Is Trump just falling in line with the evil establishment and going for more 'regime change' in Syria like Obama who preceded him? Is this another illegal invasion of Syria by the United States and NATO? Probably not, because the Syrian President would have complained, but has said nothing. Neither has Russia. Nor has Turkey. Something new is going on in Syria and it may actually be good. Could the end of this terrible war inflicted by US-NATO upon Syria finally be in sight?
Despite Trump's formal disapproval of Iran, Iranian television has once again risen above the situation in delivering a superbly objective inquiry or debate about what Trump's 400 new troops might be doing in Syria. You can watch it here http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/03/09/513707/US-military-Marines-Syria and it will probably soon appear on Press TV's you-tube channel. This episode of Press TV's 'The Debate', canvasses the opinion of Jim W. Dean, the managing editor of Veterans Today, from Atlanta, and James Jatras, a former US diplomat, from Washington, on the deployment of hundreds of US Marines to Syria. As usual interviewer Kaveh Taghvai's questions are right on the nose.
On RT a day or two ago, probably 8 March Russian time, Catherine Shakdam (Middle East commentator) also argued that during the recent talks in Geneva, which the US attended, the US probably obtained Russia and Syria's permission to enter Syria and cooperate with the Syrian Army and Russian troops. There is no public confirmation of this and Trump has repeatedly said that he isn't going to give details of his military plans - and I don't think Russia or Syria would either.
We cannot help noticing that Putin has both Erdogan & Netanyahu in Moscow at the same time, ostensibly for individual talks with Putin... but it is interesting they're both there together, if we take into account their mutuality of interests.
In the meantime,Catherine Shakdam/s interview has been removed from the RT news record as far as I can see from searching, with a talking [male] head from UK being much more dour on Trump. Not that Shakdam is pro-Trump; she was also keen to portray him as trying to seize victory from the jaws of Syria and Russia for his own glory. For all the Soros/Clinton/Obama administration's conspiracy confabulation regarding RT, that online broadcasting channel, with its American channel based in Washington, D.C., was almost entirely anti-Trump before the US election and remains anti-Trump, with Watching the Hawks, The Big Picture and Redacted Tonight playing to the New York and Washington Left. In this it probably fails to reflect Putin's own preferences. Before the running up to the election The Big Picture was generally quite stimulating because of the wide-ranging politics of its invited panelists. As the election actually loomed, host Tom Hartman seemed to panic and dropped all his republican-sympathetic guests, delivering a kind of CNN program. Crosstalk and Going Underground seem to be the only relatively objective programs on the subject. Excellent and original female interviewers Oksana Boyko and Sophie Shevardnadze, who have their own programs, Worlds Apart and SophieCo respectively, are pretty even-handed, but Boyko has indicated a distrust for Trump's administration. Perhaps Boyko's opinion is a reflection of the new-class influence of post-graduate education in the United States. This does not stop her programs having breadth, however. Sophie Shevardnadze is an exceptional polyglot with a wide international education.
If you take your information from the mainstream media, then you could have thought that, under Obama/Clinton/John Kerry, Syria and East Ukraine were being rescued from dastardly governments by a benevolent US-NATO, which is standing up to Grizzly-bear Russia. If you read the articles on Syria and Ukraine on this site, which takes its information from a wide range of sources, you would be aware of how scary the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the US 2017 elections really was. Already guilty of tens of thousands of deaths in Libya and Syria as Obama's foreign secretary, she seemed to be enthusiastically marching straight into WW3 with the approval of George Soros, Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia, Israel .... The mainstream press was encouraging everyone to get right in there behind her. Hillary's very shallow brand of globalism, dressed up as 'progressive' attitudes to the oppressed, seemed to fool a lot of people who presumably didn't read much outside the MSN or took their information from corrupt NGOs and ersatz socialist alliances that actually work as a front for the establishment. So how is Trump doing now?
Why does the corrupt establishment hate Trump?
When it became obvious that the establishment elite and the establishment press that support the growth lobby and which supported Hillary Clinton were dead against Trump, I became interested in what Trump had to say, despite the fact that he is an obscenely wealthy property developer. If so many powerful and destructive organisations and people hated him, astonishingly he might not be all bad. [2] As a member of the alternative press, I was naturally interested in any major politician who was able to go round and over the MSN. This interest sent me straight to the videos of Trump's rallies, where I could check what the MSN alleged and what actually went down.
When the mainstream media were predicting that Hillary would win, I was thinking they obviously were not listening to Trump's speeches, they had not seen the size of his audiences or his connection with them. For some reason they totally underestimated the importance for most ordinary people of the subjects Trump commented on. When the press called him stupid, but he overcame all the major obstacles in his way, including the mainstream press, I thought, this guy is a genius. You would have to be stupid to think otherwise.
Exceptional
Actually listening to Trump's rallies showed the man to be an exceptional communicator. In fact, he is obviously exceptional in very many ways: exceptional stamina, exceptional ability to think independently and to hold his own against would-be peer pressure. Maybe, I hoped against hope, he would also be an exceptional property developer with an exceptional sense of proportion who would use what he knew about the workings of the international development and growth lobby to bring their juggernaut to a halt. Because the juggernaut, composed of organised networks of corporations and investment is so huge that it has integrated actual governments and political parties. Watching as these networks vastly increased with the establishment of the internet, I have often felt that 'resistance is hopeless', continuing to resist nonetheless. Maybe, I thought, James Sinnamon, who built candobetter.net website, is correct after all that exceptional leaders can still exist and somehow pull people together despite the corporations and the corrupting influence of the super-charged monetary economy, the deep state and the military-industrial-mass-media complex. Trump's use of twitter seemed to illustrate this possibility.
Not your typical developer-speak: Trump's economic and moral philosophy
Granted Trump was talking about bulding a trillion dollars worth of new infrastructure, which is typical developer speak, but he wasn't talking up population, which is developer speech, and he was localising this project to the United States, which he correctly identified as greatly in need of new infrastructure. The former administrations were typical growth lobby servants, creating opportunities through war and globalisation, for privateers to profit from disaster management, sending in the bulldozers to clear the bodies and the rubble, cranes to stack the concrete blocks and financiers to organise the foreign debts.
In contrast to Hillary Clinton's war drums, globalism and dog-whistles to disaster capitalists,Trump talked about reducing foreign intervention and getting along with Russia and Syria. He wanted to halt illegal immigration, in part because it was taking local jobs. This is is well-established, particularly in regard to black jobs being replaced by illegal and legal hispanic workers.[3] He has noted the associated growing poverty of black communities and the infrastructure decay in former manufacturing cities with large populations of black Americans.
He is not in favour of increasing the minimum wage. My understanding is that he believes the US could not compete with international labour prices if wages were increased there, but he seems to believe he will create a more propitious local/national situation by reducing imported slave-labour, decreasing taxes to attract investment in manufacturing, and increasing taxes on manufactures from corporations that have left the country in search of cheaper labour. In the event that Trump succeeds in this economic shoring-up program, using local labour, this would create a much better bargaining environment for local labour. It would also improve opportunities for small to medium businesses which have difficulty competing with international corporations that can cherry-pick labour, taxes, environment and other laws and country.
This is not your classical dirigiste economy, which workers traditionally fight for, with government influencing wages and living costs, but the above manner of improving work opportunity and security is a way of make wage increases possible. If immigration (legal and illegal) is also noticeably reduced and population growth falls back, inflationary pressure on fuel, water and housing would be reduced, thus cutting the cost of living and the need for higher wages. Concommitant security of work and housing tenure would be expected to increase democratic activity by freeing large quantities of people from energy and confidence-absorbing precarity. I have suggested and so have others that globalism with its open-borders policy on labour is a way of keeping people too precarious to engage politically.
Trump has been lambasted by 'liberals', MSN, Soros, et al for trying to stop the entry of terrorists via large streams of refugees from seven countries deemed by the previous administration to be a terrorist risk. Yet those previous administrations promoted and legitimated mass fear of terrorism when they engaged in very dubious wars to 'defeat terrorism' (thereby vastly increasing terrorist takfiri warriors) and implemented a swathe of new laws that have vastly reduced legal civil rights in the United States and other countries, in order to 'prevent terrorism'.
Astoundingly, super-businessman Trump wanted to get rid of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which threatened sovereign rights to control laws and conditions for environment, employment, labour movement and legal process.
Even more encouraging, after Trump was elected, he has immediately attempted to carry out his policy promises, starting with stopping America's involvement in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Yet the MSN hardly paused to report this and the "Left" simply ignored this gob-smacking promise-keeping and democratic event. The reason seems obvious: those in control of the MSN and the 'voice' of the "Left" are globalists and they were not really against the TPP.
Trump, who had a brother who died of alcoholism, is a non-drinker, who seems to understand rather than judge addiction. His political philosophy could largely be summed up as, "Look for the similarities, not the differences," which is core Alcoholics Anonymous. Identity politics is the opposite of this as in, 'Look for the differences, not the similarities'.
From many previous comments and interviews, it was obvious that Trump was not your typical Republican or puritan. I think he is highly sexed and ribald, but he seems to value the women in his life, showing great respect for his daughters. It was tragic for those who would be adversely affected that Trump had to agree to anti-abortion demands, but that was necessary to obtain Mike Pence's support which was crucial for any chance at winning the presidency. I can remember the absolute terror of the threat of pregnancy in a country and a time when abortion and contraception were both very difficult and expensive to obtain. The reversal of Roe vs Wade is not all that it is cracked up to be, but the right-wing Christian attitude to abortion, indeed towards sex, is daunting.
Military spending increase
One of those policies that Trump announced in advance was to beef up the military, at the same time as he said he was against foreign interventions. Whilst I can understand Trump's reduction of funding and staffing of the US Environmental protection agency and other places where his enemies are numerous - and he said that he would - what is most concerning about Donald Trump is his plan - announced only a day ago - to so vastly increase military spending. He says that it is for 'public safety and national security'. Does that mean that it will not be used to 'intervene' in the Middle East and elsewhere, but more for defense? He plans to upgrade outdated military technology. It is true that the United State's military technology is quite out of date. Russia, which spends far less than the United States already spends on its military, nonetheless has superior technology and is said to be able to defend itself against any US missile attack. However Russia has not attacked any country for years, unless you count the voluntary annexation of Crimea and backing separatists in Georgia in a move that ended up with the creation of South Ossetia as a separate state. These moves were understandable defensive responses to political incursion from EU/NATO which threatened Russian access to important trade-routes for oil and gas transport. We should ask the question: Which countries, if any, threaten the United States with war? Another consideration that might underlie Trump's boosting of the national military might be to take it back from private outsourcing. Or it might not. For several presidencies - in fact, since the invasion of Iraq - the military has been outsourced as a for profit to corporations like Haliburton. (See Video & transcript: Prof Sean McFate on rising danger of mercenary armies forming corporate military states or running amuck) These corporate entitities have replaced government paid soldiers with mercenaries. There have been fears that corporations and mercenaries are more likely than national armies to support perpetual war. The corporate entities have not been answerable to the United States public or their courts and are suspected of pillaging countries and reconstructing governments to their own advantage. (See Naomi Klein on 'disaster capitalism', for example: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/disaster-capitalism-in-action/tags/iraq.) However Trump's most recent pronouncements about putting boots on the ground in the Middle East have sounded as if he has fallen into the grip of the perpetual war military. Unless he carries through with remarks about cooperating with the Syrian and Russian governments to eradicate Daesh. (See https://sputniknews.com/military/201702271051092603-us-military-strategy-troops-syria/.) Will Trump surprise us with his exceptionality again here?
TRUMP: "We've pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military. And, I will tell you that is my - I would be so happy if we never had to use this - but our country will never have had a military like the military we're about to build and rebuild." Reassuring remarks made by Trump as he gave his speech to joint session of Congress, February 28, 2017
Environment
With regard to climate change and carbon gases, war is probably the biggest contributor, but it is never officially counted. The Obama regime increased wars whilst increasing talk of C02 reduction. (See http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/12/fight-climate-change-not-wars.) For all its environmental agencies and rhetoric, it increased fracking and local fossil-fuel operations as well. It was open-borders oriented, which meant perpetual increase in population and demand for energy in the United States. What Trump's military policy had on the side of the environment was his stated willingness to get on with the rest of the world and refrain from war and his willingness to reduce immigration, which is the major contributor to population growth in the United States.
NOTES
[1] For an in-depth analysis of some important craven activities of the Clinton Foundation and other NGOs in Haiti after that big earthquake, read Jonathan M. Katz, The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster, Palgrave McMillan, 2013. Then you have the White Helmets, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, various "Greens", GetUp, Change.org, MoveOn.org, all marketed by the mainstream, funded by the establishment, justifying foreign interventions and often promoting open borders. It is amazing how few people look beyond nice labels. In fact, this is probably a skill acquired in later adulthood, from life experience.
[2] Murdoch Press has been a bit of an exception to this rule. Murdoch could be looking to buy up cheap some of the 'fake news' media that Trump has 'trumped' and he probably also sees Trump's enemy, Soros, as a competitor for press influence.
According to journalist Yanatab Zunger, Donald Trump currently appears to be targeting the CIA and its other Deep State cronies for extinction -- while at the same time hiring his own security team to protect himself. Ah, if only President Kennedy had engineered this kind of power-grab/self-protection combination when he was first elected, he would still be alive today and we would live in a whole different (and far better) world. @yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.dg9vu3e70" id="yiv3591735947yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485968960948_28304" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.dg9vu3e70
Make no mistake, Trump is no friend of democracy like JFK obviously was, and I am totally appalled by many of Trump's policies and buddies. With regard to Trump's plans to cut MediCare, Social Security and various government food and housing programs, these cuts basically amount to the financial genocide of America's elderly -- the very same white male demographic that The Donald has sworn to protect. And the buddies he has chosen to guide him appear to be totally committed to ecological genocide of the entire human race as well.
However. Trump, like Kennedy before him, also seems to be calling out the Deep State's right to rule America (and the world) with an iron hand. Good luck with that one, President Trump. Let's just hope you don't go the way of others who have also tried this in the past. Patrice Lumumba, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy immediately come to mind. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/book-review-devils-chessboard-david-talbot
The so-called Deep State, AKA the military-industrial complex and/or Wall Street and War Street, is a political dinosaur whose time has come -- and gone. These days, "People everywhere just want to be free," to paraphrase an old-school New Jersey rock band. But this particular Deep State dinosaur seems at first glance to be the T-Rex of them all,
impossible to defeat even though its extinction has already been written in the sand. http://time.com/4657648/charles-koch-donald-trump/
So who better to take out a mean dinosaur than another mean dinosaur? Enter the Trump political machine. Battle to the death here folks. But no matter if Trump loses and ends up in the tar pits of Vegas or if the Deep State loses and ends up buried in the swamps of Washington DC, hopefully democracy will be the ultimate winner. http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-im-going-to-las-vegas-on-valentines.html
PS:
The reptilian part of the human brain still seems to be the boss of most human mental operations these days. Even after almost a million disastrous years of this kind of thinking, since even before caveman times, many of us still function mainly from the depths of our reptile cortex -- and still believe that full-spectrum dominance will solve any problem. But as St. Valentine constantly reminds us, love is a much sharper tool.
But Trump and the Deep State aren't the only ones who still think like dinosaurs. There is also the Pentagon, ISIS, the Israeli/Saudi alliance, the para-military police up at Standing Rock, serial killers, child abusers, Klan members, banksters, gang-bangers and other hooligans of all types. The list goes on and on. However, like the T-Rex and the
brontosaurus before them, these outdated reptiles are also doomed to extinction.
But, sadly, if these gross dinosaurs with expired sell-by dates who now run our show don't "get their minds right" immediately, the rest of us evolving types who try very hard to live
in the image of MLK, JFK, Gandhi and even Buddha and Jesus -- we also are gonna be doomed, right along with the reptiles of Wall Street and War Street.
In a rather alarming development for Syrians hoping that the danger of a no-fly-zone had passed when the US electorate passed on Clinton, the new ‘pro-Russian’ President Trump has suggested ‘Safe Zones’ in Syria should be pursued, so that Syrian refugees would have somewhere to go when he stops them coming to America.
"Russia urges caution on Donald Trump's plan for safe zones in Syria": A Kremlin spokesman says Donald Trump's administration did not consult Russia before announcing the plan to establish safe zones for refugees in Syria. [...] On Wednesday, the US President said he "will absolutely do safe zones in Syria" for refugees fleeing violence. "I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries," he said in an interview with an ABC News (US) broadcast."
This off-the-cuff remark by Trump has also alarmed Russia, which isn’t yet confident that the US can change its spots, or that the President won’t inadvertently say something unwise and then have to follow through on it.
But while all of Syria’s enemies have jumped at the possibility the US is going to come to its senses and pull Mr Trump back into line, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that there is another sort of ‘safe-zone’ possible in Syria, which looks an awful lot like Aleppo.
