Archive | July 4th, 2018

Grassroots Activists: “Abolish ICE” Means Disband, Not Reform the Agency

NOVANEWS

After weeks of controversy over the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrant and migrant families, the call to “abolish” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is generating plenty of headlines, but it did not go mainstream overnight.

Over the weekend, “Abolish ICE” was heard in protest chants and scrawled on banners across the country as thousands of people took to the streets to rally against the separation and incarceration of migrant families. Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who rocketed into the spotlight after beating an establishment Democrat in a New York City congressional primary, famously ran on a platform that included abolishing ICE. Democratic stars like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand are embracing the idea, at least in name, and progressives in the House are reportedly crafting legislation that would end ICE’s role in immigration enforcement after a commission identifies an “alternative.”

Now, Democrats are wringing their hands over the proposal to disband ICE, worried that it may be too divisive for undecided midterm voters. The right wing smells blood, with President Trump repeating racist falsehoods about criminal gangs, and outlets like Fox News gleefully reporting that the Democratic Party is fracturing over an issue once constrained to its left flank. Liberals have been quick to assure the publicthat “Abolish ICE” really means reforming immigration enforcement, rather than a call to end the mass criminalization of immigrant communities altogether.

However, the “Abolish ICE” slogan is not new, nor is it a position crafted by Democratic strategists and policy wonks. As immigrants’ rights activists Tania Unzueta, Maru Mora-Villalpando and Angélica Cházaro recently pointed out at Medium, a “motley crew of undocumented people, women of color, queers, and grassroots organizers” promoted an abolitionist framework around immigration by demanding “not one more deportation” or #Not1More during the Obama administration, setting the stage for the current moment. For those dedicated to ending mass incarceration, “Abolish ICE” is not just a protest slogan or a half-baked, pie-in-the-sky proposal. Mijente, a leading Latinx racial justice organization, just released a full policy platform for overhauling the immigration system that explains how and why ICE should be disbanded.

Angélica Cházaro is an assistant professor of law at the University of Washington and a member of Mijente and Northwest Detention Center Resistance. On Monday, Truthout asked Cházaro about the current debate over #AbolishICE and the abolitionist roots of a slogan that is rapidly changing the mainstream political landscape. Meanwhile, her fellow activists were busy participating in a direct action demonstration against detention and deportations in San Diego.

Truthout: How long have activists demanded that ICE be abolished? Is this because immigrants and people of color have long been disproportionately criminalized and incarcerated?

Angélica Cházaro: Activists have been protesting ICE since the agency’s birth in the post-9/11 moment of nationalist, Islamophobic panic. The record numbers of deportations under the Obama years led many groups, including those that took up the mantle of #Not1More, to call for a moratorium on deportations and for ICE to be dismantled. These groups understood that the way forward wasn’t through continuing to push stalled out Comprehensive Immigration Reform efforts, but through a grassroots movement to end ICE, led by those most impacted by ICE’s targeting of communities of color. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has joined our list of targets, as [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions uses every tool at his disposal to continue to criminalize and imprison immigrants and other people of color.

While President Trump and the right-wing media use “Abolish ICE” to attack Democrats as “lawless radicals” who are deeply divided on immigration, Democrats are debating the idea, and some are basically arguing that “Abolish ICE” actually means “reform ICE.” Considering the harm ICE has caused, can the agency be “reformed?” Or do we need to rethink the entire immigration system and the militarized border?

One of the biggest dangers of this time is that the call to “Abolish ICE” will become a call to reform the agency — to create a system of “humane” detentions and deportations. For those actually facing detention and deportation, there is no “humane” way to be caged or exiled. The call to “Abolish ICE” is a call to completely restructure the US’s approach to the social crisis of migration away from the current criminalized and militarized approach.

The slogan “Abolish ICE” has been around since the Obama administration. Under Trump, it’s going mainstream. Is this a good example of how grassroots movements can push the political conversation forward with demands considered too “radical” by some reformers?

Grassroots movements, often working with very few resources, are the ones pushing the most visionary demands, because they understand at a visceral level the type of change that will be needed to root out the violence of immigration enforcement. The groundwork laid by these movements offers a base on which to build out the current efforts to abolish ICE.

Last week, activists held a “People’s Tribunal” on ICE outside an immigration court in Seattle while Maru Mora-Villalpando — a longtime US resident who believes she was targeted for deportation proceedings due to her activism against incarceration and deportation — appeared before an immigration judge inside. What did the tribunal conclude about ICE?

The People’s Tribunal put ICE on trial at the same time that ICE was forcing [Mora-Villalpando] to appear in court to defend against her own deportation. Our judges found ICE to be guilty of violent expulsions of our people, guilty of targeting activists, guilty of racial profiling, guilty of engaging in mass surveillance, guilty of enriching private actors, and guilty of separating families and communities. The judges concluded that given the seriousness of these actions, there was no choice but to abolish ICE. The tribunal ended with Maru exiting the courthouse and leading a march up the street to another rally that was taking place in solidarity with Muslim communities, because the Supreme Court had upheld the Muslim Ban that morning, and we know all our struggles are linked.


 

READING LIST

 

 

 

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Grassroots Activists: “Abolish ICE” Means Disband, Not Reform the Agency

Goodbye Regulations, Hello Impending Global Financial Crisis

NOVANEWS

Ten years after the last financial crisis, Republicans — with backing from many Democrats — have made sure that Wall Street can return to its old ways of doing business by repealing the Dodd-Frank Act, which acted up to now as a very mild regulatory regime to rein in the predatory nature of financial capital. The decision to repeal Dodd-Frank was justified on the grounds that it put a break on economic growth. Gerald Epstein, professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, argues that this is not true at all. In this exclusive Truthout interview, Epstein notes that it is now very likely that the “toxic, speculative activities” of the Wall Street crowd will return with a menace, thereby preparing the groundwork for the next global financial crisis.

C.J. Polychroniou: Following the financial crisis of 2008, a bill was passed in 2010 under the Obama administration that sought to contain risks in the US financial system. The bill, which was sponsored by US Sen. Christopher Dodd and US Rep. Barney Frank, was rather weak as a regulatory regime. Nonetheless, it was severely criticized by conservatives. Donald Trump delivered a mixed message in running for president, railing against the big banks and Hillary Clinton’s connections to Wall Street, while at the same time promising more deregulation. Now, Congress has passed and President Trump has signed into law a comprehensive financial deregulation law, “The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.” In addition, Trump-appointed financial regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have implemented policies to loosen regulations further on a variety of financial institutions and activities. The backers of rolling back Dodd-Frank have claimed that financial deregulation will increase economic growth and provide more credit to households and business. First, what were the weaknesses of the Dodd-Frank Act, and did it actually contribute to anemic economic growth, as its Republican critics like Paul Ryan and others are arguing?

Gerald Epstein: The main weakness of the Dodd-Frank Act is that it did not break up the “too big to fail” financial institutions. As a result, these large financial institutions retained the power to blackmail the public to bail them out the next time there is a financial meltdown and, as we have seen since Trump was elected, to buy off enough politicians to roll back the weak financial regulations that were passed. More generally, Dodd-Frank had way too many loopholes that resulted from financial sector lobbying so that it could never be implemented in its strongest form.

