Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

THE ART OF MANUFACTURING FEAR

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | December 21, 2023

The fear and panic produced by The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938 paved the way for media and government predictive programming of an imminent cyberattack. The HighWire takes a deep dive through this historical timeline.

December 25, 2023 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Canadians supporting Palestine face job loss, condemnation

MEMO | December 22, 2023

Expressing support for Palestinians in the ongoing conflict in Gaza risks Canadians being fired, suspended from their jobs and calls not to be hired, the country’s public broadcaster reported on Friday, reports Anadolu Agency.

It is a development in other countries, including the US and Europe, and affects various employment fields, such as the service sector, education, health care, the law and media. “I can tell you personally, in the last month and a half, I’ve probably spoken with someone at least once a day [about this],” Jackie Esmonde, a labour lawyer at the Toronto-based firm Cavalluzzo Law, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). “They’re not always cases that we take on, but we do have eight to 10 cases that we’re actively working on at the moment.”

She said these are not cases of hate speech or support for terrorism.

In November, the University of Ottawa suspended Dr Yipeng Ge after a social media post that said: “From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The university interpreted this to mean the “ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from Israel.”

Others have suffered job suspensions for posts that featured the words “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s actions.

In November, 650 lawyers, law students and professors from across Canada published an open letter that says there has been a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression since the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict on October 7.

Meanwhile, lawyers interviewed by the CBC said they were not aware of anyone facing consequences for social media posts supporting Israel.

And two employees at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies – a non-profit human rights organization that fosters antisemitism education – told the CBC that teachers at the centre have been told to report students who make statements critical of Israel.

December 23, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Rumble blocks Brazil

RT | December 22, 2023

The video sharing service Rumble announced on Friday that it would disable access to all users from Brazil pending its legal challenge of the Brazilian court order to censor certain creators.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski revealed the move in a post on X (formerly Twitter), noting that the court orders clashed with the company’s mission to “restore a free and open Internet.”

“Users with unpopular views are free to access our platform on the same terms as our millions of other users,” Pavlovski wrote. “Accordingly, we have decided to disable access to Rumble for users in Brazil while we challenge the legality of the Brazilian courts’ demands.”

Brazilians who lost their access to Rumble content have only their courts to blame, he added, noting that he hoped the judges would reconsider their decision so that the service could be restored soon.

“I will not be bullied by foreign government demands to censor Rumble creators.”

In a follow-up post, Pavlovski noted that Rumble was “the only company at our scale that holds the line for free speech and American values,” and that he hoped some day other Big Tech companies would do the same. “I will continue to lead by example until that day arrives,” he added.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and hosts the ‘System Update’ show on Rumble, noted that the Brazilian Supreme Court is “consumed with censoring political speech,” to the point that it banned platforms such as Telegram and WhatsApp for failing to immediately obey their censorship orders.

This is the second time Rumble has suspended service in a country over a censorship row. In November 2022, Pavlovski defied France’s orders to censor certain Russian-language outlets, citing the company’s free speech mission.

Pavlovski, a Canadian tech entrepreneur, founded Rumble in 2013 after seeing YouTube giving priority to influencers after getting acquired by the search engine giant Google. The platform grew in popularity starting in 2020, after a mass purge of dissident voices by Silicon Valley, and continued in 2021 with the influx of US conservatives censored elsewhere.

December 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

UK Parliament debates IHR amendments

If sovereignty is knowingly and deceitfully forfeited by government there are specific laws for dealing with that, says Andrew Bridgen

By Rhoda Wilson – The Exposé – December 20, 2023

On Monday, the UK House of Commons debated the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”).

The debate was held in response to a petition to the UK Parliament which gained more than the required number of signatures. In yet another brilliant speech, Andrew Bridgen MP left no stone unturned. A few other Members of Parliament (“MPs) didn’t hold back either.

The first to speak was Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. He summed up the problem both with the WHO’s two proposed instruments – the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty or Accord – and the UK Parliament’s mindset regarding concerns raised about them.

“In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall … I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an ‘overreaction and hysteria’. It is clear that this is – quite rightly, in my opinion – an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions,” Mr. Davies said.

“We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies,” he said. “What is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty … We are talking about a top-down approach to global public health hardwired into international law.”

“Let us not forget that the director-general is appointed by an opaque, non-democratic process – and I think that is being rather generous,” he added.

Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, took the floor next. “I [ ] thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today,” he began.

“It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel.”

Why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty? Mr. Bridgen asked the House noting that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ statements that “no country will cede any sovereignty to WHO” are unequivocally, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to.

Mr. Bridgen reminded the House that Tedros, as with all WHO officials, is unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying and immune from prosecution due to diplomatic immunity.

The intent of the text of the IHR amendments and Pandemic Accord is clear: WHO’s proposed instruments transfer decision-making power to WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, decision-making that is currently vested in nations and individuals. “The WHO director-general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law,” Mr. Bridgen said.

“Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.”

Later in his speech, Mr. Bridgen said that WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public to increase the probability of acceptance.

Mr. Bridgen then referred to the dubious method by which the World Health Assembly adopted amendments to the IHR in April 2022.

“Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen quoted from article 18 of the IHR which details specific examples of measures that are currently non-binding and WHO can recommend.

“When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates -“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.  However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the UDHR.” Mr. Bridgen said.

Mr. Bridgen explained how the current recommendations will be changed into requirements through three mechanisms:

“The first is the removal of the term “non-binding” … Second is the insertion … [of] the phrase that ‘Member States’ will ‘undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations’ … Thirdly … ‘State Parties’ undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction.”

Mr. Bridgen explained that “non-state actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. “In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director-general declares a public health emergency of international concern,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen also pointed out that the IHR also allows WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country. “That is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses,” he said.

He called out WHO’s desire to limit freedom of speech to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” This clashes with the UDHR, Mr. Bridgen said.

“Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity.” No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.”

Mr. Bridgen mentioned the potential for human rights abuses by WHO and its allies coercing populations to take experimental vaccines or drugs:

“If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation.”

The proposed pandemic agreement, Mr. Bridgen said, will set humanity into a new era that is organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times.

“The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened,” he said, “but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies.”

Mr. Bridgen followed this by voicing a thought that has been on many of our minds in recent years:

“If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice.”

You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s speech in parliament below and read a transcript of it in the Hansard HERE.

Andrew Bridgen: International Health Regulations Amendments Debate in Westminster Hall, 19 December 2023 (24 mins)

John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, agreed.  “I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners,” he said. “It would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.”

“Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic,” Mr. Redwood said. “We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.”

“We do not want an international body saying, ‘There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it’ … we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate.”

Mark Francis, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, also voiced his concerns about amendments to the IHR. “Not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic,” he said.

“The proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.”

Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, began by noting that it was very worrying that so few MPs were present at the debate. “Significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?” he asked. And reiterated the points already made.

He emphasised the provision in the proposed regulations that WHO would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. After recalling one or two erroneous statements made by WHO in response to the covid pandemic, Mr. Kruger said:

“This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.

“We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our government’s role.”

Sir Christopher Chope, MP for Christchurch, said: “Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry … it is very difficult to get them back.”

He pointed to an insidious development, following a recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary international law.” “That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not,” he said.

Mr. Francis interjected and said: “For the avoidance of any doubt … none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – we might call it Wexit.”  To which Mr. Davies responded, “Yet.” [Attaboy Mr Davies!]

“We do not want to withdraw,” Sir Christopher said, “there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information.”

Sir Christopher reminded the House about WHO’s war on ivermectin. “Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin – it was not the only such drug – could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19,” he said.

“[The campaign against ivermectin] was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it,” he added.

“I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political.”

After noting that SlovakiaEstonia and New Zealand had come out publicly with their scepticism about WHO’s process, Sir Christopher said:

“I hope that our government will now say, ‘By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives’.”

You can read the full transcript for the 3-hour debate HERE and watch the full debate on Parliament TV HERE.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

The Antisemitic Moment

Maligning critics by Jewish groups to “protect” Israel only damages their credibility

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • DECEMBER 21, 2023

In a 2002 interview the former Israeli government minister Shulamit Aloni was asked by Amy Goodman: “Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called antisemitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?” Shulamit Aloni replied “Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country [the US] people are criticizing Israel, then they are antisemitic.” She added that there is an “Israel, my country right or wrong” attitude and “they’re not ready to hear criticism.” Antisemitism, the Holocaust and “the suffering of the Jewish people” are exploited to “justify everything we do to the Palestinians.”

Currently Israel is involved in a conflict with Hamas in Gaza that it has described as a “war” though the disparity in force levels involving a country with a modern fully equipped army, navy and air force versus something more like a militia armed with small arms and home-made rockets suggest that a different label might be more appropriate. The fighting has been constant apart from a six day pause to exchange hostages and prisoners and promises to continue into the New Year, and possibly much longer, due to the difficulty in engaging in anything like conventional warfare in a bombed out and devastated urban environment that favors the defense.

Israeli extreme brutality has been on display for all the world to see. Last week, Israeli soldiers shot dead three Jewish hostages who had escaped from their Hamas captors under cover of an Israeli bombardment. The hostages took most of their clothes off so it could be clearly seen that they were unarmed and they were carrying a white flag with their hands in the air, but the soldiers reacted by shooting two of them immediately. The third took cover in a building while calling for help in Hebrew, but he too was pursued and killed. In another incident two Catholic women, mother and daughter, taking shelter in Gaza’s only Catholic church were targeted and shot by Israeli snipers. This produced a rebuke from the Pope.

However it turns out, the conflict in Gaza will be Israel’s longest “war” by far since the creation of the country in 1948. Israel’s intention is to force the Gazans to leave whether by forced resettlement in neighboring countries, in Europe or in the United States, or by killing them all. The deputy mayor of Jerusalem has recently labeled the Palestinians “subhumans” and has recommended rounding them up and burying them alive. He is not alone in that viewpoint and, at a minimum, many government ministers believe that the best outcome of the Palestinian problem is to get rid of the Palestinians in Gaza and also on the West Bank completely, whatever that takes, to establish once and for all “Eretz” or Greater Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and possibly even expanding into southern Lebanon and Egypt’s Sinai.

Israeli willingness to use bombs, starvation and even disease against the Palestinians in what is now being frequently referred to as a genocide has meant that the Jewish state’s list of friends around the world has shrunk dramatically and is limited to several European states and the US under self-declared Zionist President Joe Biden. A UN Security Council motion calling for a ceasefire was blocked by a US veto even though the ten other council members voted for it with one abstention by the UK. A subsequent call for a ceasefire, ignored by Israel, obtained 153 “Yes” votes in the UN General Assembly against 10 “Nos” two of which were Israel and the United States plus US “freely associated” micro-states Micronesia and Palau which always align with Washington. And even in those mostly European countries nominally supporting Israel’s attacks in Gaza, there have been large demonstrations supporting the Palestinians. As the death toll among civilians approaches and almost certainly has already exceeded 20,000, many governments have begun to hedge their bets and wobble in their assertions that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Defense does not apparently include targeting hospitals, schools, churches and apartment buildings full of fearful civilians seeking shelter from the explosions. Even Joe Biden is calling for restraint in the “indiscriminate” bombing though he is also expediting providing the Israelis with more bombs to do the killing.

As the crisis in Gaza worsened, the UN responded with yet another Security Council resolution, which was introduced by the United Arab Emirates on December 18th. The vote was subsequently delayed three times until the 21st primarily to allow time for debate over the exact wording so as to make it acceptable to the United States in order to avoid another veto by Washington. Cynics have been quick to observe quite plausibly that the Biden Administration is seeking to vote in favor of or abstain on a document that is completely toothless, allowing Israel to do whatever it wants, as is usually the case. The vote on “urgent humanitarian pauses” was expected on Thursday December 21st, but the US again forced a delay for further discussion after aligning its position with that of Israel and claiming, falsely, that UN involvement in the monitoring of assistance would actually slow down relief efforts.

Israel had previously insisted, with US support, that UN direct involvement in monitoring and coordinating the massive humanitarian effort needed to help the Gazans should not be permitted. Israel demanded that only it should be responsible for inspecting incoming goods for “threats,” which, as the Jewish state is a party to the conflict, will itself inevitably and intentionally slow down assistance dramatically and will result in many unnecessary deaths. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also objected to the possibility that some wording in the resolution might suggest transformation of the “pause” into a lengthy ceasefire rather than a temporary “suspension” of hostilities with fighting resuming after a short period. Netanyahu has vowed that the military action will continue until all Hamas leaders and followers have surrendered or are dead. He is also demanding the immediate release of all Israeli hostages as a sine qua non for further deliberations on what might come next.

More important to Americans than dishonest parliamentary maneuvers at the UN should be the fact that defending Israel has meant that there is underway a wholesale assault on the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights relating to freedom of speech and association. The attacks are being conducted by the Israeli Lobby and its assets and allies in both of the major political parties, the mainstream news media, Zionist-dominated American social media, and the American National Security apparatus. This has distorted what has happened in Gaza and why by turning the narrative of the conflict into a totally false bit of propaganda claiming alleged Arab terrorism and irredentism directed against the poor Jewish Israelis, who are once again serving as the featured victims. In America, universities are being described as hotbeds of surging antisemitism because students are protesting against Israel’s ethnic cleansing in Gaza while the heavily Jewish-influenced media and Jewish billionaires are working overtime to do whatever it takes to block any and all such criticism. Interestingly, the drive to ban or shut down protests and gatherings has had some major success directed against Arab or Muslim groups in a number of states with no Jewish groups on campus or in the community being interfered with in spite of their often robust support of Israel’s killing spree in Gaza.

The interference of Israel in both American domestic and foreign politics will only get worse in the upcoming year due to national elections. A number of Jewish groups are currently raising money and organizing to go after critics of Israel more aggressively, most particularly the few progressives in the Democratic Party who have spoken up about the genocide of the Palestinians that is taking place. Since the Israel Lobby already controls the White House, its aim is to make the Congress a 100% loyal cheerleader and protector of Israel and all its works, to include the continuing flow of billions of taxpayer dollars annually. Some major American Jewish organizations have, for example, just launched “The 10/7 Project” which will feature centralized communications to promote bipartisan support of Israel. “The 10/7 Project” will be sponsored and managed by the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Ted Deutch, CEO of the American Jewish committee explained “The 10/7 Project’s” purpose, saying that “Since October 7, there has been a concerted and consistent effort from Israel’s enemies to draw a false and dangerous equivalence between Hamas’ deadly rampage to destroy the Jewish state and Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorists. ‘The 10/7 Project’ will be a trusted and timely source of accurate information to set the record straight and combat false narratives perpetuated by Hamas terrorists and their anti-Israel allies… At this critical juncture, it is imperative that we separate fact from fiction regarding America’s most important Middle East ally and remind people that the vast majority of Americans understand that Hamas is our common enemy.”

What Deutch is really saying between the lies and misinformation is that there will be a well-funded and staffed effort to stifle criticism of Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinians using a narrative that portrays the Israelis as victims of Arab terror, an assertion which might well be described as Zionist propaganda and fact twisting. The attacks on free speech at universities will definitely be on the agenda, in a campaign that started several months ago, when students at a number of public and private universities began protesting over Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians, leading to a death toll that is almost certainly currently approaching or exceeding 20,000 when all the corpses are dug up from the rubble of bombed buildings.

As the anti-Palestinian narrative took shape in political, media and Zionist circles, it adopted a familiar line, which goes something like this though with slight adjustments to reach target audiences: Israel is the Jewish state. If you criticize the Jewish state and/or Zionism you are therefore by the definition accepted by the US government State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism an antisemite. Antisemitism is a “hate crime” since it is by the same logic based on hatred of Jews. If you advocate or argue for any Palestinian group like Hamas, which the US government has conveniently labeled “terrorist” even though it has never threatened Americans, you are providing “material assistance to terrorism” which is a crime for which you can be fined or imprisoned. The end result is that Israel, which is immune from the consequences of its own actions internationally, also increasingly cannot be criticized at all without serious consequences for the critic, which have included posting the names of protesting students on lists of alleged antisemites so they will be unable to find work after they graduate. In other words, freedom of speech in the United States and also in some European countries including France and Germany only exists, insofar as it does, if you are not disparaging Israel or even its friends due to their easily demonstrable “war criminal” behavior.

Some of those consequences of not rolling over for the Israel Lobby were experienced recently by three presidents of prominent American universities, responding to a congressional December 7th grilling that was set up to address concerns over allegations that colleges are hotbeds of antisemitism and are responsible for major increases in incidents targeting Jews. The presidents of the University of Pennsylvania Liz Magill, Harvard Claudine Gay and MIT Sally Kornbluth were grilled by Congress but were afterwards trashed because they were unwilling to agree with the congressional interrogators that Jews were being terrorized on campus, observing that words must have a physically threatening or harassing “context” if they are to be banned or blocked.

The responses of the three women suggesting that speech should remain free on campus were found to be unacceptable by Congress and the largely Zionist media. Magill has since resigned, joined by the chairman of the university board of trustees Scott Bok, who was immediately replaced by Julie Beren Platt, head of the Jewish Federations of North America, who has been named interim board chair. But politicians joined by prominent commentators and philanthropists still continue to call for the others to resign as well, though Harvard’s Gay has received a vote of confidence from her board and also from faculty and students. Many major Jewish donors have coupled those “calls” with threats that their multi-million dollar gifts would be withdrawn if the presidents stay on. In one example, Penn lost a $100 million donation from Ross Stevens, who pulled it after the hearing. Those seeking to punish appear to be undeterred by the fact that their actions have already sparked discussions about unacceptable levels of Jewish power, often including the observation how promise of money or denying it is used as an instrument to obtain what Israel and its Lobby want.

There is a certain irony in the allegations since Jews in America are the wealthiest, best educated, most politically powerful, most prestigiously employed and most protected by Homeland Security of all ethno-religious demographics. And there is not much real evidence that Jews are in any way increasingly “victims” in the United States or in Europe. The antisemitic incidents that are “surging” are frequently based on criticisms of what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and often consist of a Jewish college student being offended or annoyed by a poster or a speaker criticizing Israeli behavior. Instances of actual physical confrontation are few and far between and are immediately reported in the accommodating mainstream media to heighten the sense that Jews in America and even worldwide are threatened. Certain groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are heavily into the promotion of the narrative of Jew hatred as it is in their bottom line to do so given their donor base which likes to hear exactly that.

In other words, what one reads and hears about “surging antisemitism” is largely a contrivance to obtain political and economic benefits as well as a free pass on bad behavior both by Israel and domestically that might not otherwise be forthcoming. And it should be noted in passing that the Israel Lobby groups have somehow avoided registering with the Department of Justice, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, which would require them to maintain transparency over their funding and political activity. The last American president who tried to register what became the Israel Lobby and also sought to stop Israel’s illegal secret nuclear weapons program was John F. Kennedy. Some suspect that Israeli interests might have played a part in his assassination as a result.

Some congressmen have been particularly incensed by student pro-Palestinian demonstrators chanting “Intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” interpreting both expressions being calls for the destruction of Israel, which they are not. Intifada is “shaking off” in Arabic and is a call for liberating the Palestinian people and their land from the Israeli tyranny. The “river to sea” is somewhat similar, a call for a Palestinian state with actual sovereignty and neither is an explicit call for killing Israelis or Jews. They might be considered generic cries for freedom.

But the real mystery in this is why is it happening at all? Jews are supposed to be smart but is it smart to reveal how much power you have, particularly when you are prepared to wield it ruthlessly to suppress people who just might begin to wonder if there is something going on that is being deliberately contrived to benefit a tiny percentage of the US population and a foreign government? And if that kind of thinking catches on, which I believe it already has, there might be serious discussions of ways to counter the efforts to limit free speech and association for citizens who are not comfortable with the way Israel behaves and the way the US Israel Lobby silences critics. Instead of trying to criminalize what people are thinking, wouldn’t it be smarter and even more ethical for American Jews to call on Israel to stop the killing and work out some formula that allows the Palestinians at least a modicum of self-government and freedom? That would seem to make sense and many Jews in the US are actually making that argument. The problem is to also convince the hard core and well financed Jewish groups that support Israel no matter who it has to kill that learning to live together with equal rights is the way to go. And then we must convince the know nothings in the Biden Administration and idiots in Congress like Senator Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio…

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Take: The “Epstein Client List” is not what it seems

OffGuardian | December 21, 2023

On Monday a New York Judge Loretta Preska ruled that the infamous “Epstein Client List” must be released “in full” in January 2024.

The 51-page ruling has caused a stir, but what is it really going to tell us?

Is it going to reveal anything of his ties to US and Israeli intelligence?

Highly improbable.

Is it going to tell us anything about his supposed “suicide”?

Of course not.

The judge even walked back the “in full” part before the end of her ruling, giving anyone on the list until January 1st to petition to have themselves removed:

Anyone on the list has until 1 January to appeal to have their name removed.

We don’t know who’s going to be on the “full” list when it’s released (except Prince Andrew, and you already know what we think about him) but there’s no reason at all to trust it.

As we speak the contents of this “full list” are probably subject to feverish behind the scenes campaigning. PR firms, agents, lobbyists all jockeying to have their clients removed and their enemies added. Those in control are likely busy extorting favours from anyone who doesn’t want to be a last minute addition.

Because that’s always been the major point of the “client list”. Since the revelation that it existed, the “Client List” has been a potential threat hanging over the head of every politician, celebrity or high profile business owner.

“Step out of line, and we might just discover you’re on the list and start leaking that little tidbit all over the place”.

The persons concerned don’t need to have EVER actually been on the list for this to work.

Hell, there doesn’t even need to be a list for this to work. Not a real solid hard copy compiled by Epstein anyhow. Just a spreadsheet on a computer somewhere, updated as necessary with the names of those deemed needful.

Consider, for a moment just how strange it is that we even know the “Epstein client list” exists, and indeed that that’s what it’s called.

Consider how strange it is that we were ever told who went to what island how many times.

Now the judge has made a ruling (hooray! the system works! ) and we’ll likely be presented with nothing but a list of disposable names – the old, the dead, the already discredited and/or recently stepped out of line.

What relationship, if any, it has to Epstein’s real associates or anything else real world will remain unknowable and largely irrelevant to everyone selling and consuming it.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Google Experiments With “Faster and More Adaptable” Censorship of “Harmful” Content Ahead of 2024 US Elections

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | December 20, 2023

In the run-up to the 2020 US presidential election, Big Tech engaged in unprecedented levels of election censorship, most notably by censoring the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story just a few weeks before voters went to the polls.

And with the 2024 US presidential election less than a year away, both Google and its video sharing platform, YouTube, have confirmed that they plan to censor content they deem to be “harmful” in the run-up to the election.

In its announcement, Google noted that it already censors content that it deems to be “manipulated media” or “hate and harassment” — two broad, subjective terms that have been used by tech giants to justify mass censorship.

However, ahead of 2024, the tech giant has started using large language models (LLMs) to experiment with “building faster and more adaptable” censorship systems that will allow it to “take action even more quickly when new threats emerge.”

Google will also be censoring election-related responses in Bard (its generative AI chatbot) and Search Generative Experience (its generative AI search results).

In addition to these censorship measures, Google will be continuing its long-standing practice of artificially boosting content that it deems to be “authoritative” in Google Search and Google News. While this tactic doesn’t result in the removal of content, it can result in disfavored narratives being suppressed and drowned out by these so-called authoritative sources, which are mostly pre-selected legacy media outlets.

Like Google, YouTube confirmed that it will enforce its existing censorship policies ahead of the 2024 elections, including those that apply to election “misinformation” and “harmful conspiracy theories.” These policies resulted in the censorship of tens of thousands of videos and many popular channels in the buildup to and aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

The video sharing platform will also boost videos from authoritative sources — a policy that resulted in independent creators being 14x less likely to be recommended on election-related content after the 2020 elections.

Additionally, YouTube will demonetize videos that it deems to contain “demonstrably false claims that could undermine trust or participation in elections.”

Outside of these direct censorship tactics, YouTube will label “altered or synthetic election content” that doesn’t violate any of its rules. Although these labels won’t result in content suppression, similar labels on other platforms have confused users and resulted in them believing that real but selectively edited videos are fake. Plus, legacy media outlets often use these labels to bolster their censorship demands.

Collectively, these announcements from Google and YouTube signal an intention to supercharge the mass censorship playbook that was deployed during the 2020 election and resulted in a two-tiered system where independent creators that dared to have dissenting or alternative opinions about the election were censored while legacy media outlets had their election narrative boosted across Google’s platforms.

Related: 

How Big Tech Normalized the Censorship of the President

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Biden accuser Tara Reade sues FBI

The whistleblower says she was targeted for retaliation

RT | December 20, 2023

Former US Senate aide Tara Reade, who has accused US President Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her while serving as a senator, filed a civil rights complaint against the FBI on Wednesday. Reade’s attorney says the federal government sought to intimidate and harass her during and after the 2020 election campaign.

In a complaint sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Justice, Reade called for an investigation of FBI practices that “target Biden family whistleblowers for exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech,” according to a press release by Dr. Jonathan Levy, her London-based attorney.

Reade also requested copies of all information about her that the FBI may have obtained “through unconstitutional surveillance, search, and seizure tactics” and to have her FBI file expunged.

In a letter to the DOJ seen by RT, Levy described how the FBI – and, in particular, its Sacramento, California office – allegedly began an “operation” against Reade after April 2019 “in order to silence and surveil her and if possible falsely arrest her for criminal activities.”

At the time that the purported FBI probe began, Reade had just made public that Biden, then a US senator, had allegedly subjected her to a “violent sexual assault” on the Capitol grounds in 1993. Though she had reported the incident through the proper channels, her case was “suppressed by Congressional investigators to protect Senator Biden and the records sealed,” according to Levy.

Reade was not “an agent or associate” of former President Donald Trump, whom Biden challenged in the 2020 election, nor was she sponsored by any political organization or made any monetary demands of Biden, Levy noted. The attorney also pointed out that there was no indication of her involvement in any criminal activity.

According to the complaint, the FBI launched its operation “for the specific purpose of unlawfully intimidating, harassing, surveilling, and discrediting,” as well as potentially arresting Reade. Among those allegedly involved, Levy named Director Christopher Wray, Special Agent Michael Catalano, and NCA1 Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Andrew D. Forristel.

The lawsuit demands “an investigation of FBI practices” that led to a whistleblower becoming the target of a federal grand jury investigation and a criminal probe in California, “even after she requested FBI protection from death threats.” The DOJ IG was also asked to investigate the extent of the FBI’s alleged surveillance of Reade, including her “social media, communications and financial accounts,” and to provide copies of all the records thus obtained before they are expunged from her FBI dossier.

Reade has sought to protect her reputation by writing a book and starting a podcast. She has also contributed a number of articles to RT about the weaponization of sexual misconduct charges and whistleblower retaliation, among other subjects.

Earlier this year, fearing arrest for “an ominous menu of kangaroo-court offenses,” she sought political asylum in Russia while visiting Moscow.

December 20, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Urinating on prisoners: Why humiliation is functional in Israel’s war on Palestinians

By Dr Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | December 19, 2023

When Zionist militias, using advanced Western arms, conquered historic Palestine in 1947-48, they expressed their victory through the deliberate humiliation of Palestinians.

Much of that humiliation targeted women, in particular, knowing how the dishonour of Palestinian females represents, according to Arab culture, a sense of dishonour to the whole community.

This strategy remains in use to this day.

When scores of Palestinian women were released following prisoner exchanges between Palestinian Resistance and Israel, starting on 24 November, there was very little room to hide the facts.

Unlike the 75-year-ago Palestinian community, this current generation no longer internalises Israel’s intentional humiliation of women and men alike, as if an act of collective dishonour.

This has allowed many newly released female prisoners to speak openly, often on live TV, about the kind of humiliation that they were exposed to while in Israeli military detention.

The Israeli army, however, continues to act with the same old mindset, perceiving the humiliation of Palestinians as an expression of dominance, power and supremacy.

Over the years, Israel has perfected the politics of humiliation – a notion which is predicated on the psychological power of shaming whole collectives to emphasise the asymmetrical relationship between two groups of people: in this case, the occupier and the occupied.

This is precisely why, in the early days of the Israeli war on Gaza, Israel detained all Palestinian workers from the Strip who happened to be working inside Israel as cheap labourers, at the time of the 7 October operation.

The dehumanisation they experienced at the hands of Israeli soldiers demonstrated a growing trend among Israelis to degrade Palestinians for no reason whatsoever.

One of the worst documented episodes took place on 12 October, when a group of Israeli soldiers and settlers assaulted three Palestinian activists in the West Bank. Israeli newspapers Haaretz and The Times of Israel described how the three were assaulted, stripped naked, bound, photographed, tortured and urinated upon.

Those images were still fresh in the minds of Palestinians when new images emerged from northern Gaza.

Photos and videos published in Israeli media showed men stripped down to their underwear, being placed in large numbers on the streets of Gaza, while surrounded by well-equipped and supposedly menacing Israeli soldiers.

The men were handcuffed, tied together, forced to hunch down and then, eventually, thrown into military trucks to be taken to an unknown location.

Some of the men were eventually released to tell horror stories, which often had bloody endings.

But why is Israel doing this?

Throughout its history – violent birth and equally violent existence – Israel has purposely humiliated Palestinians as an expression of its disproportionately greater military power over a hapless, confined and mostly refugee population.

This tactic was infused more during certain periods of history when Palestinians felt empowered, as a way to break their collective spirit.

The First Intifada, 1987-93, was rife with this kind of humiliation. Children and men between the ages of 15 to 55 would be habitually dragged into schoolyards, stripped naked, forced to kneel down for endless hours, beaten, and insulted by Israeli soldiers using loudspeakers.

Those insults would cover everything that Palestinians hold dear – their religions, their God, their mothers, their holy places and more.

Then, boys and men would be forced to perform certain acts, for example spitting in each other’s faces, shouting certain profanities, slapping themselves or each other. Those who refused would be immediately overpowered, beaten and arrested.

These methods continue to be applied in Israeli prisons, especially during times of hunger strikes, but also during periods of interrogations. In the latter cases, men would be threatened with the rape of their wives or sisters; women would be threatened with sexual violence.

These episodes are often met with collective Palestinian defiance, which directly feeds into Palestinian popular resistance.

The image of the Palestinian fighter, dressed in military fatigue, brandishing an automatic rifle, while proudly walking the streets of Nablus, Jenin or Gaza, in itself does not serve an actual military purpose. It is, however, a direct response to the psychological impact of the kind of humiliation inflicted upon Palestinian society by the Israeli occupation army.

But what is the function of a Palestinian military parade? To answer this question, we must examine the sequence of the event.

When Israel arrests Palestinian activists, they attempt to create the perfect scenario of a humiliated and defeated community: the terror felt by the people when nightly raids begin, the beating of the family of the detained, the shouts of insults along with other well-choreographed horror scenes.

Hours later, Palestinian youth emerge on the streets of their neighbourhoods, proudly parading with their guns, amid the ululation of women and the excited looks of children. This is precisely how Palestinians respond to humiliation.

Palestinian armed Resistance has grown much stronger in recent years, with Gaza currently serving as a case in point.

As the Israeli military is failing to reoccupy Gaza and to subdue its population, utilising the politics of humiliation on a mass scale is simply impossible.

To the contrary, it is the Israelis who do feel humiliated, and not only because of what has taken place on 7 October, but everything else that has taken place since then.

Unable to operate freely in the heart of Gaza, Khan Yunis, Rafah or any other major population centres in the Strip, the Israeli army is forced to humiliate Palestinians in whatever little margins they can control, Beit Lahia, for example.

Frustrated by their military failure to deliver on their promises of subduing Gazans, ordinary Israelis have taken to social media to taunt Palestinians in their own way.

Israeli women, often along with their own children, would dress up in ways that would convey a racist representation of Arab women crying over the bodies of their dead children.

This type of social media mockery seems to have appealed to the imagination of Israeli society, which still insists on its sense of superiority even at a time when they are still paying the price of their own violence and political arrogance.

This time around, however, Israel’s politics of humiliation is proving ineffective, because the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis is on its way to be fundamentally altered.

One is only humiliated if he or she internalises that humiliation as a sense of shame and disempowerment. But Palestinians, this time around, are experiencing no such feelings. To the contrary, their ongoing sumud, and unity, have generated a sense of collective pride unequalled in history.

December 19, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

UN condemns Ukraine’s crackdown on largest Christian church

RT | December 19, 2023

Kiev’s push to outlaw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) would violate freedom of religion, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said on Tuesday.

Turk spoke at the meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. He addressed the persecution of the UOC in the context of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

“I note also my concerns regarding freedom of religion and belief in Ukraine, given continuing action by the authorities against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” Turk said during the meeting. He pointed to a proposed law that would allow Kiev to ban any religious organization suspected of having ties to Russia.

“These proposed restrictions to the right of freedom of religion do not appear to comply with international human rights law,” Turk said.

Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, advanced the bill in October. It is still being amended in committee, however, and is expected to be adopted early next year, according to speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk.

President Vladimir Zelensky’s government has accused the UOC of having ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. He also claimed that dozens of its clergy are acting as “spies” for Russia, even though the UOC officially severed ties with Moscow in March 2022.

Earlier this year, Zelensky ordered the UOC’s clergy to leave the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, a monastery almost 1,000 years old. The monks were told they could stay if they switched their allegiance to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), a rival organization created by the Ukrainian government in 2018. Since then, half a dozen regions of Ukraine have outlawed the UOC, seizing its properties and turning them over to the OCU.

When the UN Human Rights Council criticized these actions as discriminatory, Kiev criticized the body for making “unbalanced political assessments” and claimed its crackdown was justified on national security grounds.

On Tuesday, Turk also urged Kiev to build a society where all communities would be included and the rights of all minorities protected, “including the right to use every language spoken in Ukraine.”

A proposed ban on the Russian language by the government in Kiev following the February 2014 US-backed coup was among the events that triggered Crimea’s decision to rejoin Russia and the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk to declare themselves independent people’s republics.

December 19, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

EU announces probe into Musk’s X

RT | December 18, 2023

The European Union announced on Monday that it was taking “formal infringement proceedings” against Elon Musk’s X social media platform over a recently implemented law intended to crack down on illegal content and disinformation online.

The announcement of the probe comes weeks after X (formerly Twitter) was asked to provide assurances that it was complying with the terms of the European bloc’s Digital Service Act. Under the law, which came into effect in August, a company can be fined up to 6% of its annual global income or banned from operating in the EU if it is found to have breached the sweeping legislation.

“Today we open formal infringement proceedings against X,” Thierry Breton, the EU commissioner responsible for the law’s enforcement, wrote in a post on the social network on Monday.

Breton added that the move had been taken in response to a “suspected breach of obligations to counter illegal content and disinformation; suspected breach of transparency obligations,” and “suspected deceptive design of user interface.”

The probe will also look at the effectiveness of X’s ‘community notes,’ in which users can fact-check or provide comments on the accuracy of certain posts.

Responding to the charge on Monday, X said it was “cooperating with the regulatory process,” and added that it was “important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law.”

The platform, which was subject to a multi-billion-dollar takeover by Elon Musk last year, said it was focused on “creating a safe and inclusive environment” for its users, which it said it balances against “protecting freedom of expression.” At the time of the takeover, Musk branded himself as a “free speech absolutist.”

On October 10, the EU warned X in a formal letter that it had received “indications” that the social media platform was “being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation in the EU” related to Hamas’ attack in Israel on October 7.

In a letter to Breton, X chief executive Linda Yaccarino responded to say the firm was “working to address the operational needs of this fast-moving and evolving conflict.” She added that X had removed hundreds of Hamas-affiliated accounts from the service.

Earlier this year, X was among several tech giants to sign up to an EU code of conduct to prepare for the launch of the Digital Services Act in August. However, X withdrew from the agreement in May, prompting backlash from Breton. “You can run but you can’t hide,” he warned Musk and X.

December 18, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Truth is the Biggest Threat to DC ‘Democracy’

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | December 18, 2023

In Washington, truth is reckoned as the greatest enemy of democracy. Hard facts are deadly threats to a president’s prerogative to define reality and impose “the will of the people.”

Early this year, Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guard member, was arrested and charged with transmission of national defense information among other charges. Teixeira allegedly leaked classified documents on the Ukraine war and other foreign policy issues to a Discord gaming group. The document propagated from there and appeared in many news articles in the following months.

A hefty Washington Post piece last Wednesday vividly portrays U.S. government officials rushing to plug the hole in the dike before the leak swept away conventional wisdom lock, stock, and barrel. In a passage sure to boost sales of Kleenex inside the Beltway, the Post quotes a U.S. government official who was permitted to remain anonymous: “We were blindsided and furious.”

The leaks vexed Team Biden because President Joe Biden had already proven—via repeated statements—that the war was going great, that Ukraine was on the verge of victory, and that pouring endless billions into Ukrainian government coffers was the only way to save freedom around the world.

The Post, which partnered with PBS for a television program on the Discord leaks, noted that the “top secret…leaks predicted Ukraine’s failure to make substantial gains in its counteroffensive—a multibillion-dollar effort that cost tens of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. The bleak forecast provided a sharp contrast to Washington’s optimistic messaging on the war, and it hurt Ukraine’s relationship with its chief backer, the U.S. government.” The “bleak forecast” was vastly more accurate than anything emitted by the Biden White House. A senior defense official (anonymous, of course) told the Post that the Pentagon raced to determine “what information may have been compromised.” But the real challenge was determining which official lies had been debunked and what other documents might show up to obliterate White House talking points.

The Post bewailed how the leaks discomfited the Ukrainian government. The Post noted that “the leaks included never-before-released casualty estimates for Ukrainian forces, weaknesses in Ukraine’s ability to service damaged armored vehicles and the country’s shrinking supply of air defense munitions, which left population centers vulnerable to Russian cruise missile strikes and drones. Other documents warned that Ukraine was struggling to sustain troops, artillery and equipment…”

The only reason that the “leaks” caused an international uproar is because U.S. government officials and their foreign partners had been brazenly lying about Ukrainian successes and prospects for victory. Folks who read foreign news sources or independent American outlets or websites (such as Antiwar.com and LibertarianInstitute.org) already knew that the war would likely have no happy ending for either Ukraine or Russia.

The Post omitted mentioning the role of federal censorship in deluding Americans about the Ukraine war. In July 2023, the House Judiciary Committee revealed that the FBI routinely colluded with Ukraine’s spy agency which sought help to suppress social media accounts that criticized the Ukraine government or “inaccurately reflects events in Ukraine” (including accurate battlefield reports of Ukrainian military defeats). The House report revealed that the FBI “routinely relayed these lists [of accounts] to the relevant social media platforms” and sought their suppression. The House report noted that “authentic accounts of Americans, including a verified U.S. State Department account and those belonging to American journalists, were ensnared in the censorship effort and flagged for social media companies to take down.” The CIA also pressured Twitter, calling for the suppression of “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos guilty of ‘anti-Ukraine narratives,” journalist Matt Taibbi reported.

Washington Post readers are the cream of the intellectual crop, at least according to Washington Post readers. So how did Post devotees respond to the indignation about the leaker?

The article generated almost 600 comments. Among the most liked was an outburst from “ArtPope”: ”Don’t understand why this article was written other than to support the pro-Putin, anti-Ukrainian position of the white nationalist evangelical fascist RepubliQans.” “Thinking4″ replied: “They have profound ignorance of democracy and that their very words and actions undermine the standing of the US in the world.” (Thinking4 was probably not an English major.)

None of the most liked comments showed any outrage about Team Biden’s perennial lies on Ukraine. Instead, raw hatred was popular: “Find these traitors. Put their butts in jail. 10 years minimum. No deals.” “Make it 30,” came a quick reply, and another person piled on: “In solitary.” Said another: “Throughout history, the traditional punishment for treason is hanging. I’m ok with that.” “Mario TRUTH” joined the lynch mob: “What Teixeira did was nothing short of America WORST traitor it has ever seen. He not only aided in murdering 1000’s of innocent people, he intruded in Ukrainian leaders planning of a counteroffensive that would have saved many of the 1000’s Teixeira killed.” Ukrainian casualties have been high in part because the Pentagon pressured the Ukrainian military to engage in frontal assaults on heavily-fortified Russian positions.

So U.S. government officials are entitled to blindfold and deceive the American people to avoid “intruding” on foreign leaders planning a military attack? This theory of democracy gets curiouser and curiouser.

The Post noted that the Discord leaks “depicted Zelensky in a new light, revealing his apparent interest in occupying Russian border villages and obtaining long-range missiles to hit targets deep inside Russian territory—an assertion that Ukrainians deny and would have deeply angered Washington.” So America’s favored foreign leader was conniving to pull the United States into World War III? Maybe Biden should have asked if Americans supported such recklessness? No, he was president so he was entitled to delude Americans and pretend to rule the world.

Perhaps the greatest intellectual calisthenics in the long article was the paragraph that exonerated all Biden administration falsehoods on Ukraine. The Post offered a finger-wagging explanation:

“Rather than exposing willful deceit by a U.S. government eager to bury bad news, the Discord leaks revealed a sharp divide between the U.S. intelligence analysts who authored the documents and many senior officials at the White House, Pentagon and State Department who were overly sanguine about Ukraine’s prospects for success.”

Do the Post reporters and editors have no shame? They were not smart (or honest) enough to hark back to one of the clearest lessons from the Pentagon Papers, leaked in 1971. As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, during the Vietnam War, “the policy of lying was hardly ever aimed at the enemy but chiefly if not exclusively destined for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress.” CIA analysts did excellent work in the early period of the Vietnam conflict. But, “in the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements were likely to win simply because they were public,” Arendt commented. The Post rationalized the bias of Team Biden: “U.S. officials viewed the airing of pessimistic battle outcomes as detrimental to their endeavor to raise support for the war effort, both in Congress and internationally.” Were officials entitled to utter any falsehood that resulted in higher congressional appropriations to bankroll more bombs and missiles?

Biden, his appointees, and plenty of former military officials on the gravy train have perpetually brazenly misrepresented the war. The result is that the Ukrainian government is on the verge of conscripting Ukrainian grandfathers to send on daily, suicidal Pickett’s Charges so that Ukrainian politicians can keep pocketing billions of dollars in U.S. handouts. Ukraine prohibited any males between the age of 18 to 60 from leaving the country—as if the government had a preemptive right to send them to their death. Ukraine is closing its western border to “military age males” the same way that East Germany closed its border to West Europe decades ago. But, unlike the perfidious East Germans, Ukraine’s leaders are taking practically all the nation’s adult males hostage in the name of freedom.

But it remains a “no cost” war inside the Washington Beltway, where Ukrainian flags quickly replaced BLM banners after the Russian invasion. Nothing has changed for the policy class in the last 60 years. Arendt castigated the lavishly-paid intellectual cheerleaders for the Vietnam War who ignored “the untold misery that their ‘solutions,’ pacification and relocation programs, defoliation, napalm, and anti-personnel bullets, held in store.” In the subsequent decades, there has never been a shortage of weasel intellectuals to sell out peace in return for lavish payoffs.

Will The Washington Post ever honestly examine the costs of its own kowtowing to officialdom? The Post could do a great in-depth investigation of why its own editorial page and columnists have made so many false, misleading, or deranged statements on the Ukraine war. But don’t expect hell to freeze over any time soon.

December 18, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment