Saturday, April 7, 2018

New Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack Being Reported By All The Usual Suspects


The western propaganda machine is endlessly impressive. People are so pervasively brainwashed by mass media psyops that they now find it easier to believe that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are deliberately killing civilians with poisonous gas for no reason whatsoever than to believe that the same empire which deceived us into Iraq is deceiving us into Iraq’s next-door neighbor Syria.

There are early reports of another mass casualty chemical weapons attack in Syria, as usual in a region crawling with known terrorist forces, and as usual just as those terrorists are suffering critical defeats. As usual, the attack is placed in a location replete with children and cameras. As usual, all the expected high-profile pro-regime change propagandists are all over it, from the White Helmets to Charles Lister to Eliot Higgins to Julian Röpcke.

Details are sketchy and unconfirmed, but the early narrative being promulgated is clear.

“If 30+ died in the CW attack in Douma, then it would be the most fatalities in a chemical attack in Syria since Khan Sheikhoun just over a year ago,” said the Atlantic Council’s Eliot Higgins of the attack. “This could be another major moment in the conflict, something depressingly dependent on whether or not Fox and Friends covers it.”

“Much attention was paid to #Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from #Syria, but tonight’s CW attack in #Douma relates to an *entirely* different area of U.S. policy,” tweeted Lister. “There is *agreement* in the White House than a ‘mass casualty chemical attack’ *would* be grounds for action.”

Much attention was paid to #Trump's desire to withdraw troops from #Syria, but tonight's CW attack in #Douma relates to an *entirely* different area of U.S. policy. There is *agreement* in the White House than a "mass casualty chemical attack" *would* be grounds for action.

 — @Charles_Lister

So to be clear, we’re being asked by these people to believe that Bashar al-Assad launched a “mass casualty chemical attack”, the thing which would provoke the wrath of the US war machine, just as Trump was seeking a withdrawal from Syria and just as Assad was approaching victory in Douma. We are being asked to ignore the fact that the area is crawling with actual, literal terrorists, to ignore the western empire’s extensive history of using lies, propaganda and false flags to manufacture support for military aggression, to ignore the extremely suspicious western funding and terrorist ties of the White Helmets who are circulating these photos and information, and to ignore the fact that Syria has been a target of imperialist regime change for many years. We are being asked to ignore all that and believe instead that Assad spontaneously began acting against his own self-interest so that he could kill children for no discernible reason.

It says so much about the power of western media psyops that this has a strong chance of being believed.

There have been reports from the Russian government in the last few weeks claiming they have received intel that the US and its terrorist lackeys in Syria are preparing a major chemical weapons attack in southern Syria for the purposes of implicating Assad. Since a major chemical weapons attack in southern Syria appears to be what we are seeing, this could mean one of two things: either the Russians and Syrians just really, really wanted to kill some babies and planted a preemptive narrative to blame the US for it, or there was indeed a false flag planned and carried out by terrorist forces in some degree of coordination with the US government.

This is still early on, and it remains to be seen where this is headed, but I wanted to sound the alarm now for all the clear-eyed rebels out there in case this is used as justification for a NATO military campaign against the Syrian government. The western empire has been trying to get its talons into Iraq’s next-door neighbor for a long time now, and it appears to have set up the most sophisticated psyops campaign in modern history to advance that agenda.

The very first thing I'd do if I witnessed my neighbors being killed with poison gas is start tagging neoconservative Atlantic Council propagandists on Twitter.

 — @caitoz

In my opinion, the US and its allies preference chemical weapons false flags because there’s not much else they can accuse a disobedient government of doing that they themselves don’t do constantly. They can’t accuse Assad of simply using conventional munitions to kill civilians, because the US kills civilians with conventional munitions every day. It’s got to be a reviled and internationally banned weapon that makes for gruesome photographs to plaster on screens throughout the world.

Nobody was ever punished for the Iraq invasion. A million people dead over lies, and nobody responsible for it suffered any consequences at all. No changes whatsoever were made to prevent such a great evil from being inflicted upon our world again. This is because the western empire never had any intention of changing, and has every intention of repeating those same evils in any way it can.

Stay skeptical.


Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



5 Compelling Reasons Why The Youtube Shooting Has Disappeared From Headlines



(TFTP) Breaking news alerts announcing reports of a shooting at YouTube’s headquarters quickly faded from the spotlight and out of the news cycle—and there are a number of imperative reasons why the rampage initiated by a woman who injured three people and then killed herself, has not been used to push the mainstream’s media obsession with gun control.

Here are 5 compelling reasons why the YouTube shooting has disappeared from headlines:

1. As a woman, a peaceful vegan, and a PETA advocate, the suspected shooter is the opposite of the typical “mass shooter” profile promoted by the mainstream media.

