Aletho News


Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis

By Kenneth Surin | CounterPunch | September 25, 2018

Several CounterPunchers, I included, have posted on the “antisemitism” campaign directed at the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s most virulent accusers have been from his own party, abetted by the tabloid media, and the supposedly liberal Guardian (though it has long been a Blairite holdout, and its chief op-ed writer on Israel is the ardent Zionist Jonathan Freedland).

This anti-Corbyn faction in the Labour party is made up of two overlapping groups: increasingly marginalized supporters of the former leader Tony Blair whose neoliberal “Thatcher lite” agenda has been superseded by Corbyn’s push to reclaim and revitalize Labour’s socialist origins; and a Zionist element, which turns out to be extremely well-funded, having well-documented strong links with pro-Zionist advocacy groups.

In particular, I’ve been researching organizational links and funding sources from key donors, along with associated parliamentary patterns on two significant issues–  the illegal invasion of Iraq and Saudi adventurism in the Middle East–  congruent with Israel’s declared interests.

Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, has been an unyielding supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people.

The results, presented below, have (to say the least) been more than a mild surprise.

Corrections, and updates, from readers will be most welcome, as I intend to keep this list up-to-date and free from error.


Rt. Hon Joan Ryan MP, LFI Chair (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Evening Standard of October 26, 2007, in 2005-06 she made the second highest expenses claim of any MP, while in 2006-07 she managed to achieve first place, with a total of £173,691/$227,800. In May 2009 Ryan claimed more than £4,500/$5,900 under the additional costs allowance for work on a house she had designated as her second home. In February 2010 she was asked to repay £5,121/$6,700 mortgage interest, which she had wrongfully claimed. Corbyn by contrast has been the lowest claimer of expenses since these were monitored—in 2010 he claimed just £8.70/$11.40 for an ink cartridge. His expenses rose significantly when he became leader of the main opposition party, and his claim between 1 June 2017-31 May 2018 amounted to £20,397.74/$26,700, still chicken’s feed compared to Ryan’s excesses).

Dame Louise Ellman MP, LFI Vice-Chair, former chair of Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)§. (Voted for the war on Iraq, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.  In 2011, The Jerusalem Post described Berger as “an active supporter of Israel who has visited the country over 20 times”.)

Sharon Hodgson MP, LFI Vice-Chair

Rupa Huq MP,LFI Vice-Chair (Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Pat McFadden MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn, former LFI Chair (Tony Blair’s unofficial liaison with business. In the 1998 “Lobbygate” scandal he was caught on tape boasting to an undercover reporter (Greg Palast) posing as a businessman, about how he could sell access to government ministers and create tax breaks for their clients.

Rachel Reeves MP, LFI Vice-Chair (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports curbs on immigration, and attracted controversy by hiring unpaid interns. In 2017, she received a “donation in kind” of £12,500/$16,400 from Sir David Garrard#)

Rt. Hon John Spellar MP, serves on the Political Council of the neoconservative and Islamophobic think-tank Henry Jackson Society (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, House of Lords LFI Chair (former MI6 (UK spying outfit) operative, specializing in Scandinavian affairs)

Jonathan Reynolds MP, LFI Vice-Chair

John Woodcock MP (resigned from the Labour party in July 2018, now sitting as an Independent MP), LFI Vice-Chair (Favoured UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Andrew Dinsmore, Member of the London Assembly for Barnet and Camden 2012- (Opposed the academic boycott of Israel in parliament, saying the boycott was “misguided” and “undermined academic freedoms” and contributed “absolutely nothing to trying to bring peace to the Middle East”)

Former Labour MP (2010-2017) Michael Dugher, LFI vice-chair. (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has criticized the BDS campaign, saying in a tweet: “Boycotting Israeli institutions is ignorant, wrong and counterproductive to peace. We should be building bridges and furthering dialogue”. A keynote speaker at the ‘We Believe in Israel’ conference, he said he was “proud to be a Zionist”, and that “Each time I visit Israel, my admiration for that great country grows”. In parliament he termed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state as “unnecessary and divisive”)

Former Labour MP (1997-2010) Jane Kennedy, Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner 2012- (LFI Chair 1997–98, 2000–-07)

Former Labour MP (1997-2005) Stephen Twigg, ex-LFI chair (Voted for the war on Iraq)


Ian Austin MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. On 1 June 2012, he apologised after claiming that a Palestinian human rights group had denied the existence of the Holocaust. Members of Friend of Al-Aqsa made reference to the fact that Austin had written about the group in an article written on the Labour Uncut website in 2011. In 2017, he received a “donation in kind” of £10,000/$12,400 from Sir David Garrard#, and £5,000/$6,200 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Luciana Berger MP, Director of LFI (2007-2010),also parliamentary chair of JLM (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Nick Brown MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon Liam Byrne MP

Vernon Coaker MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rosie Cooper MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.)

Yvette Cooper MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Mary Creagh MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Jon Cruddas MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Wayne David MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Gloria DePiero MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Angela Eagle MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Chris Evans MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jim Fitzpatrick MP

Rt. Hon Caroline Flint MP(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

James Frith MP

Mike Gapes MP, former LFI Vice-Chair(Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Supports military action in Syria)

Barry Gardiner MP, former vice-chair of LFI (Voted for war on Iraq, and supported the Israeli onslaught on Gaza 2008-09)

Preet Gill MP

Mary Glindon MP

Lilian Greenwood MP

Nia Griffith MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Andrew Gwynne MP

Fabian Hamilton MP (Voiced opposition to Ed Miliband (then Labour leader) who criticized Israel’s 2014 operation in Gaza “wrong and unjustifiable”. In parliament he opposed a backbench motion to recognize a Palestinian state. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Rt. Hon David Hanson MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt. Hon Dame Margaret Hodge MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother, paid tax of just £163,000/$214,000 (0.01%) on revenues of more than £2.1bn/$2.75bn in 2011. Corbyn has pledged to close these tax loopholes)

Rt. Hon George Howarth MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Dan Jarvis MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. According to the Register of Members’ Interests, he accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Diana Johnson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Darren Jones MP

Helen Jones MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Kevan Jones MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Mike Kane MP

Barbara Keeley MP

Liz Kendall MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Abstained on a parliamentary motion recognizing the state of Palestine.  According to the Register of Members’ Interests, she accepted a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Peter Kyle MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon David Lammy MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Chris Leslie MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Has stated that “Marxism has no place in the modern Labour Party” )

Ivan Lewis MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Ian Lucas MP (Also member of the Labour Friends of Palestine. Opposes BDS)

Sandy Martin MP

Chris Matheson MP

Steve McCabe MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Catherine McKinnell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Conor McGinn MP(Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Stephen Morgan MP

Melanie Onn MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Toby Perkins MP (voted for UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jess Phillips MP

Bridget Phillipson MP

Lucy Powell MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen.  Introducing legislation in the House of Commons banning private, invite-only groups on Facebook because they “promote hate speech”).

Virendra Sharma MP

Barry Sheerman MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Ruth Smeeth MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Smeeth used to work for a pro-Israel campaign group, BICOM (considereda ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). The Register of Members’ Interests shows that Smeeth declared a donation of £5,000/$6,200 from Poju Zabludowicz’s company Tamares Real Estates in June last year. Zabludowicz, a billionaire property speculator, used his wealth, inherited from his Israeli arms dealer father, to establish BICOM. Smeeth also declared a donation of £2,500/$3,100 from Sir Trevor Chinn*)

Angela Smith MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Jeff Smith MP

Owen Smith MP

Gareth Snell MP

Wes Streeting MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. Rejects BDS in a statement to We Believe in Israel)

Graham Stringer MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Emily Thornberry MP (Shadow secretary of defence)

Anna Turley MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Karl Turner MP

Chuka Umunna MP (Received donation of £25,000/$32,700 from Sir David Garrard#)

Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Tom Watson MP, Labour Deputy Leader (Voted for the war on Iraq. Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen. Watson was keynote speaker at LFI’s 2016 “annual lunch” and praised LFI for being “fearless in its support for the state of Israel”. Since December 2015, Watson has received £50,000/$65,500 in personal donations from Sir Trevor Chinn*.  Watson has also received £15,000/$19,600 from Sir David Garrard#, and £4,500/$5,900 from LFI. There is no Labour politician more welcoming of pro-Zionist largesse than Watson)

Phil Wilson MP (Abstained or not present during 2016 vote to withdraw UK support for Saudi war against Yemen)

Rt. Hon Rosie Winterton MP (Voted for the war on Iraq)

Rt Hon Lord Anderson of Swansea

Former Labour MP (1987-2010) Alun Michael, South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner 2012– .

Lord Beecham DL

Rt Hon Lord David Blunkett, member of Tony Blair’s cabinet. (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Lord Clarke of Hampstead CBE

Rt Hon Lord Clinton-Davis(former director of The Jewish Chronicle and former member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Lord Davies of Coity CBE

Rt Hon Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP)

Rt Hon Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock (Voted for the war on Iraq when he was an MP, and voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the war.)

Lord Harrison

Lord Haskel

Baroness Dr Hayter

Lord Kennedy

Lord Michael Levy (Chief fundraiser for Tony Blair, he was Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East (1998-20017). Described by The Jerusalem Post as “undoubtedly the notional leader of British Jewry”)

Lord Livermore

Rt Hon Lord John Reid of Cardowan (As Blair’s minister of defence sent 3,000 British troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan. Supports curbs on immigration)

Lord David Sainsbury of Turville (Supermarket tycoon, and major donor to the Labour party (£18.5m/$24.3m until 2016). Served as Blair’s minister of science, without salary)

Lord Stone of Blackheath

Lord Turnberg

Rt Hon Lord David Watts

Lord Robert Winston of Hammersmith (Since 2017 founding member and co-chair of the UK-Israel Science Council)

Lord Young of Norwood Green

Ψ The JLM director, Ella Rose, was an Israeli embassy officer before she became JLM director.

# Sir David Garrard: property tycoon, offshore tax-dodger. In 2006 it was revealed Garrard had made a secret “loan” to the Labour Party of £2.3m/$3m (this is in addition to donations of £1.5m/$2m since 2003 under the “New Labour” leaders Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband). He was also nominated for a peerage at that time, but the nomination was withdrawn when news of the suspect “loan” became public.  In 2013 Garrard hosted a junket to Israel by 11 Labour MPs, including shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, shadow defence minister Gemma Doyle, LFI chair Anne McGuire and vice-chair Louise Ellman. He left the Labour party in March 2018, citing Corbyn’s “antisemitism” as his reason.

*Sir Trevor Chinn: former chair of the Kwik-Fit and Lex chain of motor garages. Has funded the Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI; and he sits on the Executive Committee of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Chinn also sits on the executive committee of the Zionist advocacy group BICOM (considered a ‘strictly protected’ source by US Intelligence). Chinn has funded several leadership rivals to Jeremy Corbyn.  The Independent reports that Chinn has donated an undisclosed amount to Tony Blair, who was of course the main UK sponsor of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Meet James Corbett, Political Extremist!!! #PropagandaWatch

corbettreport | September 25, 2018

Imagine you’re a high school student doing a homework assignment on the Federal Reserve. You go to YouTube and type in “Federal Reserve” in the search bar and find “Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve.”

The horror!

Luckily, you don’t have to worry about that, because now that MSNBC and Mother Jones have ganged up, it’s being scrubbed from the search results! Welcome to the world of soft censorship, folks!


September 25, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 2 Comments

The blocking of Palestinian rights at an international level is endorsed by the PA

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas led by French President Emmanuel Macron departing the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on 21 September, 2018 [Mustafa Yalçın/Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | September 25, 2018

As the UN General Assembly meeting approaches, the entire international community is engaged in a collective spectacle discussing the obsolete two-state compromise as the only way forward for Palestinians. There is no debate about how the facts on the ground contradict the diplomatic hyperbole.

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is reportedly holding a side meeting with officials, excluding the US and Israel, to seek ways in which negotiations about the two-state paradigm can be restarted; Israel’s illegal settlement expansion can be countered; and UN agencies that protect the rights of Palestinian refugees can be safeguarded.

The illusion of two camps – Israel and the US purportedly opposing the Palestinian Authority and the international community – is being promoted by Abbas, and none of the political actors are averse to the gimmick. As US President Donald Trump surpasses the pro-Israel approach of previous US presidents, it has become easier to focus on the current contempt for international law and ignore the subtle manoeuvres which paved the way for the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. Yet it is impossible to ignore one main fact: Trump and Israel are holding themselves beyond any accountability whatsoever and are wilfully eliminating Palestinian rights, while the international community and the PA hold conferences and meetings, and give meaningless speeches, in which support is professed but action is withheld.

While in Paris last week for a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Abbas declared his willingness to resume negotiations with Israel sponsored by the Middle East Quartet. The previous illusion of opposing camps blurs even more with the inclusion of the US in such a scenario. Despite Trump closing down the PLO office in Washington and unilaterally recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the PA is still dependent upon the US for its survival and the continuation of security coordination with the Israeli occupation authorities. Its refusal of Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” is only one facet of its dealings with Washington and is weakened by the PA’s own structure, which needs the power of stronger entities to survive while creating collateral damage out of the Palestinian people.

Abbas is merely ambling around in the international community’s deconstruction of Palestine, attempting to highlight favourable endeavours where there are none. Following his meeting with Macron, he declared that France is “increasingly studying the possibility of recognising a Palestinian state.” Apart from the fact that recognition of a Palestinian state without defining both the concept and what remains of Palestinian land available for a state is vague, to say the least, such recognition by more than 130 countries has rendered nothing tangible for Palestinians on the diplomatic front. France, like other countries claiming to support Palestine, is engaging in isolating facets to weaken the Palestinian cause, and the PA is playing along with the charade.

In all likelihood, the forthcoming meeting will reap a tacit acceptance of stripping Palestinians of their rights. The two-state compromise is obsolete, but its rhetoric still hasn’t been extinguished. The blocking of Palestinian rights at an international level is endorsed by the PA, and as long as the entire world community and the Ramallah-based authority are able to delay the inclusion of Palestinians into the political process, Israel stands to gain regardless of any outcome. The meeting is superfluous in comparison to what Palestinians need; it is now common knowledge that Palestinian needs and the deprivation of such needs have become fodder for sustaining the international community’s duplicitous agenda.

READ: Palestine ready to enter peace talks with Israel

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

Syria: Bolton Throws Down the Gauntlet

By Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR | Strategic Culture Foundation | 25.09.2018

A terrible beauty was born last night with the sequence of dramatic events taking a curious turn, following the shooting down of the Russian plane on September 17 near the coastline of Latakia, Syria, killing fifteen personnel on board the aircraft.

After a meticulous investigation by the Russian side, Moscow has blamed Israel. It has also constituted a criminal case. Indeed, under international law, a criminal act took place and a crime is per se accountable and punishable. Tel Aviv must be acutely conscious of that.

Meanwhile, Russia has begun initiating moves that ensure that such tragic incidents do not recur. As an initial step, Moscow proposes to equip the Syrian air defence establishment with the formidable S-300 missile defence system. More such measures are expected in the coming days and weeks.

At which point, last night, US National Security Advisor John Bolton came in from the cold and tweeted that the Russian move regarding S-300 is a “significant escalation” and that Moscow should “reconsider”. Washington has decided to make a lateral entry into what so far wore the look of a Russian-Israeli-Syrian triangle. It stands to reason that Bolton has been watching developments with an eagle’s eye all but kept mum until Russia made its first big move.

Last night, the Russian-Israeli-Syrian triangle morphed into a US-Russian-Israeli triangle. That in turn brings up the big question: Wasn’t the latter triangle the real one all along? Put differently, was Israel acting alone at all on September 17 or is it that Tel Aviv pulled strings in Washington for the big daddy to intervene since Moscow turned on the heat?

In either case, a terrible beauty is born, as Bolton’s crisp, cryptic wording underlines. He didn’t elaborate what he meant by “significant escalation” and, equally, he left a challenge vaguely suspended in the air by calling for a Russian rethink on the S-300 decision. Importantly, Bolton’s tweet ignored Moscow’s clarification at the highest level on Monday that the Russian motivation is principally to “avert any potential threat” to the lives of Russian personnel deployed to Syria.

Simply put, what emerges from Bolton’s tweet is that any Russian moves towards the “significant” strengthening of the Syrian capability to deter aggression or closing the Syrian air space in regions where Russian personnel are deployed will not find favor with Washington. This is a curious stance, to say the least. Especially when there are strong and persistent rumors that the US is also feverishly working to establish a “no-fly zone” in northeastern Syria that might possibly cover a big swathe of territory stretching from Manbij in Aleppo province to Deir Ezzor bordering the Euphrates, and that an advanced air defence and radar system has already been established near the Turkish border with northern Syria’s Ayn al-Arab (also known as Kobani), held by Kurdish groups. This is, by the way, despite the fact that the ISIS is not known to possess any capability to stage air attacks.

That is to say, on the one hand, the US is establishing an air defence system to protect its Kurdish allies in Syria from attacks while on the other hand, it is contesting any Russian move to strengthen the deterrent capability of the Syrian government against Israeli air attacks. What is the game plan?

The US strategy in Syria has phenomenally evolved through the past one-year period from the professed agenda of fighting terrorism to shaping the political future of Syria. The US has all but acknowledged its intention to keep an open-ended presence in Syria. President Trump no longer talks about a withdrawal of US troops from Syria. Alongside, Washington has also reopened the regime agenda in Syria.

All in all, it must be understood very clearly that the US not only refuses to accept defeat in the Syrian conflict, which it engineered some 7 years ago, but is determined to be the winner, and will use all power at its disposal to reach that desired goal. This means tha Washington expects Moscow not to stand in the way of the Pentagon’s action plan to degrade the Syrian government forces to a point where they stood in a priori history in mid-2015 before the Russian intervention.

