Showing posts with label GUEST CONTRIBUITIONS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GUEST CONTRIBUITIONS. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Ron Unz Surveys the History of Mossad Assassinations and False Flag Attacks


https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif Ron Unz Surveys the History of Mossad Assassinations and False Flag Attacks

 Ron Unz Surveys the History of Mossad Assassinations and False Flag Attacks    
This long article can be read in sections.  It will help to rescue you from The Matrix.
US President George H.W. Bush Was a Mossad Target and perhaps also John F. Kennedy and James Forrestal.
Unz’s account of 9/11 is extremely interesting.  Watch the two short interviews with Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Director of Studies, U.S. Army War College.
See also:





Wednesday, June 19, 2019

A Report from Eric Zuesse on the Possibility of Obama Facing Criminal Charges


A Report from Eric Zuesse on the Possibility of Obama Facing Criminal Charges

 A Report from Eric Zuesse on the Possibility of Obama Facing Criminal Charges
The Case that Obama Was a Traitor Just Got Powerful New Evidence — From the DNC!
Eric Zuesse
The case that Obama’s team concocted Russiagate in order to weaken Trump if Trump were to win the Presidency has just received an important admission by the Government’s acknowledgement that the Government under Obama had lied to the FISA Court in order to get the FISA Court’s permission to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia’s Government. This information came from the DNC’s own lawyer, to the current U.S. Justice Department, in the case of United States of America v. Roger J. Stone Jr.
In response to Trump operative Roger Stone’s defense effort against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges against Stone, the “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Unredacted Crowdstrike Reports”
acknowledges that “On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.” And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.
In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency. This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.
However, can the previous President be brought up on any criminal charges at all for initiating an action to cripple his successor’s Presidency? This is a legal question with no precedent other than, perhaps, the Watergate burglary case that — irony of ironies — drove Roger Stone’s own friend and hero Richard Nixon out of office. Perhaps Obama was even worse than that President. (Also ironically, Obama tried even more mighily than Nixon did to empower international corporations as the coming dictatorial government of the entire world.)
Here is the full key paragraph in the Government’s just-released reply to Stone:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by intrusions, and they hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to identify the extent of the intrusions and mitigate the threat. On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. See, Washington Post, “D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump”, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html. At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. 1 Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. 2 At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.
It therefore seems that if House Democrats initiate impeachment against Trump, he will initiate very serious criminal charges — perhaps even an extraordinary case of treason — against Obama, for concocting Russiagate against him. Consequently, one may reasonably infer that Pelosi and Trump have agreed that there will not be impeachment proceedings, and that there will also not be prosecution against Obama. However, if Trump does get impeached, then there will be virtually a civil war between Republicans and Democrats, as both cases proceed. 
There is no impeachment by the House that would result in a Republican Senate’s replacement of Trump by Pence: defenestration of Trump. Trump would remain as President. Meanwhile, the case against Obama would be proceeding full force (because the House had impeached him), and the thorough corruption that rules the Democratic Party would then become exposed to the public. 
The formation of a new major U.S. political party could then become likelier than at any time since the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. However, this time around, the cause wouldn’t be slavery, but instead the fact that, in today’s America, it’s only the billionaires who are in control over both Parties. In other words: the impetus for a third political Party to become financed by one or more billionaires would be the intolerable stranglehold that corruption — control of the Government by the billionaires — has over our country. 
We then would have two major political parties plus a third that would then serve as the kingmaker taking bids from each of the other two in order to determine which one to throw its support to. It would be the tie-breaker. So, the kingmaker-party would be little more than another party controlled by billionaires. They would make deals to determine which one of the other two will rule the country. American ‘democracy’ wouldn’t be fundamentally affected, because it doesn’t exist anyway, except in our schoolbooks, ‘history’ books, ‘news’ reports, and the public speeches by politicians. It’s all a fraud. And this is why the U.S. regime wants to get rid of people such as Julian Assange.



Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Russia: The Enemy By Choice


Russia: The Enemy By Choice

Russia: The Enemy By Choice
The article in the link below shows why it is futile for the Russian government to rely on diplomacy and international law in an effort to arrive at an understanding with the West.
Washington and its vassals have designated Russia the enemy and are using propaganda to indoctrinate their subjects with this conviction.
It will be interesting to see what Putin says tomorrow in his inaugural address.

2018: When Orwell’s 1984 Stopped Being Fiction
By Jonathan Cook
May 04, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -This is the moment when a newspaper claiming to uphold that most essential function in a liberal democracy – acting as a watchdog on power – formally abandons the task. This is the moment when it positively embraces the role of serving as a mouthpiece for the government. The tell is in one small word in a headline on today’s Guardian’s front page: “Revealed”.
When I trained as a journalist, we reserved a “Revealed” or an “Exposed” for those special occasions when we were able to bring to the reader information those in power did not want known. These were the rare moments when as journalists we could hold our heads high and claim to be monitoring the centres of power, to be fulfilling our sacred duty as the fourth estate.
But today’s Guardian’s “exclusive” story “Revealed: UK’s push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance” is doing none of this. Nothing the powerful would want hidden from us is being “revealed”. No one had to seek out classified documents or speak to a whistleblower to bring us this “revelation”. Everyone in this story – the journalist Patrick Wintour, an anonymous “Whitehall official”, and the named politicians and think-tank wonks – is safely in the same self-congratulatory club, promoting a barely veiled government policy: to renew the Cold War against Russia.
It is no accident that the government chose the Guardian as the place to publish this “exclusive” press release. That single word “Revealed” in the headline serves two functions that reverse the very rationale for liberal, watchdog-style journalism.
First, it is designed to disorientate the reader in Orwellian – or maybe Lewis Caroll – fashion, inverting the world of reality. The reader is primed for a disclosure, a secret, and then is spoonfed familiar government propaganda: that the tentacles of a Russian octopus are everywhere, that the Reds are again under our beds – or at least, poisoning our door handles.
British diplomats plan to use four major summits this year – the G7, the G20, Nato and the European Union – to try to deepen the alliance against Russia hastily built by the Foreign Office after the poisoning of the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in March.
This – and thousands of similar examples we are exposed to every day in the discourse of our politicians and media – is the way our defences are gradually lowered, our critical thinking weakened, in ways that assist those in power to launch their assault on democratic norms. Through such journalistic fraud, liberal media like the Guardian and BBC – because they claim to be watchdogs on power, to defend the interests of the ruled, not the rulers – serve a vital role in preparing the ground for the coming changes that will restrict dissent, tighten controls on social media, impose harsher laws. 
The threat is set out repeatedly in the Guardian’s framing of the story: there is a self-evident need for “a more comprehensive approach to Russian disinformation”; Moscow is determined “systematically to divide western electorates and sow doubt”; “the west finds itself arguing with Russia not just about ideology, or interests, but Moscow’s simple denial, or questioning, of what the western governments perceive as unchallengeable facts.”
Tom Tugendhat, son a High Court judge, a former army officer who was honoured with an MBE by the Queen in his thirties, and was appointed chair of the Commons’ important foreign affairs select committee after two years in parliament, sets out the thinking of the British establishment – and hints at the likely solutions. He tells the Guardian:
Putin is waging an information war designed to turn our strongest asset – freedom of speech – against us. Russia is trying to fix us through deception.
Second, there is a remedy for the disorientation created by that small word “Revealed”. It subtly forces the reader to submit to the inversion.
For the reasons set out above, a rational response to this front-page story is to doubt that Wintour, his editors, and the Guardian newspaper itself are quite as liberal as they claim to be, that they take seriously the task of holding power to account. It is to abandon the consoling assumption that we, the 99 per cent, have our own army – those journalists in the bastions of liberal media like the Guardian and the BBC – there to protect us. It is to realise that we are utterly alone against the might of the corporate world. That is a truly disturbing, terrifying even, conclusion.
But that sense of abandonment and dread can be overcome. The world can be set to rights again – and it requires only one small leap of faith. If Russian president Vladimir Putin truly is an evil mastermind, if Russia is an octopus with tentacles reaching out to every corner of the globe, if there are Russian agents hiding in the ethers ready to deceive you every time you open your laptop, and Russian cells preparing to fix your elections so that the Muscovian candidate (Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn?) wins, then the use of that “Revealed” is not only justified but obligatory. The Guardian isn’t spouting British and US government propaganda, it is holding to account the supremely powerful and malevolent Russian state.
Once you have stepped through this looking glass, once you have accepted that you are living in Oceania and in desperate need of protection from Eurasia, or is it Eastasia?, then the Guardian is acting as a vital watchdog – because the enemy is within. Our foe is not those who rule us, those who have all the wealth, those who store their assets offshore so they don’t have to pay taxes, those who ignore devastating climate breakdown because reforms would be bad for business. No, the real enemy are the sceptics, the social media “warriors”, the political activists, even the leader of the British Labour party. They may sound and look harmless, but they are not who or what they seem. There are evil forces standing behind them.
In this inverse world, the coming draconian changes are not a loss but a gain. You are not losing the rights you enjoy now, or rights you might need in the future when things get even more repressive. The restrictions are pre-emptive, there to protect you before Putin and his bots have not only taken over cyberspace but have entered your living space. Like the aggressive wars of “humanitarian intervention” the west is waging across the oil-rich areas of the Middle East, the cruelty is actually kindness. Those who object, those who demur, do so only because they are in the financial or ideological grip of the mastermind Putin.
This is the moment when war becomes peace, freedom becomes slavery, ignorance becomes strength.
Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism

Friday, November 3, 2017

On the collection of Russian DNA by the US

 On the collection of Russian DNA by the US

On the collection of Russian DNA by the US

A letter from another scientist:
It was striking to me that the American agencies were interested in samples from skeletal muscle and presumably the nerve endings running to the muscle as well which would be mixed in with any biopsy.

Decades ago I recall that a scientist who was studying the junction between nerve and muscle was getting funding from some arm of the Military Security Complex.  Why? Well toxins act on this junction disrupting the chemical connection that links motor neuron to muscle cell.  One example of such an agent is curare which breaks the connection by competing with the neuromuscular transmitter, acetylcholine, for the acetylcholine receptor and hence blocking muscle contraction.  Death comes quickly from paralysis of the diaphragmatic muscle which leads to suffocation.

Organophosphates like Sarin also act at the neuromuscular junction and other sites in a more complicated way than curare.
The interest at that time was apparently to see whether an Asian variant of the receptor for acetylcohline could be found.  Nerve agents specific for the Asian variant could then be developed and could then be used with impunity in battle without any worry to caucasians.  Or so hoped the Pentagon.  Perhaps now they are looking for a Russian variant,that is a part of the structure of the receptor that is unique to all or very many Russians.  Then presumably a Russian specific agent like curare could be found.  Or maybe Sarin.  Years ago that did not seem possible but perhaps it is possible now.  I can only speculate.  But that could be one use. The region of the muscle near the neuron ending would be rich in the RNA that makes this acetylcholine receptor and the DNA there would be active.  Maybe with today’s technologies that helps.


More from Guest Contributions

Sunday, February 5, 2017

‘You think our country is so innocent?’

‘You think our country is so innocent?’

February 5, 2017 

‘You think our country is so innocent?’ – Trump asks after O’Reilly calls Putin ‘a killer’


https://www.rt.com/usa/376357-trump-putin-interview-killer/



‘You think our country is so innocent?’ – Trump asks after O’Reilly calls Putin ‘a killer’

‘You think our country is so innocent?’ – Trump asks after O’Reilly calls Putin ‘a killer’
The US is not as innocent as it may seem, according to President Donald Trump. When Fox News host Bill O’Reilly called Vladimir Putin “a killer,” Trump responded: We’ve got a lot of killers.”
In an interview to be aired ahead of the Super Bowl later on Sunday, Bill O’Reilly asked if Trump respects Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which the he replied, “I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them.”
Seemingly surprised, O’Reilly goes on to ask him why.
"He is the leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not, and if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS – which is a major fight – and the Islamic terrorism all over the world, that’s a good thing,” Trump answered.
Will I get along with him? I have no idea.
O’Reilly then challenged Trump, calling the Russian president a killer.
Trump shrugged the comment off, saying: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country is so innocent?”
It is not the first time that Trump has made such comments when journalists question his stance regarding the Russian leader.
At the end of 2015, the host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe told Trump that Putin “kills journalists,” to which the unfazed then-presidential candidate replied, “I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.”
“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. He’s a strong leader. He’s a powerful leader, Trump added.
At the end of January, Putin and Trump held their first official phone call, which, according to the Kremlin, was “good and constructive.”
“Over the past years, the lack of mutual respect became the main reason for the deterioration of relations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov added.
Another important thing is that Washington is prepared for dialogue, the spokesman concluded.
This is what President Putin called for rather consistently but where unfortunately he did not see reciprocity over the past years,” Peskov said.
Earlier in January, however, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that the first meeting between Putin and Trump may“happen in months to come,” not “in a matter of weeks.”
Peskov also said, “it is maybe the biggest mistake on the part of Western analysts to think that Trump is ‘our man.’ He is an American man.”
Former Deputy Speaker of the Belgian Parliament Lode Vanoost told RT that it is way too early to be overly optimistic about Trump.
“To me, he remains as unpredictable and unreliable as he was before. We didn't see the full interview yet, and the follow-up questions that came after this very astonishing remark. Basically, what Trump is doing is he is applying the same moral principles to the US as he applies to other countries. That is indeed without precedent in US political culture.”
Also, he expressed concern over forces that could interfere with Trump's mending ties with Russia.
“If he remains on the path of improving relations with Russia, it could be quite dangerous: my fear is that all conservative governments in the EU, NATO, will create provocations to force him back into line.”








Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Who Is Paying Protesters To Disrupt Trump’s Inauguration?

Who Is Paying Protesters To Disrupt Trump’s Inauguration?
Who Is Paying Protesters To Disrupt Trump’s Inauguration?
Update: This from a reader:
 Dear Dr. Roberts,
I just read your recent post regarding the DC protesters. AND interestingly enough, I just had a job interview the first week in December when I had a FEMA sponsored job interview for a position as a FEMA Community Planner. AND interestingly, the interview questions, exactly match the objectives referenced in your posting! My question is this: Is FEMA being used as an inside job?
Unless this website — http://www.disruptj20.org/get-organized/events/ — is an Internet hoax, big money is organizing a Maidan-like protest against Trump’s inauguration. Where would all this money come from? George Soros, the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA?
This report from Sputnik and Global Research shows large sums offered for protesters who will disrupt Trump’s inauguration. If these ads are not hoaxes, clearly large sums of money are at
work doing the military/security complex’s dirty work.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201701171049697952-ads-offering-thousands-protest-trump/
“Job advertisements running in 20 cities across the US are offering $2,500 a month for ‘operatives’ willing to protest the upcoming inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump.
“San Francisco-based Demand Protest posted ads on Backpage.com, seeking applicants who would like to ‘Get paid fighting against Trump!’ Along with the monthly $2,500 retainer, the company offers a ‘standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least 6 events a year,’ and full-time operatives are eligible for vision, dental and health insurance.
“ © BACKPAGE.COM Demand Protest Backpage Ad, Tulsa. Demand Protest describes itself as the ‘largest private grassroots support organization in the United States,’ and the ads entice potential applicants to ‘Get paid fighting against Trump!’ It explains, ‘We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why not do so with us!…We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests,’ according to the Washington Times. The ads appear as over 100 organizations have mobilized nationwide to demonstrate during the upcoming inauguration. Targeted cities include New York, Chicago,  Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Detroit and Denver. 
“© AFP 2016/ KENA BETANCUR Young Activists Protest Democrats in NYC, Call for Opposition to Trump Policies “

 Members of the media document workers on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016, as construction continues on the Inaugural platform in preparation for the Inauguration and swearing-in ceremonies for President-elect Donald Trump

Ads Offer Protesters $2500 to Disrupt Trump Inauguration © AP Photo/ Pablo Martinez Monsivais

US 22:28 17.01.2017(updated 01:35 18.01.2017) Get short URL345479846 Job advertisements running in 20 cities across the US are offering $2,500 a month for “operatives” willing to protest the upcoming inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/201701171049697952-ads-offering-thousands-protest-trump/








Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.