When the suspected shooter was identified as Nasim Najafi Aghdam—a 39-year-old woman attempting to carry out a mass shooting when the overwhelming majority of mass shooting suspects are typically men in their early 20s, it may have seemed as though she would actually receive more media attention than most.

However, Aghdam does not appear to have been a white supremacist, a crazy conspiracy theorist, or a religious cult member. Instead, she was a vegan YouTube content creator with a long list of bizarre videos and a passion for animal rights. Despite being Iranian-American, which would excite neocons who are hungry for war with Iran, it does not appear that Aghdam had a political motive or was affiliated with any terrorist groups.

2. The shooter reportedly used a handgun, which also deviates from the mainstream narrative that all mass shooters use high-powered rifles.

Aghdam’s weapon of choice was a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun, which she purchased legally in January. While Bloomberg attempted to blame Smith & Wesson by noting that the company’s AR-15 was the gun used in the Parkland shooting, the fact is that the weapon Aghdam used does not fit the narrative of dangerous firearms pushed by the mainstream media.

To attempt to ban a 9mm handgun would be almost impossible, but to attempt to ban a firearm that has been demonized and referred to as an “assault rifle” used in a number of mass shootings, is something the media has been working towards for years. While it is estimated that more than 8 million Americans own AR-15’s, it has not stopped the mainstream media from openly calling for a ban on “assault rifles” and attempting to explain Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America’s deadliest mass shootings.”

3. The shooting happened in California—a state that has already enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

When a mass shooting occurs, one of the first things the mainstream media and gun control advocates tend to do—after blaming the weapon—is to look at the location where the shooting took place and how that state’s gun laws can be tightened to prevent another attack.

In this case, the shooting happened in San Bruno, California, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. As a “May Issue” state, California issues concealed handgun permits to individuals at the discretion of the local sheriff, and restrictions can be based on where that permit can be used in the state itself. California also requires all guns to be registered, and it does not honor permits from any other states.

4. The police were warned about the shooting by the suspect’s father in advance, and they did nothing—something the media tends to cover up.

One day before Nasim Aghdam entered YouTube’s headquarters and opened fire on innocent employees, her father contacted police to report that she was missing, and warned that she may be planning an attack on YouTube. Ismail Aghdam said “she was angry” because YouTube “stopped everything” in terms of monetizing her videos, and he warned police that his daughter may be trying to attack YouTube because she “hated” the company.

While police reportedly found Nasim Aghdam sleeping in a car at 2 a.m. on the morning of the shooting, it is not clear why greater surveillance measures were not taken at YouTube’s headquarters, or how long the attack lasted before Aghdam took her own life and police arrived at the scene.

5. The shooter blamed YouTube for censoring and demonetizing her videos—a problem alternative content creators experience on a daily basis that mainstream media tries to pretend doesn’t exist.

As her father noted, Nasim Aghdam was overwhelmingly angry with YouTube for demonetizing her videos and she believed that the platform was intentionally censoring her work. On her website, Aghdam wrote, “There is no free speech in the real world and you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not supported by the system. Videos of targeted users are filtered and merely relegated so that people can hardly see their videos.”

While most content creators who have had their channels demonetized by the giant platform would never dream of going to its headquarters and attacking innocent employees, the fact is that YouTube does have a serious ongoing problem.

As The Free Thought Project has reported, while YouTube has ignored ISIS recruiting videos, it has chosen to label videos that show the United States committing war crimes, conducting airstrikes that kill innocent civilians and aiding the enemies it claims to be fighting as “extremist content” that is banned from the site.

The platform has also started openly targeting smaller channels by demonetizing them and removing the incentive for the creators to continue to attempt to grow their channels.

While there is no way to defend Nasim Aghdam’s actions, there are a number of glaring reasons why the shooting she carried out has been blacklisted by the mainstream media, as it does not fit the typical narrative and can hardly be used to rally against one race or religion, or to call for increased gun control.

Facebook | YouTube | Twitter | Instagram | Steemit | Patreon


Bill Maher to Geraldo Rivera: “I looked up to you”


Bill Mahe

Bill Maher (Credit: Youtube/Real Time with Bill Maher)

Sean Hannity and Jimmy Kimmel aren’t the only television hosts feuding this week. On “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the titular talk show host Bill Maher pressed guest Geraldo Rivera, trying to get answers as to how his journalistic career led him to Fox News–and why he’s still friends with Donald Trump.

As Maher pointed out, Rivera was once a “crusading” reporter. Indeed, he won a Peabody Award for exposing abuse at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island in the 1970s. Rivera was visiting the show which aired on Friday night to promote his new book Rivera, “The Geraldo Show: A Memoir.”

“You were one of the original crusading reporters and you care very much about your legacy being as a journalist, so I do have to ask: Why Fox News?” Maher asked right away.

Rivera seriously responded, “that’s a fair question.”

“I think your characterization of Fox is a stereotype, with all due respect” Rivera continued. “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-immigration reform, I’m pro-gun reform, and I’m on Fox News. It’s easy, because Sean Hannity, for instance, is such a big personality, to say that he represents the sum total of Fox, but I think that, with due respect, there are more voices. It’s not state-run TV, it’s conservative-leaning.”

Rivera suggested that MSNBC is left-leaning, perhaps a counterpart to Fox News.

“But there is a big difference between MSNBC and Fox News. I mean, MSNBC sticks to the truth. They don’t make things up,” Maher said. “There’s a loop going on between Trump and Fox News, would you admit to that? I mean, what does he do all morning? He doesn’t come down to work till 11. He’s there doing his hair, watching Fox & Friends, and then he quotes from Fox & Friends—our policy seems to be coming from Fox & Friends—and then he’ll say something crazy, and then they’ll back it up.”

“I’m still stuck on your saying MSNBC is the truth,” Rivera replied.

“No, I’m saying they don’t make things up,” Maher refuted.

What’s an argument without a concrete example? Rivera pointed to “Russia collusion” as one. “Where’s the collusion?” he asked.

This is when Maher got really frustrated.

“That’s what the investigation is about and the report isn’t in yet,” Maher said. “I’m not saying it’s definitely collusion, but you can’t say it’s an illusion until the report comes out. Would you agree to that?”

Rivera had a different take on the situation.

“I say that anybody who views the witnesses who have been interviewed, the indictments that have come down, the scope of the investigation so far has to come to the conclusion that there’s nothing there yet,” Rivera argued,.

Maher interrupted him and said: “Everyone in this administration has been talking to Russia.”

“You would blame them if they had Russian dressing on their salad,” Rivera replied.

“See, this is what I don’t get: I remember thinking of you as a crusading reporter who was fighting against the spin. I feel like now you are the spin,” Maher said.

“That’s so bull,” Rivera said.

The two continued to bicker for a few minutes, then Maher asked Rivera: “Is Trump dirty or is [Robert] Mueller dirty?” He asked because he said that Fox has been trying to frame Robert Mueller as the corrupt one in the probe.

Rivera said that he keeps policies and politics separate from his relationship with Trump. He said Trump is his friend–and has been for 40 years.

“I can separate the man who’s always been gracious to me, always been nice to my family, we were on Celebrity Apprentice every day together for over six weeks,” Rivera said.

“Who gives a sh** if he was nice to you at Thanksgiving, Geraldo? I’m not trying to be an a**hole to you. You’re a smart guy. This befuddles me. I looked up to you,” Maher said.

“If you don’t look up to me because I’m still friends with the President of the United States, then shame on you,” Rivera refuted. “My friendship with Trump doesn’t diminish me.”

“I don’t look up to you because the President of the United States is doing the things he’s doing,” Maher replied.

You can watch the whole clip here:


"You have to be brain-dead or you have to have an agenda" to believe US in Syria for democracy - Eva Bartlett on Redacted Tonight



The US should, but likely won't, pull out of Syria soon, independent journalist Eva Bartlett told RT's Lee Camp. She added that you have to be "brain-dead" to believe the myths used by the US to justify the conflict. Comedy show Redacted Tonight hosted by Lee Camp strikes a more serious tone in its special interview editions. This week he spoke with Bartlett - whose extensive reporting from inside Syria has challenged mainstream coverage of the conflict - about what the US is doing in Syria, the human cost of "bringing democracy" to the Middle East, and the many myths used by the West to justify its involvement in the war. US President Donald Trump's recent comments about wanting to bring home US forces currently operating in Syria caused an uproar in Washington and the media. Administration officials quickly clarified that while an immediate withdrawal was not being seriously considered, Trump was opposed to maintaining a long-term presence in the country.


Friday, April 6, 2018

US Isn’t Leaving Syria—but Media Lost It When Possibility Was Raised

Independent: US troops will remain in Syria despite Trump telling rally he ‘wanted’ to bring them home

The White House made clear that Trump’s talk of pulling out of Syria was just talk (Independent, 4/4/18)–but not before numerous media figures expressed alarm that the illegal occupation might end.

At a rally in Cleveland last week, President Donald Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria (Washington Post, 10/31/17) will in fact stay in Syria (Independent, 4/4/18), even though keeping troops in another country in defiance of that country’s government is a violation of international law. Yet the very possibility of US withdrawal from Syria rendered apoplectic journalists who are convinced of the legitimacy of Washington’s domination of the country—international law be damned.

Some writers want America to occupy Syria to weaken Russia. In the Washington Post (3/30/18), Josh Rogin claimed that “there are a lot of good arguments for maintaining an American presence in Syria after the fall of the Islamic State,” but stressed that the “larger US mission in Syria” was necessary for “stopping Russia from exerting influence over the region.”

Michael Gerson, writing in the same paper (4/2/18), was concerned that a US departure “would leave Russia as the undisputed power broker at the heart of the Middle East,” a dubious claim in a region that includes Saudi Arabia (whose military budget by some counts exceeds Russia’s) as well as nuclear-armed Israel, both close US allies.

CNN ran two articles that made the same point about Russia, with Dan Merica and Jim Acosta (3/30/18) writing “Trump Promise to Get Out of Syria ‘Very Soon’ Could Be a Win for Russia,” and Zachary Cohen and Ryan Browne (3/31/18) telling readers “that most foreign policy experts agree that” the void left by US forces in the event of a withdrawal “would likely be filled by Russia.” The Syrian government’s alliance with Russia supposedly justifies Washington’s occupying Syria, in defiance of international law. Partnership with Russia is unacceptable; only submission to the US is permissible.

Moreover, Gerson fretted, a US pull out “would cede [Syrian] oil fields under the control of US-allied forces,” an intolerable outcome if one accepts that the US is the rightful owner of other countries’ resources.

WaPo: In Syria, We 'Took the Oil.' Now Trump Wants to Give It to Iran

“The United States and its partners control almost all of the oil” in Syria, writes the Washington Post (3/30/18). “And if the United States leaves, that oil will likely fall into the hands of Iran.”

Rogin worried that “if the United States leaves, [Syria’s] oil will likely fall into the hands of Iran.” What he described is the possibility that the Syrian and Iranian alliance could lead to an arrangement wherein Iranians have access to some amount of Syria’s oil, the type of agreement between states that exists the world over. The prospect of two states in the Global South working together in this fashion alarms Rogin, who therefore calls for America to maintain control over Syrian oil. He said Trump should

remember that he has constantly complained that in Iraq, “We should have kept the oil.” Of course, we can’t and shouldn’t take or keep Syria’s oil. But there’s a grain of truth in Trump’s idea. Control over oil is the only influence we have in Syria today.

Apparently Iran has no right to make use of Syria’s oil, even if the Syrian government agrees to that, but the US has a right to “control” Syria’s oil irrespective of the wishes of Syrians.

Several reporters argued that the US should continue an illegal military occupation of Syria as a cudgel against Iran. Rogin said that American forces should stay in Syria to guard against “Iranian expansionism,” without explaining what he means by “expansionism” or offering any evidence that it’s taking place. Gerson, similarly, contended that taking US troops out of Syria “would reward Iran’s search for regional hegemony,” and would amount to “surrender[ing] Syria to Iran.”

Rogin continued:

In May, Trump is expected to pull the United States out of the Iran deal, meaning that he will reimpose US sanctions on Iranian oil. It would be profoundly counterproductive to hand Iran control over a swath of Syria that contains huge amounts of oil at the exact same time.

Cohen and Browne likewise suggested that Syria should continue to serve America’s proxy war against Iran, writing,

If the US were to leave its base located at the At Tanf garrison in southeastern Syria, Iran would be able to secure its overland route from Damascus to Tehran, further securing its regional influence.

Such approaches devalue the lives of Syrians, who are cast not as humans with intrinsic value and rights to self-determination and self-governance, but as pieces on a geopolitical chessboard that America can use as it sees fit to try to outmaneuver Russia and Iran.

CNN: Trump Promise to Get Out of Syria 'Very Soon' Could Be a Win for Russia

CNN (3/30/18) warned US withdrawal from Syria could help the Russians by “mak[ing] their job of combating forces hostile to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad considerably easier.”

Another common theme in reporting was the idea that US forces need to stay in Syria to keep the war in that country from getting worse. Rogin claimed that the US military presence in Syria is about “preventing a new refugee crisis.” Gerson declared that “the immediate result of an American withdrawal would be a major escalation of the conflict in eastern Syria.” Cohen and Browne said that the possibility of American forces leaving Syria

is raising concerns among some national security officials who warn that withdrawing now would not only undermine American credibility in the region but prompt a significant escalation to an already devastating conflict.

But the US military exists to fight wars. It is the most heavily armed, most violent organization in the world. Saying that it should continue to occupy Syria is a way of saying that the war in that country should continue. In fact, it’s a call for escalation of that war, because eventually the Syrian government will want to reclaim the portion of its country America controls, and that will mean a military confrontation with the US. The US has already killed fighters allied with the Syrian government who the US claimed were trying to take back land from the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (Reuters, 2/7/18).

Underlying all of these positions is the assumption that the United States has the right to determine Syria’s future. Merica and Acosta explicitly worried that removing US troops from Syria would interfere with regime change efforts: “A US withdrawal would make [Russia’s] job of combating forces hostile to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad considerably easier.” Cohen and Browne were troubled that “the Syrian regime could also benefit from the economic advantages of seizing oilfields currently controlled by US-backed allies.”

According to this perspective, US allies are entitled to Syrian oil, while it’s a frightening possibility that the Syrian government might use Syrian resources to strengthen the Syrian economy, which has been ravaged by war and Western sanctions, with profound effects on the Syrian population.

Rogin says that “fighting extremism” is one purpose of America’s presence in Syria, and Cohen and Browne warn that “a US withdrawal could help ISIS”—despite the fact that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and US policies throughout the Syrian war were central to the birth and proliferation of ISIS and comparable organizations (Extra!, 11/14; Jacobin, 3/29/16; Newsweek, 12/14/17).

That Syrians might not want to be occupied by the US is never considered in any of these articles, such is the extent of the authors’ imperial hubris.



Homeland Security to compile database of journalists and ‘media influencers’

You’ve Been Hoodwinked. (Perhaps.) | Sharyl Attkisson

You’ve Been Hoodwinked. (Perhaps.) | Sharyl Attkisson:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

As the Knowledge Gap Grows, so Does the Civility Gap

The Divine Frenzy of Feminism

In demanding obeisance to temperamental fury at the expense of the principle of order, feminists and their allies have unleashed a storm of discontent, resentment, misrule, and social turmoil.


Has Mueller Already Been Subpoenaed in a Re-Impaneled Uranium One Investigation?


As the time seems ripe, we revisit here Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert’s (R) much ridiculed Uranium One chart presented at The House Judiciary Committee Committee Oversight hearing on November 14, 2017.

Just prior to this hearing at a November 7th press conference, Gohmert had argued for Independent Counsel Robert Mueller’s dismissal on the grounds that he was, “engaged in the cover-up of the initial Russian investigation that revealed Russia was trying to corner the market on uranium.”

Demands for Mueller’s dismissal have come from a variety of sources. In a November 9th Fox News interview, Congressman Jim Jordan echoed his Texas colleague, saying, “Robert Mueller, I think, in light of what we’ve also recently learned, relative to the Uranium One Deal, surely seems a bit compromised to me.”

As for the chart, even Stephen Colbert took a satiric swing. Colbert, by the way, is the same guy who ridiculed President Trump for tweeting he’d been wiretapped by his predecessor at Trump Tower. Guffaw, guffaw. (“This is a serious allegation. This may be the most serious allegation any President has ever made against a previous President”; see 2:23 here).

Colbert’s right for once. The wiretap allegation is off-the-charts serious. It’s even more off-the-charts because Obama did wiretap Trump. We await the vetted contrition monologue from Little Stevie’s Operation Mockingbird handlers. Stay tuned.

The devil lies not in the details or in a gleeful picking apart of the chart’s spaghetti loops and half-nelsons, though its detractors had great fun doing just that. Like the Nazca lines, the true import of the chart strikes the observer at the highest altitudes, in its powerful conveyance of the sprawling immensity of an interlocking corruption that seemed to travel in a business-as-usual manner with the day-to-day workings of the Obama Administration.

While the rightful focus of concern and alarm should be (and will be increasingly in the coming weeks and months) focused on the Obama/Clinton end of Russian collusion and more, misgivings are not easily dispelled (for this writer) that the real, long-term problem for the Republic is systemic, not episodic or of narrow political motive.

Now that the Deep State has been compelled, out of a heightened sense of self-preservation, to surface for the knife fight of its life, partisanship resembles more of the Quigley-esque sham that it always was. Let’s keep it simple. Practically everyone with a stake in power regardless of party affiliation (what The Conservative Treehouse has taken to calling the Uniparty) sans perhaps the military and Admiral Rogers’ NSA is arrayed against Trump.

Trump is an interloper who parachuted in. Whereas the rest of them spent years on their backs atop lobbyist-installed mattresses getting to where they got. Make no mistake. Ryan and McConnell hate Trump with a venom (born of self-loathing) that exceeds the Democratic leadership’s less covert disdain.

However, transcending even this epic struggle is the reality that influence-peddling has become the oxygen that makes things go. Institutional trespasses have been committed whose precedential gravity (in a cultural sense) are not easily undone. No one wants to see the whole Obama-Clinton in leg-irons more than this writer. Without doubt, they were delivering us into a globalist hellhole. However globalism is a millennia-long project. While Trumpism might succeed as a powerful cleansing agent, the salutary effects will be short-lived. This obligates us no less to pursue them.

Fortunately for us, the particular flavor of hubris we faced was self-congratulatory overconfidence. They thought they’d already reached home-base where treason and sedition no longer applied. In fact they were only on third base and Trump tagged them out. How else to explain their gratuitous carelessness, the endless reams of emails and messages? And may we say, thank G-d for those endless reams.

Nor should the aggressive prosecution of crimes be hindered in the least by the concern similar crimes are bound to be committed in the future by a system that is, sadly, wed to malfeasance of one sort or another. That would be ridiculous.

Still, in some troubling sense, the System has become the Conspiracy. The Disease has become the Patient. Justice is asymmetrically surrounded and opposed by an ethos of evil. Without doubt, the only effective cure will be one that nearly the kills the patient. Is the nation ready for this? We need a Truth and Reconciliation process so wrenching, so soul-searching and so universally accusatory that it risks the very real prospect of civil war. Nothing less will do.

After arguing away the chart’s details, it’s time to summon one back. That’s Robert Mueller, surprise, surprise. The Congressmen are right to belabor his profound unsuitability. For, more than anyone else (the others have by and large relinquished formal power) he still exerts profound influence over the course of the nation’s business and future. (Mueller’s name can be found on the upper-right-hand-side of the chart.)

First, there’s the obvious. How can an active participant in a potentially criminal enterprise be trusted to beat the truth out of himself no matter where that truth might lead, while simultaneously conducting the business of Independent Counsel over the same potentially criminal enterprise? Is Mueller capable of asking Mueller, perhaps with the assistance of his shaving mirror, What did I/you know and when did I/you know it? 


Finally, if the Sessions recusal does little more than inject yet another layer of potential compromise, how has the process benefited from the recusal? An IC appointment should shed conflicts, not pile more on.

But wait. Perhaps we fret in vain.

While many may question Mueller’s ability to render a comprehensive Russian collusion investigation in all its trans-party, myriad permutations, is he technically compromised, in this instance, from fulfilling what amounts to a rather narrow mandate as Special Counsel?

That answer appears to be no, provided one agrees with the narrow part. But narrow it seems to be.

Citing Paul Manafort’s motion earlier this week to dismiss all charges against him on the grounds that anything not related to the 2016 campaign falls outside the scope of AG Session’s recusal and thus outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate, Robert Barnes offers this:

“Sessions only recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions’ recusal to the 2016 campaigns; it does not authorize Sessions’ recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a “duty to direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the “campaigns for President.”

Using the same logic, shouldn’t Mueller –compromise notwithstanding– be precluded anyway from investigating Uranium One since the latter does not fall within AG Sessions’ recusal parameters? (Hold the wild horses. Little horsepower is needed to pull Mueller away from anything that smacks of the Democratic collusion narrative. Even Bigfoot’s been caught up in Mueller’s impervious net.) For the moment, while it remains to be seen whether the Manafort motion bears fruit, the ramifications could prove to be wide-ranging, if not fatal, to the Mueller probe.

But if not Mueller, then who for all the other ‘non-Trump’ stuff? Sessions’ authority, when not otherwise bound by recusal, is implicitly delegated to his DOJ line-staff.

So how about US Attorney for the Arkansas Eastern District, Corey Hiland, a September 2017 Trump appointee? Though there’s little corroborating evidence anywhere else, a Yournewswirearticle suggests that is precisely what has happened. A Little Rock Grand Jury ‘reportedly’ has been impaneled. Let us see.

And, while it may not be emanating out of Arkansas, the January 2018 indictment of the Maryland transportation company executive for bribing the sole supplier and exporter of Russian uranium suggests some recent movement on the Uranium One front.

Were Hiland to resuscitate the Clinton Foundation, lost email and pay-for-play investigations, there’s no shortage of sealed subpoenas within DOJ left over from the last guy who took a crack, US Attorney Dana Boente, before the plug was pulled.

As tireless cataloger-of-Clinton-Foundation-abuse Charles Ortel reminds us (here at 0:56) that a Grand Jury was convened in the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2015 under Boente’s supervision. Surely this aborted investigation could be resumed, with its significant inheritance of evidentiary material, this time under Hiland’s aegis, if it hasn’t already?

While there are tantalizing indications on the Internet about a re-opened Clinton Foundation investigation in Little Rock (See WSJ here), the impaneling of a Grand Jury has not been confirmed. Keep in mind that this, in itself, would not be unusual given the stealth and secrecy of such proceedings especially in high-visibility cases.

As for the clamoring among Republican Congresspeople for a ‘second Special Counsel’, even they would be unaware that an impaneled Grand Jury was already in existence given the secrecy afforded such executive branch actions. The indispensable Conservative Treehouse has been alone in pointing out this Congressional blind-spot (which seems to befuddle even Republican Congresspeople; see Rep. Darrell Issa just this past Sunday), as it has been alone on so many breakthroughs throughout this saga.

Nonetheless curious scenarios spring to mind. For example, what if Mueller has already been subpoenaed before an Arkansas Grand Jury to answer questions about his role in Uranium One? The Gohmert chart argues that, if such a Jury exists, then by all rights he should be.

Prepare to expect the unexpected as the collusion boomerang enters its return arc. The Pasture of the Brazen Blue Donkey lies dead in its sights.


Sunday, April 1, 2018

Whistle-Blowers, not “Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy Theorists”


For decades, military officers, government officials, bankers, law enforcement agents, newscasters, scholars, and other credible witnesses have corroborated the alternative media

This post is intended to be viewer-friendly; it consists entirely of quote banners and short video clips; the clips, on average, are under 5 minutes, and none are as long as 15.

America Is an Oligarchy

BBC News, April 17, 2014:

(The BBC post is here and the Princeton study here.)

There are many ways to subvert the “will of the people,” but electronic voting has made it easier than ever. Programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis testifies before the Ohio state legislature:

Even former President Jimmy Carter says the U.S. is now an oligarchy:

The Federal Reserve

Secret creation of Federal Reserve by private bankers in 1910

The Fed is the handmaiden of private banking interests:

It’s not just the Fed; the central banking hierarchy is international in scope:

War Is a Racket 

(It is well worth reading Maj. General Butler’s book War Is a Racket, freely available online.)

The sinking of the Lusitania, primary event that led the U.S. into World War I

For a vetting of the Lusitania incident, see this author’s post.

Pearl Harbor

An attack that was provoked:

The attack was foreknown in Washington:

Gen. Walter C. Short, U.S. Army commander at Pearl Harbor, testifies:

Admiral Husband Kimmel, Pacific Fleet commander at Pearl Harbor, testifies:


For a vetting of the Pearl Harbor tragedy, see this author’s post.

The 1964 “Tonkin Gulf Incident” that served as a pretext for escalating the Vietnam War: 

 Israel‘s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty

Captain Boston’s full declaration may be read here and my post on the Liberty is here. 

Reagan bombs Libya in 1986 based on a Mossad deception:


Dr. Bob Bowman:

Could the hijackers have hit their targets as claimed? Let’s turn to Pilots for 9//11 Truth:

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret.):

A longer interview with General Stubblebine may be viewed here.

Pentagon eyewitness April Gallup:

Ted Gunderson of the FBI:

A list (with elaboration and quotations) of 220 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government officials who question the 9/11 Commission Report can be found here.

The Middle East wars: pre-planned

General Wesley Clarke, former supreme commander of NATO:

In an interview four years before the invasion of Iraq, Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector in that nation, affirmed Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction:

The oligarchy is global; watch the prime ministers of Australia and Canada in 2003 giving identical speeches on the need for war on Iraq:

Israeli/Zionist/AIPAC Influence on U.S. Government 

Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman representing Georgia for six terms:

Jim Trafficant, U.S. Congressman for Ohio for 17 years until he was imprisoned on trumped-up charges:

The Shah of Iran in 1976; the interview said to have resulted in his downfall:

Most terrorist attacks are false flags staged by intelligence services

Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele:

The full Steele interview may be found here.

Former Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul discusses report that the U.S. created ISIS in order to destabilize the Syrian government. (At 13 minutes, this is one of our longest clips, but I consider it worth hearing for its many insights into U.S. policy in the Middle East):

Why we don’t hear more about these matters: media control 

Fox reporters for The Investigators describe how they lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth about Monsanto:

Former CNN reporter Amber Lyon on censorship in the corporate media:

CIA Director William Colby reluctantly admits that his agency influences the news media during the 1975 Senate Intelligence hearing (the Church Committee):

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, reveals how the CIA still controls foreign journalists:

Even President George W. Bush conceded that government-produced videos are aired on TV as “news”:

Former CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson on how corporate interests manipulate information, including the Internet and Wikipedia:

The goal is World Government:

Aaron Russo was a Hollywood producer-director (Trading Places, The Rose), six of whose projects received Oscar nominations. Russo ran for governor of Nevada in 1998, finishing second in the Republican primary. Before his death in 2007, he gave an interview detailing his relationship with Nick Rockefeller, from whom he learned many details about the “New World Order”: the plan to chip people, the CFR, foreknowledge of 9/11, the fake war on terror, and much more.

The full Russo interview is here.

In case you’re wondering what the Council on Foreign Relations is, it’s the bridge by which the U.S. oligarchy supplies cabinet-level personnel to Washington. Since its founding in 1921, the CFR has produced 19 Secretaries of State, 21 Treasury Secretaries, 23 Defense Secretaries, and 16 CIA Directors. It is the subject of my 1988 book The Shadows of Power.

The New World Order is Luciferian  

Dutch banker Ronald Bernard, for years an elite currency manipulator, has confirmed from his own experience that a small oligarchy runs the world; and that megabanks are immersed in wars, terrorism, and the activities of intelligence services. Perhaps most importantly, he reveals that those at the top are Luciferians. His full interview can be viewed here, but I recommend starting with this encapsulation:

This post has necessarily used bits of information that are disjointed and that do not cohesively provide the complete picture.  For an organized, comprehensive overview of the international oligarchy, its history and its plan for a satanic world government, I recommend reading my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.


(Note: For vaccine whistle-blowers, see my recent post Vaccination Visuals. )


Filed under: Miscellaneous Tagged: 9/11, AIPAC, CFR, conspiracy, Council on Foreign Relations, False Flags, Federal Reserve, globalism, Israel, Luciferianism, Lusitania, mainstream media, Middle East, oligarchy, Pearl Harbor, terrorism, Tonkin Gulf, wars, whistle-blowers, world government, Zionism


“12 Angry Men” and the Truth Movement


Still being in the midst of a more challenging post, I decided to take this short break.

12 Angry Men was a classic, well-acted 1957 film about a jury deciding the verdict in a murder trial. Because some of my readers won’t have seen it, I’ll leave a link at the bottom to a site where it can be watched for free, and I’ll avoid writing “spoilers.”

This film, which still holds up after 60 years, features many themes that resonate —for me, at least—with relevance to today’s Truth Movement. These include:

• Not caving in to peer pressure, even if it means standing alone. I don’t think I know a Truther who doesn’t identify with this challenge.

• Reaching a verdict based solely on objective evidence, not prejudicial thinking. How many battles have we fought on this basis, not only with others, but with ourselves? Often these prejudices are ones implanted by the mainstream media.

• Having the courage to change one’s mind and admit having been wrong. This is  difficult to do, but it’s vital to navigating a path of truth.

• Using critical thinking to establish facts, and going where the evidence leads, instead of simply relying on authorities. In 12 Angry Men, the jury works out many truths about the case, rather than depending on the authority of the judicial system’s paid attorneys­—and they do a better job. Likewise, even though we disagree among ourselves on some details, we in 9/11 Truth have labored toward analytically establishing the facts of September 11, 2001, instead of blindly accepting the government’s explanation.

• Caring about others. In the film, one character, played by Jack Warden, is willing to vote either way, just so long as he can make a baseball game he has tickets for. The game is more important to him than the fate of the accused, whose life is hanging in the balance. He reminds me of people we encounter today, who are far more concerned with sports scores than with the growing surveillance state, or the victims and trillion-dollar expense of the contrived wars we are waging in the Middle East.

• Upholding the Constitution. 12 Angry Men specifically cites Constitutional principles. Today, few people seem to know, or care, about their own rapidly eroding Constitutional rights.

• Validating the jury system itself. While I can’t prove it, I suspect that certain inordinately high-profile jury cases, such as the Casey Anthony trial, might have been tampered with in order to outrage the public into concluding that “the jury system doesn’t work” and “we should leave verdicts in the hands of judges (after all, they’re legal experts) instead of laymen.” THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE DEEP STATE WANTS: POLITICALLY APPOINTED JUDGES, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, HAVING AUTHORITY TO INCARCERATE ANYONE UPON WHIM OF THE STATE. The jury approach not only ensures that both sides of a case are heard, but that a verdict is decided by individuals with no ulterior motives. This system may not be perfect, but it sure beats whatever’s in second place.

Trivia notes: According to the Internet Movie Database, screenwriter Reginald Rose became inspired to script this film after he himself was a member of a jury that battled for eight hours to reach a verdict.

Of course, not everyone will enjoy 12 Angry Men; younger viewers may consider it too old or talky. Perhaps some of the film’s depictions of prejudice are slightly overdrawn, subtly hinting of political correctness. (Twenty years later, however, Rose wrote the script for one of the most politically incorrect films to fly under Hollywood’s radar screen: The Wild Geese. No one would ever guess the same man wrote both films, since The Wild Geese—on the surface—was a violent action/adventure flick. But the action concealed some geopolitical undercurrents, including a scheming Rothschild-like international banker, who betrays the men attempting to rescue an African leader based on Moise Tshombe, ill-fated Christian president of the breakaway state of Katanga.)

I would love to embed 12 Angry Men right here, but to avoid any copyright issue, I refer my readers to the version which you can click-and-play at The sound and image quality are good.