Archive | April 9th, 2018

Dangerous Crossroads: Possibility Now for Nuclear War, Russia vs. U.S.? Credible Evidence. U.S Missile Attack against Syria Contemplated


Although Russia has warned the U.S. that another U.S. missile-assault against sovereign Syrian territory will be answered not only by Syria’s military but also by Russia’s, Andrew Korybko, who is an expert on geostrategy and especially on Russia’s strategic intentions, says that Russia would not follow through on that threat unless Russian soldiers get killed by the U.S. invasion. But, either way, nuclear war between the super-powers would be likely; and here is why:

The Russian statement, as published on April 8th at the site of Russian Television, was that any such U.S. invasion “would be ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and could lead to ‘dire consequences.’” Of course, if Russia, after such a statement, were to respond, to such an invasion by the U.S., with something less than “dire consequences,” then the U.S. invasion would have defeated Russia, in the Syrian battlefield, without so much as even having had any war there against Russian forces. This would, to put it mildly, be a watershed moment of Russia’s military capitulation to U.S. aggression against the Government of Syria — an ally of Russia, left unprotected in the lurch, when Russia’s assistance would have been the most needed. Also, since the U.N. would never authorize any such invasion, the U.S. would have destroyed there the U.N. itself, as being anything more than a talking-forum that’s backed up by nothing more than the whims of what then would incontestably be the lone superpower and the imperial master of the entire planet: the U.S. regime, which would then have shown (conspicuously displayed) that it can do anything anywhere and be unconcerned about any retaliatory consequences. Would the Russian people accept that outcome, their capitulation? If they do not, then would they accept the American dictators? If they do not, then would they accept their own elected Government? Or: would there become a second Russian revolution?

The full phrase that was used in the Russian Government’s original announcement was that they “warn that military intervention under flimsy pretexts fabrications regarding Syria, where, at the request of the legitimate Government are Russian servicemen, is absolutely unacceptable and could lead to the most severe consequences.” In that form, the warning could sound meaningless; but, that’s not the form in which the assertion was being broadcast to the global public. If the intention of the Russian Government there was to have some basis for alleging that Russia’s attempt to “warn” the U.S. was no real warning at all, then it would be mocked.

The implication of the warning as it had been stated in that original, was that only if there “are Russian servicemen” who become hit by the U.S. aggression against the sovereign Syrian Government, will it be the case that it “could lead to the most severe consequences.” If, however, “Russian servicemen” do become injured or, worse yet, killed, by the American invasion, how could Russia’s Government face its own people if it then failed to respond with “the most serious consequences”?

Korybko said that

“it’s unlikely that Russia will carry through on the conditional yet highly publicized and mostly misunderstood threat to shoot down any American missiles and/or target their launching pads (including ships), so Syria will probably have little choice but to finally follow Russia’s ‘suggestion’ of a ‘last-minute solution’ or face the wrathful American consequences for refusing.”

But what would happen if Syria does choose to stand firm? And what would happen if there “are Russian servicemen” who become injured or killed in that invasion? 

Perhaps the Russian Government wants to extricate itself from its role as Syria’s essential protector, but there seems to be little possibility that it could be done now, other than by jeopardizing its own standing not only internationally as an ally whose commitments can be trusted, but even among the Russian people who had elected it.

Consequently, “dire consequences,” or “the most severe consequences” to the U.S. invaders, would quite possibly result from that invasion; and, then, what step would the invader follow-up with? 

Likely would be a massed invasion by the U.S. military in conjunction with that of Israel, the Sauds, and whatever NATO members would want to be at the head of the line of vassals supplicating for favors afterward to the imperial master-regime in Washington. This would then clearly be likewise a war against both Russia and Iran, and perhaps China and North Korea would join it on Russia’s-Syria’s side. But, in any case, the likelihood of limiting this war to only the Syrian battlefield would then be very slim indeed; and the only question that would seriously remain would be: will the all-out nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia be initiated by a sudden blitz all-out nuclear invasion of Russia by the U.S., or, instead, by a sudden blitz all-out nuclear invasion of the U.S. by Russia? Which side will strike the first? That’s important, because the nuclear exchange will be over within only 30 minutes, at most. The first to strike will have obliterated many of the opposite side’s weapons (blocked them from being used), and this will be decisive in determining the ‘winner’ and the loser’.

Whichever side strikes the first will likeliest suffer the lesser damage of the two, even if the entire globe gets effectively destroyed as a consequence. In military terms, ‘victory’ always goes to whichever side suffers the less damage than the other; ‘defeat’ goes to the side that suffers the more damage. That’s all. This is the military, after all. And, so, even if there really would not be any significant history afterward, there still would have been a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’; and this seems now to be the chief question that is seriously open, at the present time: who will blitz-attack first?