Russia has in fact already created a – relatively – safe zone in Aleppo by helping the Syrian army and its allies expel the terrorist groups who were holding the East of the city under siege. What is more, already there are tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ returning to their homes in the east from West Aleppo, where they have been living for the last four years since armed jihadists invaded their city.
It may be a hard pill to swallow for Western supporters of Syria’s fake ‘revolutionaries’, but the Syrian people they pretend to speak for have long decided who makes them feel safe – their own security forces! If President Trump is going to help them drive out and kill the terrorist groups his own country has been supporting then he will surely be making us all feel a lot safer.
As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people. Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace. It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people. [Candobetter.net Editor: This communication was issued as an email to a list by Ms Gabbard and we reproduce it here in the assumption that it was intended as a kind of press release. More on Tulsi Gabbard, who was a distinguished soldier in Iraq: https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard]
We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city. The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they want.
I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia, and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government. I met Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers, academics, college students, small business owners, and more.
Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between “moderate” rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS — they are all the same. This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.
I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by “rebel groups” who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the “rebels” — he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the “rebels” are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them. Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists — directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.
Trump has just done something good. WhiteHouse.gov has announced, via President Trump, that the TPP deal will no longer have the United States as a participant. The TPP was one of Obama’s deeply unpopular 'achievements', in terms of trade deals, and Trump has quickly lived up to his promise to remove the United States from the deal. Will anti-Trump demonstrators who shout about 'democracy' concede that this is what most of us wanted and the thing that the power-elite pre-Trump were determined to withold from us? The MSM (mainstream media) will probably hardly report this or it will report it as disastrous, using econogabble and corporate talking heads for hire to confuse everyone.
For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.
With a lifetime of negotiating experience, the President understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy, return millions of jobs to America’s shores, and revitalize our nation’s suffering communities.
This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.
In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process. The President will direct the Commerce Secretary to identify all trade violations and to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal to end these abuses.
To carry out his strategy, the President is appointing the toughest and smartest to his trade team, ensuring that Americans have the best negotiators possible. For too long, trade deals have been negotiated by, and for, members of the Washington establishment. President Trump will ensure that on his watch, trade policies will be implemented by and for the people, and will put America first.
By fighting for fair but tough trade deals, we can bring jobs back to America’s shores, increase wages, and support U.S. manufacturing.
"It's not often you hear about something like that happening. The man who called Donald Trump a 'would-be dictator' got bearish after the President Elect's victory in November and lost nearly a billion dollars. Reportedly, he thought a Trump win was going to cause massive sell. Wrong! The market rallied and the hedge fund legend and Clinton supporter lost out. The Dow Jones has climbed nearly 10% since November 9th." Analysts are saying that Trump's new policies could boost the economy and corporate earnings in particular for this market rally. "So it looks like Soros's millions of dollars sunk into a Superpac, back in the Clinton campaign, didn't work out." A super PAC is a modern breed of political-action committee that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. (Quotation from presenter in Boom Bust, [752] Why is the America middle class disappearing?) - see video inside for the report, plus an analysis of how and why the middle classes are disappearing from the United States.
Women's marches against Trump
Soros is a sore loser and he is subsidising protests against Trump through the many organisations that he has brought into existence to manipulate public perception. These organisations present caring facades but they take over real movements and turn them into vehicles for the billionaire's agenda and that of the ousted recent US regime. For instance, feminism has been used as a banner for women and others to march under, even though they are mainly pushing for open borders. Whilst possible restraint on US women's access to abortion is a legitimate concern, brought about by Trump's need to appeal to the Right to Life components of the Republicans, open-borders is not a feminist concern. So, these marchers have hijacked feminism for a globalist agenda.
The Women’s March’s official partner’s list includes 350.org, CODEPINK, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many are bankrolled by Soros, including Amnesty International, Center for Constitutional Rights, Green For All, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and Sierra Club. A number of these organisations once had their own agendas, but they have been taken over and made to push for open borders, an agenda that runs against civil rights and assists globalisation. The Sierra Club purports to protect natural environment and other species but it also has gradually stopped members from criticising high immigration, thus defeating all its other efforts.
Historically planned parenthood gave up on major politics because it found that its agenda to provide contraception and abortion to those who wanted it became subsumed in a fight against being labeled eugenicist. See /node/995Unfortunately it seems that it now has unsavory bedfellows again. So, on the one hand you have Trump who wants to limit immigration which will lessen competition for jobs for ordinary Americans, and, on the other hand, you have an organisation that used to fight overpopulation marching for open borders. We all need to become more sophisticated and stop responding to branding.
During the US presidential inauguration ceremonies Trump's elegant and disciplined clan members appeared brave in the face of multiple violent threats, fanned by a jilted mainstream press, for example, CNN's, "Disaster could put Obama cabinet member in oval office." Beside their chubbier leader, beaming like John Candy, the females of the Trump clan, with their gazelle-like legs and long hair, flawless skin and physiques, seemed like avatars from another world.
A correspondent commented to me this morning on her perception that the Age and the ABC underreported aspects of President Trump's inauguration. "Melania really did look stunning, but there was a lack of positive comment re Melania’s dress, a lack of any sympathetic camera work on her. This was in contrast to the gushing over Michelle Obama eight years ago. It is to do with the level of warmth. I felt that, with the Trumps, the commentary and footage were overly cold and objective compared with the same event eight years ago. In fact, I found this article, which bore out my feelings: #10;http://fashionista.com/2016/11/melania-trump-fashion"> "How we plan on covering (or not covering) Melania Trump's fashion choices". It shows that there has even been a politicisation of reporting on fashion with regard to the Trumps."
Indeed, the New York Times, which does gives some quite interesting fashion details on who dresses the Trump entourage and the semiotics of their costumes, also reports in the embedded video, on how a number of fashion publications have snubbed the Trumps because of a perception that Donald Trump is racist. This is based on his attitude to protecting jobs for Americans, illegal immigrated violent offenders and immigration from source countries for ISIS - all defensible positions even if you don't happen to agree with them. They do not make Trump racist.
But the fight is really nationalist vs globalist. The globalist open-borders exiting US regime pursued the most racist of wars in the Middle East and now it is going after Trump, the anti-Soros. The out-going regime and the press that supports them are heavily sponsored by Soros who also has succeeded in diverting many organisations from their original agendas and getting them to push for open borders, an agenda that runs against civil rights and assists globalisation. We can see this in the Women's marches today, 22 January 2017, where feminism has apparently been coopted to incoherently support globalism as well as protest more reasonably on behalf of abortion-rights. (See "George Soros big loser in US elections funds hi-jacking of feminism for globalist agenda."
New York Times video
Witty, charismatic and politically incorrect
Am I the only one whom Trump's goofy smile reminds of John Candy, the charming Canadian comedian who died in March 1994 and who played many eccentric characters? There is something in the eyes and the mouth and a way of moving, but perhaps it is mostly that Trump appears larger than life and is funny and outrageous, like Candy. "If I was elected, you would be in jail, Hillary!"[1]
Admittedly, if you don't think there is anything funny about politics, and particularly about Donald Trump, you might not see the humour and you might hate the charisma, but you still might agree that the 2017 US election had elements of a National Lampoon comedy that Candy might have played in. The statuesque wife, who looks half her age, the lanky daughters displayed on stage like two legged-giraffes in designer gowns and the pizza-gate-lolita-island scandals surrounding the departing US regime and Donald, larger than life, prevailing, assisted by his unforgettable hair.
NOTES
[1] Second Presidential debate dialogue:
HILLARY CLINTON: “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.
TRUMP: “Because you’d be in jail.”
Just how effective is the power of prayer? For many of us who are poor and helpless, prayer is the only WMD that we can get our hands on.
Prayer is our AK-47, our Uzi, our nuclear missile, our Glock. It is the only defense that we have against the slings and arrows that are constantly aimed at our hearts by those more rich and powerful and brutal than we are.
In Mexico City, the Sacred Heart of Jesus has become our bunker, our NORAD, our Marine Corps and even our numbered bank account in the Caymans.
But are we -- the victims, the vulnerable, the unprotected, the powerless -- are we actually being armored and protected by prayer or is it just wistful thinking because we have nothing else? Who knows.
Are the poor and defenseless in places like Yemen, Ferguson, Honduras, Tibet, Syria, Ukraine, Standing Rock, Afghanistan, Gaza and Libya actually being protected by their prayers to Yahweh, Allah, God, Buddha, Shiva, the Great Spirit, etc.?
Will my own heartfelt and constant prayers for world peace ever be answered? Who the freak knows? They haven't been so far. However, realistically, do we who are the meek and wretched of the earth really have any other choice?
And here in Mexico City, like everywhere else, the defenses of we the defenseless are limited too -- and yet here in both the grand cathedrals and the humble churches by the side of the road, the defenseless grandmothers and beggars and disabled and working stiffs and vulnerable salt of the earth all continue to pray.
PS: Here's another thing that we clearly need to pray about: America's government!
According to The Saker, a trustworthy political blog site, there is currently a huge clash of Titans going on far above our heads -- as the neo-con Deep State struggles to discredit, impeach, assassinate and/or eliminate (wait for it!) Donald J. Trump. Any way that they can. Apparently those guys really really really hate The Donald -- even more than the Left in America hates him. And that's saying a lot.
With regard to the phony intelligence document recently leaked by John McCain, The Saker warns us that, "After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump... This is a political coup d’etat."
But. "If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population, the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46202.htm
And also let us pray for the soggy and cold protesters on the much-raided "Poor Tour" in my hometown of Berkeley, CA. They are protesting the criminalization of being homeless in America and need all the help they can get. You don't have to go thousands of miles away to find something to pray for these days. https://www.facebook.com/firsttheycameforthehomeless/
******** Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world.
Here it is, that time of year,
When we look back and shed a tear
To me the facts are very clear
That better times are in the rear
The world around me is going bats
Replacing houses and gardens with big ugly flats
Digging caverns for cars - are they underground bunkers?
Melbourne's traffic increasing by ever more clunkers
Further afield every bit of space
is under attack from those seeking a place
For ever more cars and bicycle wheels
Thru our peaceful parks where we once cooled our heels
Small pieces of land with scatters of trees
Are deemed surplus to needs and sold off in the breeze
"No one will notice" behind closed doors they say
But the community loses a little each day
On a national scale we had an election,
It threw up an amazing Senate confection!
Such a surprise, One Nation arise!
Who else can the poor, disaffected turn to?
In the US t'was the same situation
though they really did it to utter perfection
Not just a loud voice from the red gallery
A developer star from reality TV
Over in Britain, they put in a lady
to mop up the spillage, (we won’t call her Sadie)
from a sudden and brutal and final exit
From the EU by a disgusted proletariat
Meanwhile in a wedge between India and France
We just can’t ignore that there isn’t a chance
Of stopping the wars in the Middle East
Or all sitting down to a peace giving feast
Until all are united in stamping out ISIS
or Da’esh or any damned name in a crisis.
With this situation let’s watch this space
We really don’t know quite what we will face.
Next year’s an unknown in international affairs
If you are religious then please say your prayers
Can it be worse ? Well may you wonder.
Lets hope that Trump, as he promised, will cast war asunder.
President Bashar al-Assad : “[The ]West is telling Russia that Syrian Army went too far in defeating terrorists … Daesh could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of U.S. alliance”. President Obama’s announcement of a waiver for arming unspecified rebel groups in Syria came shortly before the terrorist group Islamic State launched a massive attack on Palmyra. Syrian President Bashar Assad believes it was no coincidence, he told RussiaToday. In the interview, the Syrian leader explained how his approach to fighting terrorism differs from that of the US, why he believes the military success of his forces in Aleppo was taken so negatively in the West, and what he expects from US President-elect Donald Trump. [Full Video and Transcript]
“The announcement of the lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else,” Bashar al-Assad said.
“The crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos,” Assad added.
He added that Islamic State (Daesh, IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) forces “came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states.”
Russia Today (Maria Finoshina): Mr. President, thank you very much for agreeing to speak with us.
President Bashar al-Assad: You’re most welcome in Damascus.
RT: We start with Aleppo, of course. Aleppo is now seeing what is perhaps the most fierce fighting since the war started almost six years ago here in Syria, but the Western politicians and Western media have been largely negative about your army’s advance. Why you think this is happening? Do they take it as their own defeat?
B.A.: Actually, after they failed in Damascus, because the whole narrative was about “liberating Damascus from the state” during the first three years. When they failed, they moved to Homs, when they failed in Homs, they moved to Aleppo, they focused on Aleppo during the last three years, and for them this is the last most important card they could have played on the Syrian battlefield. Of course, they still have terrorists in different areas in Syria, but it’s not like talking about Aleppo as the second largest city which has the political, military, economic, and even moral sense when their terrorists are defeated. So, for them the defeat of the terrorists is the defeating of their proxies, to talk bluntly. These are their proxies, and for them the defeat of these terrorists is the defeat of the countries that supervised them, whether regional countries or Western countries like United States, first of all United States, and France, and UK.
RT: So, you think they take it as their own defeat, right?
B.A.: Exactly, that’s what I mean. The defeat of the terrorists, this is their own defeat because these are their real army on the ground. They didn’t interfere in Syria, or intervened, directly; they have intervened through these proxies. So, that’s how we have to look at it if we want to be realistic, regardless of their statements, of course.
RT: Palmyra is another troubled region now, and it’s now taken by ISIS or ISIL, but we don’t hear a lot of condemnation about it. Is that because of the same reason?
B.A.: Exactly, because if it was captured by the government, they will be worried about the heritage. If we liberate Aleppo from the terrorists, they would be – I mean, the Western officials and the mainstream media – they’re going to be worried about the civilians. They’re not worried when the opposite happens, when the terrorists are killing those civilians or attacking Palmyra and started destroying the human heritage, not only the Syrian heritage. Exactly, you are right, because ISIS, if you look at the timing of the attack, it’s related to what’s happening in Aleppo. This is the response to what’s happening in Aleppo, the advancement of the Syrian Arab Army, and they wanted to make this… or let’s say, to undermine the victory in Aleppo, and at the same time to distract the Syrian Army from Aleppo, to make it move toward Palmyra and stop the advancement, but of course it didn’t work.
‘ISIS could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of US alliance’
RT: We also hear reports that Palmyra siege was not only related to Aleppo battle, but also to what was happening in Iraq, and there are reports that the US-led coalition – which is almost 70 countries – allowed ISIL fighters in Mosul in Iraq to leave, and that strengthened ISIL here in Syria. Do you think it could be the case?
B.A.: It could be, but this is only to wash the hand of the American politicians from their responsibility on the attack, when they say “just because of Mosul, of course, the Iraqi army attacked Mosul, and ISIS left Mosul to Syria.” That’s not the case. Why? Because they came with different and huge manpower and firepower that ISIS never had before during this attack, and they attacked on a huge front, tens of kilometers that could be a front of armies. ISIS could only have done that with the support of states. Not state; states. They came with different machineguns, cannons, artillery, everything is different. So, it could only happen when they come in this desert with the supervision of the American alliance that’s supposed to attack them in al-Raqqa and Mosul and Deir Ezzor, but it didn’t happen; they either turned a blind eye on what ISIS is going to do, and, or – and that’s what I believe – they pushed toward Palmyra. So, it’s not about Mosul. We don’t have to fall in that trap. It’s about al-Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. They are very close, only a few hundred kilometers, they could come under the supervision of the American satellites and the American drones and the American support.
RT: How strong ISIS is today?
B.A.: As strong as the support that they get from the West and regional powers. Actually, they’re not strong for… if you talk isolated case, ISIS as isolated case, they’re not strong, because they don’t have the natural social incubator. Without it, terrorists cannot be strong enough. But the real support they have, the money, the oil field investment, the support of the American allies’ aircrafts, that’s why they are strong. So, they are as strong as their supporters, or as their supervisors.
RT: In Aleppo, we heard that you allowed some of these terrorists to leave freely the battleground. Why would you do that? It’s clear that they can go back to, let’s say, Idleb, and get arms and get ready for further attacks, then maybe attack those liberating Aleppo.
B.A.: Exactly, exactly, that’s correct, and that’s been happening for the last few years, but you always have things to lose and things to gain, and when the gain is more than what you lose, you go for that gain. In that case, our priority is to protect the area from being destroyed because of the war, to protect the civilians who live there, to give the chance for those civilians to leave through the open gates, to leave that area to the areas under the control of the government, and to give the chance to those terrorists to change their minds, to join the government, to go back to their normal life, and to get amnesty. When they don’t, they can leave with their armaments, with the disadvantage that you mentioned, but this is not our priority, because if you fight them in any other area outside the city, you’re going to have less destruction and less civilian casualties, that’s why.
‘Fighting terrorists US-style cannot solve the problem’
RT: I feel that you call them terrorists, but at the same time you treat them as human beings, you tell them “you have a chance to go back to your normal life.”
B.A.: Exactly. They are terrorists because they are holding machineguns, they kill, they destroy, they commit vandalism, and so on, and that’s natural, everywhere in the world that’s called as terrorism. But at the same time, they are humans who committed terrorism. They could be something else. They joined the terrorists for different reasons, either out of fear, for the money, sometimes for the ideology. So, if you can bring them back to their normal life, to be natural citizens, that’s your job as a government. It’s not enough to say “we’re going to fight terrorists.” Fighting terrorists is like a videogame; you can destroy your enemy in the videogame, but the videogame will generate and regenerate thousands of enemies, so you cannot deal with it on the American way: just killing, just killing! This is not our goal; this is the last option you have. If you can change, this is a good option, and it succeeded. It succeeded because many of those terrorists, when you change their position, some of them living normal lives, and some of them joined the Syrian Army, they fought with the Syrian Army against the other terrorists. This is success, from our point of view.
RT: Mr. President, you just said that you gain and you lose. Do you feel you’ve done enough to minimize civilian casualties during this conflict?
B.A.: We do our utmost. What’s enough, this is subjective; each one could look at it in his own way. At the end, what’s enough is what you can do; my ability as a person, the ability of the government, the ability of Syria as a small country to face a war that’s been supported by tens of countries, mainstream media’s hundreds of channels, and other machines working against you. So, it depends on the definition of “enough,” so this is, as I said, very subjective, but I’m sure that we are doing our best. Nothing is enough at the end, and the human practice is always full of correct and flows, or mistakes, let’s say, and that’s the natural thing.
‘West’s cries for ceasefire meant to save terrorists’
RT: We hear Western powers asking Russia and Iran repeatedly to put pressure on you to, as they put it, “stop the violence,” and just recently, six Western nations, in an unprecedented message, they asked Russia and Iran again to put pressure on you, asking for a ceasefire in Aleppo.
B.A.: Yeah.
RT: Will you go for it? At the time when your army was progressing, they were asking for a ceasefire.
B.A.: Exactly. It’s always important in politics to read between the lines, not to be literal. It doesn’t matter what they ask; the translation of their statement is for Russia: “please stop the advancement of the Syrian Army against the terrorists.” That’s the meaning of that statement, forget about the rest. “You went too far in defeating the terrorists, that shouldn’t happen. You should tell the Syrians to stop this, we have to keep the terrorists and to save them.” This is in brief.
Second, Russia never – these days, I mean, during this war, before that war, during the Soviet Union – never tried to interfere in our decision. Whenever they had opinion or advice, doesn’t matter how we can look at it, they say at the end “this is your country, you know what the best decision you want to take; this is how we see it, but if you see it in a different way, you know, you are the Syrian.” They are realistic, and they respect our sovereignty, and they always defend the sovereignty that’s based on the international law and the Charter of the United Nations. So, it never happened that they made any pressure, and they will never do it. This is not their methodology.
RT: How strong is the Syrian Army today?
B.A.: It’s about the comparison, to two things: first of all, the war itself; second, to the size of Syria. Syria is not a great country, so it cannot have a great army in the numerical sense. The support of our allies was very important; mainly Russia, and Iran. After six years, or nearly six years of the war, which is longer than the first World War and the second World War, it’s definitely and self-evident that the Syrian Army is not to be as strong as it was before that. But what we have is determination to defend our country. This is the most important thing. We lost so many lives in our army, we have so many martyrs, so many disabled soldiers. Numerically, we lost a lot, but we still have this determination, and I can tell you this determination is much stronger than before the war. But of course, we cannot ignore the support from Russia, we cannot ignore the support from Iran, that make this determination more effective and efficient.
‘Stronger Russia, China make world a safer place’
RT: President Obama has lifted a ban on arming some Syrian rebels just recently. What impact you think could it have on the situation on the ground, and could it directly or indirectly provide a boost to terrorists?
B.A.: We’re not sure that he lifted that embargo when he announced it. Maybe he lifted it before, but announced it later just to give it the political legitimacy, let’s say. This is first. The second point, which is very important: the timing of the announcement and the timing of attacking Palmyra. There’s a direct link between these two, so the question is to whom those armaments are going to? In the hands of who? In the hands of ISIS and al-Nusra, and there’s coordination between ISIS and al-Nusra. So, the announcement of this lifting of that embargo is related directly to the attack on Palmyra and to the support of other terrorists outside Aleppo, because when they are defeated in Aleppo, the United States and the West, they need to support their proxies somewhere else, because they don’t have any interest in solving the conflict in Syria. So, the crux of that announcement is to create more chaos, because the United States creates chaos in order to manage this chaos, and when they manage it, they want to use the different factors in that chaos in order to exploit the different parties of the conflict, whether they are internal parties or external parties.
RT: Mr. President, how do you feel about being a small country in the middle of this tornado of countries not interested in ending the war here?
B.A.: Exactly. It’s something we’ve always felt before this war, but we felt it more of course today, because small countries feel safer when there’s international balance, and we felt the same, what you just mentioned, after the collapse of the Soviet Union when there was only American hegemony, and they wanted to implement whatever they want and to dictate all their policies on everyone. Small countries suffer the most. So, we feel it today, but at the same time, today there’s more balance with the Russian role. That’s why I think we always believe the more Russia is stronger – I’m not only talking about Syria, I’m talking about every small country in the world – whenever the stronger Russia, more rising China, we feel more secure. It’s painful, I would say it’s very painful, this situation that we’ve been living, on every level; humanitarian level, the feeling, the loss, everything. But at the end, it’s not about losing and winning; it’s about either winning or losing your country. It’s existential threat for Syria. It’s not about government losing against other government or army against army; either the country will win, or the country will disappear. That’s how we look at it. That’s why you don’t have time to feel that pain; you only have time to fight and defend and do something on the ground.
‘Mainstream media lost credibility along with moral compass’
RT: Let’s talk about media’s role in this conflict.
B.A.: Yeah
RT: All sides during this war have been accused of civilian casualties, but the Western media has been almost completely silent about the atrocities committed by the rebels… what role is the media playing here?
B.A.: First of all, the mainstream media with their fellow politicians, they are suffering during the last few decades from moral decay. So, they have no morals. Whatever they talk about, whatever they mention or they use as mask, human rights, civilians, children; they use all these just for their own political agenda in order to provoke the feelings of their public opinion to support them in their intervention in this region, whether militarily or politically. So, they don’t have any credibility regarding this. If you want to look at what’s happening in the United States is rebellion against the mainstream media, because they’ve been lying and they kept lying on their audiences. We can tell that, those, let’s say, the public opinion or the people in the West doesn’t know the real story in our region, but at least they know that the mainstream media and their politicians were laying to them for their own vested interests agenda and vested interests politicians. That’s why I don’t think the mainstream media could sell their stories anymore and that’s why they are fighting for their existence in the West, although they have huge experience and huge support and money and resources, but they don’t have something very important for them to survive, which is the credibility. They don’t have it, they lost it. They don’t have the transparency, that’s why they don’t have credibility. That’s why they are very coward today, they are afraid of your channel, of any statement that could tell the truth because it’s going to debunk their talks. That’s why.
RT: Reuters news agency have been quoting Amaq, ISIL’s mouthpiece, regarding the siege of Palmyra. Do you think they give legitimacy to extremists in such a way? They’re quoting their media.
B.A.: Even if they don’t mention their news agencies, they adopt their narrative anyway. But if you look at the technical side of the way ISIS presented itself from the very beginning through the videos and the news and the media in general and the PR, they use Western technique. Look at it, it’s very sophisticated. How could somebody who’s under siege, who’s despised all over the world, who’s under attack from the airplanes, who the whole world wants to liberate every city from him, could be that sophisticated unless he is not relaxed and has all the support? So, I don’t think it is about Amaq; it’s about the West adopting their stories, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.
RT: Donald Trump takes over as US President in a few weeks. You mentioned America many times today. What do you expect from America’s new administration?
B.A.: His rhetoric during the campaign was positive regarding the terrorism, which is our priority today. Anything else is not priority, so, I wouldn’t focus on anything else, the rest is American, let’s say, internal matters, I wouldn’t worry about. But the question whether Trump has the will or the ability to implement what he just mentioned. You know that most of the mainstream media and big corporate, the lobbies, the Congress, even some in his party were against him; they want to have more hegemony, more conflict with Russia, more interference in different countries, toppling governments, and so on. He said something in the other direction. Could he sustain against all those after he started next month? That’s the question. If he could, I think the world will be in a different place, because the most important thing is the relation between Russia and the Unites States. If he goes towards that relation, most of the tension around the world will be pacified. That’s very important for us in Syria, but I don’t think anyone has the answer to that. He wasn’t a politician, so, we don’t have any reference to judge him, first. Second, nobody can tell what kind of pattern is it going to be next month and after.
‘Western countries only sent aid to terrorists’
RT: The humanitarian situation in Syria is a disaster, and we hear from EU foreign policy chief, Madam Mogherini, that EU is the only entity to deliver humanitarian aid to Syria. Is that true?
B.A.: Actually, all the aid that any Western country sent was to the terrorists, to be very clear, blunt and very transparent. They never cared about a single Syrian human life. We have so many cities in Syria till today surrounded by and besieged by the terrorists; they prevented anything to reach them, food, water, anything, all the basic needs of life. Of course, they attack them on daily basis by mortars and try to kill them. What did the EU send to those? If they are worried about the human life, if they talk about the humanitarian aspect, because when you talk about the humanitarian aspect or issue, you don’t discriminate. All the Syrians are humans, all the people are humans. They don’t do that. So, this is the double standard, this is the lie that they keep telling, and it’s becoming a disgusting lie, no-one is selling their stories anymore. That’s not true, what she mentioned, not true.
RT: Some suggestions say that for Syria, the best solution would to split into separate countries governed by Sunni, Shi’a, Kurds. Is it any way possible?
B.A.: This is the Western – with some regional countries’ – hope or dream, and this is not new, not related to this war; that was before the war, and you have maps for this division and disintegration. But actually, if you look at the society today, the Syrian society is more unified than before the war. This is reality. I’m not saying anything to raise the morale of anyone, I’m not talking to Syrian audience anyway now, I’m talking about the reality. Because of the lessons of the war, the society became more realistic and pragmatic and many Syrians knew that being fanatic doesn’t help, being extreme in any idea, I’m not only talking about extremism in the religious meaning; politically, socially, culturally, doesn’t help Syria. Only when we accept each other, when we respect each other, we can live with each other and we can have one country. So, regarding the disintegration of Syria, if you don’t have this real disintegration among the society and different shades and spectrum of the Syrian society, Syrian fabric, you cannot have division. It’s not a map you draw, I mean, even if you have one country while the people are divided, you have disintegration. Look at Iraq, it’s one country, but it is disintegrated in reality. So, no, I’m not worried about this. There’s no way that Syrians will accept that. I’m talking now about the vast majority of the Syrians, because this is not new, this is not the subject of the last few weeks or the last few months. This is the subject of this war. So, after nearly six years, I can tell you the majority of the Syrians wouldn’t accept anything related to disintegration, they are going to live as one Syria.
RT: As a mother, I feel the pain of all Syrian mothers. I’m speaking about children in Syria, what does the future hold for them?
B.A.: This is the most dangerous aspect of our problem, not only in Syria; wherever you talk about this dark Wahhabi ideology, because many of those children who became young during the last decade, or more than one decade, who joined the terrorists on ideological basis, not for the like of money or anything else, or hope, let’s say, they came from open-minded families, educated families, intellectual families. So, you can imagine how strong the terrorism is.
‘Being secular doesn’t protect a nation from terrorist ideology’
RT: So, that happened because of their propaganda?
B.A.: Exactly, because the ideology is very dangerous; it knows no borders, no political borders, and the network, the worldwide web has helped those terrorists using fast and inexpensive tools in order to promote their ideology, and they could infiltrate any family anywhere in the world, whether in Europe, in your country, in my country, anywhere. You have secular society, I have secular society, but it didn’t protect the society from being infiltrated.
RT: Do you have any counter ideology for this?
B.A.: Exactly, because they built their ideology on the Islam, you have to use the same ideology, using the real Islam, the real moderate Islam, in order to counter their ideology. This is the fast way. If we want to talk about the mid-term and long-term, it’s about how much can you upgrade the society, the way the people analyze and think, because this ideology can only work when you cannot analyze, when you don’t think properly. So, it’s about the algorithm of the mind, if you have natural or healthy operating system, if you want to draw an analogy to the IT, if you have good operating systems in our mind, they cannot infiltrate it like a virus. So, it’s about the education, media and policy because sometimes when you have a cause, a national cause, and people lose hope, you can push those people towards being extremists, and this is one of the influences in our region since the seventies, after the war between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the peace failed in every aspect to recapture the land, to give the land and the rights to its people, you have more desperation, and that played into the hand of the extremists, and this is where the Wahhabi find fertile soil to promote its ideology.
RT: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time, and I wish your country peace and prosperity, and as soon as possible.
B.A.: Thank you very much for coming.
RT: This time has been very tough for you, so I wish it’s going to end soon.
B.A.: Thank you very much for coming to Syria. I’m very glad to receive you.
Emails and the web are full of messages from the faux-left about how they underestimated how much of the West's population had sympathy for racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic ideas espoused by Trump and his ilk. That's what they pretend is behind what is actually the rejection of loss of sovereignty, loss of citizens' rights, through globalism and open borders. Here are two examples, both from organisations influenced by Soros money: The Australian Greens and GetUp. And what is their message? Send us more money! That's really what they are about.
From Adam Bandt of the Greens, "Shellshocked":
"Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.
It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.
Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:
Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]
Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.
Adam" [2]
From GetUp: "Fear and uncertainty"
Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. [...] Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]
[...]
Paul, for the GetUp Team [3]
GetUp and the Greens' expressed concern about refugees and about global warming is belied by their striking lack of concern about the wars that the neocons styling themselves as liberals in the outgoing US Government have increasingly engaged in burning and polluting the planet with. Without taking war into consideration, their pleas for intervention are like a kind of Greek chorus on climate change and refugees in a fatalistic tragedy.
Why would you give these organisations more to keep on doing what they have been doing?
Trump and Roe vs Wade
Regarding pro- choice matters, I am glad that any Roe vs Wade decision will fall back to the individual states,[1] as Trump attempted unsuccessfully to emphasise in the second debate.
Draining the swamp
Will Trump actually be able to carry out his intentions such as 'draining the swamp' and pulling back from military interventions in the face of the remaining bulwark of neocons in various institutions including Congress on both Democrat and Republican side? If he is sincere, then the ability he has shown by winning the election to speak directly to people and motivate them, which his enemies are not able to do, may help him achieve more than most in his position.
Although the mainstream press totally failed to predict Trump's win, people still take their opinions from it
A friend received an email from a colleague reiterating how terrible Trump is but expressing surprise that the speech he gave on winning the presidency seemed out of character, because it wasn't as crazy as most of his pronouncments as reported in the mainstream press. This woman had never actually listened to a Trump speech. Although there are many only a keystroke away from her fingertips, she preferred to make her judgement by what she had read in the mainstream press and seen on TV. It's the same story with Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Asma al-Assad. And before that, Gaddafi. The critics of the governments that Hillary Clinton and Obama antagonised don't actually inform themselves by listening to the many interviews directly available on you tube; they just act on a take-home message of hate from the western press, which supports those nice-sounding warmongers.
Why did people vote for Trump? Because the left has become too divisive, too corporatised and wasn't fighting globalisation. Because the Greens, GetUp, Moveon.org (which is behind the organised riots in the US post Trumps election) are financed by Soros, who is a globalist. They don't stand for what they say they stand for.
NOTES
[1]
"First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Before Roe, abortion on demand was already legal in several states, while it was available under restricted circumstances in many others, and all states recognized an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortion statutes gradually became liberalized in more states as social attitudes changed.#fn2" id="r2">[2] Roe short-circuited this development#fn3" id="r3">[3] by radically restricting the states’ right to regulate abortion, and effectively mandating abortion on demand for the first two trimesters. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anywhere, but it would allow each state to decide for itself under what circumstances abortion is permissible. A legislative solution prevails in nearly all democratic nations, most of which have achieved a compromise reflecting the values of a pluralistic society." (Source: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm)
"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[3] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[4]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[5][6] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
[2] "Trump won. I feel shell-shocked.
It is devastating that his fear and hate prevailed. Hatred and division are flourishing in countries around the world -- Brexit, Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson and One Nation here at home. And Trump's election means we have a harder fight ahead for genuine global action on climate change. Now more than ever we need strong voices of inclusion and love in our public debates. Now more than ever we need to be sharing our positive vision for a more caring and sustainable society. Help us stay in the fight for a better world for everyone, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Help us keep standing up for what matters.
Please contribute what you can to our fighting fund:
Help build our fighting fund [Editor's emphasis. Links removed.]
Together we won't let fear and hate take hold here in Australia.
Adam"
[3]
From GetUp:
Donald Trump has just declared victory and will become the next president of the United States. We're entering a time of fear and uncertainty that can only be countered by hope and connection. Brexit, Trump, and on our own shores, the resurgence of One Nation. There's a growing nexus between economic disadvantage and racially motivated resentment that is overwhelming all political expectations. People see great wealth amassed around them in big corporations and billionaire's pockets, while they're increasingly locked out of education, opportunity and meaningful work. Many of them are demonised for their own disadvantage. Many families struggle with two jobs, only to fall short of making ends meet. Many are angry, resentful and ready to lash out at a political system they feel has deserted them. There has been an abject failure of progressives both here and abroad to understand this, let alone counter it. And when right-wing demagogues tap this pulsing vein of resentment, we've mocked it as an ignorant fringe or dismissed it as isolated extremism. We can't make that mistake any longer. Already GetUp members have chipped in for critical research to understand and counter this trend -- including those who are turning to One Nation or other extreme groups for answers. If you feel the need to do something right now to respond to a Trump victory, you can join them by CHIPPING IN HERE [link excised]. [Editor's emphasis.]
But that's not the only thing to take away from today. There will be Americans, including progressives, waking up in the morning who didn't step up, who didn't make that call or knock on that door -- or who didn't even vote. Just as there were British people who left it to others to decide the fate of their union with Europe, and their own lives. There's a lesson in that: Decisions are made by those who show up.
Over the years, GetUp members have shown up together, hoped together and fought together to turn those shared hopes into a lived reality for our families and communities. This is a moment for us to recommit to each other -- to keep the surging tide of right-wing extremism from taking over our politics, our culture and our country. Everything from signing a petition, to calling your MP, is an act of hope and daring. And today, you can step up to do even more, whether it's volunteering your time or joining a local action group. It's an act of faith that there will be hundreds of thousands more standing with you. And that acting together, we'll be the ones to overwhelm all political expectations.
Together we need to do all we can do,
Paul, for the GetUp Team
As the title suggests, this article argues, using six examples, that the left treated Hillary Clinton's war plans against Russia as a non-issue. The article begins with six numbered headings and follows with the correspondingly numbered reasons, using arguments from emails, interviews and other documents. The article also discusses the influence of the Trotskyists in riots against Trump.
(1) Left treated Hillary's war plan against Russia as a non-issue
(2) Trots no mention of Assange Pilger interview
(3) Trots run the Demonstrations against Trump
(4) ISO Trots call for Overthrow of Assad
(5) Socialist Alternative Trots reject White Working Class
(6) Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful - Paul Craig Roberts
(1) Left treated Hillary's war plan against Russia as a non-issue
This is argued in an email I received from 'S -' on Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:21:19 -0500. The subject was: Re: On election eve, NATO announces military buildup against Russia. But Trump will tear up Brzezinski's Chessboard.
Responding to a post I wrote, entitled, 'Trump wins, war with Russia averted, ends reign of Clinton crime family', S- writes,
I was estranged from most of the left this time. Although I voted for Jill Stein, I felt palpable relief in hearing of Clinton's defeat by Trump. This whole election ought to have been a referendum on: "Should we go to war with Putin?" The idea that Clinton, determined to force a showdown with Russia, was "the lesser evil" was insane. Trump, however odious, was the peace candidate. Those who continued to support Clinton after she announced her support for a no-fly zone in Syria--an act of war against Russia---should be ashamed of themselves.
That is an act of collective suicide. The radical Left --Noam Chomsky,Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, the later Tom Hayden etc etc,--was supporting Dr Strangelove, all the while talking about how dangerous Trump is. The left treated Clinton's war plan as a non-issue, or at worst as unimportant. This is a left that is crippled by its emotional attachments to the Democratic Party, by its collective fantasies as shaped by corporate press. True Trump is a wild card, but Hillary Clinton Strangelove was eager to attack Russia and she had the support of both parties' establishments. To call her "the lesser evil" shows a profound confusion of the left in America, if not a collective death wish. S-- , Ph.D.
2) Trots no mention of Assange Pilger interview by Peter Myers, November 11, 2016
As soon as they learned of Trump's win, the Trots organized street demonstrations in cities across the US. These are the same people behind Black Lives Matter - that's just a spinoff, a franchise. After the murder of several policemen, they pulled the demonstrations, lest disorder on the streets boost Trump. Now they're back. These demonstrations are mainly run by two militant Trotskyist organizations:
They have some factional differences, but work together. The ISO oppose all the "dictators" - Castro, Chavez, Assad, Gaddafi & Mugabe - whereas Socialist Alternative support Castro & Chavez but oppose Assad, Gaddafi, & Mugabe (calling for their downfall).
The ISO is strong among Left academics at leading universities. News reports show demonstrators carrying signs such as 'Socialist Alternative'. Yet the reports never call them 'Communist' or 'Trotskyist'; they are just presented as normal Americans.
At yesterday's demonstrations, a reporter noted the Trump had "some work to do" to re-unify the country. But these Trots will never change their spots - they are revolutionaries.
There are major differences between 'Stalinist' and the militant 'Trotskyist' camps. I classify as 'Stalinist' all the Left but anti-Trotskyist websites. The 'Stalinists', such as Global Research, oppose the overthrow of Gaddafi and Assad, whereas the militant Trotskyists support the overthrow.
There is one Trotskyist organization which stands out from the others - ICFI: https://www.wsws.org/. It does not command demonstrators on the streets - it is not 'militant' (but it was a major backer of the Tamil Tigers). WSWS opposes the overthrow of Gaddafi and Assad.
Even so, none of the Trotskyist sites carried the pre-election interview of Julian Assange by John Pilger. The 'Stalinist' sites, such as Global Research, did carry it.
This is amazing, because John Pilger is quintessentially Left. I heard him speak at a Trotskyist conference in Canberra 20 years ago. Yet this most pertinant interview, exposing Hillary's accepting donations from the Qatar and Saudi governments even though she knew they were funding ISIS, was censored by the Trots. They were so anti-Trump that they turned a blind eye to Hillary's war agenda.
WSWS did cover the NATO military buildup against Russia, announced just before the election, but the ISO and Socialist Alternative did not mention it. They think that Gay Marriage matters more than World War III.That is why it is fitting to classify them in the War camp.They may well be accepting funds from George Soros, as certain Trotskyist organizations (such as Partisan review) were accepting payments from the CIA during the Cold War. Russians threw a party for Trump, in Moscow, after the election.
Protesting Trump from day one. Sumaya Awad and Dorian Bon report from New York City as thousands show their anger with the president-elect on the first day after the presidential election. November 10, 2016.
EVEN AS rain began to pour down in the evening after Election Night, thousands of people in New York City turned up to protest Donald Trump and his rise to the presidency. Various marches snaked through lower and midtown Manhattan. Every half hour or so, two marches would collide and erupt in joyous shouts of solidarity before continuing on together. While some marches began on the sidewalks, by the end of the night, they had taken over the streets. When protesters waded into Broadway, they met support from car drivers honking their horns, bus drivers raising their fists and people shouting from upper floors of office buildings and apartments. Hundreds of vehicles were deserted in the streets as drivers joined the march.
As the march went down Sixth Avenue, people came out from retail stores to watch and film protesters chanting, "We demand impeachment!" and "Racist, sexist anti-gay! Donald Trump, go away!" Other onlookers chanted along, at first hesitantly, then confidently, as the demonstration marched in defiance of the racist, Islamophobic bigot who will soon become president.
New Yorkers were not alone in rejecting Trump. While Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren were calling on supporters to unite behind Donald Trump, protests were erupting across the country.
Thousands took over the downtown streets in Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles, and there were big protests at universities from California to Massachusetts. There were high school walkouts in Arizona and Iowa--two states where Trump won a majority--as well as Berkeley High School in California, where 1,500 students -- half the student body -- participated.
In Washington, D.C., chants of "No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!" rang out as an impromptu march of several hundred people met another large group of people at Trump's new luxury Pennsylvania Avenue hotel. After such a devastating Election Night, people were inspired to chant, talk and speak out about what they think happened and what we need to do next.
The anger was directed not just at Trump and everything he stands for, but the Democratic Party machine whose response to Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America great again" was "America has always been great." As one speaker put it, "Donald Trump's white nationalist economy should have been on the ballot against a social economy. We weren't able to have that vote because the Democratic Party didn't allow us to have that choice."
