Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Fletcher Prouty Explains Invention and Use of Term “Fossil Fuels”

The Auto Channel | August 20, 2018

Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first “Focal Point” officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

June 28, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

NYT takes anti-Russian hysteria to new level with report on Russian ‘bounty’ for US troops

By Scott Ritter | RT | June 28, 2020

The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. There’s just one problem — none of what they reported was true.

As news reporting goes, the New York Times article alleging that a top-secret unit within Russian military intelligence, or GRU, had offered a bounty to the Taliban for every US soldier killed in Afghanistan, was dynamite. The story was quickly “confirmed” by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, and went on to take social media by storm. Twitter was on fire with angry pundits, former officials, and anti-Trump politicians (and their respective armies of followers) denouncing President Trump as a “traitor” and demanding immediate action against Russia.

There was just one problem — nothing in the New York Times could be corroborated. Indeed, there is no difference between the original reporting conducted by the New York Times, and the “confirming” reports published by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. All of the reports contain caveats such as “if confirmed” and “if true,” while providing no analysis into the potential veracity of the information used to sustain the report — alleged debriefs of Afghan criminals and militants — or the underpinning logic, or lack thereof, of the information itself.

For its part, the Russian government has vociferously denied the allegations, noting that the report “clearly demonstrates low intellectual abilities of US intelligence propagandists who have to invent such nonsense instead of devising something more credible.” The Taliban have likewise denied receiving any bounties from the Russians for targeting American soldiers, noting that with the current peace deal, “their lives are secure and we don’t attack them.”

Even more telling is the fact that the current Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has come out to contradict a key element of the New York Times’ report—that the president was briefed on the intelligence in question. “I have confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday,” Ratcliffe said in a statement. “The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”

And one more tiny problem: Trump confirmed there was no such briefing, too.

Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times’ report is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing — “The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.” That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels.

There was a time when the US military handled the bulk of detainee debriefings in Afghanistan. This changed in 2014, with the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement. This agreement prohibits the US military from arresting or detaining Afghans, or to operate detention facilities in Afghanistan. As a result, the ability of the US military to interface with detainees has been virtually eliminated, making the Pentagon an unlikely source of the information used by the New York Times in its reporting.

The CIA, however, was not covered by this agreement. Indeed, the CIA, through its extensive relationship with the National Directorate of Security (NDS), is uniquely positioned to interface with the NDS through every phase of detainee operations, from initial capture to systemic debriefing.

Like any bureaucracy, the CIA is a creature of habit. Henry ‘Hank’ Crumpton, who in the aftermath of 9/11 headed up the CIA’s operations in Afghanistan, wrote that

“[t]he Directorate of Operations (DO) should not be in the business of running prisons or temporary detention facilities. The DO should focus on its core mission: clandestine intelligence operations. Accordingly, the DO should continue to hunt, capture, and render targets, and then exploit them for intelligence and ops leads once in custody. The management of their incarceration and interrogation, however, should be conducted by appropriately experienced US law enforcement officers because that is their charter and they have the training and experience.”

After 2014, the term “US law enforcement officers” is effectively replaced by “Afghan intelligence officers”— the NDS. But the CIA mission remained the same — to exploit captives for intelligence and operational leads.

The Trump administration has lobbied for an expanded mission for the CIA-backed NDS and other militia forces to serve as a counterterrorism force that would keep Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Afghanistan once US and foreign troops completed their planned withdrawal in 2021. But the CIA has raised objections to such a plan, noting that the NDS and other CIA-controlled assets were completely dependent upon US military air power and other combat service support resources, and that any attempt to expand the CIA’s covert army in Afghanistan following a US military withdrawal would end in disaster. Having the NDS fabricate or exaggerate detainee reports to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan is not beyond the pale.

Which brings up the issue of Russian involvement. In September 2015, the Taliban captured the northern Afghan city of Konduz, and held it for 15 days. This sent a shockwave throughout Russia, prompting Moscow to reconsider its approach toward dealing with the Afghan insurgency. Russia began reaching out to the Taliban, engaging in talks designed to bring the conflict in Afghanistan to an end. Russia was driven by other interests as well. According to Zamir Kabulov, President Vladimir Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, “the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours” in the fight against Islamic State, which in the summer of 2014 had captured huge tracts of land in Syria and Iraq, including the city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest.

By 2017, Afghan and US intelligence services had assembled a narrative of Russian assistance to the Taliban which included the provision of advanced weaponry, training, and financial support. While Russia denied providing any direct military support to the Taliban, it maintained that the Taliban were the best way to deal with the growing threat of Islamic State. But even if the US reports were correct, and Russia was angling for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, the last policy Russia would logically pursue would be one that had the US remain in Afghanistan, especially after pushing so hard for a negotiated peace. Russia’s interests in Afghanistan were — and are — best served by Afghan stability, the antithesis of the Afghan reality while the US and NATO remain engaged. Getting the US out of Afghanistan — not keeping the US in Afghanistan — is the Russian position, and any CIA officer worth his or her salt knows this.

It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines of the New York Times’ thinly sourced report. The NDS, with or without CIA knowledge or consent, generated detainee-based intelligence reports designed to create and sustain a narrative that would be supportive of US military forces remaining in Afghanistan past 2021. The CIA case officer(s) handling these reports dutifully submit cables back to CIA Headquarters which provide the gist of the allegations — that Russia has placed a bounty on US soldiers. But there is no corroboration, nothing that would allow this raw “intelligence” to be turned into a product worthy of the name.

This doesn’t mean that someone in the bowels of the CIA with an axe to grind against Trump’s plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, or who was opposed to Trump’s efforts to normalize relations with Russia, didn’t try to breathe life into these detainee reports. Indeed, a finished “product” may have made its way to the National Security Council staff — and elsewhere — where it would have been given the treatment it deserved, quickly discarded as unsubstantiated rumor unworthy of presidential attention.

At this point in time, frustrated by the inattention the “system” gave to the “intelligence,” some anonymous official contacted the New York Times and leaked the information, spinning it in as nefarious a way as possible. The New York Times blended the detainee reports and its own previous reporting on the GRU to produce a completely fabricated tale of Russian malfeasance designed to denigrate President Trump in the midst of a hotly contested reelection bid.

Too far-fetched? This assessment is far more fleshed out with fact and logic than anything the New York Times or its mainstream media mimics have proffered. And lest one thinks the GrayLady is above manufacturing news to sustain support for a war, the name Judith Miller, and the topic of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, should put that to rest. The reporting by the New York Times alleging the existence of a Russian bounty on the lives of US troops in Afghanistan is cut from the same piece of cloth as its pre-war Iraq drivel. As was the case with Iraq, the chattering class is pushing these new lies on an American audience pre-programmed to accept at face value any negative reporting on Russia. This is the state of what passes for journalism in America today, and it’s not a pretty sight.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

June 28, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | 2 Comments

Trump & Pence never briefed on ‘Russian bounties for Taliban’, NYT story ‘inaccurate’ – US intelligence chief

RT | June 28, 2020

The US director of national intelligence has distanced himself from a NYT report claiming Russia paid money to the Taliban for killing US soldiers in Afghanistan. He said the White House was never briefed on the matter.

The claim published by the New York Times is, like many such stories, based on anonymous intelligence sources. It says Russia paid “Taliban-linked militants” in Afghanistan to kill US military service members, and that President Donald Trump did nothing after learning about it.

The White House has denied that either Trump or Vice President Mike Pence were ever briefed on the alleged situation by US intelligence. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe backed the denial and said the original story and “all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”

The dynamic between the US mainstream media and the Trump administration in this case follows the same pattern seen in a previous bombshell report accusing the president of inaction in the face of a foreign threat.

In April, ABC News claimed Trump had been briefed about a military intelligence report which warned that a catastrophic outbreak of a viral disease was emerging from China. The National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), the service which allegedly produced the report on what is now known the Covid-19 pandemic, denied ever writing such a document.

The Taliban bounties story was instantly picked up by the usual suspects of the #Resistance, who saw it as an opportunity to attack Trump from the right. MSNBC’s senior Russiagate peddler Rachel Maddow gushed that Vladimir Putin paid Taliban for American “scalps” and Trump knew it.

Trump-bashing vehicle the Lincoln Project has released an ad accusing the president of “standing by” Russian troops.

While the bounties twist, with its Wild West vibe, is a new one, attempts to paint Russia as being in cahoots with the Taliban are hardly unprecedented. For example, in 2017, some top US generals claimed that Moscow was running guns for the Afghan militant movement. But when the head of US defense intelligence was asked about it by lawmakers, he said no physical evidence “of weapons or money being transferred” was ever found.

Russia called the NYT story an “unsophisticated” piece of disinformation that calls into question the “intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,” who couldn’t come up with something more plausible.

June 28, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | 3 Comments

Hafte Tir Bombing: A Blast which Shocked the Iranian People

By Robert Fantina | American Herald Tribune | June 26, 2020

In 1979, the people of Iran successfully and mainly peacefully overthrew the United States-supported government, led by the brutal autocrat, the Shah of Iran. In ridding themselves of this repressive dictator and freeing themselves from the shackles of U.S. imperialism, they established the Islamic Republic of Iran.

While the revolution had widespread popular support, as does the government to this day, it was not without opposition groups. The MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq, or the People’s Muhajedin Organization of Iran), is one such opposition organization. It is a violent terrorist group that is currently supported by the U.S. government. Members of the MEK have never accepted the revolution, and on June 28, 1981, three years after the revolution, they bombed the Islamic Republic Party headquarters in Tehran. This horrendous crime was committed during a meeting of party leaders, and killed seventy-three people, including the Chief Justice, Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, who had been a leader in the revolution.

Thirty-nine years have passed, but the memory of these martyrs has not dimmed.

Hujjat al-Islam Seyyed Mehdi Qureshi, Islamic Revolution Leader Representative in Iran’s West Azarbaijan Province, commented that “Iran’s stable position has been achieved thanks to the bravery of the martyrs.” Those martyrs’ names, many in addition to those who died on June 28, 1981, are etched upon the hearts of the Iranian people, and include General Qassem Soleimani, murdered by the U.S. in January of this year.

Any government has people who oppose it: citizens of the nation who disagree with one or more policies, and law-abiding people work within the system to achieve changes they seek. Generally, when a majority of the population wants certain changes, those changes are implemented.

Yet within Iran and outside it, a small terrorist group seeks the violent overthrow of the government, despite having so little support to do so. Why, one could ask, would the mighty United States support such a group, when it decries any terrorist activity?

The hypocrisy of U.S. government officials has been discussed and documented by this writer often. The U.S. is only interested in self-determination when the people of any nation choose a form of government that will follow all U.S. dictates. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not do so. They form alliances with nations that the United States holds in contempt, and they come to the aid of those nations when required to do so, such as in fighting U.S.-financed terrorists in Syria.

Iran has not invaded another nation in over 200 years, and its leaders have a ‘no first strike’ doctrine. In the U.S.’s 244-year history, it has invaded at least 84 of the 193 countries that are recognized by the United Nations. And its continued hostility towards Iran has only increased with the administration of the unstable president, Donald Trump.

In the United States, lobby groups finance election campaigns, thus making the elected officials beholden to those groups, not their constituents. Prominent among these groups are pro-Israel lobbies, which consider Iran to be their rival for hegemony in the Middle East. Among the global community, only Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement signed with Iran and several other countries that regulated Iran’s nuclear development program, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Only Israel and Saudi Arabia praised the U.S. violation of it.

After sanctions were re-imposed following this U.S. violation of international law, this writer contacted a friend in Tehran. He was told that, while the sanctions were unfortunate, the Iranian people are accustomed to living with them, and would continue to do so as long as necessary. There was no talk of defeat; he didn’t suggest that the government should or would accede to U.S. demands. He was not resigned: he simply indicated that the Iranian people would continue to live their lives and make whatever adjustments were necessary due to the sanctions.

This is the attitude that makes Iran great, and that inspires Iranians to sacrifice their lives for their country. When one powerful country is besieged by another, more powerful one, but refuses to surrender, its people’s pride in their nation only increases. And this year, on the anniversary of the Hafte Tir bombing, the memory of those who were working for the people and gave their lives in that mission will again be remembered. Also remembered will be other Iranian martyrs, those who died in the August 30, 1981 bombing of the Prime Minister’s office, General Soleimani and so many others, whose names may not be as well known, but who are remembered and beloved by their countrymen.

The anniversary of the Hafte Tir bombing should be commemorated around the world as a symbol of the destruction and death caused by terrorism, and as a memorial to those innocent servant-leaders who died in it. It should also serve as a reminder to some governments, such as that of the United States, that their unjust plans for world hegemony will not be achieved, and that support for terrorists is an affront to the basic human dignity of mankind. It should remind nations across the globe that the U.S., the most violent nation on the planet, continues its economic and medical terror against a free and peaceful nation.

It has been thirty-nine years since those seventy-three Iranian officials lost their lives in the service of their country. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten in Iran, or by people of decency and compassion around the world.

June 28, 2020 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Zuckerberg loses $7.2 BILLION after corporate ad boycott pressing Facebook to police ‘hate speech’

RT | June 27, 2020

Plummeting Facebook shares have wiped out billions of founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s personal wealth. The impetus? Corporations such as Coca-Cola and Verizon have pulled their ads, demanding that Facebook censor hate speech.

Zuckerberg lost $7.2 billion, after Facebook’s shares fell by 8.3 percent on Friday, Bloomberg reported. The dive in value happened after Unilever, one of the largest advertisers in the world, joined the list of major companies that suspended their ad campaigns on Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram. At around the same time, Coca-Cola said it was also pulling all its social-media advertising for 30 days.

More than 120 corporations, including Verizon, Dove, Lipton, Hershey’s, and Honda joined the boycott organized by activists and civil-rights groups that demanded Facebook combat what they term hate speech and disinformation on its platform.

Responding to the criticism, Zuckerberg, whose remaining net worth is now being estimated at $82.3 billion by Bloomberg, has promised to ban ads with “hateful content.” The prohibited advertising will include materials that describe a specific demographic as “a threat to the physical safety, health or survival of others.” He also vowed to fight potential voter suppression, and to take down posts by politicians and government officials if the company deems them to be an incitement to violence.

While Zuckerberg did not explicitly mention the boycott, it was clear from the announcement he was trying to appease its critics. The US media landscape has been deluged by a wave of calls for advertiser boycotts that came in the wake of the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests. The action targeted primarily conservative outlets and speakers, and ended up being so widespread that it garnered the attention of US President Donald Trump, who considered making such behavior “illegal.”

Still, while Facebook has largely avoided explicit Twitter-style hounding of ‘wrong’ political opinions so far, the social-media platform has been frequently accused of censorship. Despite its proclaimed strive for “transparency,” Facebook is very vague on its policies about ‘forbidden’ content. It has been repeatedly caught flagging and removing certain posts for no obvious reason. One of the most recent scandals involved a colored version of an iconic World War II photo depicting a Soviet flag over the Reichstag – that was sanctioned on V-Day for showing “dangerous individuals and organizations.”

Other Silicon Valley giants, such as Twitter and Google-owned YouTube, have been waging an open war on comments deemed hateful or inflammatory. Twitter has been embroiled in a public spat with Trump, labeling several of his tweets as violating the company’s policy against “abusive behavior.”

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 3 Comments

US House of Representatives Committee Proposes $3.8 Billion to Fund Anti-Russia Measures in 2021

Sputnik – June 27, 2020

WASHINGTON – The United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee has proposed allocating $3.8 billion to fund anti-Russia measures in the 2021 fiscal year, according to the committee’s National Defence Authorization Act proposal.

“The proposal provides an additional $3.789 billion for strategic sealift, satellite communications, refueling, submarine, and antisubmarine warfare capabilities that enhance deterrence against Russia”, the document read.

Additionally, officials in Washington are pushing to limit any military cooperation between the US and Russia, although exceptions will be made for the purposes of building dialogue that will reduce the risk of conflict, according to the document.

The committee is also looking to fully fund the European Defence Initiative and provide $250 million to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. One-fifth of these funds can be used to purchase lethal weapons, the committee said.

The proposal, which was tabled by Chairman Adam Smith, would authorize roughly $730 billion in spending for the purposes of national defence.

In December, President Donald Trump approved the 2020 National Defence Authorization Act, which had a topline budget of $738 billion.

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Belgium Urges Sanctions against Israel if it Annexes West Bank

Palestine Chronicle | June 27, 2020

The Belgian parliament on Friday passed a resolution urging the government to call on the European Union to impose sanctions against Israel if it proceeds with its plan to annex large swaths of the occupied West Bank.

The measure “concerning Israel’s annexation of occupied territories in Palestine”, passed in the 150-member House of Representatives with 101 affirmative votes, 39 abstentions and zero votes against it.

The body was also due to vote on a motion calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state but this was delayed after it was sent back to the foreign affairs committee for further debate.

MPs from left-wing parties, including the Socialist Party and members of the French and Green parties, proposed the resolutions.