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.


“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Dangerous Crossroads: Possibility Now for Nuclear War, Russia vs. U.S.? Credible Evidence. U.S Missile Attack against Syria Contemplated

America and Britain Provide the Fuel that Keeps the Engine of the Nazi Occupation Running


America and Britain Provide the Fuel that Keeps the Engine of the Israeli Occupation Running

The extremist government of Binyamin Netanyahu, (a politician under investigation for fraud and corruption), receives arms and money which total billions of dollars annually from the US, together with millions of pounds from the UK, which is the fuel that keeps the engine of the occupation running: the continuance of the blockade and the persecution of five million indigenous Arabs – both Muslim and Christian – who have been the majority people of the region continuously for over a thousand years.

Such support for the non-NATO, undeclared nuclear state of Israel directly violates UN Resolution 2334 that was passed without dissent by the Security Council on 23 December 2016.

That resolution states that Israel’s settlement activity constitutes a ‘flagrant violation’ of international law and has ‘no legal validity’. It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

To date, the demands of the UN Security Council backed by over 190 UN Member States have been ignored and treated with contempt by the government of Israel in the knowledge that Trump and May will continue arms supplies. It is an international disgrace that tragically devalues the authority of the United Nations to the detriment of the international community and the global movement for peace.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on America and Britain Provide the Fuel that Keeps the Engine of the Nazi Occupation Running

Gaza Protesters Met With Lethal Force


Thousands of Gazans marched to their border with the Nazi state of ‘Israel’ calling for an end to the more than 10-year blockade. Nazi soldiers used live ammunition and tear gas against the peaceful protesters, killing 17. Watch and share this video, created by our former intern, a New Story Leader, and his friend back home.Ambassador Husam Zomlot, the head of the Palestinian General Delegation to the United States, said in a statement issued Saturday, that the Nazi Occupation Forces indiscriminate murder of 17 peaceful demonstrators and the wounding of hundreds in Gaza, is morally repugnant and a crime against humanity.

“Our legitimate protest against Israeli military occupation, colonization and apartheid is granted in international law and must be protected by the international community.” Dr. Zomlot added that “the 70-year-old practice of Israel’s shoot-to-kill policy and dehumanization of the Palestinian people must end and Israeli criminals must be brought to justice.”

He added, “these atrocities deserve the strongest condemnation from the U.S. government and action to uphold international law.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Gaza Protesters Met With Lethal Force

Britain’s “Creative Clout”: Arms Sales and “Advice on Killing” in Yemen

David Cameron addresses the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester Getty Images

Today, I want to speak about the once-in-a-generation chance we have, together, to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity. (David Cameron. Speech on the European Court of Human Rights, 25th January 2012.)

Last June, speaking in his official residence, No 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech on business: “Britain has huge creative clout around the world …From Asia to America, they’re dancing to our music, watching our films and wearing our designers’ latest creations”, he trilled. He omitted to say “and dying under our bombs.”

In December, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein warned, regarding the Saudi led bombing of Yemen:

“I have observed with extreme concern the continuation of heavy shelling from the ground and the air in areas with high a concentration of civilians as well as the perpetuation of the destruction of civilian infrastructure – in particular hospitals and schools …”

Yemen’s Ministry of Education’s data shows more than 1,000 schools inoperable, 254 completely destroyed, 608 partially damaged and 421 being used as shelter by those displaced by the Saudi led, UK assisted onslaught. Some destroyed schools were attacked repeatedly thus they were not errors, or that obscene US dreamt up whitewash for atrocities: “collateral damage.” (1) The US also supplies “intelligence” for air strikes.

Three Medecines Sans Frontier medical facilities have also been destroyed and this month the Noor Center for the Blind was hit – twice. Abdullah Ahmed Banyan, a patient said:

“People with disabilities are being struck in their residence. Around 1.30 am, two missiles hit the live-in quarters of a home for the blind. Can you imagine they are striking the blind? What is this criminality? Why? Is it the blind that are fighting the war?” (2)

As in Afghanistan and Iraq, those other favourite targets of the US, UK and their allies, wedding parties, have again become victims. One gathering in two large tents bombed last September, killed thirty eight people, another wedding celebration attack reportedly killed one hundred and thirty. In the country’s capitol, Sanaa a wedding party hall was also destroyed – what is this criminal obsession about weddings? The Chamber of Commerce was also destroyed.

Definition of war crimes include: “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected … “ and: “Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives.” (3)

None of which deters the UK from joining in. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has confirmed to Parliament that UK troops are helping the Saudi military identify targets. He said there had been “no evidence of deliberate breach of international humanitarian law.” (4) He clearly has not bothered to do the research.

There is worse. Apart from aiding and abetting potential war crimes, the British government is profiting in eye watering sums from the human misery, deaths and destruction with arms sales to Saudi Arabia increasing by 11,000 percent in one three month period alone.

In spite of the United Nations stating that civilians are being disproportionately killed in Yemen, in one just three month period last year arms sales rose to over one Billion £s, up from a mere nine million £s from the previous three months. (5)

The exact figure for British arms export licences from July to September 2015 was £1,066,216,510 in so-called “ML4” export licences, which relate to bombs, missiles, rockets, and components of those items.

Angus Robertson, Leader of the Scottish National Party in Parliament is outraged, accusing during Prime Minister’s Questions this week, that:

Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen, including a large number by the Saudi air force and they’ve done that using British-built planes, with pilots who are trained by British instructors, dropping British-made bombs, who are coordinated by the Saudis in the presence of British military advisors.

Isn’t it time for the Prime Minister to admit that Britain is effectively taking part in a war in Yemen that is costing thousands of civilians lives and he has not sought parliamentary approval to do this? (Independent, 20th January 2016. Emphasis added.)

Allan Hogarth for Amnesty International again confirmed that British advisors are: “ … actually located in the Saudi control room.”

David Cameron waffled inadequately with dismissive arrogance and supreme economy with the truth, that Britain was insuring that: “ … the norms of humanitarian law” were obeyed. Comments redundant.

Two days ago at Yemen’s Ras Isa port on the Red Sea, an oil storage facility was hit killing five people. The attack destroyed the part of the compound used to load tanker trucks with refined products for domestic distribution. So now a people, many of whom, the UN has warned are facing near starvation, will face further shortages to cook what little they have and to heat

So much for Cameron’s vow to: “improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity.”







Posted in UK, YemenComments Off on Britain’s “Creative Clout”: Arms Sales and “Advice on Killing” in Yemen

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups


Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows about Mueller’s past.

What some people don’t know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups. These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11th, 2001. Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion.

Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James “Whitey” Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe,

“Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.”

Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller’s persistent defense of this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in Libya.

With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of the bombing—a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency project called COREA. As TIME magazine reported, the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives “targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage-rescue team.” This would prevent disclosure of what McKee’s team had learned. That theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the crash, took McKee’s briefcase, and returned it empty.

Mueller’s diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government’s approach to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the Washington Post that there was an “appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up.” Later he denied the cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.

But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that BCCI was used by the CIA to operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives. The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal, the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller’s obstruction of Morgenthau, the Wall Street Journal reported that,

“documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other federal agencies from cooperating.”

Describing Mueller’s role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter Chris Floyd wrote:

“When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI’s operations in the late Eighties, President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been unaccountably ‘botched’–witnesses went missing, CIA records got ‘lost,’… Lower-ranking prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to ‘lay off.’ Most of the big BCCI players went unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller, of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W. Bush.”

Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect Louis Freeh was FBI Director in the lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like Rudy Giuliani, whose career paralleled Mueller’s closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail, and suggested that they exercised “extraordinary secrecy” and “discipline never broke down.” In fact, “ring leader” Mohamed Atta went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly convenient for the FBI.

Meanwhile, Mueller’s FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed. Under Mueller, leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.

As FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley later wrote with regard to 9/11,

“Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general) presided over a cover-up.”

Kristen Breitweiser, one of the four 9/11 widows known as the “Jersey Girls,” stated something similar:

“Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry’s investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry’s investigation.”

Supporting Breitweiser’s claims, public watchdog agency Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller’s role in the cover-up.

“Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that the lies were approved by Mueller.”

Mueller’s FBI went on to “botch” the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller’s expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.

With knowledge of Mueller’s past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.

Posted in USAComments Off on Former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

Persecution of Whistleblowers Makes a Mockery of Magna Carta

Winston Churchill is remembered as Britain’s defiant war leader. Few recall his later attempts to defend “the Great Charter” that is Magna Carta.

Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous British Prime Minister of all, remembered best for standing alone against the Nazis as they conquered swathes of Europe in 1940.

Even Churchill’s biggest detractors could not deny his courage in fighting against daunting odds. In July 1940, during “Britain’s darkest hour”, he urged his countrymen to “strive without failing in faith or in duty, and the dark curse of Hitler will be lifted from our age”.

Churchill is widely respected in the English-speaking world, with past US President George W. Bushfamously placing a bust of Britain’s Prime Minister in the Oval Office. This despite Churchill having previously said,

“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else”.

