Archive | February 23rd, 2019

Venezuela: A Unique Experience in Protagonist Democracy?


The issue for us all is: No to military intervention in Venezuela and full support for the right of Venezuela to defend itself.

“Maduro declared in his February 4 Caracas speech: ‘Not one Yaqui soldier will enter Venezuela.’”

Is Trump contributing to a unique experience in protagonist democracy in Venezuela? If so, his administration and the Democratic Party supporting the U.S. elite’s Venezuela policy are in for a big surprise. On February 25, 2014 – five years ago! – BAR published my article titled “Obama’s Arrogant Interference in Venezuela and Resistance by a Participatory Democracy.” Over the five years of tampering, obstruction and suffocating sanctions, the Obama and Trump administrations have not been able to conquer Venezuela. Why?

The U.S.-centric mindset has been steeped in the white supremacist notion of the “chosen people” from the time of the Pilgrims. It consists, among other features, of the racist outlook that peoples in the “Third World,” such as Latin America, cannot take their destiny in their own hands. Since the publication of that piece five years ago, history — along with my experience during other short visits to Caracas and my close following of TeleSUR in both English and Spanish — has forced me to revise my appreciation of Venezuela’s unique experience in democracy. It has certainly gone up more than just a notch. As a result of U.S. policies, democracy in Venezuela has been crossing the Rubicon from participatory democracy to a protagonist one. While the two are similar, especially in comparison with the experience of the Diktat in the capitalist North, there is a qualitative difference. Any hesitation at this time to qualify Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution’s democracy as being “above all” – as Chávez predicted and desired – “protagonist and not only participatory” vanished on February 4, 2019 in Caracas.

“The main issue now is the right of Venezuela to its sovereignty and to choosing its own path without foreign interference.”

Many valuable articles have already been published in BAR concerning the legitimate election of Maduro in the last elections of May 2018 on the one hand and, on the other, regarding the violation of Venezuelan and international law, including the United Nations in “recognizing” its man in Caracas. Furthermore, the main issue now is the right of Venezuela to its sovereignty and to choosing its own path without foreign interference, irrespective of any other considerations. Moreover, within this optic, the principal reality – ignored by the international media – is the civilian military union as a key component of Venezuelan democracy. It is not recognized either by ignorance or by mere wishful thinking, as those who want to eliminate the Bolivarian Revolution know very well it is this union that blocks their plan.

Although it was not the first time that I had heard Maduro speak, his February 4 talk in that semi-private meeting with Venezuelans and foreign guests was a clincher. Among other points, he outlined in detail how he and the other leaders (whom I also met briefly in that meeting) have been and are today still working to organize and inspire — and in turn are being inspired by — all the sections of the armed forces all over the country, from pilots, navy to the army to the people’s militia. He pointed out that this civilian military union has been developing in the country over several decades.

“The principal reality is the civilian military union as a key component of Venezuelan democracy.”

To flesh this out, I would add that more recently in the 1990s Chávez spent considerable time and effort to build a civilian military union. The goal was to overthrow the U.S.- backed de facto dictatorship that had ruled for many decades through the “two-party system” — all too familiar to Americans — alternating from one discredited party to another… that also soon became disgraced and so on. On February 4, 1992, Chávez and other officers and civilian revolutionary leaders organized a coup to overthrow the corrupt wealthy political elite to be replaced by the Bolivarian principles of independence and social justice. It failed, but then Chávez returned from prison to declare to the people on state TV that “for the moment” [por ahora] the rebellion had failed. This now iconic image and perspective words had further cemented the union between the military and the civilian population who had never before seen a political-military leader ready to give his life for a new Venezuela.

This union rose to the fore again on April 13, 2002 when the civilian-military alliance brought Chavez back to power as the legitimate president after a short- lived US-backed coup executed on April 11, 2002.

“Maduro and the other leaders have been working to organize and inspire all the sections of the armed forces all over the country.”

What then is this civilian-military union, its history and tradition?

Chávez said that he found the idea of the civilian-military alliance in the political thought of the Venezuelan intellectual, guerrilla leader, Fabricio Ojeda, who wrote in his 1966 book La guerra del pueblo (The People’s War):

“The anti-feudal and anti-imperialist basis of our revolutionary process suggests a form of alliance that can accommodate differences in background, political credo, philosophical conception, religious convictions, economic or professional status, or party affiliation among Venezuelans. The strength and might of the common enemy calls for a united struggle to defeat it… The forces most inclined to fight for national liberation are the workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, students, intellectuals, and professionals as well as the majority of officials, Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), and soldiers of the air, sea, and land forces…” In Ojeda’s vision, which Chávez shared, all these civilian and military sectors are called upon to come together in a genuine national revolutionary alliance. (Ramonet, Ignacio, Hugo Chávez: Mi primera vida. Conversaciones con Ignacio Ramonet, Vintage Español, Nueva York, 2013. [Translation by Arnold August]).

The civilian population had never before seen a political-military leader ready to give his life for a new Venezuela.”

Today, more than ever before, in the face of a potential U.S. military intervention, this feature of the people being the authors of their ownBolivarian Revolution, rather than just participants in it, Venezuela is displaying a protagonist democracy to the world. It can be the death knell to any military adventure.

The U.S. should not be mistaken. While Maduro declared in his February 4 Caracas speech to us that his government is ready to participate in any efforts at mediation, he also made clear that Venezuela is ready to defend its country: “Not one Yaqui soldier will enter Venezuela.”

The threat of U.S.-led military intervention is more real than ever. The issue for us all: No to military intervention in Venezuela and full support for the right of Venezuela to defend itself in the worse-case scenario. Polls in Europe and other countries show support for this position, while the main unions in Canada have issued and are issuing statements rejecting the pro-Trump position of the Justin Trudeau Liberal Party position and demonstrations are taking place in the U.S.

“The strength and might of the common enemy calls for a united struggle to defeat it.”

The Justin Trudeau government hosted the so-called Lima Group in Ottawa on that same day, February 4, when we were in Caracas meeting with the Maduro government leadership. The official communiqué reaffirmed its support for the Trump position on Venezuela, consisting of foreign interference in the internal affairs of that country with full support of its puppet as the so-called president. The position of the Justin Trudeau government is a major and historical (in the very negative sense of the term)changein Canadian foreign policy, including within his own Liberal Party.In contrast for example, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War (March 2013) former Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in an interview regarding Canada’s position to NOT support the U.S. war in Iraq, that he [Chrétien]has no regrets about rejecting Canada’s participation in the U.S.-led mission. It was a very important decision, no doubt about it. It was, in fact, the first time ever that there was a war that the Brits and the Americans were involved, and Canada was not there, Chrétien told CTV’s [Canadian national news network] Power Play.

The move also helped assert Canada’s independence on the world stage, he said.

Unfortunately, a lot of people thought sometimes that we were the 51st state of America. It was clear that day that we were not.

The main unions in Canada have issued and are issuing statements rejecting the pro-Trump position.”

Chrétien said he refused to commit to military action in Iraq without a resolution from the UN Security Council. He said Canada always followed the UN and intervened in other conflicts when asked to.

Chrétien also said he was not convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — the threat that fuelled support for a U.S.-led invasion of the country — and that turned out to be true.

Chrétien also addressed his visit to Venezuela last week [March 2013] (to attend President Hugo Chávez’s funeral).

He said he went because he knew Chávez personally and “never had any problem” with the controversial leader, even though he didn’t agree with him “on many things.” He also wanted to show his respect for the people of Venezuela.

He had support of the people and he was loved by the poor of his country. He was kind of a Robin Hood, Chrétien said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper [of the Canadian Conservative Party] angered the Venezuelan administration by saying in a statement that he hoped the country can have a better, brighter future after Chávez’s death.

