China

China Has A Plan To Rule The World

This headline should read: COMMUNISM HAS A PLAN TO RULE THE WORLD. This plan is being led by Israel, Russia, and China and it involves a steady penetration by means of propaganda, brainwashing and the stealing of technology through the Talpiot Program, which is the key to understanding how they have already gained absolute control over of the world. The EU led by unelected ex-KGB members was created to weaken sovereign states allowing an easier integration with Russia. This is 100% Soviet penetration and we have been saying it from the beginning. 

China
“China has a plan to rule the world,” Source: washingtonpost.com

The friendly words exchanged between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping this month softened the edge of a Chinese economic and military buildup that a recent study commissioned by the Pentagon described as “perhaps the most ambitious grand strategy undertaken by a single nation-state in modern times.”

At the Beijing summit on Nov. 9, Xi repeated his usual congenial injunction for “win-win cooperation,” and Trump responded in kind, calling Xi “a very special man.” Trump also complained about the Chinese trade surplus, but the visit was mostly a serenade to Sino-American cooperation.

What caught my ear was Xi’s hint of China’s big ambitions in his toast that night. He quoted a Chinese proverb that “no distance, not even remote mountains and vast oceans, can ever prevent people with perseverance from reaching their destination.” Xi then cited an adage from Benjamin Franklin: “He who can have patience, can have what he will.” That’s an apt summary of China’s quiet but relentless pursuit of becoming a global superpower.

China’s rise has been so rapid yet gentle in tone that it’s easy to miss how fast Beijing has expanded its ability to project power. The mesmerizing go-slow style of the pre-Xi years, summarized in the Chinese slogan hide and bide,” has been replaced by what U.S. analysts now see as an open power play.

Trump’s “America first” strategy has facilitated China’s buildup, unintentionally. The administration’s rhetoric on fair trade has been strong, but the actual gains have been modest. Meanwhile, Trump has shredded the Trans-Pacific Partnership and stepped back from other U.S.-led alliances — opening the way for China’s new network of global institutions, including the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) plan for Eurasian trade and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to finance Chinese-led projects.

The scope of China’s challenge to the American-led order is described in two unpublished and unclassified studies commissioned by the Air Force.

One study argues that China’s Eurasian reach is beyond that of the 1947 Marshall Plan, which cemented American power in postwar Europe. The report estimates that the OBOR framework would provide up to $1 trillion in Chinese support for more than 64 countries, while the Marshall Plan provided about $150 billion in current dollars, mostly to six countries. The report describes OBOR as “a program of unprecedented size and scope with the strategic intent of constructing a Chinese-led regional order in Eurasia.”

China is building the infrastructure of power. The study describes, for example, how Beijing is financing a string of ports in the Indian Ocean region, including in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Pakistan, Burma, Djibouti, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates. The proposed investment is nearly $250 billion.

China has also invested $13.6 billion in Greece, buying control of the port of Piraeus and big shares of Greek utilities and fiber-optics companies. “Greece serves as a strategic beachhead for China into Europe,” notes the report.

The Asian infrastructure bank, meanwhile, has approved $16 billion in projects in 10 countries, including long-standing U.S. allies such as Egypt, India, and Oman. And the Chinese are building rail lines to Europe and every part of Asia, allowing them to bypass U.S.-controlled sea lanes. China already has 40 rail routes to nine European countries.

American dominance has been built partly on the primacy of our scientific and technological laboratories, which have drawn the best and brightest from around the world. But the Chinese are challenging here, too. China is building at least 50 joint-venture science and technology labs with OBOR countries and plans over the next five years to train up to 5,000 foreign scientists, engineers and managers, the study notes.

As foreign scientists pull back from some U.S. labs because of visa and government-grant worries, the Chinese are doubling down. According to the second Air Force study, China surpasses the United States in annual patent applications, is now No. 2 in peer-reviewed research articles and in 2014 awarded more than twice as many degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math.

China is mobilizing its best tech talent for this global empire. China Telecom plans to lay a 150,000-kilometer fiber-optic network covering 48 African nations. IZP, a big-data company, plans to expand soon to 120 countries. BeiDou, a government agency, is building a GPS-like satellite navigation system for all Eurasia.

There’s an eerie sense in today’s world that China is racing to capture the commanding heights of technology and trade. Meanwhile, under the banner of “America first,” the Trump administration is protecting coal-mining jobs and questioning climate science.

Sorry, friends, but this is how empires rise and fall.

World Cup

Anne Frank And Anti-Semitism: The Unwelcome Focus Of European Soccer

Players wear shirts with Anne Frank's picture to combat antisemitism

Lazio players wear shirts with a picture of Anne Frank before their Serie A soccer match against Bologna at the Dall’Ara stadium in Bologna, Italy.. (photo credit: REUTERS/ALBERTO LINGRIA)

Italian soccer has been making the headlines recently – but for all the wrong reasons.

Rather than celebrating the achievements of Gianluigi Buffon or Giorgio Chiellini, Italian soccer is once again struggling to come to terms with a decades-old antisemitism problem – and the unlikely focus of its resurgence is Anne Frank.

Since Anne Frank’s tragic diary was first published in 1947 and subsequently translated into more than 60 languages, her harrowing story has been at the center of Holocaust education across the world.

Yet instead of Frank serving as a symbol of an innocent and relatable victim of the Holocaust, hardcore “ultra” fans of Rome’s Lazio soccer club plastered an area of their Olimpico Stadium, also home to archrivals AS Roma, with stickers depicting her wearing a Roma shirt – intended as an insult.

Lazio’s ultras only found themselves in the stands generally reserved for their rival’s most committed home fans in October 2017 due to the partial closure of their stadium – a punishment handed down by the Italian soccer league when supporters were found guilty of “chants expressive of racial discrimination” against two black US Sassuolo Calcio players in a previous match.

A picture of Anne Frank is held ahead of a match between Bologna and Lazio at Stadio Renato Dall'Ara, Bologna, Italy, October 25, 2017 (REUTERS/ALBERTO LINGRIA)A picture of Anne Frank is held ahead of a match between Bologna and Lazio at Stadio Renato Dall’Ara, Bologna, Italy, October 25, 2017 (REUTERS/ALBERTO LINGRIA)

One of Italy’s most successful teams, Lazio is no stranger to being at the eye of the racism storm. The Anne Frank stickers, however, created a rare public backlash in a sport where antisemitism has become a regular sight on its terraces. On this occasion, senior Italian political and religious leaders, as well as national media, rushed to condemn the incident.

“Using her image as a sign of insult and threat is, besides being inhumane, alarming for our country, which 80 years ago was infected with the cruelty of antisemitism,” said Italian President Sergio Mattarella.

Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni said the incident was “unbelievable, unacceptable and not to be minimized.”

The president of Rome’s 20,000-strong Jewish community, Ruth Dureghello, called on Lazio to ban the guilty fans from the stadium.

“This is not a trend, this is not soccer, this is not a sport. Antisemites out of the stadium,” Durughello demanded on Twitter.

Italian daily La Repubblica printed a bold front-page headline declaring, “We are all Anne Frank.”

These were strong words, but November’s events only serve to demonstrate the ongoing failure of Italian authorities to combat racism in the stands that has plagued the so-called “beautiful game” for over two decades and the deficiencies in European soccer’s governing body UEFA’s anti-racism “Respect” campaign, launched in 2008.

In 1998, Lazio fans displayed banners reading, “Auschwitz is your homeland, the ovens are your homes” during a match against AS Roma. In 2000, again in a match versus Roma, fans unfurled a sign reading, “Squad of blacks, terrace of Jews.”

Five years later, then-Lazio captain, Paolo di Canio was banned for just one game for giving a Nazi salute. Defending his actions, Canio said he was “fascist,” but not “racist.”

EXAMPLES OF racism at Lazio matches are abundant and almost commonplace, with many displays of racism followed by punishment on a national or European level.

Following the latest display of antisemitism and the failure of previous punishments to make a real difference, the Italian Football Association opted for a different response. This time, they focused on education.

Partnering with the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), Italian teams from across the leagues were ordered to hold a minute’s silence, or a “minute of reflection,” and to read a passage taken from Anne Frank’s diary at their next game.

Copies of Italian-Jewish author Primo Levi’s memoir If This Is a Man, describing his experiences of inhumanity at Auschwitz, were also distributed to captains and referees.

A match official holds a Primo Levi book before a match between Juventus and S.P.A.L at Juventus Stadium, Turin, Italy, October 25, 2017 (REUTERS/Massimo Pinca)A match official holds a Primo Levi book before a match between Juventus and S.P.A.L at Juventus Stadium, Turin, Italy, October 25, 2017 (REUTERS/Massimo Pinca)

At their next match, away at Bologna, Lazio players took to the field sporting T-shirts featuring Anne Frank’s face. Some Lazio fans boycotted the match in protest, while others attempted to drown out the diary reading by singing “Me ne frego” (“I don’t care”), the Fascist motto popular among Italian soldiers during World War I.

Elsewhere, some Juventus soccer fans in Turin turned their backs on the pitch and, back in the Italian capital, AS Roma fans drowned out the reading with chants.

Lazio president Claudio Lotito attempted to limit the damage caused by the Anne Frank incident by visiting a Rome synagogue and planning to take fans to visit Auschwitz.

These efforts were deeply undermined, however, by a leaked telephone recording in which Lotito described the synagogue visit as “theatrics.”

Hope for change within Italian soccer might have been boosted following the resignation of Italian Football Federation (FIGC) president Carlo Tavecchio in November 2017, following the national team’s failure to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup for the first time in 60 years.

Hardly leading by example in the fight against racism in soccer, Tavecchio was banned by UEFA in 2014 for six months after referring to foreign players “eating bananas.”

Although banned from holding any official European soccer position, the Italian governing body’s internal prosecutor dropped his inquiry into the comments and Tavecchio was permitted to continue leading the national federation.

It seems unlikely that the federation’s newly appointed president, former secretary-general of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) Roberto Fabbricini, will have to wait long for the issue to resurface.

One group seeking to combat racism in Italy and across Europe is the London-based Fare network, an umbrella organization that monitors all activities of a discriminatory nature in European soccer.

“Italian soccer remains a very complex ground. The efforts of the Italian Football Association have been insufficient to both prevent and sanction incidents of discrimination,” Fare executive director Piara Powar told the Magazine.

“Addressing these implies a clear strategy on education and prevention, closer work with fans, and a consistent approach to sanction incidents of discrimination. At a grassroots level, there are many organizations working hard to adapt quickly to the changes in Italy with the arrival of refugees, for example, and to fight discrimination by using soccer as a tool for social inclusion,” he added.

YET ITALIAN soccer authorities are not alone in their so-far underwhelming and largely unsuccessful battle against antisemitism on stadium terraces.

A short 20-minute drive from Anne Frank’s famous secret annex in Amsterdam lies the stadium of the Netherlands’ most successful soccer club, AFC Ajax – or, as some fans like to call themselves, the “Super Jews.”

Prior to World War II, Ajax was the club of choice for many Jewish supporters with the club’s former home, the De Meer Stadium, located in the east of the city, where the majority of Amsterdam’s large Jewish population lived.

Since the war, three Jewish club presidents have managed Ajax off the pitch and a number of Jewish-Dutch soccer players have starred on it, including Netherland internationals Bennie Muller and Sjaak Swart.

Ajax fans in the stands before the Europa League Final against Manchester United, 24 May, 2017 (Reuters/Ints Kalnins Livepic)Ajax fans in the stands before the Europa League Final against Manchester United, 24 May, 2017 (Reuters/Ints Kalnins Livepic)

However, since the 1970s, rival fans have used Ajax’s Jewish “roots” to taunt fans, chanting “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas,” as well as hissing to mimic the sound of gas chambers and giving Nazi salutes.

Despite most supporters today not being Jewish, such taunts have only motivated the Ajax fan base to strengthen the presence of Jewish and Israeli imagery at their matches.

The F-side, a hooligan group associated with Ajax, call themselves “super Jews,” chant “Jews, Jews” at games and often sport tattoos, clothes and flags featuring the Star of David and the Israeli flag. Founded in 1976, the F-side has become less active in recent years.

Across the North Sea, great strides have been made by British soccer to turn its back on the dark days of violent hooliganism, for which it developed an unwelcome global reputation and fame on the silver screen following its depiction in Green Street Hooligans.

But it is still coming to terms with a stubborn undercurrent of antisemitism that refuses to be defeated, despite a number of high-profile campaigns.

Initiated in 1993, the “Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football” campaign has sought to promote inclusion and equality at all levels of the English game – from Sunday League grassroots soccer to the Premier League. The campaign remains active today.

Images of Anne Frank are absent in the British game, but Holocaust references are often the go-to option for rival fans seeking to abuse London club Tottenham Hotspur and its fans – a team with a strong history of Jewish support.

Supporters of the club proudly refer to themselves as the “Yid army” or “Yiddos,” a word often associated with derogatory connotations that have become the subject of public debate in recent years. For many of Tottenham’s Jewish supporters, their aim has been to reclaim the word. Those supporters subsequently remained defiant despite threats of prosecution and a 2011 campaign against the use of the “Y-word,” led by Jewish comedian David Baddiel and a number of leading current and former English soccer players.

Far from reclaiming the word, the club’s London rivals Chelsea FC have been repeatedly filmed using the term in a less complimentary manner, singing: “Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz, Hitler’s gonna gas ’em again, we can’t stop them, the yids from Tottenham, the yids from White Hart Lane.”

In an initiative seeking to end the ugly display of antisemitism, backed by Chelsea’s Jewish oligarch owner Roman Abramovich (who, incidentally, just moved to Israel), the club launched a “Say No to Antisemitism” campaign in January 2018.

Chelsea FC players Charly Musonda, Eden Hazard, and Ross Barkley participate in the team's initiative against antisemitism, January 2018 (CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB)Chelsea FC players Charly Musonda, Eden Hazard, and Ross Barkley participate in the team’s initiative against antisemitism, January 2018 (CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB)

Writing in a special match-day program, Abramovich stated that the campaign represented “the start of an important journey and we all have a part to play.”

Five days after the launch of the campaign, the Chelsea owner will have appreciated not only the importance of the journey but also the size of the task, as the club’s fans were reported to have chanted antisemitic songs during a match against nearby London rivals Watford FC.

EVEN IF the manifestation of antisemitism in European soccer has common features, the Fare network bases its efforts on an understanding that the fight against discrimination must be adapted to differences across the continent.

“It is important to understand the political situation and cultural experiences of each country individually,” Powar told the Magazine.

“The debate is not the same in all countries. The issues to address also differ, as well as the strategies around preventing and sanctioning fans and clubs for discriminatory behavior.

“In England and Germany, for example, the awareness and action in preventing and tackling discrimination in soccer is taken very seriously, whereas in other countries, such as Spain or Italy, there are many incidents that go without being addressed,” he added.

Supporters attending both domestic and international soccer fixtures across Europe in recent years will have seen the emphasis placed on UEFA’s “No to Racism” campaign.

Large anti-racism banners often accompany players onto the pitch, team captains wear campaign armbands and a video featuring Europe’s leading stars backing the campaign is shown inside the stadium prior to kick-off.

The campaign will be familiar to all European soccer fans.

Manchester City and CSKA Moscow players with a No To Racism banner before a UEFA Champions League match (Action Images / Lee Smith via Reuters)Manchester City and CSKA Moscow players with a No To Racism banner before a UEFA Champions League match (Action Images / Lee Smith via Reuters)

Despite these efforts, anti-racism campaigners may have good reason to be skeptical about a deep, lasting and global commitment to eradicating hate from world soccer.

This week, Russia kicked off the 2018 World Cup at Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium with an impressive opening ceremony. The tournament is set to showcase Russian soccer and sporting infrastructure to the world. Not featured in the ceremony was one of the greatest features of Russian soccer today – racism.

In April, less than two months prior to the World Cup’s opening fixture, FIFA charged the World Cup hosts with fan racism after black French players were the target of monkey chants during a friendly match in St. Petersburg in March. The Russian Football Union was later fined $30,000 by FIFA.

The Russian Football Union was also found guilty and fined for racist behavior by its supporters at the last two European Championships, in 2016 and 2012 respectively.

This season alone, fans of Zenit St. Petersburg have twice faced UEFA charges of racism by its fans.

Dismissing concerns of potential racism or violence at this summer’s prestigious tournament, the head coach of the Russian national team Stanislav Cherchesov told Brazil’s Globo TV in March: “I do not think that we have racism on a scale that needs to be fought. Hooligans? I have not seen any serious displays of it.”

Amid criticism of awarding the World Cup to a country with a reputation of fan racism, the Fare network, which reported 89 racist and far-right incidents at Russian soccer games during the 2016-17 season alone, maintains that there is room for optimism going forward.

“Soccer is a tool that can bring to attention and help discuss issues that are of relevance to soccer and the wider society – for example racism in Russia and LGBT rights – but it also a tool that can bring people together and be a starting point to address these issues,” said Powar.

“Today, following criticism and pressure from the public eye, civil society organizations and European bodies, soccer and sport governing bodies are taking these issues more seriously.

“Last year, for example, UEFA and FIFA both adopted new criteria to incorporate and preserve human rights and tackle corruption in the bidding requirements for their upcoming competitions. These are a step to making these more transparent and fair in the future,” he added.

The effectiveness of the World Cup as a tool to tackle racism remains to be seen, with Russian organizers clearly hopeful that existing problems will not be broadcast to a global audience.

As for Anne Frank, let’s hope that her legacy remains true to her diary and far from Europe’s soccer stadiums.

IDF

Israel To Outlaw Filming Of Anti-Palestinian Atrocities

These ill criminals don’t want their atrocities to be on film. If they do this to Palestinians, imagine what they have in store for you Goy! Oh! But isn’t Israel the only democracy in the Middle East? Aren’t the Jews the first to express their ‘hatred’ against racism? How long until JUSTICE IS DONE?! Are there any REAL human beings left in this world?! Or is it that what we see walking on this earth are just BRAINLESS ZOMBIES! 

IDF

“Israel to outlaw filming of anti-Palestinian atrocities,” Source: presstv.com
Israel’s cabinet ministers have authorized a bill that would criminalize filming of the Israeli soldiers’ atrocities against the Palestinians while on duty.
A ministerial committee which oversees legislation voted in favor of the controversial bill on Sunday.
The bill, sponsored by the Yisrael Beitenu party in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, would subject anyone caught filming or publishing footage “with intent to harm the morale of Israel’s soldiers or its inhabitants” to up to five years in prison.

It would give 10 years in jail to those intending to damage Israel’s “national security.”

The parliament will probably vote the bill this week. If passed, it will be scrutinized and amended before three more parliamentary votes needed for it to pass into law.

In recent months, Israeli troops have on numerous occasions been caught on camera brutally killing Palestinians, with the videos going viral online and sparking condemnations of the regime’s military.

A video circulated online in April showed the moment an Israeli sniper shoots an unarmed Palestinian protester near the border fence in the besieged enclave. The sniper and the other soldiers are heard rejoicing following the “successful” shooting.

An Israeli human rights organization also in August 2017 captured a video showing Israeli settlers verbally abusing Palestinians and swearing at the holy religion of Islam as well as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the presence of regime forces.

The B’Tselem video shows the Israelis from the settlement of Kiryat Arba using obscene language through a loudspeaker against a Palestinian woman, who is a local volunteer for the group and is filming the incident from her window.

In March 2016, Israeli Sergeant Elor Azaria shot dead a Palestinian who was lying immobile on the ground, following an alleged stabbing attack in the West Bank city of al-Khalil (Hebron).

Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter and given 18 months in prison. However, he was released earlier this month after serving only two-thirds of his sentence.

Yisrael Beitenu leader and Minister of Military Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, said: “Israeli soldiers are under constant attack by Israel haters and supporters of terrorism who look constantly to degrade and sully them. We will put an end to this.”

However, Deputy Palestinian Information Minister Fayez Abu Aitta condemned the move and told Reuters, “This decision aims to cover up crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against our people, and to free their hands to commit more crimes.”

The phrasing of the bill stops short of a blanket ban, aiming instead at “anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian organizations” which spend “entire days near Israeli soldiers waiting breathlessly for actions that can be documented in a slanted and one-sided way so that soldiers can be smeared.”

The bill claims that B’Tselem and several other rights groups are supported by organizations and governments with “a clear anti-Israel agenda” and that the videos aim to damage Israel and its national security.

The ban would cover social networks as well as traditional media.

B’Tselem spokesman Amit Gilutz shrugged off the bill and said, “If the occupation embarrasses the government, then the government should take action to end it.”

“Documenting the reality of the occupation will continue regardless of such ridiculous legislation efforts,” he pointed out.

Palestinian journalists in May condemned the draft law, entitled “Prohibition against photographing and documenting IDF soldiers.”

The Palestinian Journalist Syndicate (PCJ) said in a statement that the “racist” bill “severely attacks the profession of the press and legitimizes the criminal practices committed by the Israeli occupation army against the Palestinian people.”

Trump-Dugin

COMMENTARY: How Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Making Russian Fascism Great Again

They infiltrated absolutely everything creating “the filth” they are now pretending to fight against. Dugin’s ‘fight’ is nothing more than the manipulation and control of the opposition called far-right. They have always ruled both sides of the coin. Welcome to 21st century Comintern! 

Screenshot from Alexander Dugin's YouTube channel
YouTube

“How Trump’s foreign policy is making Russian fascism great again,” Source: Hareetz.com

As he sabotages America’s strategic alliances in favor of pro-Kremlin autocrats, the president is acting out the geopolitical fantasies of Alexander Dugin, rising Russian fascist ideologue and guru to Trump’s alt-right base.

“There are not many instances in history which show great and powerful states creating alliances and organizations to limit their own strength.”

That’s what the famous theorist of U.S. geopolitics, Nicholas J. Spykman, once wrote. Today’s Republican Party may be an exception to the rule.

The Trumpist wing of the GOP and its alt-right fan base is dedicated to curbing the power of liberals on the world stage, sabotaging U.S. influence abroad in favor of international, radical right-wing alliances, with partners who are explicitly enamored of the Kremlin.

It’s hardly surprising, then, that Alexander Dugin, a leading Russian fascist ideologue, and nexus for far-right activists all over Europe and the U.S., welcomes Trump as the harbinger of a new world order. It’s more surprising, and worrying, that the Trump foreign policy pivot is beginning to resemble some of Dugin’s unsavory theories.

Because the U.S. has traditionally worked diplomatically to re-enforce ties with elected governments in Europe, this subversive effort by the GOP appears to stake the U.S.’s global position on the continued rise of the radical right.

A key example can be found in Germany, where Trump’s loose-cannon approach has rendered the U.S. an untrustworthy ally in the public eye, making Putin look reliable by comparison.

When the U.S. ambassador to Germany effectively told Breitbart that he favored the resurgent “anti-establishment” populists – a hat-tip to the far-right party, Alternative for Germany – over the elected government, the news only further confirmed that the Trump Administration is more interested in undermining the U.S.’s own allies and liberal democracy, than it is in building credibility and solidarity.

The question then arises: Are America’s post-war allies still the allies of the Trumpist GOP, and vice versa?

The GOP’s new diplomacy bases international alliances on ideological allegiances over diplomatic commitments and strategic interests. When nationalism is raised to the level of state ideology, like attracts like, and different authoritarian nationalist parties buoy each other up to achieve a particular balance of power.

A hint at the return of this form of sovereignty can be drawn from the names and places of far-right organizing. There is Paul Manafort’s “Hapsburg Group” and the 2014 Vienna Conference of oligarchs, aristocrats, and far-right politicians on the anniversary of Metternich’s 1814 Congress of Vienna. And then there is the bizarre and repeated identification of French President Emmanuel Macron with Napoleon, a much-loathed figure in the historiography of the Central and Eastern European far-right.

The League party's activists hold flares as they arrive to attend a rally by party's leader Matteo Salvini, in Milan, Italy, Saturday, Feb. 24, 2018.
Antonio Calanni/AP

The set of “anti-establishment” far-right forces currently riding populism into power cares little for “the people” and much for the trappings of Empire.

What is most striking about these moves by the Trump wing of the Republican Party is its obvious shift in geopolitical doctrine. On the most fundamental levels, the U.S. is now subdivided utterly into two competing groups with two entirely different geopolitical aims.

In one camp, the Trumpist GOP exhibits strong isolationist tendencies, positing an “America First!” exuberant nationalism. In the other, the Democratic Party seeks and has sought, with mixed results, to contain the rise of Russian influence in Europe and Eurasia.

These two different strategic interests diverge so greatly as to represent two irreconcilable worldviews with totally contradictory sets of values and ideals.

French far right leader Marine Le Pen, Austria's Freedom Party Secretary General Harald Vilimsky (L) and Front National Vice-President, Louis Aliot at a May Day gathering in Nice, France. May 1, 2018
Thibault Camus/AP

Though isolationist, the Republican Party is also expansionist, at least ideologically, as it seeks to weaken its liberal opponents worldwide and to cultivate stronger ties with opposition populist far-right parties that are openly affiliated with the Russian Federation. Needless to say, this is a pivot for which the Kremlin devoutly wishes and a network it both openly and quietly facilitates and funds.

The explicitly geopolitical ideology underlying this right-wing alliance, which engages particularly the Austrian Freedom Party and the League in Italy, as well as Iran and Syria, is what’s known as “neo-Eurasianism.” 

This so-called “philosophy,” promoted by the likes of occult fascist Aleksandr Dugin, aims at developing a “traditionalist” federation of ethnostates throughout Eurasia, with Moscow as a kind of de facto imperial center.

It’s no coincidence Dugin openly celebrated Trump’s win in the U.S. elections: according to a YouTube video he produced in the president’s honor, his victory stopped the expansion of globalism “at its very center.” It inaugurated a newly multipolar world, an idea for which Vladimir Putin has “been the vanguard,” in which America will be a “powerful and important [pole] but not the only one, and more importantly, one that has no claims to being exceptional.”

Alexander Dugin on Donald Trump’s victoryYouTube

Dugin’s principle work, Foundations of Geopolitics, is not available in English translation, but those able to read the Russian text will find, masquerading behind bromides of anti-racism, a fully-fledged Aryan mythos, complete with esoteric legends of Hyperboria (the legendary Arctic site of the origins of humanity and its giant “Hyperborian” root-race), as well as the essential superiority of “the people of the North.” The Iranian connection is built on a supposed mythic connection between Persian and Russian ethnicities via a shared spiritual Aryan ancestry.

The neo-Eurasian worldview claims to support a multipolar federation of authoritarian traditionalists is deeply racially charged. It appeals to the racist nationalists, hardline Russian Orthodox clerics, reactionary Catholics, and far-right evangelicals that constitute the core of the global far right wing

It’s no surprise that Dugin has become an object of pilgrimage for members of both the alt-right and far left, having recently entertained far right YouTube ‘celebrities’ Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone, with whom he spoke on a panel in Moscow.

He the go-to guru for a long list of alt-right figures: Alex Jones of Infowars interviews him together with Mike Cernovich; Jack Posobiec exults that Dugin is his summer readingNina Kouprianova, wife of alt-right leader Richard Spencer, says “Dugin is one of the greatest minds of our time.” Not to be left out, Dugin has repaid Richard Spencer’s own high regard by tweeting approvingly an article by Spencer which functions as an alt-right catechism.

Former KKK head David Duke is a long-time fanasking rhetorically a year ago: “Dugin terrifies degenerate filth – I wonder why that is?” 

The Democratic Party seeks to contain the Kremlin’s expansionist “Greater Russia” that, having taken over Crimea, increasingly envisions Ukraine as part of its “heartland.” Needless to say, Trump’s recent pronouncement backed the Kremlin, and countered those challenging Russia’s new imperialism: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” 

Part of Russia’s strategy relies on a theory of what the 20th century “father of geopolitics” Halford Mackinder called the “world island,” an imagined collective territory ranging from the Cape to Kamchatka to Lisbon, to which the Eurasian “heartland” provides the key. “Whoever rules the Heartland will rule the World Island,” Mackinder declared, urging the Atlantic powers to prevent a dangerous alliance between Germany and Russia. 

One of the many geographers compelled by Mackinder’s arguments was Karl Haushofer, a German nationalist who seized the notion of a Eurasian force, added the notion of lebensraum, and provided the key influence for Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess, from which came the Nazi Drang nach Osten (Drive to the East) and the Holocaust.

Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism recalls the precursors and originators of Nazi geopolitical theory. But in his hands, it has become an anti-modern, imperial federation of Kremlin-backed ethno-states.

For Dugin and other fascists inspired by “National Bolshevism,” Hitler would have succeeded in building the Third Reich if only he had been able to build a national-socialist bloc with the Soviets, instead of invading.

The question confronting geopolitics today, then, is not only that of alliances between Germany and Russia but of the alliance between German and Russian nationalists against the North Atlantic powers. That is a meeting of minds that the Trump administration’s pivot toward Europe’s populists, including the Alternative for Germany, is clearly facilitating.

It is important to emphasize that the necessary outcome of alliances between countries is never wholly predetermined by their relationship to the local ecology and landscape. But geopolitics matter. When nationalist forces build a geopolitical alliance – similar to an axis of far-right powers -pitted against the liberal ideas bequeathed by the American and French revolutions, we know where that leads.

What appears today to conservatives as the brio of a nationalist wave manifests itself tomorrow in targeted violence, pogroms, and expansionism. When nationalist states expand into one another’s territory, massive and avoidable wars erupt. Those who suffer are the workers and their families – “the people” whom populists claim to represent.

If the Trumpist Republican strategy was to subvert the liberal world order, that would be one thing. But that subversion masks a determination to fuel a wider reactionary surge, one that threatens to undermine basic principles of self-determination, freedom, and equality.

So we should take their tactics of illiberal subversion seriously. But we should be more worried that this kind of populism is masking the formation of a deeply authoritarian empire-building that already led to the twentieth century’s world wars.

UN

COMMENTARY: Mass-Migration Should Be Accepted By Western Nations UN Secretary General

Antonio Guterres is a hardcore communist following Agenda 21 pushing to destroy the human race as it was designed by Count Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi who in 1950 was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize. Kalergi believed that the Jews were the spiritual elite of the world and viewed the white European race as “the cancer of human history” and a race that needed to be bred out of existence, forcing it to interbreed with darker races of Africa and Asia. He wrote a book titled «Praktischer Idealismus», where he describes, the citizens of the future “United States of Europe” not being people of the Old Continent, but a new mixed breed, product a widespread miscegenation. He proclaimed the need to abolish the nation’s right to self-determination and to break-up nation states using separatist movements, that would destroy them through mass migration. That is how they would be able to control Europe and it’s exactly what we are seeing happening today. United Nations is the seat of the New World Government and their actions are pushing for the Holocaust for Christianity and all Goys.

UN

“Mass-Migration Should Be Accepted By Western Nations, UN Secretary-General,” Source: zerohedge.com

UN member states should prepare for great migratory movements, said UN Secretary-General António Guterres on 11th of January 2018 during the presentation of the report on the management of migration processes. And this is not a joke: The UN, led by António Guterres, wants to manage and influence migration. All this, of course, is dressed up in pretty words about the need to provide humanitarian aid, and also justified by the benefits that resettlement of the population is to give to the economies of particular countries. However, in fact, this means only one thing: Europe and the entire Western World must prepare for the flood of Africans.

Currently, nearly 1,3 billion people live in Africa, and by the end of this century, there will be 350% more, or 4,4 billion.1) It is obvious that the continent, whose inhabitants are not able to feed themselves, let alone achieve an adequate level of urbanization and industrialization, cannot cope with such a sharp demographic increase. The UN, therefore, came up with the idea of resettling Africans to Europe and highly developed countries on other continents.

At the end of 2016, just after his election as UN Secretary-General, António Guterres said: “We must convince Europeans that migration is inevitable and that multiethnic and multireligious societies create wealth”.2) It can be assumed here that the goal set by the former UN commissioner for refugees (A. Gutters served this function from June to December 2015), is to promote migration, give it a legal framework and manage it globally.

The first major step towards formalization of this phenomenon was the creation of the “Making Migration Work for All” report, which says in no uncertain terms that nation-states are to cease to exist. The document says that migration would be beneficial to everyone. And it is beneficial… to migrants alone (who apart from being accommodated in apartments live on undeserved entitlements) rather than to the average European who has to work to make a living for himself and his family, pay for his home and, additionally, provide for millions of more newcomers.

The position expressed by Gutters during the presentation of this report makes our hair stand on end.3) The analysis of the speech of the UN secretary implies a simple conclusion: migration will still be bigger, we (UN) will manage it, and you (Western countries and societies) have to adapt:

„The fundamental challenge is to maximize the benefits of this orderly, productive form of migration while stamping out the abuses and prejudice that make life hell for a minority of migrants.”

and:

„States need to strengthen the rule of law underpinning how they manage and protect migrants — for the benefit of their economies, their societies, and migrants themselves.”

The propaganda statement that migration brings social and economic benefits has become so deeply rooted in the media and political rhetoric that some people have begun to believe in it. It is a pity that these statements are not supported by any calculations or analyses.

„Migration is a positive global phenomenon. It powers economic growth, reduces inequalities, connects diverse societies and helps us ride the demographic waves of population growth and decline.”

According to a research4) conducted by the Hungarian Századvég foundation, mass migration is perceived by the citizens of all 28 European Union countries as a threat to the EU economy, the heritage of the member states and the presence of Third World aliens is believed to undermine security. The vast majority, as many as 68%, are afraid of the inflow of migrants from North Africa. For 70% of the inhabitants of the Old Continent, the growing number of Muslims is a serious threat, while only 8% say that this issue is not a problem. Citizens of European countries are afraid of increased crime and subsequent terrorist attacks. More than half of the pollies think that immigrants come to Europe mainly for economic reasons, that is, they are attracted by a high level of social benefits. 57% of respondents believe that the influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East will change the culture of their country, and 73% state that financial support for migrants will be a serious burden on state budgets. 61% believe that the influx of people from the Third World will weaken the EU economy.

Negative processes accompanying the resettlement of people were, however, completely ignored by the UN and transferred to countries which are not able to cope with this phenomenon:

„Migration (…), which powers economic growth, reduces inequalities, connects diverse societies (…) remains poorly managed.”

and:

„The best way to end the stigma of illegality and abuse around migrants is, in fact, for Governments to put in place more legal pathways for migration.”

The report completely distorts the nature of threats to Western civilization, and also underestimates the importance of homogeneity, rejecting entirely the advantage that national states offer. The United Nations points out that shrinking populations is a danger for Europe, and Antonio Guterres suggests that the demographic collapse can be remedied by resettling the population surplus from Africa. By the end of this century, the number of indigenous Europeans will amount to fewer than a quarter of a billion, whereas there will be almost 4.4 billion Africans. The host society, according to the UN Secretary-General, has no right to think that migrations are a negative phenomenon:

„It can be seen, too, in the political impact of public perception that wrongly sees migration as out of control. The consequences include increased mistrust and policies aimed more at stopping than facilitating human movement.”

Also, the International Migration Organization, which participated in the work on this report, states on its Twitter account that „Migration is inevitable, desirable and necessary”.5) The question arises: who wants migration and who thinks it is necessary? Certainly not the inhabitants of the countries to which the alleged refugees are streaming.

The report states that:

  • migration is inevitable, therefore it must be properly organized and the UN provides guidance on how to manage it;
  • nation states must adapt to the admission of migrants in accordance with the guidelines;
  • the societies of developed countries must become accustomed to having their countries flooded with masses of migrants.

The powers that be are trying to convince us of the alleged benefits of mass migration and the resettlement of Africans into Europe. Reality contradicts wishful thinking. Increasingly, citizens of host countries are afraid to leave their homes not to mention that an increased part of their earnings, is used to provide for the newcomers. We have also come to the point where negation of positive aspects of migration is regarded as racism and xenophobia, and to the fact that if someone wants to live in a one-nation state, he is labeled as a nationalist, with the word being unjustifiably negatively charged.

A mass inflow of the so-called “refugees” on the Old Continent is not perceived by its inhabitants as a phenomenon that h culturally enriches and will also have a positive impact on the economy. However, global organizations do not take this into account and enforce their own plan to create a nationally and religiously heterogeneous society, where tradition and cultural identity are not desirable. António Guterres and the UN better know what is good for western nations, ignoring the data presented by many organizations, including the Gefira Foundation, which underlines a number of negative phenomena caused by the mass flooding of Europe by Third World populations.

Definition of Anti-Semitism

COMMENTARY: The Manipulation Of The Definition Of Anti-Semitism

“Before there was any mention of a so-called “Holocaust,” and while America was still neutral, American Zionists, with the approval of the media, produced the most mass genocidal book in history: Theodore N. Kaufman in “Germany Must Perish” (Argyle Press, Newark, 1941) literally urged the sterilization of 48,000,000 German men and women of childbearing age, so that, he explained, Germanism will be extirpated in two generations,” Source: Institute for Historical Review

We see that throughout history, these so-called “Jews” have been the initiators of all wars for the purpose of not only collecting profits from their destruction but to slowly impose their evil power over humanity.

Definition of Anti-Semitism
“The Manipulation of the Definition of Anti-Semitism,” Source: freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com

The manipulation of the definition of anti-semitism & exploitation of the concept of anti-semitism is a sinister trend. The international Zionist cabal & network are cunningly trying to change the notion of anti-semitism to stop any criticism of Israel and its litany of war crimes.

The manipulation of the definition of anti-semitism, and along with it the exploitation of the concept of anti-semitism, is a sinister trend that has been accelerating lately. Historically, anti-semitism used to actually mean something (i.e. the hatred of Jews just because they were Jewish). Nowadays, the international Zionist cabal and network are cunningly trying to change the definition of anti-semitism to stop any criticism of Israel. Such criticism of Israel may be entirely legitimate, justified and based on the actions of the Israeli Government, and thus have nothing to do with “Jews”, “Jewishness” or “Judaism” itself. However, the Zionist plan is to catch all such criticism in the anti-semitism/hate speech dragnet so that the Israeli Government can continue unimpeded on its merry genocidal way. The definition of anti-semitism is being changed for one simple reason: censorship.

Zionist-backed South Carolina Law Changing the Definition of Anti-Semitism in the US

Just take a look at recent bills and laws on the books inside of the United States. In April 2018, South Carolina passed a law with a new definition of anti-semitism which significantly broadened the meaning of the term. The effects are far-reaching. This piece of legislation requires the state’s colleges to use this new definition when determining whether an action is “discriminatory” (and thus banned). Essentially, in many areas related to Zionism, it forbids factual and true statements which are critical of Israel by codifying them as anti-semitic! Seems the terms post-truth world and post-fact world are spot on.

Take a look at pg. 81 of the 278-page document:

(B) For purposes of this proviso, the term “definition of anti-Semitism” includes:
(1) a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
(2) calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews;
(3) making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective;
(4) accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
(5) accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
(6) accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
(7) using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
(8) drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
(9) blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
(10) applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
(11) multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations; and
(12) denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

(1) is the true and historical definition, and I can fully understand why this (as with any other form of racism) is a problem, just as (2) and (4) are. As a libertarian, I don’t believe it is the government’s job to force people into being kind (you can’t legislate morality), although the civil rights movement did a lot for people who suffered from a lack of rights and freedom. Obviously I can see how a government would be concerned about public safety with (2) and (4). However, most of the following points are a gross expansion of the original definition of anti-semitism into something so broad that it stifles free speech, critical thinking and the ability to investigate and discuss openly many aspects of the worldwide conspiracy. So, if you live in South Carolina, it is now illegal to:

(3) – make reference to the obvious fact that concentrated Jewish power exists and dominates certain industries such as the media (MSM, Hollywood), politics or the high-tech sector (the Talpiot Program);

(5) – investigate, draw your own conclusions from a historical event (the Holocaust) and announce those conclusions if they differ from the official story. In fact, even if you merely say the number of Jewish deaths is wrong (i.e. not 6 million), you are not a historian or researcher, but rather an anti-semite, because you are stating that the Jews or Israel are “exaggerating” the Holocaust – which happens to be the truth, since the Holocaust has been seized and capitalized upon for political gain, as many Jews such as Norman Finkelstein point out;

(6) – claim that some dual Israel-US citizens may be more loyal to Israel than the US. Wow! Ever looked at the 9/11 cast of characters and conspirators? They are full of Neocons and Zionists! There are so many examples of Israeli collusion on 9/11, helped on by PNAC Zionists like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Dov Zakheim and many more;

(8) – point out the obvious hypocrisy of the Zionist regime which runs Gaza like an open-air concentration camp, just as the Nazis did with the Jews and other minorities. Israel rations food, water, electricity and other supplies to the Palestinians, controls their freedom of movement, tests out its new weaponry on unsuspecting Arabs there, as well as slaughters anyone it wants too with impunity, by falsely claiming that it is “only defending itself” and that all Palestinian protestors including women and children are automatically from Hamas (yes, the very same Hamas that Israel supported and helped to create);

(11) – demand that peace and human rights organizations focus on Israel, when, demonstrably, Israel has been the main aggressor in the region ever since its inception, including starting the 6-Day War against Egypt then Syria, attacking the USS Liberty, stealing land from its neighbors and invading Lebanon in 1982.

stigma-of-anti-semitism

Changing the definition of anti-semitism: the game is up.

Also, with (10), what exactly are people expecting of Israel and not expecting of any other nation? That it stops its discriminatory apartheid policies that values Jewish citizens over all other citizens? It is equally demanded in all Western democracies that all people are treated equal regardless of race and religion (even though it doesn’t happen in practice). Likewise, with (9), it is undeniable that Israel’s power is massively disproportionate and large compared to its tiny population and geographical area. It has a history of provoking the countries around it into war by being the aggressor. Number (12) makes the point that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic” yet this is just a lip-service glossover. The whole point of this bill is to crush criticism of Israel! This proviso reminds of the proviso in the Balfour Declaration where it states that the UK approves of Israel building settlements in Palestine as long as the indigenous people living there are not disadvantaged. Well, that worked well. The whole existence of Israel, since even before 1948, is been nothing but a pushing back, stealing and genocide.

Federal Bill Also to Change Definition of Anti-Semitism

On May 23rd 2018, a federal bill was also introduced called the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018. The goals are the same: silence criticism of Israel, gut the First Amendment and cancel free speech – despite the fact that anti-semitic harassment is already illegal under federal law. This is just part of a larger pattern whereby the pervasive Zionist influence throughout the halls of Western Government clamps down on any anti-Zionist perspectives – in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other places. The ACLU writes:

“Campaigns aimed at excluding critics of Israel from participating in public events are mounting, often with support of publicly funded institutions. A Chicago-area public library temporarily cancelled a talk about a book titled “The Battle for Justice in Palestine,” before reconsidering its decision. The Missouri History Museum cancelled a community event titled “From Ferguson to Ayotzinapa to Palestine,” after organizers refused to remove Palestinian panelists.”

latuff-definition-of-anti-semitism

Manufactured Anti-Semitism

The must-watch documentary Defamation, made by Israeli Jew film director Yoav Shamir, does an excellent job exposing how modern anti-semitism is largely invented out of thin air. Yes, anti-semites, White supremacists, and other Jew-haters exist, but as a tiny minority, shunned by the majority of people who are not racist. Yet, so much Jewish identity and sympathy for Zionism and Israel depends on anti-semitism being alive, so organizations like the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) exist essentially to fan the flames and concoct sham reports, which then get passed along to the MSM and FBI, who dutifully to the Zionist line and declare falsities like “anti-semitism is on the rise.”

definition of anti-semitism restrict criticism Israel smoloko

Final Thoughts

We live in a world where our cherished freedom of speech is under constant attack, especially by PC (political correctness). Zionism is at the apex of the PC pyramid; it’s the tyrant-king who has learned how to name-call and throw mud par excellence. It has everyone scared, especially politicians and celebrities, of saying anything even slightly offensive. It harnesses its massive network to make the name “anti-semite” stick, even if there’s no truth to it.

The modification of the definition of anti-semitism is a crude attempt to exploit the real suffering of Jews 85+ years ago at the hands of the Nazis. This agenda is even targeted at (the now many) Jews who oppose Zionism themselves! It has nothing to so with real historical meaning of anti-semitism, but rather operates purely to suppress criticism of Israel. Historian David Irving spoke of an organized international network that would target him when he reported historical facts. Whether it’s the CAA in England, or AIPAC, the ADL and the SPLC in the US, the goal is the same.

Remember what former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni admitted:

“Well, it’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe someone criticizes Israel, then we bring out the Holocaust. When in this country (USA) when they criticize Israel, they are anti-semitic … it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli Government … that justifies everything we do to the Palestinians.”

Clever people will see through this ruse of anti-semitism – and brave people will rise above it.

starbucks

COMMENTARY: Soros’ Open Society Literally Behind Starbucks’ Sensitivity Training

Watch the video and go to your local Starbucks and ask for your free coffee by using the ‘racism’ promo code. Let’s see how long does their contribution to the new world order last! And remember to STOP giving away your money to these companies who are clearly your enemies and the enemies of the free world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKeusFQYvnQ

“Soros’ Open Society Literally Behind Starbucks’ Sensitivity Training,” Source: infowars.com

Starbucks’ obsession with race about to hit high gear

The organization conducting Starbucks’ racial sensitivity training, The Perception Institute, receives “generous” contributions from globalist kingpins George Soros and the Ford Foundation.With campaigns such as Black Male Re-imagined,” The Perception Institute aims to put an end to accusations of discrimination after a Starbucks worker called police on two black customers.However, with such “generous supporters” as the Ford Foundation, the W.K Kellogg Foundation and Open Society Foundation, chaired by Soros, Starbucks’ obsession with race is about to hit high gear.

Soros and the Ford Foundation, for instance, have been behind such racial initiatives as the Black Lives Matter movement, which nurtures a black people versus police mentality, and ignores police violence against other Americans.

As other companies follow suit, The Perception Institute will ensure racial division remains a key part of your coffee-buying experience.

 

VIDEO: There Is NO Free Speech

This video, produced by Johnny Gat, masterfully describes the current state of affairs regarding the ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) & free speech.

Please lend your support, and subscribe to his YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ynbS-PMSMJIniFVHIWm8g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_S9j9Ohcvk&t=

 

Palestine

COMMENTARY: U.S. Media Whitewashes Gaza Massacre

Everyone should know by now that world media is 100% controlled by Jewish interests, and no matter which side they take on a story, they always carefully follow an agenda. Zionists want people to kill each other and create as much chaos and confusion as possible. The end of this evil is near, but things will get worse before they get better. 

Palestine
“U.S. Media Whitewashes Gaza Massacre,” Source: consortiumnews.com 

 

As Israel killed more than 50 Palestinians in cold blood protesting the American embassy move on Monday, U.S. corporate media failed to accurately report what happened in Gaza, once again meekly protecting the government line, argues Joe Lauria.

Typical of the mindset of corporate media reporting on what happened in Gaza on Monday as Israeli soldiers killed more than 50 protesting Palestinians, is this tweet from CNN. It says: “Death toll rises to at least 52 people during clashes along the border fence between Israel and Gaza, Palestinian officials say. More than 2,400 people have been injured.” CNN’s new slogan is “#FactsFirst.”

Adam Johnson, who writes for the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, responded to CNN with a tweet of his own:

“This one’s got it all:

  • ‘death toll rises’ — no one was killed and no one specific party did the killing, the death toll just mysteriously ‘rises’
  • ‘clashes’ — launders all power asymmetry
  • ‘2,400 people have been injured’ — all 2,400 are Palestinian but lets go with ‘people’.”

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said on his blog that he did a Google News search for the word “massacre” and found not one reference to Gaza.

New York Times headline on Monday said: “Dozens of Palestinians have died in protests as the U.S. prepares to open its Jerusalem Embassy.” Journalist Glenn Greenwald responded: “Most western media outlets have become quite skilled – through years of practice – at writing headlines and describing Israeli massacres using the passive tense so as to hide the culprit. But the all-time champion has long been, and remains, the New York Times.#HaveDied.”

[Perhaps because of pressure from Greenwald and others, the Times on Monday night changed its headline to “Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem.”]

Yet another CNN headline simply read: “Dozens die in Gaza.” Journalist Max Blumenthal responded: “Maybe they were old. Perhaps they were very sick. They just up and died! Who will solve the mystery behind these deaths?”

Blumenthal later offered a possible solution to the mystery: “According to the White House, Khhamas launched 41 protesters into unsuspecting Israeli bullets.”

Projecting

Deflecting blame from Israel is one thing. But projecting it onto the victim is quite another. Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon on Monday called for the U.N. Security Council to, “Condemn Hamas for their war crimes,” because “every casualty on the border is a direct victim of Hamas.” 

He said in a statement released by Israel’s U.N. mission:

“Condemn Hamas for the war crimes they commit. Not only does Hamas incite tens of thousands of Palestinians to breach the border and hurt Israeli civilians, but Hamas also deliberately endangers Palestinian civilians. The murder of Israeli civilians or deaths of the people of Gaza – each one of them is a desirable outcome for Hamas. Every casualty on the border is a victim of Hamas’ war crimes, every death is a result of Hamas’ terror activity, and these casualties are solely Hamas’ responsibility.”

That’s one way to wash the Israeli government’s (blood-soaked) hands of the matter. Especially if you fear Israel will be accused of war crimes itself for its actions on Monday. Danon mentioned, “breaching the border.” But it is virtually impossible to get in or out of Gaza without Israeli permission. Burning kites lofted over the barrier that pens in nearly two million Gazans subject to an internationally unrecognized economic blockade, supposedly constitutes “breaching,” in Danon’s mind.

He would do well to consider the words of Moshe Dayan, one of the Israel’s Founding Fathers, who said in 1956:

“What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.” He went on: “We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood.”

So on the day, 61 years later, when the United States declared Jerusalem/Al Quds as the capital of Israel by moving its embassy there, rather than leaving its status to negotiation, people still trapped in Gaza protested at the gate fencing them in while Israeli military snipers picked off more than 50 of them and wounded thousands more for protesting their entrapment.

U.S. Parrots Israel, Media Parrots U.S.

Danon’s position was callously promoted by the White House on Monday. Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah was asked several times to condemn Israel’s military response. “We believe Hamas is responsible for these tragic deaths,” he said. “Their rather cynical exploitation of the situation is what’s leading to these deaths and we want it stopped.” He later blamed Hamas for a “gruesome and unfortunate propaganda attempt.”

Unsurprisingly, Congress also lined up behind the Jewish State, mostly ignoring what went on in Gaza.

At the ceremony opening the embassy, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, called Monday “a monumental day in United States-Israel relations.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who was among four senators and 10 members of the House of Representatives present, incredulously said moving the embassy “furthers the chances of peace in the Middle East by demonstrating that America’s support for Israel is unconditional and will not be bullied by global media opinion.”

Back in Washington, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, proclaimed: “Every nation should have the right to choose its capital. I sponsored legislation to do this two decades ago, and I applaud President Trump for doing it.”

Ajamu Baraka, the Green Party vice presidential candidate in 2016, tweeted: Where are the democrats condemning the slaughter in Gaza? If this was Assad they would be joining the republicans calling for military action pretending like they cared for Arab life.”

Handful of Democrats Speak Out

Bernie Sanders of Vermont mildly criticized Israel’s murderous response. “Hamas violence does not justify Israel firing on unarmed protesters,” he said. “The United States must play an aggressive role in bringing Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and the international community together to address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and stop this escalating violence.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, was more critical: “It’s just heartbreaking. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. Instead of cutting aid, the Trump administration must restore our leadership role and do what it can to alleviate the Palestinians’ suffering. The location of the embassy is a final-status issue that should have been resolved as part of peace negotiations where both sides benefit, not just one side. Israel will only know true security when it is at peace with its neighbors.”

Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, tweeted: “Today’s @USEmbassyIsrael opening in Jerusalem & killing of dozens of Gaza protesters advances @netanyahu agenda of occupation & oppression of Palestinians. @realDonaldTrump policies are fueling conflict, abandoning diplomatic efforts to achieve peace.”

Pressure to support Israel on The Hill is infamously intense. But what is the media’s excuse for being afraid to simply report facts, such as that Israeli soldiers “killed” Palestinians on Monday? They didn’t just simply die.

Just because U.S. government figures are apologists for Israel, does not mean the media must be too. But that would require the U.S. having an independent mainstream media.

When control of powerful mainstream communications breeds self-aggrandizement and adherence to a line pushed for so long because it got you where you are in the pecking order of media culture, it seems virtually impossible to shift gears and take another look at what you are reporting.