian traditions.

Sharia Law is in effect in various Libyan cities and towns, the Islamists establishing their various ’emirates’ just as Gaddafi said would happen. The same “Al-Qaeda Imams” Gaddafi told us were “in the mosques” guiding the uprising in 2011 are now in the town halls and civil buildings, legitimized by our Western governments. ‘Fatwas’ are being issued on a regular basis; ‘fatwas’ and indeed all the other traits of hardline Islamist/Salafist culture were entirely alien to Libya in the previous four decades.
libya-Ansar al-Sharia new Islamic police looks very much like ISIS cops 1

Hardline Islamists ‘Ansar al-Sharia’ ride around in ‘police’ convoys looking very much like ISIS/ISIL, and this was even prior to the larger-scale ISIL invasion that has occurred this year. ‘Ansar al-Sharia’ in Derna is headed by Abu Sufian bin Qumua former Guantanamo inmate who was a major Al-Qaeda figure in the 2011 uprising. Much of the uprising was, again, commanded by Al-Qaeda figures; something that is comprehensively demonstrated here. Ansar al-Sharia in fact have worked in concert with ISIL to help the latter establish a major presence in Libya.

The status of women in the new, NATO-backed Libya is yet another dimension to the tragedy.

Gaddafi’s system championed women’s involvement in decision-making, education and rights issues, in a way that most Arab countries don’t. Hilary Clinton, laughably viewed by some in America as some kind ‘women’s rights’ campaigner, gave Libyan women Al-Qaeda in place of progress. It was in fact reported very soon after Gaddafi’s death that one of the earliest new laws being sought by a number of men was the legal right to still have sexual intercourse with the corpses of dead wives for a certain amount of time before burial. That’s the sort of level we’re talking about. Western commentators could make fun of Gaddafi having an all-female bodyguard unit if they like (sure, it was very odd), but the same people are silent about Libyan women being subject now to fundamentalist-Islamic rules and restrictions.

Unlike many other Arab nations, women in pre-2011 Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an equal income to men. The United Nations Human Rights Council had in fact praised Gaddafi in particular for his promotion of women’s rights, and it’s no coincidence that so many of the most ardent pro-Gaddafi loyalists were women. It’s all gone now.

In March 2013, for example, Sadiq Ghariani, the ‘Grand Mufti’, issued a fatwa against the UN Report on Violence Against Women and Girls, condemning it. Later in 2013, lawyer Hamida Al-Hadi Al-Asfar, advocate of women’s rights, was abducted, tortured and killed. It is alleged she was targeted for criticising the Grand Mufti’s declaration. No arrests were made. Ghariani in fact has been using the UK as a base from which to encourage the violent extremists, including Islamic State, to consolidate their control of Libya.

In the (forced) change from Gaddafi’s Libya to the post-NATO Libya, women have gone from being highly active in Libyan life, going to universities and being a major part of the work force, to now facing the new reality of Sharia Law and the possibility also of being sold to ISIS/ISIL fighters as “virgin brides”. This is the gift Hilary Clinton, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and others have given the women of Libya; women who, like most Libyans now, live in humiliation in their own country where they once lived in dignity.


And of course the greatest sign, the greatest validation, of the great ‘success story’ of NATO and the West’s intervention in Libya has to be the thousands of people risking their lives to flee Libya across the sea in the hope of reaching Europe. This simply fulfils Gaddafi’s prediction prior to his murder that the Mediterranean would “become a sea of chaos” if the government fell. Some of these are Libyans, but many or most are refugees from other parts of Africa or the Middle East, who are being channeled through Libya and launched to sea by trafficking gangs and terror groups.

Amnesty International, who – for the record – utterly refuted the Western governments/media stories about the Gaddafi government’s alleged ‘crimes’ in 2011 – now also sum up the character of post-Gaddafi Libya best when they declare ‘Libya is a place full of cruelty’; ‘Thousands of foreign nationals, including refugees and asylum-seekers, face abductions for ransom, torture and sexual violence by traffickers, smugglers and organized criminal groups. Many are systematically subjected to discrimination and exploitation by their employers or face indefinite detention in appalling conditions on account of their immigration status. Religious minorities, in particular Christian migrants and refugees, are persecuted and are at highest risk of abuse from armed groups that seek to enforce their own interpretation of Islamic law’.

This grim analysis of post-Gaddafi Libya could go on and on; but you’ve gotten the picture by now. And again, see this article for a portrait of what Libya used to be. The international intervention in Libya in 2011 stands as one of the worst, most heinous war crimes in modern history. And for the people of Libya, the chaos, suffering, degradation and humiliation didn’t end in the bombing and violence of 2011, but continues to this day. They still don’t have a government. In most parts of Libya, they don’t have infrastructure or basic amenities. And in many cities and towns, they live every day in danger of violence, arrest, rape or assassination.

The arrival now of scores of ISIS/ISIL fighters and extremists into a Libya that the international powers have left defenseless is the final rancid icing on the cake. Because with the arrival of ISIL, things can only get even worse.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on LIBYA After Gaddafi: The Humiliation & Horror of the ‘Failed State’

The Story of SIRTE: From Proud Libya to ISIS/Terrorist ‘Caliphate’

On October 19th 2011, a convoy of cars left the city of Sirte, carrying Libya’s beleaguered figurehead Muammar Gaddafi.
On October 21st, an American/CIA drone (being operated from Las Vegas) spots the convoy and alerts NATO bombers, which immediately begin bombing the vehicles.

It was French planes that started the attack, but soon NATO war-planes from other nations also arrived and joined in. Many or most of those human beings in these vehicles on the ground were incinerated, while others were torn apart by machine-gun fire. Gaddafi himself survived this air-strike, but the NATO-backed armed gangs later found him.

NATO, French and British SAS forces helped the bloodthirsty rebels in Sirte locate and capture Gaddafi. British SAS troops coordinated the ground forces (Al-Qaeda and the rebel jihadists) and unconfirmed reports have persisted that French agents were actually *among* the crowd of crazed rebels that tortured, sodomized and executed Gaddafi (for a comprehensive account of all of this, consult the free download of The Libya Conspiracy). He was paraded, bloodied and dazed, dragged about by the manic, crazed, drug-fueled mob with their blood-curdling cries of ‘God is Great’, filmed for the benefit of all the world’s news stations and newspapers and then at some point in the chaos he was executed.


Almost as soon as Gaddafi was toppled, the Al-Qaeda flags were flying over the Benghazi courthouse in celebration. America, France and the rest of the Western governments and regional allies celebrated with them; a great victory for ‘The Good Guys’.
Gaddafi’s assassination marked the end of an era and the end of Libya; but it was only the beginning of the suffering and degradation that Sirte itself was to suffer.

The son of an impoverished Bedouin goat herder, Muammar Gaddafi had been born in a tent near Qasr Abu Hadi, a rural area outside the town of Sirte in the deserts of western Libya; he very much regarded Sirte as his birthplace and ‘home town’. Gaddafi had subsequently transformed Sirte, carrying out extensive programmes of public works to expand what was once a village into a small city. After 1988, many government departments, along with the Libyan parliament, were relocated from Tripoli to Sirte, even while Tripoli remained the formal capital of Libya.

Sirte was in fact intended by the Gaddafi-era government to be the future capital of a unified Africa. The ‘Sirte Declaration‘ was the resolution adopted by the Organisation of African Unity in 1999, when numerous African Heads of State were hosted by Gaddafi in Sirte to establish the African Union. In 2007, Sirte was also where Gaddafi held the talks to broker a peace agreement between the Sudan government and the warring factions of Darfur.

The city would later, perhaps even fittingly, be the final stronghold of Gaddafi loyalists in the foreign-orchestrated bloodbath of the ‘Libyan Civil War’ in 2011. In a radio address on 1st September 2011, Gaddafi had been forced by events to declare Sirte the new capital of Libya, after Tripoli had been captured by the NATO-backed rebels. Beyond the bloodbaths in Tripoli and Benghazi, thousands of civilians were killed by NATO and the rebels in just Sirte alone.

Read more: The Libya Conspiracy: A Definitive Guide to the Libya Intervention & the Crime of the Century‘…

After Gaddafi’s murder, Sirte was left almost completely in ruins by both the NATO bombing and the on-the-ground destruction by jihadists, with most buildings and infrastructure either entirely destroyed or severely damaged. The destruction of Sirte came to perfectly symbolise the destruction of Libya itself, as everything that had been built, everything it had been transformed into for four decades, and everything it symbolised in terms of both Libya and Africa, was left in ruins.

These images below are what Sirte used to look like prior to the Western bombing campaign of 2011.


And this below is what Sirte looked like after the bombing campaign conducted by all the wealthiest natinos on earth. The same can be said for other Libyan cities, including the once extraordinary city of Tripoli.


For Sirte, that wasn’t even where the story ended.

The persecution of pro-Gaddafi supporters after Gaddafi’s death became commonplace. Even after Gaddafi was dead, loyalists remained and among the civilian population there were still plenty willing to speak openly about where their support had lay. “We lived in democracy under Muammer Gaddafi, he was not a dictator. I lived in freedom, Libyan women had full human rights. We want to live just as we did before,” said one resident, in this piece in The Telegraph. “There is little food, not enough clean water and no gas. Now we live worse than animals.”


That was just over four years ago. In the four years since NATO and the international community decided to overthrow the Libyan state, have things improved?

As bitter as many Sirte residents and Libyan loyalists may have been at the Western-backed coup and the assassination of the national figurehead, perhaps some of them considered that, as the months went on, things would improve. Perhaps they considered that the high-minded, democratic Western nations that had opted to militarily force a regime change in Libya would make sure a peaceful transition to democracy was made. Perhaps they considered that France, the United States, Britain and the others would ensure security, or at the very least *justify* the bloody regime-change by ensuring it counted for something. Some might’ve thought the United Nations – which had played its key part in enabling the destruction of Libya – would be around in the aftermath to help ensure human rights and to help protect the Libyan people.

But any poor soul in Sirte who might’ve held to such an optimistic view wouldn’t have been thinking those things for very long; neither would any poor soul in Benghazi or Tripoli. Because there’s no sign of the ‘democracy’ the West promised, nor any inkling of ‘human rights’. And the rape and desolation of Sirte, as with most of Libya, continues to this day.

But to complete the sordid story and make it all the more perverse, the city that was the birthplace of Muammar Gaddafi and the heart of the African Union is now the headquarters of ‘Daesh’ or the so-called ‘Islamic State’.

Much of Sirte’s population of 300,000 people were either subject to the NATO-backed genocide or had to flee during the 2011 war in Libya. Eventually much of the population dared to return and to attempt to build the city in the absence of Gaddafi and the government (about 70% of the population had returned to Sirte); but then in February 2015, ‘ISIL’ terrorists appeared ‘out of nowhere’ – in a fleet of shiny, brand new Toyota pick-ups. An ISIS siege of the city commenced.

The international community – the same international community that had used overwhelming military force to overthrow the Libyan state and allow scores of foreign terrorists to enter the country – did absolutely nothing to stop this ISIS invasion or to come to the aid of its ‘liberated’ Libya. And now, just as the hijacked Syrian city of Raqqa is about to be taken from ‘ISIS’, Sirte is already in place to be the next base of the extremist ‘caliphate’. Some analysts are already calling Sirte, and not Raqqa in Syria, the Islamic State ‘capital’.

Two months into the Russian campaign against ISIL targets in Syria, a UN report in December warned that up to 5,000 ISIL terrorists were now in Libya, with half of them concentrated in Sirte, and that the extremist group “sees the country as a retreat zone and strategic hub for recruits unable to reach its Syrian heartland.”

US military propagandist Joseph V. Micallef writes, ‘It’s believed that about 70% of the Islamic State militants in Libya are foreigners, with the bulk coming from Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Tunisia. In recent months there have been consistent reports that Islamic State has been transferring  “administrators” and “military commanders” to Libya to take direct control of its militants there. Moreover, Islamic State websites in Libya have been prominently featuring the slogan that “Sirte will be no less than Raqqa,” suggesting that if Raqqa falls, Sirte may become the new capital of Islamic State…’

There is, again, a perverse symbolism in the home town and birthplace of the late Libyan figurehead being turned into the ‘new Raqqa’ or capital of the Islamic State, which probably isn’t lost on Sirte’s beleaguered residents.

ISIL being able to take over Sirte isn’t surprising, given the utter absence of security or even a functioning state. NATO and the Western governments disarmed the Libyan population, making resistance close to impossible; moreover they left Sirte, as with most of the rest of the country, in ruins and with no functioning system of government or law-enforcement. The story isn’t new; just as much of Iraq was left shattered, vulnerable and disunited after the US-led invasion, so again with Libya, which has been left an easy victim by the West’s devastation of the country. With no unified government, and with various terrorist or extremist militias carving out their own territories, who are the Libyan people supposed to turn to?

Read more: As ISIS Humiliates Libya, Second Western Intervention Imminent‘…


ISIL/Daesh swept to power in Sirte with ease, partly thanks to an alliance with the local branch of the jihadist ‘Ansar al-Sharia‘ group that was born out of the 2011 uprising in which various jihadist leaders, including Al-Qaeda commanders and former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, were allowed by the West to lay the foundations for their future ‘caliphates’. In essence, everything NATO and the Western governments have tried to let happen in Syria is what they *did* let happen in Libya.

Sirte has in fact become a hub or HQ for terrorist organisations.

In recent communications with the leadership of Libya’s Tribes’ Council, American contacts James and Joanne Moriarty were told that the leadership of ISIL, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, and possibly other terror groups, had all gathered in Sirte for meetings that took place around the 9th and 10th of December 2015.

It is a tremendous irony that the place that was previously hosting the African Union and a movement for ‘African unity’ (and the likes of Nelson Mandela) was now instead hosting terrorist leaders and extremist jihadists.

ISIS have reportedly set up their command centre right next to the domed, marble-clad conference centre that Gaddafi had built to host pan-African summits. They have taken control of the formerly state-run radio station, which they now use to broadcast speeches by the extremist caliphate’s religious leaders. Further to this, ISIL’s leadership may have been strategically relocated to Sirte in recent months, following the assaults on ISIL strongholds in Iraq and Syria.

Iranian news agency FARS reported two months ago that ISIL’s elusive ‘caliph’ or leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, wasn’t in Raqqa nor in Iraq, but had been spirited out of Turkey and transported safely to Sirte, now ‘the safest jihadist stronghold in the world’. This is believed to have happened on around December 9th, roughly the same time James and Jo Moriarty say the gathering of terrorist leaders took place in Sirte.

If true, it means the leader of the ‘Islamic State’ group is now based in Gaddafi’s birthplace.

The two rival Libyan ‘governments’ have conducted airstrikes against ISIL in Sirte in recent months, but their capabilities are very limited, relying on outdated warplanes and helicopters from the Gaddafi era, and a lack of precision weapons.


By late November 2015, Sirte was under the complete control of ISIL.

With now an estimated 1,500 fighters in the city, ISIL have predictably started to impose their own rule of law, just as if Sirte was Raqqa; with dress codes for men and women, segregation in school classrooms and the establishment of religious police. This is what the once proud Libyan people are subjected to in Sirte, the legacy of a Western/NATO ‘humanitarian intervention’ that was really nothing of the sort. Punishments are inflicted on residents, for crimes ranging from theft or alcohol production to “spying”. These include imprisonment, amputations, public crucifixions and beheadings. The group has set up its own religious police force and is reported to be carrying out constant house-to-house searches and forcing residents to attend religious ‘re-education’ classes.

The image below is a billboard put up to show women how they are now expected to conduct themselves…


This image, on the other hand, captures some of the hundreds of thousands of Libyan women who took to the streets throughout 2011 to show their support for Gaddafi and the former Libyan Republic and who had repeatedly asked NATO and the international coalition to stop the bombing and allow Libyans to determine their own future…


From this BBC report on the situation in Sirte today, a children’s doctor says, ‘The killing is unbelievable. I lost four cousins on my father’s side, five cousins on my mother’s side, three other relatives and two neighbours. One cousin was crucified at the Zaafran roundabout’.

ISIL’s brutality in Libya has been more or less the same as its actions in Syria and Iraq. When citizens in Sirte took up arms to try to push back the foreign terrorists, residents have said the jihadists engaged in a brutal crackdown. Cleric Khalid Awad said that ISIS had killed some of their prisoners and hung the bodies from bridges, roundabouts and highways across the city, the AFP news agency reported. There were also reports that the group had beheaded 12 people and crucified them.

The Islamic State has also been pushing east from Sirte in an operation to seize control of the country’s oil infrastructure, mirroring what the extremists have previously done in both Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, “the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized.”

This is now the reality of Sirte and the conditions its citizens live under; a gift from NATO, the UN and leading officials from virtually every Western government. A city bombed to rubble by the wealthiest nations on earth and now taken over by scores of mostly foreign extremists who subject the citizens to the humiliation of a medieval life.

Read more: Libya After Gaddafi: The Humiliation & Horrors of a ‘Failed State‘…

Posted in LibyaComments Off on The Story of SIRTE: From Proud Libya to ISIS/Terrorist ‘Caliphate’

The ‘Founding Declaration of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya’



A statement, released via the Jamahiriya News Agency on January 9th 2017 and purporting to be the ‘Founding Declaration of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya’, suggests the Libyan people’s fight-back against the international conspiracy and terrorist takeover is gathering momentum.

As is often the case with Libya these days, source-verification is very difficult, just as it was in regard to alleged statements from Ayesha Gaddafi which were covered here. However, the JNA’s editorial comment states, ‘We received the English translation of the founding declaration/communique today along with a copy of the original document. Saif Al Islam Qaddafi is indeed leading the movement.’

The image above, by the way, is not recent – but is from 2011.

The declaration, issued “from the Western mountain”, reads as a noble, unifying call-to-action seeking to re-unify the people and restore the country that was destroyed in 2011 by terrorist gangs and their international sponsors.

The translation reads; ‘Feeling our historical and national responsibility to maintain the homeland and the dignity of its people and to work on passing it to the future generations free, dignified and prestigious as we inherited it from our parents and grandparents who had sacrificed themselves and their wealth in heroic, immortal epics for its sake…’

Aware of the conspiracy and the perils that inflicted the country and brought about the collapse of its institutions, leading to the domination of terrorism on the joints of the State and its spread all over the country undermining its security and social peace turning it into a yard of regional and international conflict that damaged its unity, fortune and safety; produced a failed state and a feuding society; uprooted its people into dislodged and displaced persons; looted its wealth and savings; laid the foundations for sowing the seeds of discord among its towns and tribes and; disseminated the discourse of hatred that hit the social fabric in a mortal spot…’

And keen to cross with the homeland to safety, growth, and construction, away from the language of infighting, marginalization, and exclusion; We announce the launch of the organized popular work, at home and abroad, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya, a national framework of struggle that combines all Libyan activists to liberate the country from the control of terrorist organizations that use religion as a cover and are bonded by being agents for the foreigner, and the tampering of criminal militias; and to work on building a national sovereign state and maintaining its independence, security, and prestige by means of legitimate institutions.’

It is a state whose citizens are linked with the bond of citizenship, respects differences and diversity and, maintains rights and duties. It is the state of the judiciary and the rule of law where the Libyan people alone has the right to choose its political system freely and to build a modern advanced economy that depends on its latent potential through developing its natural, material and human resources per a comprehensive development plan that bypasses the miserable reality to open prospects and hopes for a prosperous economy that achieves happiness and prosperity to our great people…’

It continues briefly, calling on the people to put aside their differences and come together for the restoration of the country and a legitimate state. The full text and original Arabic document can be read here.

As was covered here last year, the Libyan Green Resistance has been gathering momentum and even, allegedly, significant support within some of Libya’s failing ‘government’ institutions.

And the (alleged) release from prison of Saif Gaddafi last summer – particularly the secrecy and lack of official comment or confirmation – was suggestive of the possibility that Saif was being seen as the best hope for rescuing the post-2011 ‘failed state’ from its misery (read more). It is, we should acknowledge, still not known for certain that Saif is involved in or leading this movement at all – it may be that he is simply being used as a powerful symbol to inspire or embolden the movement.

However, he may well be involved – and, if he is, I would suggest it is far better at this point that his involvement remains unconfirmed and unknown and that those opposed to the Gaddafi loyalists – both in Libya and abroad – are kept uncertain and in the dark about the scale or nature of what they’re dealing with.

This declaration isn’t signed by or attributed to Saif or any individual. It instead reads as a statement to, for and by the people.

As was previously covered here just under a year ago, Ayesha Gaddafi was also alleged to have stated that she was now the ‘leader of the resistance’ in Libya and that she was about to create a new ‘secret government’ to take back the fallen, chaos-riddled country. Those statements too were unconfirmed, but were nevertheless symbolically very powerful.

I also want to say here that I received a correspondence in mid-October last year – the source of which I was expected not to divulge due to his/her location and safety concerns. This came to me on account, apparently, of the book I put together a while ago on the Libya intervention happening to reach someone (I don’t know how) deeply involved in those events. The exchange was partly to acknowledge the book and partly to correct a particular (minor) error I had apparently made in the research. I received the correspondence via a social media account that was created just for that day and then immediately deleted.

The reason I bring it up is because the exchange suggested to me that some of the rumours (and unconfirmed statements) about what’s going on in Libya are probably true; and that, where there appears to be smoke and mirrors going on in some cases, it is probably deliberate.

This January ‘declaration’, if genuine, however, suggests the arrival of a stage of more open, overt activity and objectives. I also tend to wonder, as previously suggested, if the events in Aleppo, Syria, might’ve further signaled that now was the time.

Related: Muammar Gaddafi: A Psychological Profile of Man, Myth & Reality‘, Libya, the Failed State‘, ‘The Story of Sirte: From Proud Libya to Terrorist Playground‘…

Posted in LibyaComments Off on The ‘Founding Declaration of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya’

TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part I: Corporate Strike Back & the Coup of the 1%



Now that the electoral college has has confirmed Trump’s presidency and his inauguration approaches, I wanted to address the shape of the incoming Trump administration, the dangers, the sensibilities.

And why there is legitimate, palpable reason for concern and anxiety that isn’t anything to do with being ‘liberal elite’ or ‘lib-tard’ or whatever dumb labels anti-progressives like to throw around due to lack of vocabulary.

As these concerns are multifarious, I’ve decided to break them up into three different posts, starting with this one, to deal with three different areas: the second deals with the wacky or dangerous ‘basket of deplorables’ (to borrow a phrase) being brought into office around the Donald, and the third is focused on the foreign policy dangers.

Aside from a couple of posts right after the election over a month ago, I have consciously refrained from posting overly negative or scaremongering things about Trump or the incoming administration since then. I did cover the case for electoral fraud by the GOP, but that was all. This refrain was for three reasons; (1) I wasn’t a Hillary supporter, so it seemed futile to try to bash the Trump machine when she was the only alternative in November, (2) with all the widespread media and political vilification of or opposition to the Trump presidency, I didn’t feel any need to join in or to contribute to a character-assassination of his as-yet-unconfirmed administration before it even has a chance to do anything, and (3) I wanted to wait a while and see how things developed and what kind of moves and signals Trump and his people would make.

Concerning (2), this refrain was all the more necessary when all the accusations started flaring up again about Russian agents ‘hacking’ the election, which is a highly misleading maneuver, given that by ‘hacking’ they don’t actually mean ‘hacking’ – they just mean that WikiLeaks was receiving compromising data on the DNC from a Russian source (which might not actually be true anyway -Assange had always insisted the leaks were from within the DNC, while the deaths of some of those involved in exposing the DNC’s activities suggest this was the case too).

Also, given how many governments and countries US intelligence agencies have interfered with and in a much bigger way than mere hacking, the whole thing with Russia just seems like a pointless distraction from cry-babies. I actually don’t care if Russia ‘hacked’ the election or not – as the content of those leaks (particularly regarding the DNC’s suppression of Bernie Sanders) was more damning than the idea of the hacking itself. Besides, as mentioned already, the GOP seemed to have rigged the vote in key states – so maybe the CIA, Obama and the others should focus on that instead of the Russia claim.

I tend to believe the Russian state *is* trying to influence political and democratic processes in Western nations (and that this could be dangerous for all of us); but there doesn’t appear to be much evidence that it is doing so via any particularly illegal or even unusual activities, but rather that it simply played the same game that multiple countries – especially the United States – often plays and that it did so very successfully.

But, getting back to the Trump administration, one unavoidable thing right from the outset is that, amid the questionable ideologies, ugly sensibilities or regressive tendencies present in the Trump cabal, this is a campaign – and an incoming administration – united by very great wealth.

These are very rich people with very rich friends.

Contrary to the carefully manufactured campaign image (brainchild of the Breitbart gang) of the Saviour of the Working Class, The Guardian and others report that Trump’s administration is going to be the wealthiest group of individuals ever to occupy the White House. This strikes me as particularly interesting in the context of socio-political movements of the last several years and what could be described vaguely as the millennial ‘zeitgeist’.

If the Occupy movement, for example, was a vast, grassroots protest against the 1%, this Trump administration looks very much like the Empire Strikes Back: very much like the revenge of the 1%. It could be characterised potentially as emblematic of the final, absolute defeat of everything the Occupy protesters, in their millions, were – symbolically or actually – trying to rally against.
<> on October 1, 2011 in Los Angeles, California.

If you had picked out a random Occupy protester five years ago and asked them what their worst-case scenario might be, this is probably what they might’ve envisioned.

Actually, they probably couldn’t have envisioned it being this bad: they might’ve thought the worst-case scenario would be a cabal of bankers and millionaires occupying the White House, but they wouldn’t necessarily have thought that cabal would also be awash in anti-liberal, anti-progressive social agendas, racist, misogynist ideas and be so openly anti-environmentalism.

Nor that a total Republican sweep of the board would allow said cabal far more scope for enacting its agenda than Democrat Obama ever had.

But this is where things now stand: just five years after mainstream politicians and media suppressed and ridiculed the Occupy protesters, government itself is now under a hostile takeover by the absolute antithesis of the Occupy protest.

And that same mainstream media and political establishment is to blame, not just for downplaying or ignoring a genuine, popular protest movement, but for then suppressing another genuine, social/political movement in the Bernie Sanders campaign and conspiring to uphold the ultimate Establishment candidate in Hillary Clinton – a strategy that allowed Donald Trump and his alt-right-backed corporate mafia to sell themselves as the ‘anti establishment’ option when they were really nothing of the sort.

And then, on top of all that, the same mainstream media that had belittled Occupy and then dismissed or diminished Bernie Sanders supporters proceeded to give Trump and his campaign unparalleled levels of coverage and sensationalist promotion – even if it was, on the surface at least, just to reiterate over and over again how they were utterly opposed to him being president.

It helped, of course, that so much of the electorate is so easy to manipulate. Trump’s often-quoted campaign trail line “I love uneducated people” was pretty much him laughing in everyone’s faces.

‘The Republicans have moved so far toward a dedication to the wealthy and the corporate sector that they cannot hope to get votes on their actual programs,’ Noam Chomsky wrote shortly after the presidential election, ‘and have turned to mobilizing sectors of the population that have always been there, but not as an organized coalitional political force: evangelicals, nativists, racists and the victims of the forms of globalization designed to set working people around the world in competition with one another while protecting the privileged and undermining the legal and other measures that provided working people with some protection, and with ways to influence decision-making in the closely linked public and private sectors, notably with effective labor unions.’

‘Trump supporters, who are led to believe that Trump will do something to remedy their plight,’ Chomsky continues, ‘though the merest look at his fiscal and other proposals demonstrates the opposite — posing a task for activists who hope to fend off the worst and to advance desperately needed changes.’

Goldman Sachs and George Soros insiders, including Steven Mnuchin (an extremely wealthy banker who Elizabeth Warren has likened to ‘an evil Forrest Gump’), are bound to his administration: which is something the ‘Alt Right’ are understandably silent about, given that they’ve spent months portraying Trump as the alternative to ‘Wall Street’, the alleged Soros agenda and the neoliberal Hillary.

This was always BS, however; and it was a BS operation that the Alt-Right was always in on.

And Trump then appoints another Goldman Sachs executive (the third so far – after Steve Bannon and Mnuchin) to his administration. This, remember, is the guy who spent much of his campaign talking about the corruption of Wall Street and the ‘establishment’ and pointing out Killary’s entanglement with banking and corporate interests (as of course did Bannon’s platform, Breitbart). Reports suggest Gary Cohn – according to Reuters, an elite banker retaining some $190 million in Goldman stock – is to lead the National Economic Council.

The incoming Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, who – along with alleged white nationalist Steve Bannon (pictured below with the odious KellyAnne Connway) – came up from Goldman Sachs and financed Trump’s campaign, is accused of personally profiting massively from the 2008 financial crisis (for some character reference: his ‘foreclosures machine’ was widely reported to have once evicted a 90 year-old lady from her home over 27 cents).

The Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs man Bannon himself, by the way, is reportedly worth $10 million.

So how and why did all these downtrodden ‘working class’ people ever think that a presidential candidate being run by Goldman Sachs – a central player in the 2008 financial crisis and once described as “the root of all evil” – was going to work for their best interests? Probably because – under the guidance of Breitbart’s Steve Bannon and others – Trump played the deep-rooted racial, cultural and gender-based tribalism card so well.

It also helped, of course, that Hillary Clinton – a criminal with more skeletons in her closet than the Museum of Skeletons – was the opponent.

To be fair to Hillary for a moment, it is also likely – as evidence seems to suggest – that the GOP rigged key states to create the Trump victory. And given the reported interests of the Koch brothers in ensuring Republican domination, this too might’ve been a corporate operation: all of it designed to enable or maximise corporate interests, including – judging by the nature of Trump’s team and administration picks – by organising massive tax cuts for corporations and wealthy interests, reinforcing the oil industry and fossil fuel lobbies against the rise of alternative energy, dismantling or suppressing environmental protections across the board, diminishing or reversing social programs and welfare, etc, and strategically filling all significant positions with people sympathetic to those corporate lobbyists and socio-political dinosaurs.

To illustrate already how this dynamic between the incoming administration and the socio-political conscience of society is likely to play out, the DAPL/Standing Rock situation provides a clue: while activists across the board, including organised veterans, were gathering in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux, the Trump team was affirming its complete endorsement of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Of course, this is presenting a worst-case scenario – and perhaps we should offer some benefit of the doubt for now, especially given that Hillary Clinton was probably a worse choice than Trump. But it is naive to expect anything else from an administration that is clearly being populated by the 1% billionaires and doesn’t even begin to pretend to reflect society.

The new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, is one of the biggest oil moguls there is. Another oil mogul in the Trump camp, Harold Hamm, is said to be worth $15.3 billion.

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education Secretary, is a billionaire whose brother was the founder of the infamous Blackwater mercenary firm that got its hand so bloody in Iraq. Aside from controversies in Iraq, DeVos’ brother Erik Prince has also been under federal investigation for money laundering and for selling mercenary services in Libya.

DeVos is said to complain about being linked to her brother, wishing instead to be seen as her own person. Well, she served on the board of an institution that sought to overturn child labor laws. She also advocates for removing the separation between church and state.

Senator Jeff Sessions (set for Attorney General), who has previously been regarded as highly xenophobic and racist, also is a millionaire. Wilbur Ross, set to be the next secretary of commerce, has a net worth of approximately $2.9 billion.

Ben Carson – probably the token African-American fixture put in place for appearances – is reportedly worth $26 million and is quoted as having likened fair housing policies to ‘Communism’.

Bush administration returner Elaine Chao, picked by Trump for transportation secretary, is reportedly worth $20 million. Chao also happens to be married to Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senator who was famously central to the decision for Republicans to cripple Barack Obama’s administration and prevent him from being able to get anything done in his presidency: which makes Trump’s debate mantra of “Obama was a disaster” all the more Machiavellian. He is also extremely wealthy.

Virtually every figure in or around the Trump ‘movement’ is a big money Fat Cat. Newt Gingrich – a man who famously divorced one of his wives while she was in hospital being treated for cancer – was, in a pre-Trump world, a farcical figure in American politics. A career characterised by fraud controversies and official ‘ethics’ complaints filed against him, he is still being touted for some place in the Trump administration, though it won’t be a Cabinet position.

Gingrich, by the way, is also a millionaire. So is super-villain Rudy Guliani, a former mafia man and 9/11 insider.

The list goes on; and will probably get bigger.

As The Intercept was reporting back in November, Trump’s transition team was full of corporate lobbyists. ‘The Trump transition team is a who’s who of influence peddlers, including: energy adviser Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist for Koch Industries and the Walt Disney Company; adviser Eric Ueland, a Senate Republican staffer who previously lobbied for Goldman Sachs…’

Of course, Hillary was doing the same thing. The difference is that, for all Hillary’s corruption and dirty dealing, a Democrat White House would’ve, by nature, been far more inclined towards a progressive balance and – for the sake of appearances, if nothing else – would’ve had to balance social, liberal and even environmental concerns and interests with whatever corporate agendas would also have been there.

A Trump-led Republican government populated by people like Bannon and Mnuchin is unlikely to try to do anything of the sort (and, moreover, given the passions and prejudices of the very specific voter-base it tapped into in order to win the election, it won’t consider itself obligated to): and this is already perfectly clear in the make-up of Trump’s transition team and his administration picks.

Just think about this for a moment: in the space of about five years, the climate went from Occupy Wall Street and the popular consciousness explosion of the 1% versus the 99% meme to a billionaire president-elect mired in malpractice lawsuits and establishing a White House of other billionaires or millionaires (with lots of socially-regressive talk thrown in for good measure).

It’s almost as if they’re literally laughing in the faces of the millenials in particular and the 99% in general; but they always were laughing, going back to Trump’s famous and aforementioned “I love uneducated people” line, which was essentially mocking the very people who were whistling and cheering him – and they probably whistled and cheered at that too.

All they’d need to do to cap it all off is sit on a throne made of gold. Oh no, wait – here’s a picture of them sitting on thrones of gold.

It isn’t a crime to be wealthy, of course; and you might not consider it a bad thing necessarily that extremely wealthy people with vast business interests occupy the White House. I tend to think it means an administration, from the very outset, that can’t be trusted to consider the interests of the other 99% of the population.

But the bigger problem reveals itself when you combine that Scrooge McDuck theme with the kind of horrendous character-references and ideas that many of Trump’s administration picks are carrying into office with them. That is the subject of the next post.

Posted in USAComments Off on TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part I: Corporate Strike Back & the Coup of the 1%

TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part II: Dangerous or Just Misunderstood…?



Following on from considering the symbolic (and the actual) disparity of a millionaire/billionaire cabal with shared business interests governing – supposedly – for the well-being of ordinary and even economically disadvantaged people, we then look naturally to see what kind of people these are, what they believe in and what sort of world-view they bring with them into office.

A lot of people have worried for a long time what a Trump victory would end up actually meaning, aside from a perceived victory for some of the most dubious groups or interests in America – and, via osmosis, potentially Europe and the West.

Lots of concerns came to mind: a total right-wing Republican takeover, a government under the sway of evangelicals, an administration populated by highly anti-progressive figures, which might target specific minority groups, go after social activists and environmentalists, and even the danger of a Christian Zionist Crusade in terms of Middle East policy. All of those are possible. Worse is possible too.

As a distinct non-fan of Hillary Clinton, I genuinely was trying for a (very) little while to see the good side of a prospective Trump administration, but part-way through last year I realised I had been allowing my distaste for Hillary to cloud my view of Trump and his network. The main problem, in my view, isn’t Donald Trump himself – it is some, even most, of the people gathered around him and forming the imminent administration. I shall generally refer to them as the ‘basket of deplorables’ (to borrow a phrase).

Unfortunately, few of the moves and signals from the Trump camp have done much to encourage positive feelings about the incoming basket of deplorables – which, remember, are set to be governing the most powerful nation on earth for at least the next four years. And this is completely unconnected to any alleged ‘Russian hacking’, which, again, is a red herring.

Political analyst Noam Chomsky had this to say about the election result at the time. “On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government — executive, Congress, the Supreme Court — in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.”

Chomsky continues, concerning the rise of Donald Trump as a figurehead; “For many years, I have been writing and speaking about the danger of the rise of an honest and charismatic ideologue in the United States, someone who could exploit the fear and anger that has long been boiling in much of the society, and who could direct it away from the actual agents of malaise to vulnerable targets.”

In the previous post, the focus was on what looks like it may be a hardline Corporate Mafia takeover of the White House and US government. In this post, let’s put the money issue aside and just ask how it is that what looks like a wacky cabal of Gotham City villains is poised to take over the world’s greatest superpower.

Just a simple background check of character references reveals a coterie of people you wouldn’t trust to look after your cat, let-alone run the most powerful nation on earth.

Some of the views, ideas and ideologies professed by many or most of those around Trump – or those who Trump seems to be bringing into the fold – are genuinely scary; ranging from sinister to just downright ridiculous, with a lot in-between. And once the new administration is up and running, the potential impact – socially, politically, economically, environmentally, even religiously – could be substantial.

Much has been made, of course, about Trump’s campaign manager and senior advisor Steve Bannon – vilified as a white supremacist and extreme propagandist. In a recent interview, Steve Bannon made an odd remark. He said “Darkness is good… That’s power”.


In the same sentence, he seemed to revel in being likened to ‘Satan’ and ‘Darth Vader’. Now I entirely assume that what he was doing was being sarcastic; basically just taking in all of the suspicion or outrage against him with a dry wit, the same way I might do if I were in his position.

The problem is context, however. And when you’re being widely labelled a ‘white nationalist’ and accused by some of having solidarity with the KKK, saying things like “darkness is good – that’s power” isn’t a tactful or clever move. Particularly when the President-Elect whose campaign you masterminded – and who is one of the very few presidential election winners to not have won the popular vote – had already provoked days of mass protest from those who don’t want him as president.

Now I already noted, the day after the election, how Donald Trump was flashing the so-called ‘Illuminati’ or masonic hand signs in the White House. Which doesn’t in itself bother me that much, as most presidents have probably been masons – and indeed the Founding Fathers themselves were openly Freemasons. And there’s nothing inherently bad about being a mason. But then when Bannon makes enigmatic comments like the one he made in the interview, you have to wonder whether he’s just being colorful or sarcastic, or whether he is actually alluding to something more sinister and basically just laughing in everyone’s faces: the same way Trump was back when he made the “I love uneducated people” remark at his rally.


If Hillary (and I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton) had made the same “Darkness is good” remark – in jest or otherwise – the Alt-Right conspiracy content would go into overdrive.

Unfortunately much of the ‘alt’ or ‘Truther’ ‘movement’ out there are stuck in highly inflexible, dogmatic positions that have little to do with truth and more to do with confirmation bias and echo chambers.

Steve Bannon – who is both a Goldman-Sachs millionaire and an ‘Alt-Right’/Breitbart figure – denies being a white nationalist and insists he is only an ‘America First’ economic nationalist: which is fine and may be the truth. But it doesn’t take much perusal of his former home, Breitbart, to ascertain that racially-defined sectarianism, zealous anti-feminism and homophobia, and permanent anti-Muslim propaganda, are never far away from the Breitbart agenda; or that both the KKK and the American Nazi Party were very outspokenly happy when Trump hired Bannon as his campaign manager and now senior advisor. Of course, one can be an ‘economic nationalist’ and also less overtly be a white nationalist too. And Breitbart means Bannon has the whiff of Goebbels about him.

My own view of the ‘Alt Right’ has always been one of deep suspicion: to be frank, Breitbart, Info Wars and co are, in my opinion, simply right-wing or extreme right-wing operations that have co-opted or hijacked the rise of ‘alternative media’ in order to repackage themselves and their ideas and fool gullible people into thinking that they are true ‘alternatives’ to the status quo.

How long those outlets will continue the ‘This is Our Great Anti- Establishment Victory’ line remains to be seen: Breitbart, for one, can never step back from that, as it is, via Bannon, too intimately entwined with the Trump campaign and administration. Info Wars could, in theory, change direction: but I watched Alex Jones interview Donald Trump a year or so ago and, when Trump stated that ‘Muslims’ had done 9/11, Jones – the man who spent several years talking about the 9/11 Inside Job – simply agreed with Trump and appeared to have forgotten his own early work entirely.

Tony Cartalucci at Land Destroyer appears to share my view of the nature of the Alt-Right, recently writing, ‘Breitbart News exists today as a living success story of Cass Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration doctrine. It infiltrated the increasingly independent and influential alternative media, and reasserted establishment talking points under right cover. ‘

Breitbart, and others in its ideological network, are not ‘alt’ anything – they’re just extreme right-wing platforms.

And now that platform has won the White House. Bannon, and others in the camp, are entirely on a Crusade against Muslims, for starters: the general position is also to vilify the Black Lives Matter movement, which – combined with Trump-team talk of increased militarisation of police – could potentially manifest in all kinds of dangerous ways.

The anti Muslim element – as it is in the European Far-Right too – is very serious.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, is a raging Islamophobe who has called Islam “a cancer” and has said “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.”

What’s curious about Flynn’s anti-Muslim crusade is that, as a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he would presumably have some level of awareness of how illusory the Islamic Terror threat in the United States is and how much it – from 9/11 through to Orlando – has relied on false-flag operations and FBI-contrived plots: which means he doesn’t actually perceive any threat from American Muslims, but just hates them for other reasons. And, presumably, will happily carry on the work of pretending false-flag ops don’t happen. I already made that point in reference to the Berlin Truck Attack before Christmas – which I already suspect may have been a false-flag op co-authored between Mossad and the Trump team (read that post for the reason).


When you look how common this major anti-Muslim rhetoric is in Trump’s movement, you do have to start worrying about those suggestions of compulsory ID badges, Muslim databases and detention and whether it was really just campaign sensationalism or not.

With the kinds of additional powers that both the Bush and Obama presidencies created, the kind of damage a Bannon/Flynn-influenced administration could do is substantial.

This administration in a pre-9/11 America would’ve been a less dangerous entity, existing in a pre-Homeland Security and pre-Patriot Act world: but, as things now are, there is a palpable danger. It’s the same problem we should be perceiving in France, by the way, where, if the Front National was to win the election next year, they would inherit all of the controversial emergency powers that the current French government has put into place (unless the current government reduces the ‘State of Emergency’ before then).

Even beyond that ominous issue, however, most of Trump’s Legion of Doom seems to spout rhetoric or ideas that – at another time – would’ve been considered comedic, but in these new circumstances should be considered anything *but* funny.

Ben Carson likens fair housing policies to ‘Communism’ and compared same-sex marriage to paedophilia.

Trump’s education secretary – sister of the man who founded the infamous Blackwater mercenary firm – served on the board of an institution that sought to overturn child labor laws. She also advocates for removing the separation between church and state.

More character references?

Treasury Secretary, the Goldman-Sachs man Steven Mnuchin, profited massively from the 2008 financial crisis and – for some further character reference – his ‘foreclosures machine’ was widely reported to have once evicted a 90 year-old lady from her home over 27 cents.

John Bolton, when serving as Under-Secretary of State for arms control and international security, was considered a temperamental risk by George W. Bush and removed to a different position. Supporter and ally Newt Gingrichfamously divorced one of his wives while she was in hospital being treated for cancer.

David Clarke, reported to be Trump’s likely pick for a leading role at the Department of Homeland Security (overseeing immigration enforcement, the Secret Service, the TSA, the Coast Guard and FEMA) has called for Americans who sympathise with terrorists or with causes that terrorists might have (even just on social media or verbally) to be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and allegedly has said he wants to sent up to 1 million people to Gitmo.

Another likely senior figure in Homeland Security is Kris Kobach, who appears to be on a crusade against immigrants and any amnesty policies and also sings from the same anti-Muslim hymn sheet as Michael Flynn.

Millionaire Senator Jeff Sessions once joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan were “OK until I found out they smoked pot”.

CIA director, Mike Pompeo, labeled those at the CIA who participated in torture as “heroes”; he also staunchly opposed closing down the illegal Guantánamo Bay prison and is a supporter of NSA bulk data collection who called for Edward Snowden to be executed. As did another Trump pick, James Woolsey.

Trump’s man for Labor, Andrew F Puzder, is a staunch opponent of minimum wage laws.

It is an extraordinary irony that, compared to some of these characters, Trump’s Vice-President – Mike Pencealmost looks like the sane, reasonable presence. Pence is an ultra right-wing evangelical (and probable Christian Zionist; the other Zionist connections include Breitbart’s Steve Bannon and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, among others). Jared Kushner, by the way, is still being heavily tipped for a major role in the administration – which serves to make the Trump administration seem even more like an in-house mafia.


Like many others in the Trump campaign or being touted for the Trump administration, Pence is widely regarded as aggressively anti-LGBT and anti gay marriage (he also was advocated for ‘curing’ gay people of their sexual orientation via a form of shock therapy), as well as an advocate against women’s reproductive rights.

He sponsored a 2007 bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Earlier this year he told the Values Voter Summit that a Trump administration would begin its fight against abortion rights on “the first day we take office.”

He, not long ago, denied that smoking can kill (probably because he was taking donations from tobacco companies) and he denied climate change. He is also highly critical of science and wants kids to be taught Creatonism. If this was just some right-wing radio host, this would be standard: but this is a Vice-President of the United States we’re now talking about. The same anti-science attitude seems to be shared with several other of Trump’s administration picks.

Among other curious things, he also proposed that the state vet and filter news for journalists.

This notion of potentially taking control of news and media has also been hinted at by Trump himself, though more in regard to online media – despite the undeniable role online media has played in Trump’s popularity.

Trump said about a year ago; “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

That’s Donald Trump – the so-called ‘anti establishment’ candidate – speaking. Read ’em and weep.

But he of course also constantly complains about the mainstream media too – so quite what people’s information source should be in his view is unclear. Maybe it should just be Breitbart. Or Trump’s own Twitter account. Either way, these sentiments from both Trump and Pence should alarm not just traditional media outlets, but also online platforms, alternative media and bloggers.

Those aforementioned statements are particularly worrying in light of all the recent Trump-camp talk about ‘fake media’.

All of this is just scratching the surface of the problem. There’s more.

And the now failing mainstream media, despite its clear anti-Trump agenda and bias, isn’t actually making this stuff up: what has actually happened is that the Breitbart/Trump campaign has done such a job of undermining and discrediting mainstream journalism – and mainstream journalism has so frequently been shown to be pure propaganda and therefore has undermined itself – that its protestations against the potential New Order will fall on deaf ears.

It’s the MSM’s own fault – they almost deserve to be completely discredited: unfortunately, having one school of deceptive propaganda be replaced with another school of equally deceptive, but more dangerous, propaganda isn’t necessarily a good day for Truth or for journalism.

Meanwhile, the campaign mantra of ‘drain the swamp’ becomes laughable when you look at who it is that is supposedly going to be doing the draining. Michael Flynn? David Clarke? Steve Bannon?


Rudy Giuliani is always troubling too. Guliani, a man who comes from a mafia background – and a man who, like Mike Pence, looks like the Bad Guy in a thriller movie – is believed to have been part of the 9/11 inside job operation.

For that matter, concerning the number of Neo-Cons that Trump also appears to be gathering – including people linked to the 9/11 inside job and Iraq War – this is covered in the next post; but this also suggests things aren’t going to be rosy on the foreign policy front either, despite the fact that half of the appeal of the Trump campaign was supposedly its desire to focus on domestic politics and its rejection of previous foreign policy misadventures.

How anyone with half a brain could believe that a campaign being run by Goldman-Sachs people – essentially the people who caused the 2008 financial crisis – and now evidently also involving PNAC Neo-Cons could possibly be an ‘anti-establishment’ coup to ‘drain the swamp’ is beyond me.

Is there any good news?

I guess just that the inept criminal, Hillary, was kept from her presidential entitlement. And that the conflict with Russia may cool down – though even that isn’t absolutely certain in the long run.

As for the question of ‘dangerous or misunderstood’? Trump could conceivably be misunderstood in places; I’ll give him that much – and, again, I don’t see Trump himself as the problem. But those around him and those he has been bringing in to the equation can’t all be misunderstood.

Consider too that Trump may find himself beset by lawsuits or even impeachment proceedings at some stage or another – at which point some of these other, dubious figures in the administration will come even more to the fore as Trump himself is potentially rendered a lame duck.

That might actually be more dangerous than the idea of ‘President Trump’; but I tend to wonder, as I have before, if Trump himself is simply an expendable pawn in all of this, whose usefulness was simply to rally up mass support and hysteria in order to win the White House.

In the meantime, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit if the next administration pick is announced as Lex Luthor.

Posted in USAComments Off on TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part II: Dangerous or Just Misunderstood…?

TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part III: Foreign Policy, I$raHell & the Return of the Neo-Cons



To conclude this series of posts anticipating the imminent change of residents at the White House, it is worth paying mind to the issue of foreign policy.

It’s funny how quickly the Trump campaign mantra of “drain the swamp” really, properly stopped being a thing.

Not that I ever thought it was a thing anyway; but Trump’s ‘movement’ hasn’t even taken office yet and has already exposed itself as a cabal of extremely wealthy banking and business interests, hawkish figures, evangelicals and – to be frank – a couple of psychopaths for good measure.

To add to that, he also appears to have been acquiring more and more Bush era establishment figures to his incoming administration.

Which tends to undermine the popular perception or self-image of Trump as an isolationist not interested in foreign entanglements. In a piece from a couple of months ago at Mint Press News, Robbie Martin sceptically noted how many Bush era Neo-Cons Trump appears to be bringing into the fold.

Describing the group as part of the ‘clique of Bush-era neoconservative outliers who whipped Americans into a frenzied state of fear and anxiety after 9/11,’ he sets the stage, writing, ‘Now they’re back, lurking in and around Trump’s transition team.’

These include signatories to the Project for the New American Century, the infamous think tank co-founded by Robert Kagan and which laid out the Neo-Con agenda from 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq and beyond. In fact, politically and geopolitically, it could be argued that the world we’re living in right now is largely a consequence of PNAC – which essentially makes those people being involved in the Trump administration about as far away from ‘anti establishment’ as you could get.


We should’ve suspected as much just from how close 9/11 insider Rudy Guliani was and is to the Trump action (it is also interesting to note that the ‘9/11 mayor’ Guliani, just like Netanyahu, happened to be in London on the morning of 7/7: a remarkable coincidence that makes this seem like a much smaller world than it really is). Guliani (pictured above), of course, has been confirmed as part of the Trump administration.

John Bolton, when serving as Under-Secretary of State for arms control and international security, was considered a temperamental risk by George W. Bush and removed to a different position: but he is fine for Trump.

Bolton, by the way, openly called for the execution of whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

And James Woolsey (pictured below), another Neo-Con (and former CIA Director) and liar/conspirator, once said angrily that Edward Snowden should be hanged; as did Trump’s CIA man Mike Pompeo.


Woolsey was also, as it happens, the first American official – even before Rumsfeld or Cheney – to publicly engage in the bullshit pantomime of blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11.

Indeed, as Martin reminds us, arch Neo-Con and PNAC architect Paul Wolfowitz had hired Woolsey – behind the back of then Secretary of State, Colin Powell – to gather “evidence” to prove Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11.

These are all people involved in – both actually and ideologically – the 9/11 conspiracy, the Iraq War deceptions and the post-9/11 Patriot Act and subversion of the United States. It becomes fairly obvious that Trump and those around him were never against the ‘Establishment’: just specifically against the Democrat Establishment and particularly Obama.

Obama – though not an anti-establishment figure by any means – could, by reasonable logic, be considered to have had greater ‘anti-establishment’ credentials than Trump or anyone connected to Trump. Obama wanted to pull out of Iraq, avoid US troop deployments into foreign countries, refrained from direct or forced regime-change in Syria, and was essentially drawn into Libya by Hillary, the State Department, the CIA and France. He also persisted with the Iran Deal despite enormous opposition in Washington and the Senate (and from Israel), persisted with the Senate Torture Report despite outrage from Republicans, and had on multiple occasions asked Hillary Clinton to cease her Clinton Foundation activities.

I’m not trying to hold up Barack Obama as some great leader or rogue change-maker; simply highlighting that he could be cited as just as much, if not more, the ‘anti-establishment’ figure when he came into the presidency in the context of what had then been eight years of a Neo-Con regime that had included the 9/11 inside job, the Iraq War, and had been based on the Project For the New American Century charter.

Now, after an Obama administration that has been just as disastrous for the Middle East as the preceding Cheney/Rumsfeld administration, President-Elect Trump appears simply to be bringing back the pre-Obama and post-9/11 crowd.

This of course contradicts Trump’s campaign rhetoric about having opposed the Iraq invasion and having thought Gaddafi and Saddam should’ve both been left in control of their countries: it makes no sense to make those kinds of statements and then to start bringing in Neo-Cons who were involved in the post-9/11 Middle East agenda.

David Clarke, until recently reported to have been Trump’s likely pick for the leading role at the Department of Homeland Security (overseeing immigration enforcement, the Secret Service, the TSA, the Coast Guard and FEMA) is an eccentric, slightly unhinged-seeming, bulldog-type who has advocated for indefinite detention of suspects – illegal under US law. As noted in the previous post, Clarke has called for Americans who sympathise with terrorists or with causes that terrorists might have (even just on social media or verbally) to be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Bay.


With any hope being a dim memory now of President Obama being able to fulfil his promise to close the illegal prison on Cuban soil, Clarke has gone the other way entirely and said he wants to greatly expand Guantanamo Bay prison (against the wishes of the Cuban government and people), and allegedly has said he wants to sent up to 1 million people to Gitmo.

It seems that almost everyone involved in Trump’s camp – including Trump himself, who has said so openly – are massively pro torture and generally pro Guantanamo.

This is in stark contrast to Obama, who had wanted to close down Guantanamo for years, and to the Democrats in general, who went to lengths to expose and condemn the Bush/Neo-Con era torture practises.

This now is beginning to smell like the Cheney/Rumsfeld era Neo-Con regime on steroids. It would almost be funny; if it wasn’t also so ominous.

It is curious that, while pro-Trump commentators had been saying he would bring in some more establishment figures to counter-balance more controversial figures like Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs man Steve Bannon, the establishment figures Trump has gone for seem to be Bush-era Neo-Cons who’ve already got dirty track records. With the probable exception of retired marine general James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, virtually everyone involved in the Trump operation or being offered a role in it seems like a bad omen. Even Education Secretary Betsy Devos, as previously mentioned, is the sister of the founder of the Blackwater mercenary firm that earned its infamy in Iraq.

It is also worth considering that, although Trump himself expressed ambivalence about going after Assad or being involved in Syria, he has shown clear aggression towards Iran and China. In terms of Iran, he has been absolute about his desire to nullify Obama’s Iran Deal, signalling a policy that will bring his administration back into line with Netanyahu’s right-wing Israeli government – something that Obama certainly didn’t do.

The Israel connection to the Trump administration could prove significant: Trump has joined some of his people in suggesting support for Jerusalem being made into Israel’s capital – a policy that, if pursued with Netanyahu, could tilt the already-unstable Middle East into an even worse situation and will probably ignite or play into open conflict with Iran and Hezbollah (and therefore quite possibly Syria again, if you can imagine that).

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is known to have financed illegal nationalist Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories; and is expected to play a major role in the administration, having already played a big role in the campaign.


The Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs mastermind of the Trump campaign, Steve Bannon, is also a supporter of – and supported by – illegal Israeli settler groups. Bannon belongs to that strange school of current Far-Right groups in Europe and America that promote anti-Semitism towards Jews as a ‘race’ and yet staunchly supports the right-wing Israeli government and the settlement building.

Given the evangelical element in Trump’s camp – particularly through Vice President Mike Pence – the possibility of a Christian Zionist Crusade married to the PNAC/Neo-Con agenda becomes a not-unthinkable possibility: and this was something even the Bush administration didn’t engage in.

Netanyahu and Israeli nationalist right-wingers are celebrating the Trump administration’s arrival, after having to tolerate years of the more lukewarm Obama attitude towards Israel. The fact that we recently saw Obama and Kerry break with US/Israel norms and condemn illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories was more than curious: as was Trump’s extraordinarily ominous response to it – he literally put out a statement telling Israel to ‘stay strong’ and wait for January 20th, because everything would change then.

The Obama administration knows the extent to which the incoming Trump cabal and the right-wing government in Israel are linked: and so Obama decided to join the EU in condemning Israel in order to strike one last – admittedly tepid – blow to the Trump/Netanyahu agenda before it fully comes into play.

Obama and his administration of course should’ve been doing a lot more for a lot longer, instead of waiting to the last minute and then throwing out a minor condemnation. And we should remember that Hillary Clinton – unlike Obama – was also openly and entirely pro-Netanyahu and would’ve hardly been one to break formation with Israeli nationalist interests.

But it is also unlikely she would’ve been quite as rabidly and openly pro-Zionist and pro illegal settlement- building as Trump and his people are.


Where all of this goes in anyone’s guess. We live in uncertain, dangerous times.

The big plus in terms of Trump foreign policy would appear to be – as it always seemed to be – an improvement in US/Russia relations; which is certainly not what would’ve happened under a Hillary presidency.

However, Trump’s ability to sustain friendly relations with China is very much in question at this point. This is a danger that has been explored at length by John Pilger, with the suggestion that a war with China – which is actually a much more frightening prospect than even the feared war with Russia – could be on the near horizon.

What is clear, at any rate, is that this Trump era isn’t shaping up to be one of diminished foreign entanglements or even necessarily one of peace. And, again, if the Trump team had any interest in maintaining the ‘anti-establishment’ or ‘drain the swamp’ campaign pantomime, the last thing they would be doing is bring back old Neo-Cons into key positions.

Posted in USAComments Off on TRUMP’S White House In-Waiting, Part III: Foreign Policy, I$raHell & the Return of the Neo-Cons

Nazi Soldiers Open Fire On Homes In Southern Gaza


gaza-fence-soldiers-e1471134740984A Palestinian child was reportedly injured on Friday evening after being struck by Nazi bullet in Beit Lahiya in the north of the Gaza Strip after Nazi forces opened live fire at homes in the area.

According to medical sources, the six-year-old girl was injured in her stomach, and described her injury as moderate.

The child was taken to al-Shifa hospital in Gaza city and was later transferred to a hospital in the north of the besieged enclave.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi Soldiers Open Fire On Homes In Southern Gaza

British Fingerprints in Dirty Tricks Against Trump

Image result for MI6 LOGO

Britain’s divisive Brexit politics are playing out through the new US presidency of Donald Trump. It seems that a faction within the British political establishment which is opposed to Britain leaving the European Union has joined forces with American intelligence counterparts to hamper Trump’s new administration.

By hampering Trump, the pro-EU British faction would in turn achieve a blow against a possible bilateral trade deal emerging between the US and Britain. Such a bilateral trade deal is vital for post-Brexit Britain to survive outside of the EU. If emerging US-British trade relations were sabotaged by disenfranchising President Trump, then Britain would necessarily have to turn back to rejoining the European Union, which is precisely what a powerful British faction desires.

What unites the anti-Trump forces on both sides of the Atlantic is that they share an atlanticist, pro-NATO worldview, which underpins American hegemony over Europe and Anglo-American-dominated global finance. This atlanticist perspective is vehemently anti-Russian because an independent Russia under President Vladimir Putin is seen as an impediment to the US-led global order of Anglo-American dominance.

The atlanticists in the US and Britain are represented in part by the upper echelons of the intelligence-military apparatus, embodied by the American Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s Military Intelligence (Section) 6 (MI6).

Notably, incoming US President Donald Trump has expressed indifference towards NATO. This week he repeated comments in which he called the US-led military alliance «obsolete». Trump’s views are no doubt a cause of grave consternation among US-British atlanticists.

It is now emerging that British state intelligence services are involved much more deeply in the dirty tricks operation to smear Trump than might have been appreciated heretofore. The British involvement tends to validate the above atlanticist analysis.

The dirty tricks operation overseen by US intelligence agencies and willing news media outlets appears to be aimed at undermining Trump and, perhaps, even leading to his impeachment.

The former British MI6 agent, named as Christopher Steele, who authored the latest sexual allegations against Trump, was initially reported as working independently for US political parties. However, it now seems that Steele was not acting as an independent consultant to Trump’s political opponents during the US election, as media reports tended to indicate.

Britain’s Independent newspaper has lately reported that Steele’s so-called «Russian dossier» – which claimed that Trump was being blackmailed by the Kremlin over sex orgy tapes – was tacitly given official British endorsement.

That endorsement came in two ways. First, according to the Independent, former British ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Woods, reportedly gave assurances to US Senator John McCain that the dossier’s allegations of Russian blackmail against Trump were credible. Woods met with McCain at a security conference in Canada back in November. McCain then passed the allegations on to the American FBI – so «alarmed» was he by the British diplomat’s briefing.

The second way that Britain has endorsed the Russian dossier is the newly appointed head of MI6, Sir Alex Younger, is reported to have used the material produced by his former colleague, Christopher Steele, in preparing his first speech as head of the British intelligence service given in December at the agency’s headquarters in London. That amounts to an imprimatur from MI6 on the Russian dossier.

Thus, in two important signals from senior official British sources, the Russian dossier on Trump was elevated to a serious intelligence document, rather than being seen as cheap gossip.

Excerpts from the document published by US media last week make sensational claims about Trump engaging in orgies with prostitutes in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel while attending a Miss World contest in 2014. It is claimed that Russian secret services captured the alleged lewd activity on tape and will now be able to leverage this «kompromat» in order to blackmail Trump who becomes inaugurated this week as the 45th president of the United States.

Several informed analysts have dismissed the Russian dossier as an amateurish fake, pointing out its vague hearsay, factual errors and questionable format not typical of standard intelligence work. Also, both Donald Trump and the Kremlin have categorically rejected the claims as far-fetched nonsense.

While most US media did not publish the salacious details of Trump’s alleged trysts, and while they offered riders that the information was «not confirmed» and «unverifiable», nevertheless the gamut of news outlets gave wide coverage to the story which in turn directed public attention to internet versions of the «sensational» claims. So the US mainstream media certainly lent critical amplification, which gave the story a stamp of credibility.

US intelligence agencies, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA chief John Brennan, appended the two-page Russian dossier in their separate briefings to outgoing President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump last week. Those briefings were said to mainly focus on US intelligence claims that Russian state-sponsored hackers had carried out cyber attacks to influence the US election last November.

Therefore, US intelligence, their British counterparts and the mass media all played a concerted role to elevate low-grade gossip against Trump into a seemingly credible scandal.

Trump has been waging a war of words with the US intelligence agencies, snubbing them by cutting back on presidential briefings and rubbishing their claims of Russian hacking as «ridiculous». Recently, Trump appeared to shift towards accepting the US intel assessment that Russia had carried out cyber attacks. But he balked at any suggestion that the alleged hacking was a factor in why he won the election against Hillary Clinton.

At a news conference before the weekend, Trump turned up the heat on the US intelligence agencies by blaming them for leaking to the media their briefing to him on the notorious Russian dossier. Trump compared their tactics to that of «Nazi Germany». CIA chief John Brennan couldn’t contain his anger and told media that such a comparison was «outrageous».

Trump may have savaged the Russian blackmail allegations as «fake news». But there are indications that US and British intelligence – and their reliable media mouthpieces – are not giving up on their dirty tricks operation, which has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.

Pointedly, James Clapper, the outgoing US Director of National Intelligence, has said that the secret services have not arrived at a judgment as to whether the Russian blackmail claims are substantive or not. British state-owned BBC has also reported that CIA sources believe that Russian agents have multiple copies of «tapes of a sexual nature» allegedly involving Trump in separate orgies with prostitutes in Moscow and St Petersburg.

In other words this scandal, regardless of veracity, could run and run and run, with the intended effect of undermining Trump and crimping his policies, especially those aimed at normalizing US-Russia relations, as he has vowed to do. If enough scandal is generated, the allegations against Trump being a sexually depraved president compromised by Russian agents – a declared foreign enemy of the US – might even result in his impeachment from the White House on the grounds of treason.

Both the American and British intelligence services appear to be working together, facilitated by aligned news media, to bolster flimsy claims against Trump into allegations of apparent substance. The shadowy «deep state» organs in the US and Britain are doing this because they share a common atlanticist ideology which views Anglo-American dominance over the European Union as the basis for world order. Crucial to this architecture is NATO holding sway over Europe, which in turn relies on demonizing Russia as a «threat to European security».

Clamping down on Trump, either through impeachment or at least corrosive media smears, would serve to further the atlanticist agenda.

For a section of British power – UK-based global corporations and London finance – the prospect of a Brexit from the EU is deeply opposed. The Financial Times list of top UK-based companies were predominantly against leaving the EU ahead of last year’s referendum. Combined with the strategic atlanticist ideology of the military-intelligence apparatus there is a potent British desire to scupper the Trump presidency.

But, as it happens, the American and British picture is complicated by the fact that the British government of Prime Minister Theresa May is very much dependent on cooperation and goodwill from the Trump administration in order for post-Brexit Britain to survive in the world economy outside the EU.

The British government is committed to leaving the EU as determined by the popular referendum last June. To be fair to May’s government, it is deferring to the popular will on this issue. Premier May is even talking about a «hard Brexit» whereby, Britain does not have future access to the European single market. Fervent communications between Downing Street and the Trump transition team show that the British government views new bilateral trade deals with the US as vital for the future of Britain’s economy. And Trump has reciprocated this week by saying that Britain will be given top priority in the signing of new trade deals.

In this way, the British establishment’s divisions over Brexit – some for, some against – are a fortunate break for Trump. Because that will limit how much the British intelligence services can engage in dirty tricks against the president in league with their American counterparts. In short, the atlanticist desire to thwart Trump has lost its power to act malevolently in the aftermath of Britain’s Brexit.

That might also be another reason why Donald Trump has given such a welcoming view on the Brexit – as «a great thing». Perhaps, he knows that it strengthens his political position against deep state opponents who otherwise in a different era might have been strong enough to oust him.

Trump and Brexit potentially mean that the atlanticist sway over Europe is fading. And that’s good news for Russia.

Posted in USA, UKComments Off on British Fingerprints in Dirty Tricks Against Trump

Why Palestinian Children Throw Stones

By Jonathan Cook 

Forget the empty posturing of world leaders in Paris yesterday. This photo tells us what the Israel-Palestine “conflict” is really about.


Imagine for a second that the little boy – how old is he, eight, nine? – is your son, trying to adjust his keffiyeh because it keeps falling over his eyes and he can’t see anything. Imagine your small son surrounded by masked Israeli “soldiers”, or what looks more like a Jewish militia than an army. Imagine that the boy is likely soon to be bundled into the back of a military van and taken for interrogation without his parents or a lawyer present, or even knowing where he is. That he could end up beaten and tortured, as human rights groups have regularly documented.

Maybe you can’t imagine any of that because you, a responsible parent living in Europe or the United States, would never let your child out to throw stones.

Then you need to know more about the story behind this picture.

This photo was taken in Kfar Qaddum last month. The boy and his friends aren’t there to bait Israeli soldiers or indulge a bout of anti-semitism. Jews from the violent – and illegal – settlement of Kedumim have taken over their farm lands. Kedumim’s expansion has been further used to justify the army closing the access road in and out of Qaddum. The village is being choked off at the throat. In short, these villagers are being ethnically cleansed.

Parents living in such circumstances do not have the privilege of concealing from their children what is happening. Everyone in the village knows their community and its way of life are being extinguished. Israel is determined that they will leave so that the Jewish settlers next door can grab their land. Israel expects these villagers to join the rest of the aid-dependent Palestinian population in one of the ghettoised towns and cities in the bantustans of the West Bank.

Even little boys understand the stakes. And unlike your child, this one knows that, if he doesn’t resist, he will lose everything he holds dear.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Why Palestinian Children Throw Stones

There Is No Anti Semitism in Britain



By Gilad Atzmon 

In the end of October (2016) we learned from the British Jewish media that Police were called to University College London (UCL)  amid claims of common assault and verbal intimidation by “pro-Palestinian protestors” at an event with an Israeli speaker.

We had to wait another three months for a single honest Jew (Jerry Lewis of Hampstead Synagogue) to admit in front of the notorious ultra Zionist BOD, that the event at UCL was actually provoked by Jewish groups  that have nothing to do with the Jewish students community. At least one of those Jewish groups is funded by Israel according to Lewis. These groups invoke ‘hatred’ against Jews because this is how they justify their existence and sustain their funding.

Following the recent Al Jazeera expose,  the foreign office must expel the Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev. The police and the MI5 better look into Lewis’ claims.

For the full video:

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on There Is No Anti Semitism in Britain

Shoah’s pages


January 2017
« Dec   Feb »