Enter Israel. The US-Israeli congruence in the above project does not need elaboration, because a regime change in Syria and the potential dismemberment of that country could guarantee that Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan Heights will never be challenged on the ground, leaving the Trump administration a free hand to accord international legitimacy to that occupation as part of any “Syrian settlement”.

Suffice to say, Russia is the proverbial dog in the Syrian manger. Iran’s presence in Syria is more of a nuisance that can be tackled separately by Israel, but so long as Russian aerospace capabilities provide cover for the Syrian government forces, the US and Israel run into headwinds in demolishing them systematically for advancing the regime change project.

The logical conclusion of the US-Israeli project lies in the removal of the Russian bases from Syrian territory. Neither the US nor Israel can countenance a military presence superior to Israel’s in the entire Middle East region. The actual Russian deployment to Syria may not be big, but Israel is very well aware that Russia has vast strategic depth, which it cannot hope to match.

The bottom line is that so long as Russia has a strategic presence in the Middle East, Israel cannot regain its military dominance in the region. And time doesn’t work in Israel’s favour, either. Iran is rising and Turkey remains unfriendly. The sooner things get done, the better for Israel – preferably while Trump remains in office.

Clearly, Bolton has thrown down the gauntlet. The tragic incident of September 17 cannot be viewed in isolation.

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR, former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. Devoted much of his 3-decade long career to the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran desks in the Ministry of External Affairs and in assignments on the territory of the former Soviet Union. After leaving the diplomatic service, took to writing and contribute to The Asia Times, The Hindu and Deccan Herald. Lives in New Delhi.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , | 5 Comments

The Path to World War III

Risky Israeli behavior threatens everyone

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • September 25, 2018

The minimal U.S. press coverage accorded to last Monday’s shooting down of a Russian intelligence plane off the coast of Syria is, of course, a reflection both of lack of interest and of Israel’s involvement in the incident. If one had read the New York Times or the Washington Post on the morning after the shoot-down or watched the morning network news it would have been easy to miss the story altogether. The corporate media’s desire to sustain established foreign policy narratives while also protecting Israel at all costs is as much a feature of American television news as are the once every five minutes commercials from big pharma urging the public to take medications for diseases that no one has ever heard of.

Israel is, of course, claiming innocence, that it was the Syrians who shot down the Russian aircraft while the Israeli jets were legitimately targeting a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” Seeking to undo some of the damage caused, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express his condolences. He also sent his air force chief to Russia on Thursday to provide a detailed report on what had occurred from the Israeli perspective.

But that story, however it will be spun, is inevitably only part of the tale. The narrative of what occurred is by now well established. The Russian aircraft was returning to base after a mission over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast monitoring the activities of a French warship and at least one British RAF plane. As a large and relatively slow propeller driven aircraft on a routine intelligence gathering mission, the Ilyushin 20 had no reason to conceal its presence. It was apparently preparing to land at its airbase at Khmeimim in Syria when the incident took place. It may or may not have had its transponder on, which would signal to the Syrian air defenses that it was a “friendly.”

Syrian air defenses were on high alert because Israel had attacked targets near Damascus on the previous day. On that occasion a Boeing 747 on the ground that Israel claimed was transporting weapons was the target. One should note in passing that Israeli claims about what it is targeting in Syria are never independently verifiable.

The Israelis for their part were using four F-16 fighter bombers to stage a surprise night attack on several sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians. They came in from the Mediterranean Sea and clearly were using the Russian plane to mask their approach as the Ilyushin 20 would have presented a much larger radar profile for the air defenses. The radar systems on the F-16s would also have clearly seen the Russian plane.

The Israelis might have been expecting that the Syrians would not fire at all at the incoming planes knowing that one of them at least was being flown by their Russian allies. If that was the expectation, it proved wrong and it was indeed a Syrian S-200 ground to air missile directed by its guidance system to the larger target that brought down the plane and killed its fourteen crew members. The Israelis completed their bombing run and flew back home. There were also reports that the French frigate offshore fired several missiles during the exchange, but they have not been confirmed while the British plane was also reportedly circling out of range though within the general area.

There was also a back story. The Israelis and Russian military had established a hotline, similar to the one that is used with the U.S. command in Syria, precisely intended to avoid incidents like the Ilyushin shoot-down that might escalate into a more major conflict. Israel reportedly used the line but only one minute before the incident took place, leaving no time for the Russian plane to take evasive action.

The Russian Ministry of Defense was irate. It saw the exploitation of the intelligence plane by the Israelis as a deliberate high-risk initiative. It warned “We consider these provocative actions by Israel as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership. We reserve the right for an adequate response.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin was more conciliatory, saying the incident was a “chain of tragic circumstances.” He contrasted it with the Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane in 2015, which was planned and deliberate, noting that Israel had not actually attacked the Ilyushin. Though the Putin comments clearly recognize that his country’s relationship with Israel is delicate to say the least, that does not mean that he will do nothing.

Many Israelis are emigres from Russia and there are close ties between the two countries, but their views on Syria diverge considerably. As much as Putin might like to strike back at Israel in a hard, substantive way, he will likely only upgrade and strengthen the air defenses around Russian troop concentrations and warn that another “surprise” attack will be resisted. Unfortunately, he knows that he is substantially outgunned locally by the U.S., France, Britain and Israel, not to mention Turkey, and a violent response that would escalate the conflict is not in his interest. He has similarly, in cooperation with his Syrian allies, delayed a major attempt to retake terrorist controlled Idlib province, as he works out a formula with Ankara to prevent heavy handed Turkish intervention.

But there is another dimension to the story that the international media has largely chosen to ignore. And that is that Israel is now carrying out almost daily air attacks on Syria, over 200 in the past 18 months, a country with which it is not at war and which has not attacked it or threatened it in any way. It justifies the attacks by claiming that they are directed against Iran or Hezbollah, not at Syria itself. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that any peace settlement in Syria include the complete removal of Iranians, a demand that has also been repeated by the United States, which is also calling for the end to the Bashar al-Assad government and its replacement by something more “democratic.”

Aggressive war directed at a non-threatening country is the ultimate war crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunals that followed after the Second World War, yet the United States and its poodles Britain and France have not so much as squeaked when Israel kills civilians and soldiers in its surprise attacks against targets that it alone frequently claims to be linked to the Iranians. Washington would not be in much of a position to cast the first stone anyway, as it is in Syria illegally, bombs targets regularly, to include two major cruise missile strikes, and, on at least one occasion, set a trap that reportedly succeeded in killing a large number of Russian mercenaries fighting on the Syrian government side.

And then there is the other dimension of Israeli interference with its neighbors, the secret wars in which it supports the terrorist groups operating in Syria as well as in Iran. The Netanyahu government has armed the terrorists operating in Syria and even treated them in Israeli hospitals when they get wounded. On one occasion when ISIS accidentally fired into Israeli-held territory on the Golan Heights it subsequently apologized. So, if you ask who is supporting terrorism the answer first and foremost should be Israel, but Israel pays no price for doing so because of the protection afforded by Washington, which, by the way, is also protecting terrorists.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for the Israeli action. Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely, producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel’s government. In either case, the chaos in Syria that Israel desires would continue and even worsen but there would also be the potential danger of a possible expansion of the war as a consequence, making it regional or even broader.

It’s the same old story. Israel does risky things like attacking its neighbors because it knows it will pay no price due to Washington’s support. The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington. What Israel is really thinking when it seeks to create anarchy all around its borders is anyone’s guess, but it is, to be sure, in no one’s interest to allow the process to continue. It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Empire of Lies: Are ‘We the People’ Useful Idiots in the Digital Age?

By John W. Whitehead | Rutherford Foundation | September 25, 2018

“Who needs direct repression,” asked philosopher Slavoj Zizek, “when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?”

In an Orwellian age where war equals peace, surveillance equals safety, and tolerance equals intolerance of uncomfortable truths and politically incorrect ideas, “we the people” have gotten very good at walking freely into the slaughterhouse, all the while convincing ourselves that the prison walls enclosing us within the American police state are there for our protection.

After all, the alternative—taking a stand, raising a ruckus, demanding change, refusing to cooperate, engaging in civil disobedience—is not only a lot of work but can be downright dangerous.

What we fail to realize, however, is that by tacitly allowing these violations to continue, we not only empower the tyrant but we feed the monster.

In this way, what starts off as small, occasional encroachments on our rights, justified in the name of greater safety, becomes routine, wide-ranging abuses so entrenched as to make reform all but impossible: the government lures us in with a scheme to make our lives better, our families safer, and our communities more secure, and then once we buy into it, they slam the trap closed.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about red light cameras, DNA databases, surveillance cameras, or zero tolerance policies: they all result in “we the people” being turned into Enemy Number One.

In this way, the government campaign to spy on our phone calls, letters and emails was sold to the American people as a necessary tool in the war on terror.

Instead of targeting terrorists, however, the government has turned us into potential terrorists, so that if we dare say the wrong thing in a phone call, letter, email or on the internet, especially social media, we end up investigated, charged and possibly jailed.

If you happen to be one of the 1.31 billion individuals who use Facebook or one of the 255 million who tweet their personal and political views on Twitter, you might want to pay close attention.

This criminalization of free speech, which is exactly what the government’s prosecution of those who say the “wrong” thing using an electronic medium amounts to, was at the heart of Elonis v. United States, a Supreme Court case that wrestled with where the government can draw the line when it comes to expressive speech that is protected and permissible versus speech that could be interpreted as connoting a criminal intent. The Court ruled in favor of Elonis.

The common thread running through Elonis’ case and others like it is the use of social media to voice frustration, grievances, and anger, sometimes using language that is overtly violent.

Despite the Court’s ruling in Elonis, Corporate America has now taken the lead in policing expressive activity online, with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube using their formidable dominance in the field to censor, penalize and regulate speech and behavior online by suspending and/or banning users whose content violated the companies’ so-called community standards for obscenity, violence, hate speech, discrimination, etc.

Make no mistake: this is fascism with a smile.

The subtle appeal of this particular brand of fascism is its self-righteous claim to fighting the evils of our day (intolerance, hatred, violence) using the weapons of Corporate America.

Be warned, however: it is only a matter of time before these weapons are used more broadly, taking aim at anything that stands in its quest for greater profit, control and power.

This is what fascism looks like in a modern context, with corporations flexing their muscles to censor and silence expressive activity under the pretext that it is taking place within a private environment subject to corporate rules as opposed to activity that takes place within a public or government forum that might be subject to the First Amendment’s protection of “controversial” and/or politically incorrect speech.

Alex Jones was just the beginning.

Jones, the majordomo of conspiracy theorists who spawned an empire built on alternative news, was banned from Facebook for posting content that violates the social media site’s “Community Standards,” which prohibit posts that can be construed as bullying or hateful.

According to The Washington PostTwitter suspended over 70 million accounts over the course of two months to “reduce the flow of misinformation on the platform.”

Curiously enough, you know who has yet to be suspended? President Trump.

Twitter’s rationale for not suspending world leaders such as Trump is because “Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate.”

Frankly, all individuals, whether or not they are world leaders, should be entitled to have their thoughts and ideas aired openly, pitted against those who might disagree with them, and debated widely, especially in a forum like the internet.

Why does this matter?

The internet and social media have taken the place of the historic public square, which has slowly been crowded out by shopping malls and parking lots.

As such, these cyber “public squares” may be the only forum left for citizens to freely speak their minds and exercise their First Amendment rights, especially in the wake of legislation that limits access to our elected representatives.

Unfortunately, the internet has become a tool for the government—and its corporate partners—to monitor, control and punish the populace for behavior and speech that may be controversial but far from criminal.

Yet we would do well to tread cautiously in how much authority we give the Corporate Police State to criminalize free speech activities and chill a vital free speech forum.

Not only are social media and the Internet critical forums for individuals to freely share information and express ideas, but they also serve as release valves to those who may be angry, seething, alienated or otherwise discontented.

Without an outlet for their pent-up anger and frustration, thoughts and emotions fester in secret, which is where most violent acts are born.

In the same way, free speech in the public square—whether it’s the internet, the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or a college campus—brings people together to express their grievances and challenge oppressive government regimes.

Without it, democracy becomes stagnant and atrophied.

Likewise, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if free speech is not vigilantly protected, democracy is more likely to drift toward fear, repression, and violence. In such a scenario, we will find ourselves threatened with an even more pernicious injury than violence itself: the loss of liberty.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at Whitehead can be contacted at

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

September 25th is “National Panic Day” a day where Americans are encouraged to spy on each other

massprivatei | September 25, 2018

Today, September 25th. is Homeland Security’s “National Panic Day.”

What is “National Panic Day”?

Officially, today is known as “National Awareness Day” not “National Panic Day.” For the reasons stated below,  I am calling it “National Panic Day” which coincides with DHS reissuing their National Terrorism Bulletins this month.

DHS and law enforcement have created a national day that glorifies spying on your family, neighbors, coworkers, classmates and much more.

“Across the country, in our communities, we share everyday moments with our neighbors, family, coworkers, and friends.  We go to work or school, the grocery store, or the gas station.  It’s easy to overlook these routine moments, but as you’re going about your day if you see something that doesn’t seem quite right, say something.  By being alert and reporting suspicious activity to your local law enforcement you can protect your family, neighbors, and community.”

Because DHS and law enforcement don’t do enough spying, they have created a National Awareness Day that encourages domestic spying.

(DHS Suspicious Activity Infographic)

If you think “recognizing the signs of terrorism-related suspicious activity” ended with just an infographic you would be mistaken.

DHS has also created an entire page of suspicious young Americans doing things like bicycle jumping, eating from food trucks and sitting in a school hallway. Besides trying to appeal to X Games fans, what purpose do these videos serve?

I’ll give you a hint, DHS and law enforcement want young people to be afraid of everything.

Besides being blatantly hyperbolic, these videos play on young people’s fear of terror and encourages them to report “harmless activities.” This is what happens when you indoctrinate an entire generation of millennial’s who have grown up living in fear.

DHS’s “National Awareness Day” is a carbon copy of McCarthyism which turned America’s fears of Communism into a national panic that lasted for decades.

My god, what Senator Joseph McCarthy would have given to be alive today.

What better way to justify their existence [DHS] than by appealing to the younger generation and encouraging them to report harmless activities, family, friends, neighbors etc.

Let’s call National Awareness Day what it really is: a day that law enforcement fans the flames of fear, hence “National Panic Day.”

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Shutting Down Free Speech in America: Government and Lobbyists Work Together to Destroy the First Amendment

By Philip Giraldi | American Herald Tribune | September 24, 2018

During the past several years, there has been increased pressure coming from some in the federal government aided and abetted by powerful advocacy groups in the private sector to police social and alternative media. It is a multi-pronged attack on the First Amendment which has already limited the types of information that Americans have access to, thereby narrowing policy options to suit those in power

The process has been ostensibly driven by concerns over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, but it is really about who controls and limits the public’s right to know what is going on out of sight in Washington and New York City, where politics and money come together. If one is interested in the free flow of information and viewpoints that comes with the alternative media, it certainly does not look that way. Robert Parry described it as a deliberate process of “demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.”

Last October top executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter were summoned to Capitol Hill for a discussion of their role in what is alleged to be Russia’s influence on the presidential campaign and went back home contrite and promising to improve. They have indeed improved by punishing members whose views have been found to be unacceptable, blocking them and suspending their access to the sites. Meanwhile, the federal government for its part has attempted to silence independent non-U.S. based voices by declaring Russian media outlets RT America and Sputnik to be “foreign agents,” requiring them to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is an unprecedented action against a news agency and invites quid-pro-quo for U.S. media operating overseas, leaving the American public more ignorant of world affairs than it already is.

Qatar based Al-Jazeera, which has been particularly targeted by Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as “a major exporter of hate against the Jewish people,” will also be required to register with FARA to comply with the new National Defense Authorization Act. Al-Jazeera, it should be noted, has employed undercover investigative journalism to expose the corruption of Britain’s government by Israeli supported Jewish groups. It’s similar series on the activity of Zionist lobbyists in America is on hold due to threats from Jewish organizations to severely punish the network if the documentary should ever be aired.

More recently Facebook has been active in removing accounts and advertising, much of it pro-Palestinian or otherwise critical of Israel, but also to include highly respectable Telesur’s “The Empire Files,” which looked at the consequences of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela. Anything that criticizes the corporate worldview is fair game for censorship. American Herald Tribune, which is critical of U.S. foreign policy in many areas, has recently had its Gmail shut down while Google also stopped servicing ads on its website. Its Facebook page was also closed, all done without any warning or explanation.

One of the organizations most interested in limiting conversations about what is going on in the world is the ADL which claims that it is “the world’s leading organization combating anti-Semitism and hate of all kinds,” though it clearly excludes incitement or even physical harm directed against Palestinian Arabs resentful of the Israeli occupation of their country. Its definition of “hatred” is really quite selective and is focused on anyone criticizing Israel or Jewish related issues. Its goal is to have any such speech or writing categorized as anti-Semitism and, eventually, to have “hate crime” legislation that criminalizes such expressions.

It is particularly ironic that Israel, which has now declared that it is in no way subject to international law, has itself proposed across the board censorship of the most prominent social media platforms on a global scale by creating an “international coalition that would make limiting criticism of Israel its primary objective.” It would operate through a “loose coalition… [that] would keep an eye on content and where it is being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content… in any of their countries at the request of members.”

More recently, Israel has been exposed by Wikileaks as hosting a conference describing how it now has a Command Center that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to scan the internet worldwide looking for “anti-Semitic” content. For Israel, anti-Semitic content means any criticism of its government or its behavior towards the Arabs. It reportedly pulls 200,000 posts a day and then reviews them using AI for content considered to be unacceptable. The roughly 10,000 posts determined to be anti-Semitic are then passed on to “intelligence and law enforcement agencies” in countries that have hate speech legislation for further action. The Israeli government also complains directly to the social media source to have the material taken down and works through Jewish organizations in cities and countries where there is considerable “anti-Semitic” activity to pressure governments to act even if there is no legal basis.

As most genuine independent journalism is currently limited to the alternative media, and that media lives on the internet, the ADL and those who are acting in collusion with the Israeli government are focusing on “cyberhate” as the problem and are working with major internet providers to voluntarily censor their product. On October 10th, 2017 the ADL issued a press release out of its New York City offices to explain just how far the censorship process has gone. The organization boasted of the fact that it was working with Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter “to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate.” Apple is not identified by name in the press release but one should presume that it is also involved, as well as YouTube, which is owned by Google. When you consider that the associates in this venture with ADL are vast corporations that control huge slices of the communications industry, the consequences of some kind of corporate decision on what constitutes “hate” become clear. Combatting “cyberhate” will inevitably become across-the-board censorship for viewpoints that are considered to be unacceptable, including any criticism of Israel.

ADL will be the “convener” for the group, providing “insight on how hate and extremist content manifests – and constantly evolves-online.” Which means it will define the problem, which it calls the “spew[ing] of hateful ideologies” so the corporate world can take steps to block such material. And “the initiative will be managed by ADL’s Center for Technology and Society in Silicon Valley.”

Facebook already employs thousands of censors and there is literally no limit to how far those who want to restrict material that they consider offensive will go. To be sure, most groups who want to limit the flow of information do not have the clout or resources of ADL with its $64 million annual operating budget so its “cyberhate” campaign will no doubt serve as a model that others will then follow. For ADL, reducing criticism of Israel is a much-sought-after goal. For the rest of us, it is a trip into darkness.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Suppression of Truth in the Land of Lies: An Oxymoron

By Edward Curtin | Behind the Curtain | September 25, 2018

If you are interested in reading the definitive book that demolishes the official lies about the attacks of September 11, 2001 – 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth – then Amazon has a great deal for you. While they conveniently do not offer new copies of this book that was published on September 11th, having reported it “out of print” and currently “out of stock,” after never having had it in stock, they allegedly offer 3 used paperback copies from other sellers for sale prices that are quite affordable: $917.04, $1060.20, and $1,500.

If that 4 or 20 cents would bring you over budget, I would be glad to provide either amount.

Don’t these sound like great deals for a book that proves that the justification for the “war on terror” and the slaughter of millions of people is one of the biggest propaganda operations in modern history? It’s always good to know you have a friend who can conveniently provide you with access to the truth at a fair price.

I must say, however, that Amazon offers a slightly better deal for another book they also never directly sold for some odd reason – Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte – a book that exposes the CIA infiltration of the major media throughout the world. You can allegedly pick that one up through Amazon’s kind medium services for either $900 or $997.09, but that’s for a hardcover.

One person reports having seen a used copy of 9/11 Unmasked appear at one week after its official publication date of September 11 (an odd fact in itself), and when he ordered it, the book never arrived. When he contacted the seller, he received a message from Amazon saying that the order had been cancelled, but no reason was given. When the person tried to post a negative review of the seller, Amazon refused to publish it.

These days truth is temporarily out of stock. No reason given. People and books just disappear in this land of make-believe.

If it bothers you a bit that Amazon, through its Amazon Web Services, provides the CIA and other intelligence agencies with a “Secret Region” cloud service that complements Jeff Bezos’s other business, The Washington Post, don’t be alarmed. I have conveyed a question through a certain medium’s mediumship to the deceased Frank Wisner, who is presumably beyond the clouds. He was the CIA’s architect of what he called his “mighty Wurlitzer,” on which he could play any propaganda tune he wanted through the CIA’s penetration through a covert action campaign of the mass media, journalists, student groups, women’s groups, and more. I have asked him if there is anything untoward about any of these strange arrangements that so many readers of my review of 9/11 Unmasked have complained about: that for some strange reason they have been unable to get the book through Amazon.

As I hopefully await the medium’s response from Wisner, you may get impatient. In that case you can immediately purchase the book through the publisher, Interlink Publishing, for $20. It should save you quite a bit of time waiting. But I’ll let you know if I hear anything.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

BBC’s climate change ‘facts’ are fiction

By Harry Wilkinson – The Conservative Woman – September 22, 2018

In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate alarmists at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change. This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute.

The problem is that these aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed.

The crucial paragraph reads:

‘Most climate scientists regard a rise of 2 degrees C as the point when global warming could become irreversible and the effects dangerous. At current rates, we are on track for a rise of more than 3-4 degrees C by the end of the century.’

There are so many things wrong with this short statement.

That global warming can be somehow ‘irreversible’ is pure propaganda; the climate has always been changing and it always will. The briefing later describes the idea of catastrophic tipping points as a ‘common misconception’, so they have comically failed their own test right at the start.

A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous either. The majority of economic impact studies put the cost of climate change by the end of the century at between 1.5% and 3% of world GDP, but these studies often make the inaccurate assumption that either no or little adaptation will take place.

In contrast, even the IPCC has admitted (p.15) that the cost of reducing emissions (‘mitigation’) to meet the 2oC target may be up to 4% of world GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050 and 11% in 2100.

These numbers do not incorporate the benefits of reducing our emissions, which are primarily the avoided costs of climate change. But given that a certain amount of warming is already ‘baked in’, it looks almost certain that this ‘mitigation’ will actually be far more expensive than not doing anything. If warming actually turns out to have a positive effect, the gamble will have failed even more spectacularly.

The IPCC has openly admitted that its cost forecasts come with incredibly optimistic assumptions that immediate mitigation takes place in all countries, that there is a single global carbon price, and that there are ‘no additional limitations on technology relative to the models’ default technology assumptions’. With no carbon capture and storage (CCS), they predict the total mitigation cost rises by a staggering 138%. The bad news is that CCS is currently failing to deliver, and few now expect it to play a significant role in reducing emissions.

Given the record of economic forecasts, all these predictions should be taken with a pinch of salt, but on the available evidence it appears we are sleepwalking into spending trillions of pounds to achieve only a negligible reduction in global temperatures.

The father of the two-degree target, veteran climate alarmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, has admitted the number is entirely fabricated: ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’.  He nonetheless celebrates its cynical effectiveness at motivating international political action.

Other prominent climate scientists, such as Hans von Storch, have been much more critical of this approach. Storch reflects on how scientists have become political sermonisers in a way which damages science as a whole: ‘Unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors . . . it’s certainly no coincidence that all the mistakes that became public always tended in the direction of exaggeration and alarmism.’

The statement that we are on track for ‘more than 3-4 degrees’ is an even more blatant distortion of the scientific evidence. Earlier this year, Peter Cox of the University of Exeter announced the results of his latest study which ruled out higher levels of warming. He concluded that ‘climate sensitivity’ would be in the narrower range of 2.2-3.4oC, thus ruling out warming of 4 or 5 degrees by 2100. His voice adds to a growing consensus that climate sensitivity will be lower than previously estimated. Does the BBC now consider him a climate denier too? 

Quite surreally, the document also describes the statement that ‘climate change has happened before’ as a ‘common misconception’. How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth?

Estimating the current and future impacts of climate change is a complex and contested enterprise, but the BBC would rather you didn’t know. ‘The science is settled’ they say, so move on. This climate memorandum is nothing less than propaganda presented as fact by controller Fran. There is a critical debate to be had, so inquisitive people had better look elsewhere.

September 25, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Importing Jihadi Terror to the UK – Cui Bono?

By Craig Murray | September 25, 2018

If Osama Bin Laden was not sufficient warning that decades of money, arms and other support from the Western security services does not render a jihadi a friend of the West, then the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, should have opened British eyes forever to the danger. In collaboration with MI5, Abedi had been fighting in the ongoing proxy war for Western oil interests in Libya, before being rescued by the Royal Navy. Back home in Manchester, he carried out an attack of appalling violence against a primarily young and female target group.

So it would be very foolish indeed to rely on the fact that the jihadi logistic support and propaganda group the White Helmets is largely British government funded, to expect its members who are now, like Abedi, being brought into the UK, to behave as quiet citizens. The links of the White Helmets to Al-Nusra and Al-Shams and other jihadi groups are deep – they chose to be evacuated to Idlib together from numerous sites. The reason there is no substantial corpus of independently filmed evidence of the White Helmets’ work is that they co-operate with people who would chop off western journalists’ heads on sight. In many well-attested cases, they are the same people.

In ending all funding to the White Helmets, the Dutch government did not wish to be confrontational towards the other neo-conservative governments who are funding and exploiting the propaganda from the White Helmets. Their report was therefore diplomatically phrased. Funding for the White Helmets may have “inadvertently” fallen into the hands of armed extremists, while unacceptable contact between the White Helmets and extreme jihadists was “inevitable” in the areas they operated.

Thanks to social media, there is an awareness among the UK’s general population of who the White Helmets really are, that belies the solidarity of the entire political and media class in maintaining the official fiction. Even the arch government supporting Daily Telegraph in reporting the story of White Helmets’ admittance to the UK, has a majority of readers’ comments pointing out the true nature of the White Helmets. (Being a Tory paper, there are naturally other comments which are simply Islamophobic).

Which is of course the irony of this. Entirely innocent British Muslims face the day to day surveillance state harassment of the Prevent programme, where Muslim students pursuing security studies are reported to the police for reading books on terrorism, and school pupils are reported for expressing opposition to the mass bombing of Libya by NATO or arms sales to Saudi Arabia. I cannot give a talk in a university about Palestine without a Prevent strategy risk assessment being formally compiled by the university authorities and approved by the police.

Yet not only has the largest terrorist attack of the last decade been committed by somebody working with MI5 and brought into the country by the Royal Navy, we are now importing jihadis with no prior connection to the UK other than receipt of British government funding.

Britain has never had larger or better-funded security services. As a major economic interest in its own right, the “security industry” has grown into a major component of the military industrial complex. Just as the arms industry requires external enemies, the security industry requires internal enemies. It is notable that many of the “foiled” terrorist plots of the last decade involved prior MI5 contact, sometimes bordering on agent provocateur operations. “Prevent” produces enemies who are not actually enemies at all.

Nobody has consciously decided to import the White Helmets to maintain the internal terrorist threat in the UK. But institutions, on analysis over time, almost always promote their institutional interest. Increasing the terrorist threat in the UK undeniably serves the economic self-interest of the security industry. Just as the promotion of war and internal tension has always benefited the arms industry and the rest of the military industrial complex. Importing the White Helmets into the UK is obviously nuts if your purpose is to minimise jihadi activity in the UK. So we have to ask, is that really the purpose?


September 25, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | | Leave a comment

The BBC’s Naive View of the UN’s Climate Machine

Big Picture News | September 24, 2018

SPOTLIGHT: Bureaucracies put their trust in other bureaucracies.

BIG PICTURE: A few weeks back, Joanne Nova perfectly captured the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) regarding the scandalous UN entity known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A recent internal document gives BBC journalists advice about how to report on climate matters. In Nova’s words, it declares that the “IPCC is God, can not be wrong.”

The document’s exact words:

What’s the BBC’s position?

  • Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above. [italics added]

Well, here’s the problem. The IPCC does not do science. The IPCC is a bureaucracy whose purpose is to write reports.

The primary function of those reports is to pave the way for UN climate treaties. A set of facts need to be agreed-upon by all parties in advance, so that negotiators can start from the same page.

IPCC reports get written by government-appointed scientists, according to predetermined guidelines. Portions of IPCC reports then get re-written by politicians, bureaucrats, and diplomats (in effect, this is an unofficial round of negotiating, in advance of the official negotiations that take place later).

International treaties are political instruments. The IPCC exists to make climate treaties possible. The ‘science’ involved has therefore been selected and massaged to serve a political purpose.

Let’s ditch the naiveté. How likely is it that experts appointed by governments that have spent billions fighting climate change, would conclude that man-made climate change doesn’t exist?

TOP TAKEAWAY: Journalists are part of a system of checks and balances that help keep governments and large organizations honest. The BBC is a huge bureaucracy. The geniuses running it have declared another bureaucracy – the UN’s IPCC – a font of scientific truth. How pathetic.


September 25, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment