Aletho News


Jeb Bush’s Zionist Paymasters: Bloomberg and Rothschild

By Christopher Bollyn | July 8, 2015

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush may wear an American flag on his lapel but his loyalty is to the Zionist financiers who made him rich, most notably the Rothschild family of Britain.

The terror attacks of 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are immense crimes that have greatly shaped our current political reality. In spite of the historical importance of these events, for nearly fourteen years the U.S. government and mainstream media have engaged in a conspiracy to promote a blatant cover-up about what happened on September 11, 2001.

While we may want to close the book on the sordid saga of 9-11, and the awful wars that followed, and get on with our lives by pretending that we live in a normal political situation, that would be living in denial.

We should understand that the 9-11 cover-up is an ongoing crime that has to be maintained by the criminal cabal that is behind it. The real culprits need to maintain the official deception of what happened on 9-11. They can’t allow the truth about 9-11 to come out, for if it does they’re toast, so they have no alternative but to maintain the cover-up. As they say, no rest for the wicked.

For the real perpetrators, controlling the executive branch of the government is essential to maintain the 9-11 cover-up. The criminal cabal achieves this by making sure that one of their agents occupies the office of the president of the United States. The president decides who serves at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so by controlling the president the criminal cabal can prevent its crimes, like 9-11, from being investigated and prosecuted.

The real criminals, therefore, desperately need to control the White House in order to maintain the 9-11 deception because they are culpable for the false-flag terror atrocity and the two wars of aggression that followed in its wake. Only by controlling the U.S. president can the criminal gang behind 9-11 and these illegal wars avoid prosecution, which is essential for the survival of their criminal regime.

For the American people and our republic, however, it is of vital importance that we put an end to this criminal regime, which has hijacked our nation – as soon as possible – by investigating and prosecuting those who are truly behind the terror attacks of 9-11. It is unrealistic to expect our government, which is controlled by this criminal cabal, to investigate 9-11 when it has promoted the cover-up for the past 13 years. This is why a proper criminal investigation and prosecution of the crimes of 9-11, which is what one would expect in a normal functioning state, would be completely revolutionary in America. Such an investigation and purge would bring down the criminal regime that controls our government. This is why I say that the revolution begins with 9-11 truth.

The election of 2016 is actually a struggle for the very survival of the American republic. This is why the presidential election of 2016 began so early, more than two years before the election, with the names of the two leading controlled candidates bubbling up into our political consciousness, courtesy of the controlled press. The two names that were foisted on the American people: John Ellis “Jeb” Bush and Hillary Clinton, are, of course, members of two of America’s most prominent criminal families. The criminal and treasonous character of the Bush and Clinton families should be known to anyone who has followed American politics for the past few decades.

It is absolutely preposterous that either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton should be president and the idea would be laughable, if the situation weren’t so serious. These people have virtually no popular support and are only candidates for the highest office in the land because they are vigorously promoted by the moneyed special interest groups that dominate U.S. politics and their controlled press. While there are other candidates in the field, Bush and Clinton are leading in the polls although the first primary is still more than 6 months away.

One might very well wonder why Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton would even run for president. Neither has a great following or stands for anything that the public is very interested in. So, why are they running?

The answer is fairly simple. Both Bush and Clinton are members of families that are tied to the ruling criminal cabal through their involvement in criminal activity. They are rewarded with filthy lucre as payment and are expected to do exactly as they are advised because, in reality, they don’t have any other option. While Hillary Clinton and her treachery and Zionist connections are fairly well known, much less is known about Jeb Bush.

For those of us who seek truth and justice for the crimes of 9-11, and a restoration of lawful government in the United States, we need to understand who is behind Jeb Bush and how that influence would be used to maintain the 9-11 cover-up if he were to occupy the White House.

Firstly, we can be sure that Jeb Bush would not support the criminal prosecution of his brother for conspiring, planning, and waging wars of aggression against Iraq or Afghanistan. Secondly, we can be fairly sure that he would not call for a proper criminal investigation of 9-11, based on his support for Israel, and particularly its extreme right-wing leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the chief suspects of the false-flag terror attacks.

