Archive | November 18th, 2018

Hillary Clinton Mocks Putin, Gladly Accepts $500K in Jewels from Head-Chopping Saudi Dictator

  • King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is dead. But he left behind $500K in jewels and various other gifts for rabid anti-Putin fanatic Hillary Clinton
  • Does Putin need to behead someone to curry her favor? Maybe…

Hillary Clinton is a comedic genius. Just listen to her “impersonate” Vladimir Putin. Do you hear that husky, not-at-all-Russian voice? It’s like she NSA wire-tapped into Putin’s voice box and then temporarily share-wared his most inner thoughts. Amazing.

When she loses the 2016 elections, she will surely have gainful employment as a children’s entertainer. She’ll need that job, too, after her husband is through with the legal bills associated with his most recent flying sex slave scandal. The Clintons—America’s living treasures.

And while Clinton is an outspoken, self-righteous Putin hater, she does love an occasional $500K in jewels from Saudi Arabia’s newly-dead, head-chopping monster. As The Hill reported in 2013, Clinton received

white gold jewelry with teardrop rubies and diamonds containing a necklace, a bracelet, earrings, and a ring. Bestowed upon Clinton by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, the jewelry is valued at half a million dollars.

Diamonds are a Clinton’s best friend! Especially when they come from a medieval dictator who executes people for sorcery. Sorcery! Sorcery isn’t even real. That’s like executing someone for being Santa Claus. Can we all appreciate why this is extremely disturbing? Of course not. “Free Pussy Riot!”

Also, free these people who had their heads chopped off by King Abdullah:

Too late. Their heads were chopped off.

Just remember: Russia is a backwards hell-hole. RIP King Abdullah.

Hillary Clinton and every respectable American politician will continue the war against sorcery. Don’t get too comfortable, Dumbledore!

Posted in USA, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Hillary Clinton Mocks Putin, Gladly Accepts $500K in Jewels from Head-Chopping Saudi Dictator

Shocking Video of Nikki Haley Groveling and Pandering at AIPAC Event (Israel Lobby)

The level of insanity has reached an all new high when your diplomatic representative to the rest of planet Earth makes it clear that she is in fact beholden to a foreign government.

Watch as she panders to the Zionist! She goes the extra mile to make sure that they understand that serving Israel comes first, everything else is secondary.

She is an embarrassment to her country.

Posted in USAComments Off on Shocking Video of Nikki Haley Groveling and Pandering at AIPAC Event (Israel Lobby)

The US Would Rather Burn the Middle East in a Sunni-Shia War Than See Itself Outplayed by Russia

And that is what the ‘Arab NATO’ idea is all about

All wars initiated or supported by the US establishment – from the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the second Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, the regime-change in Syria in 2011 and the occupation of a third of Iraq in 2014 – have failed in their goal of stoking the fire of sectarian war between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East. The failure of this strategy has pushed the US establishment towards two new options: the first, of using media to reveal Saudi Arabia’s intention to harm the Iranian economy and assassinate its military commanders. The second is to promote and advertise for an “Arab (Sunni) NATO Army”. The goal is to keep the possibility of sectarian war alive.

The struggle for dominance between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been going on since the fall of the Shah and the victory of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Nevertheless, today’s level of direct confrontation in various parts of the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrein and Yemen) is unprecedented. This is partly the result of US efforts to throw gasoline on the fire of hate and competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It is against the interests of the US establishment to see the Iran-Saudi struggle wane because that would damage the US economy. Trump said clearly that he needs Arab money in exchange for the protection he is offering, otherwise “the Arab regimes won’t last for one week”. Accordingly, a state of non-war or non-competition between Tehran and Riyadh would significantly reduce the billions of dollars in US arms sales to Saudi.

The Saudi monarchy is well aware of the US need to sell them weapons. Indeed, Saudi media threatened the US – in the aftermath of the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi – to cease all hostilities towards Iran if Washington were to insist on accusing a Saudi top official (MBS) of the horrible kidnapping and murder. This shows that Saudi animosity towards Iran is a double edge weapon used by both the US and the monarchy to reach their own sometimes mutually conflicting objectives. Saudi officials are happy to continue feeding Trump the sums of money he wants as long as he allows Saudi Arabia a free hand in the region, mainly against Yemen.

The other problem the US establishment is struggling with is the awakening of the Russian bear from its long hibernation since Perestroika in 1991. Moscow, with its successful intervention in Syria, and its involvement in Iraq and Lebanon, is becoming Washington’s biggest nightmare. The US plan for regime-change has failed in Syria, and its manipulation of the extremist jihadists has not served US interests and objectives. Even more worrisome for the US is an emerging Iranian-Russian-Chinese alliance that signals the end of US global hegemony.

Unwilling to surrender to the regional realignment, the US establishment envisions an Arab NATO – similar to the western NATO – to counter Russia in the Middle East. Such an alliance would serve to inflame sectarian fires between Sunni and the Shia. This plan might set the region in flames, but would also burn the ground from under the Russians, impeding their plans to stay and expand their dominance in the region. US thinking is that, if the US cannot dominate the ME dominance exclusively, better for the region to go down in flames. The Arab NATO will be a Sunni army to fight the Shia. However, the dramatic military failure of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the poorest country in the ME, Yemen, suggests that this new Arab NATO will be stillborn.

Nevertheless, this only indicates how far the US establishment is ready to go and what kind of weapons it is prepared to use to protect its global hegemony and to keep the Saudi money flowing. The “new Middle East” promoted by Condoleezza Rice in 2006 failed to defeat Hezbollah that same year. The Trump establishment is trying to impose a new wave of sanctions on Lebanon to fight against Hezbollah with little prospect of success. Hezbollah is stronger today than ever and is ready to go beyond its comfort zone to counter any US moves against it in the Lebanon, if necessary.

The attempted regime-change in Syria failed in 2018. However, US forces are keeping the al-Tanf crossing between Syria and Iraq closed to keep any substantial financial income from replenishing the Damascus treasury. The US refuses to eliminate the ISIS terrorist group in Albu Kamal, preferring to use ISIS to prevent reopening of commercial ties between the Levant and Mesopotamia.

Furthermore, the US used its media and scholars to promote the partition of Iraq into Shiistan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan but failed in its goal of dividing the country when the Iraqi government succeeded in defeating ISIS and keeping the country united. Nevertheless, the US seems unready to surrender and is expected to use its unilateral sanctions on Iran to put further pressure on Iraq in the coming months. Baghdad is expected to reject any US demands to respect Trump’s sanctions.

And last, the US is trying to twist the arm of the Palestinians by imposing its agenda on Jerusalem and threatening the security and stability of Jordan by refusing the right of return of Palestinians to their land and proposing an alternative settlement policy in Jordan. All this is being done with the support of Saudi Arabia.

Washington today is more reckless more than ever and will do its utmost to trigger more wars in the Middle East. It is too early to talk about durable stability in the region so long as the US establishment seems determined to create instability and fuel sectarian war insofar as possible.

Posted in Middle East, USA, RussiaComments Off on The US Would Rather Burn the Middle East in a Sunni-Shia War Than See Itself Outplayed by Russia

Deception in North Korea? Nope, But a New Flavor of Neocon

NOVANEWS

Image result for Deception in North Korea CARTOON

By Peter Van Buren | Medium 

What is the state of diplomacy on the Korean peninsula? Are we again heading toward the lip of war, or is progress being made at an expected pace? Are there Asian Neocons fanning the flames for conflict in Pyongyang much as others did with Baghdad?

A year ago, in November 2017, John Brennan estimated the chance of a war with North Korea at 20 to 25 percent. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the odds were 50/50. The New York Times claimed we were “slouching toward war” with the North, on a “collision course.” National security adviser HR McMaster said North Korea represented “the greatest immediate threat to the United States” and that the potential for war with the communist nation grew each day. The US lacked an ambassador in Seoul; Victor Cha was rejected by Trump because, according to “sources and reports,” he didn’t support a preemptive strike on Pyongyang. It was reported the US was “imminently preparing for an attack on North Korea,” driven in part by hawks like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.

All that was wrong.

Cha, it appears, didn’t in fact support what Trump actually was planning: not a preemptive strike, but a summit meeting with Kim Jong Un, held some five months ago in Singapore following a first try at courtship aside the Seoul Olympics in January 2018. World leaders meeting to talk peace is historically seen as a good thing. Yet the American media consensus was a president they believe is roundly despised globally conveyed “legitimacy” on Kim Jong Un, no matter that his family has ruled North Korea for some seven decades, and his country already holds a seat at the United Nations. No shortage of experts from South Korea universities and American think tanks were found to support those claims.

The media generally ignored, in return for the US postponing a handful of military exercises (“concessions,” which were deeply criticized by an American media which has failed to note the US has actually resumed some exercises), the North unilaterally stopped ICBM testing (the missiles which might someday be able to reach the US) and nuclear detonations. It released American hostages, and took steps to close down two nuclear missile facilities. Kim Jong-un fired top military leaders who dissented over his approaches to South Korea and the United States.

Officials from North and South now meet regularly, and US diplomats engage with both sides on an ongoing basis; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been to Pyongyang. Numerous practical steps have been taken along the DMZ to reduce the chance of accidents. South Korea’s unification minister in charge of North Korea issues Cho Myoung-gyon will visit the United States this week, where he is expected to meet Pompeo. This is the first time in four years for South Korea’s unification minister to visit Washington. On the last visit, in 2014, then-Secretary of State John Kerry refused to meet with his predecessor in line with the Obama (and Bush) administrations’ policy of ignoring North Korea in hopes the problem would go away.

Yet the headlines this week in the New York Times and other major US outlets scream of a “great deception” by the North Koreans, evidenced by a hardline think tank — helmed in part by Victor Cha — “discovering” North Korean missile facilities already long known to US intelligence (Cha’s lo-rez commercial satellite photos are dated March, months before the Trump-Kim summit, so everyone who mattered already knew.) In a matter of a few paragraphs, Cha and the Times blow this “discovery” up to announce, without any evidence, “What everybody is worried about is that Trump is going to accept a bad deal — they give us a single test site and dismantle a few other things, and in return they get a peace agreement” that formally ends the Korean War. Mr. Trump, he said, “would then declare victory, say he got more than any other American president ever got, and the threat would still be there.”

What is the real state of diplomacy on the Korean peninsula? Are we again heading toward the lip of war?

Of course not. South Korea’s presidential spokesperson put those “new” missile facilities into the perspective Trump’s critics lack, saying “North Korea has never promised to shut down this missile base. It has never signed any agreement, any negotiation that makes shutting down missile bases mandatory… There is no agreement, no negotiation that makes it necessary for it to be declared.” In other words, there can be no deception where there was no agreement.

To call what the Times discovered a “deception” is deeply misleading. The Singapore declaration and the inter-Korean summit declarations of April 27 and September 19 this year do not commit Pyongyang to disclose the sites. What is new to the Times is actually old news; Kim Jong Un in his January 2018 New Year’s Day guidance stated North Korea would shift to the mass producing nuclear weapons in such facilities. “The nuclear weapons research sector and the rocket industry should mass-produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, the power and reliability of which have already been proved to the full, to give a spur to the efforts for deploying them for action,” Kim said. The Times in fact more or less acknowledged all this in September, before being surprised by it in November.

And the Times’ big scary takeaway, that the old/new facilities are in caves, confuses tactical concealment with some sort of nefarious political “deception.” Did they expect the missiles to be worked on in the parking lot outside Kim’s villa?

One issue only lightly touched by a western media obsessed with parsing tweets as their stab at journalism is the ongoing rush forward driven by the two Koreas themselves, what under any other media climate would be hailed as a huge series of successes but which falls in 2018 under the Trump Is Always Wrong Shadow. In a short time the two states established psuedo-embassies just north of the DMZ, where representatives from the two Koreas have met more than 60 times. The office has become a clearinghouse for over a dozen projects launched during the summit. There are plans for a massive bi-national project to link roads and railroads severed during the Korean War.

North and South Korea have begun removing landmines from the border, drawn back some troops, and most recently held a third leaders’ summit in September in Pyongyang where North Korean leader Kim offered to permanently dismantle two key ICBM facilities under the observation of outside experts. He also offered to negotiate further on the permanent shut down of the nuclear facility at Yongbyon. South Korean President Moon Jae-In, for his part, better than the US understands the future is ultimately about economics, not nukes. Moon seeks sanctions relief as negotiations move forward (little is ever accomplished without some give and take.) “I believe the international community needs to provide assurances that North Korea has made the right choice to denuclearize and encourage North Korea to speed up the process,” he said this week in Paris during a visit with French President Emmanuel Macron. If the western media is correct that Trump is being duped, played, deceived, and cheated by the North, what must they think about the faster pace set by the South? After all, a US miscalculation means we all switch from Samsung to Apple phones made in China, while South Korea risks being turned into a wasteland dotted only with signs for Nuka Cola.

Left off to the side is that it has been only five months since the historic summit in Singapore. Obama’s agreement with Iran, which did not even involve actual working nukes, took almost two years to conclude. Cold War negotiations with the Soviet Union ran across administrations, extending the broader process into decades of talks, and were aimed at goals much shorter than full denuclearization. Five months is barely enough time to grow a decent garden, never mind resolve multinational problems that reach back to 1945.

With North Korea, there is no history of trust, no basis of goodwill to build on. That all has to be created, built from scratch, as part of the heavy lifting of diplomacy. The ultimate goal — denuclearization — may or may not someday come to pass, but if it does it will be the result of years of more small steps forward than small steps back. Diplomacy is about moving the goalposts and embracing the long game, not playing chicken. It will require the North’s nuclear weapons to become unnecessary, as the North agrees to and is allowed to become so engaged with the global system that it finds itself no longer in need of such a powerful deterrence to attacks by its neighbors. Diplomacy requires one to at least understand the opponent’s goals and motivations, even if you don’t agree with them.

There exists an industry of sorts devoted to portraying North Korea as an eviler than evil empire, with Kim as a parody of the movie Dr. Evil. These hardliners, ensconced mostly in universities in South Korea and think tanks in the US, have been around since the Cold War to make sure the case for the militarization of South Korea and American support for various South Korean military dictators never lacked public advocates. They act as mouthpieces for North Korean defectors with horror stories, and are quick to seize on anything to amplify the threat. Older readers will remember similar mostly defunct “industries” set up to do the same over the actions of Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union once (though the Red Threat gang is trying to make a comeback over Bond villian wanna-be Putin.)

Victor Cha himself is a kind of one man gloom machine, writing regularly of the impossibility of denuclearization. His old articles focus fearfully on meetings canceled (but since successfully concluded; fatalism ignores the future) he in fact represents a kind of Asian neocon, an industry dedicated to the impossibility of peace on the peninsula as long as the Kim dynasty remains in power. Cha’s home organization, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for example, features multiple former Secretaries of Defense on its board and as trustees, and is well-funded by elements of the military industrial complex. Of the plan to link railroads across the DMZ, what any sane person would see as progress, the organization grumbled the “move is expected to increase friction with its traditional ally Washington over the pace of inter-Korean engagement.”

So shame on those hardline groups — let’s call them Asian Neocons, for they want regime change in the North in the same way as Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, wanted it in the Middle East — and shame on the New York Times for morphing its Trump-is-always-wrong editorial policy into presenting something long-known to US intelligence as something new enough to declare deception has overtaken the diplomatic long game on the Korean Peninsula. As they did during the run up to the Iraq War, the Times is once again serving as a platform for those who cannot see or will not wait for a peaceful way forward.

Deception? The deception, it is clear, is all (again) on the side of the neocons. They seek to destroy any chance of lasting peace with unrealistic expectations and by announcing failure at goals never actually set. Because if not diplomacy, then what is the alternative? Theirs is not pessimism, it is fatalism. Success instead should be measured by the continued absence of war and the continued sense that war is increasingly unlikely. Anyone demanding more than that wants things to fail.

Posted in North Korea, South KoreaComments Off on Deception in North Korea? Nope, But a New Flavor of Neocon

University of Sussex Professor Emeritus: ‘Israelis Blew Up Twin Towers’

NOVANEWS

Prof: Kees van der Pijl

A professor who claimed “Israelis blew up Twin Towers” has prompted a Jewish group to demand the University of Sussex in England strip him of his emeritus status. 

Kees van der Pijl, who retired from his post as head of the university’s Department of International Relations in 2012, tweeted on Saturday, “Not Saudis, Israelis blew up Twin Towers with help from Zionists in U.S. govt.”

FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2001 file photo, as seen from the New Jersey Turnpike near Kearny, N.J., smoke billows from the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York after airplanes crashed into both towers. Saudi Arabia and its allies are warning that legislation allowing the …

The professor, who is originally from the Netherlands, linked to an article titled “9-11/ Israel did it” from Wikispooks, a website that has been debunked as a non-credible source. The site claims “Zionist Jews” control the U.S. media and government. Businessman Larry Silverstein is described as a “greedy Jew” in the anti-Semitic screed.

The Sussex Jewish Representative Council (SJRC) condemned van der Pijl on Tuesday for disseminating “conspiracy theories.”

“We ask that [Sussex University] investigate immediately & consider removing his ‘emeritus’ status,” the group continued. “This type of hate-mongering has no place in society, least of all in academia.”

Sussex Jewish Rep Council@SussexJewishRep

We are concerned by the conspiracy theories that have been tweeted by @SussexUni Emeritas Professor @KeesvdPijl1. We ask that @SussexUni investigate immediately & consider removing his ‘emeritas’ status. This type of hatemongering has no place in society, least of all in academia

Rather than backtrack as a result of the outrage, van der Pijl tweeted, “After my remark on Zionist responsibility for 9/11, the ‘Israel lobby’ is no longer an empty term for me.”

“Yet we have to put an end to the murderous ‘War on Terror’ ((c) Netanyahu 1986) that now has Iran in its sights,” he wrote.

He also slammed Daily Mail article as “bad journalism” for reporting his original tweet.

Kees van der Pijl@KeesvdPijl1

Here’s quality journalism for you. ‘Israel’–I wrote ‘Israelis’. ‘Mocking replies’–a wave of one-liner abuse, true. But far more numerous detailed and informative responses. ‘Facebook post’. I am not on Facebook. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6357733/Academic-says-Israel-9-11-Twin-Towers-attacks-help-Zionists-government.htmll 

 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on University of Sussex Professor Emeritus: ‘Israelis Blew Up Twin Towers’

Zionist Attack: The Case That 9/11

The Case That 9/11 Was an Israeli Attack on the US Is ‘Overwhelmingly Strong’

” … the attacks must have been the work of a highly sophisticated organization with access to advanced military technology …”

“Once we have concluded that the culprits were part of a highly-sophisticated organization, we can then focus on the Who and the Why, which surely would be of greater importance than the particular details of the How.”

The author is the founder and editor of The Unz Review, a leading conservative American political website. He is also a silicon valley entrepreneur, and a one-time candidate for the governor of California. He was once described as ‘the smartest guy in his class’ at Harvard (class of 1983). His biography on Wikipedia is interesting.

He is Jewish, raised in a Yiddish speaking household, and writes frequently on the Jewish Question.


Back in 1999 I was invited to join Steve Sailer’s HBD email group, where I encountered all sorts of interesting people. The participants were mostly intellectuals or journalists having sharply heterodox views about racial differences, especially those involving IQ and crime, and this was reflected in the somewhat euphemistic title, which stood for “Human Bio-Diversity.” A reasonable sense of the controversial roster is that less than a year earlier a founding member named Glayde Whitney had contributed the Foreword to David Duke’s 700 page opus My Awakening.

Although the discussions were intended to focus on scientific matters, it sometimes seemed that half the heated arguments revolved around immigration, and on that highly contentious topic, I was invariably outnumbered around 99-to-1, with even the handful of self-proclaimed liberals regularly ranging themselves against me. Despite such apparently long odds, I regarded myself as always victorious in all those endless debates, though I would have to admit that 99% of the audience probably would have disagreed with my verdict.

Particularly contentious was the question of Hispanic immigrant crime rates, which I claimed were roughly the same as those of whites, a position that virtually all those professors and authors denounced as utter lunacy. That particular dispute went on for so many years that eventually I no longer even bothered to argue the case, but just every now and then provided some satirical jibes on the topic.

As it happens, the late J. Philippe Rushton, longtime professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, was a very occasional participant, and one of my jokes happened to catch his eye. Being a bit on the humorless side, he failed to comprehend that my remarks were actually tongue-in-cheek, and after three or four explanatory exchanges, I was finally forced to state my position as explicitly as possible: “Hispanics have approximately the same crime rates as whites of the same age.”

He found my claim totally astonishing, saying that it contradicted absolutely everything he had learned about the topic and even threatened to overturn his entire ideological world-view, which he had so painstakingly built up over his previous thirty years of scientific investigation into human racial differences. Therefore, he said I couldn’t possibly be right.

Now Rushton was then widely regarded as being the world’s foremost White Nationalist academic scholar, and he was basically saying that he would eat his own hat if my contradictory racial analysis proved correct. Such an intellectual challenge was just too tempting for me to resist, so I took a brief hiatus from my ongoing software project to work out the crime numbers.

Sure enough, the quantitative results came out exactly the way I knew they would, and I was quite pleased with my resulting cover story “The Myth of Hispanic Crime”that ran in the March 2010 issue of The American Conservative. Not only did my detailed analysis eventually win over Prof. Rushton and most of my more thoughtful critics, but it also sparked an enormous Internet debate, and probably had widespread influence. I was puzzled at the time that such simple calculations had not previously been undertaken by America’s vast army of pro-immigrant academics and journalists, and could only wonder whether they had deliberately avoided investigating the issue for fear that the claims of their anti-immigrant opponents would prove entirely correct.Regardless of the cause, for years afterward whenever I Googled “Hispanic Crime” or “Latino Crime”, the search engine would turn up many tens of millions of web pages, but my own article was generally listed in the top five or six results, quite often in the top two or three. Even today, nearly a decade later, copies of my article still rank remarkably high in such searches on Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.

Was my controversial analysis actually correct? Well, when I moved to Palo Alto in 1992, neighboring East Palo Alto had America’s highest per capita murder rate, which obviously made people here rather nervous. But then over the next 25 years, a vast flood of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, swept into the region, and the city became overwhelmingly Latino and immigrant.

Perhaps coincidentally, the homicide rate fell by some 99%, with the last two years marred by only a single killing, a murder-suicide involving a couple of elderly white lesbians, while all other crime rates have also plummeted. Palo Alto is home to the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Apple, and numerous other leading tech companies, so perhaps rightwing activists should be less than totally mystified why their anti-immigrant zealotry has generally fallen on rather deaf ears within the Silicon Valley business community.

Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close our borders to foreign immigrants.

I pointed out that since the Arab hijackers involved hadn’t been immigrants, but had generally entered our country on tourist visas, maybe the “War on Terrorism” should be renamed the “War on Tourism,” and we should protect America by completely closing our borders to the horrifying risks of the latter. Yet everyone ignored my sage advice.

The 9/11 attacks themselves had astonished me as much as everyone else on the HBD list, but aside from carefully reading the developing story in the New York Times and my other morning newspapers, I was too busy with my work to otherwise follow the topic. At first, everyone seemed certain that there would soon be a wave of follow-up attacks by the dozens or perhaps even hundreds of other Islamic terrorists remaining in our country, but nothing like that ever happened.

