Russiagate’s Last Gasp
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate’s origins.
By Ray McGovern | Consortium News | June 29, 2020
On Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile “paper of record” has earned a new moniker — Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times’ dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans — which seems to have been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times’ David Leonhardt’s daily web piece, “The Morning” calls prominent attention to a banal article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing “how the Trump administration has continued to treat Russia favorably.” The following is from Richardson’s newsletter on Friday:
— “On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the United States … a propaganda coup for Russia;
— “On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat of the Nazis;
— “On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump called ‘very positive’;
— “On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised for the next week; …
— “On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. …”
Historian Richardson added:
“All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively targeted American soldiers. … this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to leak the story to two major newspapers.”
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump’s statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing, since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: “Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. …”
For those of us distrustful of the Times — with good reason — on such neuralgic issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out yesterday:
“Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times’ report is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing — “The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.” That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. …”
And who can forget how “successful” interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting “nonsense … an unsophisticated plant,” and from Russia’s perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are — attempts to show that Trump is too “accommodating” to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story “baseless,” adding with apparent pride that “we” have done “target killings” for years “on our own resources.”
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to that support.
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool’s errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their “own resources.” As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad.
President Lyndon Johnson announces “retaliatory” strike against North Vietnam in response to the supposed attacks on U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin on Aug. 4, 1964. (LBJ Library)
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well — from their own bitter experience in Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool’s errand would be for the U.S. What point would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: “We’ll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false.”
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey’s spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp effort, spearheaded by the Times, to breathe more life into it is likely to last little more than a weekend — the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike admitting that there is no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked — by Russia or anyone else.
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered “Intelligence Community” Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That “assessment” done by “hand-picked analysts” from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence agencies of the “intelligence community”) reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S. Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate’s origins.
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for them last night — namely, the “intelligence” on the “bounties” was not deemed good enough to present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President’s Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW Bush, I can attest to the fact that — based on what has been revealed so far — the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration’s rejection of what the media is calling the “intelligence assessment” about Russia offering — as Rachel Maddow indecorously put it on Friday — “bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in Afghanistan.”
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged — actually, well over the top.
The media asks, “Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence community?” There he goes again — not believing our “intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.”
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant leakers who have served as their life’s blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation’s Chuck Todd, who Aaron Mate reminds us, is a “grown adult and professional media person.” Todd asked guest John Bolton: “Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election, and he doesn’t want to make him mad for 2020?”
“This is as bad as it gets,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism she memorized several months ago: “All roads lead to Putin.” The unconscionably deceitful performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump is too “accommodating” toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the coming months — on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Vile
Caitlin Johnstone, typically, pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
“All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will uncritically parrot whatever they’re told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh.”
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Senator Schumer calls for ‘tough sanctions’ against Moscow amid new wave of anti-Russian hysteria… again
RT | June 28, 2020
The US Senate minority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, seemingly got on his hobby-horse once more as he demanded new sanctions against Moscow amid reports about Russian agents putting ‘bounties’ on US troops in Afghanistan.
“We need, in this coming defense bill, which we are debating this week, tough sanctions against Russia,” Schumer told journalists while emphatically gesturing to apparently add more weight to his point.
The reason for the “tough sanctions” is a report by The New York Times that cites some “interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals” and accuses the Russian military intelligence, the GRU, of literally offering bounties to the Taliban for every American soldier killed in Afghanistan.
The report was dismissed by both Russia and the Taliban, which denied any such bounties ever being offered. Even the Director of the US National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, came out to say that neither President Donal Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence were ever briefed on anything like this. These facts, however, left The New York Times undeterred as the paper followed up with another piece on the issue, this time citing some “officials briefed on the matter.”
Schumer, however, admitted that he does not really know anything about the situation since he “was not briefed on the Russian military intelligence,” unlike The New York Times’ mysterious sources. That did not stop him, however, from claiming that this supposedly real data “shows” new sanctions against Moscow are desperately needed.
In fact, calling for sanctions against Russia has been the senator’s favorite pastime for quite some time now. Since the start of this year, he has managed to demand new restrictions against Moscow twice – in February and March. He has also sought to press the EU into imposing some as well.
NYT takes anti-Russian hysteria to new level with report on Russian ‘bounty’ for US troops
By Scott Ritter | RT | June 28, 2020
The New York Times published an article claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan. There’s just one problem — none of what they reported was true.
As news reporting goes, the New York Times article alleging that a top-secret unit within Russian military intelligence, or GRU, had offered a bounty to the Taliban for every US soldier killed in Afghanistan, was dynamite. The story was quickly “confirmed” by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, and went on to take social media by storm. Twitter was on fire with angry pundits, former officials, and anti-Trump politicians (and their respective armies of followers) denouncing President Trump as a “traitor” and demanding immediate action against Russia.
There was just one problem — nothing in the New York Times could be corroborated. Indeed, there is no difference between the original reporting conducted by the New York Times, and the “confirming” reports published by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. All of the reports contain caveats such as “if confirmed” and “if true,” while providing no analysis into the potential veracity of the information used to sustain the report — alleged debriefs of Afghan criminals and militants — or the underpinning logic, or lack thereof, of the information itself.