No, Dodd-Frank did not contribute to anemic growth. There is no evidence of this. Anemic growth was largely due to the legacy of the financial crisis itself, in which a great deal of household wealth was decimated, and to the continuing austerity policies that the Republicans were able to force on a weak-kneed and Wall Street-bedazzled Obama administration. On top of these factors are the long-term structural problems of the US economy related to the high level of inequality — itself largely due to the oversized power of Wall Street — and to the widespread disinvestment of US multinational corporations from the US economy, among other factors. If anything, Dodd-Frank worked against some of these tendencies, and thereby helped to sustain the long economic recovery that the Trump administration is now benefiting politically from.

The “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” will allegedly be good for consumers and small businesses. Is there any truth to this claim?

No. Not really. But before answering in detail, it is important to realize that this Act was one of the only bipartisan bills that have been passed since Trump came into power. So, this is not entirely a Republican or a Trump initiative. A number of Democrats supported this bill, both in the House and in the Senate. And the same was true of the broadside that Wall Street leveled against tighter regulations in the fight over Dodd-Frank in 2009-2010. The reach of Wall Street goes far beyond the Republicans. According to official data from the Americans for Financial Reform, Wall Street pumped almost $2 billion into the 2016 elections, and in 2017-2018, has already spent $719 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Democrats get 40 percent of this money. At this level of spending, that is certainly not “spare change.”

There have been a number of excellent analyses of the impact of the “The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” by the Americans for Financial ReformDemosBetter Markets and other organizations. These analyses show that the most likely effects of the law will be to allow financial institutions to more easily once again engage in “predatory lending” of the type that pushed excessively large and costly mortgages onto those who didn’t want them and couldn’t afford them; to more easily engage in redlining that discriminates against people of color in providing financial services; to more easily hoodwink investors by selling them risky financial investments; and to reduce the capital cushions on financial institutions so that it would make it more likely that these institutions would have to go hat-in-hand to the Federal Reserve and Treasury (i.e., the taxpayers) to get bailed out next time there is a financial crisis.

More generally, should it happen, what will be the most likely consequences of the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act for the US economy?

We are more likely to see souped-up versions of the toxic, speculative activities that led to the great financial crisis; we are more likely to see the return to the short-term-oriented investment focus that has characterized US corporations who find it much more lucrative to engage in “get rich quick” financial returns, rather than longer term investments in the productive economy; we are likely to see the acceleration of corporate raiding of pension funds and other forms of workers’ savings to line the pockets of financiers; and we are likely to see further finance-directed undermining of workers’ standard of living, as pointed out by the excellent work of economists William Lazonick and Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt,who have researched the ways that speculative financial activities are undermining the long-term health of the American economy.

Economic models have not been good at predicting financial and economic crises, yet the prevailing sentiment among many progressive economists is that the next financial crisis is just a matter of time. Do you share this view?

As the late, well-known economist Charles Kindleberger showed in his definitive history, “Manias, Panics and Crashes,” financial crises are a “hardy perennial.” He estimated they occur somewhere in the world about every seven years. So, as long as we have capitalism, we are going to have financial crises. The issue is how often and how severe and who will pay the price. If the financial industry and its allies in business and government continue to reap enormous short-term profits by shifting the risks to workers and communities, as they will be able to do more easily with the gutting of Dodd-Frank, then the chances of another major crisis go up considerably. And who knows how it will end this time around. With the venality and incompetence of the Trump administration, it is especially difficult to predict.

Given the predatory nature of neoliberal capitalism, what would an ideal regulatory financial regime look like?

The main principle is that the financial sector should serve society rather than the other way around. This usually means that we not only need strict financial regulation, but also a significant segment of public and non-profit financial institutions that are designed to serve society. I call this “finance without financiers.” In order to make this, these institutions need to be large enough and/or a significant enough part of the economy to thrive and make an impact on the financial markets. This requires the financial authorities — especially the Federal Reserve — to support these institutions just as they have supported the massive private financial firms. This includes offering subsidized short-term credits and a safety net for them. Other important components include limiting the incomes private financiers make so that the socially–oriented financial staff are less tempted to act more like private, speculative bankers. Other regulations need to be in place but this will give an idea of what is required.

In the end, as long as we have a system of neoliberal capitalism, it will be difficult, politically and economically, to implement such a progressive and effective financial regime. But the struggle for a more equitable and sustainable economy must include financial programs like these.

READING LIST

Posted in USAComments Off on Goodbye Regulations, Hello Impending Global Financial Crisis

CIA-Controlled Media Pushing Civil War Narrative

NOVANEWS

perkartlede.jpg

When civil war comes to America, no one will be surprised.
 
by Andrew
In his 1928 classic, PROPAGANDAEdward Barneys explains how America’s Public Opinion is controlled:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”
Edward Barneys calls these people, “men we have never heard of.” But today we do know the CIA dictates the story lines of all major news publications. Put aside the immorality and unfairness of our own CIA propagandizing and “gaslighting” us and just look into the news stories to see our future. I’m not suggesting a CIA unauthorized narrative. I’m proposing to use the CIA narratives like a CRYSTAL BALL.
The CIA coined the term, “Conspiracy Theory”, in a 1967 dispatch to Radio and TV news outlets recommending methods for discrediting unauthorized narratives. That’s how “conspiracy theory” came to mean UNAUTHORIZED NARRATIVE. This CIA dispatch was accidentally produced in responseto a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

IMG_3302.JPG

This YouTube “Mind Control through MSM narrative” shows how news stories all hammer away at the same arguments. An important CIA’s predictive program today is how America is moving inevitably toward another Civil War. Consider just a few headline examples:
(1) The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War — Why there’s no bipartisan way forward at this juncture in our history — one side must win.
“The best way to understand politics in America today is to reframe it as closer to civil war. Just the phrase “civil war” is harsh, and many people may cringe. It brings up images of guns and death, the bodies of Union and Confederate soldiers.
America today is nowhere near that level of conflict or at risk of such violence. However, America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war. We’ve seen it in many societies in many previous historical eras, including what happened in the United States in 1860.”
(3) While the Chicago Tribune says “Choosing sides in America’s next civil war may be tricky”
“Last March, Foreign Policy magazine asked about a half-dozen national security experts to reckon the risks of a second civil war. Their estimates ranged from 5 percent to 95 percent, with the consensus landing at slightly more than 1 in 3. (And that was six months before the president of the United States declared war on kneeling football players and the fans who support them.”
So when civil war comes to America, no one will be surprised. With such predictive programming, it’s just a matter of when. In fact, everyone will think IT COULDN’T BE ANY OTHER WAY. It will sound so familiar.

Posted in USA, C.I.AComments Off on CIA-Controlled Media Pushing Civil War Narrative

EU citizens risk becoming the next victims of Theresa May’s hostile environment after Windrush

NOVANEWS
By: 

Brexit Remain protest

Jeff J Mitchell / Getty

  • There are “very considerable risks” Europeans applying to remain in the UK after Brexit will face similar problems to those faced by the Windrush generation of Caribbean-born UK citizens, according to MPs.
  • The Home Affairs committee said children whose parents believe they are already UK citizens are particularly at risk.
  • Vulnerable groups such as victims of domestic abuse, trafficking and exploitation, children in care, and those with mental health issues may also fail to apply in time, the report said.

LONDON — There are “very considerable risks” that EU citizens in the UK could become the next victims of Theresa May’s hostile environment policy, British MPs have warned.

The Home Affairs committee, which scrutinises the Home Office, said “urgent action” was needed to ensure EU citizens do not fall victim to the same mistreatment experienced by the Windrush generation of Caribbean-born UK citizens.

“Urgent action is needed to prevent other groups facing a similar plight – including undocumented children, EU nationals once the registration scheme is introduced,” a committee spokesperson said.

The report raised concerns that many EU citizens, most particularly children, will simply not register to remain in the UK, therefore jeopardising their legal status within the country.

“There are […] some very considerable risks — especially with regard to take-up of registration,” the report said.

Many children who may wrongly assume — or whose parents wrongly assume — that they are British citizens are likely not to apply for the “settled status” scheme for EU citizens, the report said.

Vulnerable groups such as victims of domestic abuse, trafficking and exploitation, children in care, and those with mental health issues may also fail to apply in time, MPs warned.

The “appalling treatment” of the Windrush generation

The report forms part of the Home Affairs committee’s ongoing inquiry into the Windrush scandal, which saw over 60 Caribbean nationals deported from the UK, and many more face lengthy discrimination, despite having been legally resident in the UK for decades.

The committee said in a statement that the “appalling treatment” of the Windrush generation showed the need for “root and branch reform to the Home Office’s culture, policy and approach to immigration.”

“Members of the Windrush generation have been denied their rights and treated appallingly by the Home Office and there is still a very long way to go to put this right or to ensure it won’t happen again,” said Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and committee chair.

READ MORE: Everything you need to know about the new Brexit application process for EU citizens

“Time and again we heard evidence about the culture of disbelief that has developed in the Home Office in recent years, about people feeling they were being set up to fail, and a complete lack of proper checks or safeguards to prevent injustice.”

Cooper said the Home Office needs to “learn lessons and instigate major reforms […] or this kind of appalling
injustice will happen all over again to others in future.”

Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and analysis about Britain’s departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider’s political reporters. Join here.

Posted in Europe, UKComments Off on EU citizens risk becoming the next victims of Theresa May’s hostile environment after Windrush

China warns its tourists of ‘frequent shootings,’

NOVANEWS

China warns its tourists of ‘frequent shootings,’ expensive health care, and risks of encountering border-patrol agents during trips to the US

By: 

Chinese tourists in US white house china

Chinese tourists from Beijing participate in a snowball fight in front of the White House February 17, 2015 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images

  • China has warned citizens traveling to the US of “frequent” shootings, expensive medical care, and the risks associated with running into border patrol agents. 
  • The Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a notice warning travelers that “shootings, robberies, and theft are frequent,” and urged citizens to remain calm and hold onto evidence if they feel they are being discriminated against by border agents. 
  • Last year the US saw a drop in foreign tourism, which at the time was dubbed the “Trump Slump.”

The Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a notice on Saturday telling its citizens to take caution when traveling to the US over summer.

“First, the United States medical expenses are expensive,” the notice said, encouraging its citizens to organize health cover in advance of travel.

The notice also warned that “US law and order is not good, and shootings, robberies, and theft are frequent.” Gun violence is a leading cause of death in the US.

“You should be on alert to suspicious people around you and avoid going out alone at night,” the notice also said.

China has issued warnings against the high rate of gun violence in the US in the past.

In 2017, the Chinese consulate in Los Angeles published a guide for citizens on how to respond to an active-shooter situation. And in April, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued an advisory on popular messaging platform WeChat urging citizens to “be careful and prepare for the possibility that gun crimes may occur at workplaces, schools, at home and at tourist sites,” the New York Times reported.

The embassy notice issued on Saturday also discussed US border policy, and notified tourists that border patrol have the right to inspect travelers and to check their nationality and purpose of entry without a search warrant. But it also advised citizens to be vigilant.

“If the parties involved believe that the law enforcement officers have engaged in improper law enforcement or discriminatory practices, please keep the relevant evidence and ask to make a complaint to their superiors in person,” it said. “Sparking controversy with on-site law enforcement personnel is not helpful for resolving the obstruction of entry, and may even lead to a deterioration of the situation.”

The US has come under international scrutiny over the Trump administration’s tightened border security measures, including its “zero-tolerance” policy, which has seen more than 2,300 migrant families separated.  Several videos have also surfaced this year showing border agents patrolling bus stations and asking travelers for identification.

Last year, the US saw a drop in foreign tourism, which some dubbed the “Trump Slump.” According to Travel + Leisure, the US welcomed 72.9 million foreign visitors in 2017, down from the previous year’s 75.9 million, though the decline was only about 4%.

Under the Obama administration, the US saw record high numbers in 2015 with 77.5 million foreign visitors, Travel + Leisure added.

In 2016, nearly 3 million Chinese tourists visited the US and spent $33 billion, more than tourists from any other country.

NOW WATCH: North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un ‘is a terrorist’

Posted in USA, ChinaComments Off on China warns its tourists of ‘frequent shootings,’

The Justice Department and FBI’s probe into Cambridge Analytica

The Justice Department and FBI’s probe into Cambridge Analytica is now looking at Facebook, and the SEC and FTC are getting involved

Mark Zuckerberg pours glass of water

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg pours a glass of water as he testifies before a joint hearing of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees on Capitol Hill in Washington. Andrew Harnik/AP

The US Department of Justice’s investigation into Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal is now looking at Facebook itself, not just the defunct data firm that gained access to its user data, according to a report from The Washington Post.

Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have joined the Justice Department and the FBI in the inquiry, according to the report. Among other things, the investigation is scrutinizing Facebook’s public statements related to the scandal, The Post reported.

“We are cooperating with officials in the US, UK, and beyond,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to Business Insider. “We’ve provided public testimony, answered questions, and pledged to continue our assistance as their work continues.”

Facebook’s stock dropped more than 1% in after-hours trading following the news, which came after the close of regular market trading.

facebook after hours stock july 2 2018Yahoo Finance

Posted in USAComments Off on The Justice Department and FBI’s probe into Cambridge Analytica

Google reportedly allows outside app developers to read people’s Gmails

NOVANEWS

Gmail's new web interface

Google

  • Google promised a year ago to provide more privacy to Gmail users, but The Wall Street Journal reports that hundreds of app makers have access to millions of inboxes belonging to Gmail users.
  • The outside app companies receive access to messages from Gmail users who signed up for things like price-comparison services or automated travel-itinerary planners, according to The Journal.
  • Some of these companies train software to scan the email, while others enable their workers to pore over private messages, the report says.
  • What isn’t clear from The Journal’s story is whether Google is doing anything differently than Microsoft or other rival email services. 

Employees working for hundreds of software developers are reading the private messages of Gmail users, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

A year ago, Google promised to stop scanning the inboxes of Gmail users, but the company has not done much to protect Gmail inboxes obtained by outside software developers, according to the newspaper. Gmail users who signed up for “email-based services” like “shopping price comparisons,” and “automated travel-itinerary planners” are most at risk of having their private messages read, The Journal reported.

Hundreds of app developers electronically “scan” inboxes of the people who signed up for some of these programs, and in some cases, employees do the reading, the paper reported. Google declined to comment.

The revelation comes at a bad time for Google and Gmail, the world’s largest email service, with 1.4 billion users. Top tech companies are under pressure in the United States and Europe to do more to protect user privacy and be more transparent about any parties with access to people’s data. The increased scrutiny follows the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which a data firm was accused of misusing the personal information of more than 80 million Facebook users in an attempt to sway elections.

It’s not news that Google and many top email providers enable outside developers to access users’ inboxes. In most cases, the people who signed up for the price-comparison deals or other programs agreed to provide access to their inboxes as part of the opt-in process.

gmail opti-inGmail’s opt-in alert spells out generally what a user is agreeing to. Google

In Google’s case, outside developers must pass a vetting process, and as part of that, Google ensures they have an acceptable privacy agreement, The Journal reported, citing a Google representative.

What is unclear is how closely these outside developers adhere to their agreements and whether Google does anything to ensure they do, as well as whether Gmail users are fully aware that individual employees may be reading their emails, as opposed to an automated system, the report says.

Mikael Berner, the CEO of Edison Software, a Gmail developer that offers a mobile app for organizing email, told The Journal that its employees had read emails from hundreds of Gmail users as part of an effort to build a new feature. An executive at another company said employees’ reading of emails had become “common practice.”

Companies that spoke to The Journal confirmed that the practice was specified in their user agreements and said they had implemented strict rules for employees regarding the handling of email.

It’s interesting to note that, judging from The Journal’s story, very little indicates that Google is doing anything different from Microsoft or other top email providers. According to the newspaper, nothing in Microsoft or Yahoo’s policy agreements explicitly allows people to read others’ emails.

Posted in MediaComments Off on Google reportedly allows outside app developers to read people’s Gmails

Saudi-Zionist Led Coalition Ministers of Information Meeting Probes Ways to Block Critical Coverage of Yemen War

NOVANEWS

Well-known Yemeni activist and journalist Rand Al-Adimi told MintPress that dozens of journalists and outlets have been blacklisted, adding that “the Saudi-led coalition blacklisted my name, adding it to a list of journalists who threaten their genocide.”

Posted in Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on Saudi-Zionist Led Coalition Ministers of Information Meeting Probes Ways to Block Critical Coverage of Yemen War

Anti-Semitism, disinformation and propaganda

NOVANEWS
Truth and lies

Editorial introduction

Three months ago the musician and writer Gilad Atzmon was sued in the High Court of England by the chairman of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), Gideon Falter, regarding an article Atzmon had published on his website. 

During a preliminary hearing before the trial the protagonists could not agree on the meaning of the words used in Atzmon’s article and the allegations he had made. This dispute had to be resolved by the court before the actual trial could take place.

The judge in the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, applied his own meaning to Atzmon’s article at the preliminary hearing, which included a ruling by him that the article claimed funds collected by Falter and the CAA were obtained by “fraud” on Falter’s part.

This is disputed by Atzmon. In a statement published on his website on 2 July, he said:

I did not (and do not) believe that Mr Falter was motivated by fraud and I do not think that there is anything I said that suggested it. However, I have to accept the ruling that the court made.

Atzmon further emphasised:

Despite what has been suggested earlier today by Mr Falter in a press release, the court didn’t make any finding that I myself am an anti-Semite.

Indeed, in the statements below, made by the legal representatives of Atzmon and Falter settling the case following the judge’s ruling, no mention of anti-Semitism is made.

Atzmon vs Falter - solicitors statements

Atzmon vs Falter – solicitors statements

Nonetheless, Falter persists in alleging that Atzmon is an anti-Semite. This has prompted Eve Mykytyn, a writer, editor and former financial lawyer, to write to Falter debunking his anti-Semitism allegations. 

Eve Mytykyn’s response to Gideon Falter

Dear Mr Falter,

I disagree with much of what you said in your recent article crowing over your “victory” over Mr Atzmon.

1. In paragraphs 1 and 2 you make the claim that Mr Atzmon is an anti-Semite. You cite then to your own articles as proof, using the weasel word “reported” to make your damaging claims… Atzmon criticises mere rule-followers who focus on the rules rather than the ethics of the law (the construction and destruction of Grenfell towers being an apt example). Use of the word “reported” is another example of following the letter rather than the spirit of the law.

You also cite a Twitter comment from 2014, quoted without context. The comment seems to me to be referring to a set of characteristics, but in any case provides little evidence.

2. In paragraph 3 you openly admit that you try to interfere with Mr Atzmon’s music career by attempting to have him banned from venues where he is contractually bound to play. Then, after trying to interfere with Atzmon’s source of income, in paragraph 4 you seem to complain that Atzmon does not have the ability, as you claim to have, to work “without making a penny”, and is forced to ask for financial support to defend your libel suit against him. 

3. In paragraph 5 you whine that Atzmon “did not show his face’ at the hearing. Is your argument that Atzmon ought to be a lawyer as well as a beleaguered (by you) saxophonist and a philosopher?

4. In paragraphs 6 you cite Justice Nicklen’s decision. Notable in the judge’s decision was the ruling that Atzmon claimed you achieved your aims through fraud, a claim that Atzmon neither made nor could defend.

5. Paragraph 7, again, Mr Atzmon’s task of defending himself was made impossible by the judge’s decision. He could not defend what he did not say. While you brag of the substantial damages and costs you extracted from Mr Atzmon, it should be noted that the damages go to you personally as the claimant and not to the CAA.

While I’m not sure why you criticise Mr Atzmon for not appearing in court when no such need exists, the statement he had made was, of course, demanded by you. 

6. Paragraph 8: was Atzmon’s defeat a humiliation? While you brag of bringing to court those you perceive as anti-Semites, no such finding was made about Mr Atzmon. The court simply ruled unfavourably on the definition of his speech. As an American and a fan of the First Amendment, I see the case as a “humiliation” of the British justice system.

7. Finally, you say you have exposed Mr Atzmon as an “anti-Semitic liar”. There was, of course, no such ruling.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Anti-Semitism, disinformation and propaganda

I$raHell and the Saudis Zio-Wahhabi Are Artificial States

I$raHell and the Saudis Zio-Wahhabi Are Artificial States, and the Cause of the Disastrous International Climate

They are an endless source of conflict, ruinous military spending on all sides, death, and misery among nations. They are the flip sides of the same coin.

It is a fascinating, though a rather grim story, spanning World War I, the creation of the states of Israel, Jordan,  Iraq, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia (and all Gulf sheikdoms) and taking in Lawrence of Arabia, all the way to the fall of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi in 2011, the imposed proxy war in Syria (which also began in 2011), and the rise of ISIS savages, among other geopolitical regressions. It’s a story of long-term manipulation, insidious indoctrination, and secret diabolically mythical works of literature.

Their history and genesis are closely intertwined

These two ideologies – Wahhabism in Islam and Zionism in Judaism – may seem like unrelated entities on the surface. But they are not, as I will explore through the course of this article. Both of these malevolent doctrines could be seen as largely responsible for much of the misfortune in the Middle East today, a situation which by the way doesn’t just affect the Middle East, but as we’ve been witnessing since 9/11/2001 and at an accelerated rate since 2011, affecting the US, Europe, Eurasia, and quite probably the entire world!

These two religious/ political philosophies are responsible for decades of violence, war, suffering, and manipulation. They can be demonstrated to be the flip-sides of the same coin. They can both be traced back to the same approximate era – roughly 100 years ago, during the events of World War I.

What’s been the legacy of Zionism and Wahhabism in the world? And what is the truth about their originsTo begin with, here’s an abbreviated history of the origins of first Zionism and then Wahhabissm for those of you who are unfamiliar.

The Balfour Declaration and the Origins of Zionism

“Zionism” is a complicated term to define in some ways, all the more so for the sheer amount of exaggeration and misinformation. There’s political Zionism, which aims to serve the interests of the state of Israel. There’s religious Zionism, which refers to Jewish [or Christian] interest in Israel in terms of fulfilling “Biblical prophecy” or “Divine Will”.

These two schools of Zionism could in some instances be entirely separate. People can be political Zionists without being religious Zionists or vice-versa. An example of this would be right-wing American evangelical organizations who are in fact die-hard Zionists for the sake of fulfilling perceived Bible texts.

Zionism is just as Evangelical “Christian” as it is Jewish. But the point is that the aim of Zionism originally was the restoration of a “Jewish Homeland” in what was Palestine for 2000 years; a goal that was accomplished comprehensively in 1948 in the shadow of the Holocaust, although it had its roots as an international movement from the time of World War I. Ever since then, Zionism can be regarded as a political movement aimed at furthering the interests [nationally and internationally] of that artificially created nation and at ensuring the security and protection of this so-called State of Israel.

Many anti-Zionist commentators also link Zionism – both religious and political – with a concept of a secretive global Jewish agenda to control the world. Zionism in its mainstream form is believed to have originated with Theodor Herzl in 1896, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist, playwright, and political activist. Beginning in late 1895, Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat or State of the Jews. In it he argued that the only solution to the “Jewish Question” in Europe was the creation of a state for the Jewish people.

Anti-Jewish sentiments were so widespread across Europe that Herzl saw the creation of a national sanctuary for Jews as the only long-term solution. And thus Zionism was born, or at least this is the mainstream version of events. Other scholars will contest that notion and offer arguments for a much older origin.

Of course if we’re talking about religious Zionism as opposed to political Zionism, then the origin is much older and much more mysterious. The notion that the land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, Eretz Yisrael) had always belonged to the Jews or that it was promised to the “Children of Israel” by their Biblical God is an ancient one and a false myth at best. Of course, such profound lunacy has no sound basis for 20th century nation-building, or so we thought and were hoping.

It was the colonial powers of the late 19th and early 20th century, particularly Britain, who actively pursued the Zionist agenda under the guidance of powerful and wealthy British Jews such as Lord Rothschild, resulting in the famous Balfour Declaration. The British made grandiose wartime promises (during World War I) to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. Although mass Jewish immigration to Palestine began occurring after World War I, it wasn’t until after World War II and the Holocaust that the agenda was comprehensively fulfilled.

Another cornerstone of Zionist folklore is the fabled book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, believed by many to be the blue-print for a global Zionist takeover. We will come back to this point later on in this article.

Despite Britain’s official actions, however, neither public nor government opinion was unanimous in its support for the excessive commitment made by Britain to further the Zionist agenda. Winston Churchill, in a 1922 telegraph, is recorded to have written of, “a growing movement of hostility against Zionist policy in Palestine,” adding that, “It is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British  taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.” This disapproval of political Zionism has continued for all the decades to follow and is even more widespread and vehement today than it was a century ago!

Mahatma Gandhi wrote in 1938, “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs…. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.”

And contrary to the view propagated by some that anti-Zionism is “anti-Semitism”, Jewish speakers have at various points also spoken out openly against the Zionist agenda. Among them, Rabbi Elmer Berger published the book, The Jewish Dilemma, in which he argued that Jewish assimilation was still the best path for Jews in the modern world and not the segregation and siege mentality of the Zionist state. In Rabbi Berger analysis, Zionism itself was simply resigning to the prevailing racial beliefs about Jews and playing into them.

In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that designated Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination”. More contemporaneously, in 2010 the former BBC and ITN journalist Alan Hart published the book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, while famous atheist-in-chief, Richard Dawkins said in an interview (speaking about Zionism and the Jewish Lobby in the US): “If atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”

This is just a fraction of stated opposition to Zionism by reputable, respectable people. I reference that here to illustrate the point that anti-Zionism isn’t just the safeguard of so-called “anti-Semites” and that we should bear in mind the substantial number of Jews who also sternly oppose to Zionism.

It couldn’t be denied, even by the most ardent Zionist supporters, that the influence of political Zionism along with many of the actions and policies of their Zionist State have, aside from the long-term oppression of the Palestinian people, contributed massively to the polarization of the Middle East and the growth of Jihadi radicalism.

Aside from the destructive, toxic effect that the creation of the Zionist regime had at the point of its inception (in Palestine itself, but also vis-à-vis its juxtaposition effects on Lebanon, Syria and other neighbors), a divisive, destructive effect has also continued through to the present day beyond the borders of the Middle East.

It is quite demonstrable, for example, that a longstanding US-Israeli plan for the redrawing of the Middle East map has been carried out in the last several years, toppling independent governments and stable nations and ultimately seeking the balkanization and subjugation of Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al. with the ultimate evil goal of subjugating Iran which is their main target.

The alleged Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as, The Yinon Plan, was the vast strategy composed to ensure Zionist regional superiority via the radical reconfiguration of Israel’s geopolitical surroundings through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab [and non-Arab] nations into smaller and weaker states.

The Clean Breakstrategy also essentially amounts to the same thing. What we have so far witnessed in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and even Yemen can be seen to play into this US-backed Zionist strategy quite clearly. It is particularly relevant to note that Iraq, Syria, and Libya were three of the most stable, modern, secular, independent, and non-sectarian Arab nationalist states, but instead are now three collapsed, geo-sectarian, wastelands waiting to be carved up into pieces.

Through exploring the Greater Israel Project, there’s little question that Zionism has been a toxic and problematic imposition onto the region and perhaps the larger world, all the more so because the Zionist regime has been aggressively propped up, armed, and defended by its Western patrons, especially Washington. These days, we are all shocked by Obama Administration’s $38 billion pledge to this evil, monstrous regime.

Something similar can be said of the influence of Wahhabism in the region. Wahhabism, like Zionism, isn’t some centuries old, time-honored religious sect, but a relatively new politically expedient but barbaric ideology.

The modern roots of Wahhabism can be traced to Najd (the geographical central region of today’s Saudi Arabia) and the 18th century preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab (1703-1792) who claimed to “purify” Islam by returning it to what, he believed, were the original principles of that religion. Far from being regarded a legitimate interpretation of Islam, Al-Wahhab was opposed even by his own father and brother for his fundamentalist, fanatical beliefs. But the movement gained unchallenged precedence in most of the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab and the House of Muhammad Ibn Saud, which provided political and financial power for Al-Wahhab’s ideologies to gain prominence.

Eventually, this alliance gave birth to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire after World War I, the Sauds seized control of the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula and a nation was founded on the fanatical tenets of Al-Wahhab – the state-sponsored, dominant form of Islam in the birthplace of Islam.

My initial interest in this area of Arab history admittedly began 20 years ago via David Lean’s epic movie, Lawrence of Arabia, starring Peter O’Toole. Through a love of that 1963 film, I first read T.E Lawrence’s book, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and then read several books concerning the exploits of T.E Lawrence and the Arab Revolt during World War I, as well as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (referenced by today’s ISIS in their “manifesto”) and the actions of the British and French colonial governments in regards to the post WWI Middle East.

The setting up of the House of Saud as the “royal family” and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia occurred despite the fact that agreements had been made during the war to endorse and support not the Saudis but the Hashemites. It was the Hashemite Arabs, not the Saudis, who had launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks and had been the most involved in the campaign. Yet it was the fanatical [and some argue heretical] Wahhabi-inspired Saudi faction that gained the real power from the post-war situation.

