ISIS Releases New Hollywood Style Video Trailer Titled ‘Flames Of War’

  • new isis video
    A screenshot from the new Islamic State (ISIS) propaganda video, titled “Flames of War.” YouTube

Islamic State, on Tuesday, released a new propaganda video, purportedly in response to President Barack Obama’s decision to extend airstrikes on the Sunni extremist group’s strongholds in Syria.

The new video, titled “Flames of War,” was released late Tuesday by the Al Hayat Media Center, which, according to the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, was established in May as the media arm of the Islamic State.

The 52-second-long video, which, at first glance, seems more like a video-game trailer, is replete with slow-motion effects and high-definition images. It shows exploding tanks and Islamic State militants apparently preparing to execute captives before the words “Flames of War” flash on the screen, followed by the words, “Fighting has just begun.” And, before the screen fades to black, the video ends with the words, “Coming Soon.”

The video, similar to previous videos showing thekillings of foreign captives, is marked by high production quality and slick editing.

The video was released just hours after General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Senate hearing that American ground troops may be needed to battle Islamic State forces in the Middle East, The New York Times reported. Obama has so far ruled out sending in troops to combat Islamic State forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe’s: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union’s southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as “social media” event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

Queen of the FAKE Bin Laden videos Rita Katz/SITE is the “source” for the fake ISIS “beheading” videos…as usual

 Nobody verifies her claims. Rita Katz/SITE says “Al Qaeda” “ISIS” did it, it hits the “news”:

You know these (fake) beheading videos? I immediately noticed they were brought to you by the Israel-Zionist linked SITE group overseen by Israeli-Zionist liar Rita Katz. There is a post about SITE/Rita Katz on May 7, 2012, entitled:

Queen of the FAKE Bin Laden videos Rita Katz/SITE is the “source” for a supposed Al Qaeda hostage situation…as usual

All I had to do was replace the words “Al Qaeda hostage situation” with “fake ISIS beheading videos”. That’s how predictable this is getting. And I probably replaced “fake Bin Laden videos” with “Al Qaeda hostage situation” at some earlier time.

In fact, I used the PICTURE and the COMMENT from the other post, and striked out “Al Qaeda” and replaced it with “ISIS”!!!

Why was I able to just replace a few words in my titles? Because guess who, like clockwork, brings us the ISIS beheading videos?

Take a look:

Video reportedly shows ISIL beheading journalist Steven Sotloff (The monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group reported Tuesday that ISIL had released a video in which Sotloff is killed in a manner similar to the beheading of James Foley).

Notice the sentence: “The monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group reported Tuesday that ISIL had released a video in which Sotloff is killed in a manner similar to the beheading of James Foley”

Yes! Once again, SITE/Rita Katz, the queen of fake “terrorist” videos, brings us the latest fake terrorist videos!

I know the mainstream media is far-gone corrupt, but I can’t believe how stupid and out-of-touch they are to actually put in the article that SITE is the group that provided us with the “beheading” video. Yes, the same SITE group that has been totally discredited for years with proven fake Bin Laden videos and other assorted “terrorism” videos and audios.

UN-FRIGGIN’-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!

But the REAL terrorists are the U.S. mainstream media/radio talk shows/radio “news” briefs. They are the ones pounding us 24×7 with fake beheading videos from a known Israeli/Zionist shill “monitoring group” SITE. And you can throw in SITE as a terrorist, too. The mainstream media and SITE are terrorizing us by the very definition of terrorism. The SITE video isn’t authenticated and there is no body and the videos look laughably fake, but yet the mainstream media is POUNDING US 24×7 WITH IT! That is TERRORISM!!!

Israel just murdered 2,000 innocent Palestinians and 500 children and our mainstream media is pounding a fake beheading video down our throats 24×7 and totally ignoring Israel’s REAL murdering.

And what did Israel do after murdering all those children and civilians? They stole more of their land:

Huge new Israeli settlement in West Bank condemned by US and UK. British foreign secretary urges Israel to reverse decision to seize 990 acres of Palestinian land near Gvaot to create new city

And what is our mainstream media pounding us with 24×7 instead? Not to bomb Israel for war crimes, but bomb more Arabs due to ONE guy in a FAKE beheading video!

We need to arrest the REAL terrorists: the mainstream media…and SITE.

 

ISIS has allegedly beheaded Steven Joel Sotloff, the American journalist who appeared in the terrorist group’s propaganda video of James Foley’s beheading two weeks ago. In the first video, the executioners threatened Sotloff would meet the same fate if the U.S. military did not comply with the terrorists’ demands.

The U.S. didn’t. ISIS appears to have followed through.

The video was first obtained by SITE Intelligence Group (Search for International Terrorist Entities), also known as SITE Intel Group, a relatively under-the-radar yet apparently very powerful research body that monitors jihadist movements. The Bethesda, Maryland, organization has published a shortened version of the beheading video and published a transcript on its news site, which has been largely inaccessible since news of the beheading broke, likely due to an uptick in Web traffic.

A description of SITE Intelligence Group on its Facebook page says its blog, INSITE, focuses on “all dimensions of extremism in the 21st century:  jihadism, white supremacy movements, hacker threats and everything in between. … All articles posted to the blog are intended to elevate the discussion regarding extremist threats — transcending the conversational buzz and shining light on the greater factors at stake.” Among its products for sale is SITE Monitoring Service, which provides its subscribers — government and commercial entities — “immediate and timely translations of the most important jihadist material published.”

SITE made the decision to publish the video of Sotloff’s beheading when numerous mainstream news outlets in possession of it declined to do so, likely influenced by the overwhelming negative public reaction to the sharing of video and still images of Foley’s beheading, which quickly and inescapably proliferated on social media before YouTube and Twitter removed them.  The authenticity of the video obtained by SITE Intel Group has yet to be explicitly confirmed, but the White House released a statement Tuesday afternoon expressing “deepest condolences” for the “brutal murder of an innocent American journalist.”

SITE Intelligence Group is an incarnation of the SITE Institute, founded in 2002 by former Investigative Project colleagues Rita Katz and Josh Devon. Katz remains the executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group. Her bio says she is fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, having been born in Iraq and educated in Tel Aviv. She has worked as a government consultant on terrorist operations and is the author of the 2003 book, “Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover To Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in North America.” She is the subject of a 2006 New Yorker profile, which described a visit to SITE’s offices (the location of which, at the time, Katz demanded the magazine leave unnamed):

“Each day, Katz finds about a half-dozen items on the Arabic message boards that are worth distributing. Her researchers, who monitor English-language jihadist websites, often find a few more. Some are propaganda: videos taking responsibility for attacks, statements of intents to attack, announcements of allegiances or splits. … SITE tries to have the items translated and sent to subscribers within an hour and a half of their first appearance online.”

SITE Intel’s speedy distribution of items likely explains why numerous mediaoutlets appeared to have obtained evidence of the beheading video, or the video itself, about the same time. SITE Intelligence Group did not immediately respond to an inquiry for more information.

The SITE Institute was credited in 2007 with obtaining and releasing the first video of Osama bin Laden in three years, the Washington Post reported.  The Post said SITE beat Al Qaeda’s own release of that particular video and shared it with government agencies and news media. The story said Katz “declined to comment on the methods used to obtain the footage” but told the Post she was first made aware of it via a jihadist message board.

How People keep buying this Bullshit?  and of course they’re ready for war!!!Create a problem, and give the solutions!!

ISIS – CIA and the Muslim-Non-Muslim concerns

By: Shenali D Waduge

The general public had never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden until 9/11. Thereafter, both names are honorably mentioned by every Western Government and blamed for every terrorist activity and has enabled a string of laws and regulations that keep all citizens under radar and surveillance – the excuse given is everything is being done in our best interest and of course national security. However, this has not stopped scores of other terror groups to emerge and their names quickly entered to the hall of shame terror lists of countries. The latest is another new comer ISIS and it is certainly not the ancient Egyptian goddess. If ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda was a creation of the US according to Hillary Clinton, then there has to be far more to the objectives of the ISIS than we are made known. While loosely understanding the CIA connections to the Islamic radical groups it baffles us as to why there are a steady flow of Muslims ever ready to be part of these indoctrinated groups that end up killing fellow Muslims and why Muslims themselves without desiring to live in cosmopolitan societies within a global village wish to be part of the Islamic expanded Sharia law meant only for Muslims? The two ends do not tie up and is part reason for why empathy towards the Muslims are lacking. While the world does empathize with the Muslims who are victims to global geopolitics the world is not too happy about the Islamic motive of creating Islamic states which has contributed to the changes in behavior and dress of Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden claims that ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a CIA asset. He also claims that the National Security Agency along with UK and Israel created the ISIS. This piece of news connects well with the claim by the founder of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and former Al Qaeda commander (Nabil Naeem) that all current Al Qaeda affiliates including ISIS work for the CIA in a globally created initiative called ‘hornets nest’ that draws Islamic radicals to fight in the name of Islam. That explains how ISIS is not only well armed but well trained and able to expand throughout Iraq and Syria. The modus operandi of hornet’s nest is to create a perception that Israel is under threat by Islamic extremists (who are of course trained by them) The irony is that there are plenty of Muslims ready to sign up and be guinea pigs in an exercise that always end up in Muslims killing Muslims and taking these killings beyond borders. For every border passed with Muslim extremist assistance it is a territory gained for the West for the extremists are kept busy by orders to kill anyone or anything in their way while the real blue collared terrorists loot nations and take over strategic assets. This does provide a good explanation why ISIS has been able to control the oil rich area of Mosul in Iraq without firing a single shot! Who ordered Iraqi soldiers to give up and lay down arms without a fight! People who are included into West’s shamelist of terrorists are often found having key contacts with Washington. General Ibrahim al-Douri, the mastermind of the recent ISIS military success in Iraq, on the watch list of America since 2003 and former Baath Party head and Saddam Hussein successor is just one good example we can offer of America’s hypocrisy.

The Muslim mercenaries travelling after training and arms support by the West to every nook and corner that the West and its corporate power blocs wish them to should make countries uneasy about becoming eventual victims themselves. Jordon has shown signs of panic wondering if ISIS would turn upon them. The possibilities cannot be ruled out. The Georgian rebels transported to Syria was done with the help of an NGO called Javari and facilitated by Georgia’s counter intelligence department with the approval of the US embassy. We are well aware that all these rebel movements are part of a bigger objective to create a Kurdish state from Iraq.

If ISIS is CIA linked why would US/Israel desire an Islamic Caliphate? Interestingly every area that the ISIS is declaring as Islamic happens to be where oil fields or strategic assets prevail. Also interesting is how every enemy of the US and West is also the enemy of ISIS. We need to recall how on Ramazan day scores of Shiites were brutally murdered by the ISIS and not a single Muslim organization arose in protest even those in secular nations. At this point, the Muslims are to blame. Muslims have no other alternative than to save Islam’s reputation and cultural heritage. Muslims must act to protect their interests from the harm of those who claim to speak in the name of their religion and those who seek to monopolize it. But they do not do so and complain when non-Muslims bring up issues with the justified fear that the jihadi elements in partnership with the West will descend on their nations. These have nothing to do with Islam as a faith or Muslims as a minority. When non-Muslims are making their fears known it is primarily because they do not wish to have radical/political Islam in partnership with the West take over their nations. Muslims should not be naïve and childish not to understand this very important aspect.

No non-Muslim nation would desire to have ISIS followers calling for the heads of their captives citing Allah. This video exemplifies how extracts from Islam’s history is taken to justify ISIS action and when one reads through the attached link one will find how the obligation to Allah was fulfilled in one and a half days of carnage. The recent killings of Christians and Shiites goes to show what dangerous terrain we are on.http://www.westernjournalism.com/disturbing-video-shows-brutally-isis-treats-conquered-iraqis/

It must also show the Christians that the very countries that are West and we presume to be pro-Christian are actually handing arms to Islamic groups and watching them murder Christians and forcing the remaining Christians out of areas that they were living in historically. Is this with a greater plan we have to wonder. The makers of Al Qaeda (US Pentagon) eventually uses the threats Al Qaeda pose as a means to place US and Western presence across nations claiming security and then bringing laws that place citizens under undue surveillance and giving them the rights to arrest citizens even on hunches. A good look at the US Patriot Act and the National Security Act would reveal how far Americans have fallen for the lies weaved to them by their own Government. ISIS has been good reason for the US to decide to continue troop presence in Iraq when the US Government promised to return their soldiers home.

The entire debate leaving aside a historic confrontation between Islam and Christianity wherein some believe an enactment of what is prophesied to happen is been prepared and leads to the clash of civilization theory, needs to also take into account some realities. Invariably innocent Muslims and Christians will become bait for this Biblical clash. Dharmic religions wish to have no part/role to play in this exercise of unnecessary and unwanted death therefore it is now opportune a time for the Dharmic faiths to protect their own territory and keep their people safe.

Fact 1 is that all of the radical Islamic groups that have emerged ever since the US decided to fund the mujahideen against the Russians have been all financially backed, trained and supported by US and Western interest groups.

Fact 2 is that given our acceptance of Fact 1 it lays to rest and questions how Muslims can line up to be part of a geopolitical campaign that eventually uses ‘ISLAM” and parts of its religious texts to declare wars on non-believers? There has been no shortage of people to join any of the Islamic groups operating across the world (whose leaders are well connected to the CIA/Pentagon and other foreign intelligence) Whether they are brainwashed or indoctrinated it is irrelevant because there are enough of Muslims ever ready to join their ranks. Any time the West wants to create mischief all they need to do is to form an Islamic group, use texts of the Koran and then a steady flow of Muslims are ready to join and now social media is being used effectively by them too.

Fact 3 is that there are hardly any Muslims organizations at the forefront in any country in particular the secular countries where democracy allows them the freedom to make their voices heard who come out and say they are against Al Qaeda, its associated groups or ISIS. They may be quick to respond by claiming they do not support it but they do not come out and demand that they stop their crimes whether it is upon fellow Muslims or non-Muslims. However, they are ever ready to come out and claim ‘victim’ status against non-Muslims. What needs to be categorically said is that though it is illegal for a Muslim to kill another Muslim all of todays conflicts are between Muslims and against Muslims by Muslims (it is a totally different matter whether they are armed, supported and trained by the West). It is because Muslims are ready to take on their own that the West has mastered the art of how to draw them into proxy wars for their benefit.

Non-Muslim majority countries and Governments do not seem to realize that in permitting even aspects of Sharia to prevail such Governments are agreeing to divide people as Muslims and non-Muslims. Governments talking about equality befor the law cannot and should not agree to such a division and that is why there is such opposition to Sharia in non-Muslim majority nations where the law of the land and the culture of the country has to be according to the heritage of the country. What eventually happens is in agreeing to Sharia the will of the Muslims (who are a minority) dominate the rights of all others.

More importantly the leaders of secular nations need to realize that there are agents of ISIS/Al Qaeda lobbies under various bogus names and camouflaged by secular objectives but their modus operandi is quite different and when young women from Western Christendom have been mesmerized by the ideology (which cannot be Islam) and cross borders to fight for the ISIS, we need to worry and we have every right to worry. ISIS has not promised or delivered anything for non-Muslims to be happy about!

It is better to start worrying and taking counter-measures than to watch the enemy arrive at one’s doorstep and take us by surprise.

This is what non-Muslim citizens are pleading of the political leaders who appear to be very comfortable enjoying the perks and privileges that silence them not realizing that the enemy is closing in on not only them but the entire nation as well. The countries that today face Islamic extremism never expected their countries to face such an impasse. They were unprepared. Today they are battling to keep the identity of their country alive. Therefore those that claim that non-Muslims are getting unnecessarily worried need to first reason out on what grounds they can say so when mushrooming Islamic groups are springing up calling for not only jihads but an Islamic Caliphate that now includes Asia as well. This is also well in line with America’s ‘Look East’ policy therefore the people are intelligent enough to realize that the emergence of radical Islam is nothing but political Islam via Pentagon and the calls by US missions to non-Muslims to be tolerant of Islam and Muslim minorities is just a hoax and a cover up.

These are realities that the Muslims and in particular those who call themselves moderate needs to realize that non-Muslims have every right to fear and many reasons to fear. It is no one figment of imagination or made up stories that are making non-Muslims fear. There are events happening and behaviors in Muslims that non-Muslims are connecting with the radical Islam springing into shape. These are not innocent changes but have a very well programmed modus operandi though Muslims themselves may not be aware of it. However, when these things are brought to light for debate it is wrong of Muslims to pretend to be victims without sharing the concerns themselves.

On the one hand there is Islam itself that clearly demarcates Muslims from non-Muslims and establishes ground rules for how non-Muslims should behave and how Muslims should treat non-Muslims. These do not get enforced in non-Muslim majority nations but the call to attempt to make these nations into majority Muslim nations through various means is part and parcel of Islamic expansionism. Every demand and right made by Muslims is always connected to Sharia demands and Sharia law extended is an entire social system encompassing criminal and civil code. Non-Muslims question why a parallel law should be allowed to prevail if Muslims who live in secular nations wish to live in peaceful coexistence.

Next is the fact that Islamic groups are working hand in glove with the West and that clearly establishes far more dangers than we can fathom. Yet, Muslim organizations have not come out to appeal to Muslims not to join, Muslims have not come out to oppose these groups or made sure that their children are not sent to mosques, madrassas or muftis who are agents to recruit youth for these extremist groups and this silence has compelled non-Muslims to come out and make their concerns public especially when secular politicians are bribed into silence not realizing that their selfish silence will again compromise the lives of our soldiers. We do not wish to have another blood bath wherein our soldiers are compromised for no reason and because politicians have been lazy to take action.

These are serious matters for both non-Muslims and Muslims to ponder over.

Gaza: a testing ground for Israeli military technology

Palestinian tunnel worker gestures as he repairs a smuggling tunnel flooded by Egyptian security forces, beneath the Gaza-Egypt border in the southern Gaza Strip

By: Shir Hever

Commercial considerations of the arms industry play a key role in Israel’s policies towards the Gaza Strip.

Israel may be a relatively small state, but it is the largest per-capita weapons exporter in the world. The Israeli arms companies have the advantage in marketing their products around the world, because they can claim that their products have been tested in actual combat.

Senior officers of the Israeli army often pursue a second career in the arms industry after retiring from service, and as soldiers they already have the opportunity to perform valuable services to their future employers, by testing weapon systems developed by the arms companies, by convincing the Israeli government and public of the necessity of such technologies for military victory, and by offering praise to the companies producing these weapons.

Trade fairs for military technology and for homeland security equipment are commonplace in Israel, especially after each round of bombardment and/or invasion of Gaza. The advertising line repeated by the companies in these trading fairs to promote their wares is that “the IDF already uses that technology.”

The Israeli arms industry operates in close cooperation with its bigger sister in the US. The military aid the US gives to Israel ensures this cooperation, and every conflict in the Middle East contributes more to the profits of US arms giants (such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon) than to the Israeli arms companies.

Gaza the Soft Target

Wars have a civilian cost and most sectors of the Israeli economy, which are not directly tied to the arms sector, suffer from the constant conflict in which Israel is embroiled. The struggle of the distribution of the limited public resources has intensified over the years, and while the Ministry of Defense continues to demand a growing share of the pie, the general public is frustrated with stagnant or even a decreasing standard of living. This discontent has reached a peak with the social protests of the summers of 2011 and 2012. Yet every call in Israel to cut the defense budget has been silenced with violence, violence against Palestinians or against the Lebanese. When the winds of war blow, all talk about cutting the defense budget falls silent.

After the 2006 war against Lebanon, which was a humiliation for the Israeli army, the Israeli government sought to focus its aggression on the Gaza Strip. Gaza is small, contained and densely populated, and did not have the ability to defend itself in comparison to Hezbollah’s ability to defend Lebanon in 2006.

Since then, a clear pattern emerged, according to which the Israeli army launches an attack against Gaza every 2 years. The army thus successfully avoided budget cuts, arm companies increased their profits, and by 2012 the Israeli weapons exports have reached apeak of US $ 7 billion.

Not so soft anymore

In the previous attack of November 2012 “operation Pillar of Defense,” the star of the show was the “Iron Dome” anti-rocket system. The Iron Dome missiles, which cost US $ 50-100 thousand each, intercepted the makeshift rockets from Gaza which cost little more than US $ 1,000 to make. Nevertheless, the system successfully allowed Israelis to continue in their daily routines while defenseless people in Gaza are killed at a whim, an achievement which seems attractive to many governments and armies around the world. Their demand for Israeli weapons depends on such asymmetrical warfare. The Hamas party in Gaza understands this fully well and tried to break the cycle. They offered a cease-fire at the very beginning of the Israeli attack, offering a 10-year cessation of attacks against Israel, in exchange for lifting the siege. This seemed to be what the Israeli government wanted. After all, Israeli justified the siege merely as a protective measure against Palestinian attacks, but Hamas knew that Israel would never accept their offer. The Israeli arms industry would lose its edge if it were to go10 years without testing its weapons.

In the face of widespread destruction in Gaza and almost 2,000 dead, it is easy to overlook the fact that this war of the summer of 2014 has not been easy on the Israeli side either. Not only has the war taken a heavy toll on the Israeli economy, but it has shown that despite Israel’s superior military technology, it cannot defeat Hamas and cannot achieve its strategic objectives. The excessive violence which Israeli soldiers used indicates how the image of “surgical precision” boasted by the companies is of little worth when an entire population under occupation has every reason to rise up against Israeli domination, and everyone is a suspect.

Without mechanisms to discipline Israeli soldiers who point their fire at civilians, Israeli soldiers turn increasingly brutal, and the list of atrocities grows longer. Any hopes that advanced weaponry would allow Israel to wage a “clean” war, to avoid political and legal ramifications from mass civilian death were dashed. Already the UK, Spain and even theU.S have taken steps to distance themselves from Israel’s arms industry and to increase control of arms shipments to Israel.

Inequality and war profits

Nevertheless, the Israeli economic newspapers have published a series of articles on the new contracts won by Israeli arms companies and the finance raised in large-scale bond issue by companies such as Elbit Systems and IAI. Bezhalel  Machlis, CEO of Elbit Systems, mentioned in an interview that all of Elbit’s products have been used in the current operation in Gaza. But the Israeli military has not tested Israeli-made weapons in a conventional war for over forty years. The Israeli army specializes in asymmetrical warfare, in repression of protest and of guerilla groups. Therefore, the demand for Israeli arms is highest among governments facing high inequality and social unrest. It is no coincidence that the largest customers of Israeli arms are India, Brazil and the US.

In fact, the Gaza Strip becomes more than a laboratory for Israeli explosives. It is a laboratory for a social experiment in which an entire population is incarcerated and isolated, controlled from the land, the sea and the air, and sustained with the assistance of international aid (for which Israel doesn’t have to pay). Arms companies promise that they have the means to contain the Palestinian resistance, and keep the population subjugated. But if they are successful, and keep selling the weapons to other countries, one wonders who the next subjects of this containment policy will be.

Two parallel massacres: Palestine and East Ukraine

By Takis Fotopoulos

Two parallel massacres: Palestine and East Ukraine. 53256.jpeg

The Transnational Elite, (i.e. the Western elites based in the G7 countries) with the fascist Junta they installed in Kiev, and the Israeli Zionists, are fully engaged at the moment in carrying out new massacres in East Ukraine and Palestine respectively.

These massacres share several important common elements.

Firstly, despite the shameless lies of the butchers, both of these massacres basically aim at citizens and not combattants. The people of Eastern Ukraine are punished for daring not to recognize the (self-declared) fascists imposed on them by the Western elites, through a “coup from belowi“. That is, a coup which was ‘legalized’ by the votes of pro-West Ukrainians in Western Ukraine (known for their support of the Nazis in World War Two), who then proceeded to elect a kleptocrat multimillionaire as President. On the other hand, the citizens of Eastern Ukraine (which constitutes the industrial heartland of the country where most of Ukraine’s working population lives), stay loyal to the ideals and values of the Soviet Revolution.ii They abstained from the electoral farce, starting, instead, a guerrilla war with no military help from Russia, which has so far has not intervened to stop their effective massacre. The inevitable consequence is many hundreds of victims, many of whom are civilians, women and children.

Similarly, the Israeli butchers of Palestinians have killed, within a few days, hundreds of people, 80 percent of whom are civilians according to UN data. Nevertheless, the Israelis Zionists continue the relentless slaughter to prop up their racist state (which, from its genesis, was founded on the ethnic cleansing of another people)  with the stated aim of tackling the “mortal” danger posed by the Palestinian rockets (mostly self-made and highly inaccurate kind of elementary rockets), that so far have only cost a single Israeli life, ‘paid’ by over 200 Palestinian lives!

Secondly, although both massacres, at least indirectly, aim at the ethnic cleansing of the two peoples (Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and the Palestinians), the immediate goal is different. It is, on the one hand, the integration of Ukraine into the New World Order of neoliberal globalization and the effective undermining of the Eurasian Union planiii, as the basis for an alternative world order based on national sovereignty, and, on the other, the consolidation of apartheid in Israel respectively. The systematic attempt at ethnic cleansing arises not only from the fact that the slaughter, in both cases, is basically directed against civilians, rather than the guerrillas, but also from the fact that these peoples are collectively labelled ‘terrorists’ or ‘sub-human’, as Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk declared the pro-federalists in the East. And all this, simply because they are fighting for the right to self-determination recognized even by the UN Charter as a fundamental right.

No wonder that, according to a senior member of the Ukrainian Junta, the rounded up citizens in the re-occupied zones, will be “filtered” in concentration camps for their beliefs and consequently receive appropriate treatment. Yet, historically, the precondition for the success of an ethnic cleansing campaign has always been the previous terrorization of the people, which forces them to abandon their ancestral homes — as has happened with the Palestinians since 1948, and as is happening now in Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands of refugees moving from Eastern Ukraine to Russia.

Thirdly, in both cases there is a huge asymmetry of military power between the opposing forces. In Ukraine, a few thousand, mainly lightly armed, rebels (except …3 tanks and some mainly portable heavier weapons) are battling against an entire army of at least 15 thousand specially trained forces, supported by modern warplanes, helicopters and heavy artillery that turned to dust entire Slaviansk areas. And all this is apart from the imposition of a complete blockade and the cutting off of water, electricity and telephone communications. On the other hand, Gaza is itself a huge concentration camp blocked by land, sea and air, with the Israelis using the most modern means of extermination against the elementary military equipment of the Palestinians. This explains why, after any conflict, there are typically 100-fold victims among the Palestinians versus Israelis – not, of course, because of the latters’ better organization, or bravery, as it was revealed by a recent video of an arrested teenage boyimmobilised on the ground and beaten to unconsciousness by Israeli police.

Fourthly, the massacre in Ukraine, as well as that in Palestine, are presented by the international bodies and organizations controlled by the West and the Zionists (UN, USA, EU, international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) but also by the international media controlled by press oligarchs and transnational corporations, the ruling elites in general (CNN, BBC, major international newspapers in the USA, EU, etc.) as the battles between two comparable camps, if not as cases where the victim is the butcher, i.e. Israel, or the Junta of Kiev, despite both enjoying the overwhelming support (economic, political, military) of the transnational elite. All these international bodies and organizations see crimes carried out mainly (if not exclusively) by those resisting the New World Order and never by the Western elites and Israel! No wonder that even the international liberal Left flagship, The Guardianiv, very recently hosted an article about the rise of anti-Semitism across the world, for which it blames not just the far right, but also the Left (the undersigned has, of course, long been classified by pro-Zionists, and their anonymous organs in the internet, as an anti-Semite, in honorary company of many important people of Letters and Arts). Needless to mention that many ‘leftists’ are full of praise for the work of NGOs like Amnesty International, despite the fact that even some of their ex executives have publicly denounced it for shameless bias in favor of the Western elites and the Zionists!

A final similarity is that the degenerate international liberal “Left” has played an equally miserable role in both cases, maintaining an attitude of pseudo-impartiality between victimizers and victims. No wonder it has not organized even a single mass demonstration in support of the struggle of Ukrainian workers, or against the Zionists, usually considering the clash between the West and Russia as a kind of intra-imperialist conflictv and the systematic ethnic cleansing in Palestine as just a kind of ‘imperialist’ war, or, lately, a blood-for-gas energy war!

Zionist Israel an International Pariah

Gaza has become a slaughter zone for the eradication of Palestinians with the most advanced military technology that Israel posses. In comparison the blaming of Hamas for this latest barrage of rockets, fails to recognize any proposition in the mutual savagery. Depending on one’s view just who is the unlawful belligerent, sympathy and condemnation follows. This eternal struggle will never end peacefully. Debating international law, dissecting historic claims, strategizing military options, analyzing diplomatic intentions, and especially honoring superior doctrine among conflicting religious beliefs is a formula that offers no solutions. Yet, Israel is wedded to an expansionist political objective. Extending settlements prevent any permanent settlement agreement.

 

Gaza is an Engineered Flashpoint for WW3

Zionist Terror in Gaza

Free Gaza and Free the World

With the follow blown invasion of Gaza, the IDF proves once again that annihilation and ethnic cleansing is the cornerstone of Israeli imperium. For a perspective on the Gaza campaign that you will not hear in the controlled Zionist media, view Gaza is an Engineered Flashpoint for WW3 video. Then if you have the courage to face the truth, Zionist Terror in Gaza – Free Gaza and Free the World, YouTube is a must watch.The notion that the government of Israel has some special right to be an apartheid state, only for Zionists, is the source of perpetual war. Strip away the heretical religious entitlements that only serves to rationalize the bogus legitimacy of a rogue regime, and what you have left is an aggressor tribe of Khazarian outlaws, who allege to be Jewish when it is politically expedient. This charade keeps the naive and uninformed Christian-Zionists pouring out their support for the high cost of claiming: CHOSEN.

No wonder that AIPAC Zionists are in control of American Middle East foreign policy, which is destroying the region for the betterment of Israeli zealotry. Even if you view Palestinians as a conquered people, confined to a leper colony by walls and checkpoints, how can any student of world politics conclude that this experiment of incremental death camps will ever bring peaceful co-existence?

Are Zionists the only people who have a right for self-defense? The iron dome that knocks down, the projectiles based on the Chinese “Weishi-2″ or WS-2 rockets is effective in stopping these primitive missiles. “The al-Qassam brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, boasts on its website that it can make its own version of the M-302 – named the R-160 after one of its leaders, Abdel Rantisi, who was killed last decade.” Contrast these weapons withOperation Samson: Israel’s Deployment of Nuclear Missiles on Subs from Germany.

The essay, USrael and Armageddon, references the Samson Option and cites Colonel Warner D. “Rocky” Farr, from THE THIRD TEMPLE’S HOLY OF HOLIES: ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

“Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut). The labeling of Prime Minister Begin’s “Peace for Galilee” operation as a milchemet brera (“war of choice”) was one of the factors causing it to lose support. Interpretation of Jewish law concerning nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction. However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy decisions is unknown.”

The video, Why Israel Is A Threat To World Peace by Brother Nathanael indentifies the actual threat that Israel posses to the rest of the planet. However, in Gaza the potential becomes the immediate. Based upon the long record of Israeli atrocities, would any prudent person ignore the expected predictability that Zionist warmongers would use any weapon at their disposal to retain their regional power? Like the treasonous American politicians, the Israeli Knesset and Cabinet oversee tyrannical and despotic policies, which push the world to the brink of Armageddon.
Tanya Reinhart makes the argument that The Hamas Government Should be Recognized.

“The U.S. and Europe decided, despite Israel’s opposition, to permit the Palestinian people to hold democratic elections.

In a just and well-ordered world, it would be unthinkable for a government that was elected in this way to be disqualified because Israel does not like the choice of the electorate in question. But in a world in which the U.S. rules, might is right, and might can define democracy as it chooses. Thus, it was announced that the outcome of the Palestinian elections would not be recognized until the three “mantras” were fulfilled: Hamas must renounce terror, honor previous accords, and recognize the State of Israel. Meanwhile the Palestinian people would be punished and starved through an economic boycott, in the hope that this will lead to the collapse of the elected government.”

Nonetheless, in a Haaretz editorial, Israel’s refusal to deal with the Fatah-Hamas coalition is both puzzling and damaging, places blame where it is warranted.

“The Palestinian government to be formed is the result of the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah and reflects Hamas’ recognition of the Palestinian Authority, which was born of the Oslo Agreements that Hamas had opposed with all its might. This reconciliation is the result of heavy Arab pressure, is supported by all the Arab states and by most of the Palestinian public, and has the backing of several European leaders. Israel, which invested great effort in foiling the diplomatic negotiations, is now citing the Palestinian reconciliation as a decisive reason for freezing the talks, as if before the reconciliation it was rushing to continue the process. Israel’s refusal to recognize this government is liable to portray it once again as the party refusing to give the diplomatic channel a chance.”

Israel is a social outcast for much the same reason that the United States government has become a threat to its own people. Alan Hart back in 2011 writes in the article, Could pariah status spell the end for Zionism?

“A short and fairly accurate description of the ideology Netanyahu was raised on is something like this. “The world will always hate Jews. Zionism must therefore do whatever is necessary to build and secure Israel as a refuge of last resort for Jews everywhere. And if that means telling the world to go to hell, so be it.” (That’s actually why David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and others insisted that Israel should possess nuclear weapons – to have the reinforced ability to tell the world, not just the Arabs, to go to hell if necessary).”

Mr. Hart end the essay with a profound question for all Israelis.

“Is it possible that a global perception of them as citizens of a pariah state and the possibility of real sanctions will alarm enough Israeli Jews to the point where they will take to the streets in significant numbers to demand that their leaders be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept?”

Watch the compelling interview video, Rabbi Jew says Zionist Israeli government and their regime must be totally eliminated, for an honest answer. When orthodox Jews admit the sacrilege of the pretenders that rule the state of Israel, you find hope that the conscience of honest Jewry will stand up and oppose a Zionist government that defies YHWH. Fast forward to the recent pronouncement from the Eidah Chareidis Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem Condemns Murder of Palestinian Boy, as Abbas urges UN to investigate alleged revenge killing of Arab boy by Jewish extremists.

“With pain and shock, the chief rabbi and the members of the rabbinical court heard about the heinous and foolish crime, the murder of a Palestinian boy here in Jerusalem, by people of Jewish descent. To make matters worse, according to current reports, the murder was committed by Jews in religious dress, may G-d spare us. It is understood and obvious to every Jew and every keeper of the Torah and its commandments that such an act is forbidden by the Torah, and Heaven forbid that a Jew should spill blood. And during our bitter exile, we have been commanded by the holy Torah and our Sages, and by our most recent rabbinic leaders, to bear the yoke of exile, not to provoke the other nations, Heaven forbid, and to wait for the complete redemption by the messiah, not by human intervention. All the more so when this act could lead to unknown consequences, Heaven forbid.”

When will the Israeli government declare its own condemnation, or will the deadly air raids on defenseless Gaza homes become its routine response for perfecting the murder of countless Palestinians noncombatants? As bombs fall on Gaza, take action: Endorse the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Sameer Bhat, in the Kashmir Reader, artfully expresses the proper synopsis, Condemn Zionists, not Jews. “Please resist linking Zionism (the terrible ideology practiced by the state of Israel) with Judaism. What Israel is doing in Palestine is a direct outcome of its occupational policies because of Zionism, a despicable colonialist and racist idea that denies rights to Palestinians and advocates their dispossession and expulsion. It is from the pot of Zionist hubble-bubble, filled with the blood of innocents, that Israel draws its strength from. We must criticize and denounce this fascist thought. And yes, anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.”

Bilderberg: Where Big Business and Big Government Plot Globalism

By:  Alex Newman

Over the weekend at the Bilderberg summit in the Danish capital, dozens of the world’s most important Big Business and mega-bank CEOs were meeting behind closed doors (and massive amounts of taxpayer-funded security) with a collection of powerful Big Government leaders. High-level operatives for Big Green, Big Media, Big Oil, Big Espionage, Big Banks, Big War, Big Internet, Big Foundations, Big Communism, Big Data, and most of the other important “Bigs” were represented, too. All of the attendees share at least one common element though: a radical devotion to globalism.

In public, Bilderberg summit organizers seek to portray the gathering as a mere off-the-record discussion forum. A press release from Bilderberg released ahead of this year’s summit, for example, claimed the purpose was merely “to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” How a secrecy-obsessed, paranoid, closed-off meeting would foster any sort of “dialogue” between hundreds of millions of people on opposite sides of the Atlantic was not clear. What role a member of the Communist Party of China’s Central Committee would play in such dialogue also was not explained.

Still, “nothing to see here,” Bilderberg implausibly insists. “There is no desired outcome, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued,” the official May 26 statement also claimed. Numerous attendees, though, have suggested and even openly admitted in public statements over the years that much more than a mere “private talk” is in fact going on at the controversial summit.

For example, in 2010, former NATO boss and two-time Bilderberg attendee Willy Claes said in a radio interview that reports of speeches given at the summit are compiled. “The participants are then obviously considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect,” Claes added, which analysts said was essentially an admission that Bilderberg attendees are secretly plotting your future behind closed doors.

The year before Claes’ admission, then-Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon — a former European Union commissar and current Belgian minister of state — told the online EUobserver that the summits “helped create” the controversial euro currency imposed on 17 formerly sovereign European nations. Much evidence also suggests that the summits played a major role in foisting the EU super-state on the peoples of Europe against their will — a process that continues despite the lack of public support.

More recently, despite protestations to the contrary, a Bilderberg attendee and the leader of the Socialist International-aligned Dutch Labor Party admitted on camera this year that he was at the summit in his official capacity as parliamentary leader. Asked if he was there in an informal capacity, he responded: “Well, I’m formal, because being a politician, you’re 24/7, so there’s no way of exiting my role.” The Bilderberg website says, “Participants take part in the conference as individuals in their own right,” but the comments by the Dutch lawmaker and “sustainability” zealot Diederik Samsom suggest otherwise.

More than 15 years ago, meanwhile, far-left Bilderberg attendee Will Hutton — a former British newspaper editor, rabid pro-EU extremist, and vehement opponent of American conservatism — also hinted at the influence of the gathering. “[Bilderberg] is one of the key meetings of the year,” he wrote in 1998. “The consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide.” The admission could not get much clearer than that.

Aside from guiding policy, a great deal of anecdotal evidence suggests Bilderberg plays a major role in selecting the policymakers who will foist the schemes on an unsuspecting public. In 1991, for example, a virtually unknown governor from Arkansas attended. Shortly after that, he became President Clinton. Obama, too, went to Bilderberg before becoming president. This year, the little-known mayor of Atlanta was at the summit, sparking speculation about whether he was being groomed or vetted for higher office.

It is not just American politicians whose careers seem to get a major boost from attending the summits, either. Tony Blair, for example, attended Bilderberg as an opposition member of Parliament. He then became prime minister shortly afterwards. Numerous other British prime ministers have also attended. Other countries in Europe have faced similar occurrences, such as Bilderberg bigwig and Goldman Sachs operative Mario Monti being installed as the unelected prime minister of Italy in 2011.

At the European level — where voters and the peoples of Europe have virtually no say — the same phenomenon has been observed. In 2005, the state-funded BBC noted, “All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed.” EU overlords, of course, are not elected. In 2009, meanwhile, former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy — a virtual nobody unknown throughout the bloc — was mysteriously installed as EU “president” days after attending the confab. He promptly announced that “global governance” was advancing.

Indeed, what unites the seemingly disparate globalists appears to be mainly their fanatical devotion to globalism — the transfer of political power away from nations and people to unaccountable supranational regimes. Based on their public statements, it appears that virtually every attendee at Bilderberg is and has been a proponent of global and regional governance rather than national independence.

In 2001, former British chancellor of the exchequer and Bilderberg bigwig Denis Healey even told the U.K. Guardian that it was a little “exaggerated, but not wholly unfair” to say that the outfit’s overall goal was to impose a global government on humanity. “Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless,” he claimed. “So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

By “community,” globalists really mean government — after all, the European Union was a “community” before the full-blown super-state was openly announced. Today, after decades of brazenly deceiving the peoples of Europe, EU bosses hardly bother to conceal their intentions anymore, boldly announcing that a federal super-state is coming whether the public wants it or not. The UN, too, is increasingly resembling a global government.

Of course, more than a few prominent Bilderberg attendees over the decades have openly stated their goals, often referring to the sought-after planetary regime as the “New World Order.” Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and many other top globalists and Bilderberg operatives have used the term regularly in public. While Bilderberg claims people with “diverse” views are invited, there can be no question that such “diversity” does not include proponents of national independence and sovereignty.

On its official website, Bilderberg openly outlines the extreme globalist views of its attendees. “In the context of a globalized world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally,” it claims. Speaking to the BBC in 2005, former Bilderberg chair Davignon also noted that at the summit, “automatically around the table you have internationalists” — people who seek to further empower anti-sovereignty schemes ranging from United Nations outfits and the EU to the ongoing “trans-Atlantic integration” plot.

In the United States, conservatives are generally hostile to Big Government, while liberals are generally hostile to Big Business. When Big Business and Big Government join forces to benefit each other at public expense, the result is often tragic, as history has shown. On a global scale, though, the potential for disaster is far more serious — and that is the real threat represented by Bilderberg and its roster of globalist attendees.

Globalist Cabal Meets for Secretive Bilderberg Summit

A collection of around 150 of the most powerful and influential globalists is quietly converging on the Danish capital today for the annual Bilderberg summit this weekend to discuss your future. Despite the lack of attention from the mischaracterized “mainstream” press, the controversial meeting brings together much of the top echelon of the global establishment — bankers, royalty, military bosses, Internet titans, politicians, corporate chieftains, central bankers, academics, media bosses, intelligence officials, and more. Protesters and alternative media reporters are also descending on Copenhagen for the secretive confab.

While the shadowy gathering is off the record and rarely attracts much public scrutiny, Bilderberg attendees have in the past revealed that the self-appointed global elites make decisions there with far-reaching implications for humanity. From hatching the radical plot for a single currency in Europe to supercharging the careers of little-known politicians such as then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton willing to do their bidding, anecdotal evidence and even statements from insiders suggest that the annual meetings play a crucial role in mapping out the globalist agenda. One attendee recently told the German publication Cicero that the Bilderberg meeting was more important than the much more well-known Davos summit.

This year’s Bilderberg gathering — the 62nd so far — again brings together a virtual who’s who of establishment-minded powerbrokers or their minions, more than a few of whom have deeply controversial records. Among those attending this year: former Secretary of State Henry “New World Order” Kissinger; NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen; former Treasury Secretary and co-chair of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations Robert Rubin; Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz; Google Chairman Eric Schmidt; Neocon extraordinaire and Goldman Sachs International Advisors Board Chairman Robert Zoellick; former CIA boss David Petraeus; IMF chief Christine Lagarde; and many more.

As in past years, there will undoubtedly be other top globalists in attendance who are not listed — preferring to remain anonymous, perhaps, due to concerns about the Logan Act, which could make some Americans in attendance into felons. Still, the publicly available list includes a prominent roster of U.S. so-called “neo-conservatives;” the globalist pseudo-conservatives who plagued the world with the unconstitutional Iraq war and “pre-emptive” war doctrines. Also on the list are CEOs of some of the world’s top corporations and mega-banks such as Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, TD Bank Group, the European Central Bank (ECB), and more.

However, mixed in with all the crony capitalists and their Western government lackeys are plenty of socialists and communists, too. Even the mass-murdering Communist regime ruling over mainland China will have operatives there. Chinese Communist Party Central Committee member He Liu, who leads the ruthless party’s “financial and economic affairs group office,” will be in attendance; as will a Chinese professor and banker with myriad ties to the dictatorship in Beijing. A Socialist Party Parliamentarian from Portugal, Inês de Medeiros, is on the list as well.

The establishment media — becoming increasingly discredited in the United States, where just one in five Americans express confidence in the institution — will also be well represented at the summit. As usual, for example, the globalist magazine The Economist will have Editor-in-chief John Micklethwait there. Chief economics commentator Martin Wolf with The Financial Times will be present as well. Other “mainstream” media figures include political editor-in-chief Tove Lifvendahl for one of Sweden’s top newspapers, senior columnist Cengiz Çandar with Al Monitor and Radika, Austrian newspaper Der Standard publisher Oscar Bronner, editor-in-chief Monica Maggioni with Italy’s Rainews24 and RAI TV, French paper Le Monde executive editor Natalie Nougayrède, and more. Whether any of those supposed “media professionals” will do their duty and inform the public on the gathering remains to be seen, but few expect to see Bilderberg covered in those outlets — much less the real agenda.

In the past, the meetings have not even been publicly acknowledged, with the increasingly unpopular establishment press usually ignoring or demonizing anyone who criticizes or even questions why global policymakers meet in secret behind a virtual army of taxpayer-funded security forces. Virtually none of the pseudo-journalists in attendance has informed their readers or audiences of the summit’s existence — much less what is discussed. More recently, though, thanks largely to the efforts of the alternative media, the Bilderberg has become slightly more transparent — although not much. At least now, the organizers release a partial list of attendees as well as the supposed “key topics for discussion.”

In a press release dated May 26, Bilderberg claimed that the major subjects on the agenda would include the alleged “economic recovery” and whether it is “sustainable,” shifts in technology and jobs, Ukraine, current events, the “new architecture of the Middle East,” and more. “Who will pay for the demographics?” is also listed as a discussion topic, along with “What [sic] next for Europe?” and “How special is the relationship in intelligence sharing?” The “future of democracy” and the “middle class trap” will supposedly be discussed, too, as well as China’s “political and economic outlook.” Multiple insiders and Bilderberg attendees have in the past suggested that the murderous regime in Beijing would help lead what they refer to as the “New World Order.”

“Does privacy exist?” is another one of the key topics, according to the release. The question is ironic considering the paranoid and secrecy-obsessed nature of the Bilderberg meeting, which treats non-establishment reporters and public scrutiny as pests to be avoided. The agenda topic is even more ironic in light of the role played by key Bilderberg attendees in attempting to shred every remaining vestige of your privacy via unlawful and immoral spying on citizens. Former National Security Agency (NSA) director and ex-commander of the U.S. Cyber Command Keith Alexander, for example, is among the “intelligence” bosses listed as attending the confab.

Of course, the NSA was exposed recently by a whistleblower for unconstitutionally vacuuming up information on hundreds of millions of Americans without a warrant. Another former NSA boss, Michael Hayden, also confessed publicly last month that the Obama administration has been murdering people around the world based solely on “metadata” gathered by the controversial agency. Also in attendance at this year’s summit will be U.K. “Secret Intelligence Service” boss John Sawers. Previous Bilderberg attendees such as Bill Gates, Obama, and Louis Gerstner, Jr. have also played a critical role in imposing Common Core and the accompanying espionage apparatus aimed at shredding your children’s privacy rights.

In a brief statement, the recently established official Bilderberg website offered some bland and almost certainly misleading comments about itself and its controversial meetings. “Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America,” it said in the press release. “Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.”

It then elaborates slightly on what Bilderberg wants the public to think about the nature of its gatherings. “The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world,” the press release claims. “The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”

In other words, if Bilderberg’s official statement is to be believed — that would be rather foolish, considering many attendees’ long and dangerous track records of deception — the gathering is little more than an opportunity to freely discuss important issues. However, even recently, a top Bilderberg operative, Etienne Davignon — a former EU commissar and current Belgian minister of state — hinted at the summit’s influence when he told the EU Observer that the summits played a major role in foisting the euro on the formerly sovereign nations of Europe. Davignon will be in attendance again this year, the public list shows.

The New American will be on the ground in Copenhagen reporting on the Bilderberg summit. A request for interviews and comments sent to the confab’s official press e-mail were not answered by publication time.

Pope Tours Jerusalem Shrines Before Honoring Zionist Leader

Pope Francis entered the most contested piece of territory in the Holy Land today, delivering an impassioned appeal to “work together for justice and peace.”

The pontiff began the second day of his visit to the West Bank and Israel by visiting a hilltop compound in Jerusalem’s Old City that houses Islam’s third-holiest site and is revered by Jews as the site of their biblical temple.

Francis removed his shoes, in the Muslim tradition, to enter the gold-capped Dome of the Rock on the site known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as Temple Mount. The centrality of the site, captured by Israel in 1967, to both Judaism and Islam puts it at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“From this holy place I make a heartfelt plea to all people and to all communities who look to Abraham: May we respect and love one another as brothers and sisters!,” he said after leaving the Dome of the Rock to address Muslim clergy, according to a transcript on the Vatican website.

“May we work together for justice and peace! Salaam!” he said, using the Arabic word for peace.

At the foot of the compound, Francis placed a note in a crevice of the Western Wall, a remnant of the biblical Jewish temple, as is the Jewish custom. The note contained the text of the “Our Father” prayer, written in his native Spanish, the Vatican said.

Photographer: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO via Getty Images
Pope Francis, left, worships at the Stone of Anointing at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
‘Shamed’

From the Old City, the papal entourage proceeded to Mount Herzl, where Francis placed a wreath at the grave of Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and made an unscheduled stop at a memorial to Israeli victims of terrorism.

At the nearby Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, he lit a flame at the shrine honoring 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust.

“Here we are, Lord, shamed by what man, created in your own image and likeness, was capable of doing,” Francis said at a ceremony attended by President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The pontiff began his two-day visit to the West Bank and Israel yesterday with a short helicopter ride from the Jordanian capital of Amman to Bethlehem, where he celebrated Mass in Manger Square. In a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Francis called for “the state of Palestine” to be fully established and lamented the collapse of U.S.-mediated peace talks last month.

‘Find the Courage’

“The time has come to put an end to this situation, which has become increasingly unacceptable,” Francis said yesterday upon arriving in the West Bank city, revered as the birthplace of Jesus. “The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good.”

The pope showed further support for the Palestinian cause with an unscripted stop at the concrete wall dividing Bethlehem and Jerusalem, part of the West Bank barrier Israel says it built to keep out attackers and which Palestinians say encroach on territory they want for a future state. He leaned his head against a section of the barrier, which had “Free Palestine” and “Apartheid Wall” spray-painted on it and was located near an Israeli military watchtower.

The pontiff invited Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to jointly visit the Vatican and pray for peace. Both accepted.

Ending the day in Jerusalem’s Old City, Francis met at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with Orthodox Christian leader Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. Their encounter marked the 50th anniversary of the 1964 meeting between the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which led to a mending of the split that had taken place more than nine centuries earlier.

Francis is the third pontiff to visit Israel since the Vatican established diplomatic ties with the Jewish state in 1993.