Miscellany 30

Home Forums Discussion Topics Miscellany 30

This topic contains 258 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  ulvfugl 4 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 259 total)
  • Author
  • #20650


    There is a belief that Fred West, a freemason, provided girls for some of the UK’s Satanic elite.

    Fred and family.

    In 1973, 21-year-old Lucy Partington, cousin of the novelist Martin Amis, set off from a friend’s house in Cheltenham, in England, to catch a bus.

    She took a lift from Fred West, and was later murdered.

    Fred West, Jimmy Savile and the child killers Peter Tobin and Robert Black all lived in Scotland at the same time.

    In Scotland, Jimmy Gallogley was a friend and neighbour of Fred West.

    Gallogley was a church elder.

    Gallogley has been accused of murdering the 12-year-old schoolgirl Moira Anderson.




    Why is Labour Peer Lord Janner not being prosecuted because he has dementia? At least 19 defendants suffering with the disease have been convicted for sex crimes… and TEN were in the past year

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046992/Why-Labour-Peer-Lord-Janner-not-prosecuted-dementia-19-defendants-suffering-disease-convicted-sex-crimes-TEN-past-year.html



    It’s pretty neat. The New Anti Semitism tag is to be used to denote those whose criticism of Israel leads the Zionist overlords to the conclusion that they must be Jew haters because nothing else could possibly explain criticism of Israel.
    Other than Wikipedia it is not a term that I have actually seen used.
    Truthful Jewish People Destroy the Very Idea.

    It appears that the whole brand Israeli critics as Jew haters thing may have come unstuck somewhat due to the fact that a large number of Jewish people would have to be included.
    Once the Zionist media mavens are reduced to describing intelligent middle class respectable American and Israeli Jews as Jew haters, the transparent bankruptcy of the entire anti-Semite meme becomes painfully obvious. This astomishing piece published in the Atlantic by an individual named Armin Rosen, is not worth quoting, but it did amuse in it’s bizarre attempt to portray the trenchant but moderate Israel critics of Mondoweiss as Jew hating conspiracy nuts!

    A Reminder That Anti-Semitism Has No Place in Debates Over Israel — The Atlantic

    This speech from the former IDF member and seventh generation Palestinian Jew Eran Efrati makes it completely clear that the very notion that criticism of Israelis connected to vile Jew hatred is pure nonsense.




    Child Abuse

    The Waterhouse Report

    By Simon Regan

    20 February 2000

    The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a ‘cult of silence’ is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg.

    The report suggests there is ‘no evidence’ that Freemasonry had anything to do with the scandal. Yet there were two inadequate and inconclusive police inquiries, including one into a senior officer, by a force in North Wales riddled with freemasons.

    There was a consistent lack of initiative on the part of the local Clwyd CC in the face of overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn, ostensibly because the council insurers advised against any action. This in itself insults democracy in a way that borders on the criminal. By a policy of non-action, both the police and the council became embroiled in a blatant cover-up.

    Anyone who has even vaguely become acquainted with paedophilia knows very well that they will go to the ends of the earth to keep their activities absolutely secret. They are professional experts in covering their tracks.

    In the early nineties, in the now defunct Scallywag magazine, which I founded, we interviewed in some depth twelve former inmates at Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring, which the tribunal acknowledges existed. Most of these interviews were extremely harrowing and disturbing, but were gently and sensitively conducted over pub lunches where the victim could relax. We subsequently persuaded ten of them to make sworn affidavits which we proposed to use as back up to half a dozen paedophile stories we later published.

    Two of these young men, who had been 14-years-old at the time, swore they had been not only introduced to the paedophile ring operating in the Crest Hotel in Wrexham but had later been escorted on three or four occasions to an address in Pimlico where they were further abused.

    We took them separately to Pimlico and asked them to point out the building where this had taken place. They were both positive in their identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

    The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales.

    There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names.

    Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

    All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

    Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.

    I believe that the secrecy the Establishment wraps around itself easily equals that of the paedophiles. They really do look after each other and quite professionally cover their tracks.

    The real trouble about exposing paedophiles is that former victims of child abuse make lousy witnesses. By the very nature of the abuse, when they are rudely shoved out into the wide world (one of the witnesses, Stephen Messham, for example, was released on his sixteenth birthday on Christmas day after two years of abuse, and had to sleep rough on the streets for four and a half months), they are often deeply psychologically disturbed.

    Some of the extreme cases commit suicide, many more were sexually disorientated in the worst possible way. Some became gay prostitutes, others drug addicts, and in nearly every case, at some stage, they needed lengthy counselling. Marriages quickly disintegrated in psychological turmoil and a lot of former victims had real difficulties raising their own children. There are very few victims of child abuse who come out of it without deep scars.

    It was all very well for us to take statements from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them, and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box, and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit, juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

    I watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesea and Private Eye (and others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesea had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own notebooks, the ‘other side’ subsequently tore the five main prosecution witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment. Like the whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my heart.

    Simon Regan (deceased) was editor of Scallywag Magazine




    Dr Julian Lewis, who was instrumental in the shutting down of Scallywag magazine which 1st exposed the paedophile ring operating around Dolphin Square
    Edward Garnier, who only last year warned Simon Danczuk from pursuing the matter of Leon Brittan’s involvement
    were on the 30th of March this year both appointed to Her Majesty’s Privy Council:
    Both Nick Clegg and William Hague, 2 of the 4 Privy counsellors involved in making the decision, are themselves both close associates of Leon Brittan and both are implicated in the cover up…




    The History of Jewish Human Sacrifice






    We have all heard the irresponsible statements coming from US politicians and, which is far more worrisome, generals: Putin must be ‘stopped’ and Russia must ‘not be allowed’ to achieve her various nefarious goals. A typical such statement was recently made by retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey:

    General Barry McCaffreyBecause so far NATO’s reaction to Putin’s aggression has been to send a handful of forces to the Baltics to demonstrate ‘resolve,’ which has only convinced Putin that the alliance is either unable or unwilling to fight. So we had better change his calculus pretty soon, and contest Putin’s stated doctrine that he is willing to intervene militarily in other countries to ‘protect’ Russia-speaking people. For God’s sake, the last time we heard that was just before Hitler invaded the Sudentenland
    Nevermind that the “we” that “heard” such statements from Hitler let the Soviet Union shoulder roughly 80% of the war effort, including the most difficult part when the Soviet Union single handedly turned the tide of the war, and waited for Hitler to be certain to be defeated before opening a 2nd front. McCaffrey clearly feels that the “indispensable nation” now needs to step into the mess it created in the Ukraine and stop the “new Hitler” again (former “new Hitlers” include Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, both of whom allegedly presented an existential threat to the “Western Word”).

    The real danger of this kind of rhetoric is in the implications of the narrative which underlines it. It goes like this:

    There is a “Putin doctrine” which, under the disguise of protecting the rights of Russian minorities outside Russia, aims at reconquering all the territory of the former Soviet Union. This is done by using propaganda to inflame these Russian minorities, get them to protest and make unreasonable demands, and then to intervene using a new form of warfare called ‘hybrid warfare’ which relies on a mix of military, intelligence, civilian and political activities as well as support from Russian mobsters, infiltrated “KGB” agents, etc. This ‘hybrid warfare’ provides the Russians with a degree of ‘plausible deniability’ back, if needed, by a perceived ‘escalation dominance’ (the ability to control how high and how fast the conflict can escalate). The potential targets of this “Putin Doctrine” are quite literally all the former Soviet republics and, first and foremost, the Baltic Republics, Moldova, Georgia and, who knows, possibly even Poland.

    All of the above is absolute and total nonsense…




    The son of Democratic mega-donor George Soros is gearing up to play a more active role in the 2016 election with the launch of new political action committee focused on representing the views of Jewish Americans — beyond foreign policy.

    Alex Soros, 29, who has steadily increased his political and philanthropic giving in recent years, has helped establish Bend the Arc PAC, the first ever national Jewish political action committee in America focused entirely on domestic issues. Bend the Arc, a non-profit, has an advocacy arm chaired by the younger Soros but has not previously had a political action committee.

    Bend the Arc PAC will back progressive candidates by making direct contributions to their campaign committees. It will focus on issues such as income inequality, marriage equality, social justice and immigration reform.

    “There’s an opportunity to launch something that actually speaks to what the American Jewish community cares the most about and to show the narrative of what the real American Jewish experience is,” Alex Soros said in an interview.




    Perhaps the best way to sum up how “successful” the US was in terms of foreign policy over the course of the political turmoil is to quote former Obama adviser Vali Nasr, who described the situation as follows in a 2013 interview with the Wall Street Journal:

    “The Mubarak people are unhappy with the way he was shoved off without a thank you. The military thinks we coddled the Brotherhood and didn’t intervene to control them. And the Brotherhood thinks that we never supported them when they needed support, and then gave the green light to the military.”
    Sounds like par for the US foreign policy course.

    Now, with Morsi sentenced to nearly a quarter century behind bars, we thought it as good a time as any to resurrect the following Morsi-era quotes from Hillary Clinton who, like Egypt’s democratically elected former President, just wants what’s best for “everyday” people:

    “The United States [strongly supports] the Egyptian people and their democratic transition”.

    “We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”
    A “democracy” that lasted all of four months before Morsi, in an irony of ironies, granted himself sweeping autocratic powers in the interest of safeguarding the transition to democratic institutions.

    And of course there was this:

    The wife of former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi is the latest Muslim Brotherhood “insider” to threaten to expose the special relationship between Morsi and the Obama administration—a relationship the latter insists never existed.
    Nagla Mahmoud, Morsi’s wife, is reportedly angry at some statements recently made by Hillary Clinton, including that Morsi was “naïve” and “unfit for Egypt’s presidency,” as reported by Arabic media.

    In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency.

    Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”




    Andrej Babis is the one of the wealthiest men in eastern Europe — if you bite bread, read a newspaper, fill your car with fuel, or put fertilizer on your window box in Prague, chances are you owe Babis money. He is also Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Finance Minister, and candidate to become the next Czech President.
    When Babis announced on Friday in Washington that he is planning to sue the US foreign policy establishment for libel, he wasn’t bluffing. His aim is to stop the US State Department, American officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and the war party in Kiev from attacking him as a Kremlin stooge.
    The rise of Babis is also the takeoff of another albatross which is about to hang itself around the neck of candidate to become President of the US, Hillary Clinton. For it’s her campaign booster and pollster, Douglas Schoen and his old firm Penn Schoen Berland (PSB), which claim credit for inventing Babis’s political party, Akce Nespokojených Občanů (Action of Dissatisfied Citizens) – the acronym ANO also means “yes” in Czech – and putting Babis in power. From non-existence in 2011, ANO took 19% of the votes in the Czech lower house election of 2013, a close second behind the ruling Social-Democratic Party; 17% in the Czech senate election of last October. According to the American pollster, PSB’s Czech-educated executive, Alexander Braun is the winner of several US awards for his Czech political campaigns. He also claims credit, along with Schoen, for advising “notable clients…includ[ing] Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton, as well as presidents in Mexico, Ukraine, and Philippines.”
    With the ANO vote running at close to 20%, and Babis’s voter approval rating at better than 60%, he and his appointees in the Czech Government control the ministries of finance, defence, justice, transport, environment, and regional development. Try buying, lighting, and stubbing out a cigarette between Karlovy Vary in the west, on the German border, and Ostrava in the east, near Poland, and you need ANO’s permission.




    Israel’s criminal regime – Netanyahu’s lies exposed



    Earlier this year, it was reported by a major UK daily newspaper that in the 1980’s, a former female member of the UK parliament sexually abused a thirteen-year-old boy called Andrew Ash.

    He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen”. Andrew Ash describes how he was brought from a government-funded children’s home, then over to Parliament – where he was sexually abused. The female MP was part of a pedophile ring ‘at the heart of government’ – a ring that included Sir Jimmy Savile.

    British-Dutch Connection

    It was also reported that Andrew was also trafficked to Amsterdam on a number of occasions.

    No one knows just how far and wide these organised rings stretch, and what is the exact extent of their criminal activity. Beyond the ritual and sadomasochistic abuse, the lowest rung of this evil ladder is said to be the “snuff film” business, where paedophile network members capture their horrific fetishes on film or tape, before selling them through a lucrative distribution black market catering to wealthy network members around the globe – with a well-established customer base in the US, Italy, among others. Films can fetch up to $20K (or more) per copy. From past Guardian newspaper investigations (see story below), it was revealed how British ex-pat paedophiles were operating out of Amsterdam, Netherlands, and used gay brothels as a front for their more exotic commercial productions.

    “Police believe (it’s) part of a much wider ring involving ‘influential, professional people and its tentacles reach into Westminster and Whitehall”, said to ‘resemble the Mafia’ in its organisation and strength.”




    Three of the dead were American commandos. The driver, a captain nicknamed “Whiskey Dan,” was the leader of a shadowy team of operatives never profiled in the media and rarely mentioned even in government publications. One of the passengers was from an even more secretive unit whose work is often integral to Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which conducts clandestine kill-and-capture missions overseas. Three of the others weren’t military personnel at all or even Americans. They were Moroccan women alternately described as barmaids or “prostitutes.”

    The six deaths followed an April 2012 all-night bar crawl through Mali’s capital, Bamako, according to a formerly classified report by U.S. Army criminal investigators. From dinner and drinks at a restaurant called Blah-Blah’s to more drinks at La Terrasse to yet more at Club XS and nightcaps at Club Plaza, it was a rollicking swim through free-flowing vodka. And vodka and Red Bull. And vodka and orange juice. And vanilla pomegranate vodka. And Chivas Regal. And Jack Daniels. And Corona beer. And Castel beer. And don’t forget B-52s, a drink generally made with Kahlúa, Grand Marnier, and Bailey’s Irish Cream. The bar tab at Club Plaza alone was the equivalent of $350 in U.S. dollars.

    At about 5 a.m. on April 20th, the six piled into that Land Cruiser, withCaptain Dan Utley behind the wheel, to head for another hotspot: Bamako By Night. About eight minutes later, Utley called a woman on his cell phone to ask if she was angry. He said he’d circle back and pick her up, but she told him not to bother. Utley then handed the phone to Maria Laol, one of the Moroccan women. “Don’t be upset. We’ll come back and get you,” she said. The woman on the other end of the call then heard screaming before the line went dead.

    A Command With Something to Hide





    We leave them behind and drive to Stepanovka, a village close by. Here nearly no house is left standing. Those that were left untouched are pretty buildings mainly in white and blue, with yellow flowers decorating the walls. The Right Sector had set up it’s headquarter here, we are told, and Iarosch’s brother used to drive up and down the road in a tank to shoot at the houses for fun. The Turk goes astray again and walks through the ruins to kneel down in front of a half-buried shell, even though the area is not yet completely cleared.

    Back in the hotel we pass a silent night. But the places we visited in the morning are shelled once more. However, if anything happened to the tulips, I’m sure they will plant fresh ones again.




    “Evidence was still being sought on the night of August 4 when Johnson gave his address to the American public on the incident. Messages recorded that day indicate that neither President Johnson nor Secretary McNamara was certain of an attack.[28]

    Various news sources, including Time, Life and Newsweek, ran articles throughout August on the Tonkin Gulf incident.[29] Time reported: “Through the darkness, from the West and south…intruders boldly sped…at least six of them… they opened fire on the destroyers with automatic weapons, this time from as close as 2,000 yards.”[30] Time stated that there was “no doubt in Sharp’s mind that the US would now have to answer this attack”, and that there was no debate or confusion within the administration regarding the incident.[30]

    The use of the set of incidents as a pretext for escalation of US involvement follows the issuance of public threats against North Vietnam, as well as calls from American politicians in favor of escalating the war.[31] On May 4, 1964, William Bundy called for the US to “drive the communists out of South Vietnam”, even if that meant attacking both North Vietnam and communist China.[31] Even so, the Johnson administration in the second half of 1964 focused on convincing the American public that there was no chance of war between North Vietnam and the US.”

    Wiki on Gulf of Tonkin Incident


    Yes, well, it was all BS, a combination of media hysteria, LBJ’s innate deviousness and disrespect for the truth and an actual attack on USS Maddox by North Vietnamese gunboats. That this attack was in response to MACVSOG infiltration of Vietnamese agents into NVN from the sea was not known to me until I wrote the last annual operations report of MACVSOG in 1973.

    In 1964, Johnson used this fabrication and distortion to whip up public opinion in favor of the congressional “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.” That resolution served much the same function for the wars in SE Asia as the current AUMF resolutions. Having spent several years subsequent to 1964 engaged in SE Asia, I am still annoyed.

    Now, we have the USS Roosevelt battle group underway deploying from the Gulf to the northern Arabian Sea to do – what? Is it to ensure the freedom of the sea in the Bab al-Mandab Strait? Who has threatened that freedom of passage? Who?

    Even CNN and its “flexible” consultants acknowledge the possibility of a clash at sea that could lead to the mishaps and “opportunities” that were provided by USS Maddox’s brush with a few gunboats.

    Whatever happens in this ongoing process, we, here, at SST should be wary. pl




    Tomorrow is a new day and the Sun rises. And that will do all this evil? But we will have to build a New Country. “City on the Hill”, the New Zion. The Promised Land.

    Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky through its improvised voiced their ultimate goal and Chabad of Dnepropetrovsk: the construction in Ukraine of a new state, the promised land, the new Zion. The question arises: who promised a new promised land, God? No, the Promised Land is Israel and the other Promised Land is not, and cannot be. Consequently, the promised land from Ukraine are trying to do Chabad of Dnepropetrovsk oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, which today finances and heads (and not the head of the SBU Nalyvaichenko) Nazi punitive operation in Donetsk and Luhansk areas. Moreover, at the feast of Purim on Mar 16 2014, when in the Crimea held a referendum on the status of an Autonomous Republic (the date was not chosen randomly, but with purpose as much as possible to hit the Jewish sect of the Ukrainian Chabad), Rabbi of Dnepropetrovsk Shmuel Kaminetsky said:

    We live together with the Ukrainians for 1000 years. And Ukraine is our Land. Today we read the scroll of Esther, read his thousands of years on Purim. And just today, this reading is of particular importance. Today, a new Haman, our common with Ukrainians enemy is very near.




    Author/Compiler’s Note: This is a first in a planned series of thematic collections of articles that appeared previously in classified editions of the Intelligence Community journal Studies in Intelligence, which is published at CIA. As part of its “openness” policy, CIA has declassified more than 1,200 articles from the first 40 years of Studies. We expect to compile and publish more collections of this type that address single intelligence-related themes or topics. We believe readers will find these articles interesting, informative, and colorful.

    The author/compiler, Ben B. Fischer, would like to thank the following people for reading an earlier draft to the Preface, offering comments and criticisms, and identifying additional sources: Kay Oliver, Robert Pringle, James Bruce, David Thomas, and John Dziak. Thanks are also due to Elena Danielson and Carole Leadenham of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University for taking an interest in this project and supporting it. Rick Hernandez of Stanford University did a fine job with research assistance.

    [Top of page]

    From Paris to Palo Alto
    The first six articles reprinted below were published in Studies in Intelligence between 1965 and 1967. They describe foreign operations of the Russian Imperial Police, commonly referred to as the Okhrana, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (1) Also included are a letter from the author of these articles to Studies in Intelligence and the book review that prompted the letter, both of which discuss the still-debated issue of whether Josef Stalin was an Okhrana agent.




    Special Report: The Secret Role of Jews in China




    In 1907 Major Vernon Kell become Director of the Home Section of the Secret Service Bureau with responsibility for investigating espionage, sabotage and subversion within and without Britain. In 1911, a new section, headed by Captain Mansfield Cumming, became responsible for for secret operations outside Britain.

    In the First World War Cumming’s unit became known as MI6. Agents who worked for MI6 during the war included John Buchan and Somerset Maugham. Working closely with Vernon Kell of MI5 and Sir Basil Thomson of the Special Branch, on the outbreak of war 22 German agents were arrested. Eleven men were executed, as was Sir Roger Casement, who was found guilty of treason in 1916.

    During the First World War MI6 provided money to prop up the the government of Alexander Kerensky. After the successful Russian Revolution British diplomatic representation was withdrawn from Moscow. However, an unofficial MI6 mission remained which funded anti-Bolshevik groups in sabotage and subversion. The most active MI6 agent in Russia was Sidney Reilly. After a plot to assassinate Lenin failed, Reilly was forced to flee the country.

    After the war the government cut back on expenditure on the Secret Service. As a result Smith-Cumming lost MI6 stations in Madrid, Lisbon, Zurich and Luxembourg.

    In 1926 Admiral Hugh Sinclair became the new head of MI6. Sinclair was a strong opponent of communism and argued that telegrams sent by Maxim Litvinov showed that Russia was financing Sinn Fein. Later it was revealled that these telegrams were forgeries.

    In 1932 Compton Mackenzie published Greek Memories, an account of his experiences as a MI6 officer during the First World War. In the book he disclosed for the first time that Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) existed. He even revealed that the first Director-General of the organization was Mansfield Cumming. In one passage he referred to the organization as being “scores of under-employed generals surrounded by a dense cloud of intelligence officers sleuthing each other.”

    The book was immediately withdrawn and all remaining copies were destroyed. Mackenzie was fined £100 for breaching the Official Secrets Act. Mackenzie’s actions were now monitored by MI5. One agent claimed that he was overhead telling a journalist from the Daily Telegraph that MI5 was an inefficient organization and that Vernon Kell and his staff were incompetent.

    Hugh Christie an MI6 agent working based in Berlin, met with Hermann Goering on 3rd February 1937. He immediately reported his conversation with Goering and included information that Germany intended to take control of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He also told Christie that Germany mainly wanted “a free hand in Eastern Europe.”

    In March 1938 Hugh Christie told the British government that Adolf Hitler would be ousted by the military if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia against Germany. Christie warned that the “crucial question is ‘How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried?’ … The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying.”




    The use of social media by the Soros/CIA coup plotters should come as no surprise. Social media served at the very core of the themed revolutions sponsored by the CIA and Soros twice in Ukraine (Orange Revolution and Euro-Maidan uprising), Jasmine Revolution (Tunisia), Lotus Revolution (Egypt), Rose Reviolution (Georgia), Tulip Revolution (Kyrgyszstan), and Green Revolution (Iran). In the case of Macedonia, there are clear indications that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Thomas Melia, responsible for DRL’s work in Europe, including Russia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa, conspired directly with Zaev to mount a coup against the Gruevski government. Melia is the former deputy director of Freedom House, a Cold War-era neoconservative bevvy of U.S. war hawks based in New York. Although founded in 1941 by such progressives as Eleanor Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche, journalist Dorothy Thompson, novelist Rex Stout (creator of Nero Wolfe), and Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie (who would be considered by today’s Republicans in the U.S. as a stark-raving liberal), Freedom House has devolved into a neoconservative chatter source having employed as their board members in recent years such war hawk cretins as Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Adelman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Donald Rumsfeld, and Otto Reich. Freedom House has been caught red-handed funneling CIA money to opposition groups in Iran, Sudan, Russia, and China. In essence, Freedom House, like Soros’s NGOs, serves as a conduit for CIA support for rebellious opposition forces in dozens of countries around the world, countries that now include Macedonia, as well as Hungary, Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and Cuba.

    What occurred in Macedonia was a classic disinformation ploy to mire the democratically-elected government in a bogus political scandal. The ploy is directly from the CIA playbook and it is now being carried out against Presidents Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, and Michelle Bachelet of Chile. All face financial scandals cooked up by the CIA and its owned and operated media in the three nations. In Macedonia, the Soros-influenced media and Radio Free Europe are part of the operation.

    Nuland’s vulgar language is only matched by the vulgarity of her backroom operations to unseat democratically-elected governments. «Nuland» should become a noun meaning disgraceful diplomatic conduct, in the same manner as the terms «quisling,» meaning «traitor» and derived from the actions of Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling, and «boycott,» meaning the cessation of all business with a targeted entity and made famous by Irish land agent Captain Charles Boycott, became part of the English language.


    She’s actually Mrs KAGAN, isn’t she, strictly speaking, that being the Russian version of the Jewish name COHEN.



    All bets are off on how the fateful U.S.-China-Russia triangle will evolve. Arguably, it may take the following pattern: The Americans talk loud and carry an array of sticks; the Russians are not shy to talk back while silently preparing strategically for a long, difficult haul; the Chinese follow a modified “Little Helmsman” Deng Xiaoping doctrine – talk very diplomatically while no longer keeping a low profile.

    Beijing’s already savvy to what Moscow has been whispering: Exceptionalist Washington – in decline or not – will never treat Beijing as an equal or respect Chinese national interests.

    In the great Imponderables chapter, bets are still accepted on whether Moscow will use this serious, triple threat crisis – sanctions, oil price war, ruble devaluation – to radically apply structural game changers and launch a new strategy of economic development. Putin’s recent Q&A, although crammed with intriguing answers, still isn’t clear on this.

    Other great imponderable is whether Xi, armed with soft power, charisma and lots of cash, will be able to steer, simultaneously, the tweaking of the economic model and a Go West avalanche that does not end up alienating China’s multiple potential partners in building the New Silk roads.




    The administration has a problem. Sanction against Iran are coming to an end no matter how the nuclear talks with Iran will end. Iran has shown its willingness to resolve the issue. The U.S. is the party blocking it. If there is a pact signed in June sanctions will end. If there is no pact signed in June the U.S. will be blamed and the sanction regime will fall apart. The Russian decision to finally provide S-300 air defense to Iran was an explicit sign for that. The Chinese are currently heavily bribing Pakistan to get a land route to Iranian gas. The U.S. will soon no longer able to constrain Iran through an internationally supported “crippling sanctions” regime.




    The two express their joint concern in a NYT Op-Ed, in which they warns of the dangers of old nuclear strike doctrines at a time when relations between the two superpowers are at such a low point. As a result, they call on Moscow and Washington to prevent possible provocations.

    In the Op-Ed, the authors state that there are three Cold War legacy strategic options at the two countries’ disposal: i) a first strike; ii) retaliation after an attack and iii) launch on warning. The generals opine that the latter is the riskiest scenario, “since provocations or malfunctions can trigger a global catastrophe. Since computer-based information systems have been in place, the likelihood of such errors has been minimized. But the emergence of cyberwarfare threats has increased the potential for false alerts in early-warning systems. The possibility of an error cannot be ruled out.”

    And while one can be skeptical that in the current environment of renewed animosity between East and West the two countries will sit down and amicably discuss nuclear disarmament, the reality of a nuclear strike threat should a “hacker” find their way into either the US or Russian launch system and bypass the launch codes, is indeed all too real, as is the assured response by the adversary, giving way to a global nuclear holocaust.

    Which, in this day and age when a new war seemingly starts every month in a desperate neo-con boost to stimulate this (military industrial complex) economy or that, does not sound too far fetched at all…

    Finally, those cynical enough can say that what the two generals have done is simply lay out the blueprint for the next steps in what with every passing day appears to be a increasingly truncated global future.




    Royce expanded the definition of terrorist to include dissident bloggers, such as Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald and the rest of us, who object to the false reality that Washington creates in order to serve undeclared agendas. For example, if Washington wants to pour profits into the military/security complex in exchange for political campaign contributions, the politicians cannot say that. Instead, they claim to protect America from a dangerous enemy or from weapons of mass destruction by starting a war. If politicians want to advance American financial or energy imperialism, they have to do so in the name of “bringing freedom and democracy.” If the politicians want to prevent the rise of other countries, such as Russia, President Obama has to depict Russia as a threat comparable to the Ebola virus and the Islamist State.

    Noam Chomsky summed it up when he said that Washington regards any information that does not repeat Washington’s propaganda to be intolerable.

    Washington’s assault on truth as a threat helps to make sense of the gigantic National Security Agency spy system exposed by William Binney and Edward Snowden. One of the purposes of the spy network is to identify all “dissidents” who challenge Big Brother’s “Truth.”

    There is, or will be, a dossier on every “dissident” with all of the dissident’s emails, Internet searches, websites visited, phone calls, purchases, travels. The vast amount of information on each dissident can be combed for whatever can be taken out of context to make a case against him, if a case is even needed. Washington has already successfully asserted its power over the Constitution to indefinitely detain without charges and to torture and to murder US citizens.

    It was a couple of years ago that Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, said that the department’s focus had shifted from terrorists to domestic extremists. Lumped into the category of domestic extremists are environmental activists, animal rights activists, anti-war activists which includes disillusioned war veterans, and people who believe in states’ rights, limited government and accountable government. Consequently, many dissidents, America’s best citizens, will qualify as domestic extremists on several accounts. Chris Hedges, for example, is an advocate for animals (see http://www.opednews.com/articles/Choosing-Life-by-Chris-Hedges-Animals_Cattle_Corporate_Dairy-150420-878.html ) as well as concerned about the environment and Washington’s never-ending wars.

    The spying and the coming crackdown on “dissidents” might also explain the $385 million federal contract awarded to a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s firm, Halliburton, to build detention camps in the US. Few seem to be concerned with who the camps are to detain. There is no media or congressional investigation. It seems unlikely that the camps are for hurricane or forest fire evacuees. Concentration camps are usually for people regarded as unreliable. And as Lack, Royce, et alia have made clear, unreliable people are those who do not support Washington’s lies.








    In his book Century of the Wind, the late Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano tells how in 1927 the U.S. Marines landed in Nicaragua to quell a revolutionary revolt by Augusto César Sandino, who led a ragtag army of Nicaraguan peasants to fight the invasion. The Marines had gone to Nicaragua to protect the lives and properties of United States citizens.

    Armed primarily with machetes and 19th century rifles, Sandino’s army fought the Marines, undergoing heavy losses in an enormously unequal fight. In November 1927, the Marines succeeded in locating El Chipote, Sandino’s mountain headquarters. However, when the Marines reached it, they found the place abandoned and guarded by straw dummies.

    Despite massive efforts, American forces were never able to capture Sandino, and eventually, due in large part to the 1929 Great Depression, U.S. soldiers were withdrawn from Nicaragua following the 1932 Nicaraguan elections. As Alfonso Alexander, a Colombian journalist fighting in Sandino’s army said at the time, “The invaders were like the elephant and we the snake. They were immobility, we were mobility.” Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral called Sandino’s warriors, admiringly, Crazy little army.





    David Habakkuk said in reply to Margaret Steinfels…
    Margaret Steinfels,

    Thanks for your thoughts. You write:

    ‘Jeffrey Goldberg’s (NB., not J.J. Goldberg) recent piece in the Atlantic on European anti-Semitism got a big play and he has been speaking in Washington and New York promoting what, I am not sure.’

    Unfortunately, Goldberg is an example of the way that Zionism – like many other things – has been taken over by the modern culture of victimhood. What he is determined to believe is that the revival of anti-Semitism among Europeans is the result of the temporary dampening effect of the Holocaust on our supposedly ingrained genocidal Jew-hatred waning with time.

    Accordingly, it can be deemed to have little or nothing to do with the policies pursued by the Israeli government and its fellow-travellers in the United States and elsewhere – including Britain.

    As regards this country, this is the most complete claptrap.

    One part of the picture here is – relatively – simple and not difficult to interpret: the extremely disturbing upsurge in violence against Jews by young Muslims. Changes in the attitudes both of British Jews and the non-Muslim population are much more difficult to pin down and analyse.

    Part of the reason for this is that there are complex inhibitions in the way of candour all over the place, but it is also material that attitudes are commonly confused and contradictory, and the changes that matter develop over time, often, at least at first, in thoughts which are only half formulated and expressed.

    A journalist of competence and integrity would have sought to probe beyond the inhibitions and to explore the confusions and contradictions. Instead, Goldberg uses sources in an extraordinarily selective and slapdash way.

    Consider for instance the research of the ‘Community Security Trust’. As he says, this is ‘a Jewish organization that monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom’ – and indeed, it produces a great deal of very serious research.

    In their report for last year, having noted that antisemitic incidents were double those in the previous year, and the highest on record, the CST went on to observe that

    ‘The single biggest contributing factor to the record number of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2014 was antisemitic reactions in the UK to the conflict in Israel and Gaza that began on 8 July 2014 and ended on 26 August 2014.’

    (See https://cst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202014.pdf )

    Meanwhile, Goldberg tells us that

    ‘In a recent survey conducted on behalf of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, a quarter of British Jews said they had considered leaving the country; more than half of those surveyed said they fear that Jews have no future in Great Britain.’

    One does not like to talk about one’s friends, but my wife and I have very old and close Jewish friends, none of whom would in their wildest dreams consider emigrating to Israel. And indeed, one young man who has dual American and British citizenship got roundly abused by an American who overhead him explaining to his Irish (Catholic) girlfriend in a Dublin restaurant why he had no intention of going to work in the U.S.

    Certainly our small sample is selective, particularly as our friends are all secular Jews. But it came as no surprise when a quick Google check turned up an article in the ‘Forward’ by a British Jewish author, Liam Hoare.

    This began by explaining how, on seeing headlines reporting the survey, his interest was ‘immediately piqued, not least because the idea that a majority of British Jews are without hope bears no relation to my own experience of Jewish life in this country.’

    Having pointed out that the sampling methods used by the ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’ virtually guarantee a highly selective representation of Jewish opinion, and noted the tendentious nature of several of the questions asked, Hoare concluded:

    ‘With their flawed methodology and hysterical questions, the CAA’s irresponsible survey fails to give an accurate picture of Jewish life in Britain – and it undermines the real struggle to rid Britain of whatever traces of anti-Semitism do exist.’

    (See http://forward.com/opinion/world/212776/are-45-of-brits-really-anti-semitic-not-so-fast/ .)

    Where Goldberg’s account of British opinion disintegrated into pure hysteria was when he quoted the writer Howard Jacobson, whose latest novel is apparently ‘a study of a future genocide in an unnamed but very English-seeming country of an unnamed people who very much resemble the Jews’.

    ‘I felt as if I was writing out of dread,’ Jacobson apparently told Goldfarb: ‘It will never go away, this hatred of Jews … and the proof of this is that barely 50 years after the Holocaust, the desire for Jewish bloodletting isn’t over’; ‘I know this is a dangerous thing to say … but the Holocaust didn’t satisfy.”

    I have a fairly broad back, and can live with the insulting imputation that the British have always really been Nazi Germans under the skin. But if Jacobson seriously believes this, and anticipates that at some time we will revert to type and seek to satisfy our bloodlust, then he is bonkers.

    Whether what is at issue is simply bullshit, or whether he really is so trapped in trauma that confronting the real world is impossible, I simply cannot say. However, given the willingness of Goldberg uncritically to recycle such ravings, the same question necessarily arises about him.

    Any intellectually honest discussion of changing perceptions of Jews in Britain has to confront the question of how far attitudes have shifted as a – hardly unpredictable – result of the neoconservative agendas set out in the ‘Clean Break’ paper of 1996.

    Essentially, these were premised on the belief that the Middle East could be remodelled by the use of American power, in a way that would both make trading ‘land for peace’ unnecessary, and allow Israel eventually to escape dependence on the United States.

    If Goldberg wanted to come to grips with the question of how far, and why, attitudes both to Israel and Jews have changed in Britain, he really would have to reflect on the ways in which the attempts to implement this agenda have impacted on opinion in this country.

    But this would involve abandoning the culture of victimhood, and the associated sense of entitlement – something I doubt he is capable of doing.


Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 259 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.