“It is a matter of defending international law. There is no equidistance to be respected in this fight,” said MP Ecolo Simon Moutquin who authored the resolution.

The resolution has two objectives, he said: “On the one hand, send a message to the Israeli government ‘Don’t cross that red line’. On the other hand, give some hope to the Palestinians who have suffered injustice for decades.”

More than 1,000 European lawmakers across the political spectrum issued a letter earlier this week warning Israel against annexing parts of the occupied West Bank.

Legislators said they “share serious concerns about [US] President Trump’s plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the imminent prospect of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory.”

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | 1 Comment

UAE conceals news about normalising ties with Israel

MEMO | June 27, 2020

Despite the official announcement, the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) mass media has concealed news about medical cooperation with Israel from its people, Arab48.com reported on Friday.

The National reported the news while the Spokeswoman of the Ministry of Health Hend Al-Otaiba posted a tweet on her account.

It was noteworthy that the country’s mouthpieces, Sky News Arabic and Al-Hadath, did not make reference to this news, despite offering wide coverage of internal UAE issues and the medical assistance the country offers to the needy.

Local UAE newspapers including Al-Bayan, Al-Khaleej and Emarat Al-Youm also did not feature the news.

However, mass media covered the article of UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al-Otaiba, where he claimed that his country is moving against the Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands.

During the last two decades, Israel launched several major offensives on the Palestinians and Lebanese, and killed thousands along with settlement expansion at the expense of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Arab world, especially the UAE, continued criticising the Palestinian resistance while maintaining good relations with Israel.

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Taliban Refute Reports on Russia’s Alleged Role in Killings of US Troops in Afghanistan

Sputnik – 27.06.2020

KABUL – Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid refuted on Saturday the recent reports citing US intelligence assessments alleging that Russian intelligence has solicited killings of US troops by the Taliban in Afghanistan, saying that these rumors are set to create obstacles to US pullout from the country.

According to Mujahid, all weapons and tools used by the movement were already present in the country or captured from the opposition. The spokesman stressed that the Taliban’s activities are not related to any intelligence organ or foreign country.

Mujahid stated that the Taliban was committed to the deal with the United States, saying that its implementation would ensure comprehensive peace and stability in Afghanistan.

On Friday, The New York Times published an article where it cited unnamed government sources as saying that US President Donald Trump was presented with an intelligence report that claimed that Moscow could have payed bounty to armed Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan to assassinate US soldiers. The outlet said Trump had so far failed to act on the report.

In February, the US and the Taliban signed a peace deal that concluded rounds upon rounds of talks pursuing to launch the reconciliation process in Afghanistan after almost two decades of armed conflict and insurgency.

Last week, US Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said that intra-Afghan talks were closer than ever after Kabul and the Taliban carried out a significant exchange of prisoners.

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Davos: the birthplace of a New World Government? But who are the parents?

By Robin Horsley | Brexit Watch | June 25, 2020

DAVOS, is the small town, nestled high in the Swiss Alps, widely known for hosting the annual conference of global business-people, world leaders, activists, and journalists that takes place every January. The organisation that arranges the event, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and its enigmatic founder Klaus Schwab, are less well-known.

The WEF’s exclusive shindig used to be thought of simply as a grandiose talking-shop. The ultimate annual ‘networking’ event where the wealthy and powerful could grand-stand in front of the world’s media. But in recent years, as the ambitions and agenda of the WEF have become clearer, many people have gradually realised there is far more to Davos and the World Economic Forum than they previously thought.

The WEF operates from its own modern, low-rise office complex, overlooking Lake Geneva on some of the most expensive land in the world and now generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues from its membership fees paid by what it describes as the world’s top 1,000 companies. According to its most recent annual report, the WEF now has assets valued in excess of half a billion dollars.

In June 2019 the WEF signed an exclusive partnership agreement with the United Nations to accelerate the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which has been adopted by all 193 UN member countries.

This strategic partnership caused great consternation in many quarters. The Transnational Institute (TNI), a think-tank with its roots in the anti-Vietnam war movement, denounced it for “formalising the corporate capture of the UN and moving towards an increasingly privatised and less democratic global governance.” 400 organisations subsequently signed a letter calling for the termination of the UN/WEF’s agreement.

Far from being inhibited from continuing to develop policy – or using its influence and the resources of its powerful, global corporate membership to persuade or compel national Governments to adopt it’s ideals – the WEF states “now is the time to press the reset button on capitalism”. In essence it is calling for the dismantling of the entire global economic system in order that it can be re-cast to a design complying with its own agenda.

The sheer audacity of this ‘Great Reset’ agenda as it is known, with the scope to impact billions of lives on the planet, is quite simply breath-taking. It is none other than a globalist agenda seductively cloaked in green, equal-opportunity, pro-diversity packaging. In response the TNI has highlighted the combined economic power of WEF’s ‘members’, which utterly dwarfs that of most nation states, represents a serious threat to democratic global governance. Likewise, the history and commercial interest of many of the WEF’s members are, unsurprisingly, completely at odds with its supposedly green credentials.

At Davos 2020, the WEF appeared to install Prince Charles as its titular head placing him, as keynote speaker, on their global stage extravagantly emblazoned with the official heraldic insignia of the Prince of Wales, the three feathers.

It must have been a shattering moment for the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who had previously banned his Government ministers from attending Davos, to see his childhood ambition to become ‘world-king’ apparently thwarted by the future British monarch. For others there are disturbing echoes of a previous Prince of Wales cosying up to another group with similarly grandiose ambitions of pioneering a new global world order.

The rise of the World Economic Forum has been truly remarkable. In 50 years it has grown from a small three-person office in Geneva to a global organisation with a membership whose combined annual turnover, and economic power, is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Klaus Schwab, its founder and still its Executive Chairman 50 years on, has unparalleled access to political leaders across the entire world.

But how did the World Economic Forum come about?

Delving back into the historical archive of the WEF yields some interesting observations. The first Davos conference took place in 1971, the year the WEF was founded and, according to Wikipedia, was funded by the European Commission, the powerful central institution of the European Union.

This connection to, and support from, the European unification movement reveals itself further when looking through the photographic archive. That first Davos conference, or ‘symposium’ as it was then called had, as its keynote speaker, another royal long awaiting his king-ship.

Otto von Habsburg, also known as Archduke Otto of Austria, was the first Davos keynote speaker. Habsburg’s monarch was a casualty of the First World War. He was the last crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, an empire which comprised modern-day Austria, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia – and parts of Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. His father, Charles, was the last emperor until its dissolution in 1919.

Otto Habsburg had been one of the original founders, in 1922, of the Pan-European Union which still exists today and is widely recognised as the oldest European unification movement still in existence. Habsburg went on to be its President in 1973, following the death of his co-founder Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, and subsequently served as a Member of the European Parliament for 20 years following its creation in 1979.

Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, was born in Ravensburg, Germany in 1938 and studied economics and, at the behest of his father, engineering. His father had been Managing Director for a Swiss engineering company, Escher Wyss, who continued operating in Germany throughout World War II. In interviews, Schwab recalls travelling between war-torn Germany and neutral Switzerland as a small child and the impression that the contrast made upon him.

After studying in Germany, Schwab travelled to the USA to attend lectures at Harvard Business School. Here he made some key contacts that he was later able to use, including Henry Kissinger.

It is clear, looking at the history of the World Economic Forum, that Schwab’s aim was not simply to provide a platform for others to use for meeting and making decisions. The WEF launched its first ‘Davos Manifesto’ at its third annual event in 1973. It was always, essentially a political construction but one that lacked any truly democratic foundation.

The theme of the WEF’s forthcoming 50th Annual event in January 2021 is ‘The Great Reset’, a radical plan to completely re-work the mechanics of the entire global economy. Had the Covid-19 virus not emerged this year, bringing the global economy to a shuddering halt, it’s difficult to conceive how this agenda could ever have hoped to have been implemented.

But now, with the prospect of vast and potentially devastating economic impacts ahead – albeit temporarily masked by unsustainable financial interventions by national governments, such as the UK’s furlough scheme – it may be that the people of the world are driven to radical solutions in the near future.

Working with the UN, International banks and the WEF’s stable of global industrial and technology giants it is now possible that together they have the opportunity to create ‘the new normal’ – a world that works as they plan it to work.

The deeply disturbing concern for us mere mortals is that it appears these organisations intend to impose their agenda on us without any democratic consent and without any democratic system of accountability in place to ensure it serves the needs and interests of the people of our planet – rather than the interests of the wealthy and powerful who control this agenda.

The World Economic Forum’s ‘Strategic Partners’ are its top-tier group of 100 global organisations. This group includes major global banks such as Barclays, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Standard Chartered Bank who yield immense financial power.

It also includes major technology and communications companies such as Huawei, Publicis, Omnicom, (two global communications companies) Facebook and Google.

With this combination of enormous financial power, skilled persuasion capabilities and control of the communications infrastructure at their disposal WEF has huge power to mould, influence and control events – while shaping public opinion.

We, the ordinary people, shall have to keep a very close eye on WEF’s activities as its ‘Great Reset’ agenda unfolds over the coming months ahead.

Robin Horsley is the founder of YouPolitics.uk a new online UK politics social media channel. He founded The Great Brexit Debate in 2016 a Facebook site with over 30,000 followers, and has worked with political campaigning organisations such as The Bruges Group and Veterans for Britain and has campaigned on issues in the areas of justice, defence and education.

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

North Korea: ‘Only option left to counter nuclear with nuclear’

Press TV | June 27, 2020

North Korea says Washington has left Pyongyang with no choice but to “counter nuclear with nuclear” in a bid to confront hostile US policies against the Asian country.

“In order to eliminate the nuclear threats from the US, the DPRK government made all possible efforts either through dialogue or in resort to the international law, but all ended in vain,” North Korean state news wrote in an essay, using an abbreviation for the country’s official name.

“The option left was only one, and that was to counter nuclear with nuclear,” it added.

The 5,000-word article documented the history of North Korea’s grievances with the US, South Korea and its allies and came a day after all of these countries marked the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War.

It also came just days after the North said it was suspending “military action plans” against the South after it had blown up a liaison office used for talks between the two countries in a North Korean border city.

The two Koreas were on a path of rapprochement beginning in January 2018 before US intransigence to relieve any of the sanctions on the North effectively killed diplomacy.

North Korea has been under harsh US sanctions for years over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

US President Donald Trump has attempted to court Pyongyang, and although he has met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un three times, he has refused to relieve any of the sanctions on the North. That has in turn hampered efforts to demilitarize the Korean Peninsula.

Kim outlined last month a plan to further boost his country’s nuclear deterrence capabilities.

The Washington-Pyongyang nuclear talks have made little progress since late last year, particularly after the global fight to curb the pandemic, which has so far infected nearly 10 million people and killed over 496,000 others around the world.

North Korea’s hardening of stance comes amid reports that the US is preparing to conduct its first full-fledged nuclear test since 1992.

Last December, Kim ended a moratorium on the country’s missile tests and said North Korea would soon develop a “new strategic weapon.”

June 27, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 2 Comments

Covid-19 was in Spanish sewage as early as MARCH 2019, study claims

RT | June 26, 2020

Traces of the novel coronavirus have been discovered in Barcelona sewage water months before the first case of the dreaded disease was reported in China, claims a new study by a group of Spanish researchers.

Scientists with the Enteric Virus Group at the University of Barcelona detected the presence of the virus in frozen samples of the city’s wastewater collected as early as March 12, 2019. The group, led by Rosa Maria Pintó and Albert Bosch, was exploring the potential of wastewater analysis in early warning systems and the prevention of future Covid-19 outbreaks when it made the surprise discovery.

Initially, the team found the virus in samples dated January 15, 2020 – some 41 days before the first confirmed case of Covid-19 in Spain. They decided to check earlier samples, taken between January 2018 and December 2019, and all proved negative “except for the one from March 12, 2019, in which the SARS-CoV-2 levels were very low but were clearly positive,” the team said in a statement, using the official name of the virus.

The researchers came to the conclusion that the virus might have spread around the world much earlier than initially thought.

“Barcelona receives many visitors for tourist or professional reasons,” said Borsch. “It is more than likely that a similar situation has occurred in other parts of the world.”

The group assumed that some early cases of Covid-19 might have been mistaken for a severe flu. While the study published in the medRxiv repository has not been peer-reviewed so far, the revelation was extensively covered by the Spanish media, such as the El Mundo daily.

The virus has spread almost all over the world, infecting more than 9 million people and claiming almost 500,000 lives. Scientists have hypothesized that it originated at a wet market in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019.

The first confirmed European case of the coronavirus was recorded in France in January 2020. Various studies that have appeared since have challenged that, however. Italian research also focused on sewage water analysis said that traces of the virus were found in Milan and Turin samples dating back to mid-December 2019.

June 26, 2020 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »