Archive | January 20th, 2016

FBI release information implicating themselves in the assassination of M L K

Nearly 50 years since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI and Memphis Police Department have sparingly released information implicating themselves or members of their agencies in facilitating and directly causing the untimely death of Dr. King. Although the Justice Department officially claims James Earl Ray assassinated MLK, a civil suit later determined that a Memphis cop was involved in a conspiracy to murder the civil rights leader.During a rainstorm on February 1, 1968, two black sanitation workers in Memphis lost their lives when the truck’s compactor accidentally triggered. On that same day, 22 black sewer workers were sent home without pay while their white coworkers received compensation. Less than two weeks later, over a thousand black sanitation workers went on strike wearing placards reading, “I AM A MAN.”

On March 18, 1968, Dr. King spoke at a rally in Memphis promising to lead a march later in the month supporting the striking sanitation workers. According to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a black civil rights group named the Invaders sabotaged the March 28 demonstration by distributing hundreds of two by two sticks attached to placards into the hands of impressionable black children caught breaking store windows. The Invaders allegedly incited violence against Dr. King’s orders of peaceful resistance.

Because of the violence perpetrated during the March 28 demonstration, the city of Memphis filed a formal complaint against Dr. King and his associates within the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). On the last day of his life, Dr. King spent most of his time with Dr. Ralph Abernathy of the SCLC. While Rev. Andrew “Andy” Young of the SCLC had convinced U.S. District Court Judge Bailey Brown to allow Dr. King to organize a peaceful march scheduled for April 8, Dr. King was preparing for dinner with Rev. Samuel “Billy” Kyles.

On April 4, 1968, Dr. King’s Memphis PD security detail had been withdrawn, a black Memphis PD detective posted near the Lorraine Motel had been removed, and two black firemen in a station near the Lorraine Motel were transferred shortly before the assassination.Former Memphis PD Detective Jerry Williams had been assigned to Dr. King’s security detail twice before his final visit in 1968. Det. Williams asserted on Dr. King’s final visit that no black officers had been assigned to his security detail. The day before Dr. King’s death, Inspector Don H. Smith requested to remove his detail. The request was granted.

Accounts differ regarding Dr. King’s final words. According to FBI documents, Dr. King was discussing the weather with his chauffeur, Solomon Jones Jr., when the fatal shot struck. Rev. Jesse Jackson instead recalls Dr. King chastising him for not wearing a tie. Dr. King then turned to musician Ben Branch, who was standing beside Jackson, and said, “Make sure you play ‘Take My Hand, Precious Lord.’ Play it real pretty.” According to Jackson, those were his final words.

Since revealing its illegal COINTELPRO harassment of Dr. King and the existence of at least 5 paid informants who reported to their Memphis Field Office, the FBI also disclosed that Dr. King’s trusted friend and renowned photographer, Ernest Withers, had been secretly working as an FBI informantIn addition to the FBI informants, a black undercover Memphis PD officer named Marrell McCollough had infiltrated the Invaders in 1968. McCollough stood in the parking lot of the Lorraine Motel on the night Dr. King died. He claimed to have been the first person to reach the body.

Although the Invaders had been removed from the Lorraine Motel a few hours earlier, undercover MPD officer Marrell McCollough remained on the premises until Dr. King’s death. McCollough claimed he spent the day shopping with Rev. James Bevel and Rev. James Orange of the SCLC. Standing in the parking lot of the Lorraine Motel, McCollough witnessed Dr. King’s assassination then ran up the stairs to view the body. ABC Newsconfirmed McCollough went on to join the CIA, and he later testified on March 12, 1978, to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

While recalling Dr. King’s final moments, Rev. Billy Kyles who was standing beside Dr. King on the balcony admitted decades later, “Only as I moved away so he could have a clear shot, the shot rang out.” Kyles has denied working as an FBI informant, even though he was accused of being a confidential Memphis PD informant.

In 1999, civil trial King v. Jowers determined former Memphis PD officer Loyd Jowers had been complicit in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC’s Prime Time Live confessing to his participation in Dr. King’s assassination. Jowers admitted he believed MPD Lt. Earl Clark fired the shot that killed Dr. King, not James Earl Ray. Although the U.S. government claims that Jowers fabricated his allegations, they have also admitted responsibility in attempting to ruin Dr. King’s marriage and persuading him to commit suicide.


Posted in USAComments Off on FBI release information implicating themselves in the assassination of M L K

Behind the Saudi Head Lopping Orgy


Image result for Netanyahu SAUDI CARTOON


When I$raHell – Naziyahu in particular, but past Israeli prime ministers as well – wants to “stick it” to Washington, knowing that it could complicate Obama’s agenda some, it announces it is going to build more settlements in the Occupied Territories at a sensitive moment for Washington, the goal being, repeatedly, to sabotage any genuine progress towards a diplomatic solution to the Zionist-Palestinian crisis.

..While it had other goals as well, it seems that the main purpose of Saudi Arabi’a mass execution  was to provoke Iran into overreacting in such a way that the P5+1 agreement (the Iran nuclear deal) would be scuttled. While critical of the Saudi executions, Iran has so far limited its response to a verbal rebuke. It did not take the bait and over-react.

..The Saudi head lopping was the largest mass execution since 1980 when 63 rebels involved in the 1979 rebellion in Mecca were likewise “put to the sword.” This time some 47 people – the most prominent among them the Shi’ite cleric Nimr al Nimra – were executed on January 2 inside prisons in twelve Saudi provinces; 43 were beheaded, the other four executed by firing squads. Most of the others were executed for organizing or participating in a series of al Qaeda-lined attacks in the years after 2003.

..Beyond the cynicism, downright inhumanity and barbarism of these beheading, which merit all the international outcry they are receiving, one must ask the question: what’s the deal? After all, Salman and Al Jubeir knew well that going down such a path would provoke such a vibrant negative reaction. But they didn’t give a hoot about public opinion, did they, as long as they were assured that Washington, other than making a few feckless public statements, would stand behind them. Again, the comparison with Naziyahu’s I$raHell – immune to criticism as long as the White House considers I$raHell its strategic ally – comes to mind.

As long as Washington – be it the Bush or Obama White House – stand with its regional strategic allies I$raHell, Saudi Arabia it matters little what the rest of the world thinks.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Behind the Saudi Head Lopping Orgy

Peace Disruptors in Afghanistan

Image result for Peace Afghanistan PHOTO
By Sajjad Shaukat

On January 13, this year, at least seven personal of the Afghan security forces died during the suicide attack which targeted the Pakistani consulate in Jalalabad. Islamic State group (ISIS or Daesh) claimed responsibility for the terror-attack.

The attack, which coincided with efforts to restart the stalled peace process with Taliban insurgents and ease diplomatic tensions between India and Pakistan, added a dangerous new element to Afghanistan’s volatile security mix. In this regard, delegates from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and the United States had met this to try to resurrect efforts to end nearly 15 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan. However, we need to know the real peace disruptors in Afghanistan.

It is notable that on December 9, 2015, the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process Conference was held in Islamabad in which high-level representatives of supporting regional and international organizations from over 30 countries including especially the US, China and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj participated.

The participants realized the importance of the conference as an important regional platform aimed at a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan which was not only in its own interest, but also vital to peace, stability and prosperity of the ‘Heart of Asia’ region as a whole—it was collective responsibility to help Afghanistan in combating the challenges it faced.

In the joint declaration, the participants reaffirmed the respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and reiterated their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and reaffirmed the objectives, aimed at promoting regional peace and prosperity and enhanced cooperation for countering security threats collectively.

And a series of meetings were held in Islamabad between Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and the US to develop an understanding of the earliest possible resumption of stalled talks between the Afghan government and Taliban. A trilateral meeting was also held among Pakistan, Afghanistan and the America. Besides, President Ashraf Ghani, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj also met Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Sushma said that India and Pakistan have decided to restart composite dialogue to address all issues including Kashmir.

President Ghani vowed to work together to eliminate the common threat of terrorism, which Pakistan and Afghanistan are facing, and emphasized on the need to enhance bilateral relations between the two countries.

In this respect, in the recent past, cordial relations were established between Pakistan and Afghanistan when Afghan President Ghani had realized that Afghanistan and Pakistan were facing similar challenges of terrorism and would combat this threat collectively.

While, it is misfortune that on direction of New Delhi and like the former regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s present rulers have also started accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism. In this context, after hours of the Taliban captured Kunduz city, on September 28, 2015, during his address to the UNO General Assembly, Afghanistan’s chief executive Abdullah Abdullah blamed Islamabad for carrying out cross-border attacks and destabilizing Afghanistan.

Differences exist between chief executive Abdullah Abdullah and President Ashraf Ghani, as the former wants cordial relations with New Delhi at the cost of Afghanistan and the latter prefers Islamabad, because Pak-Afghan stability is interrelated.

It is mentionable that on December 10, President Ghani accepted the resignation of Rahmatullah Nabil as director of the Afghan intelligence agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS), after developing differences of the spymaster with him over Ghani’s move to attend the regional conference in Islamabad. In his statement, Nabil said President Ghani had asked him to relinquish charge of the NDS.

Besides, Prime Minister Sharif and President Ghani also showed their determination that their countries would cooperate in fighting the threat of ISIS.

As the US is playing double game with Pakistan, because it is the only nuclear country in the Islamic World, which irritates America and Israel. Hence, secret agents of American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW which are well-penetrated in ISIS and are making efforts to weaken Tibetan regions of China, Iran and Pakistan, especially Pakistan’s province of Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities, promoting acrimonious sense of dissent, political volatility, sectarian violence and arousing sentiments of separatism.

In fact, in collusion with Afghanistan’s spy agency NDS, particularly, RAW has well-established its network in Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-border incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements and anti-Pakistan groups like Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundullah (God’s soldiers) and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Nevertheless, Indian desperation in Afghanistan is increasing in the backdrop of growing engagements of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and US. Therefore, by arranging terror-assaults in Pakistan and Afghanistan, India is also thwarting the peace process between the Afghan officials and representatives of Tehreek-e-Taliban Afghanistan, which started in Murree, Pakistan, on July 8, 2015 through a meeting, hosted by Islamabad, and in it, Chinese and American representatives, also participated. While, the US, China and Pakistan are jointly working to facilitate the process so as to bring peace both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the whole region.

New Delhi is also trying to sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and is targeting growing Pak-China-Afghanistan relations.

It is of particular attention that waging a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the US and other NATO countries have realized that after the withdrawal of foreign troops, Afghanistan would be thrown in an era of uncertainly and civil war. They realize the fact that there is a co-relationship of terrorism or stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Therefore, US-led developed nations which also spent billions of dollars for the development of Afghanistan have repeatedly agreed that without Islamabad’s help, stability cannot be achieved there. Unfortunately, India does not intend to see peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, India is undermining Pak-Afghan stability by creating unrest, and by sabotaging their cordial relations.

As regards the protracted conflict in Afghanistan, the problem cannot be solved through war and weaponry. Initiation of peace dialogue and positive engagements among the contestant groups can be the other practicable option.

Pakistan is desirous of peaceful Afghanistan and sincerely committed to play a positive role in facilitating atmosphere for the dialogue-parties.

Islamabad has categorically denounced any proximity with Taliban as propagated by Indian and western segments. The impression of proximity has been exploited to fan mistrust between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pakistan has expressed its firm resolve to eradicate extremism and terrorism and military operation Zarb-e-Azb and National Action Plan is clear manifestation of the same.

The entities which are playing double game are opposed to a peaceful Afghanistan. Therefore, they have always attempted to hinder or disrupt any positive outcome of Pak-Afghan engagement by exploiting holed up proxies to carryout terrorism either on Afghan soil or in Pakistan.

Due to Pakistan’s incontestable role in Afghan imbroglio, the country remains a prime target of vested countries and extra regional powers and have been witnessing terrorism thourgh the ISIS which these hostile have themselves created to obtain the secret designs of America, India, Israel and some western countries.

Optimistically speaking, while appreciating increasing engagements at military level of both Pakistan and Afghanistan, media may urge political leadership to expend the contacts and engagements, so that the bilateral relations foster at all levels.

For the purpose, the US-led developed countries must also realize that unlike India, Pakistan shares common geographical, historical, religious and cultural bonds with Afghanistan, while Pak-Afghan stability has a co-relationship, which is essential for their global and regional interests. Especially, America must abandon its double standard, and must check Indian hidden strategy against Pakistan, Afghanistan and other regional countries. Nonetheless, dual policy of the peace disruptors in Afghanistan must be stopped by the respective governments of these countries.


Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations


Posted in AfghanistanComments Off on Peace Disruptors in Afghanistan

‘Voluntary’ International Law and the Paris Agreement


 by Dr: Richard Falk

Now that the celebrations by the diplomats have ended, it is time to take a hard look at what was and was not accomplished by the Paris Agreement. No one can deny that it was impressive to obtain agreement from all 195 participating countries, an outcome many doubted. A further achievement was the acceptance of the scientific consensus that global warming was an unprecedentedly severe global challenge that needed to be addressed with a sense of urgency and commitment by the world as a whole. Further, it was important that the agreement set forth in its text the ambitious goal of 1.5C degrees as the prudent ceiling for tolerable warming, while seeking to avoid an increase of 2C degrees, even while being aware that this latter would still result in serious additional harm but would be far less likely to be catastrophic than if emissions are allowed to increase without a global cap.


Worrisome Concerns

 Closer examination reveals several worrisome concerns. It is widely understood that international law is often ineffective because it lacks adequate means of enforcement when it prescribes behavior that obligates the parties. That is, international law is inherently weak because unable to enforce what is agreed to, but Paris carried this weakness further, by raising serious question as to whether anything at all had even been agreed. The Paris Agreement went to great lengths to avoid obligating the parties, making compliance with pledged reductions in carbon emissions an unmistakablyvoluntary undertaking. This is the core cause for doubt about what was agreed upon, raising the haunting question as to what emerged from Paris is even worth the paper upon which it is written. Only time will tell.

Prior to the Paris Agreement there were two models of an agreement process to address climate change. Both of these are now viewed as failures. There was the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 in which a mandatory treaty framework was negotiated resting on a sharply delineated division between developed countries that were required to make enumerated reductions in carbon emissions and the rest of the world that was under no obligation because their right to unrestricted development was affirmed. Then there was the Copenhagen Accord contrived on an ad hoc basis in 2009 mainly at the behest of the United States, a loose agreement reflecting American post-Kyoto concerns that the only viable international response to the threat of global warming was by way of obtaining a series of unverified voluntary pledges from national governments.

It is evident that in its central endeavor the Paris Agreement seeks to improve upon the Copenhagen model while rejecting the Kyoto model. In effect, the stability of an obligatory framework has been exchanged for the benefits of an inclusive arrangement that involves all countries, that is, weak on substance, strong on participation. What makes Paris seem a success whereas Copenhagen was written off as a dismal failure is partly atmospherics, or put more concretely, the skillful French management of the proceedings so as to create an impression of genuine collaboration and transparency. Also helpful was the American adoption of a low profile, operating behind the scenes, exerting the kinds of influence that did not create the sort of resentment that so badly marred the Copenhagen outcome.

This repudiation of the Kyoto approach is disturbing in some respects, but understandable, and even laudable, in others. Kyoto, although legally authoritative, only managed to gain the participation of states accounting for 12% of total emissions. This tradeoff between the two agreement models parallels the experience of the League of Nations that respected the sovereign equality of states, contrasting with the United Nations that privileges the five states that prevailed in World War II. The more idealistic League was a total failure because several crucial states, including the United States, refused to join, while the UN, although disappointing in relation to its war prevention record, has managed throughout its entire existence to achieve near universal participation. Even alienated and isolated states have valued the benefits of their UN membership and refrained over the decades from opting out of the UN. This experience supports the significant generalization that international lawmaking often does better when it is procedurally ambitious than when it tries to override and constrain sovereign discretion to act in areas perceived as matters of vital national interest by leading states. In the climate change context this choice can be further rationalized by an acknowledgement that the US Congress has the capacity to block any legally binding agreement, and without the United States as a participant the whole effort is wasted. It should be appreciated that the US Congress may be the only governmental site of influence in the world where a majority of its members reject the scientific consensus on climate change and gives aid and comfort to the deniers.

Can International Law Effective When Adherence is Voluntary?

 Although this voluntariness is problematic, it may not doom the Paris Agreement. Some non-obligatory international norms have produced important results, managing to obtain voluntary compliance, and even exceeding the original expectations of their supporters. Among many examples in international law, upholding the diplomatic immunity of ambassadors is a clear example of where the norm is unenforceable yet diplomats from small countries have almost always received the same protection over the centuries as those from the largest and most powerful countries. Why? It better serves the interests of the powerful to sustain a reliable framework of diplomatic interaction than to diminish the status of diplomats from weak states. From a different domain of international concern, we can point to rules of the road on the ocean designed to promote maritime safety. International law tends to be effective whenever compliance is more or less automatic. This can happen either because there is no significant incentive to violate what has been agreed upon or there are reciprocal gains achieved by maintaining reliable standards.

There are additional settings where international law is effective. One of the most prominent instances, although controversial, is the selective implementation of international norms prohibiting the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The United States acts as a geopolitical enforcer, and has been relatively successful in preventing those governments that it distrusts or opposes from acquiring the weaponry. The nonproliferation regime is defective from a rule of law perspective to the extent it is not applied equally to all non-nuclear states. Israel’s secret acquisition of nuclear weapons has been overlooked, while Iran’a nuclear program has received unprecedented scrutiny with a commitment to enforce nonproliferation by recourse to war if necessary. Beyond this the NPT regime became negotiable in 1968 only because the nuclear weapons states formally committed themselves to seek in good faith nuclear disarmament. Their failure to do so should have undermined the treaty from an international law point of view, but so far this refusal of compliance has been rhetorically noticed by non-nuclear states, but without producing a challenge to the agreement itself.


Paris Vulnerabilities

Part of the reason to be skeptical about the Paris Agreement is that the United States is unable to play the role of being a credible enforcer, and this means that there is no robust informal extra-legal pressure to comply. This weakness of the Paris arrangement is accentuated by several other factors:

            –the challenge of global warming is truly global in scope, yet the agreement reflects the aggregation of national interests. Its voluntary nature reflects the ethos of the lowest common denominator. International society can often cooperate to solve transnational problems, but it falters when the problem is truly global, especially as here where the various states have vastly different policy priorities, material circumstances, and divergent perceptions as to how fairly to apportion national responsibility for emission reductions and financial transfers;

            –many governments are constrained by mass poverty and low levels of development and seem likely to give priority to jobs and economic growth if facing economic pressures, making them also susceptible to manipulation by the private sector and international financial pressures;

            –the Paris Agreement seems particularly vulnerable to ‘the free rider problem,’ creating incentives for states to make minimum contributions while benefitting from the contributions of others; this is especially true in the climate change context since the problems are not correlated with international boundaries and the causal connections between emissions and harm are notoriously difficult to establish. This means that a state will benefit from systemic responses even if it fails to do its agreed part, while being only marginally protected by its own emission curbs;

            –often the success of a negotiated complex agreement is a result of diplomatic leadership, which has been a role that the United States Government has played in the period since 1945. The elaborate treaty establishing the public order of the oceans, one of the great success stories of international law, came about only after a decade of negotiations that were shaped by American leverage, persuading groups of states to accept concessions in exchange for benefits. For instance, the territorial sea off the coast of countries was expanded, and an exclusive economic zone was established, in exchange for preserving the freedom of the high seas for naval vessels. Because of the unevenness of national circumstances in relation to climate change the need for this kind of leadership would undoubtedly have led to a more robust agreement. This was politically impossible because the US Congress is opposed to any US national commitment with respect to climate change that results in any economic burden or commitment relating to energy policy, and the Executive Branch, despite its acceptance of the scientific consensus as to the severity of the climate change challenge, could not ignore this weakness of domestic support without suffering a humiliating rebuff as happened after Kyoto that seems more damaging to regulatory efforts than giving up an insistence on binding legal obligations;

            –without enforcement or even an obligation to comply, there are some circumstances where ‘naming and shaming’ create pressures can induce a fairly high level of compliance. The Paris Agreement by emphasizing the transparency of commitment, the monitoring of pledge fulfillment, and the reset opportunities given at five-year intervals would seem to create a situation where naming and shaming could partially compensate for the absence of formal compliance mechanisms. Unfortunately, governments of sovereign states are normally very reluctant to criticize each other in public space, absent hostile relations. The UN also refrains except in extreme cases from voicing criticism of the behavior of its members that names and shames.


The Waiting Game

Against this background, it becomes evident that the Paris Agreement should neither be celebrated nor rejected. It is a process that is only scheduled to go into effect in 2020, with an assessment period of five years, meaning that there will be no official audit as to the adequacy of the pledging approach until 2025. Even should the pledges on record be upheld, which seems unlikely, the trajectory relating to climate change points toward an increase in global warming by over 3C by the end of the century, far above the 1.5C recommended by experts, and exceeding the 2C degree ceiling that the Paris Agreement sets forth as a goal. This gap needs to be made visible to the peoples of the world, and steps taken to raise pledging expectations to a level of problem-solving credibility.

There are two perspectives that are each useful in evaluating the Paris Agreement. First, there is the problem-solving perspective that views the essential issue as adjusting energy policies to global warming prospects through cuts in carbon emissions and increased reliance on renewable forms of energy. The discussion above, as well as the inter-governmental text emerging from Paris, viewed climate change as a problem to be solved, with success or failure measured by reference to the rising of global mean average temperatures throughout the planet.

Secondly, there is the climate justice perspective that focuses on the fairness of the negotiated arrangement from the distribution of burdens and benefits, and by reference to those who are most vulnerable to global warming. Those most vulnerable are societies and regions that seem likely to become hotter than the average or have low-lying, heavily populated coastlines and lack the financial resources and technical knowhow to prevent and react in ways that minimize the damage. It is also the case that the 350 million indigenous peoples were unrepresented in Paris, and for various reasons are particularly exposed to the harmful effects of climate change. Issues related to pre-2020 ambition involving financing and control of emissions are also mentioned in the Preamble. Also Finally, Paris did not make any serious effort to represent, worry about, and take account of the rights of future generations.

Due to pressures mounted by the governments of vulnerable states and by the civil society groups, climate justice concerns were not totally ignored, being enumerated as a laundry list in the Preamble. These concerns focusing on human rights are not addressed in the operational provisions that are the heart of the Paris undertaking. Their relevance is, however, acknowledged in the Preamble to the Paris Agreement. Normally, the language of the Preamble of an international agreement is window-dressing, without substantive relevance. Here it is different. NGOs can invoke the language of the Preamble to hold governments accountable.

In the end, the fate of the planet will be decided by people, and not by governments. It is only by populist mechanisms of mobilization that the human and global interest will be articulated and protected. Governments can cooperate to promote common or overlapping shared interests, but where these national interests are so diverse and often contradictory, the aggregation of national interests is not capable of generating an agreement that adequately serves the human and global interest. This limitation of state-centric world order is magnified in relation to climate change because of the numerous disconnects between the locus of emissions and the locus of harm; only a globally constituted framing of the climate change challenge could produce an outcome that was satisfactory from both problem-solving and climate justice perspectives, and this will never be achieved by way of a Paris style meeting.

A responsible and equitable response to climate change after Paris depends on militant civil society activism that builds a transnational movement that both monitors the harms and the behavior of governments, but also focuses attention on the root causes of global warming: the capitalist drive for consumption, the militarist drive for dominance, and modernist drive toward

Technological solutions. Beyond this what is at stake is the recovery of the humane wisdom and spiritual consciousness of indigenous peoples that survival and happiness depended on respect for the natural surroundings. Of course, we should not romanticize the pre-modern or demonize the modern. What we need and should seek is amoral epistemology that reconnects knowledge with human values configured so as to achieve justice, sustainability, and the pleasures of ‘a good life’ (community, material needs, humane governance, spiritual alertness, opportunity and enlightenment). Such is the knowledge background needed to launch the revolution of our time.

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on ‘Voluntary’ International Law and the Paris Agreement

CrossTalk: Offensive Propaganda


Image result for CrossTalk LOGO

By Peter Lavelle

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 15:58 — 7.3MB) | Embed

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Offensive propaganda or new propaganda offensives? Obama administration announced new online initiatives to bolster its foreign policy narratives and as a means to counter others, for example, this network, RT. Maybe a better course of action would be for the US State Department to ask itself why fewer and fewer people trust and believe it?

Listen to CrossTalk+ here:
Watch all CrossTalk shows here:… (2009 – 2011)… (2011 – 2012)… (2012 – 2013)… (2013 – 2014)… (2015 – Current)


Subscribe to RT!…

Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on Google+
Listen to us on Soundcloud:

By Peter Lavelle on January 18, 2016

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 15:58 — 7.3MB) | Embed

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Offensive propaganda or new propaganda offensives? Obama administration announced new online initiatives to bolster its foreign policy narratives and as a means to counter others, for example, this network, RT. Maybe a better course of action would be for the US State Department to ask itself why fewer and fewer people trust and believe it?

Listen to CrossTalk+ here:
Watch all CrossTalk shows here:… (2009 – 2011)… (2011 – 2012)… (2012 – 2013)… (2013 – 2014)… (2015 – Current)


Subscribe to RT!…

Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on Google+
Listen to us on Soundcloud:

Posted in USAComments Off on CrossTalk: Offensive Propaganda

Rogue Terrorism for a Greater I$raHell


By Sartre 

Most peoples that resist the power politics of Zionism condemn aggressive actions of the outlaw Israeli state regularly. Yet most of the western democracies that are under the control of Talmud media and Khazar finance continue to defend the apartheid policies that are designed to purge any prospect of Palestinian, right to return, to the land of their forced removal. No matter what your politics are regarding the Middle East, the indisputable fact exists that the Greater Israel design for expanded territory is a core impediment of this interminable conflict.From the beginning, Zionists advocated a “Jewish State” not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future “Jewish state’s” frontiers in details as follows:

“to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi ‘Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-‘Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87) Click here to view the “Greater Israel” map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.

The self-justification by Zionists for enhancing strategic security enlargement of territory never deals with the central issues. The entire concept of a homogeneous “Jewish State” under a secular Zionist regime, mocks the notion of religious faithfulness to the teaching in the Torah. The meaning of a “Greater Israel” has little to do with devotion of Jehovah.

In order to comprehend this distinction read the essay Zionism, Racism and anti-Semitism.

“Zionism is a political movement. To equate motives of politics with a religious belief is specious. Judaism is NOT equivalent to Zionism. The distinction is imperative if a correct understanding of relationships and actions, in the Middle East, are to be appreciated. A Zionist often professes their acceptance of the tenants of the Jewish faith, but a ‘true believer’ in the supremacy and survivability of a political state, can and frequently are non-believers to Judaism and the Torah. This is crucial, because it is not a condition of political allegiance to share faith in Yahweh.”

Review the deplorable history of Israeli territorial designs. The Maps Tell The Story account that displays the chart of expansionist settlements.

“Starting with the United Nations Partition Plan, 1947, the original borders for the state of Israel are quite limited. This index illustrates the significant border changes after the 1949 War of Independence, after the six day war of 1967, than after the 1982 return of Sinai and the invasion of Lebanon, and finally after Palestinian autonomy and Lebanon withdrawal in 2000.

But the most notable map is the one that identifies the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. A careful analysis of the locations and the areas that are an effective no man’s land, demonstrates the consequences of the expanded settlements. It is hard to believe that Israel will ever agree to remove their own population from these areas.”

Most discussions about Israel originate under the premise that the government in Tel Aviv has an immutable right to defend itself. Thus far, the plight of the displaced Palestinians is almost exclusively relegated to condemnation for inflicting savage terrorism. At the same time the enormous military technological offensive strike capabilities of the Israeli Defend Force undertakes carnage with a disproportionate vengeance that unmasks the true vicious hatred of non-Zionists. Conferring moral authority for IDF airstrikes equates to the same erroneous rationale and hypocrisy that NeoCon proponents shower over the U.S. bombing of al-Qaeda enclaves.

The tentative cease-fire in the latest rupture of mutual hostilities just plays into the hands of the incremental Zionist expansionists. The overriding concern in Israel is not that their Iron Dome missile system can destroy incoming Hamas Fajr-5 projectiles. Their goal is to seek cover for their intended preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

RT quotes from the account; Iran confirms military aid to Hamas, sending long-range missile technology.

“Iranian lawmaker Ali Larijani said on Wednesday his country was “proud” to defend the people of Palestine and Hamas according to remarks published on the Islamic Republic’s parliamentary website.

Larijani stressed the assistance had been both “financial and military.” On Tuesday, Larijani lauded the Palestinian missile capability, saying it had given them a “strategic [source] of power.”

Now the world press will decry Iran for their acknowledged support of Hamas. However, the Washington Post article back in 2006, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, grudgingly reports:

“The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians’ relations with Israel and the rest of the world.

In Wednesday’s voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah.”

When did you last read that the radical IDF using American aircraft and smart bombs struck a sovereign country’s industrial facilities and slaughtered civilians as collateral damage? Full Spectrum Dominance, in the pursuit of eliminating any resistance to the New World Order is justified in the Zionist press. Simply put, the NWO is composed of many rabid Zionists that give a new meaning to the term extremist. However, in the bigger scheme of things it is No Surprise – Terrorism Is Winning.

“The reason that Terrorism is seen as the ultimate foe of governments is the nature of the warfare. Let no one mistake the stakes. Those who are willing to die to deliver chaos and turmoil are dangerous. But, more than that, they are unstoppable. Such an assessment may be unpopular but consider the facts. Regimes and prosperous societies have much to lose. Alienated and hostile adversaries that place little value on life, are no match for standing armed forces. By denying the temperament of the attacker and responding with overwhelming force, the inevitable futility of the end result; is guaranteed. Even tactics of aggressive proactive search and destroy strategy, fails to address or eradicate the underlying conflict. The battle may be won short term, but the war just continues.”

In spite of using the term terrorism, the reaction to systemic aggression often takes a violent response. This is the ultimate break with faith, principles and teachings of all the three eminent monotheistic religions. Warfare over territory is as old as history. Destabilizing Egypt, Libya and now Syria is part of a larger master tactic to isolate Iran as the only remaining obstacle to the greater State of Israel.

U.S. forces under the discredited pretext of weapons of mass destruction falsehoods dismantled Iraq. Co-opting Gaza so that Iran can be leveled from the air means that the jointly developed Israeli/American Iron Dome batteries can be deployed for incoming Iranian missiles after a sneak attack strike.

The article Hamas, Israel and the United States sums up the dangers of American involvement into a blood feud. Dominance of the region and impoverishment of the oil poor inhabitants drive the displacement of Palestinians into ghettos of expedient smart weapon annihilation.

“A regional dispute over land that was stolen with the blessing of Western Democracies is and always has been the nucleus of the eventual holocaust. What Americans are so unwilling to accept is that our own country has no duty or moral imperative to arbitrate between eternal enemies. It is a local conflict that can only destroy our own land by intervening. Making matters much worse are foreign policies that the United States acts as a neutral broker for peace.”

Just who is the rogue state in the Middle East? Israel is no ally. The political reality of domestic politics is hard pressed to poke the Jewish lobby in the eye. Nonetheless, attacking Iran in a joint operation with the IDF is pure madness. The old axis of evil rhetoric has deplorable consequences, when applied with JDAM-equipped bombs guided by a global positioning satellite system.

Hamas does not have clean hands, but when will the American public come to grips with the real reasons for the destruction of our own nation? The Western Democracies capitulated to the Zionists in the theft of Palestinian land. Khazar imposters are not Semite descendants of Abraham. Their own ruling class dupes sincere tribal Jews. Zionism puts them at risk. The “Greater Israel” expansionism is an impediment to any negotiated peace with justice.How much more blood needs to be shed to admit the obvious? Christian-Zionists bear a heavy responsibility in fostering the Likudnik mindset. Without a moral treatment of all peoples, not all the military weapons on the planet will ever impose peace. The Arab dynasties hardly champion the Palestinian cause. When desperation becomes genetically acceptable, the entire world loses its humanity. In order to eradicate unremitting bombing, the globe needs to face up to real rogue terrorism.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Rogue Terrorism for a Greater I$raHell

Zionist I$raHell an International Pariah


By Sartre 

david_ben_gurion_ethnic_cleansingGaza has become a slaughter zone for the eradication of Palestinians with the most advanced military technology that Israel posses. In comparison the blaming of Hamas for this latest barrage of rockets, fails to recognize any proposition in the mutual savagery. Depending on one’s view just who is the unlawful belligerent, sympathy and condemnation follows. This eternal struggle will never end peacefully. Debating international law, dissecting historic claims, strategizing military options, analyzing diplomatic intentions, and especially honoring superior doctrine among conflicting religious beliefs is a formula that offers no solutions. Yet, Israel is wedded to an expansionist political objective. Extending settlements prevent any permanent settlement agreement.

With the follow blown invasion of Gaza, the IDF proves once again that annihilation and ethnic cleansing is the cornerstone of Israeli imperium. For a perspective on the Gaza campaign that you will not hear in the controlled Zionist media, viewGaza is an Engineered Flashpoint for WW3 video. Then if you have the courage to face the truth, Zionist Terror in Gaza – Free Gaza and Free the World, YouTube is a must watch.

The notion that the government of Israel has some special right to be an apartheid state, only for Zionists, is the source of perpetual war. Strip away the heretical religious entitlements that only serves to rationalize the bogus legitimacy of a rogue regime, and what you have left is an aggressor tribe of Khazarian outlaws, who allege to be Jewish when it is politically expedient. This charade keeps the naive and uninformed Christian-Zionists pouring out their support for the high cost of claiming: CHOSEN.

No wonder that AIPAC Zionists are in control of American Middle East foreign policy, which is destroying the region for the betterment of Israeli zealotry. Even if you view Palestinians as a conquered people, confined to a leper colony by walls and checkpoints, how can any student of world politics conclude that this experiment of incremental death camps will ever bring peaceful co-existence?

Are Zionists the only people who have a right for self-defense? The iron dome that knocks down, the projectiles based on the Chinese “Weishi-2” or WS-2 rockets is effective in stopping these primitive missiles. “The al-Qassam brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, boasts on its website that it can make its own version of the M-302 – named the R-160 after one of its leaders, Abdel Rantisi, who was killed last decade.” Contrast these weapons with Operation Samson: Israel’s Deployment of Nuclear Missiles on Subs from Germany.

The essay, USrael and Armageddon, references the Samson Option and cites Colonel Warner D. “Rocky” Farr, from THE THIRD TEMPLE’S HOLY OF HOLIES: ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

“Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut). The labeling of Prime Minister Begin’s “Peace for Galilee” operation as a milchemet brera (“war of choice”) was one of the factors causing it to lose support. Interpretation of Jewish law concerning nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction. However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy decisions is unknown.”

The video, Why Israel Is A Threat To World Peace by Brother Nathanael indentifies the actual threat that Israel posses to the rest of the planet. However, in Gaza the potential becomes the immediate. Based upon the long record of Israeli atrocities, would any prudent person ignore the expected predictability that Zionist warmongers would use any weapon at their disposal to retain their regional power? Like the treasonous American politicians, the Israeli Knesset and Cabinet oversee tyrannical and despotic policies, which push the world to the brink of Armageddon.

Tanya Reinhart makes the argument that The Hamas Government Should be Recognized.

“The U.S. and Europe decided, despite Israel’s opposition, to permit the Palestinian people to hold democratic elections.

In a just and well-ordered world, it would be unthinkable for a government that was elected in this way to be disqualified because Israel does not like the choice of the electorate in question. But in a world in which the U.S. rules, might is right, and might can define democracy as it chooses. Thus, it was announced that the outcome of the Palestinian elections would not be recognized until the three “mantras” were fulfilled: Hamas must renounce terror, honor previous accords, and recognize the State of Israel. Meanwhile the Palestinian people would be punished and starved through an economic boycott, in the hope that this will lead to the collapse of the elected government.”

Nonetheless, in a Haaretz editorial, Israel’s refusal to deal with the Fatah-Hamas coalition is both puzzling and damaging, places blame where it is warranted.

“The Palestinian government to be formed is the result of the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah and reflects Hamas’ recognition of the Palestinian Authority, which was born of the Oslo Agreements that Hamas had opposed with all its might. This reconciliation is the result of heavy Arab pressure, is supported by all the Arab states and by most of the Palestinian public, and has the backing of several European leaders. Israel, which invested great effort in foiling the diplomatic negotiations, is now citing the Palestinian reconciliation as a decisive reason for freezing the talks, as if before the reconciliation it was rushing to continue the process. Israel’s refusal to recognize this government is liable to portray it once again as the party refusing to give the diplomatic channel a chance.”

Israel is a social outcast for much the same reason that the United States government has become a threat to its own people. Alan Hart back in 2011 writes in the article, Could pariah status spell the end for Zionism?

“A short and fairly accurate description of the ideology Netanyahu was raised on is something like this. “The world will always hate Jews. Zionism must therefore do whatever is necessary to build and secure Israel as a refuge of last resort for Jews everywhere. And if that means telling the world to go to hell, so be it.” (That’s actually why David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and others insisted that Israel should possess nuclear weapons – to have the reinforced ability to tell the world, not just the Arabs, to go to hell if necessary).”

Mr. Hart end the essay with a profound question for all Israelis.

“Is it possible that a global perception of them as citizens of a pariah state and the possibility of real sanctions will alarm enough Israeli Jews to the point where they will take to the streets in significant numbers to demand that their leaders be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept?”

Watch the compelling interview video, Rabbi Jew says Zionist Israeli government and their regime must be totally eliminated, for an honest answer. When orthodox Jews admit the sacrilege of the pretenders that rule the state of Israel, you find hope that the conscience of honest Jewry will stand up and oppose a Zionist government that defies YHWH.

Fast forward to the recent pronouncement from the Eidah Chareidis Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem Condemns Murder of Palestinian Boy, as Abbas urges UN to investigate alleged revenge killing of Arab boy by Jewish extremists.

“With pain and shock, the chief rabbi and the members of the rabbinical court heard about the heinous and foolish crime, the murder of a Palestinian boy here in Jerusalem, by people of Jewish descent. To make matters worse, according to current reports, the murder was committed by Jews in religious dress, may G-d spare us. It is understood and obvious to every Jew and every keeper of the Torah and its commandments that such an act is forbidden by the Torah, and Heaven forbid that a Jew should spill blood. And during our bitter exile, we have been commanded by the holy Torah and our Sages, and by our most recent rabbinic leaders, to bear the yoke of exile, not to provoke the other nations, Heaven forbid, and to wait for the complete redemption by the messiah, not by human intervention. All the more so when this act could lead to unknown consequences, Heaven forbid.”

When will the Israeli government declare its own condemnation, or will the deadly air raids on defenseless Gaza homes become its routine response for perfecting the murder of countless Palestinians noncombatants? As bombs fall on Gaza, take action: Endorse the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Sameer Bhat, in the Kashmir Reader, artfully expresses the proper synopsis, Condemn Zionists, not Jews. “Please resist linking Zionism (the terrible ideology practiced by the state of Israel) with Judaism. What Israel is doing in Palestine is a direct outcome of its occupational policies because of Zionism, a despicable colonialist and racist idea that denies rights to Palestinians and advocates their dispossession and expulsion. It is from the pot of Zionist hubble-bubble, filled with the blood of innocents, that Israel draws its strength from. We must criticize and denounce this fascist thought. And yes, anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Zionist I$raHell an International Pariah

The Relevancy of the Illustrated Protocols of Zion


By Sartre 


Discussing the subject, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion requires courage and the willingness to fend off the predictable slurs. Immediate charges of anti-Semitism prove the lack of sincerity and scholarly dishonesty from the gatekeepers of the global New World Order.

Even an elementary understanding of historic events and Realpolitik realize that condemning an entire race, religion or ethnic group for the transgressions of evil elements in any tribe is fundamentally ludicrous on face value. However, most individuals who claim to be or identify themselves as Jews, are being played for suckers, because of their refusal to face the fact that some of their Zionist zealots are so willing to sacrifice less worthy of the “so called” chosen, when it furthers their purpose for world dominance.

In order to comprehend the significance of the scheme, the legendary David Duke has published The Illustrated Protocols of Zion book. His own summary description follows.

In my new book, I show that it is actually irrelevant if the original Protocols were written by Czarist agents or not. In fact, as I point out, they are in reality a highly predictive work of “faction”—much like George Orwell’s 1984, or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. 

Although the characters and storyline in both those works are “fiction”, the idea, which underlay both those books, was most certainly fact. Thus, they were works of “faction”—just like the Protocols of Zion. 

I show that in the case of the protocols, truth is stranger than fiction! For in this illustrated book, I show documents, quotes, photographs and facsimiles of Jewish Supremacist extremism that far exceeds even the assertions contained in the Protocols. 

The original Protocols claim Jewish control over international banking. The Illustrated Protocols proves this in both text and illustrations. 

The original Protocols claim that the Jewish extremists control the press. The Illustrated Protocols proves this with Jewish headlines and illustrations. 

The original Protocols claim that Jewish extremists control major governments. The Illustrated Protocols proves this with illustrations, examples and quotes from leading Jewish Supremacists themselves. 

The original Protocols talked about Jewish dictatorship through a tyrannical world government. The Illustrated Protocols quotes the most famous Jew of the 20th Century, David Ben-Gurion, where he states his vision that the Jews will be worshiped in their world headquarters in Jerusalem, and that Israel will possess the Supreme Court of mankind. Truth is stranger than fiction! 

In it, I show that the reality of present-day Jewish Supremacism—in terms of media control, financial manipulation, control of governments and outright Jewish racism—were all accurately predicted and mapped out in the Protocols. 

Using real, current-day examples of Jewish Supremacist domination, I show that in fact the reality of today is actually much worse than even what the Protocols dared predict!  

Now watch the video of The Illustrated Protocols of Zion by David Duke and be surprised as to the viewpoint he takes. Then absorb the implications and consequences presented by Brother Nathanael Kapner in the article, Protocols of the Elders of Zion Fulfilled, as he cites four Protocol “DIRECTIVES” and their fulfillment.

The pattern of suppression and censoring of a serious discussion of actual world events is the hallmark of a plutocracy of globalists, who operate as an oligarchy over public policy. Internalize the magnitude of the analysis.

Israeli journalist Israel Shamir in the essay, The Elders Of Zion And The Masters Of Discourse references Alexander Solzhenitsyn regarding the significance of the actual plan that has become recognizable history.

“The difficulty of the Protocols is in an uncanny dissonance between its uncouth language and deep social and religious thought. It is a rude parody-like rendering of a satanic, subtle and well-thought out plan, wrote the Nobel Prize winning novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his (written in 1966 and published in 2001) analysis of the Protocols.

“The Protocols show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight”.

Solzhenitsyn is aware of faults of the Protocols. “Its style is that of a filthy leaflet, the powerful line of thought is broken and fragmented, mixed up with ill-smelling incantations and psychological blunders. The system described is not necessarily connected with the Jews; it could be purely Masonic or whatever; while its strongly anti-Semitic current is not an organic part of the design”.

Solzhenitsyn makes a textual experiment, removes words “Jews”, “Goyim” and “conspiracy” and finds many disturbing ideas. He concludes: “The text demonstrates impressive foresight on the two systems of society, the Western and the Soviet one. While a strong thinker could possibly predict the development of the West in 1901, how could he grasp the Soviet future?”

Testing the limits of an open inquiry of empirical evidence, the liberal academic, Greg Felton dares speak the unspeakable in the video presentation; America Is Now Fully Controlled By Jews Says Canadian Researcher. The response from pro-Zionist proponents in the audience brings out the tired attacks on the messenger, while never refuting the substance of the proof. Such conduct just adds to the Israeli-First fanatical methods as stated in the Huffington Post Suggests Talking About Media Ownership Is Anti-Semitic.

“Apparently, according to Asa Bennett, Mark Gardner and the Huffington Post, merely voicing the opinion that the corporate media is owned by powerful people and that media ownership is becoming increasingly consolidated (both of which are manifestly provable facts), makes you a Jew-hating anti-Semite.”

Absurdly ridiculous and intellectually dishonest, such tactics attempt to silence the historian and conceal damaging testimony, which is impossible to justify. This next example leaves bare for all to witness, the depths of wickedness that underlies the deliberation, which underpins the abomination that is destroying humanity.

The editor of a Christian site Bible Believers, provides a disclaimer regarding the author, Ivan Fraser, who writes The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: Proof of an Ancient Conspiracy.

Quite like the self-styled “Jews” of whom he writes, Ivan Fraser is without faith in either the Old or New Testaments and unbeknownst to himself he is portraying the mentality of a Talmudic “Jew,” ignorant of the plan and purpose of God, and unaware that the Talmud is diametrically opposed to and nullifies the Torah. 

“On 12 January 1952, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich was asked to give a keynote speech to the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary. The implications of the following extract are chilling for all to read (especially socialists, communists, “radicals”, politically correct pressure groups of all types, and Jewish pressure groups such as the Anti-Defamation League) who would promote pro-Jewish policies and who would refute that there is a policy to use race relations to degrade society. Here is as blatant an admission as you are going to get and further evidence that the Protocols are very real and actively being updated to synchronize with current world events and the social status as it develops.”

Read Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich’s speech for yourself and ask how any ethical and moral person could not find such admissions as pure evil.  

“The writer Eustace Mullins reports in his book the New History of the Jews, that a double agent, who had infiltrated the inner circle of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith revealed to him that the publication and circulation of Rabinovich’s speech had caused the Jews to postpone all of their plans for a Third World War. The translator from Yiddish of the quote, Henry H. Klein, was a Jew who was horrified by the plans of his own people. He died in New York the day after a meeting with a CIA man, and the CIA now possess a copy of this document.

And here it is so interesting to compare the above admission that the Jewish people are considered “sacrifices” to a greater cause of world takeover by their elite brethren. As well as a mass of scientific and historical evidence that the Second World War was simply a tool for the furthering of the New World Order agenda, circumstantial evidence also exists for the planned sacrifice of 6 million people as part of the process.”  

Not all globalists are Jewish and certainly not all Jews are Zionists. Nonetheless, AIPAC Zionists are the Archenemy of the American Nation. The relevance of examining the true impact and character of the Timeline of Jewish World Domination, is necessary to save Western Civilization. Goldman Sachs has fulfilled Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s desires as Central Banking provides the protocol for enslavement. Earnest Jews especially should examine David Duke’s Illustrated Protocols of Zion and condemn those who betray their true biblical heritage. In the iniquitous words of Rabbi Rabinovich,“our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave”, is the real atrocity for all of mankind.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Relevancy of the Illustrated Protocols of Zion

Middle East a Cauldron of Horror


By Sartre

middleeastskull560As-salamu alaykum (the peace be upon you (plural) and Shalom (peace, harmony, wholeness, completeness, prosperity, welfare and tranquility) may have different nuances but both express a similar intent of goodwill. In reality, not much benevolent friendship exists in the eternal cauldron of Semitic hatred. Genetic and blood feuds have proliferated throughout history, but the foremost difference in this ongoing struggle is that the prospects of initiating a nuclear holocaust are reaching a meltdown radiation level. Human comprehension of the actual devastation from a nuclear strike, much less an all out exchange of warheads cannot be understood by playing a video game or watching a media presentation.

Up to this point in the age of atom splitting annihilation, the apprehension of obliteration kept sounder minds and self-control from pushing the button. But what restraint exists when Islamic suicide bombers or Zionist zealots who are prepared to use the “Samson Option” are in control of the weapons of mass destruction?

An assessment of NUCLEAR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, authored by Nick Turse cites a scholarly study. Cham Dallas who is lead author says that “the projections are the most catastrophic he’s seen in more than 30 years analyzing weapons of mass destruction and their potential effects.”

“This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike. Iranian cities – owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities  –  are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,” published in the journal Conflict and Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard University. It is the first publicly released scientific assessment of what a nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean for people in the region.

Its scenarios are staggering.  An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people  –  86% of the population  –  and leave close to 800,000 wounded.  A strike with five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.

Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous.  A nuclear assault on the city of Arak, the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran’s nuclear program, would potentially kill 93% of its 424,000 residents.  Three 100-kiloton nuclear weapons hitting the Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas would slaughter an estimated 94% of its 468,000 citizens, leaving just 1% of the population uninjured.  A multi-weapon strike on Kermanshah, a Kurdish city with a population of 752,000, would result in an almost unfathomable 99.9% casualty rate.”

John Bosma pens this gem in The American Thinker, Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War

“The possibility of a nuclear war coming far sooner than one could have imagined under conventional wisdom worst-case scenarios. Following the US’s betrayal of Israel and its de facto detente with Iran, we cannot expect Israel to copy longstanding US doctrines of no-first-nuclear-use and preferences for conventional-weapons-only war plans. After all, both were premised (especially after the USSR’s 1991 collapse) on decades of US nuclear and conventional supremacy. If there ever were an unassailable case for a small, frighteningly vulnerable nation to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to shock, economically paralyze, and decapitate an enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has arrived at that circumstance.”

No wonder my fellow friends and readers that you will not see our essays appear in this pinnacle publication of Israel-First dribble. This DARPA consultant, John Bosma boasts that he draws on a 40-year background in nuclear war-gaming and strategic arms control. He sounds like the real model for the WOPR (War Operation Plan Response). Even the computer nerd Dr Stephen Falken from War Games, playing a modified Stephen Hawking role knows better. Calling his creation Joshua, is most symbolic.

