Thursday, January 9, 2020

Hannity, Levin, Jones Push for Mass Murder and War Crimes


Trump adviser Sean Hannity is calling for the president to use “the full force of the greatest, most advanced, most sophisticated military this world has ever seen” to flatten Iran and engage in the mass murder of Iranian civilians. 

He is not alone. It appears many alt-righters are calling for war crimes, including talk show performance artist Alex Jones. 

I received an email this morning from an Infowars watcher who says Alex Jones declared at the outset of his show today its OK for the USG to assassinate foreign leaders. Once upon a time, Alex Jones pretended to be a defender of the Constitution and the rule of law, but now that his guy is president, Jones is a reformulated neocon. 

Meanwhile, Republicans are coming out of the woodwork in an effort to outdo each other in blaming Iran for past terrorist attacks. 

Amazing to listen to GOP talking points right now on Soleimani:

Rep. Scott Perry blames Soleimani personally for 1983 attack on Marine barracks in Beirut (he was 25 years old at the time) and for Khobar Towers, an Al Qaeda attack falsely blamed in Iran.

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 9, 2020

Rep. Scott, like his president, is a geopolitical ignoramus. Soleimani had nothing to do with the bombing in Saudi Arabia. Initially, the blame was placed on “Saudi Islamic militants, including many veterans of the Afghan War,” according to The New York Times. 

The FBI eventually blamed Iran, as required by political expediency. What is forgotten here is that the FBI did this to derail Bill Clinton’s thawing of relations with Iran and its then-president, Mohammad Khatami. Ever since, the US has blamed Iran and its “proxy,” Hezbollah for all manner of evil in the Middle East. 

Never mind that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili, admitted at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to blame any group or individual. 

In 2001, an indictment was issued in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia charging members of both the Lebanese and Saudi versions of Hezbollah for the attack. Eight Saudis were also charged. The 9/11 whitewash commission bent over backward to blame Osama bin Laden. Soleimani was not mentioned. 

In fact, at the time, Soleimani was the IRGC commander in Kerman Province. He was busy fighting the Kurds. He didn’t become Quds commander until 1998, two years after the Khobar Towers bombing. 

William Perry, Clinton’s Sec. of Defense, was confused about where the blame should be pinned—on al-Qaeda or Iran. During a June 2007 interview Perry, however, said: “he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.”

By 2006, it was official. The high court judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were directly responsible for the attack, never mind the absence of evidence (this is now a routine practice). 

None of this is relevant now that Republicans are demanding full-fledged war on Iran, thus potentially soon providing Israel with a belated Hanukkah and Asarah B’Tevet present. 

Iran’s Mullahs Should Brace for Impact #IranAttacks

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) January 8, 2020

“Iran launched an attack against our brave men and women in the region,” said the talk show host. “For years, since 1979, they’ve been at war with us.” 

In fact, these “brave men and women” are illegally and violently occupying a country that never threatened America or the US government. Hannity the historical and geopolitical retard did not mention the fact widespread hatred of the USG by average Iranians is the result of Eisenhower and the Brits overthrowing the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq, and then installing the Shah and his CIA and Mossad trained SAVAK secret police. 

‘Iran is the culprit, not the victim’: GOP former CIA officer blasts Democrats

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) January 9, 2020

This is precisely why Hannity is cognitively challenged. As history amply demonstrates, the CIA is a far larger threat than Iran or even Russia and China. It is directly responsible for overthrowing Iran’s government. It has a long and extremely bloody track record and is guilty of participating directly and indirectly in the murder of millions of people since its creation as the primary covert terror component of the national security state. 

Next up, the Zionist shill Mark Levin. This “conservative” has turned history upside down with his lies and misinformation. 

Islamonazi Regime

Why does the NY Slimes ignore the atrocities committed by the murderous Iranian Islamonazi regime?

To see more, get LevinTV:

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) January 7, 2020

Iran didn’t have “democracy” under the Shah. It had a brutal dictatorship that tortured and killed political opponents and rivals. As noted above, this was directly supported by the USG and later Israel. (See The Unwritten History Of Israel’s Alliance With The Shah’s Dictatorship.)

Have the mullahs of Iran murdered opponents? You bet. This is something all states do, and the USG and Israel are at the top of the list. However, Iran is not killing US and Israeli scientists or engaging in concerted economic warfare against America and its people. Iran is not bombing its neighbors and stealing their land. It is not assassinating the Joint Chiefs of Staff or neocons advocating bombing Iran (like big-time Israel and Trump booster Sheldon Adelson called for). 

Finally, the son of Trump has provided us with yet another example of the manufactured  war between Republicans and Democrats. 

Will the Democrat Iran fan club in Congress still do whatever they can to cheer-lead for the regime?
My guess is 100% yes, unfortunately.

BBC News – Iran mistakenly shot down Ukraine jet – US media

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 9, 2020

Democrats have a support Iran fan club, according to Junior. This is delusion, hallucination, dishonesty, malfeasance, and the continuation of brazen and stupid lies, the sort of behavior that should be expected from the son of a guy who learned his political chops from his personal lawyer, the miscreant Roy Cohen. 

creatdive commons by-sa_RGB-350x122


New Cambridge Analytica Leaks Reveal Psychological Manipulation Of Global Population

On New Year’s Day 2020, Twitter account @HindsightFiles began posting documents from data firm Cambridge Analytica (CA) which expose the extensive infrastructure used to manipulate voters on a global scale.


On The Idiotic Partisan Debate Over Regime Change In Iran Or Syria

idiotic partisan debate

There is an idiotic partisan debate over whether (US-Zionist) regime change should take place in Iran or Syria – but it’s one and the same agenda.

There is an idiotic partisan debate

occurring right now over whether there should be regime change in Iran or Syria. I love my job. Really, I do. But writing about US military agendas for a living often brings one into contact with such staggering stupidity that all you can do is pause and wonder how our species survived past the invention of the pointy stick. By far the dumbest thing in all of US politics is the fact that Democrats tend to support regime change in Syria, while Republicans tend to support it more in Iran. I am not talking about the elected officials in those parties; I’m talking about the ordinary rank-and-file Joes and Janets who stand absolutely nothing to gain from toppling either Damascus or Tehran, but who have been brainwashed by lifelong media consumption into supporting one or the other anyway.

Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to replace the leadership of Tehran with a compliant puppet regime, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to spend the rest of my time online arguing with Trump supporters and lifelong Republicans. Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to do the same in Syria, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to be arguing predominantly with so-called centrist liberals.

At no time has this ever failed to occur.

I’ve spent the last few days arguing with Trump supporters who are telling me I’m crazy for not celebrating the death of an Iranian general they had no idea existed one week ago, and many of these pro bono State Department propagandists began following my work because they liked what I’ve been saying about Syria.

Conversely, all the fauxgressives and liberal interventionists who spent all last month telling me I’m a monster for writing about leaked OPCW documents showing we were lied to about an alleged 2018 chemical weapons incident have been staying out of my social media notifications completely these past four days.

It is truly bizarre. And it is truly, deeply, profoundly stupid.

It is truly, deeply and profoundly stupid because the agenda to topple Iran’s government and the agenda to topple Syria’s government are not two separate agendas. They are the same. Supporting one while opposing the other is like wanting to shoot someone in the head but being morally opposed to shooting them in the heart.

Syria and Iran are allies. Eliminating one government necessarily hurts the other. Iran has been helping Syria to win the war against foreign-backed extremist proxy fighters who nearly succeeded in toppling Damascus before its allies stepped in, and should Syria succeed in rebuilding itself (something the Trump administration is actively preventing it from doing) we can be sure it would return the favor when called upon.

The US government’s agenda to “take out” all noncompliant governments in the Middle East is completely removed from any consideration for American party politics. It’s one unified agenda, and the more the imperial blob succeeds in weakening any of the remaining unabsorbed nations, the easier it gets to absorb the others.

Supporting regime change in Iran but not Syria, or vice-versa, is for this reason an inherently absurd position to take. If you opposed Obama’s attempt to topple Damascus via Timber Sycamore-armed proxies, it’s absurd for you to support any maneuvers which could lead to the elimination of Syria’s key ally in that fight. If you oppose Trump’s current warmongering toward Iran, it’s absurd for you to support the elimination of one of Iran’s remaining friends in the region.

If Iran falls you may be sure that Syria will fall next, and vice versa. It’s the same box being ticked; you’re just arguing over whether it should be a left-handed or right-handed check mark.

But such is the strength of propaganda. The perception managers of the US war machine have successfully manipulated the voting public into a debate not about whether regime change interventionism should happen, but which regime change intervention should happen first.

In a sense it’s quite brilliant; we may be quite sure that government agency departments responsible for domestic perception management on US foreign policy have discussed this precise dynamic at length. But in another sense it’s quite mundane: the recent Republican presidents have pursued regime change in Iran, while Obama pursued it in Syria, so Republicans support Republican interventions while Democrats support Democratic ones.

This has nothing to do with any substantial difference in these agendas (again, it’s actually one agenda) and everything to do with what each faction can be more easily propagandized toward. Liberal hearts are easier to grab with horror stories about a monster who gasses babies for no reason and less concerned about refugee crises and the persecution of Syrian Christians, while Republicans are much easier to manipulate into despising a theocracy run by Muslims.

And of course there’s overlap; people who prioritize mass murder above all else like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham will cheer enthusiastically for as much military interventionism as they can get in either country (or any country, really). But by and large, especially among the rank-and-file, people tend to support the interventions their respective presidents propagandized them into supporting. Propaganda is pretty much the only thing the presidential “bully pulpit” is used for.

Because Iraq has poisoned the idea, each mainstream faction may deny actually wanting the US to oust the government of Iran or Syria. Trump supporters who still stand by the anti-interventionist platform he falsely campaigned on may say “I don’t want war with Iran, I just want Iranians to get their freedom and I think it’s awesome they killed Solamumi or however you spell it.” Liberals might say “I don’t want interventionism! I just support the Freedom Fighters™ in Idlib and want Assad to stop murdering civilians for fun and sexual gratification.” But circulating propaganda narratives about governments targeted for regime change is supporting regime change. You’re participating in it as surely as if you’d deployed the Tomahawk missiles yourself.

Now we’re being told that none of the millions of people publicly mourning Soleimani do so voluntarily and they all secretly like the fact that America assassinated their country’s top military commander who defended Iran and just defeated ISIS. The propaganda is getting dumber.

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 6, 2020

Yesterday someone told me that everyone at Qassem Soleimani’s incredibly massive funeral procession was attending because they were forced to. When I asked him if he was claiming that every single one of those millions of people were publicly mourning because they’d been literally forced at gunpoint, he told me no: many were forced in the sense that state propaganda was all they’d ever known, so they were psychologically coerced into grieving Soleimani.

“I don’t accept that your ‘state propaganda their whole lives’ model is any more coercive or fascistic than the kind that causes Americans to turn up to pro- and anti-Trump rallies,” I said. “Americans are no less propagandized than Iranians. If anything it’s worse, since Americans don’t know they’re being propagandized.”

“You’ve got it backwards,” he said. “Iranians don’t know they’re being propagandized because they only have one source of information. The U.S. knows it because we have sides screaming it to other sides all the time and the freedom of information and thought to come to our own conclusions.”

“Nonsense,” I replied. “Nearly all Americans are propagandized to the gills. They’re probably the most aggressively propagandized population on earth, just because so much depends on their swallowing propaganda. It’s just a more scientific sort.”

“And yet here we are, talking about it freely without worrying about swallowing a bullet,” he said.

“Here I am arguing with a man who just so happens to be striving very, very hard to convince me to swallow the exact same narrative that Mike Pompeo is trying to convince me to swallow,” I replied.

The greatest asset of the propagandists is the belief that we haven’t been propagandized.

The post On The Idiotic Partisan Debate Over Regime Change In Iran Or Syria appeared first on The Freedom Articles.


Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Michelle Williams: ‘Sometimes You Just Have To Ask Yourself, ‘How Many People Do I Have To Kill To Get An Acting Career?”


Via The Babylon Bee


HOLLYWOOD, CA—At the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday night, Michelle Williams gave an impassioned speech about her acting career, and how if she hadn’t had the ability to knock off a few people, the audience and the viewers at home would have had to suffer an existence without her being an actress.

“You have to do a little math,” Williams said. “Human life, or fame and fortune? Which one has more intrinsic value?” Williams laughed, as did many in the crowd.

Williams was accepting the award for best actress in a limited series or motion picture made for TV for her turn as Gwen Verdon in Fosse/Verdon. “Imagine if this TV series existed with someone else playing this role,” she implored. “I’m sure you will agree, it was worth a few souls being snuffed out. A lot of people die every day. It’s important to keep our priorities straight in this life. I just can’t imagine the horror I would have had to endure if I’d allowed those lives to be lived. Even to put them up for adoption would have been too much of a hassle. I had acting classes to get to.”

She argued that in the end, she had made the humane choice not just for herself, but for the children who didn’t have the right to exist anyway. “Imagine the suffering my previous kids would have felt every day knowing that their own existence had robbed their mother of something of much higher meaning and worth than their lives could ever amount to. This award right here, this is what life is all about. I could never allow my children to live knowing they robbed of this. If they could thank me, they would.”

Williams was visibly pregnant during the speech and took the opportunity to speak about her decision to let this one live. “I’m just thankful we live in a culture where we can define human life according to our own whims. I’m blessed to have had my cake and I got to eat it too. I offed a kid or two, got rich and famous, and now I can finally allow one to live since there will be no risk of them robbing me of what is rightfully mine. I want this child to grow up knowing that if my career had not taken off…” Williams then ran her finger across her neck and made a whimsical death noise. The audience applauded.

The actress says that her expected newborn will be named “Lucky,” to remind the child every day how lucky they are that their mother got that Golden Globe that they may live.


Facebook VP: Trump got himself elected, Russia isn't to blame


The thing about reporting is that it helps to read what material you’ve gathered before you come up with a headline. I know, this may seem like simple stuff when it comes to journalism, but it’s apparently not standard operating procedure over at CNN.

This was the headline on one of the network's stories Tuesday: “Top Facebook exec: Yes, we got Trump elected and it may happen again.” That’s "whoa" material.

Liberals have always operated under the conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign worked hand-in-glove with Facebook — along with other social media giants, the Russians, reptilian shape-shifters and Judge Crater — to steal the presidency from the wholly deserving and very electable Hillary Clinton. Now, CNN’s got proof!

The entire body of the story, instead, is about a memo written to colleagues by Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth describing how Donald Trump's campaign efficiently used the platform, while in no way breaking the rules or engaging in unethical behavior. Also, Bosworth -- a Hillary Clinton backer -- warned against changing the rules to tilt against President Trump for the 2020 campaign.

So, uh. Sorry for everyone that clicked expecting to find evidence of that whole conspiracy, guys! That's CNN's bad. Thanks for coming.

The article in question didn't have the only terrible headline or wretched level of spin on the Dec. 30  memo -- first reported by The New York Times -- but it was the worst. (The Washington Post was a solid second, if not quite close a close one: "Facebook executive says company was responsible for Trump’s victory but warns against policy changes.")

Most of these headlines hung their legitimacy on a sentence in Bosworth's memo where one is left with the feeling members of the newsroom got to a certain point and stopped reading.

That point, I'm guessing, was right when Bosworth wrote this: "So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks."

They definitely didn't read the next three sentences: "He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period."

For media channels where functionaries have no doubt spent an inordinate amount of time poring over the sentence fragment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," one feels this might be intentional.

The memo also stated that Trump and Brad Parscale, the 2016 campaign's digital media head who is the Trump campaign manager for the 2020 race, had done "unbelievable work" while dispelling many of the myths surrounding the campaign.

"They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes," Bosworth wrote. "They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion."

Bosworth posted his memo in toto on Facebook (natch) after The Times reported on it. For the most part, it's a rambling document that touches upon "Lord of the Rings," left-wing political philosopher John Rawls and "quadruple stuffed Oreos" as metaphors for Facebook's business and the company's decision-making regarding political advertising.

The Oreos reference is part of a rather inconsequential passage about how "algorithms are primarily exposing the desires of humanity itself, for better or worse." Rawls, of course, was invoked because of his theory of the "veil of ignorance," which isn't worth explicating here but which draws a bit of a chuckle on multiple levels when used by a Facebook executive.

Bosworth's excursion into J.R.R. Tolkien, however, was yet another part of the memo where the media's eyes tended to glaze over.

"I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment. Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial [sic] and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her," Bosworth wrote. "As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear."

A Facebook exec swiping a metaphor from a fantasy novel is profoundly unsurprising, and one talking about how "we must never do that or we will become that which we fear" is about as rich as quadruple-stuffed Oreos, but there you have it.

The unspoken context of that passage -- and indeed, of the entire memo -- is Twitter's decision to halt all political advertising. The unspoken part of that decision, meanwhile, was that the GOP (more broadly) and the Trump campaign (more specifically) had better positioned themselves to use advertising on social media to their advantage. The decision was broadly hailed as a victory for fairness and nonpartisanship. In fact, the decision to halt it suddenly and in the middle of a campaign cycle, particularly to benefit one side, was anything but that.

And make no mistake, social media -- like any other group of tech conglomerates in Silicon Valley -- is very liberal. Here's the least surprising part of the Bosworth memo: "To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I’m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after)."

"[C]olleagues who had supported him." Right. Please show me these colleagues, Mr. Bosworth. I'm demanding habeas corpus on these tech employees. I get the feeling they're every bit as real as Cory Booker's good friend T-Bone.

Another unsurprising passage: "That brings me to the present moment, where we have maintained the same ad policies. It occurs to me that it very well may lead to the same result. As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand?" This led into the "Lord of the Rings" passage, so apparently Gandalf did.

Bosworth's memo also said that Cambridge Analytica was "a total non-event" from "snake oil salespeople."

"The tools they used didn’t work, and the scale they used them at wasn’t meaningful. Every claim they have made about themselves is garbage," Bosworth wrote. "Data of the kind they had isn’t that valuable to being with and worse it degrades quickly, so much so as to be effectively useless in 12-18 months. In fact the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seized all the equipment at Cambridge Analytica and found that there was zero data from any UK citizens!"

Bosworth said that "[w]henTrump won, Cambridge Analytica tried to take credit so they were back on our radar but just for making bullshit claims about their own importance. I was glad when the Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale called them out for it."

As for CNN’s headline, one wonders how many levels of gatekeeping it passed through without someone actually pulling the emergency cord and stopping the crazy train.

Given the content of the memo, it’s clear what Bosworth meant was that the platform got Trump elected. His campaign managed to do it on its own. No Russians, no Cambridge Analytica, no Judge Crater -- and no scale-tipping by Facebook, either.

Let’s apply this to other media. If CNN were around in 1864, we would have “Western Union executive: Yes, telegraph got Abraham Lincoln elected, and it could happen in the future, too.” In 1936: “RCA: Our radio technology helped ensure FDR's victory, and 'Fireside Chats' could win him three more terms." In 1961: "Westinghouse top brass: JFK owes his election to our televisions, and it could ensure Democrat dominance going forward."

A medium is -- or should be -- a platform. There shouldn't be people running around behind the scenes pulling levers like Bosworth wants to do. (Thank God we have Frodo, or else things would apparently have taken a turn.) That's exactly what legacy media want social media to do, however, as evinced by headlines like "Top Facebook exec: Yes, we got Trump elected and it may happen again."

Trust me, CNN did plenty to ensure that Donald Trump would not get elected and will do more to prevent it from happening again. If you don't believe me, watch for 10 minutes if you're in an airport sometime soon.

It's a rare day where a Silicon Valley executive comes out looking more even-handed and objective than someone with a major news network. Congratulations are in order to Andrew Bosworth, I guess. He deserves a package of quadruple-stuffed Oreos.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Facebook VP: Trump got himself elected, Russia isn't to blame appeared first on WND.


Sunday, January 5, 2020

Fake Noose? '60 Minutes' Shreds Epstein Suicide Theory

Fake Noose? '60 Minutes' Shreds Epstein Suicide Theory

'60 Minutes' has revealed several new data points in the death of wealthy pedophile Jeffrey Epstein which raise more questions than they answer, and suggest that the financier did not kill himself - an opinion the New York City Medical Examiner's office stands "firmly" behind.

The New York City Medical Examiner's Office ruled Epstein's death a suicide by hanging, but a forensic pathologist who observed the four-hour autopsy on behalf of  Epstein's brother, Mark, tells 60 Minutes the evidence released so far points more to murder than suicide in his view. Dr. Michael Baden's key reason: the unusual fractures he saw in Epstein's neck. -CBS News

While we've heard all sorts of theories about the improbabilities of the force required by the nearly 6 foot tall Epstein to successfully hang himself while breaking an unusual three bones in his neck usually seen in strangulations, that's nowhere near the most peculiar part of Epstein's demise (notwithstanding the ol' homeless guy switcharoo theory).

For the first time, we get to look at the noose Epstein used to allegedly kill himself. Photos admitted as evidence reveal a clean cloth with no blood, despite Epstein's clearly bloody neck. Moreover, both ends of the noose were hemmed, not cut - while the guard who found Epstein reportedly cut him down.

Also odd is that Epstein's ligature wound, allegedly left by said bloodless noose, is fairly low on his neck.

"It doesn't look like anybody ever took scissors to it," said 60 Minutes' Sharyn Alfonsi. "So there is some question—is that the right noose?"

“I have never seen three fractures like this in a suicidal hanging.”

Dr. Michael Baden lays out the forensic reasons why he’s skeptical of the medical examiner’s ruling that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. **This video contains graphic images.**

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) January 6, 2020

The photos also reveal other potential nooses - none of which are bloodied, as well as orange sheets strewn around the room.

"There were fractures of the left, the right thyroid cartilage and the left hyoid bone," said Baden. "I have never seen three fractures like this in a suicidal hanging."

"Going over a thousand jail hangings, suicides in the New York City state prisons over the past 40-50 years, no one had three fractures," he added.

Other irregularities include Epstein being taken off suicide watch, broken cameras which didn't record the front of his cell during the cruicial period, and of course, the fact that his guards failed to check on perhaps the most high-profile inmate in modern history - and were instead browsing the web and sleeping.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/05/2020 - 21:00