For its part, the Russian government has vociferously denied the allegations, noting that the report “clearly demonstrates low intellectual abilities of US intelligence propagandists who have to invent such nonsense instead of devising something more credible.” The Taliban have likewise denied receiving any bounties from the Russians for targeting American soldiers, noting that with the current peace deal, “their lives are secure and we don’t attack them.”
Even more telling is the fact that the current Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has come out to contradict a key element of the New York Times’ report—that the president was briefed on the intelligence in question. “I have confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday,” Ratcliffe said in a statement. “The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”
And one more tiny problem: Trump confirmed there was no such briefing, too.
Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times’ report is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing — “The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.” That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels.
There was a time when the US military handled the bulk of detainee debriefings in Afghanistan. This changed in 2014, with the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement. This agreement prohibits the US military from arresting or detaining Afghans, or to operate detention facilities in Afghanistan. As a result, the ability of the US military to interface with detainees has been virtually eliminated, making the Pentagon an unlikely source of the information used by the New York Times in its reporting.
The CIA, however, was not covered by this agreement. Indeed, the CIA, through its extensive relationship with the National Directorate of Security (NDS), is uniquely positioned to interface with the NDS through every phase of detainee operations, from initial capture to systemic debriefing.
Like any bureaucracy, the CIA is a creature of habit. Henry ‘Hank’ Crumpton, who in the aftermath of 9/11 headed up the CIA’s operations in Afghanistan, wrote that
“[t]he Directorate of Operations (DO) should not be in the business of running prisons or temporary detention facilities. The DO should focus on its core mission: clandestine intelligence operations. Accordingly, the DO should continue to hunt, capture, and render targets, and then exploit them for intelligence and ops leads once in custody. The management of their incarceration and interrogation, however, should be conducted by appropriately experienced US law enforcement officers because that is their charter and they have the training and experience.”
After 2014, the term “US law enforcement officers” is effectively replaced by “Afghan intelligence officers”— the NDS. But the CIA mission remained the same — to exploit captives for intelligence and operational leads.
The Trump administration has lobbied for an expanded mission for the CIA-backed NDS and other militia forces to serve as a counterterrorism force that would keep Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Afghanistan once US and foreign troops completed their planned withdrawal in 2021. But the CIA has raised objections to such a plan, noting that the NDS and other CIA-controlled assets were completely dependent upon US military air power and other combat service support resources, and that any attempt to expand the CIA’s covert army in Afghanistan following a US military withdrawal would end in disaster. Having the NDS fabricate or exaggerate detainee reports to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan is not beyond the pale.
Which brings up the issue of Russian involvement. In September 2015, the Taliban captured the northern Afghan city of Konduz, and held it for 15 days. This sent a shockwave throughout Russia, prompting Moscow to reconsider its approach toward dealing with the Afghan insurgency. Russia began reaching out to the Taliban, engaging in talks designed to bring the conflict in Afghanistan to an end. Russia was driven by other interests as well. According to Zamir Kabulov, President Vladimir Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan, “the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours” in the fight against Islamic State, which in the summer of 2014 had captured huge tracts of land in Syria and Iraq, including the city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest.
By 2017, Afghan and US intelligence services had assembled a narrative of Russian assistance to the Taliban which included the provision of advanced weaponry, training, and financial support. While Russia denied providing any direct military support to the Taliban, it maintained that the Taliban were the best way to deal with the growing threat of Islamic State. But even if the US reports were correct, and Russia was angling for a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, the last policy Russia would logically pursue would be one that had the US remain in Afghanistan, especially after pushing so hard for a negotiated peace. Russia’s interests in Afghanistan were — and are — best served by Afghan stability, the antithesis of the Afghan reality while the US and NATO remain engaged. Getting the US out of Afghanistan — not keeping the US in Afghanistan — is the Russian position, and any CIA officer worth his or her salt knows this.
It does not take a rocket scientist to read between the lines of the New York Times’ thinly sourced report. The NDS, with or without CIA knowledge or consent, generated detainee-based intelligence reports designed to create and sustain a narrative that would be supportive of US military forces remaining in Afghanistan past 2021. The CIA case officer(s) handling these reports dutifully submit cables back to CIA Headquarters which provide the gist of the allegations — that Russia has placed a bounty on US soldiers. But there is no corroboration, nothing that would allow this raw “intelligence” to be turned into a product worthy of the name.
This doesn’t mean that someone in the bowels of the CIA with an axe to grind against Trump’s plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, or who was opposed to Trump’s efforts to normalize relations with Russia, didn’t try to breathe life into these detainee reports. Indeed, a finished “product” may have made its way to the National Security Council staff — and elsewhere — where it would have been given the treatment it deserved, quickly discarded as unsubstantiated rumor unworthy of presidential attention.
At this point in time, frustrated by the inattention the “system” gave to the “intelligence,” some anonymous official contacted the New York Times and leaked the information, spinning it in as nefarious a way as possible. The New York Times blended the detainee reports and its own previous reporting on the GRU to produce a completely fabricated tale of Russian malfeasance designed to denigrate President Trump in the midst of a hotly contested reelection bid.
Too far-fetched? This assessment is far more fleshed out with fact and logic than anything the New York Times or its mainstream media mimics have proffered. And lest one thinks the GrayLady is above manufacturing news to sustain support for a war, the name Judith Miller, and the topic of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, should put that to rest. The reporting by the New York Times alleging the existence of a Russian bounty on the lives of US troops in Afghanistan is cut from the same piece of cloth as its pre-war Iraq drivel. As was the case with Iraq, the chattering class is pushing these new lies on an American audience pre-programmed to accept at face value any negative reporting on Russia. This is the state of what passes for journalism in America today, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
Trump & Pence never briefed on ‘Russian bounties for Taliban’, NYT story ‘inaccurate’ – US intelligence chief
RT | June 28, 2020
The US director of national intelligence has distanced himself from a NYT report claiming Russia paid money to the Taliban for killing US soldiers in Afghanistan. He said the White House was never briefed on the matter.
The claim published by the New York Times is, like many such stories, based on anonymous intelligence sources. It says Russia paid “Taliban-linked militants” in Afghanistan to kill US military service members, and that President Donald Trump did nothing after learning about it.
The White House has denied that either Trump or Vice President Mike Pence were ever briefed on the alleged situation by US intelligence. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe backed the denial and said the original story and “all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”
The dynamic between the US mainstream media and the Trump administration in this case follows the same pattern seen in a previous bombshell report accusing the president of inaction in the face of a foreign threat.
In April, ABC News claimed Trump had been briefed about a military intelligence report which warned that a catastrophic outbreak of a viral disease was emerging from China. The National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), the service which allegedly produced the report on what is now known the Covid-19 pandemic, denied ever writing such a document.
The Taliban bounties story was instantly picked up by the usual suspects of the #Resistance, who saw it as an opportunity to attack Trump from the right. MSNBC’s senior Russiagate peddler Rachel Maddow gushed that Vladimir Putin paid Taliban for American “scalps” and Trump knew it.
Trump-bashing vehicle the Lincoln Project has released an ad accusing the president of “standing by” Russian troops.
While the bounties twist, with its Wild West vibe, is a new one, attempts to paint Russia as being in cahoots with the Taliban are hardly unprecedented. For example, in 2017, some top US generals claimed that Moscow was running guns for the Afghan militant movement. But when the head of US defense intelligence was asked about it by lawmakers, he said no physical evidence “of weapons or money being transferred” was ever found.
Russia called the NYT story an “unsophisticated” piece of disinformation that calls into question the “intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,” who couldn’t come up with something more plausible.
UAE conceals news about normalising ties with Israel
MEMO | June 27, 2020
Despite the official announcement, the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) mass media has concealed news about medical cooperation with Israel from its people, Arab48.com reported on Friday.
The National reported the news while the Spokeswoman of the Ministry of Health Hend Al-Otaiba posted a tweet on her account.
It was noteworthy that the country’s mouthpieces, Sky News Arabic and Al-Hadath, did not make reference to this news, despite offering wide coverage of internal UAE issues and the medical assistance the country offers to the needy.
Local UAE newspapers including Al-Bayan, Al-Khaleej and Emarat Al-Youm also did not feature the news.
However, mass media covered the article of UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al-Otaiba, where he claimed that his country is moving against the Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands.
During the last two decades, Israel launched several major offensives on the Palestinians and Lebanese, and killed thousands along with settlement expansion at the expense of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Arab world, especially the UAE, continued criticising the Palestinian resistance while maintaining good relations with Israel.
Taliban Refute Reports on Russia’s Alleged Role in Killings of US Troops in Afghanistan
Sputnik – 27.06.2020
KABUL – Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid refuted on Saturday the recent reports citing US intelligence assessments alleging that Russian intelligence has solicited killings of US troops by the Taliban in Afghanistan, saying that these rumors are set to create obstacles to US pullout from the country.
According to Mujahid, all weapons and tools used by the movement were already present in the country or captured from the opposition. The spokesman stressed that the Taliban’s activities are not related to any intelligence organ or foreign country.
Mujahid stated that the Taliban was committed to the deal with the United States, saying that its implementation would ensure comprehensive peace and stability in Afghanistan.
On Friday, The New York Times published an article where it cited unnamed government sources as saying that US President Donald Trump was presented with an intelligence report that claimed that Moscow could have payed bounty to armed Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan to assassinate US soldiers. The outlet said Trump had so far failed to act on the report.
In February, the US and the Taliban signed a peace deal that concluded rounds upon rounds of talks pursuing to launch the reconciliation process in Afghanistan after almost two decades of armed conflict and insurgency.
Last week, US Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said that intra-Afghan talks were closer than ever after Kabul and the Taliban carried out a significant exchange of prisoners.
Flagging U.S. Credibility at Vienna Arms Control Talks
Strategic Culture Foundation | June 26, 2020
A puerile propaganda stunt pulled by U.S. negotiators in Vienna this week ahead of talks with Russian counterparts was both at insult to China and a reprehensible distraction from credible bilateral business with Moscow on the vital issue of strategic security.
Ahead of talks with Russian delegates, the Americans took a stealthy photo of the venue contriving to show Chinese flags sitting atop vacant tables.
U.S. envoy Marshall Billingslea then tried to twitter-shame China by declaring: “Vienna talks about to start. China is a no-show… We will proceed with Russia, notwithstanding.”
China had categorically stated several times over past weeks that it had no intention of attending the talks in Vienna which were designated anyway as bilateral discussions between Washington and Moscow on the future of arms control.
The Russian delegation was evidently blindsided by the PR stunt. Both China and Russia condemned the attempt by the American side to contrive Beijing as somehow derelict. China slammed it as “performance art”. While Russia published a photograph of the American and Russian delegates in discussions without any Chinese flags present.
The fiasco shows that the talks were really aimed at coaxing China into trilateral talks to satisfy Washington’s geopolitical agenda. In the weeks before the Vienna bilateral talks, U.S. envoy Billingslea had repeatedly called on China to attend in a trilateral format. Such wrangling is inappropriate and undermines diplomatic protocol with Moscow.
Beijing has consistently stated that it will not participate in arms control talks with the U.S. and Russia until both nuclear powers first substantially reduce their vastly greater arsenals. China’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is a mere fraction – some 5 per cent – of either the U.S. or Russia’s. Beijing maintains that Washington must proceed with its obligations for disarmament, along with Russia. Moscow has said it respects China’s position.
The Trump administration has let it be known that it wants to include China in arms control talks with Russia. In principle such comprehensive limitations may seem reasonable. Russia has said that other nuclear powers such as France and Britain should also be included. But what the U.S. side is angling for is not a comprehensive accord in principle; rather it is seeking to rope China into limitations for its own geopolitical agenda of rivalry with Beijing. If Washington is serious about finding a comprehensive treaty, then it should, as China points out, prioritize the scaling back of its own inordinate possession of nukes. The U.S. and Russia account for over 90 per cent of the world’s total nuclear arsenal.
What the propaganda stunt with Chinese flags by the U.S. side in Vienna shows is Washington’s petulance from not being able to cajole China into the talks format with Russia.
As it turned out, the U.S. and Russian sides agreed to hold a second round of talks to follow this week’s meeting.
Russia’s foreign ministry stated: “During the Vienna consultations, the sides agreed to conduct a meeting of experts on military doctrines and nuclear strategies, including the issues of use of nuclear weapons.”
The ministry added: “Russia is open to further dialogue on strategic stability, it seeks to build further relation with the U.S. in arms control, strictly on a parity basis and in reliance on the principle of mutual accounting of interests and concerns of the sides.”
The main issue going forward is the future of the New START treaty governing strategic nuclear weapons. That treaty is due to expire in February next year. Moscow has repeatedly called for an extension, but the Trump administration has demurred about its future, suggesting that it is willing to let it expire. After walking away from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty last year, the Trump administration appears to be conducting a policy of creating global instability and playing with fire by unleashing a new arms race.
Again, lurking behind this reckless brinkmanship is the U.S. objective of coercing Russia and China to acquiesce in its agenda of controlling both by turning bilateral agreements with Moscow into trilateral arrangements with Beijing. Russia has said it will not comply with this stealth conduct by Washington.
What the U.S. needs to do is honor its bilateral relations with Russia and get down to genuine mutual negotiations on strategic stability and arms control. The New START treaty is a test case for Washington’s commitment to its obligations for nuclear disarmament as agreed to from historic bilateral negotiations with Moscow.
The cheap stunt with China’s flags and distortion of the bilateral talks in Vienna with Russia does not inspire confidence in U.S. commitments or intentions. At least under the present administration.
It does not bode well for American credibility in pursuing bilateral talks with Russia on extending the New START treaty which expires in eight months. Indeed, it smacks of bad faith. Playing fast and loose with global security is deplorable.
Connecting the Dots
By Larry Romanoff • Unz Review • June 24, 2020
It often happens that events we view as isolated occurrences are connected as integral parts of a much larger picture, often as part of a wide-ranging plan, and frequently with important social, economic, and/or political implications which become evident only when seen in total. The several topics of this essay add a necessary context to all major social, commercial, and geo-political events of recent decades, which may help us in connecting dots. For this, it is extremely important to realise and understand that in these matters there are no accidents, that ‘crises’ (other than things like volcanic eruptions) do not just happen, and that the final result of any crisis, however it may appear, was the result intended.
As one example, this many decades ago, we noticed that in our city in Canada one brand of American convenience store seemed to have a habit of opening new stores within a stone’s throw of the existing ‘mom and pop’ variety stores (as they were then called), these shiny and attractive new shops inevitably resulting in the closure of our traditional community stores with the resulting loss of livelihood of the owner-families. It was a surprise to learn later that this practice existed in all cities in Canada and it eventually became clear that each such apparently minor event reflected the gradual execution of an astonishingly predatory plan to not only become established in another country but to progressively eliminate all existing competition in doing so. The dawning of this realisation came too late for authorities to take preventive action, resulting in the destruction of what had been an important part of Canada’s community cultural landscape.
In a different category, and more recently, we learned that during a period of ten or more years ending around 2015, GlaxoSmithKline engaged in an enormous tax and marketing fraud in China[1][2], involving billions of RMB in massive and systemic bribery and falsified accounts, the discovery punctuated by the company’s China CEO Mark Reilly fleeing the country on the first plane to England “on a previously-planned business trip”, and intending to remain there “to help with the investigation from that end”.[3] Lacking additional information, we tend to view this revelation as a domestic issue involving the typical group of ‘a few bad apples’. But with a bit of investigation we discover that GSK carried on a series of virtually identical criminal adventures simultaneously in the US and other countries as well, having been fined billions of dollars in the US alone for repeated occurrences. This additional knowledge substantially amends our perception of the picture. When, with a bit of additional investigation, we discover that all the major pharma companies have repeatedly engaged in a wide range of criminal activities resulting in fines totaling tens of billions of dollars in the US alone, our appreciation of GSK’s activities in China, and of the entire landscape of big pharma, are much altered and more accurate. We now know something we didn’t know before, and we now understand we are not dealing with a few bad apples in an isolated if unfortunate event, but with an industry corrupt to its core, worldwide. [4][5]
Similarly, we learned that Apple, the darling of the US stock market and of iphone fans everywhere, was being hounded by the Chinese commercial authorities, this time over warranty periods, Chinese law categorising Apple’s ipad as a computer requiring a two-year warranty with Apple insisting the ipad was a phone and refusing to comply. Following stringent insistence and a huge public outcry, Apple was eventually forced to conform.[6][7] Reading this as an isolated occurrence, we might judge this as a technical domestic argument of little consequence but, with a bit of investigation, we discover that Apple’s warranties had been under fire for years throughout Europe (and other countries) for precisely the same reasons and with precisely the same outcome – Apple stubbornly flouting the consumer laws of dozens of countries.[8][9] With this additional information, our perception of Apple’s behavior in China assumes a different flavor. We no longer see a simple dispute between a retailer and a socialist government with perhaps sticky laws, but a multinational corporation suffused with sufficient arrogance to not only challenge but attempt to dictate consumer laws and warranty policies to all sovereign nations where it does business. To say nothing of some bold tax dodges.[10] Further investigation reveals that, of all computer and mobile phone companies, only Apple appears to take this position. We now have a more accurate picture of the international IT landscape and Apple’s position within it, our sympathy for Apple’s difficulties in China certainly moderating if not transforming into outright hostility.
In each case, our understanding has been substantially amended because we can see the whole picture and we now know something we did not know before. It is true for a great many occurrences in the world, of many different kinds, that these are not single disconnected events but are related in a set pattern and to a set purpose. Simply put, if one house burns down on a street, that’s unfortunate; if two houses burn down on that street, that’s a coincidence; if five houses burn down on that same street, that’s a plan.
Thus, for many of the world’s events, most especially those containing strong social, economic and/or geo-political effects, it behooves us to bypass the mass media who force-feed us with only carefully-selected sound bytes, and to engage ourselves in a bit of independent research to discover whether these apparently disconnected events are in fact related in a larger context. It is necessary to bypass the media because the absence of connection between these apparently disparate (but related) events is not accidental; the media coverage by design and intent renders it impossible for the general public to connect the dots.
The Official Narrative
In attempting to understand social, economic and geo-political events, there is a second matter demanding our attention, that of the initial mass media coverage, because this often betrays secrets of an event that might otherwise be unknown.
Consider: if there is an explosion in a shopping mall somewhere, at first neither we nor the relevant authorities know anything. It might have been caused a gas line leak, perhaps from faulty maintenance, or stored chemicals, or perhaps a disgruntled citizen set off a bomb. At first, we don’t even know what, much less having a clear idea of who or how, or why, and it takes time to ferret out these details and form a sensible working theory of that event. If it appears that persons were responsible, the authorities require additional time to determine why and who, then begin their search.
But, if we are paying attention, it often happens that immediately upon the occurrence of such an event, the mass media present us with a full-blown story lacking only small details, a more or less complete description of what, how, who and why, a story that could not possibly be known at that stage. Not only is the media description immediate, but it is universal and unanimous, with all apparently unrelated media presenting the same story line, often verbatim, with no disagreement on any significant elements, these uniform storylines sometimes flooding the news for days, weeks, and even months.
Such a unanimous flood can occur only with all participants reading from the same script, prepared beforehand and readied for simultaneous release. In the above case, there are only two possibilities:[1] The story, if true, could be known only by the perpetrators or, [2] the story is a fabricated falsehood, taking the microphone to pre-empt independent rational thought by the public and force the discussion into desired channels, resulting in the elimination of critical public analysis and preventing the truth from escaping confinement.
At one time, not so long ago, this was impossible. But today, with the intense concentration of media ownership across all continents, (and with the increasingly strong censorship of the social media) we have only five or six people, all colleagues, controlling perhaps 90% of all media content and with a powerful financial influence on the remainder.
As one ready example, we could review the unfortunate flight of Korean Airlines 007 in 1983, a Boeing 747 which was shot down by Russian aircraft when it ventured about 500 kilometers off-course and perilously close to some Russian military installations. The media response was immediate and universal that “the Russians” killed hundreds of innocent passengers, and a great deal else. I don’t want to dwell on this here but, if you would like some personal entertainment, you might enjoy doing some thorough research on this event. One of the more entertaining issues was that the water was shallow where the aircraft eventually went down, and the Russians searched thoroughly but located only a few bodies of the crew. No hundreds of innocent passengers. One other discovery was hundreds of pairs of new sneakers and a great deal of new clothing still folded in its original packaging. But no bodies. The official response was that when the aircraft was hit by the missiles, the decompression “sucked all the passengers out of their clothes”, then presumably folding and packaging their clothing. Mother Nature is nothing if not neat and tidy.
The events of 9-11 were certainly one of these, with the entire final version of the “official story” appearing the next day in all the Western media, all verbatim including the who, how and why. SARS and ZIKA fit this pattern in every respect, and COVID-19 also fit very well as do the seven biological pathogens unleashed on China during the past two years alone. With the 2019 swine flu, the entire Western media knew instantly that Chinese “criminal gangs” and “pork speculators” were for unknown reasons infecting all of China’s pigs, although no evidence ever surfaced to support any part of their story. If we review the media coverage for many notable events in our recent history, the pattern is the same. We are then facing the only sensible conclusion that those events were executed as part of a plan with the unanimous media coverage arranged well in advance – and with the knowing participation of the media owners.
Normally, subsequent contradictory theories arise over time as we learn details and assemble the pieces in what might be a more logical and sensible combination but, in these cases, all contradictions are first ignored by the mass media, then condemned as “conspiracy theories”, those presenting them unanimously mocked and derided. The more attention these contradictory theories generate, and the more that serious flaws are exposed in the official story, the louder the derision and more vicious the condemnation, again unanimous and universal. Moreover, as these theories gain traction, the underlying facts are increasingly ignored in exchange for attacking their proponents. If we don’t like the message, we kill the messenger. There is no shortage of examples of historians, authors, various experts, being hounded to bankruptcy, infamy, and even death, merely for publishing (or even attempting to publish) inconvenient truths. This process is now so well-established that whenever we see accusations of ‘conspiracy theories’ we can be certain that a government or a corporation has something to hide.
As time passes, the public become inundated with what we term “the official narrative”, most tending to believe a story repeated daily for weeks from dozens of apparently independent and reputable sources, to the point where the matter is no longer news and dissenting opinions are lost in the haze. It then becomes almost impossible for hidden truths to emerge and, even if they do emerge, it is too late to significantly alter the public conviction or to obtain the required critical mass of dissention for a re-examination of the facts. It is said that if we hear a lie five times, especially from five different sources, we will believe it as true and will later be astonishingly reluctant to alter our opinion even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. This is one of the fundamental tenets of all propaganda.
In so many past instances, generally involving malfeasance, the US government or some branch of it quickly took the initiative to promulgate an “official story” that it wanted the public to accept, always with widespread media and scientific or other support. It isn’t usually difficult to distinguish between these crafted tales and other situations where the truth of an event innocently emerges as facts are sequentially discovered. One sure sign that we are being told a story is when “the official narrative” appears much too soon – before any actual facts emerge that would support the hypothesis, a ploy necessary to pre-empt independent conclusions and prevent more realistic or more factual versions from gaining traction.
Directed Channels of Discourse
There is one other item that serves to actively prevent our connecting the dots and forming correct conclusions about events, this being an intense and coordinated media focus to direct public discourse into desirable channels and away from the key issues. As a simple example, some years ago there were intense debates about the future of the Euro, with growing public opinion that the group currency was a failed experiment and European nations should revert to their original national currencies. But the mass media spawned a flood of debate centered on a wide range of options more or less titled “What is the best way to save the Euro?”, forcing public debate into a context where continuation of the Euro was assumed as immutable and all discussion focused on methods of preservation. Of course, the real question was “Should the Euro be saved?”, but those raising this question were ignored, mocked, derided, and painted as traitors to Europe.
If we pay attention to the mass media on the occurrence of many events, it is easy to see that we are often being propagandised and programmed to see the world through the same pair of eyes – the pair our masters want us to look through. It is a most effective tool of public manipulation, with most of us unaware this thought control is taking place. As Noam Chomsky noted in discussing propaganda[11], “The smart way . . . is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” In simple terms, if you can focus the public on asking the wrong questions, you needn’t worry about the answers.
A Brief Case Study in Connecting Dots
In 2001, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease ravaged the British farming industry. Exports from the UK of live animals, meat and dairy products were banned by other nations, and the government ordered a mass slaughter of millions of animals. The losses to British farmers were nearly incalculable, with a great many farmers going bankrupt or otherwise put out of business, and some farmers committing suicide in anguish over their losses. Within six months, almost 4 million animals had been slaughtered and their carcasses burned. Oddly, in the face of this enormous disaster, the government refused to hold a public inquiry into the outbreak, announcing instead three small separate investigations, the results of which would not be made public. A similar event occurred again a few years later. It was later admitted that the pathogen for this disease had gone “missing” from Porton Down and Pirbright, the UK’s two primary L-4 bio-weapons labs, the government then claiming “animal rights activists” had entered these military-guarded labs, stolen huge amounts of pathogen and released it. No information as to why they might do such a thing. The outcome of the UK foot and mouth disease outbreaks was to eliminate small farmers and turn over the UK’s beef supply to a few billionaire owners of Big Agra.
I won’t provide more detail here, but I have written a brief article covering this, the details of which will shock you.[12] As one example, for months prior to the outbreak the UK government was scouring the country for all loose volumes of timber admittedly to be used to burn the carcasses of the millions of cattle soon to become infected and slaughtered.
But so far, even to a suspicious mind, no clear evidence of malfeasance and no conspiracy. But we have other layers of dots here. It seems that immediately prior to this disastrous outbreak of a deadly biological pathogen, there was a ‘simulation’ dealing with precisely this eventuality, exactly the same as that held prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 and including most of the same players, most notably Pirbright who were the admitted source of the bovine pathogen and also who had developed and held patents on five coronavirus varieties, I believe the same five that infected the US and then the world.
And yet another layer of dots. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote a report in the Institute of Science in Society, dated September 24, 2001, entitled “Foot & Mouth Outbreak, GM Vaccine and Bio-warfare”. It was after her report that investigations by the Evening Chronicle discovered papers leaked from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that confirmed the simulation which had been secret to that point. Readers may recall this is the same Dr. Ho who called for a full investigation into the possible genetic engineering and dissemination of the SARS virus, the evidence eventually conclusive that SARS emerged from a lab.
Let’s turn to the swine flu outbreak in China in 2019 where the nation’s pork was raised by hundreds of thousands of small farmers much as the beef in the UK. With 50% of the livestock slaughtered, American firms had an open door to take control of China’s pork supply. In this case the effort failed because the Chinese government, not being a party to the pathogen, immediately provided financing and other assistance for the small farmers to rebuild their herds.
However, if we research the outbreaks of animal pathogens around the world – swine flu, bird flu, the evidence seems to indicate that the expansion of Big Agra follows closely on their heels. This is an apparently natural occurrence, given that small competitors have been eliminated while market demand remains constant – unless this occurs more than once or twice. When these outbreaks inexplicably appear repeatedly on all continents with Big Agra in the background, we have dots to connect. I do not possess details of every outbreak of an animal pathogen in all countries for the past ten or twenty years, but I have a powerful suspicion that if we correlate these with the growth in market share of the world’s few Big Agra companies, we would receive a surprise.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com.
Notes
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/business/international/china-rules-glaxo-bribes-sex-tape-whistleblower-cautionary-tale.html
[2] https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/19/news/china-gsk-bribery/index.html
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glaxo-settlement-idUSBRE8610S720120702
[4] https://fortune.com/2016/03/31/big-pharma-fines/
[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-giants-fined-11bn-for-criminal-wrongdoing-8157483.html
[6] www.china.org.cn/business/2013-03/31/content_28407911.htm
[7] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-apology-idUSBRE9300DM20130402
[8] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2367484
[9] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/48730/how-does-apples-two-year-warranty-in-europe-work
[10] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/30/apple-pay-back-taxes-eu-ruling-ireland-state-aid
[11] Noam Chomsky [2013]. “How the World Works”, p.234, Soft Skull Press
Truly Shameful BBC Israeli Propaganda
By Craig Murray | June 25, 2020
In a genuinely outrageous piece of victim blaming, BBC News just blamed Palestinian intransigence in refusing to accept Israeli annexation of the West Bank for the deaths of Palestinian children caused by the Israeli blockade of medical supplies to Gaza.
This is a precise quote from the BBC TV News presenter headline at 10.30am:
“The lives of hundreds of sick Palestinian children are being put at risk because of the latest downturn in relations between their leaders and Israel last month. The Palestinian President said his government was giving up on past peace agreements because of Israeli plans to annex parts of the West Bank. That decision stopped co-operation on many security and civil matters including medical and travel permits.”
There followed a heart rending piece by BBC Middle East correspondent Yolande Knell featuring Palestinian children in Gaza dying of various medical conditions and their distraught mothers.
The entire piece very plainly blamed Palestinian officials for the situation.
The BBC did not blame Israel for placing a blockade illegally preventing pharmaceuticals and medical supplies from entering Gaza – the basic reason the children cannot be treated at home.
The BBC did not blame Israel for blockading in illegally the civilian population of Gaza, so that these children cannot freely leave for treatment in Europe without Israeli clearance.
The BBC did not point out that the proposed annexation of the West Bank is illegal, has been condemned by the UN Secretary General and by 95% of the governments of the world, and will precipitate great violence.
No, the BBC blamed the Palestinians.
“Accept the illegal annexation of still more of your land, or small children will die and it will be your fault”.
That is a line the BBC are perfectly happy to push out on behalf of Israel. It is an astonishing moment for the UK state propagandist. It is important we do not ourselves become complacent at this absolutely unacceptable behaviour.
‘Russiagate’ case against ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn effectively OVER, as DC appeals court orders to close it
RT | June 24, 2020
An appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that the case against President Trump’s one-time national security adviser, Michael Flynn, must end. The Justice Department had dropped charges against Flynn, but his case remained open.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ended the case against Flynn, ordering federal judge Emmet Sullivan to heed the Justice Department’s advice and close the case. Sullivan had attempted to keep the case active, even though the Justice Department dropped its charges against Flynn last month.
The appeals battle was a last-ditch showdown between Flynn and the Justice Department on one side, and Sullivan on the other. Though reporters as recently as last week reckoned the appeals court would side with Sullivan, they were proven wrong on Wednesday morning.
Of course, Sullivan may appeal again, but with the government and prosecution in agreement, his chances of breathing life into the Flynn case – ongoing for more than two years – is slim.
Appointed national security advisor following Trump’s election win in 2016, Flynn quickly became the first and most prominent White House official caught up in the FBI’s ‘Russiagate’ investigation. He was fired in early 2017 and later pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
However, the case was dropped last month, after it emerged that the charges against him were baseless.
Before he was interviewed by FBI agents in January 2017, FBI brass knew they had “no derogatory information” on the retired General, yet then-FBI Director James Comey ordered the interview to proceed regardless, breaching agency protocol. Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok urged his superiors to keep the case against Flynn open, and plotted with other agents to “get him to lie” during the interview. Furthermore, Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page edited the transcript of the interview to incriminate Flynn.
All of this information was revealed last month, when acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified a trove of ‘Russiagate’ documents. According to the document dump, a host of Obama administration officials dug into Flynn’s intelligence records as the FBI were attempting to entrap him in the interview.
President Trump, who has long accused the FBI and Obama administration of orchestrating a plot to take down his presidency, retweeted a call from his son last week for Flynn to “sue the FBI and it’s corrupt actors for all they’re worth.”
Let’s fact-check Reuters: they say DNA vaccines don’t change your genetic makeup—true or false?
By Jon Rappoport | June 23, 2020
As my readers know, I’ve been reporting on new types of technology that could be used in a coming COVID-19 vaccine—and warning about the consequences.
One such technology is: DNA vaccines. They would alter recipients’ genetic makeup permanently.
But Reuters has seen fit to claim: “A future COVID-19 [DNA] vaccine will not genetically modify humans.” This comes from their “fact-check team” — May 18, 2020: “False claim: A COVID-19 vaccine will genetically modify humans.”
To reach this conclusion, Reuters cites two people: “Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University’s Alliance for Science group”, and “Dr. Paul McCray, Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology, and Internal Medicine at the University of Iowa.”
I have cited the New York Times, March 10, 2015, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” Here are quotes from the Times article:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
[Here is the punch line] “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”
So it’s a battle of the experts. The two men Reuters cited, versus the Times’ David Baltimore.
I don’t hold up the scientific work of any of these men for great acclaim. I’m only interested in which man knows whether a DNA vaccine would permanently alter the genetic makeup of every recipient’s DNA.
David Baltimore is a Nobel Laureate (1975, in Physiology/Medicine), and the past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1997-2006). He’s one of the most famous scientists in the world.
I’m betting Reuters would happily trade their unknown experts for Baltimore, if he would side with their claim. Perhaps they’ll now approach him, and perhaps he’ll change his mind. But the NY Times has him on the record, in 2015, admitting that DNA vaccines do alter genetic makeup.
World famous mainstream experts don’t readily admit this sort of thing out in the open, unless they’re stating the obvious.
The verdict on the Reuters fact-check team? Fact-checkers checked the wrong box.
Final point for the moment: Researchers are fond of saying their genetic technologies are quite safe. This a bald-faced lie. Claiming, for example, that a DNA COVID vaccine would alter humans’ genetic makeup in entirely predictable and harmless ways is like saying a car without brakes, doing a hundred miles an hour, set loose on a highway during rush hour, would create no damage whatsoever.
SOURCES:
nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/protection-without-a-vaccine.html
Featured Video
The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The 9/11 “Double-Cross” Conspiracy Theory
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Is it true that “9/11 was an inside job”? Yes, insofar as Israel is “inside” the U.S. But for the 9/11 truthers who have identified Israel as the main perpetrators, “9/11 was an inside job” is at best a half-truth, and at worst an integral part of the Zionist operation, like a secondary flag sewn as a lining under the false flag of Islamism. Victor Thorn (1963-2017) wrote in his book 9/11 made in Israel: The Plot Against America (2011): “In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. . . . The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised.” In milder terms, it is “controlled opposition”.
A genuine truth movement would have pointed to Israel as the prime suspect from the start. From day one, it was obvious who would benefit. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe
- Dhubab offensive, media blitz and the rapid unraveling of Saudi-backed coalition’s new gambit
- Putin Conveys to Trump Iran’s Vision on Possible Conflict Resolution – Kremlin
- The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
- ‘Harsh reality’: Iran says France seeks monopoly on power and intimidation, not peace for all
- When Will This White House Madness End?
- Huckabee aide goes to ‘unusual lengths’ to portray ‘Israel’ positively
- Trump Announces Diesel Supply Deal With Putin Following Phone Call
- MEP blasts ‘Euro-Gestapo’ for lecturing Russia on democracy
- Syria May Send Troops to Saudi Arabia Amid War with Ansar Allah
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli forces kill another child in Gaza – Daily Update
- Gaza ceasefire exists in name only, say more than 100 organizations
- Nearly 2 Million in Gaza Need Urgent Shelter Assistance as Winter Looms: IOM Chief Warns
- Suppressing Palestinian resistance: US charity under fire for AI monitoring of Gaza classrooms
- Thousands Are Held in Israeli Torture Camps. This Is What Happens Inside
- Israel puts Gaza’s sick, injured, newborn in peril – Daily Update
- Report claimed Mark Levin used by Israeli government to influence Trump
- Over 2,000 Gazans have died awaiting medical evacuation amid Israel’s continued siege
- How a U.S. Diplomat Suppressed and Altered Reports Critical of Israel
- 5 Palestinians Die from Israeli Strikes in Gaza as Relentless Attacks Continue
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