As the New York Times reported in an article entitled “Jeb Bush on the Issues” on June 15, 2015:

Mr. Bush calls himself “an unwavering supporter” of Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and distanced himself from recent comments by an adviser, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, that were critical of Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Netanyahu is known for saying that 9-11 was “very good,” on the very day of the attacks, and telling Israeli audiences that Israel has benefitted from 9-11 and America’s struggle in Iraq.  Netanyahu is also a war-monger who tells brazen lies in his efforts to push the United States into waging war against Iran. Jeb Bush takes the same hard-line position on Iran as Netanyahu, as the New York Times reports:

He has called the Obama administration’s framework of an agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program a “horrific deal” and, like fellow Republican contenders, said he would most likely cancel any final agreement reached by the administration should he become president.

To understand why Jeb Bush supports hard-line Zionist extremists like Benjamin Netanyahu, we need to consider what Bush has done since he left the governor’s mansion in Florida. When Bush left public office in 2007, he went to work for Michael Bloomberg and Lehman Brothers, the disgraced investment firm at the epicenter of the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

When the London-based Barclays, a foreign bank controlled by the Rothschild family, announced that it would take over Lehman Brothers – the day after its collapse – Jeb Bush effectively became a highly-paid adviser to the Rothschild-controlled bank. During the time that Jeb Bush was paid more than $1 million a year at Barclays, the disgraced British bank was run by Marcus Agius, who is married to Katherine de Rothschild, daughter of Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, former head of the Rothschild financial dynasty of England.

Agius is also Senior Independent Director for the Executive Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and was the first non-executive director appointed to the BBC’s new Executive Board in December 2006. He is also one of the three current trustees of the Bilderberg Group.

ROTHSCHILD BANKSTERS FLEECE AMERICA – Marcus Agius, the son-in-law of Edmund Rothschild, was CEO of Barclays bank, which took over Lehman Brothers after its collapse led to the massive taxpayer-funded bailout of 2008-2009. George W. Bush was president and Jeb Bush was a highly-paid adviser at both Lehmans and Barclays, the Rothschild-controlled bank that received $8.5 billion – from the U.S. taxpayer. He is also a senior director of the BBC.

It should be noted that Barclays received about $8.5 billion from the U.S. taxpayer-funded bail-out during the last few months of the administration of George W. Bush, Jeb’s older brother:

AIG disclosed payments of $105.3 billion between September and December 2008. And some of the biggest recipients were European banks. Societe Generale, based in France, was the top foreign recipient at $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank of Germany got $11.8 billion and Barclays, based in England, was paid $8.5 billion.
Source: “AIG ships billions in bailout abroad” by Eamon Javers, March 15, 2009

When Jeb left public office in 2007 he is reported to have been worth about $1.3 million. After seven years working for Bloomberg, Lehman, and Barclays, Bush is now worth about $29 million – half of it coming from the Rothschild-controlled Barclays, as Charles Gasparino reported in his recent article, “Jeb Bush’s Big Lehman Brothers Problem”:

Not much is known about what Bush actually did for Lehman—the firm that went belly-up in 2008 and sparked the wider financial crisis, and Barclays, the bank that purchased Lehman out of bankruptcy and continues to work out of its midtown Manhattan headquarters. He began working for the former after his term as Florida governor ended in 2007, and continued working for the latter until the end of 2014, when he decided to run for president.

The two banks were his biggest sources of income in recent years: Bush earned more than $14 million working for Lehman and then Barclays, which based on my understanding of simple math accounted for nearly half of the $29 million he made after he left government.
Source: “Jeb Bush’s Big Lehman Brothers Problem”

Jeb Bush’s work as an adviser at Lehman Brothers and Barclays puts him squarely in the middle of two of the largest financial crimes in recent history:

While it seems like less of a political detriment since Bush is an adviser rather than a principal, his Barclays work isn’t without potential controversy. Writes the FT: “Mr Bush, who served as an adviser to Lehman Brothers before its collapse during the financial crisis, has rarely spoken about his work at the British bank, which has been ensnared by scandals such as the manipulation of key benchmark interest rates and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance in recent years.”
Source: “Jeb Bush Signals Business Wind-Down with Barclays Departure,”, December 18, 2014

For the past four years, Jeb Bush has also served on the board of Michael Bloomberg’s foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has donated millions of dollars to Bush’s educational foundation:

Four companies and nonprofits that appointed Bush to their boards of directors or advisory boards backed the educational foundation [of Jeb Bush]. One, Bloomberg Philanthropies, was among the most frequent supporters, making seven donations worth between $1.2 million to $2.4 million. Bush served on Bloomberg’s board from 2010-14.
Source: “Backers of Bush nonprofit include banks, schools, lottery,” AP, July 1, 2015–election.html#

Rupert Murdoch’s media giant News Corp. has also donated generously to Jeb Bush’s educational foundation. Murdoch’s News Corp. has reportedly made three contributions, at $500,001 to $1 million apiece.

The fact that Jeb Bush has become quite wealthy since leaving public office in Florida in 2007 is not the important thing for 9-11 truth; it’s more important to understand who made him wealthy.  More than half of his wealth came from the corrupt Rothschild-controlled Barclays bank, while much of the rest came from Michael Bloomberg.

Michael Bloomberg is a leading Zionist agent who oversaw the suppression of 9-11 truth in New York City for 12 years after the false-flag terror attacks. Bloomberg is very supportive of Benjamin Netanyahu and the ruling right-wing Likud coalition of Israel.

The Rothschild family is the original financial and ideological founder of the Zionist state in Palestine. In Britain, the Lord Rothschild is considered the head of British Jewry. In 1998, senior partners of a wholly-owned Rothschild subsidiary, known as Global Technology Partners, LLC, authored a document entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism”, which was published in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This document discussed the possibility of a catastrophic terror attack on the United States and what should be done if it were to happen.

This article put the idea of a 9-11 type attack into the minds of the American people, and provided a kind of blueprint for how the government should respond when it did. Less than three years later, the catastrophic event that the authors imagined became real. Today, the lead author of that article is the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ashton B. Carter. Like Jeb Bush, Carter worked for years as a paid agent of the Rothschild family of Britain. (See more on this read “The Zionist Network behind 9-11”)

Understanding Jeb Bush’s ties to Michael Bloomberg and the Rothschild family of Britain helps us understand his support of Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right-wing Zionist movement he heads in Israel. These connections reveal how the Zionist financial cabal that is behind the 9-11 cover-up controls our political leaders and why we cannot expect our controlled government to ever investigate 9-11 until this foreign criminal element is purged from the U.S. government.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

“AIG ships billions in bailout abroad” by Eamon Javers,, March 15, 2009

“Are there any more skeletons, Mr Agius?”, The Telegraph (UK), July 9, 2012

“Backers of Bush nonprofit include banks, schools, lottery” by Ronnie Greene and Steve Peoples, AP, July 1, 2015–election.html#

Barclays, Wikipedia, July 8, 2015

Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, Wikipedia, July 8, 2015

“Former Barclays chairman on payroll until March 2014”, The Guardian (UK), November 7, 2013

“Jeb Bush Paid By Bank That Violated Cuba Sanctions”,, December 18, 2014

“Jeb Bush Signals Business Wind-Down with Barclays Departure”,, December 18, 2014

“Jeb Bush’s banking career ripe for attack”, CNN, December 18, 2014

“Jeb Bush’s Big Lehman Brothers Problem” by Charles Gasparino,, July 2, 2015

“Jeb Bush’s Rush to Make Money May Be Hurdle”, New York Times, April 20, 2014

“Jeb Bush to resign from Barclays in preparation for 2016 campaign” by Philip Rucker, Washington Post, December 18, 2014

Marcus Agius, Wikipedia, July 8, 2015

“The Zionist Network behind 9-11,”, December 7, 2006

December 27, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 3 Comments

Ocean acidification not a current problem, top NOAA scientist insists in FOIA-ed e-mails

JunkScience | December 23, 2015 got NOAA scientist e-mails via FOIA? Why can’t Congress?

Last October, the New York Times published this dire op-ed on ocean acidification, supposedly authored by NOAA chief Richard Spinrad and his UK counterpart Ian Boyd.

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 3.05.03 PMCurious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.

First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 3.15.56 PMSecond, the New York Times initially rejected the op-ed for its U.S. print edition and web site, the e-mails show. NOAA staff then submitted the op-ed to the International NYTimes staff in London (because Madelyn knew the INYT staff) where it was placed in the International NYTimes print edition and

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 5.12.39 PMNext, NOAA staff was appalled at the New York Times-selected title, which was a lot different than the NOAA-picked titled:

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 3.13.07 PM Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 3.18.17 PMBut the most notable e-mails stand in stark contrast to the information presented in the NYTimes op-ed.

Specifically, NOAA’s Dr. Shallin Busch insists the op-ed exaggerates the ocean acidification problem:

shallin_busch_headshotBelow are clips of Busch doing so:

OA1 OA2 OA3 OA4JunkScience has maintained for years now that there is no evidence that ocean “acidification” is causing harm. Glad to see that a top NOAA scientist sees it the same way.

BTW, we were about to FOIA scientist e-mail from NOAA. Not sure why Congress can’t get it and Judicial Watch has to sue for it.

December 27, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Environmentalism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

UK activists’ clarion call to civil societies around the world: ‘Expel Israel from the United Nations’

By Stuart Littlewood | Intifada – Palestine | December 26, 2015

At least some people are determined to kick off the New Year on a positive note. A motion to expel Israel from the United Nations is to be put to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s AGM. It reads as follows:

Motion, PSC AGM 23 January 2016 to expel Israel from the United Nations

Considering that Israel’s admission to the UN on 11 May 1949 by General Assembly Resolution 273 was conditional upon its (1) honouring the UN Charter and (2) implementing UNGA Resolutions 181 of 29 November 1947 and 194 of 11 December 1948;

Noting that Israel has:

(1) repeatedly acted inconsistently with the Purposes of the UN expressed in Article 1.2 of the UN Charter and thus also with Article 2 (introduction);

(2) repeatedly violated the provisions and Principles of the Charter as expressed in Articles 2.3, 2.4, 4, 55 and 56;

(3) failed to implement GA Resolutions 181 and 194;

(4) violated numerous other resolutions of the Security Council and GA; and (5) beginning in 1948 killed many Palestinian civilians and forcibly expelled many others from their homes and land;

Noting further that all attempts to ensure through negotiation Israel’s adherence to the Purposes and Principles contained in the Charter and to general principles of international law have failed;

Considering that effective measures should be taken to resolve the present situation arising out of Israel’s unlawful policies that violate the Charter and UNGA Res 273;

Recalling that Article 6 of the Charter states,

“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”;

This AGM resolves that the PSC Executive Committee shall

request the government of the United Kingdom, enforced by a petition and lobbying, to submit a motion to the Security Council recommending that the General Assembly expel Israel from the UN in compliance with the Charter, Article 6.

And many will be saying, “About time too.” Israel has enjoyed impunity for its criminal acts for 67 years. And each year the international community’s failure to take disciplinary action has made the Israeli regime more aggressive, more arrogant, more brutal and more loathsome.

Israel’s endless defiance of civilised rules of behavior

When drafting the motion it would have done no harm, I think, to mention the important ruling by the International Court of Justice that Israel’s separation wall is illegal and must come down, and the Palestinians affected properly compensated. The 400-miles long barrier known to all as the Apartheid Wall bites deep into the Palestinian West Bank dividing and isolating communities and stealing their lands and water.

If the Wall was simply for security, as Israel claims, it would have been built along the 1949 Armistice ‘Green Line’. But the Wall’s purpose is plainly to annex plum Palestinian land and water sources for illegal Israeli settlements and to that end closely follows the line of the Western Aquifer. It is a crude attempt to change the ‘facts on the ground’ in order to expand Israeli territory and greatly reduce the viability of a future Palestinian state. In 2004 the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that construction of the Wall was “contrary to international law” and Israel must dismantle it and make reparation. The ICJ also ruled that “all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction”.

Eleven years later Israel, contemptuous of international law, continues to build its hideous Wall with American tax dollars and protected by America’s veto. While Israelis fill their swimming pools, wash their cars and sprinkle their golf courses the Palestinians, who would normally be self-sufficient, now have to pay Israel’s grossly inflated price for a mere trickle of their own water, or go without.

Perhaps the motion should also note how Israel continues to defy the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, an important set of undertakings to which Israel itself and 136 other States are signed up.

Article 1 states that “all peoples have the right of self-determination…. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” Israel should not be interfering, for example, with fishing in Gaza’s territorial waters, Gaza’s off-shore gas resources or the West Bank’s water. Furthermore “the States that are party to the Covenant… shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations”.

Article 2 requires all States to guarantee that the rights enshrined in the Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind.

Article 6 says that States recognize the right of everyone to gain a living from work of their own choosing and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. But for Palestinians it is impossible until the siege on Gaza is lifted and free, unfettered access to the outside world restored. The same goes for the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are also blockaded by Israel’s military and strangulated by Israel’s Matrix of Control.

What about the threat Israel poses not just to the region but the rest of the world? According to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Israel has a nuclear arsenal numbering in the hundreds and is the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor has it signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention. Perhaps the facts about Israel being a lethal misfit ought to be noted in the PSC motion.

Also worth adding, as justification for launching the motion, is how the Israeli regime enjoys preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement of 1995 but fails to observe its terms. These require adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and Article 2 says that “respect for human rights and democratic principle constitute an essential element of this agreement”.  Israel has never complied but continues to enjoy association benefits. Despite many calls to suspend the Agreement the EU has instead upgraded the relationship and enhanced the benefits.  In Israel’s case breaches of legal and human rights obligations are rewarded not punished.

Will the whole world take up the call to expel?

The PSC motion’s originator, Blake Alcott, provides a useful ‘Long Dossier’ on the need for Israel’s expulsion on his blogsite. He writes: “I’m anticipating that, like last January, the PSC Executive Committee will oppose it – not its substance, but because the time isn’t yet ripe for it. Ben-Gurion always said that time is on Israel’s side, and I fear he was right. So I say, let’s throw the book at them….”

The time not ripe after more than six decades of Palestinian suffering during which the situation has gone from disgraceful to intolerable? Baroness Morris, president of Medical Aid for Palestinians, reminds us in her Christmas message,

“In Gaza, 95,000 Palestinians remain homeless following the last conflict [the 2014 Israeli blitzkrieg ‘Protective Edge’ and ongoing 8-year blockade], forcing many to face the winter cold in tents, shipping containers, or among the ruins of their former houses.”

Such inhumanity defies all understanding and reason. And still the international community turns a blind eye to the evil of a small Zionist gang who have somehow managed to grab the Western political élite by the balls.

The patience of decent folk is finally exhausted. Civil society now must set the pace, make the running and oust their compromised leaders. In the coming weeks the PSC has an opportunity to strike a spark that starts a worldwide civil society eruption, with the aim of amplifying the expulsion message, overriding current political inertia and speaking firmly from the grass roots to governments across the globe.

It would help too if the churches in the West found the backbone to take an orchestrated stand against Israel’s seizure of the Holy Land and the threat posed to the very wellspring of the Christian faith. They should be outraged by the regime’s persecution of Christian communities — as well as their Muslim brothers and sisters — residing in the place where Christianity was born.

Perhaps then the UN will sit up, take notice and make amends for its lamentable record.

December 27, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Obsessive Putin-Bashing

By Gilbert Doctorow | Consortium News | December 26, 2015

The U.S. establishment writers on Russia are one and all “presstitutes” and when you put their writings together, back to back, in 40 pages or so as Johnson’s Russia List has so kindly done in its Christmas Eve issue, the result is an astounding propaganda barrage.

For those of you in the general public who are, likely as not, unfamiliar with this Internet resource, Johnson’s Russia List is an Internet digest published roughly six days a week year round and focused on Russia, now with a separate section on Ukraine.

The JRL is a project domiciled at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and operated by Richard Johnson who founded it something like 20 years ago. Its banner tells us that it receives partial funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, partly from the Carnegie Corporation, New York, neither of which may be considered neutral in matters concerning Russia, quite the contrary.

But further funding comes from the voluntary contributions of subscribers, of whom there are perhaps 600, mostly American academics and university centers having an interest in Russian affairs. Appearing in JRL is an ambition of a great many wannabe experts and authorities in the field, mostly but not exclusively political scientists and journalists.

As an institution seeking to be fair-handed in purveying news and opinion about Russia, the JRL has been in the cross-hairs of activists on both sides of the highly divisive pro- and anti-Putin camps. About a year ago one of the most outspoken Russia-bashers, liberal economist Anders Aslund, publicly broke with JRL for what he saw as going easy on Putin in its selection of material. Alternative media commentators like Michael Averko have hit out at JRL for the opposite alleged abuse. In Johnson’s defense, one might argue he chooses selon le marché, i.e., from what is being published.

Undeniably, U.S. and U.K. scholars and pundits are lopsided in their bias against Putin and Russia. Nevertheless, even within the scope of this allowance for what there is to choose from and the presumed desire to run his shop straight down the middle, the Dec. 24 issue of the Johnson’s Russia List was a doozy. The count was 14 articles or transcripts of video events slamming Russia and Putin to zero articles holding any other view.

And among the publishers or hosts of the 14 entries being republished in JRL are not just heavy guns in the media wars but also would-be temples of learning: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the European Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy magazine, the Center for European Policy Analysis, the American Council on Foreign Relations, The Moscow Times, the Kennan Institute, The National Review, and Home Box Office.

Putin’s personality figures large in nearly all of these essays and discussions as the sole explanation for all the turns in Russian foreign and domestic policy. This is entirely in keeping with the ad hominem argumentation that has become the norm in political discussions generally in the U.S.

Joseph Stalin, with his no man, no issue philosophy of governance must be chuckling, wherever he is, over how this view has caught on in what passes today for polite society.

The phenomenon is something I felt acutely this past spring in its McCarthy-ite form when I appeared as one of three participants in the Euronews hosted talk show The Network. The subject of the day was the assassination of Kremlin critic and opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, who was shot down within proximity of the Kremlin walls a few days earlier.

We were discussing media coverage of that event and who was to blame for politically motivated crimes in Russia, when a fellow panelist, Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European Parliament’s committee on foreign relations, who was irritated by my insistence that Russian media gave a great many different takes on the news and was anything but monolithic, said in an aside to me that was picked up by the microphones and later went on air: “How much is the Kremlin paying you?”

Not being a hardened politician like Brok, stunned by the way a senior official of the E.U. could stoop to such low-life viciousness, and naively believing that Europe’s most watched news station would not broadcast crude libel, I said nothing in response and the talk moved on.

Having just come back a week ago from Moscow, where my stay was picked up by a Kremlin-funded institution, I now can give a fairly precise answer to MEP Brok’s impertinent and malicious question: for three years of occasional guest appearances as interviewee and panelist on the Cross Talk program of Russia Today, I have been paid three nights in a five-star hotel in downtown Moscow, lavish buffet breakfasts, a tour of the Kremlin and a seat at the banquet dinner celebration of Russia Today’s 10 years on air where Vladimir Putin was the keynote speaker.

For this token of respect by my hosts at RT, I am duly grateful. Yet, I know full well that it is not to be compared with the lavish hospitality bestowed on attendees at the annual Kremlin-organized gatherings of the Valdai Discussion Club to which many senior U.S. academics, Angela Stent, of Georgetown University, to name one, Robert Legvold of Columbia and Tufts, to name another, have been invited regularly notwithstanding the fact that most are hostile, at best agnostic to the “Putin regime” in their public writings and appearances.

Now that I have “come clean” about Kremlin blandishments that have come my way, I turn to my political opponents who have a monopoly on Thursday’s JRL and ask how much they are benefiting in terms of grants, professional promotions and access to the high and mighty in Washington for publicly supporting the propaganda lines of State Department handouts. I wouldn’t dream of accusing them of being on the CIA payroll…

Put another way and avoiding rhetorical questions, I assert plainly that the Establishment writers on Russia are one and all “presstitutes” and when you put their writings together, back to back, in 40 pages or so as JRL has so kindly done in the Christmas Eve issue, the result is an astounding propaganda barrage.

From these collected rants by some very well known “authorities,” I have chosen the one piece which presents itself as sort of scholarly. In this it stands apart from the slapstick humor of Richard Haass and Kimberley Marten in the transcript of an HBO airing and from the rehash of analyses of the fatal weaknesses in the Putin regime that constitute the bulk of the writings of other essayists.

Unlike the others, Kirk Bennett’s article would appear to break new ground. In “Russia and the West. The Myth of Russia’s Containment: Has the West always had it in for Russia? Hardly,” we are treated to an historical analysis intended to debunk what the author identifies as a key Kremlin propaganda line. It tries to refute Vladimir Putin’s assertions in several speeches that the West has always been an opponent of Russia, whether out of envy or fear.

This victimization narrative of the Kremlin, in the view of the author, and of the great majority of U.S. international relations experts, is used to whip up patriotic fervor in the broad Russian population and underpin a regime that is undergoing great strain from economic hardships and stagnation, as well as from the international isolation that followed its annexation of Crimea.

The author starts out in paragraph two citing the Russian poet Fyodor Tyutchev to show us he is no carpetbagging political scientist, that Russian studies are in his blood. Indeed, as we see through his text to the end, he has read his Russian and European history.

That is his strong point, compared to many of the other loudmouths in the articles republished by Johnson’s Russia List. It is also his weak point: he has read Russian history but he has not researched or written it. This is not an accusation, but a mere statement of the facts.

Bennett is introduced to us as a “former U.S. Foreign Service officer who spent most of his career working on post-Soviet issues.” For an historical overview like the article in question that goes back almost 300 years, he is clearly something of a lightweight.

Bennett’s article appeared originally in The American Interest, the publication founded and run by the key popularizer of neoconservative philosophy, Francis Fukuyama. Bennett otherwise has recently published in the online platform of The American Center for a European Ukraine, which should explain where he is coming from politically and to whom he is reaching out.

In effect, Bennett is just one more American thinker who presumes that he understands Russian history and Russian national interest vastly better than the Russians themselves do. In this regard, my best advice to him and to his followers is to sit down with a couple of books written by Dominic Lieven, a scion of one of the great families in the Russian Baltics who is presently a visiting professor at Yale University and who spent more than 25 years as professor of Russian history at the London School of Economics.

The two books in question are Russia Against Napoleon (2012) and The End of Tsarist Russia (2015). Both present the history of momentous periods from a novel perspective, Russia’s own, based on extensive work in the Russian historical archives. Together they sweep into the dust bin most of the simplistic remarks of Bennett about the nature of Russian-European relations since the Eighteenth Century up to 1917.

For example, Lieven explains at length the competing imperialisms, European and Russian of the Nineteenth Century, which were underpinned not only by Russia’s Panslavism, but by Pan-Germanism and by myths to justify Anglo-Saxon world hegemony, which put the powers at odds and which spread widely the denigration of Russia that survives to our day in the West.

From Lieven’s archival research and detailed attention to the advice the Russian rulers received from their senior advisers, both in 1812-1815 and in 1906-1917, both from generals and civilians, it is clear that the Putin narrative on Russian history which Bennett tries to shoot down had far wider acceptance among serious, well-educated Russians and far more subtlety to it than Bennett can imagine.

But Bennett’s problem is not just his average-level consumer’s as opposed to scholar’s knowledge of Russian history. It extends to current events. Bennett distorts present realities. Yes, he is right that Vladimir Putin from time to time plays the “victimization” card, just as from time to time, more generally, the Russian President invokes nationalism.

The simple fact is that in Russia, just as in most Western countries including the United States, nationalism has broad resonance and popular understanding, playing as it does to the heartstrings, whereas Realpolitik, which is the dominant approach to policy behind Putin’s thinking, is seen as cold and unfeeling by the public, too cerebral, so is held back from the addresses to the nation that Bennett cites.

It would be more appropriate to describe Vladimir Putin’s characterization of Russia’s talking partners on the international stage as “Frenemies.” Anyone paying close attention to his major speeches knows that he is never excited, least of all does he engage in “tirades” over the conduct of this or that country in its relations to Russia because the underlying expectation of Putin is that all countries are in permanent competition for their own advantage and only alignment of interests can ensure genuine meeting of minds and common action. Personalities as such count for almost nothing.

Contrary to the facile generalization of Bennett, Vladimir Putin has always followed a foreign policy that had a plan A, of joining NATO or otherwise entering into a shared security platform with the West, and a default position plan B of going it alone, as we now see today after the sharp confrontation over Ukraine.

It will be interesting to see in the days ahead if David Johnson has the courage of his convictions and publishes my indictment of his latest harvest of anti-Russian invective.

Gilbert Doctorow is the European Coordinator of the American Committee for East West Accord. His most recent book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. It is available in paperback and e-book from and affiliated websites.

December 27, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

US burned $231 million over sat-aided missile system: Report

Press TV – December 26, 2015

A new report details how the United States government threw away over $230 million of taxpayer money on a failed satellite-aided missile system.

According to a Los Angeles Times article published on Saturday, the project known as Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) was initially represented in 2009 as an “unprecedented capability” to protect America and its allies against a nuclear attack.

A key congressional supporter described the project by the US Missile Defense Agency as “a necessity for our country.”

But the PTSS was officially “discontinued” on October 1, 2013 over a raft of issues.

The US missile shield program was meant to use a network of nine to 12 satellites, orbiting high above the equator, to detect missile launches and track warheads in flight with great precision.

It would be able to tell apart real missiles from decoys – an elusive capability known as “discrimination.” It would help guide US rocket-interceptors to destroy incoming warheads. And it would do all this at a fraction of the cost of alternative approaches.

Based on those promises, the administration of President Barack Obama and Congress poured more than $230 million into design and engineering work on PTSS starting in 2009. Four years later though, the government quietly killed the program before a single satellite was launched.

The Missile Defense Agency said PTSS fell victim to budget constraints. In fact, the program was spiked after outside experts determined that the entire concept was hopelessly flawed and the claims made by its advocates were erroneous. It was the latest in a string of expensive failures for the missile agency.

The Los Angeles Times said it examined hundreds of pages of congressional testimony and other government records and interviewed leading defense scientists and others familiar with PTSS.

The paper found among other things that in their equatorial orbit, the satellites would have been blind to warheads flying over the Arctic – one of the likely paths for missiles fired at the US.

Also, with at most 12 satellites, the system could not have provided continuous tracking of missiles across the Northern Hemisphere, as promised. That would require at least twice as many satellites.

Additionally, the PTSS could not have reliably distinguished warheads from decoys and harmless debris. The satellites’ sensors were not powerful enough.

The Missile Defense Agency’s cost estimate – $10 billion over 20 years – was way off. PTSS would have cost at least $24 billion over that time period, according to an independent assessment done for the Pentagon and Congress.

And that even if the system lived up to its billing, it would have been largely redundant. Existing satellites and radars can do much of what PTSS was supposed to do.

“It’s an example of what can go wrong in defense procurement: Huge amounts of money just pissed away on things that should never have advanced beyond a study,” the US daily quoted David K. Barton, a physicist and radar engineer who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed US missile-defense programs, including PTSS.

December 27, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment