Oded Yinon Speaks Again
By Gilad Atzmon | July 22, 2018
Years after Israel Shahak translated Oded Yinon’s (1982) Plan into English, we have a chance to listen to contemporary Yinon. I was notified about this this youtube video by a FB friend. Strangely enough, the video has as of today, a very small number of views. Yinon is an ultra Zionist. He is not shy about it and considering his ‘prophetic’ vision of the Middle East back in 1982 it is worth listening to his perception of Israel, World Jewry and the Middle East.
To learn about the Yinon Plan click here
In the interview Yinon insists that his strategic plan for the Middle East wasn’t really a plan and it has never matured into an Israeli policy. However, he admits that some of his 1982 ideas were adopted by the IDF intelligence (AMAN) at the time of the Civil War in Syria (22.40). The breaking of the Middle East into tribal wars has been postponed according to Yinon but the roots of such a battle are far from over, they are basically inherent to the region.
According to Yinon peace with the Palestinians is unlikely and Israel should invest in its own building. Yinon predicts that USA Jews have no future in America, “America was the biggest (best) solution to the Jewish problem before Zionism, but today Zionism proves itself as the only solution.” He argues that American Jews will find themselves detached from American politics, culture and society. The holocaust is long away faded from American consciousness and this is, according to him, bad news for the Jews. They will have to wander and their destination is clear. For those who fail to understand, this is hardly a promising news for the Palestinians and the region.
Washington Report: Goodies for Israel Bills Continue to Move Forward
AIPAC 2017 Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2017, where much of its Congressional agenda was promoted.
By Shirl McArthur, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August/September 2018, pp. 34-36 (Photos added)
A synopsis of the many bills concerning Israel before the U.S. Congress:
THE INTERNATIONAL FOCUS of President Donald Trump’s administration seems to have shifted away from the Middle East, at least for the short term, so there have been few major Middle East legislative developments. However, some of the measures promoted by AIPAC’s annual meeting in March continue to gain support.
$38 billion to Israel – introduced by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Marco Rubio
First among them is H.R. 5141, introduced in the House March 1 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and its companion, S. 2497, introduced in the Senate March 5 by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the “U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization” bill. Since Ros-Lehtinen, the leading Israel-firster in Congress, has announced that she is retiring at the end of this session, she apparently wants to go out having promoted a full wish list of goodies for Israel, including many security assistance measures, extension of loan guarantees, and enhanced U.S.-Israel cooperation programs. Both bills have more than half the members of their respective houses of Congress as co-sponsors. H.R. 5141 has 274 co-sponsors, including Ros-Lehtinen, and S. 2497 has 70, including Rubio, so they could be brought up for passage at any time. On May 9 the House Foreign Affairs Committee marked up H.R. 5141, ordered it reported to the full House, and recommended that it be considered under “suspension of the rules” (an expedited process that requires a two-thirds vote for passage). But this has not yet happened.
[Action Alert: TELL CONGRESS: Vote NO on $38 billion to Israel!
“Israel Anti-Boycott” bills – introduced by Benjamin Cardin and Peter Roskam
The so-called “Israel Anti-Boycott” bills, also promoted by AIPAC, have made some progress. Both S. 720, introduced by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) in March 2017, and H.R. 1697, introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) the same month, claim that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movements penalize firms doing business in Israel, but in fact they are about doing business in Israel’s colonies, not Israel. As reported in previous issues, both the ACLU and Amnesty International have expressed their opposition to the bills because of their attacks on free speech, but congressional supporters of the bills continue to ignore those objections, as well as decades of bipartisan distinction between Israel and its West Bank colonies. S. 720 still has 56 co-sponsors, including Cardin, but H.R. 1697 now has 289, including Roskam. A related measure, H.R. 6095, was introduced June 13 by Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). It would “prohibit the boycotting of countries friendly to the U.S.” A DeSantis press release makes it clear that the purpose of the bill is to protect Israel and its colonies from boycotts by foreign nations.
Of the bills that would encourage states to adopt anti-BDS measures, S. 170, introduced by Rubio in January 2017, still has 48 co-sponsors, including Rubio, but H.R. 2856, introduced in June by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), now has 132 co-sponsors, including McHenry.
“Anti-Semitism Awareness” bills – introduced Tim Scott and Peter Roskam
Similarly the “Anti-Semitism Awareness” bills, S. 2940 in the Senate and H.R. 5924 in the House, have nothing to do with combatting anti-Semitism but, instead, are an attempt to squelch criticism of Israel on U.S. campuses. The bills would endorse an expansive definition of anti-Semitism that would define most anti-Israel speech and actions as being anti-Semitic. S. 2940, introduced May 23 by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), now has five co-sponsors, including Scott, and H.R. 5924, introduced by Roskam, also on May 23, now has 39 co-sponsors, including Roskam. [RELATED: International campaign is criminalizing criticism of Israel as ‘antisemitism’]
The purpose of the bill is to protect Israel and its colonies from boycotts by foreign nations.
Israel’s right to defend its borders resolution – introduced by Lee Zeldin
The non-binding H.J.Res. 135, “supporting Israel’s right to defend its borders,” was introduced June 5 by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) with 11 co-sponsors. It would accept the Israeli government’s position that Hamas bears total responsibility for all Palestinian deaths and injuries caused by Israel in Gaza, and that all Israeli actions in Gaza are self-defense.
Most of the measures urging greater U.S.-Israel cooperation have made little progress, but the previously described catch-all resolution H.Res. 785, introduced in March by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX), has gained 77 co-sponsors and now has 124, including Conaway. In addition to urging unspecified increased U.S.-Israel cooperation, it gratuitously supports Trump’s Dec. 6 declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Another resolution was introduced congratulating Israel on its 70th anniversary. S.Res. 502 was introduced May 9 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), with eight co-sponsors.
U.S. WITHDRAWS FROM UNHRC
However, that good news was offset by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley’s June 19 announcement that the U.S. is withdrawing from the U.N.’s Human Rights Council. Haley claimed that the Council has become a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.” But in fact, the main focus of U.S. criticism of the UNHRC has been its calling out of Israel for its human rights violations.
The withdrawal made pointless H.Res. 728, introduced in February by Reps. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Neal Dunn (R-FL), criticizing the UNHRC’s treatment of Israel.
Anti-UNRWA bills – introduced by David Cicilline and Lee Zeldin
UNRWA was the target of two new bills. H.R. 5898, introduced May 21 by Reps. David Cicilline (D-RI) and Zeldin, would “require the secretary of state to develop a strategy on administration policy regarding UNRWA.” The bill’s text makes it clear that the purpose of the “strategy” is to eliminate or reduce U.S. contributions to UNRWA. And H.R. 6034, introduced June 7 by Rep. David Young (R-IA) with three co-sponsors, would require the secretary of state to “submit annual reports reviewing the educational material used by the Palestinian Authority or the UNRWA.”
TRUMP IGNORES LETTER URGING HIM NOT TO ABANDON JCPOA
On May 7, the day before Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the ranking members or vice-chairs of 12 important Senate committees signed a letter to the president, initiated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), strongly urging him “not to unilaterally withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) absent an unambiguous Iranian violation of its terms.” Signers, all Democrats, were Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Maria Cantwell (WA), Thomas Carper (DE), Richard Durbin (IL), Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar (MN), Patrick Leahy (VT), Patty Murray (WA), Jack Reed (RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tom Udall (NM), and Mark Warner (VA).
Then on June 6, Durbin and seven co-sponsors introduced S.Res. 535 “reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” The measure includes a clause—after several statements from U.S. and international officials confirming that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear agreement—saying that “despite these statements, overwhelming evidence, and the appeals from several NATO allies, President Trump reinstated sanctions on the Government of Iran and unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018.”
(For more on the withdrawal from the JCPOA see the June/July 2018 Washington Report, pp. 16-18 and 20-21.)
MOST IRAN SANCTIONS BILLS MAKE NO PROGRESS – introduced by Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ed Royce
Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA apparently stalled action on most Iran sanctions measures. Two exceptions were S. 2353, the “Iran Leadership Asset Transparency” bill, introduced in the Senate in January by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), which now has 12 co-sponsors, including Cotton, and S. 2365, the “Iran Human Rights and Hostage-Taking Accountability” bill, introduced in January by Rubio. It now has five co-sponsors, including Rubio.
H.R. 4821, introduced in January by Roskam, to “impose sanctions against entities owned or controlled by the armed forces of Iran,” still has 31 co-sponsors, including Roskam. However, the AIPAC-pushed H.R. 5132, introduced in March by Royce, which would expand sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, has gained 22 co-sponsors and now has 215, including Royce.
NEW MEASURE REGARDING U.S.-GULF NUCLEAR COOPERATION
The previously mentioned measures regarding U.S.-Gulf nuclear cooperation have made scant progress. The positive H.Res. 795, “Recognizing the U.S. role in the evolving energy landscape of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries,” introduced in March by Reps. Joe Wilson and Donald Norcross (D-NJ), still has no more co-sponsors.
The opposing measure, H.R. 5357, was introduced in March by Ros-Lehtinen. Consistent with her history of opposing anything that might benefit Saudi Arabia, it would “require congressional approval of agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with foreign countries.” It now has seven co-sponsors, including Ros-Lehtinen. A new measure, S.Res. 541, was introduced June 12 by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), with two co-sponsors. It would “express the sense of the Senate that any U.S.-Saudi Arabia civilian nuclear cooperation agreement must prohibit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from enriching uranium or separating plutonium on its own territory, in keeping with the strongest possible non-proliferation ‘gold standard.’”
NEW MILITARY FORCE MEASURE INTRODUCED
S.J.Res. 59, “authorization for the use of military force against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and designated associated forces,” introduced in April by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA), still has two Democrat and two Republican co-sponsors. The measure does not include a sunset clause, but instead would require presidential and congressional review, to “include a proposal to repeal, modify, or leave in place this joint resolution.” S.J.Res. 61, an AUMF measure introduced May 23 by Merkley, does include a sunset clause, and also specifically limits the use of force to Iraq and Afghanistan, so it may draw broader support, although this hasn’t happened yet.
NEW BILL WOULD REQUIRE REPORT ON U.S. STRATEGY IN SYRIA
While H.R. 4681, introduced in December by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) “to limit assistance for areas of Syria controlled by the government of Syria or associated forces,” still has 26 co-sponsors, including Engel, a new Syria bill, S.2882, was introduced May 17 by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). It would require the president to submit to Congress a report “that sets forth a detailed description of the strategy of the U.S. in Syria.”
MCCOLLUM BILL SUPPORTING PALESTINIAN CHILDREN GAINS MORE SUPPORT
The increasingly timely bill introduced in November by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), H.R. 4391, which would “require the secretary of state to certify that U.S. funds do not support military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of Palestinian children,” continues to gain support. It now has 30 Democratic co-sponsors, including McCollum.
Shirl McArthur is a retired foreign service officer. He lives in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment
By Diana Johnstone | Ron Paul Institute | July 21, 2018
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn’t need to try to “undermine our democracy”. It would mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating millions of Americans as “deplorables” because they didn’t fit into her identity politics constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria … they didn’t have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about “Russian hacking the DNC” has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn’t need those “revelations” to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, “the Russians” are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of accusations of “treason” when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic “cooperation” associations. They have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following US whims in the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign intervention units of NATO under US command. Having not thought seriously about the implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the “findings” of US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies “found” that Iraq was bursting with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, “the story” at the Helsinki summit, even the only story, was Trump’s reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the “big stories” on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few exceptions. To get the job, one must have important “sources”, meaning government spokesmen who are willing to tell you what “the story” is, often without being identified. Once they know what “the story” is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: “The President has betrayed our great country to the Russian enemy. Treason!”
This demented chorus on “Russian hacking” prevented mainstream media from even doing their job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For example, the Moon of Alabama site offers an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy, which sounds infinitely more plausible than “the story.” In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a reverse version of Kissinger’s strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump’s policy, unlike the caterwauling we’ve been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it’s got to be a zero sum game, winner take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project, no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home for failing to chide the American president for US violations of human rights in Guantanamo, murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless countries by government-financed “non-governmental organizations” (the National Endowment of Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the world’s greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a “deal”, there may be losers – neither the US nor Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else’s expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
“We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly.”
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that “our militaries” get along with the Russians “better than our politicians.” This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too.
“Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world” Trump declared “I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.”
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
“Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons from history that will destroy your trust in the CIA
Did everyone urging us to trust the CIA forget this happened? Or do they just want us to?
By Kit | OffGuardian | July 20, 2018
In the hysterical wake of the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki, President Donald Trump was roundly criticised in the media for taking the side of a “hostile state” over his own intelligence agencies. The Guardian referred to Mueller as a “heroic marine” who Trump disbelieved in favour of a “Russian dictator”.
In the past, when Trump has criticised the FBI, CIA or NSA he has been accused of “undermining faith in our institutions”. He’s been blamed for a collapse of trust in the government. But was this trust ever earned?
At every corner, we are urged to simply believe what we are told. Whether it is about believing Porton Down and MI6 about “novichok”, or believing the White Helmets about Sarin, or believing the FBI about “collusion”, we are presented with no facts, just assertions from authority. Those who question those assertions are deemed “bots” at best or “traitors” at worst.
Well here, fellow traitors, are the Top Ten reasons to question anything and everything the CIA – or any intelligence agency – has ever told you.
10. OPERATION PAPERCLIP – we’ll start with an oldie but a goody. In 1945, as the allies were advancing on Berlin from both sides, American Army Intelligence (this was before the CIA were founded) were “capturing” (read: recruiting) over 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers. Most famous of them was Werhner von Braun… sorry, SS Sturmbannführer von Braun.
Whilst Allied soldiers died in the name of defeating fascism, the CIA’s predecessors were actively recruiting Nazis to come and build bombs for them.
9. OPERATION NORTHWOODS – The original, and important, precedent for accusations that the CIA et al. might engage in false-flag attacks. Operation Northwoods was a joint CIA/Pentagon proposal designed around the idea of escalating a war with Cuba by stoking public anger:
The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
The idea was vetoed by President Kennedy. Fifty years later, the CIA and Pentagon still very much exist, but there’s no longer a Kennedy there to veto their more psychopathic ideas. Funny how that worked out.
8. ALLENDE COUP – In 1970 Salvador Allende was elected to the Chilean Presidency. A Physician and dedicated socialist, Allende was the first socialist president elected in South America. The Nixon-lead government of the United States immediately implemented “economic warfare” (as they do, to this day, against Cuba, Venezuela and others). The economic warfare did not work, and in 1973 Allende’s socialist party increased their parliamentary majority.
In response, the US “assisted” (read: instructed) the Chilean military in carrying out a coup. Allende allegedly shot himself, and Augusto Pinochet was placed in power as the first dictator in Chile’s history. Pinochet was a fascist who executed Chilean “subversives” by the thousand… and was the darling of Western leaders.
7. MOSADDEGH COUP – I could just copy-and-paste the above paragraph and the change the names for this entry. In 1953, the Prime Minister of Iran – Mohammad Mosaddegh, a democratic socialist – wanted to audit the income of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with an eye to limiting foreign control of Iran’s oil. Within a few months, a joint US/UK operation – Operation Ajax – had removed Mosaddegh’s elected government and turned over full control of the state to the Shah. He was a brutal absolute monarch, but the question of Western control of Iran’s enormous oil reserves wasn’t raised again under his leadership.
6. OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD – A CIA operation that you could deduce existed, even if were not proven…. and it is proven. Mockingbird was the CIA project to coerce, train, control or plant CIA-friendly journalists in major news networks all across the country and in every medium. It’s existence is no longer disputed, thanks to FOIA releases of internal memos.
Mockingbird was allegedly shut down in 1976 – just after its existence was leaked – then CIA director George HW Bush claiming:
… effective immediately, CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.”
If you’re willing to stake anything on the word of a Bush, well, good luck with that. It’s a decision that flies in the face of historical evidence.
Remember this one when you hear about the need to trust the CIA from some pundit on CNN or MSNBC.
5. MASS SURVEILLANCE – It’s not really talked about much these days – what with the vast majority of the media and huge sections of the supposedly “anti-establishment” progressive left marching in-step with the Deep State – but the NSA spied on the whole world. The whole world. We know this to be true because an employee of the Deep State – Edward Snowden – leaked the information.
When challenged on this issue, representatives of the NSA and CIA lied. They lied to the public, and they lied to congress. When they were proven to have lied, they carefully qualified their lies.
A qualified lie is still a lie.
There is no indication they have stopped this illegal surveillance, but they may have passed laws to make it legal.
4. NAYIRAH – A classic of “atrocity propaganda”, Nayirah should be required reading material for anybody looking top hop on a pro-war bandwagon. Nayirah – who originally gave only her first name – was a fifteen year old girl who testified in front of the United States Congress. She claimed to be a volunteer from at a Kuwaiti hospital, and to be an eye-witness to Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and leaving them to die:
I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital with twelve other women who wanted to help as well. I was the youngest volunteer. The other women were from twenty to thirty years old. While I was there I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. It was horrifying.
It was later revealed, not only that her full name was Nayirah al-Sabah and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, but that she had never volunteered at a hospital and had seen no babies, soldiers or incubators. The whole thing was a fiction. A fiction paid for by the “Citizens of Free Kuwait”, an NGO (and obvious CIA front) set up to lobby the US to intervene in the Iraq-Kuwait war.
By the time this fiction was revealed it was too late, and the US had launched Operation Desert Storm…. which was, of course, the entire point of the exercise.
Remember this, when you hear about Assad gassing children or bombing kittens.
3. COINTELPRO – The FBI’s long running (and sometimes illegal) COunter INTELligence PROgram, COINTELPRO was a series of domestic projects carried out by the FBI (with cooperation from other agencies), over decades, with the aim of “surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations”.
These political organizations included anti-Vietnam protestors, civil rights groups (including both MLK and Malcolm X), socialists, Communist Party USA, environmental groups and feminist organizations.
The brief for these “disruptions” came straight from J. Edgar Hoover who wanted the FBI to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise Neutralize” people he perceived to be enemies of the state. The capital N in “neutralise” is no accident, as the FBI was implicated in the deaths of several Black Panther leaders, including Fred Hampton.
COINTELPRO didn’t just involve undermining left-wing groups, but also creating right-wing groups:
The FBI also financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former Minutemen, transforming it into a group called the Secret Army Organization that targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement, using both intimidation and violent acts.
Whether this was done to actually push a right-wing agenda, create a fake threat to step up police powers, or just sow division and chaos, is unclear. But it definitely happened.
Much like MKUltra (below), COINTELPRO was “officially shut down”, not long after the public found out it existed. However, the accidental outing of undercover policeman at a rally in Oakland, and recent relaxation of the laws limiting the FBI’s powers, means that COINTELPRO – or a modern successor – is very likely still a thing.
The aim of COINTELPRO was to “Neutralize” anti-establishment political figures – the vast majority of targets were left wingers – through “smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media”. Remember that when you see Rand Paul called a “traitor” on twitter, or read about “Russian collusion”, or see Jeremy Corbyn branded an anti-Semite.
Remember that it is proven that the Deep State – our trusted intelligence agencies – pay people to plant false stories and discredit political opponents.
2. PROJECT MKULTRA – It might sound like something from a 70s sci-fi TV series, but it is unfortunately real. MKUltra was a series of (illegal) experiments carried out by the CIA from 1953 until it was *cough* “officially halted” in 1973 (just after its existence was leaked). The experiments were wide-ranging, achieved varied levels of success, but pretty uniformly brutal and unethical. They included, but were not limited too:
– Giving LSD to unsuspecting soldiers to see what happened.
– Mass hypnosis and mass suggestion
– Torture studies
– Studies on the effect of verbal and/or sexual abuse
We’ll never know the full range of studies, or how they were carried out, because in 1973 Richard Helms, then director of the CIA, ordered all MKUltra files destroyed. Only a fraction of them survive, thanks to FOIA requests, but it’s reasonable to assume they destroyed the worst parts and kept the more quote-unquote innocent files.
The CIA were not unique in this regard either, MKUltra was their baby – but there were parallel projects in other quarters of the deep state. Army Intelligence had Edgewood Arsenal, whilst the Department of Defense had Project 112. All these projects were “officially halted” in the early 70s… just around the time the public found out they existed.
The CIA (et al.) have strongly denied that these experiments and projects have ever been continued in any way, shape or form…but if you’d asked them in 1969, they would have denied they had ever taken place at all.
1. THE IRAQ WAR – This might not be the most callous, the most dangerous, the most recent, the most secret or the most insidious of the items on this list, nevertheless it is – must be – number one… because it is the most brazen.
The war was started in the name of “weapons of mass destruction” that everyone – everyone – knew never existed. They all knew the truth, but they lied.
The President lied, the vice-president lied, the secretary of defence lied, the secretary of state lied. The Prime Minister lied, the defence minister lied, the foreign minister lied. They lied to the press, the people and the UN.
The CIA, the NSA, the FBI – then headed by the “heroic marine” Robert Mueller – they lied too. The press repeated these lies, without question (see: Operation Mockingbird). They weren’t “misinformed”, they weren’t “mistaken”. They lied, they lied repeatedly – and provably – and they did it in order to start a war, make money, take control, spread influence.
One million Iraqis died.
Our ruling class is peopled with psychopaths and war criminals, who have so little regard for the people they lie to they recycle the same childishly simple falsehoods to further their evil agenda again and again and again. They tried the same in Libya… it worked again. They tried again in Syria… luckily, it didn’t work there.
Our “democratic institutions” lie to start wars. There’s no reason to think they aren’t doing – or wouldn’t do – the same thing about Iran, North Korea… or Russia.
That’s our list, and there’s really only one lesson you can take away from it:
These people, agencies and institutions deserve no trust, have earned no trust and have abused every micron of trust ever placed in them. To suggest we have a duty to believe them – or that they have ever done anything to serve the public good – is to live in a dream world.
This list is not a full catalogue of Deep State crimes, it would be 1,000s of entries long if it were, but these ten are important. They’re important because they are admitted, proven and beyond debate. They are important because they show the many facets of dishonesty, hypocrisy and abuses of power that Intelligence agencies engage in, and they are important because they form the best riposte to the disingenuous clamour for “trust” in our “democratic institutions”.
Never trust the CIA, they have proved they don’t deserve it.
Aftermath of Helsinki summit: American ‘democracy’ in action
© Erin Scott / Global Look Press
By Finian Cunningham | RT | July 19, 2018
After his landmark summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, US President Donald Trump was apparently forced into an embarrassing u-turn over allegations of Russian interference in American elections.
On returning to the White House from his summit in Finland, Trump read out a statement, saying that he “accepted” US intelligence claims that Russia had meddled in the 2016 presidential election.
He offered the explanation that he had “mis-spoken” during his press conference with Putin in Helsinki the day before, when he appeared then to accept the Russian president’s “powerful denial” that his country had not interfered in the race for the White House.
What to make of it? Was Trump correcting a glitch in his speech, or is there something more sinister at play?
In any case, political and media critics in the US don’t believe the president’s “attempt at backtracking,” as the Washington Post put it.
Senior Democrats insisted Trump “could not squirm his way out” of the torrent of accusations that he had “capitulated to Putin” and dishonored US intelligence services by appearing to accept Moscow’s assurances it had not interfered in the elections.
The context of words spoken at the press conference in Helsinki does indeed suggest that Trump was countenancing Putin’s denial of Russian meddling. The US president went on to say that the various probes into the matter were a “disaster” for America’s international image and for bilateral relations with Russia. This is consistent with Trump’s long-held view that the Mueller inquiry is a “witch-hunt” based on “fake news”.
So, Trump’s belated about-turn on what he meant to say in Helsinki regarding alleged Russian interference does not seem to be a convincing, genuine correction on his part. It suggests rather that the president is being forced into making a retraction.
What could be viewed as more disturbing is the way the American president has been browbeaten and cowed to make an embarrassing denial of something he actually believes. In other words, Trump has been humiliated or intimidated into toeing a line.
The US media reaction following the summit with Putin was immediate and shockingly coordinated, like a full-on assault.
“Trump faces tidal wave of criticism over handling of summit with Putin,” reported US government-funded Radio Free Europe.
The president was assailed with a torrent of abuse, decrying him as a “disgrace” and “traitor” for having engaged in a cordial manner with the Russian leader. The uniform scorn poured on Trump by the political and media establishment was something to behold.
Rabid pundits in supposedly prestigious newspapers such as the New York Times were declaring that it’s “Trump and Putin vs. America,” claiming that “the president’s refusal to condemn Russian attacks was a betrayal of every single American citizen.”
The media backlash of vituperation against the president was nothing short of extraordinary. It was a concerted campaign of sedition against his authority which, at times, openly called for a palace coup to oust him.
Under the headline, “This sad, embarrassing wreck of a man,” one oped in the Washington Post posed the question: “Which Republicans will stand behind a president who puts Russia first?”
Ironically, Trump’s instincts about the whole Russiagate affair are correct. It is a load of unsubstantiated farrago promoted by Democrats and large sections of supportive news media who have never got over the ignominy of Hillary Clinton losing out to “deplorable Trump.” Clinton was also backed by high-ranking officials in the state intelligence apparatus, as well as the foreign policy establishment.
This constituency of the political class in Washington shared Clinton’s avowed hostility towards Putin. It is to their unforgivable chagrin that Donald Trump was elected. Moreover, Trump was elected partly on the promise of restoring normal relations between the US and Russia. His policy was given a democratic mandate upon his election to the White House.
After nearly two years of relentless Russophobia from the US political and media establishment, the case for alleged Russian interference in American politics remains embarrassingly vacuous. Not even the latest so-called indictments produced by special counsel Robert Mueller have any credibility to anyone who looks earnestly at the charges. What’s more, ordinary American citizens seem to agree that the whole Russiagate affair is a frivolity indulged in by the political and media elites confined to Washington’s Beltway Bubble.
In a poll out this week following the Helsinki summit, a small majority of Americans (55 percent) seem to think that Trump is “mishandling” relations with Russia. It is perhaps not surprising, given the wall-to-wall media pillorying of the president as a “traitor.” Nevertheless, the same poll found that only a minority of Americans view Russia as “an enemy” (38 percent) or an “imminent threat” (27 per cent).
These figures are cold comfort for the US political establishment, which has assiduously pushed the narrative of Russian malevolence.
What the astounding media backlash against Trump shows is not so much the fecklessness of his character. No, the really perplexing issue is how American democracy is warped and fashioned to meet the demands of powerful unelected forces. The imperative is brazen and brutal.
Trump may want to normalize relations with Russia. The people may have voted for this policy. But the powers-that-be are making sure that this policy is not implemented. They want hostility towards Russia to prevail, as it would have explicitly if Hillary Clinton had been elected.
In short, what we are seeing this week is “American democracy” in action. Meaning there is no actual democracy exercised by the power of the people. It is power exercised by elite interests.
In that way, Russian reaction to the Helsinki summit should be restrained.
Indeed, it was welcome to see Trump and Putin engage in cordial, mutual dialogue. Trump deserves credit for holding the summit and for his civilized manner towards the Russian leader, instead of adopting the vulgar offensiveness for which so much of the US establishment is baying.
The problem is that Trump has evidently very limited political authority to implement the obvious goodwill he desires between Washington and Moscow. He has limited authority to actually adopt one of the key policies for which he was elected by the people.
Trump’s cringe-making u-turn was not a correction over his misuse of “double negative speech.” It was a positively damning sign that the president and the citizens who voted for him have actually negligible power when it comes to overturning a fundamental objective of the unelected plutocrats of the deep state.
For Russia, and indeed the wider world, that is deeply troubling. Because the American powers-that-be are evidently hell-bent on pursuing a hostile agenda towards Russia. Their Russophobia is not just some passing phase. It’s a symptom of an incorrigible malaise and desire within the US establishment for conflict.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
Maxine Waters: ‘Hustler of hate’ or Democratic nominee in 2020?
By Danielle Ryan | RT | July 19, 2018
Crazy. Unhinged. Un-American. Those are just a few of the adjectives used to describe Congresswoman Maxine Waters as she emerges as a star of the anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ and riles both Democrats and Republicans with her fervor.
The California Democrat has drawn sharp criticism even from her own party for what many interpreted as an incitement to ‘mob violence’ when she called on Americans to harass members of Donald Trump’s administration if they saw them in public — antics which led her to receive serious threats against her life.
While Democrats have tried to criticize Waters in a more diplomatic manner, appealing for calm in trying times, Republicans haven’t been holding back. One congressional candidate called her a “hustler of hate” who should be behind bars.
President Waters?
Waters has embarrassed herself on a number of other occasions in recent months, too; There was the time she called for Trump to be impeached because Russia had (according to her) invaded Korea. Then there was the time she claimed that RT had hacked C-SPAN in an effort to interfere specifically with her speech on the House floor — and let’s not forget the time she promised two phone pranksters posing as the Ukrainian prime minister that the US would “stand with” Ukraine to keep sanctions on Russia. She also has what seems like an unhealthy preoccupation with the idea of being shot at.
And now, there is speculation that she could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2020.
CNN political commentator John Phillips penned a piece last week for the L.A. Daily News arguing that “Mad Max” really could be the nominee two years from now. Waters, he wrote, is “the only one dancing to the beat” of the resistance.
The scary thing is, he could be right. Waters, with her fiery, nothing-held-back approach has tapped into the rage and anger many Americans are feeling about Trump — and she is feeding it, to her own advantage. The woman, Phillips wrote, “who is the biggest rock star with liberals right now is Auntie Maxine” — and it doesn’t even matter that she was just called un-American by her own party leadership.
Waters is a bit like marmite. People seem to love her or hate her — and it’s not just since Trump became president and gave her license to reveal her own special brand of crazy.
Back in 2013, I met Waters in Washington D.C. at the screening of a documentary about America’s war on drugs and the desperate need to reform the country’s criminal justice system.
The documentary was co-produced by Danny Glover, Brad Pitt, Russell Simmons and John Legend — but, as I wrote at the time, Waters herself turned into the unlikely star of the show. After the screening, as I tried to get near her to ask a few questions, she was mobbed by supporters looking for selfies. That day she came across as a celebrity in her own right.
And, speaking, of celebrity, Phillips makes the point that the media and political pundits wrote Donald Trump off as a “reality show buffoon” and a “shameless self-promoter” with zero chance of winning the election. Here again, he is correct.
The media did write Trump off — and he won. So if Waters, crazy and all as she might be, did throw her hat in the ring for the 2020 election, pundits would want to be very careful not to assume for a second time that there is such thing as ‘too crazy’ or radical to win.
In the same way Trump challenged Republican party orthodoxy and defeated 16 other primary challengers to win the nomination, Phillips thinks Waters could tread a similar path.“[Trump] understood the mood and frustrations of the electorate better than anyone in the race,” he wrote.
No frontrunner
But Phillips’ musing also highlights something else; just how lacking the Democratic party is in good alternatives to Trump. That someone as erratic and downright strange as Maxine Waters could be reasonably considered a viable candidate says a lot about the state of the Democratic party — and just guess who thinks she is poised to take advantage of that sorry state of affairs?
None other than Hillary Clinton. Confirming beyond doubt that incompetence reigns in the Democratic Party is the recent bout of speculation that Clinton is gearing up to run for president —again — and that people within the party structure might actually be supportive of that plan.
Clinton has been running around giving campaign-style speeches and doing some vigorous fundraising — and although she says publicly she won’t run again, that’s what she said after she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, so it might be advisable to take those words with a big pinch of salt.
But perhaps she should think twice about going in for round three. A new poll has found that 73 percent of Democrats want a fresh face to challenge Trump in 2020 — while only 16 percent said they would be happy with a candidate who has run before. The Rasmussen survey also found that 58 percent of Democratic voters think Clinton has damaged the party’s standing.
It has been largely accepted among liberal pundits and (by all accounts) many high profile Clinton supporters that she was a terrible candidate — so terrible that she managed to lose to a hated reality TV star who broke every rule in the playbook —and yet here they are, thinking of wheeling her out again, hoping it’ll be third time’s the charm.
This is the kind of backward thinking that could potentially see Trump — the object of their rage — sail straight back into the White House for another four years in 2020.
But it’s hard to feel sorry for the Democrats. They have positioned themselves as close to the centre as politically possible (some would even argue they are a centre-right party at this point). They have shown only disdain to progressive left candidates, despite ample proof that they are hugely popular with voters. The party threw away the only real chance it had to win in 2016 when it rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders and sent a hugely unpopular candidate to fight and lose against Trump — and now they’re seriously considering doing it all over again.
When you look at it that way, maybe Maxine Waters is their best hope.
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist. Having lived and worked in the US, Germany and Russia, she is currently based in Budapest, Hungary. Her work has been featured by Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, Russia Direct, teleSUR, The BRICS Post and others. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ, check out her Facebook page, or visit her website: danielle-ryan.com
Read more:
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
By Bruce E. Levine | CounterPunch | July 18, 2018
Despite increased spending on mental health treatment, mental illness disability and suicide rates have skyrocketed. “Perhaps more disturbingly,” notes clinical psychologist Noël Hunter, “recent evidence has demonstrated that as contact with psychiatric intervention increases, so too does completed suicide, suggesting the possibility that the current mental health system may be creating the very problems it purports to aid.” In Hunter’s recently published Trauma and Madness in Mental Health Services (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), she asks, “Are we continuing to funnel money into a fundamentally broken system?”
For many on the Left, it is obvious that the military-industrial complex is devoted only to its own preservation and expansion, thus routinely jeopardizing national security and freedom—this despite many men and women serving in the U.S. military who care about national security and freedom. Far fewer on the Left recognize that the psychiatric-industrial complex (which includes the American Psychiatric Association and its Big Pharma financial partners) is also devoted only to its own preservation and expansion, thus routinely exacerbating emotional suffering—this despite many individual practitioners who want to help their patients.
The majority of psychiatrists and psychologists, owing to both ignorance and cowardice, routinely comply with diagnostic and treatment notions that pretend to be scientific but which have been politically and financially forged. There are, however, a handful of anti-authoritarian professionals who have rebelled, and Noël Hunter is one of them.
Hunter is a rare psychologist. She not only has extensive knowledge of the empirical research, but she herself was once diagnosed with serious mental illness, and she takes very seriously the insights of “experts by experience”—recovered ex-patients—who Hunter quotes throughout her book. Both objective and subjective sources make clear to Hunter that the essential cause for what is called serious mental illness is not some kind of biochemical or genetic defect but some kind of trauma, and that the essential remedy is healing from trauma. For critical thinkers who are not mental health professionals, Hunter’s assertions in Trauma and Madness in Mental Health Services may sound like simple common sense, but it is sense that is not common in the mental health profession.
Wisdom has been derailed by politics and misinformation in the mental health profession (as is the case for many other aspects of U.S. society). Despite what the general public repeatedly hears from the mass media, there is no actual science behind proclamations that “schizophrenia” or other “serious mental illnesses” are caused by a biochemical imbalance, a genetic flaw, or any other innate defect. After many years and much money spent attempting to prove defect theories, even establishment mental health has rejected the widely popularized chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness (though word of this rejection hasn’t gotten out to much of the U.S. general public or to even many practitioners).
In contrast, there is a great deal of scientific evidence showing that people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses are far more likely to have been victims of societal and familial trauma. Citing the empirical research, Hunter reports:
“Adverse experiences, particularly in childhood (such as physical and sexual abuse, parental separation, bullying, parental death, foster care, neighborhood violence, poverty, racism, etc.), have been demonstrated to have a direct and dose-response relationship (meaning the more adversity, the greater the risk) with adult mental health issues like hearing voices, suicidality, drug abuse, experiencing altered states of consciousness, extreme and intense emotions, fragmented sense of self, obesity, depression, paranoia, beliefs in conflict with consensus reality, anxiety, and more.”
A great tragedy for people viewed as biochemically defective rather than as victims of trauma is that such individuals who are already suffering are then stigmatized and marginalized owing to their defect status. Hunter reports that “ongoing efforts to combat stigma by asserting that ‘mental illness is an illness like any other’ are actually associated with increased stigma and increased efforts to distance oneself from those deemed mentally ill.”
Politics has long dictated a trauma cover-up. The significance of trauma, Hunter recounts, was obvious over a century ago to Pierre Janet, and so too did Sigmund Freud recognize the importance of sexual abuse as a cause of his patients’ problems. However, Freud then shifted his focus onto unconscious conflicts. While it took some courage for Freud to talk about repressed sexuality, it would have likely been reputation suicide if he had continued to focus on societal and familial trauma—this would have challenged those in society who had far greater status and influence than he had.
To be clear, modern psychiatry does not completely reject trauma as a cause of emotional suffering, and with good luck a patient can 
get the kind of diagnosis in which trauma is taken seriously. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was included in the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic bible, the DSM, in 1980. “This inclusion,” Hunter points out, “was largely the result of political efforts on the part of American veterans of war.”
Politics, not science, dictates not only the explanations for mental illnesses but their creation (as with the case of PTSD) and abolition, as was the case with homosexuality. By the 1970s, gay Americans, angry about their sexual preference being viewed as a disease and defect, finally had enough political power to compel the American Psychiatric Association to abolish homosexuality as a mental illness, and it was excluded from the APA’s 1980 DSM-III. Unfortunately, people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses lack the political power to change psychiatric dogma, and so they are seen as defective rather than as victims of trauma.
Phil Ochs sang: “There but for fortune may go you or I.” This is the reality when it comes to psychiatric diagnoses. You and I can exhibit the same behaviors, but whether you or I become a chronic psychiatric patient depends on our bad or good fortune. I’ve talked to many people who as teenagers and young adults innocently told their parents about voices that they were hearing and were then labeled by doctors as schizophrenic, resulting in long careers as mental patients. And I’ve talked with others who kept their voice hearing to themselves; these voices actually helped them have breakthroughs, and they have had no such careers as mental patients.
In a scientific sense, terms like “schizophrenia” are completely meaningless—wastebaskets to toss people who are behaving in ways that appear bizarre to doctors. Often what causes people acting in unusual ways to become chronically dysfunctional are their doctors’ problematic reactions and “treatments.” In other words, it is common for the source of chronic dysfunction to be physician-induced (iatrogenic) trauma.
In the real world of psychiatric diagnoses, probably the most important criteria for whether you are diagnosed with schizophrenia or dissociative identify disorder (DID) is how much your doctor likes you, and Hunter was likable enough to get a DID diagnosis. For reasons of dogma, not science, trauma is taken seriously for DID but not for schizophrenia (in which one is simply seen as defective). So, Hunter considers herself relatively lucky, and one senses her “survival guilt.”
Unlike many books critical of the psychiatric-industrial complex, Trauma and Madness in Mental Health Services offers a great deal of practical help for both practitioners and for those in emotional turmoil. In very concrete terms, Hunter offers chapters on what is helpful and what is not. The research, her own experience as a patient, and her discussions with other ex-patients inform her: “Relationships matter. Relaxation matters. Nutrition matters. Hope and purpose matter. Nature matters. Love matters.”
Professionals often waste their limited time obsessing over a diagnostic process that is scientifically invalid and unreliable. “Rather,” Hunter concludes, “what is more important is to take an individualized, collaborative, trauma-informed approach that is attuned to individual needs without making assumptions and considering the person’s subjective experiences as real and something to be respected.” It’s important, Hunter concludes, to help people find meaning and value in the adaptive nature of their atypical experiences.
In general, I have little hope for the mental health profession, but I have seen individual professionals rise above their desire for security and then revolt against the policies of institutions in the psychiatric-industrial complex. In academia, such rebellion can jeopardize one’s chances for tenure, yet a handful of educators are willing to take that risk. They care less about security than being remembered by their students for turning them on to a book in which they actually acquire knowledge about some very interesting human beings and that is of great value in helping them. Such a book is Noël Hunter’s Trauma and Madness in Mental Health Services.
Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist often at odds with the mainstream of his profession, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His most recent book is Resisting Illegitimate Authority: A Thinking Person’s Guide to Being an Anti-Authoritarian―Strategies, Tools, and Models(AK Press, September, 2018). His Web site is brucelevine.net
Featured Video
American Aerial Massacres in Germany
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
“Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons from history that will destroy your trust in the CIA
By Kit | OffGuardian | July 20, 2018
… At every corner, we are urged to simply believe what we are told. Whether it is about believing Porton Down and MI6 about “novichok”, or believing the White Helmets about Sarin, or believing the FBI about “collusion”, we are presented with no facts, just assertions from authority. Those who question those assertions are deemed “bots” at best or “traitors” at worst.
Well here, fellow traitors, are the Top Ten reasons to question anything and everything the CIA – or any intelligence agency – has ever told you. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran declares victory over US
- Iran reveals full text of war-ending MoU signed with US
- Belarusian children wounded in deadly Ukrainian drone strike
- US, EU authorize production of ‘deep strike’ missiles inside Ukraine
- Trump leverages illegally frozen Palestinian funds to force normalization, halt legal cases against Israel
- Call for Hamas de-proscription
- The art of the recycled deal: Trump and the outcome Israel cannot tolerate
- Lebanon is now part of Iran’s deterrence doctrine
- Iran announces plan to link electricity grid with Qatar, transfer up to 1,000 MW of power
- Pax Iranica? The end of uncontested U.S. military hegemony
- If Americans Knew
- What would happen if US actually cut off military aid to Israel?
- Western Media Normalize Ethnic Cleansing of Lebanon by Viewing It Through Israel’s Eyes
- Behind the Screen, Netanyahu Is Annexing Gaza ‘Step-by-Step’
- How pro-Palestinian Groups Are Using AIPAC’s Playbook in New York and Beyond
- Trump Administration Targets Americans Opposed to Zionism
- Gaza children running out of time to treat blast-induced hearing loss
- The U.S. and Iran have struck a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz, but Israel may prevent an end to the war
- Trump & Bibi’s literal tug-of-war; stomach flu outbreak in Gaza: Daily Update
- Pro-Israel Donors Power Last-Minute Surge of Espaillat Spending
- “They Stole Our Home and Our Life”: Israel Permanently Displaces Syrians in Quneitra
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
Aletho News 