Decadence and weak media undermine the Constitutional protection for freedom of the press
Because of its contemporary and future importance, we had made the following topic the leading theme for 2018 but the situation only gets worse so it remains the principal these for 2019. Contributions to this theme are listed below the title.
With freedom threatened by the politics of aggression & fear, we need impartial media
There is a growing epidemic in media of all types in tendentious manipulation of information by the larger search engine and social media organizations and advertising systems as well as the so-called mainstream media. Our editorial team is preparing articles to cover this critical topic in some detail and these will be added to this thread as they are finalized.
As the corporate media in the USA and UK waver on the brink of a pathological inability to report the whole truth, and as the hidden deeds of hypocritical leaders, intelligence chiefs and military brass, are exposed, causing these people embarrassment, it is understandable why leadership wants to harm Julian Assange. In this environment it is also understandable why the corporate media act as cheer leaders supporting such harm or condone this intent by making no statement at all. Today, under the US Constitution, people in power can administer outrages and cruelty and the media endure this outrage for fear of becoming conspicuous by rebelling against it. Journalists fear that exposing the truth places them next in line for the sort of treatment the US wishes to metre out to Assange. Today the act of rebellion, based on pointing out the truth, is equated with treason. But treason against whom? Certainly not the country. The truth only offends those who cheat and benefit from their unwarranted acts that transgress the US Constitution and who think that, because they are in "power", they can spirit up their own defence, without involving the law, to point, to detract, and to blurt "Treason!" at those who value and speak the truth. Worse still, heads of investigative agencies can take concocted evidence from supporters of a political campaign to twist the operation of the law by using such "evidence" to justify an "investigation" of an opposing candidate using the resources of the investigative agency. An example is the Mueller Report. Now that it has been established that the original allegations against Mr Trump are without foundation, it is necessary to follow the trail back to expose the truth as to how all of this took place. Read more...The implications of the case of Shamima Begum
Shamima Begum is a young British woman who left the UK as a 15 year old schoolgirl to join ISIL in 2015 and now at the age of 20 wishes to return home to the UK. She was interviewed in a refugee camp teeming with ISIL members so would not have been able to express anything negative about her experience for fear of reprisals. It is also evident that with live recordings she would not have been able to convey that reality to the journalists interviewing her. However, when these interviews were shown on television and reported upon, the ill-informed public interpreted her careful remarks to be a sign of non-repentance and even a sign that she felt justified in joining ISIL. Similar statements were made by MPs in the House of Commons. She was judged in the public media, today the least safe place for securing the facts and in the end the Home Secretary Sajid Javid stood in judgement and announced that an order had been made with the intention of stripping Begum of her British citizenship.Read more...
As the country that today has most slaves, the United States has no moral standing
The following is a syndicated piece produced by GAG, The Global Action Group
email@example.comUSA as the largest slave state
Slavery in international law is governed by a number of treaties, conventions and declarations. Foremost among these is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that states in Article 4: “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.” Protection from slavery is reiterated in the Slavery Convention. This is affected by the Optional Protocol to the Abolition of Slavery and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR, governed by the Human Rights Committee, is responsible for internationally monitoring present conditions of slavery. Abolitionism has its roots in the 1807 Abolition of Slavery Act of Great Britain. Many academics in the field perceive this as the beginning of the end of the traditional form of slavery: chattel slavery. In the 19th Century, Britain controlled the majority of the world through its colonies. Consequently, in passing this law to abolish slavery, the British Parliament abolished slavery in the vast majority of its colonies.
Bad intent baked into the Constitution
However, slavery has continued to persist in some countries long after most international laws banning its practice. The most conspicuous guilty party is the USA. Although many acclaim the significance of the Thirteenth Amendment to the American Constitution of 1865 as banning slavery, the reality is that Americans never wholeheartedly accepted the 13th Amendment in the international spirit of feeing all individuals from tyranny.
When it comes to false flags, the facts sometimes take time to identify the real culprits
APE - Moscow
The downing of the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) on 17 July 2014 while flying over eastern Ukraine resulted in the deaths of all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board. The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), who concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine. The general consensus is that Russia was responsible. However, one of the stark failures to follow due diligence is the fact that Ukrainian authorities are part of this investigative team and Russia is excluded. The Ukraine has a purpose in swinging opinion, as opposed to providing solid evidence, against Russia and so far this manipulation has been relatively successful.
A considerable amount of careful evaluation and practical demonstrations of the fact that the Buk missile was an old one no longer deployed in Russian military and that these older versions were in the Ukrainian arsenal, was produced by the Russian government, but this was ignored by JIT.
However, the Russian authorities have continued to investigate and now, as a result of inspecting formerly top secret archived documents, they have been able to show the full traceability records and assignment and movement of Buks to military units. By using the serial numbers publicized by JIT for the Buk nose component and the rocket casing, the Russian investigators have been able to establish, with no doubt, that the Buk that downed the Malaysian airline was manufactured in 1986 and transferred to what are today, Ukrainian units.
The Russian military report, delivered to the media today, also refers to their opinion that the videos showing the transport of these Buks have been doctored, and they explained why. An additional part of their evidence is a voice recording of exchanges between the Ukrainian military colonel Ruslan Grinchak and other officers. Grinchak serves in a brigade responsible for radar control in Ukrainian airspace. His unit tracked the MH17 flight in 2014, but the Ukraine refused to provide radar data to JIT.
In this recorded exchange he refers directly to their downing of the Malaysian airline.
The most water tight evidence is the serial number tracking. The criticism of the videos is correct in some aspects and sufficiently correct to indicate doctoring of these videos. The voice recording is also convincing but the serial number tracking is the hardest and convincing evidence.
The Ukrainian covert operations follow very much the line adopted by the CIA over many years. The CIA has been associated with the Western Ukrainian Nazi brigade leader fugitives from justice who were protected from the Nuremberg trails. The CIA was officially formed in 1947 but since 1945 those who were to join its ranks were already active in organizing the assassination of civilians as a basis for blaming another party and they have a long track record in false flags including the Tonkin incident leading to the Viet Nam war and misinformation leading to the invasion of Iraq and of course Maiden in the Ukraine where the modern day Nazi brigades were implicated in the shooting of police and civilians in coordination with US State Department elements. Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) has taken up CIA mentoring and training with enthusiasm and continues to work on this basis. Naturally their reaction to the latest Russian military investigation results is that it is "fake news". But on their side they only have produced assertion and acts of assassination and it is a very poor reflection on the JIT that such people can have such a dominant influence to distort an investigation. With over 200 Dutch citizens having been killed in this disaster, the Dutch Safety Board needs to become more proactive in getting to the truth of this matter. Those who died and family members need to be safeguarded from being fed misleading information and conclusions. This is insulting and an affront to the people involved. This manipulation by those with a close association with those who killed them, participating in JIT needs to be brought to an end. At least Russia should be allowed to participate because they have such good record keeping. As things stand, JIT is operating as a Ukrainian propaganda megaphone. No one within JIT, it seems, has been brave or ethical enough to follow the dots to identify the true culprits based on transparent evidence. The DSB needs to act as well as make a statement in response to this new evidence; the world is watching and waiting.
Conviction without evidence is unacceptable
On 13th September Russia Today (RT) aired an interview with the two men accused by the UK government of being the prime suspects in the Skripal case and accused and condemned as guilty by most of the British media. Naturally with the UK government committed to a conviction for which there is no convincing evidence it is obvious that this mindset is not going to review this interview with care. However, they should. It has become apparent that the UK "authorities" have been highly selective in their use of CCTV images which, more by insinuation and circumstances, attempt to link two men to some form of contact with the Skripals, either in the open or by gaining access to the front door handle of the Skripal's house to smear a Novichok gel on it. As things stand this is a weak allegation at most. Although CCTV shows selected shots of the two Russian men there is virtually nothing on the Skripals for the same day. To imagine Russian agents would risk carrying out this act in broad daylight early in the morning, when oversight by others is highly likely, borders on the absurd.
Turning to the RT interview it is necessary to analyse with care what is a highly sensitive personal issue for this pair which explains, to some extent, why they did not come forwards earlier. Their personal affairs have nothing to do with the Russia state, UK authorities or with the readers of this piece for that matter. What is of importance is establishing any evidence that points to them or others in this case. Concerning the case, they explained their reason for the visit to Salisbury as tourists but during this interview one of the men stated that their visit to the cathedral should show up on CCTV footage. This is an important statement since it would fill in an unexplained and significant timing gap in the UK-generated time line. Another observation was that on that day it was cold and they sat in the railway canteen for about 40 minutes having a hot drink and this event should also show up on CCTV, as another crticial time-consuming event. The close surrounding Salisbury cathedral has numerous private and local government CCTV cameras (Wiltshire County Council transferred operations to Salisbury local authority this year on the £500,000 system) and the local authority confirmed that all content had been handed to the police. However, the police have not shown any CCTV footage placing the men in the vicinity of or in the Cathedral or, for that matter, in the Salisbury station canteen. The UK "case" has stated the men passed by a point close to the Skripal's house but did not say in which direction they were moving nor where they had come from.
There appears to be a discrepancy in the door handle theory that Novichok was smeared in gel form on the front door handle of the Skripal house. This would have to have been setup before the Skripal's left and whoever did this would not have known what time they were going to leave the house which under normal circumstances is likely to be any time after 8 or 9 o'clock. The Police narrative puts the two “suspects” arriving in Salisbury at 11.48am, but the Skripal’s are reported to have left their home by 9.15 that morning, so these particular individuals arrived far too late to “smear” Novichok on the front door. The two suspects then, supposedly, left Salisbury for London at 1.50pm, over two hours before the Skripals were taken ill on a park bench.
|Politicized intelligence is always unreliable|
According to Ibn Nr, the quality of UK evidence circulating in the intelligence agencies and on show to the EU equivalents has detereoriated dramatically since the Blair government and is associated with the period John Scarlett became the main author of the "dodgy dossier" that misrepresented the threat of Iraq to the UK with baseless allegations. Because of the "success" of this dossier in misleading the UK parliament into supporting the invasion of Iraq, Blair later promoted Scarlett to head of MI6. This rank politicization of intelligence has continued ever since and has led to a declining quality of intelligence to a 3rd category. The insistence of Theresa May of the guilt of the Russian state and of these two private individuals is a blatant example of a lack the required level of rational prudence and oversight of such matters. This lack of responsibility is also reflected in the refusal of the UK government to accept the Russian government's offer to assist in this investigation ever since this event was first reported. In spite of this, the Home Affairs Minister, Sajid Javid, recently stated in parliament that the UK government was receiving no collaboration from the Russian government. This willingness to lie in public and to parliament continues as it did under Blair in relation to "conclusions" of intelligence matters.
The bottom line to this sorry behaviour is that Theresa May has made much of the importance of the continuation of intelligence collaboration between the EU and UK after Brexit; many are beginning to have doubts as to the real value of this in the light of the current levels of politicization. Clearly intelligence based on British political party manipulation following Brexit will be a completely devalued asset. The Europeans, in general, consider the UK to have a too close an adherence to US State Department aggressive foreign policy preferences and there is a growing resentment in Europe with the continuing economic sanctions against Russia accompanied by anti-Russian rants coming from London. Many hope that with Brexit and the UK out of the EU, this sort of pressure will die down.
Novichok has a very high dermal toxicity, that is, it penetrates the skin and is reported to show symptoms within seconds and to be fatal within a few minutes. This does not fit with the fact that the supposed suspects left hours before the Skripals became sick. A reason for the short visit was the terrible weather and snow slush on the streets. At that time this cold weather front was so bad it was referred to as the "Beast from the East".
A troubling aspect of the CCTV images is that some were clearly doctored. For example the two individuals stated they came through the same passport check, customs point and used the same exit corridor leading out from these units at London airport. However, the UK "evidence" shows separate images of these men in the exit corridor which is only wide enough for people to pass individually. However, their respective images carry the very same time stamp to the second. Since such an occurence is an impossibility, this indicates manipulation of these images and their frames by the UK inverstogators. On the other hand other key images carry no time stamps. This reflects a failure in due process and somewhat sloppy handling of a matter considered by the UK "authoriies" to be of crucial importance.
The other question is that the police suggested a gel was smeared on the door handle whereas the subsequent "evidence" is that of a bottle of scent was found which ended up causing the death of another person months later. This bottle was found in a sealed box in a charity bin by a man who gave this to his partner who eventually died. The UK "authorities" stated that chemical in the scent bottle was the same as that which affected the Skripals. So was it a gel or liquid? Gels don't usually atomize into a spray using simple scent bottle mechanisms. In any case, the box surrounding the scent bottle was sealed when found suggesting it had not been used previously.
The explanations and basis for accusations being made against the Russian men seem to have a very weak foundation and the UK government has not identified any evidence linking them to this incident. There is therefore good reason for the government asking the British media to stop accusing these men without following the due process of law which as a minimum should only proceed on the basis of good evidence. The UK has in a ram shackled fashion pointed to a means but they have not identified any convincing motivation or evidence. At that time the Russian state would have had no motivation to do this but anyone wishing to damage relations between Russia and the West would have.
The line of investigation most likely to be correct but unlikely to identify the culprits is that this crime was carried out by criminals linked to Oligarchs who have fled Russia with embezzled funds and unpaid tax and who are wanted in Russia to respond to legal processes. It has been suggested by reliable sources that the UK had asked Skripal to investigate the links between Oligarchs and the criminal franternaties linked to them. There is a sensitivity in the British government over the political influence of these groups through political party donations and ownership of expensive real estate in London. It has been suggested that the most likely culprits are linked to the Ukrainian central and local governments who own high valued London real estate through shell companies, have a good reason to turn an attempted assassination into an opportunity to blame Russia. The other Ukrainian motivation relates to their attempt to undermine the Minsk agreement that contains provisions for arranging more autonomy to the Russian-speaking Donbass region.
During the whole of 2018 the Ukraininan "intelligence" and armed Nazi brigades have been actively seeking to blame Russia for attempted assassinations in the Ukraine while they have organized assassinations in the Donbass.The latest assassination involved that of Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. The acting head of the DPR, Denis Pushilin stated that they have arrested someone who he stated is an agent of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU). A notable aspect is that the explosive device used made use of a technique not normally deployrd by Ukrainians and it has been identified as coming from the ""West”. It is well know that US military outfits are training the Nazi brigades in the Ukraine. Recently President Trump authorised the supply of arms to the Ukraininan military and these brigades.
Because of the relatvely high profiles of the Ukrainian criminal fraternity any actions in the UK would have been likely to have been subcrontracted to elements from Serbian/Bulgarian groups who are not known to UK intelligence authorities. The other outlier is that this was a subcontract to UK-based criminals who are unlikely to have used public transport.Politicians who fear involved constituentsSamuel D. Weiskopf
Contrary to the desired image of MPs representing the views of their constituents in parliament, the recent events surrounding the British Labour party is exposing differences in the degree to which MPs uphold this standard.
Since Jeremy Corbyn has become the leader of the Labour party he has pioneered a change in the role of members of the party in determining party policies. This has sliced through the former comfortable lobby relationships with non-party organizations and corporate interests as well as foreign state lobbies influencing MP positions. This emerging system is being resisted by many MPs who are left over from the failed Blair administration that delivered a disastrous financial situation for the National Health Service through Private Public Partnerships and the entry of the UK into a destructive Iraq war justified on the basis of frank misrepresentations by Tony Blair to parliament and the constituents of the United Kingdom.
The reactions of the constituency to such failed and corrupt governance is a contemporary phenomenon, and the hope for change, goes a long way to explaining why the membership of the Labour party has risen so quickly to become the largest political party in the European Union. However, there is a difference. Labour party members can participate directly in the election of the party leader as well as establish, at their annual conferences, party priorities for action and policies. With the worldwide disappointment of constituencies in failed economic and social policies and the active willingness of governments to pursue horrendous military ventures, the MPs who have supported these agendas are becoming nervous. Recently some local Labour constituencies have passed votes of no-confidence in their standing MPs. These could lead to the de-selection of these MPs before the next general election. The common UK political party game of parachuting in favoured lobby-supported MPs into "safe seats" is now at risk with the more proactive local constituencies. MPs need to decide if they will support what their local constituents desire or else risk de-selection. This is a rational and normal state of affairs, why vote in an MP who will not support the views of those who voted them into power?
With the growth of the Labour party, there has been a shift in membership opinion which has turned against the continued interference of corporate lobbies, external foreign agents and the rump of the individuals from the Blair parliament in the progress of the party towards new positions. This explains, to large extent, the explosive accusations of anti-semitism hysteria and a cocktail of accusations variously related to intentional misinterpretatuons of past Labour declarations on or meetings with representatives of the IRA, Venezuela, Hamas, Palestine and Communism. All this, of course, carried in the UK media and built into Theresa May's parliamentary responses to questions when she is not too sure as to a convincing reply to a parliamentary question. Since Jeremy Corbyn has been the person overseeing this rapid change in the Labour party towards a widely sought for increased participation of people in British democracy, he has become the target of most of these accusations. By fronting these accusations many of the MPs concerned, blinded by arrogance and a presumption of entitlement to their current status, have exposed themselves in the full sight of the changing body of the party membership. If these people's actions are deemed to be justified by the party membership they have nothing to fear. However, looking at the record to date, Jeremy Corbyn is supporting something deemed to be a vital necessity to the relevance of British politics to the people of the country. Rather than attack, such people should reflect on whether their time has come and whether they should consider leaving the party. The way things have been mishandled by these people means they will not be missed because if they leave since their stands manifest themselves as one's of self-interest or the interests of forces outside the party and this has no moral or ethical justification.Decadence
Holbrook R. Wright
The incredible slide in journalistic standards and what is supposed to be regarded as objective analysis by the media and intelligence agencies in the USA and UK reflects an extreme intellectual deficit guiding the energy expended in these domains. For example, Theresa May when asked what could be the motivation for Russia to organize the attempted murder of the Skripals in Salisbury, she became confused. Any normal investigative analysis that wishes to identify someone to accuse must look at motivation. This requires an assumption that the perpetrators are logical and interested in self-preservation in terms of image and economic sustainability. Already, as a result of the Russian stand to the provocation of the Ukrainian coup and intent of Ukrainian government factions to carry out a genocide against Russian speakers, the West has imposed sanctions on Russia. The simple question is therefore what could be the possible motivation of Russia attempting to organize the assassination of the Skripals just before the Russian hosting of the World Cup and not wishing to face additional sanctions? Clearly, there is no motivation. Independent analyses have concluded that the completely open way in which all of this took place points to a setup to blame Russia. So who has the motivation to do this? The top of the list is elements close to the Ukrainian government. The other is criminal elements who do not wish to see Russia, in any way, improving diplomatic relations with the UK. It has been suggested that Skripal was investigating th influence of the Russian mafia in City-related finance and investments. The Russian government is also concerned about the flight of embezzled funds including unpaid tax to London accompanied by so-called Oligarchs. There is a strong motivation on the part of such people to do anything they can to prevent any diplomatic approximation between Russia and the UK on these matters. Therefore the fact that the individuals shown on UK security camera images in the UK are not known to Russian authorities therefore points to a subcontract to people with such a strong motivation. It has been suggested that the linkages between gangs reaching down into Bulgaria or Serbia/Balkans might provide the identities of the individuals concerned.
The same question of motivation needs to be asked as to why the Syrian regime would risk carrying out chemical attacks against civilians in Syria. There is no motivation because the top Syrian military authorities know that even if they had chemical weapons they can't use them because of the obvious consequences. This is why the motivation for those who are against the regime to carry out or simulate chemical attacks is very high. The association of the so-called chemical attacks that have occurred so far have been filmed and produced by the "White Helmets". This is a group funded by the British and US governments and some Middle Eastern states, there is threfore, a strong basis for discounting this as "evidence". The filming of these videos is so badly done that they are cast to be mainly suggestive as opposed to showing any sequence of the chemical attack events. Leading journalists who were able to talk to the people who actually appeared in these videos have heard that they were complete shams. However, like Blair's dodgy dossier justifying the murder of millions of Iraqis these White Helmet videos were used to justify attacks on Syria by the USA, UK and France.
Lastly, the weakest longer running hysteria has revolved around an attempt to sustain the theory that Russia interfered in the US presidential election causing Hillary Clinton to crash out. Here, people might be able to come up with some form of motivation. This is because the USA and UK interfere in elections in other countries on a worldwide basis but more importantly is just how are they supposed to have interfered. No one has explained, since Clinton's concocted story about Russian "interference" what the Russians might do with lists of Democratic party members or gaining access to voting machines, if in fact this were possible. As a result of exhausted analysis of the possible options, the conclusion is, nothing of significance. However, by politicians and media pundits stating this in a fashion that insinuates some terrible evil and malign undermining of the freedom of the people of America they feel that this is sufficient to justify extreme economic sanctions.
As for so-called Russian Bots, that is, automated or contributors to the main social media who are not who they appear to be, the USA, UK, France and Israel have several thousand Bots manned by military, police and political party paid individuals who interfere directly in opinion formation and elections in the USA and elsewhere. The Israeli IDF has a particularly active Bot operation promoting Israel and countering any views they dislike. It is well-established now that Facebook and others restrict access to some particpant contributions that are contrary to those paying for advertising and including military and intelligence agency contribitions. Recently the closely held secrets of the social media unraveled following the backfiring of the Congressional bought-and-paid-for questioning of social media representatives concerning evidence of Russian electoral interference activities began to expose the futility of this quest. As a result people are leaving these media in droves because they have begun to realise they are machines that expose participants to unwelcomed political scrutiny and to manipulation based on targeted propaganda.
This decadence, as has been observed in other articles in this medium, is observed in some detail by concerned citizens of all ages in Russia, for example, who have a direct access to online alternative media. They put up with a daily abusive negative propaganda leveled against their intelligence and their governments by corrupt media regimes in the USA, UK, France and Israel. More seriously, those promoting this decadent content undermine the security and rights to a peaceful existence by attacking these people. This is a population more aware that the American, of the costs of war, having lost in excess of 25 million citizens to a war where they paid the highest price in helping us destroy the Nazi threat to Europe. These hysterical attacks reduce the status of the people of America, Britain and France to hapless onlookers peeking at a ridiculous theatre of the macabre floating on a sea of innuendo, un-named sources, outright lies and stupidity. Is this why Russian's sacrified so much?
More perversely this is a mechanism used by these deranged media organizations to primarily to attack their own government, as in the case of the USA. We are witnessing sedition on a grand scale with ex-intelligence officials openly calling for the end of the presidency of someone elected by the people of America. Such unelected individuals are doing considerable damage to democracy on a worldwide basis and this needs to come to an end.FaceBookZoo providing forum for those damaged by FaceBook
FaceBookZoo is a new anti-Facebook blog, providing small and mid-sized publishers a place to comment on Facebook's censorship policies and algorithms that hide their content; pretty revealing content. Facebook threatened legal action in an attempt to shut it down but the trademark 'FacebookZoo' was registered when it was in beta mode.
To access click on the image above
Correction to previous content
|Even with net neutrality, freedom is attacked|
The US Senate voted last May to save net neutrality rules, blocking Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back the Obama-era protections preventing companies from discriminating against certain types of internet traffic. The vote was worryingly close with the voted to nullify the FCC's decision, with 52 in favour and 47 against. However, even with net neutrality still in place the social media abuse it. Sometimes, American legislators do the right thing.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.
For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.
This is sometimes enforced through government mandate. These regulations can be referred to as "common carrier" regulations. This does not block all abilities that Internet service providers have to impact their customer's services. Opt-in/opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering can be done on a local basis, as in the filtration of sensitive material for minors. Net neutrality regulations exist only to protect against misuse.
In a previous article concerning social media we put the reduction in freedom of people by social media censorship down to incompetence. However, it has become very clear that evidence gathered during the last few weeks shows that this is not incompetence but rather a coordinated effort by Twitter, Facebook and Google to bring about censorship of target individuals and groups. These close-outs have occurred at exactly the same time across these media exposing tight level of coordination.
Following the attacks on social media by Congress members, with regard to their inability to come up with any convincing evidence for Russian interference in the US presidential election, pressure has been brought to bear for these media to permit the a "qualified" group to become involved in "helping" them identify target content. This group includes amongst others, operatives from intelligence agencies, the Atlantic Council think tank operatives funded by Saudi Arabia and a string of NATO hangers on. Ibn Nr gathers that some of this has not been voluntary but there has been a good deal of intimidation and dire warnings with regard to the withdrawal of government contracts and other pressur. However, it turns out that the real target has nothing to do wuth Russian bots or advertising. The evidence, so far, shows that all of the censorship now involves the closing down of content placed by home grown individuals and groups who express political views the variance with corporate media newspeak. This has occurred more in the USA but has also occurred in Brazil, UK and other countries across the globe in just the last 2 weeks.
So the overall Russian bogeyman fallacy was used as a tactic by those who do not want the people of the USA and worldwide to see balanced political information, to get their way.
This calamity has taken place in spite of Ajit Pai's decision, as Head of the FCC, to get rid of net neutrality in the USA (see box above) having been rejected. Many lobbies continue to pressure to get rid of net neutrality and to destroy the concept of "a free and open highway
". The level of cyber-illiteracy surrounding this vital constitutional issue is astounding. The corporate media were Pai's main supporters wishing to gain a foothold in spreading their newspeak throughout cyberspace and to squeeze smaller ISPs who provide services to alternative media out of the picture; a complete take over with no alternative media in sight.
But by creating a large social media monopoly based on collaboration between "competing" players whose information strategies are compromised by intel agencies wishing to support just one narrative, we have a calamity on our hands for anyone who understands the importance of alternative points of view and facts as a foundation of freedom of choice, reducing risks in decisions and a healthy democracy. We have the emergence of a corporate Stazi communications system that spies on people and manipulates all communications by intentionally reducing exposure by blocking or capping the number of people able to access content. This is done to the advantage of specific interests be these corporations, individual oligarchs and, more shockingly, political parties. Social media are becoming a massive PAC conglomerate supporting one political viewpoint and propagandizing specific policy intentions.Removing security clearances to reduce sedition and instability
John Brennan is the first person to have his security clearances removed by President Trump last Wednesday. This is a long overdue decision which in reality should not be necessary. The US authorities are sloppy in the way they permit former intelligence and military personnel to continue to receive their daily intel brief after they have left the administration and, in Brennan's case, even when they are in open opposition to the President supporting a group who want to overthrow him. Brennan signed his security clearance form in which Question 29 asks, "Have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government?". He and others are dragging the intelligence agencies through the mud helping sink their image even below its already dismal level.
How the American voters can accept the degree of politicization that exists in employees of intelligence agencies is shocking. In this context the USA is somewhat like a banana republic where the institutional heads boast of how they are "keeping America safe" while those in high positions put on bizarre very public and embarrassing shows of playing fast and loose abusing intelligence for personal gain in terms of money and individual political influence through currying favour with political parties and corporate interests. In international terms the USA appears to be a country with absolutely no control over its administration with each leading figure appearing to be out for him or herself. The State Department would be the first to point to such corruption if it appeared in another country. The most objectionable behaviour, paralleling a failed state, is the ability of pubic servants to attack the government that employs them through seditious acts.
Brennan's behaviour in government, and out, has demonstrated clearly that as a civilian he should not be allowed near classified information. He spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying and appears to have been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure.
Another aspect of this lax behaviour on the part of intellligence agencies with their ex-employees is the fact that the security apparatus around ex-exployees, at any level, is not so complete as when they are employed. This presents an obvious exposure of intelligence information and to an increased possibity of leaks of very sensitive information. This only endangers the people of America. Therefore, it is to be hoped that President Trump does the same for many obvious choices, the list is quite long, or even better, introduce a legislative act that imposes an automatic removal of the right of access to any intelligence information, from any source, by default, for anyone leaving intelligence agencies. This needs to be completely retroactive and be applied to all past employees on intelligence and military organizations. This would be a first step in keeping America safer from the personal ambitions of irresponsible individuals.
In conclusion, a significant aspect of this leaky sieve reality are the participants in the private intel service market, a typical American free market idiocy. There is an urgent need to sharpen up the oversight and control of personnel employed by the excessive number of private corporations and consultancy organizations who handle a good deal of out-sourced intel work. Their participation will increase with Trump's massive increase in the military budget. Unfortunately, the chains of custody of intel data in these organizations is far weaker than is often realised associated with staff turnover and ease of direct or indirect access to databases. This further endangers the people of the USA.
Looking at this large array of potential sources of intelligence leakage the USA looks pretty exposed and silly. Given the reality of the belt way it is obvious that for a few bundles of bucks information is available, somewhere in the swamp, making this whole Russiagate hysteria fuss quite ludicrous. Like the Clinton emails, no need for a hack just an exchange of a USB stick for cash over a nice coffee, somewhere obvious in Georgetown or Foggy Bottom.
Congress needs to get its act together, but the way things are, they are likely to be incapable of doing anything other than point fingers and preen themselves. So this leaves Donald Trump to DO something, you know, by taking one or two important decisions.Social media incompetence is killing freedom
The latest cack-handed mis-management of accounts on Facebook and Twitter has only exposed their highly manipulative nature. No, not all this nonsense about their need to monetise personal data to gain income from advertisers,
we are talking about profiling of people for political
and other more sinister reasons. By profiling page owners and their associates social media have begun censoring specific content as well as filtering access so as to essentially deny access to some sites or content. They also are doing the job of the intelligence agencies in spying on people who, frankly, are careless enough to use these social media. People appear to be enamoured with the fact they are appearing online and able to comment on things and express their opinions, fine, but there are ominous potential consequences.
No country in the world has a fully participatory democracy because political parties don't want this. They want to carve out gerrymandered zones that give their members an easy life paid for by tax payers while they serve other masters. The notion of free exchange of information which should include all shades of opinion is being killed off with the current actions by social media leaving the population with the corporate media whose content quality is abysmally biased and whose versions of the truth are pitiful.
Their economic model is obviously failing meaning their frantic efforts for survival are based on sensationalism, misrepresentation and campaigns that cause antagonism, concern and social instability. With the combination of their increasingly monopolistic operations and global reach, with an obvious management incompetence and willingness to manipulate information flow, social media represent an increasingly out of control dis-service to humanity. They are not serving freedom but are suppressing it through censorship. As "advisors" get involved to "assist them identify and remove fake news content" it is apparent that their real agenda is to essentially stream tendentious newspeak to fill up social media with this type of content. All with the blessing of the US Congress members, corporate lobbies and NATO. This is justified on the fallacious basis of there having been attempts to distort information on social media to undermine Western democracy and values. So far no one has provided any evidenceof this but they plough ahead regardless to continue to mislead the public and generate doubt and fear. While creating a more unstable world these fanatics wish to build an image to valorize their pernicious pursuits as men and women who are keeping the people and democracy safe.
However, as all can see, they are throttling the potential of the world wide web as a power for enhancing wellbeing and peace through better understanding arising from unencumbered communication and exchange of alternative points of view.Participatory democracy and the politics of resentment
Lord Hailsham once declared that in Britain we live in an electoral dictatorship. In literal terms he is correct. The dictatorship comes from two characteristics of the system:
- MPs represent constituencies which have about 65,000 voters on average
- MP's prospects depend heavily on how they serve the political party meaning constituents have no say in the way MPs vote in parliament. Indeed MPs are often making "placement statements or questions" either to help the Prime Minister respond in an already prepared fashion during Prime Minister's Question Time or in support of some lobby
Of course MPs always emphasize how their contact with their constituents is so
important but in practice this is a way to fish around for legitimacy and get some media coverage.
The result is that MPs who constitute a miniscule minority of 0.0015385% of the constituents make largely arbitrary decisions in parliament. This is definitely not a participatory democracy and UK government decisions are therefore often completely at odds with the desires and position of the majority of the population. Examples of bad decisions include the invasion of Iraq leading to the murder of millions of civilians taken in the name of the people of Britain who, clearly, had absolutely no role to play in this decision. The responsibility for this massacre rests with those who "voted" along party lines to consider wanton murder of people has something to do with defence of "democracy, freedom and the rule of law". However, such shallow, demented immoral individuals like things the way they are since this allows them to support aggression and speak up on behalf of other aggressors in exchange for perks and media coverage. And, as a group, they have an absolute decision-making power over the people of Britain.
With so many failed policies, a better and more healthy approach is to permit the constituents to have more say in the decisions that affect them or that are taken in their name. Rather than limit communication to their local MPs who for a myriad of reasons will treat each one according to their personal interests, the expansion in political party membership or thematic voluntary organizations is a way in which people can have a more direct say in the formulation of government policies. Thus the Labour party's recent growth is based on a strategic philosophy, very much in line with Jeremy Corbyn's thinking, of expanding the number of members (base) so as to move the party towards a more participatory operation that represents a more coherent and authentic view of the British public within that grouping. This means there will be a broader church able to take into account the points of views of all as well as ethnic and religious minorities. This is an important evolution in managing the issues surrounding racism, for example. The Labour party, since the last election, has become the largest social democratic party in Europe in terms of absolute numbers. This has not gone unnoticed in the field of international affairs. At the same time all other "major" British political parties have hardly moved and remain low. Also noticed more by commentators outside the country, while British media studiously avoid the topic. Today, the Labour party has a membership that actively participates in party policy formulation involving a number of people that is 850 times the size of parliament.
As a result many current MPs left over from the Blair contingent feel threatened, they remain possessively jealous of their diminishing status and ability ignore constituents so as to remain free to curry favour with lobbies and the media. The result is plain for all to see in how such individuals are behaving and the accusations they make of others, as a case study in the worst form of a politics of resentment. A resentment of the challenge to their status and ability to ignore their constituents.
To understand the current fuss and accusations leveled at Jeremy Corbyn by these high profile self-promoting individuals one has to recognise and acknowledge his unique success in being the first British party leader to pioneer a sorely needed growth in participatory democracy for a fairer representation of the people of these isles. This evolutionary approach to politics is important in a world where politicians increasingly exhange insults, accusations and threats to advance their own agendas, or hidden paymasters, rather than those who voted for them. It will be interesting to see how this bold initiative turns out.
The plot thickens.....
|STOP PRESS Update|
Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have at last filed a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over coverage of the Tunis wreath row in six publications. They are claiming that pieces published in the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, Metro, Times and Sun were misleading and factually inaccurate. The stories have misrepresented the 2014 event at a Tunis cemetery, those buried there and the role of mainstream Palestinian leaders, Labour argues.
The IPSO is a toothless organization but at least the Labour party is going in the right direction.
They should also raise a legitimate complaint to a competent organization concerning the overt interference of the Israeli lobby in the internal affairs of Labour party affairs.
If there is no such organization, it is self-evident that this is required to separate legitimate and rational national party differences by members from univited, covert or overt interference by foreign entities such as Israel and Saudi Arabia in internal political party affairs.
A wreath-laying ceremony at the Palestinian martyrs’ cemetery in Tunisia occurred during a visit by Jeremy Corbyn in 2014, a year before he became the party’s leader. Corbyn has always held a coherent position in wishing to see fitting memorials to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere because he insists this cycle of violence needs to end. He has made clear that peace cannot be pursued by a cycle of violence; the only way to peace is a cycle of dialogue. He has pursued this logic in respect to Palestine and Israel as well as the IRA and UK government and his own open approach contributed to the successful Good Friday Agreement only when the UK government adopted his approach. He was present at the ceremony in respect for the victims of a 1985 Israeli air strike on Palestinian Liberation Organization offices in Tunis.
The Daily Mail unearthed some photographs showing Corbyn at this event and they attempted to suggest, through pointed queries, that Corbyn should not have done this since it appeared that he was honouring those in other graves at the site including PLO elements involved in the Black September group. This group carried out the terror attack on Israelis at the 1972 Olympics, in which 11 people died. This, of course, was another tiresome attempt to discredit Corbyn in the current hysterics by those driving the anti-Semitism agenda to undermine Corbyn. Corbyn, as always, has a simple and honest explanation that he was present physically but was not involved in any specific ceremony concerning those individuals.
A few hours after Corbyn spoke, Benjamin Netanyahu criticised Corbyn directly on his Twitter account by stating, “The laying of a wreath by Jeremy Corbyn on the graves of the terrorist who perpetrated the Munich massacre and his comparison of Israel to the Nazis deserves unequivocal condemnation from everyone – left, right and everything in between.”
So as is becoming more and more apparent, there is an increasing attempt by Israel to interfere directly in UK politics on the side of those proxies and MPs within the UK parliament who continue to coordinate the attack on Jeremy Corbyn in defence of Israel's interests. There is no need to go into the record of Israel's murderous campaigns under the Netanyahu administration which continue at this moment. However, in the light of these facts, Jeremy Corbyn replied to Netanyahu by stating,“What deserves unequivocal condemnation is the killing of over 160 Palestinian protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces since March, including dozens of children."
Why do these proxies in parliament continue, in a clumsy and somewhat overt fashion, to unmask their covert coordination with an unfriendly foreign influence, which is likely to relegate them to a state of irrelevance to the interests of the evolving mainstream of the Labour party and, indeed, UK democracy as a whole?
The Israeli media are getting into the act with the journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, who writes for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, writing that, “The paradox is that the least antisemitic country in Europe is liable to fall into the hands of an antisemitic politician. Up until recently, the biggest concern was that this would be as a result of the rise of one of the extreme rightwing parties. As of now, the chance is much greater is that this will come from the left of all places.”
This is a bizarre statement. Israel needs to learn to negotiate in good faith, but it might be too late. After 25 years of avoiding delivering on former agreements on a just settlement with the Palestinians they appear to be intent on digging deeper and becoming more intransigent ending up in an unsustainable tragic paranoid state, a self-inflicted disaster. What can be observed is that the whole direction and action of the state of Israel has taken on the behaviour, in practical terms, of an ultra right wing Fascist state. The typical indicators are compounded fear-mongering used to justify the murder of men, women and children who are considered to be literally of "no consequence" and where the continual stealing of Palestinian land for the construction of "settlements" is considered to be "holy work". The left, worldwide, has always been against this sort of blatant aggression and lack of fundamental democratic principles. At its root this behaviour has all the hallmarks of a community who have anointed themselves with a sense of superiority or exceptionalism which seems to make them completely exempt from any feeling of guilt for the cruel injustices they continue carry out in view of the whole world. The mounting and sickening evidence is there for all to see.Is this a bid by the Israeli lobby to take over the Labour party?
As can be seen from the discussion in a previous article (see below), racism, as far as some people are concerned, can only apply as a single complex construct that binds the prospects of an apartheid state which is bent on dispossession of the Palestinians into the definition of anti-Semitism. Yes some claim that people can criticise Israeli politics while not being anti-Semitic, but the construct, which clearly has the Israeli lobby supporting it, has a chilling effect on anyone who risks venturing into the "holy terrain" of making any comments about Israel. This is because of the track record of this lobby of bullying and intimidation of those who dare criticize Israel. Those in favour of the "official" definition of anti-Semitism, of course, don't see it this way, but many in other religions, including humanists, atheists including anyone who have looked into this, do not see the issues as just so conveniently black and white.
These people appear to be troubled by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn and many Labour party followers are concerned about other forms of racism, including the treatment of Palestinians, which need to be taken into account and of the need for more representation of all religions and minorities in the Labour party. This not something concerning the religions or persuasions or ethnicity of MPs but it is directly of concern with regard to the membership of the Labour party. As is well known, other minority groups who are subject to racism are particularly sensitive and troubled by the marginalization of Palestinians by the state of Israel. So including more of these ethnic groups in Labour party membership represents a potential threat to those whom one might refer to as the "Israeli lobby" in parliament. However, rather than show leadership by setting an example of rational discussion many MPs and media hacks feel that they can prevent this required change in British politics by screaming at people who hold such views that they are racist or anti-Semitic as a means of marginalizing them. However, who is being marginalized by an increasing number of party members witnessing acts of initimidation and media campaigns, are those who appear to be aligned with the Israeli lobby in parliament.
Neville and Doreen Lawrence, Marc Wadsworth and Desmond Tutu
The outcome of this insidious dynamic can be seen in the case of Marc Wadsworth who has been a life-long Labour supporter, anti-racist & human rights campaigner, journalist and documentary filmmaker. In 2016 he was disciplined by the party and, later on, accused of anti-Semitism. He is a victim of a generalised attack on Jeremy Corbyn and an attempt to purge Jeremy Corbyn supporters from the part membership by a rump of the of former Blairite MPs as well as some who are of the Jewish faith or have Jewish family members. Marc Wadsworth is a black activist who has opposed racism and anti-Semitism all his life. He set up the Anti-Racist Alliance in 1991. In 1993, Stephen Lawrence, a black British teenager from Plumstead, South East London, was murdered in a racially motivated attack while waiting for a bus in Well Hall, Eltham on the evening of 22 April 1993; he was 19. Marc Wadsworth helped Doreen and Neville Lawrence set up the Justice for Stephen Lawrence campaign and he introduced Stephen’s parents to Nelson Mandela, and the campaign became the cause célèbre it deserved to be. This April marks the 25th anniversary of black teenager Stephen’s brutal, racist murder. Despite his track record of anti-racist campaigning, Labour expelled him via email!!
on the very same day of the June 2016 launch of the party’s Shami Chakrabarti report into anti-Semitism and racism which he attended.
Wadsworth has since been caught up in a fire storm via the media directed by unknown militants who have acted as accusers, judge and jury. According to an article on Jewish Voice for Labour, Marc Wadsworth handed out a press release in defence of Jeremy Corbyn who was also facing an unjustified media attack at the Chakrabarti event. Marc Wadsworth reports that he noticed Kate McCann a journalist from the Daily Telegraph, an anti-Labour newspaper, hand the press release to a member of the public. Journalists usually don't hand press releases to members of the public given their job is to use releases to prepare their pieces. However, the "member of the public" turned out to be Ruth Smeeth a Labour MP. She had recently resigned from the front bench to discredit Corbyn. Wadsworth was unaware that she is Jewish or that she is a member of the Labour Friends of Israel group. However, McCann raised a pointed question to Jeremy Corbyn mentioning Wadsworth's name. Wadsworth was permitted to explain what took place and simply stated what he had observed. He also added that he had noticed the fact that McCann had given the press release to Smeeth which seemed to demonstrate some relationship (which appears to have been a correct assumption) and he added that for a reception concerning anti-Semitism and racism, it was disappointing that there were so few African, Caribbean and Asian representatives in the room which only had mainly white people. The reality was, indeed, why were there so many white members while there were so few non-white representatives present. Of course journalists were not interested in this there were indignant protests at his statement including from Smeeth, which only drew attention to herself. It is obvious that the McCann question had seriously backfired. Smeeth, perhaps not wishing to attract any more attention, left the launch immediately rather than listen to the important review of the Chakrabarti report. Corbyn, was somewhat taken aback by this fuss but demonstrated his command by sympathetically supporting Wadsworth's reasonable observations and saying that the party needed to do better to improve black representation. Wadsworth's statement is available on You Tube in which there is absolutely no reference to Jews or any anti-Semitic content
. What happened in fact was a link between the anti-Corbyn press and a Jewish Labour MP had exposed itself as a result of their slightly exaggerated reaction to Wadsworth's matter of fact statement, which was factually correct.
Marc Wadsworth is now taking legal action in his defence which so far has reduced the sanction to a suspension. A Labour party hearing was set at more than 18 months after the Shami Chakrabarti report launch. Wadsworth has the support of many including prominent Jewish party members. He is seeking funds via crowd funding to support his legal case.
We would encourage our readership to push back against, what some interpret to be a pro-Israeli attempt to take over the Labour party, by supporting Marc Wadsworth's crowd funding campaign. The crowd funding site can be accessed by clicking on the blue link or on the banner on the left. Any small contributions can help bring about a rational and transparent discussion and hopefully bring a spot light on just what is going on, and who is involved in this bullying, so as to arrive at a just settlement of this shameful case.
Realnews-online supports Wadsworth in his case and we also agree with him that racism does not just apply to one group but many sectors of society and that the Labour party membership and active representation needs to reflect this reality. Rather that seeking to intimidate and persecute Wadsworth the Members of Parliament need to remaining silent and refraining from taking, most of the time, blind positions in support of a state bent on racism and apartheid policies such as Israel. The fact that few MPs speak out about the Wadsworth case suggests pressure of some kind or, at the extreme, intimidation. Their silence raises too many questions. There is a need for balance and above all a desire to secure justice for all minorities, especially those expelled from their own homeland by occupiers. To demonstrate that this is the case MPs need to speak up including those from minorities, or are they in fear of being branded as anti-Semitic only to be followed by bad media coverage? Why have they lost their voice while others who remain unnamed and invisible appear to be running the show. The Labour party needs to beware of becoming an unrepresentative party obeying the dictats of any hidden religious or state lobbies if, in fact this turns out to be the case. Final note: these are not anti-Semitic statements they are a statement of events which need to be explained to the British electorate and which in reality should never have occurred in the United Kingdom.
There remain serious questions for the Labour party in relation to why, if someone is accused of being anti-Semitic, are they not immediately investigated as opposed to, as in the case of Wadsworth, immediately being disciplined. Also who authorises this extreme type of response without there being an initial sober and balanced evaluation allowing the individual accused to state his or her position. How can such as serious issue of someone being exposed to such accusations be communitated by email without any opportunity being given for the accused to explain his or her position. All of these things appear to reflect a chilling effect of a pernicious force or lobby of some kind which has the effect of importing into Britain a Facist mentality of doing only what those who intimidate through threats demand as opposed to doing that is ethical, fair and just. The Labour party needs to push back against this type of abuse for the sake of the people of Britain.
Reference: Jewish Voice for Labour; article by Bernard W. Goldstein
The ludicrous fuss about anti-Semitism in the British Labour party
Over the last year or so there has been a ridiculous fuss about the Labour party "ant-Semitism". It started off with Ken Livingstone, a leading Labour party member, but not an MP, making a statement concerning the collaboration of Jews with the Nazis in the past. The issue here was about interpretation of the historic record on the one hand and whether or not he should have said these things in the first place, on the other. This became high profile because of the fuss made by some MPs who were either mainly Jewish or with Jewish family members attempting to embarrass and intimidate Livingstone by shouting at him and pursuing him on camera and then to persecute him through the media. The media, of course, willingly obliged and an image of anti-Semitism grew around the Labour party and, for some reason, Jeremy Corbyn, for not expelling Livingstone from the party. So in his defense, when asked by journalists what the fuss was about, Livingstone simply repeated what he had stated previously. This of course inflamed things more. In the end, in order to save the Labour party from a continuing tarring and feathering as anti-Semitic, Livingstone resigned from the party to stop this continued embarrassment stoked up by the media and some individuals. However, Livingstone did mention that many Jewish people told him that what he has stated was correct, that is, factual.
However, since then, there have been various accusations of people from within the Labour party expressing anti-Semitic views and these have been reported to the National Executive Committee. They follow a case by case basis, rather slowly, and there are some 70 cases in all. These cases have occurred in largest socialist party in Europe with around 550,000 members. Therefore the level of reported anti-Semitism, in cases yet to be proven, involves an insignificant 0.0127% of the party; hardly a party over-run with anti-Semites and frankly a lot lower that is likely to be the case in the other political parties or the population as a whole.
However, the same technique has been used by Jewish representatives and the media, that of persecution, animated shouting down and general attempts at intimidation, largely aimed at Jeremy Corbyn and others who even include campaigners against racism (see following article concerning Marc Wadsworth). Corbyn is now being accused of being anti-Semitic in strident and emotionally laden terms by the same assailants and the media and, of course this is driven by partisan interests supporting the current minority Conservative government. Theresa May has unjustifiably but frequently referred to the Labour party's anti-Semitism, even in parliament, simply because the latest polls show Labour overtaking the Conservatives by one or two points. The Conservative party also follow the line of support of Israel and Saudi Arabia no matter what atrocities they commit against innocent civilians using British armaments and technical support.
In this discussion on what is and what is not anti-Semitic people who "represent" the Jewish community insist that by accepting the so-called International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) guidelines on the definition of anti-Semitism, the Labour party could put all of this to bed. For any thinking individuals there are several serious problems with the IHRA guidelines. Increasing numbers of non-Jews have justifiable intellectual and logical problems with the mixing of aspects of Israel with examples of anti-Semitism in the IHRA guidelines. The IHRA guidelines are an anachronism that do not recognize the dangers of these guidelines for Jews living outside Israel even although Jews insist on them. A significant problem is that increasing numbers of the British population are perturbed by the non-stop illegal occupation of Palestine by Zionists since 1948, the continuation of the "holy work" of establishing illegal Jewish settlements on occupied and stolen Palestinian land, the increasingly Apartheid (system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race) structures which deny essential resources to the Palestinian community compounded by recent changes in the law which have placed all languages other than Hebrew into a second category. To crown all of this disgraceful behaviour, very recently, the Israeli government has declared Israel to be officially "the Jewish nation state". Given the county's track record, one would have though this would be an obvious problem and an embarrassment to Jews living outside Israel. But the problem with the IHRA guidelines is that they don't just make a simple declaration of what anti-Semitism is, which they in fact do, but they then follow this up with a series of belt-and-braces examples of what they judge to be acts of anti-Semitism. For many non-Jews the declaration of Israel as the Jewish nation state has completely muddied the waters and turned IHRA guideline examples, that mention Israel under the current circumstances, into weasel words, that is, statements that have become ambiguous or misleading, whether intentional, or not. They therefore neither clarify the issue nor do they protect the interests of Jews in the United Kingdom.
The leading statement in the IHRA guidelines is as follows:
"Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
This is then followed by the "examples". It should be taken into account that these guidelines were agreed in 2016. All of this slightly fanatical hysteria about anti-Semitism and the Labour party has taken place during a period of rapid expansion in the party and the evidence shows that the party is virtually free from anti-Semitism on the basis of the leading statement above. During this period of 2 years following the horrific bombing of Gaza by Israeli military ended up killing over 2,000 Palestinian civilians, many killed by phosphorus a banned chemical agent. All of this raging debate concerning the Labour party has taken taking place against a backdrop of further Israeli atrocities associated with the ongoing border fence protests.
Since March this year the Israeli military have: murdered over 155 Palestinians, of whom 23 were under 18 with some 17,259 injured (including tear gassing) and all of whom were on the other side of the fence. Of the injured: 4,348 struck by live ammunition; 430 rubber-coated steel bullets; 1,593 affected by severe tear-gas suffocation; 404 critically injured; 4,141 moderately injured; 2,700 other injuries, not specified; 4, 354 lightly injured; 1,279 children injured and 1,553 women injured. Some 68 amputations carried out, 2 paramedics from the Palestinian Civil Defense killed, 360 medics injured by either live fire or tear-gas suffocation and 69 ambulances partly damaged. 2 journalists were killed and 175 journalists were injured all by Israeli actions.
If the protesters were armed and penetrating the fence there might have been a justification for use of some levels of force but as things turned out this level of continuing violence had/has no justification. These casualties have arisen from Israeli state wishing to create a situation of defacto dispossession of the Palestinian population as shown in the Israeli military having no regard for Palestinian lives, vividly reflected in Israeli troops cheering when their snipers injured or killed Palestinian civilians who were on the other side of the fence
. Taking these past and current events into account, it becomes self-evident why some of the IHRA guideline examples are problematic. The guidelines are listed below and the problematic ones are highlighted in blue.
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel
Clearly in the current reality, the examples referring to Israel require a considerable amount of qualification and clarification. These need to relate to questions of evidence and justifiable points of view of the behaviour of the Israeli state in regard to its minorities (Palestinians and Druze) and treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and its professed position of denying any right of return to the millions of Palestinians who remain refugees living outside their own homeland as a direct result of Israeli aggressive actions. In the light of example number 7 it is virtually impossible to consider this to be a rational example when the state of Israel has worked for over 70 years to deny the people of Palestine their right to self-determination and have constantly worked against solutions. In this context deeds remain more important that words.
Many sensible people and many in the Labour party, we understand, are concerned about these types of serious issues. They are right to be so since it is only by clarifying these issues it is possible to defend free unencumbered thinking and intelligent individuals rights to ask profound and necessary questions. In the end this can help Jews in the United Kingdom avoid becoming responsible by association with the horrendous behaviour of Israeli, that casts a negative shadow, and now declared as "the Jewish nation state". In this way anti-Semitism can become a clearly defined state free from weasel concepts and semantic traps which end up risking those with no anti-Semitic thoughts becoming branded as anti-Semites, as has happened in the case of many in the Labour party including Marc Wadsworth (see following article above).
Those who point at Jeremy Corbyn as being an anti-Semite are plain wrong and being dishonest. They should reflect more on the behaviour of the Jewish State and analyse the IHRA guidelines from the standpoint of realty and how non Jewish people see this. Intelligent and concerned individuals from the "mainstream" as well as other minorities and who are not Jewish should remain free to exercise their democratic right to make justifiable, evidence-based commentaries on Israel without fear of retribution by the Israeli lobby and hangers on to be pilloried by ignorant people who insist that IHRA guidelines have been transcribed from some holy scriptures.
Why privacy is fundamental to freedom
With the obvious politicization of intelligences and counter-intelligence agencies and the collaboration of the social media monopolies with these organizations, assisting political party strategies
with disinformation, receiving a large proportion of advertising revenues from corporations who also support PACs and corporate media content favouring one political party over another, the threat to individual freedom is more than apparent. The threat is the unscrupulous manipulation of information that members of the public access with much having been doctored to remove important facts. The next step in this process of manipulation is already being applied in mainline China where individuals are ranked according to their social standing (behaviour) and where any divergence from what is considered to be acceptable by the state can be punished by refusal of transport companies to permit such individuals to travel as they wish. Already in the USA association with any particular political leaning or political party is used to deny information and/or feed misrepresentations to individuals who can also be publicly attacked and offended online.
A malign development, already on the horizon, is commercial businesses creating issues for individuals with specific political views, we have seen this with White House employees being refused service in a restaurant. The United States' fixation with economic punishments (sanctions) is likely to see the next step involving the withdrawal of loans on spurious grounds leading to the closing down of small businesses.
People who cheerfully state that they don't mind being profiled or spied upon because they have nothing to hide are exceptionally naive. Their failure to rebel against this evolution of a police state reflects a lack of appreciation of the value of freedom and they will only wake up when it is too late. We are witnessing the amalgamation of large government structure within which government agencies who waste large amounts of government money on high salaries and useless activities discover who wish to cut back on these services so as to make life difficult for these individuals in other aspects of their lives dealing with other government agencies.
The social media monopolies have already gone too far in significantly constraining our liberty while claiming to do no evil. Those with social media accounts who value freedom should close their accounts and look for ways to communicate and access information that do not compromise the future freedom of their families. The undeniable evidence of interference in elections and the decline and fall of social media
Rafael V. Defoe - APE Constitutional team
During the last 5 weeks Facebook and Twitter have made some major mistakes upsetting a large number of their customers and exposing a crude approach to censorship with the aim of influencing election outcomes. They have conflated "fake news" with political opinion and as a result have closed the accounts of many bone fide political commentators who express their alternative opinions. For example, in Brazil hundreds of accounts on Facebook were closed in the last week. All of them were from a group who have been discussing Brazilian politics for some years but Facebook judged their content to be "fake news" and closed them. Twitter has done the same in the USA with accounts that seem to support Trump.
Facebook and Twitter make use of filters to spread or diminish exposure of submissions on the basis of political leaning. They have both embarked on a form of behaviour that is interfering in the US mid-terms and in the forthcoming Brazilian election. Therefore the agents of actions designed to influence the outcome of elections through censorship are individuals and groups working within Facebook and Twitter who are allowing their political opinions colour their decisions on what constitutes fake news. This lack of impartiality is not only dangerous but the pernicious
The basic technique
The New Marxists attempted to change political strategies from one of opposing sides to one where the party objective was to hold onto power based on satisfying a broader proportion of the constituency. With Neil Kinnock as leader of Labour this didn't work. However, under Tony Blair it worked as a result of careful preparation. It was achieved applying dog-whistle techniques of communication. So focussed messages are sent to members of a specific interest group, or identified socio-economic grouping, stating that a political party supports and will enact legislation to support that group. This used to be achieved with political parties publishing vague manifestos and then providing opportunistic "clarifications" of aspects of the manifesto and where the clarification used would vary with whoever the politician was talking to. The minority groups referred to here are not just religious or ethnic, but are various types, including age, gender and profession-based classes, all of whom are particularly vulnerable to associating specific words and phrases with their own interests and a subsequent false assumption of support by the party. These same words and phrases would normally fly over the heads of those not in the group. Therefore the way in which politicians ramble off lists of the "values" they support is a way to keep the dog-whistle blowing. The target dogs, in each case, are minority groups who respond to the key words and assurances.
With "social media" this dishonesty is easier to apply because based on individual level profiles picked up from content supplied by contributors to Facebook and Twitter, political parties can send content to please one group while other groups cannot access that content and remain unaware of what was sent to an opposing group. At the same time, other groups can receive content that is diametrically opposed to content sent to other specific groups.
The fuzzier the manifesto the easier it is to convince interest groups and voters that "their interpretation" of a party's aims is correct and therefore they are more likely to vote for the party. The obvous paradox is that people with diamtetrically opposed views are duped into voting for the same party and the one that manages this this deception.
nature of personal data collection to make money from advertisers, intelligence agencies and a host of other predatory organizations has greatly impacted the status of social media including Amazon and Google and Microsoft's ventures into news bulletins.
With the financial contributions of these "hi-tech" corporations to the campaigns of Congress and Senate members and the ridiculous appearances of people like Zuckerberg in front of House Committees, has become a sordid pseudo show of "accountability" that does not in fact exist. One simple truth is that WhatsApp is, as Zuckerberg confirmed, encrypted from end to end giving the impression that Facebook has no idea what is being transmitted. Any transmission has an encryption and decryption key that can be recorded for ease of access by Facebook and, of course, intelligence agencies.
The evidence of alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election has yet to be shown to the public and, in any case, US authorities and authorities worldwide have confirmed that no Russian meddling, if they could detect any, influenced election outcomes or vote counts. The main meddlers are operating right under our noses and the attempts to interfere in elections by Facebook and twitter are there for all to see in the accumulating evidence of their malign behaviour. Blaming Russia for doing what they are doing is an old diversionary trick straight out of counter-intelligence manuals. They are destroying the whole basis of having any positive social function; they are in fact anti-social. Broadly speaking, the judgement of Facebook in the case of the Brazilian accounts appeared to be that these were "too right wing". The Federal Public Prosecutor of Brazil has sent a letter to Facebook requesting the justification for this overt interference in the internal politics of Brazil.
However, the left wing liberal groupings are resorting to totalitarian behaviour in exercising outright censorship of political views they do not like or agree with. This is exposing a malign and biased approach to their operations that are constantly being exposed as mismanaging personal data, information and knowledge. They are the main agents in the undermining of global democratic procedures. It will be recalled that Obama was very happy with his association with Facebook and his victories were put down to his effective use of "social media". As we learn about the manipulative capabilities of Twitter and Facebook it becomes essential that an investigation into their levels of interference in US elections since their foundation needs to be reviewed. They were active during the Scottish and European Referendums and this needs to be investigated also.
These organizations have become abusive and dangerous monopolies that need to be broken up in the name of sanity and a more open balanced democractic forum in cyberspace. President Trump should ask the DoJ to initiate an investigation on the current and past interference by Facebook, Twitter and the DNC in US elections.
Dominic Raab rising through the ranks
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Donald Munroe - APE Constitutional analyst
The British Conservative MP Dominic Raab was recently made the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. He replaces David Davis who recently resigned from this position.
Raab's support for the leave EU campaign and his rational past criticisms of some of the failings in constitutional provisions of the European Union make him a good choice. He is relatively young at 44 but has traveled a productive route by working in support of sound individuals. For example he was Chief of Staff to David Davis when he was Shadow Home Secretary and later with Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Dominic Grieve. After graduating from Oxford in Law and a Masters at Cambridge he followed an unusual path. He spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University near Ramallah working with a principal Palestinian negotiator for the Oslo peace accords and assessing World Bank projects on the West Bank. In 2000, Raab joined the Foreign Office and led a team at the British Embassy in The Hague, dedicated to bringing war criminals to justice and later advising on the Arab–Israeli conflict, the European Union and Gibraltar.
He has written several books and his constitutional views demonstrate, according to the APE constitutional team, a clear view of essential priorities related to the defence of freedom in the United Kingdom. His writings touch on issues also raised as of being importance to the United Kingdom by David Davis a Brexiteer and Nick Clegg a non-Brexiteer, an example being the dangers of abuse associated with the application of the European Arrest Warrant.
In providing Raab with this new role, Theresa May shifted the balance in negotiation by giving herself the prime position as chief negotiator and with Raab deputizing. There is no doubt that Dominic Raab can act competently in this position supporting May but many see this as Theresa May being cautious about the rise of Dominic Raab in the ranks of Conservative MPs. According to Hector McNeill, the British constitutional economist, Dominic Raab is potentially one of the strongest contenders for party leadership but others want him held back for reasons of personal ambition. The suspect culprits here might be Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson. But medium term Raab is a more attractive choice carrying less contraversial baggage.
We understand that the European Commission staff found Raab to be agreeable and focused in meetings in his first Brussels visit in his new role as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The coming months will be interesting in terms of results and briefings.Why Crimea cannot be returned to the Ukraine
There is ample evidence that if Russia had not had a military base in the Crimea and had not transferred Crimean sovereignty to Russia, today we would now be remembering a genocide promoted by the leading Ukrainian post-coup politicians including the darling of the swamp, Yulia Tymoshenko involving the murder of thousands of ethnic Russians in Crimea. Russia was able to save around 2 million ethnic Russians in Crimea without a shot being fired.
Today, military brigades with strongly and overt allegiance to the Nazi cause are being trained and armed by US contingents who continue to attack and murder ethnic Russians in the Donbass region through indiscriminate shelling and snipers killing and maiming, in the main, civilians. The Ukraine regime ignores these atrocities as does the USA. Russia holds that the Minsk agreement should be adhered to by the Ukraine government to provide devolved governance for these regions while the USA doesn't act to encourage the regime to carry out their part of this agreement but keep on repeating that the crisis is caused by Russian inaction. There is also the repetitive mantra emanating from the swamp that demand that Russia returns Crimea to the Ukraine.
The Donbass region has a population of around 4 million mostly ethnic Russians and any Russian decisions are geared towards avoiding any further killings and, above all, preventing any slippage towards genocide in this region. Russians have a vivid memory of the actions of the Nazis and the Ukrainian Nazis in particular during the Second World War in carrying out genocide leveled at ethnic Russians. Unfortunately the corporate media fail to inform the people of the USA that the CIA helped many of these elements escape the Nuremburg trials after the Second World War, helping them get to the USA and permitting them to live in the USA. It is the remnants of these groups, both as individuals and agents within the CIA who have influenced the current CIA and US mercenary involvement in today's Ukraine. Part of the warped thinking is that these brigades will be called upon if the CIA decide to begin covert operations on Russian soil. The US and UK coordinated this type of preparation in Libya to eventually attack Ghadaffi in Libya and to unseat Assad of Syria. The Libyan contingent "succeeded" causing the current chaos but with Russian help this covert plan failed in Syria. This is why there is so much animosity within the swamp with regard to Russia. Sergey Lavrov the Russian Foreign Minister has made it very clear that Russian action in Syria was at the request of the government and was designed to avoid the type of chaos witnessed in Iraq and Libya with ISIS running the country and continuing their genocide of Christians, other religions and non-Sunni Moslems.
The Russian Federation acted responsibly in the case of the Ukraine to avoid and prevent genocide which in the case of the evolving irresponsible US policy would have been put down to collateral damage. A better understanding of the Ukraine's ethnic composition, its history and the current real threats to the lives of ethic Russians will realize that Crimea cannot be returned to the Ukraine and the people of the Donbass should receive greater autonomy and guarantees of protection.Why countering detente is the evolving policy of swamp dwellers
It is a normal process of diplomacy to initially have a, "get to know you meeting", or summit, to identify key issues of mutual interest and then to follow up with national reviews and the development of more mature proposals that have been vetted by relevant experts and to then arrange a second summit.
Presidents Trump and Putin clearly identified issues of importance that are worth pursuing. The proposed fall summit is designed to advance understanding and to come to some conclusions on matters of mutual interest to the peoples of the USA and the Russian Federation.
However, the corporate media and high profile anchors, Republicans and Democrats are aghast at the prospect of a second summit with the "enemy" or "those who interfered in the US presidential election". These swamp-dwellers see Russia as some sort of enemy and yet cannot produce evidence of actions on the part of Russia that justify this label. Many countries meddle in US elections. The most overt are Israel and Saudi Arabia who act through lobbies, think tanks and the funding of university chairs in even institutions of high esteem (in America). They also place advertising and paid content in US media. There is also direct evidence of their contributions to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton held different positions of influence. These two countries alone have a major influence over Congress and the Senate through financial contributions to candidates and through PACs. They have also been major fomenters of terrorist acts in the Middle East and have encouraged the USA to become involved in illegal wars leading to the deaths of thousands American military and millions of innocent men women and children. This is the result not only of election meddling in the past but also in policy meddling that continues now. Adding to this, the long history of the USA meddling in foreign elections and also overthrowing foreign governments, the benchmarks for what constitutes meddling are well established. However, so far, the swamp-dwellers have been unable to identify exactly what Russia did to justify the assertion that they interfered in the US election. By comparison with so-called allies, Russia has not done anything that could be considered to be even close to the track records of the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the assumed social media route to the hearts of Americans it was found that there was no evidence of Russian activity other than some advertising and comments that either had nothing to do with the election or was re posted content that was balanced in terms of commenting on Trump or Clinton. The attention was therefore turned to cyber-crime and hacking which is more difficult for the public to understand and leaves more leeway for counter-intelligence and the FBI to conjour up or place "evidence" using well-publicized CIA and NSA techniques. Even here, concerning the Clinton hacks, the scientific logic of the state of the art indicates that the Clinton and Podesta emails were taken from the server locally as a leak and not as an international hack. The CIA and FBI never examined the servers i.e. this "crime scene". The DNC/Hillary Clinton made sure of that by calling in CrowdStrike a private security firm to inspect/secure the servers. As a evidence source these servers no longer can serve as a crime scene because the chain of custody of any "evidence" has been destroyed as apparently were a lot of hard disks from these servers. In spite of these specific and widely reported facts, very belatedly, Rosenstein announced last week that 12 GRU Russian officials have been indicted by name accused of carrying out the removal of the Podesta and Clinton emails. This was 2 years after the leak took place an yet cyber security experts know that the type of methods described in the indictment could have been identified, almost within hours of gaining access to the DNC server. Clearly the timing of Rosenstein's announcement was timed to effect the Helsinki summit. Indeed, if this "evidence" is factual it would have been picked up a long time ago either through access to the server of scanning NSA traces. However, during the summit, Putin offered to assist in this investigation by allowing US authorities to question the named Russian officials. Since there is no extradition treaty between the USA and Russia, neither Trump nor Putin mentioned extradition but rather that US officials could travel to Russia to carry out their interviews and vice versa in a case involving Russia's desire to question people in relation to the Browder case in the US and one in the UK.
This offer is being resisted, in the case of one named individual Michael McFaul, who was the US Ambassador in Russia there is an argument or immunity in his case. On the other hand, given the weak evidence base the prosecutors know that in the end the case is likely to fall apart if the 12 GRU officials are able to respond to questioning. So this offer by Putin is likely to be turned down by the "authorities" involved. As it stands one has to question the timing of the indictment other than its role as a propaganda piece showing "results" from the dying Mueller investigation.
The fall summit is likely to cover proposals for nuclear disarmament, humanitarian collaborative actions to resettle Syrians from surrounding countries in their homes and lands that will take pressure off Europe and other countries, review cyber-security questions in the light of preventative measures on the part of the USA and Russia and trade issues.
Even on these topics the swamp want to prevent publicity surrounding the a fall summit outcome. This is because Putin's more careful and considered statements carry a lot more gravitas for the international community than those coming from any US foreign policy department of even a president. In spite of the demonizaion of Putin by the swamp, his pronoucements and analyses are sound, balanced and invariably constructive and they are seldom contentious. Even this initial short summit changed the perception of many of Putin and a second summit would have more coverage and allow people to get to know him better.
There is a need to review the role of NATO in the light of the shifted strategic balance changes resulting from Russia's major advance in weaponry secured on 10% of the budget the USA spends on defence. Russia's expenditures on defense are falling, so it is hardly a threat in this sense, while the US has recently increased its defence budget by an amount almost equivalent to the total Russian budget. The question is, why?Far from being perceived a someone letting down America, Trump's ratings are rising following the summit
CybaCity released a note confirming that the main political elite and corporate media have seriously under-estimated national political ramifications of the outcome of the Helsinki summit. Trump's central base sees Trump as delivering on what he campaigned for and the "establishment" is increasingly perceived to be out of touch and unappreciative of his efforts and accomplishments. This has caused some offence.
This general feeling first became apparent during the presidential election as Hillary Clinton's mindset became more apparent as someone exuding confidence but weakening that with an image of projected superiority and entitlement. Her faux pas "deplorables" moment and then her demasking by the content of her and Podesta emails and the disgraceful treatment of Bernie Sanders essentially destroyed her chances. In the meantime the revelation of her involvement in the dodgy dossier used by the FBI to justify surveillance at the FISA court has brought her standing to almost zero. The Republicans and Democrats who appear to be in her bandwagon supporting the Russiagate fanaticism are now also facing a slide in popularity.
Trump has began to pick up support amongst those who thought he would be unable to deliver on his campaign promises and find his accomplishments, so far, given the intensity of the hostility emanating from the swamp, to have been surprising. One new and unexpected element is that many who do not want the US involved in wars see the Singapore and Helsinki summits as being significant steps in the right direction. If Trump can continue on this path and winds down US involvements in multiple useless costly wars, his ratings will receive an additional boost as a result of his being perceived to be the first President for many years with an interest in stability and peace. This is a surprising finding but actions do say more than words. CybaCity predict that Trump's popularity ratings will rise from the current 43% to around 50% in the next month or so. For Trump's expanding base and about 4 months to go before the mid-terms, his own campaign is well on the way. This more than can be said for the Democrats and, it must be said, some Republicans.
As a footnote, many have expressed their exasperation with the corporate media's fixation with Russia and attacks on Trump. These have become a complete turn-off and of no interest to increasing numbers. CybaCity report that Trump's use of Twitter has become a serious case study in the power of direct communication to increasing numbers of constituents that is free from censorship and selecive media bias. Trump is running is own alternative medium and it is very effective.
Sam Husseini had a relevant question, but was prevented from delivering it
source: FAIR website
Sam Husseini was forcibly removed by Finnish security personnel from the 2018 Trump Putin press briefing before the two Presidents has arrived. He was holding up a paper on which was written "Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty," which the Finnish authorities considered to be a "malicious item". He had intended to ask Trump and Putin on their opinion on Israel's clandestine nuclear arms arsenal. This is an issue of fundamental importance and very pertinent to the discussions and decisions relating to the Iran deal. It is also relevant in the context of both the US and Russia stating that they are taking Israel's concerns into consideration in Syria. It is regrettable that he was unable to deliver his question. It would have been quite revealing to see how Trump and Putin would have handled it; no doubt by deflecting the topic to something else.
Sam Husseini is the communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that promotes progressive experts as alternative sources for mainstream media reporters.
He formerly worked at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and at the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He has written articles for a variety of publications, including CounterPunch, The Nation, The Washington Post, USA Today and Salon.
Husseini was born in 1966 to a Palestinian Christian father and a Jordanian mother. He is a US citizen and a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University, where he earned a double bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and logic and computation. A lesson in diplomacy
The general role of leaders is not to lecture or stand up to another leader and make a public show of it in the name of some image that others may wish to project. Donald Trump never undertook to embarrass President Putin, he always made it clear that the idea of the Helsinki summit was to try to initiate a relationship preferably so that he could get along with him. Why? So that a basic level of communication and mutual trust could be gradually built up so as to address all of the issues considered to be of importance and hopefully, resolving them.
|Donald Trump clarifies a point...|
Donald Trump has stated that he "misspoke" and there was a need for clarification on a statement he made during the press briefing following the summit. He had stated that he saw no reason why Russia “would” interfere in the US election, when he had meant to say that he saw no reason why Russia “would not” have interfered in the US elections.
This statement was made to clarify his position, following the over-the-top onslaught from media and politicians criticizing his previous statement. In a rational world where the media and politicians have a better understanding of the context of the summit as an initiation of better communications, such a clarification would not have been necessary.
Trump has been skillful in apparently achieving this. He did not show subservience to a tyrant, as some from the swamp bayed. Donald Trump demonstrated a skillful level of constraint and grace which succeeded in helping President Putin express some interesting ideas, suggestions and some plausible explanations as to why his country as government or private citizens did not attempt to influence the presidential election or influence events to get Donald Trump elected. In the case of private citizens accused by the intel agencies of such acts, Putin has offered to investigate following established procedures. Putin in very clear terms responded to most questions raised in the press session following the summit. It is very seldom that we get to hear his points of view because of the broad self-imposed corporate media censorship in the USA and UK. Donald Trump in response to somewhat tedious questions from the US press contingent confirmed that he had raised the allegations of interference in the election with President Putin. He first of all confirmed his faith in US intel services and then stated that Putin has denied this is the strongest terms. He added, clearly referring to the context of the conversation with Putin, that he could not see any reasons why Russia would have done so. In other words, Trump confirmed that he raised the question, that Putin had replied and that within the context of that exchange could see no reason why Russia would have done this. There was nothing in this passage that made Trump appear weak or subservient, he was simply informing the journalist who asked if this question had been raised, with a rational and diplomatic reply.
That US and UK intel have made many assertions is known the world over but people are waiting for palpable evidence to be produced. The credibility of these agencies is at rock bottom and given the more recent track record of these intel agencies fabricating facts based on false flag events leading to attacks and warfare and the deaths of millions of innocent people; they are simply not trusted. It would be foolish for Trump to overdo any confirmation of the findings by these organizations simply because everyone knows he also doesn't know what the evidence is. He was standing on an international platform facing well-informed people in the room and beyond. So why do the swamp-dwellers expect him to say he believes in evidence he hasn't seen and which, in any case, has been conjoured up to contribute to his downfall. Trump isn't that stupid and the international community understand why his deft approach makes a lot more sense. Many have admired his handling of this specific issue in avoiding becoming an unwitting agent of the increasingly embarrassing fanatical and paranoid tyranny seeping out of the swamp broadcast monologues.
It would seem that the swamp-dwellers would have preferred that Trump, being a bigger fellow, had tried to initmidate or "stand up to" Putin in front of the assembled journalists, maybe even shouting at Putin in a theatrical and indignant fashion - swamp dwellers love this sort of thing - that what he has stated could not be true because the agents in the swamp, who want to impeach Trump, have said the opposite. The swamp-dwellers are an abusive bunch who support aggression combined with swagger and a hypocritical self-righteousness, convinced that the USA has right on its side and that Russia has no understanding of what it takes to be exceptional; the sort of pathetic mantra spouted by Michael Pompeo; these sort of people consider themselves to be very close to God.
The summit was designed from its initiation to be an act of diplomacy, Trump-style, and Trump delivered on his promise. If any aspect of this summit had followed even an iota of the grubby orientation of the swamp-dwellers, the world today would be a less secure place.
We can point to many actions carried out as a result of Trump decisions that we do not consider to be just or rational. However, most outside the swamp, those of the international community, were happy to see dialogue opening up between the USA and Russia as a result of a rational approach to statesmanship in the form of a well overdue and welcomed international leadership on the part of Presidents Trump and Putin.
Trump has tweeted that others never rose to and delivered on this type of approach and he is right.Trump did not side with Russia against US intel
Following the press briefing following the Helsinki summit, the baying from the seditious mob in Washington consisted mainly of rants that Trump sided with Russia against US intel and some went as far as to assert that this was even treasonous. Since Trump did not in fact do this throthing and writhing is very telling, a sign of desparate self-righteous people clutching at straws as their own guilt and incompetence is beginning to become more evident and to close in on them showing them up for what they are.
The initiation of this assertion of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian State to get Trump elected came from Hillary Clinton, her campaign staff and the Democrats and was intensified when they lost the election. The DNC/Hillary Clinton inspired and funded a somewhat lurid dossier recounting acts by Donald Trump during a trip to Moscow some years ago. The details were stated to have come from Russian intel sources when in fact it was complied by an out of work British ex-intel officer needing some cash. This unsubstantiated dossier was used by the FBI to initiate FISA Court order (The FISA-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C.). The FISA Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This intentional use of the Hillary Clinton inspired and funded dodgy dossier was used dishonestly by the FBI to initiate the subsequent illegal surveillance on Carter Page. This then morphed into the Russia-Trump campaign collusion investigation headed by Mueller. The judge concerned was Rudolph Contreras who was forcibly recused from them Michael Flynn Case. The FBI, therefore, demonstrated bad faith in intentionally misleading the FISA Court judge who authorized surveillance by not informing him that the dossier submitted in justification had been funded by Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, there has been talk that Contreras might be the judge overseeing the final judgement. If so, this would point to his being aware of this corruption and being part of the scheme. However, this investigation failed to come up with any evidence and at that point, a month or so ago, should have been concluded. However, since certain political agents were not satisfied with this conclusion, they have sought to keep the Mueller investigation alive so as to continue with the malign intent to scrape up evidence, any evidence, on the finer points that might be interpreted as interference in the election by Russian-based elements. It would seem that the investigators hope that if they can establish that there was Russian interference they can then use that to back track to establish evidence that there was also collusion. They tried the social media route only to find that Facebook, Google and Twitter could not find anything of significance. They have therefore now gone the cyber-security and hacking route and recently issued the indictment on 12 GRU inividuals, again providing no evidence. This is why Trump is in an impossible position of having to give reasons why there maybe was no Russian interference in the election, to protect his own position. In the press briefing after the summit Trump stated that he had asked President Putin about the "interference" which Putin strongly denied. To which Donald Trump added, almost musing, that he could see no reason why Russia would interfere; that is all that he stated. For the plotters in Washigton and intel agencies to be affronted by this logical statement would seem to suggest that they are in a weakening and frantic state. Why do they take such offense? Their reaction does not bode well for them. All Trump did was express and opinion, after all, if Putin denied any state involvement what would be the motivation for Russia to interfere, in any case? Putin didn't know Trump so what was the basis for collusion? A pertinent point made by Trump.
Therefore the way in which the corporate media and mixture of politicians and agencies have handled this issue has caused a confusion in the significance of any possible interference. Is it simply interference, and if so to what end? Or is this a stepping stone back to establishing collusion? The continuing failure to produce any convincing evidence on either count and because the final judgement rests with legal procedures conducted in a court, Donald Trump is fully justified in assessing the likelihood of the veracity of the secret "evidence". After all the US intel agencies are using the same spurious basis of "highly likely" as the basis for stating that the Russians had interfered.
In the end the initiation of the investigation, founded on bad faith, and the lack of a transparent and disciplined handling of the investigation is the cause of embarrassment of the position of the Presidency of the United States and it reflects badly on the investigation standards of the US agencies involved. They themselves are bringing the image of their organizations into international disrepute. However, the person occupying the Presidency has the right, under the Constitution, to defend himself, including doubting the competence and integrity of those who accuse him as well as requesting assistance of others who can assist in establishing the facts. There is no act of treason here but there are ample grounds for establishing a conspiracy of sedition directed at the Presidency of the United States.
Outcome of Trump Putin Helsinki summit
APE Policy & Strategies Unit,
The important result of the summit is that Presidents Trump and Putin have begun to talk in what would appear to have been an open manner. On strategic balance and nuclear arms there was agreement on the importance of the topic but any US President is going to find it very difficult to deliver of stockpile reductions affecting the USA and Russia. This is because the track record of the USA, before Trump became President, is one of irresponsible unilateral abandonment of long standing agreements.
So the Real News review in the preceding article did point this out and this is probably why emphasis was given to a reconfirmation of the significance of the Singapore agreement with North Korea.
We don't know if the reality of the current tactical questions concerning nuclear weapons was discussed , it is unlikely. But it is also something the West does not want to discuss because it exposes a massive flaw in its current approach and capabilities.
The current intelligence and emerging consensus on Ukraine shows the USA is on the wrong side or, at least, not exerting enough pressure of that government to adhere to the Minsk agreement. Although follow up corporate media comments in the USA and UK, see Trump as having sold out to Russia over Crimea. It was Obama who did this. Trump is dealing with fait accomplis and the latest soundings of the Crimean electorate show that they are thankful for the chance to return to Russia and avoid the genocide that was in the offing if this had not been done. Yulia Tymoshenko is on record as wishing to kill all ethnic Russians in the Ukraine and this process had started in several areas before the Crimeans, in an act of self-preservation, voted to join the Russian Federation. What saved Crimea was the large naval base and military presence in Crimea. However, as Putin explained, the vote took place under international monitoring and it was a landslide. Since Crimea became part of the Russian Federation, the Nazi squads, that US military train and equip, have been engaged in brutal attacks against Roma and ethnic Russians while the authorities, so-called, look the other way. So the pre-condition that Russia needs to return Crimea to the Ukraine is an impossibility and is therefore an irresponsible notion promoted by those involved in the demonization of Russia and promotion of the fantasy that Russia colluded with Trump as well as interfered in the presidential election.
As a note, our Helsinki correspondent understands from the Russian side that Trump and Putin reviewed the Ukraine situation in far more depth that was stated in the press conference. Between them they came up with a range of possible ways to resolve the main issues. The Russians were also generally impressed by Trump's ability to listen and in many cases not commenting but noting what was stated. He was probably comparing mental notes with what he has gathered from others. He was more steadfast and gave nothing away and stood his ground in key areas. His actual behaviour contrasts with the doubts, impressions and characterization of Trump as some sort of naive simpleton filling the pages and web pages of corporate media in the USA and UK.
The Real News review of the then forthcoming Helsinki summit, suggested that Trump ask Putin about the allegations concerning interference in the election and the indictment concerning 12 GRU officials. It is not clear who raised this question but President Putin has proposed that use should be made of a standing agreement between the countries relating to criminal cases where as a result of a formal request the Russian agencies can assist in providing any evidence that is available on the Russian side. Whereas this is the only transparent way to get to the bottom of these accusations the USA intel agencies and those in the UK have built up a practice of not coming up with any evidence but coming to conclusions that Russia is responsible based on no more than assessments that it is "highly likely" that Russia is responsible. Even the flimsy highly likely statements are not associated with even a scrap of evidence. Therefore, it is unlikely that Mueller will make any such formal request since the indictment recently issued is seen by most as an attempt to discourage Trump's meeting with Putin, or, at least to stymie it. Putin's offer has been given in good faith and it is a test of the state of evidence as to whether Mueller will in fact request assistance. Putin rightly has explained that, in the end, this is a court decision but the discovery needs to be thorough. Some pundits have suggested this would ensure that the poacher becomes the game keeper. But Russia has not been proven guilty, this is the idea of a court case. Putin's idea needs to be followed up and the reaction of US intel and FBI will be revealing. To state this risks exposing how the US agencies obtained "evidence" is not relevant because they have already stated how they think this was done. The main issue, raised by Trump, is where are the DNC servers and other computers used by non-US citizens working for DNC. but who have since "disappeared". So far, the evidence shows the FBI and intel agencies never inspected the DNC server/s but were worked on by the private company CrowdStrike at the request of Hillary Clinton/DNC; this undermines their case significantly.
This is not a matter of Trump siding with Putin against US intel agencies. This is a state of affairs where the President of the USA is being attacked by filth columnists and corporate media including people working for US government agencies. He is not shown evidence and therefore has no option to look for avenues to prove his innocence, paradoxically, on something it appears he has not done in any case. So the fact he finds assistance from Russia as welcomed is a logical conclusion. This is not disloyalty or treason as some have stated it is someone looking for alternative explanation as to why the people attacking him are wrong. As the Real News piece stated, in the end, if no evidence is produced and all of this turns out to be lies we have a significant case of sedition where all of the guilty individuals have been identified by their own overt irresponsible actions in attempting to undermine the US Constitution and the Presidency of the USA.
As expected, nothing came of the Iranian Syrian question simply because Russia has no leverage here and Trump side-stepped a question on Syria by emphasizing the fact both the USA and Russia are taking into account Israel's interests in Syria.
Our conclusion is that this summit was a success in terms of world peace and lowering of tensions. The battle continues, however, led by tedious fanaticism and paranoid delusions emanating from the failed Democratic party and Hillary Clinton fans who are becoming somewhat obnoxious in their inability to show grace in defeat.
Possible commitments and follow ups arising from Trump Putin Helsinki summit
Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to denuclearize the world; most agree with this objective. A very safe outcome from the Trump Putin summit would be an agreement to re-initiate mutual reductions on strategic nuclear stockpiles. This is good for Trump, it would be good for Putin and for all of us. The criticism leveled at Trump on the "non-results" from the North Korean agreement are completely unfair. A lot was accomplished and following the original Russian and Chinese proposal which is being followed, this will all take time. So Trump's agreement automatically brought into line an agreement that had the support of both Russia and China. This is more than any previous president had accomplished, as Donald Trump keeps reminding us.
Part and parcel of any possible strategic denuclearization agreement arising from the Helsinki meeting, would be a subsequent confirmation by China that it would be in agreement and even participate. The obvious cascade effect should also be to also bring India and Pakistan into the bounds of this agreement, as well as France, UK and Israel.
The main impediment to all of this is the USA track record on the last major agreement which was abandoned unilaterally by the USA. Therefore Trump needs to think carefully, he has time, on what should be done to improve the USA's poor track record on adherence to international agreements. An assumption that one is dealing with this from a position of strength is completely undermined by the significant growth in the lack of reliability of the USA in adhering to many international agreements; at the moment the USA faces a serious challenge in passing itself off as a trustworthy "partner".
As Sergey Lavrov, the Russia Foreign Minister, made clear to Larry King recently, most communications channels have been closed with Russia by the USA during the last few years except for tactical and operational channels relating to Syrian operation. However, whereas Putin can delegate the tasks of managing these channels to competent individuals, Trump cannot. This is because with the new administration Trump's team was very slow in cleaning out the Obama adherents and dead wood from the top echelons in many agencies. Trump therefore needs to move with caution to avoid sabotage from the US side. This is an extraordinary reality of the USA today. This is why the other channels should be opened up slowly following audits on the competence of those assigned to each one. Whereas Pompeo will be able to handle the strategic denuclearization question the Ukraine channel should be opened using people under the control of Trump and Trump needs to mount an independent advisory group untainted by the Obama appointees. Pompeo needs to clean up several echelons within State to gain a more objective perspective on the Ukraine and Crimea. This is almost a requirement for any objective discussions on this crisis to proceed following the disastrous and shameful overt role of State in the Maidan debacle and coup (e.g. Victoria Nuland and others irreponsible individuals such as Senator McCain). The tactical assistance being given to the Nazi squads in the Ukraine by the USA is a direct support for the main elements in the Ukrainian efforts to continuing to attack kill and injure civilians in the Russian-speaking areas of South East Ukraine in breach of the Minsk agreement. Trump should not attempt to open all channels at once since the Russians know that the US administrative structure and modus operandi will end up with Trump being undermined by fifth columnists within his administration.
An agreement on the gradual opening of channels would be a good result.
Trump boasts that he is going to this meeting from a position of strength, stated largely for his base, he justifies this on an apparent "commitment" of more European financial contributions to NATO. However, he would be advised to listen very carefully to Vladimir Putin on the basic requirements that need to be brought into play in parallel to any agreement on strategic nuclear arms reduction. The Russians have studied this issue for many years and have fairly rational and practical suggestions to make to support a better balance and raised security for both sides. Today the nuclear question has, in reality, been neutered by the latest group of Russia's defense capabilities. Any assets that launch a nuclear strike against Russia will be destroyed within minutes. This means all land, marine and air platforms are no longer viable components in defense capability configurations for the West. Once the military personnel involved realize this, the morale in the Western nuclear asset groups will become a serious problem since they will have been reduced to becoming no more than Kamikaze units. This is why mutual denuclearization of strategic assets has become an imperative.
Russia, China and the USA need to collaborate on solving the most serious threat to strategic accords on nuclear proliferation. This is Saudi Arabia whose penchant for supporting suicide bombers does not bode well in a nuclear world. The Saudi proxies in the Middle East have demonstrated their murderous intent which transitions into genocide of any group or religion not wishing to adhere to Wahabi-type sect dictats. This is why gaining support for limitations and reductions from Pakistan is important since they are the most likely to support Saudi Arabia in any process of building up Saudi nuclear capabilities. There is an urgent need to limit Saudi military capabilities to cerimonial sword dances. Saudi Arabia has demonstrated their inability of managing modern military equipment responsibly through their murderous abandon and delight is using US and UK arms and assets to conduct indiscriminate murder of innocent Yemini civilians. Israel continues to attack innocents in Palestine and to rob land in the full view of the world while the USA looks on. This might not be a topic for the Helsinki meeting but something needs to be done about the overt murderous and indiscriminate abuse of human rights by the leading allies of the USA.
Lastly, concerning Syria. Russia helped prevent Syria becoming the global ISIS caliphate and thereby has prevented a catastrophic plight for the Middle East and the world. Syrians are unusual in continuing to support secular governance with many Christian and other sects already returning to their villages and towns that have been cleared on ISIS and other terrorists by the Syrian army. The Syrian policy of amnesty for Syrians who lay down their arms helped avoid bloodshed and the lives of thousands of civilians. Many pundits have suggested that the USA should offer to a withdrawal of US troops if Russia guarantees that Iranian military do not venture down to the Golan Heights occupied by Israel. This is very unlikely to be possible given the recent imposition of sanctions on Iran by the USA and previous sanctions on Russia. Russia doesn't have the authority to do this since the Iranian military, in Syria, are answerable to the Syrian government. There is a minor factor that Trump needs to take into account. Having John Bolton as an adviser is very unhelpful given his extreme views on how to achieve regime change in Iran through the funding of, yet again, terrorist proxies. Trump would be foolish to even ask Russia to somehow "do something" about Iranian military in Syria.
Given the complex mess the USA has ended up with in its support of the Kurds there is a need for any question of withdrawl of US troops to be reviewed with Turkey and the Syrian government. Turkey is probably going to be the main problem in any such negotiations and a major military conflagration remains a possibility with another abandonment of allies by the USA. Russia has nothing to do with this mess.
On the question of keeping Iranian military away from the Golan Heights, this is largely a question of Israel agreeing to stop carrying out random, attacks against assets in Syria. Those in this theatre are becoming irritated by Israel's behaviour and it is likely that the success rate of these Israeli attacks will decline dramatically in the coming period with Israeli casualties increasing.
Lastly, on the question of the "democractic transition process" the US policy of attempting to "manage" the Syrian conflict by assisting and collaborating with various terrorist organizations and propaganda units has seriously back fired with the majority of the population in no mood to support these "opposition elements". President Assad is increasinglty regarded as the best option for Syria at the moment so US dreams of regime change should be abandoned and the much promoted democractic transition, put on the back burner with the understanding that the gas cylinder is almost empty.
Image is all, forget about the details
Peter Strzok, the former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counter-Intelligence was questioned by members of Congress last Thursday largely concerning some of his personal emails which showed extreme bias against Donald Trump. These appeared in pubic while he was heading the investigation on Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. The question and answer session was quite shambolic and reflected badly on the organization and procedures adopted by Congress. However, at one point, in a prepared statement (or at least clearly rehearsed several times ) Strzok gave quite a show of righteous indignation to any questioning of the integrity of FBI procedures and staff since, according to him, personal bias cannot influence or taint the substance of investigations because of the multi-layered checks and balances above and below any operational investigator; sounds convincing. However, as anyone who has worked in any large government organization or agency or, for that matter, large Bretton Woods organizations, knows, the the "image of the institution is all". This issue is even used quite openly in administrative cases on the part of the defence of institutions against whistle blowers. The main counter-attack is that the whistle blower is damaging that image. The more relevant details of whistle blower accusations often tend to be ignored or face stonewalling with all attempts made to make the whistle blower the guilty party. However the more experienced know that this is essentially a mechanism of maintaining a holier than thou image which, in the case of the FBI, has been supported by generations of Hollywood output helping to mould and cement that image. Most legal advice to staff when facing questions is at all times to protect the image of the institution even at the expense of necesssary transparency for such things as Congressional Committee questions. So the replies to awkward questions are invariably "legal advice has counselled that I cannot answer that question". Certainly in the case of revealing the names of sources there is good reason not to. This issue was bandied about for some reason during this question and answer session, maybe as a displacement tactic which had no relevance to the session which should have concentrated more on the political points of view of Strzok and the impact of those on his professional competence and suitability to do the jobs/s assigned to him.
Mueller took him off the collusion work once Strzok's emails became public knowledge, for good reason.
Early English constitutional documents sought to remove any political involvement on the part of government agency and civil service staff. Over time this has eroded significantly leading to senior levels in agencies being political appointees. There is thereore, without any doubt, bias in what comes out of these organizations. This is manipulated through chiefs of division being asked to emphasise one line of enquiry over another or even to ignore existing evidence. The way in which documents are redacted is even design to convey a desired impression. Often it is used to exaggerate the amount of evidence being hidden justified on the basis of hiding names of sources or methods of acquiring evidence. Those lower down in the chain might wish to whistle blow but today after Obama's wholesale attacks on whistle blowers this route towards transparency and sanity has been killed off in a country that professes democratic values. As we see, image is all and forget about the details, especially if these will taint that largely misleading image of the institution. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when it is used to support a coordinated attempt to attack a key branch of government. In this case the Presidency of the United States.
An attempt to isolate Trump & Pompeo
Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced an indictment on Friday 13th, accusing twelve GRU Russian military intelligence officers by name of conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. This appears to be an attempt to isolate Donald Trump and Michael Pompeo as they are about to meet Vladimir Putin on Monday 16th. By giving publicity to a higher profile accusation against the Russia State they appear to be attempting to reduce the incentive of Donald Trump to come up with anything positive in relation to "collaboration" or "cooperation" with Russia. It is notable that Rosenstein emphasized that there is no allegation in the indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. This counters the more logical version of the "hack" carried out on the DNC computers as being a "leak" that was based on the transfer of content to local hard or flash drives by a US citizen or, at least, someone with direct access to the DNC computers. The technical evidence secured so far suggests the damming emails, that were later sent to and published on WikiLeaks, were removed from the DNC computer in two sets of rapid local transfers at a rate of around 38MBytes/second well beyond the transfer rates of an international networks at that time.
|Fifth column tactics?|
A fifth column can be any group of people who attempt to undermine a branch of government, from within, usually in favour of an opposing group or even nation. Fifth column members will often work against the interests of those of their own group while remaining members of that group. In the case of the current Washington situation the effort is directed against the office of the President of the United States deploying classic fifth column tactics as a combination of the overt and clandestine. Interests gather in secret mobilize openly to assist an overt attack such as through the media. This effort extends to organized actions by intelligence organizations and especially counter-intelligence who are in the habit and business of misleading and misrepresenting the facts as operational tactics to secure advantages for some standpoint, and not always that of government policy. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage through false flag events, disinformation, or espionage executed within government defense lines by secret sympathizers of this malign force.
The evidence that has emerged has been generally shown to be disinformation put out by the Clinton Campaign or Democrats, as well as some Republicans. Dossiers knowingly funded by the Clinton Campaign were used to justify the Mueller investigation which is still attempting to disrupt the Presidency based on assertion. The question becomes how much longer can the people of America endure a complete disruption of society which can only be in the interests of those who do not wish America well. Given the view that Russia sought to disrupt the election and raise questions to spread discord it is very much the case that this fifth column is doing exactly what it is accusing Russia of doing. For this there is much substantive evidence whereas on the part of supposed actions by the Russian State, so far, nothing has turned up.
The scandalous continuation of this disruption of the Presidency calls into question the distinctions between "free speech" and "destabilizing sedition". This is not a call for curtailing free speech but it is a call for people to take seriously the detrimental effects of the scandalous behaviour of many who have been able to marshal elements within the intelligence agencies, media and even legal process in a move against the Presidency. The degree to which their pursuit is justified on the basis of provable falsehoods and assertion debases free speech and approximates more directly to sedition by a fifth column. The trail of false accusations and misrepresentations attributed to un-named sources have filled corporate media now for over 2 years plus the emails of Hillary Clinton and Podesta collection is more than enough to prove, beyond doubt, a malign intent of a group, with easily identified members, who are attempting to destroy the presidency of the Unite States. With this in mind, one has to question why Jeff Sessions does not act? Whose side is he on?
The Belt way is sinking in a quagmire of lies causing the swamp to become deeper. At his inauguration President Trump declared there was a need to drain the swamp. Most who attack him belong to this dank ecosystem which makes a mockery of Americans and democracy with its gulag of gerrymandered fiefdoms. Trump cannot be faulted on his view that all of this needs to be drained.
of the serious nature of this affair the FBI and CIA never accessed the DNC computers but the Clinton campaign/DNC contracted the private company CrowdStrike to conduct an investigation. Apparently CrowdStrike have changed the computer configuration and therefore the "crime scene" has been compromised. As a result any "evidence" remaining on the DNC computers is probably without merit because of the compromised nature of the system. Indeed, given the nature of this affair and the oranizations involved, "evidence" supporting the Rosenstein indictment could well have been placed on the DNC severs between 5th July 2016 and now and date-stamps in activity logs backdated.
While attempting to maximize the profile of the Russian government agency "involvement", Rosenstein also stated that nothing in these actions affected the vote count or the presidential election results. This is an attempt to avoid any focus on the content of the Hillary Clinton emails which resulted in a significant backlash by many voters who were shocked by the corruption and treatment of Bernie Sanders metered out by the DNC. In other words the leak, that is Hillary Clinton's own words and behaviour, did affect the outcome of the election. Her own words and behaviour destoyed her chances; this is an example of the truth destroying deception and dishonesty and no matter what the election outcome was, this was a better state of affairs. This is because this provided a simple and transparent explanation for the current desperate, bordering on the fanatical and paranoid, demonization of Russia as a way guilty parties hope to escape facing indictments based on the willful conspiracy to mislead the people of America through words and deeds that border on sedition. This displacement activity attempts to divert the pubic focus from the real issues. This has been something characterizing the Democratic party, and Hillary Clinton in particular, of not facing up to the fact that their corruption has destroyed the fantasy image of the Democrats and of the Clinton's and their Foundation. Many consider Rosenstein is also attempting to safeguard against this investigation becoming the downfall of the Democratic party if all of this ends up, as many suspect, to be a locally engineered hack. This is because this brings attention to the question, "Why did someone feel that getting this information out into the public space to be so important?" This is self-evident from the content. A more important question is why is Rosenstein so directly involved in this manipulation? (see box on right).
Finally, it is evident that the CIA, FBI and NSA have not been informing the President or Mike Pompeo, when he was head of the CIA, as to what they in fact know. This reflects a serious politicization of these organizations and a tendency for them to hide or misrepresent the facts and yet FBI, for example, operates on the basis of anyone lying to the FBI being guilty of a crime. It would seem that all three agencies, CIA, NSA and FBI are all guilty of colluding in a conspiracy of misrepresentation so that the President and Pompeo are not in the loop and neither are the people of America. Trump did ask Pompeo to meet with William Binney, who was the Technical Director of NSA and who was part of the team who established that the removal of embarrassing emails from the DNC computer was likely to be a locally conducted leak and was not a hack by some foreign agent. Pompeo met with Binney on 24th October 2017, at CIA headquarters, so Pompeo and the President are aware of this alternative explanation. They can circumvent this attempt to isolate them by simply asking on Monday for any transactional data logs that might establish or disprove the basis for Rosenstein's indictment, from the Russian side. Although, in strictly legal terms, the USA should issue documentation to provide the Russian government with site of the evidence as part of the normal "discovery" process.
The NSA has many monitoring trace points on fibre networks and knows the detail so it is revealing that such details, or even reference to them, have never been made nor do they appear in the indictment.
In the end, any appeals to Trump not to meet with Putin should be ignored simply because there has been no trial and, to date, no evidence has been produced. Currently the Russian state remains innocent until substantive evidence has been produced and validated. It is only at this point that the balance of the facts can be assessed. Trying to condemn Russia with no proof is ridiculous. Using the over-worked "it is highly likely that Russia did it" continues to be an inane mantra and should be ignored. Since dialogue on a wide range of issues between the USA and Russia is essential to make progress in the interests of these people of these countries and others worldwide, President Trump needs to ignore this strategically timed distraction in Washington and find out what he can from President Putin and then go from there. To add granularity and credibility the indictment named 12 GRU officials. It is likely this listing comes from Dutch intelligence probes of GRU made back in 2014 but it is unlikely that there is any evidence that links any specific action to any specific official so the indictment is, in reality, more a showpiece. To request extradiction requires a lot more substantive evidence which so far has yet to be produced. The purpose of this indictment and its timing appears to be to try and disrupt the Helsinki Summit, even although Rosenstein, in an act of self-preservation, informed Trump about the indictment some days ago. Since Trump knows that all of this is hogwash it is unlikely to have the intended effect.
But Donald Trump's performance is not up to the mark
Donald Trump has initiated his European/NATO visit with an absurd salvo accusing Germany of undermining NATO security because it is supporting the alternative pipeline to deliver Russian gas. This is just nonsense. Lecturing Angela Merkel, who was born in East Germany, how to suck eggs is simply ridiculous. In reality 20% of German energy comes from gas and Germany imports 60% of its gas from Russia and the rest from Norway. Therefore Germany's dependency on Russia accounts for just 12% of its energy requirements; hardly a strategic risk. Trump made his daft statements while Mike Pompeo sat beside him and allowed Trump to make a fool of himself. Surely Pompeo who was head of the CIA knows better? But anyway, Trump's fuss will impress his US base and assorted Beltway strategists, so-called. But this exaggeration of Germany's exposure aside, the track record shows that there is virtually no risk associated with using Russia as a major international gas supplier. According to Ibn Nr, this topic was studied in some depth at the European Commission in the 1980s only to find that the track record showed that the then Soviet Union was a reliable energy supplier, so the work was not advanced at that stage. As it stands, if those in supply contracts don't adhere to agreed prices (the case in Ukraine) Russia was the right to reduce supplies. Indeed, in the case of Ukraine, Russia initially discounted prices to help the country out of its economic hole. Updates on the 1980s reviews on Russian Federation energy supplies have shown consistency with an almost 40 year unbroken record of reliable supplies. This is a result of consistency and reliability being a priority undertaking by the Russian government's regulation of this sector. On the economic side, Russian gas is far lower cost that any current alternative including USA sources liquefied "equivalents" based on cost of utilizable convertible energy. If Trump can point to the risk or provide a convincing economic argument, all well and good, but he can't. His strategic arguments are bluster and he has no business case for saying what he is saying.
In terms of establishing who can be trusted to maintain international agreements and supplies it is worth reviewing who has intentionally undermined trust by imposing ad hoc, often unexpected, actions to impose constraints on supplies. The most notorious examples emanate from one country, the USA, that appears to think it has a God-given right to impose sanctions that cause suffering and deaths of innocents and an ability to back out of international agreements on a whim. The USA's claim that Russian supplies of gas represent a strategic threat is completely hypocritical and unfair in the light of the USA's own irresponsible maverick track record. To date the country generating the most disruptive strategic threats to world trade has been the USA, most blatantly demonstrated in the latest rounds of bullying related to lists of sanctions leveled at several countries and the latest in the form of aluminum and steel and the threats leveled against anyone wishing to import Iranian petroleum. The unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Iranian nuclear deal is another obvious example.
In a debate at Cambridge University involving Edward Lucas and Peter Hitchens on "Poland between Russia and Germany ", the topic of Russian "threats" came up and an attendee asked specifically what the evidence was that Russia was a threat to Europe. Lucas side-stepped the question by repeating the NATO mantra of the "unpreparedness of the Baltic countries" in case of an attack but he never could explain why there would be an attack. After the question was repeated several times and Lucas continued to repeat the mantra while not coming up with any evidence in a somewhat embarassing fashion, Peter Hitchens finally confirmed that there was no evidence that the Russian Federation was a threat to anyone in Europe.
Apart from politicians like Boris Johnson who has funded organizations that come up with false flag baseless "evidence", at strategic points in time, to attempt to point to Russia's "malign influence", the actual track record shows that there is no evidence of Russia being a threat or being untrustworthy. The biggest chasm of trust that is opening up is that between the better informed European and Russian electorates desiring peaceful co-existence and the belligerent and false accusations bandied about by US and UK intel agencies and ill-informed or irresponsible partisan politicians. The crisis of trust is one facing the US and the UK governments and not the government of the Russian Federation.
It is notable that Trump has come under a corporate media and Democractic party-based attacks leading to investigations based on unjustified accusations that his campaign was in "collusion with the Russian State". No evidence has been found and the report by Mueller came up with nothing but pages of redacted text and an admission that there was no evidence. Donald Trump therefore knows full well the utter nonsense surrounding this demonization of Russia. Trump, appealing to his base, however, is prepared to side-step this issue to appear "tough" on the question of European strategic interests in relation to Russia. His US base, being so bombarded by the media tales and assertions designed to demonize Russia and in particular Vladimir Putin the president, swallow this nonsense and this is why he expresses the issues in such banal terms, so that they can comprehend. It is fuzzy but Donald Trump has demonstrated his ability to make bizarre statements which come across to his base as the guy defending America's and, of course, their interests. However, in general, Europeans have more access to alternative media and have lived alongside Russia as long as Europe has existed and long before the USA came into existence. They have far more access to other sources of information. For the European and Russian electorates Trump's pitch is shallow and completely unconvincing, just plain daft.
Coming to the 2% GDP spent of defence, Trump once again is talking mumbo jumbo. The exceptionally high cost of the USA's subsidized "military research" initiatives produce unjustifiably expensive military equipment. The latest example is the massively over-budget and very late delivery of the sluggish overweight F-35s which many consider to be useless death traps. To make a sensible contribution to the European defense discussion, Trump should have first of all have qualified independent experts work out what is in fact needed in terms of configurations to defend the EU and, for that matter, the USA, by first of all analyzing and explaining what the defence is designed to address. Better still, it would be useful to see a rational evidence-based explanation of who this defence is protecting Europe against. Just stating "Russia, Russia, Russia" has become an irritating noise that explains nothing. But it is repeated by people who are either fanatics, completely paranoid or, as is more likely, who want to achieve pernicious ends by resorting to campaigns to engender fear in their populations. These soul destroying criminal campaigns are aided and abetted by corporate media looking to their ratings as opposed to national welfare and sanity.
For a "businessman", Trump doesn't act in a convincing fashion, what he should be doing is making a business case which would be almost impossible given the absurd prices demanded and lack of effectiveness of systems. As things stand the Russian Federation, in a relatively low fanfare, modest way, has produced a more effective defence system than "Western" systems spending something like 35% of the EU defence budget and 10% of the USA's bloated expenditure. Donald Trump needs to realize that any European expenditure needs to represent value for money. Europe isn't taking advantage of the USA it is rather the other way round. Trump wants to take advantage of Europe by off loading expensive mediocre equipment onto European governments and has the gall to call this "defence". The 2% of GDP is a figure that comes out of thin air just as Trump's press statement that it should be raised to 4%. If Russia can perform on a fraction of that amount and produce quality systems, our Western "exceptional" strategists should be able to do with 1% of GDP. The USA should be fair to Europe and stop charging exorbitant rip-off prices for run of the mill military hardware; the USA military suppliers clearly have a productivity problem or live in a parallel universe. The US government defense budgets are no more than massive Soviet style subsidies to these companies which, as a result, and as in the Soviet Union, they are no longer competitive. The performance of projects is abysmal with critical paths being constantly updated to add in modifications or augment subsidy. As a result these companies have lost their commercial edge and can only survive by over-pricing. Since on this score the US government appears to have lost track of the required due diligence and audit disciplines as a result of political horse-trading and revolving door arrangements. The system is incredibly corrupt. It is worth mentioning that the over-spends and wastage of resources will increase under the current strategic cyber initiative because much of this work is being moulded to be contracted to private corporations. This field is notorious for the inability of governments to monitor developments if, indeed, they even understand what is being done. Spending more on such useless equipment and wasteful initiatives is the last thing required to improve "security" or to create and "effective defence".
Europe's "trust" in US and UK intelligence agency advice and following this to become embroiled in disastrous non-ending conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, has caused much reflection. It has become evident to all that US and UK policies have not delivered peace, stability and the defence of freedom but have delivered instability and a major decline in security and a major immigration crisis that has split Europe down the middle. Trump made some somewhat crass statements on the immigration issue stating that people in Europe and the UK agree with him on the issue of immigration. He somewhat overlooked the cause of the European crisis which, of course, was USA aggression and military incompetence.
Of course, following Trump's' morning statements concerning German gas and NATO spending, Theresa May rushed to the fore to explain how Britain is sending additional military personnel to Afghanistan in support of NATO and spends 2% of its budget on defence. This sort of antic doesn't go down well with Europeans who consider the UK to have been hoodwinked into purchasing over-priced F-35s with no possible benefit to its defence. British Prime Ministers kowtowing to USA administration, especially on military questions and collaborating in covert underhand initiatives appears to have become a normal pattern of behaviour, very much to the embarrassment of the British electorate.
The NATO bandwagon will, of course, attempt to roll forwards, trying to find a justification for its existence, and Trump will continue to push NATO countries to waste excessive financial resources on ineffective schemes. He might up the stakes by threatening or in fact, withdrawing 35,000 troops from Germany. He should be allowed to do so since they offer no real security in any case. The nuclear umbrella is also a figment of fantasy. No US president will order a launch of nuclear strikes in the defense of Europe when he or she knows this will result in th USA becoming a radioactive wasteland. There is a need for rational level headed discussion and analysis. This requires that Trump pack in his silly rhetoric and that we all forget about America's parochial gerrymandered mid-term elections and consider European priorities instead. Europeans, with or without the UK and/or the USA, need to sit down with Russia to analyse and address evolving situations so as to come to an agreement on a permanent collaborative state that secures peace and prosperity for the people of Europe and Russia.
Was Donald Trump correct to say he expected to find Britain in turmoil during his visit?
The confusing picture emerging over the last two years since the 23rd June 2016 referendum to decide on the continued UK's membership of the European Union was inevitable for several reasons:
- The vote was unconvincing with roughly 52% of voters wishing to leave the EU and 48% of voters wishing to remain within the EU
- The government is run by single political party
- There has been an insufficient attention paid to the European Union's political ambitions and an over-emphasis on trade and economic questions leading to an undermining of progress on these questions
- The European Commission does not want to make this separation easy so as to discourage other Member States from considering similar courses of action
- There has been no investment in either ideas or policy proposals on appropriate economic policies for Britain to go it alone
Europe has been the cause of splits in both of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom in the past. British political parties operate on the basis of a first-past-the-post voting system which has the tendency of electing factions with less than 25% of the vote taking full control of government and Parliament. Under normal circumstances the 48% would be ignored and the 52% engaged. The biggest mistake was that the referendum did not set a minimum threshold for leaving the EU such as 60% or even 75%. As it is the natural tendency of British political parties is not to manage consensual balance; they have little experience in this type of decision-making. Since many in the Conservative party voted to leave and many to remain, the decision-making within the government and Cabinet has become antagonistic.
Given the over-riding political nature of the European Union and its institutions it would have been wise to have presented the European Commission with a statement of understanding of the political elements of the European Union and to identify those aspects which the United Kingdom wished to become disassociated. This, for example, would have included an up front statement concerning the removal of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction over future UK legislative and regulatory questions other than those relating to trade in goods and services sold into the EU where conditions for trade clearly come under ECJ rulings. On perhaps, a more important question, the United Kingdom should have made an early unilateral undertaking to uphold all provisions of European Law concerning European citizens' rights as a specially enacted part of UK legislation. The delay in doing this on the basis of it being a bargaining asset revealed a lack of trust in the spirit of the negotiation. The European Commission's reaction to this would have been positive with clearly equivalent provisions being introduced on behalf of UK citizens in the EU.
The United Kingdom allowed itself to become blind-sided by accepting the condition that the European Commission should be the sole negotiator for separation. As a direct result of this condition it has been difficult to take into account the emerging preferences of European Union Member States. The Member States, in general, have resisted bilateral discussions so as to attempt to arrive at "understandings". This has resulted in the future economic relations question to remain in the background and this still remains ill-defined.
In this context it is self-evident that each Member State in the EU has specific bilateral interests both cultural and economic with the UK. However, the European Commission has prevented any contacts related to the BREXIT negotiation with these countries which is an extraordinary state of affairs. European Member States have succumbed to a form of dictatorship where their interests can only be represented by the European Commission. As a result future mutually beneficial arrangements which would emerge from the fact that the UK is leaving the EU are not being discussed so the Member States are also not in a position to have a more constructive participation in the negotiation process. Meetings at the European Council level are reported to have become rubber stamping exercises where Angela Merkel has far too much say. In the end the separation of the UK will have economic consequences for EU Member States and the current state of affairs is reducing the interests of Member States to those of Germany, the country that controls the effect of the Euro and whose dominance of EU affairs will increase when the UK leaves. German overtures with France are purely cosmetic since France has never been able to secure equality in it's dealings with Germany.
As is predictable the attempt by Prime Minister Theresa May to suggest a compromise arrangement for the trading arrangements with the EU which leaves the country half in, have led to resignations of David Davis the Minister for Exiting the EU and Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary. They will be replaced by Dominic Raab and Jeremy Hunt respectively. Davis and Raab both share an interest in British constitution and have broadly similar concerns. On the other hand they have both benefited from their role as party politicians Raab, who wants to make the most of his delayed promotion and status within the party (under May), is very unlikely to add any change in direction; he isn't going to rock the boat. In the case of Jeremy Hunt his tumultuous term as Health Secretary was marked by a top down approach heavily criticised by the medical profession. He did little to reduce the absurd number of highly paid management levels within the National Health Service (NHS) while being accused of mishandling junior doctor pay disputes and nurse salaries. He is often accused of continuing what Tony Blair initiated in the form if creeping privatization of the NHS. He is also very ambitious and will make all of the required pronouncements with regard to NATO, defence and, of course, criticism of Russia by mixing in the words "malign influence" somewhere in the statements on this topic. On the other hand he is unlikely to be as undiplomatic or convey such an air of incompetence as that pervading Johnson's term in office.
In the meantime private debt in the UK has sky-rocketed since the introduction of quantitative easing and the bail out of the banks. Productivity is stagnating and shares are held up by widespread share buy backs by companies to secure massive executive bonuses. No action is being taken by the British government on a wide range of issues which, at their root, require a major improvement in economic productivity. Most new employment is very low wage employment.
A major flaw in the Conservative government's position has been its failure to give due consideration to the economic policies to be pursued by the country to make BREXIT work. This is largely because of this party's fixation with "free trade" and "competition". However, as a relatively small country and without the weight of the massive EU market behind it, the UK will find it more difficult to arrange for more beneficial trading relationships, no matter what other countries are stating at the moment. The other handicap the Conservative party has is its lack of experience in constructive economic planning based on strategies to advance the productivity of key sectors while introducing a more effective means for income distribution. This party doesn't "think" this way. However, freed from the EU control, this is what the UK requires and yet nothing has been done along these lines during the 2 years since the European referendum result.
CybaCity reported last week that the relative support for the Conservatives and Labour amongst the electorate is changing with the tiny lead of around 3% held by the Conservatives being reduced to zero and by August it is predicted that Labour will be ahead by around 3%-5%. There are two principal reasons. One is the government's attitude to the World Cup where the English team is doing so well and heading for the semi final. Theresa May and her government have refused to attend matches and not even the ceremonial contingent, the Royal Family, are sending anyone either. On the other hand Labour have missed out here by sending no one also. However, there is a widespread dissatisfaction amongst the electorate who regard the politician's outspoken attitude of not attending because the World Cup is being hosted by Russia, as baseless. In general this attitude has back-fired and is regarded as an insult to the England team. The making of an important sports event a political issue is considered to be inexcusable and people are fed up with these sort of antics, including the treatment of Russian athletes in the Olympics, most of whom, subsequently, proved to be innocent of the charges. The other reason for loss of support has been the lack of discipline in the government concerning BREXIT with Cabinet members in open disagreement briefing against May and causing the government to appear to be in a shambles. Other reasons raised include May's toleration of a somewhat uncouth Foreign Secretary in the form of Boris Johnson who has been extremely ill mannered in his ability to make inappropriate public statements and his lying about Porton Down's confirmation that the Novachock in the Skripal's case came from Russia. Johnson's open support, including financial, of the White Helmets in Syria who have been involved in attempting to create "evidence" for false flag chemical attacks to blame the Syrian government is increasingly regarded as unacceptable as increasing numbers realize the Foreign Office's role in supporting this group that is closely affiliated with Al Quaeda and other terrorists working alongside the UK in an effort to get rid of President Assad. Related to the UK's role in infiltrating armed combatants into Syria long before the so called "peaceful demonstrations" in 2011 is that this type of underhand behaviour might increase following BREXIT. The reasoning is that a more isolated, and perhaps desperate, UK could be the increase in secret military and intelligence operations designed to strengthen economic advantages along the lines of past and current practice. In these actions the likelihood of continued collaboration with France remains in doubt and, of course, isn't part of the BREXIT negotiation. Theresa May did attempt to make reference to the importance of UK intelligence collaboration with the EU but since this now has a double interpretation, which she did not appear to be aware of, the EU response was not enthusiastic. This sort of skulduggery has already brought serious issues for the European Union in the form of millions of people fleeing the results of such irresponsible covert actions in the form of the outcomes in the shape of a sequences of disatrous illegal Middle Eastern wars. The UK has nothing to be proud about in their initiation and participation in these fiascoes or in its support of the Libyan affair which used cohorts from the same trained group in Libya as were used in Syria.
The European Commission in observing the Trumpian turmoil in the UK has been very quick to begin to confirm that 80% of the BREXIT negotiation content has now been agreed. The Commission has become concerned that its fortress like approach has become too evident so it is trying to reduce the damage or any blame that might be thrown in its direction. These delays in coming to agreement have begun to upset a large number of heavy hitter industrial and service corporations in Europe who now consider the European Commission to have overplayed its hand. Angela Merkel initiated the BREXIT negotiation period applying a hands off "let the Commission do its job" approach, while pulling strings from behind. However, German companies have let her know in no uncertain terms that they want a reasonable agreement with the UK.
"In the meantime, the Labour party has become the largest Socialist party in Europe with over 550,000 members. Although the Labour party, correctly, wished to make economic questions and planning policy related to productivity and income distribution a major issue during the last 18 months, their own issues with BREXIT and a hostile corporate media has resulted in a loss of initiative on this score. Labour wasted too much time criticising Conservative government indecision when the media had made this self-evident. However, the economy and how to improve performcne, an imperative following BREXIT, is an area where Labour can still win over significant segments of the electorate and business because just at the moment business is feeling very vulnerable under the poorly managed "progress".
Trump will indeed visit a Britain in considerable turmoil but this is not the impression the government will attempt to convey, no doubt with the help of Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Raab.
Amesbury incident suspected to be a virtual false flag event
The failure of the British Government's attempt to convince the public that "Russia did it!" in the case of the Skripals in Salisbury (even although the NATO members, of course, expelled Russian diplomats without any evidence) has been followed some 4 months later by what could be a desperate attempt to create a virtual false flag event involving a couple in Amesbury. Is it just coincidence that this modus operandi has been funded by the UK government through the White Helmets in Syria on two previous occasions leading to US missile attacks as "reprisals" on the Syrian government facilities? The first one resulting in deaths and the second one in an attack on empty buildings following a digo from Russia to the US. So the UK government knows that this sort of underhanded action can get "results". The political build up in this Amesbury case has all the hallmarks of an attempt at a virtual false flag.
The British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, made the typical presumptive statement demanding that Russia come clean on this issue. He has offered, as is usual, no evidence. He has repeated the same formula of blaming the Russian government and "not the people of Russia". In the case of the White Helmet engineered false flags in Syria President Assad was blamed personally. Javid also attacked the alternative medium RT and warned MPs against appearing on its shows (see box right).
In Marshall McLuhan's book
"The Medium is the Massage"
he explains the "Establishment's"
fear of alternative viewpoints.
Even although the corporate media
is riddled with misrepresentation
and bias supporting the "government
line", alternative media tell it as it is.
This identifies misrepresentation,
embarrasses sychophants and
exposes the dishonest.
So at any opportunity, this self-righteous
group will attack alternative media as
propaganda. Alternative media provide more
objective insights into what is really going on.
Ibn Nr has stated frequently that Syria has never used chemical weapons, the Syrian military were always very aware of the likely consequences if they did. Just as President Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons because his military had already won the battle, so it is the case of Russia in the Skripal and most recent case where nothing is to be gained. On the other hand the UK has a motivation to lever the failure to convince allies with any evidence in the case of the Skripals to try and convert the story into one of terrorism on the UK mainland masterminded by Russia. This is, of course, really far fetched, but again, what would be the motive? The UK intelligence agencies are aware of the reactions to the insults leveled by the UK government against Russia in that they greatly upset the more informed members of the Russian population.
This time round Saijid Javid has obviously been coached to follow the prepared script so in Parliament he made it clear that his unfounded criticism was not leveled against the people of Russia but against the Russian government. The same Russians who were affronted by the first attack by the UK government are not idiots, they know why Javid made this statement, they also know Vladimir Putin or elements in the government, have no motivation to initiate some terror campaign in the UK; so already this is back-firing. It is back-firing because MPs insist in assigning blame and a sentence in the shape of the oft-repeated mantra of "Russia as a malign element" (see box left). But it is the fear or ignorance of the truth on the part of MPs and their refusal to apply a more transparent basic logic to their discourse that is the underlying dangerous malignancy.
Most English children find
Lewis Carroll's "Alice in
Wonderland" fun because
it teaches some basic logic.
The King said, "Now for the
evidence and then the sentence",
"No!"" said the Queen, "First the
sentence and then the
cried Alice, so loudly
that everyone jumped,
"The idea of having
the sentence first!"
In any case it appears to be the case that the Skripals might have been attacked by elements working, not for the Russian government but rather for the Russian criminal fraternities because the Skripals had been engaged in investigating them on behalf of the UK intelligence services (according to Seymour Hirsch). The obvious conclusion is that these supposed "attacks" had nothing to do with the Russian government or President Putin.
This narrow-minded fanatical fixation with Russia and the UK's need to be the rabid attack Chihuahua to prove its worth in front of NATO and the US-UK military industrial complex is an evolving ill-enacted embarrassment of parochial significance not to be taken seriously by anyone. What is serious, however, is this aggressive secretive strand to British policy actions.
It could be that the military and secret services have engineered this even without the knowledge of some leading politicians; this has happened often in the past with the Members of Parliament knowing nothing and therefore voicing visceral assertions concerning a distorted image conjoured up by those who run the newspeak mills in the corporate media. The most notorious example is Tony Blair's dodgy dossier which simpleton MPs swallowed hook line and sinker pushing the country into the murder of up to a million Iraq men, women and children, adding to the million murdered as a result of the previous sanctions. This, of course, initiated the migration crisis faced by Europe today.
Behind closed doors at the OPCW with John Bolton - a nasty piece of work
According to video evidence and many media accounts, John Bolton threatened José Bustani, the then head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on Bustani to quit as director-general of the OPCW — despite the fact that he had been unanimously re-elected to head the 145-nation body just two years earlier. His transgression? Negotiating with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to allow OPCW weapons inspectors to make unannounced visits to that country — thereby undermining Washington’s rationale for regime change. In 2001, the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had thanked Bustani for his “very impressive” work. By March 2002, however, Bolton — then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs — arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to Bustani. Bolton is understood to have stated, “Cheney wants you out,” and that “We can’t accept your management style.” Bolton also added “We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.” He then stated, “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.” After a pause, Bolton repeated, "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”
No one has explained in both cases where the "Novachok" sample came from within the "crime scenes", they seem to appear out of thin air without any chain of custody. Indeed, all such cases including those in Syria there is absolutely no adherence to any due diligence procedures to make any evidence water tight. When this is not carried out it is a sign that no bone fide evidence exists. This sloppy but altogether unconvincing way of doing things was observed in the Syrian cases and the UK, being the common factor in all cases, one sees the same unprofessional and basically dishonest behaviour. The Russian Federation has requested several times to see the evidence as well as offered to collaborate in the investigation but the UK government continues to "demand" that the "Russian government" explain "what is going on". This is not even an acceptable basis for dialogue but it is typical of the arrogant attitude of righteousness that the UK hopes to project in this macabre theatre of the absurd. After all, US, French and UK secret agents, under the new Conservative (coalition) government, trained armed insurgents in Libya and infiltrated them into Syria during 2010. This was before the "Syrian Arab Spring" in 2011. The British Government was of course in its Lilliputian fashion very indignant and critical of the Syrian government's response to "peaceful demonstrations" when all along the UK elements had intended to support the violent overthrow of President Assad by supporting the armed insurgency including supporting groups who were declared to be terrorists. Since the Syrian government were aware of these infiltrations, what else did the UK expect from the Syrian government when protests started? President Assad has quite often referred to this role played by foreign insurgents but what he has stated was always discounted. No matter what people think of Assad on the question of foreign proxies out to attack his government and his denial of the use of chemical weapons usage, was consistent and, it would see, to have been the truth. In reality this was this same formula as applied in the Kiev Maidan, but it failed in Syria, after thousands of deaths of innocents, over the long run.
Just to complete this story it is worth noting the urgency with which Boris Johnson recently proposed that the OPCW be require to extend their brief to not only identify the agent used in cases of attack but to also assign guilt. This was seen by many as a very unsubtle set-up or preparation for some future false flag event. The OPCW has already come under enormous political pressure from the USA and Britain. This is why the OPCW was able to unconvincingly confirm attacks in Syria without ever visiting the sites. All of this follows constant corruption of the process that seems to have been initiated with John Bolton's disgraceful treatment of the last head of the OPCW (see box on right), it is clear, therefore, that the OPCW will be bullied into declaring whoever the US and UK want to be declared as the guilty party in any incident, real or imagined. So the next step is clearly for the British government to call in the OPCW to secure their "independent" assessment and assignment of guilt.
Questions concerning NATO
With self-imposed austerity in Britain and the European Union, the question is not spending a greater proportion of GNPs on defence and NATO but rather paying more attention to cost-effectiveness and relevance. Russia spends just over 30% of the entire EU expenditure on defence and about 10% of the amount spent by the USA. The quality of defensive capabilities is higher on the Russian side while the USA, UK and the EU is characterised by enormous waste and rip-off corporate prices and service fees. There are many estimates of the wastage and ill-afforded funds going into defence. One problem is that the strategic balance arguments have been undermined by a general rise in the perception of the track record of inability of allies to have full confidence in the commitment of the USA to European defense. Conventional forces have no role to play in future conflicts and the USA's past alliances and undertakings can be canceled with ease. The rising US nationalism and intensifying desire for economic and strategic self-preservtion means that no US president is going to press the nuclear button in the knowledge of his country's anihilation on behalf of the UK or EU.
So the walking around this massive elephant in the room needs to stop and some real politik needs to come centre stage.
Obama had intentions of toning down this militaristic vector but he ended up retreating under the pressure of the Pentagon, NATO members and armament companies on the basis of the myth they have spun since the end of the Second World war. However with more economic and social priorities facing Europe and the UK the Trump pressure for higher expenditure needs to be replaced by consideration of the relevant role of NATO as well as identifying cost-effective means of achieving that role.
If the USA insists of sanctioning countries dealing with Iran and against their expressed will, then economic compensation needs to come, not through more military expenditure but less and more cost-effective allocations. Trump and European leaders might start by trimming down the 7,000 highly-paid civilians staff working in the international and national agencies and "strategic and regional commands"". This bloated, over-manning costing annually around Euro 500 million, in salries alone, is an issue that needs to be addressed. If Trump wants to take 35,000 expensive troops out of Germany, costing around Euro 2 billion in salaries alone, he should be encouraged to do so since they make absolutely no contribution to the strategic balance.
The Crimea issue arose as a result of bad planning by NATO and the EU Commission. The Russian government's predictable response was in fact known to NATO and considered to be justified in strategic options studies and reports. However, these predictions related to strategic questions. What has never been acknowledged is the fact that the Russian government also acted on humanitarian grounds to prevent the increasingly blatant murder of Russians and Russian speaking Ukranians witnessed and the failure of the Ukraininan authorites to prevent the Nazi squads supported by USA and UK military and intelligence officials from ramping up this evolving genocide.
That any direct threat from Russia exists needs to be rationally explained and there should be discussions with Russia on the future of NATO so as to explore ways and means of reducing the likelihood of future conflict, anywhere. One starter would be for NATO to be replaced by an organization that protects ethnic minorities both in the Baltic and countries like Ukraine. The USA and NATO need to stop supporting Nazi elements who are gaining ground throughout Europe as a direct outcome of the migrant crisis caused by calamitous and failed military actions in the Middle East under US and NATO "leadership". This would go a long way to eliminating most sources of tension.
Lavrov continues to present a collected and coherent Russian position
Over time, the person who has demonstrated restraint, patience and a measured and balanced approach to international affairs in the face of an insulting and often abusive front emanating from the USA, UK and EU has been Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Russia does not need any propaganda machine when the USA et al's incoherent and abusive public foreign policies are run by what appear to be an irresponsible rabble.
The credibility of the USA and its assorted "allies" is declining rapidly with everything from any strategic position, intelligence or investigations all being based on the "highly likely that it is Russia" mantra with no evidence in support. Lavrov was interviewed last week on UK BBC Channel 4 by Cathy Newman. He was, as usual, patient and fielded a series questions, most of which reflected baseless assumptions, with credible and transparent explanations. There is a notable absence of negative presumptions. It is worth watching the video since it provides a peek into some rational thought and positions, something sadly lacking in the positions of his US, UK and EU counterparts as reported in the corporate media in the West.
It is worth noting the Headline on the video which is a misrepresentation of the sense of what Lavrov was stating at this instant in the interview. Channel 4 editors clearly picked out this statement where Lavrov responded to a question concerning President Assad of Syria. He qualified this statement clearly in his follow-on statement; the headline, however, gives the wrong impression, as is normal, with intent.
Unfortunately the BBC's lack of impartiality allows it to lower its editorial standards to slant and bias for all to see. This is an affront to the public of the United Kingdom who are legally bound to support the BBC as a state-sponsored politically biased media organization through enforced payment of television licenses.
To see this Lavrov interview click on the image on the right.
The presidential election continues
Donald Trump gave a speech in North Dakota last Wednesday. Observers consider him to becoming an even more effective campaigner than he was during the last election. He is definitely demagogic and he is mixing foreign policy initiatives with his justifications in domestic terms. This is a powerful mix for his base. His combo of Tweets and public speaking completely by-passes the corporate media and increasing numbers are beginning to get used to his style of communication realizing that there is more content there than was previously realized. This isn't just his personal style. It is because he is also setting the policy agendas so he is controlling the backdrop and the substance which he was unable to do during his first presidential campaign. As a result he is laying a strong foundation to guarantee his own future. People had better get used to it, he is going to be around for some time.
Donald Trump addressing the New Elite in North Dakota
While the Democrats appear to have one issue,"Get Trump!
" chasing the windmills of false accusations and pointless investigations and even encouraging people to treat Trump staff in a disrespectful manner, their image is that of a negative, inward looking, frustrated group of people with no policies to present to the public. Trump has deemed the Clinton despicables to be the "New elite" and, of course, this pleases them.
There is evidence that Trump's ratings amongst the Latino communities is beginning to rise. Although paradoxical this reflects a phenomenon observed in the UK where some of the most adament anti-immigration groups are established communities who immigrated to the UK during the last 50 years. The "Making America Great Again"
is catching on because Trump is now in a position to dominate the airwaves to tell people that is what is happening, just as he promised. A NIMBY dimension is taking shape in the immigration domain.
For increasing numbers, Trump is believed to be delivering on more than many others appear to appreciate. The old fix that existed between the Republicans and the Democrats has virtually disappeared because Trump is way out in front. Trump is beginning to impose his stamp more effectively. The best recent example is John Bolton being sent to negotiate a meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin. Bolton's instruction were obviously "Sort this out or you are fired!"
In a recent seminar in Portsmouth, Hampshire a strategy group reviewed the recent decision by the US Supreme Court not to act on gerrymandering. This remains a malign gulag extending out from the Washington swamp; this has remained a permanent affront to thinking Americans and widely recognised as an unacceptable cause of their lack of freedom of democratic choice. Increasingly people see that this is maintained by the Republican and Democractic party bosses; this corruption is very damaging to the party images. The name of the Democrats is becoming so demoralized that it is likely that gerrymandered Democratic districts represent a time bomb because Trump has time to build up his momentum to have many reject those Democrats who have enjoyed the benefits of this system and have done little for so long. All of this will create splits within the Democratic party of which the recent inversion in New York was an example caused by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Democrats could find direction but their compromised situation in regard to lobby funding is something they need to clean up together with their past-sell-by-date brothers and sisters in the Republican party.
Trump, in a funny sort of way, is draining parts of the swamp. But like he is now saying, "All of this will take time.
Evidence for all to see
Real News has received communications requesting that we publish sources of evidence for our recent statements concerning our pieces on US and UK extension of neon-colonialism backed by violence involving military, intelligence and mercenary groups acting in the interests of private corporate entities and under the banner of promoting free trade. Most of what we state is based on evidence concerning atrocities that corporate media choose not to publicize. This form of self-censorship arises from a fear of compromising their relationship with those corporate advertisers who benefit or have benefited from this state-sponsored violence and/or murder as well as possible threats from political parties, governments, state agencies and agents responsible for these unacceptable actions. On the other hand this request may reflect a failure to research facts so we provide 2 references that will help interested parties to get started on filling in the blanks in their state of knowledge.
Concerning the USA's skulduggery: the book Kinzer, S., "Overthrow" - America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC., New York, USA, 2006. starts as far back as the imposed regime change in Hawaii, at the time an independent nation, in 1893. It then recounts many examples of imposed regime changes since then including: Cuba, Nicaragua, The Philippines, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Concerning the UK's skulduggery the book Coles, T. J., "Britain's Secret Wars" - How and why the United Kingdom sponsors conflict around the world. Clairview Books Ltd., West Hoathly, UK, 2016 covers many "initiatives" of unacceptable violence and the murder of nationals of the following countries: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Papua, Somalia and Bangladesh with an informative detail on murder wrought by British drones.