ADL reports are fraudulent.
Most media take reports from The Anti-Defamation League seriously, and the group’s claims that white nationalist terror is on the rise get major coverage.
“The far-right was responsible for the majority of America’s extremist killings in 2017,” Quartz , January 18, 2018
In fact, these reports are so deceptive it is hard to believe they are not deliberately written to deceive. They make no distinction between what they call “terrorism” and what appear to be “hate crimes.” Far worse, they include any killing by anyone the ADL can plausibly call a “white supremacist” or “right winger” whatever the motive. This means that a Kluxer who kills his wife is a “right-wing terrorist.” Likewise, a number of “right-wing” killers have been black.
The ADL’s reports for the last three years are worthless.
Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and national director. (Credit Image: © Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Wire)
Another “extremist” whom even the ADL did not call a “white nationalist” was Erick David Shute, a “sovereign citizen” who killed three men. Mr. Shute said he didn’t understand what was happening in court and claimed he was in contact with the “entire celestial spiritual realm.”
So what about the seven people supposedly killed by “white supremacists”? Brent Luyster, who killed three people, can be credibly called a supremacist. He had SS lightning bolts tattooed above his right ear, and he shaved his head during jury deliberations to make sure jurors saw it. However, he killed friends and associates because of personal disputes, and even the ADL admitted that the “murder[s] may not have been ideological in nature.”
That leaves four killings. Members of the violent gang Aryan Circle killed a fellow gang member. The ADL concedes that “white supremacists” are likely to “engage in a large amount of gang-related and traditional criminal activity.” That was the case here.
That leaves three.
Russell Courtier, a man with a violent history who joined the European Kindred gang in prison, was convicted of the hit-and-run murder of black teenager Larnell Bruce Jr. The defense claimed the men were in a fight before Mr. Carter ran down the black, and that the fight was not about politics. The motive therefore may not have been racial. Still, in a split decision, the jury convicted Mr. Carter of a hate crime, so this can justifiably be called a “white supremacist murder” for 2016.
There are two more murders the ADL credits to “white supremacists,” but it doesn’t even describe the crimes or the perpetrators. Given its tendentious classification of the other crimes, there is no reason to think these were race-based “hate crimes” or “terrorism” either. That means, of the 69 “extremist” killings the ADL reported for 2016, only one can legitimately be attributed to racial motives.
The 2017 report has a complete list of 34 extremist murders, and the ADL blames “white supremacists” for 18 deaths and the “Alt Lite” for one more. Only one is clearly authentic, and one more is plausible, as follows:
March 30, 2017 — James Harris Jackson murdered a black man to discourage interracial relationships. This was undoubtedly racial terrorism.
May 26, 2017 — Jeremy Christian is on trial for killing two men who allegedly interrupted his rant against a Muslim woman. The ADL said most of Mr. Christian’s influences “seem to have been right-wing in nature.” However, it also admits he was a Bernie Sanders supporter and said he is hard to characterize. In court, Mr. Christian trumpeted his support for Bernie Sanders, said he didn’t vote for Donald Trump, and denied being a white supremacist.
December 22, 2017 – A teenager in Reston, Virginia, with supposedly far-right beliefs killed his ex-girlfriend’s parents, who had supposedly forced her to break up with him. The ADL called these murders “non-ideological.”
The 2018 report is just as bad. It warns of the dire “white supremacist” threat and claims that of the 50 people killed by domestic extremists, 49 killings were “right wing.” The single exception was Corey Johnson, who allegedly murdered someone at a sleepover after becoming obsessed with violent jihadist videos and converting to Islam. Still, the ADL says that before his conversion, Mr. Johnson had a “right-wing” affiliation, which encourages readers to think he, too, was another crazy white racist.
Of the 49 “right-wing” deaths, the ADL blames 39 on “white supremacists.” However, only three cases appear to be clearly motivated by race or “hate:”
October 27, 2018 — Robert Bowers killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. He said he wanted to kill Jews, whom he blamed for non-white immigration.
July 6, 2018 — Ronald Lee Kidwell killed MeShon Cooper, a black woman. Mr. Kidwell is reportedly a white supremacist with a criminal record. However, Mr. Kidwell claimed the victim attacked him and was going to tell everyone he had HIV.
September 19, 2018 — Jeremy Shaw and his wife Lorena, who owned several “white supremacist-themed items” and had a business called “Aryan enterprises,” killed Steven Morphis. The murder was part of a plot to steal his home.
What of the 10 remaining killings the ADL blames on the “right wing”? Two were by an “incel,” three were killed by black “Moorish Sovereign Citizens,” and five were random murders by unbalanced white people.
November 2, 2018 — Scott Paul Beierle of Florida killed himself after murdering two women at a yoga studio. Victims Maura Binkley and Dr. Nancy Van Vessem were both white. Beierle was a misfit who had no success with women and has been called an “incel” or involuntary celibate. The ADL calls “incels” part of the right-wing, and because Beierle allegedly had made “racist” remarks, the ADL called the killings “far right extremism.”
February 19, 2018 — Tierre Guthrie killed a police officer before dying at the scene. Newspapers called him “sympathetic to the Black Nationalist movement.”
April 22, 2018 — Travis Reinking killed four people—all black or Hispanic—at a Waffle House. He reportedly had schizophrenia and thought he was being persecuted by his own family. Even the ADL admits the killing was “non-ideological,” that the killer had a “serious history of mental illness” and that he was reportedly “ruled incompetent to stand trial.” Still, it calls him a “sovereign citizen.”
Of course, when the media wrote about the 2018 report, they didn’t distinguish between “right-wing” and “white supremacist,” implying that every killing was similar to the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue: a planned, racially or politically motivated killing by a venomous white man.
Typically enough, NJToday.net reported that “Right-wing terrorists killed 50 people in 2018,” adding that “right wing extremism is on the rise, in part fueled by President Donald Trump.” Business Insider said that “all of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report.” Haaretz’s headline: “Right-wing Extremists Murdered 50 Americans in 2018, Report Finds — and One-third of Them Were Jews.”
That was no doubt the impression the ADL wanted to give. People who read these article would surely be astonished to learn that among the 50 victims were white women, family members, and the 17 people killed at Marjorie Stoneman High School. They would be equally astonished to learn that three of these “right-wing” killers were black.
The ADL’s methods are absurd. It might as well have reported every killing by every black or Hispanic gang member who ever said anything insulting on social media about white people.
The reports are fraudulent. The 2016 version does not even describe all the murders it claims were “right wing”; we are supposed to take their word for it. For 2017 and 2018, however, the ADL at least listed every killing. A cursory reading is all it takes to see that the reports are bunk, but the ADL probably knew it could count on friendly media to help perpetuate the fraud. This is nothing more than collusion for the purpose of justifying even more censorship of racial dissidents.
Gregory Hood [Email him] is a staff writer for American Renaissance. Jared Taylor [Email him] is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow’s review, click here.)
Given the historical moment, we’ll begin with our demands pertaining to the Justice System.
LifeSiteNews/ ... Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Antonia Tully, SPUC Director of Campaigns, said: “We are looking at a national tragedy here. This appalling figure shows us that abortion is becoming more and more normalised. Propaganda telling women that abortion is ‘simple and safe’ coupled with easier access to abortion pills is driving up abortion numbers.
“But behind the figures are real women who have taken an irreversible step and who are likely to be suffering physically or emotionally.
“The lockdown measure to allow DIY home abortions is compounding the myth that abortion is a normal and easy thing to do. It isn’t.
“Women deserve the truth about the harm that abortion can do to them. Agencies such as ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) can help heal the wounds of abortion in both women and men. Nothing can bring back a dead baby.”
Behind each statistic is a dead baby
73% of abortions were medically induced.
98% of unborn children were killed under Ground C, “That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman”. 99.9% of these were reported as being performed because of an unspecified risk to the woman’s mental health.
According to the most recent census from England and Wales, the black community in Britain was reported as 3.4% of the population. Shockingly, the 2019 abortion statistics reveal how 8% of women presenting for abortions in England and Wales recorded their ethnicity as black.
If you, or anyone you know has been affected by abortion, please contact the Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline (ARCH) for free, non-judgemental, confidential support: 0345 603 8501 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Niger Innis, spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, has slammed the Black Lives Matter movement over what he sees as ‘hard truths’ about the group’s agenda.
“They take their instructions, their guidance from the Marxist playbook,” Innis told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham.
Biz Pac Review reports: Conservative activist Niger Innis warned Fox News host Laura Ingraham that the organization “would overthrow Western civilization,” reminding viewers in a fiery interview about the history and goals of the Black Lives Matter movement.
“They take their instructions, their guidance from the Marxist playbook. Look, I’m going to tell some hard truths that people aren’t going to want to hear” Innis began on “The Ingraham Angle” on Monday.
“And I want to separate the protesters out there that support BLM and some of the misguided athletes and celebrities that get off pushing the black lives matter narrative. Many of them are innocent. Misguided, but innocent,” the CORE national spokesman added.
“The BLM movement, Black Lives Matter movement was founded by Alicia Garza and a number of other co-founders that were promoting a hard Marxist and LGBT agenda,” Innis explained.
“Look, I don’t have a problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights. You have the right to organize, you have the right to protest, you have the right to come up with an agenda,” Innis continued, getting heated. “But I’ll be god-damned if you use the suffer[ing] and misery of black Americans and our legacy to the United States of America as your shield and use us as cannon fodder when your agenda really has not a damn thing to do with saving black lives.”
Innis argued that the group’s agenda, which now includes defunding police departments across the nation, will ultimately hurt the black community.
“If you look at their agenda, defunding the police, that would put black lives in danger,” he warned. “But it’s even more than that, Laura. They have as a part of their platform on their own website that we want to disrupt — disrupt! — the Western-prescribed nuclear family.”
“I have to say, I hadn’t been aware of the LGBTQ connection at all,” Ingraham interjected. “But I did know that it came out of the organizing against Wall Street movement. Before that, the Black Panther — there have been a number of movements, some loosely related.”
“Variation on a Marxist theme, that’s what the bottom line is,” Innis responded.
“They want to overthrow capitalism, they would overthrow Western civilization and they see America as the biggest clear and present danger to fulfilling that agenda and using black people to do it,” he added.
Ingraham noted her disgust with how the movement has exploited the suffering of the family of George Floyd, the unarmed black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck during an arrest.
“It’s just gross to take the suffering of a family at the hands of a murderous police officer and then extrapolate that on to the rest of America and have people spitting in the face of police officers because they’re so angry because they’ve been taught that this is what police officers think about them, and it’s so upsetting,” the Fox News host said.
Innis cited examples like that of 77-year-old David Dorn, a retired police captain in St. Louis, who was “murdered by savages committing acts of destruction.”
Two looters arrested in connection to brutal and senseless killing of beloved retired Police...
“The irony is that it’s the illusion of black supremacy and the reality of a Marxist agenda that will bury all of us,” he concluded.
The organization was initially part of the Soviet Union’s front operations to bring about communist dictatorship in Germany, and it worked to label all rival parties as “fascist.”
The organization can be traced to the “united front” of the Soviet Union’s Communist International (Comintern) during the Third World Congress in Moscow in June and July 1921, according to the German booklet “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” by Bernd Langer, published by the Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Culture. Langer is a former member of the Autonome Antifa, formerly one of Germany’s largest Antifa organizations, which disbanded in 2004.
The Soviet Union was among the world’s most violent dictatorships, killing an estimated 20 million people, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” published by Harvard University Press. The Soviet regime is second only to the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, which killed an estimated 65 million people.
Anti-fascism is a strategy rather than an ideology.
It was at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922 that the plan took shape. Moscow formed the slogan “To the Masses” for its united front strategy and sought to join together the various communist and workers’ parties of Germany under a single ideological banner that it controlled.
“The ‘unified front’ thus did not mean an equal cooperation between different organizations, but the dominance of the workers’ movement by the communists,” Langer writes.
Benito Mussolini, a Marxist and socialist who had been expelled from Italy’s Socialist Party in 1914 for his support for World War I, later founded the fascist movement as his own political party. He took power through his “March on Rome” in October 1922.
In Germany, Adolf Hitler became head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) in 1921 and mounted a coup attempt in 1923.
The KPD decided to use the banner of anti-fascism to form a movement. Langer notes, though, that to the KPD, the ideas of “fascism” and “anti-fascism” were “undifferentiated,” and the term “fascism” served merely as rhetoric meant to support their aggressive opposition.
Both the communist and fascist systems were based in collectivism and state-planned economies. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and genocide.
The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “capitalism.”
While leftist extremists claim to be fighting “fascism” while launching their attacks on other groups, the report states the term “fascism” has a double meaning under the extreme-left ideology, indicating the “fight against the capitalist system.”
This held true from the beginning, according to Langer. For the communists in Germany, “anti-fascism” merely meant “anti-capitalism.” He notes the labels merely served as “battle concepts” under a “political vocabulary.”
A member of the Antifa extremist group vandalizes a storefront in Nantes, France, on Feb. 14, 2014. (FRANK PERRY/AFP/Getty Images)
“They argue that the capitalist state produces fascism, or at least tolerates it. Therefore, anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists, but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities,” it states.
Langer notes that historically, by labeling the anti-capitalist interests of the communist movement as “anti-fascism,” the KPD was able to use this rhetoric to label all other political parties as fascist. Langer states, “According to this, the other parties opposed to the KPD were fascist, especially the SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany].”
Thus, in what would today be considered ironic, the group that the communist “anti-fascists” most heavily targeted under their new label of “fascism” was the social democrats.
On Aug. 23, 1923, the Politburo of the Communist Party of Russia held a secret meeting, and according to Langer, “all the important officials spoke out for an armed insurrection in Germany.”
The KPD was at the front of this call, launching a movement under the banner of United Front Action and branding its armed “anti-fascist” wing under the name Antifaschistische Aktion (“Antifascist Action”), which Antifa still carries in Germany, and from which the Antifa organizations in other countries are rooted.
The Unity Congress of Antifa, held at the Philharmonic Opera House in Berlin, on July 10, 1932. The congress was organized by the Communist Party of Germany as a rallying point to defeat the Social Democratic Party and the Nazi Party. Antifa labeled both parties as "fascist," which was a political label they used for all rival parties. (Public Domain)
Antifaschistische Aktion, meanwhile, began to attract some members who opposed the arrival of actual fascism in Germany and who did not subscribe to—or were potentially unaware of—the organization’s ties to the Soviet Union.
However, the violence instigated by Antifaschistische Aktion largely had an opposite effect. The ongoing tactics of violence and intimidation of all rival systems under the Antifa movement, along with its violent ideology, drove many people toward fascism.
“The Communists’ violent revolutionary rhetoric, promising the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a Soviet Germany, terrified the country’s middle class, who knew only too well what had happened to their counterparts in Russia after 1918,” writes Richard J. Evans in “The Third Reich in Power.”
Anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists, but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities.
Langer notes that from the beginning, the KPD was a member of the Comintern, and “within a few years, it became a Stalinist party,” both ideologically and logistically. He states that it even became “financially dependent on the Moscow headquarters.”
Leaders of the KPD, with Antifa as their on-the-ground movement for violence and intimidation of rival political parties, fell under the command of the Soviet apparatus. Many KPD leaders would later become leaders in the communist German Democratic Republic, including of its infamous Ministry for State Security, the Stasi.
As Langer states, “anti-fascism is a strategy rather than an ideology.”
“It was brought into play in Germany in the 1920s by the KPD”, not as a legitimate movement against the fascism that would later arise in Germany, but instead “as an anti-capitalist concept of struggle,” he writes.
Christian Watjen contributed to this report.
Communism is estimated to have killed at least 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been fully compiled and its ideology still persists. The Epoch Times seeks to expose the history and beliefs of this movement, which has been a source of tyranny and destruction since it emerged. Read the whole series at ept.ms/TheDeadEndCom
Jew, Socialist, lesbian, and current visiting college lecturer
In October 1969, Whitehorn, who has described herself as a “revolutionary anti-imperialist,” took part in the infamous “Days of Rage” riots in Chicago, where the demonstrators’ explicit objective was to “Bring the [Vietnam] War Home” by causing chaos in the streets — smashing store windows, vandalizing cars, and attacking police officers — and to thereby promote anti-war sentiment among the American public. Arrested for her participation in the riots, Whitehorn was later tried and convicted on charges of mob action and aggravated assault.
In the late 1960s as well, Whitehorn joined the Students for a Democratic Society‘s Weatherman faction, which subsequently evolved into the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a revolutionary terrorist group that advocated the violent overthrow of the American government.
In 1971 Whitehorn organized 400 women to protest the Vietnam War by occupying Harvard University’s administration buildings. Also in the ’70s, she joined the WUO; was affiliated with the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, WUO’s publishing arm; and helped found the Madame Binh Graphics Collective, a radical art group.
After the WUO’s disintegration in the late 1970s, Whitehorn joined yet another domestic terror outfit — the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO), which served as a support group for the Black Liberation Army, an ultra-violent splinter faction of the Black Panther Party. M19CO also worked in conjunction with the Puerto Rican Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), a Marxist terror group responsible for approximately 120 bombings in Chicago, Washington, and the New York City area. M19CO also went by such names as the Revolutionary Fighting Group, the Armed Resistance Unit, and the Red Guerrilla Resistance.
In 1985 Whitehorn and several fellow revolutionaries — including Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg — were arrested for having conspired to detonate explosives inside a number of government buildings between 1982-85. Most notable was their November 7, 1983 bombing of the U.S. Capitol, which was carried out as an act of protest against the Reagan administration’s recent invasion of Grenada. They also had bombed three additional sites in Washington: the National War College at Fort. McNair, the Computer Center at the Washington Navy Yard, and the Navy Yard’s Officer’s Club. Additionally, Whitehorn and her accomplices had bombed four sites in New York City: the Staten Island Federal Building, the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building, the South African consulate, and the offices of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. In May 1988, Whitehorn, who had been incarcerated ever since her arrest, was formally indicted for her participation in the aforementioned bombings. She subsequently pled guilty in a September 1990 federal trial and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. On August 6, 1999, Whitehorn was released on parole.
Upon regaining her freedom, Whitehorn, casting herself as a former “political prisoner,” became popular as a guest lecturer on college campuses across the United States. Regarding her complicity in the 1980s bombings, she said, “I’m unrepentant. I’m proud of my motives.” “I don’t really even care that much whether people think I’m a terrorist or not,” added Whitehorn. “These labels have everything to do with your own politics and not much with what the people do.” By contrast, Whitehorn characterized America’s historical involvement in foreign wars as blatant acts of “terrorism.”
When former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers came under substantial media scrutiny in 2008 because of his longstanding ties to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Whitehorn was one of many college professors, students, and academic staffers who signed a statement condemning “the demonization” of Ayers.
Whitehorn wrote the introduction for a 2010 book about the black radical Safiya Bukhari, titled The War Before: The True Life Story of Becoming a Black Panther. Therein, Whitehorn praised the Panthers for having given “hope” to many “oppressed peoples”; for having tried to “make a revolution” aimed at “bringing down the empire”; and for having been “the catalyst of liberation, not only for Black people but for all progressive activists.”
Whitehorn, by her own telling, “loved” the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement that came to prominence in 2011, describing it as “a wonderful thing.”
A harsh critic of Israeli policies, Whitehorn has been a vocal supporter of Palestinians whom Israeli authorities have incarcerated for terrorist activities. By Whitehorn’s telling, such inmates are “political prisoners.” When she was invited in 2014 to speak at an event hosted by the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, Whitehorn said, “I would like to change the name to ‘Open Condemnation of Zionism’.”
Whitehorn is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state. In 2016 she was part of a delegation that traveled to the Palestinian territories “to pressure the United States to stop funding Israeli crimes against humanity,” and to draw attention to “the struggle for a free Palestine as a central struggle in the worldwide movement against U.S. imperialism.”
Whitehorn maintains that under the American criminal-justice system, many people are “just locked up because they’re black or because they were poor and they got involved in low-level crimes.” “Rather than slaughtering Black people outright,” she said in 2016, “the prison system carries out genocide through political repression.” Building upon this theme in 2017, Whitehorn stated: “I think of the ways in which the prison system as a tool of repression for the capitalist system enables capitalism and imperialism to continue by preventing resistance, not only now of the black population but also of other resistant populations, especially Latinos, Native Americans, and radicals.”
Whitehorn has described the United States as a “most violent country” whose “armed forces and … technological forces kill millions of people all the time and create havoc in societies around the world.” In light of those very large American transgressions, Whitehorn deems it absurd to brand someone as “a violent terrorist” simply for “throw[ing] a little Molotov cocktail through the window of a bank [that] doesn’t hurt a fly.” Because of the nuances inherent in “this whole question of who gets to decide what violence is legitimate,” Whitehorn has exhorted her ideological comrades to vigorously “defend our [political] prisoners.”
When Congress in 2018 passed legislation that increased the legal penalty for anyone targeting law-enforcement officers with violence, Whitehorn mocked the bill as nothing more than “another police attack on black lives.”
Whitehorn today is affiliated with the organization Release Aging People in Prison, which aims to “promote racial justice by getting elderly and infirm people out of prison.”
How an Israeli Spy-Linked Tech Firm Gained Access to the US Gov’t’s Most Classified Networks
Earlier this month, MintPress News reported on the simulations for the U.S. 2020 election organized by the company Cybereason, a firm led by former members of Israel’s military intelligence Unit 8200 and advised by former top and current officials in both Israeli military intelligence and the CIA. Those simulations, attended by federal officials from the FBI, DHS and the U.S. Secret Service, ended in disaster, with the elections ultimately canceled and martial law declared due to the chaos created by a group of hackers led by Cybereason employees.
The first installment of this three part series delved deeply into Cybereason’s ties to the intelligence community of Israel and also other agencies, including the CIA, as well as the fact that Cybereason stood to gain little financially from the simulations given that their software could not have prevented the attacks waged against the U.S.’ electoral infrastructure in the exercise.
Also noted was the fact that Cybereason software could be potentially used as a backdoor by unauthorized actors, a possibility strengthened by the fact that the company’s co-founders all previously worked for firms that have a history of placing backdoors into U.S. telecommunications and electronic infrastructure as well as aggressive espionage targeting U.S. federal agencies.
The latter issue is crucial in the context of this installment of this exclusive MintPress series, as Cybereason’s main investors turned partners have integrated Cybereason’s software into their product offerings. This means that the clients of these Cybereason partner companies, the U.S. intelligence community and military among them, are now part of Cybereason’s network of more than 6 million endpoints that this private company constantly monitors using a combination of staff comprised largely of former intelligence operatives and an AI algorithm first developed by Israeli military intelligence.
Cybereason, thus far, has disclosed the following groups as lead investors in the company: Charles River Ventures (CRV), Spark Capital, Lockheed Martin and SoftBank. Charles River Ventures (CRV) was among the first to invest in Cybereason and has been frequently investing in other Israeli tech start-upsthat were founded by former members of the elite Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200 over the last few years. Spark Capital, based in California, appears to have followed CRV’s interest in Cybereason since the venture capitalist who co-founded Spark and led its investment in Cybereason is a former CRV partnerwho still has close ties to the firm.
While CRV and Spark Capital seem like just the type of investors a company like Cybereason would attract given their clear interest in similar tech start-ups coming out of Israel’s cyber sector, Cybereason’s other lead investors — Lockheed Martin and SoftBank — deserve much more attention and scrutiny.
Cybereason widely used by US Government, thanks to Lockheed
Indeed, as Forbes noted at the time, not only did Lockheed invest in the company, it decided to integrate Cybereason’s software completely into its product portfolio, resulting in a “model of both using Cybereason internally, and selling it to both public and private customers.”
Cybereason CEO and former offensive hacker for Israeli military intelligence — Lior Div — said the following of the partnership:
Lockheed Martin invested in Cybereason’s protection system after they compared our solution against a dozen others from the top industry players. The US firm was so impressed with the results they got from Cybereason that they began offering it to their own customers – among them most of the top Fortune 100 companies, and the US federal government. Cybereason is now the security system recommended by LM to its customers for protection from a wide (sic) malware and hack attacks.”
Rich Mahler, then-director of Commercial Cyber Services at Lockheed Martin,told Defense Daily that the company’s decision to invest in Cybereason, internally use its software, and include the technology as part of Lockheed Martin’s cyber solutions portfolio were all “independent business decisions but were all coordinated and timed with the transaction.”
How independent each of those decisions actually was is unclear, especially given the timing of Lockheed Martin’s investment in Cybereason, whose close and troubling ties to Israeli intelligence as well as the CIA were noted in the previous installment of this investigative series. Indeed, about a year prior to their investment in the Israeli military intelligence-linked Cybereason, Lockheed Martin opened an office in Beersheba, Israel, where the IDF has its “cyberhub”. The office is focused not on the sales of armaments, but instead on technology.
Marilyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin’s CEO, said the following during her speechthat inaugurated the company’s Beersheba office:
The consolidation of IDF Technical Units to new bases in the Negev Desert region is an important transformation of Israel’s information technology capability…We understand the challenges of this move. Which is why we are investing in the facilities and people that will ensure we are prepared to support for these critical projects. By locating our new office in the capital of the Negev we are well positioned to work closely with our Israeli partners and stand ready to: accelerate project execution, reduce program risk and share our technical expertise by training and developing in-country talent.”
Beersheba not only houses the IDF’s technology campus, but also the Israel National Cyber Directorate, which reports directly to Israel’s Prime Minister, as well as a high-tech corporate park that mostly houses tech companies with ties to Israel’s military intelligence apparatus. The area has been cited in several media reports as a visible indicator of the public-private merger between Israeli technology companies, many of them started by Unit 8200 alumni, and the Israeli government and its intelligence services. Lockheed Martin quickly became a key fixture in the Beersheba-based cyberhub.
Not long before Lockheed began exploring the possibility of opening an office in Beersheba, the company was hacked by individuals who used tokens tied to the company, RSA Security, whose founders have ties to Israel’s defense establishment and which is now owned by Dell, a company also deeply tied to the Israeli government and tech sector. The hack, perpetrated by still unknown actors, may have sparked Lockheed’s subsequent interest in Israel’s cybersecurity sector.
Soon after opening its Beersheba office, Lockheed Martin created its Israel subsidiary, Lockheed Martin Israel. Unlike many of the company’s other subsidiaries, this one is focused exclusively on “cybersecurity, enterprise information technology, data centers, mobile, analytics and cloud” as opposed to the manufacture and design of armaments.
Haden Land, then-vice president of research and technology for Lockheed Martin, told the Wall Street Journal that the creation of the subsidiary was largely aimed at securing contracts with the IDF and that the company’s Israel subsidiary would soon be seeking partnership and investments in pursuit of that end. Land oversaw the local roll-out of the company’s Israel subsidiary while concurrently meeting with Israeli government officials. According to the Journal, Land “oversees all of Lockheed Martin’s information-systems businesses, including defense and civilian commercial units” for the United States and elsewhere.
Just a few months later, Lockheed Martin partnered and invested in Cybereason, suggesting that Lockheed’s decision to do so was aimed at securing closer ties with the IDF. This further suggests that Cybereason still maintains close ties to Israeli military intelligence, a point expounded upon in great detail in the previous installment of this series.
Thus, it appears that not only does Lockheed Martin use Cybereason’s software on its own devices and on those it manages for its private and public sector clients, but it also decided to use the company’s software in this way out of a desire to more closely collaborate with the Israeli military in matters related to technology and cybersecurity.
