Aletho News


Warmongers Almost Killed Millions in 1962

Tales of the American Empire | November 12, 2020

The brief history taught to Americans about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is that evil Soviets conspired with evil Castro to secretly place nuclear armed ballistic missiles in Cuba to threaten the United States. The United States military uncovered this plot, so President John Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. The commies backed down and removed the missiles. This is true but leaves out key facts: 1) The United States had installed 45 nuclear armed Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey in 1961. 2) The Americans were unaware that nuclear armed missiles were ready to launch from Cuba during this crisis, and that Castro had ordered these missiles launched should the United States attack. 3) The captain of a Soviet submarine concluded war had begun and ordered the launch of a nuclear torpedo. 4) Millions of Americans were almost killed.


“The Fog of War”; a clip about this crisis; 2003;…

“Thanks to a Soviet Navy Captain – We Survived 1962”; Ray McGovern;; Oct 29, 2019;…

“Initial analysis of new sub-launched nuclear cruise missile coming shortly”; Aaron Mehta; Defense News; June 1, 2020;…

Related Tale: The NATO Conquest of Eastern Europe;…

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Townhall Columnist Marina Medvin Falls for Dachau Gas Chamber Hoax

By John Huss • Unz Review • November 7, 2020

Last month, columnist Marina Medvin published a column about letters allegedly written by Leon Morin, a 29-year old soldier who helped liberate the Dachau concentration camp in 1945. In his letters, Morin made a number of eyebrow-raising claims about Dachau—claims that Medvin swallowed uncritically:

  • The camp contained a gas chamber disguised as a shower room.
  • The gas chamber exterminated inmates using chlorine gas.
  • There were at least 20 camps just like Dachau on German soil.

Today, no historian—mainstream or revisionist, Jewish or gentile—would agree with these claims. According to the official Dachau website, “Killing people on a mass scale through poison gas never took place in the Dachau concentration camp.” According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Germans operated only five extermination camps: Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz-Birkenau. All were located in Poland, not Germany. Neither mainstream historians nor revisionists believe that chlorine gassings occurred at any of the camps.

In his letter, Morin claimed that Dachau’s prison guards gassed thousands of inmates in a three-hour period just before U.S. troops arrived, of which “more than half” were “half cremated.” The point, we are led to believe, was to kill as many Jews as possible immediately before the camp was liberated and to conceal the dead bodies from the U.S. soldiers. If the point was to conceal evidence of gassings, we are left to wonder why the Germans would go to the trouble of half cremating bodies rather than fully cremating them. It is also curious that the guards waited until the very last minute to administer these alleged executions when there would have been ample opportunity to do so earlier.

According to Morin, the gas chamber had a capacity of 250. To gas 2,000 inmates thus would require eight separate gassings. It takes time to load 250 people into a small room. It takes time for a gassing to kill a group of people. And it takes time to drag 25,000+ pounds of human flesh out of that room. To administer 8 or more gassings in three hours the German guards and their staff would have had to average one gassing every 22.5 minutes.

Even more remarkable was the pace at which the gassed bodies were allegedly cremated. According to Morin, there were six crematories at Dachau—two that “can hold three bodies and four more who can hold six apiece.” This appears to be false: there were apparently only two crematoria ever built at Dachau and it is not clear that both were functional when Dachau was liberated. The official Dachau website shows only one crematorium building, referred to as “barrack X.”. Morin presumably meant to say that there were six ovens in this one crematorium and is claiming—improbably—that multiple bodies could be shoved into each oven. For the sake of argument, let’s accept this questionable claim and do the math. To simplify the analysis, we will make the following assumptions: It takes one hour to fully cremate bodies in an oven, no matter how many bodies are crammed inside; it takes half an hour to half cremate a body; time spent moving bodies to the crematorium from the gas chamber and loading them into the ovens is zero; time spent unloading half-cremated bodies from the ovens is zero; time spent moving half-cremated bodies out of the crematorium is zero. So, that gives us:

  • 2 ovens that can hold three bodies each = 6 bodies fully cremated per hour
  • 4 ovens that can hold six bodies each = 24 bodies fully cremated per hour
  • = Total of 30 bodies fully cremated per hour
  • = 60 bodies half cremated per hour
  • = 180 bodies half cremated in three hours

Under more realistic assumptions, the numbers might look something like this:

  • 6 ovens that can hold 1-2 bodies body each = 6-12 bodies cremated per hour
  • = 18-24 bodies fully cremated in three hours
  • = 36-48 bodies half-cremated in three hours

Of course, if we take into account time spent dragging corpses from the gas chamber to the crematorium, loading them into the ovens, removing half-cremated bodies from the ovens, and hauling half-cremated bodies out of the crematorium, the number would be even lower. It is also reasonable to assume that some time would be required to cool the oven before removing half-cremated bodies. Even under the most generous assumptions, Morin’s claim—more than a thousand half-cremations in just three hours, or one half-cremation every 10 seconds or so—obviously is impossible.

Morin did not claim that he personally witnessed any of the gassings or cremations. He was probably telling stories he had been told by others—stories that likely were promoted by the U.S. Army as part of an anti-Germany post-war propaganda campaign.

Some of Medvin’s readers attempted to rebut Morin’s false allegations, but it appears that their comments have been deleted by Townhall staff. (So much for the idea that conservatives support free speech.)

In a follow-up column, Medvin highlighted Morin’s claim that camp guards used bloodhounds to torture Dachau inmates. She states that this claim is backed by “historic photos” which “show Dachau prisoners fighting the ravenous dogs with clubs to survive.” The only photo she linked to, however, shows no such fight—only a pair of inmates sitting near a dead dog. For all we know, the dog may have died of starvation or old age. Curiously, Medvin has not written about similar allegations directed at Israel (see here, here, here, and here).

If it is real, Morin’s letter is historically significant. It is not evidence that there were gas chambers at Dachau (as Medvin believes), but does illustrate a post-war propaganda campaign designed to vilify Nazi Germany—a propaganda campaign that continues to this day.

Related Videos purged from YouTube but now on Bitchute

One Third of the Holocaust (2008)

Buchenwald: A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil

The Auschwitz Hoax: Why the Gas Chambers Are A Myth

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 3 Comments

Locking Down See Oh Too

By Willis Eschenbach | Watts Up With That? | November 16, 2020

I’ve read comments from several folks claiming that despite the COVID lockdowns reducing emissions, there’s been no corresponding decrease in the airborne CO2. Here’s a typical claim, complete with graphic, saying that this proves that human emissions aren’t the reason for the gradual increase in airborne CO2.

The COVID shutdown reduced man’s emissions of CO2 by about 20%. Yet the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere then was almost EXACTLY what it was during preceding years.

What didn’t change was natural emissions. So much for Willis’s [saying] “it’s man made”, and settled science.

Hmmm … y’all who know me know that I’m a data guy. So I thought I’d take a look at the situation. I reasoned that a “year-over-year” comparison would be much more valuable than the more general graph above. A year-over-year comparison is a graph showing, for each month in the record, how much the CO2 level increased over the same month in the previous year. If we want to understand changes in CO2, we need to look at changes in CO2, not the absolute values the commenter used above. Airborne CO2 has been growing at about 2.5 ppmv per year or so. Figure 1 shows recent data detailing the year-over-year growth in airborne CO2.

Figure 1. “Year-over-year” analysis of airborne CO2. Each data point shows how much the airborne CO2 increased over the same month a year previous. Units are parts per million by volume (ppmv). Photo is of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, location of the CO2 measuring station.

Hmmm … didn’t really expect that the variation would be quite that large. The big peak in the middle is from the El Nino/La Nina of 2015-2016. The peak and drop at the start if from the Nino/Nina of 2009-2010. What causes the other variations is far from clear. What is clear is that the values vary from smallest to largest by no less than four hundred percent, from an annual increase of less than one part per million by volume (ppmv) to an increase of over four ppmv … a large natural variation.

Next, we have to ask the question the commenter who I quoted above didn’t ask—just how much would we expect the CO2 to change due to the lockdowns? 

Now, the author of the comment above says there’s been a 20% decrease in 2020 emissions … but that makes my Bad Number Detector start ringing. In general, carbon emissions for the globe, as well as the resulting changes in global atmospheric CO2 levels, are a linear function of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP is the sum of all of the goods and services produced during the year.

And as you’d expect, if we increase the amount of stuff we make, we increase the CO2 emissions correspondingly. (For the math inclined, global annual carbon emissions ≈ 6.3 Gtonnes + .4 * global GDP (trillions of constant 2010 $).

Looking around the web, I see estimates for the lockdown-caused drop in 2020 GDP of from 4.5% up to 5.3%. And since emissions and the resulting atmospheric levels are a linear function of GDP, that would mean that the year-over-year CO2 increase should be smaller by something on the order of five percent.

This lets us calculate what the increase in CO2 would have been if there were no lockdowns. Over 2020 you’d expect CO2 emissions, and thus the resulting annual airborne CO2 increase, to have been 5% greater if there had been no lockdowns.

So to be very conservative in our estimate, let’s say the lockdowns actually decreased emissions by twice that, or 10%. If we use ten percent as our figure, our results will be solid.

So … what would the Figure 1 graph above look like without that 10% drop in 2020 emissions? Figure 2 shows that result. Just for interest’s sake, I’ve also added what a 20% difference in emissions would look like. That’s four times the actual ~ 5% change expected from the drop in GDP.

Of course, up to 2020 there is no change …

Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with lines added showing a 10% (yellow) and a 20% (orange) increase in CO2 no-lockdown emissions would look like.

Again … hmmm. Gotta say, in a system that variable, a 10% or even a 20% difference is not distinguishable from the background. I mean, any one of those three lines is totally believable.


My main conclusion is that despite the huge, almost incalculable human cost of the lockdowns, the change in the rate of increase of CO2 is lost in the noise … which certainly doesn’t prove anything either way about whether the increase is human-caused.

My other conclusion is that this should give great pause to those who are blithely recommending totally restructuring the global economy to replace fossil fuels … look at the real-world costs of the lockdowns all around you, and look at the meaningless CO2 benefits in the graph above. Not worth doing on any planet.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

6 Factors Which Point to a Rigged Election

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | November 16, 2020

The US Election is still a burning issue almost two weeks after the people went to the polls, and though the race has been called for Biden by every mainstream media outlet in the world, the recounts are ongoing and irregularities manifest.

Trump’s legal team, and many in the alternate media, are claiming the election was rigged. With one voice the mainstream media – and the entire political establishment – denounce these claims as “baseless”, and scream there is “no evidence”.

This is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, which breaks down into six basic categories:

  1. Precedent – It has happened before.
  2. Motive – Deep State/Military dislike of Trump’s policies is widely known.
  3. Foreknowledge – Establishment voices predicted this exact situation.
  4. Opportunity – The voting system is highly susceptible to fraud.
  5. Voting Irregularities – Known software “glitches” & irregularities in the reporting of the results.
  6. Cover-up – Dishonesty in the reporting of the situation.

1. Precedent

There is plenty of evidence that US elections have been rigged before.

Nobody is talking about it much, but US elections have been rigged before. Everyone is more than familiar with the 2000 election, which was called for Al Gore before Florida flipped to Bush and swung the election. The controversy over “hanging chads” and misplaced votes was all people talked about for weeks.

One noteworthy “error” with electronic voting machines, switched over 10,000 votes from Gore to an obscure third-party candidate.

After weeks of legal battles, Gore eventually conceded. Within a year the “attacks” of 9/11 had happened, and the US was at war in Afghanistan and planning six more wars within 3 years.

More recently, it was revealed the DNC had gone out of its way to hand Hillary the presidential nomination over Sanders in 2016. Then in the 2020 primaries, despite embarrassing losses in the first few primaries, Biden’s presidential campaign had a “miraculous turnaround”, thanks largely to irregularities in postal ballots in Ohio, Wisconsin and New Jersey.

This is evidence of precedent.

2. Motive

The US Deep State has clear and publicly known motives for wanting to remove Trump from office.

It is no secret that many members of the US’s political establishment oppose Trump and Trump’s policies. This includes neo-con warmongers and chiefs of the military and intelligence agencies.

“The Resistance”, billed as some voice of the progressive alternative, boasts former members of George Bush’s cabinet as members.

The most strident opposition to Trump was on foreign policy – most specifically in the Middle East. Trump was committed to withdrawing from Syria, in direct opposition to the “Assad Must Go” crowd at the Pentagon and State Dept.

Just last week it was revealed that the Department of Defense actually lied to Trump about their troop numbers in Syria, claiming to have pulled out almost everyone whilst they actually kept their covert war going.

Conversely, Biden has always been firmly in the establishment camp on Syria, and many warmongers are already predicting that Biden will want to “restore some dignity” to the Syrian people.

The US Deep State has carried out coups all around the world, many of them bloody and violent, in order to maintain Imperial ambitions and keep wars-for-profit going. They have every motive to want to remove Trump and put Biden in his place.

This is evidence of motive.

3. Foreknowledge

Establishment voices have been predicting, and planning for, this exact situation for almost a year.

In January of this year – well before anyone could have predicted the effect the “pandemic” would have on the world – legal scholars were Wargaming the outcome of a disputed Presidential election based on postal ballots in Pennsylvania.

In August a group naming themselves the Transition Integrity Project published a document predicting a “disputed” election, that the counting would take much longer than usual and that it would not be certain who was President until January.

More generally, the outcome of the election was widely “predicted”, with multiple press outlets claiming there would be a “red mirage” and a “blue shift”. Meaning it would look like Trump would win, and then suddenly Biden would win at the last minute.

This is evidence of foreknowledge.

4. Opportunity

There is plenty of evidence that the US voting system is open to potential corruption.

Voting machines, for example, are owned and distributed by private companies. Many of which have political ties. An article in the Guardian, of all places, went into great detail about this just last year, when they were suggesting that Trump may have stolen the 2016 election.

Likewise, postal ballots are known to be susceptible to fraud. William Barr, the Attorney General, summed it up in a television interview in September, and written reports in 2007 and earlier this year, have gone into great detail about historical cases of postal vote fraud and possibilities of future occurrences.

This is evidence of opportunity.

5. Voting Irregularities

There are plenty of irregularities in the results which suggest the possibility of something strange going on.

The story of the election by the numbers doesn’t really make logical sense. The turnout is said to be 72%, the highest in 120 years, and the first over 60% for over 50 years.

In the process Joe Biden, we are told, shattered Barack Obama’s popular vote record by almost 10 million votes.

Joe Biden?

This Joe Biden?

… got more votes than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Meanwhile Donald Trump increased his own popular vote by over 10 million, whilst increasing his vote share in almost every ethnic demographic, as well as with women and LGBT voters.

Making him the first incumbent president to increase his popular vote but still lose in over a century, and the only one since all 50 states were part of the union.

Even if you believe that narrative is possible, there’s more than enough evidence of voting irregularities to warrant at least questioning the result and investigating further.

In one Michigan county an error in the software configuration swung thousands of votes from Republican to Democrat and called a Congressional seat for the wrong party.

This error was only spotted because of the historically republican record of the county. In a more hotly disputed seat, this error could potentially never have been picked up.

Another Michigan county reported an error which switched 5,500 votes from Trump to Biden – a swing of 11,000 votes.

The software used in this county is used in 30 other states – including Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania, all of which were decided by less than 1% of the vote, and any two of which could swing the election to Trump.

In fact Dominion, the company which supplied the questionable voting software, was denied a contract by the state of Texas in 2019 when judges found there were “concerns” about “whether [it] is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation”.

A subsidiary of Dominion was kicked out of the Philippines for being too easy to hack.

This video clip appears to show CNN’s coverage switching over 19,000 votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania.

The graphed results of both Michigan and Wisconsin show decidedly odd jumps in Biden’s vote.


The counting itself was also deeply suspect, with several states taking almost a week to count the last few percent of the vote, whilst managing to count over 90% of the vote on the first evening. In Wisconsin the National Guard were brought in to “transcribe” damaged ballots, whilst in Pennsylvania they were allowed to count postal votes with “no clear post mark”, fairly obviously [suspect].

As Glen Greenwald wrote, the very fact the count was so arduous and complicated raises questions about the outcome.

6. The Cover-Up

The media are engaging in lies and censorship.

To state there is “no evidence” of election rigging is a lie. There is plenty of evidence. Every news outlet, channel and website is singing from the same hymn sheet on this – even Fox News, so often Trump’s supposed favourite channel.

Even before the election, as discussed above, all the mainstream media were running articles defending mail-in ballots, and claiming that they are not historically weak to voter fraud. This is totally untrue, as anyone who cared to research the topic would tell you.

In fact many countries have incredibly rigid controls on postal voting for exactly that reason.

And then, after the election, social media companies and mainstream media outlets censor the President of the United States.

So, why are all the media telling the same lies? Why are people being denied a platform?

This is evidence of a cover-up.


Ask yourself:

  • If, in 2016, some voting software used in 30 states had flipped 5,500 from Hillary to Trump, and later been revealed to be financially tied to the Republican party, would that have been “just a glitch”, or evidence of cheating?
  • If the Brexit referendum had swung violently to Leave after dumps of suspect postal ballots were permitted into the count by a judge who was a known Brexit supporter, would the media have kept quiet?
  • If, in Russia, the media denied a platform to the opposition to accuse Putin of voter fraud, would that be “responsible media practice”, or evidence of bias and censorship?

We don’t know exactly what happened, or how the election result was controlled, but as of right now the specifics do not matter.

The point is there is plenty of evidence suggesting something happened, more than enough to warrant asking rational questions and expecting reasonable answers.

Every time the media ignores the evidence, or censors those seeking it, they only display further that there must be some fire behind all of this smoke.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

How the British government secretly funded Syrian cartoons and comic books as anti-Assad propaganda aimed at children

By Kit Klarenberg | RT | November 16, 2020

Leaked documents show how the Foreign & Commonwealth Office spent millions setting up a clandestine network to churn out pro-rebel material, much of it aimed at winning the hearts and minds of kids.

A swath of internal UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) files have exposed a number of covert ways in which London sought to both propagandize Syrian children and turn them into weapons, in a vast, long-running information warfare campaign at home and abroad.

The documents are just some of the bombshell papers released by hacktivist collective Anonymous, outlining a variety of cloak-and-dagger actions undertaken by the UK government against the Syrian state over many years.

The overriding objective behind them all was to destabilize the government of Bashar Assad, convince Syrians, Western citizens, foreign governments, and international bodies that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was a legitimate alternative, and flood media the world over with pro-opposition propaganda.

Children figured prominently in a number of the plans, in more ways than one. ARK, a shadowy firm headed by veteran FCO operative Alistair Harris, was central to many of these covert efforts, which may have cost the FCO many millions in total.

Undermining government legitimacy

In one file, the company outlines pricing for runs of propaganda material including “public service announcement animations” (£4,570), “political cartoons” (£1,200), and “comic books (24 colored pages)” (£30,200).

A separate proposal submitted to the FCO by communications firm Albany details ways of offering clandestine support to “oppositionist grassroots media activism.” The company conducted numerous psyops in Syria – including managing the Syrian National Coalition’s communications during the 2014 Geneva II peace conference – and collaborated extensively with ARK in the process.

Creating “fictional material” such as radio dramas and “digital comic strips for internet deployment” was listed one of the key ways the firm would “bolster the values and reputation of the Syrian opposition,” and undermine the government’s “core narrative and legitimacy.”

Precisely which projects emerged from these pitches, if any, isn’t clear from the files themselves, but in May journalist Ian Cobain revealed Hentawi, a comic aimed at 9-to-15 year-old Syrians, was a clandestine creation of the FCO, and its founder Naji Jerf was an employee of a firm contracted by the department.

The files released by Anonymous indicate that the company in question was ARK, who provided Jerf’s CV – it reveals that from 2006 to 2007, he was Editor of a UAE-based magazine, Attfal Al Yaom (Children of Today).

Such experience undoubtedly assisted in the production of Hentawi, which featured very slick comic strips slyly extolling equality and democracy and other values, quizzes and games, and inspiring stories of athletes, celebrities and the like.

Cobain also exposed how FCO contractors produced animated films for Syrian children, such as Goal to Syria, about a young footballer who scores the winning goal in the 2027 Asia Cup final, leading the Syrian team to victory.

As the player prepares to attempt a deciding penalty, his mind flashes back to Aleppo in 2014. In the wake of a bombing raid, the White Helmets rush in an ambulance to rescue him from rubble – en-route they pass a local man who screams, “first they bombed us with chemicals, and now barrel bombs!”

After prising the boy free and carrying him to safety, a White Helmet shoots him the peace sign. Back in 2027, he shoots and scores, with the commentators praising the “lion of Damascus” for his heroic victory. As the screen fades to black, viewers are presented with text hailing the White Helmets’ achievements during the conflict, claiming the group “represent the humanity and spirit of the Syrian people.”

Other leaked FCO files make clear ARK played a pivotal role in constructing and promoting the White Helmets’ benevolent image worldwide, developing “an internationally-focused communications campaign to raise global awareness” of the group in order to “keep Syria in the news.” Goal to Syria was shown at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, and can thus be considered another example of this effort in practice, on top of the clip’s domestic purpose.

Somebody think of the children

The same file listing Naji Jerf’s resumé indicates that ARK worked with civil society organizations “to develop products for children” in Syria, including “mobile cinema screenings.”

The company’s expansive network of freelancers in the country, which ARK itself extensively trained at quite some cost to the FCO, were said to “frequently cover such events.” These reports would then be fed to ARK’s “well-established contacts” at major news outlets including Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Guardian, New York Times, and Reuters, “further amplifying their effect.”

These outlets similarly “amplified” the impactful propaganda of other FCO contractors working in Syria. In July 2019, an image of two young Syrian girls trapped in rubble in Idlib attempting to haul their sister to safety as she dangled off the precipice of a dilapidated building, their father looking on in horror above, spread far and wide on social media.

The photo, snapped by a photographer for popular Syrian news service SY24, was reported the world over. Unbeknownst to readers, SY24 was created and funded by The Global Strategy Network (TGSN), founded by Richard Barrett, a former MI6 counter-terrorism director.

In a file submitted to the FCO, TGSN boasted of how “campaigns” it broadcast via SY24 generated “huge global coverage,” having been seen by “many hundreds of millions of people,” and “attracting comment as far as the UN Security Council.”

SY24 content was produced by a network of stringers TGSN both trained and provided with equipment, including “cameras and video editing software.” The firm drew particular attention to a team of female stringers it tutored, “who provide about 40 percent of all SY content,” and were part of “a broad ‘network of networks’” enabling TGSN “to drive stories into the mainstream.”

As with Albany and ARK, TGSN engaged in activities to propagandize Syria’s youth, offering to bring projectors to refugee camps and “rural areas” to screen material to young residents, including “prosocial cartoons for children, films chosen with regard to conflict sensitivity and gender, and popular football events to drive participation.”

The company also conspired with ARK on several surreptitious endeavors, including a campaign dubbed ‘Back to School.’ As its name implies, under its auspices young Syrians in opposition-occupied Idlib returned to school – the two FCO accomplices promised to ensure it was a major media event.

In conjunction with Idlib City Council, opposition commanders, and other elements on the ground, ARK and TGSN planned a comprehensive, “unified” communications campaign using “shared slogans, hashtags and branding.” Rebel fighters were to be engaged in order to “clear roads” and “enable children and teachers to get to schools,” all the while filmed by the pair’s voluminous stringer network, footage which would be “disseminated online and on broadcast channels.”

Junior war propagandists

It is in the context of such cynical, heartstring-tugging child exploitation by the FCO that the phenomenon of Bana Alabed gains an even more suspicious, sinister dimension.

In 2016, at the age of just seven, Bana briefly became a celebrated figure among advocates of Western military intervention in Syria, for tweets she allegedly posted documenting the siege of Aleppo.

Within days of her account being registered in September that year, she amassed a sizeable following, firing messages at Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Barack Obama, using hashtags such as #StandWithAleppo, #HolocaustAleppo, #MassacreInAleppo and #StopAleppoMassacre. She also gained a prominent media profile, was dubbed by more than one pundit the “Anne Frank” of the Syrian crisis, and was invited on to major news networks to denounce Assad and the Syrian Arab Army.

Nonetheless, critics were puzzled as to how such a young girl in a city subject to frequent power cuts could have acquired such an apparent mastery of the English language, and tweet so frequently. Concerns were also raised about the interventionist nature of some of the tweets ostensibly posted by Bana, including an apparent endorsement of the prospect of World War III.

Even mainstream journalists acknowledged her video statements were almost undoubtedly scripted, The New Yorker stating Bana was clearly “being coached… to communicate her thoughts in a language she is only beginning to learn.”

Bana went on to ink a lucrative deal with publishing giant Simon & Schuster, after signing up with talent and marketing agency The Blair Partnership, founded by Neil Blair, board member of the UK branch of the Abraham Fund, a group sponsored by Israeli bank Hapoalim, which finances the construction of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Bana had largely disappeared by July the next year, when Syrian journalist Khaled Iskef visited the Alabeds’ abandoned home. He found it was situated round the corner from an al-Nusra headquarters, and less than 400 meters from Al-Qaeda’s Aleppo nerve-center. Inside, he discovered a notebook documenting her father Ghassan’s work with extremist elements, as a result of his position as military trainer for Islamic Sawfa Brigade.

During that period, he worked in the Shariah Council in the Aleppo state Eye Hospital, which was under the control of al-Nusra. The notebook indicated the Council passed decisions on imprisonment and assassination of captured civilians to the terorrist group.

Since-deleted social media posts reveal Bana’s grandfather Mohammed was an arms dealer and had a weapons maintenance shop in Sha’ar, at which he serviced killing apparatuses for terrorist factions, situated opposite a school-turned-base for al-Nusra.

Bana’s Twitter account frequently complained of her inability to go ‘back to school’ – in a perverse irony, Iskef found al-Nusra used a former school near her home as a headquarters.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow Kit on Twitter @KitKlarenberg

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Will Biden Listen to the Science?

By Ron Paul | November 16, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden has not been officially declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but that has not stopped him from forming a coronavirus task force. The task force is composed of supporters of increased government control.

One idea Biden and his task force are considering is a four to six weeks nationwide lockdown. However, supporting a nationwide lockdown would violate Biden’s campaign pledge to “listen to the science.” The evidence regarding lockdowns is so overwhelming that even the World Health Organization (WHO) has been forced to admit the truth: lockdowns do more harm than good.

Lockdowns result in more instances of depression, suicide, domestic violence, and alcohol and drug abuse. Lockdowns also cause people to not go to hospitals or doctors’ offices, leading to people dying because they failed to obtain medical assistance in a timely manner.

Biden also is working with governors, mayors, and other state and local officials to create a de facto national mask mandate. Biden has also declared he will mandate mask wearing in all federal buildings and for people traveling interstate. A mask mandate for interstate travel could mean you will be required to wear a mask on airplanes, trains, and even when driving in your own car if you cross state lines.

Yet again, Biden is ignoring the science. In this case the science has demonstrated that most masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of a virus. Medical science also shows that wearing a mask for extended periods of time can cause health problems. For example, mask wearing interferes with proper breathing. Long-term mask wearing may also cause serious dental problems. Ironically, major victims of mask mandates include low-wage workers Biden and his fellow progressives claim to care so much about. Many of these workers are required to wear masks on the job.

Biden has also proposed raising an army of “culturally competent” contact tracers. According to the University of California, San Francisco, which is helping train that California’s contact tracers, contract tracers “….ask questions related to topics that can be sensitive, including health, work, living arrangements and food resources” in order to identify someone who should be quarantined. These contract tracers could also be able to enforce masks or other mandates — including a potential vaccine mandate — by helping ensure that those who refuse to comply are indefinitely quarantined.

Biden is not the only politician pushing authoritarian “solutions” to coronavirus. The government of Washington, DC is considering authorizing vaccinating of children without parental consent. This ignores the science that some people will have a negative reaction even to a generally safe vaccine, so individuals should make their own decision in consultation with their physician. This is especially important these days, as we are dealing with a vaccine that is being rushed into production for political reasons and that even the manufactures admit will have serious side effects.

Lockdowns, masks, and other authoritarian measures do little or nothing to promote health. Instead, they erode freedom and create their own health problems. Those who know the truth must make Joe Biden and other authoritarians listen to the true science. While those more at risk — such as the elderly and people with certain health problems — could be encouraged to take extra precautions, all Americans should be given back the liberty to make their own healthcare decisions.

Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | 2 Comments

Obama’s Failed Mideast Policies Likely to Make a Comeback if Biden Wins Presidency

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 16.11.2020

If Joe Biden finds his way to the White House the world is likely to witness the continuation of Barack Obama’s interventionist policy in the Middle East and North Africa, suggests Mideast expert and political analyst Ghassan Kadi.

As the US mainstream media calls former Vice President Joe Biden the projected winner of the 2020 presidential race, the Democratic nominee’s foreign policy team has come into the spotlight.

The American press has named former Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administration officials Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Colin Kahl, Michele Flournoy, and Susan Rice, among those who could be tapped to shape the potential administration’s foreign strategy in the coming four years in case Biden wins.

Biden’s Foreign Policy Team: ‘a Horror Show’

“Globally speaking, a Biden administration will push for easing the tension with China and the EU NATO states, up-scaling the rhetoric against North Korea and imposing more sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Syria for any reason they can conjure up”, says Ghassan Kadi, a Middle East expert and political analyst of Syrian descent.

Biden’s foreign policy team has brought together over 2,000 people, including 20 working groups, to determine his foreign policy agenda and “turn back” some of President Donald Trump’s foreign policies. Supporters of Bernie Sanders, however, have expressed concerns over Biden’s inner circle mostly consisting of Clinton and Obama administration veterans who previously endorsed US military interventions in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.

In August 2020, over 275 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, most of whom had previously pledged allegiance to Senator Sanders, wrote an open letter which called Biden’s foreign policy entourage “a horror show” of aides with long records of backing “disastrous” US military invasions.

“We ask you not to rely on foreign policy advice from those who may have a conflict of interest as a result of their relationships and lobbying on behalf of merchants selling weapons and surveillance technology”, the letter read as quoted by the Huffington Post.

Biden Aide Kahl: Advocate of US Military Deployment in Syria

If Biden wins the presidency, the US will not withdraw from Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan anytime soon, believes Kadi. He does not rule out an increase in the US military contingent in Syria under a potential Biden administration, adding that the former VP is unlikely to engage in a dialogue with Damascus.

“The simple answer is no, not because they shouldn’t, but because they will be too arrogant to realise that there is no way out of the stalemate without negotiations”, the Middle East expert believes. “If anything, any new adviser or team of advisers will push to demonstrate that Trump’s policy in Syria was wrong, they will likely be advocating sending more troops into Syria.”

For instance, Colin Kahl, an informal adviser to the Biden campaign, is known for his “progressive engagement” strategy which envisaged the long-term deployment of a “right-sized” US military contingent to Mideast countries in the aftermath of the Arab uprising to oversee “democratic reforms” there.

Kahl, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East from 2009 to the end of 2011, was largely regarded as the architect of the Pentagon’s response to the Arab Spring – a series of armed rebellions that spread across the Arab world in the early 2010s and later hijacked by terrorist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood*, al-Qaeda*, and later Daesh in some Arab states.

Responding to the GOP criticism of Obama’s strategy in the Middle East and North Africa, Kahl insisted in 2012 that the radical jihadist uprising would eventually be replaced by an alliance between “moderate Islamists” and secular Arab parties, something that has never occurred, nearly a decade after the initial events.

Obama’s critics argued that his administration’s foreign policy was marred by grave mistakes, including the drastic increase in the US military presence in Afghanistan which only exacerbated the ongoing war, the invasion of Libya which turned a once flourishing country into a failed state, and the support of so-called “moderate” Islamists in Syria which translated into a nine-year war.

Since Donald Trump assumed the presidency Kahl has repeatedly subjected the president’s Mideast policy to criticism. He lashed out at Trump for the latter’s decision to immediately withdraw from Syria after the defeat of Daesh terrorists: according to Kahl, Washington’s goals in the Arab Republic were not limited to thwarting the terror threat.

At the beginning of Trump’s term, the US had 3 cards to play to influence the Syria endgame:
—Aid to the opposition
—Conditional reconstruction assistance
—Troops & allies controlling 1/3 of the country & key oil/gas resources

Trump has now given them all away for…nothing.

— Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl) December 19, 2018

​In contrast, the former national security adviser hailed Biden’s plan to preserve limited military contingents in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

However, according to Kadi, the situation on the ground in the Middle East and beyond has changed dramatically over the past few years. Besides this, Syria is no longer a crumbling state like it was five years ago.

“If [Kahl] really wants to have ‘progressive engagement’ with the Syrian people, he should then support the idea of withdrawing from Syria unconditionally because America simply has no business in Syria or legitimacy for its presence”, he stresses.

Let’s Not Jump the Gun, Withdrawal May Still be on Trump’s Table

Touching upon Trump’s failure to pull out from the Arab Republic, the analyst refers to some Pentagon officials deliberately misleading President Trump about the actual size of the US military contingent on the ground and covertly disrupting his strategy.

Jim Jeffrey, outgoing US special representative for Syria and special presidential envoy for the Western coalition against Daesh (ISIS), told Defense One on 12 November how they tricked the president while maintaining the US military presence in the region.

That does not mean, however, that that’s how the story ends, says Kadi adding that the 2020 US election is not over yet.

“Let us not jump the gun”, the Mideast expert says. “The official results of the US presidential elections are still to be known. Furthermore, it has been touted that in preparation for an outcome that declares Trump a loser, he is possibly pulling the carpet from underneath Biden’s feet and planning to withdraw American troops from a number of overseas posts including Syria”.

Last Monday, Trump sacked Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, replacing him with National Counterterrorism Centre Director Christopher Miller. Top White House counterterrorism official Kash Patel, who was reportedly dispatched to Damascus earlier this year at Trump’s behest, was appointed as chief of staff to the acting head of the DoD.

Miller, who is known as an advocate of ending America’s overseas wars, recently wrote a letter to all Pentagon employees: “We met the challenge; we gave it our all. Now, it’s time to come home“, the acting US defence secretary stated, falling short, however, of providing any specific schedule.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Who’s World Order??

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog | November 16, 2020

In his Foreign Policy article of April 2020, Biden states that he will reverse Trump’s embarrassing foreign policy record by standing up to both China, Russia and other totalitarian nations which represent the three-fold plague of “authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism” and “once more have America lead the world”.

Biden went further promising to undo the harm Trump has done to NATO by re-enforcing the military body, extending its influence to the Pacific (which sounds a lot like the Esper/Pompeo doctrine for the Pacific), and even demanded that NATO go harder on Russia stating that “the Kremlin fears a strong NATO, the most effective political military alliance in modern history.”

Considering Biden’s nearly 45 year political record supporting every military intervention in American history, opposing de-segregation, eulogizing pro-KKK Senator Strom Thurmond, passing bills that incarcerated petty drug dealers for life on behalf of the cheap labor prison industrial complex and supported the rampant growth of both Wall Street, Big Pharma and the Big Tech run surveillance state, we should think twice before celebrating this man’s possible entry into the halls of the highest office in the USA.

Biden’s call for renewing the NATO alliance in opposition to Russia and China, his support for reversing Trump’s calls for military reduction in the Middle East and his support for extending NATO in the Pacific mixed with his lifelong track record, forces us to ask if Glen Greenwald was right when he quit the Intercept on November 1 saying:

“If Biden wins, that’s going to be the power structure: A democratic party fully united with neocons, Bush/Cheney operatives, CIA/FBI/NSA Wall Street and Silicon Valley: presenting itself as the only protection against fascism. And much of the left will continue marching behind it.”

As it turns out, Greenwald’s warning was absolutely on point, as the entire intelligence apparatus, Big Tech and mainstream media complex which worked desperately to oust President Trump for 4 years and is currently running a vast voting fraud operation as this is written has given its full backing to the narrative of “an inevitable Biden presidency”.

In a Nov. 11 article from entitled Biden’s Pentagon Transition Team Members Funded by the Arms Industry, journalist Dave DeCamp demonstrates that of the 23 members of Biden’s Pentagon Transition Team, over one third are directly tied to NATO and the Military Industrial Complex.

As facts continue to emerge of the corrupt deep state structure which totally dominates the geriatric hologram known as Joe Biden, it has become obvious that even the few positive remarks Biden made in support of renewing the START treaty with Russia carry little weight.

Ignoring the very real danger of a new civil war due to the fact that either result will be denied its legitimacy by half of the nation, the question must be asked: If Trump is replaced by a Biden Presidency on January 20th, then what will be the effects both on world stability and US-Russia-China relations?

It is good that Biden supports START’s renewal, but an increasing majority of nations are opting for a multipolar alliance premised on the defense of national sovereignty, the right to use protectionism, and the construction of large scale megaprojects such as the New Silk Road, Polar Silk Road, advanced space exploration and North South Transportation Corridor.

The very protectionist measures which allowed the USA (and every nation of the world for that matter) to build up their industrial base and economic sovereignty are attacked directly by Biden who demands the “taking down of trade barriers and resisting dangerous global slide toward protectionism” (which he goes so far as to assert without evidence “caused the great depression” and “lead to World War II”).

Attacking Trump for being soft on China’s imperial Belt and Road Initiative which Biden states is only an “outsourcer of pollution to other countries by financing billions of dollars worth of dirty fossil fuel energy projects”, Biden then asks: “who writes the rules that govern trade?” and answers: “the United States, not China, should be leading that effort.”

Beyond carbon reduction plans, and information technology investments (AI, 5G, Quantum Computing), there is very little in Biden’s “development outlook” that brings the USA into harmony with this multipolar consensus. His program to support cutting America’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 as outlined by the Green New Deal and Great Reset crowd at Davos might appear on the surface to be pro-infrastructure, professing to “create 10 million good new jobs”, but the reality on further inspection is very different.

The sorts of large scale BRI-oriented development projects now transforming more than half of the world which is increasingly operating under a completely different non-US dominated banking paradigm, are based on capital intensive heavy industry, the use of fossil fuels and also nuclear power.

Without these energy sources, then the New Silk Road and its’ sister projects could never work (much like Modi’s anti-BRI OSOWOG doppelganger has proven a total failure both scientifically and economically).

The sort of “green energy revolution” which the Davos technocrats running Biden want to impose onto the world might create short term jobs, but once the solar panels and windmills are built, the quality of energy available to nations stupid enough to walk into this cage will forever suffocate their capacity to sustain their populations and growth potential. In short, it is a green mirage obscuring a very ugly design.

In opposition to this depopulation agenda, Trump’s tendency support for space exploration, reviving protectionism to rebuild America’s lost manufacturing and his supporting large scale infrastructure programs in resolving conflict abroad (including his support for building rail in the Arctic, rail in Serbia and Kosovo, nuclear power in South Africa and Poland etc) is certainly synergistic with the multipolar system led by Russia and China and undeniably brings the USA into harmony with its own better traditions.

Additionally, Trump’s defunding of color revolutionary “civil society” groups in Hong Kong and Belarus won him many enemies from both sides of the pro-Soros isle while supporting the concept of national sovereignty which were major steps towards stability and trust-building with nations of the world who demand their sovereignty be respected as outlined in the UN Charter itself.

Compare this with Biden’s statement that we must “stand with Russian civil society which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic authoritarian system” and Biden’s call to host “a global summit for democracy” featuring “civil society organizations from around the world that stand on the frontlines of democracy” including “the private sector, technology companies and social media giants.”

These are the same “Big tech, and media giants” that have given their full backing to the imposition of Biden into the Presidency which have also been used to overthrow nationally elected governments in color revolutionary regime change operations for decades. These are the same networks that have suppressed all evidence of systemic vote fraud in the American elections of 2020 and are stoking the fires of a potential new civil war and regime change inside the republic itself.

Whatever the case may be, the coming weeks and months will feature fierce battles that will shape the outcome of world history.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

India and US signed a game-changer defence deal, amid the rise of what could be a new bipolarity

By Uriel Araujo | November 16, 2020

After the third annual “2+2” high-level US-Indian talks in Delhi on October 27, a very important defence pact was signed: the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). With so much focus on the American election, little attention has been given to this crucial deal. Last Tuesday, the Australian navy joined Indian, American, and Japanese warships for the annual Malabarar exercises. This is yet another sign of the growing convergence between the four QUAD countries (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). Both events must be seen in light of Indian and US intentions to “counter” China.

The BECA was signed nearly a week before the US elections – and it certainly was a kind of diplomatic victory for Trump’s administration. Regarding a future administration, we should not expect any major change. Joe Biden, who has declared victory in the US election (Trump is contesting the outcome), is on the record stating in 2006 that his “dream” is for the US and India to be the “two closest nations in the world”. According to a policy paper released by the Biden campaign during the election, India is a “high priority” and, among other things, the US should support Indian aspirations to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

After the two previous 2+2 talks in 2018 and 2019, the US and India signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). The former gave mutual access to each other’s military facilities for the purpose of refueling, while the latter provides New Delhi with classified information from the US Navy. The latest BECA, in its turn, takes such cooperation to a whole new level. This was made possible and even fast-tracked partly because both Trump’s Indo-Pacific Strategy and the COVID-19 outbreak have brought India and the US closer.

The deal will give New Delhi access to American geospatial data and intelligence – for its missiles and drones. It will also enhance Indian automate hardware systems and weapons and will improve New Delhi’s navigation capabilities and its military targeting. On the other hand, some have voiced concerns with Indian sovereignty.

The agreement, after all, also gives the US a high degree of control over Indian operations. According to security analyst Bharat Karnad, a former member of India’s National Security Council and an emeritus professor at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, it could even open the possibility of Washington tampering with data and misdirecting Indian missiles. The full texts (and even official summaries) of the agreements the US has with some of its allies, such as the Philippines, remain classified and it fuels suspicions and reservations among part of Indian strategic analysts. According to a 2018 paper by Abhijnan Rej, a Fellow with Observer Research Foundation’s Strategic Studies Programme, some Indian officers fear that becoming part of any military communication network with the US would make India vulnerable to Pakistan tapping – because Pakistan, India’s main rival, is a member of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) Partner Network. The US claims such networks do not necessarily interface with each other but such claim is met with some skepticism.

If some sectors in India are concerned about being part of a military network together with Pakistan, the US  worries about Indian-Russian relations and cooperation. From the American point of view, the fact that Russia remains India’s top supplier of weapons – and has been so since Cold War era – is in itself a concern. Moreover, Moscow is eager to sell New Delhi its S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft weapons system by 2021. Washington fears that the presence of any Russian defense system into an Indian military network (where US hardware and data is also present) would expose some features of American platforms to Moscow.

That is probably why the US has even threatened India with sanctions over its decision to purchase such system from Russia – top diplomat Alice Wells, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, claimed in May that could be possible. From Washington’s perspective, however, there is plenty to be concerned: one should also remember that the Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KKNPP) counts heavily on future nuclear cooperation with Moscow.

The BECA agreement holds tremendous geopolitical importance for the future of the region, especially when we consider the tensions between India and China – as well as Chinese-Japanese tensions, Indian-Japanese relations and concerns over QUAD becoming a kind of a “new  Asian NATO” in the Indo-Pacific region. Washington and New Delhi certainly have an area of common interest regarding Beijing’s growing power. The US, in turn, have been engaged in a trade war with China and in what many describe as a new cold war.

For India, such a game-changing deal brings also a kind of dilemma. In Indian political landscape, the anti-American left – which has always opposed the Indian-US strategic partnership – has been largely irrelevant for a while. The hegemonic Hindu right has traditionally rejected Western and American cultural influence while reaffirming Indian national culture and values. BECA will demand a closer political relationship with the US. Will such relationships be informed by narratives of common values like democracy and the rule of law?

As for the future, India could further strengthen its ties with the US (potentially damaging its relationship with Russia by doing so). It would confirm the fears of many about the QUAD becoming a “new NATO” and it would dramatically increase tensions regionally and globally – this scenario would represent the further rise of a supposed “new bipolarity” in global politics instead of multipolarity.

Or will India continue pursue its own traditional “middle path” way, engaging with both the US and Russia. In this case, together with allies such as Indonesia, and as part of the on-going “conceptual war” – over what the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) must be – India could try and push its own view of the IPR.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Vaxxed 2 – The People’s Truth

In 2016, a media firestorm erupted when Tribeca Film Festival abruptly censored its documentary selection, VAXXED: FROM COVER-UP TO CATASTROPHE, amid pressure from pro-pharmaceutical interests.

In response to media silence on CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, who admitted to fraud on a pivotal vaccine safety study, VAXXED catapulted to notoriety and became a worldwide trending topic, opening to sold-out theater audiences nationwide.

Stunned by the immense volume of parents lining up outside the theaters with vaccine injury stories to share, VAXXED producer Polly Tommey began to Livestream worldwide reaching millions, and a community that had once been silenced were empowered to rise up.

In VAXXED II: THE PEOPLE’S TRUTH, Polly and the team travel over 50,000 miles in the USA and around the world. Interviews of parents and doctors with nothing to gain and everything to lose exposed the vaccine injury epidemic and asked the question on every parent’s mind, “Are vaccines really as safe and effective as we’ve been told?”

November 16, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment