Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Epstein Stories You Won’t Find in the News

Amazing Polly | July 8, 2019

I go over some of the lesser known connections & history of accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. I’m hoping that there are more arrests to come after his! Many powerful people are at risk if he talks. more…

My paypal for contributions is here .. thank you! https://paypal.me/PollyStGeorge

BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/99Fr…

References VIDEO: Miami Herald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDPz…

Epstein Arrested Daily Be2st article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey…

Miami Herald Non Prosecution Agreement story: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca…

Miami Herald, Wexner Dershowitz: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/stat…

Daily Beast Epstein Hoffenberg: https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-tried…

2006 – plane shares Tail Number with State Department: https://newspunch.com/u-s-state-depar…

Interview with Bradley Edwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqb59…

Vox re Michael Stroll, Epstein & Co.: https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/1811635…

Epstein Arrested Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/…

Hill Reporter, William Barr’s father Dalton school: https://hillreporter.com/the-ties-tha…

Donald Barr quits Dlton SChool: https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/20/ar…

New York Times Guiseppe Tome can’t be found: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/17/bu…

NY Post Gaffney inexpicably argued for leniency: https://nypost.com/2019/04/11/da-knew…

Vanity Fair Profile Epstein: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/…

NY Mag profile: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/…

Guardian article re Mark Epstein & girls running businesses from property: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2…

Spacey Palace Prince Andrew: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4894752…

Robert Maxwell was ‘an associate’ of Epstein: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/new…

VOX Profile Epstein: https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/1811635…

Larouche EIR report “Mega Group” https://larouchepub.com/other/2001/28…

DA recommends Leniency: https://nypost.com/2019/04/11/da-knew…

JS against Gardner Dunnan, Headmaster of Dalton: https://nycrime.com/2019/04/alleged-s…

Young women in and out of Epstein’s house, 2016: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…

Epstein’s Only Client, Les Wexner: https://gawker.com/5021581/teen-lovin…

Harvard Crimson, Chris Tucker, Kevin Spacey: LaRouche Pub Swiss Banking & Tome: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/19…

LaRouche EIR All The Queen’s men: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/19…

SEC Guiseppe Tome, St Joe Minerals: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/17/bu…

UPI Two key legislators US Canada competitiveness: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/05/…

Dalton, Gardner Dunnan sex abuse: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/…

Dalton School 1997 article: https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/…

Trump Quote NY Magazine 2002: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/…

Wexner Analysis: http://wilsonweb.physics.harvard.edu/…

July 10, 2019 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

A Secret Meeting to Plot War?

Who is representing the American people in this secret conclave with pro-Israel groups?

By Philip Giraldi | American Free Press | July 6, 2019

On June 5, 16 heads of Jewish organizations joined 25 Democratic senators in a private meeting, which, according to the Times of Israel, is an annual event. All of the Jewish organizations but one were openly declared advocates for Israel and are supportive of its policies. Key groups present included the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A number of the groups have lobbied Congress and the White House in support of the use of force against Iran, a position that is basically identical to the demands being made by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The senatorial delegation was headed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), currently Senate minority leader who has described himself as the “shomer” or guardian of Israel in the Senate. The 25 senators in attendance constitute one-quarter of the entire deliberative body and more than half of all Democrats serving in it. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has emphatically linked her campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 to Jewish and Israeli interests, chaired the gathering.

After the meeting, Jewish Insider provided a complete list of the participants and also a diagram of how they were positioned in the Capitol Hill conference room. The senators were placed on one side of a rectangle with the Jewish leaders in front of them filling the seats on the other three sides. Who exactly provided the agenda that Klobuchar was presumably following is not known, but one suspects that it may have been a joint effort by Schumer and several of the more prominent Jewish organization participants.

The meeting was by design not a public event, and, to a certain extent, it was a secret. Its time, place, and participants were not announced, and it was only reported at all in the Israeli and Jewish media. According to after-the-fact coverage of the event by Alison Weir of the “If Americans Knew” website, even staffers in the congressional offices were not aware that the meeting was taking place. No statement was issued afterwards, but it is believed that the principal topic under discussion was how to contain and reverse pro- Palestinian sentiment among progressive Democratic voters, who, to the horror of the participants, actually have been embracing the possibility that Palestinians are human beings with plausibly the same rights as Israelis. A particular focus would have been the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become a growing force on college campuses and in progressive circles.

Other issues raised were mentioned in passing afterwards on the email service “The Tell” by Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) news service. They included supporting Israel and also more federal-level legislation to combat “anti-Semitism.” And, of course, there was the issue of money. Several groups want funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increased to pay for more security at Jewish facilities. Current legislation is considering allocating $70 million per year and there were demands that it be increased to $90 million. A 2014 article in the Jewish Forward reported that Jewish institutions received 94% of DHS discretionary funding.

One might reasonably argue that the private meeting with the Democratic senators reflects a singular urgency in that the party base is becoming notably less pro-Israel, suggesting that something had to be done to stop the rot. That may be true enough, but the reality is that the federal government’s pandering to Israel is both bi-partisan and global in its reach. The United States uniquely has a special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, and his writ extends to proposing sanctions against countries that are critics of Israel.

And even as the Democrats were meeting with Jewish leaders, the Republicans were doing much the same thing. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with probably some of those very same leaders as the Democrats and expressed concern about the possibility that British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn might become prime minister. Corbyn has been targeted by British Jews because he is the first UK senior politician to speak sympathetically about the plight of the Palestinians.

Pompeo was asked, if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take action if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK?” He replied: “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

So American Jews want to join with their British counterparts to either bring down or contain a top-level elected politician just because he recognizes the suffering of the Palestinians. The American secretary of state meets with those same activists and agrees with them that something must be done, to include quite possibly taking steps to ensure that he does not become prime minister in the first place. Recall for the moment that Britain is America’s closest ally and is what passes for a democracy these days. Jews obviously occupy a rather special space, politically speaking, in the United States. One might reasonably ask, where are the private meetings with representatives of Italian, German, Irish, or Polish organizations, each of which represents a far greater portion of America’s ethnic mix than do Jews? The obvious answer is that those groups do not operate in a cohesive, tribal fashion and they do not possess the financial resources that the 600 or so Jewish groups that advocate for Israel have. In America, unfortunately, money buys access to power and, if there is enough money on the table, it can also buy politicians.

Nor are America’s other white ethnic groups as grievance-driven.

And there is one other significant difference: While other ethnic groups in the United States are protective of their respective cultures and languages, there is no sense that any of them actually seek to advocate policies damaging to the United States to benefit the foreign nations that they identify with. The Jewish advocacy for Israel is something quite different, costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars every year and involving Washington in a sequence of wars of choice driven by Israel itself aided by its powerful domestic lobby.

Israel also comes with a price tag in terms of the constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans. Before too long, legislation currently working its way through Congress will criminalize any criticism of Israel. No other national or ethnic group in the United States seeks to dismantle the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in quite that fashion.

Israel is no friend and never has been. Recent media reports detail how Jewish-American oligarch Paul Singer has been working with the Israeli government to transfer thousands of high-paying American IT jobs to Israel. Is he guilty of dual loyalty? No, he is only really loyal to Israel, as are many of the Jewish leaders who met with Pompeo and the senators. It is a disgrace.

And it is also a disgrace that Pompeo and 25 Democratic Party senators should be meeting privately with Jewish organizations to do things for Israel and the Jewish community that do not serve the interests of all Americans, up to and including meddling in the politics of a genuine close ally to respond to the paranoia of British Jews.

Yes, there is a Jewish international conspiracy in place directed by some Jews like those who met with the senators and Pompeo, and it has no off switch. Never before in history has a great power been so dominated by a puny client state and its domestic fifth column, and it is time that the private meetings whereby a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” panders to one group alone should end forever.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the Interest.

July 9, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sugar is the New Tobacco

By John Gaunt | Sputnik | July 5, 2019

Sugar is the new tobacco and is killing millions of people worldwide.

Cancer Research UK is bang on the money to launch shock tactic posters to tell people that obesity is a major cause of cancer, and overweight people who are saying it is fat shaming need to shut their lardy cake holes.

And I say this as someone who was morbidly obese and on the fast road to an early grave and someone who is still overweight. But I have and am doing something about my situation and actually exercising more than just my jaw.

I heard one fat woman on a national radio show saying, “obesity is nothing like smoking as we can choose to smoke but we have to eat.” She is half right, we do need to eat but we can choose what we put in our mouths surely? There has to be an element of personal responsibility.

I have cut all sugar from my diet and I eat a Low Carbohydrate High Fat (LCHF) way and the weight has dropped off me and I have never felt better. In fact, this style of eating combined with gentle walking has also reversed my Type 2 diabetes, cured my gout, lifted my mood and even cured my erectile dysfunction. Now I have got your attention haven’t I lads?

But being serious, this style of eating has completely changed my life and I am now off all meds. And it is not just me, millions of people around the globe are now eating this way and, in a sense, curing themselves.

The results speak for themselves and in my case it led me to set up a website to help other people who, just like me, were essentially sugar addicts waiting to die.

It has been the most rewarding thing I have ever done in my life and it is a disgrace that Low Carb High Fat diets have not been utilised in the treatment of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

I educated myself about nutrition via the internet; and instead of debates on TV about whether sugar taxes are sin taxes or phone ins about whether these posters are an example of fat shaming, what we actually need is for governments to start educating people in nutrition and stop being in the pay of Big Food and big sugar in particular. Governments need to be ‘fat shamed’ more than individual fatties.

But don’t hold your breath because it isn’t just Boris who has made a complete hash of this subject. His rival to be our next PM, Jeremy Hunt, when he was the Health Secretary in 2017 stood on stage at the Tory conference in Manchester and declared that childhood obesity was a “national emergency”. However, the stinking hypocrite had his conference lanyard around his neck which had the conference’s sponsors name on, which was Tate and Lyle! No wonder some journalists and broadcasters get his surname wrong!

This is the heart of the problem, the sugar lobby is too powerful not only here in the UK but around the globe. One of the main contributors to the worldwide diabesity epidemic was the invention of corn syrup in 1957 as a cheaper replacement for cane sugar.

His syrup, which is in all fizzy drinks, is almost pure glucose and is actually sweeter than sugar and it is this that fuelled the soda revolution and the large cups and free refills that helped create not only childhood obesity but the obesity epidemic we are now experiencing. This is now being added to most of the ultra-processed food that is on sale in our supermarkets and when combined with the tsunami of junk food outlets that planners have allowed to open it is no wonder we as an island are almost sinking under our own collective weight. The corn lobby is massively influential and it is said that no US President would ever take them on. Again, I ask, who should be ‘Fat shamed’?

Big Food aided and abetted by ‘corrupt’ or over ‘lobbied’ Western Governments have pushed the myth that sugary drinks, crisps and junk food, eaten as part of a well-balanced diet combined with exercise, are not really a problem.

They have sold the lie that it is all about calories in verses calories out and that exercise is the answer.

But the simple plain facts are, as Professor Tim Noakes says, “You cannot out run a bad diet” In fact, in simple terms, you would have to run 35 miles to lose a pound of body fat and that is undeniable.

This myth or pure propaganda helps support the idea that those people who are obese or Type 2 diabetic are gluttons and have brought these terrible diseases purely upon themselves.

That is why Coca Cola is allowed to sponsor the English Premier League and MacDonald’s sponsor the Olympics and the English football teams.

Do you think they sponsor out of the goodness of their hearts or do they do it to gain market share and get us hooked on their sugary, addictive products?!

They should not be allowed to get away with it any longer. If sugar really is the new tobacco these companies should not be allowed to sponsor sports, just as tobacco was removed from Formula 1 and cricket years ago.

Both sports, which despite the apocalyptic bleating of their fans and governing bodies, did not disappear as a result of this sponsorship being removed.

However, the great irony of course, is that Red Bull and Monster drinks still sponsor the Red Bull racing team and our own world champion Lewis Hamilton.

These drinks are like a sugar ‘poison’ and contain at least 21 teaspoons of sugar in a single can.

The recommended daily intake for an adult is only 7 teaspoons of sugar in a whole day!

Lewis Hamilton should hang his head in shame, does he really need the cash? And Red Bull should be banned from having a Formula one team just as Coke and Macdonald’s should be banned from sponsoring any sport. Gary Lineker is another who seems unable to survive on his £1.7 MILLION pounds off the BBC and is little better than a drugs pusher when he promotes crisps.

These are the organisations and the individuals who should be ‘Fat shamed’ as they are the ‘pushers’ who are really causing the obesity and Type 2 diabetes epidemic that is not only engulfing the UK but the whole globe.

But it also governments who should hang their heads in shame and be fat shamed too.

Why do they allow food manufacturers to put this excessive amount of sugar in their products?

If the Government is telling us, the individual, to cut sugar and recommends no more than 7 teaspoons a day why are Coca Cola and other sugary drinks manufacturers allowed to exceed that in a single can?

Now that we have evidence that excessive sugar is linked not only to Type 2 diabetes but cancers, heart diseases, strokes, high blood pressure and even dementia according to the Alzheimer’s society, why are these products still being manufactured?

Please don’t give me that ‘personal choice BS’ either because for many there is no choice. Sugar is an addictive substance and governments and manufacturers know it is and they want us hooked.

Some scientists even believe that sugar is as addictive as class A drugs like cocaine and even heroin.

A study, published in 2017, in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, stated, “Consuming sugar produces effects similar to that of cocaine, altering mood, possibly through its ability to induce reward and pleasure, leading to the seeking out of sugar.”

Don’t believe me? Well think again, as you head to the biscuit tin at eleven after having a breakfast based on sugary cereals and sugar laden fruit juice.

That is your blood sugar spiking and crashing and you having to feed your “habit”.

As Gary Taubes says in his brilliant book, The Case against Sugar, “Sugar does induce the same responses in the region of the brain known as the “reward centre” as do nicotine, cocaine, heroin, and alcohol addiction.”

The British nutritionist, John Yudkin warned us in the sixties that sugar was killing us and he was ridiculed and ostracized by the medical establishment. He also believed in eating a Low Carbohydrate diet and that sugar was a contributor to obesity, diabetes and heart attacks.

Sugar has no nutritional value at all but according to Gary Taubes, “We now eat in two weeks the amount of sugar our ancestors of 200 years ago ate in a whole year.”

So, when politicians and columnists talk about people needing to move more or kids need to get out more and away from their computers of Play Stations it makes me want to scream. We live in an ocean of sugar.

You think I am being over the top? Well let’s look at the facts. There are 4.5 Million Type 2 diabetics and more than 6 in 10 of us Brits are obese or overweight.

In the USA the figures are that over 120 million people are either Type 2 diabetics or pre-diabetic.

This is genocide.

Governments were too slow to act on tobacco but the sugar scandal will be even bigger because this is product directly aimed at kids.

This is why Governmental intervention is essential and why shock tactics like these posters are necessary but we also need to ‘fat shame’ manufacturers, celebrity sugar pushers and indeed Governments too.

July 9, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Seizure of Syria-bound tanker is all about Jeremy Hunter’s bid to become PM — Former UK Ambassador to Syria

By Peter Ford – July 5, 2019

Technically the measure will find UK Foreign Office lawyers to defend it, but other lawyers will deem the action illegal. While sending oil to Syria may be illegal under US law it is not illegal under EU law. The far-fetched justification seems to be that the Banyas oil refinery in Syria provides financial benefit to the Syrian government, is therefore subject to EU sanctions, and thus any contact with it whatever is sanctionable. An Iranian lawyer would point out that if the EU had intended its restrictions to prevent oil shipments to Syria it could easily have adopted a relevant regulation. It didn’t.

For five years until now since Banyas was sanctioned tankers have been making their way past Gibraltar heading for Banyas and the UK has not seen fit to intervene. Why now?

This is obviously Hunt trying to look macho; the UK currying favour with Trump to get a better trade deal.

This will increase tension with Iran, of course, at precisely the wrong moment, when even the US by its own admission is looking for a ‘workaround’ for Iranian oil shipments to China. How do we think Iran is more likely to react – by meekly kowtowing, or doubling down in some way ?

Ordinary Syrians are suffering greatly because of the impact of US oil sanctions. Hospitals don’t have fuel to power their generators. Car drivers have to queue for up to 12 hours to get petrol. We should be proud of ourselves…..Hunt on the Today BBC radio programme this morning refused to say if he considered fox hunting cruel. Bravo, macho man! Putting the boot into a prostrate Syria as well.

Spain may not be best pleased at this reminder of UK colonial arrogance. A spanner Macho Man has thrown into the Brexit works?

July 5, 2019 Posted by | Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Leave a comment

Iran must seize UK oil vessel if tanker not released: Official

Press TV – July 5, 2019

A senior Iranian official has called for the seizure of a British oil tanker in case London refuses to release the Iranian vessel it has illegally detained in Gibraltar.

“If Britain does not release the Iranian oil tanker, it is the authorities’ duty to make a reciprocal move and seize a British oil tanker,” said Major General Mohsen Rezaei, a top IRGC general and the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council.

He said the Islamic Republic has never been the initiator of tension in its 40-year history, but it also will never hesitate to respond to bullies.

Iranian supertanker Grace 1 was boarded and impounded by Gibraltar police and customs agencies, aided by a detachment of British Royal Marines, on Thursday at the US request in the Strait of Gibraltar.

Later in the day, Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned Britain’s ambassador to the country to express its strong protest at the move.

At the Foreign Ministry, Rob Macaire was told that the British Royal Marines’ move was tantamount to “maritime piracy”, and that the UK must immediately release the oil tanker.

It was also emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran will employ all its political and legal capacities to secure the release of the vessel and uphold its rights.

Spain, which challenges the British ownership of Gibraltar, said the action was prompted by a US request to Britain and appeared to have taken place in Spanish waters.

Experts believe the measure taken by the British government in seizing the Iranian tanker is illegal and can have serious consequences for the government in London.

The US has pledged to reduce Iran’s oil exports to “zero” as part of the sanctions that it reinstated after leaving a multilateral nuclear deal with Iran last year. Both Washington’s withdrawal from the deal and its reintroduction of the sanctions came while the accord has been ratified in the form of the United Nations Security Resolution 2231.

July 5, 2019 Posted by | Wars for Israel | | Leave a comment

UK seizes ‘Syria-bound oil tanker’ in Gibraltar on suspicion of violating EU bans

Press TV – July 4, 2019

The British overseas territory Gibraltar says it has seized a supertanker on suspicion of carrying crude oil to Syria in violation of European Union (EU) sanctions against the Arab country.

In a statement released on Thursday, Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said the territory’s police and customs agencies, aided by a detachment of British Royal Marines, had seized the Grace 1 vessel.

Gibraltar, he added, had reasonable grounds to believe that the tanker was carrying its crude oil shipment to the Banyas refinery in Syria.

“That refinery is the property of an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions against Syria,” Picardo said. “With my consent, our port and law enforcement agencies sought the assistance of the Royal Marines in carrying out this operation.”

A British Foreign Office spokesman welcomed what he called a “firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities, acting to enforce the EU Syria Sanctions regime,” which has been in place against the Arab country since 2011.

UK media claimed Refinitiv Eikon mapping indicates the ship had loaded “Iranian oil” on April 17 and sailed a longer route around the southern tip of Africa instead of via Egypt’s Suez Canal.

Syrian and Iranian officials have not yet commented on the report.

Spain: Tanker detained by on U.S. request to Britain

Later in the day, acting Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said Gibraltar detained the supertanker Grace 1 after a request by the United States to Britain.

Borrell was quoted by Reuters as saying that Spain was looking into the seizure of the ship and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty as it appears to have happened in Spanish waters.

Spain does not recognize the waters around Gibraltar as British.

Britain’s Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.

July 4, 2019 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Internet users beware, GCHQ is trolling you

Press TV – July 3, 2019

Britain’s primary signals intelligence organization, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), is actively recruiting for what it calls “Covert Online Operators”.

GCHQ recruiters are vague about the role, describing potential applicants as people who are “passionate” about the online world and are dedicated to using it to achieve “real world” results.

The successful applicant is expected to confront what is billed as Britain’s “adversaries” in an online setting with a view to delivering “end-to-end” results. The job description mentions “scoping” as well as working with “behavioural scientists” to achieve “operational objectives”.

Despite going to great lengths to present the job as high-end and sophisticated, nonetheless there are give-aways which reveal the real nature of the work.

Foremost, successful applicants only require A-levels or a university degree in any subject and then only at 2:2 level. The relatively low-level entry threshold is in stark contrast to the stringent entry requirements for mainstream national security-related jobs which typically require high level academic achievements.

The job description has led British political analysts to speculate on whether GCHQ is looking to employ trolls or social media disruptors whose job it is to identify and harass critics and opponents of British government policy online.

One such analyst is former British diplomat and ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan turned whistleblower, Craig Murray, who has long complained of online harassment at the hands of alleged British government trolls.

According to Murray the British government employs “a very large number” of people to shape the online political narrative in a manner consistent with British government positions and interests.

GCHQ’s large-scale recruitment of online trolls runs the risk of undermining the UK’s position in three important respects. Foremost, it undermines the myth of GCHQ as a cutting edge signals intelligence and cyber warfare organisation. By recruiting trolls, GCHQ is effectively admitting to online harassment and other low-level activities.

By implicitly admitting to deploying an army of trolls, the British government undermines its claims of strong commitment to media freedom and integrity on the world stage.

As critics of the British government have pointed out, if the establishment uses industrial-level trolling to silence dissidents and critics at home, it leaves little to the imagination as what it is capable of doing overseas to shape the debate in favour of Britain’s ruling elites.

To reinforce the message of cyber victimization, the British government set up the National Cyber Security Centre in 2016 ostensibly to combat cyber-based threats.

Despite the fact the UK likes to paint itself as a victim of cyber aggression, by most credible accounts Britain is more engaged in cyber offence than defence. Back in September it was reported that the Ministry of Defence and GCHQ are setting up a £250 million joint cyber warfare centre to take the fight to Britain’s adversaries.

Britain employs thousands of skilled personnel in cyber offensive roles and the government readily admits to a £1.9 billion national cyber security strategy.

July 3, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Campaigner Scores Major Victory, Forcing BBC Admit to Factual Inaccuracy

By Kit Klarenberg | Sputnik | July 2, 2019

Simon Maginn is many things – author, activist, piano teacher, and also one of the BBC’s most determined agitators. He submits complaints to the state broadcaster on a borderline daily basis, lodging grievances about what he feels are fundamental misrepresentations of opinions and facts by the corporation’s journalists and interviewees.

Often, Simon files complaints related to the alleged “anti-Semitism crisis” in the Labour party, which he believes to be a mythical smear perpetuated by the party’s detractors for political reasons.

“They’re usually near the top of my phone’s most recent calls list. I don’t always go the written route – it’s wearying, and by design. They deliberately try to grind you down with a maddeningly slow bureaucratic process, and most people get put off quite quickly, but I’m a bit bloody-minded. They don’t stop, it’s been unrelenting for three years or more. I’m dug in, it’s trench war – I’ll never accept the BBC is entitled to serve as a propaganda platform, both as a license fee-payer and a citizen. It’s not what we pay them to do, and it needs to end,” Simon says.

By this point, he knows well complainants “never get anywhere” if they submit objections to the BBC about ‘bias’ – such protests typically elicit a “stock response” that the state broadcaster takes “very seriously” its Charter obligations to “ensure controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality”.

Issues of clear and demonstrable factual accuracy are a different matter though – and on 26th February Nick Robinson, the BBC’s former political editor and currently presenter of BBC Radio 4’s flagship ‘Today Programme’, committed a significant breach of his obligations in this regard.

‘Insufficiently Accurate’

In a public Twitter post directed at Chris Williamson, MP for Derby North and currently suspended from Labour due to flagrantly bogus allegations of anti-Semitism, Robinson sneeringly asked why the parliamentarian claimed to have “never seen” anti-Semitism in the party, given he himself had “agreed to screen a film in Parliament by a woman suspended from Labour for saying the Jews controlled the slave trade”.

Robinson was referring to Jackie Walker, a veteran Labour member and former vice chair of Momentum’s steering committee expelled from the party for “prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour” on 27th March this year.

Her ejection resulted from a manufactured controversy, in which comments she made in a private Facebook conversation with a friend in 2016 were publicised and taken out of context by the Israel Advocacy Movement, which aims to “counter British hostility to Israel”.

When Walker’s friend raised the question of “the debt” owed to Jews as a result of the Holocaust, Walker said she hoped they “feel the same towards the African holocaust”.

“My ancestors were involved in both – on all sides as I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews…Many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice. And having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator,” she explained.

Simon felt the BBC “had nowhere to hide”, and indeed believed he’d a better than average chance of his umbrage being taken seriously, so wrote to the corporation outlining his concerns.

“Robinson said an arrogant, stupid thing I – and indeed anyone who’d spent more than five minutes looking into the matter – knew to be completely untrue. Walker – herself Jewish – had merely stated the historical record in a nuanced and thoughtful way – Jews, Christians, Muslims, all sorts of people financed the slave trade, that’s not in dispute. However, her comments were then compacted, filleted and distorted in order to present them as suggesting Jews alone created and controlled the slave trade. Robinson evidently hadn’t done even basic fact-checking – but then again it’s the BBC, so that’s pretty standard,” he says.

The BBC’s initial response was merely that Robinson “might’ve phrased it differently”, effectively admitting his statement was in no way accurate but dismissing the seriousness of the faux pas. Refusing to accept their equivocating excuse, Simon continued to pursue the issue – four months later, the Beeb has finally confirmed Robinson gave “an insufficiently accurate impression of her actual words”, and upheld his complaint. The reason for the significant delay is anyone’s guess – people have suggested to Simon the BBC may have sought legal advice, given Robinson’s comments were clearly libelous and a blatant Charter breach.

​Quite what will come of the finding also isn’t clear, although Simon believes it should have significant implications not merely for Robinson but several other BBC personalities who’ve framed Walker, her comments and those who’ve supported her as anti-Semitic – for instance, Radio 5 Live presenter Emma Barnett has likewise levelled a number of “damaging” allegations against Williamson, all of which relate to his defence of Walker.

Censorship and Sensibility

While happy to have finally gotten the BBC bang to rights, Simon isn’t optimistic the concession will produce actual change, believing the broadcaster will continue to use its “uniquely privileged place” in the information sphere to “pump out absolute garbage every day” – after all, he notes that for as difficult as it is to nail the BBC for factual inaccuracy, political smears inserted into ‘non-factual’ entertainment are effectively protected by broadcast rules.

For example, in May 2018 David Baddiel appeared on Frankie Boyle’s popular ‘New World Order’ show, and commented among other things on a survey of Labour voters that found 28 percent agreed with the notion there was a “secretive elite” controlling the world. As Simon notes, respondents were referring to things such as “Integrity Initiative, HSBC and the like, proven conspiracies against the left, and truth” – Baddiel conversely suggested the secret conspiracy they spoke of was “the Jews”. Baddiel subsequently made clear the ‘gag’ was in fact an accurate reflection of his views on the subject, attacking those who took issue with his damaging mischaracterisation – although the BBC didn’t take the comment quite so seriously.

“I complained, but was told as it was a comedy show and not a news program standards of accuracy didn’t matter, just ‘due accuracy’. So Baddiel can just get away with totally misrepresenting a survey and in the process smearing hundreds of thousands of British left-wingers in an extremely damaging way on a prime-time show potentially watched by millions as long as he gets a big laugh apparently,” he despairs.

​The BBC also frequently lies by omission Simon feels, not reporting, misreporting or actively suppressing significant stories. In May this year for instance, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) submitted over 20 pages of evidence to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the wake of the government’s refusal to adopt a proposed definition on Islamophobia, and called for an investigation into Islamophobia in the Conservative party – it went entirely unmentioned by the state broadcaster.

“I asked the BBC why they’d been completely silent on the MCB’s public demand, and they justified their failure on the basis the story ‘hadn’t been picked up by the media in the way the anti-Semitism issue has’. They also said they hadn’t received a press release from the MCB – I’m not a global news-gathering brand, and yet I heard about the story and they didn’t?! While the temptation is to respond with a curt ‘f*** off’, I refuse to be put off by their insultingly childish excuses,” Simon rages.

“The BBC is sick to its core and in dire need of reform – we can’t go into another General Election with the broadcaster in this mode. It’s terribly dangerous, many people take all their news from the corporation and no other sources. I supported the Beeb all my life, grew up with it, my generation has a massive cultural affiliation… it’s been terribly disturbing for me to realise since Corbyn’s election it’s actually a ruthless purveyor of propaganda that will do anything to stop a left-wing government getting into power. The broadcaster is supposed to be all kinds of things, which it isn’t. This is very serious – we need a full and thorough investigation into what’s gone wrong, and how to put it right.”<

July 2, 2019 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Activists scale Israel arms manufacturer building, demand end to UK complicity in rights violations

MEMO | July 1, 2019

Activists from the Manchester Palestine Action network have scaled the roof of the Israeli owned Elbit/Ferranti arms manufacturer in Oldham in protest of UK complicity in Israel’s human rights violations.

To commemorate the five-year anniversary of “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014, which killed over 2,000 Palestinians, activists draped large banners in front of the building which read “UK Stop Arming Israel”.

The group say that over the last five years the UK has raised their arms sales to Israel and are calling for an arms embargo and the closure of all Elbit factories in the UK.

A group of activists also entered the new, hi-tech, Discovery Industrial Park in Kent and headed towards Elbit’s, purpose-built Instro Precision factory. They blockaded both of the gates to the factory and scaled a shipping container forcing the factory to close.

In 2017 the Campaign Against Arms Trade reported that the UK issued £221 million worth of arms licenses to defence companies exporting to Israel which makes Israel the eighth largest UK arms market.

In the past half-decade Israel has brought over £350 million worth of UK military hardware.

During the Great March of Return Israeli snipers have killed over 180 Palestinian protesters including 57 children, yet the UK has approved some £14 million worth of arms sales during this period, according to the group.

Adie from Manchester Palestine Action said: “We think that arms companies like Elbit Ferranti should stop operating when it is clear their weapons are being developed through the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza and the rest of Palestine. The crimes must stop and so must UK-based companies that are profiting from them.”

July 1, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Himalayan Glaciers–The Story The BBC Refuse To Tell You

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 30, 2019

image

Images from Cold War spy satellites have revealed the dramatic extent of ice loss in the Himalayan glaciers.

Scientists compared photographs taken by a US reconnaissance programme with recent spacecraft observations and found that melting in the region has doubled over the last 40 years.

The study shows that since 2000, glaciers heights have been shrinking by an average of 0.5m per year.

The researchers say that climate change is the main cause.

“From this study, we really see the clearest picture yet of how Himalayan glaciers have changed,” Joshua Maurer, from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, told BBC News.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48696023

 

As usual the BBC fail to explain the wider picture.

Glaciers worldwide have been retreating since the mid 19thC, which marked the ending of the Little Ice Age. The Himalayas are no exception.

This is what the first IPCC Report had to say in 1990:

image_thumb91

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/

Note the comment about the period 1920 to 1960.

They add this chart:

image_thumb92

And comment:

 

image_thumb93

 

And:

 

image_thumb94

 

In other words, glacier melt may in large part be due to natural phenomenon, rather than man-made.

The rate of recession since the 19thC has not always been constant, as the IPCC noted:

Wood (1988) found that from 1960 to 1980 the number of retreating glaciers decreased. This may be related to the relatively cool period in the Northern Hemisphere over much of this time (Figure 7 10)

In other words, the fact that the rate of retreat seems to have speeded up in the Himalayas in recent years is of little significance, at least for such a short period of time.

Moreover recent studies have found that many glaciers in the Himalayas have actually started growing again in recent years:

 

image

Contrary to the UN’s report that the Hima­layan glaciers would melt within a quarter of a centu­ry, a new study by research­ers at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found out that the Himala­yan glaciers are advancing rather than retreating.

Researchers studied 286 glaciers in six areas between the Hindu Kush on the Af­ghan-Pakistan border till Bhutan.

The report published in the journal Nature Geosci­ence found that the key fac­tor affecting the advance or retreat of the Himalayan glaciers is the amount of debris— rocks and mud— strewn on their surface and not the general nature of cli­mate change.

The report states that glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting.

Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalayas, but they are almost absent in sub­dued landscapes on the Ti­betan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher.

In contrast, more than 50 percent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram range spanning the borders be­tween Pakistan, India and China region in the north-western Himalayas are ad­vancing or stable, states the report.

“Our study shows that there is no uniform re­sponse of Himalayan gla­ciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for under­standing glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level,” the authors wrote in the journal.

Contrary to popular be­lief, researchers have also discovered that half of the ice flows in the Himalayas are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

The new study has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range in the north-western Hima­layas are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110207213137/http://www.bhutanobserver.bt/himalayan-glaciers-not-retreating-says-new-report/

 

The real picture is much more complex than the BBC misleadingly portray.

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Britain and global deaths in conflict – an estimate

By Mark Curtis | December 13, 2018

Table – Britain and global deaths in conflicts

The following table is taken from Mark Curtis’ book, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, published in 2004. It gives figures on the estimated number of deaths for which Britain bears ‘significant responsibility’. There are four categories of British responsibility:

  • ‘Direct responsibility’ is where British military and/or covert forces have played a direct role.
  • ‘Indirect responsibility’ is where Britain has provided strong support (through trade, arms exports, aid and/or diplomatic support) for allies engaged in aggression or killing.
  • ‘Active inaction’ is where Britain has specifically helped to block international action to halt killings (Note that this and the second category are different than merely ‘turning a blind eye’, which would include many other cases).
  • The ‘others’ category contains a solitary case, that of the Idi Amin regime’s state terror, a description of which is provided below.

Estimates on the number of deaths in any conflict always vary, often very widely. Where there is no footnote below, I have used the most commonly cited estimate. For others I have generally sourced the varying estimates. The overall figure is between 8.6 million and 13.5 million – or ‘around 10 million’. Of these, Britain bears ‘direct responsibility’ for between 4 million to nearly 6 million deaths.

Note that this figure is if anything likely to be an underestimate. For one thing, not all British interventions have been included, such as those in Oman in 1957-9 and in 1964-74 owing to lack of available on the scale of deaths. In the category of ‘indirect responsibility’, I have excluded many repressive regimes that Britain has backed throughout the postwar period; I have tended to include those cases on which I have focused in this and previous books. I have also not included US backing of the Guatemala regime from the 1960s to the 1980s, responsible for around 200,000 deaths. The reason is that while Britain strongly backed US policy in Central America, there is not as much direct and specific support for US policy in Guatemala as there was in the case of El Salvador and Nicaragua, explained in the third column.

The figures generally refer to the number of ‘enemy’ deaths rather than total deaths, where it has been possible to disaggregate the estimates.

Finally, I do not pretend this is a fully scientific analysis – the exclusion of certain episodes, the extent of British responsibility and the estimates on numbers of deaths are of course all open to interpretation, as in any table of this kind. Nevertheless, it gives a reasonably accurate reflection of British responsibility for a very large number of deaths in the postwar world.

Conflict Estimated number of deaths Britain’s role
     
Direct responsibility
2003 – invasion of Iraq 10,000-55,000[1] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations
2001 – bombing of Afghanistan 15,000 – 25,000[2] Ditto
1999 – bombing of Yugoslavia 1,000[3] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations as part of wider NATO campaign
1998 – bombing of Iraq 600 – 1,600[4] British forces played secondary role to US in military operations
1991 – Gulf war against Iraq over 100,000[5] Ditto
1982 – Falklands war 655 British military fought Argentina
1961-73 – war against Southeast Asia 2 – 3 million[6] Britain privately backed US strongly, regularly supported it publicly but also played several direct roles: providing military and ‘counter-insurgency’ advice to South Vietnam; British covert forces took part in the war; intelligence was passed to US military. The British role was therefore more ‘direct’ than ‘indirect’ (see Unpeople, chapter 12)
1962-70 – war in Yemen 100,000 – 200,000 British secret operation involving covert action and arms supplies (see Unpeople, chapter 16)
1964-7 – British suppression of Aden revolt 300 – 900 British ‘colonial’ government forces responsible
1965/6 – Indonesian army slaughters 500,000 – 1 million[7] Britain provided Indonesian generals with variety of direct, covert support, including ‘information’ operations[8]
1952-60 – war in Kenya up to 150,000[9] British colonial war and ‘resettlement’ operations[10]
1948-60 – war in Malaya 10,000 – 13,000 Ditto[11]
1957/8 – rebellion against Indonesian central government thousands[12] Covert operation with US to support the rebellion, including arms supplies (see Unpeople, chapter 11)
1956 – British invasion of Egypt 1,600 – 3,000[13] Military intervention with France and Israel
1948-55 – Uprising in Baltic states of the USSR 75,000[14] British covert operation to fund and support uprisings[15]
1953 – coup in Iran 300 Covert operation with CIA[16]
1950-3 – Korean war at least 1 million[17] Military played key role technically as part of UN force, in reality led by US
1944-9 – Greek civil war 65,000 – 80,000[18] Military/covert operations to support Greek government
1945-9 – war for Indonesian independence 5,000 – 80,000[19] Military involvement to suppress independence movement
SUB-TOTAL 4.03m – 5.71m
 Indirect responsibility
2000-present – Israeli killings in occupied territories 2,723[20] Blair government is strong supporter of Israeli policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1999-present – killings in Nigeria up to 10,000[21] Blair government is strong supporter of Nigerian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 10)
1999-present – Second Russian invasion of Chechnya 15,000 – 25,000[22] Blair government is strong supporter of Russian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1996-present – Nepal civil war 3,300[23] Blair government provides military/diplomatic support to Nepal government (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1990- present – Colombia state killings 20,000 – 40,000[24] Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Colombian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 9)
1976-present – Indonesian attacks in Aceh province 15,000 Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Indonesian policies, in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 11)
1969-present – Indonesian attacks in West Papua province 100,000 ditto
1991-2003 – Sanctions against Iraq 500,000 – 1 million[25] Technically maintained by the UN; in reality supported virtually solely by Britain and US
1999 – Indonesian attacks in East Timor around 5,000 Blair government continued to support, and arm, Indonesia, throughout violence[26]
1984-1999 – Turkey’s campaign against Kurds around 30,000[27] Blair and previous governments are strong supporters of Turkish policies, in various ways[28]
1998 – US bombing of Sudan perhaps tens of thousands[29] Britain strongly supported US attack that destroyed  pharmaceutical factor producing most of Sudan’s life-saving drugs
1994-6 – Russian invasion of Chechnya 60,000 – 100,000 Major government provided strong support to Russia, in various ways
1948-94 – Apartheid South Africa state killings 10,000 – 20,000 British governments consistently backed South African regimes, in various ways[30]
1989 – US invasion of Panama 350 – 3,000[31] Britain provided strong diplomatic support
1980-88 – Iran/Iraq war 1 million Thatcher government effectively supported Iraq’s attack on Iran, supplying it with military equipment and financial aid
1987-8 – Iraq’s campaign against Kurds 100,000 Ditto[32]
1984/5 – Ugandan civil war 100,000 – 300,000 Britain provided strong support to Ugandan government and maintained military training programme
1984/5 – Indonesian state killings 5,000 Thatcher government was strong supporter of Indonesia, in various ways
Early 1980s – El Salvador civil war 75,000-80,000 Thatcher government provided strong diplomatic backing to US strategy supporting Salvadoran regime
1980s – US aggression against Nicaragua 30,000 Thatcher government provided strong diplomatic and other backing, including covert support, to US strategy[33]
1953-79 – Shah’s regime in Iran 10,000 British governments provided strong support to Shah’s regime, in various ways[34]
1975 – Indonesian invasion of East Timor 200,000 Wilson/Callaghan governments provided strong backing to Indonesia in various ways[35]
1973 – coup in Chile at least 3,000 Heath government welcomed coup and backed Pinochet regime, as did subsequent British governments (see Unpeople, chapter 14)
1967-70 – Nigeria/Biafra civil war 1 – 3 million Wilson government gave strong backing to Nigeria in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 10)
1963 – Iraq killings 5,000 Macmillan government in effect supported massacres and welcomed new military government (see Unpeople, chapter 5)
1960s – Iraq campaigns against Kurds 12,000 – 100,000[36] British governments gave strong backing to Iraq in various ways (see Unpeople, chapter 5)
SUB-TOTAL 3.32m – 6.20m
Active inaction
1990s – Yugoslav civil wars 200,000 – 250,000 Major government played key role to prevent international action against Milosevic regime[37]
1994 – Rwanda genocide 800,000 – 1 million Major government played key role at the UN to prevent international action to prevent or stop genocide[38]
SUB-TOTAL 1m – 1.25m
Others
1971-9 – Ugandan state terror (Idi Amin era) 300,000 Heath government welcomed and supported Amin’s rule in its first year. Most atrocities were committed after this period but Britain bears significant responsibility in enabling Amin regime to consolidate its rule.
SUB-TOTAL 300,000
TOTAL 8.65m – 13.47m

REFERENCES (See Unpeople book for full references)

[1] See chapter 1

[2] Figures vary widely. The Guardian estimated 10,000-20,000 civilian deaths as an indirect result of the bombing. Estimates of the military deaths are usually in the 3,000-6,000 range. Web of Deceit, p.49

[3] Human Rights Watch estimates 500 civilian deaths (‘Civilian deaths in the NATO air campaign’, February 2000, www.hrw.org). Some estimates, which include military deaths, are often over 1,000. 20th Century Atlas: Alphabetical list of war, massacre, tyranny and genocide, www.users.erols.com

[4] 20th Century Atlas

[5] Figures vary very widely; see 20th Century Atlas.  Immediately after the war the US government estimated 100,000 deaths. Other independent estimates are much lower, others much higher.

[6] Figures vary very widely, from hundreds of thousands to 4 million. Most deaths were those of Vietnamese, with figures usually ranging from 1 – 3 million. Hundreds of thousands were also killed in Cambodia and Laos.

[7] Some estimates are as low as 300,000 but most credible figures are much higher and some estimate over a million.

[8] See Web of Deceit, chapter 20

[9] estimated number of deaths due principally to the brutal ‘resettlement’ operations. Estimates of number of Mau Mau killed in actual fighting vary from 10,000-13,000.

[10] See Web of Deceit, chapter 15

[11]  See Web of Deceit, chapter 16

[12] Figures unknown

[13] 20th Century Atlas

[14] Prados, p.43

[15] See Dorril, chapter  16

[16] See Web of Deceit, chapter 14

[17] Figures vary very widely. This is approximate figure for North Korean and Chinese deaths

[18] This is approximate figure for deaths on the rebels (ie, EAM/ELAS) side.

[19] Figures vary extremely widely. See 20th Century Atlas

[20] Figure from September 2000 (beginning of second intifada) to March 2004; Palestinian Red Crescent Society, http://www.palestinercs.org

[21] Nigerian police and army are complicit in many of these killings; See chapter 10

[22] Russia provided an official number of 15,000 Chechen deaths by August 2003 (AFP, ‘Russia underplays Chechnya deaths’, 8 August 2003). This is likely to be a severe underestimate, especially in light of the ferocious attack on Grozny in 1999/2000.

[23] Number of deaths by government forces from 1996-2002; Web of Deceit, p.81

[24] Figures vary. 35,000 – 40,000 is a commonly cited figure since 1990; some current estimates, however, state 15,000 in the past 10 years.

[25] The UN estimated half a million deaths of children under five as a result of the 1991 war and sanctions. Former UN Coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, has given a figure, including adults, of over a million. Web of Deceit, p.29

[26] See Web of Deceit, chapter 21

[27] The Turkish government in 2001 gave a figure of 23,000 Kurds killed; www.harpers.org/warcrime.html; Independent estimates are usually higher.

[28] See Web of Deceit, chapter 1

[29] see Web of Deceit, p.111; Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p,206

[30] See Ambiguities of Power, pp.119-29

[31] The Central American Human Rights Commission estimates 2,000-3,000; Physicians for Human Rights estimates 300 civilian deaths and 50 military deaths (‘Panama: Operation Just Cause’, December 1990)

[32] See Web of Deceit, chapter 1

[33] See Web of Deceit, chapter 4

[34] See Web of Deceit, chapter 14

[35] See Web of Deceit, chapter 21

[36] Figures vary widely; 20th Century Atlas

[37] See especially Brendan Simms, Unfinest hour: Britain and the destruction of Bosnia, Allen Lane, London, 2001

[38] See Web of Deceit, chapter 18

June 30, 2019 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

The Special Rules- Why Aren’t They A Form of Discrimination?

By Eve Mykytyn | June 29, 2019

Any Labour Party member bold or stupid enough to make or be associated with negative statements about Israel, the Zionist politics that support Israel or who questions any piece of the present Holocaust narrative has been disciplined by the Party. Ex, See or See.

England has Jewish citizens and Israel is a British ally, these two facts somehow get conflated. Israel is a separate sovereign state, has been so for seventy years, and is likely to remain a country, and a rich and powerful one at that, for the foreseeable future. Britain’s Jewish citizens, like all Brits, have rights to protection from discrimination, hate speech and the like that derive from their British citizenship and are wholly unrelated to Israel.

England and the US are also allies. When President Trump visited England he was met by huge protests and  signs calling Trump a racist, a warmonger (in that I see little difference between Trump and other recent US presidents) dangerous and unAmerican and by large balloons portraying Trump on a toilet, in a diaper and as a penis. I’m an American, not a fan of Trump’s and it is fine with me if the British choose to protest his presence, although as far as I can tell such protests have no effect. Trump blithely misinterpreted the demonstrations as crowds greeting him, brilliantly diverting the media into a discussion about how that was not so.

Now imagine if the British held up similar signs insulting Netanyahu or Israel. Could they call Netanyahu a racist or ‘unIsraeli?’ Would anyone dare hold blimps of Netanyahu as a penis? Who would be kicked out of the Labour Party? Who would be prosecuted for hate speech or defamation? And what would this have to do with Britain’s Jewish citizens?

Why does Britain insist that there are certain ‘rules’ for criticizing Israel, as contained in the international holocaust definition of anti Semitism (the only racism that has its own special set of rules, apparently Blacks can go it on their own)  but not for critics of Americans? Sadly, the US is close on England’s heels in implementing similar free speech penalties. Is there to be one rule for Jews and another rule for the rest of humanity?

June 29, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment