Archive | December 11th, 2018

Meet The “Existential Threat” to Jews in Britain


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

So the Labour Party is now “an existential threat” to Jews in Britain…? Really? I mean, think about what that language is actually supposed to imply or evoke.

We’re not just being told about an ‘anti-semitism crisis‘ anymore, but an “existential threat“.

An existential threat suggests something with the potential to grow into the Nazi movement. I mean, that has to be the intended implication – that the Labour Party in Britian could end up the new Nazi Germany in terms of its treatement of – or attitude towards – Jewish people and that Jeremy Corbyn (the most consistent anti-racism campaigner of his time) could potentially be a new Hitler-type figure in the future.

Granted, he has made some bad decisions and, granted, he’s quite bad at PR (actually he’s pretty awful at PR) – but this is surely the most over-the-top, ridiculous chapter yet in this overwrought ‘Anti-Semitism Crisis‘.

On the matter of the “existential threat” meme, there is another, bigger reason this language is being deliberately evoked and it has nothing to do with Corbyn or the Labour Party – I’ll come back to that at the end, because it provides a much bigger context to all of this that most commentary always misses.

And there also doesn’t seem to be much Corbyn can do or say to shake off the recurring onslaught of anti-Semitism accusations – and there probably never will be.

That’s probably the point.

I’ve gotten bored of writing about the ‘Anti-Semitism’ crisis in the Labour Party (see herehere, and here): but it just won’t go away. To date, about 150 members of the Labour Party have been expelled for alleged anti-Semitism: and Corbyn himself has on multiple occasions issued statements condemning anti-Semitism within the party. But it doesn’t seem to be enough.

They also never, ever mention the Jewish Labour Party members who support Corbyn and don’t buy the Anti-Semitism thing: and, as was clear years ago, many of the left-wing activists who were subject to the earliest complaints were themselves Jewish.

I was noting that two years ago: but that trend of ignoring some Jewish people in order to focus on the complaints of other Jewish people has continued to this day. Note, for example, that when the highly publicised protest against Corbyn by select Labour Party members and members of the Jewish community was garnering so much media coverage a few months ago, hardly any coverage was given to the *counter protest*, which was also by Jewish members of the Labour Party – and, according to some sources, was a lot bigger than the anti-Corbyn gathering.

As some pointed out, the MSM was basically being highly anti-Semitic in its dismissal of certain Jewish voices.

One of the earlier cases, for example, was Jackie Walker – a black British Jewish activist in the Labour Party, who was labelled an anti-Semite and suspended because she wanted to debate the issue of Zionism and had also talked about including discussion of other tragedies alongside the Holocaust during Holocaust Remembrance. She was also disparagingly referred to as a “court Jew” – which denotes a kind of second-rate Jew in the eyes of more superior-minded Zionists: and which, frankly, sounds pretty racist to me (and if she is Jewish, shouldn’t it also qualify as Anti-Semitism anyway?).

Given examples like that, it’s obvious how much bullshit is in play here, with the media falling into line with Israeli lobbyists’ policy of presenting an entirely one-sided view of Jewish opinion by pretending that the entirety of the Jewish population in Britain is somehow of one mind and are all outraged by Jeremy Corbyn.

I’ve written here multiple times about how so much of this is in fact designed to bait Jewish people who aren’t invested in Israel or who aren’t passionate Zionists: first by excluding them from the equation entirely as if they don’t exist, and second, by trying to play up the perceived Anti-Semitism so that non-Zionist Jews eventually feel threatened by Anti-Semitism.

That Corbyn has been targeted for smear campaigns is fairly obvious and was reinforced by the Al-Jazeera programmes that exposed Shai Masot and the Israel lobbyists’ campaign to undermine the Labour Party leadership – a scandal that Emily Thornberry had requested an investigation into. As Wall of Controversy noted in his piece earlier this year on this anti-Semitism scandal (which is much better than mine): ‘The media has since shown no interest whatsoever in digging deeper and following the trail of evidence for what now ought to be known as ‘Israelgate’…’

In fact the media mostly seems intent on ignoring as much as possible any evidence of Israeli interference in British politics.

The Jewish Labour Movement has been the key player in maintaining the attacks on Corbyn’s leadership, but it is improtant to note that the JLM is closely tied to the Israeli Embassy, which renders it completely unreliable.

And so every few months the established meme simply gets rebooted. A few months ago it was over Corbyn having expressed support (back in 2012) for a piece of street art – a piece of street art that, in my opinion, wasgenuinely Anti-Semitic. But it was from three years before Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party and it was an incredibly easy, casual mistake to make if someone isn’t paying enough close scrutiny to something. Also, someone was clearly digging far back to find something – anything – to bring to the fore in the anti-Corbyn operation.

But go back far enough on any politician’s timeline and you’re bound to find something questionable or ill-advised they did, said, tweeted or liked. Give Boris Johnson a try.

The current assault on the Labour leadership stems from the Labour Party last week publishing its code of conduct against Anti-Semitism, which was formally adopted by the national executive.

The problem is that, while the new rules adopt most of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definitions of Anti-Semitism, it rejects the one clause that was designed to label as ‘Anti-Semitic’ anything that accuses Israel of being a racist state or criticism of the Zionist ideaolgy.

Rather than obediently swallowing the whole IHRA rule-book on what qualifies as Anti-Semitism, the Labour Party under Corbyn has adopted its own version which maintains the right to criticise Israel state policy or Zionist extremism without acknowledging such criticism to be Anti-Semitic – unless there is a clear evidence of Anti-Semitic ‘intent’.

Hence, the renewed outrage over Corbyn and the rampant Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – simply because Corbyn isn’t playing ball.

While I personally believe there is genuinely a trend of uncomfortably Anti-Semitic tropes among some sections of the Labour membership, it’s always been clear that the attacks on Corbyn in particular were part of a long-playing plot against the Labour leadership – with the whole thing also being a strategy to stifle or demonise any non-racist criticism of the Israeli government, the Zionist extremists or events in Gaza or the Occupied Territories, by lumping them all together and making people wary of ever addressing the subject.

Of course, what most coverage hasn’t bothered to point out is that 40 Jewish organisations from various countries – including the Jewish Voice for Labour – have also openly rejected the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism, which makes it patently ridiculous to cite Corbyn’s interpretation of the IHRA as an anti-Semitic action.

You can see Jewish Voice for Labour’s analysis of the IHRA here.

Coming back to the initial point: about Corbyn’s party being labelled “an existential threat” to Jews in Britain. That kind of extreme language is without doubt intended to evoke certain historic alusions and thus either scare people away from Corbyn or just generally discredit his leadership.

JVL coverage of the current campaign highlights the contrived, very selective nature of the propaganda: ‘Jewish newspapers harmonised their front pages this week to condemn Labour… Jewish groups have claimed a Corbyn government would be an ‘existential threat’… Many Jewish people have spoken out against these claims… Mainstream media have largely ignored those voices in their presentation of the issue… A Jewish professor spoke four months ago predicting this ‘MSM’ treatment and said the media would be treating all Jewish people as if they are the same – a common antisemitic trope…’

But it’s not just about Corbyn, it’s also serves another key purpose and it is this: any contemporary campaign to portray the ‘Jewish community’ (as if it is one all-encompassing community that represents all Jews somehow) as being under existential threat in any country is designed to reinforce the necessity of Zionism, the need for the ‘Jewish State’ and a contrived, urgent need for Jewish people to abandon their place of residence and go to Israel.

That’s what it’s about: and note that I said contemporary – I’m not talking about the past, only what’s going on in the present. You could see this clearly three years ago, when all the talk was of the rampant Anti-Semitism in France: and where, immediately following on from the Charlie Hebdo false-flag operation, Benjamin Netanyahu inserted himself into France’s public mourning and public solidarity events – despite having been specifically told by the French government not to come to Paris at that time.

I covered some of this back then hereNetanyahu was immediately calling for French Jews to leave France and emigrate to Israel, where it would be safe for them.

Some French Jews did, while others seemed to resent the whole thing. But the point was that the perceived threat to Jewish people was a massive boost for the Israeli government and for the idea that Jews belong in Israel and not anywhere else.

The fact is also that it gave more power to the contnuing illegal settlement constructions in the Occupied Territories, because the state could claim it needed to build more settlements for newly-arriving Jewish settlers who were fleeing ‘persecution’ in other countries.

Thus, it becomes a perfect circle or cycle: shift your focus from France to Britain and we’ll probably see the same thing playing out here eventually – you can see the way being paved here clearly.

The more this sense of “existential threat” to British Jews gets amplified, the more Israeli agencies can urge non-Israeli Jews to abandon their lives elsewhere and come to Israel where they’ll never suffer Anti-Semitism again.

The more that happens, the more the Israeli government can justify both its actions and its need to provide sanctuary. In other words, the more perceived Anti-Semitism there is in Britain – or the more perceived hostile environment for Jewish people there is – the more power is fed directly into the veins of the Likud Party and the Zionist-nationalist fanatics who currently hold power in Israeli government.

The fact that, in this case, a known critic of Israel – Jeremy Corbyn (who they certainly don’t want to see as a future PM) – happens to be the focal point just makes it a double-incentive to keep pushing this agenda forward.

The other problem, one suspects, is that this IHRA system, far from stopping Anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic perceptions, is just as likely to inflame them further: since the particular stipulations in question (the ones the Labour Party omitted) are so obviously designed to stop criticism.

Professor David Feldman, an expert in historical Anti-Semitism and prejudices faced by Jewish communities in different countries, writing in The Guardian in 2016, was wary of the IHRA attempt to set in stone the classifications of Anti-Semitism: ‘I am sceptical,’ he wrote. ‘Here is the definition’s key passage: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” This is bewilderingly imprecise. The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not. Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic…’

And that’s exactly the problem the Labour Party had in mind when it adopted its amended version of the IHRA.

Jeremy Corbyn will now find himself permanently in a position where any criticism he makes of any present or future Israeli state policy or action will be automatically spun as stemming from his innate Anti-Semitism. There is no way out of that anymore.

But Corbyn probably knows that by now himself: which might be why a lot of his response now tends to be luke-warm.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Meet The “Existential Threat” to Jews in Britain

The DYNCORP Rabbit-Hole: Child-Trafficking, Black Ops, ‘Pizza-Gate’ & More


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


A week ago, I relayed the report, via the Times of Israel, that President Trump was seeking Stephen Feinberg – CEO of the private security firm (mercenary group), DYNCORP – to conduct an “audit” of American intelligence and security agencies.

suggested that the Israeli billionaire’s enlistment by Trump for that purpose might essentially amount to a ‘coup’, with all American intelligence and security operations being controlled by a private entity with foreign/Israeli interests. I also suggested this might relate to the sudden resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

If this report is true and this move goes ahead, it is worth looking at precisely what DYNCORP is and what its track record consists of. If you’re not familiar with it, prepare to be very troubled.

Dyncorp appears, from all accounts, to be the absolute worst of the worst – a criminal, inhumane enterprise engaged in every kind of international crime you could think of: people trafficking, prostitution, organised child abuse, ‘rape tapes’, drug trafficking, covert ops, mercenary warfare, false-flag terrorism, the illegal/covert arms trade, and with its decrepit activities having taken place everywhere from Bosnia, Libya and Iraq and Yemen and right through to Pizza-Gate and Jeffrey Epstein.

I wrote, in this post about the recent raid in Yemen (in which an eight-year-old girl was shot in the neck and left to bleed to death), that the Trump administration was likely to seek a more ‘cut-throat’ style of foreign operations, particularly given the presence of Blackwater founder Erik Prince in the Trump camp: but if this report about Feinberg is true (Feinberg is already one of Trump’s key economic advisers too; and also has ties to Wall Street ‘Wolves’ like Madoff, Enron, etc), then it’s going to be much worse than I even suggested – because the CEO of DynCorp being given direct control of US intelligence and security agencies is going to mean a massive increase in false-flag terrorism, black ops, organised crime and generally horrendous operations: both in foreign and domestic terms.


Depending on precisely what it is that might or might not be going on, it could all be steeply downhill from here.

My knowledge of Dyncorp has been limited: I knew of its bloody involvement in the Iraq War and I was familiar with the whistleblower Kathryn Bolkovac’s extraordinary exposure of Dyncorp’s people-trafficking and sexual abuse operations.

In a damning 2003 paper, ‘Real Deal: CSC DynCorp & the Economics of Lawlessness’, Catherine Austin-Fitts analysed the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs having issued a $22 million contract to DynCorp Aerospace Operations (UK) Ltd to “re-establish police, justice and prison functions in post-conflict Iraq.”

WikiLeaks published cables exposing Dyncorp having earned $2 billion per year out of the decimation of Afghanistan and Iraq – it was also involved in a number of incidences of child trafficking.

The things that had already been exposed about DynCorp as far back as 2002 should’ve destroyed the firm already: but somehow they keep managing to be protected and then awarded big contracts.

We’re not just talking about an immensely corrupt organisation, but a criminal enterprise that knows virtually no bounds. In his book, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire, Michael C. Ruppert covers how much DynCorp is embedded across the US military-industrial complex, the CIA, the State Department, etc. ‘So ubiquitous is DynCorp,‘ he wrote in 2013, ‘that we will see its hands all over the map in connection with 9/11 and the ruling of America. DynCorp is everywhere.’

DynCorp was connected with Hillary Clinton on account of being deeply embedded with the State Department, with both Clinton and the corporate-owned media maintaining cover ups to protect the corporation from exposure: for, among other things, the alleged child-trafficking. But it goes further back than Hillary, connecting with 9/11 and the Rumsfeld Pentagon, the Iran/Contra scandal and more.

In a lengthy article entitled Dirty Tricks, Inc.: The DynCorp Government Connection, Uri Dowbenko provides a great overview of how this entire operation works: “Using private companies for government work has been long exploited by the CIA and Pentagon, who like to use proxies, such as contractors or mercenaries to fight their covert wars. The benefits for federal agencies include ‘plausible deniability’ with respect to assassinations and drug trafficking, as well as the ability to bypass the Military Code of Honor and accords of the Geneva Convention. In other words, by privatizing ‘dirty tricks,’ a federal agency cannot be held liable…’

In that context, we might note that it was also widely reported recently that mercenaries from DynCorp have been entering Yemen to fight for the Saudi-led coalition: this being after fighters from the infamous Blackwater firm (and Blackwater is also tied to the Trump/Bannon administration) were defeated by the Houthi rebels; which, again, reinforces what I was saying in the Yemen post concerning the Trump administration’s probable ‘cut-throat’ approach, particularly if guided by Steve “Darkness is good” Bannon – and even more so if guided by Feinberg.

In addition to its involvement in foreign warfare and black ops, Dyncorp is credited with having been a major, central developer of what is now the mass surveillance state.

But beyond these areas of activity – which you might be inclined to regard as normal for a private military contractor tied to the CIA and the Pentagon – the area where the ubiquitous Dyncorp becomes even more disturbing concerns the longstanding evidence of human trafficking and organised sex abuse (including children).

Its activities of course span nations, continents and decades. In Afghanistan, for example, DynCorp, which was hired by the US to train Afghan police, was apparently caught supplying drugs and young boys for a sort of ‘sex party’.

What is absolutely crucial – and highly disturbing – viewing is this lecture from former Nebraska policewoman, Kathryn Bolkovac, who I referenced earlier. Bolkovac served as a U.N. peacekeeper, and in this talk she discusses how, in Sarajevo, she discovered military officers involved in human trafficking and forced prostitution, with links to private mercenary contractors, the UN, and the U.S. State Department – Dyncorp is central to her revelations.

Her talk here is long, but I highly recommend watching it and listening to her account.

The incredibly brave and moral Bolkovac was forced to flee the country in the dead of night, bringing the incriminating documents with her – with which she was able to win a lawsuit against Dyncorp, exposing their activities. Her story is recounted in the book The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice (which also was a 2009 film called The Whistleblower and starring Rachel Weisz).

In 2002, Kelly Patricia O’Meara wrote a stunning article about DynCorp for Insight Magazine, providing some sense of what goes on in the organisation. ‘Dyncorp forged documents, trafficked women, aided illegal cross-border transports and tipped off sex club owners about imminent raids.’ She covered the brave work of Kathryn Bolkovac, who had uncovered evidence “of girls being beaten and raped in bars by their pimps while peacekeepers stood and watched.” Even one UN policeman who was meant to be investigating the sex trade: “paid £700 to a bar owner for an underage girl who he kept captive in his apartment to use in his own prostitution racket.” Ultimately, the company fired the eight employees for their alleged involvement in sex trafficking and illegal arms deals.’

In the same article, O’Meara explained how “employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports…’ and how a key whisteblower from Texas ‘witnessed co-workers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.”


And, again, Dyncorp also appears to be linked to Jeffrey Epstein and the alleged ‘Pizza-gate’ scandal; which, given its child-trafficking record, would seem to make some sense.

Concerning DynCorp’s activities in the illegal drugs trade, Robert Lawson’s DynCorp: Beyond the Rule of Lawdescribes how DynCorp contract employees were caught smuggling heroin out of Colombia within the last decade. Further information linking DynCorp to the drugs trade can be sought out in articles by Jason Vest at The Nation.

This is all just scratching the surface here. As previously mentionedDynCorp is also linked to the arms flow to ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq, and has been implicated in Benghazi (Libya).

In the US, George Webb has been researching and posting videos on DynCorp for some time. His series is thorough and detailed, well worth examining. I haven’t been able to get through all of it because there’s so much of it: but, among other things, he links Dyncorp not only to organised child trafficking, but organ harvesting operations (in Haiti and elsewhere). I cannot claim to know whether a lot of Webb’s information is correct or not – particularly as I haven’t been through all of his work – but the picture he paints is disturbing to say the least.

Webb, who, among other things, links DynCorp to the San Bernadino false-flag that the Trump/Bannon team has made so much capital out of, has also made a chilling prediction concerning civil unrest, killings and false-flags in the United States: “I’m willing to say today that it’s going to be DynCorp behind the mass shootings that you see in America. I’m going to tell you right now that there’s going to be a DynCorp person always involved in the pile of bodies. The other murders are just cover murders, but it’s going to be DynCorp…”

Webb could be wrong, of course: but read that quote again… and then go back to the report that the CEO of DynCorp is being enlisted by Trump to conduct an ‘audit’ of American intelligence and security agencies. And ask why Donald ‘Drain the Swamp’ Trump would seek out a US/Israeli billionaire CEO of a criminal enterprise to ‘audit’ American intelligence and security agencies and activities.

The answer – whatever it is – can’t be anything good.

Given the entire propaganda premise of his Breitbart-led campaign, Trump making a place for the CEO of Dyncorp in his White House makes absolutely no sense. It would, however, make sense – as I previously argued – if it is taken in conjunction with the fact that Feinberg is a close friend of Steve Bannon’s, that both Feinberg and Bannon are Zionist operatives and that Trump appears to have a fondness for both DynCorp and Blackwater.

Webb also claims that DynCorp is running Fusion Centers. The Fusion Centers – investigated by a number of researchers, including Jesse Ventura – were set up across the United States after 9/11 essentially to spy on citizens on a massive scale and which are believed by many to be the crucial part of a planned totalitarian state and Martial Law that 9/11, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security was always intended to lead to: and which will involve a massive crackdown on ‘terrorists’, dissent, protest groups, activists and Libertarians.

A constitutional and international lawyer told lawmakers that the United States should dismantle these state-run fusion centers and likened them to the Soviet Union’s KGB and East Germany’s Stasi.


I’m not suggesting we can know for certain what is going on anymore (for one thing, Attorney-General Jeff Sessionsseems to have just signed an executive order to prevent human trafficking – which makes the equation even more confusing).

But there also appears to be a lack of open discussion about Feinberg, along with a claim that various senior intelligence officials in the US are very concerned about the alleged appointment. I’m also not at all sure what the true story is concerning a woman named Monica Peterson, who George Webb also posted about – and who, allegedly, committed suicide while (allegedly) investigating child-trafficking in Haiti (though the conspiracy theories now have it that her death may have been faked, with some even claiming she didn’t exist).

Whatever you may or may not think of ‘conspiracy theorists’, George Webb’s claims or the ‘Pizza-Gate’ scandal, what is absolutely certain is that the likes of Kathryn Bolkovac and Catherine Austin-Fitts are utterly beyond reproach: and I again highly recommend watching Bolkovac’s talk or reading her book.

Her evidence alone should’ve meant the complete dismantling of Dyncorp long ago.

Catherine Austin-Fitts wrote back in 2003, ‘A year ago, I took stories about litigation involving sex slave trafficking by DynCorp personnel in Eastern Europe… Indeed, it was not long after that the State Department awarded DynCorp a contract to manage the information systems for embassies and consulates world wide — another plum award for a company that seems to have a hand in most of the most sensitive information systems in the world — at the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Air Force, the FBI, the Securities & Exchange Commission and even the New York Stock Exchange.’

‘If we are paying private corporations to collect highly sensitive data on all of us,’ she wrote, ‘it seems like DynCorp is always there.’

Well, yes, it looks like DynCorp is always there.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on The DYNCORP Rabbit-Hole: Child-Trafficking, Black Ops, ‘Pizza-Gate’ & More

Trump, 9/11, Kushner 666, Dancing Zionist


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Trump, 9/11, Kushner 666, Dancing Israelis – And the Big Redirection

The recent anniversary of 9/11 got me thinking about some of the ongoing oddities around the World Trade Center attack.

It also got me thinking about various interesting connections in elite circles, New York real estate, the Trump era and how it relates to the ongoing psy-op of the post-9/11 world we all woke up in after September 11th 2001.

But, rather than trying to reproduce another compendium of all the reasons why 9/11 was a world-changing false-flag op designed to kick-start the 21st century world order, I want to just touch on some curious facts, connections and oddities that continue to appear to the present day.

Alex Jones and other Trump-aligned platforms might keep promising that Trump is going to be The One to expose the 9/11 conspiracy: but this is simply part of the re-direction designed to restore the official 9/11 narrative and derail the 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’.

And, as will quickly become clear, it is quite easy to demonstrate a real connection – and not just a symbolic or propaganda connection – between the Trump/Kushner administration and the 9/11 attack itself.

The thing last week that really triggered me was coming across a Donald Trump quote that I had never noticed before.

It was in a random Rolling Stone article that touched on some of the odd, typically Trump-like comments around 9/11. Such as the fact that, for example, when the Twin Towers fell, Trump had bragged that his building (Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street) was now the tallest in New York. Or that he has also later claimed to have been down in the rubble, helping survivors to safety.

Those aren’t anything suspect – they’re just standard Trumpisms to which most of us are deaf to by now.

But it was something else the current US President has said that really caught my eye.

It was Trump’s claim, a couple of years ago, about the cheering Arabs when the World Trade Center buildings fell. He claimed that he had watched “thousands and thousands” on rooftops in New Jersey, “cheering as that building was coming down”.

The clear implication was that these “cheering” people were Arabs or Muslims. On multiple subsequent occasions (including in a bizarre interview with Alex Jones in which the Info Wars psy-op host also supported Trump’s assertions about the “thousands and thousands” of cheering Muslims) he refused to step back from his statement but insisted that thousands of Arabs or Muslims were cheering the collapse of the Twin Towers.

This ‘memory’ he has of the “thousands and thousands” cheering on the rooftops is clearly bullshit. On first glance, you’d just dismiss it as more ‘alternative facts’ Trumpism.

But on second glance you realise that it’s actually something else: what’s very curious is that Trump’s story seems to be a deliberate re-packaging of the infamous story of the ‘Dancing Israelis’ in New Jersey.

For anyone not familiar with this largely whitewashed element of the 9/11 story, let’s briefly summarise it before coming back to Trump, Kushner and New York.

It involves a group of ‘dancing Israelis‘ who were found celebrating the World Trade Center attack while observing (and filming) the event from a rooftop from across the Hudson River.

At the time – and before the Bin Laden narrative became firmly cemented as fact in the media – there was discussion in some of the media of these suspicious Israelis in New Jersey and discussion of foreknowledge of the attack by Israeli intelligence agents who, at the very least, chose not to warn US authorities of the imminent act of terror.

Some 60 to 100 Israelis (I keep seeing varying numbers) were arrested in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack – part of an Israeli spy network that was engaged in highly suspicious activity, but all were sent back to Israel by December 2001 – by which time the ‘War on Terror’ and the incursion into Afghanistan was already underway.

The five particular men who were the ‘Dancing Israelis’ witnessed by various New Jersey residents were detained by NYPD. The police and FBI field agents had said they’d found the men with maps of the city with various key points highlighted, as well with other suspicious obejcts like box cutters, large amounts of cash and foreign passports (note also that box cutters were supposedly used by the 9/11 hijackers).

Two of the five ‘Dancing Israelis’ were later confirmed as Mossad agents, while some others among the broader number of Israelis arrested after 9/11 were reported to have been active members of Israeli military.

Later, on Israeli TV, they claimed to be there to “document” the attack – which didn’t, of course, explain how they knew the attack was coming.

A CIA agent seemed to confirm their cameras were set up to film the World Trade Center before the first plane struck.

Despite all of this, all of these captured Israelis were sent back to Israel without further investigation: and everyone’s attention was directed firmly onto Bin Laden and the mountains of Afghanistan.

Bizarrely, a US Army report published in Washington Post THE DAY BEFORE 9/11 said of Mossad or Israeli intelligence services (referred to elsewhere as Israeli Secret Intelligence Services: or ‘ISIS’ – see this C-Span video): ‘Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.’

Also, a side-note worth repeating is that security at all three airports involved in the 9/11 hijackings were run by ICTS International – a security firm owned and run by Israelis, which was also involved in numerous subsequent terror plots, including, for example, the Brussels airport bombing a couple of years ago.

But the best charting of this saga of the Dancing Israelis that I’ve seen is this video by the Corbett Report, which covers everything including the business of the Mossad front-company (‘Urban Removal Systems’) found carrying explosives in New York on 9/11 and the bizarre 9/11 attack mural decorating one of their vans.

There are a lot more details and testimonies, which I’m not reproducing here – check the Corbett Report video.

But it has always been utterly extraordinary that this evidence was always there in plain sight from day one – and was even initially acknowledged by some major media at the time – and yet was quickly whitewashed in favor of the Bin Laden narrative and the ‘War on Terror’.

So what the hell was Trump talking about and why?

It’s as if Trump knew the ‘Dancing Israelis’ story well enough, but decided to alter it to implicate Arabs instead – and exaggerate the numbers (in true Trump style) to “thousands and thousands”.

The motive is obvious enough, given Trump’s closeness to Netanyahu and given the creepy presence of Zionist-settlement-funder and Creepy Weird Guy Jared Kushner in the equation.

But the links and connections go further than that: so much so that you end up feeling the Trump/Kushner presidency is somehow 9/11 going full circle: as if it’s all the same programme – and being run by the same clubs of con artists.

As it happens, Jared Kushner is close friends with Larry Silverstein: and so is Trump.

Silverstein, a fellow real-estate mogul and developer in New York like Trump and Kushner, is now a chief suspect in most 9/11 truth theories, having profited from the 9/11 attack to the tune of $4.5 billion.

Silverstein had acquired the entire World Trade Center complex (and control of its security arrangements) from the New York Port Authority on a 100-year lease in July 2001, when the WTC was privatised – a few months before 9/11. Silverstein managed to coerce his insurers into maximising insurance payout in the event of a terrorist attack and even acquired guarantee of an instant cash pay-out. Silverstein also later sought further billions by sueing the airlines whose planes were used in the attack. He also managed to maximise the profit by insisting that the two planes meant two separate terrorist attacks.

He is also widely quoted on the morning of 9/11 as having called for the building to be “pulled” after the planes had impacted – a comment that may or may not have been misinterpreted by 9/11 truthers who’ve seized on it as proof of a controlled demolition. It came from a PBS documentary called ‘America Rebuilds‘.

He was also on record in 2000 – a year and a half before 9/11 – discussing plans for a new World Trade Center building.

I don’t want to go over further details about 9/11 or Silverstein, because that information is all out there already in other people’s research.

The complex web of financial scams, profit motives and real-estate conspiracies involved in 9/11 are most concisely summarised here in this video, which I’ve referenced here before as probably the final video anyone needs to watch on the 9/11 conspiracy.

Again, however, just to show how incestuous and related all of this is, AIPAC’s Michael Glassner was reported to have arranged the controversial deal that handed over the lease for the World Trade Center to the Larry Silverstein group just before 9/11: and Michael Glassner was Donald Trump’s top political planner, playing a major role in the presidential campaign.

It is also needless to say that Silverstein himself has substantial connections to Israeli organisations and is friends with several Israeli Prime Ministers, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon. Indeed, Silverstein is said to be particularly close to Benjamin Netanyahu: just as Trump and Kushner are, with ‘Bibi’ having once even slept in Kushner’s bedroom.

I didn’t actually know until recently that Netanyahu was actually in New York on the morning of 9/11: which is funny, as he was also in London on the morning of 7/7.

It’s also always important to note that the ‘War on Terror’ doctrine had originated with Netanyahu himself, who wrote a fucking book on it years before 9/11.

It was Netanyahu himself – and not the Bush administration – who was the originator of both the idealogical framework of the ‘War on Terror’ and the very phrase itself: a phrase which, of course, became the official umbrella term for America’s foreign policy misadventures immediately after 9/11.

As much as the stated need for a “new Pearl Harbour” (i.e: 9/11) is traced to the Neo-Con/Zionist Project for the New American Century, the ‘War on Terror’ paradigm itself is traced back to Netanyahu’s books – International Terrorism: Challenge and Response in 1979 and Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism in 1995.

In the months leading up to 9/11 and the weeks immediately after 9/11, Netanyahu was pushing this manifesto in Washington.

The Israeli daily paper Haaretz claimed that Silverstein (pictured below with Jared Kushner) and Netanyahu were so close that the real-estate mogul was at one point receiving calls from Netanyahu on a daily basis.

Also, the other key player linked to Silverstein’s acquisition of the World Trade Center before 9/11 was Lewis Eisenberg, who was chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Eisenberg, a former Goldman-Sachs luminary, is also friends with Donald Trump and has in fact been appointed by Trump as US ambassador to Italy. He, like Silverstein and Glassner, is involved with a number of Israeli organisations.

In fact, it appears that Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, was also appointed to the New York and New Jersey Port Authority that was responsible for the World Trade Center prior to 9/11.

Wayne Madsen wrote a piece at Strategic Culture in 2017 calling Jared Kushner ‘A Suspected Gangster Within the Trump White House’, in which this and a number of other facts about Kushner’s background are detailed.

It perhaps isn’t so curious that all these New York and Wall Street moguls are all chums. It’s a mafia, after all. But where 9/11 is concerned, we really should pay extra attention.

So, to summarise: Silverstein, Eisenberg and Glassner are implicated in 9/11 and Charles Kushner was also in the same circle – and all of them are linked to Trump and Kushner. Silverstein is friends with Trump and Kushner, as well as Netanyahu and various Israeli officials. Kushner and Trump are pals with Netanyahu. Netanyahu was the author of the ‘War on Terror’ and happened to be in New York on the morning of 9/11 – at the same time as a number of suspect Israelis were up to god-knows-what and had to be rounded up by police and the FBI.

And Trump later takes the story of the cheering Israelis and turns it into a story about “thousands and thousands” of cheering Arabs.


On the subject of New York moguls and real-estate, it continues to strike me as extremely odd that Jared Kushner owns the 666 building at 5th Avenue.

Kushner acquired the building back in 2007 for $1.8 billion: but this was reportedly three times the asking price of even a decade earlier. It kind of seems like this building meant something to Kushner and he really wanted it. Kushner is a creepy guy as it is (the guy really does look like the villain in a film), but his 666 building just makes him even creepier.

Worse, the building isn’t actually 666 in terms of address, but is the name of the building. The giant 666 has apparently now been removed.

There are a bunch of people who think Kushner and Trump – but Kushner in particular – represent the ‘Anti Christ’. That’s an avenue I’m not really interested in going down (even though it would, in theory, connect rather nicely with the whole Jerusalem-centered apocalypse that Kushner and Trump seem so invested in); but there are claims that another Fifth Avenue property – Trump Tower – is 666 feet (203 meters) tall and that Trump’s penthouse is on the 66th floor.

I checked and I can’t confirm the 666 feet claim, but it appears Trump’s penthouse is on the 66th floor.

It’s all kind of odd. If it had been a coincidence that Kushner happened to own the 666 building, I would’ve sarcastically said something like ‘maybe it’s the universe giving us a sign’: but that doesn’t work, given that Kushner was reportedly so keen on acquiring the building in the first place.

It might also be worth noting that Kushner’s interest in the Jerusalem or Holy Land agenda could relate in part to the fact that he belongs to the ultra-Zionist and Messianic ‘Chabad’ group that is centered on a cult of personality around a Rabbi Menachem Mendel Scheerson (believed by many followers to actually be the ‘Messiah’). I don’t know much about this group, but Alison Weir wrote a rather fascinating article on the subject for Counterpunch in 2014.

Putting all of that aside, one does wonder how much the likes of both Trump or Kushner were privy to in terms of the insider-dealing and profit-making schemes involved in the 9/11 attack.

Given their connections with New York, Wall Street, Silverstein, Glassner and Eisenberg, it’s a question worth asking: and given their connections to Netanyahu, one has to wonder even more. It would be naive to think that, among those elite circles, such things wouldn’t get discussed.

If Charles Kushner was with the Port Authority of New York, it would seem odder if Jared Kushner and Donald Trumphaven’t had been privy to the conspiracies or at least had some intimation.

The ‘dancing-Israelis-become-cheering-Arabs’ trick alone just highlights even further how much Trump himself is an actor playing a role.

But whether he crafted out that role for himself or whether it was crafted out for him to play is another question. But it provides another context for this Trump/Kushner era to be viewed in.

As for 9/11 itself, there genuinely was a point in time – for a few years at least – where the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement was really starting to win the argument and beginning to turn the tables on public opinion: but that all fell apart when key figures or sections of the so-called ‘alt media’ were co-opted and then began to either abandon 9/11 questions or to bombard the whole subject with nonsense while drawing a vast audience in a totally different direction.

A key part of that totally different direction has, in fact, been the Trump Train itself: in which Info Wars and various others have played their central part. It seems very much as if part of Trump’s purpose was to re-direct as much of the ‘conspiracy theory’ audience as possible away from questioning the 9/11 narrative and to focus instead on sectarian Identity Politics – while re-asserting the official 9/11 narrative at the same time.

That’s actually pretty genius: become a figurehead for the ‘alt’ crowds and anti-government, anti-mainstream trends (at a time when polls were showing the *majority* of Americans didn’t believe the official 9/11 story), and then RE-ASSERT THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE of 9/11 and have all your followers go with you on that – and even have one-time 9/11 debunkers like Alex Jones be part of this redirection.

Even funnier, as I said earlier, Jones and others in that arena were literally telling their followers that ‘Trump is going to reveal the truth of 9/11’.

Yeah, sure he is, Alex. As for any 9/11 ‘disclosure’ at any official levels – don’t hold your breath.

Posted in USAComments Off on Trump, 9/11, Kushner 666, Dancing Zionist

Saudi Arabia, MBS & Trying to Make Sense of JAMAL KHASOGGI’s Murder


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


The apparent murder of US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi within the premises of the Saudi embassy in Turkey has sparked days of outrage, threats, debate, and conspiracy theory.

From everything we’ve been told, he was probably murdered within the Saudi embassy: the surface-level narrative says it was probably on account of him being an open critic of the Prince Mohammad bin Salman and the current Saudi regime.

I didn’t read any of Jamal Khosaggi’s articles, but I was familiar with him from some TV appearances, including a few appearances as a guest on RT‘s Cross Talk show.

He was also, however, a person with long links to the Saudi elites, Saudi intelligence and Saudi history – which has prompted many online to speculate about a complex conspiracy, some even linking it to 9/11 (which seems like a stretch to me and unnecessary).

However, given all of that backstory, it is logical to assume this brutal murder was probably part of the internecine conflict between opposing sides of the Saudi elites: a conflict that has been going on for a while now and in which Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman appears to be the driving force and central player.

You have to wonder why Saudi agents – or anyone linked to Saudi power – would be so outrageous as to murder him within the Saudi embassy in Istanbul: as opposed to hiring someone to kill him at some other more random location. Particularly as, if Khashoggi didn’t come out of the embassy alive, it would be so obvious who had murdered him.

It’s now being claimed Khashoggi’s body was cut up into pieces. And Turkish sources have claimed to have audio and even video footage of the journalist’s treatment.

There’s no reason to think Saudi agents didn’t kill him – that certainly seems to be what all accounts are pointing to. And, as The Intercept notes, the Saudi state has a history of killing opponents, critics or dissidents on foreign soil.

One of the several Saudi agents allegedly identified by Turkish authorities incldues Muhammad Saad al-Zahrani, who has appeared on Saudi state TV alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. ‘MBS’, as he’s now called, has been at the head of a purge of sections of his family and the the Saudi elites (even though MBS is also Saudi elite): and the logical deduction, based on what we’ve been told, would be that Khashoggi has become a victim of this purge.

Khasoggi was previously an advisor to the previous Saudi King and a spokeperson for the royal family. On the surface of it, he seemed to have started a new life in exile: but, one would suspect, anyone with Khasoggi’s background and connections would be seen (rightly or not) by the MBS faction as a present or future threat.

There are two things that struck me though. The first is that, in a way, this affair resembles the Skripal/Salisbury poisoning saga: in as much as that something horrible has obviously happened, the narrative clearly points to a logical perpetrator, and the whole thing has blown up into a massive international controversy.

The Saudis ‘obviously’ did this – just like the Russians ‘obviously’ did do Salisbury: and the situation arrives in a manner so ‘obviously’ implicating the Russians in the Salisbury case and the Saudis in this case that, again, you kind of wonder why the Russians or the Saudis would be so blatant in either case. Most murders or crimes like this would be done in a way to at least give the perpetrator a chance at denial or cover-up – but in these two examples, it’s almost as if the perps wanted to be immediately blamed… or just didn’t care.

I actually have come around to the view that Russian agents were up to something in Salisbury (which I entirely acknowledged could’ve been the case back in March, even when pointing out the suspicious closeness of Salisbury to Porton Down) – but I’m still not sure what.

That the two Russians implicated for Salisbury are actual agents almost seems to be beyond doubt now: though there is still a counter argument, centering now on whether ‘Bellingcat’ is a compromised or a reliable source. As I explained in a recent post, I’ve pretty much given up trying to work out what the hell Salisbury was.

Just on a side-note here: Maria Dejevsky’s article in The Independent on ‘Bellingcat’ and the Skirpal narrative is definitely worth reading in its entirety (if for nothing else than proof that there is still real journalism to be found in the mainstreamish media). It’s kind of funny that when a blogger or independent source is supporting the official narrative via unknown means, he is cited as being reliable: and yet when a blogger or indepedent source is refuting the official narrative, he is more often than not dismissed as a conspiracy-theory lunatic living in his parents’ basement or something to that effect.

Getting back to the main subject, that Saudi agents murdered Jamal Khasoggi will probably emerge as the prevailing narrative. And they probably did. I just can’t think of why they’d be so obvious and blatant about it.

Other than just total incompetence, the only thing I can think of is that the Saudi perpetrators in this latest incident didn’t care about how it would look: arguably, those states or actors within those states are basically saying ‘it’s our own business and we can do this and get away with it because we’re that powerful – and what are you going to do about it?‘ It’s the same attitude a lot of people were – rightly or wrongly – ascribing to the Russians who allegedly poisoned Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.

One of the best emerging narratives seems to be that Saudi agents were interrogating (and torturing) Khasoggi and somehow it ‘went wrong’, resulting in his death.

But that’s no ‘explanation’, as far as Saudi brutality criminality is concerned: particularly if it turns out to be true that Khasoggi’s body was then cut up into pieces. For that kind of brutal behaviour to be going on in the premises of an embassy is extraordinary.

And, if this is confirmed, then where that goes is unknown – I can’t foresee anyone taking any serious action against the Saudi state: which would kind of reinforce the ‘we can do this and get away with it because we’re so powerful and what are you going to do about it?’ narrative.

And Donald Trump‘s rather nonchalant “well, he wasn’t an American citizen” comment seems to foreshadow the US administration doing everything it possibly can to not let this incident turn into a problem for US/Saudi relations: particularly as Trump and Kushner seemed to champion MBS so strongly prior to this PR catastrophe and act of butchery.

Washington is too tied to the Saudis for anything significant to be done: and Trump and Jared Kushner are too tied to Mohammad bin Salman personally.

The only thing I can see happening is that – regardless of what the truth is – the Saudi state, Kushner and Washington, and even Erdogan and the Turkish government, will come to some kind of ‘compromise’ explanation for what happened to Jamal Khasoggi: one that allows the approximate status quo to remain unshaken and all parties to exercise as much damage limitation as possible.

The easy route would be to come up with a story about ‘rogue actors’ or a rogue faction operating without official sanction.

Which will probably work, as far as the status quo is concerned: but it won’t work as far as general public opinion is concerned.

There have, naturally, been conspiracy theories flying about ever since Khasoggi went missing.

The dubious thing these days, however, is that it is states and governments putting out a lot of the conspiracy theories themselves – such as the Saudi state putting out the claim that Khasoggi’s fiance is ‘fake’, for example. President Trump is partial to putting out conspiracy theories too. This trend is frankly problematic for the entire realm of ‘conspiracy theories’ – when states and state actors are actively forwarding such theories for their own benefit.

I’ve suspected for a while that any number of ‘conspiracy theories’ that have entered the public realm or gained strong currency across the Internet have probably originated with various governments, intelligence agencies or dubious organisations, who seed particular ideas or theories into various populations in order to either covertly steer popular opinion, incite conflict or stir general mistrust and paranoia (you just have to look at someone like Daniel Pipes and the books he’s written and then observe his organisation’s link to ‘Tommy Robinson’, for example).

As a case in point, the conspiracy theory claims circulating about Khasoggi being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are probably a red herring designed to deflect attention from the more obvious narrative: simply that Khasoggi was a critic of the current Saudi regime, an opponent of MBS, critic of the War in Yemen, and an apparent advocate for a more progressive Saudi state (albiet still a royalist).

Given his connections and history, he may also have been perceived as someone who either was or would be involved in a counter-coup against MBS.

More Freedom Foundation does a really good job of here addressing the subject level-headedly and putting the whole Khasoggi/Muslim- Brotherhood claim into proper context.

Admittedly, there is reason to be suspicious of undisclosed motives and connections. It is odd how Khasoggi has only generally been referred to as ‘a journalist’, when in fact he apparently had longstanding links to Saudi intelligence, close relations with Saudi royalty, and historic involvement with Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen and the US-backed war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

That Khasoggi had huge family history and connections (to the founder of Saudi Arabia, as well as family involvement in billionaire arms- dealing and links to Nixon, Thatcher, etc) is clear: but that doesn’t automatically mean his murder links to a bigger, complex conspiracy involving a multitude of strands. It could be – and probably is – as simple as him being a perceived problem for the MBS faction and its interests.

And yes, as some observers have pointed out, he was also a big advocate for the Arab Spring – but so was, for example, the murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, as well as any number of people who weren’t actually part of a conspiracy.

If Khasoggi was attached to any present ‘conspiracy’, the likelihood is that it would’ve been simply a conspiracy aimed at undermining the current Saudi regime and Mohammad bin Salman. If – and it now seems pretty likely – a Saudi hit-squad working for MBS did murder Jamal Khasoggi, then the motive should be as obvious as that.

I’ve seen some (evidence-free) speculation from some online theorists that Mr Khasoggi might’ve been involved in an active anti-MBS plot involving US actors (possibly CIA): which would be complicated, as the Trump/Kushner administration is very much allied to MBS, though the American Deep State itself is probably as divided as the current Saudi power structure, so who knows what’s really going on?

In theory, it could be possible that part of the US Deep State still favours the elements of the Saudi elites that MBS has moved against, in contradiction to the Trump/Kushner-centered cabal’s alliance with the MBS faction.

In which case, there maybe could’ve been an active anti-MBS operation developing – and maybe Khosaggi was suspected of some link to it. In theory, that would explain both the alleged interrogation and the apparent urgency with which these alleged Saudi agents murdered the Washington Post journalist – allegedly within minutes of him setting foot in the embassy.

As theories go, that seems more possible to me than some of the other speculations out there.

But, in trying to make perfect sense of something that we can’t really understand (because we’re never privy to all of the information), we’re ultimately going round in circles with conspiracy theories and counter conspiracy theories (including, as I said, some that have been put out there probably by the same faction that would’ve committed the murder).

There’s even a theory out there that I came across in Russian media that this brutal, botched assault on Khasoggi was carried out by MBS’s enemies as a way to frame him and undermine his position: which I’m not buying, but it does illustrate how many aimless conspiracy theories and counter theories are being thrown about.

Which includes people who think Jamal Kashoggi isn’t dead and the whole thing has been staged: I’m not going to deal with that one.

It’s hard to even fully understand what’s going on in Saudi Arabia anymore – whether we’re supposed to regard the MBS faction as preferable to the other powerful elements or whether there’s no real difference. Certainly, the US and Western media spent a lot of time championing MBS as a reformer and moderniser: and it genuinely does appear that MBS has a lot of real support among younger generations of Saudi citizens as a moderniser.

On the other hand, if he did sanction the hit-squad that brutalised Jamal Kashoggi, then he is clearly a monster.

What we do know is that Washington and Tel-Aviv (or perhaps, more accurately, the Trump/Kushner and Netanyahu administrations) are and have been fully Team MBS.

Kushner was actually in Saudi Arabia with MBS when that whole, bizarre incident happened in Lebanon. Remember that? When the Lebanese Prime Minister showed up in Saudi Arabia and announced his resignation? And then later, upon returning to Lebanon, changed his mind? Apparently, this was also around the time the Crown Prince launched a second wave of arrests against parts of the Saudi elite, including members of his own family (the first wave of arrests having been shortly after Trump’s Saudi visit, with the glowing orb).

Weird shit is going on, which is often incomprehensible to those of us observing from the outside – partly because events aren’t always covered coherently in the media: and also some events get massive coverage and other events don’t. Some incidents remain in the headlines for days or weeks, while others disappear very quickly.


Months ago, MBS’s whereabouts was a mystery after what some claimed was a failed assassination attempt or coup attempt – which was quickly dispelled as having been nothing of the sort. Though it was never clear what it was.

Only a month or so ago, The Times published an article declaring that ‘Mohammad bin Salman’s Days are Numbered’ – which was reproduced and discussed in various Arab and Middle-East media.

Trump had said, a couple of weeks ago, that the Saudi regime would “not last two weeks” without American support.

Those are all indications that something was happening or brewing behind the scenes: some kind of break in relations or conflict of interests. Perhaps something that has stoke the paranoia of the MBS faction and prompted them to act in an extreme, brutal, even incompetent manner – presumably for the simple sake of maintaining power.

Also, a number of journalists have been murdered lately – and not just in far-flung places or under murderous regimes, but closer to home too.

The aforementioned Daphne Caruana Galizia is one example – her murder still having not been solved. Another is Bulgarian journalist Viktoria Marinova.

And again, there are weird things going on in general – with varying degrees of mass media coverage or scrutiny (and often none) and we only ever get a fraction of the real story.

Another good example from recent months is the case of the Interpol head, Meng Hongwei, going missing when he arrived in China from France. For some time, his whereabouts was a total mystery. Eventually, it was confirmed he was being held by the Chinese state – at some point after this, he also communicated his resignation from Interpol. No one knows what the Chinese authorities are holding him for. No one knows why he went to China in the first place.

And the media seems to have let go of the entire mystery – despite the fact that this guy was the head of Interpol. I’m not sure how much this story was covered in the American media at all.

China, unlike Saudi Arabia, doesn’t feel the need to answer any questions or offer any explanations: and plays even more by the ‘it’s our own business and we’re that powerful and what’re you going to do about it?’ way of operating.

As for what appears to have been the brutal murder of Jamal Khasoggi, I don’t expect the true reason for his murder will ever be confirmed: and I doubt that the Saudi state will be made to pay much of a price.

But I wholly admit I’m confused about Saudi Arabia, MBS’s standing, what parts of the American state or Deep State are supporting what parts of the Saudi elites, whether or even why one Saudi faction is preferable to another, and where any of this is going (if it’s going anywhere).

The only thing that seems clear is that Jamal Khasoggi suffered a horrible death.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Arabia, MBS & Trying to Make Sense of JAMAL KHASOGGI’s Murder

The Obscured Truth About the ‘MIGRANT CARAVAN’: Corrupt Coups, Co-Opted Conspiracies & Chaos


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The highly divisive drama in the US, concerning the ‘Migrant Caravan’ from Central America, is clearly being manipulated and stage-managed by the media and by rival propaganda campaigns that are using vulnerable human beings as tools for mass manipulation and division.

In fact, this isn’t new: this seems to be a re-run of the 2015-onwards Migrant Crisis that destabilised Europe, albeit the American version.

The weaponisation – on both sides of the ‘argument’ – of the migrants and their situation is a contrived, scripted affair, mostly divorced from the reality of the problem and the key points in recent history that are relevant here (namely, what happened in Honduras several years ago – which NO ONE on either side of the idealogical divide seems to be talking about).

I’ll offer a recap on the Honduras situation in a moment – because it’s the elephant in the room that seems to be being glossed over.

But there’s a couple of things to bear in mind.

First, the whole way this is being made to appear and to unfold seems designed for maximum dramatic imagery and to provoke maximum xenophobia. It’s one thing for the rabid ‘Build the Wall’ crowd to see news items about scattered incidents of individual illegal migrants or small groups of asylum seekers – but when the situation is presented as an organised mass of people on their way to the border, it is clearly primed to provoke maximum paranoia and resistance.

Aside from seemingly being to bring the whole ‘Build the Wall’ thing to a head, again, it seems like the overdue American adaptation of what was going on in Europe in 2015/2016, with masses of migrants from Syria, Africa or the Middle East constantly shown arriving on European shores or marching across borders in a way that was clearly meant to seem like an actual invasion.

That situation back then was the spark that lit the fire of right-wing ‘Populism’ in Europe and the West, the rise of extreme right-wing governments or parties, the political crisis in Germany (see here) and, arguably, political crises in Italy, Sweden (see here) and elsewhere. It was also the event (or series of events) that enabled the perceived re-legitimisation of basic racism and xenophobia on a wider scale than most people were expecting.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that, had the ‘Migrant Crisis’ not existed, we would be in alternate timeline where things – politically and socially – would be very different.

The dramatic scenes of this current ‘Migrant Caravan’ heading towards the US seems to recapture all of that mood and those dynamics: almost as if someone decided the US needed its own version of that highly polarising, destabilising crisis. It’s like when a British TV show does really well, there’s usually a remake or adaptation over in the US (take The Office as a prime example): well, the ‘Migrant Caravan’ drama seems like one of those, except adapted for the real world.

The way it is being perceived in the US and played up by those in both the mainstream media and the uglier corners of the Internet – with pretty much a literal countdown to the caravan arriving – all seems pre-fabricated for maximum dramatic effect, maximum toxicity and maximum backlash.

Whether this business of the pipe-bombs being delivered to George Soros and co is designed to be part of that is also a possibility (as per usual, Soros is being blamed by many as the orchestrator of the Migrant Caravan – which may or may not be true).

In fact, Robert Bowers, the Far-Right extremist who carried out the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, apparently was motivated by fear/paranoia about the Migrant Caravan – we’re told he was obsessed with the conspiracy theories that the Migrant Caravan is a ‘Jewish plot’ instigated by George Soros (a theory that has been put out by Info Wars and all the usual lot).

So – regardless of what the truth is about the synagogue shooting or the ‘MAGA Bomber’ affair – this all seems to be part of the same narrative.

This sounds like I’m suggesting the entire thing has been orchestrated as a conspiracy. Actually, that’s not what I think: at least not the conspiracy that most people seem to be talking about.

And nor did I think that about the 2015/2016 Migrant Crisis in Europe: when everyone else seemed to be seeing the Migrant Crisis as a conspiracy to ‘destroy the white race’, my own view was entirely different. But you can see here how much of an aggressive, angry reaction that article got from some people who saw it – who clearly felt that the Migrant Crisis had nothing to do with years of bloodshed and destruction in Syria or decades of poverty and hardship in Sub-Sahran Africa.

Admittedly, I may have been a touch too provocative with the title of that article: but, nevertheless, some of the reaction demonstrated how toxic and polarised the entire perception of that human crisis was.  The synagogue shooter also seems to have subscribed to that same idea that immigration is a conspiracy to wipe out white people. He presumably doesn’t realise that the United States was in fact founded on a conspiracy to wipe out the indigenous population a couple hundred years ago and replace them with white European immigrants.

But whatever. Apples and oranges, I guess.

The Migrant Caravan isn’t just being portrayed to look like the 2015 Migrant Crisis in Europe (the two images above show current Honduran migrants and then Syrians fleeing in 2013), but the same tactics are being employed too (naturally), with fake stories (example), fake images or images that have been deliberately either doctored, mis-dated or misattributed – many of which go viral at lightspeed and determine widespread perceptions of the situation.

The same thing was happening in Europe: where the fake images or stories went viral so quickly and so often that all sense of reality or context was quickly lost.

Examples being how Viktor Orban‘s right-wing government in Hungary forbade media from showing any images of refugee children and insisted on only showing fit young males: a strategy that was adopted by swathes of alt-right media (like American Zionist propagandist Pamela Gellar, for example). For other examples of how fake, viral propaganda was being employed, see this and this. This strategy includes doctored of Photoshopped images (such as faked images of refugees carrying ISIS flags), mis-attributed images (such as photos from 1991 being presented as photos from 2015), or even outright fake stories (such as the recent viral story of Honduran migrants setting fire to American flags).

There’s some of the usual low-grade conspiracy theories being thrown about now too.

Such as President Trump claiming “criminals and unknown Middle-Easterners are mixed” with the migrant caravan: a claim that was seemingly repeated by Vice President Mike Pence – and which may have originated with a ‘FOX and Friends’ presenter claiming that ISIS had fighters travelling with the migrant caravan.

At any rate, it’s straight out of the Alex Jones and Info Wars repertoire – where they’ve been talking about ‘ISIS’ invading the US from Mexico for several years already.

Let’s reiterate what the actual cause of the Migrant Crisis in Europe was: and then we can come back to what the actual root cause of the ‘Migrant Caravan’ approaching the Mexican border is – so that we can see how it’s essentially the same story (albeit much smaller in scale) and being manipulated in the same way.

The Migrant Crisis that ended up doing so much damage to European politics was created, enabled or exacerbated by these simple things: the French/British/American-led NATO military intervention in Libya in 2011, the War in Syria, and general poverty and hardship in parts of Africa.

Now, we could spend hours or days talking about African poverty and hardship and what the various causes are, so let’s table that. The two biggest catalysts for the Migrant Crisis were Libya and Syria. The three routes the mass migration was following into Europe were the Libyan coast to Italy, the Mediterranean from Syria or from Syria through Turkey.

Note that none of what happened in Europe would’ve happened if the West had not interfered militarily in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and create chaos. It’s important to note that – to see how it relates to the Central American Migrant Caravan.

Read more: ‘The Libya Conspiracy: A Definitive Guide to the Lies of the Libya Intervention‘…

As I noted back in 2015, Gaddafi himself had even predicted a migrant crisis would unfold across the Mediterranean if he was toppled. What very few commentators during the Migrant Crisis were acknowledging was that Gaddafi’s Libya had – prior to 2011 – not only been stemming any movement of migrants from Africa across to Italy, but had itself been the DESTINATION for most migrants coming up from Sub-Saharan Africa.

All of that of course changed when Britain, France and the US led the way in destroying that state and destabilising the country. From that point on, militias and criminal gangs saw how much money was to be made by fleecing the poor migrants of whatever funds they had and then launching them off towards Europe, via Italy, on whatever gaffer-taped pieces of shit qualified as ‘boats’.

The African migrants themselves can hardly be vilified either: led to believe for their entire lives that Europe and the West is the land of human rights, prosperity and opportunity, why wouldn’t they seek to escape harsh, oppressive lives and find something better? The extraordinary lengths and perils they endured to even reach Europe demonstrates how desperate they were and how bad the situations are/were in their countries.

As for Syria, while many of the Syrian refugees were no doubt fleeing the Assad regime, many or most were fleeing the Islamic State group, various jihadist militias or just the general warfare, death and destruction. The US and the West certainly had a great deal to do with what happened in Syria.

Either way, both the collapse of Libya and the bloody chaos of Syria were the chief factors in the mass exodus of people on that kind of scale.

A mass exodus that was absolutely milked for every last drop it was worth by devious propagandists in order to spread mass paranoia, fear and anxiety and use it to steer Western politics and public opinion in a different, uglier direction.

Now, what does any of this have to do with the ‘Migrant Caravan’ heading for the United States’ border?

Well, where did this caravan come from?

All coverage agrees that its point of origin was Honduras: and the majority of the asylum seekers, refugees or migrants (whichever term you prefer) are Honduran, just as the majority of the 2015/16 migrants (at least those coming through Turkey or Greece) were Syrian.

Well, how much of the mainstream media or so-called ‘alt-media’ coverage in the United States is bothering to talk about why there’s a crisis in Honduras?

The crisis in Honduras has been going on since 2009, when a US-backed right-wing military coup overthrew the government. I’ve written about this before (here), but I’ll just offer a recap for anyone who’s unfamiliar with those events.

It goes back to Hilary Clinton‘s diabolical run as Secretary of State (a run in which she also played a key role in creating the aforementioned destabilisation of Libya), in which she took a lead role in backing the 2009 coup that forced the democratically-elected President Zaleya out of the country and allowed a right-wing regime to take control.

As Consortium News noted years ago, ‘Honduras soon became the murder capital of the world. When the Honduran military removed Zelaya from power, the international community – including the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the European Union – condemned the coup and sought Zelaya’s restoration. But Secretary of State Clinton allied herself with right-wing Republicans in Congress who justified Zelaya’s removal…

The democratically-elected president was forcibly taken from his home (in his pajamas), put on a plane and sent out of the country by the US-backed Honduran military regime in June 2009.

Robert Naiman wrote at the time in Huffington Post; ‘The United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization of American States condemned the coup… Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras except democracy assistance, including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup…’

But Washington didn’t suspend American aid following the coup.

Naiman continued, ‘By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009 constituted a coup‘.

Since that event, Honduras has also been subject to a massive rise in environmentally destructive ‘mega-projects’ and displacement of indigenous communities.

An estimated 30 percent of Honduran land has been taken for such projects across the country, with land and rivers being privatised and communities being uprooted.

Environmental activist, Berta Cáceres (who was murdered in the summer of 2016), had specified Hillary Clinton and the US State Department as being to blame for the coup and for the situation that Honduran people found themselves in thereafter. Cáceres also explained that the illegitimate, US-backed Honduran regime passed oppressive laws that effectively criminalised political protest and social activism. Cáceres characterised it as ‘counter-insurgency’ conducted on behalf of international corporate interests and their seizure of Honduras’s natural resources, with the population being terrorised and hundreds of political activists being murdered.

Cáceres’s murder on March 3rd 2016 occurred amid a reported resurgence in ‘death squad’ violence in Honduras. Social movements and activists were being brutally repressed and targeted assassinations routinely carried out (see more:

Honduras now had the world’s highest murder rate. Homicides had risen by 50 percent since the 2009 coup.

As Just Foreign Policy noted several years ago: ‘That’s a key reason that refugees have fled Honduras to the United States… only to find themselves hunted by the Department of Homeland Security raids that Secretary Clinton supported.’

It gets worse. Ties were exposed between the US-backed Honduran police and security forces and the ‘death squads’, with American military training and aid for those security forces ongoing. Among those murdered have been members of the LGBT community, more than a hundred land-rights activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, labor activists, and a number of opposition candidates and community organisers.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both documented the killing spree in Honduras.

The 2009 military coup was carried out by graduates of the highly dubious ‘US Army School of the Americas. In the years since the coup, US support for the Honduran regime has continued and also included assisting the regime in the upgrading of its surveillance technology.

In short: the US backed the overthrow of the democratically-elected government, helped prop up a regime that was brutally oppressing its population, seizing vast amounts of land from indigenous populations, and helped train that regime to further suppress the population and keep it under surveillance.

And now people are wondering why all these people from Honduras are trying to flee to the United States?

The situation in Honduras hasn’t improved since then, but is ongoing.

In an election last year in Honduras, there were allegations of vote rigging in favor of the sitting president, causing opposition supporters to take to the streets: within a few days, constitutional rights were suspended, with the army and police given blanket power to crush protesters (as reported by BBC).

The Anti-Media had some very upsetting images and videos of alleged incidents or victms of brutal suppression techniques, including images of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby having been shot.

It is never entirely clear in these situations whether such images can be verified: but there seems to be little question that mass state violence was being used to suppress protest.

As far as I can tell, neither President Trump nor any American politican said much about the situation in Honduras: yet, curiously, it was around this same time that so much was being made of the situation in Venezuela, which involved similar scenarios of mass protest and allegedly violent suppression by state forces. In the Venezuela case, Trump even talked about possibily US military intervention to protect the protesters, echoing the reasons given for the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011.

In fact, there’s been little talk of the Honduras political or social situation in general.

And I would be interested to know whether – amid all this coverage of the ‘Migrant Caravan’, anyone in the media or in political circles is bothering to mention the 2009 coup and the US role in it.

President Trump had nothing to do with any of that, of course – but he and his administration surely knows about those events. But, far as I can tell, nothing has been said about cause and effect – only talk about the migrant ‘invasion’, illegal immigrants and casual conspiracy theories about alleged “Middle-Easterners”.

Also, given that the main villain in the US/Honduras affair was none other than Trump’s supposed arch-nemesis Hillary Clinton, you would think Trump would go out of his way to bring that up – if for nothing else, then at least to further vilify Hillary. That he hasn’t (and that most of the ‘alt-right’ hasn’t either) is more than curious, as these are people who would normally go out of their way to re-affirm Hillary as the Devil.

Yet there are plenty of conspriacy theories going around that Hillary is herself behind the Migrant Caravan. Whether there is or isn’t any truth to that, it’s still very odd that both anti-Hillary and (generally) pro-Hillary voices are omitting the role she played in the present Honduran crisis.

A simple reading of the dynamics reveals why: the “liberal” or generally anti-Trump people (primarily in the MSM) don’t want to talk about the Honduran coup because it demonises their darling Hillary and is thus seen to play into the hands of Trump and the Trump fan-base.

Meanwhile, the pro-Trump, anti-Hillary and anti-migrant side of the equation don’t want to talk about it because it would undermine the cut-and-paste narrative of the migrants being Bad Folks who the United States doesn’t owe anything to.

And of course it also plays perfectly into the whole ‘Build the Wall’ meme.

In short, both sides of the media equation AND political establishment are engaged in a cover-up designed to whitewash or reframe the reality in order to maintain or play out this scripted cultural/societal ‘civil war’ meme that now dominates Reality-TV show that is America.

Hillary herself, of course, doesn’t want to remind anyone of her role in that mess: but, given her past role, you’d think she’d just fuck off and stay quiet instead of trying to insert herself into the discourse as though she’s some kind of moral authority.

But it’s as if everyone – on either side – wants to play up the tension and division caused by the idea of the ‘Migrant Caravan’, but doesn’t want to actually talk about Honduras or why things are so bad there. Just like, during the European crisis a couple of years ago, hardly anyone in the media or political office was talking about how the NATO intervention against Gaddafi had EVERYTHING to do with why and how this ‘Migrant Crisis’ was now unfolding.

Are there ‘undesirables’ or criminals among the mass of people constituting this movement of people? Maybe – probably. I doubt that describes most of these people, however. Are their ‘ISIS’ fighters in the caravan? I highly doubt it.

And is illegal immigration a good thing? Generally, no.

But then crisis situations and desperation don’t always allow for orderly behaviour. And, at any rate, the United States is simply trying to pretend that it had nothing to do with the Honduras situation – and that, instead, this is just an idealogical issue concerning some migrants who just randomly want to come to the United States.

What I regard as the fake Conspiracy Theory culture or arena (as opposed to the real or genuine research or commentary) is now firmly in place to play its crucial part in spinning the scripted narratives whenever the next ‘event’ arrives – be it a terrorist attack, an election, or something like the Migrant Caravan.

They are simply part of the same pantomime that more mainstream commentary is also playing out.

The real causes of the crises (for which you have to track further back on the timeline) may have been instigated with the full intention of their consequences being put to use in the future. For example, the destruction of Libya to create the Migrant Crisis – in order, in turn, to trigger or power the backlash and the perceived rise of Far-Right parties and groups, etc.

Or, as per this present subject, the crisis in Honduras enabled in 2009 to create the conditions leading us now to a mass exodus towards the United States, etc.

That might not be how it worked. It might simply be unforeseen cause and effect – with the organic consequences simply being milked by vested interests with devious agendas. True Conspirators seldom let any crisis go to waste: they’ll use whatever situation they can to expand or further the agendas.

What is the agenda? Well, take your pick. There’s the orchestrated ‘civil war’ scenario and societal breakdown (see here). The ‘race war’ meme (see here). The deliberate splintering of society for the purposes of divide-and-control (see here). And there might even be a planned fascist takeover that has been biding its time (see here), which needs all this divide-and-conquer psy-op to keep escalating.

Any or all of those could be in play.

And it’s all stuff I’ve been talking about here for some time – though it keeps cropping up in different forms, it’s all part of the same manipulated, scripted programme.

At the same time, the actual Migrant Caravan itself – and the human beings constituting it – are probably not a ‘conspiracy’ at all: but just people who’ve had enough of their situation and want to escape to something safer and better.

But, again, never underestimate real Conspirators’ willingness to use real human suffering as a mere tool for furthering their agendas.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Obscured Truth About the ‘MIGRANT CARAVAN’: Corrupt Coups, Co-Opted Conspiracies & Chaos

Is ‘THE GREAT WAR’ Still Actually Going On…?


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

100 years ago, the First World War was a devastating conflict in which many millions of people lost their lives and in which the political, social and even geographical state of the world was changed forever.
But, far from being the “war to end all wars”, the consequences of World War I are very much still relevant, still being felt today, particularly in regard to the Middle East.

The First World War was, after all, thought of as “the war to end all wars”, but within less than a generation of that apocalyptic conflict came the Second World War, the causes of which were directly traceable to World War I and specifically the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the treatment of Germany.

World War II then was arguably just a continuation of World War I. And the Cold War that followed World War II was arguably still a result of World War I and the Russian Revolution: in theory, the Cold War continued until the end of the 1980s.

But it’s fascinating to note how much of today’s conflict is rooted also in the events of the First World War.

For example, the situation currently occurring in the Middle East is directly traceable to the events of World War I, albeit via a much longer period of time; the Balfour Declaration, the creation of the modern State of Israel in Palestine, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the creation of the Saudi Kingdom and its continuing influence on the region and on international politics, the Colonial carving up of Iraq, Syria and the Middle East – these, among other things, are all traced back to the events of World War I or its immediate aftermath.

Strictly speaking, of course, the war did end in 1918. But, if you factor in conflicts or scenarios originating in that war and still going on now, then you could argue that the war certainly wasn’t wrapped up with a tidy little bow in 1918.

The argument that World War I never really ended (or, at least, that we’re still living in its enormous shadow) was reinforced by, of all things, the advent of the so-called Islamic State group and the bloody chaos that ripped apart the heart of the Middle East in recent years – with ‘ISIS’ having literally talked about “the end of Sykes-Picot” as part of its ill-conceived ‘manifesto’.

The emergence of ‘ISIS’ (or at least the mass-media version of ‘ISIS’) was in 2014. What I noted with great interest at that time was that 2014 – precisely 100 years since the start of the First World War – seemed to see multiple crisis events unfold that could  be linked to or rooted in the First World War or could’ve also been potential triggers for a modern cataclysmic conflict.

That was the year the Eastern Ukraine crisis unfolded – an event that could’ve easily acted as a ‘trigger’ for a bigger war. It was also the year Israel conducted its massive bombardment of Gaza in response to Hamas terrorist acts – reminding us that the consequences of the Balfour Declaration (during WWI) were still unfolding today and claiming lives (and so often threatening to spill out into a wider conflict – look at the amount of fighting in the Middle East relating to Israel in the last several decades: including Lebanon, the Arab/Israeli Wars and, arguably, Syria and everything relating to the ‘Yinon Plan’).

The Islamic State group, whatever its confused and rabid mission statement was, seemed to be interested in erasing the post-WWI carve-up of the region and creating a unified Arab world under its perverted and puritanical version of extreme Islam. To them, this was the Arab world that was denied to the region when the British and French decided to slice up the region according to their Colonial interests – and in particularly when the British refused to honour the war-time promises it had made to the leaders of the Arab Revolt.

Curiously, however, had the British honoured that promise, the unified and independent Arabia that would’ve been created would’ve been the complete opposite of the kind of medieval, barbaric ‘caliphate’ that the modern-day ‘ISIS’ fan-club wanted.

This would explain why one of the group’s early threats was to “chop off the head” of the King of Jordan (the only remaining Hashemite King): which was always curious. The Hashemites in Jordan are descendants (it was long claimed) of the Prophet Muhammad: they were also the family most involved with the Arab Revolt against the Ottomon Empire in World War I. It was the Hashemites who were promised rule over a unified Arabia in exchange for fighting alongside the British to defeat the Turks.

Instead, ‘Arabia’ was carved up into British and French ‘spheres of interest’ and the Saud family were given the seat of prominence in the Arab world and control of the Muslim holy cities.

The Hashemites held to a different, more moderate form of traditional Sunni Islam than the puritanical Wahhabism of the Saudis: a unified Arab world under Hashemite stewardship would’ve likely led to a moderate, even Westernised, Arab world. And, had the British Empire honoured its promises to the leaders of the Arab Revolt (principally Prince Feisal, son of Hussein – pictured below) – to the faction that had, after all, captured Damascus and helped the British to capture Jerusalem – we probably would’ve had the unified Arab world that ‘ISIS’ talked about. The difference is, of course, it would’ve been a more forward-looking, religiously moderate and tolerant world.

I’ve written here before that if you look at modern Jordan and compare it to Saudi Arabia, you can see the difference between a traditional, moderate Sunni Arab/Islamic society (Jordan) and a regressive, hostile puritanical state (Saudi Arabia). Jordan is by no means a democracy – but it is nevertheless a nation of completely different temperament and character to Saudi Arabia, with completely different dynamics and completely different ways of operating.

Both are monarchies and both based on Islam: but they are nothing like each other. You then can get a sense, perhaps, of what a Hashemite-led Arabia might’ve been like as compared to what a Saudi-centered Arab world has turned out to be like.

But that’s not how it played out.

Instead, after the war, the House of Saud was installed into the center of Arabia: and the rest of the region was divided up into various states (initially under British or French control). And we are still seeing the consequences of those decisions today.

This also applies to a number of other things presently playing out: for example, the situation with the Kurds fighting for an independent state in the Middle East (the Kurds were promised independence after the World War I fighting, just as the Arabs were – but didn’t see it materialise).

The events of World War I are still echoing in the national psyches or national mythologies of various countries. For example, in Turkey today the Erdogan era seems to be obsessed with the long-gone Ottoman Empire and some kind of return to the days before the First World War came along to ruin it.

Of course the biggest, most glaring unresolved territorial dispute of modern times is still probably the matter of Palestine.

In 2014, Israel’s military assault on Gaza amid the centenary of the First World War will have reminded some historical-minded observers to remember that the very creation of Israel has its roots in the era of the Great War: and in behind-the-scenes agendas, schemes and deal-making that was the true character of the war while millions of men were dying in abysmal conditions ‘for king and country’.

Yet, although often singled out, the Zionists were only one, relatively small factor in the complex equation. The agents and cabals of the imperialist powers – especially Britain and France – were engaged in their own schemes and double-dealing: ranging from their secretly-planned carve-up of the Middle East, the manipulation of Arabs and Kurds alike, to the perceived betrayal of their Russian counterparts and the excessive plot to inflict great and long-lasting damage on Germany.

And that’s to say nothing about the behind-the-scenes financiers and beneficiaries of the war, the banking conspiracies and the manipulation of the fates of entire nations and civilisations for the sake of elite goals and interests that the millions of dead men in the trenches had no clue about.

That’s one of the key components that is often overlooked in popular questions like “Could something like WWI ever happen again?” Because the answer to that question might depend not on whether the circumstances or strings of cause-and-effect could ever lead us into World War again, but on whether the same psychopathic elite interests and conspirators would still be willing to plunge civilisations into that kind of nightmare for the sake of their own agendas or ambitions.

I don’t have an answer to that question: but I look at what’s been inflicted on the populations of the Middle East in the last several years and it’s hard not to wonder if those psychopathic tendencies are still there.

The idea of a global conflict on the scale of the Great War but in our modern times is too horrifying to properly even contemplate or comprehend.

And, for various reasons, it probably would never happen again.

But the climate prior to the First World War was not dissimilar to the climate in the world today, certainly in parts of the world anyway. World War I wasn’t caused by the infamous assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand (which itself is now generally held to have been a conspiracy involving multiple actors and connections, possibly with the full intention of triggering war); that was the spark that supposedly lit the fuse, but the various causal factors and situations had been building for some time beforehand in various countries and societies.

Most historians, though they might differ in their views as to whether the war was ‘necessary’ or even ‘pointless’ (the war was actually pointless – it did nothing but to drastically reduce the male population of Europe while setting up the foundations for World War II), do agree that the Great War was inevitable due to the concurrent unfolding of numerous situations, conditions and interests over a period of time.

All historians agree that the underlying causes of World War I, which began in the Balkans in late July 1914, were complicated and numerous; complicated and burdensome webs of alliances, imperialist agendas and rivalries, the growth of nationalism across Europe, several unresolved territorial disputes, a breakdown of the balance of power in Europe, convoluted and fragmented governance.

Most or even all of that sounds like you could be describing the situation today.

A century ago the final crisis came after what had been a long and complicated sequence of diplomatic clashes and conflicts of interest between the then Great Powers – Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey – over colonial, territorial and economic issues.

But also cited as a relevant causal factor were misinterpretations of intent and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications: watch various footage of Putin expressing dismay at Western foreign policy decisions – or watch interviews of a baffled Gaddafi in 2011 or a wearied Saddam in 2003 – and you can see that the same misunderstandings or misinterpretations of intent, reasoning or policy are still happening. The Gaddafi example is the most striking – because in those first few interviews he gave prior to the British-French-led NATO military assault on his country, he came across as if he genuinely couldn’t understand what NATO and the international community were trying to do or why.

Then there are the ‘unresolved territorial disputes’ – of which the Israel/Palestine problem is one. The eruption of the Eastern Ukraine crisis in 2014 came into that category and was a highly volatile, unpredictable situation that has already resulted in the shooting down of an international passenger plane and the killing of numerous innocent, foreign citizens. Further to that it has placed Russia in a position of antagonism with the West, particularly the US, though this was something that was already starting to happen as a result of the War in Syria.

The situation, in fact, with Russia today could be seen as analagous to the excessive demonisation of Germany during and prior to World War I.

We understand now that, in reality, the imperial powers in World War I wanted war with Germany simply because they couldn’t tolerate Germany’s growth as an international power: this was not only one of the central drivers for the mass sacrifice of millions of men, but was also the reason Britain and France imposed such harsh punishments on Germany after the war – to make sure Germany couldn’t ever become a player again and couldn’t become a rival to Britain and France.

Of course, that led directly to World War II. But the same sort of hegemony issue is in play today. You could argue that Western attitudes towards Russia falls into a not dissimilar category. You could say the same about the enmity towards Iran. I personally hate the Iranian regime: but the fact seems to be that Saudi Arabia, Israel, the US and co simply can’t tolerate Iran expanding its reach and influence, the same way Britain and France couldn’t stand to watch Germany rise.

All in all, you would have to say that not only are the same sorts of conditions and motivations present today (from the conflicting interests and agendas to the rise of nationalism and a potential breakdown of power in Europe) as were present to trigger the First World War – but actually much more so now than then, when you factor in all the additional triggers in the Middle East and some of the similarly “complex webs of burdensome alliances” that are regarded to have led to the First World War.

And the potential ‘triggers’ have been numerous: anything from 9/11 to the shooting down of MH-17 or the War in Syria.

The fact that it hasn’t happened may indicate a (wise) unwilligness on the part of various powers or agencies to ever let something like that unfold.

It may also be that various forms of ‘globalisation’ and inter-connectedness of countries and blocs has made such a thing that much more unlikely – which was, at least on the surface of it, kind of the point of ‘ever greater union’ and all that kind of stuff. Whether it was a good thing or not depends on your own point of view, but arguably one of the better results of World War I was the beginning of the end of traditional empires and the move towards more global, connected bodies.

Admittedly, not everyone would agree this was a good thing: and, in fact, we are now experiencing an across-the-board nationalist backlash against that state of affairs (which, I think, was what Emmanuel Macron was talking about in his speech at the Remembrance event on Sunday).

It’s worth saying that if the rise of nationalism was a factor in the conditions that led to WWI, then a resurgence of nationalism in the present day could mean that the next big conflagration (should it ever happen) would involve the idealogical split between Nationalism and Globalism.

It’s still unlikely that actual armed conflict would emerge from that divide. But, if international unions, alliances or agreements collapse, then a reversion to conflicting idealogies and incompatible national self-interests could eventually lead to major conflict.

In reality, a global war now would be fought with super weapons, technology and WMDs. So at least the contemporary casualties would be wiped out relatively quickly instead of suffering for years in muddy trenches before dying a horrible death. And, again, not everyone would agree this is a good thing.

And, again, it probably won’t happen – because we’ve probably evolved beyond that type of conflict.

But never underestimate our “betters” being willing to sacrifice substantial portions of the plebeian populations in the pursuit of larger agendas – as they did in World War I.

Because, again, as much as all of those aforementioned causes or sequences of ‘triggers’ may have contributed to the war, it is without question that the war itself was also a sought-after state-of-affairs by veiled, elite interests and conspiracies: and that therefore the real question isn’t whether ‘circumstances’ could lead to war, but whether those veiled interests will either allow or create ‘circumstances’ to lead to war.

The fact that, even with all the ‘triggers’ that could’ve sparked off such a catastrophe in the modern age (again, much more so than in the lead-in to World War I), our leaders, governments and institutions have thus far avoided such a conflagration demonstrates how easy it is to NOT go to all-out war: and reinforces how avoidable and unnecessary the horrors of World War I were – had vested interests not been desirous of the conflict.

One view is that highly-placed criminals, elites and mafias in various governments or countries would hold ‘war’ in place as the last card to play when their crimes have been exposed and the general populations have turned against them – a war, in other words, to divert popular discontent or possible uprisings or revolutions and to try to thin the herds while also using conflict to both increase wealth and re-assert control.

If you consider that World War I wasn’t just a series of unfortunate ‘triggers’ leading to catastrophe, but was actually a consciously-chosen undertaking – a manufactured horror story conducted by elite interests, bankers, and European royalty, in which millions of the male, lower-class population was sacrificed – then, as suggested earlier, you’d have to ask the question of whether such forces are still in play today and whether they would conspire to do similar things if it was seen as a way to preserve either longstanding plans or simple power.

All of this is also ignoring the famous masonic ‘Albert Pike’ letters, which supposedly predicted three orchestrated World Wars: a staple of conspiracy-theory lore, I’ve largely avoided it here because I’ve never been one-hundred percent sure about its legitimacy.

However, the one thing I will say for the Pike angle is that if both World Wars (and the third to come) were all planned in advance, the thing that would seem to support this theory is the fact – as highlighted earlier – that the first of those conflicts (World War I) happened to also contain within its events the seeds for the second and potentially for a third (particularly in regard to the Middle East).

Your perspective then depends on whether you think WWI was a callously plotted conspiracy or was simply a case of cause-and-effect, conflicting interests and appalling decision-making.

Although it actually could’ve been a mixture of both: with one, higher, level of conspirators contriving the circumstanecs of a conflict, but the general levels of leadership and decision-making being carried out by groups of people who genuinely thought they were reacting to cause-and-effect, conflicting interests and strategic concerns.

That would be the same state of affairs today too.

One thing is clear; that we live in a very, very dangerous time. And that far from being the “war to end all wars”, the horrific destruction of World War I in fact actually sowed the seeds for further, future conflict and loss of life well beyond the lifetimes of those whose decisions and policies were to blame.

In waging the First World War – itself a pointless, unnecessary and cruel war – the elites of the time not only brought mass death and destruction to that generation, but laid the seeds for World War II… and laid the seeds for further, future conflicts over a century later.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Is ‘THE GREAT WAR’ Still Actually Going On…?

Devastation by Fire: DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS Being Used in Plain Sight…?


The burning up of so much of California over a short period of time (in 2017 and now in 2018) has amounted to what has been called the most destructive ‘wildfire’ event in the state’s history.

The scale of the damage has been enormous, as well as the disruption to people’s lives, the loss of homes and property, and what will amount to drastic alterations to infrastructure and demographics.

The raging fires and the destruction left in their wake have also been met with conspiracy theories and accusations of the true nature of the catastrophe being covered up.

I’m not in the habit of always assuming or thinking everything that goes on is a conspiracy with some hidden agenda. I’m still of the school that, sometimes, Shit Just Happens. Certainly, when seemingly natural disasters unfold, I’m not really looking for any kind of hidden truth or cover-up – although, of course, sometimes some ‘natural disasters’ probably aren’t as natural as they first appear.

In the case of the California fires, I saw a lot of conspiracy theories coming up on my radar from when the fires were raging last year. I was ignoring most of it at first (it didn’t help that several of the sources I was being recommended were self-declared flat-earthers: which is never a good start). But the more I started looking through some of the claims (and some of the evidence), the more I started to realise the conspiracy accusations were not misplaced: because they’re not (at least the ones I’ve been convinced by) actually ‘conspiracy theories’ at all, but observations accompanied by questions.

One example is the YouTube channel, which has been consistently covering this subject from a year ago: talking about particle beam weapons and directed energy weapons in relation to the fires. See one of his videos here, for example.

What at first sounds like reflexive or paranoid assumptions of conspiracy becomes something more serious when you actually do examine the arguments: and, importantly, the visual evidence.

It’s the visual evidence – more than anything else – that is convincing.

In last year’s and this year’s ‘firestorms’, multiple major fires all started at once, in the middle of the night, apparently without a storm or a logical trigger. Footage filmed by witnesses appeared to show spontaneous and unconnected eruptions of fire. Some footage captured alleged flashes of blue light, some even claimed to witness beams of light.

As with all things, it’s not always easy to know what footage is genuine and what footage may have either been doctored or mis-attributed. But some of the recorded footage is difficult to argue with (see here, as one of the best examples).

Claims and images from last year (I’m not aware if any from this year have been the same) purported to show areas where only houses and properties were destroyed by fire, but adjacent trees and natural features remained unscathed.Images also showed unnaturally perfect-looking demarcations between burnt-up areas and unscathed areas – literally almost as if perfectly straight lines were highlighting where the fire raged and where the fire didn’t touch.

This leads most critical-thinking obsevers to ask what kind of raging fire is so discerning about its movements.

Various alleged eyewitnesses and residents claim to have witnessed ‘blue flashes’, blue lightning or blue beams. Again, fires started instantaneously in mulitple locations, independently of each other. Trees being burned from the inside out, with glowing sap bursting out through fissures in the bark (as opposed to trees simply catching fire).

neverlosetruth’s YouTube channel shows what looks like fires burning up from the inside of houses. Hers is probably the most convincing video I’ve managed to look at: and it’s difficult to argue with her conclusions. It certainly doesn’t look like the effects of wild fire.

Some of these videos are dealing with the devastation of 2017, and some (such as the neverlosetruth upload) with the current 2018 destruction: although, in essence, it’s the same thing anyway, with the same anomalies and prompting the same questions.

Before we talk more about Directed Energy Weapons or laser weapons, what is considered officially to blame for the burning of California?

There’s talk of climate-change issues and causes and of mismanagement of both environment and infrastructure.

There’s also general blame being levelled at PG&E.

Pacific Gas & Energy (PG&E) has been blamed for culpability in the fires in both 2017 and 2018. Most MSM coverage focuses on the claims that PG&E’s faulty or downed power lines were a causal factor. Others have claimed (and have been claiming for years prior to the 2017 ‘firestorm’) that PG&E ‘smart meters’ installed into homes are to blame.

Another dot-connecting theory I’ve encountered has it that the PG&E smart meters in the houses were specifically targeted by Directed Energy Weapons or beams to create the destructive reactions.

There seems to have been evidence that the smart meters can cause fires and explosions (though this is denied by PG&E). EMF Safety Network quotes a former PG&E meter reader having told a Public Utilities Commission judge that he was fired because he was not wiling to be quiet about the smart meter problems he saw: he is quoted as saying “These meters catch fire. They know it, and they are covering it up.”

PG&E has been engaged in a long back-and-forth battle in California to forcibly install the smart meters in people’s homes: in spite of all the concerns raised about the negative health effects and radiation issues, as well as fire issues. The smart meter saga also seems to be a precursor to the big 5G roll-out that’s on the horizon (and which will, we must assume, go live with or without public consent).

Curiously, one of the areas in California hit by fire last year was Sebastopol: it was known three years ago that PG&E was planning to beam RF waves at a location in Sebastopol.

The implication at present seems to be that the victims may have to cover the costs of the damage, with PG&E (assuming it isn’t being used now as a scapegoat to cover up the real cause of the fires) possibly being bailed out. It’s not clear from the various MSM sources I’ve looked at what the situation is in this respect.

What’s going to happen to all these people who’ve lost their homes? And what exactly is FEMA‘s involvement?

On PG&E, it is worth digressing for a moment and mentioning that Roger H Kimmel – the independent director of PG&E – is also Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc. (international investment banking firm) and has held that position since January 2001.

Rothschild Inc is an iteration of ‘N M Rothschild & Sons Limited’ or the ‘Rothschild Group’, which was founded by Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Rothschild Inc in the US is described as ‘a boutique investment banking firm that provides financial advisory services. It offers mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, initial public offerings, privatization, corporate restructuring, private placements, and financial planning advisory services.’

A further, brief digression here: but when this Rothschild/PG&E link was pointed out to me, I was trying to remember why I thought there was also some link between Rothschild Inc and President Trump.

And then I remembered it was an article I’d read some time prior to Trump’s presidential election victory. JC Collins, writing for Philosophy of Metrics in June 2016, shed light on the likelihood of Donald Trump being the Rothschild elites’ chosen candidate for the US Presidency. The article was titled ‘How Rothschild Inc. Saved Donald Trump‘ (the sub-header: ‘A Multi-Decade Strategy to Transform America‘).

He informs us, ‘In 1987 Donald Trump purchased his first casino interests when he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International. Resorts International has a sordid history which began in the early 1950’s when it evolved from a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities…

The same article highlights that, in 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International included David Rockerfeller and Baron Edmund de Rothschild. It also quotes a 1992 Bloombergarticle, saying ‘The connection between Baron Edmond de Rothschild, being one of the original principle investors of Resorts International, and Rothschild Inc. allowing Donald Trump to retain “ownership” over the Atlantic City casinos, which saved him from bankruptcy, should not be considered a coincidence…’

We were also informed that Wilbur L. Ross Jr spent 24 years at the New York office of Rothschild Inc. ‘In the late 1990’s he started a $200 million fund at Rothschild Inc. to invest in distressed assets… So it’s of course no surprise that billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr. would support the nomination of Donald Trump for presidentIt would appear,‘ the 2016 article continues, ‘that Rothschild supported front men like Ross and Trump do extremely well in the worlds of finance and politics…’

If nothing else, the Rothschild link allowed Collins to assume Trump would win the presidency later that year. The main takeway from this should be to note that Trump is indebted to the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers – and this will become more important in a moment.

Interesting now then that PG&E is widely cited as the villain in the tragedy of the California fires – and its director is also Vice Chairman of the same Rothschild Inc.

Could mean nothing. Could mean everything.

But note that last year, just prior to the ‘firestorms’ in California, a lot of questions were asked about Donald Trump’s ambiguous statement about “the coming storm” – a statement that still hasn’t really been explained.

Again, could be nothing. Could be everything.

Conspiracy literature can be found all over the place talking about the ‘Rothschild plan to restructure North America’ and such. Some of this, at the basic level, appears to be based in fact: though is open to some degree of interpretation.

One of the prominent voices in the conspiracy theories and accusations in this area is activist Deborah Tavares who, among many other things, talks about the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers trying to tear down and rebuild areas in America using various tools (which, again, is why I mentioned the Rothschild/Rockerfeller connection to Donald Trump before – he owes them), including weather manipulation and natural disasters (presented as effects of Climate Change) and things like the smart meter system and future 5G. Tavares, who runs the Stop the Crime website, was predicting attacks on California with Directed Energy Weapons.

The few times I’ve comes across Tavares’s videos, my impulse had been to dismiss her as a crackpot or attention seeker. However, even though I struggle with her general demeanour and presentation, she does seem to support most of what she says with seemingly credible sources and arguments.

She also predicted this current wave of Desolation By Fire in California as far back as February – and specified exactly who andwhat she thought was going to be behind it. See the video here.

Here, she also lays out some of her view of what the conspiracy is: ‘Not just the directed-energy weapons and likely the smart meters were involved in the fires as well because we know that they blow up, we know that they send pulsed frequencies. You can go online and you can look at all the homes that have been burned up from the deployment… A few years ago happened to have a proxy for the PG&E annual shareholders meeting and while we were down there sitting in the audience they were introducing some of the higher-ups in the first few rows and I heard the name Rothschild… so I went back and I did some research. Rothschild is in charge of all of the utilities across the country…’

She continues, ‘And it is a nefarious plan and we face many many things: not only the deployment of the smart meters for causing directed-energy weapon attacks in our homes from the frequencies and all of the dirty electricity that’s coming in on our house lines really literally traveling through through the walls going into underwire bras, wire box, spring mattresses money in your pocket, belt buckles, you name it…’

A powerful Directed Energy Beam directed at such targets could, we should suppose, interact with any such substances or variety of substances in the home – and with general electrical wiring and appliances.

It’s up to you whether you’re convinced by her or not, but it has to be said that what’s been recorded and observed by people in California seems to match pretty well with her claims.

It also seems pretty clear the MSM has only presented a very selective, sanitised version of the situation.

I’m not going to attempt to go very far in to the science of DEWs or wildfires (or the comparison of effects), as I’d just be reiterating analyses and arguments that others have already put out.

Instead I’ll refer you again to neverlosetruth’s sharp analysis here.

Coming back to the subject of Directed Energy Weapons in general. What is the likelihood of Directed Energy Weapons, lasers or particle beams having been used?

It may sound like science-fiction (or like the Palpatine’s Galactic Empire deploying the Death Star), but it really isn’t.

I’ve been perusing various publications and sites for recent references to the subject of such weapons: and it is very revealing.

For example, Military Aereospace, in a November 2018 article, informs us The Pentagon wants more money for directed-energy weapons for drone-swarm and missile defense’.

The same article links to other articles with headlines like ‘Worldwide directed-energy weapons market to reach $24.31 billion over next five years…’

National Defense magazine article from last month (titled ‘Directed Energy Weapons: Can the Pentagon and Industry Deliver?‘) informs us that the ‘Defense Department is looking to industry to help make lasers and other directed energy weapons a major part of the warfighter’s toolkit…’ The article goes on to talk, in dry terms, about lasers, microwave weapons and particle beams.

The article also goes on to suggest that the Pentagon isn’t necessarily pursuing the DEW developments in any substantial way yet, due to costs: but, of course, a publication like this tends only to deal with official statements and disclosed information – and is not in the habit of probing too deeply into what’s going on behind closed doors (or, say, in that ginormous military budget or Black Budget).

China and Russia are believed to possess this kind of weapons technology too – and presumably so do some other countries.

A lot of people, when talking about energy weapons, call them ‘Star Wars’ weapons – both in reference to the Star Warsmovies and to the defense programme initiated under Ronald Reagan.

In keeping with the Star Wars reference, the fictional Death Star’s existence wasn’t a widely known or official fact yet in the first Star Wars film, but the Empire was testing out its destructive capabilities on unsuspecting planets before ‘going live’, so to speak. Likewise, in the more recent Rogue One movie (2016), the Death Star (pictured above) is again shown being tested on an unsuspecting city/population to ascertain its effectiveness.

One tends to wonder if – in addition to the various above-stated motives and theories – they also want to just test out the DEW capabilities and effects in real time.

Certainly, if the DEW theory holds true, they wouldn’t have targeted California for only that reason: most sceptics are pointing to the UN Agenda 21 as a motivation for the targeted destruction. I don’t want to get into that here right now: but there’s always the possibility that two birds are being killed with one stone. Most big-scale conspiracies or false-flags are arranged in a way so as to serve multiple purposes at once (take 9/11 as the prime example).

The National Interest, in an article from July this year (‘Here Come the Lasers: The Dawn of Energy Weapons Is Here’), tells us ‘Directed-energy weapons — or “lasers,” as they are commonly known — present the possibility of transforming warfare due to numerous operational advantages, such as incredible speed and range, light-weight, improved accuracy, and limited collateral damage… In some respects, this innovation is already on the brink of implementation…’

The reference to ‘limited collateral damage’ suggests that part of any hypothetical unofficial testing of such weapons would be to gage how effective such a weapon is in targeting very specific areas or pinpoiting specific targets while limiting unnecessary damage to surrounding areas.

Which prompts me to think about the footage of such precise demarcations between fire-ravaged areas or structures and adjacent areas or structures that remained unscathed by fire. You might ask why they’d test such a thing out on part of their own population (as opposed to some foreign victim country like Afghanistan or Libya): but, again, it could simply be a case of seeing to multiple agendas at once.

The prevailing view among conspiracy researchers is that one of those agendas at play is the UN’s Agenda 21. Again, I don’t want to get into Agenda 21 here, but to stay focused instead on the idea of the DEWs. I’ll come back to Agenda 21: but here’s Rosa Koire at a conference in 2013, laying out her research into that subject.

For the record, I was for a long time on the fence about the conspiracy-theory version of ‘Agenda 21’: it was Rosa Koire’s testimony that ultimately started to change my mind. I’m still not 100% convinced that Agenda 21 is the evil conspiracy a lot of people think it is: but I’m just being totally honest here – I’m not sure, one way or the other. And when I’m not sure about something, I’m happy to state that outright instead of pretending I’ve got a perfect handle on everything.

Again, I’ll definitely come back to this.

But to come back to the question of DEWs: for the record, there is/was evidence that DEWs were also tested in Iraq previously (see video here).

As for this desolation of much of California (whether this has been a case of weaponised weather manipulation, Directed Energy Weapons, or something else), the MSM coverage generally seems to have presented a very selective, scripted edit of events, generally ommitting the inconsistancies in the narrative, the anomalies and oddities and much of the testimony.

People outside of the MSM have been referring to this as the new 9/11. There definitely seems to be more logical evidence to suggest a population and area under deliberate, controlled attack than there is to suggest an out-of-control wildfire.

To some, this idea of the Powers That Be cleansing such large swathes of human habitat by fire (particularly if it was with energy weapons) may seem a ‘conspiracy theory’ too far: but you only need to remember 9/11.

Though it is less relevant, there is also a possible ritual context to the idea of cleansing with fire or desolation by fire: and one wonders if the burning of ‘Paradise’ (one of the towns hit by the fire) was also intended as somehow symbolic. It did in fact lead to headlines and hashtags like ‘Paradise Lost’ and ‘Paradise is Burning’.

What is the true body count? How many people have died in their homes? What I’m currently seeing reported is 83 known casualties: but elsewhere the number of people missing is said to be well over a thousand. It could and probably will end up being more people than that – and this is assuming people are genuinely told the true number, which might never be genuinely revealed.

Moreover, if the ‘Dawn of Energy Weapons’ is here (to quote one of the aforementioned articles), what is that ultimately going to mean for the world in general?

I guess we’ll find out. Arguably, a lot of people have just found out already.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Devastation by Fire: DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS Being Used in Plain Sight…?

BRAZIL: From Rousseff to Bolsonaro – A Demonstration of How the Old Elites Win


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil seems to be further proof that pretty much the entire planet is moving in a counter-clockwise direction.

Almost everywhere you look, there seems to be the sense that the Bad Guys are in the ascendancy: and that – far from opposing it – very large sections of populations are almost gleeful about welcoming that state of affairs.

I wrote at length here a few weeks ago about all of the madness, misinformation and *reality* of the ‘Migrant Caravan’ from Honduras to the US: and that’s going to be relevant again to this subject of what’s going on in Brazil.

We really have entered into an extraordinary age of mass manipulation, popular stupidity, blind folly and open conspiracy.

‘Corruption’ is a massive factor too, of course: but corruption is the oldest profession in the world, so we should always take that as a given. There’s always a big dose of cognitive dissonance going on when people talk about all the ‘corruption’ and the need to find a saviour to ‘fix’ all the terrible ‘corruption’ – that’s also one of the oldest tricks/archetypes in the book.

‘Corruption’ and dealing with all these ‘corrupt politicians’ is actually precisely the thing that paved the way to this state of affairs – which we’ll come to in a moment, as we’ll have to rewind the narrative back two years.

But what also keeps occuring to me is the sense that the Old Elites are playing an absolute blinder: casting themselves and their proxies as the heroes in the shifting equations, often manipulating even the working classes into championing them and generally getting people to mostly miss the forest for the trees.

You can sense this all over the place. The so-called ‘AfD’ in Germany being headed by a former Goldman-Sachs banker and a member of one of the old European royal houses, for example (see here). Trump being indebted to Rothschilds and Rockerfellers. You start to sense that most of the apparent rising up against the so-called ‘liberal elites’ is actually just being stoked by the Old Elites.

As explored in a much older article about Brexit and the Trump campaign, it’s extaordinary how many people have been brainwashed into throwing about the term ‘liberal elite’ (whatever that actually means) – which seems to have been seeded in the popular consciousness to make everyone forget about the original, older ‘elites’ that have been manipulating things since long before any of us were born and before liberalism ever really became prominent.

It’s baffling that everything has gotten so warped and conflated: so that people are zealously caught up in the ‘we’re defeating the New World Order’ psy-op, thinking that the way to do this is to hate or oppose liberals while embracing the Old Elites as the antidote.

The situation in Brazil is perhaps quite illustrative of this dynamic.

Bolsonaro is clearly no friend of democracy or free society: but he was so emboldened that he was able to openly boast about this while seeking to lead a country.

In the 1990s, just shortly after Brazil’s return to democracy, he said: “Voting won’t change anything in this country. Nothing! Things will only change, unfortunately, after starting a civil war here, and doing the work the dictatorship didn’t do… If some innocents die, that’s just fine.”

I mean, holy fuck. And that’s a guy that not only has the gall to run for president, but the sway to win.

Bolsonaro has been repeatedly characterised as “the Brazilian Trump”. In some ways, this is valid (the ‘showmanship’, the brazenness, the incredible statements, etc): but, actually, Bolsonaro is a lot worse than Trump – and was simply apeing a lot of the Trumpisms because he saw how it succeeded in the US. But, like Trump, he hates ‘liberals’ and thinks the ‘liberal elite’ is a thing, really dislikes the environment, claims to be the antidote to all the corrupt politicians, etc: but, unlike Trump, he is openly in favour of dictatorship and is openly disdainful of much of the population.

Like Trump, Bolsonaro has also declared his intention to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by moving Brazil’s embassy there. Curious that all Hard-Right leaders or parties – wherever they are in the world – seem to make it a point to recognise Israeli interests in the Holy Land. Actually, maybe not so curious (see here).

In actual fact, the crisis in Brazil should be viewed in the context of the impeachment, a few years ago, of Brazil’s then-leader Dilma Rousseff.

I covered Rouseff’s situation here at the time: she seemed to be the victim of a corporate/right-wing conspiracy aimed simply at getting a left-wing leader out of the way so that Conservative/corporate interests could take full control of government. That plot against Rousseff also seemed to have the backing of Washington. And, as noted then, the tide seemed to be turning against Left-leaning leaders across Latin America – either by design or due to popular feeling (it was never entirely clear which – though the US has a long history of toppling Left-leaning leaders or governments in Latin America).

I wrote back then: ‘Whatever’s really going on, it’s almost certain that Rousseff’s impeachment represents the beginning of a major crisis in Brazil and not the end of one.

The rise of Bolsonaro appears to be the climax of that crisis.

Before getting back to Bolsonaro and the present situation, we should recap the Rousseff affair from two years ago.

The impeachment against Rousseff was a farce.

She was accused of ‘corruption’ and financial improprieties: and removed from power by a cabal of corporate interests, wealthy elites and the corporate media establishment. Five members of the impeachment commission were themselves under criminal investigation for major corruption (one of them even had an outstanding arrest warrant against him from Interpol). In fact, as noted at the time, of the 65 members that made up the ‘House impeachment committee’, 36 of them were themselves awaiting pending legal proceedings for various corruption cases.

Dilma Rousseff’s supporters called the impeachment process nothing less than a coup: and this was later how Rousseff also characterised it.

The impeachment effort against Rousseff had been mostly orchestrated by the political, media, and economic elites in Brazil; though corporate media in Brazil and foreign media in the West had largely portrayed it as more of a populist movement of the Brazilian people.

Brazilian journalist João Estrella de Bettencourt wrote back then in the Huffington Post‘It’s a coup. And don’t deceive yourself… it will result in brutal battles in Brazilian society. The Dilma government was democratically elected and, despite the accusations, it has a legitimate right to fight back’.

Glenn Greenwald, writing for The Intercept, also suggested that the spectacle being played out in Brazil was being portrayed in Western media as something very different to what might actually be going on. He noted in 2016 that ‘much of this Western media coverage mimics the propaganda coming from Brazil’s homogenized, oligarch-owned, anti-democracy media outlets and, as such, is misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete, particularly when coming from those with little familiarity with the country’.

Ernesto Samper, Secretary-General of the Union of South American Nations, had told teleSUR that Dilma Rousseff remained “the legitimate leader” of the Brazilian people. He also maintained that Rousseff still had full “democratic legitimacy”, having been re-elected in 2014. Samper warned that the decision of the Brazilian Congress to initiate an impeachment trial against the President was “compromising the democratic governability of the region in a dangerous way.

That warning now appears prophetic.

The end result of all of that conspiracy now seems to have arrived in the form of Bolsonaro: and the threat of a return to military dictatorship.

I wrote here recently about the 2009 Clinton-backed coup in Honduras: where Hillary Clinton’s State Department legitmised a right-wing military coup in that country that removed the democratically elected and left-wing prime minister from the country. If you take a broad view of the Brazil situation – starting from Rousseff’s impeachment and ending here with Bolsonaro’s rise – you could argue the same thing is playing out in Brazil.

But, this being the Trump era, the US administration doesn’t have to be underhanded or slippery like Hillary Clinton’s State Department: Trump can just shrug his shoulders and be blatant about it if he wants to.

I don’t know if the Trump administration has said anything about Bolsonaro: but one assumes that Trump’s administration would endorse Bolsonaro – given that he seems to be a Trump clone and to have propelled himself on the same sort of wave of feeling and opinion as Trump did. Given that Trump’s response to Chinese President Xi Xinping declaring himself an indefinite dictator was to praise it, one would assume the current US administration would have few qualms with Bolsonaro.

In the Honduras case, as noted, the right-wing dictatorship proceeded to crush all protest and dissent, the murder rate shot up by 50%, all activists and political opponents were violently suppressed.

Note that Bolsonaro has apparently already vowed to “put an end to all types of activism” in Brazil.

The other big thing that happened in Honduras after the 2009 coup was the corporate seizure of natural resources and indigenous land, resulting in the displacement of indiginous populations: this I argued was also a major contributing factor to the outflow of migrants from Honduras.

Well, Bolsonaro and Brazil look like they’re headed the same way.

As a recent article republished in Scientific American says, ‘Brazil’s new president could spell disaster for the Amazon rainforest’.

Bolsonaro has been clear about developing the Amazon and infringing on indigenous communities and populations, displaying a dismissive attitude towards such communities and their rights and also displaying unconcealed aggression towards environmental organisations and activists.

In fact, this could simply be a re-run or restoration of what went on in previous generations under Brazil’s former military dictatorship.

Thousands of indigenous people in Brazil were slaughtered when the military regime decades ago wanted to seize vast amounts of the Amazon for development. That’s what may be set to happen again: in Brazil again, just as in Honduras.

On the subject of the old Brazilian military dictatorship, Bolsonaro is from that idealogy and that era and is firmly (and openly) rooted in it – and is an unabashed supporter of that dictatorship, who has been open about wanting a return to those days.

It was in 1964 that an earlier democratically elected left-wing government (like Rousseff’s) was overthrown by a military coup. United States officials denied any role; but documents have subsequently shown that Washington directly supported and helped enable the coup. The pro-American, right-wing military dictatorship then lasted for 21 years and engaged in systemised, long-term and brutal crackdowns against Brazilian dissidents, minorities and working-class.

Shamefully, a 2014 report highlighted the extent to which British and American government agencies assisted the dictatorship’s interrogation and torture techniques.

Ironically enough (and as I noted here two years ago), one of the many figures tortured by that dictatorship was the very same woman being impeached in 2016 – Dilma Rouseff, the legitimate president of Brazil.

A return to those dynamics could have implications not just for Brazil, but for all of Latin America.

Journalist Vincent Bevins, who has met and interviewed Bolsonaro on multiple occasions, wrote a really interesting articlea month or so ago on the history of Brazil’s former military dictatorship, including its bloody involvement in neighbouringLatin American countries like Chile and Bolivia.

As he notes, ‘Brazil’s military dictatorship helped devise the infamous Operation Condor, an international network of terror and extermination across South America. Born of a fanatical anti-communism, the regimes under Condor murdered political opponents by the tens of thousands…

See more on ‘Operation Condor’ here.

Bevins notes, ‘Bolsonaro’s ideology is best understood as Operation Condor plus the Internet. Recent international reporting has compared him to Donald Trump or seized on his contempt for identity politics, pointing out his record of sexist, racist, and homophobic statements, but these characterizations are insufficient. What Bolsonaro offers is an explicit return to the values that underpinned Brazil’s brutal dictatorship…’

The other thing that needs to be understood about these dynamics in Brazil (the 1964 coup and dictatorship, the Rouseff impeachment, and now Bolsonaro) is that isn’t just an issue of democracy and dictatorship: it is also both an issue of class warfare between the wealthy elites and the Brazilian poor and an issue of race warfare.

Glenn Greenwald puts the 1964 coup – and the impeachment of Rousseff – in terms of both class and racial warfare. He wrote in 2016, concerning that period, ‘The coup itself and the dictatorship that followed were supported by Brazil’s oligarchs and their large media outlets, led by Globo, which — notably — depicted the 1964 coup as a noble defeat of a corrupt left-wing government (sound familiar?). The 1964 coup and dictatorship were also supported by the nation’s extravagantly rich (and overwhelmingly white) upper class and its small middle class. As democracy opponents often do, Brazil’s wealthy factions regarded dictatorship as protection against the impoverished masses comprised largely of non-whites…’

That’s the same state of affairs that was repeated in 2016 with the Rousseff impeachment: and now, with Bolsonaro in town, those same forces and agendas have their ultimate champion and advocate.

When Dilma Rousseff was being impeached, the then interim president Michel Temmer (backed by Washington) was being sworn in with 22 handpicked ministers – all of them white and male (to administer a country in which over half the population is made up by people of colour). Temmer had a 5% approval rating.

Rousseff’s party had been much better for the lower classes and the poor and hated by the upper classes and elites, having ushered in economic and social reforms that helped lift millions of Brazilians out of poverty. Rousseff’s party, among other things, instituted the ‘Bolsa Familia’ social welfare program, the increased promotion of human rights, significant scholarship programs and things like campaigns for university inclusion programs.

It seems to be that much or most of the working class and the poor were pro Rousseff’s government. What happened in 2016 was nothing less than an elite/corporate counter-action to take back control and to set the country back towards the glory days of dictatorship.

This was obvious even at the time. It was obvious then that the entire coup was about race and class just as much as it was about political idealogy. It wasn’t about ‘corruption’ – given that, as mentioned already, the people impeaching Rousseff should’ve themselves been prosecuted on corruption charges at the time.

What was going on two years ago was a conspiracy: and what is happening now is the fruit of that conspiracy.

There were reports even then that some factions at the “anti-corruption” protests against Rousseff were openly calling for the end of democracy – and, one would assume (by implication), a return to a military dictatorship.

It’s no surprise then how someone like Bolsonaro could be carried in to power: on a wave of hysteria bound up in race war and class war sentiment and a longing for the ‘good old days’ when the wealthy section of society could depend on a military dictatorship to protect their interests while violently suppressing the lower classes, working classes, minorities and the indigenous people.

Given Washington’s well-attested history of supporting right-wing coups against governments in Latin America (including Chile, Guatemala, El-Salvador, Argentina, and more recently Honduras), one really does have to wonder what the US involvement may be: both in the impeachment of Rousseff and in the rise of Bolsonaro. I said two years ago: ‘It may be that there’s no involvement from Washington – and I’m not aware of any clear evidence to suggest it – but the proven US backing of the 1964 coup in Brazil makes it fair to raise the question.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, on the other hand, was in no doubt about foreign involvement: he linked Rousseff’s impeachment firmly with the removal of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina (in an article titled Washington Launches Its Attack Against Brics: The Destabilisation of Brazil and Argentina).

And yet, what’s going on in Brazil is also being played out – at varying stages – practically all over the world.

Everywhere you care to look, it seems as if the Old Elites are emerging from their yachts, mansions and soirees to try to take back or protect some notion of lost or diminishing control or power: and using every trick in the propaganda book to manipulate the masses into seeing them as the Solution and the Saviours of civilisation.


Posted in BrazilComments Off on BRAZIL: From Rousseff to Bolsonaro – A Demonstration of How the Old Elites Win

Murder in Honduras: US-Trained ‘Death Squads’ & the Environmentalist


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

It can be dangerous to be an activist for the environment or even for human rights: particularly in a country where foreign-trained Death Squads are working directly for the corporations whose interests you’re interfering with.

I covered the murder Honduran activist Beta Caceres here in 2016.

I covered the Honduras coup in that article too: and revisited it recently again here in relation to the current Migrant Caravan from Honduras to the US/Mexico border.

The short recap is that the US State Department in 2009 provided cover for a right-wing military coup in Honduras that overthrew the elected government and has been in power ever since: engaging in mass suppression, state violence and general dictatorship.

As noted previously, in addition to the political cover provided by Hillary Clinton‘s State Department, ties were also exposed between the US-backed Honduran police and security forces and the ‘death squads’, with American military training and aid for those security forces ongoing. Among those murdered have been members of the LGBT community, more than a hundred land-rights activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, labor activists, and a number of opposition candidates and community organisers. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both documented the killing spree in Honduras.

The 2009 military coup was carried out by graduates of the highly dubious ‘US Army School of the Americas. In the years since the coup, US support for the Honduran regime has continued and also included assisting the regime in the upgrading of its surveillance technology.

I reiterate all of that here because it has been confirmed that Caceres was killed in a pre-planned conspiracy, involving US-linked Death Squads. As reported in The Guardian, the court ruled the murder was ordered by executives of the Agua Zarca dam company Desa because of delays and financial losses linked to protests led by Cáceres.

The murder was contracted to a group of hitmen who were paid to kill Cáceres. The seven men convicted of orchestrating her murder are Sergio Ramón Rodríguez, (‘communities and environment manager’ for Desa), Douglas Geovanny Bustillo (described as an ex-US trained army lieutenant), Mariano Díaz Chávez (a US-trained special forces major); Henry Javier Hernández (former special forces sergeant), and an Edwin Rapalo, an Edilson Duarte Meza and Oscar Torres.

The verdict confirmed that a Desa executive coordinated with Bustillo before and after the murder. The Guardian reports that, ‘During the trial the executive was identified as company president David Castillo, a US-trained former military intelligence officer. Castillo faces trial separately, accused of masterminding the murder.’

Last year, it was also reported that a former Honduran soldier said he had seen Cáceres’s name on a hitlist that was passed to US-trained units. And that Berta Cáceres’ court papers show murder suspects’ links to US-trained elite troops.

As discussed previously,  Honduras now had the world’s highest murder rate. Homicides had risen by 50 percent since the 2009 coup.


Why was Berta Cáceres targeted?

Because she was getting in the way: Cáceres was one of Honduras’s leading environmental activists and spent the better part of her life campaigning for the rights of indigenous people, especially concerning the struggles for land and natural resources.

Shortly before her murder, Cáceres explained that the illegitimate, US-backed Honduran regime passed oppressive laws that effectively criminalised political protest and social activism. Cáceres characterised it as ‘counter-insurgency’ conducted on behalf of international corporate interests and their seizure of Honduras’s natural resources, with the population being terrorised and hundreds of political activists being murdered.

Since that event, Honduras has also been subject to a massive rise in environmentally destructive ‘mega-projects’ and displacement of indigenous communities. An estimated 30 percent of Honduran land has been taken for such projects across the country, with land and rivers being privatised and communities being uprooted.

Cáceres’s murder on March 3rd 2016 occurred amid a reported resurgence in ‘death squad’ violence in Honduras. Social movements and activists were being brutally repressed and targeted assassinations routinely carried out.

What’s particularly illustrative about this case is that, here, we had an environmental and human rights activist being murdered essentially on behalf of corporate interests: corporate interests that were able to call on hitmen, who themselves had received training from the US for very purposes of containing opposition or dissent.

Meanwhile, as previously argued, it seems without question that the present exodus of Hondurans – and the Migrant Caravan on the United States’ doorstep – is a direct consquence of the right-wing/military coup in that country. A coup that was not only backed by the US State Department under Hillary Clinton, but which has been continously supported from the outside: including in its extra-judicial killings and its targeted murder of environmental activists and political opponents.

Most Americans – certainly all of the ‘Build the Wall’ crowd, anyway – probably have no idea about any of this: of the US role in Honduras’s situation, of the corporate seizure of vast lands, the mass displacement of indigenous populations, the US-trained Death Squads, or the general plight of people in post-coup Honduras.

I’m not sure they would care, even if they did know. Which is fine. And it’s fine to chant ‘Build the Wall’: but it would be more appropriate to also chant something like ‘And Hooray for the Death Squads!’ at the same time.

It would fit the reality better.


Posted in USA, South AmericaComments Off on Murder in Honduras: US-Trained ‘Death Squads’ & the Environmentalist

The AZOV BATALLION, White Jihad & the Return of the Nazis


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


Amid all the recent provocation and manuevering concerning Russia, Ukraine and the Azov Sea (see here and here), another story may have passed under a lot of peoples’ radars: concerning not the Azov Sea, but Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi ‘Azov Batallion’.

It’s arguably not a huge story in itself: and I’ll get to it in a moment.

But I want to explore how I think this story relates to so much else of what I’ve been talking about here for a few years now: including the war on Russia, the Islamists and the destablisation of the Middle East, the projected ‘race wars’ or societal breakdown, the rise of the Far-Right and white supremacists, and the possible or probable fascist conspiracymanuevering behind all of this.

You often find, when you’ve been keeping tabs on various different situations or themes for a few years, that they tend to come together and inter-relate more often than you’d think – indicating that even things that appear to be unconnected on the surface actually weave together as part of a dangerous web.

This would be either by deliberate design or by unforeseen consequences and the dominoe effect.

But here’s the story.

A recent FBI indictment seems to have revealed that Amercan white supremacists have been receiving training from Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi ‘Azov Batallion‘.

It emerges that this refers to members of the ‘Rise Above Movement’ in the US (including its founders), who had “violently attacked and assaulted counter-protesters” at white nationalist and white supremacist events.

This included the high-profile “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville last year (remember?).

According to Whitney Webb’s report at MintPress News, the court documents ‘refer to RAM as a “white supremacy extremist group” while the group self-represents as “a combat-ready, militant group of a new nationalist white supremacy/identity movement…’

The group’s founder Robert Rundo apparently has been making trips to Europe, including Ukraine, Italy and Germany, “to meet with members of European white supremacy extremist groups.”

As I have said for a few years now, a lot of these Far-Right or Neo-Nazi groups in different countries are not separate, unrelated entities. White Supremacy – or ‘White Jihad’ – is an international movement pursuing an international objective.

It tries to look like it is merely a series of separate reactions to unfolding events or conditions – but it isn’t.

The irony of the Ukrainian Nazis training militants in America is of course that the Ukrainian militias themselves were receiving training and support from the US State Department as part of the proxy war on Russia. Most of those various militias were said to be funded by shady private investors: but, at any rate, they were being openly trained and championed by the United States and NATO a few years ago as the crisis in Ukraine was heating up.

At the basic level, those extremist militias were being used – and could still be used – to try to destabilise Russia itself, the same way extremist militias were nurtured and backed in places like Libya and Syria – for the purposes of overthrowing the state or at least for general destabilisaiton.

But I suspect it’s probably bigger than even that – and that something like the ‘Azov Batallion’ is simply the tip of a bigger iceberg: a probable multi-purpose agenda along the same lines as something like the so-called ‘Islamic State’ group.

What is the ‘Azov Batallion’?

Originally a paramilitary group of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists linked to the country’s Social-National Party, Azov Battalion has since become incorporated into Ukraine’s Interior Ministry as a component of the country’s National Guard. In addition, the group’s founder Andrey Bilitsky, is a member of Ukraine’s parliament.

The group, who were openly known to drive around in tanks with Nazi symbols and making Nazi salutescommitted war crimes, and were also alleged to have engaged in beheadings (yes, beheadings) and allegedly burning crosses. See my older article here, or see James’s 2015 article over at Crimes of Empire here, in which he responded to video footage allegedly showing the Ukrainian mercenaries crucifying and burning a victim.

Said James at the time, ‘These are our allies. These are forces the US recently sent three hundred military training forces to aid. The forces the Australian Prime Minister stated we were “all behind”. They appear to have crucified a man and burned him alive on video. It is one of the worst things I have ever seen.’

In a worst-case scenario, I tend to wonder if the situation in Ukraine is going to be used as a training ground for white supremacist militants all over the place to cut their teeth with hands-on exprience – the same way parts of Syria, Libya and Iraq were made lawless so as to provide jihadists with staging areas and training ground: and how some of them then came back to Europe and supposedly carried out terrorist attacks (while others infiltrated into neighbouring Arab or African states to start up trouble there).

The likelihood is still that the extreme militias in Ukraine are intended primarily to fight Russia – and possibly even to infilitrate into Russia and train Russian (anti Putin) proxies (possibly Russian Neo-Nazi counterparts) to start up an armed conflict (along the lines of Aleppo, Raqqa, Idlib, etc). It would be an extraordinary irony if the very situation Russia went into Syria to help quell ends up being replicated in Russia itself: although this could be pursued in other ways too, with – for example – Islamist militants from neighbouring states in Russia’s neighourhood.

But, as usual, there are probably multiple agendas being pursued or serviced all at once: just as the Middle-East destabilisation was used both to unhinge that region and to also destablise Europe with the increased terror threat and the Migrant Crisis.

I would not be surprised if, sooner or later, Eastern Ukraine becomes to Europe and the West what Iraq or Syria became to the Middle East.

I was saying back then that both the Nazis in Ukraine – and the aspiring far-right militant groups in other countries – were the white, Western equivalent of the Islamic State jihadists. The same way that, for years, Islamists were trying to establish their network across multiple countries, planting the seeds of future uprising or bloodshed, so too the white supremacist groups do not limit their interests to their own cities or countries – but are engaged in an international agenda.

That’s why you could see Ukrainian Nazis training American white supremacists.

It’s the same reason, for example, that foreign Neo-Nazi activists were in recent years found to be training right-wing Brits for ‘a race war’ in ‘secret hate camps across the UK.’ For example, Anti Terror police were reported to be monitoring the ‘Sigurd Legion mob’, fearing that they were using the camps to prepare a wave of attacks against Muslims and Jews. The Far-Right/Neo-Nazi group ‘National Action’ (now classified in the UK as a Terrorist Organisation) was reported to have sent all of its members to those camps for training.

We also know that, for example, the Europe-wide, violent Fascist/Neo-Nazi movement called ‘Blood and Honour’ – which literally has its roots in Nazi Germany – is also an umbrella organisation for British racist groups such as the National Front and National Action; it is, in fact, known to have members and networks (I’m tempted to call them ‘cells’) in every country in the Western world.

To get a sense of ‘Blood and Honur’: one Hungarian-based Blood and Honour activist, Tompos Von Wewelsburg, called for all Syrian refugees to be massacred. ‘Blood and Honour’ activists in the Czech Republic have been charged with attempted murder following arson attacks on ethnic minorities.

And in the UK, the MP Jo Cox’s brutal murderer, Thomas Mair, is pictured below giving a Nazi salute and wearing a ‘Blood and Honour’ shirt.

There’s no doubt that, were circumstances to develop elsewhere that were similar to Eastern Ukraine, groups like ‘Blood & Honour’ could become the ‘Azov Batallion’ equivalent.

I wrote last year in an article about Islamist Extremists and White Supremacists‘The fact that this resurgence of Neo-Nazism can happen in Europe was demonstrated by the Nazi battalions in Ukraine...’

In describing these networks in a post three years ago on the refugee crisis, I wrote; ‘They are the basis of our very own, European ‘ISIS’ some dark day in the future… or perhaps simply a rebirth of the kinds of forces and ideologies that shaped Nazi/Fascist Europe eighty years ago.’

The only reason the Nazi militias in Ukraine were able to act more openly and substantively is because the situation in that country went in a direction that enabled them to do so. Were suitable circumstances to emerge anywhere else – Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, anywhere – the same sort of things could happen very easily.

These groups want a nation-spanning movement or conflict – precisely as the Islamists wanted a nation-spanning ‘jihad’. They are the Mirror of ISIS.

Their hope – like that of the Islamists – is to overturn Western civilisation and modern societies and either remake it a new image or restore it to some idea of past glory (the Neo-Nazi equivalent of ‘the caliphate’).

And just like the Islamists, they see their fellow white supremacists in other countries as ‘brothers’ and fellow warriors.

In fact, back in 2014, what struck me about the Ukrainian militias doing their ISIS impressions in their balaclavas was this: the fact that ‘volunteers’ or recruits from other European countries were literally going over to Ukraine to join the militias in their campaign against Russia.

I talked about that here: that’s the ‘ISIS’ model in a nutshell, just the white/European version (or “White Jihad”, as they now call it). Just as wannabe jihadists from all over the place were going into Libya, Syria or Iraq to join the extremists, so too were ‘volunteers’ heading over to Ukraine (albeit on a much smaller scale at that point).

To what extent intelligence agencies would be involved in this is unclear: but, if the whole ‘ISIS’/Middle-East scenario is anything to go by, probably quite a bit.

Back then, Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov had even admitted to the presence of foreign mercenaries in ‘volunteer battalions’ that have been taking part in the military operations in eastern Ukraine.

As I highlighted back in 2015: ‘The Russian Foreign Ministry demanded that Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states and France conduct a thorough investigation into alleged participation by mercenaries from these countries in hostilities in eastern Ukraine. The ministry said this while commenting on a story in the Italian publication Il Giornale that said mercenaries took part in a military operation as part of the so-called ‘Azov battalion’ in eastern Ukraine, its activity financed and led by tycoon Ihor Kolomoisky…’

And what does that remind us of? I said then: ‘This is all simply a copy-and-paste of the proxy war waged on Syria, albeit in Europe and minus the Islamic element.’

When you look at how the Libyan state was destroyed and plunged into chaos, or what happened in Syria, you can note a couple of things.

First, the extremists were already there in the society, no doubt doing things over a long period of time to create the right conditions.

Second, that the bigger bulk of ‘personnel’ were then flooded in when the conditions were right – in Libya this was 2011, in Syria it was 2012 and 2013. What you had was a widespread ‘community’ of radicalised invididuals – spread across different countries – that were on-hand to enter the equation at the right moment: a modern Barbarian horde unleashed to destroy civilisations.

If ‘ISIS’ is the model, then the same thing would play out in the West if and when the ‘trumpet’ is sounded, so to speak: then you’ll see all these “combat-ready” groups and people take up the baton. I’ve said for a while that I suspect a facsist group or cabal is looking to collapse the present order and stage a widespread takeover: were that to ever happen, it might need all of these militias and street-level ‘armies’ to help overwhelm the existing political establishments and existing socio-political orders.

It’s getting easier and easier to see some version of that state of affairs occuring. Such a fascist conspiracy need only disguise itself (thinly) behind the facade of the current right-wing nationalist or ‘Populist’ wave. Indeed, that is what I’ve come to believe is the whole plan playing out: and it’s easy to fabricate crises to push that state of affairs along – such as the recent false-flag killing in Chemnitz, Germany.

The other angle as well, as previously discussed, is the long projected ‘race war’ or ‘civil war’ type scenario or planned societal breakdown: which is being set up as essentially White Supremacists versus Islamist Extremists (with others caught in the middle). I’ve talked about that at length here.

I also talked about it here: in the ‘Seeds of Fascism‘ piece, which detailed Israel‘s dalliances with Far-Right groups (as well as clear Israeli links to things like the Front National, Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, etc): and how Israel’s current government seemed to have forged alliances with various traditionally anti-Semitic groups and parties and was actively stoking the right-wing ‘Populist’ fires.

Well, aside from the recent revelation of the Azov Batallion involving itself in an American group, it also emerged that Israel has been supplying weapons to the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, the Azov Batallion in particular: to be clear, that’s Israel supplying arms to a Neo-Nazi militia that rides around with Nazi swastikas.

But, hey, apparently that’s where we’re at now.

Though, after the conclusions I was reluctantly drawn to in the ‘Seeds of Fascism’ article, none of that surprises me anymore.

Coming back to what the FBI indictment seemed to reveal: the idea that people from Azov Batallion were involved (via RAM), even in a minor way, with what went down in Charlottesville makes those events even more troubling.

That ‘Unite the Right’ rally got a ton of media coverage because of how much it was made to resemble a Nazi rally: with torch-carrying processions, Nazi chants, slogans and salutes.

It also included ‘Alt-right’ figureheads and activists like the wealthy white supremacist Richard Spencer, as well as members of Nazi groups (brandishing Nazi flags) and members of the KKK‘Vanguard America and Identity Evropa, ‘the Southern nationalist League of the South’, the National Socialist Movement (Nazi); the Traditionalist Workers Party; and the supremely dumb-sounding ‘Fraternal Order of Alt Knights’.

That incident also apparently resulted in a car being driven into counter-protesters, resulting in one young woman’s death and injuries to dozens of others.

Some of these groups or brotherhoods might seem or sound silly: even cartoonish. But when members of something like the Azov Batallion start showing up to offer training or advice, it’s not funny.

And remember that, once upon a time, when cartoonish ‘mad preachers’ like Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed were radicalising young men and talking about establishing an Islamist ‘caliphate’ in the Middle East, most people treated them as joke figures with infeasible ambitions.

It was no longer a joke when ‘jihadis’ from virtually every European country were pouring into Syria and Iraq and all the beheading and barbarity started.

If groups like the Azov Batallion – who’ve already been involving in beheadings – are able to spread their ‘training’ and their methods to other white-supremacist groups elsewhere (or to join up with other groups), some of these presently joke figures might not be so funny anymore.

Posted in USAComments Off on The AZOV BATALLION, White Jihad & the Return of the Nazis

Shoah’s pages