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.

Europe Voted Against Austerity

“New Europe” media has anticipated the growth of the far right in Europe as a result of the austerity policies imposed by the Germany driven ECB, EC and Eurogroup.

Far right Eurosceptics are the third political conglomerate in the European Parliament, regardless of the way the election results are interpreted, and the soonest the Brussels centers of power digest it, the better.

How the various political groups in the Parliament will be formed, is irrelevant. What is important is to count how many members of the newly elected Parliament are in favor of the austerity policy and how many are against it.

Indeed, in a very summary approach to the core question of today’s Europe, “austerity or growth” the reply, according to the election results is for “growth” with the European People’s Party remaining in the second position sustaining financial discipline and austerity.

The first winner of this election are clearly the anti-austerity forces, right left and center and this, if correctly interpreted and understood, will bring the change of policy we need giving end to the crisis and the stone years of Europe.

The defeat of the European austerity signifies the end of the leading political role of EPP despite it formally being the first political group in the new Parliament. Indeed, in our political civilization, policies prevail over labels.

This means that the selection of the EPP candidate in the position of the President of the European Commission should be ruled out as should the election of any other among the official, all “systemic” (that is pro-austerity), candidates of the other parties. That experiment is over unless, despite the clear election message, Europe continues in the orbit of misery and austerity, which will soon become free-fall.

We need a strong Europe, with new policies and the United Kingdom in it and part of the Euro. Yes part of the Euro even if in means giving to the city of London whatever concessions they ask. Even by moving the ECB to London, why not.

Britain and France liberated Europe from the Nazi occupation seventy years ago and Britain with France must work together to get it back in orbit.

Development, the way it is has been designed so far, is based on stabilizing systemic banks as the overlords of the European economy and achieve growth only through the big business and financial conglomerates. In this way small European enterprises, which constitute the backbone of our society and the reservoir of our middle class will be further marginalized. This will be the final stage of European catastrophe.

We need to give Europeans jobs and hopes. We must lower taxes and get into a controlled 5% to 7% inflation by printing money and giving loans to small companies. Let’s get the courage to print money. Why can the Fed do it and indeed it does and the ECB cannot?

Finally we must liberate European businesses from the many restrictive labour laws maintaining the minimum necessary. Labor laws as they are designed suffocate small companies but are silently and conveniently violated by large conglomerates many of which are union free.

To recapitulate, if we do not see the obvious, that Europeans in their great majority have voted against austerity, we are far from the European reality.

The conservatives/Christian Democrats of the European People’s Parties (EPP) came out in the lead in this weekend’s European Parliament elections. Whether the EPP’s lead candidate for the Presidency of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will actually win the office is not yet clear. The selection is formally made by the EU Council of governments, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron may insist on a different President. Even though Juncker is from their European conservative party.

In the following, I look at some of the national results, based on the results as of this writing as reported by, among others, European Parliament results BBC News, which as of this writing shows 740 of the 751 EP seats determined. The EU’s website’s European elections 2014 page has background information on the functioning of the EP. The final, official accounts may vary somewhat from what I’m using here.

The strong showing of the far right nationalists in Britain and France is certainly notable. But it’s hard to say how much of that vote represents a protest by pro-Europe voters who are upset with austerity policies is hard to say at this point. I suspect it’s small. Because those parties are blatantly nationalistic and xenophobic.

The critical economic issue at stake right now is the continuance of Merkel’s brutal and destructive austerity policies. The conservatives/Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats and the liberals are generally committed to austerity, perhaps better described as austericide. The Greens, who are seated to the right of the Social Democrats in the German and Austrian parliaments, are pro-Europe and anti-austerity. So are the parties associated with the European Left Party, mostly notably right now SYRIZA in Greece.

So the results of the EP election is to leave pro-Europe/pro-austerity policies with a clear majority. It’s worth noting that with the Social Democratic base in particular, party loyalty probably won out over opposition to austerity in some non-trivial amounts. And the Social Democratic campaign did stress the need for jobs and public investment, though without opposing austerity and without getting out of the general realm of neoliberal cliches, in which “education” and “public investment” are largely empty slogans.

But the Greens and the Left did offer clear criticism of austerity policies while maintaining a definite pro-Europe position. So, on the whole, only the Green and Left votes can be counted as clearly pro-Europe/anti-austerity votes. The Five Start Movement in Italy should probably also be regarded as a pro-Europe/anti-austerity vote.