Winston Churchill

Yet few recall the former Conservative leader for what he later became in the post-World War II period – an outspoken defender of civil liberties and freedom of expression. Churchill repeatedly defended “the Great Charter”, Magna Carta, as he reflected on the devastation wrought by two global conflicts, along with countless other wars.

In 1956, Churchill said,

“Here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it”.

Considering the venerable bust, President Bush must have viewed Churchill with esteem, but was also seemingly unaware of the latter having said,

“The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious”.

Bush violated these words with the practices he supported at Guantanamo Bay military prison, opened under his command in 2002.

In the 21st century the “supreme law” defended by Churchill has indeed been torn to pieces. And yet, perhaps this degradation is not altogether surprising. In 2012 during a television interview, the subject of Magna Carta was raised with Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron, by his American hostDavid Letterman.

As the TV cameras rolled, Cameron did not know what the Latin title “Magna Carta” (Great Charter) translated to in English. When further pressed the British leader could not even summon a guess, before eventually being told the answer by a bemused Letterman – while millions of viewers looked on.

In another question, Cameron incorrectly answered as to who composed “Rule, Britannia!”, a musical piece for generations attached to the Royal Navy and further used by the British Army. He replied to Letterman,

“You’re testing me there. Elgar, I’ll go for” [Thomas Arne composed it].

Cameron was educated at Eton College in his teens, one of the most prestigious schools in the world.

The lack of awareness of Magna Carta betrays a worrying reality, as citizens like Julian Assangeremain in virtual imprisonment – and in flagrant infringement of their rights of freedom. Much of Assange’s enforced detention in the Ecuadorian embassy, from June 2012 to present, occurred during Cameron’s time as leader.

In 2016, a United Nations panel ruled that his ongoing detention was “unlawful”, shedding further light on the authorities’ desecration of the very essence of Magna Carta. The UN working group called on Britain and Sweden to end the WikiLeaks founder’s “deprivation of liberty”.

Undeterred, Cameron described the UN verdict as “a ridiculous decision”, urging Assange “to end this whole sorry saga”, while saying he should “stand trial in Sweden, a country with a fair reputation for justice”. Sweden’s sex assault charges referred to were completely dropped a few months later, after a seven-year legal wrangle. Prosecutors admitted, “all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted”, a decision that must have dismayed the recently departed British leader.

It appears Cameron again neglected the values set forth by the Great Charter, once a cornerstone of English law, and the inspiration behind the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. A passage from it states,

“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed, or outlawed or exiled, or in any way destroyed…”, and that, “to no man will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice”.

The Great Charter was drafted and signed alongside the River Thames in 1215, just over 20 miles from central London – the location of Assange’s indefinite confinement in the embassy.

Again the words of Cameron’s predecessor, Churchill, resonate in the background,

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world… through Magna Carta”.

Assange’s compatriot Gerard Brennan, the former Chief Justice of Australia, said that

“Magna Carta has lived in the hearts and minds of our people. It is an incantation of the spirit of liberty”.

The renowned Australian journalist John Pilger lamented that,

“Freedom is being lost in Britain. The land of Magna Carta is now the land of secret gagging orders, secret trials and imprisonment”.

Pilger later reflected, “as the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta approaches [in 2015], hard-won rights such as the presumption of innocence are buried beneath the tentacular might of corporate systems”.

Assange’s plight has long been viewed negatively by the majority of those from his homeland of Australia. Only one in four Australians say he should be prosecuted for “releasing the leaked cables”, while almost 60% believe he would “not receive a fair trial in the US”.

Assange and other whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden have been denied the “spirit of liberty” espoused by the former Chief Justice of Australia. Their crimes have been to expose state misdemeanors, reveal the truth, and thereby serve the public interest. It cannot be denied as Churchill elaborated that,

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is”.

Posted in UKComments Off on Persecution of Whistleblowers Makes a Mockery of Magna Carta

Trump’s China Trade War Has Deeper Agenda


Washington’s recent trade actions are aimed foursquare at China, not at the EU or other trade partners. However, the aim is not to reduce China exports to the US. The aim is a fundamental opening up of the Chinese economy to the Washington free market liberal reforms that China has steadfastly resisted. In a sense, it is a new version of the Anglo-American Opium Wars of the 1840s using other means to open China. China’s vision of its economic sovereignty is at direct odds with that of Washington. Because of this Xi Jinping is not about to cave in and Trump’s latest threats of escalation risk a major destabilization of the precarious global financial system.