The cozy ties between Lockheed Martin, one of the U.S. government’s largest private contractors, and the IDF set off alarm bells, then and now, for those concerned with U.S. national security. Such concern makes it important to look at the extent of Cybereason’s use by federal and military agencies in the United States through their contracting of Lockheed Martin’s Information Technology (IT) division. This is especially important considering Israeli military intelligence’s history of using espionage, blackmail and private tech companies against the U.S. government, as detailed here.
While the exact number of U.S. federal and military agencies using Cybereason’s software is unknown, it is widespread, with Lockheed Martin’s IT division as the conduit. Indeed, Lockheed Martin was the number one IT solutions provider to the U.S. federal government up until its IT division was spun off and merged with Leidos Holdings. As a consequence, Leidos is now the largest IT provider to the U.S. government and is also directly partnered with Cybereason in the same way Lockheed Martin was. Even after its IT division was spun off, Lockheed Martin continues to use Cybereason’s software in its cybersecurity work for the Pentagon and still maintains a stake in the company.
The Leidos-Lockheed Martin IT hybrid provides a litany of services to the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence. As investigative journalist Tim Shorrock noted for The Nation, the company does “everything from analyzing signals for the NSA to tracking down suspected enemy fighters for US Special Forces in the Middle East and Africa” and, following its merger with Lockheed and consequential partnership with Cybereason, became “the largest of five corporations that together employ nearly 80 percent of the private-sector employees contracted to work for US spy and surveillance agencies.” Shorrock also notes that these private-sector contractors now dominate the mammoth U.S. surveillance apparatus, many of them working for Leidos and — by extension — using Cybereason’s software.
Leidos’ exclusive use of Cybereason software for cybersecurity is also relevant for the U.S. military since Leidos runs a number of sensitive systems for the Pentagon, including its recently inked contract to manage the entire military telecommunications infrastructure for Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). In addition to maintaining the military telecom network, Cybereason is also directly partnered with World Wide Technologies (WWT) as of this past October. WWT manages cybersecurity for the U.S. Army, maintains DISA’s firewalls and data storage as well as the U.S. Air Force’s biometric identification system. WWT also manages contracts for NASA, itself a frequent target of Israeli government espionage, and the U.S. Navy. WWT’s partnership is similar to the Lockheed/Leidos partnership in that Cybereason’s software is now completely integrated into its portfolio, giving the company full access to the devices on all of these highly classified networks.
Many of these new partnerships with Cybereason, including its partnership with WWT, followed claims made by members of Israel’s Unit 8200 in 2017 that the popular antivirus software of Kaspersky Labs contained a backdoor for Russian intelligence, thereby compromising U.S. systems. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the alleged backdoor but did not mention the involvement of Unit 8200 in identifying it, a fact revealed by the New York Times a week later.
Notably, none of the evidence Unit 8200 used to blame Kaspersky has been made public and Kaspersky noted that it was actually Israeli hackers that had been discovered planting backdoors into its platform prior to the accusation levied against Kaspersky by Unit 8200. As the New York Times noted:
Investigators later discovered that the Israeli hackers had implanted multiple back doors into Kaspersky’s systems, employing sophisticated tools to steal passwords, take screenshots, and vacuum up emails and documents.”
Unit 8200’s claims ultimately led the U.S. government to abandon Kaspersky’s products entirely in 2018, allowing companies like Cybereason (with its own close ties to Unit 8200) to fill the void. Indeed, the very agencies that banned Kaspersky now use cybersecurity software that employs Cybereason’s EDR system. No flags have been raised about Cybereason’s own collaboration with the very foreign intelligence service that first pointed the finger at Kaspersky and that previously sold software with backdoors to sensitive U.S. facilities.
SoftBank, Cybereason and the Vision Fund
SoftBank first invested in Cybereason in 2015, the same year Lockheed Martin initially invested and partnered with the firm. It was also the year that SoftBank announced its intention to invest in Israeli tech start-ups. SoftBank first injected $50 million into Cybereason, followed by an additional $100 million in 2017 and $200 million last August. SoftBank’s investments account for most of the moneyraised by the company since it was founded in 2012 ($350 million out of $400 million total).
Prior to investing, Softbank was a client of Cybereason, which Ken Miyauchi, president of SoftBank, noted when making the following statement after Softbank’s initial investment in Cybereason:
SoftBank works to obtain cutting edge technology and outstanding business models to lead the Information Revolution. Our deployment of the Cybereason platform internally gave us firsthand knowledge of the value it provides, and led to our decision to invest. I’m confident Cybereason and SoftBank’s new product offering will bring a new level of security to Japanese organizations.”
SoftBank — one of Japan’s largest telecommunications companies — not only began to deploy Cybereason internally but directly partnered with it after investing, much like Lockheed Martin had done around the same time. This partnership resulted in SoftBank and Cybereason creating a joint venture in Japan and Cybereason creating partnerships with other tech companies acquired by SoftBank, including the U.K.’s Arm, which specializes in making chips and management platforms for Internet of Things (IoT) devices.
SoftBank’s interest in Cybereason is significant, particularly in light of Cybereason’s interest in the 2020 U.S. election, given that SoftBank has significant ties to key allies of President Trump and even the president himself.
Indeed, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son was among the first wave of international business leaders who sought to woo then-president-elect Trump soon after the 2016 election. Son first visited Trump Tower in December 2016 and announced, with Trump by his side in the building’s lobby, that SoftBank would invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. Trump subsequently claimed on Twitter that Son had only decided to make this investment because Trump had won the election.
Son told reporters at the time that the investment would come from a $100 billion fund that would be created in partnership with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund as well as other investors. “I just came to celebrate his new job. I said, ‘This is great. The US will become great again,’” Son said, according to reports.
Then, in March of 2017, Son sent top SoftBank executives to meet with senior members of Trump’s economic team and, according to the New York Times, “the SoftBank executives said that because of a lack of advanced digital investments, the competitiveness of the United States economy was at risk. And the executives made the case, quite strongly, that Mr. Son was committed to playing a major role in addressing this issue through a spate of job-creating investments.” Many of SoftBank’s investments and acquisitions in the U.S. since then have focused mainly on artificial intelligence and technology with military applications, such as “killer robot” firm Boston Dynamics, suggesting Son’s interest lies more in dominating futuristic military-industrial technologies than creating jobs for the average American.
After their initial meeting, Trump and Son met again a year later in June 2018, with Trump stating that “His [Son’s] $50 billion turned out to be $72 billion so far, he’s not finished yet.” Several media reports have claimed that Son’s moves since Trump’s election have sought to “curry favor” with the President.
Through the creation of this fund alongside the Saudis, SoftBank has since become increasingly intertwined with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), a key ally of President Trump in the Middle East known for his authoritarian crackdowns on Saudi elites and dissidents alike. The ties between Saudi Arabia and SoftBank became ever tighter when MBS took the reins in the oil kingdom and after SoftBank announced the launch of the Vision Fund in 2016. SoftBank’s Vision Fund is a vehicle for investing in hi-tech companies and start-ups and its largest shareholder is the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. Notably, Son decided to launch the Vision Fund in Riyadh during President Trump’s first official visit to the Gulf Kingdom.
In addition, the Mubadala Investment Company, a government fund of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), gave $15 billion to the Vision Fund. UAE leadership also share close ties to the Trump administration and MBS in Saudi Arabia.
As a consequence, SoftBank’s Vision Fund is majority funded by two Middle Eastern authoritarian governments with close ties to the U.S. government, specifically the Trump administration. In addition, both countries have enjoyed the rapid growth and normalization of ties with the state of Israel in recent years, particularly following the rise of current Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and Jared Kushner’s rise to prominence in his father-in-law’s administration. Other investments in the Vision Fund have come from Apple, Qualcomm and Oracle’s Larry Ellison, all tech companies with strong ties to Israel’s government.
The Saudi and Emirati governments’ links to the Vision Fund are so obvious that even mainstream outlets like the New York Times have described them as a “front for Saudi Arabia and perhaps other countries in the Middle East.”
SoftBank also enjoys close ties to Jared Kushner, with Fortress Investment Group lending $57 million to Kushner Companies in October 2017 while it was under contract to be acquired by SoftBank. As Barron’s noted at the time:
When SoftBank Group bought Fortress Investment Group last year, the Japanese company was buying access to a corps of seasoned investors. What SoftBank also got is a financial tie to the family of President Donald Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.”
According to The Real Deal, Kushner Companies obtained the financing from Fortress only after its attempts to obtain funding through the EB-5 visa programfor a specific real estate venture were abandoned after the U.S. Attorney and the Securities and Exchange Commission began to investigate how Kushner Companies used the EB-5 investor visa program. A key factor in the opening of that investigation was Kushner Companies’ representatives touting Jared Kushner’s position at the White House when talking to prospective investors and lenders.
SoftBank also recently came to the aid of a friend of Jared Kushner, former CEO of WeWork Adam Neumann. Neumann made shocking claims about his ties to both Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s MBS, even asserting that he had worked with both in creating Kushner’s long-awaited and controversial Middle East “peace plan” and claimed that he, Kushner and MBS would together “save the world.” Neumann previously called Kushner his “mentor.” MBS has also discussed on several occasions his close ties with Kushner and U.S. media reports have noted the frequent correspondence between the two “princelings.”
Notably, SoftBank invested in Neumann’s WeWork using money from the Saudi-dominated Vision Fund and later went on to essentially bail the company out after its IPO collapse and Neumann was pushed out. SoftBank’s founder, Masayoshi Son, had an odd yet very close relationship with Neumann, perhaps explaining why Neumann was allowed to walk with $1.7 billion after bringing WeWork to the brink of collapse. Notably, nearly half of SoftBank’s approximately $47 billion investments in the U.S. economy since Trump’s election, went to acquiring and then bailing out WeWork. It is unlikely that such a disastrous investment resulted in the level of job creation that Son had promised Trump in 2016.
Given that it is Cybereason’s top investor and shareholder by a large margin, SoftBank’s ties to the Trump administration and key allies of that administration are significant in light of Cybereason’s odd interest in 2020 U.S. election scenarios that end with the cancellation of this year’s upcoming presidential election. It goes without saying that the cancellation of the election would mean a continuation of the Trump administration until new elections would take place.
Furthermore, with Cybereason’s close and enduring ties to Israeli military intelligence now well-documented, it is worth asking if Israeli military intelligence would consider intervening in 2020 if the still-to-be-decided Democratic contender was strongly opposed to Israeli government policy, particularly Israel’s military occupation of Palestine. This is especially worth considering given revelations that sexual blackmailer and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who targeted prominent U.S. politicians, mostly Democrats, was in the employ of Israeli military intelligence.
Notably, Cybereason’s doomsday election scenarios involved the weaponization of deep fakes, self-driving cars and the hacking Internet of Things devices, with all of those technologies being pioneered and perfected — not by Russia, China or Iran — but by companies directly tied to Israeli intelligence, much like Cybereason itself. These companies, their technology and Cybereason’s own work creating the narrative that U.S. rival states seek to undermine the U.S. election in this way, will all be discussed in the conclusion of MintPress’ series on Cybereason and its outsized interest in the U.S. democratic process.
RussiaInsider July 2020
This is history everyone should know, but especially every European, and every Christian. It has been largely covered up until recent years.
(History of the Orthodox People) Tue, Jul 21, 2020 | 12500 words 2,209 77
That these deception operations are little known or publicly debated is a mark of their success. Though covert operations often produce spectacular results, one of their essential qualities is that the origins of the events remain secret – that the historical credit or blame falls on the innocent, on people acting independently, or even better, on mere chance. The very fact that a covert operation is known to have been run by an intelligence agency marks it as a significant failure.
The West’s Long War against Serbia is a history of the grandest deception of World War Two and a vast international post war open conspiracy of Great Britain, the Vatican, United States, Germany, and the rest of the West to cover up the most savage genocide in modern history. A project so important that Winston Churchill initiated it and personally oversaw its operation.
Who control the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the pastGeorge Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984
The Serbian Orthodox flag
These casualty figures do not include more hundreds of thousands of Serbs killed in the British inspired civil war that served as their mechanism for covering up the Serbian Holocaust. The ultimate purposes of the false history was to save the Roman Catholic Church for the Cold War, a war the British were planning early on as the Second World War played out.
At the appointed hour, a bearlike, rumpled –looking man is a gray suit, whose unfamiliar face would have caused few people on earth to take a second glance, was ushered into the pope’s modest office in the Vatican. A fervent Catholic who attended mass almost every day, a man whose house was filled with statues of the Virgin Mary, a believer who would soon be engaged in prayerful contemplation with the pope himself, William Casey, the director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, had arrived on a distinctly earthy mission…
These two men, one hailed by millions as the prince of light, the other derided by many as the prince of darkness (including this author as William Casey, the fervent Catholic was the key American official in the Ratlines operation that saw the Vatican with British and American intelligence help smuggled tens of thousands of war criminals out of Europe after World War II) would meet perhaps a half dozen more times before communism would crumble first in the pope’s beloved Poland, then in Eastern Europe, and finally the Soviet Union itself…
Casey and his patron Ronald Reagan, had come to believe that there was a potential third superpower in the world – the twenty- square- block Vatican city state – and that its monarch, Pope John Paul II, had at his command a remarkable arsenal of unconventional weapons that might help tip the balance in the Cold War, especially with overt and covert help from the United States.
“How may divisions has the pope?” Stalin had asked contemptuously during World War II. To this question the answer would soon be given, one that would leave the Politburo of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deeply surprised and vexed. In Washington, Reagan and Casey had discussed the possibility of “breaking Poland out of the Soviet orbit”, with help from the Holy Father.
We all know now how the US/UK/Vatican alliance won the Cold War, but you can be assured that the British, having managed a world empire for centuries, were decades ahead of US strategic thinking, already aware in late 1941 that they had to save the Serbian blood stained Catholic Church for the coming Cold War.
This is the well spring for the West’s fearing, loathing, and hatred of Serbia and everything connected to Serbian ethnic identity – the Truth of the Serbian Holocaust. What have the Serbs done to deserve such treatment – assaults in every way imaginable – economic, political, propaganda, and military? The West did not treat the Germans as badly after World War II in which 50 million people died nor did the West treat the Soviets, the Arabs, or any other enemy as cruelly as they have the Serbs. And then consider that Serbia was the US and UK staunchest ally in both World Wars, such that the flag of Serbia flew over the US Capitol on June 28, 1918 in appreciation for the super human efforts and sacrifices Serbia made in the First World War. This is the answer to this seemingly paradox of Serbian history. Destroy Serbia, by destroying the World War II Serbian Orthodox resistance movement of Draza Mihailovic. This is precisely the mechanism the British used to save the Catholic Church.
The most important and traumatic event in Serbia’s modern history is one very few Serbs openly talk about and no one in the West wants to hear, and yet it is the root cause of all the troubles that have plagued the former Yugoslavia for the past 25 years. Psychiatrists often use a phrase, “the 800lb gorilla in the living room” to describe an abusive family relationship in which an alcoholic father terrorizes a family with violence and cruelty. However, the family, out of fear, misplaced shame, guilt, and exhaustion covers up the abuse so that everything appears somewhat normal to the outside world. The Serbs have had an “800lb gorilla” in their house for the last 70 years. An event so traumatic and important to Serbs that the effort of the abusers to make everything appear to be “normal” has been the inspiration for a 70 year long effort to destroy Serbian history, cultural, and their ethnic identity. The event that no one dare speak of, Serbia’s 800lb gorilla goes by many names – the Serbian Holocaust, the Vatican’s Holocaust, the Vatican’s Auschwitz, Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, and perhaps the most accurate name – the Unknown Holocaust.
The central question, to those who are willing to answer this great paradox (the most important event in modern Serb history and yet for all practical purposes Serbs do not speak of it to the outside world) is, “How is it that the Spanish Inquisition is still well know by the world’s general public even though it happened five hundred years ago and its death toll (100,000) was just a fraction of the Catholic Church inspired Serbian Holocaust (750,000 – 1,000,000) and yet the Serbian Holocaust, which happened in the age of mass communication and the living memory of millions of people, is virtually unknown outside of Serbia? The answer is easy and clear to anyone brave enough to say it. The British, the Americans, the Vatican, the rest of the West wanted it that way. Collectively they had the power to change regimes (Tito), the power to intimidate the survivors, the money to corrupt and buy silence, and a mass media that practiced self censorship.
The West’s 70 year long war against Serbia began as the winners and losers of World War II became obvious by late 1942 – early 1943, when the British realized that a Soviet victory was a certainty and that the post war political landscape of Europe would see the Red Army occupying much of Catholic Europe. Thus began the largest covert intelligence operation in WW II history – destroy an entire nation of innocent witnesses to history greatest crime. Because of the crime’s magnitude and the ultimate guilty party, the Roman Catholic Church, deception became the strategy for the cover up. Make the actually guilty (fanatic Catholics and Muslims) nameless, make the real victims (Orthodox Serbs) guilty.
“It is an irony of history that Tito should have been the creation of the capitalist democracies of Great Britain and the United States. His movement, even at its height, was a minority that had won itself the active hostility of the mass of Serbs, Croats, and Slovene peoples. By arming the movement, by providing it with the services of the BBC and American radio, by converting the democratic press into a propaganda agent for it, by sending Allied officers into Yugoslavia to be used as propaganda exhibits in its recruiting efforts, and finally cloaking it in their own enormous moral authority, Great Britain and the United States made themselves directly responsible for Tito’s rise to power.”From Web of Disinformation, Churchill’s Yugoslav Blunder, by David Martin.
Yes, the decisive role of the Great Britain and the United States in bringing Tito to power in Yugoslavia is universally acknowledged, but was British and American support for Tito a blunder or a mistake as David Martin and many Serbs believe or was it the oldest strategy of warfare – the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
“Military deception was as old as warfare itself, but it is doubtful whether any military command ever employed deception as a fundamental tool of strategic planning as completely and rigorously as the British did during World War II”. General Eisenhower aptly concluded, “they (the British) resorted to every type of subterfuge”.
It was Gen. Eisenhower who insisted that Draza Mihailovic receive America’s Legion of Merit, its highest foreign recipient military award.
In A Genius for Deception: How Cunning Helped the British Win Two World Wars, Nicholas Rankin offers a lively and comprehensive history of how Britain bluffed, tricked, and spied its way to victory in two world wars. As he shows, a coherent program of strategic deception emerged in World War I, resting on the pillars of camouflage, propaganda, secret intelligence, and Special Forces. All forms of deception found an avid sponsor in Winston Churchill, who carried his enthusiasm for deceiving the enemy into World War II.
[President] Roosevelt asked him [Yugoslav Ambassador to the US, Fotic] on December 20, 1941 “How, after such horrible crimes we could expect (the Serbs) to live in the same state with the Croats”. And on an earlier occasion he [Roosevelt] had said, “it would be for the Serbs to decide what sort of community they intended to retain with the Croats after the war”.
Hamilton Fish Armstrong told me [Ambassador Fotic], “We never understood his [Churchill] enthusiasm for Tito and his conviction that he could get Tito away from the Russians”.From Fall of Yugoslavia, by Ilija Jukic
As US Army Colonel Robert McDowell pointed out, Stalin tried several times from 1942 until early 1944 to have the British send a Soviet mission to Mihailovich and help prevent the war between Chetniks and Paritasns. Molotov told Eden (British Foreign Minister), in November 1943 at the end of the Tehran Conference “I would rather send our mission to Mihailovich than Tito to find out more information on events there”.
In January 1944 General Korneev who was sent as Chief of Soviet mission to Tito, asked Bill Deakin who was sent in May 1943 as the first British mission with Tito, why were the British helping Tito when the Soviets had no confidence in the military worth of the Partisans and consider Mihailovich resistance as the only group of some significance … at the time, Deakin said “I thought Korneev must have believed that we were helping Tito because of some secret political motive”.From a speech by Nikola R. Pasic May 15, 1993
“According to Edvard Kardelj, prime minister of Yugoslavia under Tito, Stalin exerted pressure on the Partisans “to reach an understanding with the Cetniks at all cost and set up a joint army under the command of Mihailovic”.
In mid 1942, however something strange happened to change Soviet policy towards Yugoslavia. In one way or another supercautious Stalin must have received intelligence that it has become safe to break with Mihailovic without endangering the relationship with Churchill. Indeed, the abrupt and dramatic manner in which the change occurred strongly suggest that the Soviet government must have possessed intelligence leading it to believe, even at that early date, that Churchill could be persuaded on his own to back Tito. Certainly Stalin was in no position and would be in no position before the Red Army entered in Yugoslavia, to assist Tito materially.
It can be taken for granted that one of the factors of Stalin’s decision was the almost irresistible prospect of bringing Soviet power to the shores of the Adriatic, thus achieving the age old Russian dream of access to warm water seas. One would have imagined that an old war horse like Winston Churchill, no admirer of Bolshevism and accustomed to think in strategic terms, would have understood the basic implication of this switch in Soviet policy. But he did not.
Poor David Martin and Stalin, they both took the British bait that Churchill supported Tito because his forces were killing more Germans. Stalin, unlike Churchill and Great Britain, who were safe behind the English Channel and the American fleet, really did care about who was killing Germans, as the Soviet Union was suffering devastating losses and enormous causalities in 1941-1942. And who was the source of the phony intelligence that changed Stalin’s mind from supporting Mihailovic to Tito, why none other than the British themselves. And Mr. Martin also wants us to believe that Churchill couldn’t see that he was handing Yugoslavia to the communists. David, that’s exactly what Churchill wanted to do with Yugoslavia – hand it to the communists.
Churchill said to MacLean, “Do you intend to live in Yugoslavia after the war? Maclean answered, “No”. Churchill replied, “ Neither do I, the less you and I worry about the form of Government they set up, the better.”From Eastern Approaches, by Fitzroy Maclean
It was a win – win for the British. If Tito did as the British expected and followed the pre war anti Serb policies of the Yugoslav Communist Party and let “Brotherhood and Unity” cover up the Serbian Holocaust, then that’s a win. On the other hand, if Tito acted as a true communist, then the British would propagandize that: “look, Tito is a communist attacking the Catholic Church, therefore it’s all just communist propaganda and not to be believed”, another win. However, given Serbia’s WWI contributions to the Allied victory and its WW II, March 27th revolution that stunned the world, and Mihailovic’s early war fame, their world wide acclaim and reservoir of good will would give any Serb charges against the Catholic Church enormous credibility. So, the British needed to prevent a Serbian Orthodox victory at any cost by destroying Mihailovic’s credibility. What really concerned the British as we will see was the world to come after the war. A Serbian pawn would be sacrificed to save the Roman Catholic Queen for the coming chess game of the Cold War.
The above introduction serves as ample illustrations that Yugoslav history in WWII is the most complex, contradictory and paradoxical in modern world history. Just consider the following:
Within WWII Yugoslavia, you find the most fanatic Nazi ally, Catholic Croatia and the most anti Nazi foe, Orthodox Serbia
President Roosevelt supports Draza Mihailovich and the Serbian Orthodox pro Western and democratic Serbian resistance movement while the British support the so called communist Tito.
Stalin supports the Serbian Orthodox Mihailovic until his mind is changed by British deception.
Mihailovich and the Serbian Orthodox resistance fight Nazi Germany when it is at the height of its power, but according to the British start collaborating with the Germans as soon as Germany’s defeat becomes inevitable.
Churchill sends emissaries to Tito who are personally loyal to him, including his son Randolph and his secretary William Deakin, while the British send Col William Bailey to Mihailovich. Bailey’s immediate previous assignment was organizing Croat émigré communists in Canada for guerilla warfare training and insertion into Yugoslavia. While with Mihailovich, Bailey attempts to orchestrate the assassination of Mihailovich.
The British claim that they support Tito because he is more effective at fighting the Germans, yet US General Eisenhower accuses the British of cowardice for refusing to fight the Germans and delaying D Day for nearly two years.
Tito’s is the only communist resistance movement supported by the British. He receives more material aid than all other resistance movements in Europe combined. The much larger (proportionate to the size of their countries) and more effective French and Italian communist movements not only do not receive aid from the British, they are opposed by the British.
US Navy Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King stops all joint naval operations with the British after the British sabotage the largest supply convoy (Convoy PQ 17) to Russia.
Most of the present day problems in the former Yugoslavia and the catalyst for the wars of the 1990s can trace their roots directly to how Yugoslavia came out of WW II. More specifically, the problem Serbs (both in Serbia and the Diaspora) have faced since WW II is that their history is a lie. The most monstrous lie of the 20th century based on misinformation, half truth, outright fabrications and propaganda, and crafted primarily by the British, the Vatican and the US. Even the so called revisions, such as the “communist mole in British intelligence tricked the British into supporting Tito” are just another British deception, hence a lie based on a lie.
The standard Western reason the British (who were “in charge of” Yugoslavia during the war) have spun for the betrayal of Serbia in WW II was that Tito’s communist Partisans were a more effective fighting force against the Germans than the Serbian Orthodox (Chetnik) resistance. As we will see a bit later, the British really could care less who was killing more Germans or any Germans for that matter in Yugoslavia. However, when the debriefings of Allied intelligence officers were made public, it became clear that the actual and potential military contributions and power of the Serbian Orthodox resistance was of an order of magnitude greater than that of the Partisans. The story that the Serbian Diaspora at least seems to believe is “we (US/UK) were tricked by communist moles into supporting Tito”. The truth is that the “communist mole” story is just another clever deception game (much like the phony weapons of mass destruction line that was used against Iraq and believed by most unquestioning Americans). So, let’s examine the communist mole theory.
US state department official and Cold War espionage researcher Samuel J. Hamrick proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, as the “Boston Globe” tells us in the review of his book, Deceiving the Deceivers, “Philby and his four associates who had been exposed in 1967 for passing top secret information to the Soviets, had in fact been unwitting tools in a disinformation campaign staged by their superiors in British intelligence.” In other words, what the British did was not to expose Philby and company, but rather use them as unwitting accomplices to convey misinformation to the Soviets, hence the title of Hamrick’s book Deceiving the Deceivers. So, in reality, among other things, the Soviets were tricked by the British into believing Tito was a legitimate resistance leader instead of what he really was – a tool of the British. As noted above, Molotov wanted British help (which the British refused) to send a Soviet mission to Mihailovic to gather intelligence and prevent the civil war between Partisans and Chetniks. The Soviets had virtually no contact with Tito for at least three years and were highly suspicious of British involvement with Tito. It was the British who were controlling Tito, not the Soviets.
Further, take the case of James Klugman, the man the British put in charge of the Yugoslav desk in SOE Cairo. Klugman according to the “communist mole theory” was falsifying intelligence coming out of Yugoslavia to bolster the Partisan image and minimize the Chetnik contributions. To be sure, Klugman did do this, but was he a mole? Absolutely not, Klugman was a well known, even flamboyant communist in England for years before the war.
“Klugmann was a hard core communist and Stalinist who had joined the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1933 while still at Cambridge. He was an open and militant communist who wrote the “History of the Communist Party of Great Britain, From Trotsky to Tito”… Klugmann was at the center of a web of disinformation that included members of Special Operations Executive, SOE Cairo, British Secret Intelligence Service, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Political Warfare Executive (PWE).From an article published in Serbianna.com, by historian Carl Savich
Klugmann’s superiors in British intelligence deliberately put him in this position, calculating that he would do exactly what he did do. An analogy would be to put a rattlesnake in a cage with a rabbit and see whether the snake kills the rabbit. Of course the snake killed the rabbit, and of course, Klugmann falsified intelligence coming out of Yugoslavia in Tito’s favor. Klugmann’s role was to deceive the Soviets into changing their support from Mihailovic to Tito. British Catholics came to the same conclusion that Tito would be better for the Catholic Church than an avenging Orthodox Serbia. As British and American operatives stationed with Mihailovic’s forces came out of Yugoslavia, they strongly protested the falsified intelligence attributing Chetnik attacks on German forces to the Partisans. These protests should have alerted the deaf, blind, and dumb British that they had a communist mole, but they didn’t because the British already knew Klugmann was their mole.
“A conservative and an ardent Catholic, Greenlees prayed every night that God would help his friends to find their way to the true faith. When Klugmann died, Greenlees wrote an impressively generous letter to the editor of Special Forces Club newsletter in which he said… ‘I recommended him for sergeant before I left for Yugoslavia for a commission’” .From the Web of Disinformation, Churchill’s Yugoslav Blunder, by David Martin
Now there has always been a strong Catholic influence in the British Foreign Office. Though the Serbs confined their attack to the Croatian Catholic Church and studiously avoided anything that might have implied criticism of the Vatican or the Catholic Church internationally, it would appear that at least some Catholics in the Foreign Office failed to appreciate the distinction. Convinced that Mihailovic was an anti Croat- Catholic fanatic, they were inclined to regard his movement with grave suspicion even before they found another movement to which to attach their sympathies. It was this suspicion that created so much of the friction between the foreign office and the Yugoslav government.From Ally Betrayed, the Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovic , by David Martin.
Normally, it would be very odd indeed anywhere in the 150 year long history of the struggle between the Catholic Church and communism to find them working in a common cause, except of course for that paradox of history, WWII Yugoslavia – where up is down and black is white.
If Churchill was misled about Tito’s strength or intentions, he helped along his own deception by intervening capriciously in the intelligence chain. As Prime Minister, he briefed British agents himself and dropped broad hints about the recommendations they would make. Sometimes he interviewed them again when they returned to London.FromThe Krajina Chronicles. A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, by Srdja Trifkovic
That’s a big “if Churchill was misled”, much more likely, Churchill led the deception concerning Tito’s strength and intentions.
That these deception operations are little known or publicly debated is a mark of their success. Though covert operations often produce spectacular results, one of their essential qualities is that the origins of the events remain secret – that the historical credit or blame falls on the innocent, on people acting independently, or even better, on mere chance. The very fact that a covert operation is known to have been run by an intelligence agency marks it as a significant failure.From Desperate Deception, British Covert Operations in the United States 1939- 1944, by Thomas E. Mahl
The British system for manipulating unwitting German or communist agents, who then fed either Hitler or Stalin misinformation was known as the Double Cross System, represented by Roman numerals XX. The Double Cross committee consisted of twenty intelligence operatives and was headed by John C. Masterman. The British have so perfected misinformation and deception through the Double Cross System that not one German agent in Britain operated in Britain without being an unwitting dupe of the British. British Intelligence simply applied the already superbly functioning deception operation as represented by Double Cross to Yugoslavia.
“By means of the double cross system we actively ran and controlled German espionage system in this country”… For that reason it’s often better to watch an enemy agent than to seize him, and to controvert his utility by denying him access to important information and by supplying him with what was known as “chicken feed (misinformation).”From The Double Cross System in the War 1939 to 1945 , by John C. Mastermann
It made the betrayal of Serbia another win – win for the British, blaming their (British) evil machinations on their real enemy (the communists). The real and effective falsifiers of Yugoslav war intelligence were Randolph Churchill, William Deakin, and Fitzroy MacLean, all Winston Churchill cronies. It was Deakin and MacLean who produced the complete fantasy estimates of Partisan numerical strength in Serbia, which was used as the central and compelling reason for abandoning Mihailovic. Later when their estimates were shown to be complete nonsense, they never recanted their story. The crime Churchill was committing against Serbia demanded that those who were unquestionably and personally loyal to him could be entrusted with its execution.
There has never been an official British apology or acknowledgement of their so called Yugoslav blunder. These are stories, and they are just that, unsubstantiated third party stories of Churchill calling his decision to support Tito a mistake. No apology either from Major Greenlees, the ardent Catholic who promoted the communist Klugmann at SOE Cairo even after he knew of Klugmann’s role in the betrayal of Mihailovic. There is an American folk saying “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. Apparently, Serb American community can be fooled forever. As they say in Vegas, the fix was in. Actually the fix was in since late 1941 when Col. Bailey went to Canada to recruit Croat communists to form a British controlled anti-Serb guerrilla army.
THE REAL HISTORY OF THE PRE-WAR PERIOD AND WORLD WAR II
The British and Americans mired in a decade long Great Depression knew that left alone, the Soviet Union would have the world’s largest economy and most powerful military by 1950.
In additional to facilitating Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, and Hitler in Germany, the Vatican was organizing fascist forces in the “Intermarium” (area between the Baltic and Adriatic seas ) Catholic Curtain counties – Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and of course Croatia (temporarily a part of larger Orthodox Yugoslavia) as a political/military barrier against the Soviet Union.
The documentary/drama film “Mission to Moscow” is a 1943 Warner Brothers production based on the book by the same name authored by Joseph Davies, US ambassador to the Soviet Union in the period immediately before the outbreak of WWII. Ambassador Davies approved the script as being faithful to his book. The key point Davies is driving home comes near the end of the movie, when, in an audience with Stalin, Stalin tells Davies that for years Great Britain had deliberately facilitated Hitler’s rise to power and aggressive policies so as to incite a war between Germany and the Soviet Union and that once the major combatants had exhausted themselves, the British would join in to take the lion’s share of the spoils of war. Stalin further said that a collective security effort between the Soviet Union and the Western powers to dissuade Germany from aggression was the only hope of preventing the war. And that absent such a security arrangement, the Soviet Union would be forced to take the radical action of seeking a non-aggression treaty with Germany. Of course the British and French spurned Stalin’s offer and the war came as everyone knew it would.
Hitler did not want to conquer Great Britain, instead he sought an alliance (as the maritime complement to German land forces) with Britain in his anti-Soviet (Russian) crusade.
“They [Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoar]) were sure the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union only was the enemy of the Axis and that they [U]) could quite easily come to a business like arrangement with Hitler.”From “Outline of World History’, by H. G. Wells
“In his blueprint for Germany’s future, Britain had been assigned the role as an unconquered and independent nation who would become Germany’s maritime ally. She would act as buffer against the United States while the Fuhrer completed his takeover of the entire continental land mass of Europe. Contemporary academic scholarship has demonstrated that, far from being driven by irrational Anglophobia, Hitler’s foreign policy objectives were remarkably consistent – if megalomaniacal – throughout his career. The achievement of his ultimate goal of German world dictatorship depended on reaching an accommodation with Britain.From Ten Days to Destiny: The Secret Story of the Hess Peace Initiative and British Efforts to Strike a Deal with Hitler, by John Costello
On May 10, 1941, in one of WW II’s most bizarre episodes, Rudolph Hess, the deputy fuhrer of Germany, parachuted onto Scottish soil. Costello uses recently declassified material to answer 50 years of speculation about the true purpose of Hess’s mission. And his book offers some astonishing revelations. Among them: prominent members of Britain’s ruling establishment (led by foreign secretary Lord Halifax) tried to negotiate a compromise peace with Hitler at the time of the fall of France in 1940; prime minister Churchill had to bluff and bully his war cabinet into rejecting Hitler’s tempting peace overtures; the fuhrer’s Halt Order of May 23, 1940, was a stratagem to persuade the British government to accept a deal. As to the Hess mission, the record now shows that the deputy fuhrer brought not only an authoritative peace proposal but an invitation from Hitler to support Germany’s imminent crusade against the Soviet Union.From a review of Ten Days to Destiny
The Conservative Party faction around Winston Churchill who was as interested in the destruction of the Soviets as Chamberlain, Halifax, and Hoarse distrusted the latter and feared the former may prevail in a war with Germany, so his recommendation was to ensnare the US in the war, which was attempted by a massive propaganda campaign in the US in 1940 – 1941. See “How Britain Tried to Trick the US into War”, from the monthly magazine World War II.
“I went up to father’s (Winston’s) bathroom… “Sit down dear boy… I think I see my way through. He resumed his shaving. I was astonished, and said: “Do you mean that we can avoid defeat?” – which seemed credible – or “beat the bastards” – which seemed incredible. He swung around, and said: “Of course I mean we can beat them.” Me: “Well, I’m all for it, but I don’t see how you can do it.” By this time he had dried and sponged his face and turning round to me said with great intensity:- “I shall drag the United States in.”Words of Randolph Churchill, from Desperate Deception, British Covert Operations in the United States 1939- 1944 , by Thomas E. Mahl.
The period between the defeat of Poland and the invasion of the Low Countries and France was correctly labeled as the “phony war.” In other words as long as German aggression is headed east towards the Soviet Union, Britain and France had no reason or desire to actually fight Germany. After all this is consistent with Britain’s real policy aim – utilize Hitler as a “useful idiot” in the mutual destruction of its two biggest continental rivals – Germany and the Soviet Union.
However, the German General Staff, having experienced a two front war in WWI insisted on dealing with France and Britain before an attack on the Soviets. As a matter of strategic planning, the General Staff always considered England Germany’s historical enemy, and had indeed supported Germany’s Rapallo cooperation agreements with the Soviets in the 20’s. However Nazi Germany made no serious effort to conquer Britain, although it was easily within their means. The London Blitz was a “slap on the wrist”, a gesture the British understood as such, and so was “The Miracle at Dunkirk”. There was no miracle. Hitler halted his armies and spared the British Expeditionary force as a peace offering to the British.
On Dec 8, 1941 one day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill says “we’ve won.” We meant the US and UK, but certainly not Yugoslavia or the Russians. From that date on what concerned the British was not the fate of Germany, which was sealed, but what would Europe look like after the war. Would there still be a Soviet Union, a vastly diminished and weakened country, or a powerful Soviet Union astride a Nazified Europe, only time would tell.
The Serbian coup that toppled the government of Prince Regent Paul disrupted Germany’s timetable for Operation Barbarossa by a critical six weeks. President Roosevelt, whose sympathies were clearly with Serbia throughout the war, said that this event was the turning point of the war. John Keegan, the eminent British military historian called the Serbian coup of March 27th (which had overwhelming popular support throughout Serbia) “one of the greatest acts of defiance to tyranny in European history”.
This postponement of the attack on Russia in order that the Nazi warlord might vent his personal spite against a small Balkan country which had dared to defy him was probably the most catastrophic single decision in Hitler’s career. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that by making it that March afternoon in the Chancellery in Berlin during a moment of convulsive rage Hitler tossed away his last golden opportunity to win the war and to make of the Third Reich, which he had created with such stunning if barbarous genius, the greatest empire in German history and himself the master of Europe. Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, the Commander in Chief of the German Army, and General Halder, the gifted Chief of the General Staff, were to recall it with deep bitterness but also with more understanding of its consequences than they showed at the moment of its making, when later the deep snow and subzero temperatures of Russia hit them three of four weeks short of what they thought they needed for final victory. For ever afterward they and their fellow generals would blame that hasty, ill-advised decision of a vain and infuriated man for all the disasters that ensued.From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1960.
The first and largest anti-Nazi resistance movement was formed by unsurrendered Serbian remnants of the Yugoslav Army under the command of Draza Mihajlovic. This should be no surprise to anyone, including the British and Stalin (which is why Stalin supported Mihailovic) as the military performance and heroism of the Serbs in the First World War and centuries long tradition of guerilla warfare is unsurpassed among all the combatants in Europe and the Serbs’ capacity to endure suffering and deprivation without surrendering is unsurpassed in world history. In post Middle Age warfare, when a country’s casualties approached 5% of its population, even the most committed and bravest (for example the Confederate States in the American Civil War or the Japanese in WWII) surrendered, however Serbia in WWI lost nearly one third of their population, including over 50% of the entire male population, yet did not surrender. The British knew very well that the Serbs didn’t need communist ideology to motivate them to fight the Nazis. They knew heroic resistance to foreign invasion is in Serb DNA and they were dealing with a people that would literally fight to the death for their beliefs.
The infantry, and especially the Serbs, had performed great feats of endurance, for they had done everything on their feet. Their supply system for the advance was grimly simple: they carried no food with them at all, just ammunition, relying on whatever the impoverished peasantry of their homeland could provide. As a result many who had set out as bronzed fighting men ended up as walking wraiths, mahogany turning into wax, but they went on walking, out-distancing not only the French horsemen, but even the British ration-lorries. Such fanaticism was the answer to the puzzled comment [German] Hindenburg made later: “Without rest, it seemed IMPOSSIBLE for the enemy to bring up strong forces forward to Skopje… How would he overcome the problems of supply, for we had completely destroyed the railways and roads?” What the Germans could not destroy was the Serbian spirit.From “November 1918”, by Lt. Colonel Gordon Brooks-Shepherd
The collapse of the Salonika front, due to the unparallel courage and fighting skill of the Serbs, quickly resulted in the defeat of Bulgaria, Austria Hungary, and Turkey. This is the event, not US entry into the war that ended World War I. The Serbian soldier was regarded as the best fighting man in the world.Both Stalin and Churchill knew this.
New evidence made available after the end of the Cold War strongly indicates that the Rudolph Hess mission to Britain in 1941 resulted in an understanding that the British would give Nazi Germany a free hand to fight the Soviets by keeping the Western front inactive. For a detailed history of this refer to John Costello’s “Ten Days to Destiny”. So what there was in Western Europe was a de facto peace between the UK and Germany during WWII. This prompted Gen. Eisenhower to record in his private memoirs that Britain’s refusal to open a second front to relieve the Soviets was a betrayal of the Allied war strategy. Eisenhower, as reported in a Canadian documentary on the Dieppe Raid, made a comment to his fellow American officers on British cowardliness.
“Dieppe” is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation production depicting the disastrous amphibious assault on the French Normandy city of Dieppe. So, as the video clip showed us, the British claim that after three years of war mobilization, they couldn’t come up with enough men to launch an invasion in France in late 1942 strained their credibility to the breaking point, hence Eisenhower’s outburst of anger. The two years of British delaying tactics gave the Germans enough time to build the Atlantic Wall that made the June 1944 invasion much more costly. “Dieppe” production and release date are instructive, 1992 and 1993, right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Dieppe was a still a raw subject with Canadians as they suffered nearly all the casualties, but couldn’t complain about it or the grand deception of World War Two history would be exposed when it still mattered. The docudrama showed the Canadians were lied to by the British about German defensive strength and British promises for air and naval gunfire support. Basically the British insured it would be a failure thus proving a second front that Gen. Eisenhower was calling for was impossible in late 1942. Although, the British didn’t take up Hitler’s offer of an anti-Soviet alliance out of fear that the Soviets might very well win, the British did frustrate the US desire to bring immediate military assistance to Russia for over two years thereby causing millions of more deaths and thousands of more destroyed cities and towns in the Soviet Union.
The British were learning in detail by the summer of 1941 of the Catholic Church inspired Ustashe slaughter of Serbian Orthodox in the Independent State of Croatia. The death toll by the end of the summer of’41 is over 500,000. Jasenovac became the first death camp in Europe.
“Judging by Pope Pius XII’s words, Croatia was an exemplary, not to say an idyllic kingdom, with which the Holy See was impatient to establish long lasting and official relations so as to weld modern developments on to a history of its glorious past – it was not the country where hundreds of thousands of Orthodox were being slaughtered for religious and racial reasons, where Jews and Gypsies were bloodily pursued.”From The Silence of Pius XII, by Carlo Falconi
Britain, starting in late 1941 began recruiting known Croatian communists in Canada for training and insertion into Yugoslavia, despite the well known exploits of the Serbian Orthodox resistance. The natural enemy of this British inspired and supported guerrilla army would be the Serbian Orthodox resistance of Draza Mihailovic. This operation alone should call into question who Tito really was. A recently disclosed CIA voice/language analysis of the man the world called Tito strongly indicated he was not a native Serbo – Croatian speaker, but most likely was a native of Poland or Russia. This only adds to the evidence that the World War II Tito was a whole cloth creation of British intelligence.
The forces of Mihailovic played an important role in the Allied victory in North Africa by destroying great quantities of German war material on Serbia’s railroads. The contributions to the war effort by the Partisans are minimal, simply because they had no presence in Serbia during the critical years of the war plus their main military effort was against the Serbian Orthodox resistance. During the same period that the Serbian Orthodox resistance was destroying German war materiel in Yugoslavia, the British were sabotaging supply convoys to Russia.
The Battle of Stalingrad stopped German expansion into Russia. However, the decisive battle of WWII was at the Kursk Salient in July – August 1943. Here Germany is truly defeated and from that point on, Germany would be on the defensive and in retreat. And everyone knew that Germany would lose the war. The Soviet Union was bound to win – D Day or no D Day. It was a figment of Cold War propaganda as well as a fraud perpetrated by Western histories to elevate D Day (June 6, 1944) to the same level of importance as Kursk. Germany lost nearly as many men fighting the Russians every month for four years as it did fighting the Americans and British from D Day to the end of the war. From the British perspective (but not the American, to the credit of President Roosevelt) D-Day was the rescue mission to save Germany (and her vast industry) from the Soviets.
Ironically, the Red Army victory at Kursk would doom Draza Mihailovic and the Serbian people. For up until Kursk, the British government and the American Republican party (John Foster Dulles) were promoting a plan that called for Germany to limit its conquest to the German speaking areas of Europe and an alliance of the Western Allies (US/UK) with Germany against the Soviet Union.
“In time Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles became two of the most influential advocates of the separate peace tactics in elite US circles. John Foster Dulles, already a senior foreign policy expert for the Republican Party, publicly declared in the Spring of 1943 that Poland was the place to draw the line against the Soviets. Allen Dulles meanwhile opposed FDR’s agreement to seek unconditional surrender of Germany.”From the Splendid Blond Beast, by Christopher Simpson
After Kursk, it was clear to all that the Red Army was going to win WWII decisively and there would be no chance for a stabilized Eastern Front in the western Soviet Union. What lay ahead would be a divided Europe with the Soviets occupying much if not all of the Catholic Curtain countries, or perhaps all of Europe.
One month after Kursk, Brigadier Fitzroy MacLean arrived at Tito’s headquarters with a promise of aid to the Partisans to ensure a communist victory.
Meanwhile the British demanded suicidal actions by Mihailovic of no military consequence, which would have invited massive German reprisals at a ratio of 100 Serb civilians killed for every German. Mihailovic bitterly remarks that “the British are prepared to fight to the last drop of Serbian blood.”
In February 1944, Captain Walter Mansfield returned to Washington, bringing with him Captain Bora Todorovich, one of Mihailovic’s lieutenants. He was followed a short while later by Col. Albert Seitz. In essence their report was that Mihailovic controlled the whole of Serbia and large areas of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro: that apart from a few minor commanders whom Mihailovic had repudiated, they had found no evidence of collaboration; and that, given Allied assistance, Mihailovic could mobilize a Chetnik army of 250,000 or more… President Roosevelt and the State Department were so impressed by the report of Captain Mansfield and Colonel Seitz that towards the end of March 1944 it was decided to immediately dispatch Lend Lease aid to Mihailovic. Preparations were made. A telephone call came from Churchill. The Lend Lease shipments were cancelled.From Ally Betrayed, the Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovic, by David Martin.
By mid 1943- 1944, everyone knew Germany was defeated, The entire world knows the rest of the story – Tito wins in Yugoslavia and Serbia is utterly defeated, having to simultaneously fight the British-supported communist Partisans, Nazi Germany, Croat Ustashe, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians and potentially the Red Army, all the while being bombed by British and American air forces. But why would the British aid a communist (Tito) in a war they fostered to destroy the Soviet Union? Well put yourself in the position of the British. They really had no choice. Even if the British were fully appreciative of all the Serbian sacrifices they absolutely needed a “communist”, or more precisely an anti-Serb victory in Yugoslavia. They recognized this as early as late 1941 when Col. Bailey was sent to Canada to recruit Croat communists for a British-controlled anti Serbian Orthodox army. The British, whose strategic concern was the post-war political landscape of Europe, sent a seasoned anti-communist operative (MacLean) to a communist (Tito) to aid him against the pro-Western, pro- democracy Serbs of Draza Mihailovic in a war they (the British) had manipulated in order to destroy Communism (Soviet Union). Well the British say – Tito is killing more Germans and that’s why we help him. But aren’t these the same British that Eisenhower accused of betrayal and cowardliness for not really fighting the Germans for two years? Yes, they are the same.
No, British backing of Tito had nothing to do with killing Germans. They knew Germany is defeated. So what did motivate the British to create a Tito?
British actions in Yugoslavia were ultimately all about the Serbian Holocaust. The British and the Americans knew that as a result of the Battle of the Kursk Salient there would be a divided Europe with the Soviets occupying much of Catholic Europe. They also knew that communism held great appeal to much of the population of two great Catholic countries, France and Italy (where the communists were effectively the anti-Nazi resistance, but received no aid from the US/UK).
“The overriding fact of political life all across Europe after World War II was a massive shift to the left. Disillusioned with the old line conservative politics and politicians they blamed for the conflict, millions of Europeans embraced Communist and Socialist promises of change. Communist parties became especially strong in France and Italy, where urban workers had long been drawn to Marxism.”From a foreword to the History of World War II, by Eric Severeid.
So, the situation that Western allies faced at the end of World War II was Soviet occupation of the Intermarium Catholic counties in the East and massive popular support for communism and socialism in France and Italy.
The British were in a position along with the Americans (but not the Soviets) to know the facts on the ground concerning the Serbian Holocaust and the role of the Catholic Church right up to Pope Pius XII. They also realized that after Kursk, there would be a divided Europe and a long ideological struggle with communism and that propaganda and claims to moral superiority (given the experiences of capitalism producing two World Wars and the Great Depression in the first half of the twentieth century) would be crucial for victory. Simply put, the British and Americans feared a Serbian Orthodox victory in Yugoslavia would lead to Serb retributive justice which would very likely lead to the downfall of the Papacy and perhaps the entire Roman Catholic Church at a time when the Soviet Union enjoyed immense prestige for its role in defeating Nazi Germany and at a time when the masses of Europe where shifting radically to the left.
In other words if the Vatican was exposed as complicit in mass murder, if Pius XII ended up in the dock at Nuremberg, most of Western Europe might have gone communist in free elections. The cover up of the Serbian Holocaust by Tito and the West was precisely the “secret motive” that the Soviets couldn’t figure out. That is why Yugoslavia became the largest intelligence operation of World War II.
In defense of my loyalty to you, I am hopeful that I may deviate from strict military protocol so that justice might prevail, and for this reason I hasten to write about an incident which I personally went to inspect which happened three weeks ago. Upon visiting the District of Stolac, Chapljina and Ljubinje I was informed by one of our intelligence officers that Pavelic’s Ustashi, on a previous day, had inflicted some sort of crimes in the village of Periodic (a Serbian village in Bosnia) and that if it became public, the local Serbs would anew become disturbed and agitated.
I lack the words with which to write about what I had discovered there in a large classroom. I discovered the massacre of a teacher and 120 of her students. Not one of the students was older than twelve years. It was a crime, an improper and indecent word that surpasses all insanity. Many of them were decapitated and their heads lined up on the student benches. The intestines were pulled from the slashed stomachs by the Ustashi and like New Year’s streamers stretched across the ceiling and nailed to the walls. …
The criminals first all took turns in raping the teacher and later killed her in front of the children. During this time a gypsy orchestra was forcibly brought in and was forced to sing loudly songs and beat upon the stings of the guitars… To the eternal shame of our Roman Catholic Church, one man of God – a parish priest, participating in all of this.
The massacre of Serbians has reached such proportions that many sources of water supplies have been polluted. I can personally vouch for this because I have seen a well in Popovo Polje, not far form the pit where 4,000 Serbs were disposed of, that due to that a well is discharging crimson water because of this pollution.
An indelible stain will fall upon the culture and conscience of Italy, if we do not, while there is still time, distance ourselves from the Ustashi and prevent that it could be written that we supported this madness.”Italian Army General Alexander Luzana in a letter to Mussolini (from the Military Archives of the Second Occupation Army)
Watch Video from the Ratlines:
So, what do you do if you are the British and Americans? Like General Luzana, the British came to the same conclusion, but went one step further. They must prevent not only that it could be written that the Catholic Church was involved in the Serbian Holocaust, but that it happened at all. At stake was the very survival of the Roman Catholic Church, an instrument the British knew was absolutely vital to the Cold War. The Catholic priest who participated in the mass murder described by Gen. Luzana was not an isolated individual, but rather all too common in the Independent State of Croatia. The late Serbian Holocaust researcher Dr. Milan Buljaic has meticulously documented the names of over one thousand Catholic priest, monks, and seminarians that committed mass murder. So what options did the British have? Only one. To create, in the form of Tito, a force that is, one, anti-Serb and, two, entirely dependent on the West for its survival. And this is the reality behind Anglo-American policy in World War II Yugoslavia. They supported Tito not because his forces were killing Germans, but because the British knew Tito’s Partisans were killing the Serbian Orthodox resistance. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the oldest strategy in warfare. The British, looking ahead to the Cold War, saw the Serbian Orthodox resistance movement of Draza Mihailovic as their real enemy and Tito (despite the fact he was a communist) as their friend or, more accurately, their accomplice in the cover up of the Serbian Holocaust.
For his part Tito, could have, if he were a legitimate communist revolutionary, done just the opposite of covering up the Serbian Holocaust. He certainly knew the importance of this event for the Cold War period and, with the massive documentation at his disposal, could have easily exposed the truth to the world. This would have given socialists and communists everywhere in Europe an enormous, if not decisive political victory in dealing with the Old European Order of which the Catholic Church was the lynchpin. For the very same reason, Tito could have exposed Austrian diplomat Kurt Waldheim as a war criminal for his participation in massacres against Serbs in Bosnia, when the latter was elected as the fourth General Secretary of the United Nations, but he didn’t. Instead, as we find in the Wikipedia article, “Waldheim’s name appears on the Wehrmacht’s honor list “of those responsible for the militarily successful operation. The Nazi puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, awarded Waldheim the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir in silver with an oak branches cluster. Decades later, during the lobbying for his election as U.N. Secretary General, Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, who had led anti-German forces during the war, awarded Waldheim one of the highest Yugoslav orders.”
At home in Yugoslavia he could have preserved the “Brotherhood and Unity” policy by declaring the Croat masses innocent and laying the entire blame for the massacres at the feet of the Ustashi and the source of their inspiration, the Catholic Church. This would have gone a long way to truly heal the divisions in post war Yugoslavia and would have made Tito a genuine hero. But he didn’t, passing instead on every opportunity to be a genuine communist and continuing to do the bidding of the Anglo-American Empire to his dying day. This certainly helps to explain why the “communist” Tito was always welcomed at Buckingham Palace and why Queen Elizabeth gave Tito, among other gifts, an $800,000 Rolls Royce.
The strategy worked and brilliantly so. Tito’s phony version of “Brotherhood and Unity” was the mechanism for covering up the Serbian Holocaust. There would be no examination or discussion of the Ustashi/Catholic Church crimes, no retribution on the perpetrators or justice for the victims. After the war, Tito and British propagandists would morally equate Mihailovic’s Chetniks with the Ustashe, squaring the circle of deception. The Catholic Church was saved. The Roman Church did survive and go on as anticipated to agitate in Poland, Lithuania, and the rest of Catholic Eastern Europe, initiating events that resulted the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, far from being a mistake or being tricked, the Anglo-American support of Tito was in fact a brilliant anti-communist strategy.
As the war came to an end, the Vatican with the assistance of British, French, and later American intelligence smuggled thousands of Croatian and Nazi war criminals out of Europe. Notable among them were the Croatian leader Ante Pavelic and the Minister of the Interior Andrija Artukovic – the men most responsible for implementing the policy of a pure Catholic Croatia. The Americans named this operation “The Ratline”. Cardinal Montini was its principal organizer. Montini was later to become Pope Paul VI. Take a moment to think of this reality. Two Roman Catholic popes oversaw mass murder and were active accomplices to the cover-up of mass murder and crimes against humanity. The British helped the Nazi Ustashi on the one hand and the so-called communist Tito on the other. The common thread is that everything the British did in regard to WW II Yugoslavia was anti-Serb, designed to preserve the Catholic Church’s usefulness in the forthcoming Cold war.
Roosevelt had quite different war aims then Churchill. Among them was ending the colonial and imperial systems of the European powers, which he regarded as the cause of both World Wars. Of course, chief among these empires was the British Empire. However, with his decline in health and death, Anglophiles and Catholics (Allen and John Foster Dulles and William Casey) in the US government, subsequently headed by another World War II “useful idiot,” Harry Truman, were responsible, among other things, for the completion of the betrayal of Serbia, the dropping of atomic bombs (against the advice of every senior US military leader, but at the insistence of the British) on defenseless Japanese cities, and the Cold War itself with its insane arms race which still threatens the existence of all humanity.
“The US and British abandonment of denazification and decartelization (programs to rid post war Germany of Nazi influence) was not a product of the Cold war, it was the cause of it. From the very first days of the occupation, the US practiced what appeared from the outside to be a duplicitous policy towards denazification of Germany. But whether the US government intended it or not, its action cast the die for the Cold War.”FromThe Splendid Blond Beast, by Christopher Simpson.
Only the Catholic Church and the British needed the second Yugoslavia as a means of covering up the greatest crime of the 20th century and negating the Serbs’ enormous sacrifice and contributions to the Allied victory.
Will the truth about Serbia ever be known? All history to some degree is contemporary history or as George Orwell noted “he who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past. Orwell worked in the British Ministry of Information during WWII and learned first hand the methods of British style propaganda.
“When George Orwell published his political satire Animal Farm in 1945, he wrote a preface to the book that was deleted and censored from the rest of the text. In the preface, Orwell criticized the media censorship and suppression that was endemic in Western countries during World War II.
The censored, deleted, and suppressed proposed 1945 preface to Animal Farm was first published by The Times Literary Supplement on September 15, 1972 as an essay entitled “ The Freedom of the Press”. In the preface, Orwell analyzed and deconstructed the government and media censorship in Britain during World War II. Orwell focused on the case of Draza Mihailovich, the Serbian resistance leader in Yugoslavia who was first supported and aided by the allies, the US, Soviet Union, and Britain, but later denounced and rejected in favor of the communist Josip Broz Tito.From an article published by Serbianna.Com, by historian Carl Savich.
As long as the Cold War persisted, the truth of the Serbian Holocaust could never see the light of day. Just as the Canadians could not accuse their British ally of deliberate deception and manipulation during the Cold War for the disastrous Dieppe Raid that cost thousands of Canadian casualties (and would be the excuse to delay D day for almost two years) or the sex scandals that surrounds the Catholic Church today (but whose events happened in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and a thousand years before), neither could the crimes of Western states or institution be made known or else the spotless mantle of Western moral superiority would be stained.
Today, of all the former communist counties in Europe (including Russia herself), only in Serbia has there not been a reexamination of the communist past. To be sure there are small minorities in practically all ex-communist countries that continue to be “true believers”, but the majority of these populations and all the post communist governments have repudiated the communist past – except the present day pro-western neo-Titoist government of Serbia. To be more accurate, Slobodan Milosevic did repudiate Tito and made a start to uncover the truth of the Unknown Holocaust of Serbs in WW II Yugoslavia. The West, in their fear of that truth coming out, unleashed the same anti-Serb propaganda against Milosevic as they did 60 years earlier against Mihailovic and for the same reason. Both men ended their days in show trials conducted for the benefit of the deniers of the Serbian Holocaust.
It is a travesty of justice that the Serbs have been labeled as the aggressors. They had no desire to destroy the Federation (of Yugoslavia) although contrary to Croat propaganda, the system established by Tito favored the smaller republics. The Serbs are fierce fighters for a just cause in defense of their lands or their people, but they have never been aggressors. The Serbs don’t hate. But Croat history shows that those sections of the Croat population, the ex Communists, neo Fascists around Tudjman, the Party of Rights, and above all the Ustashi – who regrettably are calling the tune – are grotesquely Serbophobic and driven by hate and by an extraordinary phenomenon – a crusading Catholicism – which I as a sincere Catholic myself find totally abhorrent.”From The Rape of Serbia – The British Role in Tito’s Grab for Power, by Michael Lees.
No, the present day governments of the US and UK were no more tricked by clever PR firms into supporting Croatia and Bosnian Muslims in the 90s, than the British were tricked by their pet communist moles in WWII. That story is for the gullible and for the cowards in the Serbian Diaspora communities who can’t face the truth that Serbia was knowingly and deliberately betrayed by her allies for the purpose of covering up the greatest crime of the Christian Age.
As Dragan Illitch of Los Angeles wrote in the American Srbobran in 1995 in trying to understand the Serbian Diaspora’s response to the Serbian Holocaust, “It is as if some one killed your entire family and the best way you could come up with to deal with it is to act as if your family never existed”. He went on to say he could understand why and how the Serbs in Yugoslavia couldn’t remember the dead of the Serbian Holocaust because they lived under Tito’s dictatorship where “Brotherhood and Unity” made it a crime to remember, but what about the Serbs in the US and Canada and the Serbian Orthodox Church in North America, what, he asked, is their excuse. Where are there any memorials to the victims, where is the day set aside to remember the victims, where are the scholarships to study and research the history. There simply aren’t any, anywhere.
British and American intelligence assets in the Serbian Diaspora and their ally Tito worked hand in glove to make sure that the Serb Diaspora engaged in an endless internal struggle primarily through their splitting of the Serbian Orthodox Church in North America into the so called pro- and anti-Tito factions. The game is as old as the pickpocket con. A fight breaks out at the edge of a crowd, the crowd’s attention is diverted as they strain to see what’s going on, they can’t figure out what the fight was about, but when they check their wallets they find them missing. What was stolen by the British pickpockets was:
The Truth of the Unknown Holocaust, which should have been one of the greatest stories of WWII because of the Roman Catholic Church’s involvement in mass murder.
The Serbian March 27th revolution that cost Hitler victory in WWII.
The history of the first and largest anti Nazi resistance in Europe led by Draza Mihailovic.
The crucial role played by Mihailovic forces in destroying German war material bound for the Battle of El Aleman
The Forgotten 500. The history of the rescue of the American airmen by Serbian Chetniks was as deliberately buried as everything thing else Serbian in WW II. The rescued airmen were under orders not to discuss the rescue or their experiences with Mihailovic’s forces. If the 500 became famous, then the web of lies spawned by the British (who by the way did everything in their power to thwart the airmen’s rescue mission) against Mihailovic just might start to unravel and if that happened the truth of the Serbian Holocaust might have seen the light of day and the entire Anglo-American claim to human rights and moral superiority to rule the world would come crashing down.
Each and every one of these WWII events should have resulted in worldwide acclaim for Serbia and a huge debt owed to it by the Western allies, but instead what Serbia received from the British was bombs and betrayal.
And that is precisely why Serbs and Serbia were subjected to the most viscous and demonic propaganda campaign in history in the 1990s. They want Serbs to forget. They have the power to make those who choose comfort over truth to forget, but not all make that choice. It will probably take another lifetime before the West can feel safe that their horrendous crime is forever buried. So, Serbia can expect to be threatened, pressured, embargoed, and bombed for at least the next 50 years.
THE PRICE OF SERBIAN SILENCE
First of all there would not have been the 70 years of arrested development for Serbia, its culture, economy, religion, and people under the British/Titoist anti-Serb agenda for Yugoslavia. Almost certainly, if Yugoslavia had continued to exist (and most likely if would not have, as Christ and Abraham Lincoln both said, a house divided against itself, cannot stand) the Serbs would have corrected King Alexander’s mistake of not defining Serbia’s borders. And as Serbs would have been victors in the war in which the Croats, Albanians, and Muslims were allied to Hitler, those borders would have been maximally beneficial to Serbia as they would have included the Dalmatian Coast and Kosovo. The post-war influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal Albanian immigrants would not have been allowed to change the demographic balance of Kosovo. Instead, Serbia today, is an impoverished, depressed, divided against itself land-locked country of demoralized people. And finally, the wars of the 90s, with the unparalleled demonization of Serbian ethnic identity, would never have happen let alone the slow motion genocide Serbia is now undergoing. That was the Price of Tito and Serbian Silence.
The Anglo-American Empire and their ally, the Catholic Church, know the importance of Kosovo to Serb history, culture, identity, and even to individual Serb psychology. Their effort to make Serbia accept Kosovo independence aims to psychologically break the spirit of the Serbian nation. This axis of evil calculates that if Serbia gives up Kosovo and everything that it means, then Serbs will also give up their history and especially the history of the Serbian Holocaust, thus insuring that the crimes of the Catholic Church and the Anglo- American Empire will be buried along with their victims forever.
Until that day I did not know the burden of the tiny little word “war”, but never again she we who traversed the “Field of Blackbirds” think of war without living again the snow filled horrors of our march. From Mitrovitze to Prishtina is scarcely twenty five kilometers. I am sure that never before in human history has more suffering, heroism, and patriotism been crowded into so small of a space.From With Serbia into Exile – An American Adventures with Army That Cannot Die, by Fortier Jones.
So wrote Mr Jones as he witnessed perhaps the most heroic moment in human history, the Serbian Army and people crossing the Plain of Kosovo in November 1915. One quarter million people, over 6% of Serbia entire pre war population would perish in a few weeks during the Great Retreat. Mr. Jones writes of Serb endurance that in his words, went beyond human understanding, of unparalleled suffering yet not one Serbian unit, not one battalion, not one company or not even one squad surrendered during the Retreat. This, more than words, tells us what Kosovo means to the Serbs.
[President] Roosevelt asked him [Yugoslav Ambassador to the US Fotic] on December 20, 1941 “How, after such horrible crimes we could expect (the Serbs) to live in the same state with the Croats”. And on an earlier occasion he [Roosevelt] had said, “it would be for the Serbs to decide what sort of community they intended to retain with the Croats after the war”.
SCHOLARSHIP AND LAW CAN BRING JUSTICE FOR SERBIA
Tito’s internal republican boundaries that were designed to minimize Serbian political strength and were later recognized as international state boundaries by the West are no more legitimate than the unwitting dupe James Klugmann’s forged intelligence reports that helped make Tito ruler of Yugoslavia. Serbia has the right and duty to correct the historic record and to makes its claims for justice and restitution against the perpetrators of the Serbian Holocaust and for the victims of civil war in Yugoslavia. For if it weren’t for the massive aid given without reservation to Tito by the UK and US, there would not have been a civil war of such magnitude or intensity between Serbs. Unlike Stalin, who tried to prevent the civil war in Yugoslavia, Churchill did everything in his power to incite it and wreak maximum destruction on Serbia
A long-time defender of historical justice in the Balkans recently wrote, “I have become so disillusioned with this whole situation. The media and our politicians have demonized the Serbs so successfully, that I doubt they will ever be able to come back as a people. We didn’t even treat the Germans this badly after they lost the war.”Gilles d’Aymery in a SWANS.com Commentary
Mr. Gilles d’Aymery is correct, Serbia and the Serbian people will never come back as a people or country until they understand their true history and reject the British/Tito lie. Serbia will never regain its true identity, independence, and rightful place in history if it continues to actively participate in the false history of Tito. It is an irony of history itself that Great Britain and France, the two European powers that encouraged Hitler and World War II, “fought” the phony war, collaborated with Germany, protected Germany’s Western flank throughout the war should become founding members of the UN with permanent seats in the UN Security council. Meanwhile Serbia and the Serbian people, the most heroic participants in WWI and WWII became the only country to ever be expelled from the United Nations. Not since Judas kissed Jesus Christ had there been a greater betrayal than the British crucifixion of the Serbian nation and people in World War II.
The charges of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass murder against Croatia, the Ustashi, the Roman Catholic Church, and Great Britain, have no statue of limitations. These claims are Serbia’s political and legal basis for reversing the destruction of Serbia in the 20th century. These claims should be pursued in the academic arena, international legal institutions, the United Nations, and the World Court year after year, generation after generation, until justice prevails.
“Malcom X must fall.” This is a recent headline in TheJewishPress.com. The article advocates ridding a black civil rights leader who spoke out against “white supremacy” of his posthumous privilege of having boulevards named after him in Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles and New York. Looks like Daniel Greenfield and the Jewish Press are going full Wignat…Ironic that in a frenzy of Jewish backed BLM revisionism against whites, the Jewish press is pleading for the ‘de-statueing’ of a black civil rights leader. Of course, this is not because Malcolm X was a crypto KKK sympathizer as the article posits, but because Malcolm X, in Nick Cannonesque fashion, found out that the true oppressors had white skin, but Jewish ethnicity. The articles’ photo is a picture of a Malcolm X statue toppled with the caption: “Malcolm in the muddle.” How’s that for BLM?
What if a White journalist wrote the same article but for Martin Luther King? After all he was a known communist who colluded nefariously with his closest adviser, Stanley Levison, who was a financial coordinator for the Communist Party of the USA and The American Jewish Congress. The same guy who defended Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, convicted Soviet spies who were executed for treason. Now that’s a reason for some righteous indignation, but of course, such an article would be slapped with the non-kosher label by the ADL, and the writer would be blacklisted, doxed and labeled anti-Semitic and racist. But Jews chomping at the bit to topple a black civil rights leader because uh, George Floyd? Based. It’s a case all too prevalent with the Jewish Press as of late— “oppression!” pills shoveled down the throats of blacks has naturally metabolized a chemical revelation of sorts in black people; somehow causing House of Rothschild to appear in their search histories.
Malcolm X “has to fall” because he sympathized with George Lincoln Rockwell, a WW2 Navy veteran who formed a fledging Nazi Party in the early 60’s. Most people would never believe that such an alliance was possible; Malcolm hated whites and Rockwell hated blacks, right? What manifested was an implosion of opposites in the kosher sandwich—an unprecedented unity that was rightly forged under the banner of unabashedly expounding on the JQ. George Lincoln Rockwell famously said of Malcolm X, as they spoke together at an event: “I wish to God we had one leader with the stature of Malcolm X! Just one; in our government. If you don’t believe me wait until he gets up here to talk—that’s a man! Those are the kind of leaders that the negro people need, not Arthur Spingarn of the NAACP.” Yeah… that’s what an overt white nationalist said of an overt black nationalist in the 1960’s. Both wanted the same thing: to have sovereignty over their economic and cultural institutions, which meant segregating their respective populations.
Marcus Garvey, another civil rights icon for the black movement once said: “Between the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP group, give me the Klan.” Why? Because Spingarn and the NAACP wanted blacks under the yolk of their cultural and institutional will; coddling the blacks, using them as cannon fodder to destroy the WASP’s. The Klan just wanted black people to live in their own territory, however incendiary they might’ve been about it, it was not a secret. In fact, according to Malcolm X, the KKK apparently offered land to Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam in Georgia to begin a settlement for black people. Malcolm X and the Klan had a very civil meeting about it, though it never materialized.
This is exactly what Malcolm X wanted, too, stating: “The Jew is always anxious to advise the black man, but they never advise him how to solve his problem the way the Jews solved their problem. The Jew never went sitting-in and crawling-in and sliding-in and freedom-riding, like he teaches and helps Negroes to do. The Jews stood up, and stood together, and they used their ultimate power, the economic weapon. With money donations, the Jew gains control, then he sends the black man doing all this wading-in, boring-in, even burying-in — everything but buying-in. Never shows him how to set up factories and hotels. Never advises him how to own what he wants. No, when there’s something worth owning, the Jew’s got it. “The Jew is behind the integration movement, using Negros as a tool.”
Rockwell and Malcolm X understood that fighting each other exclusively is to be fighting within the kosher sandwich. Malcolm X obviously spewed vicious anti-white nonsense early on; but as time wore on, he got to the root of the problem, and realized that ethnicity, not skin color, was the real determinant; and that Jewish economic dominance in black neighborhoods was far more an insidious poison than the likes of George Lincoln Rockwell and his Nazi party. “It’s the Jews, right here in Harlem that run these whiskey stores that get you drunk! It is Jews that run these run-down stores that sell you bad food! It is Jews who control the economy of Harlem!” He spoke on how, in the early 60’s, Jews controlled at least 80% of the economy in black neighborhoods. When he went on a television program and expounded on this, they refused to air the program. He spoke of this angrily in a speech, growling out:
“Jews believe in censorship more than anybody else!”
People like Daniel Greenfield of the Jewish Press have proved Malcolm X exactly right; as they attempt to do to the black what they are doing to whitey. I guess they really are at the forefront of equality. Liberating black voices requires kosher certification—back on the plantation, Malcolm. Malcolm X wanted the same liberation for his people Rockwell wanted for his; economic liberation. Economic liberation would indicate separation, and thus indicates sovereignty, which allows for the values and ideals of one’s people to be sovereignly adjudicated and the resources to be owned and distributed sovereignly. Malcolm X and Rockwell’s bond didn’t end well as both were assassinated before 1970 – a sobering reminder of:
Liberation for the Jew, but not for you.
Originally appeared at: Dissident Mag
In Cooper Sterling’s TOO article (“Guns, profiling and White males“), he notes
The Left’s irrational obsession with gun control goes beyond the latest mass shooting. It is endemic among the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America, to dwell on the risks associated with firearms while disregarding or minimizing the benefits of firearm ownership. …
Anyone monitoring the national scene since Newtown is witnessing an emotional antipathy toward the last trace of political leverage among an identifiable demographic: an overwhelmingly White male gun culture. What the MSM and gun control advocates ultimately detest is the gun culture in America, which is too White, too male, and too conservative. …
The tradition of gun ownership is as old as the Republic. It reflects the pre-1965 demographic of America as an overwhelmingly White—and more civilized—nation. As a native Midwesterner, guns were rampant in our neighborhoods where few homes didn’t have some sort of firearm. We came of age hunting with our fathers, uncles and cousins, acquiring rifles and shotguns in our mid-teens.
An article from The Forward notes that the Jewish community has taken the lead in gun control and that part of it is hostility toward the gun culture of White America that is especially apparent in rural White America. Jews “instinctively recoil” from this culture (“After Newtown Jews lead renewed push on guns“).
Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.
Although Jews certainly attacked and eventually overcame the elite WASP culture of pre-1965 America (e.g., by displacing WASPs at elite universities), another critical point of conflict between Jewish organizations and the main Jewish intellectual movements has been with rural America. This conflict can be most clearly seen among the New York Intellectuals, a group that is discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique.
The New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with
nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)
The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations. (Review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America“)
The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America. For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America. In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas.
And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males.
Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.
Further, it has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education (see here), notes that “Jewish voters … prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.”
Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.
Since late May 2020 , numerous cities have faced violent rioting, which has included clashes with police, buildings destroyed by fire, and widespread vandalism.
Minneapolis was the first city to devolve into violence. Peaceful protests followed the May 25 death of George Floyd, who died after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But soon after, peaceful demonstrations gave way to looting, destruction and arson.
The riots were not contained to any specific region in the U.S. and spread quickly to dozens of major American cities, which each experienced varying degrees of violence.
Atlanta: Atlanta was under a state of emergency in early July, with 1,000 National Guard troops activated to protect state buildings following violent riots prompted by the deaths of George Floyd and then of Rayshard Brooks, who was shot and killed by police in Atlanta.
Boston: Riots and looting broke out in Boston following the death of George Floyd in late May and early June, and included police vehicles being set ablaze, according to Boston 25.
Chicago: More than 100 people were arrested and more than a dozen officers injured amid the looting and rioting in Chicago in early August, which targeted high-end stores. Hundreds of people descended on parts of Chicago after officers reportedly shot Latrell Allen, 20, who was accused of having a gun.
Police shot the suspect following a shootout and the man was taken to a hospital. False information circulated on social media regarding the incident, including a claim that the suspect was 15 years old.
Days later, a group of Chicago City Council members requested that Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker immediately declare a state of emergency in Chicago and deploy the National Guard in light of ongoing rioting and looting in the city. (RELATED: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls Looting, Riots In Chicago ‘Planned Attacks’)
Dallas: Numerous businesses were looted and vandalized after peaceful protests in Dallas following the death of George Floyd. Rioters jumped on police cars and began to destroy it, according to Biz Journals. Rioters also slashed tires and broke windows of squad cars.
Denver: Rioters threw fireworks at Denver police officers and started fires after the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, although riots and protesting had been active for months after the death of George Floyd. At least a dozen people were arrested in Denver Saturday night after rioters vandalized businesses and clashed with police officers. Some rioters set fire to trees and an American flag, while others broke windows and threw fireworks at officers, 9 News reported.
More riots and protests could follow, as Aug. 24 marks the anniversary of Elijah McClain’s arrest, a 23-year-old who died after a deadly encounter with police in 2019.
Detroit: Days after the death of George Floyd, rioters clashed with police in Detroit, throwing small bricks, M-80 fireworks and rocks, while protesters held signs that they wanted police to die, according to Detroit News. Dozens of protesters and rioters, many of them from the suburbs, were arrested.
Houston: Police made 200 arrests in late May during riots and protests. Rioters hurled objects and injured police officers and damaged patrol cars, according to the Houston Chronicle.
Los Angeles: Of the more than 4,400 arrests made at protests and riots in late May, the majority of arrests occurred in Los Angeles, where a special task force was developed to investigate crimes committed during the George Floyd demonstrations. Crimes included attempted murders of officers, looting, burglary, robbery, vandalism, arson and assaults with deadly weapons, according to ABC 7.
Minneapolis: The epicenter of the rioting and the scene of where George Floyd was killed descended into chaos immediately after demonstrations following Floyd’s death May 25. Hundreds of buildings were damaged, many of which were looted, set ablaze and destroyed. The Minneapolis Police’s 3rd Precinct was also destroyed. In St. Paul, more than 50 businesses were vandalized and destroyed.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – MAY 28: Protesters cheer as the Third Police Precinct burns behind them on May 28, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As unrest continues after the death of George Floyd police abandoned the precinct building, allowing protesters to set fire to it. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
New York City: Hundreds of people were arrested in early June following riots in New York City, where a curfew was also set after widespread vandalism and attacks on police and businesses. A corporate attorney who graduated from an Ivy League school along with another attorney were accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle as the violence in New York City escalated into clashes between police and protesters.
Phoenix: More than 300 adults and over 10 minors were arrested in Phoenix on charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct and curfew violation in early June. Rioters reportedly threw rocks and bottles at police, and the National Guard was activated to aid police, according to KTAR.
Portland: While there were peaceful demonstrations in Portland, the city also became a hotbed for unrest, where the rioters set fire to a police union building in August. At least 13 riots were declared since late May, and the violence has included fires and vandalized property. Rioters then began throwing chunks of ceramic, rocks and glass bottles toward the officers, while others pointed green lasers — which are capable of causing permanent eye damage — at officers. At least one balloon filled with feces was thrown at officers on the roof of the building,
A riot, as defined by the Portland Police, is when six or more people engage in violent behavior and risk causing harm to others, per the same report.
Richmond: Riots gripped Richmond in early June, where a federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, was vandalized with a mark indicating it had been designated as a “target for potential vandalism/arson” by antifa, according to an FBI Situational Information Report obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Associates of a local anarchist/ANTIFA group were reportedly overheard discussing burning down the Richmond courthouse. Rioters also tried to block a fire truck from reaching a burning building with a child inside in Richmond.
Seattle: Rioting in Seattle began in May immediately after the death of George Floyd. Several cars were set on fire, and businesses were looted or damaged. Incendiary devices including Molotov cocktails were reportedly thrown during the protests, police said according to KING 5. A curfew was set and a civil emergency proclamation was issued. Months later, a half-dozen officers were injured and 18 people were arrested at a Seattle riot after demonstrators hurled explosives at police in August.
St. Louis: Rioters damaged at least one police van in early June and looted local businesses after peaceful protesters earlier the same day in June, and several fireworks were thrown at police officers during riots in St. Louis, according to KSDK. Police reported that 55 buildings had been broken into or looted throughout the day June 1.
Washington, D.C.: Violent rioting in the nation’s capitol included clashes with police, looting, and a fire set at the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, along with other fires set near the White House. Rioting continued in August, and 41 people were arrested amid Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C. The arrests came as a result of fires set intentionally as well as destroyed property, the 3D watch commander said according to WJLA.
although I made numerous videos that cover the virus that cannot be named without more traffic suppression than usual to video using particular compliment what I will be covering here I will post virus future and anti-human dictatorship for a post virus will my aim with these particular going to detail about how viruses Stevia is being used it two Asurion a one-wheeled technocratic dictatorship what do you call this globalism communitarianism neo-feudalism church on the new world order or anything else it's not as simple as can be. Full realization of a scientific dictatorship of midgees several ideological Frameworks together Metro PCS Outline by science-fiction writers like HG Wells Aldous Huxley and George Orwell who somebody had inside knowledge about the direction that Global Elite switch to take the wheel to show how this dystopian nightmare would unfold I'll explain how lockdowns will introduce transhumanism I already explained that I would post virus future is a new normal that's ultimately antique human this will involve severe restrictions on our liberties under the pretense of sustainable development is the fourth Industrial Revolution along with essential Goods services and activities as we increasingly headed into densely populated cities these dwellings are becoming known as smart cities where everything is connected to a grid that monitors and restricts everything we do or forming part of what the global Elites Agenda 21 and agenda 2030 a major aspect of this is a highly controversial telecommunications technology video it's difficult to understand the point of a fight you until you realize it's Mustafa fee for a future control grade should the average person there is no demand for 5G weather because no one needs more bandwidth and connectivity speed in poetry and fiber-optic can provide websites shop online video stream play video games over the internet and make video calls to name a few activities that we do seem Leslie the vast majority of people in the current have no desire to do anything beyond this but as soon as you realize what's the global Elites are trying to achieve it's obvious wife IG is being pushed so hard but smokes effectively 5G will be essential because the man's on bands with would be so great. Current technology will struggle to coat a nice treat TPA accustomed to Wiccan and interacting remotely and part of this is worse now becoming known as contact tracing something very much part of The New Normal forming around us this technology will constantly Trace our whereabouts through our smartphones and initially this is team produced as a means to establish whether we've been in contact with infected people is not only violates privacy but the accuracy of this system is Highly Questionable angry scene in China with surprised surprised it was first introduced why is this surprising because China is the globalist model for the rest of the will and I'll see you three are countries aren't making China free by interacting with each on the world stage brother China is making real country last free and this is all by Design what we are seeing is that technology we've been conditioned to depend on particularly the internet and smartphones is being used to Asurion southmayd prisons where initial pigs will gradually vanish think of this as a trail of bread crumbs behind us a serious concern is that 5G continues to raise the electromagnetic frequency in our environment something so controversial that it's like to David Icke being banned from YouTube when he linked CV symptoms to 5G while I need to drive very carefully when addressing this on big tax platforms it's impossible to hide the fact that's continuing to ready the electromagnetic frequency of Technology will increase the possibility of associated health risks what we can confidently say is that chicken is absorbed in a similar fashion to be in at high altitudes established way before fighting came along and Communications technology serious questions old to be asked about the health implications technological development should never be treated like an infinite said about the antique human nature of our post by this world and the Beast system this is linked to it's easy to see that this is a spiritual war That's goes Way Beyond politics lead in the transhuman ideology wants to become demigods everything about what they believe and project is the antithesis of Christian morality because mankind become as Gods by rejecting the biblical warning about eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil this is an age of the Temptation Ware Elite switch to transcend the limits of mortality making them sounds dogs and then then they do his fist through Eugenics paste police that jealously job knowledge and Power Front in the circle also known as the occult ignorant pictures of satanic message to destroy and corrupt Humanity by exploiting free will when people choose even if they quickly discovered that trapped in a prison of Daryl may use this to Make Them Fall wears off and ended tomorrow limits they were told to reject we see this now over 60 years after the sexual Revolution began in the 1960s every duck hasn't seen it great that the Kleins and agent hours to decide our Global overlords don't want you to know that moral limits make is Freer if they faced on some nature or to a creator has many coal natural or what we're seeing now is that these overlords have sold their souls so they can control the world and shape it in their own image off the back of a fabricated virus crisis you can choose to believe that's the occult symbology and traditions they ascribed to are just a coincidence but it's impossible to maintain this one should notice the Satanism. It's called in the end he's over loads of doing this for themselves they doing this in the name of Satan metaphorical Electro do I believe it's the latter he's so much proof of this now that's only a book size that description could truly do it justice like an Microsoft about was pulled off to reach received in mens online backlash featuring Marina Abramovic of spirit cooking notoriety a woman who can essentially be described as a satanic High Priestess of global Elite circles masquerading as an artist I believe it's our to the future is Art without objects is it just shoot transmission of energy between the viewer and allergies to me this reality is this answer this was a unique opportunity to take the most legendary artists working now and capture them in such a way that they are translatable forever if you're a collector you're trying to find Works. Break new ground we are Christians believe that this is fat and it will be the first time that a mixed reality our work is sold at auction with your body when you buy the video or you by the addition of photographs hear you actually can have the artist residency in your collection the first thing we had to figure around was you had to feel that you were in the room with Mirena not a document of Marina Holland's to was created by people who quite clearly have an interest in the audience for getting that they are using technology so the purest expression of artistic intent and happen to be with me in space in here not the life is dealing with what is going to stay after not there anymore and I can fix myself and this Friday experience we also have Microsoft 666 patterns for a cryptocurrency system using body activity data not even fact-checking sites Snopes dismiss this Beyond stating included two zeros between I've already covered Microsoft's key involvement in the development of a new ID 20/20 when we put this all together it's clear that Bill Gates is a big player in the emerging Beast Rakim mystery over and out if you like this video please consider buying my book pulling back the kitchen television socialism and the nature of freedom in philosophical questions everything we think we know thanks for pitching this book can be found in the description for this video and a trucking philosophy.com
In announcing the formation of an independent oversight board with authority to allow or remove content from Facebook and Instagram, the board’s four co-chairs stressed the body’s diversity.
“The board members come from different professional, cultural and religious backgrounds and have various political viewpoints,” they wrote in a New York Times op-ed on May 6. “Some of us have been publicly critical of Facebook; some of us haven’t.”
Contemporaneous news articles reinforced this message, reporting that the board’s ideologically and geographically diverse members criss-cross the ideological spectrum.
A closer look, however, reveals that 18 of its 20 members collaborated with or are tied to groups that have received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations – which is one of the most well-funded and influential progressive organizations in the country.
Open Society’s reach is so vast that simply receiving support from the institution is not a proxy for political leanings – one member has received support from Soros and the Charles Koch Foundation. But the fact that 90% of the board’s members have ties to that progressive group raises questions in an environment where conservatives complain about big-tech bias and internet censorship.
Here’s a list of the oversight board’s members:
Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei: A program manager at Soros’ Open Society Foundations in West Africa.
Journalism’s Gates keepers
If you squint as you read the story, you’ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you’re really paying attention, you’ll also see the editor’s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.
NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.
And that speaks to a larger trend—and ethical issue—with billionaire philanthropists’ bankrolling the news. The Broad Foundation, whose philanthropic agenda includes promoting charter schools, at one point funded part of the LA Times’ reporting on education. Charles Koch has made charitable donations to journalistic institutions such as the Poynter Institute, as well as to news organizations such as the Daily Caller News Foundation, that support his conservative politics. And the Rockefeller Foundation funds Vox’s Future Perfect, a reporting project that examines the world “through the lens of effective altruism”—often looking at philanthropy.
As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations—a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic—an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.
I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups. In some cases, recipients say they distributed part of the funding as subgrants to other journalistic organizations—which makes it difficult to see the full picture of Gates’s funding into the fourth estate.
Sign up for CJR's daily email
RELATED: ‘When money is offered, we listen’
Gates’s generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the world’s most visible charity. Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works.
During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covid—even though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively—both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation) have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from “false conspiracy theories” and “misinformation,” like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing covid vaccines and therapies. In fact, the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac.
In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture—a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes’s list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decades—like helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malaria—but even these efforts have drawn expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm, or distracting us from more important, lifesaving public health projects.
From virtually any of Gates’s good deeds, reporters can also find problems with the foundation’s outsize power, if they choose to look. But readers don’t hear these critical voices in the news as often or as loudly as Bill and Melinda’s. News about Gates these days is often filtered through the perspectives of the many academics, nonprofits, and think tanks that Gates funds. Sometimes it is delivered to readers by newsrooms with financial ties to the foundation.
The Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests for this story and would not provide its own accounting of how much money it has put toward journalism.
In response to questions sent via email, a spokesperson for the foundation said that a “guiding principle” of its journalism funding is “ensuring creative and editorial independence.” The spokesperson also noted that, because of financial pressures in journalism, many of the issues the foundation works on “do not get the in-depth, consistent media coverage they once did.… When well-respected media outlets have an opportunity to produce coverage of under-researched and under-reported issues, they have the power to educate the public and encourage the adoption and implementation of evidence-based policies in both the public and private sectors.”
As CJR was finalizing its fact check of this article, the Gates Foundation offered a more pointed response: “Recipients of foundation journalism grants have been and continue to be some of the most respected journalism outlets in the world.… The line of questioning for this story implies that these organizations have compromised their integrity and independence by reporting on global health, development, and education with foundation funding. We strongly dispute this notion.”
The foundation’s response also volunteered other ties it has to the news media, including “participating in dozens of conferences, such as the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Network, or the World Conference of Science Journalism,” as well as “help[ing] build capacity through the likes of the Innovation in Development Reporting fund.”
The full scope of Gates’s giving to the news media remains unknown because the foundation only publicly discloses money awarded through charitable grants, not through contracts. In response to questions, Gates only disclosed one contract—Vox’s—but did describe how some of this contract money is spent: producing sponsored content, and occasionally funding “non-media nonprofit entities to support efforts such as journalist trainings, media convenings, and attendance at events.”
In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture.
Over the years, reporters have investigated the apparent blind spots in how the news media covers the Gates Foundation, though such reflective reporting has waned in recent years. In 2015, Vox ran an article examining the widespread uncritical journalistic coverage surrounding the foundation—coverage that comes even as many experts and scholars raise red flags. Vox didn’t cite Gates’s charitable giving to newsrooms as a contributing factor, nor did it address Bill Gates’s month-long stint as guest editor for The Verge, a Vox subsidiary, earlier that year. Still, the news outlet did raise critical questions about journalists’ tendency to cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power.
Five years earlier, in 2010, CJR published a two-part series that examined, in part, the millions of dollars going toward PBS NewsHour, which it found to reliably avoid critical reporting on Gates.
In 2011, the Seattle Times detailed concerns over the ways in which Gates Foundation funding might hamper independent reporting:
To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces. Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.
Two years after the story appeared, the Seattle Times accepted substantial funding from the Gates Foundation for an education reporting project.
These stories offered compelling evidence of Gates’s editorial influence, but they didn’t attempt to investigate the full scope of the foundation’s financial reach into the fourth estate. (For perspective, $250 million is the same amount that Jeff Bezos paid for the Washington Post.)
When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used—often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works—which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.
For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely cited authority on journalism ethics (and an occasional partner of CJR’s), earmarking the funds “to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.”
Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites, including Africa Check, and noted that she is “absolutely confident” that no bias or blind spots emerged from the work, though she acknowledged that she has not reviewed it herself.
I found sixteen examples of Africa Check examining media claims related to Gates. This body of work overwhelmingly seems to support or defend Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation, which has spent billions of dollars on development efforts in Africa. The only example I found of Africa Check even remotely challenging its patron was when a foundation employee tweeted an incorrect statistic—that a child dies of malaria every 60 seconds, instead of every 108.
Africa Check says it went on to receive an additional $1.5 million from Gates in 2017 and 2019.
“Our funders or supporters have no influence over the claims we fact-check…and the conclusions we reach in our reports,” said Noko Makgato, executive director of Africa Check, in a statement to CJR. “With all fact-checks involving our funders, we include a disclosure note to inform the reader.”
Earlier this year, McBride added NPR public editor to her list of duties, as part of a contract between NPR and Poynter. Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through ten charitable grants—all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works.
NPR covers the Gates Foundation extensively. By the end of 2019, a spokesperson said, NPR had mentioned the foundation more than 560 times in its reporting, including 95 times on Goats and Soda, the outlet’s “global health and development blog,” which Gates helps fund. “Funding from corporate sponsors and philanthropic donors is separate from the editorial decision-making process in NPR’s newsroom,” the spokesperson noted.
NPR does occasionally hold a critical lens to the Gates Foundation. Last September, it covered a decision by the foundation to give a humanitarian award to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, despite Modi’s dismal record on human rights and freedom of expression. (That story was widely covered by news outlets—a rare bad news cycle for Gates.)
On the same day, the foundation appeared in another NPR headline: “Gates Foundation Says World Not on Track to Meet Goal of Ending Poverty by 2030.” That story cites only two sources: the Gates Foundation and a representative from the Center for Global Development, a Gates-funded NGO. The lack of independent perspectives is hard to miss. Bill Gates is the second-richest man in the world and might reasonably be viewed as a totem of economic inequality, but NPR has transformed him into a moral authority on poverty.
Given Gates’s large funding role at NPR, one could imagine editors insisting that reporters seek out financially independent voices or include sources who can offer critical perspectives. (Many NPR stories on Gates don’t: here, here, here, here, here, here.) Likewise, NPR could seek a measure of independence from Gates by rejecting donations that are earmarked for reporting on Gates’s favored topics.
Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined “Bill Gates Addresses ‘Tough Questions’ on Poverty and Power.” The “tough questions” NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter posted to his foundation’s website. With no irony at all, reporter Ari Shapiro asked, “How do you…encourage people to be frank with you, even at risk of perhaps alienating their funder?”
In the interview, Gates said that critics are voicing their concerns and the foundation is listening.
In 2007, the LA Times published one of the only critical investigative series on the Gates Foundation, part of which examined the foundation’s endowment holdings in companies that hurt those people the foundation claimed to help, like chocolate companies linked to child labor. Charles Piller, the lead reporter on the series, says he made strenuous efforts to get responses from the Gates Foundation during the investigation.
“For the most part they were unwilling to engage with me. They were unwilling to answer questions and pretty much refused to respond in any sort of way, except in the most minimal way, for most of my stories,” Piller said.“That’s very, very typical of big companies, government agencies—to try to hope that whatever controversial issues have been raised in reporting will have limited shelf life, and they’ll be able to go back to business as usual.”
Asked about the dearth of hard reporting on Gates, Piller says the foundation’s funding may prompt newsrooms to find other targets.
“I think they would be kidding themselves to suggest that those donations to their organizations have no impact on editorial decisions,” he says. “It’s just the way of the world.”
Two journalists who have investigated Gates more recently cite what appear to be more explicit efforts by the foundation to exercise editorial influence.
Writing in De Correspondent, freelance journalists Robert Fortner and Alex Park examined the limitations and inadvertent consequences of the Gates Foundation’s relentless efforts to eradicate polio. In HuffPost, the two journalists showed how Gates’s outsize funding of global health initiatives has steered the world’s aid agenda toward the foundation’s own goals (like polio eradication) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to disease outbreaks, like the Ebola crisis. (This narrative has been lost in the current covid-19 news cycle, as outlets from the LA Times to PBS to STAT have portrayed Gates as a visionary leader on pandemics.)
During the course of Fortner and Park’s reporting these two stories, the foundation went over their heads to seek an audience with their editors. Editors at both publications say this raised questions about Gates attempting to influence editorial direction on the stories.
“They’ve dodged our questions and sought to undermine our coverage,” says Park.
During Park and Fortner’s investigation for De Correspondent, the head of Gates’s polio communications team, Rachel Lonsdale, made an unusual offer to the duo’s editor, writing, “We typically like to have a phone conversation with the editor of a publication employing freelancers we are engaging with, both to fully understand how we can help you with the specific project and to form a longer term relationship that could transcend the freelance assignment.”
The news outlet said it rejected the proposition because of its potential to compromise the independence and integrity of its journalistic work.
In a statement, the foundation said Lonsdale “was conducting normal media relations work as part of her role as a senior program officer. As we wrote to Tim in December 2019, ‘As with many organizations, the foundation has an in-house media relations team that cultivates relationships with journalists and editors in order to serve as a resource for information gathering and to help facilitate thorough and accurate coverage of our issues.’ ”
Park says his editors stood behind his work on both stories, but he doesn’t discount the foundation’s efforts to put “a wedge between us and the publication…if not to assert influence outright, to give themselves a channel through which they could assert influence later.”
Fortner, meanwhile, says he mostly avoids pitching articles to Gates-funded news outlets because of the conflict of interest this presents. “Gates funding, for me, makes a good-faith pitching process impossible,” he says.
Fortner, who authored CJR’s 2010 story on Gates’s journalism funding, self-published a follow-up in 2016 that examined how Gates funding is not always disclosed in news articles, including fifty-nine news stories the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting funded in part with Gates’s money. The center also declined to tell Fortner which fifty-nine articles had Gates’s funding.
If critical reporting about the Gates Foundation is rare, it is largely beside the point in “solutions journalism,” a new-ish brand of reporting that focuses on solutions to problems, not just the problems themselves. That more upbeat orientation has drawn the patronage of the Gates Foundation, which directed $6.3 million to the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN) to train journalists and fund reporting projects. Gates is the largest donor to SJN—supplying around one-fifth of the organization’s lifetime funding. SJN says more than half of this money has been distributed as subgrants, including to Education Lab, its partnership with the Seattle Times.
SJN acknowledges on its website “that there are potential conflicts of interest inherent” in taking philanthropic funding to produce solutions journalism, which SJN cofounder David Bornstein elaborated on in an interview. “If you are covering global health or education and you are writing about interesting models,” Bornstein said, “the chances that an organization [you are covering] is getting money from the Gates Foundation are very high because they basically blanket the whole world with their funding, and they’re the major funder in those two areas.” Asked if he could provide examples of any critical reporting about Gates emerging from SJN, Bornstein took issue with the question. “Most of the stories that we fund are stories that look at efforts to solve problems, so they tend to be not as critical as traditional journalism,” he said.
That is also the case for the journalism Bornstein and fellow SJN cofounder Tina Rosenberg produce for the New York Times. As contract writers for the “Fixes” opinion column, the two have favorably profiled Gates-funded education, agriculture, and global health programs over the years—without disclosing that they work for an organization that receives millions of dollars from Gates. Twice in 2019, for example, Rosenberg’s columns exalted the World Mosquito Project, whose sponsor page lands on a picture of Bill Gates.
“We do disclose our relationship with SJN in every column, and SJN’s funders are listed on our website. But you are correct that when we write about projects that get Gates funding, we should specifically say that SJN receives Gates funding as well,” Rosenberg noted in an email. “Our policy going forward with the NY Times will be clearer and will ensure disclosures.”
My cursory review of the Fixes column turned up fifteen installments where the writers explicitly mention Bill and Melinda Gates, their foundation, or Gates-funded organizations. Bornstein and Rosenberg said they asked their editors at the Times to belatedly add financial disclosures to several of these columns, but they also cited six they thought did not need disclosure. Rosenberg’s 2016 profile of Bridge International Academies, for example, notes that Bill Gates personally helps fund the project. The writers argue that SJN’s ties are to the Gates Foundation, not to Bill Gates himself, so no disclosure is needed.
“This is a significant distinction,” Rosenberg and Bornstein stated in an email.
Months after Bornstein and Rosenberg say they asked their editors to add financial disclosures to their columns, those pieces remain uncorrected. Marc Charney, a senior editor at the Times, said he wasn’t sure if or when the paper would add the disclosures, citing technical difficulties and other newsroom priorities.
Likewise, NPR said it would add a financial disclosure to a 2012 story it published on the Gates Foundation, but did not follow through. (In the vast majority of articles about Gates, NPR makes disclosures.)
Even perfect disclosure of Gates funding doesn’t mean the money can’t still introduce bias. At the same time, Gates funding, alone, doesn’t fully explain why so much of the news about the foundation is positive. Even news outlets with no obvious financial ties to Gates—the foundation isn’t required to publicly report all of the money it gives to journalism, making the full extent of its giving unknown—tend to report favorably on the foundation. That may be because Gates’s expansive giving over the decades has helped influence a larger media narrative about its work. And it may also be because the news media is always, and especially right now, looking for heroes.
A larger worry is the precedent the prevailing coverage of Gates sets for how we report on the next generation of tech billionaires–turned-philanthropists, including Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates has shown how seamlessly the most controversial industry captain can transform his public image from tech villain to benevolent philanthropist. Insofar as journalists are supposed to scrutinize wealth and power, Gates should probably be one of the most investigated people on earth—not the most admired.
Reporting for this piece was supported by a fellowship from the Alicia Patterson Foundation.
Tim Kaine’s political formation wasn’t pro-American or pro-Christian as he claims, it was pro-Communism and pro-Soviet.
Not watered-down Bernie Sanders style Democratic Socialist either, but a hammer and sickle dark era Soviet-approved red. The Democratic Party’s nominee for the Vice Presidency, Senator Tim Kaine used to be a communist.
According to mainstream media, Tim Kaine interrupted his studies at Harvard and took a life transforming “mission” trip to Latin America in 1980. Conveniently left out of these stories, are the radical reality of the Cold War in Latin America and Tim Kaine’s communist mentors.
Whatever Kaine’s intentions were when he left home, he came back to the States having “embraced” Soviet-pushed communist theory. A life transforming mission, indeed.
Did Kaine’s mentors teach him the art of Soviet disinformation — call yourself the very thing you seek to undermine and try to destroy it from within?
Is Tim Kaine The Red Under Hillary’s Sick Bed?
US Defense Watch reports that at age 22, Kaine interrupted his law studies at Harvard to sign up for a year long stint in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, which was heavily involved in various types of missionary work in Central America.
During this time, the merde was indeed hitting the ventilateur south of the US border. Communist backed guerillas were intent on overthrowing the pro US government in El Salvador. In Nicaragua, the US backed Contras battled the communist Sandinista government led by the Marxist hardliner, President Daniel Ortega.
In Latin America and indeed across much of the world, the Jesuits were fully supportive of liberation theology, which began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s and 1960s. Liberation theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty and social injustice in the region.
On the surface, liberation theology preached helping the poor, but in actuality it was a playbook for communist subversion, with one goal; the Marxist take down of poverty stricken nations in Latin America and communism’s advance to the doorstep of the United States, when Mexico too, collapsed under the weight of Moscow funded revolution.
There is more than ample evidence that liberation theology was conceived by the KGB as a way of enabling a communist takeover of Central and South America, while also causing a schism and a possible collapse of the Catholic Church itself. In essence, liberation theology was a giant disinformation campaign run by the Soviet Union.
The top-ranking Soviet Bloc defector of the Cold War, Gen. Ion Pacepa admits that he was personally involved in the operation.
At the time of his defection, General Pacepa simultaneously had the rank of advisor to the bloody dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu, acting chief of his foreign intelligence service and a state secretary of Romania’s Ministry of Interior. Ion Mihai Pacepa stated that the Theology of Liberation was the creation of the Soviet KGB as a way of bringing communism to Latin America and around the world.
General Pacepa has been called “the Cold War’s most important defector.” After his defection, the Romanian totalitarian regime, under the bloody communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, placed “two death sentences and a $2 million bounty on his head.” He pointed out that Pacepa worked more than ten years with the CIA.
Pacepa explained that the liberation theology was born of a 1960s top-secret “Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program.” It was approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party’s international policies. The program ordered that “the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC) based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting liberation theology into a South American revolutionary tool.”
At the time, liberation theology was opposed by a majority of the Catholic Church. Its most vociferous opponent was Pope John Paul II, an ardent anti-communist who was involved in over-throwing communism in Eastern Europe, with his support of the Polish workers’ movement, Solidarity.
To counter Vatican opposition to this theology, recently published documents from the Soviet and East German archives show “active measures” were undertaken to undermine the Vatican and the pope — key barriers to Soviet influence in Latin America.
Active measures included financing communist movements, supplying weapons and military advisors to Latin American countries and conducting disinformation and direct action operations.
Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev supported liberation theology as a way to infiltrate communists in the Catholic Church.
Into this world of communism and violent revolution stepped young Tim Kaine.
Surely, Kaine must have known what he was getting into when he signed up with the JVC. He was a graduate of a Jesuit preparatory high school and knew that the Jesuits were involved in operations on the fringe of the Catholic Church and in support of the enemies of the United States of America.
It is doubtful that a conservative, young Republican, or for that matter, even a mainstream Democrat would have ventured down to Latin America to work for an organization seeping in leftist ideology and infested with radical Marxists and violent revolutionaries.
Reports indicate that in Honduras, “Mr. Kaine embraced liberation theology.”
Kaine’s beliefs were at odds with his own country’s policies under Ronald Reagan, which were to stop the spread of communism across the world and indeed destroy it.
Kaine’s beliefs were at odds with the leader of the Catholic Church itself, Pope John Paul II, who will go down in history as one of the greatest champions of freedom this planet has ever seen.
The Hill reported on Kaine’s radical Jesuit mentors:
Around the time Kaine was there, Jesuits were arrested for gunrunning, and, the next year, the Honduran government banned any more American Jesuits from coming to that country because of their left-wing activism.
They also expelled one American-born Jesuit, who also had to leave that religious community because he was too radical even for them. That priest was Father Jim Carney, and he was the one the New York Times us tells Kaine sought out across the border in Soviet-supported Nicaragua, taking a bus and then walking several miles to meet him.
Carney was a full-blown revolutionary. A recent New York Times report says his death was “murky” and hardened Kaine’s distrust of American involvement in the region.
What isn’t murky is what led to his death. In 1983, Carney was part of a 96-man unit that invaded Honduras to bring the Nicaraguan Communist revolution there too. The insurgents were Cuban and Nicaraguan trained and led by Jose Reyes Mata, Cuban-educated, and Honduras’ top Marxist. Reyes Mata had previously served with Che Guevara in Bolivia.
After a firefight with Honduran troops, Reyes Mata was captured and killed. Carney was reported dead too. Some think he was captured and killed too. Kaine worried about American complicity in an extrajudicial killing, but he didn’t seem bothered by Carney’s participation in a Communist-sponsored insurgency and invasion of Honduras.
To this day, Kaine’s relationship with Father Carney’s successor, Father Melo, continues. Melo, incidentally, wants to redistribute land throughout Latin America by 2021.
Kaine’s politics haven’t changed much. He puts on a good front as a moderate, but in actuality, he’s a left wing radical who has a F Rating from the NRA.
In 2016, we have a Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, a supporter of the revolutionary organizations, the SDS and the Weathermen Underground, who spent the summer of 1969, working for a radical law firm in Oakland.
As noted journalist, Carl Bernstein, reported:
“That summer she went to work at the most important radical law firm in America at that point: Treuhaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland. They defended the Panthers. Two of their partners were members of the Communist Party—including Bob Treuhaft, who was married to Jessica Mitford. I talked to Bob Treuhaft not long before he died, and he said he was certain that Hillary came there because she subscribed to some of the kind of law they practiced and the kind of clients they defended. In her so-called autobiography, “Living History,” she put in a couple of sentences about living in Berkeley with Bill that summer and working at that law firm, but she makes it sound like their work focused on postal rate increases. There’s not a word about radicals.”
Hillary Clinton’s mentor was none other than Saul Alinsky, the left wing revolutionary and ‘community organizer’ who wrote Rules for Radicals.
If Hillary’s past, and that doesn’t include any of her criminal adventures, isn’t dubious enough, her running mate, Tim Kaine is practically an honorary Sandinista himself.
In the United States of America, the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees from the Democratic Party have backgrounds riddled with enough radical left wing and communist activity to keep FBI Counter-Intelligence busy for decades.
Frankly, it’s a disgrace.
The results of the 2020 election are already locked in: Trump wins, and he goes on to dismantle the corrupt, criminal Democrat party that tried (and failed) to destroy America and replace it with a communist regime of left-wing authoritarian tyrants.
How does Trump accomplish this?
President Trump has a “secret weapon” that I’ve been talking about for several months in Health Ranger Report podcasts on Brighteon.com. Until recently, I didn’t know the exact nature of the secret weapon but was told by highly reliable sources that plans were already in place for Trump to defeat the Democrats and protect America from left-wing efforts to destroy this nation.
Now we’ve been able to confirm the content of this “secret weapon” that will be invoked to save America. It’s the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
How the Fourteenth Amendment grants Trump the power to strip power away from treasonous domestic enemies
Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment grants the U.S. President the power to:
Arrest and indefinitely hold all public officials — including mayors, governors, state legislators, federal judges and law enforcement officials — who support “rebellion” against the United States or who have “given aid or comfort” to the enemies of America. (Section 3)
The Democrats already know all this, which is why they are pursuing a plan of election chaos, hoping to throw the entire election process into mass confusion, from which they plan to attempt an illegal coup to eliminate Trump from office and claim political power over the nation.
Many Democrat-run states are already in open rebellion, aiding and comforting illegal insurrectionists who are attempting to overthrow the United States government
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump merely needs to declare an insurrection, then he can have Mayor Lightfoot (Chicago), Mayor Wheeler (Portland), Mayor Durkan (Seattle) and even de Blasio (NYC) arrested and removed from office for violating their oaths of office. All those mayors (and many more) have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, but they have violated their oaths, and under the Fourteenth Amendment that means they have nullified their own right to equal protection under the law.
Because they violated the U.S. Constitution and actively engaged in rebellion against the United States, in other words, they no longer enjoy the benefits of protections under the Constitution.
In addition, President Trump can eliminate congressional House seats for states that support rebellion, reducing their apportionment in the House. This means the states’ Electoral College votes are also reduced, since those numbers are based on the number of House + Senate representatives for each state. This is based on the fact that these states are aiding the efforts of Big Teach to deny the rights of conservatives to participate in elections and voting, via politically-targeted censorship and voter suppression tactics now routinely used by Google, Facebook and other tech giants.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically addresses voter suppression. It says that states which support the suppression of the ability of citizens to participate in voting will lose a portion of their own seats in Congress as well as Electoral College representation. Right now, the most overt and obvious voter suppression is being carried out by Big Tech platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube, but similar censorship is also being undertaken by Microsoft, Apple, Vimeo and other tech giants. These companies are granted aid and comfort by numerous left-wing cities and states which often grant these companies property tax deferments and legal protections against legitimate investigations or prosecutions. In other words, states like California are actively protecting the Big Tech platforms that are suppressing voter participation via politically-targeted censorship. And this puts California in violation of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, President Trump can arrest and imprison all state and federal judges who have granted “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists by, for example, releasing them without charge after they were arrested for participating in riots or assaulting law enforcement officers. This means all Soros-funded District Attorneys and anti-America judges who have supported the insurrection can now be arrested and removed from office in one fell swoop.
Remember that Democrat officials in Oregon, Washington, California, New York, Illinois and other states have overtly granted protections — and in some cases, actual funding — to Black Lives Matter terrorists. This means these officials are complicit in “rebellion” against the United States. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that they cannot hold any public office, “civil or military.” Here’s the language: (emphasis added)
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Finally, Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “…neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.” This means that cities and states which are suffering extreme economic losses due to their support for rioting and insurrection — such as Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc.) — cannot make any claim to federal money to reimburse them for their losses.
Their losses have been incurred as a result of their support for acts of insurrection and rebellion against the United States, and thus the United States has no obligation to reimburse them for such losses.
All this explains why Nancy Pelosi recently declared President Trump and the GOP to be “enemies of the state.” This is the kind of language that would only be used by the Speaker of the House if they intend to attempt a violent coup followed by mass exterminations of their political opponents:
To initiate all this, Trump merely needs to officially declare an insurrection is under way
It is now rather obvious that we are already in that war, which is being waged by radical, extreme left-wing terrorists on a nightly basis. That war is supported and aided by the tech giants who censor all critics of the insurrectionists while aiding their acts of treason by allowing their platforms to be used to coordinate attacks against America.
Left-wing mayors, governors, judges, state representatives and other oath-swearing officials are also openly engaged in insurrection against the United States, and Trump’s declaration of an open insurrection will enable them all to be arrested and removed from power.
This is what Trump must do to save America. It is unlikely that he will declare an insurrection before the election, however. This action seems likely to occur after the election.
Why Trump should declare an insurrection the day before the election
It also grants Trump the opportunity to arrest all the corrupt, left-wing officials the day after the election, shutting down their criminal attempts to counterfeit ballots after the fact that try to “win” by cheating in the weeks following the election itself. Trump can largely shut down that effort by simply declaring an insurrection and arresting all these treasonous actors the day after the election. They cannot counterfeit more ballots, after all, if they’re sitting in jail.
This action would, of course, cause the radical Left to ignite an attempted nationwide kinetic war against the government, but at that point Trump is free to issue escalated engagement orders for federal law enforcement while even bringing in the U.S. military to halt all domestic enemies of the United States who are engaged in acts of treason or warfare against America (deploying the military to defeat domestic enemies of America does not violate Posse Comitatus).
Remember when I told you a year ago that when martial law comes to America, you will beg for it? Now you understand why. When the radical Left unleashes yet more violence, arson, looting, property destruction and anarchy across America, most reasonable Americans will fully support temporarily martial law and even military action on the streets of America to clean out the insurrectionists and restore civility to this nation.
Trump also has the NDAA, signed into law by Obama to imprison Americans who opposed the Clinton regime
In fact, some of the FEMA camp activity being widely reported now, I believe, is actually all about gearing up these camps to house left-wing traitors who are arrested en masse in the coming months. These irrational, insane, lawless lunatics cannot be rehabilitated to rejoin civil society. At best, the nation will have to warehouse them in prison camps for an extended period of time.
In the same way that you can’t teach a pigeon to play chess, and you can’t teach a pig to sing, you can’t teach a Leftist how to function in civil society. They no longer operate in the realms of reason, civility, fairness or freedom. All they know us authoritarianism and violence, which explains why they will have to be isolated from society for the rest of their lives. This is what their parents, school teachers and college professors taught them, of course: How to be crybullies and terrorists, not how to function as reasonable citizens in a free society.
Why Democrats will fail to destroy America, but succeed in destroying their own cities and states
Ultimately, Democrats will end up imploding and destroying their own future. After the failed insurrection attempt, the Democrat party will be disbanded, and thousands of former Democrat officials will either be dead or imprisoned. This is the fate they have chosen, since they refuse to live in peace with people who have different political views. (Exactly when did “coexist” become “kill all Republicans?”)
Trump is in charge, and he has numerous “secret weapons” to deploy against the treasonous Dems, as I explain in this important podcast:
As a nation of economically dependent people relies upon a government for aid, alms, and financial support, a nation of weaklings and cowards, dependent upon the physical protection of others, does the same. Economic self-reliance is but one kind of independence; there are other types. Physical safety is another form of independence, and an often overlooked and underconsidered one. People may look to power/authority, typically governmental power/authority, for both physical and economic security. People who do not feel safe and secure, those who can not defend themselves or safeguard their own rights and interests, are more likely to tolerate police state tactics, mass surveillance, heavily armed policemen, unthinkably intrusive laws, etc.
The social condition of widespread debility and pusillanimity can enable the growth of a powerful state, just as diversity can. Diverse societies are unstable and mistrusting societies. Mistrusting and unstable societies are societies that require a potentate to stay together and in order. Diversity, like widespread physical weakness, effeminacy, and timidity, is fertile soil for statism to take root and grow. Granted, those accustomed to violence, namely the rough, the violent themselves, may tolerate statist tactics as well, mostly on account of their own natural comfort with violence and brutality. However, they are generally less likely to crave such tactics and need such tactics in the same way that those who can not put in their own work will. Weaklings are notorious for loving cruelty in the service of their own causes, and for preferring a highly controlled environment where they are safe, to a state of liberty.
While some might argue that transgenderism masculates women to the same extent it emasculates men, thus leading to no net loss, this is not so. Women can not be men. Not really. Masculine women, pumped up on male hormones or delusions of physical strength, are not really comparable to men. A masculine woman, except in the rarest of cases, is a cheap substitute for a real man, as a feminine or “gender dysmorphic” man is a cheap substitute for a real woman. A gender dysmorphic biological female can not fight like a man and a gender dysmorphic biological male can not breed like a woman. Both are basically dead weight everywhere but in Hollywood movies. Thus, you really just lose men and women and never gain any.
"The Roses of Heliogabalus" by Lawrence Alma-Tadema
Nevertheless, the normalization of transgenderism (and to a lesser extent homosexuality), serves another purpose, and we must not discount that purpose as being another motivation leftist elites possess for normalizing these things and flooding us with incessant propaganda and conditioning concerning them. An effeminate and weak (and especially a confused and delusional) population is more inclined to look to government for security. Thus, when the Cultural Marxist power structure seeks to normalize these bizarre behaviors and pathologies, it not only weakens the people, it strengthens itself.
A nation of weaklings and girlie men is an invitation to statism and totalitarianism. The weak and cowardly can not defend themselves. They will not defend themselves. They will thus look to government for safety and security. This is likely another very important reason why the Cultural Marxists who rule over us are normalizing transgenderism and homosexuality, and now even calling masculinity itself “toxic”. They desire a nation of damsels ever in distress. Damsels can not defend themselves from external threats. They can not defend themselves from minor threats posed by common, albeit violent criminals, who fancy themselves eternal victims no matter how many innocents they victimize, and they especially can not defend themselves from tyrannical Marxist threats, which fancy themselves liberal democratic governments, no matter how illiberal or anti-democratic they have become.
09/08/2020 Jason Morgan ... Mises
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has a fearsome reputation. The author and executor of countless coups and political assassinations, the CIA is notorious for waterboarding, “extraordinary rendition,” regime change, kidnapping, narcotics smuggling, financing of guerrilla wars, and many other unsavory activities around the world, including against Americans, even inside the United States.
But “fearsome” does not mean “flawless.” The CIA has failed at least as often as it has succeeded, and sometimes the failures are so flagrant—such as sending thousands of anticommunist guerrilla fighters behind enemy lines in Korea, Eastern Europe, China, and Southeast Asia during the Cold War, where nearly all of them died—that CIA insiders wryly refer to their organization as “Clowns In Action.”
Which is it? Is the CIA a dastardly menace or a hotbed of horrible mistakes? If Stephen Kinzer’s new book, Poisoner in Chief, is any indication, the answer is both.
A veteran reporter on foreign conflicts such as those in Rwanda, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Iran, Kinzer is a former New York Times correspondent and, most famously, the author of the 2006 bestseller Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. In his latest effort he brings his analytical skills to bear on perhaps the most disturbing CIA project of them all: MKULTRA, the top-secret, long-running effort to find a method for controlling the human mind.
“History’s most systematic search for techniques of mind control,” Kinzer writes, was a by-product of World War II. At the end of 1942, a University of Wisconsin bacteriologist named Ira Baldwin—“America’s first bio-warrior” and a part-time Quaker preacher—was loaned to Washington (with the blessing of the University of Wisconsin president) in order to set up and run a bioweapons program for the United States military (p. 16). Based out of Camp Detrick in Maryland, the Baldwin lab cranked out bioweapons for possible use against Allied enemies. In one of Baldwin’s bigger projects, shipment of tons of anthrax spores, ordered by Winston Churchill for potential use against the Nazis, was approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and almost ready for delivery when the Germans surrendered on May 7, 1945 (p. 19).
For many, even for Quaker preachers, World War II cleared away the last of the psychological hurdles against unleashing bioweapons against an enemy. Kinzer’s book tells the tale of how the targeting of unsuspecting populations was later justified by the bigger war, the Cold War, which followed the demise of the Third Reich.
The ruined Third Reich provided much of the original brainpower for MKULTRA. Immediately after World War II, the CIA—formed out of the Office of War Information in 1945—was faced with a choice. The Germans and the Japanese had been conducting advanced experiments on germ warfare and other forms of biological weaponry. Should the Allies prosecute as war criminals the scientists involved with such projects, or hire them as expert advisors? With the Cold War starting and the Soviets looming as an unpredictable enemy, the CIA, with the tacit approval of the few members of the United States Congress who were allowed to know even the existence of the Central Intelligence Agency, decided to make use of the bioweapon expertise of erstwhile foes in order to counter the new adversary in Moscow.
For example, Kurt Blome, the Nazis’ director of biowarfare research and development whose work had been championed by Heinrich Himmler, was acquitted, by American political fiat, at the Doctors’ Trial in Nuremberg in 1947 and sent to work—as part of Operation Paperclip designed mainly to bring German rocket scientists to the US—at Camp Detrick (pp. 20–24).
It was at Camp Detrick that Blome encountered a rising star in the CIA, Sidney Gottlieb. Gottlieb, a bacteriological specialist who had been a star student of Ira Baldwin’s at Wisconsin, is the main figure in Kinzer’s book. His career is virtually synonymous with MKULTRA. Under the direction of Gottlieb, the CIA’s laboratories at Camp Detrick transitioned from R&D on bioweapons—often using unwitting American subjects, such as in 1950 when a US Navy minesweeper “specially equipped with large aerosol hoses” spent six days spraying the Serratia marcescens bacterium into the San Francisco fog, infecting some eight hundred thousand people (pp. 37–38)—to drugs which could be used for mind control. (MKNAOMI, MKULTRA’s sister CIA project, was also tasked with finding poisons and biotoxins which the CIA and the US government could use in various operations.) Gottlieb provided the big ideas into which to fit Blome’s nefarious knowledge of mass murder by bacillus. Gottlieb became, virtually overnight and with the help of former Nazi doctors, America’s “poisoner in chief.”
The CIA’s mind control program, which was assuming a bigger and bigger importance as fears of Soviet brainwashing grew in the US, was originally called Operation Bluebird and was personally overseen by CIA higher-up Allen Dulles. (47) At first, the Bluebird team experimented with “hypnosis, electroshock, and sensory deprivation,” along with drugs like sodium amytal, at CIA sites in “secret prisons in Germany and Japan,” looking for a way to extract information out of POWs and captured spies (pp. 44, 48–49). But Dulles was unsatisfied with the results and decided to give the young CIA recruit Sidney Gottlieb control of Bluebird’s updated iteration: Operation Artichoke (pp. 51–52). The goal of Artichoke was to do whatever it took to get prisoners to divulge military and state secrets to the CIA. The Cold War would brook nothing short of full-scale war against the human mind.
Dulles became deputy director of central intelligence three days after launching Artichoke in 1951, and Gottlieb, invisible to the outside world, was given virtually unlimited rein to carry out any experiments thought necessary to achieve mind control (p. 51). This drive to achieve total operational control over the human psyche eclipsed all reality and tactical limitation. If the US didn’t win the race to the mind control method, many in the CIA thought, the entire American population lay vulnerable to mental enslavement by the Soviets. Dulles, Kinzer writes, despite a disastrously unsuccessful three-year “Artichoke” attack on a Bulgarian political prisoner named Dmitri Dimitrov, “had convinced himself not only that mind control techniques exist but that Communists had discovered them, and that this posed a mortal threat to the rest of the world” (pp. 52–53).
Mind control was the pressing need, but nothing brought it within reach. Technique after technique, drug after drug, was tried on prisoners, but to no avail. In frustration, Artichoke agents under Gottlieb upped the ante, turning to marijuana, cocaine, and then heroin as possible catalysts of CIA-directed, anti-Soviet brainwashing. As part of Artichoke, a University of Rochester psychology professor was given a grant by the US Navy to test heroin on his students. The control of the mind remained as elusive as ever, despite the massive dosing of the Rochester student population with opiates. Nothing seemed to have the potential to crack open the mind for the CIA (p. 59).
Someone in Artichoke suggested using mescaline after the other narcotics failed, and this gave Sidney Gottlieb an idea. He remembered hearing about a drug called LSD which Dr. Albert Hofmann had discovered during an experiment at Sandoz laboratories in Basel, Switzerland, in 1943. Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), an ergot enzyme, produced extraordinary and disturbing psychological effects, Dr. Hofmann found when he ingested some and recorded the drug’s effects. Washington learned of Hofmann’s discovery in 1949, and one of the chemical specialists in the US military complex told Gottlieb of the new substance (pp. 34–35) In 1951, Gottlieb asked Harold Abramson, who had been a physician in the Chemical Warfare Service during World War II, to administer LSD to him. Gottlieb experienced the same psychedelic state as Dr. Hofmann had described. Other subjects were tested, as well, not all of them wittingly, and all seemed to exhibit similar reactions. LSD most definitely altered the mind (pp. 60–61). Gottlieb was convinced that he had found the magical drug which would allow the CIA to control the psyche, and therefore to beat the Soviets at (what Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and many others at CIA thought, at least, was) the Soviets’ own game.
The experiments on human subjects followed rapidly after Gottlieb’s conversion to belief in the powers of LSD. These experiments often ended in death, often by murder. One study quoted by Kinzer reports that
in 1951 a team of CIA scientists led by Dr. Gottlieb flew to Tokyo….Four Japanese suspected of working for the Russians were secretly brought to a location where the CIA doctors injected them with a variety of depressants and stimulants….Under relentless questioning, they confessed to working for the Russians. They were taken out into Tokyo Bay, shot and dumped overboard. (p. 64)
The CIA carried out similar experimentation and executions in Korea and Germany (p. 64). Gottlieb was usually personally involved.
Throughout the 1950s the experimentation continued. An American artist named Stanley Glickman was lured to a bar near his studio in Paris by CIA agents in 1951 and a chemical was slipped into his drink. Glickman began to hallucinate wildly. He fled in a state of panic and remained in his Paris apartment for the next ten months in paranoid hiding until his family came to take him home, and then he spent the rest of his life as a near invalid. The chemical which the CIA had slipped into Glickman’s drink was almost certainly LSD, and Glickman, Kinzer suggests, had been chosen by the CIA because he had just recovered from hepatitis and the Artichoke team was conducting an experiment on the effects of hepatic infection on the efficacy of LSD (pp. 66–67)
Things got worse from there. In 1952, the CIA commissioned underworld denizen and former vice cop George Hunter White to run a human-subjects experiment site at 81 Bedford Street in Greenwich Village, New York (pp. 74–75). White’s job was to bring to the CIA’s apartment “expendables” on whom Gottlieb and his team could test LSD. White “knew the whores, the pimps, the people who brought in the drugs,” as one of Gottlieb’s MKULTRA colleagues later explained, and this made him invaluable for procuring the “drug users, petty criminals, and others who could be relied upon not to complain about what had happened to them” when the CIA’s experiments were finished (pp. 76–77). Many of these “expendables” suffered nervous breakdowns, and some died.
In order to keep the supply of LSD flowing, CIA agents went to Basel, where LSD had been discovered, and tried to buy all the LSD in stock. Allen Dulles authorized a $240,000 outlay to pay for it (p. 86). Sandoz held the patent for Hofmann’s 1943 discovery, but Sandoz wanted nothing to do with the troublesome substance and so Gottlieb, freed of any need to scruple over IP infringement, tasked US pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly with making LSD in the States (pp. 85–86) With their mind control serum in production, MKULTRA agents could focus on how to dose experimental subjects. The CIA even hired a professional magician, John Mulholland, to teach Gottlieb and his agents how to deliver LSD into unsuspecting subjects’ drinks and food without being detected (pp. 89–94)
Gottlieb recruited a Kentucky addiction specialist, Dr. Harry Isbell, to test LSD and new mind-altering drugs on prisoners and patients. More lives were destroyed (pp. 94–96). Among the victims of another of Gottlieb’s agent-doctors was none other than James “Whitey” Bulger, the mafioso who, along with “nineteen other inmates” at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, beginning in 1957 “was given LSD nearly every day for fifteen months, without being told what it was” (pp. 98–99). Bulger was plagued for the rest of his life with nightmares, suicidal thoughts, and “deep depression” (p. 98). Bulger, who had been told that he was taking part in experiments designed to find a cure for schizophrenia, did not learn the truth about what had happened until 1979 (pp. 263–64).
The human toll of Gottlieb’s MKULTRA experiments continued to mount. One of Gottlieb’s closest associates in the project, Frank Olson—a bacteriologist trained at the University of Wisconsin who had also been recruited for the CIA by Gottlieb’s mentor Ira Baldwin—began to express doubts about what the MKULTRA team was doing. He told his wife that he had made a “terrible mistake” in his work (p. 114). He shared his misgivings with his CIA colleagues as well. Olson’s conscience appeared to be getting the better of him, and he became a liability to the team.
In late 1953, Gottlieb surreptitiously dosed Olson with LSD at a backwoods MKULTRA gathering, “Deep Creek Rendezvous,” outside Camp Detrick (p. 113). Olson spiraled into a frightening disorientation, and early in the morning on November 28, 1953—a few days after Thanksgiving—Olson “fell or jumped” from a window of the Statler Hotel in Manhattan, dying few moments after hitting the concrete below. Another MKULTRA agent, Gottlieb’s lieutenant Robert Lashbrook, was the only other person in the room when Olson “fell or jumped” (pp. 120–21). Lashbrook told the New York City police that Olson had jumped out of the window and Olson’s death was originally designated a suicide, but the Olson family eventually grew suspicious and an investigation was carried out, including a new autopsy on Olson’s body. The forensic pathologist, after a month’s examination of the corpse, declared: “I think Frank Olson was intentionally, deliberately, with malice aforethought, thrown out of that window” (p. 250). Wounds on Olson’s body were consistent with methods taught in CIA manuals for incapacitating people and then killing them in order to make their deaths look self-inflicted.
Gottlieb and MKULTRA were shaken by Olson’s demise, but they carried on with their work. They spent the next few years looking for magic mushrooms in Mexico (157); arranging suicide capsules for American agents, including U-2 pilot Gary Powers (who chose not to use his when he was shot down over the Soviet Union) (pp. 172–75); attempting, at the order of then attorney general Robert Kennedy, to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (after exploding cigars and exploding conch shells were ruled out, Gottlieb tried with a wetsuit laced with fungi and bacteria) (p. 184); and hooking Allen Ginsberg and other radicals on LSD (pp. 188–90). Gottlieb personally delivered to the American embassy in Leopoldville in the Congo poisons that Gottlieb had developed to assassinate Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, but the Belgians and the Africans beat the CIA to it (pp. 176–80).
Gottlieb’s career brought ruin and suffering to untold numbers of people, many of them innocent. He retired from the CIA in 1973 after receiving the Distinguished Intelligence Medal (p. 211). Lifelong devotees of folk dance, Gottlieb and his wife, Margaret, moved to the countryside in rural Virginia and attempted to blend in with the small community there, volunteering, dancing, and experimenting with radical ecology. However, “investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who had won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam,” learned of the MH-CHAOS program targeting Americans, and the Congress was forced to act. Gottlieb’s career, long a well-kept secret, was being brought into the open, and his retirement would therefore be far from peaceful.
But there were still many who tried to cover up what Gottlieb and the other MKULTRA agents had done. In 1975, after the outcry caused by the Hersh reporting, President Gerald Ford deputized Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to chair a commission on the CIA. The new CIA director, William Colby, was remarkably frank. Colby informed the Rockefeller Commission that “the CIA had conducted LSD experiments that resulted in deaths. Later he referred to assassination plots” (p. 216). Nelson Rockefeller, attempting to prevent the CIA director from revealing too much, buttonholed Colby later: “Bill, do you really have to present all this material to us?” (p. 216).
In 1977, in the wake of the Church Report on further American intelligence excesses, Senator Edward Kennedy, Robert’s brother, spurred on by some documents which had been discovered as the result of a FOIA request (Gottlieb had ordered all MKULTRA files burned, but some undetected copies remained), called Admiral Stansfield Turner to testify before Congress on MKULTRA. The walls were closing in. Gottlieb himself was eventually forced to testify—albeit in a closed-room setting his lawyer had helped arrange—but Gottlieb essentially pleaded amnesia (nearly all of his answers to questions about MKULTRA were some version of “I do not recall”) and the matter seemed to end there.
Still, the skeletons in Gottlieb’s closet would not go away. In 1984 Gottlieb agreed to meet with the family of Frank Olson, the former MKULTRA colleague who had “fallen or jumped” from his Manhattan hotel room in 1953. Eric Olson, Frank Olson’s son, was unconvinced by Gottlieb’s explanation for the “accident,” and, after Frank Olson’s widow and Eric’s mother passed away, ordered Frank’s body exhumed in 1994. As information about MKULTRA built in the public’s awareness, other cases were reopened, including that of Stanley Glickman. (257) The courts were now involved and Gottlieb could not count on the CIA to get him out of his legal trouble. Gottlieb pushed back the trial for Glickman’s murder as long as he could, and then, in early March, 1999, Sidney Gottlieb died.
Like Frank Olson, it was not officially revealed whether or not the death had been a suicide (p. 259).
Stephen Kinzer’s Poisoner in Chief is a highly readable, thoroughly researched introduction to the life and work of one of America’s most unknown, and yet infamous, government agents. Kinzer is to be thanked for his plainspoken, courageous book. Even those who have studied the CIA and the various schemes and crimes which “the Agency” has committed over the past seventy-five years will be surprised by some of the information Kinzer relates. To see in one volume a rendering of just some of the lives ruined by just one CIA program, MKULTRA, is a sobering revelation.
Sidney Gottlieb, the person directly responsible for much, if not most, of the MKULTRA devastation over more than twenty years, remains as mysterious at the end of Kinzer’s volume as at the beginning, however. By all accounts Gottlieb was a good student from a stable family. Kinzer speculates that perhaps Gottlieb’s having been rejected for military service in World War II—Gottlieb stuttered and had a clubfoot—left him unsatisfied and impatient to prove his patriotism, an urgent task for the son of immigrant Jews (p. 50). Gottlieb was heavily involved in New Age mysticism and meditation and appears to have expended considerable energy psychologically compartmentalizing his “work,” so there are indications that he was aware that the experiments he and his MKULTRA team were carrying out were, at best, unethical, and objectively speaking often outright crimes.
But Gottlieb was hardly alone in his endeavors, and the explanation that Gottlieb, Allen Dulles, and many others in the CIA gave—to themselves and to each other, and to the world around when pressed—makes the most sense. They had a country to defend, they faced an enemy of unprecedented cruelty in the Soviet Union, and they were willing to do whatever it took, even sacrificing innocent people, to keep Americans as a whole from falling under the spell of communist mind control.
SPENCER SUNSHINE, 2019
A Jewish woman holding a candle, with a "We Will Outlive Them" banner in the background, at a New York vigil for the victims of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh. (Gili Getz)
Especially in the United States, the mainstream Jewish community reviles left-wing Jews who embrace anti-Zionism.
Meanwhile, the Jewish Left itself is split. On one side are the “Left Zionists” who support a two-state solution and back Israeli democratic-socialist parties like Meretz. On the other side are the anti-Zionists, who are opposed to a Jewish state existing, regardless of its borders, and tend to support a one-state solution.
The larger Left, for whom rejecting Zionism has become mandatory in most circles, doesn’t like the Left Zionists. Many in the larger Left consider Zionism toxic, and alternately label it as racist, fascist, apartheid, colonialist and/or white supremacist. Over and over on the Left, Zionism gets raised as a litmus test even in domestic politics that have nothing to do with the Middle East. A prominent example occurred in 2017 when Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour suggested that Zionism and feminism were incompatible.
The Left Zionists in turn don’t like the Jewish anti-Zionists. But many in the mainstream Jewish community also lump Left Zionists, or anyone who strongly criticizes Israel, in with anti-Zionists. The treatment of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group J Street – dismissed as radical by much of the Jewish mainstream but also so moderate that they are often shunned by the Jewish Left – is a good example.
Still with me?
But emerging from the anti-Zionist camp is a new wave of Jewish leftists who are taking a different approach. And it is this group – young, politically active and proud of their Judaism – that has the potential to bridge some of the divisions within the Jewish community.
Participants in this new wave are largely the same type of person that can be found in many radical political movements – young, passionate, idealistic and seeking to transform their beliefs into action.
From teenagers to those in their thirties, anarchists to social democrats, members of this new Jewish Left can be found at political demonstrations and drunken parties – not just talking political theory, but building an openly Jewish movement that organizes around both fighting anti-Semitism and supporting more general social justice politics.
This new wave is largely indistinguishable from their non-Jewish contemporaries on the activist Left in their core political philosophies and demographics. But these are not just Jews on the Left who happen to be Jewish; rather, they are proudly Jewish in their activism.
A previous wave of Jewish radical groups emerged in the wake of the Second Intifada, including Jews Against the Occupation and the Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, as well as the turn to anti-Zionism by the older group Jewish Voice for Peace. These groups centered directly on Palestinian solidarity.
This new wave on the Jewish Left, in contrast, has a broader focus and embraces Judaism more proudly. Some incorporate religious traditions into their political work, while others remain secular. They work both on popular left-wing issues, like Black Lives Matter, and on issues that directly affect Jews, including anti-Semitism.
Centered mostly in New York City, this new wave of Jewish radical leftists includes a number of different groups. The Jewish Solidarity Caucus is an unofficial grouping within the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the largest U.S. socialist group. The Muslim-Jewish Antifascist Front, frequently referred to as MuJew, often attends demonstrations against the far right, as well as against anti-Semites in left-wing spaces. The venerable Jewish Currents magazine recently handed control over to a new, younger staff, who cover a spectrum of left-wing topics from an explicitly Jewish perspective.
One of the more religion-oriented groups in the new wave is RAYJ, Rebellious, Anarchist, Young Jews. Their Facebook page asks for supporters to send them “graphics, articles, debate topics, Jewish rituals and traditions (music, art, prayer)” to post online. They created a “Shabbat Ritual guide full of writing, reflection activities, song, and blessings” for the Gregorian New Year.
But the Outlive Them network best symbolizes this new wave. Formed just before the deadly 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, its aim is to build “a World without Pogroms, for a Future without Fascism.” Its members host everything “from street demos to Shabbat gatherings, memorials, workshops, [and] educational panels” in over 18 cities around the world. The New York City group, Outlive Them NYC, includes both secular and religious Jews of differing levels of observance.
“We got all kinds of Jews in the mix,” member Moishe Ben Marx, 33, told me.
Outlive Them NYC member Sharona Farber, 28, has been active in left-wing politics since she was a young teenager, but only became involved in specifically Jewish groups in June 2018. Now she is involved in several. Farber sees this new wave as driven by a general rise in anti-Semitism. She sees the October 2018 Pittsburgh massacre in particular as the moment when activists in these groups started to think of what they were doing as something new and different.
According to Farber, participation in groups like Outlive Them is also leading younger Jews to “explore the role of Judaism in their own life.” This includes taking Jewish classes about subjects that were not taught in Hebrew school or synagogue, forming reading groups to connect Judaism to leftist politics and going on communal outings to museums and on synagogue tours.
They have also participated in protests against anti-Semitism. MuJew has taken part in demonstrations against anti-Semitism on both the Left and Right. This includes protesting when a former editor at a Holocaust denial periodical spoke at a Brooklyn left-wing space in 2016, as well as attending the August 2017 antifascist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia. More recently, Outlive Them NYC called a counter-demonstration against a rally that denounced Polish Holocaust reparations. For some of the activists involved in these new groups, this is the first time they have joined a Jewish group or have been involved in organized Jewish life.
Admittedly, this new Jewish radical Left is out of step both with large Jewish organizations and with the older generation of Left Zionists because they are overwhelmingly anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism is the default setting for this new wave – it is essentially the water they swim in.
However, none of these groups or projects are centrally focused on Israel/Palestine for their activism, though they may endorse BDS or engage in some level of political work around this issue.
And because the new wave is also predominately anti-Zionist, it can function openly on the anti-Zionist Left – unlike Zionists.
But perhaps this new wave can help bridge the Jewish community’s glaring generational and political gap – especially between the older Zionists who overwhelmingly comprise its leaders and attendees in its institutions, and the younger anti-Zionists who steer clear.
For years, mainstream Jewish institutions have openly struggled over how to reach the younger generation in order to get them to engage in communal Jewish life, as well as to promote a positive Jewish identity.
But as these institutions are wringing their hands, younger Jews are being integrated into a Jewish community – one that happens to be anti-Zionist. And while it’s true that anti-Zionism only holds sway in a numerically small part of the Jewish community, it has taken hold in an engaged core group of younger people, including many of their generation’s best and brightest, who will remain influential beyond their numbers for many years to come.
Some on the new Jewish Left focus on bridge-building with the larger radical and anarchist communities. For example, after the Pittsburgh massacre, RAYJ made a poster emphasizing the need for community solidarity “with other movements for liberation” as a response to anti-Semitism, as opposed to looking to the government to address this issue.
“Throughout the weeks and months following the shooting, our poster was used throughout the Jewish and leftist world. Anarchist groups with no Jewish affiliation posted our flier on their pages and Jewish leftists wheat pasted the flyer throughout various cities,” RAYJ told me.
Your local Jewish federation probably won’t be distributing RAYJ’s poster anytime soon. But therein lies the rub: Groups like RAYJ can speak to young Jews in their own language, and they can make their own set of connections between Jewish identity and political activism, free from the obligations that mainstream organizations have.
RAYJ is helping young Jews incorporate Jewish tradition into different facets of their life, where a mainstream Zionist group like the Anti-Defamation League would be ignored – if not treated like the enemy.
Outlive Them NYC is even more focused on making connections with the larger Jewish community, including outside of its political sphere.
In February 2019, the windows of Brooklyn’s Chabad of Bushwick were smashed during Shabbat while the rabbi and his family were inside. Generally, the Left steers clear of Chabad Houses, which are run by Hasidic Lubavitcher Jews. But Outlive Them NYC responded by holding a “Solidarity Shabbat” in which observant members attended the congregation’s services to show support against anti-Semitism. If Outlive Them NYC had put out an anti-Zionist foot first, even if they had made the same show of solidarity, they probably would have received a negative reception from the Lubavitchers.
It is an increasingly frightening time to be Jewish, even in the United States. The postwar taboo against anti-Semitism is collapsing, and this affects all Jews – regardless of their opinion on Zionism. The attackers in the Poway and Pittsburgh synagogues didn’t litmus-test their victims on Israel before murdering them.
Amid the impulses to assimilation, this new wave of radicals are among the small number of Jews who are actively seeking to retain and nourish Jewish culture. And, even though they are born out of the anti-Zionist community, which has been excluded from mainstream Jewish life, some of the groups – especially Outlive Them – are throwing a line out to the mainstream.
The mainstream Jewish community should grab this rope. After all, there are no shortage of opinions among Jews. There is no reason that Zionism and anti-Zionism – like secular identity versus religious observance, Hebrew versus Ladino language, and Ashkenazi versus Sephardic liturgy – should not just be another difference within a tradition that has retained cohesion even after several millennia of communal disagreements.
Don’t point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.
To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is “America” — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a “free” people or not.
So, let’s roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn’t teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you’ll stay awake for this lesson.
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” This is also known as the “Act of 1871.” What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let’s look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated “front” for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original “organic” version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the “Act of 1871,” our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of” in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
“The Constitution for the united states of America”.
The altered version reads: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn’t. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.
Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the “organic” Constitution, we now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a “privilege” which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.
So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word “Sovereign,” we must think about what the word means.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, “sovereign” is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.
In other words, our government was created by and for “sovereigns” — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: “government is subject to the consent of the governed” — that’s supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don’t.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.
You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law. Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses — not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else’s massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??
When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a “de facto,” or unlawful, form of government — the corporate body of the death-mongers — The Controllers.
With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion — all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain — and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don’t suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That’s because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works — and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the “Divine Right of Kings” and “Law of the Seas”, respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.
The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as “departments” such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These “departments” all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.
I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation [see note]. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the “corporate empire of the UNITED STATES,” which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You’ll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!
Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can’t get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us — as in the case with the illegal income tax — among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.
The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate “departments.” And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, “Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?” Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.
Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don’t know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to “give” you — at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called “benefits” of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren’t you enslaved enough already?
I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don’t in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.
The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue? Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they’ve got you by the pockets. Actually, they’ve had you by the ass for as long as you’ve been alive. In your heart, you know it’s true. Don’t believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how “free” you really are.
With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.
Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster — and restore our Constitutional Republic.
In an upcoming article, we’ll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became “property” of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.
I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true — not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.
Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all — pray — that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot — come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?
Something to think about — it’s called freedom.
In July 2017, the Revolutionary Communist Party released a statement claiming responsibility for the creation of Refuse Fascism, arguing that capitalism is the same system as fascism and that the election of President Trump will lead the government to “bludgeon and eliminate whole groups of people.” The RCP is one of the main supporters of Refuse Fascism today, committing to contribute as many resources as possible to the organization.
Sunsara Taylor and Carl Dix are co-founders of Refuse Fascism, both radical left-wing activists associated with the RCP. Taylor is an avid supporter of the RCP platform advanced by party president Bob Avakian, which preaches the achievement of communist ideals through outright revolution.
Taylor is on the advisory board of World Can’t Wait, another communist organization aimed at exposing the “crimes” of the United States government which was originally initiated to drive President George W. Bush from office. Taylor is an outspoken pro-abortion advocate, leading the 2013 Abortion Rights Freedom Ride in order to claim the moral high ground for the pro-abortion movement.
Carl Dix is a founding member of the RCP who advocates for a full communist revolution in the United States.
2020 Leftwing riots
“If you’re sick of watching video after video of these murders by police … you need to … join with a movement for an actual revolution, to prepare for a time when it will be possible to lead millions to bring this system down, and replace it with a new society based on the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America.”
A Project Veritas video also introduces Andy Zee, an organizer for Refuse Fascism, a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party, talking about a possible meet-up with Democrat donor Tom Steyer.
“I don’t know if we took the meeting today. We were meeting with his main advisor on impeachment...Tom Steyer’s been retweeting some of our stuff." ...
1992 Rodney King riots
“Why We Have Taken Up the Fight to Build Refuse Fascism and to Drive Out the Trump/Pence Fascist Regime.” REVOLUTION. Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, July 24, 2017.
As in “no one could have known” that by shutting down life as we know it to focus obsessively on a virus mostly affecting what is still a relatively small number of people at the end of their lives (yes, oh squeamish ones we must summon the courage to talk about Quality Adjusted Life Years when making public policy) we probably would:
1. Cause economic devastation and hence excess deaths, suicides, divorces depressions in much larger numbers than those killed by the virus.
2. Provide an already monopolistic and predatory online retailing establishment with competitive advantages in terms of capital reserves and market share that will make it virtually impossible at any time in the near or medium future for the country’s and the world’s small and even medium-sized businesses to ever catch up to them. And that this will plunge huge sectors of the world-wide economy into serf-like ruin, with all that this portends in terms of additional death and human suffering.
3. Cause greatly increased misery and countless additional deaths in the so-called Global South where many people, rightly or wrongly, depend on the consumption patterns of us relatively fortunate sit-at-homers to make it through the week.
4. Destroy much of what was attractive about urban life as we know it and lead to a real estate collapse of extraordinary proportions, turning even our few remaining showplace cities into crime-ridden reserves of ever more desperate people.
5. Force state and local governments, already struggling before the crisis, and unable to print at money at will like the Feds, to cut their already insufficient budgets at a time when their broke and stressed constituents need those services more than ever.
6. Push “smart” monitoring of our lives, already intolerable for anyone still clinging to memories of freedom in the pre-September 11th world, to the point where most people will no longer understand what people used to know as privacy, intimacy or the simple dignity of being left alone.
7. Train of a generation of children to be fearful and distrustful of others from day one, and to view bending to diktats “to keep them safe”, (no matter how empirically dubious the actual threat to them might be), rather than the courageous pursuit of joy and human fullness, as the key goal in life.
We will also no doubt be told that no one could have imagined or known at the time:
That governments often make policy on the basis of information they know to be largely unsubstantiated or flat-out false. Because they know (Karl Rove spilled the beans in his famous interview with Ron Susskind) that by the time the few conscientious researchers out there get around looking past the hype to debunk their initial storylines, the structures favorable to them put into place on the basis of the false narrative will have been normalized, and thus be in no danger of being dismantled.
That our educational institutions, already failing miserably in the essential democratic task of educating the young to engage in productive conflict with those whose ideas are different than their own, will only further promote dehumanization of “the other” through ever-greater reliance on the disembodied practices of remote learning. And that this, in turn, will only encourage the further growth of the “drive-by shooting” approach to “coping” with new and challenging ideas seen so often in our public “discussions” in recent years.
That further fomenting the alienated and alienating educational practices mentioned above will make than it easier than it already is for our oligarchs to enhance their already obscene levels control over our daily lives and long-term destinies through divide and rule tactics.
That according to the Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance (IDEA) fully twos thirds of elections scheduled to be held since February have been postponed due to COVID. And that this does much to accustom citizens and populations to the idea that one of their few remaining democratic rights can essentially be taken away on the basis of bureaucratic whims, creating a dangerous “new normal” that obviously favors the interests of established centers of power.
That Sweden and other countries developed much more proportionate, culture-saving and dignity-saving ways to live safely and much more fully with the virus.
That Anthony Fauci has a well-documented tendency to see every health problem as being amenable to expensive pharmaceutical solutions (some might even call it corruption), even when other less intrusive, less expensive, and equally effective therapies are available.
That the recent history of using vaccines to fight respiratory infections has been ineffective when not grotesquely counterproductive.
That during the first half of the 20th century the infectious disease of polio was a constant danger, culminating in 1952 with a devastating toll of 3,145 deaths and 21,269 cases of paralysis in a US population of 162,000,000, almost all of the victims being children and young adults. The danger then to the under-24 population (some 34 million) of being infected (.169%) paralyzed (.044%) or killed (.0092%) far outstripped in percentages and, obviously, severity anything COVID is doing to the same age group. And yet there was no talk of blanket school closures, cancelled high school, college and pro sports or, needless to say, lockdowns or masking for the entire society.
That the world lost some 1.1 million people in the 1957-58 Asian flu epidemic (more than the present COVID number of 760,000), with some 116,000 in the US (.064% of the population) and the world similarly did not stop.
That the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 killed between 1 and 4 million worldwide and some 100,000 in the US (.048% of population killed) and that life similarly was not stopped. Indeed, Woodstock took place in the middle of it.
That the decisions to get on with life in all of these cases were probably not the result, as some today might be tempted suggest, of a lack of scientific knowledge or lesser concern for the value of life, but rather a keener understanding in the more historically-minded heads of that time that risk is always part of life and that aggressive attempts to eliminate this most ubiquitous human reality can often lead to severe unwanted consequences.
That there were many prestigious scientists, including Nobel prize winners, who told us as early as March that this virus, while new, would in greater or lesser measure behave much like all viruses before it and fade away. And, therefore, the best way to deal with it was to let it run its course while protecting the most vulnerable people in society and letting everyone else live their lives.
That significant information platforms banned or sidelined the views of these high-prestige scientists, while aggressively circulating the words of jokers like Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, whose stupid and alarmist predictions of COVID mortality (the latest in a career full of stupid and alarmist, but not coincidentally, pharmaceutical-industry-friendly predictions), gave politicians the pretext for setting in motion perhaps the most aggressive experiment in social engineering in the history of the world.
That just as the levels of mortality from the virus were diminishing rapidly in the late spring and early summer of 2020, thus raising hope for a much-needed return to normality, there was seamless bait and switch in the major media from a discourse centering on the logical and laudable goal of “flattening the curve” to one centered on the absurdly utopian (and not coincidentally vaccine-oriented) goal of eliminating new “cases”.
That having the news media focus narrowly and obsessively on the growth of “cases” when 99%+ of them are completely non-life-threatening was journalistic malpractice of the highest order, comparable to, if not exceeding in its sinister effect that which was generated by the media’s wholly unsubstantiated talk of mushroom clouds and WMD two decades ago, talk that led (so sorry brown people) to the deaths of millions and the destruction of entire civilizations in the Middle East.
That government and corporate power holders, having successfully habituated people to engage in major solidarity-destroying social changes through the repetition of the largely meaningless term “case“, will surely come to rely on it and other breathlessly repeated, albeit largely empty, signifiers to paralyze society at will, especially at those times when the people appear to be waking up and coming together to demand a change In the existing balance of social power.
That as numerous existing and emerging studies seem to demonstrate, hydroxychloroquine is, when combined with other similarly affordable drugs, a safe and rather effective early-stage treatment for COVID 19.
That the negative studies on hydroxychloroquine effectiveness published at two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, and which were adduced time and again at a key moment in the early debate of possible COVID treatments to debunk the drug’s effectiveness, were found to be based on forged data sets. (see earlier entry on how power centers play the game of perception lag with false information to achieve long-term structural changes)
That suggesting world-class professional athletes in their 20s and 30s, or even their less talented and less fit high school and college counterparts, were running a risk of mortal consequences in even minimal numbers by playing in the midst of the COVID spread was, in light of known age-related numbers on the disease’s lethality, at best ridiculous and, at worst, a very cynical fear-mongering ploy.
Repeat after me, “no one could have possibly known these things” and then check your screen to see, as citizens of Oceania, whether you are supposed to be worried this week about the threat from Eurasia or Eastasia.
And, of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind you to mask up real tight, especially in light of the CDC numbers — you’ll have to forgive here for breaking with the rich tradition of pure panic-driven narrative and moving to the realm of empirical figures — which tell us that up until this point in our “everything must change” crisis:
0.011% of the US population under 65 have died of COVID
0.23% of the US population over 65 have died of COVID
Indeed, it not even completely clear if it is cumulatively worse in terms of loss of life than the influenzas outbreaks of 1957-58 or 1968-69 that most everyone slept through. But, I guess that doesn’t matter when there’s a narrative to keep.
Might it be time to ask if there might be something else afoot with all this?
Over the course of this summer, Professor Pinar Batur and I worked together to create two new syllabi for the sociology department. While one syllabi is intended to be taught as an introductory course and the second as an upper-level seminar, both courses focus on how Marxist thinkers and social theorists confront bigotry, racism, and racist war through antiracist theory, knowledge and action. blm Black Lives Matter The introductory course is called “Racism and the Marxist Struggle”. It concentrates on the classical debate by Du Bois, C.L.R. James, and Oliver Cromwell Cox as theorists as well as other activists. It aims to explore how racist ideologies and discriminatory practices expanded and maintained by capitalist institutional racism and racial inequality. This class aims to show how racialized spaces globalize through capitalism and how anti-racist struggle against racism, colonialism, and postcolonial arrangements developed. It examines the intersectionality of race, class, and gender. The advanced course is titled “Dissent!: Black Lives Matter”. It explores possibilities of the total transformation of American society as advocated by the Black Lives Matter movement. It studies the grotesque level of overt and covert racism in the United States, and argues that the fight that began with antislavery has not ended. This class also studies the role of dissent in society and societal transformation. ....
See SagePub, Marx ...
Of 10 billionaires with Kremlin ties who funneled political contributions to Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders, at least five are Jewish
Yuri Milner, co-founder of Mail.ru Group Ltd., speaks during the TechCrunch Disrupt 2017 in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Monday, Sept. 18, 2017
The special prosecutor’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election offers an unsettling journey for anyone steeped in Russian Jewry, and the transition from the repression of the former Soviet Union to the relative freedoms of the Russian Federation.
Of 10 billionaires with Kremlin ties who funneled political contributions to U.S. President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders, at least five are Jewish. (The Dallas Morning News has a handy set of interactive charts.)
There’s Len Blavatnik, the dual British-American citizen who dumped huge amounts of cash on Republican candidates in the last election cycle, much of it funneled through his myriad investment firms. (The same Len Blavatnik funds scholarships for IDF veterans and who is friends with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.) Alexander Shustorovich is the president of IMG Artists, a titan among impresarios, who gave Trumps’ inauguration committee a cool $1 million. He arrived in 1977 with his penniless family in New York at age 11, fleeing Soviet persecution of Jews.
Glasnost, or openness, instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, included opening up plum government jobs to minorities that had previously been marginalized. That accelerated Jewish entry into higher ranks of the bureaucracy just when it was opportune to be in a position to know what sector was about to be privatized, and which government-owned business was about to be broken up.
Author Michael Wolff, profiling tech entrepreneur Yuri Milner in 20111, wrote, “The Jews in Soviet Russia, often kept from taking official career paths, came to thrive in the gray and black markets. Hence, they were among the only capitalists in Russia when capitalism emerged.”
“Jews were often excluded from the kind of universities that produced diplomats, and therefore pushed more towards pure sciences, which meant there was a disproportionate number of Jewish mathematicians who were able to engage with the new banking industry,” he said.
Most of all, said Levin, it was chaos. Massive sectors of the economy were up for grabs. At times, there seemed to be no controlling authority. When the dust settled, Russia had entered the age of the oligarchs. “In the beginning, it was like Chicago in the 1920s,” he said. Connie Bruck, profiling Blavatnik in The New Yorker in 2014, quoted a new Russian phrase: “Never ask about the first million.”
Here are some of the businessmen with Soviet Jewish roots who have been named in stories about the Trump-Russia investigation.
Access Industries chairman Leonard Blavatnik.
Oligarch factor: U.S.-British citizen. Forbes lists him as the 48th richest man in the world. Access Industries, which he founded in 1986 while he was at Harvard Business school, exploded in its earlier years through investments in uranium and oil in the collapsing Soviet Union. It has since expanded into massive media holdings.
Trump factor: Gave more than $6 million in the 2016 election cycle, virtually all to Republicans, after a pattern of relatively modest donations to both political parties. Longstanding business ties to Viktor Vekselberg, the oligarch allegedly linked to secret payments to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Blavatnik donated $12,700 last year to a Republican party legal fund that has helped to pay Trump’s lawyers in the Russia inquiry.
Jewish ties: He has served on the board of Tel Aviv University, the Center for Jewish History and the 92nd Street Y. His family foundation funds a Colel Chabad-run food bank and warehouse in Kiryat Malachi in Israel, which sends monthly shipments of food to 5,000 poor families in 25 Israeli cities. He is friends with Netanyahu, and has been questioned by police in connection with the investigation into gifts the prime minister allegedly has received from wealthy benefactors. He funds scholarships for Israeli army soldiers.
In 2017, Israeli police investigated whether Prime Minister Netanyahu was involved behind the scenes in the sale of Channel 10 to Leonard Blavatnik (a partner in RGE Communications, which owns 51 percent of Channel 10).
Andrew Intrater, 55
Oligarch factor: A cousin to Vekselberg, who has a Jewish father but does not identify as Jewish. Intrater, a U.S. citizen, is the CEO of Columbus Nova, the investment company with close ties to Vekselberg’s Renova. An SEC filing from 2007 lists Intrater as the chairman of the board of CableCom, a Moscow-area cable TV provider.
Trump factor: Columbus Nova funneled payments from Renova to Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer. Intrater also donated $250,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee.
Jewish ties: Intrater, the child of a Holocaust survivor, has given more than $500,000 to the University of Southern California’s Shoah Foundation and has donated to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation Committee. Intrater’s brother, Frederick, the design manager for Columbus Nova, bought up a batch of domain names with associations with the “alt-right” in the summer of 2016, when support for then-candidate Trump on the far right was rising and Get Out the Vote drives were intensifying. Frederick Intrater said he made the purchases without Andrew’s knowledge, and later regretted it, allowing the URL names to wither. “To conclude that I support white supremacy or anti-Semitism is unreasonable given what I’ve described above and also taking into consideration that I am a Jew and son of a Holocaust survivor,” Frederick Intrater said.
Alexander Shustorovich, 52
Oligarch factor: Shustorovich, a U.S. citizen, traveled to Moscow in 1989, a year after graduating from Harvard, and immediately became a player in media there, starting scientific publications. He unsuccessfully sought to get his company, Pleiades Group, into the $12 billion deal that sold Soviet nuclear fuel to the United States. He is now CEO of IMG Artists, a company that manages talent in classical music and dance.
Trump factor: Shustorovich gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. Notably, his attempt to give the George W. Bush campaign $250,000 in 2000 was rejected in part because of his ties at the time to Russia’s government.
Jewish ties: Shustorovich arrived in New York at 11 in 1977 with his family, who did not have enough money to buy food. His father, Evgeny, pushed out of work in Russia as a chemist because of his hopes of emigrating, joined Kodak in Rochester, N.Y. and soon rose to prominence in his field. For a period in 1986-1987, Evgeny Shustorovich was one of the faces of the Soviet Jewry movement as he became an ardent advocate for the right of his brother — also named Alexander — to emigrate from the former Soviet Union.
Simon Kukes, 72
Oligarch factor: Kukes, a U.S. citizen, left the Soviet Union in 1977, settling in the Houston area. A chemist, he was for a period an academic, and then worked in the Texas oil industry. He returned to Russia and became an executive in the post-Soviet oil industry there. In 2003, he became head of the Yukos oil company after another Jewish oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was jailed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin for tax evasion and theft — but mostly, most observers think, for funding opposition parties.
The Guardian in 2003 uncovered CIA documents linking Kukes to bribery, charges which he has denied. Prior to his year-long gig helming Yukos, Kukes was from 1998-2003 the president of TNK, another oil company, whose principal stakeholders were Blavatnik and Vekselberg. In 2012 when he headed the Russian arm of Hess, Forbes reported that Kukes’ former chauffeur, who had risen through the company ranks, was a Russian mafia boss. The man denied the charges, but Kukes pushed him out of the company. Last year, Kukes was a U.S.-based CEO of Nafta, a consulting firm for investors in Russia’s energy sector. Nafta’s website has since been scrubbed.
Trump factor: With no major history of GOP giving, Kukes suddenly funneled $285,000 into the Trump reelection effort — much of it after June 2016, when Russian interest in the possibility of a Trump presidency intensified.
Jewish ties: Kukes does not have apparent formal ties with the organized Jewish community, although he tells interviewers he left the former Soviet Union because he was Jewish. In 2015, he bought a 12.5 percent share in Leverate, an Israeli-founded company that develops brokerage software.
Yuri Milner, 56
Oligarch factor: Milner never fled the Soviet Union — his parents still live in Moscow. He was the first non-emigre from the Soviet Union to attend Wharton business school, and was for years involved in Russian banking before entering tech. He is well known as a Silicon Valley investor, owning one of the most luxurious houses in ritzy Los Altos Hills, valued in 2011 at $100 million. Last year, it was revealed through leaked documents that Russia’s government funded substantive stakes in Twitter and Facebook that were for a time held by his company, DST Global. In 2013, Milner joined Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sergey Brin and 23andme’s Anne Wojcicki in establishing the multi-million dollar Breakthrough prize for scientists.
Trump factor: After last year’s revelations, Milner scoffed at the notion that Russia was plowing money into social media efforts to influence elections, noting that he never sought a seat on the board of the companies he invested in. Milner in 2015 invested $850,000 in Cadre, a real estate startup launched by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Kushner’s brother Josh. Milner has said that he met Jared Kushner only once. Kushner’s stake in Cadre was one of many that he initially failed to disclose when he became an adviser to his father-in-law.
Jewish ties: Milner attends a synagogue when he is in Moscow. Somewhere along the line, he appears to have acquired Israeli citizenship. Speaking with Forbes in 2017 after the magazine named him one of the 100 “greatest living business minds,” Milner said he was “humbled and honored” to be “the only Russian or Israeli citizen on the list.”
re These Antifa/BLM Riots A Jewish Coup?
Earlier by Kevin MacDonald: The Trump Impeachment: A Clash Between America’s Competing Elites?
It was always obvious to those of us on campus in the Vietnam years that if you fired at random into a mob of student protestors you would hit a lot of Jews, and that is exactly what happened at Kent State in 1970 (three out of the four dead) [Remembering the Jews of Kent State, 45 Years Later, by Anne Cohen, The Forward, May 4, 2015]. Subsequently, Stanley Rothman documented the key Jewish role in the New Left in his definitive 1982 study Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left. Similarly, at least one (Joseph Rosenbaum) and possibly two (Anthony W. Huber) of the Antifa shot in self-defense by Kenosha WI lifeguard Kyle Rittenhouse appear to have been Jews. (In a now-deleted post, the Jewish Chronicle tried to downplay Rosenbaum by saying he was “non-practicing.”) [Rosenbaum, not Jewish but targeted by antisemitism after death during unrest, by Rob Golub, August 27, 2020]. Will scholars eventually find that the Black Lives Matter moral panic that has convulsed the U.S. in 2020 also had a substantial Jewish component—that it is, in fact, a Color Revolution-style attempted Jewish coup?
I raised a similar question during the bizarre (because obviously doomed to failure) impeachment hearings in January:
Is the Trump impeachment a Jewish coup? It’s a dangerous question even to ask…
But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles in impeachment…In effect, impeachment is a project of the numerically dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.
The only surprise: that the Jewish role has been so public.
This summer of riots and statue-toppling, like the late-winter impeachment farce, should not be seen as a one-off event. I believe it is part of the struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, mostly stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration, from which America’s historic so-called WASP elite was derived.
Of course, the people on the street are poor Blacks looting athletic shoes and TV sets, aided and abetted by young Whites playing hooky from their jobs at Starbucks. But the Great 2020 Black Lives Matter Moral Panic is still an elite project. Otherwise the elite Main Stream Media wouldn’t be systematically downplaying the violence resulting from what they label “mainly peaceful” protests; and they wouldn’t be ignoring the huge upsurge in shootings and crimes [Kids Getting Caught in Crossfire as Us Gun Violence Surges, by Don Babwin, AP, August 3, 2020]. And money wouldn’t be flowing into BLM-linked organizations from major corporations like Apple, Nike, Facebook, Coca Cola, and YouTube. [Want to know where all those corporate donations for #BLM are going? Here’s the list, by James Wellemyer, NBC, June 5, 2020]
In other words, the political class in the big cities run by Democrats (i.e., all of them), the lion’s share of the elite media and corporate America, the entire academic Establishment, and both major political parties are complicit.
So how did we come to this? It’s been a long process. But one thing that it is not: a reflection of the objective situation of American blacks.
Since the 1960s, the Ruling Class instituted a variety of programs to erase the gaps in income and wealth between the races. Affirmative Action created a Black middle class—according to a Brookings Institute study, roughly 71% of Blacks are middle- or upper-class [The Black middle class needs political attention, too, Andre M. Perry and Carl Romer, February 27, 2020]). Billions were thrown into Head Start and other programs, like busing students. Colleges bent over backwards to recruit Black students. Private corporations—and even more so the government—hired Black workers. And in 2008 Barack Obama was elected president on a wave of optimism on race relations.
Of course, it wasn’t enough. A recent study replicated Rushton and Jensen’s 2005 conclusion that 50–70 percent of the IQ difference between Blacks and Whites is genetic. [Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability by Jordan Lasker, Bryan J. Pesta, John G. R. Fuerst and Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Psych, August 30, 2019]. So all these programs could never erase the racial gaps in the genetically-influenced traits needed for success in a 21st-century economy. Indeed, arguably the welfare system and the sexual revolution—both progressive causes—was especially hard on the Black family: The markers of family dysfunction skyrocketed in the 1960s for Blacks and Whites alike, but much worse for Blacks—e.g., around 70 percent of Black babies are now born out of wedlock, over 80 percent for Blacks with a high school education or less [Dramatic increase in the proportion of births outside of marriage in the United States from 1990 to 2016, by Elizabeth Wildsmith, Jennifer Manlove, Elizabeth Cook, ChildTrends.org, August 08, 2018].
Thus the chart below, from Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, show the continuing cultural deterioration since the 1960s: The proportion of out-of-wedlock births among whites in 2016 is around twice the percentage for blacks back in 1960—but blacks have suffered worse.
Significantly, however, the leadership of Black Lives Matter opposes the “Western nuclear family” despite family breakdown’s many correlations with poor outcomes for children. Other Blacks see this paradox (and note Marcellus Wiley’ s comments on “white supremacy” at the end of this video):
.@MarcellusWiley breaks down why the NBA’s plan to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on courts is a bad idea. pic.twitter.com/EoCJNf7ho1
— Speak For Yourself (@SFY) June 30, 2020
The reason for BLM’s apparently perverse attitude: its leaders are self-proclaimed Marxists—i.e. part of the elite political class. [ Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist’, by Yaron Steinbuch, New York Post, June 25, 2020] Note that BLM co-founder Alicia Garza identifies as Jewish.
So how to conceptualize Jewish involvement? As documented in my book The Culture of Critique, Jews have been the backbone of the American Left since they arrived in America and are central to the new elite that emerged in the counterculture of the 1960s. The Frankfurt School, largely shaped by Jewish refugees from Hitler, reconceptualized anti-Semitism as resulting, not from class conflict as orthodox Marxism had claimed, but from ethnic conflict. Similarly, Jewish activism in the post-World-War-II U.S. focused on importing non-Whites as allies of Jews in opposition to the traditional White American majority. Hence the critical role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act.
Jews and Jewish organizations have allied themselves with Blacks since the early twentieth Century with the founding of the NAACP. And, despite a substantial history of Black anti-Semitism (e.g., Louis Farrakhan, the recent spate of attacks on Orthodox Jews in New York, anti-Jewish statements by Black media figures like Nick Cannon—who also thinks Blacks are superior to White people but only apologized to Jews), this alliance continues into the present.
(But the Cannon incident shows brings into focus that there are limits to Cancel Culture. Steve Sailer has pointed out that previous black insurrections have been stopped when they begin to criticize Jews, which he thinks is happening now).
Some Jews have taken the opportunity of recent developments in Cancel Culture to put forth their own continuing grievances against the West. Hence the Jewish campaign to remove the statue of French king Louis IX (Saint Louis) from a park in his namesake city of St. Louis. [Should St. Louis take down the statue of its anti-Semitic namesake? Activists say yes., by Ben Sales , Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 26, 2020]
In this spirit, the Forward’s Aiden Pink helpfully supplied a list of 8 “anti-Semites” who still have memorials in the U.S.: Charles Lindbergh (who correctly identified Jews as one pressure group attempting to get the U.S. into World War II), Gen. George S. Patton (who was unsympathetic to the post-World War II treatment of Germans and Jews), Henry Ford (publisher of The International Jew), Peter Stuyvesant (who tried to prevent Jews from settling in New York), Martin Luther (author of On the Jews and Their Lies), President Ulysses S. Grant (who issued an order expelling Jewish cotton speculators from areas under his command during the Civil War), Mary Elizabeth Lease (who linked Jews with banking as part of her populism), and Thomas E. Watson (who led a campaign against Jewish accused murderer Leo Frank). [8 American monuments celebrating anti-Semites, June 23, 2020]
How long before they too are Cancelled?
But the major new development in this summer’s Cultural Revolution: cleansing the internet of material the Left doesn’t like. Essentially, the Left appears to have figured out a way around the First Amendment, by co-opting the private sector. Jews and Jewish organizations have been heavily involved.
It wasn’t long ago that the tech nerds who developed the internet had a strong ideology of free speech. This gave rise to an online flourishing of dissident ideas, with outlets such as VDARE.com and my own Occidental Observer .
But Jewish organizations, which had loudly favored free speech when Leftists were being blacklisted in the 1950s, had decided even twenty years ago that the internet represented a threat to their interests. Already by 1999 the Jewish enforcer group the Anti-Defamation League had published Poisoning the Web: Hate Online: An ADL Report on Internet Hate, Bigotry, and Violence.
(“Hate,” remember, is simply speech that the Left in general and Jews in particular dislike. Thus Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag’s saying “the white race is the cancer of human history” is OK).
More recently, Andrew Joyce has documented that, in Europe, organizations like Britain’s Community Security Trust, a Jewish organization, and the European Jewish Congress have taken the lead in banning speech on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com.
Similarly in the U.S., the ADL has been deeply involved with social media companies. While most companies have been completely compliant, the ADL resorted to organizing a campaign against Facebook regarding messages on the Holocaust. They presented a
series of demands to drop the boycott [that] include the granting of high-level access to ‘civil rights’ (i.e., ADL) officials who will perform regular, independent audits” of “hate” on the platform (which would allow them to engage in intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate removal of “thousands” of White advocacy groups, and the use of Facebook software to “target” “neo-Nazis and White supremacists. [“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 3 of 3, by Andrew Joyce, Occidental Observer, July 15, 2020]
Facebook is certainly not principled in its opposition to the ADL demands. Recently Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said on an earnings call … that the company agreed with the goal of the boycott, to have Facebook be hate-free.” [Facebook: increased ad revenue even as ADL-led boycott reduced spending, by Marcy Oster/JTA, Jerusalem Post, August 3, 2020]
And Facebook has just announced a ban on all political advertising in the seven days before the November 3 Presidential election. This obviously hurts the Trump campaign, which has relied heavily on social media advertising to get around Leftist control of the corporate media. But it hasn’t satisfied Leftists, who simply want Facebook to suppress the Right while allowing the Left free rein. Facebook appears desperate to avoid this, probably because making blatant editorial decisions would strengthen forces who want to remove the liability protection it currently enjoys as a supposedly neutral platform. [ Facing immense pressure, Facebook had no choice but to ban new political ads week before election , by Jon Swartz, MarketWatch, September 4, 2020]
It goes without saying that the giants of internet advertising are Jewish-dominated: Facebook (Sandberg and CEO Mark Zuckerberg) and Google (founded by Sergei Brin and Larry Page).
Censorship is also rampant at PayPal whose CEO is Larry Shulman. [National Justice Exclusive: Leaked Images From PayPal Seminar Reveals Explicit Racial Bias Against White Customers, Eric Striker, National-Justice.com, July 4, 2020] PayPal, which dominates the internet payment market, has begun to refuse to service accounts linked to White advocacy—or even criticism of mass immigration, although that’s the issue that won Trump the 2016 election.
Given the long involvement of Jewish organizations in suppressing “Hate Speech,” including their recent involvement, in collaboration with BLM-linked Al Sharpton, in censoring the internet, we could well see all dissident sites on the right—particularly those linked to White identity and interests—cancelled [Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt Joins Al Sharpton to Promote Boycott of ‘Hate’]
The only saving grace: this is a group that has a long record of going too far.
Earlier this year, considering the question of why Jewish legislators and media figures were expending so much energy on a far-fetched impeachment theory that had no chance of success, I answered: Because they can’t help themselves.
And, indeed, impeachment did fail.
Similarly, Antifa and the Tech Totalitarians will go too far. It may be the unprovoked murder of a Trump supporter on the streets of Portland or Facebook’s subsequent outrageous blocking the pages of the very group to which this innocent victim belonged. It may be the national MSM’s complete repression of the news that, after a memorial service for the murdered Trump supporter, an Antifa militant ran over and nearly killed Proud Boy member—obviously because of the embarrassing parallel to Charlottesville.
It’s impossible to say. But history says an overreach will happen.
Kevin MacDonald [email him] is emeritus professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here .
“History rolled right over my body.” — Sidney Rittenberg
At the end of Euripedes’ play The Bacchae, Cadmus asks his daughter Agave, “What do you see?” Agave is sitting center stage with a severed human head in her lap. It is the head of her son Pentheus, who was torn limb from limb by the women of Thebes as they danced naked on the mountainside worshipping the Asiatic god Dionysos. Still intoxicated by the revelry that led to her son’s death, Agave says, “it’s a lion’s head, a trophy for the palace.” At this point, Cadmus says, “Look carefully. Study it more closely.” As the intoxication wears off, Agave recognizes what she has done and answers, “I see horror. I see suffering. I see grief.”
“Does it still look like a lion?” Cadmus asks.
• • •
America went through its own bout of Dionysian intoxication in the days following May 25, when a Minneapolis cop by the name of Derek Chauvin knelt on the neck of a 46-year-old Black man by the name of George Floyd, causing his death. Corrupted by 66 years of bad education, America’s Black Lumpenproletariat erupted in an orgy of rioting that brought the rule of law to an end in many of America’s large cities. As of this writing, Antifa, a group which Donald Trump has designated a domestic terrorist organization, is still in control of a six-square block section of downtown Seattle, which they have designated the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” In Minneapolis, the town where the rioting started, their Pentheus, Mayor Jacob Frey, was denounced by one of the Bacchant women who spoke in the name of Black Lives Matter after he refused to defund the Minneapolis police department. Frey was not torn limb from limb, but he was expelled from the crowd and had to take refuge with the police he was ordered to defund.
The race riots of May and June 2020 were only the latest installment of what might be called the regime of governance by crisis which began four years ago, when the Deep State decided to do whatever was necessary to depose Donald Trump. That campaign began with Russiagate, followed by the impeachment, followed by the hate speech campaign of 2019 which sought to ban “unwanted content” from the Internet, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. What united all of these crises was oligarch unhappiness with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and a desire to replace the institutions of representative government with ad hoc committees of crisis managers masquerading as scientific experts and/or aggrieved minorities.
By now it should be obvious that the racial narrative writes itself whenever a Black man dies at the hands of a white cop. Floyd’s body was still warm when the mainstream media took up the story which had already been written and declared him a saint, complete with halo and wings. In reality, Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in his system, but the BBC described him as someone who “was simply trying to live life as any other American, in search of betterment in the face of both personal and societal challenges.” He then became “the latest totem of the ills that plague the country in 2020.” After growing in wisdom, age, and grace, Floyd’s life suddenly “took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison.” Missing from the BBC account was any mention of Floyd’s incarceration, drug dealing, violence against pregnant women or his role as a porn star, but no one needed to tell a graduate of America’s public school system that he was witnessing the latest installment of the ongoing saga of American racism in action.
The Palestinians who watched the same video, however, saw something else. They recognized the knee hold that Officer Chauvin inflicted on Floyd as the same technique which Israeli police routinely used on Palestinians. Also missing from the mainstream account of Floyd’s death was any mention of the role which the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) played in weaponizing the Minneapolis police department. The ADL has been pressuring police departments across the country for years to train with Israeli instructors to learn submission techniques like the knee on the throat hold. But more importantly, the policemen who are subjected to the Israelification of local police forces learn more than techniques. They learn attitudes, and the main attitude they learn is that they should treat the locals who fund their departments with their tax money in the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians. Whenever the race issue gets raised, the Jewish revolutionaries who are the main orchestrators of incidents like the Floyd riots remain invisible. This was certainly true of the ADL, which arranged the 2012 meeting in Chicago which brought together the Minneapolis police department and counter-terrorism experts from Israel at a conference sponsored by the FBI and the Israeli consulate in Chicago which focused on “terrorism prevention techniques.”
After seeing the video of Officer Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, Neta Golan, the co-founder of International Solidarity Movement (ISM) said: “I remembered noticing when many Israeli soldiers began using this technique of leaning in on our chest and necks when we were protesting in the West Bank sometime in 2006.” Israeli training of US police is widespread: “Since 2002 the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs have paid for police chiefs, assistant chiefs and captains to train in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” In the aftermath of Floyd’s killing, Palestinians were quick to draw parallels between the final images of the man suffering under the knee of the officer, and similar choke holds used by Israel occupation forces. “Crazy how the same thing happens in Palestine but the world chooses to ignore it,” Palestinian athlete Mohammad Alqadi wrote on his Twitter feed above four separate images of Israeli soldiers pinning Palestinians to the ground with their knees on their necks or head.
Israeli involvement in counter-terrorism training given to the Baltimore Police Department led to death and rioting in that city. Amnesty International claimed that the Israeli group which had been involved in training Baltimore police officers had been cited by the U.S. Department of Justice for “widespread constitutional violations, discriminatory enforcement, and culture of retaliation.” Amnesty International went on to say that: “Baltimore and other police departments should find partners that will train on de-escalation techniques, how to handle mentally challenged or ill citizens, on the constitutional rights of citizens concerning filming and how to appropriately respond to those using non-violent protest to express their opinions. Israel is not such a partner…”
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman made a name for himself as a critic of violent video games in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado. After 9/11, the Bureau of Homeland Security under the direction of dual American/Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff became a potent source of funds for anyone willing to promote the Israelification of law and order among policemen. Grossman at this point became a sought after expert on “killology,” which promoted the idea among police officers that they were “at war” when they patrolled America’s streets. In 2016 police officer Jeronimo Yanez shot and killed an unarmed man during a traffic stop outside Minneaopolis. One year later, Yanez was found not guilty to all charges stemming from the shooting, but the Minneapolis watchdog organization Communities United placed the blame on Grossman after learning the Yanez had taken one of his Bulletproof Warrior courses years earlier.
Deaths related to training courses which militarized police enforcement then led to de-escalation courses in which “police officers were supposed to be retrained on how to restrain suspects” when Chauvin was on the force, but it is unclear whether he took the course or, more importantly, whether the course had the desired effect or whether it convinced police officers who were already feeling beleaguered to use the methods which the Israelis and Grossman had already taught them. In April 2019, a little over a year before Chauvin was involved in Floyd’s killing, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey banned “warrior style training in Minneapolis” after calling it “fear based.” “If cops got less of this training,” according to one observer, “less [sic] people would die. There’s no question about that.”
In April 2018, Durham, North Carolina became the first city in the United States to ban police exchanges with Israel. The main group behind the ban was the Jewish Voice for Peace, which explicitly condemned the ADL as “the premier provider of these exchanges,” which “are basically trying to exchange a kind of worst practices” which “target people of color in both places.” The ADL, JVP rightly concluded, was guilty of “a systematic attempt to bring those worst practices back home,” where they increased the likelihood of violence and deadly force.
After investigating the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore cops in 2015, the Justice Department issued a report which documented “widespread constitutional violations, discriminatory enforcement, and culture of retaliation” within the Baltimore Police Department which was traceable to tax payer-funded training from Israeli officials. “Since 2002, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs have paid for police chiefs, assistant chiefs and captains to train in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). These trainings put Baltimore police and other U.S. law enforcement employees in the hands of military, security and police systems that have racked up documented human rights violations for years” and have been condemned by groups as diverse as Amnesty International and the U.S. Department of State.
So much for the white cop side of the Chauvin/Floyd equation. Jewish organizations are also involved in funding the Black side of racial conflict in America. In the wake of the racial unrest which followed Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore in 2015, George Soros’s Open Society Institute donated $650,000 to Black Lives Matter, the main agent behind racial unrest in America from Ferguson to Minneapolis. According to one watchdog group, “In 2016 organizations in the Black Lives Matter movement received $33 million in grants from the Open Society Foundations, founded by Hungarian hedge fund manager George Soros in 1993, and the Center for American Progress, founded by former White House chief of staff and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in 2003.” According to the Washington Times, access to Soros money insured another $100 million from “a series of wealthy liberal foundations including The Ford Foundation, in addition to $33 million in grants from the Open Society Foundations, with additional grant-making from the Center for American Progress.”
At some time during the early part of the 21st century, Soros’s Open Society Foundation got involved in funded races for local political offices like district attorney and county prosecutor with devastating results for the impartiality of law enforcement. After arrests following the Floyd riots in St. Louis, Soros-backed prosecutor Kim Gardner released all George Floyd “protestors” from jail, according to Missouri attorney general Eric Schmidt. That number included the 25 demonstrators who were arrested between Monday and early Tuesday, June 1-2, when four officers were shot. Gardner released all of those suspects without filing charges against any of them. Schmidt called the release of felony suspects a “stunning development,” but Gardner had already come under fire during her first run for circuit attorney after “accepting at least $30,000 from a super PAC belonging to controversial liberal billionaire George Soros,” who “is well known for supporting candidates, specifically city attorneys, who push liberal bail reform and sentencing platforms.”
Both sides of the racial conflict which George Floyd’s death ignited were controlled by Jews. The ADL has consistently played a double game by condemning the racial violence that their training seminars have created. According to the Democratic Socialists of America, “The police violence happening tonight in Minneapolis is straight out of the IDF playbook,” adding, “US cops train in Israel.” After the death of George Floyd, the ADL, eager to avoid any association with the violence their police seminars wrought among Blacks, tweeted: “As we continue to fight for justice for #GeorgeFloyd, we also need to fight for justice for #BreonnaTaylor, who was murdered in her own home by police. We need justice for everyone who has been a victim of racist policing & violence.”
At the same time that the ADL was demanding justice for George Floyd, they made no mention of the death of Iyad Hallaq, an autistic Palestinian man who was gunned down after pleading for his life while on the way to his special education class in occupied East Jerusalem. The Electronic Intifada, which did mention Hallaq’s death, then singled out the Anti-Defamation league as “a major player in the industry of bringing US police junkets to Israel for ‘counterterrorism’ and other kinds of joint training.”
Docile Negroes at traditionally Jewish organizations like the NAACP routinely get praised for their work against racism, but as soon as Black Lives Matter began its Black solidarity with Palestine campaign, the Israeli government and its lobbies in America attempted to disrupt the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation. In 2018 Al Jazeera’s documentary The Lobby—USA revealed how The Israel Project “pulled strings behind the scenes to get a Black Lives Matter fundraiser at a New York City nightclub canceled.”
So on the one hand we have American policemen being trained to treat their fellow citizens in the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians, including the knee holds that will subdue and sometimes kill them. This explains the white cop side of the equation. But on the other hand, we have George Soros funding Black Lives Matter and the insurrections which follow incidents of police brutality as the black side of the equation. Taken together both Jewish-funded groups perpetuate the cycle of increasing violent racial conflict in America, while remaining all the while invisible.
Black Lives Matter was a reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which began with the founding of the ADL after the lynching of Leo Frank and has continued to this day, with time-outs taken for the World Wars of the 20th century. Shortly after World War II, Louis Wirth, a Jewish sociologist from the University of Chicago began implementing his plan to “integrate” housing in Chicago. When Chicago’s ethnic neighborhoods understood that “integration” was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, riots ensued, beginning with the Airport Park riots of 1947 and culminating in the arrival of Martin Luther King in Marquette Park almost 20 years later. As one more indication that Black Lives Matter was the reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, was born in 1981 to a white Jewish father and a Black mother.
Black Lives Matter was funded by George Soros to promote race war in the United States, but BLM also promoted sexual deviance, another cause dear to the heart of the world’s most prominent Hungarian Jewish philanthropist. In their recently published manifesto, BLM situates its attempt to be “unapologetically Black in our positioning” within a matrix of sexual deviance, including attempts “to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk,” by disrupting “the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” and putting in its place a “queer-affirming network.”
If that jargon sounds familiar, it’s because it stems from the university gender studies programs which provide the matrix from which groups like BLM and Antifa get both their ideas and their recruits. The ultimate cause of the uprising which took place in city after city in the wake of George Floyd’s death was bad education. Beginning in the late 1980s, literature departments had been taken over by “tenured radicals” who have used critical theory, derived from thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Gramsci, to undermine the validity of all structures of authority. This essentially Nietzschean transvaluation of all values transferred moral superiority to anyone who could claim oppression according to oligarchic endorsed categories like race and gender, allowing the tenured radicals to take over one department after another and, more importantly, allowing the proliferation of new departments, invariably ending in “studies,” as in gender studies, which drove the traditional liberal arts from academe turning traditional universities into Maoist inspired re-education camps. The takeover of academe reached its bitter culmination when Antifa led groups of disaffected, badly educated young people, who were aware of nothing more significant than their grievances, into the streets in what became an uncanny replication of the Chinese cultural revolution of 1966. One of the most unlikely leaders of that revolution in China was an American Jew from Charleston, South Carolina by the name of Sidney Rittenberg.
The academic pedigree of Rittenberg’s successors became apparent when Antifa warlord Joseph Alcoff got apprehended in Philadelphia in 2017 for assaulting a group of Hispanic Marines. Alcoff’s arrest shed light on one of the main figures in a society that remained literally faceless because of their habit of wearing masks at the protests they disrupted by their violence. Alcoff, who was known as the leader of Antifa in Washington, DC, was the child of radical academics and had co-authored an academic paper with his mother Linda Alcoff in Volume 79 of Science and Society in the special issue on “Red and Black: Marxist Encounters with Anarchism,” entitled “Autonomism in Theory and Practice.” Radical theory in the mind of Linda Alcoff led to violent praxis in the life of her son. As with Black Lives Matter, the ADL has played a double game with Antifa, condemning its tactics while at the same time defending it against accusations that it was morally equivalent to the “white supremacists” it attacked in the streets of Charlottesville in 2017.
Continuity between the generations was made possible by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. The fact that Alcoff was a Jew got suppressed in virtually every mainstream account of his activity, which sanitized his communist connections by linking him to the Democratic Party through figures like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters. Alcoff was more forthright when he spoke in his own voice, saying on one Youtube video, “I’m a Communist, motherf***er,” before spitting into the camera. Christians for truth portrayed Alcoff as “a self-styled modern-day Leon Trotsky” and attributed the suppression of his ethnic identity to the fact that “Antifa’s political manifestations are funded by the billionaire Jew, George Soros.”
Andy Ngo, who was severely beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, claims that “prominent media figures and politicians glamorize and even promote Antifa as a movement for a just cause. CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have defended Antifa on-air. Chuck Todd invited Antifa ideologue Mark Bray onto Meet the Press to explain why Antifa’s political violence is “ethical.” Ngo goes on to mention Joseph Alcoff as one of the most visible figures in what is otherwise a clandestine organization, and claims that he had access to Democrat Representative Maxine Waters in 2016. He also mentions Adam Rothstein, who is associated with the Rose City Antifa group which assaulted him in 2016. Rothstein conducted a series of “secret lectures” at a Portland bookstore where local recruits learned how to “heckle” opponents and make them “look ridiculous, make them feel outnumbered,” and convinced that the “Trump thing is gonna go by the wayside.”
Armed with political clout of this magnitude, Antifa can easily overwhelm local police forces, which is what happened in Portland in 2016. The result is that “city government and police lack the political will to protect citizens.” What happened in Seattle in 2020 with the creation of the “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone” was only the logical conclusion to what began in Portland in 2016 and spread all over the Pacific Northwest, “where Antifa is especially active.” In its attempt to destabilize and destroy the nation state and its sovereign borders, Antifa drew support from “mainstream progressive politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who normalize hatred of border enforcement and sovereignty as such.”
Antifa has continued to be successful in disrupting local government and thwarting police attempts to bring them under control because it is a Jewish organization which can always count on favorable press from the Jewish-controlled mainstream media, which renders the connection invisible. The same cannot be said for the Jewish press, which cites Antifa’s Jewishness with thinly-disguised ethnic pride.
When Donald Trump referred to Antifa as a terrorist organization, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz came to their defense, “Trump’s Attacks on Antifa Are Attacks on Jews.” According to an article which appeared in the Forward, Antifa activism “is an affirmation of Jewish identity, both religious and secular” which stretches all the way back to 1897 with the founding of Bundism, which “sought to organize the working-class Jews of Russia, Poland, and Lithuania.” After members of a specifically Jewish Antifa group defaced a plaque in New York City honoring the president of Vichy France Philippe Petain, they left a note which defended the rationale behind their act of vandalism:
With Monday’s actions, Jewish antifascists and allied forces have served notice that fascist apologism will not be tolerated in our city in 2019; that anti-Semitic ideology and violence will be confronted with Jewish solidarity and strength; and that the Holocaust will be remembered not only with sadness and grief but also with righteous anger and action: ‘We will never forget. We will never forgive.’
In the final analysis, Antifa is a Jewish organization in the same way that Bolshevism and Neoconservatism were Jewish political movements. Not every member of Antifa is a Jew, but Jews invariably find their ways into leadership roles in places like Portland, Washington, DC, and even in China, as was the case during the Cultural Revolution of 1966, because they have an advantage over non-Jews in embodying the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit which is the hidden grammar of all revolutionary movements.
This is just an excerpt of the full article available in the September 2020 issue of Culture Wars magazine. Please purchase the digital download of the magazine below to read the full article.
 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200528-it-is-my sourcee-for-the-us-to-end-its-deadly-exchange-programmes-with-israel
 https://www.nymy sourcees.com/2020/06/11/well/live/coronavirus-sex-dating-masks.htm
 https://www.nymy sourcees.com/2020/06/11/well/live/coronavirus-sex-dating-masks.html
 Gregory Pratt and Morgan Greene, “Mayor Lori Lightfoot denounces vigilantism in Chicago after white men patrol Bridgeport streets with bats,” Chicago Tribune, 6/5/20.
© 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: email@example.com