Germany: The good news here is that Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) got the fewest votes it ever has in a European Parliamentary election; the bad news is that the CDU still got the highest vote percentage. A Público headline linked below calls it a “Pyrrhic victory.” But out of 96 European Parliament seats, the CDU won 34, the Social Democrats (SPD) 26; since the SPD supports Merkel’s Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity economics, that is more than a three-fifths vote for the Hoover/Brüning policies that are wrecking the eurozone and the possible the EU as well. The SPD improved their voting percentage, which their current leadership is virtually certain to take as a sign of approval for their participation in the German government as the junior coalition partner to the CDU – along with their endorsement of Hoover/Brüning austerity policies.

The Free Democratic Party (FDP), the liberal party (which means hardline “free market” in Europe) won four seats, still maintaining themselves (barely) as a viable electoral alternative. Their four seats would have to be counted as pro-austerity, as well, making a two-thirds majority for pro-Europe/pro-austerity policies.

The Greens got 12 seats, the Left Party seven. Both parties were pro-Europe and critical of Merkel’s austerity policies, making only 20% of the seats pro-Europe and anti-austerity. The Left Party still can’t seem to get traction, even with the stagnation of wages in Germany. The Greens are nominally more conservative than the SPD – they are seated to the right of the SPD in the national Bundestag – but on the urgent European policy issue of Merkel’s austertiy program, the SPD supports it and the Greens and the Left oppose it.

The nationalist, far-right Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) also won seven seats, with a somewhat lower popular vote than the Left Party. This will produce no small amount of hand-wringing in the German media, justifiable as far as it goes. It’s not clear to me to what extent voters attracted by the AfD’s anti-EU stance could be won over by parties to the left of the CDU. Not a lot, I’m guessing, because both the Greens and the Left Party took a distinctly critical but pro-EU position in this election, the Left Party more so. The AfD is basically pulling votes from nationalist righwingers for whom the CDU is rightwing enough.

France: The results of two years with a Socialist majority in Parliament and a Socialist President, François Hollande, are downright depressing. Maybe a party whose voting base is composed of workers and union members was ill-advised to adopt Hoover/Brüning austerity policies and a foreign policy of jumping into any war in Africa or the Middle East that they can find.

Hollande’s Socialists came in third, with 13 seats out of a total 71. Sarkozy’s conservative UMP came in second with 20 seats. And the far-right National Front (FN) party of Marine Le Pen came in first, with 24% of the vote and 24 seats. The liberals took seven seats and the Greens six, with the Left grouping taking four seats. The combined seats of Socialists, conservatives and liberals represent less than a majority for pro-Europe/pro-austerity parties; the FN’s 24 seats would be anti-Europe and I assume in practice pro-austerity. With the Greens and the Left counting as pro-Europe/anti-austerity, that sentiment pulled a smaller percentage in France than in Germany.

Austria: With 18 MEP (Member of European Parliament) seats, the Christian Democratic Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) won five seats, the Social Democrats (SPÖ) also five with a second-place vote percentage, followed by the anti-Europe rightwing Freedom Party (FPÖ) with the Greens winning three seats on a 14% vote, and the protest party Neos polling wining 8% of the vote.

Cyprus: With six seats at stake, the conservatives, the Left and the Social Democrats each won two, with the vote percentage in that order from high to low.

Greece: Alex Tsipras’ pro-Europe anti-austerity SYRIZA party (technically a coalition of parties) won the largest vote at 30% to conservative New Democracy’s 26%. The Social Democratic Party, one of the two major parties until the 2009 debt crisis exploded, got one seat. At the moment, they seem to be on the verge of being replaced completely by SYRIZA. They discredited themselves radically in knuckling under to Merkel’s austerity policies, which have damaged Greece more severely than any other country. The far-right and violence-inclined Golden Dawn party, frequently described (not without reason) as a neo-Nazi party, took third place. (Grecia vota contra la austeridad y le da la victoria a Syriza Público 26.05.2014))

With 21 seats total for Greece, SYRIZA gets 7 seats and the Communist Party 1, the conservative ND 6, Golden Dawn 2 and another far-right grouping 2, the Social Democrats 1 and a closely allied new center-left-liberal party Potami 1, and another anti-Europe party 1.

Ireland: The conservatives came out ahead, with the Left and the liberals following in that order. The reporting I’m seeing on the Irish outcome at the moment is somewhat confusing, but the anti-austerity position represented by second-place Sinn Fein is clearly significant: “A near meltdown for Labour, the junior coalition partner, and a swing to Sinn Fein that left that party jubilant, led the [conservative] Prime Minister Enda Kenny to concede: ‘Sometimes in politics you get a wallop.'” (David McKittrick, Election results 2014: Sinn Fein profits as voters reject austerity policies The Independent 26.05.2014) This continues a trend we’ve seen as well in the “periphery” countries Greece and Italy, in which the Social Democrats’ embrace of Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning austerity politics has boosted the support for newly-rising left parties, SYRIZA in Greece and the Five Star Movement in Italy.

Italy: From the BBC News European Parliament results: “EU projected result as of 08:49. Centre-left PM Matteo Renzi won a strong 40% [31 of 73 seats], Beppe Grillo’s Five Star [17 seats] achieved 22% and ex-PM Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia 16% [17 seats].” This was a significant fall in Five Star’s vote from last year’s national election.

Portugal: The Socialist Party (social-democratic) won seven seats, the conservative party (which is confusingly named the Social Democratic Party in Portugal) won six, the Left three.

Spain: Five years of crisis and austerity policies can evidently shift voters’ perspectives. The two leading parties in the 2009 EP vote, the conservative People’s Party (PP) and the Socialist Party (PSOE), came in first and second respectively as they did in 2009. But with a notable difference. The PP’s vote in 2009 was 43%, 27% in 2014; the PSOE’s 29% in 2009, 24% in 2014. In 2014 out of 54 seats, the PP wins 16, the PSOE 14, the Left six, the liberals three, the Greens two. While it was an electoral shock to the PP and PSOE, the pro-Europe/anti-austerity votes can’t be said to be that strong in these results.

Kidnapped Girls Become Tools of US Imperial Policy in Africa

The “humanitarian” U.S. military occupation of Africa has been very successful, thus far. “The Chibok abductions have served the same U.S. foreign policy purposes as Joseph Kony sightings in central Africa.” Imagine: the superpower that financed the genocide of six million in Congo, claims to be a defender of teenage girls and human rights on the continent. If you believe that, then you are probably a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

A chorus of outraged public opinion demands that the “international community” and the Nigerian military “Do something!” about the abduction by Boko Haram of 280 teenage girls. It is difficult to fault the average U.S. consumer of packaged “news” products for knowing next to nothing about what the Nigerian army has actually been “doing” to suppress the Muslim fundamentalist rebels since, as senior columnist Margaret Kimberley pointed out in these pages, last week, the three U.S. broadcast networks carried “not a single television news story about Boko Haram” in all of 2013. (Nor did the misinformation corporations provide a nanosecond of coverage of the bloodshed in the Central African Republic, where thousands died and a million were made homeless by communal fighting over the past year.) But, that doesn’t mean the Nigerian army hasn’t been bombing, strafing, and indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of, mainly, young men in the country’s mostly Muslim north.

The newly aware U.S. public may or may not be screaming for blood, but rivers of blood have already flowed in the region. Those Americans who read – which, presumably, includes First Lady Michelle Obama, who took her husband’s place on radio last weekend to pledge U.S. help in the hunt for the girls – would have learned in the New York Times of the army’s savage offensive near the Niger border, last May and June. In the town of Bosso, the Nigerian army killed hundreds of young men in traditional Muslim garb “Without Asking Who They Are,” according to the NYT headline. “They don’t ask any questions,” said a witness who later fled for his life, like thousands of others. “When they see young men in traditional robes, they shoot them on the spot,” said a student. “They catch many of the others and take them away, and we don’t hear from them again.”

The Times’ Adam Nossiter interviewed many refugees from the army’s “all-out land and air campaign to crush the Boko Haram insurgency.” He reported:

“All spoke of a climate of terror that had pushed them, in the thousands, to flee for miles through the harsh and baking semidesert, sometimes on foot, to Niger. A few blamed Boko Haram — a shadowy, rarely glimpsed presence for most residents — for the violence. But the overwhelming majority blamed the military, saying they had fled their country because of it.”

In just one village, 200 people were killed by the military.

In March of this year, fighters who were assumed to be from Boko Haram attacked a barracks and jail in the northern city of Maiduguri. Hundreds of prisoners fled, but 200 youths were rounded up and made to lie on the ground. A witness told the Times: “The soldiers made some calls and a few minutes later they started shooting the people on the ground. I counted 198 people killed at that checkpoint.”

All told, according to Amnesty International, more than 600 people were extrajudicially murdered, “most of them unarmed, escaped detainees, around Maiduguri.” An additional 950 prisoners were killed in the first half of 2013 in detention facilities run by Nigeria’s military Joint Task Force, many at the same barracks in Maiduguri. Amnesty International quotes a senior officer in the Nigerian Army, speaking anonymously: “Hundreds have been killed in detention either by shooting them or by suffocation,” he said. “There are times when people are brought out on a daily basis and killed. About five people, on average, are killed nearly on a daily basis.”

Chibok, where the teenage girls were abducted, is 80 miles from Maiduguri, capital of Borno State.

In 2009, when the Boko Haram had not yet been transformed into a fully armed opposition, the military summarily executed their handcuffed leader and killed at least 1,000 accused members in the states of Borno, Yobe, Kano and Bauchi, many of them apparently simply youths from suspect neighborhoods. A gruesome video shows the military at work. “In the video, a number of unarmed men are seen being made to lie down in the road outside a building before they are shot,” Al Jazeera reports in text accompanying the video. “As one man is brought out to face death, one of the officers can be heard urging his colleague to ‘shoot him in the chest not the head – I want his hat.’”

These are only snapshots of the army’s response to Boko Haram – atrocities that are part of the context of Boko Haram’s ghastly behavior. The military has refused the group’s offer to exchange the kidnapped girls for imprisoned Boko Haram members. (We should not assume that everyone detained as Boko Haram is actually a member – only that all detainees face imminent and arbitrary execution.)

None of the above is meant to tell Boko Haram’s “side” in this grisly story (fundamentalist religious jihadists find no favor at BAR), but to emphasize the Nigerian military’s culpability in the group’s mad trajectory – the same military that many newly-minted “Save Our Girls” activists demand take more decisive action in Borno.

The bush to which the Boko Haram retreated with their captives was already a free-fire zone, where anything that moves is subject to obliteration by government aircraft. Nigerian air forces have now been joined by U.S. surveillance planesoperating out of the new U.S. drone base in neighboring Niger, further entrenching AFRICOM/CIA in the continental landscape. Last week it was announced that, for the first time, AFRICOM troops will train a Nigerian ranger battalion in counterinsurgency warfare.

The Chibok abductions have served the same U.S. foreign policy purposes as Joseph Kony sightings in central Africa, which were conjured-up to justify the permanent stationing of U.S Special Forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, in 2011, on humanitarian interventionist grounds. (This past March, the U.S. sent150 more Special Ops troops to the region, claiming to have again spotted Kony, who is said to be deathly ill, holed up with a small band of followers somewhere in the Central African Republic.) The United States (and France and Britain, plus the rest of NATO, if need be) must maintain a deepening and permanent presence in Africa to defend the continent from…Africans.

When the crowd yells that America “Do something!” somewhere in Africa, the U.S. military is likely to already be there.

US sends troops to search for Nigeria girls

Barack Obama certainly needs no encouragement to intervention; his presidency is roughly coterminous with AFRICOM’s founding and explosive expansion. Obama broadened the war against Somalia that was launched by George Bush in partnership with the genocidal Ethiopian regime, in 2006 (an invasion that led directly to what the United Nations called “the worst humanitarian crisis is Africa”). He built on Bill Clinton and George Bush’s legacies in the Congo, where U.S. client states Uganda and Rwanda caused the slaughter of 6 million people since 1996 – the greatest genocide of the post War World II era. He welcomed South Sudan as the world’s newest nation – the culmination of a decades-long project of the U.S., Britain and Israel to dismember Africa’s largest country, but which has now fallen into a bloody chaos, as does everything the U.S. touches, these days.

Most relevant to the plight of Chibok’s young women, Obama led “from behind” NATO’s regime change in Libya, removing the anti-jihadist bulwark Muamar Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died,” said Hillary Clinton) and destabilizing the whole Sahelian tier of the continent, all the way down to northern Nigeria. As BAR editor and columnist Ajamu Baraka writes in the current issue, “Boko Haram benefited from the destabilization of various countries across the Sahel following the Libya conflict.” The once-“shadowy” group now sported new weapons and vehicles and was clearly better trained and disciplined. In short, the Boko Haram, like other jihadists, had become more dangerous in a post-Gaddafi Africa – thus justifying a larger military presence for the same Americans and (mainly French) Europeans who had brought these convulsions to the region.

If Obama has his way, it will be a very long war – the better to grow AFRICOM – with some very unsavory allies (from both the Nigerian and American perspectives).

Whatever Obama does to deepen the U.S. presence in Nigeria and the rest of the continent, he can count on the Congressional Black Caucus, including its most “progressive” member, Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only member of the U.S. Congress to vote against the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001. Lee, along with Reps. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and fellow Californian Karen Bass, who is the ranking member on the House Subcommittee on African, gave cart blanch to Obama to “Do something!” in Nigeria. “And so our first command and demand is to use all resources to bring the terrorist thugs to justice,” they said.

A year and a half ago, when then UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s prospects for promotion to top U.S. diplomat were being torpedoed by the Benghazi controversy, a dozen Black congresspersons scurried to her defense. “We will not allow a brilliant public servant’s record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state,” said Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

As persons who are presumed to read, Black Caucus members were certainly aware of the messy diplomatic scandal around Rice’s role in suppressing United Nation’s reports on U.S. allies’ Rwanda and Uganda’s genocidal acts against the Congolese people. Of all the high profile politicians from both the corporate parties, Rice – the rabid interventionist – is most intimately implicated in the Congo holocaust, dating back to the policy’s formulation under Clinton. Apparently, that’s not the part of Rice’s record that counts to Delegate Norton and the rest of the Black Caucus. Genocide against Africans does not move them one bit.

The United States has deployed 80 military personnel to Chad to help in the search for the nearly 300 girls kidnapped by the armed group Boko Haram in neighbouring Nigeria last month, President Barack Obama has said.

Obama notified lawmakers in a statement released on Wednesday about the latest steps under way to assist in the return of the abducted girls.

He said the service members will help with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria. He said the force would stay in Chad until its support is no longer necessary.

The troops mark a significant boost to an existing US military effort which includes the use of surveillance drones as well as manned aircraft over Nigeria.

Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said that the US government had significant leads to be followed in Chad to find the abducted girls.

She also said that US intelligence officials were in Nigeria’s capital Abuja to assist the government in the search.

“There are about 30 or so people from the CIA, the State Department, the military, and the FBI working as a team in Abuja with Nigerian officials to help them conduct this search,” she said.

Al Jazeera meets Nigerians displaced by Boko Haram violence

Chad shares a portion of its western border with northeastern Nigeria. The girls and young women, all from a school in northern Nigeria, were kidnapped on April 14 in the town of Chibok.

Dozens escaped, but the group’s leader has threatened on video to sell most of the remaining 276 schoolgirls into slavery if the government does not release detained fighters.

The government of Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan came under intense criticism for its initial response to the kidnappings. Since then, the international community has pledged its assistance.

Meanwhile, violence has continued, with attacks on villages attributed to Boko Haram leaving scores dead. Twin blasts in the city of Jos killing at least 122 people on Tuesday. Hours later, 17 people were killed in the northern village of Alagarno and dozens more in two other villages.

The Synagogue of Satan

YHWH

Anyone who thinks that the Jews are a helpless, persecuted, misunderstood minority should disabuse himself of that lie by reading Andrew Hitchcock’s The French Connection, The History of House of Rothschild. This powerful, incestuous, and genocidal family is the fount of nearly all evils the world has suffered since Moses Amschel Bauer reestablished the Synagogue of Satan in 1743.

Moses placed a red hexagram, the sign which would become falsely known as the Star of David, over his counting house in that same year. This hexagram, whose symbolic and occultic interpretation is 666, the very number against which John the Apostle warns the world, would become the emblem on the Israeli flag unfurled in 1948, thus cementing the connection between the Rothschilds, Israel, and Satanism.

We know that a wide swath of so-called American Christians would become apoplectic over the allegation, as they are diehard supporters of the nation ruled by whom the Rolling Stones honored as his Satanic Majesty. Thus most Christians, cognizant or not, are underlings of Satan in their ardor for the modern state of Israel.

Hitchcock’s history is rather lengthy, and pocked with some factual and interpretive errors. For example, he supports the myth of the Holocaust, an event which Zionists invented out of whole cloth as we have reported elsewhere. Even so, the timeline is worthy of careful study and consideration because its major thesis, that the Rothschild Empire is the master of the world, is the best and most coherent interpretation of events since the 18th century.

We will summarize the timeline by focusing on pivotal events. The family’s rise to banking pre-eminence came through connections cultivated with royalty and powerful politicians. The Rothschilds realized that there was no real money in retail banking, so they focused on government loans which would be collateralized by the taxing authority of the state.

Before proceeding too far, it is essential to understand the Jewish origins of the Rothschilds and their hatreds for gentiles. The family is extremely inbred, with family rules stipulating that members must marry first and fifth cousins, though certainly exceptions abound. The Judaism which the Rothschilds follow is based not just upon Torah, but also upon the Talmud, a dark Satanically inspired compilation of Jewish teachings stretching back centuries.

Hitchcock notes as we have that modern Jews are actually gentiles from Khazaria who have no connection whatsoever to the historical people who descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The vast majority of so-called Jews, known as Ashkenazi, descend from an amalgam of peoples, none of whom includes historical Semitic peoples – thus the irony of all the pity and claims to real estate in the Middle East.

Inspired by revenge and hate, the Rothschilds have proceeded to organize the governments and peoples of the world under their rule, using a vast coterie of fawning hangers-on to help them administer this vast undertaking known as the New World Order, the very thought of which is found on the back of the United States Federal Reserve Note in Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Their first major attempt at ushering in their planetary ambitions was the establishment of the Illuminati under the agency of the Jewish Adam Weishaupt in 1776. Their plan was to infiltrate Free Masonry, which they began doing in Europe and the United States that very year. The idea was to spread Talmudic teachings and create layers of secrecy to accomplish their goals under deception. As Albert Pike, the highest and most revered Mason in American history put it, Masonry requires that higher levels of Masons lie to lower levels in order to accomplish otherwise unacceptable goals; for indeed masonry is the worship of Satan, the father of lies.

The development of vast banking capabilities placed the Rothschilds at the center of all major world powers including the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Italy, Germany, the United States and others. Yet one government refused to bow to its demands – that government being the Tsarists rulers of Russia. For that impudence the Rothschilds vowed revenge which they obtained in 1917.

However, the blood feud between the two powers began in 1815 when the Tsar Alexander I foiled the Rothschild attempt to establish world government at the Congress of Vienna. The Congress convened after the Napoleonic wars ended, at which time the Rothschilds found themselves in possession of great wealth from financing all sides of the war.

This duality became the trademark of the family, one seen on display in the US Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, and nearly all major conflicts – whereby the Rothschilds financed both sides of a conflict to reap the rewards of death.

During the time of the Napoleonic wars, the Rothschilds also established their courrier network which would become the forefather of the modern intelligence and espionage services. Rothschild couriers were given free passage through various choke points during conflicts because they were specially commissioned by European governments to dispatch sensitive communications to both allied and enemy states. The Rothschilds would always intercept these messages in order to take advantage of trading opportunities which they almost always engineered to their advantage.

The Rothschilds also struggled with the United States which in fits and spurts repudiated central banking until it was shoved down the Congress’ throat in 1913 through the energetic deceptions of Rothschild agents such as Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff, John Rockefeller, and J P Morgan. The highly corrupt and filthy Woodrow Wilson was easily blackmailed over his numerous affairs and disgusting personal conduct. Wilson reintroduced segregation to Washington after previous presidents, starting in the early 20th century, worked to dismantle it.

Hitchcock also documents how the Rothschilds precipitated financial and bellicose events when they were thwarted. These engineered catastrophes included the War of 1812, the American Depression of the 1830s, the US Civil War, both World Wars, and the American depression of the 1930s, to name but a few. With control of the money supply, they could easily constrict when the time arrived to bring a nation to its knees.

Another important innovation of the Rothschilds was the creation of various political ideologies to bring about national divisions in order to make conquering a country easier. The prime example is the Russian Revolution of 1917 under the aegis of communism, first promulgated by the Jew Karl Marx. The many isms such as Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Capitalism, are all used for divide and conquer strategies.

On the religious front, the Jews have infiltrated many Christian denominations, including the Presbyterians who conducted their Reimagining God conference at a General Assembly in the early 1990s. The Dulles brothers had begun the work of infiltration, but the coup de grace came when the denominational leadership sought to introduce worship of Gaia into the religious body.

In the more extreme case, the Jew Anton LaVey established the Church of Satan in 1966, quite a natural project given the statement of the Jew Harold Rosenthal, an aide to the Jew Jacob Javits, who said, “Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer.” We countenance no objection which states that Lucifer and Satan are 2 different persons.

Another important aspect of the Rothschild founded Zionism is genocide. As one prominent Jew, Harold Greenbaum, publicly stated, “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland.” Many Jews, including Ariel Sharon among a vast host of others, have stated that killing Jews is an important tactic in obtaining sympathy and advancing political goals through the sympathy or pity card. Thus Jews murder Jews for political points. The ultimate enactment of this strategy was the fake Holocaust.

Hitchcock documents numerous instances of treason by Jews against the United States, with rarely any political or judicial consequences. Richard Perle is among the most egregious spies in America, but he is hardly alone. Jewish infiltration and colonization of America received a huge boost from James Jesus Angleton who was a Mossad mole in the CIA.

We have only skimmed the surface of the business and political dealings of the Rothschild Empire, so we urge interested readers to Hitchcock’s timeline, with the understanding that not all of the details are correct. But the main narrative – that world history of the past 3 centuries can be explained by the Satanic machinations of the Rothschilds – is absolutely correct. We have met the enemy, and we must fight him.

 

 

 

Air Force prepares to dismantle HAARP ahead of summer shutdown

The U.S. Air Force gave official notice to Congress Wednesday that it intends to dismantle the $300 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program in Gakona this summer.

The shutdown of HAARP, a project created by the late Sen. Ted Stevens when he wielded great control over the U.S. defense budget, will start after a final research experiment takes place in mid-June, the Air Force said in a letter to Congress Tuesday.

The University of Alaska has expressed interest in taking over the research site, which is off the Tok Cutoff in an area where black spruce was cleared a quarter-century ago for the Air Force backscatter radar project that was never completed. But the school has not volunteered to pay $5 million a year to run HAARP.

Responding to questions from Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a Senate hearing Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do,” he said. “To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.”

Comments of that sort have given rise to endless conspiracy theories, portraying HAARP as a superweapon capable of mind control or weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

Scientists say all of that is nonsense, and that the degree of ionosphere control possible through HAARP is akin to controlling the Pacific Ocean by tossing a rock into it.

Built at a cost of more than $290 million, the site has 180 antennas on 30 acres that are used to direct energy into the ionosphere, which is 55 miles to 370 miles above the Earth, and monitor changes in the flow of charged particles. Stevens was the godfather of HAARP, which he helped start two decades ago with annual earmarks slipped into the defense budget.

At the hearing on defense research and innovation, featuring six representatives of the Pentagon, no one said HAARP has a future in the defense budget.

Walker said the Air Force has maintained the site for several years and the last project is one by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Once completed, the site will close.

DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar said, “The ‘P’ in DARPA is projects. We’re not in the business of doing the same thing forever, so very naturally as we conclude that work, we’re going to move on. It’s not an ongoing need for DARPA despite the fact that we had actually gotten some good value out of that infrastructure in the past.”

Walker said the Air Force would like to remove critical equipment this summer to avoid the expense of winterization.

Alan Shaffer, assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, said HAARP is a “world-class facility,” but the department does not need it anymore.

“With all the other issues and problems and challenges facing the department at this time, we just don’t see that that investment, over a long-term period, is where we would prioritize our investment,” said Shaffer.

“No one else wants to step up to the bill, ma’am,” Shaffer said to Murkowski.

On another topic, Murkowski asked Shaffer about small modular nuclear reactors for remote areas. She said, for example, Eielson Air Force Base could benefit from “reliable energy security that nuclear power can provide.”

Shaffer said the “sticker shock” of an initial $1 billion investment for a small nuclear reactor is a huge obstacle.