There exist basically two contradictory visions of the Chinese future economy and this is what the Washington attacks are about. One is to force China to open its economy on terms dictated by the West, especially by US multinationals. The second vision is one put in place during the first term of Xi Jinping aiming to transform China’s huge economy into the world’s leading technology nation over the coming seven years, a tall order but one Beijing takes deadly serious. It is also integral to the vision behind Xi Jinping’s Belt Road Initiative.

China 2030…

Washington is determined to push China to adhere to a document it produced in 2013 together with the World Bank during the time Robert Zoellick headed it. The document, China 2030, calls for China to complete radical market reforms. It states,

“It is imperative that China … develop a market-based system with sound foundations…while a vigorous private sector plays the more important role of driving growth.”

The report, cosigned then by the Chinese Finance Ministry and State Council, further declared that

“China’s strategy toward the world will need to be governed by a few key principles: open markets, fairness and equity, mutually beneficial cooperation, global inclusiveness and sustainable development.”

Referring to the current Washington strategy of imposing import tariffs on billions worth of Chinese products, Michael Pillsbury, a neo-conservative former Trump Transition adviser and China expert told the South China Morning Post,

“The endgame is that China complete its deep reforms of its economy as laid out in the joint report,” referring to the World Bank Zoellick China 2030 report.

…Versus Made in China: 2025

Notable about that report is that it was released at the very start of Xi Jinping’s presidency and can be said to be a product of an earlier China. Soon into office, Xi unveiled what is now his Belt Road Initiative, the ambitious multi-trillion industrial infrastructure project for high-speed rails and deep water ports that would create an integrated economic space across Eurasia including Russia, South Asia, the Middle East and parts of east Africa. Two years after Xi Jinping unveiled his new Economic Silk Road as it was initially called, his government released a quite different national economic strategy document to that of the World Bank. It is titled China 2025: Made in China.

The document calls for China to emerge from its initial stage as an economy assembling technologies for Apple or GM under license, to become self-sufficient in its own technology. The dramatic success of China mobile phone company Huawei to rival Apple or Samsung is a case in point. China 2025 is a strategy to support the development, much as was done in Germany after 1871 with “Made in Germany.” In the space of thirty years German manufactures went from a position of low quality to one of the highest quality standards. The Chinese are well aware of this model.

The China sanctions are being drawn up by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR first report, some 200 pages, explicitly goes after what it calls China’s unfair trade practices, accusing her of disregard for intellectual property rights, discrimination against foreign firms, and use of preferential industrial policies to “unfairly” bolster Chinese firms. That USTR report by name cites Made in China: 2025 as the offending strategy Trump tariffs aim to change.

China 2025 is the current blueprint to turn China into a world-class high-technology economy, exporting its own high-speed rail technology, aircraft, electric vehicles, robotics, AI technologies and countless other leading-edge technologies. It is in certain ways modelled on the 1950-1980 South Korea model in which the country moves in stages from labor-intensive industries and climb the value-added chain to high-tech industries with necessary state guidance. China, already facing the beginnings of a demographic imbalance knows she must develop this new industrial base model or face economic stagnation as it loses competitiveness. It’s about going from dependence on foreign technology and investments to becoming independent in key areas. Much of China 2025 is based on China’s careful study of the German “Industry 4.0” which seeks to marry German industrial production with the digital age. China:2025 seeks to achieve “self-sufficiency” through technology substitution, becoming a “manufacturing superpower” globally in critical high-tech industries.

“…stab at the heart of the snake”

The stakes in this latest confrontation from Washington are far too high to expect Xi Jinping to back down to US pressure and open its economy according to Washington demands. That would not only jeopardize China’s economic strategy. It would also cause Xi Jinping to seriously lose face, something he is not inclined to do. Headlines in recent Communist Party state media indicate the mood. The lead story in Peoples’ Daily declares,

“Bravely unsheathe the sword, have the courage to oppose, stab at the heart of the snake…” It continues, “a trade war will hurt America’s low-income consumers, industrial workers, and farmers…the main supporters of Trump.”

In effect, Washington and the latest trade salvos are intended to tell China to keep its place in the US-version of a globalized liberal world where the state is not allowed to play any significant role, one where decisive power is held by a multinational corporate elite. Xi Jinping, having just consolidated his position with no restrictions on his term and consolidating his role as no previous Chinese leader since Mao, is not about to revert to what China sees as bowing to foreign pressures on its economic sovereignty. Privately, as I have confirmed in numerous discussions in China in the years since the 2008 financial crisis, China views the United States as a declining hegemon, much like the British Empire after 1873. It is determined to prepare a multi-polar alternative to the post-1990 US “sole superpower.” Its close recent bonds with Russia include preparing gold-backed currencies, alternatives to the Western SWIFT, military defenses against any potential US threat in the South China Sea or elsewhere. Notable in this light the first trip abroad of new China Defense Minister Wei Fenghe was to meet his Russian counterpart and signal the close ties of the two Eurasian powers to Washington. The Chinese view the US as a former industrial power whose debt is out of control and whose “free market” model has manifestly failed America, let alone the world.

An April 3 editorial in the official Beijing Global Times suggests China has no intent to back down or revert to the World Bank agenda. It declares,

“Washington wanted to demonstrate its authority to the world, but unfortunately it gambled badly. The entire US elites have overestimated the strength and execution.” The editorial continues, “There is no way for the US to rebuild the hegemony that elites in Washington picture. As globalization and democracy have dented the foundation for that hegemony, the US lacks the strength, will and internal unity needed. In fact, the US has found it difficult to subdue Iran and North Korea, not to mention major countries like China. Washington cannot rule the world as an empire.”

China’s execution of its ambitious Belt Road Initiative has not been to date without mistakes. It’s the most far-reaching project in perhaps all world history to cooperate economically across more than 60 nations and cultures. It appears to be learning from mistakes and correcting them as the work develops. So far Washington has responded to direct invitations to participate by slamming the door and now imposing severe trade tariff sanctions to try to force China to back off from its state model of industrial policy.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this will not end in any victory for Trump or the US economy. The reaction of the bloated US stock markets to recent escalations suggest he risks popping the greatest speculative bubble in US stock market history, something that would trigger a financial crisis far worse than 2008. All of which suggests the old saying, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Trump has decided to launch not a trade war but a confrontation between Washington’s version of a US-run globalized economy versus China’s vision of national sovereign economic development. Today we see an increasing divide opening between nations such as China, Russia, Iran and several European countries such as Hungary or Austria who realize that the agenda of US-riven globalization spells disaster for their future. This divergence is the most significant tectonic fault line in world geopolitics and will define whether the world descends into a new depression or develops a model for growth and expansion centered around the infrastructure of China and Russia Eurasian cooperation.

The US economy is in no shape to win such a confrontation, nor will Xi Jinping back down. This could get very nasty. China is responding very carefully and in measured moves.

The latest Pentagon strategic policy document, 2018 National Defense Strategy, explicitly names China and Russia as the main threats to US “national security,” and accuses China of “predatory economics” (sic), of using to their advantage economic policies that use the rules of the system to advantage, as if the US didn’t. If Trump really escalates, China is clearly ready to do whatever necessary, even with economic pain, to defend its economic model, as defined in China: 2025.

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on Trump’s China Trade War Has Deeper Agenda

Emotional Propaganda 101: Chemical Attack in Syria Appears to be a False Flag to Justify Regime Change


The alleged chemical attack in Syria is a blatant display of how emotional propaganda is used to try and pull at the heartstrings of the general public in order to garner support for a military attack on Syria by the US and her allies.

Unless you are sociopathic, watching videos of children in distress who have allegedly been struck by a chemical agent (in an incident where women and children have also allegedly died) is going to upset you, yet it must be remembered that these videos are being used as propaganda instruments, intended to elicit an emotional response.

Whether these videos are authentic or not will need to be investigated, but even if this is a genuine incident, and innocent people have tragically died, why is the Syrian government immediately blamed? We know that there is evidence that militant opposition groups have used chemical weapons in Syria previously, yet this is never highlighted by much of the media in their reports of this latest incident.

Russian MOD Previously Warned of Chemical Weapons False Flag Attack

Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry warned that the US was training militants in Syria to stage a chemical weapons false flag attack as a basis for the US to launch airstrikes against the Syrian government:

We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to blame the government forces. The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced the fresh allegations against the Syrian government as “fake news,” stating that these reports are just the latest installment in a “continuous series of fake news [reports] about the use of chlorine and other chemical agents by government forces.” The Syrian government has stated that “allegations of chemical use have become an unconvincing broken record.”

Trump Pushes Phony Narrative

In a series of tweets, US President Donald Trump pushed the narrative that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged attack:

Donald J. Trump


Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price…

Donald J. Trump


….to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!

Donald J. Trump


If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

How can Trump be so sure that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack? To my knowledge, no serious investigation has taken place into the incident thus far.

Are we also just meant to believe that it is merely a coincidence that John Bolton, the war hawk and neoconservative, is set to formally begin his role tomorrow (April 9th) as Trump’s new National Security Adviser. Even after the horror of the Iraq war that caused widespread death, destruction and destabilization, Bolton has repeatedly defended the war and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, believing that the war was a great accomplishment that achieved many US strategic objectives in the region.

Logic alone will tell you that the latest allegations against the Syrian government are based on lies, distortion and propaganda. The whole narrative makes absolutely no sense. In what way does this incident serve Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government? Why would Assad, a man who has survived in power after seven years of incessant demonization coupled with foreign-backed warfare, order a chemical weapons attack when he knows that the enemies of Syria will jump on this as a justification for military operations aimed at regime change? Assad may be many things, but he is not suicidal.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Emotional Propaganda 101: Chemical Attack in Syria Appears to be a False Flag to Justify Regime Change

Nazi Terror-Bombing of Syrian Airbase Follows False Flag Chemical Weapons Incident

US or Israel Terror-Bombing of Syrian Airbase Follows False Flag Chemical Weapons Incident


(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at

In the wake of accusing Syria of using CWs in Douma, Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the allegation “fake news,” the latest “fabricated information,” adding:

“The goal of these false speculations, which are not substantiated by any facts, is to cover up terrorists and irreconcilable radical opposition, which opposes political settlement, and to simultaneously try to justify potential external military strikes.”

“It is necessary to once again caution that military intervention under false and fabricated pretexts in Syria, where the Russian servicemen stay at the request of the legitimate government, is absolutely unacceptable and may trigger the gravest consequences.”

Head of Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria Gen. Yuri Yevtushenko also refuted reports of CWs used in Douma, calling them fake news.

According to Syrian Arab Red Crescent Dr. Seif Aldin Hobia and other organization medical staff, no evidence suggests use of CWs in Douma. Reports suggesting otherwise are false.

Overnight Monday, Syria’s Homs province T-4 airbase was terror-bombed. According to AMN news,

“(a) large number of Syrian military personnel were killed or wounded this morning after several missiles struck the” base, citing a Syrian army source.

The attack was likely either carried out by the Pentagon or Israel. Syria’s army source believes the latter, AMN saying “20 missiles were fired from the Lebanese border.” The IDF launched earlier attacks on Syria from Lebanese airspace.

At least 8 incoming missiles were intercepted and destroyed overnight. Israel almost never admits responsibility for these type attacks.

Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen television said (US-supported) ISIS terrorists attacked Sebaa-Bair in Homs province following the T-4 airbase terror-bombing – their fighters repelled.

Al-Mayadeen reported an Israeli reconnaissance plane overflying Syria’s T-4 airbase when the attack occurred.

Missiles also may have been fired from the Mediterranean Sea through Lebanese airspace toward their target – by US and/or Israeli warships.

The false flag Douma incident is the latest example of escalating conflict in Syria. Washington, Israel and their rogue allies reject diplomatic resolution.

Incidents like Douma suggest more of the same coming, anti-Syria hysteria fueled by inflammatory Trump tweets, similar neocon remarks, and Western media reports, backing the official narrative.

On Monday, John Bolton succeeds HR McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor.

On February 7, he tweeted:

“It should surprise no one that the Syrian government continues to develop new chemical weapons.”

“(Assad) has a record of killing (his) own people and the international community hasn’t done enough to deter this continuing behavior” – a bald-faced lie.

It doesn’t matter. With him as perhaps Trump’s most trusted geopolitical advisor, a lunatic fringe extremist, the worst ahead is likely in Syria and elsewhere.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Nazi Terror-Bombing of Syrian Airbase Follows False Flag Chemical Weapons Incident

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and President Trump’s Blatant Bigotry against Immigrants


“You can’t come into court to espouse a position that is heartless.”
– Senior US District Judge Nichlas G. Garaufis
US District Court for Eastern District of New York
September 26, 2017

Lawyers in all sorts of courts argue heartless positions every day without fear of reprimand from a judge, who may also be heartless. The admonition from Judge Garaufis is an anomaly filled with hope, not least because he was admonishing the Trump administration for its heartless immigration policy. Specifically, the judge was chiding lawyers from the US Department of Justice for the government’s rigid unwillingness to adjust their schedule ending the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the program designed to provide justice to some 800,000 immigrants who were brought to the US as children and have grown up here to be as American as anyone else. Judge Garaufis pointed out that the government’s heartless action affected more than just the 800,000 young people, but also their families, employers, and communities.

As soon as the Trump administration announced its plan to end DACA, its defenders took the government to federal court. The National Immigration Law Center, attorneys general of sixteen states (including New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, California, and Vermont), and other plaintiffs sued the US to prevent the government from ending DACA. The National Immigration Law Center issued a statement September 5, condemning the administration’s attack on DACA:

This is a defining moment for our country. We are being called upon to choose which side of history we are on: Are we going to stand with young people who have grown up in our country and are striving to achieve their dreams? Or are we going to allow policymakers to erect barriers that block youth from contributing their best to this country, which is their home? … [Trump’s decision] is a morally bankrupt choice.”