The reason I reference this history is to point out that the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Kingdom wasn’t the sole – or even the legitimate – claimant to that immensely privileged, immensely powerful position in the region. In fact, it was usurped just like the way Zionists usurped their way in, in Palestine.

And what has been the legacy of this Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Arabia and its influence? Well, the influence on Arabia itself and much of the surrounding region is incontrovertible, aside from the fact that the Wahhabi doctrines have been a major influence on extremism, Jihadism, and terrorism down to today’s ISIS – the very embodiment of Wahhabism outside the Arabian Peninsula. Osama bin Laden himself was a Wahhabi. Almost all Jihadi extremists, including other Takfiri groups (such as the Salafists), follow an essentially Wahhabi ideology.

“takfiri”, by the way, is a Sunni Muslim who accuses another Muslim (or an adherent of another Abrahamic faith) of apostasy. The accusation itself is called “takfir” (in Arabic), derived from the word “kafir”, meaning unbeliever in Arabic, and is described as when “one who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure.” 

At any rate, this wicked pseudo-Islamic dogma has been methodically disseminated across the Islamic world for decades, vis-à-vis Saudi sovereign funds, financing “education” and fanatical religious literature to universities and mosques everywhere from Egypt and Iraq to Pakistan and Indonesia.

What’s worse, this Saudi-funded dissemination of Wahhabi-inspired propaganda has for a long time been spreading beyond Middle East and into Western societies, especially the Muslim communities in the UK, France, and the Netherlands, among others.

A recent two-year study conducted by Dr. Denis MacEoin, an Islamic Studies Professor at the University of Fez, uncovered a hoard of malignant literature in as many as a quarter of Britain’s mosques.

All of it had been published and distributed by agencies linked to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The leaflets, DVDs, websites, and journals are full of archaic and extremist statements such as homosexuals should be burnt, stoned or thrown from mountains or tall buildings, along with adulterers and apostates (those who try to change their religion) proscribed a similar fate. Women are portrayed as intellectually inferior and in need of “beating when they transgressed”, while children over the age of 10 should be beaten if they did not pray. Half of the literature is written in English, suggesting it is targeted at British Muslim youth who don’t necessarily speak Arabic or Urdu. The material, openly available in many of the mosques, eagerly advises the British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims who are seen as inferior.

This isn’t new information, of course. Investigative journalists have uncovered similar materials on numerous occasions, while people who have actually grown up within the aforementioned Muslim communities have been aware of such ideas and literature for a long time.

Saudi-funded Wahhabi literature can be cited as a major influence (though not the sole influence) on the indoctrination of young British men alienated from mainstream society and for the seduction of young men into extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ Daesh the world over. Worse, in places like Pakistan where unlike the UK most young men aren’t privileged with access to a high standard of education or to reliable sources of public information, but instead have plenty of access to religious schools (madrasa) and mosques, many of which teach from this fanatical Saudi-funded curriculum.

This is in fact a key point: The Saudi-funded literature have traditionally targeted poorer areas in the Muslim world, such as the poorest parts of countries like Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc., where there are limited resources and virtually no formal educational infrastructure. In those cases, Saudi wealth is able to pay for the building or upkeep of schools or mosques – but on the condition that only their Wahhabi-centered, backward-minded interpretation of Islam be taught and distributed.

As a result of this process taking place over many years, thousands of impressionable young men have grown up on this extremist interpretation of Islam, because in essence it is being forced upon them while they lack access to more sophisticated education or information. Essentially, they just don’t know any better.

Interestingly, it was traditionally less common [even suppressed] for this sort of Wahhabi-centered indoctrination to take place in more developed or sophisticated Arab countries such as pre-war Libya, pre-war Syria, the Wahhabi sections of Lebanon, or pre-war Iraq. This is partly due to the strong, secular, and independent nature of those societies which – at the state level, at least – were more invested in a sense of national pride and cultural identity than they were in religious fundamentalism. Indeed, in places like Syria and Libya, the state was engaged in a long campaign to suppress religious extremism of any sort.

That, however, changed dramatically ever since the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the NATO conspiracy in Libya, and the bloody war that has been imposed on Syria since 2011. Consequently, all these countries are now infested with all manners of barbaric religious extremisms.

The so-called “Islamic State”, aka ISIS or ISIL or Daesh that has been injected into Syria and Iraq is essentially a movement that has 100% ideologically flowed from the Wahhabi doctrine of Saudi Arabia. ISIS is essence is Saudi Arabia without an embassy!

That connection is further exacerbated by the fact that Saudi and Qatari arms and funding are largely behind these Wahhabi and Salafist savages, with the wars in both Syria and Libya largely bankrolled by the Saudis and Qataris and the emergence of ISIS largely being a consequence of that. It has been reported, for example, that Wahhabi preachers from Saudi Arabia are frequently in Aleppo, Syria, preaching to the armed savage Jihadists to carry out a “holy war” against the Syrian state at all cost.

Yet, while the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq were subject to invasion (and the latter to deliberate near total destabilization), and the overthrow of the governments of Syria and Libya (two countries that had little, if any, influence on the growth of global Jihadism) were openly encouraged and aided by the major Western governments and Saudi Arabia – no doubt partly due to its wealth and value to Washington and her allies – have never at any point been subject to any threat or been held to international scrutiny over the cynical and methodical dissemination of extremist doctrines across the Muslim world.

World War I, Wahhabists, Hashemites, and Lawrence of Arabia

Going back to World War I, it’s worth reminding ourselves again that the Saudis weren’t necessarily supposed to be the rulers of Arabia. The Hashemite, Hussein bin Ali, was the Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908 until 1917. The Arab Revolt of World War I consisted of Transjordanian tribes, along with other tribes of the Hijaz and Levant regions, fighting against the Turkish Empire on the side of Britain and her allies. The revolt was launched by the Hashemites and led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, not by the Saudis or Wahhabists. It was supported by Britain and her other World War I allies, who used the momentum of the Arab nationalists who wanted independence to further the broader war effort against Germany et al.

The definitive chronicle of the revolt was written by T. E. Lawrence who, as a young British Army officer, played a key liaison role during the revolt. He published the chronicle in 1922 under the title, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Lawrence himself was of course one of the most fascinating and iconic figures of the 20th century.

While the Seven Pillars of Wisdom can be questioned for accuracy in some regards, even his detractors and enemies couldn’t refute the vital role played by the Hashemites in the revolt. It is a historical fact that the British government of the time promised the Hashemite Arabs far more than they delivered after the war.

In September 1918, supporters of the Arab revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the “Sharif of Mecca”. Hussein had been declared “King of the Arabs” by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. After the Turkish Caliphate was abolished, Hussein declared himself Caliph, “King of the Hejaz”, and King of all Arabs, Malik bilad-al-Arab, in Arabic.

However, Hussein was ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Sauds; a rival clan with whom the Hashemites already had bad history, having earlier fought against them due to radical religious differences, primarily the fanatical doctrines of Al-Wahhab. Though the British had supported [and utilized] Hussein from the start of the Arab revolt, they decided not to help Hussein repel the Saudi attacks, which eventually seized the key cities of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah. With it went the hope of a Hashemite-ruled Arabia, though Hussein continued to use the title “Caliph” even in his exile.

In the aftermath of the WWI, the Arabs had found themselves freed from centuries of Ottoman rule, but instead were under the colonial rule of France and Britain, despite British war-time promises that this would not be the case. When these colonial mandates eventually ended, the sons of Hussein were made the kings of Transjordan, later simply called Jordan, as well as Syria and Iraq. However, the monarchy in Syria was short-lived, and consequently Hussein’s son Faisal presided over the newly-established State of Iraq.

But these were mere conciliatory offerings compared to what had originally been intended and desired by the Hashemites. It was the Saudis who were the real winners, being installed into a powerful kingdom that has lasted to this day and shows not the slightest sign of weakening.

The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

It is not an overstatement to claim that both Zionism and Wahhabism have been demonstrably divisive and destructive forces in the Mid-East region and beyond. Zionism has led to the unending plight and humiliation of the Palestinian people, as well as ensuring that the modern State of Israel be perceived in an entirely negative way which it is. In fact, all polls indicate that Israel is the least popular nation on earth! Meanwhile, Wahhabism has inspired an immeasurable amount of extremism, terrorism of the utter worst kind, indoctrination, and the toxic polarization of many Arab societies.

We can look at the influence of Wahhabism in the world at this stage in time and legitimately call it a cancer. But what about its roots? Given the prevalent view of the Zionist conspiracy behind the Balfour Declaration and so much of what has transpired since, is it possible that Wahhabism which began to gain momentum at around the same time, was also something much more than it appeared to be – even at the time?

Is it possible that Wahhabism wasn’t just the product of some quaintly rustic Arabian desert preacher, but something far more cynical?

The bookThe Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, aka The British Spy to the Middle East, aka Confessions of a British Spy, has been regarded by some as a forged document; the document purporting to be the account of an 18thcentury British agent, “Hempher”, of his instrumental role in founding Wahhabism as part of a conspiracy to corrupt and eventually destroy Islam. This book first appeared in 1888 in Turkish. It has been described as an Anglophobic variation of the book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Most conspiracy researchers know about the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was regarded as blueprint of the global Jewish conspiracy. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, like Confessions of a British Spy, has long been dismissed by some mainstream sources as a forgery or hoax. But is it?

The Protocols have been widely translated and disseminated and is still regarded as factual and historical in much of the Muslim world, informing a great deal of the prevailing Middle-Eastern view of the Jews and the Zionists. Those who refute the validity of the book cite it as a massive contributing cause of Jew hatred in nearly all Muslim societies and beyond. Unfortunately the Nazis, like many in Muslim societies today, were intemperate, incapable of separating Zionism as a corrosive globalist political force from Jews as a people.

The reality is that if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a legitimate historical item, the Zionism it depicts is no more representative of Jews as a people than Wahhabism is of the global Muslim community – which is to say that only a relatively small percentage of Muslims in the world are Wahhabis, and likewise in regard to the Jewish community and Zionism. But conspiracies of the kind we’re talking about operate at an insidious, often unperceived level. That is to say the number of Muslims and the number of Jews unknowingly subject to Wahhabism and Zionism respectively is much higher.

But what of The Confessions of a British Spy? Is it mere coincidence that both of these political ideologies, both originating around the same time, both of which have ensured the long-term toxicity of the Middle East, both also happened to have books claiming to reveal their true origins and agendas – both of which were later dismissed by mainstream commentators as forgeries?

Was Confessions of a British Spy telling the truth? Was Wahhabism founded by outside agencies as a long-term plan to corrupt Islam? Is it just a coincidence that this is EXACTLY what Wahhabism appears to have done over the course of a century – corrupted the great Islamic religion to the point where it is now widely regarded by many non-Muslims [as well as non-practicing Muslims] as a source of evil in the world?

And what about The Protocols of the Elders of ZionIs it a mere coincidence that the protocols being spoken in that document happen to fit perfectly in the observed realities of today’s global Zionism on steroids?

Back to Islam, let us remember that this religion wasn’t always regarded with the kind of stigma that it now has, but rather the opposite. Islamic societies were historically perceived as having been intellectually and even scientifically enlightened at a time when western Christianity was characterized by superstitious backward-mindedness, inquisitions, torture, mass persecutions, execution pyres, and utterly ridiculous doctrines and proclamations.

Historical accounts tell of the brutality of western Christian crusaders and the comparative nobility of Saladin and the Muslim armies. The Islamic world had its enlightenment long before the Christian West despite being a younger religion. At a time when Europeans were burning “witches”, the classical Islamic cities of Isfahan, Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo were centers of learning and philosophy.

The slow degradation and polarization of Islamic societies is a phenomenon that has only been happening in the last 100 years or so, as the growth of Wahhabism seems to have done its work, like a slow-acting virus with a long incubation period. And it is only in the last 10 to 15 years that the influence of Wahhabi doctrines has become a prominent international issue.

In regard to the book, The Confessions of a British Spy, being a hoax, maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. But one would wonder why such a hoax document [to slander a then-minor religious sect that wouldn’t have any great relevance until almost a century later] be created? The same goes for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

9/11 and the Attempt to Destroy the True Islam

Moving on, why didn’t the Western allies of King Hussein help the Hashemites when they were being driven from Arabia by the Saudsi after WWI? And why, for decades, have US, Britain, France and other world powers not made any issue over the Saudis’ funding of extremist literature and ideologies? And yet, we seem more than eager to jump in when there’s a chance to overthrow a secular leader like Gadhafi in Libya or Assad in Syria – both undemocratic dictatorships, perhaps, but both relatively idyllic societies when compared to Saudi Arabia (although not anymore, sad to say) and neither being a major factor in the indoctrination of young, frustrated, angry, impressionable minds across the Muslim world. What is the source of such profoundly inconsistent foreign policy?

Why were the Saudis not brought to task when 15 of the 19 supposed hijackers on September 11 were allegedly known to originate from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq? Or were these supposed 15 patsies a valuable resource that Washington could cash in as its trump card, for example “the 28 missing pages from 911 report” that we have all heard so much about lately, in order to gain a geopolitical advantage over the Saudis and figuratively pull the rug from under them just as they did with Egypt’s Mubarak in 2011? The list of curious questions goes on and on.

Without digressing too much and not complicate an already very complex issue, it should be kept in mind that one of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories is the Phillip Marshall Theory which concludes that the WTC attacks were a US-Saudi-Israeli plot and not a mere Al-Qaeda operation. Two central and recurring features of most 9/11 conspiracy research are the possible involvement of Saudi agencies and the possible involvement of Israel’s Mossad in collusion with a broad array of US agencies.

Putting that to one side, however, the point is that when we look at the history of the Middle East, it becomes increasingly difficult not to wonder if the divisions, general toxicity, the wars, and apocalyptic scenarios that are reaching their apex here at the beginning of the 21st century may have been orchestrated far back in history, having always been intended to reach this point. That is the view many have of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – that the supposedly “hoax” document actually made this clear to a large extent.

The more one studies history, the more one wonders if the truth about Wahhabism and its origins may not just be a similar tale, but a concordant operation, with these two ideologies – Wahhabism and Zionism – both operating hand-in-hand to create the toxic conditions in the region that we have today.

It is also worth noting that the conspiracy hinted at in Confessions of a British Spy still – rightly or wrongly – enjoys a high level of currency in parts of the Middle East, particularly Iraq, where it is considered by many to be as legitimate as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It is also worth noting that as much as Washington is seen as propping up Israel, it is also seen as permanently propping up the Saudi regime, much to the displeasure of other nations and leaders in the region such as Gadhafi, Assad, and the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatolla Khamenei, et al.

Both the Zionist State of Israel and the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be regarded – and are regarded by many in the Middle East – as artificial states imposed upon the region and kept in place by Western powers (primarily Washington) for the purposes of a long-term agenda of God-knows-what. Just as Israel is armed to the teeth by its Western patrons, so too is the Saudi regime, which is currently decimating the small nation of Yemen in an illegal war and using almost entirely British or American weaponry – without one word of condemnation from Western governments.

The perception is often inescapable that key Western governments march to the beat of the Saudi state, just as much as with Israel; and all of this being despite Saudi Arabia’s longstanding role as the key source of Jihadi terrorism.

It is also increasingly evident that the Wahhabi and Zionist states have common interests and work hand-in-hand in many regards. This can be seen for example in their shared anti-Iran policies and their shared involvement in supporting the extremist ISIS war against the Syrian government.

In the September 14, 2016 issue of the Politico Magazine, the Neo-Con Zalmay Khalilzad (former US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, the UN, and now the seemingly front man for the Saudi lobby in Washington) stated the following: “…. Israel and Saudi Arabia share a similar threat perception regarding Iran, and that old hostility need not preclude greater cooperation between the two states going forward. The Saudis stated with unusual directness that they do not regard Israel as an enemy and that the kingdom is making no military contingency plans directed against Israel….”

The 21st Century and the Malignancy of Wahhabism in the Islamic World

The destructive and hegemonic influence of Zionism has been written and talked about at tremendous length for many decades. But the Wahhabi doctrines can now be clearly seen to be behind most of the extremist, crazy Jihadi movements of the past several decades, including Al-Qaeda and now ISIS. It would be impossible to calculate how many minds and how many young men, across the world have been indoctrinated by Wahhabi influences.

Again to quote Former Ambassador Khalilzad (from the September 14, 2016 issue of the Politico Magazine):

“This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.” He explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.”

Saudi Wahhabism isn’t just an intolerant, barbaric misinterpretation of Islam. It is a death cult unto itself with a very shrewd and expedient political ways and means methodology. So is Zionism, which is often used to indoctrinate young Jewish people [and a whole lot of stupid American evangelical so-called “Christians”] to an essentially extremist, delusional, uncompromising viewpoint that deals in racial superiority and “divine right” to a land that is NOT theirs, to a land that was NEVER theirs to keep, if not for a short period of time which they utterly proved to be unworthy stewards as a result of which began their expulsion and diaspora.

Wahhabism’s influence, much like Zionism’s, is largely invisible to those who superficially observe the events from outside and can almost be regarded as indoctrination by stealth. While no one has ever denied the existence of Wahhabism or its prevalence in Saudi Arabia, it has only been in recent years that the extent of Wahhabi material circulating around the Muslim world has started to be understood.

While Saudi religious influence can’t be cited as the sole force behind the rise of fanaticism and extremism in the Middle East and much of the Islamic world beyond, it is a central factor, along with US foreign policy and the Zionist State of Israel. And if all of those factors were to be viewed operating in concert with one another and taken as one, then it would obviously be the principal driving force behind the terrible events in that part of the world.

Even if you wanted to cite other causal factors instead – for example, populations being oppressed by various dictatorships – the argument could be made that those dictatorships have historically been propped up by either Saudi or US influence (or both) at some time or another (though not Gaddafi – and look how that ended up for him). If we look at the historic events of the so-called “Arab Spring” or better put Arab Chaos, some tend to forget that Bahrain, for example, had its own popular, grass-roots protests by civilians asking for basic rights and liberties.

Those protests were crushed and received no support or actions of solidarity from Washington or other Western powers. Yet the powers-that-be went out of their way to assist the violent, brutal overthrow of Gadhafi in Libya and have now spent in trying to do the same in Syria and at maximum cost to the poor, defenseless Syrian people.

Unsurprisingly, Gadhafi’s Libya and Assad’s Syria were/are two dictatorships with no sympathy or love for the Saudi Wahhabists. And the same can be said for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, whereas the leadership of Bahrain has full Saudi support. Even more ridiculous, the Saudis were themselves being “consulted” by Western powers on what to do about the “Gadhafi problem”, just as they are principally “consulted” on what to do about Assad and Syria, just as they were a major influence on the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq.

It is curious that while regimes were collapsing or being attacked elsewhere in the region (even the Mubarak regime in Egypt), the Saudi regime never appeared to be in the least bit of trouble, despite being hated by so many of its own citizens as well as neighbors and despite being even more oppressive than the other regimes accused of being “undemocratic”.

According to Social Scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz, even the term “Wahhabi” is often used by its opponents to denote foreign influence, particularly in countries where they are a small minority of the Muslim community, but have made recent inroads in converting the local population to the ideology.

Through this long-term method of infiltration, foreign nations can be interfered with, movements stirred up and regimes damaged or even toppled. Muammar Gadhafi certainly knew about Wahhabists – and hated them with a vengeance. He also made the mistake of openly confronting the Saudi Royal Family at Arab Summits. Again, let’s note that neither Iran nor Syria nor Gaddafi’s Libya nor Hussein’s Iraq, ever contributed to the export or spread of extremism or terrorism against the West. But Saudi Wahhabism clearly has and is still doing so.

It is still difficult for independent researchers to look at the international conspiracy that was conducted against Gadhafi and the people of Libya and not wonder what alliance of forces and interests were truly behind it and why. That subject warrants a whole essay in itself but by the same token it becomes difficult to look at the crisis that has torn apart once-peaceful Syria and not wonder the same thing, not to mention Iraq and the rise of ISIS.

It is an established fact that the Saudis and their satellite client states have been funding and orchestrating the ultra-violent ISIS terrorists in Syria since the very beginning of that conflict. And it’s evident that Israel too has been involved in aiding the Syrian rebels. It is therefore quite reasonable to wonder if a Zionist/ Wahhabist agenda is being played out in unison with, of course, Washington Neocon backing.

This isn’t, by the way, an attempt to all-out vilify Saudi Arabia or the Saudi state – which itself may be facing significant danger from Jihadi extremism – but more specifically its hard-line religious clerics and networks. The extent to which those networks are tied to the state itself is unknown. But there is almost certainly some degree of collusion involving highly-placed people in the state.

In conclusion, it is of course beyond the scope of this article to comment decisively on whether The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher are 19th century hoaxes or genuine historic items that expose the true origins of two of the most destructive, toxic ideologies of the 20th and 21st centuries.

What can be observed with utter objectivity, however, is the substantial role both ideologies have played in creating the harsh, apocalyptic-looking conditions we now have in the Middle East and much of the world beyond.

Once you’ve familiarized yourself with the history, you cannot help but view the bitter sectarianism, wars, divisions, and bloodshed of today without perceiving the large shadows of Zionism and Wahhabism looming over them. And that’s before we even factor in the issue of Shia Islam. This is also particularly interesting in light of the fact that US policy in recent years has been to aggravate a false and contrived Sunni-Shia conflict in the region as much as possible. The Israeli intelligentsia is also majorly involved in fueling this geo-sectarian conflict.

The bleak picture is one of a societal and political cancer seeded at the dawn of the 20th century and reaching its deadliest point at the beginning of the 21st: An agenda that pre-dated World War I which may bring about World War III itself.


Source: Imperia News

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on I$raHell and the Saudis Zio-Wahhabi Are Artificial States


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

July 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031