At this point let’s face the substance and prospects of just who will launch a detonation. Israel still refuses to publically acknowledge their substantial cache of nukes. However, Israel Submarine Capabilities have much to thank the German made U-boats designers.

“It seems possible, therefore, that the 650mm tubes might have been designed to accommodate indigenously built, long-range Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles (SLCM). The German government has stated that it does not have information on whether Israel installed different equipment on the submarines after delivery, but former German officials have acknowledged that they assumed that Israel intended to equip the submarines with nuclear weapons.”

The insanity that is Middle East knows no bounds. A recent BATR RealPolitik Newsletter topic: The Sunni – Shia War, has a wealth of information on the insidious arrangement Saudi Arabia has made with Israel. If a nuclear attack mission destroys the region, you should know which direction the bombs will come from.

From a popular military and foreign policy publication, The National Interest, account Iran’s Master Plan to Retaliate If Israel Strikes may surprise you.

“However Iran chooses to respond to an Israeli attack on its nuclear program, Khamenei will instruct the IRGC-QF to do its work as discreetly as possible. Any overt missile attack on an American ally in the Arab world — let alone a conventional missile attack on Israel — would prompt the U.S. armed forces to scramble the fighter jets and deploy the aircraft carriers. This is not something Iran wants and a full U.S. military operation is certainly not something that they can afford to confront.

The name of the game for Iran is to maximize the damage on Israeli and U.S. interests without provoking a conventional military assault from both nations that will degrade its military capability and potentially destroy the regime.”

Ponder the last statement. Do you really believe that Iran wants to risk a nuclear retaliation response from Israel with their vastly superior military machine capacity? As reported, the US to deliver F-35 jets to Israel to maintain military edge, is just another indication that Iran may be able to bluff an Obama administration from patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf, but can they do the same to the Likudniks? However, even the NYT Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations cannot cover-up the absurdity of U.S. foreign policy.

Central to any analysis of deploying arms and boots into this region must confront exactly what benefit or security interest does America gain from such involvements?

Now that Rand Paul has been ushered to tweeting his presidential debate responses, you won’t be hearing any serious challenge on the uniform genuflection to the Wailing Wall.

The intrepid non-intervention, Michael Scheuer quotes George F. Kennan, the quintessential Mr. X of American foreign policy. “The United States has a fateful tie to the Israelis from which we have, in contradistinction to the Israelis, everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” George F. Kennan, Diaries, 25 April 1978.

Mr. Scheuer goes on to say in Time for America to bid a final farewell to Israel and Palestine.

“The war is occurring in a far away place that is no longer of any strategic interest to the United States because the combination of Washington’s relentless, war-causing and Islamist-motivating interventionism and Obama’s cowardly surrenderism have already given the entire region to the Islamists and ensured — thanks to Jewish-American Neocons — Israel’s ultimate doom. Therefore it matters not a lick to any but disloyal Americans whether the Israelis kill all the Palestinians, the Palestinians kill all the Israelis, or, in the best case scenari0, they mutually destroy each other. At the end of the war they all simply will be dead foreigners of whom we had no need and for whom we need not bid any teary farewells. Peoples who want to fight religious wars deserve whatever they get, and these two peoples are determined to fight their religious war until one side or the other is destroyed. Well, so be it, let us get out of it now.”

This wisdom applies to the Zionist/Sunni relationship and their ill-gotten alliance against the Shia Iranians. Since Arabs and Persians do not mix any better than Jews and Palestine’s, why should the entire globe be drawn into a kosher conflagration?

The United States has become part of a “Reign of Terror” orchestrated by a deceptive and treacherous “so called” ally. There is no need to champion or defend Iran as a Good Samaritan. Radical Islamic Terrorists are just as bad as IDF and Mossad hit squads. The underlying governmental regimes behind these warmonger belligerents have exported their regional hatred to our own shores.

With the prospects of the carnage described by Cham Dallas that could befall Tehran coming to an American city, it is crucial that America pivot away from befriending Israel and adopt a neutral and a non-involvement policy. The inevitability of a real holocaust befalls all parties because of their refusal to give up their quests for dominance. The American empire is over. Wake up to the fifth column hidden in plain sight.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Middle East a Cauldron of Horror

Martin Luther King has been mutilated – it’s an Obama-nation!


By Kevin Barrett

If you aren’t angry today it’s because you aren’t paying attention

mlktrialBy Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

Every year on Martin Luther King Day I experience anger issues. Here’s why:

How the Government Killed Martin Luther King Jr.

Sometimes I go out and create a public disturbance:

What really pisses me off isn’t just that the government blatantly murdered Dr. King and got caught.

The maddening thing isn’t just that the mainstream and pseudo-alternative media covered the whole thing up, and are still covering it up, making everyone involved with any such media organization an accessory to the crime (as they are accessories to so many off-the-scale crimes against humanity).

What’s truly atrocious is the mainstream’s hijacking of the story of Dr. King. They have turned a truth-telling fighter for justice into a symbolic “house negro.” Streets are named after him. A holiday is observed. “Nonviolence” (a euphemism for acquiescing to state violence without fighting back) is bandied about.

Like MLK, Louis Farrakhan is NOT a house negro.

Like MLK, Louis Farrakhan is NOT a house negro.

The ever-richer white/Zionist elite that rules America is using a mutilated version of Dr. King to hide their own fear of poor people, black people, and the truth. The have re-invented Dr. King as a non-threatening national symbol.

They pretend he was shot by a lone nut, an extremist, a “terrorist.” They use his memory to rally the people to the side of lies, injustice and oppression…the side of government, which is responsible for virtually all human-on-human violence, including the “terrorism” it endlessly howls about but secretly commits itself.

The ultimate symbol of this sad state of affairs, I am sorry to report, is President Obama.

Now don’t get me wrong. I actually like Obama personally. He seems like a nice guy – maybe a little too nice, too inoffensive, too compromising.

And that, of course, is how he got the job.

Obama represents what white people want: A castrated black man.

Just as the rich white/Zionist elite wants a castrated 99%.

Obama is the culmination of the neutering of racial and class politics that took the martyred corpse of Dr. King – a real revolutionary who was about to lead half a million people to take over Washington DC and not go home until war and poverty were ended – and mutilated his memory, hacking away at it until it became “symbol of national unity and ‘nonviolence” to be endlessly re-desecrated every year on the third Monday of January.


Obama, the rich white man’s fantasy of a castrated Dr. King, has in turn castrated America. Before his election in 2008,about 100 million Americans knew or strongly suspected that Bush and Cheney had been part of the 9/11 inside job, and were poised to react to the 9/11/2008 economic coup d’état with a REAL occupy movement – that is, a REVOLUTION like the one Dr. King was organizing when he was murdered.

But the biracial castrato in the White House has sung the nation back to sleep.

If Dr. King were here today, he would be working overtime to wake it up – and to make sure that the long-deferred revolution he almost led in 1968 finally happens, by any means necessary, in 2016.

They put their hands on MLK and Malcolm X - they've been assaulting the American people nonstop.

They put their hands on MLK and Malcolm X – they’ve been assaulting the American people nonstop.

Posted in USAComments Off on Martin Luther King has been mutilated – it’s an Obama-nation!

Shoah’s pages