Chrétien said the Venezuelan authorities were very, very happy to see him at the funeral, because they were very unhappy with Harper’s remarks.

Let us recall what most political people in Cuba, Latin America, and many in the West know: Justin Trudeau’s own father, as Liberal Party Prime Minister of Canada, went to Cuba when he stood next to Fidel Castro in June 1976 and shouted in a public meeting “Long live Prime Minister Fidel Castro!,” and had taken other positions independent of the U.S.

Everyone in Canada hates Trump for all his policies, yet Justin Trudeau is aligned with him.”

As the Canadian and other peoples increasingly recognize now, like any other family in whatever system, family relations and characteristics change. Regarding foreign relations, Justin Trudeau is not at all like his father. The press can quote me here as a Canadian: “Justin Trudeau’s father would turn over in his grave if he knew what his own son was doing.” Everyone in Canada hates Trump for all his policies, yet Justin Trudeau is aligned with him.

While the Trudeau government admonishes Venezuela for its supposed lack of democracy, it does not seem to recognize cynical incongruities, such as when, last January 2019 (while the Lima Group anti-Venezuela “pro-democracy “conspiration was in full swing), the Canadian government’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — as part of the century-long racist colonial occupation of indigenous lands — arrested 14 native people and entered a fortified checkpoint on a forest service road in northern B.C., where people at the Gidimt’en camp were barring a pipeline company from access (CBC). That led to more protests (YouTube: Toronto Star).

“Democracy” in the North is one thing. The constantly developing protagonist democracy in Venezuela is entirely the opposite. Furthermore, it is the main shield to defend the fledgling Bolivarian socialist path against U.S.-led foreign interference which we must all fully oppose.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela: A Unique Experience in Protagonist Democracy?

Collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuban Revolution Survives Despite Widely Held Predictions


The Soviet Union was hampered by a variety of serious issues.


Following the USSR’s official collapse over Christmas 1991, the CIA expected that within two years Cuba’s Revolution would follow suit. A generation later socialism endures in Cuba while the Soviet Union, a state larger in size than America and Canada combined, is becoming a distant memory.

It stands out as remarkable that a great power such as the USSR evaporated without a single shot being discharged. Rubbing of salt into open wounds followed as Russia, under US supported Boris Yeltsin, made its transition to destructive state capitalism without serious protest; widespread privatization was ushered in along with trade and market “liberalism”.

Those westerners who gleefully celebrated Soviet disintegration in the early 1990s, would have been wise to remember that it was the USSR which – less than 50 years before – had lifted itself up from the Wehrmacht’s staggering blows, before overcoming a Third Reich that had been marching eastwards to conquer the vast open steppes of Eurasia.

By the mid-1970s, meanwhile, the Soviet Union was gradually eroding from within. This was partly due to their increasingly ill and frail president Leonid Brezhnev, who replaced Nikita Khrushchev in 1964, remaining in office until the day he died, 10 November 1982.

Brezhnev had developed an appetite for luxury that was out of step for a communist leader, as revealed by his owning dozens of immaculate, Western-built automobiles. No such opulence was enjoyed by the average Soviet citizen. Brezhnev was fond too of fur coats, expensive liquor and prestigious medals, while he was a heavy smoker until the early 1970s.

In December 1979, Brezhnev authorized what would prove a calamitous intervention in neighbouring Afghanistan. By this point Brezhnev’s bodily decline was in its final stages when, influenced by some voices in his ear, he said of the impending military advance, “we will end this war in three or four weeks”. The fighting in Afghanistan continued for nine years, much of it against American and Saudi-backed Jihadis including Osama bin Laden, which was another factor in the USSR’s demise.

During the mid-1980s, Soviet causes were hampered further by the swift death in office of two of Brezhnev’s immediate successors: Yuri Andropov, who governed for a year before succumbing to kidney disease aged 69 in February 1984 – and then Konstantin Chernenko, always a heavy smoker and in later life plagued with emphysema. Chernenko, in his early 70s, died just over 12 months after succeeding Andropov and by the end suffered from a string of debilitating ailments.

The decisions in electing both men to power were indeed questionable ones, as Andropov and Chernenko had been in poor health for years, while they lacked the vitality to overcome monumental problems that lay ahead. Their advanced years was not the issue, as countless people beyond so-called retirement age can retain their exuberance for life.

Andropov and Chernenko may have been seen as steady, dependable figures and, significantly, both had a history of activism dating to Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion. The Soviets had never fully recovered from Hitler’s assault, either psychologically or emotionally, and all their postwar leaders except Mikhail Gorbachev had performed a role in the Great Patriotic War.

As the Soviet system fell a generation ago, America’s intelligence centres anticipated a quick and ignominious end too for the Cuban Revolution. Yet while the trappings of grandeur and cult of personality had hindered the USSR, similar weaknesses were not evident in Cuba.

Fidel Castro, the Caribbean island’s long-time leader, had resisted the temptations of materialism and corruption, which has further bedevilled left governments in South and Central America.

During his decades in power, Castro led an austere existence, working long hours and shunning the desire to indulge in ostentatious luxury or consumerism. He lived in a modest house consisting of two floors and four bedrooms, a comfortable if functional residence.

One need but examine a person’s clothing to gain something of an idea into their habits and mode of living. For many years, Castro donned olive green military attire which stood out for its absence of medals and trinkets, unlike his Soviet counterpart Brezhnev, who had an array of decorations dangling from his lapels. Castro’s army fatigues constituted simple, loose clothing, ascetic and lacking in pretension.

Castro himself outlined just over a decade ago that,

“The most difficult, most important fight that anyone with power faces is the fight against himself, the struggle for self-control. That may be one of the toughest ones. Against corruption and even against the abuse of one’s own prerogatives, one has to have a very well-trained, strong conscience, a great deal of awareness”.

As the years progressed it became clear, even to some of his foes, that Castro was not the typical state leader, but someone in possession of a formidable intellect, who read for many hours each day and could instantly recall events from bygone years. He was particularly influenced by the writings of José Martí, a famed 19th century revolutionary philosopher, essayist and “Apostle of Cuban independence”.

In 1985, aged 59, Castro ceased his smoking of Cohiba cigars with the future in mind. This lifestyle change played an important role in allowing him to enjoy a long existence.

Leaving ideology aside, the Cuban government has – perhaps most importantly – remained separate from the insidious effects of private power, which across the world has become embedded in states resulting in ongoing compromised policies, followed by the predictable avarice and short-sightedness. In turn, this increasing need for collection of wealth and profits has resulted in planetary ecosystems being wiped out, heralding our world’s sixth mass extinction.

A government can only stay independent should the head of state and all of its sitting members, without exception, have no links to vested interest groups, business board rooms, private ventures, and so on. Should a state be engineered by corporate dictates, it surely becomes an elitist one, pursuing strategies to benefit the rich and powerful.

One can see this conflict of interest in various market economies, from America and Australia to Ireland. Major business influences, once implanted in state policy and promoted by willing politicians, seeks to serve the top bracket of society most of all – leaving general populations, broadly speaking, cast adrift.

With Cuba’s disdain for private business, the Castro government sought programs such as instituting first class education and health systems, dispatching thousands of medical personnel to regions most in need of them. In the early 1990s, Cuba led the way in tackling climate change, which is little known or spoken of.

Previously, in the 1970s and 1980s, Castro instigated foreign initiatives like the Cuban-inspired liberation of southern Africa from apartheid, a contribution which African leaders are not likely to forget.

South Africa’s anti-apartheid revolutionary, Nelson Mandelahighlighted in July 1991,

“What other country can point to a record of greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?… It is unparalleled in African history to have another people rise in defence of one of us”.

