VIDEO: What Do Jews Do For A Living?

Have you ever wondered why Jews have so much power? This video answers the question.

Tragic Fate of Skripal’s Pets

The scandal with the poisoning of the former GRU agent Sergei Skripal is gaining momentum. Meanwhile, absolutely innocent creatures suffered because of the diplomatic war between the UK and Russia.

Remember that two dead guinea pigs and a black Persian cat in a critical condition were found in the ex-spy’s home. Then the cat was taken to the Porton Down chemical weapons lab (not to a veterinary clinic which would be more expected). In the laboratory, chemists made a weird diagnosis, which they described as a “distressed state”. The cat was euthanized. Its body, as well as those of the two guinea pigs, were immediately incinerated which was confirmed by the British government.

Shortly after the Russian Embassy in London posed the question on what happened to the animals that Sergey Skripal kept in his Salisbury house, the British side, first in an unnamed leak and then as a DEFRA comment, said that “when a vet was able to access the property, two guinea pigs had sadly died. A cat was also found in a distressed state and a decision was taken by a veterinary surgeon to euthanize the animal to alleviate its suffering”.
This is, however, the sort of answer that brings about still more questions. Regarding the dead guinea pigs and the malnourished cat, it is said unofficially that they were taken to the Porton Down facility and incinerated there. But it remains unclear if their remains were ever tested for toxic substances, which would constitute useful evidence, and if not, why such a decision was made.

The fact that the animals were locked inside the house for several days suggests that the police did not access the alleged crime scene, which would be very unusual for such a high profile investigation. Such treatment of pets is also hardly consistent with UK laws on animal cruelty and comes as a blatant disregard for Mr. Skripal’s rights as the owner and companion of the animals.
Overall, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the animals have been disposed of as an inconvenient piece of evidence. It is also to be noted that, according to Mr. Skripal’s niece Viktoria, there were 2 cats, not one, in the house – and the whereabouts of the second one is still unknown.

Nevertheless, the way how the UK police treat animals is absolutely awful and unacceptable. Moreover, even their bodies could cast some light on this case. Instead, we have even more questions than before.
Firstly, why were the pets sealed in the house with no food and water? How is it possible to imagine such a mockery and careless attitude towards animals? British officials must be held accountable for their decision to leave the pets inside the sealed-up house without any nutrition. In fact, their actions can be classified as animal abuse, which resulted in their death.
Secondly, no matter how cynical this may sound, any living organism remained at the place where the potential poisoning occurred could indirectly help the investigation process. You don’t even need to be an expert in chemistry to understand it. The use of such a potent substance as Novichok agent might have affected the pets as well. Unfortunately, we will never know this as their bodies were eliminated. No one even asked for their owners’ permission for that.
It seems like the British side is trying to cover up the tracks and destroy all the evidence. In Hollywood movies, criminals act like this when a detective tells them their version is not valid. Draw your own conclusions.

Farrow - Trump

Donald Trump, The Playboy Model Karen McDougal, And A System For Concealing Infidelity

If anyone still thinks that Hillary Clinton would have been a better president, they are WRONG and have no clue who is truly ruling America, and the world for that matter. Decency, respect, tradition, moral values, Christianity and all those things that America was supposed to be built upon have not been there for centuries. Instead, its decline and corruption began shortly after its independence and continued to grow exponentially until today.

Today Amerika is a country ruled by a Luciferian doctrine where only the very corrupt get to power and that is why Trump and Clinton were selected as options for leadership. Trump was not chosen by the people, but by those who continuously fool the people into believing in political candidates. Trump is an example of decadence, corruption, and greed. He represents a country that has clearly pushed God to the side allowing evil forces to destroy her mission in this world. In what god do you trust America?

Farrow - Trump

At right, from the top, David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer; Karen McDougal, a former Playmate of the Year; Donald Trump; and Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer.

Illustration by Oliver Munday; Source Photographs: Jesse Grant / WireImage / Getty (McDougal); Mark Peterson / Redux for The New Yorker (Pecker); Jamie Squire / Getty (Trump); Lucas Jackson / Reuters (Howard)

“Donald Trump, the Playboy Model Karen McDougal, and a System for Concealing Infidelity,” Source:

One woman’s account of clandestine meetings, financial transactions, and legal pacts designed to hide an extramarital affair. 

In June, 2006, Donald Trump taped an episode of his reality-television show, The Apprentice,” at the Playboy Mansion, in Los Angeles. Hugh Hefner, Playboy’s publisher, threw a pool party for the show’s contestants with dozens of current and former Playmates, including Karen McDougal, a slim brunette who had been named Playmate of the Year, eight years earlier. In 2001, the magazine’s readers voted her runner-up for “Playmate of the ’90s,” behind Pamela Anderson. At the time of the party, Trump had been married to the Slovenian model Melania Knauss for less than two years; their son, Barron, was a few months old. Trump seemed uninhibited by his new family obligations. McDougal later wrote that Trump “immediately took a liking to me, kept talking to me – telling me how beautiful I was, etc. It was so obvious that a Playmate Promotions exec said, ‘Wow, he was all over you – I think you could be his next wife.’ ”

Trump and McDougal began an affair, which McDougal later memorialized in an eight-page, handwritten document provided to The New Yorker by John Crawford, a friend of McDougal’s. When I showed McDougal the document, she expressed surprise that I had obtained it but confirmed that the handwriting was her own.

The interactions that McDougal outlines in the document share striking similarities with the stories of other women who claim to have had sexual relationships with Trump, or who have accused him of propositioning them for sex or sexually harassing them. McDougal describes their affair as entirely consensual. But her account provides a detailed look at how Trump and his allies used clandestine hotel-room meetings, payoffs, and complex legal agreements to keep affairs—sometimes multiple affairs he carried out simultaneously—out of the press.

On November 4, 2016, four days before the election, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, had paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to McDougal’s story, which it never ran. Purchasing a story in order to bury it is a practice that many in the tabloid industry call “catch and kill.” This is a favorite tactic of the C.E.O. and chairman of A.M.I., David Pecker, who describes the President as a personal friend.” As part of the agreement, A.M.I. consented to publish a regular aging-and-fitness column by McDougal. After Trump won the Presidency, however, A.M.I.’s promises largely went unfulfilled, according to McDougal. Last month, the Journal reported that Trump’s personal lawyer had negotiated a separate agreement just before the election with an adult-film actress named Stephanie Clifford, whose screen name is Stormy Daniels, which barred her from discussing her own affair with Trump. Since then, A.M.I. has repeatedly approached McDougal about extending her contract.

McDougal, in her first on-the-record comments about A.M.I.’s handling of her story, declined to discuss the details of her relationship with Trump, for fear of violating the agreement she reached with the company. She did say, however, that she regretted signing the contract. “It took my rights away,” McDougal told me. “At this point I feel I can’t talk about anything without getting into trouble, because I don’t know what I’m allowed to talk about. I’m afraid to even mention his name.”

A White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump denies having had an affair with McDougal: “This is an old story that is just more fake news. The President says he never had a relationship with McDougal.” A.M.I. said that an amendment to McDougal’s contract—signed after Trump won the election—allowed her to “respond to legitimate press inquiries” regarding the affair. The company said that it did not print the story because it did not find it credible.

Six former A.M.I. employees told me that Pecker routinely makes catch-and-kill arrangements like the one reached with McDougal. “We had stories and we bought them knowing full well they were never going to run,” Jerry George, a former A.M.I. senior editor who worked at the company for more than twenty-five years told me. George said that Pecker protected Trump. “Pecker really considered him a friend,” George told me. “We never printed a word about Trump without his approval.” Maxine Page, who worked at A.M.I. on and off from 2002 to 2012, including as an executive editor at one of the company’s Web sites, said that Pecker also used the unpublished stories as “leverage” over some celebrities in order to pressure them to pose for his magazines or feed him stories. Several former employees said that these celebrities included Arnold Schwarzenegger, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, and Tiger Woods. (Schwarzenegger, through an attorney, denied this claim. Woods did not respond to requests for comment.) “Even though they’re just tabloids, just rags, it’s still a cause of concern,” Page said. “In theory, you would think that Trump has all the power in that relationship, but in fact Pecker has the power—he has the power to run these stories. He knows where the bodies are buried.”

As the pool party at the Playboy Mansion came to an end, Trump asked for McDougal’s telephone number. For McDougal, who grew up in a small town in Michigan and worked as a preschool teacher before beginning her modeling career, such advances were not unusual. John Crawford, McDougal’s friend, who also helped broker her deal with A.M.I., said that Trump was “another powerful guy hitting on her, a gal who’s paid to be at work.” Trump and McDougal began talking frequently on the phone and soon had what McDougal described as their first date: dinner in a private bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. McDougal wrote that Trump impressed her. “I was so nervous! I was into his intelligence + charm. Such a polite man,” she wrote. “We talked for a couple hours – then, it was “ON”! We got naked + had sex.” As McDougal was getting dressed to leave, Trump did something that surprised her. “He offered me money,” she wrote. “I looked at him (+ felt sad) + said, ‘No thanks – I’m not ‘that girl.’ I slept w/you because I like you – NOT for money’ – He told me ‘you are special.’ ”

Afterward, McDougal wrote, she “went to see him every time he was in LA (which was a lot).” Trump, she said, always stayed in the same bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel and ordered the same meal—steak and mashed potatoes—and never drank. McDougal’s account is consistent with other descriptions of Trump’s behavior. Last month, In Touch Weekly published an interview conducted in 2011 with Stephanie Clifford in which she revealed that during a relationship with Trump she met him for dinner at a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel, where Trump insisted they watch “Shark Week” on the Discovery Channel. Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” alleged that Trump assaulted her at a private dinner meeting, in December of 2007, at a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Trump, Zervos has claimed, kissed her, groped her breast, and suggested that they lie down to “watch some telly-telly.” After Zervos rebuffed Trump’s advances, she said that he “began thrusting his genitals” against her. (Zervos recently sued Trump for defamation after he denied her account.) All three women say that they were escorted to a bungalow at the hotel by a Trump bodyguard, whom two of the women have identified as Keith Schiller. After Trump was elected, Schiller was appointed director of Oval Office Operations and deputy assistant to the President. Last September, John Kelly, acting as the new chief of staff, removed Schiller from the White House posts. (Schiller did not respond to a request for comment.)

Over the course of the affair, Trump flew McDougal to public events across the country but hid the fact that he paid for her travel. “No paper trails for him,” she wrote. “In fact, every time I flew to meet him, I booked/paid for flight + hotel + he reimbursed me.” In July, 2006, McDougal joined Trump at the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship, at the Edgewood Resort, on Lake Tahoe. At a party there, she and Trump sat in a booth with the New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, and Trump told her that Brees had recognized her, remarking, “Baby, you’re popular.” (Brees, through a spokesman, denied meeting Trump or McDougal at the event.) At another California golf event, Trump told McDougal that Tiger Woods had asked who she was. Trump, she recalled, warned her “to stay away from that one, LOL.”

During the Lake Tahoe tournament, McDougal and Trump had sex, she wrote. He also allegedly began a sexual relationship with Clifford at the event. (A representative for Clifford did not respond to requests for comment.) In the 2011 interview with In Touch Weekly, Clifford said that Trump didn’t use a condom and didn’t mention sleeping with anyone else. Another adult-film actress, Dawn Vanguard, whose screen name is Alana Evans, claimed that Trump invited her to join them in his hotel room that weekend. A third adult-film performer, Jessica Drake, alleged that Trump asked her to his hotel room, met her and two women she brought with her in pajamas, and then “grabbed each of us tightly in a hug and kissed each one of us without asking for permission.” He then offered Drake ten thousand dollars in exchange for her company. (Trump denied the incident.) A week after the golf tournament, McDougal joined Trump at the fifty-fifth Miss Universe contest, in Los Angeles. She sat near him, and later attended an after-party where she met celebrities. Trump also set aside tickets for Clifford, as he did at a later vodka launch that both women attended.

During Trump’s relationship with McDougal, she wrote, he introduced her to members of his family and took her to his private residences. At a January, 2007, launch party in Los Angeles for Trump’s now-defunct liquor brand, Trump Vodka, McDougal, who was photographed entering the event, recalled sitting at a table with Kim Kardashian, Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Trump, Jr.,’s wife, Vanessa, who was pregnant. At one point, Trump held a party for “The Apprentice” at the Playboy Mansion, and McDougal worked as a costumed Playboy bunny. “We took pics together, alone + with his family,” McDougal wrote. She recalled that Trump said he had asked his son Eric “who he thought was the most beautiful girl here + Eric pointed me. Mr. T said ‘He has great taste’ + we laughed!” Trump gave McDougal tours of Trump Tower and his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club. In Trump Tower, McDougal wrote, Trump pointed out Melania’s separate bedroom. He “said she liked her space,” McDougal wrote, “to read or be alone.”

McDougal’s account, like those of Clifford and other women who have described Trump’s advances, conveys a man preoccupied with his image. McDougal recalled that Trump would often send her articles about him or his daughter, as well as signed books and sun visors from his golf courses. Clifford recalled Trump remarking that she and Ivanka were similar and proudly showing her a copy of a “money magazine” with his image on the cover.

Trump also promised to buy McDougal an apartment in New York as a Christmas present. Clifford, likewise, said that Trump promised to buy her a condo in Tampa. For Trump, showing off real estate and other branded products was sometimes a prelude to sexual advances. Zervos and a real-estate investor named Rachel Crooks have both claimed that Trump kissed them on the mouth during professional encounters at Trump Tower. Four other women have claimed that Trump forcibly touched or kissed them during tours or events at Mar-a-Lago, his property in Palm Beach, Florida. (Trump has denied any wrongdoing pertaining to the women.)

McDougal ended the relationship in April 2007, after nine months. According to Crawford, the breakup was prompted in part by McDougal’s feelings of guilt. “She couldn’t look at herself in the mirror anymore,” Crawford said. “And she was concerned about what her mother thought of her.” The decision was reinforced by a series of comments Trump made that McDougal found disrespectful, according to several of her friends. When she raised her concern about her mother’s disapproval to Trump, he replied, “What, that old hag?” (McDougal, hurt, pointed out that Trump and her mother were close in age.) On the night of the Miss Universe pageant, McDougal attended, McDougal and a friend rode with Trump in his limousine and the friend mentioned a relationship she had had with an African-American man. According to multiple sources, Trump remarked that the friend liked “the big black dick” and began commenting on her attractiveness and breast size. The interactions angered the friend and deeply offended McDougal.

Speaking carefully for fear of legal reprisal, McDougal responded to questions about whether she felt guilty about the affair, as her friends suggested, by saying that she had found God in the last several years and regretted parts of her past. “This is a new me,” she told me. “If I could go back and do a lot of things differently, I definitely would.”

McDougal readily admitted that she voluntarily sold the rights to her story, but she and sources close to her insisted that the way the sale unfolded was exploitative. Crawford told me that selling McDougal’s story was his idea and that he first raised it when she was living with him, in 2016. “She and I were sitting at the house, and I’m watching him on television,” Crawford said, referring to Trump. “I said, ‘You know, if you had a physical relationship with him, that could be worth something about now.’ And I looked at her and she had that guilty look on her face.”

McDougal, who says she is a Republican, told me that she was reluctant at first to tell her story because she feared that other Trump supporters might accuse her of fabricating it or might even harm her or her family. She also said that she didn’t want to get involved in the heated Presidential contest. “I didn’t want to influence anybody’s election,” she told me. “I didn’t want death threats on my head.” Crawford was only able to persuade her to consider speaking about the relationship after a former friend of McDougal’s began posting about the affair on social media. “I didn’t want someone else telling stories and getting all the details wrong,” McDougal said.

Crawford called a friend who had worked in the adult-film industry who he thought might have media connections, and asked whether a story about Trump having an affair would “be worth something.” That friend, Crawford recalled, was “like a hobo on a ham sandwich” and contacted an attorney named Keith M. Davidson, who also had contacts in the adult-film industry and ties to media companies, including A.M.I. Davidson had developed a track record of selling salacious stories. A slideshow on the client’s page of his Web site includes Sara Leal, who claimed to have slept with the actor Ashton Kutcher while he was married to Demi Moore. Davidson told Crawford that McDougal’s story would be worth “millions.” (Davidson did not respond to a request for comment.)

Dozens of pages of e-mails, texts, and legal documents obtained by The New Yorker revealed how the transaction evolved. Davidson got in touch with A.M.I., and on June 20, 2016, he and McDougal met Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer. E-mails between Howard and Davidson show that A.M.I. initially had little interest in the story. Crawford said that A.M.I.’s first offer was ten thousand dollars.

After Trump won the Republican nomination, however, A.M.I. increased its offer. In an August 2016, e-mail exchange, Davidson encouraged McDougal to sign the deal. McDougal, worried that she would be prevented from talking about a Presidential nominee, asked questions about the nuances of the contract. Davidson responded, “If you deny, you are safe.” He added, “We really do need to get this signed and wrapped up…”

McDougal, who has a new lawyer, Carol Heller, told me that she did not understand the scope of the agreement when she signed it. “I knew that I couldn’t talk about any alleged affair with any married man, but I didn’t really understand the whole content of what I gave up,” she told me.

On August 5, 2016, McDougal signed a limited life-story rights agreement granting A.M.I. exclusive ownership of her account of any romantic, personal, or physical relationship she has ever had with any “then-married man.” Her retainer with Davidson makes explicit that the man in question was Donald Trump. In exchange, A.M.I. agreed to pay her a hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The three men involved in the deal—Davidson, Crawford, and their intermediary in the adult-film industry—took forty-five percent of the payment as fees, leaving McDougal with a total of eighty-two thousand five hundred dollars, billing records from Davidson’s office show. “I feel let down,” McDougal told me. “I’m the one who took it, so it’s my fault, too. But I didn’t understand the full parameters of it.” McDougal terminated her representation by Davidson, but a photograph of McDougal in a bathing suit is still featured prominently on his Web site—according to McDougal, without her permission. The Wall Street Journal reported that, two months after McDougal signed the agreement with A.M.I., Davidson negotiated a nondisclosure agreement between Clifford and Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, for a hundred and thirty thousand dollars. (On Tuesday, Cohen told the Times that he had facilitated the deal with Daniels and paid the money out of his own pocket. Cohen did not respond to a request for comment.)

As voters went to the polls on Election Day, Howard and A.M.I.’s general counsel were on the phone with McDougal and a law firm representing her, promising to boost McDougal’s career and offering to employ a publicist to help her handle interviews. E-mails show that, a year into the contract, the company suggested it might collaborate with McDougal on a skin-care line and a documentary devoted to a medical cause that she cares about, neither of which has come about. The initial contract also called for A.M.I. to publish regular columns by McDougal on aging and wellness, and to “prominently feature” her on two magazine covers. She has appeared on one cover and is in discussions about another, but in the past seventeen months, the company has published only nine of the almost a hundred promised columns. “They blew her off for a long time,” Crawford said. A.M.I. said that McDougal had not delivered the promised columns.

A.M.I. responded quickly, however, when journalists tried to interview McDougal. In May, 2017, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin, who was writing a profile of David Pecker, asked McDougal for comment about her relationships with A.M.I. and Trump. Howard, of A.M.I., working with a publicist retained by the company, forwarded McDougal a draft response with the subject line “SEND THIS.” In August, 2017, Pecker flew McDougal to New York and the two had lunch, during which he thanked her for her loyalty. A few days later, Howard followed up by e-mail, summarizing the plans that had been discussed, including the possibility of McDougal hosting A.M.I.’s coverage of awards shows such as the Golden Globes, Grammys, and Oscars. None of that work materialized. (A.M.I. said that those conversations related to future contracts, not her current one.)

A.M.I.’s interest in McDougal seemed to increase after news broke of Trump’s alleged affair with Clifford. Howard sent an e-mail suggesting that McDougal undergo media training, and a few days later suggested that she could host coverage of the Emmys for OK! Magazine. In an e-mail on January 30th, A.M.I.’s general counsel, Cameron Stracher, talked about renewing her contract and putting her on a new magazine cover. The subject line of the e-mail read, “McDougal contract extension.” Crawford told me, “They got worried that she was going to start talking again, and they came running to her.”

Several people close to McDougal argued that such untold stories could be used as leverage against the President. “I’m sixty-two years old,” Crawford said. “I know how the world goes round.” Without commenting on Trump specifically, McDougal conceded that she had a growing awareness of the broader implications of the President’s situation. “Someone in a high position that controls our country, if they can influence him,” she said, “it’s a big deal.” In a statement, A.M.I. denied that it had any leverage over Trump: “The suggestion that AMI holds any influence over the President of the United States, while flattering, is laughable.”

McDougal fears that A.M.I. will retaliate for her public comments by seeking financial damages in a private arbitration process mandated by a clause of her contract. But she said that changes in her life and the emergence of the #MeToo moment had prompted her to speak. In January, 2017, McDougal had her breast implants removed, citing declining health that she believed to be connected to the implants. McDougal said that confronting illness, and embracing a cause she wanted to speak about, made her feel increasingly conflicted about the moral compromises of silence. “As I was sick and feeling like I was dying and bedridden, all I could do was pray to live. But now I pray to live right, and make right with the wrongs that I have done,” she told me. McDougal also cited the actions of women who have come forward in recent months to describe abuses by high-profile men. “I know it’s a different circumstance,” she said, “but I just think I feel braver. McDougal told me that she hoped speaking out might convince others to wait before signing agreements like hers. “Every girl who speaks,” she said, “is paving the way for another.”


Trump’s Business of Corruption

Adam Davidson follows the money trail in one of the President’s past deals all the way to Vladimir Putin.

VIDEO: The Bottomless Pitt 


COMMENTARY: Jared Kushner Belongs To Racist Criminal Jewish Cult

Only the very ignorant or the very innocent still believe politicians are working for a better world. Even if they had the intention, they cannot do it. The powers that lead the world today are so strong that have their tentacles in every walk of life. It is revolting to learn how most succumb to their poisonous evil ways and bribes. 

In reference to the article below, we would like to add that we do not agree with the author when he says that ‘relations with Russia are less warm’. That is simply NOT the case. Putin is not only a member of Chabad Lubavitch but is strongly connected to Trump through Chabad. At the International Assembly of Chabad Representatives in 2007, Russia’s Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Berel Lazar, often referred to as “Putin’s Rabbi”, told a remarkable story about the Russian leader, which he heard from Putin himself.



“Jared Kushner Belongs to Racist Criminal Jewish Cult,” Source:

Chabad came to prominence under the guidance of ‘The Great Rebbe’ Menachem Mendel Schneerson. His policies led Chabad through a period of great expansion establishing institutions in 900 cities around the world.
‘The Great Rebbe’ gave regular talks on the coming of the messiah. Over time, Lubavitchers began to realize that he meant himself. The belief that Schneerson was the Messiah was first openly professed by Rabbi Shavom Dol Wolpo in a 1984 book and quickly gained acceptance.
Absurdly, even though he died in 1994 ‘The Great Rebbe’ is still the official leader of Chabad, like ‘Great Leader’ Kim Il-Sung is the leader of North Korea.

In Chabad schoolhouses children chant and salute the invisible Rebbe.


Chabad believes Jews are God’s chosen people and everyone else is trash.  In the book “Gatherings and Conversations” the Great Rebbe tells his followers that Jewish people are an extension of God and Gentiles are destined to serve the Jews.

“Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.”

“A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.”

Rabbi Ginsburgh, a leading Chabad Rabbi, has argued that because Gentiles are genetically inferior to Jews, a Jew should be able to take Gentiles organs if he needs one. He was recorded saying, ‘As for the goyim… Zalman’s attitude (was): “Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”

‘If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA.’

‘If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value.’

The Jewish Daily Forward reported a talk given by Chabad Rabbi Mani Friedman.

Asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors Friedman responded, ‘The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).’


Chabad’s extremism makes them perfect apologists for Israeli crimes. A perfect example is Alan Dershowitz, a Chabad member.

Dershowitz is the premier Zionist apologist rolled out in front of the mainstream news cameras across the world to explain that Israelis are the victims of every massacre they carry out. An unhinged and creepy individual, during a recent speech he gave at Oxford University he took off his glasses and told the students that he has “Zionist eyes” as do all “reasonable people”, Dershowitz is one of many Jewish extremists in sheep’s clothing who lead mainstream political discourse in the West. 

As further evidence that Wikileaks is an intelligence operation, Dershowitz recently joined Julian Assange’s legal team.


One of the policies of the Chabad is to send Rabbis across the world to set up Chabad houses. This movement, known as shilchus, has given Chabad a global support network.

Lubavitchers mix with the upper echelons of each host country. Their influence in each country varies.

The Canadian government recently gave the cult $800,000 for the building of a Chabad center in Montreal. Relations with Russia are less warm; the Russians recently refused to hand over two major collections of Chabad texts seized by early Soviet governments.Where is Chabad’s influence the greatest? You guessed it- the US.

Rabbi Shemtov is Chabad’s Washington representative, and his enormous influence was illustrated when he lobbied successfully for the Great Rebbe to be posthumously awarded the congressional gold medal in 1995, the only religious leader ever to be given the award.

Rabbi Shemtov is an all-pervasive presence in D.C. Sue Fishkoff, author of ‘The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch’, writes: “It’s not enough that Chabad’s man in D.C. knows the name and phone number of just about every congressman, senator and foreign ambassador in the nation’s capital — he also knows their legislative assistants, their secretaries and the people who clean their offices.”

Shemtov says that the vast network of shelichim  inside the US generates his political power. “We have shelichimin forty-seven states and in [at least] 310 districts. … People sometimes view the world of shelichim as three thousand people, but it’s not only three thousand people, it’s three thousand interconnected networks. So we can place a call from a constituent to almost any member of Congress.”

“Most shelichim have good connections with their senators, congressmen and governors, who represent the most remote places in the United States. For example, when Sarah Palin, a Republican, burst onto the scene, she had already known about Jewish issues and Chabad specifically from Rabbi Yosef Greenberg in Alaska.”

Members of the cast of ‘Friends’ recorded a piece for a Chabad telethon. Bob Dylan appeared on another.


Chabad is a criminal organization with ties to Mossad. Chabad houses provides safe houses and storefronts for Israeli intelligence and criminal activity. This includes everything from terrorism to money laundering, drug running to prostitution.

For instance, in March 1989 U.S. law enforcement rounded up a criminal network in Seattle, Los Angeles, New Jersey, Colombia, and Israel that involved a Chabad House that was involved in money laundering and currency violations.

Wayne Madsen writes:

‘In Bangkok, Israeli military pilots and drivers who stay at the Chabad House there train Thai Army commandos, divers, and pilots who are fighting a Muslim secessionist movement along the southern border with Malaysia.

‘Bangkok police have long suspected Chabad House as a center for the Israeli Mafia, which runs its Ecstasy and Ice trade from Bangkok for all of Southeast and East Asia. The Israeli Mafia also reportedly runs heroin labs in Myanmar, where an Israeli military officer serves in Myanmar’s feared military counter-intelligence agency.’

Retaliation against the Chabad mafia can be seen in the Mumbai terrorist attacks when Lashkar-e-Taiba militants took hostage of the Mumbai Chabad house and murdered nine Jews, including Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg.

Wayne Madsen has reported that mafia overlord Dawood Ibrahim ordered the attacks partly in response to Israeli mafia attempts to take over his Mumbai drug trade.

‘[Wayne Madsen Report] has learned from Asian intelligence sources that the Russian-Israeli gangsters operating out of Chabad House tried to take over Mumbai’s drug trade with the help of local Jewish mobsters so Ibrahim, while settling scores with India, the CIA, and Britain, decided to have his subcontractor LET terrorists pay a visit to Chabad House and “collect on a debt with high interest.”‘

Chabad are allowed to exist as a powerful international force because they serve Israel in two ways: working with them in intelligence and criminal activities, and a source of extremist ideology to fuel Zionist crimes.

Sarah Silverman

COMMENTARY: Pornography As A Secret Weapon

The tribe continues to destroy Christianity and our moral values. Hollywood began by pushing for the ‘independence’ of women, today it is women who initiate sex and act like men. Brainwashing the masses has been easy, it has completely changed the masses perception of reality. The Devil’s rabbit hole is infinite and today he is in charge. Most seem to accept the Cultural Marxist poison being fed to them every day, and continue to follow like useful idiots the evil plan designed to get humanity to auto-destroy. We should hang these criminals and most of all, clean up the White House, all government institutions, and the Catholic Church which are all infested with disgusting members of this REPULSIVE evil tribe, that we hope burns in hell for ever. 

Sarah Silverman

“Pornography as a secret weapon,” Source: 

Pornography is deployed today as a psyop or mind weapon: to pacify, control, brutalize, and ultimately enslave the masses. 

“We corrupt in order to rule.”
— Italian Freemason Giuseppe Mazzini

How do you take a nation of free and independent citizens and turn them into slaves? How do you do this slowly and imperceptibly, without violence, and with the willing participation of the slaves-to-be?  

The answer is simple.

You corrupt them, undermine them, deprave them, demoralize them until they have acquired all the characteristics of slaves.

As the sorceress Circe, with a wave of her magic wand, turned the followers of Ulysses into grunting swine, you can wield your weapon of mass hypnosis, the media, over a nation and transform its citizens into willing slaves. You can learn to robotize man and turn him into a living machine. This is power. This is what it must feel like to be God — or the Devil.

Is there a secret weapon or “magic wand” for turning men into swine? Yes, there is. Sex is the secret weapon, the magic device, that turns men into swine.

1.  Jews use pornography “to destroy gentile morals”

Who are the richest and most successful entrepreneurs of the $100 billion year porn industry? [1] The peddlers of pornography belong to all races, but one race above all stands out as preeminent in this field.  Selling sex, like slave trafficking and moneylending, has always been a Jewish speciality.

Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams: “Though Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population, they dominate porn.”
Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams:
“Though Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population, they dominate porn.”








Jewish academic historian Dr Nathan Abrams (above), perhaps the world’s most renowned authority on the Jewish role in pornography, let the cat out of the bag a few years ago in his controversial essay, Triple-Exthnics. [2]

Published in the prestigious Jewish Quarterly in 2004, this essay spelled out in detail how the world’s multibillion-dollar porn industry was dominated by Jews.

Dr. Abrams not only admits that Jews are the world’s most successful pornographers, he celebrates the fact. Jews, he tells us, have a grudge against Christianity, an “atavistic hatred of Christian authority” rooted in centuries of humiliation, and pornography is one of the ways in which they get their revenge on their Christian persecutors — the hateful oppressors who expelled them from 109 countries since the year 250 AD, always without justification. [3]

So it’s now payback time.

Jewish involvement in pornography [Dr Abrams notes candidly] has a long history in the United States. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography.

According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), “the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools”.

The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa [non-Jewish female].

Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America.

Jewish involvement in porn, Dr Abrams believes, “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.” [4]

“CHRIST SUCKS!” — Al Goldstein, Jewish pornographer
— Al Goldstein, Jewish pornographer

Al Goldstein (pictured), the publisher of Screw magazine, had once said — and Dr. Abrams is happy to quote him: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that CHRIST SUCKS.”

Dr. Abrams’ indulgent attitude to porn is a little surprising. Here is a man who actually believes that Jewish domination of the porn industry is a stunning achievement. Jews get gold stars for masturbation promotion.

ADL National Director, Abraham H. Foxman, agrees with the “liberal” idea that pornography is a good thing — if not for the countless victims of porn addiction, at least for Jews who grow rich on exploiting those addicts. “Those Jews who enter the pornography industry,” Foxman notes with approval, “have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.” [5]

Dr. Abrams, the sober Jewish academic, now ups the ante by adding a sinister touch to the controversy. “Jews are the driving force behind the modern pornographic industry,” he tells us smugly, “and their motivation is, in part, to destroy gentile morals.” [6]

To destroy gentile morals.

Note that phrase well. It amounts to an open declaration of war. For why should Jews wish to “destroy gentile morals” unless they hated the gentiles — in this case, Christians —  and wanted to destroy our most cherished values?

Sarah SilvermanThere is no law to prevent this Jewish comedienne (pictured opposite) from uttering blasphemous obscenities against Jesus Christ and giving offense to 2.1 billion Christians by her infamous comment, “I hope the Jews did kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again — in a second!”

Just imagine an equally well-known Christian comedian coming out with a similar insult against the victims of the Holocaust: “I hope the Nazis DID kill 6 million Jews! I’d fucking do it again — in a second!” 

Such a grossly offensive comment would be unthinkable. The comic who made it would be ostracized at once and never allowed to work again in the entertainment business.

And yet the Jew today, in the person of Sarah Silverman, is perfectly free to spit in the Christian’s face and is even applauded for this hate speech.  The Christian can do nothing about it. He has become a slave in his own country — an object of ridicule and contempt.

2.  How Jews Dominate the American Porn Industry

It comes as no surprise to learn that Jews dominate the production and distribution of pornography. If you want to learn more about these luminaries of lust and see what they look like, here is an excellent starting point.

In a now defunct article entitled Jews in Porn, parts of which have been published on Henry Makow’s site,  Luke Ford notes:

Used to hatred from society, Jews will do its dirty work – such as money-lending in the Middle Ages or porn today – for the opportunity to make money.

Persecuted for millennia in the various societies they’ve lived in, many Jews developed an allegiance to their own survival as their highest value and care little about the survival of the persecuting society.

Even when Jews live in a society that welcomes them instead of harassing them, many Jews hate the majority culture.

Neither rooted in their own tradition or in that of the majority Christian tradition, they live in a community of rebels.

Because of Judaism’s emphasis on education and verbal dexterity, Jews dominate academia, entertainment and media generally. Porn flows out of this culture over which Jews exert an influence disproportionate to their 2% proportion of the American population. [7]

Robert J. Stoller, M.D. in his 1991 book, Porn: Myths for the Twentieth Century, sought to understand the mentality of the people involved in the hard core pornography business. While interviewing some of the actors and actresses in California, he was told, “If you’re welcomed into the porn scene, it’s unbelievable. It’s an extended family…. So many Jewish people involved with it.” [8]

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY Known also as "POrn Valley", this Jewish bastion of sleaze is reported to produce 90 percent of America's smut.
Known also as “Porn Valley”, this bastion of Jewish sleaze is thought to produce 90 percent of America’s pornography.

Today, most porn movies and porn videos in America are produced by Jews in the San Fernando Valley (pictured) in Southern California. This is located just north of Los Angeles in a sprawl of seedy suburbs known to locals as “Porn Valley” or “the Other Hollywood”.

Here Jews are the kingpins of the sex industry and own every single major studio. Chief among these is Vivid Entertainment [9], reportedly the largest porn production company in the world.

This is owned by Jewish multi-billionaire Steven Hirsch, sometimes known as the “Porn King”. Vivid generates an estimated $100 million a year in revenue, cranking out 60 films per year and selling them in video stores, hotel rooms, on cable systems and on the Internet. [10]

“Sex is a powerful thing,”  Hirsch notes complacently. “This is the right time for us!” [11]

Another billionaire Jewish porn mogul, Paul Fishbein, founder of Adult Video News (AVN), is also headquartered in Porn Valley, California. Fishbein’s business associates, Irving Slifkin, Barry Rosenblatt, and Eli Cross are all fabulously rich Jews. [12]

So make no mistake: Porn Valley, California, is a Jewish enclave, as Jewish as Tel Aviv or Brooklyn.

JEWISH SUPREMO ABE FOXMAN: “Those Jews who enter the porn industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.”
“Those Jews who enter the porn industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.”

3.  The Jewish Role in Child Pornography

According to the British charity, National Children’s Homes, 55 percent of the world’s child porn in made in America. [13]

It would be astonishing to learn that Jews were not in the forefront of this sordid enterprise also, given that they dominate the porn industry as a whole. [14]

Pedophilia is a worldwide phenomenon, but it is an undeniable fact that a large number of Jews who practice it appear to do so with a certain impunity. Roman Polanski, after he had drugged and raped an unconscious nymphette, got off the hook lightly. All he had to do was buy a one-way ticket to Paris, France. Nothing was done to bring him to justice.

In July 2000, Brazilian police tried to arrest the Israeli vice-consul in Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher. He was wanted on suspicion of running a child porn ring from the Israeli embassy. Vast quantities of pornographic material had been found on his computer. What happened to Scher? Nothing. Claiming diplomatic immunity, he hopped on a plane to Tel Aviv and that was the last that was heard of him. [15]

Another Jewish pedophile too important to receive serious punishment for his crimes was the son of the famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Found in possession of the hugest cache of child pornography in California, a federal crime normally carrying a 20-year sentence, David Asimov was to receive a slap on the wrist: six months home detention.

How is it he got off so lightly? “A look at the players yields the answer,” a sensational news report reads. “Asimov’s child porn stash was so big that many child victims and perpetrators would have taken a fall had Asimov been zealously prosecuted at trial.” [16]

There is one law for the Jews, it seems, and another for us lesser mortals.


4.  Jewish Gang involved in Child Murder and Snuff Pornography

If 55 percent of the world’s child pornography is produced in the US — according to the British charity National Children’s Homes — 23 percent of the world’s child porn is produced in Russia. [17]

Whether or not Russian child porn is dominated by Russian Jews remains a nebulous issue. There is a high probability that it is, given that there is more than enough solid evidence of Russian Jewish involvement in sex trafficking, kidnapping, pedophilia, and even child murder in the production of snuff porn movies.

See endnote 17 for more on the subject of the Jewish role in the world child porn industry.

Here is a news report first published in October 2000. It will give the reader some idea of the depths of depravity to which some pornographers are willing to sink:


Rome, Italy — Italian and Russian police, working together, broke up a ring of Jewish gangsters who had been involved in the manufacture of child rape and snuff pornography.

Three Russian Jews and eight Italian Jews were arrested after police discovered they had been kidnapping non-Jewish children between the ages of two and five years old from Russian orphanages, raping the children, and then murdering them on film.

Mostly non-Jewish customers, including 1700 nationwide, 600 in Italy, and an unknown number in the United States, paid as much as $20,000 per film to watch little children being raped and murdered.

Jewish officials in a major Italian news agency tried to cover the story up, but were circumvented by Italian news reporters, who broadcast scenes from the films live at prime time on Italian television to more than 11 million Italian viewers. Jewish officials then fired the executives responsible, claiming they were spreading “blood libel.”

Though AP and Reuters both ran stories on the episode, US media conglomerates refused to carry the story on television news, saying that it would prejudice Americans against Jews. [18]


According to the Talmud, 3-year-old girls like this are fair game for sex with adults (Sanhedrin 54b). Killing them is permissible too. “The best of the gentiles deserves to be killed,” the revered Rabbi ben Yohai states authoritatively in the Talmud. [19]

5.  Mass Enslavement through Sex

It is a tragedy that the Jews should have been allowed to deploy pornography to such good effect that they have succeeded in enslaving entire nations, as Circe with a touch of her magic wand enslaved the Greeks, turning men into swine: an apt metaphor for what lies ahead for the masses under their new masters.

“A really efficient totalitarian state,” Aldous Huxley once noted, “would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” [20]

Organized Jewry seems to have no moral scruples about profiting from the sale of pornography. They show no concern about the proven fact that highly addictive and dangerous erototoxins are released into the brain after contact with pornography and can cause progressive brain damage. [21]

Nor do these porno-centric Jews have any qualms of conscience in regard to the wholesale corruption of families, whether Jewish or non-Jewish or show the slightest concern about the tragic descent of children into the hell of compulsive masturbation and porn addiction — a subject I have covered in detail in a soon-to-be-published article.

These sex entrepreneurs, intent on easy profits, have eagerly sought to provide the masses with the cheapest and deadliest of tranquilizers: opportunities for endless orgasms, by way of a ceaseless flow of pornographic images in the mass media they control.

This is one way to achieve world domination without the need for revolutionary violence or military conquest: to take entire countries and turn them into giant masturbatoria.

The model citizens of the future will be happy masturbators. This enthralling activity will keep them occupied throughout the day. It will make them docile and complacent, sated and semi-somnolent, like drugged dung flies in a cesspool or swilling latrine. They will be too busy debauching themselves to mount revolutions or plan revenge attacks against the shadowy elite who have been the architects of their slavery.

These are not the world-changers and wizards of the future of whom Nietzsche said, “Behold, I show you the Superman!” Because of their degeneracies, their weaknesses, they are destined for the dustbin of history.

Men in strip clubMEN  IN  STRIP  CLUB

“Behold, I show you the Superman!”
—  Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra


Here is what Brother Nathanael Kapner has to say on this subject. It is a neat summation. The fact that Kapner is Jewish makes his words even more compelling:

“The degradation of Western Christian social life did not merely happen, it was planned, deliberately fostered and spread, as outlined by The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. This systematic undermining of the culture of the West continues today.

The instruments of this assault on Christian culture and consciousness are the weapons of propaganda: the press, television, cinema, and education. The chief fount of the propaganda is the cinema.

From his capital in Hollywood, the Jew spews out an endless series of perverted films to debase and degenerate the youth of America and the Western world. Divorce replaces marriage, abortion replaces birth, and the family becomes the battleground of individual strife. The Jew has attained his goal in destroying Western culture.” [22]

I am afraid I cannot agree with Kapner’s sweeping conclusion that the Jews are entirely to blame for the decline and fall of Western culture. If the West has gone to hell in a handbasket, the goyim are as much to blame. Their enthusiastic complicity with their own corrupters has been their undoing.

The society we get is the society we deserve.

6.  Conclusion

There is little doubt that the virulent sex epidemic we witness all around us is a deliberately planned sex psyop. This is what governments want.

The Puppet Masters who pull the hidden strings of our Western regimes, all masquerading as democracies, have managed to manufacture exactly what we see when we look around us: widespread neurosis, mass misery, the collapse of moral values, Christianity in ruins, and the coarse brutalization of the common man.

No need for gulags for those who consent to their own chains.


[1]   “Worldwide pornography industry approaches $100 billion.”

[2]    Nathan Abrams, Triple-exthnics, (Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004, Number 196). Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry.  

[3]   109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250

[4]   Nathan Abrams, Op.cit.

[5]    Quoted in Nathan Abrams, Op. cit. 

[6]   Nathan Abrams, Op. cit.

[7]   Quoted in Henry Makow, Jews and Porn.

[8]    Robert J. Stoller, Porn: Myths for the Twentieth Century.

[9]   “Hard Times in Porn Valley.”

[10]   Vivid Entertainment (Wikipedia).

[11]    Forbes magazine, “The Porn King”. # 20,000 pornographic videos are produced each year in the San Fernando Valley, roughly at the rate of one new porn video every 40 minutes. (Rachel Alexander, Porn Addition at Crisis Levels.)

[12]   AVN Magazine (Wikipedia, history).

[13]    Penn State Law Professors Trot Out ‘Female Porn Leaders’ to Whitewash Realities of Adult Industry (explicit language).

[14]   Dr Lasha Darkmoon, Masters of Porn: The Systematic Promotion of Sexual Deviance. (See also n.2 above, Dr Nathan Abrams, Triple-Exthnics).

[15]   (1) Brazilian police stake out diplomat accused of running kiddie-porn ring (07/06/2000). (2) Israeli Consul Assistant involved with prostitution of minors escapes from Brazil (07/05/2000). (3) Brazil links Israeli consul to child prostitution (07/05/2000).

[16]   Isaac Asimov’s son, his involvement in child porn.  Link lost. We receive the message, “Server not found. Firefox can’t find the server at”

[17]   Penn State Law Professors Trot Out ‘Female Porn Leaders’ to Whitewash Realities of Adult Industry.

Since  55 percent of the world’s child porn is produced in the US (see above), and since 90 percent of US porn is produced by Jews in the San Fernando Valley, California, it follows that Jews dominate the child porn industry in America.

In addition, if 23 percent of the world’s child porn is produced in Russia, it is more than likely that Russian Jews are behind this sleazy industry  in view of the well-known involvement of the Judeo-Russian mafia in sex trafficking, sex slavery, prostitution and pornography in general.

This would make the Jews the predominant purveyors of child pornography  in the world — a remarkable achievement for a race who make up no more than 0.2 percent of the world’s population.

[18]   “Jewish Gangsters Raped, Killed Children As Young As Two on Film.”

Note. The article quoted above has also been published on a reputable Canadian website, the Jewish Tribune, giving it an added authenticity. Scroll down to: “Jewish Gangsters Raped, Killed Children As Young As 2 On Film. JEWISH CHILD PORN / SNUFF FILM RING DISCOVERED.”

[19]   Michael A. Hoffman, The Truth about the Talmud.  A Documented Exposé of Supremacist Rabbinic Hate Literature. Excerpts from Michael A. Hoffman’s book, “Judaism’s Strange Gods” (2000).

[20]   Dr Lasha Darkmoon, The Sexual Subversion of America (Part 2). An edited abridgement of E. Michael Jones’ 2003 essay, Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos.

[21]   Dr Lasha Darkmoon, Pornography’s Effect on the Brain.

[22]   Bro. Nathaneal Kapner, The Judaic Destruction of Western Culture.


COMMENTARY: Charlottesville’s Alt-Right Leaders Have A Passion For Vladimir Putin

Confusion and make believe is the name of the game. The twisted Satanic minds of the tribe are pushing their way into the hearts and minds of those who truly want to protect their heritage and their white race. The problem is that Satan represented in Putin, Dugin and his minions are behind this ‘truth movement’ shaping it into a bomb that will eventually explode and lead to civil war, where we will end up killing each other! This is exactly what they want so they can bring about their Satanic New World Order. “By Way Of Deception, We Shall Make War”. Is there a way out of this hellhole we have fallen into? PLEASE SHARE, people need to understand what is really happening! 

DuginNeo-Eurasianist ideologue Alexander Dugin sits in his TV studio in central Moscow on August 11, 2016. Francesca Ebel/AP

“Charlottesville’s Alt-right Leaders Have a Passion for Vladimir Putin,” Source:

GettyImages-830755846 White nationalist Richard Spencer (C) and his supporters clash with Virginia State Police in Emancipation Park after the ‘Unite the Right’ rally was declared an unlawful gathering August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. Getty

Amongst Saturday’s headline speakers was Richard Spencer, who claims to have invented the term “alt-right,” and has disseminated its white nationalist ideology via his National Policy Institute think-tank, as well as a network of websites and publishing ventures.

Spencer has not disguised his fondness for Vladimir Putin’s Russia, describing the country as the “sole white power in the world.” In May, he led a smaller protest in Charlottesville, in which torch wielding white nationalists chanted “Russia is our friend.”

In 2014, Spencer invited Dugin to an international far-right conference he planned to hold in Hungary, however international sanctions prevented Dugin attending and Hungarian police raided the meeting. Dugin has since become a frequent contributor to Spencer’s website, and has also contributed to his online journal Radix. Spencer has returned the favor, penning an article for Dugin’s Katehon website.

Spencer’s ex-wife is Nina Kouprianova, a tireless promoter of Russian nationalism and self-described “Kremlin troll leaders” who writes under the penname Nina Byzantina. She is also Dugin’s English translator.

Matthew Heimbach, co-founder of the white supremacist Traditional Workers Party, also attended Saturday’s rally and is a big fan of Putin.

“I really believe that Russia is the leader of the free world right now,” he recently told Business Insider. “Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance, while promoting traditional values and self-determination.”

In 2015, he led a rally at which Russian and Confederate flags were flown alongside each other.

Heimbach, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as the “face of a new generation of white nationalists”, has made several trips to Europe to meet the leaders of far-right parties, and at the official launch of the Traditional Workers Party in 2015 Heimbach hosted a Skyped-in congratulatory speech from Dugin.

The following year he planned his first trip to Russia for the far-right World National Conservative Movement conference, which was ultimately postponed.

Infamous former KKK leader David Duke also made an appearance at the rally, which he called a “turning point” and pledged that white nationalists would “fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.”

Like his allies Spencer and Heimbach, Duke has made no secret of his admiration for Russia, describing the country as the “key to white survival,” and has been pictured alongside Dugin.  

Duke once lived in Moscow and owns an apartment in the Russian capital, which he reportedly sub-let to U.S. Neo-Nazi Preston Wigginton, who has, in turn, hosted web chats by Dugin at the University of Texas A&M college.

On Monday, the college announced it was canceling a planned white nationalist rally on its campus to be led by Spencer.

Russian state media has also given a platform to Spencer and Duke, where their extremist beliefs were not flagged, and they expounded their racist views unchallenged. Spencer has frequently commented on the Syrian civil war on RT, where he has expressed support for Russian ally and alt-right icon President Bashar al-Assad.

Dugin himself has frequently appeared on Infowars, Alex Jones’ pro-Trump conspiracy theory site.

Anton Shekhovtsov, author of Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir, tells Newsweek that ties between U.S. and Russian fascists were longstanding.

“There is no evidence that the Kremlin – as an official body – has ever tried to build ties with the US neo-Nazis such as Spencer or Duke. However, both have long-standing relations with their Russian fascist counterparts,” he says in an email.

In Europe, the story is different, with Neo-Nazis in Germany reportedly recruited by Russian intelligence via martial arts clubs, and Hungarian neo-Nazi István Győrkös, who shot dead a police officer last October, running paramilitary training camps for right-wing extremists alongside Kremlin officials. 

In a blog posting Tuesday, former NSA analyst John Schindler explained the appeal of Russia to the U.S. far-right.

“Although our country has always had white supremacists, Russia has given them renewed focus and energy, as well as a ready-made worldview. This take on the world includes overt white nationalism which despises the United States as a decadent and multiracial society,” he wrote. 

Putin - US

COMMENTARY: How The Kremlin And The Media Ended Up In Bed Together

When one reads this article, one cannot help but think about America and where it is heading with this ‘censorship’ law that Congress wants to pass, where those who criticize Israel’s crimes will not escape punishment. This is already happening in Europe, and it is the evil work of the Jewish tribe. They hijacked Russia in 1917, later infiltrated every aspect of our society and have slowly extended its slimy tentacles to the rest of the world. Today we are beginning to feel how they are starting to strangle us. The communist propaganda machine seems unbeatable, but we must keep in mind that its worse enemy is an educated world. We need real journalists and academics with principles, courage, determination and that stick together in strong unity.

Putin - US

“How the Kremlin and the Media Ended Up in Bed Together,” Source:

Editor’s note: This is the longest text ever published by The Moscow Times. We’ve decided to publish it because it describes in detail a key Russian narrative, of how the Kremlin rules the country with the help of the controlled media. It is a bitter story of how the Russian media, with very few exceptions, have abandoned, sometimes through coercion, but mostly voluntarily and even eagerly, their mission of informing the public and have turned into creators of the Matrix-like artificial reality where imaginary heroes and villains battle tooth and nail in Russia’s Armageddon.

After enjoying a brief interval of freedom, it seems that Russian media are now returning to the conditions of the late 1980s when editors stood outside the door of the censorship office waiting for approval to go to press.

However, the “new censorship” that has emerged in Russia is not merely a tool for controlling the media from the outside. The new censorship is like a cancerous tumor that attacks the not-so-healthy body of the media from the inside and supplants everything of value or vitality with diseased tissue.

Like communist propaganda, the principles of this new censorship draw on the Orwellian concept of “doublethink,” form the basis of state policy and, by definition, completely reject the idea of democracy.  

The president and senior officials now use the media as a tool for forming public opinion, forcing citizens to accept a false agenda in place of the real one.

The degradation of Russian media is evidenced by the fact that they implicitly agree to compromise themselves in this way. Many corporate or private media entities simply agree to these terms as a matter of survival, but a surprising number not only agree to the state’s manipulations but go one step further by offering creative ideas for advancing the Kremlin’s official line.

The new censorship significantly expands on the classic, encyclopedic definition of the term by permeating not only news and information services, but since the mid-2000s, actively interfering in the arts and academia as well.

Another important feature of Russian censorship is that it is not all-embracing, but permits alternative points of view and even criticisms of itself. However, any journalist or media outlet taking advantage of that opportunity is walking on a minefield.

The Censorship Toolkit

The most important tool of the new censorship is the state budget as a resource for determining which media thrive or survive.

Access to federal budgetary funds remains a key tool for creating a system whereby the authorities can manage media content and media outlets themselves. Those publications and individual journalists for whom survival or personal enrichment is of primary importance are vulnerable to manipulation by the granting or denial of state subsidies, benefits, increases or decreases in financing for state-controlled media and access to capital provided by oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin and Putin.

Managing the agenda. These practices include both “political briefings” in which chief editors of various media are called into the presidential administration, and telephone “hotlines” that directly connect the chief editors of key media outlets with the Kremlin. The presidential administration can make use of such methods as directly substituting material produced by its own staff for journalistic reports and manipulating the underlying fears of the masses or otherwise manipulating the emotions of media consumers.

The effective (for the media or their owners) building of a pseudo-reality. Whoever fashions the news agenda also receives the profit, financial or political.

The introduction of “plants” or “observers” from media outlet owners and directly from the presidential administration and other key government structures such as the FSB, the Investigative Committee, and even the Federal Drug Control Service. A degradation of editorial integrity is the inevitable byproduct of this practice.

The effective use of networks of staff informers. At the heart of the new censorship is a network of paid and voluntary informants. This “new” network — that arose on the basis of the new, post-party loyalty of key editors and journalists — is maintained with access to illicit money connected with journalism for bribes. Without exception, all of these “cooperative” (from the viewpoint of the Kremlin) editors and journalists involved in the scandalous practice of publishing outside material as their own editorial comments have, at the very least, aroused the suspicions of their colleagues.

Turning all news into a show. Those who understood the creation and reporting of news as “one more ratings-based entertainment product” played a role in creating and disseminating the government’s “false agenda,” and those who contributed most to its “artificial” content received rewards and encouragement.

In this way, leaders ensure that the Russian audience sees and hears — down to the smallest detail — only the picture of the world that the Kremlin wants it to see and hear.

The real issues have not disappeared, but it is forbidden to show that reality to the Russian people.

Centrality of Putin

The essence of the new censorship can be described as follows:

Russia — as Putin and his loyal (for now) lieutenants understand it — does not need an agenda based on real information.

To the contrary, the only necessary tool for managing Russia’s imperfect society is an artificially constructed agenda that is “imprinted” on society by television channels that are fully controlled by the state. Not only news and analytical programs serve as tools for applying this pressure, but also broadcasts of the arts and even entertainment.

A key element in this artificial agenda is an exaggerated role for the central character in Russia’s information milieu — the president of the Russian Federation.

For example, when Putin was once again experiencing strained relations with Moscow protestors in late May 2013, the main weekly program on Channel One, “Vremya,” ran 11 pieces on Putin’s various activities and only two covering other recent events. What’s more, every mention or depiction of Putin was not only positive but slavishly complimentary.

The new censorship does not only exclude real events from the agenda but replaces them with false messages designed to make viewers feel dependent on the main hero of the stories — Vladimir Putin.

That model did not change during the Ukrainian crisis.

Those broadcasts focused on the idea of “fascist Banderovite” Ukrainians and how they were teaming up with those who had “spawned” them in order to attack Russia or its interests. In any case, the propaganda had to assert that such a war had already almost begun.

This manufactured agenda reached a peak in early summer when Russia’s state-controlled television channels began portraying pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Girkin (aka Igor Strelkov) as “the savior of the Donbass Russians” and falsely reported that Ukrainian forces had crucified a young boy in Slavyansk.

These distortions of reality were no mere improvisations by presidential administration staff who were instructed to manage the news on Channel One or the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK). Senior officials undoubtedly issued clear instructions in this regard and much of the text broadcast on the Vesti television channel and “Vremya” news show and their websites have been introduced from above without any input from editors.

The primary characteristic of the new censorship is that it motivates so-called “journalists” to not only serve the Kremlin agenda but to creatively advance it.

The “crucified boy in Slavyansk” is just the most superficial example of that. A far more insidious and potentially dangerous phenomenon is the frequent and barely perceptible distortions to reports from previously neutral programs and writers.

For example, by simply inserting promo shorts for the forthcoming “Vremya” news show during the vastly popular primetime women’s talk show “Pust govoryat” (“Let Them Speak”), viewers without intention to watch the newscast are gradually infected and become carriers of the virus of lies and aggressiveness.

In this way, masses of television viewers become not only victims of deliberate manipulation, but also strong supporters of a policy of hatred directed toward Ukrainians whom they know only through state-controlled television reports.

This is a world that has been constructed especially for their consumption. It contains enemies and the one person who can effectively oppose them: Vladimir Putin. The greater their hatred for the enemy, the deeper is their love for Putin, and vice versa.

With this false agenda filling the airwaves so thoroughly and constantly, the average Russian cannot but respond to surveys with the conviction that Putin is the mainstay of his life.

That Bittersweet Word  — Freedom

Soviet media was first freed from censorship in August 1990 when printing houses stopped requiring publishers to present a stamp of approval from the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press.

That launched a brief period in which the media enjoyed nearly total freedom. Society began a sober examination of its ideological heritage, retrieved important documents previously classified by the authorities and resurrected episodes from Russian history that censors had previously either ignored or eliminated.

The relative ease of the transition from a totalitarian media model to the new Russian model is due to the fact that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of “glasnost” greatly undermined the status and capabilities of the Communist Party Central Committee with regard to political and ideological censorship.

In addition, Alexander Yakovlev, one of the architects of perestroika, headed the ideological department of the central committee for several years, and it was his support that made possible the appearance of the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper with its more progressive civil and political reporting.

Party leadership of the media practically ceased in 1991, and it was the disappearance of that control during the final months of the Soviet Union — first in the Baltic states and later in the Caucasus — that made it possible for the republics to rapidly separate and form their own political class.

The journalistic community was caught up in the euphoria of freedom of the press, the freedom to express political views and the freedom to criticize the ruling authorities.

Because the number of “free” media outlets was continually growing, the leaders of the anti-democratic putsch of Aug. 19, 1991, suspended the publication of all newspapers and effectively instituted a wartime censorship regime on television and radio.

However, the ban did not work: A number of printers released the “Obshchaya Gazeta” on Aug. 21, and by the morning of Aug. 23 when the putsch collapsed, both formal and informal structures of party control over the media no longer existed.

When they were first freed from party control, most media had no idea how to view themselves as separate entities with the duty of reporting the truth to the people and earning money at the same time.

The events of August 1991 were probably not only the final chord in the activities of the Communist Party as a political organization but also the final stage in the existence of the Soviet media in their classical form.

Most editors and journalists had no market understanding of the economics of the media. The situation was easier for television and radio as both received funding from the Finance Ministry.

The economic problems of the transition period affected the entire system of Soviet media: Newspapers and other print publications faced runaway inflation — the money collected in early 1991 from subscriptions ran out long before those subscriptions had ended.

Retail sales were very high, but Soyuzpechat, the state’s monopolistic distributor of newspapers and magazines, began suffering from problems caused by inflation and failed to make timely payments for the publications it delivered to its vast network of newsstands.

At that time, no advertising or sales professionals existed.

Many publications declared their “independence” in the belief that they could earn a great deal of money in the emerging market economy.

However, that turned out to be an illusion. The deregulation of prices and the flourishing barter economy, along with the freeing up of foreign trade from state controls led to an acute shortage of money and newsprint.

Faced with economic hardship, the former Soviet newspapers rushed to ask for help from President Boris Yeltsin and the government that they had been mercilessly criticizing — some for its lack of radical reforms, and others for its infatuation with liberal policies.

As the “stewards of perestroika,” Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Trud, Argumenty i Fakty and other publications argued that the state had “an obligation to support freedom of speech,” they also demanded that leaders “pay for the support” those publications had given them during the dramatic events of those years.

Many of those editors, along with a number of their journalists, were State Duma deputies, and the Yeltsin administration agreed to extend assistance to them, in some case by providing free premises for their publications.

Those premises were not only a lifesaver during the economic turmoil of the early 1990s, but also a source of rental income in later periods, as well as a reason that some oligarchs considered the publications attractive investment opportunities.

And despite the market-oriented reforms the state was adopting, in 1993 it decided to subsidize postal fees for Russia’s press and provide tax breaks for media.

The state also funded television. The federal budget paid, albeit only modestly, to transform the Soviet Union’s State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting into several separate companies — primarily Ostankino, that later became Channel One, and to establish and develop VGTRK. The management of those new channels also made use of the spacious, Soviet-era buildings housing their operations to rent out retail space and to engage in free, often unregulated business activities.

Another significant event deserves attention here. The election of the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989 — that opened the last stage of the Soviet Union — brought a large number of editors and journalists into the ranks of first the legislative, and later the executive branches of government.

That process was fast but short-lived: As early as 1993, not a single prominent media name remained among Duma deputies, and only the rare controversial figure appeared on party lists — individuals such as Alexander Nevzorov from St. Petersburg television, or later, Alexander Khinshtein from the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper.

However, that initial “integration” into the halls of power established ongoing back room ties between a number of media outlets and Yeltsin-era government institutions.

Those connections will play a significant role later in this story, but for now, it is enough to point out that the groundwork for the future adverse changes in the Russian media was already laid during the early years of “free Russia.”

The state subsidies for media and their “long working relationship” with government agencies that began during the very first years of the modern Russian state subsequently became one of the cornerstones of the new censorship.

A Loud Bell Opens the First Act

The winter of 1995 was a very difficult time for the Russian authorities. The main problem was the extremely low voter approval ratings held by the aging Yeltsin.

The unrestrained political debate in the media was also damaging for Yeltsin and his government: Newspapers and television channels criticized the country’s leadership for everything they did or did not do, sometimes for no reason at all.

Newspapers and television stations managed to somehow adapt to life under free market conditions. Advertising appeared, and the barter economy was replaced by first illicit and later ordinary contracts.

Bankers and the country’s few industrialists took an interest in the media. They saw their ability to influence newspapers as an opportunity to help friendly government officials or to intimidate competitors. Despite the fact that by 1991, media outlets that published criticisms were no longer subjected to organized repression and criminal charges as they had been under the Soviet system, the fear of publicly expressing criticism continued.

It is important to understand that once the Russian media broke free from their organizational, economic and political fetters in the 1990s, they set out to become independent players in the public sphere — that is, to occupy the same position as media do in democratic and liberal societies. Russian editors and journalists learned from their Western colleagues.

The Chechen War from 1994-96 began with journalists enjoying almost complete freedom. As someone who covered the storming of Grozny in the winter of 1994-95 and many other events of those years, I saw that the only problems journalists and film crews faced were actually reaching the conflict zone and trying to stay alive once they were there. But by the fall of 1995, the army brass, and especially the Federal Security Service units attached to the military forces, began to actively oppose the independent activities of the journalists in Chechnya and the surrounding area.

Russian television channels were divided between those assigned to “ride on an armor” with military units (primarily RTR, and occasionally Channel One and ORT), and those that preferred to work independently of the military (NTV, TV-6 and others).

Journalists unwittingly played a significant role in one of the first major terrorist attacks in modern Russia: the seizure of a hospital in Budyonnovsk in 1995 by Chechen commander Shamil Basayev.

As Basayev and his militants left the hospital, they replaced hostages with journalists, taking them onto the buses that they used to escape the scene as live shields. It was those journalists who witnessed firsthand how badly the Russian special forces performed and how Basayev and his men managed to escape with minimal losses.

However, that situation changed when it was decided to help Yeltsin win re-election in 1996.

When the most powerful Russian oligarchs supported the idea of a second term for Yeltsin, it meant that not only would NTV, owned by Vladimir Gusinsky, and ORT, controlled by Boris Berezovsky, come on board, but that a whole group of publications receiving funding in one way or another from these and other oligarchs would have to get involved in the campaign.

Although the goal of keeping power in the hands of Yeltsin’s inner circle was originally an organizational and political task, it now shifted into the hands of the media. It was decided to actively use informational pressure, manipulation of the agenda and informational priming to convince the Russian people to re-elect their first president.

Thus, the presidential administration held “media planning meetings” every Friday starting in the summer of 1996.

As former Deputy Chief of the Presidential Administration Sergei Zverev recalls, they were “political meetings where we discussed the agenda for the coming week and developed proposals on how to cover those topics in the media, primarily on television.”

Following those meetings, either the chief of the administration or authorized deputies would deliver “assignments from the authorities” to the heads of the main television channels.

It was during those months that government public relations people began playing a direct role in how information was presented to the public. Television channel editors and chiefs were generally willing to play their part. For example, TV-6 founder and VGTRK head Eduard Sagalayev was even a member of Yeltsin’s campaign staff.

Longtime Kremlin spin doctor Gleb Pavlovsky claims that his Foundation for Effective Politics first proposed the concept of “media management” back in 1996, and not as a short-term measure to help win the elections, but as a permanent policy model of the presidential administration.

After those elections, spin doctors became regular participants in formulating and implementing the government’s “official line.”

Dollar, the Censor

A handful of financial and industrial groups controlled most of Russia’s mass media in the 1990s and into the early 2000s.

Vladimir Gusinsky’s Media-Most, with NTV at its center, also held popular newspapers, magazines, publishing houses and film companies.

Boris Berezovsky controlled not only ORT (Channel One), but also owned a number of primarily “independent” newspapers through a complex ownership structure.

Other major players such as Lukoil, the Unified Energy System of Russia (RAO UES), Vladimir Potanin’s Interros and Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Menatap all had their own media holdings as well.

For its part, Gazprom lent money for the Media-Most project.

After the election miracle of 1996, when the concerted use of political and media resources helped reinstate the unpopular Yeltsin, it became clear to the major financial and political players in Russia that the creation of a pseudo-reality for the public’s consumption does yield fruit.

Those who build the media construct reap the profits — whether commercial or political.

It was in the period from 1996 to 2000 that the second element formed that would later transform into the new censorship under the rule of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the features of the current model of media and media communications in Russia is that the manner and extent to which editorial boards are controlled depends on who owns the particular media outlet, their ties to this or that political group and whether the government has levers by which it can directly influence those owners.

Despite the fact that some media were relatively successful commercially, almost no one viewed the media as a business per se. What made certain media assets attractive was their ability to influence politics and the state’s regulatory stance toward specific sectors, as well as their usefulness as a tool for defending against competitors or taking action against them.

Media owners preferred to appoint obedient and servile chief editors whom they could easily circumvent whenever they needed to take matters into their own hands.

The oligarchs who owned various media were the first to install “plants” on their staffs, individuals who had the “authority” from the owner to not only control the editorial process but also to influence overall content.

These “plants” were originally charged with security-related tasks such as ensuring that “articles for hire” did not embarrass the owner and his business partners or, conversely, to explain the best methods for targeted mud-slinging on behalf of the owner. However, later, their job duties became heavily politicized.

Even the Kremlin loyalist publisher Aram Gabrelyanov has had to deal with such “plants.” In the following interview from in May 2012, he describes such an incident at Izvestia.

“A man was standing there when I arrived at the newspaper office. I will not give his name because he happens to be sick now. He approached me holding out a business card and said: ‘I was appointed here by the presidential administration. Aram Ashotovich, after you have read the material submitted for publication, you will give it to me.’ I said, ‘You must be joking — or crazy.’ He said, ‘Have you looked at the business card?’ I said, ‘You’re fired, dismissed.’ He told me, ‘Do you even understand who appointed me to this job?’ I said, ‘I don’t give a damn who appointed you.’ I really did fire him.”

Interestingly, some of the “old” media that changed ownership between the late Yeltsin and early Putin years, had at that time already begun to show signs of readiness for their owners to censor the publications for political and thematic content.

For example, the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper gained it’s unprecedented, Guinness Book of World Records-breaking circulation of 33.5 million copies in 1990 after emerging from the perestroika process as an ultra-liberal and progressive publication headed by its founder and chief editor Vladislav Starkov.

After Starkov sold his controlling stake to the PromSvyazKapital group, Argumenty i Fakty began conforming to the views of its new owners, the Ananyev brothers. Alexei and Dmitry Ananyev are Russian Orthodox and openly declare it, but they do not require the same from the editors of the media they own.

However, within only a few months after the change of ownership, editors at the newspaper — who had previously been strictly atheistic and critical of the Church — became pro-Orthodox and began inviting writers whom the owners found “pleasing,” including the influential priest Tikhon Shevkunov, often referred to as Vladimir Putin’s spiritual father.

Cooperative and Not-So-Cooperative

Denis Grishkin / Vedomosti

Alexei Grom

First deputy head of the Presidential Administration

Alexei Gromov is a career diplomat who left his post as an ambassador back in the 1990s to work at the Kremlin. He first headed the Kremlin press service and created the “presidential pool.” He became Vladimir Putin’s press secretary in 1999 and a deputy head of the presidential administration in 2008.

Gromov is a key manager of public policy for mass media. In addition to serving as a member of the board of directors for Channel One, he regularly holds “briefings” with the heads of state-controlled media and determines the public agenda as well as the political and personal guidelines for acceptable content. Gromov is primarily responsible for television and traditional print media. Since 2012, Chief of Presidential Administration Sergei Ivanov has enlisted another deputy head, Vyacheslav Volodin, to oversee the Internet. Volodin and Gromov regularly lock horns over the scope of their authority.

Gromov functions as a personal liaison between Putin and Russia’s largest media outlets. To a great extent, his personal connections and knowledge of the “ins and outs” of the work of journalists and editors ensure their loyalty and the government’s control over the industry.

Soviet-era censorship was the outward manifestation of the Communist Party’s more basic policy of filtering and controlling its membership and bureaucratic elite.

Political loyalty ensured party control over editorial boards and the “cooperativeness” of their chiefs, who were only very rarely true professionals. In the final years of the Soviet Union, the chief editors of the largest newspapers were, almost without exception, former secretaries of regional or city party committees or else former heads of the party’s ideological department. They might have had some form of specialized education or even no education at all.

For example, in 1983 Pavel Gusev left the position of secretary of the Moscow Krasnaya Presnya District Party Committee to head Moskovsky Komsomolets. And after serving as deputy head of the ideological department of the central committee and overseeing the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press, Alexander Potapov served as chief editor of the Trud newspaper in the 1990s. These weren’t rare examples — it was a common practice.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin’s arrival in the Kremlin in the summer of 1999 required another mobilization of media resources. Yeltsin’s chosen successor and former FSB chief was not a public politician and began his leadership as a virtual unknown.

At the same time, the worsening situation in the North Caucasus and the apartment bombings in 1999 in Moscow, Volgodonsk, and Buynaksk once again raised the question of how much media coverage was permissible for such tragedies.

In 1999, Alexei Gromov became Putin’s press secretary and Mikhail Lesin became Communications and Press Minister.

The combination of these two officials in one form or another would come to dominate the eventual emergence of the new censorship.

In addition to “political planning meetings” every Friday, media bosses now also met regularly with Vladislav Surkov, the deputy head of the presidential administration responsible for domestic policy.

While the meetings with Gromov set the official agenda and determined which television channels would have responsibility for which part of it, the latter briefings with Surkov formulated the specific content of the message.

Over time, the Gromov meetings increasingly took on the format of a “situation room” in which the heads of the federal television channels helped formulate the message of the new Russian leader and the tactics needed for dealing with the resources of the “opposition.”

The term “opposition” primarily meant Vladimir Gusinsky and his NTV channel, which had taken an openly critical stance toward Putin’s appointment.

After the “taming” of NTV in 2001, the channel’s new chiefs were invited to the Friday briefings, and by 2006, the attendees included Russia Today director Margarita Simonyan and the heads of Ren-TV and TV Center.

At the heart of the new censorship lies a specific type of post-party loyalty on the part of editors, key journalists, and professional groups. A “cooperative” editor is one who puts the interests of the Kremlin and relations with the authorities above the interests of his audience. The Communist Party achieved exactly the same thing by making the editor dependent on the party “vertical,” and not on the whether the publication succeeded with audiences.

Version Number Six

The story of how the authorities cracked down on Vladimir Gusinsky’s Media-Most is definitely a key event in the development of the new censorship. It demonstrated how the new Russian authorities would ensure — if not enforce — media neutrality toward the government.

Gusinsky’s primary dispute with the authorities evolved around certain business interests and, of course, around the right to set the information agenda independently.

The attack against Media-Most undoubtedly also had the goal of excluding topics and events, individuals and opinions from the mass media agenda that ran counter to the interests of the Kremlin groups.

By distancing ourselves from the events of the last 14 years, we can say with reasonable certainty that the establishment of control over NTV became the main turning point that led toward the emergence of the new censorship.

Whether they planned it or not, those who organized and carried out the attack on NTV’s “unique journalistic team” on April 14, 2001 suddenly found themselves with something new: the scary example they could hold up to intimidate other “uncooperative media.”

The authorities then blacklisted anyone who chose the path of resistance and criticism, barring them from senior positions as journalists and managers or from working as the “public face” of media outlets owned by the state or with close ties to the Kremlin.

In late April 2000, Kommersant Vlast newspaper political department head Veronika Kutsyllo came into the possession of a document later called “Version Number Six.” The source for this was never identified, but nobody ever challenged its authenticity as one of the new ruling administration’s “political documents.”

Sergei Porter / Vedomosti

Mikhail Lesin

Served as chairman of the board of Gazprom-Media until January 2015

Mikhail Lesin was one of the key figures in Russia’s media policy in the mid-1990s. A civil engineer by training, Lesin began his career producing comedy programs featuring student performances. He was the co-founder of Video International, Russia’s first advertising company. Together with fellow co-founder Yury Zapol, Lesin played a key role in forming the Russian advertising market. This laid the groundwork for his extensive media contacts and influence, especially in television and radio.

Seeing a use for his connections and abilities, the Kremlin appointed Lesin head of the Office of Public Affairs for the administration, where he served in 1996-97. He provided information support during former President Boris Yeltsin’s successful election bid and the difficult subsequent period of his heart surgery and recovery.

After briefly heading the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Lesin became the Communications and Press Minister in 1999. During his five years in that post, he earned the nickname “Minister of Sorrow” (sorrow, or “pechal” in Russian, sounds like press, or “pechat”) in part because of his role in establishing control over the NTV media holding owned by Vladimir Gusinsky.

Mikhail Lesin “withdrew into the shadows” after 2004, serving as an adviser to the Russian president and becoming one of the most influential people in the media market. Largely due to his advice, the National Media Group holding held by the Putin’s friends, the Kovalchuk brothers, was purchased. Lesin arranged the appointments of many of the current directors of state-controlled media.

Lesin was dismissed from his post in the fall of 2009 with the scandalously worded verdict of “systematic disciplinary violations and failure to comply with the rules of civil service and the ethical behavior of civil servants.” The industry interpreted his “fall” as a victory for then-President Dmitry Medvedev’s inner circle as it sought to establish its own relations with media heads.

Alexei Gromov was responsible for Lesin’s return to Russia’s top echelons of media power in 2013 as the new head of Gazprom-Media. Gromov, who at that time was locked in a heated confrontation with Vyacheslav Volodin, needed a strong, competent and cynical “market player” such as Mikhail Lesin was then and still remains. Lesin managed to again reshape the Russian advertising market and to re-establish Gromov’s influence at RIA Novosti after the dismissal of Svetlana Mironyuk.

Mikhail Lesin was repeatedly implicated in various scandalous moves to consolidate Russian media that are fully or partially controlled by the state. Also, in 2014 U.S. Senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into possible money laundering in connection with several multimillion-dollar homes that Lesin purchased in Beverly Hills, California.

“Version Number Six” suggested that Putin’s future administration would have to make a division between “open” and “secret” policy.

In particular, the policy paper openly calls for the presidential administration to act as a “two-faced Janus.” The anonymous authors directly state that, on the one hand, leaders should outwardly adhere to a strictly liberal, law-abiding and constitutional approach, but that, on the other hand, their policy should also contain a “secret component” that, by remaining secret, could and should be used as needed in order to consolidate and retain power.

Among the “secret” tasks that the document lists is the need to establish control over the media and journalists. For example, as part of the presidential administration’s policy on political management, it recommends that the authorities:

– Influence the activity of media at the federal, regional and local levels through the collection and use of specific information on the commercial and political activity of each media, its personnel, and management, sources of financing, its financial, economic, material and technical resources.

– Influence the work of journalists at the federal, regional and local levels through the collection and use of specific information concerning the commercial and political activity of professional journalists, their sources of financing, their places of employment (at which media outlet they work) … financial and personal partnerships, etc.

The two mechanisms the paper recommends for working with the media are even bolder.

According to the authors, the first mechanism involves monitoring, collecting and processing the information obtained and then “throwing it back” into society, now cast in “the proper light.”

The second proposed mechanism involves “taking control of various media by using specific information gathered for that purpose, including information of a compromising nature. Also, by driving opposition media and media sympathetic to the opposition into financial crisis by revoking their licenses and certifications and by creating conditions under which the activities of each individual opposition media outlet become either controlled or impossible to continue.”

Only a few months later and as a result of the legal crackdown, the presidential administration took control over NTV and other Media-Most assets, pushed Boris Berezovsky out of ORT and gradually moved closer to fully implementing the system described by the anonymous authors of “Version Number Six.”

Terrorism, Extremism and Voluntary Castration

A second wave of terrorism struck Russia in 2002-04 when Chechen militants, hard hit by Russian military and police operations in that republic, took a page from the al-Qaida playbook by shifting part of its war to target civilians in enemy cities.

The tragic terrorist seizures of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow in 2002 and the school in Beslan in 2004 led to the placement of another foundation stone in the new censorship — the idea that information organizations would voluntarily practice self-restraint and even self-censorship.

A new “player” appeared on the scene during the Dubrovka Theater siege. Social networks and blogs provided eyewitness accounts and commentary in addition to traditional media reports.

The main such resource was social networking service Live Journal, where several accounts functioned together as a sort of news agency, collecting and distributing as much information as possible — though often of inferior quality, accuracy, and relevance.

The Dubrovka terrorists made direct use of the media as a way to communicate their demands, ideas, and threats as live television cameras surrounded the site of the tragedy. This was similar to the way Basayev had taken a busload of journalists hostage in Budyonnovsk. However, it is one thing to carry out an attack in a remote town with bad roads and limited communications, and quite another to do it in the center of Moscow.

It was impossible to bar journalists from capturing the most important footage — but that does not mean the Kremlin did not want to do so.

It was at this point that the presidential administration took another step toward creating its new censorship, clearly installing individuals loyal to Alexei Gromov in key positions in all of the major media — VGTRK, Channel One, NTV and various news agencies.

Sergei Goryachev, who began his career with the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press, acted as the symbolic chief of news broadcasting for Channel One in 2000-04. His successor in that duty, if not in job description, was Andrei Pisarev, who served as both deputy director of social and political programs for the channel and as head of the political department for the Central Executive Committee of United Russia, the ruling party then led by Putin.

Oleg Dobrodeyev was given responsibility for keeping VGTRK within the “power vertical.” He not only attended briefings with Gromov, but also met directly with Putin.

The only thing lacking in this new system was one element found in the “old” system — ideology.

Putin’s first presidential term was decidedly non-ideological and purely pragmatic. Now in hindsight, that was clearly no accident.

Although Putin’s think tank at that time, the Center for Strategic Research, led then by German Gref, had formulated long-term plans for reforming Russia, those plans were not based on any ideology. They were a classic example of “institutional economics” that sought to create standard and universal conditions for growth and development.

The purpose of the country’s existence, an ideological description of the future and other elements necessary to a genuine strategic plan were either lacking or, after 2000, assigned to Vladislav Surkov for development.

Surkov launched an ambitious ideological search, and in addition to his wealth of ideas, countless hordes of “political consultants” and “political centers” serving the Kremlin made their contribution as well.

While Alexei Gromov and Mikhail Lesin were charged with controlling and managing the media, Vladislav Surkov and his associates from numerous “political centers” were tasked with creating a second important component of the system: an “alternate reality” in which the authorities could fully immerse the country.

The Last Traces of Freedom

The system for controlling the media stabilized by 2005 and has continued almost unchanged until the present. At the same time, it has undergone an inevitable evolution: Having taken firm hold on control over the media, the authorities ventured even further and began manipulating the structure of the public discourse.

Having achieved certain results in managing the public agenda, along with the desired shift in public opinion that resulted, the Kremlin decided to expand its zone of influence beyond traditional media into “new media” — from the broadcasting sector into interactive media, and from manipulating the domestic agenda into influencing the international agenda.

The “new system” is based on new principles. As the Soviet past recedes, today’s leaders have stripped the Leninist and Stalinist propaganda of its ideology and improved it with techniques that produce even better results.

Of course, many similarities between the Soviet and the new Russian system remain, but in the absence of the Communist Party and the many privileges and “persuasions” it could employ, the ruling authorities must now rely on other sticks and carrots such as property, money — primarily budgetary funds — job postings, government “plants” to control operations and so on.

The authorities are forced to operate in a situation in which, at least on paper, censorship is forbidden.

Maxim Stulov / Vedomosti

Vladislav Surkov

Currently serves as presidential aide responsible for relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Surkov began his career as a public relations specialist with the Menatep bank, which was created by Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Over the past 20 years, Surkov has held almost every post in the hierarchy of the Putin administration.

Surkov did his most significant work in developing the “new censorship” when he served as deputy head of the presidential administration from 1999 to 2008.

He played a leading role in shaping domestic policy and the structure of the Russian political system while also continually experimenting with social initiatives and movements that would provide support for the ruling regime — organizations such as Walking Together, Nashi and the Young Guard of United Russia.

It is Surkov who probably created the concept of “sovereign democracy,” used to describe how Russia’s democracy differs from democracy in the West and how the West should not intervene in Russia’s domestic affairs. The concept served as the political underpinning of Vladimir Putin’s first two terms as president. It was apparently during the process of formulating that concept that he also created his “theories of how the world works” that state-controlled media have since imposed on the Russian people with the illusory and fanciful agenda that dominates today’s media environment.

The new “system” is primarily designed to make the media effective in publicly presenting the agenda — whether real or imagined — which, in turn, helps the president govern the country.

Over time, everything that does not help achieve this goal is considered an “obstacle” or “inimical” to the plan.

The task of the new censorship is to produce an agenda for the public discourse that the greater part of society will support, regardless of what it thought yesterday about those ideas or of how it feels now about more personally pressing issues concerning the local situation, jobs, and social conditions.

Yellow Telephone and Other Links in the Infernal Chain

When Vladimir Putin was triumphantly elected to a second term in 2004, the basic features of the new system were already in place: The state held organizational control over the three major television broadcasters — Channel One, VGTRK and NTV — and could use various mechanisms to, if not dictate, then at least “adjust” the news agenda.

The situation with print media was problematic: Many publications retained a high degree of editorial sovereignty, sympathized with the opposition and sought to provide objective coverage of events within Russia.

Following 2005, the system for managing the media succeeded primarily in producing a stable image of Putin and his messages. Television channels and other media controlled by the state gave a “green light” to Vladislav Surkov and his active efforts to “consolidate” various groups such as Nashi, Young Guards and others around President Putin and United Russia. However, at that time at least, those media viewed their support as a form of “payment” in return for the right to continue operations.

Meanwhile, preparations for the second phase of the new censorship began during this period of 2005-08.

In 2004 Mikhail Lesin left his post as Communications and Press Minister to become an adviser to President Putin and, after forming a close alliance with Alexei Gromov, begin working on a system for creating and controlling the public agenda.

Svetlana Mironyuk, who served as chief editor of the RIA Novosti state-owned news agency from 2003 to 2013, explained how that new format worked and how the authorities “tightened the screws” during her final years at that post. In her opinion, officials had no need to systematically intimidate editors, much less the media owners.

Relations between the authorities and media changed gradually, step by step, in roundabout ways and, most frequently, in connection with specific individuals.

According to Mironyuk, beginning in the early 2000s the authorities divided the media into three categories. (Gromov and Lesin began the task, and later they were joined by first Surkov, and then his replacement: Vyacheslav Volodin.) The three categories are:

– “Outsiders,” or those with views alien to the official line. These include Vedomosti newspaper, Forbes magazine, Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the website (until March 2014) and several others such as Dozhd television. As with Western media, the authorities either have strictly business relations with them or no relationship at all. They cannot be bought, sold or manipulated.

– “Our guys.” These are primarily state media. Since the mid-2000s, this group included the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, and the group of publications and media owned by Aram Gabrelyanov — Zhizn, and Izvestia. According to Mironyuk, this category primarily includes editors with whom Alexei Gromov has long had good personal relations, and with whom he can strike “deals” for informational barter: The Kremlin organizes exclusive interviews for the publications but expects certain “services” in return.

– “In-betweeners.” These are either semi-outsiders or semi-locals with whom the authorities can sometimes strike deals, but not always. Radio station Ekho Moskvy and news agency Interfax are the most notable examples.

Of course, one important tool for manipulating the public agenda is the “media hotline” that the authorities created in the mid-2000s. This is a system of direct communication between Kremlin “handlers” and chief editors at state-controlled media. Later, special yellow telephones were installed on the desks of their news editors that linked them directly to the Kremlin.

Alexander Orlov, who served as deputy editor-in-chief of the Rossia-24 television channel from 2008 to 2012 explained that VGTRK Deputy Chairman Dmitry Mednikov and Rossia-24 chief editor Yevgeny Bekasov frequently take calls on their yellow phones — not so much to receive their latest orders as to consult with Kremlin staff on how best to present this or that news story.

For example, Orlov recalls that during the economic crisis of 2008, the caller on the yellow phone prohibited VGTRK channels from using the word “crisis” in their broadcasts, even while simultaneously requiring that they report on the crisis.

Restricting the Agenda

The existence of the new censorship has been an open secret for the last five years already.

Although Dmitry Medvedev acted as president from 2008 to 2012, Alexei Gromov remained in charge of state-controlled media exactly as before.

The economic crisis of 2008-2010 dealt a major blow to Russia media.

Although a media market ostensibly continued to exist, government subsidies — especially in the form of contracts for “information services” — became increasingly important for any firm’s continued existence. Originally used by governors as a way to control the local media, the practice gradually spread to the capital.

Of course, the main innovation of the new censorship in recent years is the unofficial but complete ban on state-controlled media from formulating their own news agenda.

State-controlled television and radio news stations are now highly dependent on their “yellow phones” and federal funding. And newspapers were compelled to follow the agenda presented on television. Otherwise, they would find themselves at odds not only with Kremlin handlers but also with their audiences, who get most of their news from television.

Information agencies were an exception, enjoying some — and, at times, complete — freedom in setting their own news agendas, even during the mass protests from winter 2011 to spring 2012.

However, the restructuring of RIA Novosti in 2013-14 put an end to that relative freedom.


COMMENTARY: Are America’s Wars Just And Moral?

What the author of this article fails to expose, as most do, is the fact that these wars are Israel’s wars. Jewish Communist Wars. Until those in the media start educating the people with the facts, these wars will continue, until America is completely drained and China takes over. We are seeing this happening right now. Why blame others when we all know who has absolute influence and control over The United States Government? If we do not expose this, no one else will. At least do it for those who do not have a voice! 

Israel Wars

Are America’s Wars Just and Moral?,”

“One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies,” writes columnist David Ignatius.

Given that Syria’s prewar population was not 10 percent of ours, this is the equivalent of a million dead and wounded Americans. What justifies America’s participation in this slaughter?

Columnist Eric Margolis summarizes the successes of the six-year civil war to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

“The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. … 11 million Syrians … driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

“Two of Syria’s greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful, relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics.”

Realizing the futility of U.S. policy, President Trump is cutting aid to the rebels. And the War Party is beside itself. Says The Wall Street Journal:

“The only way to reach an acceptable diplomatic solution is if Iran and Russia feel they are paying too high a price for their Syria sojourn. This means more support for Mr. Assad’s enemies, not cutting them off without notice. And it means building up a Middle East coalition willing to fight Islamic State and resist Iran. The U.S. should also consider enforcing ‘safe zones’ in Syria for anti-Assad forces.”

Yet, fighting ISIS and al-Qaida in Syria, while bleeding the Assad-Iran-Russia-Hezbollah victors, is a formula for endless war and unending terrors visited upon the Syrian people.

What injury did the Assad regime, in power for half a century and having never attacked us, inflict to justify what we have helped to do to that country?

Is this war moral by our own standards?

We overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Moammar Gadhafi in 2012. Yet, the fighting, killing and dying in both countries have not ceased. Estimates of the Iraq civilian and military dead run into the hundreds of thousands.

Still, the worst humanitarian disaster may be unfolding in Yemen.

After the Houthis overthrew the Saudi-backed regime and took over the country, the Saudis in 2015 persuaded the United States to support its air strikes, invasion and blockade.

By January 2016, the U.N. estimated a Yemeni civilian death toll of 10,000, with 40,000 wounded. However, the blockade of Yemen, which imports 90 percent of its food, has caused a crisis of malnutrition and impending famine that threatens millions of the poorest people in the Arab world with starvation.

No matter how objectionable we found these dictators, what vital interests of ours were so imperiled by the continued rule of Saddam, Assad, Gadhafi, and the Houthis that they would justify what we have done to the peoples of those countries?

“They make a desert and call it peace,” Calgacus said of the Romans he fought in the first century. Will that be our epitaph?

Among the principles for a just war, it must be waged as a last resort, to address a wrong suffered, and by a legitimate authority. Deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The wars in Syria, Libya, and Yemen were never authorized by Congress. The civilian dead, wounded and uprooted in Syria, and the malnourished millions in Yemen, represent a moral cost that seems far beyond any proportional moral gain from those conflicts.

In which of the countries we have attacked or invaded in this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen — are the people better off than they were before we came?

And we wonder why they hate us.

“Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return,” wrote W. H. Auden in “September 1, 1939.” As the peoples of Syria and the other broken and bleeding countries of the Middle East flee to Europe and America, will not some come with revenge on their minds and hatred in their hearts?

Meanwhile, as the Americans bomb across the Middle East, China rises. She began the century with a GDP smaller than Italy’s and now has an economy that rivals our own.

She has become the world’s first manufacturing power, laid claim to the islands of the East and South China seas, and told America to keep her warships out of the Taiwan Strait.

Xi Jinping has launched a “One Belt, One Road” policy to finance trade ports and depots alongside the military and naval bases being established in Central and South Asia.

Meanwhile, the Americans, $20 trillion in debt, running $800 billion trade deficits, unable to fix their health care system, reform their tax code or fund an infrastructure program, prepare to fight new Middle East war.

Whom the Gods would destroy…


VIDEO: The Putin Cult Is A Suicidal Cult

The Putin cult is the result of ignorance mixed with deep brainwashing. People refuse to reason because their perception of reality has already been changed by the evil communist propaganda machine. Those who spend quality time reading history and learning how the demonic ideology works are quicker at seeing through the lies.  Please share this video with as many people as you can.

buy Clomid No Prescription
Isotretinoin No Prescription


COMMENTARY: Nearly 50 Senators Want To Make It A Felony To Boycott Israel

Amerika’s politicians are a bunch of prostitutes dancing to the tune of Israel! The entire country should stand up against them and jail all the traitors who support these laws which go against the US Constitution and the freedom of speech of the American people and are being imposed strictly by foreign interests. Americans will kill their country and their freedoms if they do not stand up against this! 



“Nearly 50 Senators Want to Make It a Felony to Boycott Israel,” Source:  

In 1966, the NAACP of Claiborne County, Mississippi launched a boycott of several white-owned local businesses on the basis of racial discrimination.

It was so impactful that the local hardware store filed a lawsuit against the individuals and organizations who coordinated the boycott. After 10 long years of litigation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white businesses and ordered the NAACP to pay for all their lost earnings.

Years later, in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to overturn the lower court’s decision on the basis that nonviolent boycotts are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. In announcing the unanimous decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said,

“One of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means.”

That should have been the end of it. But now, Americans’ right to boycott is under attack once again — thanks to a vicious anti-boycott bill making its way through the Senate.

In particular, it appears to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is an international movement calling on individuals, institutions, and governments to boycott Israeli products until it ends its occupation of Palestinian lands. The boycott is explicitly nonviolent and is supported by activists, celebrities, faith-based groups, and political and social justice organizations around the world.

The proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it a felony for Americans to support BDS, with a penalty of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison.

Unfortunately, the bill enjoys bipartisan support: 32 Republicans and 15 Democrats are currently signed on as cosponsors, including party leaders like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In response, the ACLU issued a letter urging members of the Senate to oppose the bill based on its “direct violation of the First Amendment.” (Following the publication of the ACLU’s letter, several members of Congress agreed to review their sponsorship, and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) became the first Senator to officially withdraw sponsorship.)

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would function by amending an earlier law from 1979, which prohibits American citizens and corporations from complying with boycotts called for by foreign nations against U.S. allies. The new law would include boycotts “fostered and imposed by international governmental organizations” like the United Nations. In this, it’s a direct response to the 2016 UN Human Rights Council resolution discouraging businesses from operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In one way, it’s genius. By claiming a connection between BDS and the UN — a connection the UN has never embraced, in that resolution or any other — the bill attempts to work around NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

But the BDS movement is not a product of the UN — it has nothing to do with it at all, except to the degree that it’s based on international law. The BDS call to action was issued in 2005 by a coalition of 170 Palestinian political parties, professional associations, refugee networks, and civil society organizations. BDS is a tactic, not an organization, and the boycott has always been grassroots and decentralized, meaning anyone anywhere can partake in BDS by making the simple decision to do so.

Whether the congressional supporters of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting BDS is uncertain, but the Supreme Court decision of 1982 is clear as crystal: Americans’ right to peaceful boycott with the aim to “bring about political, social, and economic change” is protected by the First Amendment. That means this bill is more than egregiously immoral — it’s unconstitutional.

The bill’s language also lumps Israel’s settlements in with the country’s internationally recognized borders.

Significantly, it declares the UN Human Rights Council’s 2016 position on Israeli settlements an “action to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.” Yet that resolution took no position on the boycotting of goods produced in Israel proper — it only took aim at Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law.

U.S. policy since 1979 has recognized that the Israeli settlements are “inconsistent with international law.” By contrast, the new bill effectively erases any distinction between Israel and its settlements in the West Bank. If it’s passed, anyone who chooses not to do business with or buy items manufactured in illegal Israeli settlements can be convicted, fined, and even jailed.

Efforts to curb this kind of activism are often touted as efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Yet polls show that only 17 percent of American Jews support the continued construction of settlements. The bill is so controversial, in fact, that the liberal pro-Israel organization J Street, which has long opposed BDS, recently announced its opposition to the proposed law on the basis that it “divides [opponents of the global BDS movement] by making the issue about the settlements.”

It’s difficult to know exactly how broadly the law if passed, will be enforced. It’s intentionally vague language leaves a lot to the imagination, and perhaps that’s exactly what’s intended. The real goal may be to frighten people from engaging in the completely legal act of living out their values in their economic choices.

But we can’t let fear prevent us from exercising our rights and fulfilling our moral obligations. The silver lining is that every effort to quell the BDS movement has served to strengthen it. Each attempt at criminalizing the boycott, whether on the state or federal level, has been met with a spike in Google searches for BDS and related terms.

And with the uproar caused by this new bill, the right-wing pro-Israel lobby just may prove to be the BDS movement’s best ally.

buy ivermectin online
valtrex no prescription
bactroban without prescription