After a few weeks had gone by without any further explosions, even small ones, I told the other HBD listmembers that I now strongly suspected that every last Al Qaeda terrorist in America had probably died in the suicide attacks of September 11th, and there wasn’t a single remaining operative left behind to commit further mayhem. Many of the others disagreed with me, but as the months and years went by, my surprising hypothesis turned out to be correct.

There was one important exception to this pattern, but it actually served to confirm the rule. As I wrote a few years ago in my original “American Pravda” article:

Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable journalists such as Salon’s Laura Rozen or the staff of the Hartford Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and motive.

Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist, the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick facilities.

Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.

Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a perfect match with one of those individuals.

For years I told my friends that anyone who spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.

This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word cover story in my magazinesummarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.

Unlike the 9/11 attacks themselves, I had closely followed the Anthrax terrorism, and was shocked by the strange silence of the government investigators and our leading newspapers. At the time, I generally assumed that the attacks were totally unconnected with 9/11 and merely opportunistic, but I simply couldn’t understand how a few minutes a day of reading Salon and the Hartford Courant on the web could seemingly solve the front-page mystery that was baffling everyone at the FBI and the New York Times.It was around that point when I first started to wonder whether the elite media publications I had always relied upon were merely “Our American Pravda” under a different name. Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites.

In theoretical physics, new scientific breakthroughs often occur when known objects are found to behave in inexplicable ways, thereby suggesting the existence of previously unsuspected forces or particles. In evolutionary biology, when an organism appears to be acting against its own genetic interests, we may safely assume that it has probably fallen under the control of some other entity, typically a parasite, which has hijacked the host and is directing its activities toward different ends. While I couldn’t be entirely sure what was happening to the politics and media of my own country, something very odd and disturbing was certainly taking place.

Things soon became much worse. Since the 9/11 attacks had apparently been organized by Osama bin Laden and he was based in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, our attack on that country at least seemed rational. But suddenly there also soon appeared talk of attacking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

At first I couldn’t believe what was taking place, simply awed by the breathtaking power and dishonesty of “our American Pravda,” with the establishment media so easily transforming black into white and night into day. Once again, quoting from my original article of that title:

The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had always been Saddam Hussein’s secular Baathist regime in Iraq.

Yet through misleading public statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the “yellowcake” documents, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media to persuade our citizens that Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly—almost uniformly—backed the case for war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality.

Prominent journalists across the liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.

The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom rightly called the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history.” American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid.

Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.

But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Author James Bovard has described our society as an “attention deficit democracy,” and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell.

As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare.

Throughout the 1990s and even afterward, I’d been on very friendly terms with the Neocons in NYC and DC, working closely with them on issues relating to immigration and assimilation. Indeed, my December 1999 article “California and the End of White America”was not only one of the longest cover stories ever published in Commentary, their intellectual flagship, but had even been cited as the centerpiece of its annual fund-raising letter.I and my other DC friends were well aware of the fanatical views most Neocons held on Israel and Middle Eastern policy, with their foreign policy obsessions being a regular staple of our jokes and ridicule. But since it seemed unimaginable that they would ever be given any authority in that sphere, their beliefs had seemed a relatively harmless eccentricity. After all, could anyone possibly imagine fanatical libertarians being placed in total control of the Pentagon, allowing them to immediately disband the American armed forces as a “statist institution”?

Moreover, the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the more shocking given the crushing recent defeat they had suffered. During the 2000 presidential campaign, nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they had been almost totally frozen out of high-level appointments.

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans, lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O’Neil. Indeed, the only Neoconservative offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her “nanny problems.” The highest-ranking Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential appointment had passed without any notice.

Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic loss they had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one point, he took his head in his hands and wondered aloud whether it was time for him to just abandon the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank.Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining overwhelming influence in our government. In an eerie parallel to the aftermath of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Lenin in Zurich, the totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic country.

A thorough account of the Neocons and their takeover of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11 is provided by Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his 2008 book The Transparent Cabal, conveniently available on this website:

The Transparent Cabal

The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel

STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI • 2008 • 178,000 WORDS

Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system, and with the little time I could spend on public policy matters, I was totally focused to the ongoing Iraq War disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans.

Al Qaeda had largely disappeared and Bin Laden was supposedly hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless Homeland Security “threat alerts,” there had been absolutely no further Islamic terrorism on American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside the Iraq charnel house. So the precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.

Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward Bush’s perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage.

When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying, Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008, I don’t recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.

During those same years, I’d also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn, whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in 2006 about the “conspiracy nuts” of the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.

Admittedly, I’d occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while a much larger Mossad “art student” spy operation around the country had also been broken up around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter topic before that expose was scuttled and “disappeared” under ADL pressure.

Although I wasn’t entirely sure about the credibility of those claims, it did seem plausible that Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror Enigma, a short book about some of those strange facts, bearing the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection,” but I never considered reading it.In 2007, Counterpunch itself published a fascinating follow-up story about the arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day, and the Mossad activity seemed to be far larger than I had previously realized. But all these details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq and Iran.

However, by the end of 2008 my focus had begun to change. Bush was leaving office without having started an Iranian war, and America had successfully dodged the bullet of an even more dangerous John McCain administration. I assumed that Barack Obama would be a terrible president and he proved worse than my expectations, but I still breathed a huge sigh of relief every day that he was in the White House.

Moreover, around that same time I’d stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11 attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch article, I’d discovered that immediately following the attacks, the supposed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden had publicly denied any involvement, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such deeds.

Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact, I was flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all past terrorist operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the greatest in history.

Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods had I blindly accepted?

A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece expressing his very strong doubts about the official 9/11 story, noting that the former director of Pakistani Intelligence insisted that Israel had been behind the attacks.

In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France’s former Defense Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002. This book had similarly argued that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence.

I later shared that account of the French minister’s private opinions with a very well-connected American individual situated in our elite Establishment with whom I’d become a little friendly. His reaction made it clear that he held the same highly unorthodox views about the 9/11 attacks, although he had never publicly voiced them lest he risk losing his elite Establishment membership card.

I eventually discovered that in 2003 former German Cabinet Minister Andreas von Bülow had published a best-selling book strongly suggesting that the CIA rather than Bin Laden was behind the attacks, while in 2007 former Italian President Francesco Cossiga had similarly argued that the CIA and the Israeli Mossad had been responsible, claiming that fact was well known among Western intelligence agencies.

Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the official 9/11 story to extremely strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main 9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies, revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously remained unknown to me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement over the years.

I certainly attempted to locate contrary books supporting the official 9/11 story, but the only one widely discussed was a rather short volume published by Popular Mechanics magazine, whose lead researcher turned out to be the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. None of the writers appeared to have any serious academic credentials, and they seemed to generally ignore or deflect some of the strongest pieces of evidence provided by the numerous scholars and experts involved in the 9/11 Truth movement.Therefore I hardly found their rebuttal persuasive, and I half-wondered whether Homeland Security had quietly arranged the publication, which might help explain the extremely odd nepotistic coincidence. Popular magazines simply do not carry the scientific weight of research professors at major universities. Perhaps the holes in the official 9/11 narrative were so numerous and large that no serious scholar could be enlisted to defend it.

When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of huge flaws in the official 9/11 story has now grown enormously long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the narrative that so many of us have believed for so long.The numerous Griffin books, beginning with his important 2004 volume The New Pearl Harbor, provide a very helpful evolving compendium of these. Although they all contain a great deal of overlap I might emphasize Debunking 9/11 Debunking, a 2007 reply to the Popular Mechanics volume, and the 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited as among the more important ones. In addition, he co-edited an important 2007 collection of essays with scholar Peter Dale Scott entitled 9/11 and American Empire. For those too cheap or impatient to click a button and order something from Amazon, I’m pleased to provide three of the shorter Griffin books in HTML form:

9/11 Contradictions

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN • 2008 • 110,000 WORDS

9/11 Ten Years Later

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN • 2011 • 116,000 WORDS

Cognitive Infiltration

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN • 2011 • 66,000 WORDS

Now I am obviously just an amateur in the complex intelligence craft of extracting nuggets of truth from a mountain of manufactured falsehood. Although the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement seem quite persuasive to me, I would obviously feel much more comfortable if they were seconded by an experienced professional, such as a top CIA analyst. A few years ago, I was shocked to discover that was indeed the case.

William Christison had spent 29 years at the CIA, rising to become one of its senior figures as Director of its Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11 Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different.

The following year, he provided a forceful endorsement to one of Griffin’s books, writing that “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And Christison’s extreme 9/11 skepticism was seconded by that of many other highly-regarded former US intelligence officers.

We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of Christison’s rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it a decade later.

Even our supposed “alternative” media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch, publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters.

But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison’s views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a “9/11 Truther.” When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, a condition of widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.

For those so interested, Christison’s 2006 article mentioned the strong evidence he found in a C-Span broadcast of a two-hour panel discussion on the September 11th terrorist attacks, and he especially cited the documentary Loose Change as an excellent summary of many of the flaws in the official 9/11 case. The full “Final Cut” version of that film is conveniently available on YouTube:

With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events seventeen years ago, each of us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most persuasive, and I have several of my own. Danish Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour-long interview on Red Ice Radio.

The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found in an NYC street after the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the claim that the top hijacker conveniently lost his luggage at one of the airports and it was found to contain a large mass of incriminating information. The testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official story. The sudden total collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.

Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving absolutely no wreckage and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was behind it?

The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official investigation of the evidence. Until that occurs, we should not be surprised that numerous, somewhat conflicting hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.

The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?

The much smaller fraction of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this “whodunit” question seem to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the prestigious experts, and they usually answer “inside job!” Their widespread belief seems to be that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either with or without the knowledge of their ignorant nominal superior, President George W. Bush.

The suggested motives included justifying military attacks against various countries, supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological spectrum, they regard these notions as logical and almost self-evident.

Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore’s leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, as well as a domestic crackdown on civil liberties, which was part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.

Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality. During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning to attack Saddam, saying that they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to prevent it.Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings, published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and promoted the Iraq War.

As for Michael Moore’s film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the plot of Moore’s film demonstrate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success suggested that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.

Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11 terrorists had attacked America “for its freedoms” and Truthers have reasonably branded as implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic preacher. But the suggestion that that they were led and organized by the top figures of the Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also as CEOs of major corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican administration in early 2001 and immediately set about organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military headquarters, intending to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire.

Let’s step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing environmental regulations.

Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Cockburn was absolutely correct to ridicule them at least on that particular score.

Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11 attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Ordering CIA operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but directing them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.

Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme Court. As a consequence, most of the American media regarded his new administration with enormous hostility. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been ordering the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon, surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately leaked to the hostile national press.

The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims—doing so without a single shred of solid evidence—have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire movement. In fact, the common meaning of the “inside job” scenario is so patently absurd and self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.

The focus on Cheney and Rumsfeld seems particularly ill-directed. Although I’ve never met nor had any dealings with either of those individuals, I was quite actively involved in DC politics during the 1990s, and can say with some assurance that prior to 9/11, neither of them were regarded as Neocons. Instead, they were the archetypical examples of moderate business-type mainstream Republicans, stretching all the way back to their years at the top of the Ford Administration during the mid-1970s.

Skeptics of this claim may note that they signed the 1997 declaration issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a leading Neocon foreign policy manifesto organized by Bill Kristol, but I would regard that as something of a red herring. In DC circles, individuals are always recruiting their friends to sign various declarations, which may or may not be indicative of anything, and I remember Kristol trying to get me to sign the PNAC statement as well.

Since my private views on that issue were absolutely 100% contrary to the Neocon position, which I regarded as foreign policy lunacy, I deflected his request and very politely turned him down. But I was quite friendly with him at the time, so if I had been someone without strong opinions in that area, I probably would have agreed.

This raises a larger point. By 2000, the Neocons had gained almost total control of all the major conservative/Republican media outlets and the foreign policy wings of nearly all the similarly aligned thinktanks in DC, successfully purging most of their traditional opponents.

So although Cheney and Rumsfeld were not themselves Neocons, they were swimming in a Neocon sea, with a very large fraction of all the information they received coming from such sources and with their top aides such as “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith being Neocons. Rumsfeld was already somewhat elderly while Cheney had suffered several heart-attacks starting at age 37, so under those circumstances it may have been relatively easy for them to be shifted toward certain policy positions.

Indeed, the entire demonization of Cheney and Rumsfeld in anti-Iraq War circles has seemed somewhat suspicious to me. I always wondered whether the heavily Jewish liberal media had focused its wrath upon those two individuals in order to deflect culpability from the Jewish Neocons who were the obvious originators of that disastrous policy; and the same may be true of the 9/11 Truthers, who probably feared accusations of anti-Semitism.

Regarding that former issue, a prominent Israeli columnist was characteristically blunt on the matter in 2003, strongly suggesting that 25 Neocon intellectuals, nearly all of them Jewish, were primarily responsible for the war. Under normal circumstances, the president himself would have surely been portrayed as the evil mastermind behind the 9/11 plot, but “W” was too widely known for his ignorance for such accusations to be credible.

It does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently furthered the 9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved, perhaps even as outright conspirators. But I do not think this is the usual meaning of the “inside job” accusation.

So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also that the attacks were very unlikely to have been the work of the American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?

Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely difficult for outsiders to penetrate, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this category. But if we apply a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but vulnerable to the sword-stroke of asking the simple question “Who benefited?”

America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacy of that fateful day have transformed our own society and wrecked many other countries. The endless American wars soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to bankruptcy while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most recently, that resulting flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.

Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded, with our society having taken long steps toward becoming an outright police state. American citizens now passively accept unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.

I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of the 9/11 attacks and America’s military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.

During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that constituted the Second Palestinian Intifada.

Ariel Sharon was widely believed to have deliberately provoked that uprising in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his brutal measures failed to end the wave of continuing attacks, which increasingly took the form of suicide-bombings against civilian targets.

Many believed that the violence might soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens, perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes weaponry, and Israeli society seemed close to crumbling. I remember hearing from some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.

Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of undertaking strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, but having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world’s sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon’s close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America’s foreign policy and national security apparatus, with an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon without any security controls.

Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used to implement newly centralized American police controls that were employed to harass or even shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that “We are Israelis…Your problems are our problems.” And so it immediately became.

General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which coincidentally were all of Israel’s strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters of the Palestinians.

As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking all of Israel’s enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer needed to do so. Partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our national debt has grown to insurmountable levels. A parasite can often grow fat even as its host suffers and declines.

I have emphasized that for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to the details and had only the vaguest notion that there even existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement. But if someone had ever convinced me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag operations and someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and its Mossad.

Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel’s track-record of remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise, against other countries, even including America and its military. Furthermore, the enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the solid evidence of such attacks was discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear those facts.

The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. Even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and made unsuccessful attempts to kill President Harry S. Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, while even discussing the possible assassination of Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad subsequently played a central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons development. Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and apparently those warnings were taken seriously. As recently as 2012, the editor of the largest Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obama over his policy differences with Israel.

The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history’s largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954, Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have those blamed on anti-Western Arab groups.

There are strong claims that in 1950 Israeli Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq’s thousand-year Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, intending to leave no survivors, and ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack reached our Sixth Fleet and it was called off.

The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred Americans is even aware of them. Furthermore, most of these incidents came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.

Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, a central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that such a wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.

The only other such extreme cases that come to my mind almost invariably involve either Jewish issues or Israel. For example, virtually no Americans are today aware of the close Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s that played a crucial role in the establishment of the State of Israel. Similarly, although our Western media has enshrined it as one of the central events of the twentieth century, there seems a good likelihood that the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War is either substantially or almost entirely fraudulent. Even highly successful false-flag terrorist operations will tend to leave behind a certain number of individual clues, and possessing the media power to cause that evidence to vanish from perceived reality is an extremely important tool for such operations.

In the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 could have greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective cover-up and concealment, with Libby, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Richard Perle being merely the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or merely had personal ties allowing them to be exploited in furthering the plot is entirely unclear.

Most of this information must surely have long been apparent to knowledgeable observers, and I strongly suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same times. But for obvious social and political reasons, there is a great reluctance to publicly point the finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude. Hence, except for a few fringe activists here and there, such dark suspicions remained private.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they had ever expressed even a whisper of such ideas. This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit, they created a vacuum that was soon filled by “useful idiots” who shouted “inside job!” while pointing an accusing finger toward Cheney and Rumfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses.

Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times, but they did receive considerable if transitory coverage in portions of the alternative media, and I remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.comand widely discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his information already known to me but much of it not.

Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11 or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the topic in much greater detail and done a great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely correct.

I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his claims:

He also provided a pugnacious conclusion in a much longer 2010 radio interview:

Sabrosky focused much of his attention upon a particular segment of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In that fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed across the Internet.

And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko’s broadcast video interview had received such heavy attention, he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland. I’d suspect that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko’s surviving industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that serious misfortune might visit those who rendered controversial expert opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.

Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate the huge video archive of those past shows, notably including Sabrosky’s long interview.

Most recently, Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June’s Deep Truth video panel conference, during which he expressed considerable pessimism about America’s political predicament, and suggested that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last decade.

His discussion was soon rebroadcast by Guns & Butter, a prominent progressive radio program, which as a consequence was soon purged from its home stationafter seventeen years of great national popularity and strong listener support.

The late Alan Hart, a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits behind the 9/11 attacks. Those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview.’

Journalist Christopher Bollyn was one of the first writers to explore the possible Israeli links to the 9/11 attacks, and the details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book entitled Solving 9-11, thereby making his information on the possible role of the Israeli Mossad available to a much wider audience, with a version being available online. Unfortunately his printed volume severely suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe, with poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a set of individual articles, and this may diminish its credibility among some readers. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these serious stylistic weaknesses.

Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French journalist Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and also his 8,500 word article “9/11 was an Israeli Job”, published concurrently with this one and providing a far greater wealth of detail than is contained here. While I would not necessarily endorse all of his claims and arguments, his overall analysis seems fully consistent with my own.These writers have provided a great deal of material in support of the Israeli Mossad Hypothesis, but I would focus attention on just one important point. We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational infrastructure and manpower.

In the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply vanished into thin air.

But without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents, many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents while they were publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks, and others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces.

Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under massive political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. A couple of years ago, much of this information was very effectively presented in a short video available on YouTube.

There is another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. Just a month after the 9/11 attacks, two Israelis were caught sneaking weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but was greeted by total silence in the American media.

Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agents were deported back home. This remarkable incident was only reported on a small Hispanic-activist website, and discussed in a few other places. Some years ago I easily found the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers reporting those dramatic events on the Internet, but I can no longer easily locate them. The details are obviously somewhat fragmentary and possibly garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.

One might speculate that if supposed Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by attacking and destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America’s military invasions in the Middle East would have been greatly magnified. Furthermore, any scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America’s dominant Spanish-language network, fully solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush’s military endeavors.

Although my growing suspicions about the 9/11 attacks stretch back a decade or more, my serious investigation of the topic is quite recent, so I am certainly a newcomer to the field. But sometimes an outsider can notice things that may escape the attention of those who have spent so many years deeply immersed in a given topic.

From my perspective, it seems that a huge fraction of the 9/11 Truth community spends far too much of its time absorbed in the particular details of the attacks, debating the precise method by which the World Trade Center towers in New York were brought down or what actually struck the Pentagon. But these sorts of issues seem of little ultimate significance.

I would argue that the only important aspect of these technical issues is whether the overall evidence is sufficiently strong to establish the falsehood of the official 9/11 narrative and also demonstrate that the attacks must have been the work of a highly sophisticated organization with access to advanced military technology rather than rag-tag band of 19 Arabs armed with box-cutters. Beyond that, none of those details matter.

In that regard, I believe that the volume of factual material collected by determined researchers over the last seventeen years has easily met that requirement, perhaps even ten or twenty times over. For example, even agreeing upon a single particular item such as the clear presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, would immediately satisfy those two criteria. So I see little point in endless debates over whether nano-thermite was used, or nano-thermite plus something else, or just something else entirely. And such complex technical debates may serve to obscure the larger picture, while confusing and intimidating any casually-interested outlookers, thereby being quite counter-productive to the overall goals of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Once we have concluded that the culprits were part of a highly-sophisticated organization, we can then focus on the Who and the Why, which surely would be of greater importance than the particular details of the How. Yet currently all the endless debate over the How tends to crowd out the Who and the Why, and I wonder whether this unfortunate situation might even be intentional.

Perhaps one reason is that once sincere 9/11 Truthers do focus on those more important questions, the vast weight of the evidence clearly points in a single direction, implicating Israel and its Mossad intelligence service, with the case being overwhelmingly strong in motive, means, and opportunity. And leveling accusations of blame at Israel and its domestic collaborators for the greatest attack ever launched against America on our own soil entails enormous social and political risks.

But such difficulties must be weighed against the reality of three thousand American civilian lives and the subsequent seventeen years of our multi-trillion-dollar wars, which have produced tens of thousands of dead or wounded American servicemen and the death or displacement of many millions of innocent Middle Easterners.

The members of the 9/11 Truth movement must therefore ask themselves whether or not “Truth” is indeed the central goal of their efforts.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Attack: The Case That 9/11

Linda Sarsour Says: ‘Ilhan Omar Backlash Shows ‘Allegiance to ”Israel”’

NOVANEWS

Sarsour claims the controversy surrounding Ilhan Omar’s announcement that she supports BDS is coming from ‘folks who masquerade as progressives but choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech’

FILE PHOTO: Women's March National Co-Chair Linda Sarsour poses for a portrait at the Women's Convention in Detroit, Michigan, U.S. October 29, 2017.
FILE PHOTO: Women’s March National Co-Chair Linda Sarsour poses for a portrait at the Women’s Convention in Detroit, Michigan, U.S. October 29, 2017.REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson.

Palestinian-American civil rights activist Linda Sarsour claimed in a Facebook post Thursday that the controversy surrounding Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar’s announcement that she supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is coming from “folks who masquerade as progressives but always choose their allegiance to Israel over their commitment to democracy and free speech.”

Sarsour, one of the leaders of the Women’s March, posted a campaign on Facebook called #IStandWithIlhan, where she urged people to sign a petition and post supportive messages about Omar and free speech.

“You don’t have to support BDS and have every right not to but we cannot stand by idly while a brave Black Muslim American woman is targeted for saying she will uphold the constitution of the United States of America as a member of the US Congress,” Sarsour wrote.

The American Jewish Committee accused Sarsour of anti-Semitismfor her Facebook post. “Accusing Jews of dual loyalty is one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic tropes,” it wrote on Twitter. “No surprise to see it coming from @LSarsour. How long will progressive leaders continue to look the other way in the face of this hate?”

The Women’s March has been under fire for months over Sarsour and other leaders’ connections with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has a long history of anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Omar, who was elected in November to represent a Minneapolis-area district, had been asked in a primary debate held at a local synagogue to clarify “exactly where you stand” on BDS. She said the boycott campaign was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution” but never said that she herself was a supporter. But last Sunday, her office told the website Muslimgirl that she personally “believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized.”

Rashida Tlaib, who along with Omar became the first Muslim women elected to Congress, also defended the Minnesota congresswoman-elect.

View image on Twitter

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Linda Sarsour Says: ‘Ilhan Omar Backlash Shows ‘Allegiance to ”Israel”’

Neo-Nazi Harassment Is Not Free Speech, Judge Rules

NOVANEWS

Ruling says the First Amendment does not shield Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin from being sued for his followers’ anti-Semitic harassment of a Jewish woman and her family in Montana

Andrew Anglin, wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat on January 16, 2016
Andrew Anglin, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat on January 16, 2016Wiki Commons, BFG101

A federal judge’s decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against the publisher of a neo-Nazi website is “dangerous for free speech,” the publisher’s attorney said Thursday.

Attorney Marc Randazza said he believes U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen made a legally flawed decision Wednesday in ruling the First Amendment does not shield Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin from being sued for his followers’ anti-Semitic harassment of a Jewish woman and her family in Montana.

Randazza said he can “see the allure of not wanting to rule in favor of the Nazi,” but expressed concern that the decision could be used to curtail free speech in many other forums.

“The rule needs to be the same no matter what your view is,” he said.

Christensen’s decision allows Tanya Gersh to proceed with her claims that Anglin invaded her privacy, inflicted emotional distress on her and her family and violated Montana’s anti-intimidation law by calling on his followers to unleash a “troll storm” on her, her husband and her 12-year-old son.

The judge wrote in his decision that Anglin’s “morally and factually indefensible worldview” does not disqualify him from free-speech protections — but his anti-Semitism also doesn’t give him special rights, either.

“It hardly makes sense to conclude — as Anglin contends — that Anglin’ s posts and sponsored troll storm are entitled to additional protection because of their anti-Semitic content,” Christensen wrote.

David Dinielli, the deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is representing Gersh, said Christensen’s decision upholds a recommendation by a magistrate judge.

“Today’s ruling underscores what both we and our client have said from the beginning of this case —that online campaigns of hate, threats, and intimidation have no place in a civil society, and enjoy no protection under our Constitution,” Dinielli said in a statement Wednesday.

Gersh says hundreds of people harassed and threatened her family online and by phone and mail after Anglin accused her of trying to force the mother of white nationalist Richard Spencer out of the Montana town of Whitefish in 2016.

Anglin argued the First Amendment protects his speech and that he can’t be held liable for his followers’ actions.

Gersh’s attorneys responded that the First Amendment was never meant to protect a campaign that aimed to destroy people’s lives.

Christensen said Anglin’s speech against Gersh appeared to be a matter of private concern, not public concern, and that opens him to more regulation.

Anglin’s alleged attacks against Gersh didn’t inform the public about a matter of public concern, the judge said in his ruling. Rather, based on the allegations, Anglin appears to have roused his readers’ political sympathies by drawing on their hatred and fear of Jews to advance his personal campaign against Gersh, who is not a public figure, Christensen wrote.

“Anglin did not use his speech about Gersh to raise awareness for issues consonant with the alt-right agenda,” the judge wrote in his decision. “Rather, construing the allegations in the complaint as true, Anglin exploited the prejudices widely held among his readers to specifically target one individual.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Neo-Nazi Harassment Is Not Free Speech, Judge Rules

THE UNMAKING OF LIBYA & NATO’S UNABASHED HUBRIS

NOVANEWS

Western politicians and of course the deceitful, manipulative, mainstream media have been shamelessly calling Libya a “failed state”. A FAILED STATE?! Who made it a “failed state”? Can we have some academic and historical integrity here or is that too much to ask in these decrepit times that we live in where monsters are in charge? I digress.

The unmaking of Libya will be a case study for all future students of geopolitics. Libya was the most prosperous and successful nation in Africa. So bold that towards the end of his tenure, Muammar Gaddafi, not exactly a saint by any stretch of imagination, was openly proposing an Africa-wide unified currency called, “The Golden Dinar” to challenge the hegemony of the petrodollar system. And that was the exact reason for his barbaric removal from office by a bunch of well-financed Jihadi Al-Qaeda savages which have now morphed into Al-Qaeda 2.0, aka ISIS. The so-called “Arab Spring” was orchestrated by nefarious entities such as NATO, IMF, WTO, the World Bank, etc. Mind you, Libya had a sizeable gold reserve before NATO’s takeover. Since 2011, a big bulk of those reserves has been sitting safely at the vaults of the Bank of England, better put, Bank of Rothschilds, in a financially autonomous place called “City of London”, not to be confused with London itself.

NATO (led by US, France, and UK) plus two of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and every other nation involved in the overthrow of Gaddafi’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (literally meaning “republic” in the Arabic language) took a thriving, developed, self-reliant nation with tremendous natural resources and turned it into a backward-minded, miserable, utterly failed nation, where Al-Qaeda and ISIS savages have been roaming the land and terrorizing the local population. An unintended consequence of these intentional destabilizing policies has been an on-going emigrational catastrophe (at a Biblical proportion) since 2015, much at the expense of European nations when it comes to accommodation and the already over-stretched social services, etc. Actually, the 2015 date is a conservative point of reference since such emigration problems have been plaguing Europe for decades. But never at such a mass level where gates are smashed down and control is lost.

Back to my earlier point, NATO’s grotesque regime change in Libya has always been another de-facto balkanization effort, in effect dividing Libya into east and west (Benghazi vs. Tripoli), not to mention Libya’s lawless southern barren deserts bordering Chad, a country that Libya has had conflict with in the past in more than one occasion. All in all, we have had a situation where rival thugs and ruthless gangs compete for power in a dog-eat-dog warlord tribalism.

This divide and conquer strategy has served as a tool to make Libya’s so-called “sweet oil” even more accessible to the Europeans. “Sweet oil” refers to a type of ground extraction of oil which is much cheaper than the traditional deep ground extraction since this so-called sweet oil is more at a surface level, hence drastically decreasing the cost of drilling, drawing out the oil, etc. Naturally and as to be expected, in the midst of all this chaos, Libya’s sweet oil has been getting smuggled to the European energy market across the Mediterranean Sea, Italy in particular, and whoever else pays for it which of course is at a much lower rate. As such, this iniquitous scenario which has been ongoing since the brutal murder of Gaddafi in 2011 is essentially (among other factors) an oil theft project, much in the same way as the Northern Iraqi and Syrian oil which was being stolen by ISIS and transported via oil trucks on a well-planned 24-hours/ seven days a week ongoing smuggling operation before Turkey decided to switch sides and consequently ISIS was defeated by Russia (from the air) and the Iran/ Syrian Arab Army/ Hezbollah coalition (on the ground). Same strategy in Libya. And it turns, after the murder of Gaddafi, ISIS gradually increased its presence and influence in Libya as well – a literal replication of NATO’s Iraq/ Syria war policy.

NATO did this wicked deed through bombing, arming and supporting of terrorists as well as through targeted assassinations. And now those same lackey leaders and the same corporate, mainstream media propagandists who encouraged and celebrated the murder of Muammar Gaddafi and the assault on Libya have the audacity to casually label Libya “a failed state”, as if it was some mere, unfortunate, unpredicted tragedy that has fallen on North African Arabs because they are incapable of managing their countries and handling their business.

For the sake of accuracy, many African countries with utterly corrupt leaders are in fact incapable of managing their countries properly. That has been the norm for decades. But that was NOT the case with Libya. To fully understand the scale of the tragedy in Libya, you have to understand what Libya was prior to the NATO imperialist takeover:

During Gaddafi’s reign, healthcare was free. So was electricity. There were no interest loans. Newly weds received $50,000 to find a home. Mothers received $5,000 when their child was born. Muammar Gaddafi also wanted to create a continental currency and a central African bank, backed by Africa’s immense natural resources in order to rebuild the rich but poverty-stricken African continent. Eventually, this would have given African leaders control of the continent and sooner-or-later end the European neo-colonialism in Africa. It also would have bankrupted other large economies whose currencies are not backed by tangible resources [or sustainable economic policies] other than the tyranny of petrodollar system which, as everyone knows, is backed by the brutal military force of Washington’s 19 aircraft carriers, for example. That’s why NATO had Gaddafi murdered.

Besides, who made NATO the white knights of the world? The Europeans’ violent and shameful history in the last 500 years alone has been responsible for 100-years religious wars, colonialism, imperialism, orientalism, global hegemony, ethno-centrism, World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, degradation of the environment, greed and predatory capitalism, just to name a few. These evils have been getting implemented at a concentrated level during the past 100 years.

