Sweden officially recognizes Palestinian state, Israel recalls ambassador
… from Russia Today, Moscow
Russian President Vladimir Putin, before an international audience, exposed an international order capitalizing on the end of the Cold War to reshape the world according to its own interests, sidelining concepts such as basic international relations, international laws, systems of checks and balances, and even the very concept of national sovereignty itself. Amid President Putin’s speech, he would condemn the United States’ support for neo-fascists, terrorists, and its contempt for national sovereignty around the world.
The West’s Rebuttal
Curious language accompanied the New York Times’ account of the Valdai International Club discussion in the Black Sea coastal region of Sochi, Russia in front of which President Putin spoke. In an article titled, “Putin Accuses U.S. of Backing ‘Neo-Fascists’ and ‘Islamic Radicals’,” the NYT attempts to portray President Putin’s statements about US support for neo-fascists and terrorists as merely baseless accusations.
The NYT claims, “instead of supporting democracy and sovereign states, Mr. Putin said during a three-hour appearance at the conference, the United States supports “dubious” groups ranging from “open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.”” The NYT would also report, ““Why do they support such people,” he asked the annual gathering known as the Valdai Club, which met this year in the southern resort town of Sochi. “They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil.””
It is difficult to understand why the NYT attempts to portray this statement as particularly controversial, or as a “diatribe,” as the Times puts it, rather than a factual, timely, and necessary observation.
The NYT would also state, “Russia is often accused of provoking the crisis in Ukraine by annexing Crimea, and of prolonging the agony in Syria by helping to crush a popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s last major Arab ally. Some analysts have suggested that Mr. Putin seeks to restore the lost power and influence of the Soviet Union, or even the Russian Empire, in a bid to prolong his own rule.”
Technically speaking, Russia is regularly accused of all of this, though the NYT fails to fill in for readers how ridiculous each and every one of these accusations are.
To begin with, the Ukrainian crisis began when neo-fascists violently overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in late 2013, early 2014 with the United States’ full backing. The political order that seized power constituted overtly fascist political parties including Svoboda and the “Fatherland Party,” and was openly backed by flagrantly Neo-Nazi armed groups such as Right Sector. It was only then that eastern Ukrainians began to flee into the arms of Russia who in turn oversaw a referendum returning Crimea to Russian sovereignty.
Likewise regarding Syria, there is no question today that the conflict Damascus is fighting is not a “popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad,” but rather a proxy war being fought against Damascus using sectarian extremists ranging from various Al Qaeda affiliates, to the newly christened “Islamic State,” all of which constitute terrorist fronts and in no way equate to a “popular uprising.”
As far as the NYT’s claims that President Putin seeks to “restore the lost power and influence of the Soviet Union, or even the Russian Empire,” readers may be left confused when considering that the Soviet Union and Russian Empire represent two diametrically opposed political orders, and still, neither aspired toward nor achieved the global hegemony Western military and economic expansion has reached.
The US is its Own Worst Enemy
President Putin’s comments about the United States using various proxies as “instruments” toward achieving their goals, but with which they”burn their fingers and recoil” in the process could best be exemplified in the US’ arming of Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. Al Qaeda would go on to become a global scourge the US claims it must now wage an equally global war to extinguish, of course with no apparent success.
Part of the United States’ growing problem upon the global stage, a problem where it is irredeemably losing respect and legitimacy it had once commanded, is its own mass media and its utter failure to hold accountable poor policy driven by corrupt, criminal special interests. Leaving it to Russian President Vladimir Putin to point out the sorry state of American foreign policy grants Russia the respect and legitimacy the US would have otherwise held onto were it capable of putting its own house in order. The inability of America’s media to serve public interests is in itself a symptom of America’s greater malaise.
Of course as with all nations, Russia does what is in Russia’s own best interests. Occasionally, however, these interests converge with public interests and in this case, global interests. The United States’ foreign policy has become a global menace to all, not just a menace to Russia. However, because US foreign policy is a menace to Russia as well, Russia by necessity must protest it at venues like the Valdai International Club.Because of this, President Putin’s words strike with a popular resonance.
From Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, to Ukraine and now ironically back to Iraq again, the United States has left a trail of catastrophe behind all that it has done overseas. Nations so far spared such catastrophe are most likely considering what happens if they’re next. It is not the Kremlin’s ability to sway the minds of the world that has turned the tables on America causing it to slink away into irrelevancy and general disdain, but its own actions it refuses to address or reform.
When America’s Agenda Becomes the “World’s” Agenda…
President Putin would continue with comments stating, “it looks like the so-called ‘winners’ of the Cold War are determined to have it all and reshape the world into a place that could better serve their interests alone.” He would also state, “in a world dominated by one country and a group of its satellites, the process of ‘global decision-making’ often boils down to pushing through their own recipes under the guise of a universal proposal. This group has in fact become so ambitious that its solutions are now passed off as decisions made by the entire global community.”It is difficult to disagree. With the rise of the BRICS highlighting just how “global” America’s “recipes” are not, President Putin’s “diatribe” will soon become painfully obvious facts understood widely around the world and only further hinder the West as it tries to manufacturing legitimacy and authority out of thinner and thinner air. Indeed, as President Putin suggests, there is nothing truly “international” about what is often called “international consensus.” Instead, it is a collection of “satellites” around the United States, and often even states strong-armed into lending their “consensus.” When nations a billion strong refuse to sign onto the US’ agenda, or an entire continent rejects the authority of America’s so-called “international” institutions, can they truly be called “international?”
Such tactics however, resemble those of tyrannies, in fact, the very tyrannies the United States had once been thought of as the champion against. Ironic that it has become what it had once fought, from its inception to the pinnacle of its power, influence and respect. The tides will change when President Putin’s message becomes better understood and the true global consensus develops the power and resources to have its voice heard over the manufactured “consent” the US wields upon the world’s stage. While it is possible that the US might alternatively right itself before this happens, it is unlikely. As the NYT proves, those charged with holding the United States’ special interests accountable have clearly committed themselves to doing precisely the opposite.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/10/26/putin-exposes-criminal-global-order/
Truthers as Terrorists: Who are the terrorists today?
by Jim Fetzer
“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media”–attributed to William Colby, its former Director
A Canadian reporter has introduced a new phrase, “terrorist truthers”, as the initial stage in creating a new semantic club to use against critics of government ops and of false flag attacks.
The reporter, Brian Lilley, has used the occasion of the alleged attack on the Canadian Parliament–almost certainly itself an arranged event–to assail those who do not condemn it as “terrorism”.
While that sounds like typical politics, where right-wingers are eager to politicize such events and left-wingers more cautious and hesitant, a bit more appears to be going on here than that.
Joshua Blakeney, for example, has observed that this event appears tailor-made to be used as a justification to silence critics of Israel. And it also looks as though the phrase, once introduced, will then gradually be extended in meaning to include 9/11 Truthers and 7/7 Truthers, as David Cameron, the UK PM, recently proposed.
In a bizarre performance, Cameron recommended that those who are skeptical of the “official accounts” of 9/11 and of 7/7 should be dealt with has harshly as members of ISIS, which seems rather extreme, considering that ISIS is being bombed and strafed by US and British fighters and bombers. It conjures up the image of having these intellectuals being lined up against the wall and shot for the “thought crimes” of questioning stories the public has been fed by their own governments that are unable to withstand critical scrutiny. So, are we now required to accept fanciful theories that are provably false just because the government supports them or face a firing squad?
The Canadian government tends to regard any criticism of Israel as “terrorism” and is contemplating new laws to affect even internet discussions. When George Galloway went to Gaza and gave donations to unpaid nurses in the hospitals there, he was labelled by the government as a “member of a banned terrorist organization”. Ian Macdonald of the Foreign Service and John McMurtry, a distinguished philosopher, are speaking out about these draconian forms of censorship and violations of freedom of speech, but the situation is appalling.
The Ottawa deception
The proper definition of terrorism is of acts of violence that are intended to instill feat into a target population to make it more amenable to political manipulation. The element of fear is enhanced by the murder of innocent women and especially children, which is why the Sandy Hook hoax has been so effective. Once people are convinced an atrocity has occurred, it becomes extremely difficult to correct false initial impressions. As Mark Twain observed,”It’s easier to fool people that it is to convince them they have been fooled.”
Click here to watch, “Terrorist Truthers: Prime Time”
This is not the first time that the Ottawa Sun has been used to convey the message of rejecting the skeptics and depend upon your government. On 27 June 2014, for example, it published “Beware terrorists, not the government”, in which its author, Charles Adler, suggests that its purely “paranoia” to be concerned about the NSA’s surveillance of our phone calls, email messages and financial and medical records. “Osama Bin Laden is dead,” he writes, “but his criminally insane ideology is very much alive.” According to Adler, the problem is not the government, which is there to protect us, but leakers like Edward Snowden, who reveal what’s going on.
As Joshua Blakeney has recently observed, “Israel’s puppet regime in Ottawa wants to use Canadian dollars and the country’s military to help Israel implement the Oded Yinon plan in the Middle East. Ordinary Canadians are waking up to the fact that it is not in Canada’s national interest to be expending her blood and treasure to destroy countries like Iraq and Syria on behalf of Israel. Hence a series of emotive ‘incidents’ were enabled by pro-Zionist actors to a) evoke jingoism among a sufficient number of Canadians so as to make Canadian involvement in the further destruction of Iraq and Syria more tenable and b) enable Orwellian ‘anti-radicalization’ policies to be implemented so the most accurate analysts of Canadian foreign policy can be criminalized for ‘preaching radicalism’ and ‘proselytizing for terrorism’.”
The threat of an Ebola pandemic
There are many reasons to believe that this latest Ebola outbreak is another attempt to instill fear into the American people, possibly with the ultimate objective of using the necessity of maintaining quarantines to impose martial law upon the United States. There are many indications of fakery, including documentaries that show a young man simply lying down and being described as having Ebola, while his father walks away with a handful of cash; after a while, the young man gets up and walks away himself. Or loading an Ebola patient aboard a plane, where the official in charge, who is not wearing a Hazmat suit, sets down a cup of coffee where it could easily be contaminated if the patient were infected. Here is one study of what appears to be going on:
Without taking a definitive stand, Mike Adams of NaturalNews offers a summary of reasons why an Ebola scare could be effective and all-too-easily contrived:
There’s no way for us to really know for sure whether Ebola has been intentionally released anywhere as a weapon, but here are some important things we do know which might be valuable clues:
• Ebola would be ridiculously easy to harvest right now and deploy as a bioterrorism weapon. There’s almost no chance that a person intentionally carrying Ebola would be detected at U.S. entry points unless they were highly symptomatic.
• Ebola is the “perfect” weapon for evil-minded terrorists because it is untraceable, self-replicating and it does not damage the infrastructure of society. (It kills people but doesn’t destroy refineries and bridges, in other words…) It also causes a very large psychological change in society, driving some people into a state of fear and others into a state of preparedness.
• There are many parties that would benefit enormously from an Ebola bioterrorism event. You can probably figure out all the usual suspects yourself, but the list would likely include vaccine companies, population control zealots and anyone in government that wanted to declare medical martial law and benefit from the concentration of power into the hands of the few.
• There is also a reasonable argument circulating now that says the banksters need a scapegoat for the massive market crash (and debt implosion) they’ve been staving off for years with the Fed’s desperate cash pumping. If Ebola gets released, they can allow the crash to unravel while nullifying all financial contract claims because a viral pandemic would be deemed an “act of God.” (There is specific language in nearly all contracts that provide a no-fault out for any such “act of God.”)
• It’s crystal clear right now that the White House is dictating the national media’s downplaying of Ebola news. There might be multiple Ebola infections happening right now at hospitals across America, but news of those outbreaks might be censored in order to prevent the public from losing faith in government right before the mid-term elections. Once the elections are over, it will be interesting to see if there’s an uptick in Ebola coverage.
If you don’t think such a media blackout can occur in a nation with a supposed “free press,” check out the recent nationwide media blackout on the CDC vaccine whistleblower story, which received absolutely zero coverage in the establishment media even though it was one of the largest medical stories of the decade. Make no mistake: When the media is ordered to censor a news story, they censor it across the board and immediately distract the public with something else, usually a juicy celebrity scandal of some kind.
And I have advanced reflections on why Obama might be sending troops into West Africa, as though a virus could be killed by a bullet:
Click here to watch, “Ebola hoax to justify imposing martial law”
A new “Ebola Warning” suggests that the virus is being deliberately introduced into the United States for the sake of promoting a political agenda, which may have to do with oil prices, the stock market or the coming elections. Killing miners to get them back to work is tried and true, but corporations need new cover stories to conceal their exploits to enhance their profits. It is being used to justify sending troops to Sierra Leone and other West African countries, where there is a strike by miners which those troops could bring to an end to promote the owner’s profits. But the aim may also be to create a justification for imposing martial law in the USA.
American treachery in the Middle East
That the world is being bamboozled is clear. American treachery has never been more blatant. As Alan Sabrosky has reported, the US has been targeting Syria’s infrastructure, nor ISIS (to weaken Assad), which has been confirmed by other reports. The US is taking out oil refineries and grain silos, where even the EU ambassador to Iraq admits that the EU is buying oil from ISIS. ISIS is being advised by a US General Vallely (ret.); and where the US is spending $200 million every week both supporting and attacking the threat. The latest report is that Obama is considering attacking its oil pipelines:
Even the beheadings are fake, but still good enough to dupe a gullible American public. Perhaps most telling of all is that a new terrorist entity, the Khorasan group, has been invented out of thin air in order to claim that it poses an “imminent threat” to the United States in order to justify American strikes in another nation without securing the permission of the UN Security Council, because one nation may attack another under the Charter of the United Nations only if it has permission from the Security Council “unless it confronts an ‘imminent threat’”. So between David Cameron and Barack Obama, we see the depths of depravity to which the West will sink to attack Syria.
And all of this is being done to promote the agenda of the Project for the New American Century, which needed a new Pearl Harbor to reverse US foreign policy from one in which we never attacked any nation that had not attacked us first to one in which we have become the greatest aggressor nation the world has ever seen and are undertaking one war after another on behalf of Israel by dismantling every Arab nation that served as a counterbalance to its domination of the Middle East, which it aspires to control from the Tigris-Euphrates to the Nile, which is why we are still there. The Neo-Con agenda is alive and well in the Middle East today.
The Assassination of JFK
Anyone who has ever believed in the United States as the moral leader of the world must be appalled at the gross abuse of its power, where instead of treating other nations with respect, the US is adhering to the principle that “might makes right”, which is the most corrupt of all. Since the Bush/Cheney administration, there has been a precipitous decline in the quality of American leadership in the world. But many of us believe that it traces back much further to the assassination of our 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, by force, an event that was carefully orchestrated by the most powerful special interests in the country and meticulously covered up.
As I explained most recently during the Santa Barbara Conference, “JFK at 50: The Assassination of America” (2013), the most appropriate framework for understanding this event requires drawn a three-level distinction between THE SPONSORS (the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia, the Eastern bankers associated with the FED, the Texas oil men and Israel), THE MECHANICS (the shooters who took him out and their supervisors and coordinators), and THE FACILITATORS (LBJ for the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover for the cover-up), where stunning new evidence has emerged blowing apart the alteration of the Zapruder film:
We now know have confirmation from the escort officers, whom the Warren Commission never called, of the bullet hole in the windshield, of the limo stop (where one of the officers ran in between the limos to get to the north side of Elm Street) and of the conduct of the Secret Service at the time (where three agents climbed out and covered the left side of the Lincoln and two others the right, where one of them retrieved a piece of JFK’s skull and tossed it into the back seat of the limo with the body of the dead president). None of this is in the film.
It looks as though the phrase, “truther terrorist”, has been designed to join the ranks of other semantic clubs that have been wielded for political purposes, such that anyone who has been critical of the actions or policies of the government of Israel is therefore “anti-Semitic”, or anyone who challenges the “official account” of World War II and its gas chambers using Zyklon-B to exterminate 6,000,000 Jews is therefore a “Holocaust denier” or that anyone who doubts that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK is therefore a “conspiracy theorist”, regardless of consideration for logic, evidence and proof. There are terrorists among us, but they are not those who are seeking the truth.