Posted in CUBAComments Off on Collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuban Revolution Survives Despite Widely Held Predictions

Political Correctness and the Immigration Debate


There are two contrasting styles of debating an issue: those who prefer normative arguments, and those who choose descriptive line of reasoning. Most intellectuals nowadays adopt the former approach, but the truth unfortunately is generally bitter.

Let me admit at the outset that I do understand race relations are a sensitive issue in the modern world, particularly when millions of skilled and unskilled immigrants from the Third World countries have migrated to the economically prosperous developed countries to find a better future for themselves and their families.

However, instead of bending over backwards and demanding from the natives of their host countries to be more accommodating and totally non-communal, the immigrants need to understand that migration is not the natural order of societies.

In order to elaborate this paradox by way of an analogy, when we uproot a flowering plant from a garden and try to make it grow in a different environment, sometimes the plant flourishes in the new environment, but at other times, it doesn’t, depending on the adaptability of the plant and the compatibility of the environment. If we want to change the whole environment to suit the needs of that particular uprooted plant, such an unrealistic approach may not be conducive to native flora and fauna of those habitats.

The right way to tackle the immigration problem is to discourage it by reducing the incentive for prospective immigrants to permanently abandon their homes, families and communities to find a better job in a foreign country and a radically different culture, where they might be materially better off but could find themselves socially isolated and emotionally desolate.

In order to minimize the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order. Once the relative imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing world is narrowed down, then there will be no need for the people of one region and culture to relocate to another, except on a temporary basis for education, traveling and cultural exchange.

Humanism only implies that we should be just and fair in our approach. The human mindsets, attitudes and behaviors are structured and conditioned by their respective cultures and environments. A person born and bred in Pakistan or India generally has more in common with the people of the subcontinent.

For instance: when the first generation Indo-Pakistani immigrants relocate to foreign countries, they find it hard to adjust in a radically different culture initially. It would be unwise to generalize, however, because it depends upon the disposition and inclination of immigrants, their level of education and the value system which they have internalized during their formative years.

There are many sub-cultures within cultures and numerous family cultures within those sub-cultures. Educated Indo-Pakistani liberals generally integrate well into the Western societies, but many conservative Pakistani and Indian immigrants, particularly from backward rural areas, find it hard to adjust in a radically different Western culture. On the other hand, such immigrants from underprivileged backgrounds find the conservative societies of the Gulf countries more conducive to their social integration and individual well-being.

In any case, the second generation immigrants, who are born and bred in the Western culture, seamlessly blend into their host environments; and they are likely to have more in common with the people and cultures where they have been brought up. Thus, a first generation Pakistani-American is predominantly a Pakistani, while a second generation Pakistani-American is predominantly an American, albeit with an exotic-sounding name and a naturally tanned complexion.

Regardless, the rise of Trump in America, Brexit in the UK and anti-immigration protests all over Europe, North America and Australia are the manifestation of the underlying sentiment against the globalists’ normative approach toward the issue of immigration, which generally goes against the interests of the working classes of developed countries.

For instance: while joining the European Union, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports.

The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in favor of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labor force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe, and consequently the wages of native British workers dropped and it also became difficult for them to find jobs, because foreigners were willing to do the same job for lesser pays, hence raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU.

The subsequent lifting of restrictions on the Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the problem, and consequently the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU. The biggest incentive for the British working class to vote for Brexit was that the East European workers would have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs will once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce.

As I argued earlier that instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing nations, hence reducing the incentive for immigrants to seek employment in prosperous developed countries.

Finally, it’s a fact that we, as individuals, don’t like to revamp our deeply entrenched narratives even when such narratives have been conclusively proven to be erroneous, because our minds are incapable of radically transforming themselves, especially after a certain age. Despite being a mystery of gigantic proportions, the human mind still has its limits, particularly the minds of grownups are quite inflexible.

The reality is always too complex to be accurately perceived by the mind. Our narrative is simply a mental snapshot of objective reality that we have formulated to the best of our humble abilities. But since our minds are highly cluttered, therefore we generally tend to adopt linear narratives; and try to overlook deviations and contradictory evidence as mere anomalies by employing cognitive mechanisms, such as selective perception and confirmation bias.

Moreover, our minds also adopt mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to ease the cognitive load while making a decision. To instantiate this concept, the developing world has numerous problems: like social injustice, corruption, patriarchy, bigotry and oppression of the minorities, to name a few. My individual narrative, however, has mostly been predicated on the social justice aspect; but I do appreciate the activists who are doing commendable work in other areas, too.

My only gripe is that most social and political commentators these days restrict themselves exclusively to denouncing the crime and criminals, without looking into socio-political and socio-cultural root causes that spawn the crime and criminals; such an approach seems facile and lacking in perspective.

As the renowned Indian author Arundhati Roy poignantly explains the idea in these words:

“I don’t see myself as someone who looks at the world through a lens of ‘rights’ and ‘issues’. That is a very narrow, shallow way for a writer to look at the world. If you ask me what is at the core of what I write, it isn’t about ‘rights’, it’s about justice. Justice is a grand, beautiful, revolutionary idea. What should justice look like? If we disaggregate things into issues, then they just remain issues, problematic areas in an otherwise acceptable scenario.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Political Correctness and the Immigration Debate

ISIS Cells Eliminated by Syrian Forces, US Drones over Syria, Iraq ‘Video’


The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) have finished their combing operation in the central Syrian desert, the NDF media center said in a statement.

According to the released statement, the SAA and the NDF eliminated several ISIS members and seized loads of weapons and equipment in the framework of the operation, which covered desert areas of Homs, Rif Dimashq, Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces. Despite this, ISIS cells still control a large chunk of the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert.

On February 21, a car bomb exploded near the Deir Rasm hospital in the center of the Turkish-occupied city of Afrin injuring up to 10 people. The attack took place a few hours after a military parade held  by Turkish-backed militants in the city. Opposition activists accused YPG-linked rebels of carrying out the attack. Since early 2018, YPG-linked cells had conducted multiple IED attacks and ambushes on positions of Turkey-led forces in the region.

A car bomb hit a bus currying workers returning from the Omar oil fields. At least 15 people were killed and multiple others were injured. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but local sources say that it was likely conducted by ISIS cells.

Multiple convoys carrying men, women and children, mostly ISIS members and their families, left the ISIS-held pocket in the Euphrates Valley in the last 2 days. These persons are being transferred to filtration camps controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). According to reports, about 250 ISIS fighters remained besieged in the area because they refuse to surrender.

It is interesting to note that pro-SDF sources pretend that the group allows civilians only to leave the pocket. However, evidence from the ground contradicts to these claims. On February 21, it appeared that the US-backed group had handed over 500 ISIS members to the Iraqi military.

On February 19, Russian forces opened two humanitarian corridors allowing refugees to leave the camp. Members of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent were stationed at the checkpoints to provide medical aid to refugees leaving the camp.

However, according to the Russian Reconciliation Centre, militants have blocked the exit from the camp by building an earth berm. They also threatened the refugees with “jail and death” on the territory under the control of the Damascus government.

Head of the Centre Sergei Solomatin added that at the same time, “the possibility of exit of foreign fighters from the 55-kilometer zone to Jordan and Iraq is not limited” and ISIS militants and their families are being moved to the camp from the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. From its side, US-backed militants continue to repeat that the Damascus government is persecuting and punishing refugees returning to their homes.

The Iranian Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have got control of 7-8 US unnamed aerial vehicles operating in Syria and Iraq, IRGC Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said adding that the IRGC extorted intelligence data from the aircraft. The IRGC media also released videos confirming its claims.

While ISIS is de-facto defeated in Syria and Iraq, a possible escalation of the long-standing conflict between the US-Israeli-led bloc and Iran continues to pose a threat to regional security.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on ISIS Cells Eliminated by Syrian Forces, US Drones over Syria, Iraq ‘Video’

5G and Trump’s Tweets – Ignorance, Greed, or Insanity?


“The 5G Rollout is Absolutely Insane.” Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University.

Donald Trump’s total disregard for humanity, fauna, flora, environment – and indeed a towering ignorance – is perhaps encapsulated in recent Tweets:

Donald J. Trump


I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind. There is no reason that we should be lagging behind on………

Donald J. Trump


….something that is so obviously the future. I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. We must always be the leader in everything we do, especially when it comes to the very exciting world of technology!

Electromagnetic Sense Ireland (1) has possibly the most comprehensive, accessible, expert material to be found on 5G. It makes chilling reading.

“5G is the next generation of mobile and wireless technology. It is being touted as the next best thing in communications – providing faster speeds (up to 100 times) and higher capacity transmissions to carry the massive amount of data that will be generated … A dense network of antennae is needed for 5G to operate, so these will be placed on thousands of lamp posts, poles, under manholes, street equipment etc.

“As well as 5G on earth, there are plans to put 20,000 satellites in space. The intention of this is to completely cover the earth in wireless  radiation.

“5G will substantially increase exposure to radio–frequency electromagnetic fields RF-EMF, that has already been proven to be harmful for humans, animals and the environment.”

Risks from 5G include:

  • Damage to the eyes – cataracts, retinal damage
  • Severe sweating
  • Skin damage
  • Immune system disruption
  • Metabolic disruption
  • Neurological disturbance
  • Leakage of blood brain barrier
  • Damage to sperm
  • Increased risk of cancers
  • Collapse of insect populations, the base of food for birds and bats
  • Rise in bacterial resistance and bacterial shifts
  • Damage to plants and trees

“The plans to beam highly penetrative 5G milliwave radiation at us from space must surely be one of the greatest follies ever conceived by mankind. There will be nowhere safe to live”, states Olga Sheean, former World Health Organisation employee and author of “No Safe Place.”

“It would irradiate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant women, unborn children, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill” states Ronald Powell, with a PhD, in Applied Physics from Harvard University.

One hundred and eighty doctors and scientists from thirty six countries have already written to the European Union demanding a moratorium on 5G implementation.

5G is part of a seven Trillion Dollar business. So in Trump Land, clearly to hell with all life on earth – or is he actually unaware of the unimaginable horror of what he is championing?

Radiation from whatever source kills, deforms, attacking the unborn, wreaks havoc – as the haunting birth deformities and cancers, environmental devastation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the testing grounds of the Pacific Islands, to Iraq and the Middle East show in horrors which follow the generations.

Posted in USAComments Off on 5G and Trump’s Tweets – Ignorance, Greed, or Insanity?

An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela ‘Video’

Abby Martin and UN Rapporteur Expose Coup

On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about Venezuela.

She uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.

Watch the video below.


Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela ‘Video’

Iran’s Turning into India’s Proxy by Taunting and Threatening Pakistan?


Major General Qassem Soleimani, the famed commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC), proved that his country is increasingly turning into India’s proxy after he taunted and threatened Pakistan, resulting in the Islamic Republic incredibly taking some of the same positions as its American and “Israeli” enemies (both of whom are its new Indian patron’s allies) in spite of its official “principled” opposition to every manifestation of their policies.  

Digging A Deeper Hole

Iran recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, but instead of marking this momentous occasion by showcasing its sovereign gains over the past four decades, it ended up being manipulated into becoming India’ s proxy and paradoxically undermining the very independence that it’s so proud to have supposedly achieved. The author wrote about this at length in his piece earlier this week about how “Iran’s Being Tricked Into Making Balochistan The New Kurdistan”, explaining that the Islamic Republic’s “deep state” divisions are being masterfully exploited by India in order to turn Iran against Pakistan in the aftermath of a recent terrorist attack along the two Muslim countries’ shared border in the transnational region of Balochistan.

Instead of de-escalating the situation behind the scenes by walking back some of its officials’ anti-Pakistani rhetoric and actively commencing joint anti-terrorist operations like the author suggested that it do in order to make the best out of a bad situation, Major General Qassem Soleimani – the famed commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – upped the ante by taunting and threatening Pakistan, proving that Iran is indeed on the path of becoming India’s proxy and apparently has no problem with this. His words dealt enormous damage to Pakistani-Iranian relations after he called into question the professionalism of his neighbor’s armed forces and portrayed the country as being on the brink of dissolution.

Soleimani’s Statement

Here are his abridged comments as reported by the Fars News Agency:

“We have always offered Pakistan help in the region, but I have this question from the Pakistani government: where are you heading to? You have caused unrest along borders with all your neighbors and do you have any other neighbor left that you want to stir insecurity for?


 Are you, who have atomic bombs, unable to destroy a terrorist group with several hundred members in the region? How many of your own people have been killed in different terrorist operations? We do not want your condolences, how could your condolence help the people of Iran?


 I tell the Pakistani people that the Saudi cash has influenced Pakistan and they want to destroy Pakistan with such measures.


 I warn you not to test Iran and anyone who has tested Iran has received firm response. We are speaking to Pakistan with a friendly tone and we are telling that country not to allow their borders to become a source of insecurity for the neighboring countries; anyone who has made this plot for Pakistan is seeking to disintegrate that country, the Islamic Republic of Iran will take revenge of its martyrs from those mercenaries who have committed this crime no matter where they are in the world.”

Soleimani’s statement revealed a lot about Iran’s current outlook and deserves to be analyzed in depth.

Interpreting Iran’s Intentions

Firstly, Soleimani implied that Pakistan backstabbed Iran after he said that Tehran always offered to help it, after which he remarked that Islamabad is responsible for regional unrest. The General then taunted the Pakistani Armed Forces by rhetorically asking why their nuclear weapons can’t defeat a small armed group that’s supposedly operating within its borders, despite knowing fully well that those armaments are irrelevant when dealing with hybrid threats. That was a cheap attack against the military and meant to make it an international laughingstock. He also portrayed Pakistan as hypocritical by reminding it of how many people it lost to this same type of terrorism that he says its government is responsible for, after which he disrespectfully rejected its condolences.

Soleimani then directly addressed the Pakistani people and tried to impugn Prime Minister Khan’s integrity by making it seem as though their leader is concealing an existentially dangerous conspiracy from them that involves Saudi Arabia paying the country to become a regional exporter of terrorism, which he implied the authorities recklessly agreed to even though he arrogantly predicted that this will result in Pakistan’s “disintegration”. He then proceeded to threaten Pakistan while disingenuously assuring it that he’s “speaking with a friendly tone” by promising that his military will “take revenge of its martyrs…no matter where they are in the world”, or in other words, might pull an Indian-like “surgical strike” against its neighbor (whether claiming it did or actually trying to).

Ruining The Regional Balance

Whether Iran realizes it or not, its representatives’ statements – and especially the latest ones from General Soleimani – have reversed the recent progress in bilateral relations with Pakistan and shown the world that their country has been successfully manipulated by a foreign power’s psy-ops into turning against its neighbor. Some members of the Iranian “deep state” probably don’t mind, however, since they might cynically believe that this serves the purpose of distracting their population from their many internal problems that have been exacerbated by the US’ unilateral re-implementation of sanctions and getting them to redirect their critical focus away from Iran’s setbacks in the Mashriq and towards the new externally aggravated fault line with Pakistan instead.

Worse still, all of this is occurring in the context of pronounced Indian-Pakistani tensions after the Pulwama attack, which suggests that Iran’s rhetoric is actually part of India’s regional Hybrid Waragainst Pakistan and further reinforcing the notion that the Islamic Republic has become New Delhi’s proxy against Islamabad. This increasingly hostile state of affairs is making it impossible for Pakistan to maintain its desired balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia and mediate between them like Islamabad previously offered to do. As a result, pro-Saudi sentiment is surging in Pakistani society while previously friendly attitudes towards Iran are rapidly disappearing, which is no one’s fault other than Tehran’s for implementing such an irresponsibly partisan policy against Pakistan.

Indian Strategic Interests

India didn’t manipulate Iran’s response to the artificial security dilemma that the joint Indo-American Hybrid War on CPEC eventually created between it and Pakistan just for the sake of “deep state” satisfaction, but to achieve tangible strategic outcomes that work out to its long-term advantage. The worsening of Pakistani-Iranian relations greatly hinders the creation of the Golden Ring of Multipolar Great Powers between those two Muslim countries, Turkey, Russia, and China, and it gives India a direct inroad into this geopolitical construction’s Central Asian core through the trans-Iranian North-South Transport Corridor’s (NSTC)’s eastern branch. Furthermore, India could take advantage of this situation to obtain basing rights for its navy in Chabahar, as well as pull Iran away from the Taliban.

By unprecedentedly becoming strategically dependent on India, however, Iran is also coming under the indirect influence of its patron’s American and “Israeli” allies too. About that, it can be said that Iran has currently come to share the same position towards Pakistan as India’s two aforementioned allies despite being their sworn enemy after all four of them accused Islamabad of hosting terrorists and being responsible for regional unrest. It’s almost surreal that the Islamic Republic celebrated the 40thanniversary of its revolution by aligning itself with what it refers to as the “Great and Little Satans”, an outcome that was brought about by India’s clandestine “facilitation” and which the Islamic Republic might wrongly believe will relieve their growing pressure upon it.

Dealing With The “Devils’” Best Friend

It’s the height of hypocrisy that Iran is now on the same side as its American and “Israeli” enemies vis-à-vis Pakistan because it’s invested so heavily since the revolution to establish the international reputation that it will always oppose the manifestation of both of their policies on principle. This “politically incorrect” observation draws into question everything that the Iranian leadership said that it stood for since 1979 and confirms that there are indeed “exceptions” to its “principled stance” of never aligning with the “Great and Little Satans”. Apparently, it’s okay to do so as a form of protest against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s (MBS) recent visit to Pakistan and as a sign of appreciation for India’s NSTC investments.

Still, Iran didn’t overreact when MBS went to India afterwards, probably because New Delhi has basically “paid off” Iran with the promise (key word) of those said megaproject investments as a form of implicit sanctions relief. This, however, ignores the fact that the US’ NSTC sanctions waiver to Indiaand Saudi Arabia’s planned energy deals with it both work out to the Islamic Republic’s long-term detriment by making it so that New Delhi achieves historically unparalleled “good cop/bad cop” influence over its economy. Tellingly, while Iran harshly criticizes Saudi Arabia for its secret ties with “Israel”, it’s silent about Modi publicly strolling with Netanayhu barefoot on a Mediterranean beach in summer 2017, proving how “exceptional” Iran regards India as being.

Russia To The Rescue?

While it might seem like all hope is lost in Pakistani-Iranian relations after the latter danced along to America’s strategic choreography by becoming India’s proxy in exchange for the promise (key word) of de-facto sanctions relief, there’s a chance that Russia’s recent return to the region can at the very least stop the situation from reaching rock bottom. Russia is regarded as being just as “exceptional” as India is in Iran’s eyes and therefore “allowed” to enjoy high-level strategic relations with both of the Islamic Republic’s “Israeli” and Saudi foes (despite growing Russian-Iranian disagreements over Syria) because Tehran considers Moscow to be an irreplaceable “pressure valve” by virtue of its geography, impending free trade deal, and a possible $5 billion loan.

Russia is so indispensable to Iran that there’s no way that Tehran could pressure Moscow to suspend its planned $10 billion undersea pipeline between itself, Pakistan, and India until Pakistani-Iranian relations improve. Nor, for that matter, could it stop Russian businessmen from using the NSTC to facilitate their country’s trade with Pakistan, meaning that Moscow is unquestionably in a position to “balance” between both Muslim Great Powers in accordance with its envisaged 21st-century grand strategy and therefore keep the situation from spiraling out of control. In fact, Russia might even be able to exert some “moderating influence” over Iran and get it to reconsider its current hostility against Pakistan, which could eventually set the basis for it to broker a rapprochement.

Concluding Thoughts

Iran was surprisingly manipulated on the occasion of none other than the 40thanniversary of its revolution into abandoning its commitment to independent policies and becoming India’s proxy instead, which it did in response to New Delhi’s wildly successful psy-op after a recent terrorist attack and in exchange for the promise (key word) of de-facto sanctions relief. IRGC commander General Soleimani publicly taunted and threatened Pakistan as a sign of fealty to his country’s new patron, which ruined any chances of Islamabad mediating between Tehran and Riyadh like it previously offered to do in pursuit of regional peace and incredibly aligned the Islamic Republic with its American and “Israeli” enemies, all of which works out to India’s ultimate strategic benefit.

All isn’t lost, however, since Russia could conceivably leverage its impressive influence over Iran and hefty investments in its economy (both current and forthcoming) to ensure that Pakistani-Iranian relations stabilize and avoid reaching rock bottom, though it’ll still remain immensely difficult for Moscow to counteract New Delhi’s influence and get Tehran to improve its ties with Islamabad in the near future. As unbelievable as it may sound, “Israel’s” Haaretz almost got the regional state of affairs right when it released an article titled “Pakistan Just Became Saudi Arabia’s Client State, and Turned Its Back on Tehran”, except they mixed up the subjects and it should have been that “Iran Just Became India’s Client State, and Turned Its Back on Islamabad”.

Posted in Iran, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Iran’s Turning into India’s Proxy by Taunting and Threatening Pakistan?

Putin on National Defense: Threats or a Bid to Negotiate on Arms Control?

Rod Rosenstein

As he stated at the outset, Vladimir Putin’s annual state of the nation address today before a joint session of the nation’s bicameral legislature was devoted preponderantly to domestic policy. He was expanding on the practical implications for the Russian population of the policy priorities for his current six-year term that he set out in decrees of May 2018. These have in the meantime taken the form of national projects organized around support to families to encourage childbearing and stabilize the national demographics; housing construction and financing; roads, ports and other transport infrastructure development; improved health services; upgrading public education; encouragement to business innovation and export; and the like.

This material was delivered with a human touch, drawing on many experiences of contact with people from all walks of life that the President has gathered in specially organized meetings focused on these national projects at various cities around his vast country. He cited in particular his time in Kazan last week talking about housing.

For most political observers outside of Russia, myself included, the domestic policy story was marginal to our interests, though we did sit up and pay close attention to his brief remarks on one achievement illustrating the strides the country is making in state of the art applied sciences. This was his description of the breakthrough represented by the design and production of the hypersonic Avangard missile system. He likened it to the launch into orbit of the first Sputnik and he promised spill-over of the science into the civilian economy.

Otherwise, we foreigners had to wait until the very end of his speech to hear what brought us to watch this annual ritual in the first place. The raisins in our cake came when the President finally turned to international affairs. And there, after a rather cursory summary of Russia’s foreign policy priorities, his discourse shifted to defense issues raised by the recently announced American withdrawal from the Intermediate- Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Indeed, notwithstanding the mention a few moments before of the key importance of bilateral ties with China and also with India, Putin’s focus on Washington and the way the whole Russian defense industry is directed to meeting threats from the USA, highlights the centrality of that one country in Russian thinking. Thus, Putin allowed himself to mock Europe as US “satellites.” Further to the point, he went on to use folksy language that Nikita Khrushchev would surely a have approved to describe the Europeans as so many little piglets oinking their assent to Washington’s allegations of Russian INF violations. The audience in the hall turned to smiles and applauded enthusiastically.

Western mainstream media have been quick to note the direct threat by Putin in his speech to respond to any US placement of nuclear armed cruise missiles in Europe by targeting not only the European host countries of such installations but the decision-making centers authorizing their use, meaning Washington. By its new hypersonic weapon systems, Russia would be able to reach targeted American cities within the same 10 – 12 minutes that the Americans would enjoy by lobbing their slower cruise missiles at Moscow from perches in Poland and Romania.

This is tough talk over basic issues that suggest not so much a revisiting of the US-Russian Cold War confrontation over European based Pershings versus Soviet medium range SS20s targeting Western Europe in the 1980s, as a revisiting of the issues underlying the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. At that time, US missiles secretly based in Turkey brought a mirror image response from Russia (the Soviet Union) in the form of missiles positioned just off the American coast and having comparable flying times to hit the American heartland.

Surely, as I have remarked in recent essays, the highly polished Putin is no Khrushchev, and he is careful to avoid appearing to issue threats. But the toughness is there under the velvet glove in speeches like today’s.

To allow readers to draw their own conclusions, I offer below my translation of the complete text of the speech relating to the United States.


Excerpt – the final 12 minutes devoted to foreign and defense policy of a speech that ran approximately 90 minutes.

The most acute and discussed issue today in Russian-American relations is the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Therefore, I am simply compelled to dwell on this in some detail. Yes, to be sure, from the moment of the conclusion of this Treaty in 1987 there have been serious changes in the world. Many countries have developed and continue to develop this form of weapons, whereas Russia and the USA do not. We voluntarily have restricted ourselves in this matter. Such a situation, of course, can raise questions; that is understandable. That is what our American partners should have said, honestly, and without using fabricated accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from the Treaty. It would have been better if, as in 2002, when they left the ABM Treaty, they had been open and honest about it. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter. I believe it is bad. But they did so and that’s it. Here they should have acted honestly. How are they themselves acting in fact? They are violating everything and then seek justification and designate guilty parties. And still more, they mobilize their satellites: they are very cautious, but still like piglets they oink their assent on this question. At first, they began development and application of medium range missiles, seeking to divert attention by calling them “target missiles” for their missile defense system. Then they began installing in Europe the MK-41 multipurpose launchers which make it possible to perform combat use of the medium range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

I am talking about this and taking your time with it only because we are compelled to respond to the accusations which we hear directed against us. But having done everything that I have just said, the USA openly disregarded and demonstratively ignored the whole set of provisions stipulated by articles 4 and 6 of the INF Treaty. In particular, according to point 1, article 4 of the Treaty, (and I quote) “each of the parties liquidates its medium range missiles and launch installations for such missiles so that neither of the parties has such missiles and such launchers.” In article 6, point 1, we see (I am reading word for word): “after this Treaty comes into force and thereafter neither of the parties will produce any medium range missiles or carry out flight tests of such missiles, nor produce any stages of such missiles or any launch installations of such missiles.” End of citation.

By launching medium range target-missiles and by installing in Romania and Poland launchers suitable for use with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the USA directly and crudely violated these requirements of the Treaty. Well, they did this already long ago. In Romania these launch installations are already standing, and nothing, or seemingly nothing is happening. Strange, you might say. We see nothing strange. But people should see this and understand.

How do we evaluate the situation in this regard. I have already said and want to repeat: Russia does not intend – and this is very important, I repeat it especially – Russia does not intend to be the first to locate such missiles in Europe. If they really will be produced and placed on the European Continent, and the USA has such plans, in any case we have not heard contrary statements, then this will greatly exacerbate the situation in the sphere of international security; it will create serious threats for Russia. After all, the flying time to Moscow of certain categories of such missiles can amount to 10 – 12 minutes. This is a very serious threat for us. In this case, we will be compelled, and I want to underline, precisely compelled, to take mirror-image and asymmetrical actions. What does this mean?

I will say right now directly and openly what I am talking about so that no one will rebuke us later, and so that everything is clear in advance. Russia will be forced to create and deploy forms of weapons which can be used not only with respect to those territories from which the respective direct threat arises, but also with respect to those territories where are located the centers for taking decisions about using the missile complexes threatening us.

What is important in this connection: here there is a lot that is new. By their tactical and technical characteristics, including flight time to the indicated management centers, these weapons will fully match the threats which are being directed against Russia.

We know how to do this and we will carry out these plans immediately, as soon as the respective threats to us become real. I do not think that the international situation today is such that it needs additional and irresponsible exacerbation. We do not want this

What do I want to add here? Our American colleagues have already tried to achieve absolute military superiority with the help of their global missile defense system. They must put such illusions aside. The response from our side will always be powerful and effective.

Work on the promising models and systems of arms about which I spoke in my Address a year ago is continuing – at an even pace, without interruptions, according to plan. We have begun serial production of the Avangard complex about which I already spoke today. This year, as was planned, the first regiment of the Strategic Missile Troops will be supplied with it. We are in production and carrying out the cycle of tests on the heavy, intercontinental missile Sarmat which has unprecedented power. The Peresvet laser installations and air force complexes equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missiles have confirmed their unique specifications in test and battle duty; the personnel have gained experience operating them. In December of this year all the Peresvety units delivered to the Armed Forces will be put on combat duty. We are continuing work to extend the infrastructure for hosting MiG-31 planes equipped with Kinzhal missiles. The tests are going well on our unlimited range cruise missile powered by the Burevestnk nuclear engine, as well as on the Poseidon, our underwater drone with unlimited range.

In this connection, I want to make a very important remark. We didn’t talk about this previously, but today I can say this: already in the spring of this year we will put out to sea our first atomic submarine carrying this drone complex. The work is proceeding according to plan.

Today, I consider it possible also to officially inform you about still one more promising new unit. Remember that last time I said: there is something additional to talk about, but it is a bit early. Now, calmly we will tell you what we have held in the vaults. It is one more promising innovation, work on which is going successfully, with completion certain to occur within the planned timeline. Namely, I want to speak about the hypersonic Zircon missile, having a speed in flight of around Mach 9 and a range greater than one thousand kilometers, capable of destroying targets both on land and at sea. Its use is foreseen on naval carriers, serial produced surface ships and submarines, including those already produced or under construction and fitted with the high precision Kalibr missile complexes. That is to say, all of this will not incur extra costs for us.

In this connection, I want to emphasize that for the defense of the national interests of Russia, we will turn over to the Russian Navy two – three years earlier than scheduled seven new multifunctional submarines, and in the near future we will begin construction of five surface ships for global service, while a further 16 ships of this class will be introduced into the fleet by 2027.

In closing out the subject of the unilateral withdrawal of the USA from the INF Treaty, I would like to say the following. In the past few years, the USA has been conducting towards Russia a policy which one could hardly call friendly. They ignore the lawful interests of Russia. They are constantly organizing various kinds of anti-Russian campaigns which are absolutely unprovoked, and I emphasize this, from our side. They introduce more and more new sanctions which are illegal from the standpoint of international law. They are dismantling unilaterally practically all the treaties and legal basis of international security that developed over recent decades, and at the same time they just about call Russia the main threat to the USA.

I will say directly that this is untrue. Russia wants to have full-bodied, equitable and friendly relations with the USA. Russia is not threatening anyone. All of our actions in the sphere of security bear an exclusively reactive, meaning defensive character. We are not interested in a confrontation and do not want it, least of all with such a global power as the United States of America. But it would appear that our partners are not noticing how and with what speed the world is changing, where it is headed. They continue their destructive and clearly erroneous policy. It hardly corresponds to the interests of the USA itself. But that is not for us to decide.

We see that we are dealing with businesslike, very talented people. However, among the ruling class there are many of those who are excessively captivated by the idea of their exceptionalism and their superiority over the rest of the world. It stands to reason that they have the right to think so if they wish. But do they know how to count? Surely they do. Let them calculate the range and speed of our upcoming weapons systems. We only ask one thing: let them first do their calculations, and only after that take decisions which can create serious threats for our country, understandably leading to actions in response from the Russian side to reliably ensure our security.

Moreover, I already spoke about this and want to repeat it: we are ready for negotiations on disarmament, but we will no longer knock at a closed door. We will wait until our partners mature, come to understand the need for equitable dialogue on this subject.

We will continue to develop our Armed Forces, to raise the intensity and quality of combat preparation, including our taking into account our experience from the anti-terrorist operation in Syria. And this was received by practically all the commanders of the major units of our Ground Troops, our special operations forces and military police, navy crews, army, tactical operations, strategic and military transport aviation.

I want to emphasize the following: for steady and long-term development we need peace. All of our work to raise our defense capability has only one objective: it is directed towards ensuring the security of the country and of our citizens, so that no one will not only not think about committing aggression against Russia but will not try to use the methods of forcible pressure against our country.

Here’s the full video of President Putin’s state of the nation address.


Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Putin on National Defense: Threats or a Bid to Negotiate on Arms Control?



Instead of clearing the air about the previous antisemitic post, Omar continued with a response: “AIPAC!”


Muslim Democratic congressional candidate Ilhan Omar calls Israel ‘apartheid regime’, July 10, 2018.

Muslim Democratic congressional candidate Ilhan Omar calls Israel ‘apartheid regime’, July 10, 2018.. (photo credit: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/LORIE SHAULL)

US congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a famed Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) supporter, pointed an accusatory finger at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), saying the organization is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel.

Omar made the comment in a tweet on Sunday evening American time sparking immediate backlash, with Twitter users accusing Omar of going down a slippery slope by linking AIPAC with the negative antisemitic stereotype of Jewish people’s false obsession with money. She was posting in response to a tweet by follower Glenn Greenwald, who wrote that “it’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.”

“It’s all about the Benjamins [sic] baby,” wrote Omar.

Ilhan Omar


It’s all about the Benjamins baby

Glenn Greenwald


GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans 

16.2K people are talking about this

Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel said that it is “shocking to hear a Member of Congress invoke the antisemitic trope of ‘Jewish money.'”

“I will make the case to Members on both sides of the aisle that our alliance and friendship with Israel are important to our countries’ shared interests, security, and values,” Engel declared. “This has always been the basis of the US-Israel relationship and it’s the reason why members on both sides have been strong supporters of that relationship.”

Later, Twitter user Batya Ungar-Sargon, an opinion editor for The Forward, wrote, “Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess. Bad form, Congresswoman. That’s the second antisemitic trope you’ve tweeted.”

Instead of clearing the air about the previous antisemitic post, Omar continued with a response: “AIPAC!”

Ilhan Omar



Batya Ungar-Sargon


Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess. Bad form, Congresswoman. That’s the second anti-Semitic trope you’ve tweeted. 

9,671 people are talking about this

Omar received both mild and serious backlash for her posts.

Comedian Sarah Silverman responded, “I truly don’t think she meant it that way AT ALL, but I’m surprised she’s earnestly not aware of the people that will absolutely take it that way…”

Other responses were more critical, including that of Chelsea Clinton, who wrote, “We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in antisemitism.”

Batya Ungar-Sargon


Please learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way. Sincerely, American Jews.

Chelsea Clinton


Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.

4,941 people are talking about this

Soon after, Omar responded to Clinton, saying, “Chelsea – I would be happy to talk. We must call out smears from the GOP and their allies. And I believe we can do that without criticizing people for their faith.”

Omar sidetracked the conversation, ignoring the direct criticism for her antisemitic remarks. However, Clinton responded positively, agreeing to schedule a meeting and advance away from prejudices, despite Omar not mentioning the antisemitic comments themselves.

Ilhan Omar


 Chelsea – I would be happy to talk. We must call out smears from the GOP and their allies. And I believe we can do that without criticizing people for their faith.

I look forward to building an inclusive movement for justice with you.

Chelsea Clinton


Replying to @mcbyrne @IlhanMN

Hi Melissa – I will reach out to her tomorrow. I also think we have to call out anti-Semitic language and tropes on all sides, particularly in our elected officials and particularly now.

5,182 people are talking about this

Clinton later clarified that she intends to condemn antisemitism on Omar’s part as well as on either end of the political spectrum. “I also think we have to call out antisemitic language and tropes on all sides, particularly in our elected officials and particularly now,” Clinton tweeted.

melissa byrne


Disappointed @ChelseaClinton is pilling on @IlhanMN instead of reaching out to her. She is a new MoC and figuring out how to navigate calling out AIPAC ( which is a terrible organization aligned with Bibi) and learning that a lot of folks will assume the worst.

Chelsea Clinton


Hi Melissa – I will reach out to her tomorrow. I also think we have to call out anti-Semitic language and tropes on all sides, particularly in our elected officials and particularly now.

1,185 people are talking about this

Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late US Senator John McCain, encouraged Clinton, saying, “Thank you, Chelsea – antisemitism on all sides, in all spaces, no matter how uncomfortable should always be called out and condemned.”

Meghan McCain


Thank you, Chelsea – antisemitism on all sides, in all spaces, no matter how uncomfortable should always be called out and condemned.

Chelsea Clinton


Replying to @bungarsargon @ReaganBattalion

Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.

3:09 AM – Feb 11, 2019

CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Jonathan Greenblatt contributed to the discussion as well, saying that “words matter.”

“Antisemitism is on the rise in the US and abroad,” Greenblatt continued. “The use of this tired antisemitic trope about Jews and money is inappropriate and upsetting. As Americans and Jews, we expect our politicians to condemn bigotry, not fuel it.”

Jonathan Greenblatt


Words matter Rep. @IlhanMN. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the US and abroad. The use of this tired anti-Semitic trope about Jews and money is inappropriate and upsetting. As Americans and Jews, we expect our politicians to condemn bigotry, not fuel it.

Ilhan Omar


It’s all about the Benjamins baby 

1,275 people are talking about this

Congresswoman Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, responded to Omar, as well, claiming that “House Democrat leaders should condemn this anti-Semitism and immediately remove [Ilhan Omar] from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”


View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Liz Cheney


House Democrat leaders should condemn this anti-Semitism and immediately remove ⁦@IlhanMN⁩ from the House Foreign Affairs Committee

Max Rose, a New York Democratic congressman, responded to Omar, as well.

“Congresswoman Omar’s statements are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself,” he wrote. “Implying that Americans support Israel because of money alone is offensive enough.  But to go a step further and retweet someone declaring their pain at her sentiment is simply unacceptable.”

“At a time when antisemitic attacks are on the rise, our leaders should not be invoking hurtful stereotypes and caricatures of Jewish people to dismiss those who support Israel,” Rose continued. “In the Democratic party – and in the United States of America – we celebrate the diversity of our people, and the Gods we pray to, as a strength.”

Max Rose


Congresswoman Omar’s statements are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself.

Dan Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel, denounced Omar, as well, calling her statement a “vile antisemitic trope.”

“Some of us remained uncomfortably quiet after her BDS flip-flop and other offensive remarks because we were aware of efforts to work with her,” said Shapiro. “Her support for BDS is apparently her essence: blaming Israel alone for the conflict, absolving Palestinians of all responsibility, delegitimizing Israel’s very existence…”


Facebook gives nod to secret pro-Nazi campaign


Facebook gives nod to secret pro-Israel campaign

Facebook gives nod of approval to secretive and deceptive pages set up by a lobby group that collaborates with the Israeli government. Stephen LamReuters

Facebook has banned several pages belonging to such viral media outlets as In the Now because they are affiliates of the Russian-funded network RT – even though these media outlets violated none of the social network’s rules.

Yet The Electronic Intifada can exclusively reveal that Facebook has given a nod of approval to a network of secretive and deceptive pages set up by The Israel Project, a lobby group that collaborateswith the Israeli government and withIsrael’smilitaryestablishment to influence public opinion against Palestinians.

Last week, Facebook took down several pages run by Maffick Media. This came after CNN ran a report that the majority stakeholder of the company “is Ruptly, a subsidiary of RT, which is funded by the Russian government.”

Often featuring reporter Rania Khalek, one of those outlets, In The Now, creates viral videos on current affairs, including this recent one debunking US claims used to justify the Trump administration’s regime change effort in Venezuela:


Rania Khalek


Here’s another piece of adversarial content that CNN and US government funded think tanks have convinced @Facebook to censor by taking down @IntheNow_tweet’s page. CNN’s @brianstelter outrageously equated our content w/ anti-vaxxers. Decide for yourself

Embedded video

Rania Khalek


Seriously, I encourage you to watch the videos I’ve posted in this thread & go check out @IntheNow_tweet’s other videos, which cover climate change, politics & history. Watch and ask yourself why CNN finds this content so offensive that it pressured @Facebook to censor it

Rania Khalek


Please express your concerns to @facebook about their censorship of @IntheNow_tweet at the behest of US government funded think tanks. They need to know that their users are not okay with governments dictating what ppl see and don’t see.

Rania Khalek


It has been 3 days since @facebook suspended @IntheNow_tweet‘s page at the behest of @CNN and US government funded think tanks. We had almost 4 million subscribers, did not violate any Facebook rules, were given no warning & Facebook isn’t responding to us.

However CNN drew on Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab as a supposed expert to claim that In The Now journalists “routinely boost Kremlin narratives, especially those which portray the West negatively.”A pro-war think tank, The Atlantic Council boasts funders including NATO, the governments of the United States, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates, and a slew of arms companies.

Its supposed digital sleuth Nimmo has such a poor track record that he has falsely identified living individuals, including a Ukrainian concert pianist and a British senior citizen, as “Russian bots.”

CNN also acknowledged that the relationship between Maffick Media and RT was brought to its attention by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a cut-out of the US and NATO-financed German Marshall Fund.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy’s “advisory council” is a who’s who of US government figures and right-wing ideologues including former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, neoconservative war hawk Bill Kristol, former CIA acting director Michael Morell, Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chair John Podesta and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

CNN reporters claimed that their network’s “investigation” uncovered that “Russia is paying to produce viral videos aimed at Americans” – even though the fact that In The Now has Russian funding was not a secret and already widelyknown.

CNN even misquoted Maffick Media chief operating officer J. Ray Sparks to make it seem like he had acknowledged duplicitous behavior by his company to conceal its Russian funding, when he was merely noting that it was “standard industry practice” among all media outlets not to include extensive disclosures about their ownership structures.

CNN was forced to issue a correction after Gosztola revealed this deception.

Kevin Gosztola


How CNN led Facebook to censor the pages of a Russia-backed video company and manufactured a news story 

When CNN Went Digging For Dirt On Russia-Backed Viral Video Company

CNN searched for story on Russia-backed viral video company. Struggling, it reached out to Facebook. After Facebook suspended company’s pages, it had story.

Kevin Gosztola


Here’s conversation I recorded with @RaniaKhalek about CNN, which fabricated a story around her work and the work of In The Now. They had little to nothing until Facebook censored journalists critical of US govt. Then CNN published their report.

Response To CNN Getting Rania Khalek, In The Now Censored
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, a campaigner against censorship, excoriated CNN as “obsessed with, and steadfastly devoted to, pressuring social media companies to censor from the internet political content critical of the US government.”

Glenn Greenwald


CNN is obsessed with, and steadfastly devoted to, pressuring social media companies to censor from the internet political content critical of the US Govt. They work with US-funded groups to do it. What odd behavior for a news outlet: sounds more like an arm of the State Dept.

Kevin Gosztola


How CNN led Facebook to censor the pages of a Russia-backed video company and manufactured a news story 

Greenwald also pointed out that CNN’s owner, “AT&T, has very close relationships with the US security state, especially its spying.”

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

Glenn Greenwald


CNN’s owner, AT&T, has very close relationships with the US security state, especially its spying. CNN never discloses this. CNN employs many ex-agents. They never disclose the interests of their weapons advertisers in the wars they promote. But they demand FB censors others.

CNN is obsessed with, and steadfastly devoted to, pressuring social media companies to censor from the internet political content critical of the US Govt. They work with US-funded groups to do it. What odd behavior for a news outlet: sounds more like an arm of the State Dept.

The network also “employs many ex-agents” and “never disclose the interests of their weapons advertisers in the wars they promote,” Greenwald added. “But they demand Facebook censors others.”

Secret Israeli propaganda

In stark contrast to Facebook’s swift removal of pages belonging to media outlets that challenge US government policies, the social network has taken no action against a secret influence campaign run by The Israel Project, a major lobby group.

The effort to manipulate unsuspecting Facebook users was revealed in The Lobby – USA, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that was never broadcast by the network due to censorship by Qatar following pressure from pro-Israel organizations.

But The Electronic Intifada obtained a leaked copy of the film and published it in full in November.

The Israel Project created a network of seemingly innocuous pages, including Cup of Jane – which has more than half a million followers – Soul MamaHistory BitesWe Have Only One Earth and This Explains That.

These pages mostly share funny or inspirational material, often with a progressive or feminist tilt, mostly with no connection to Israel.

But The Israel Project regularly drops pro-Israel material into the stream of content – while concealing entirely or failing to explicitly acknowledge that the pages are run by a group that works to promote Israel and its government’s policies.

In the leaked film, Jordan Schachtel, who worked for The Israel Project at the time, tells the undercover Al Jazeera reporter about the logic and extent of the covert Facebook operation:

“We’re putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren’t The Israel Project’s channels,” Schachtel tells the undercover reporter. “So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate with.”

“That’s why it’s a secretive thing,” Schachtel adds. “Because we don’t want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project.”

The reporter asks if the idea of “all the rest of the non-Israel stuff is to allow the Israel stuff to pass better.”

“It’s just that we want to like blend in everything,” Schachtel explains.

David Hazony, the managing director of The Israel Project, is also heard telling Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter: “There are also things that we do that are completely off the radar. We work together with a lot of other organizations.”

“We produce content that they then publish with their own name on it,” Hazony adds.

In September, soon after it revealed The Israel Project-run pages, The Electronic Intifada asked Facebook if the secret influence campaign violated any of Facebook’s policies – particularly in light of the furore over the alleged, though unsubstantiated or false, charges of a massive Russia-backed effort to use social media to influence the 2016 US presidential election.

But until now, The Electronic Intifada did not publish Facebook’s response: A spokesperson for Facebook wrote that the company looked at the pages covertly run by The Israel Project and concluded that they “don’t violate any of Facebook’s pages policies.”

This is hardly surprising given that it was already known that Facebook partners with the Israeli and US governments to delete accounts that those governments do not like.

But it is more clear proof that Facebook isn’t concerned about protecting users from unwitting exposure to government propaganda.

Rather, it is colluding with the US and allied governments, and government-aligned corporate media like CNN, to suppress reportage and opinion that challenge the United States and its client regimes like Israel.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, MediaComments Off on Facebook gives nod to secret pro-Nazi campaign

Shoah’s pages


February 2019
« Jan   Mar »