All of a sudden, the same Europeans pretend they are the moral compass of the so-called “third world”. Their morally-bankrupt socio-economic system] has been responsible for 500 years of theft, rape, and murder, literally all over the world: from Africa, West Asia, East Asia, and Subcontinent Asia [which the British called their “Crown Jewel] all the way to Central and South America. This hypocrisy and manufactured superiority complex is not only appalling but it is also taking us closer and closer to the edge of yet another global war just to save their corrupt, unsustainable, and predatory capitalistic monetary systems.

So I say this to them barefaced, unashamed, and unabashed: The hell with your false, so-called “democracy”, “human rights”, and “freedom” because they are anything but that. Bombing for “peace” and “democracy” is like fornicating for virginity! We have all seen your “democracy” in action in places Libya, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, and the list goes on-an-on.

Posted in Libya, NATOComments Off on THE UNMAKING OF LIBYA & NATO’S UNABASHED HUBRIS

Russia’s Game in Libya Explained

Russia has key interests in Libya at stake

The strategy of Vladimir Putin, in the difficult Libyan chessboard, has always been particularly silent. The Kremlin, after the fall of Muhammar Gaddafi, moved with caution, aware that the end of the colonel had a disastrous effect on the construction of the Russian strategy in the Mediterranean after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the West, which has made a hell out of that Libya, has not supplanted the other superpowers. After Gaddafi, another leader did not arrive, but the war exploded: civil and not. And in this quagmire, Russia has managed to transform itself into an increasingly dynamic and increasingly necessary actor. Italy knows it very well, since Giuseppe Conte [the now in-Office Italian Prime Minister] went to Moscow to drag Russia to his side.

Unlike what happened in Syria, Moscow did not immediately (and definitively) choose an ally. Here there was not a Bashar al Assad to defend against the advance of the Islamic State. And there were no gangs of jihadists ready to defeat an allied government or opposing powers eager to overthrow the system of alliances. There was chaos. And in the chaos, Putin preferred to play in a different way, focusing not on one player, but trying to dialogue with everyone. The Kremlin has never hidden the sympathies for Khalifa Haftar, the strong man from Cyrenaica. Evidence of this is also the latest recent trip by the Libyan Marshal to Moscow, where he met Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. The two discussed, you read on the official page of the Libyan National Army, “the strategies to resolve the Libyan crisis and the fight against terrorism”.

But Russia has never denied the acknowledgment of the Fayez national unity government at Sarraj. And a confirmation came from the trip to Moscow of the Minister of Economy of government of national unity, Naser al Darsi, who went to the Russian capital to talk with his interlocutors in the Kremlin, in particular with the deputy minister Mikhail Bogdanov (who will be in Palermo representing the Russian government).

A bipartisan choice that has a specific purpose: to stand up to a mediating power and necessary for all the sides useful for the Russian strategy. As the head of the Russian contact group on Libya, Lev Dengov, said in an interview with Kommersant“In Libya, we do not want to join any of the fighting parties”. And that is why it openly supports the United Nations plan.

Libya between Algeria and Egypt

Geographically, Libya is set between the Mediterranean and the Sahara in the north-south direction, but also between Egypt and Algeria in the east and west. These two countries are fundamental for Russia in North Africa. Algiers has a long tradition of economic and military agreements with Moscow, which continue today, especially in the arms sector. To give a figure of the report, the Russian ambassador to Algeria, Igor Belyaev, has unveiled that the Algerian government has bought half the weapons sold by Russia in Africa.

Relations between these two countries help to establish relations also with the western Libyan border, where the Algerian forces are present. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that Algiers have bad relations with Haftar (ally of Moscow) but it is also a fundamental exporter of gas in Europe (especially for Italy). This strange plot means that Algiers and Moscow are also obliged interlocutors on Libya.

But it is above all with Egypt that a solid axis has been built on the front of the Libyan dossier. And in this sense Haftar is the perfect point of contact. Putin can not fully support the Marshal of Tobruk, but he can do it indirectly through Cairo. Russian-Egyptian relations are at the highest levels: Putin and Abdel Fattah Al Sisi share many ideas on the Eastern Mediterranean side of North Africa. And Haftar’s forces are supported both by Egyptian troops and by Russian command, which seems to be already present in Cyrenaica through groups of contractors. For the Kremlin it is essential to have Egypt on its side. Not just for Libya, but also for the Middle East.

Why Russia is interested in Libya

Russia is interested in Libya for several reasons. First of all, the main one: the strategic one. Moscow has always needed to have outposts in the Mediterranean. Access to warm seas is fundamental to the Kremlin’s naval strategy. And having allies in the Mediterranean is not at all simple, because the game is complex and the powers involved are many. Gaddafi’s Libya could be a valid ally. Not like Assad’s Syria, but it certainly did not represent a partner of the United States. His fall has jeopardized the freedom to maneuver Russia in the central Mediterranean. Therefore, it is clear that Putin could not take his eyes off the Libyan shores.

To these interests of a military nature, huge economic interests joined. There are basically three guidelines on which Russian politics in Africa and the Middle East develop: energy, infrastructure and weapons. And on these three lines Russian politics in Libya has also been built. Minister Darsi, in Moscow, has confirmed the agreements with Russia for the construction of Benghazi-Sirte high speed railway, in an area that is still controlled by Haftar. A 2 billion dollar contract that for the Libyans means above all development and connection between the different parts of the country.

Russia is clearly interested in the fact that its companies are involved in Libyan reconstruction. But infrastructure is only a small part of Moscow’s economic interests. Rosneft, a Russian energy giant, has already signed agreements with the National Oil Corporation (NOC) for the exploration, extraction and purchase of oil. In Rosneft, there are also Gazprom and Tatneft, already involved in the North African country and the latter in particular in Sirte and Ghadames. Three giants who represent the three arms of energy with which Russia wants to return to the Libyan match after years of exclusion. And it is also for this reason that the United States has begun to reactivate in Libya also on the energy front: the matter also affects Washington’s interests.

Third sector: weapons. Key industry for the Kremlin, especially in Africa and Asia. The challenge between Russia, China and the United States also affects the war sector. And Libya is part of this great game. In pre-war Libya, Moscow and Tripoli had extremely important agreements in the field of arms. Gaddafi had signed agreements with the Russian government both in 2008 and in 2010 for a turnover of about 3.5 billion dollars. And there were many other agreements at stake, then jumped or suspended after the start of the war and the UN arms embargo. According to estimates by Rosoboronexport, the Russian organization that deals with the export of military technology, the Federation’s war industry lost, after 2011, about four billion dollars of contracts.

Libyans’ interest for Russia

If Russia is interested in Libya, the opposite is also true, that Libya is interested in having Russia. Unlike other powers, Moscow has always been on the sidelines, recognizing, as explained above, political value to all major Libyan leaders, without denying the link with Gaddafi. In fact, Russia has been coherent and astute in never taking sides excessively: and this has helped it not to gain enemies. This political guarantee helps, especially at a time when other states seem willing to control Libya. For this reason, many Libyan factions see in the Kremlin a power that substantially guarantees the balance and interests of all the parties in conflict.

There are also many economic interests. To begin, as mentioned, from the infrastructural one. Minister Darsi reiterated to Kommersant that “the infrastructure issue is basic and Russia has a lot of experience”. Contracts for railways and highways had already been concluded when there was still Gaddafi. And now there are many who want to brush up those agreements.

And to these interests on strategic assets, much more concrete interests are added in the food sector. Libya is a country at war, where food is scarce. And hunger, in addition to the destruction of a population, leads to instability and violence. Russia, in recent years, has significantly increased agricultural production, becoming a food power. For this reason, Darsi has always explained, the importation of wheat and fodder has been discussed, proposing a 700 million dollar agreement.

Posted in Libya, RussiaComments Off on Russia’s Game in Libya Explained


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2018
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930