In the courts it was a different story after the preliminary procedural activity. On January 9 (Nixon’s birthday) US District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction requiring the US to leave its DACA program in place until the issue had been fully litigated. On February 12, Judge Garaufis in Brooklyn issued a second nationwide injunction complementing the first. In response to the government’s objections, the judge wrote in his 55-page decision:

… the court finds that a nationwide injunction is warranted in these cases. First, it is hard to conceive of how the court would craft a narrower injunction that would adequately protect Plaintiffs’ interests. Plaintiffs include not only several individuals and a nonprofit organization, but also sixteen states and the District of Columbia…. Furthermore, there is a strong federal interest in the uniformity of federal immigration law…. Because the decision to rescind the DACA program has a “systemwide impact,” the court will preliminarily impose a “systemwide remedy.”

In that same opinion, preventing the Trump administration from carrying out mass deportations under DACA, the judge observed that:

“One might reasonably infer that a candidate who makes overtly bigoted statements on the campaign trail might be more likely to engage in similarly bigoted action in office.”

Before the Brooklyn court issued its injunction, the US had appealed the California injunction to the Supreme Court. When two federal district courts disagree, the Supreme is more likely to intervene to settle the differences. Here, two federal courts were in agreement. On February 26, the Supreme Court declined to hear the DACA case, allowing it to proceed in district court and, as needed, federal appellate court. The Supreme Court made no ruling or comment on the merits of the DACA case. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves DACA in place as the legal process proceeds, perhaps until it eventually reaches the Supreme Court on appeal at some unknown date in the future.

On March 29, in Brooklyn federal court, Judge Garaufis ruled against a US motion to dismiss the case. He rejected the US Justice Department argument that, just because the president repeatedly makes racially and culturally bigoted remarks – like calling Mexicans thugs, animals, and bad hombres – that doesn’t prove his actions against minorities are based on his bigotry.

Ruling that the suit against the government’s immigration plans, Batalla Vidal v. Baran, can go forward, Judge Nicholas Garaufis wrote:

“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that the DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] rescission was substantially motivated by unlawful discriminatory purpose.”

Or to put it in lay terms, the immigrant Dreamers, people who were brought here as children and have grown up as American as you or I, were and very likely still are targets of the president’s vitriolic hatred expressed at the start of his campaign when he called all Mexican immigrants criminals, drug dealers, rapists, and “some good people.”

Rejecting the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Garaufis wrote dryly:

“Although the use of racial slurs, epithets, or other racially charged language does not violate equal protection per se, it can be evidence that official action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory purposes.”

Again, in lay terms that means that when a known bigot does something obviously bigoted, then perhaps his bigoted action is derived from his expressed bigotry. Just maybe.

Judge Garaufis’s ruling should allow the case to go to trial and be determined by the evidence. As the judge wrote:

“The court does not see why it must or should bury its head in the sand when faced with overt expressions of prejudice. The court is aware of no authority holding that this rule does not apply simply because the speaker is, or is running to be, the President of the United States.”

Do we really want to be the kind of country needs its courts to enforce common human decency? That’s the kind of country America seems to be these days, and it’s taken a good deal of time to get here. At a time when the Congress is filled with quisling Republicans and feckless Democrats, it appears as a slightly hopeful sign when some courts put at least some check on the president’s cruel destructiveness. The people affected by DACA are very different from our president, not least because they were not born into a rich family of practicing racists. The president’s decidedly un-Christian burst of twitter spittle over Easter weekend offered no hope. “NO MORE DACA DEAL,” he spluttered all in caps before going on to claim a fever-dream “caravan” of immigrants swarming across the border was somehow true (along with others like “DACA is dead because the Democrats didn’t care or act, and now everyone wants to get onto the DACA bandwagon… No longer works. Must build Wall and secure our borders with proper Border legislation. Democrats want No Borders, hence drugs and crime!”).

Bigotry is soul-destroying for everyone, as our bigot-in-chief in the White House demonstrates almost daily. To be a decent nation within the norms of common decency and the intent of the US Constitution, we must resist and reject bigotry in all its forms. But for hope to be realized, a lot more of us need to bring the callous politics of bipartisan cruelty to an end. There may or may not be light at the end of the tunnel for any of us. There is a hint of light at the end of the tunnel for DACA, but there may only be the Supreme Court at the end of the tunnel, a court where many parties have pleaded positions that are heartless and the court has affirmed their heartlessness.

Posted in USAComments Off on DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and President Trump’s Blatant Bigotry against Immigrants

Shoah’s pages


April 2018
« Mar   May »