"The GOP was able to split white workers from having any solidarity with workers of color so here we are," said Melanie from Capitol Heights. "It's not about Hillary Clinton. It's about the Democratic machine and the way they ran their candidate of choice through the system. So we see that the liberal elites were out of touch as we have known." [...]
AT THE New York protests, one of which was called by a coalition of activists and the other by Socialist Alternative, the atmosphere was joyful and defiant. People seemed excited to be on the streets again, unified.
The many dozens of movements that marchers came from were reflected in the chants: "Black lives matter" led to "Muslim lives matter," then "Disabled, trans and immigrant lives matter," each one louder than the last.
Often times several chants could be heard at once from different places in the crowd: "Not my president," "Her body, her choice," "We won't let Trump spread his hate, We won't let him legislate," "Whose streets? Our streets!" "From Palestine to Mexico, border walls have got to go!" "We reject the President-elect!' [...]
Australian socialist Corey Oakley takes up the debates among anti-imperialist forces over what the left should say about Syria, in an article for the newspaper Red Flag.
November 1, 2016
THE SYRIAN war is not just a tragedy. It is a crime of immense proportions. And it is clear as day who is culpable.
First, the Assad regime, which in 2011 met the demands of a protest movement for social justice and democratization with bullets and torture cells, and when that failed, and protesters began to call for Bashar al-Assad's overthrow, decided there was no price in blood it would not pay to stay in power.
Second, the Iranian regime, which, as the rebellion grew and the resources of the regime were exhausted in the face of a nationwide uprising, deployed its own military forces and proxy militias to keep the government in power and prolong the war.
Third, Russia. While Putin backed Assad from the outset, it was only in September last year that Russia, fearful the regime was on the brink of collapse, intervened decisively, unleashing the terrible power of its air force on rebel-held cities such as Aleppo. John Kerry's assertion that the Russian plan for Aleppo is modeled on its campaign in Grozny in 1999, when Russian forces laid waste to the entire city in order to wrest it from rebel hands, is likely to be a correct, if hypocritical.
THEN THERE is the West. It deserves its share of the blame too, but not for the reasons many claim. The predominant narrative on the left is that the U.S. and its allies have pursued a strategy of "regime change" in Syria, and are responsible for fuelling the resistance to Assad.
In fact, the opposite is true. Despite expressing, at various times, sympathy for rebels and hostility to Assad, the U.S. has at almost every stage hindered efforts to overthrow the regime. [...]
(5) Socialist Alternative Trots reject White Working Class
We Need Mass Resistance to Trump and a New Party of the 99% November 9, 2016.
People in the US and around the world awoke today to one of the most shocking political upsets in living memory with the election of Donald Trump as president. It was the culmination of an election cycle when ordinary Americans rose up against the political establishment and against the destructive effects of globalization and neo-liberalism. This was expressed both on the left, with the campaign of Bernie Sanders which galvanized millions for a "political revolution against the billionaire class," and, in a distorted way, on the right with Trump’s campaign.
But Trump did not just run as the alleged defender of the "forgotten men and women" in working class communities. He also ran the most overtly bigoted and chauvinist campaign of a major party candidate in modern times. He created a space for white nationalists and open white supremacists to come out of their holes and try to reach disaffected white workers and youth. This is a very dangerous development.
However, we completely reject the notion – relentlessly pushed by liberal commentators, trying to deflect from the staggering failure of the Democratic Party – that the outcome demonstrates that the bulk of the white working class shares Trump’s racism and xenophobia. [...]
It needs to be underlined that the outcome of this election was not just a shock to tens of millions of progressive workers, women, immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ people but also – for quite different reasons – to the ruling elite of the United States. [...]
(6) Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful - Paul Craig Roberts
The US presidential election is historic, because the American people were able to defeat the oligarchs. Hillary Clinton, an agent for the Oligarchy, was defeated despite the vicious media campaign against Donald Trump. This shows that the media and the political establishments of the political parties no longer have credibility with the American people.
It remains to be seen whether Trump can select and appoint a government that will serve him and his goals to restore American jobs and to establish friendly and respectful relations with Russia, China, Syria, and Iran.
It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump’s victory. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations with Russia. Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.
With Trump there is at least hope. Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington’s orchestrated conflict with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia’s border with Poland and Romania, the end of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington’s effort to overthrow the Syrian government. However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy. Although Trump defeated Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.
Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington’s EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed. Read the rest of this article here.
"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT. And they love war. While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life." John Pilger.
The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.
The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term "public relations" as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions.
In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade - behaviour then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, "Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!"
Bernays' influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was "engineering the consent" of people in order to "control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it".
He described this as "the true ruling power in our society" and called it an "invisible government".
Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged.
Imagine two cities. Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.
But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.
In the second city - in another country nearby - almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.
The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by "us" - by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America.
Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city - which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.
Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.
What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.
Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.
Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was "vindicated" for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell's fabrications.
The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, "What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?"
He replied that if journalists had done their job, "there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq".
It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question -- Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.
There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005. There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.
When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria - and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande's bombast about France being "at war" and "showing no mercy". That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.
"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics - the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia - to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms - is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.
Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs - "our" bombs - that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.
The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news.
Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life.
In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie.
In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call "regime change" in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi's influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable.
So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!"
The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong."
Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.
According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The Unicef report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten".
As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS. Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war.
All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the Ruskies are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil.
The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine - except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.
Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.
There is almost the joie d'esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behaviour and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America's design for the 21st century.
This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China.
To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China.
In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over." That was not news.
Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.
The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world - unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.
She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime - a distinction for which the competition is fierce.
Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.
That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders.
Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way - in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.
Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defence drills being conducted in Russia. None will recall Edward Bernays' "torches of freedom".
George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers".
Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history.
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."
According to journalist Robert Parry, "As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia." Doesn't this bother anyone else but me?
The future PrezClint2: Four more years of smirking...
"Jane, you need to become more objective," a friend just told me. But I actually do try to be objective, honest. Everything I write about is strongly grounded in facts and reliable URLs. However, it is the subjective emotions tied up in my facts that do count the most.
But in other ways my friend is right and subjectivity does present a big danger, like when people use only subjectivity to make their points and completely forget about facts.
For instance, George Bush 1 got more votes than Michael Dukakis back in 1988 -- although objectively Dukakis was the better man for the job. But when Bush 1 pulled that Willie Horton nightmare out of his hat, he stirred up a lot of subjective fear and won instead. http://journal-neo.org/2016/10/17/will-they-really-try-to-kill-president-duterte/
Then Bush 2 stole the 2000 election and Americans let him get away with it -- not because he was more qualified than Al Gore but because apparently people would much rather have a beer with George than with Al.
Hillary Clinton will probably win the 2016 presidential election too even though Dr. Jill Stein is far more likely to save the world -- and even Donald Trump is more likely to do a better job in the White House than the Queen of Chaos herself, head cheerleader for World War 3. But why would Trump actually do a better job than Clinton? Because both objectively and subjectively it won't matter if Trump screws up the SCOTUS appointment if we elect Clinton 2 instead and get a great SCOTUS pick from her -- but still end up dead. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/sudan-africa-and-the-mosaic-of-horrors/
According to journalist Robert Parry, "As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia." Doesn't this bother anyone else but me? http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/69493
But even if PrezClint2 and her friends in War Street and Greater Israel get lucky and conquer the entire Middle East including Iran, and then Clinton 2 goes on to capture and subdue Russia's oil fields and even China's legendary dollar-store manufacturers -- the American people will have still lost the Great Game entirely. Why? Because, objectively, "war" is the world's number-one air polluter and all those thousands of F-16s circling the air all over the world will condemn all us humans to die of emphysema if nothing else. Cough cough. Not to mention radiation. http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2016/09/57862/
Climate change had been given a huge kick down the road by World War II. Then the carpet-bombing of Cambodia, Shock and Awe and the attempted destruction of Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc. have spectacularly made America's climate-change jump shots from far down the court. And now PrezClint2 is gonna score the final goal for us that will defeat humanity once and for all. Booyah.
But the main reason I am both objectively and subjectively dreading the thought of Clinton 2 in the White House next term is because of her (face-lift-enhanced?) perpetual smirk. I've already been forced to endure eight long years of Smirking George. Now I've got to endure four more years of Smirking Hillary too?
PS: Objectivity alone never seems to win elections in America. As Janis Joplin was always fond of saying, "It's a combination of the two." Hearts and minds. However, objectivity goes right out the window when Wall Street and War Street have almost total control of the media -- then it's just a matter of who has the most money and who can get away with telling the biggest lies.
PPS: I completely do not understand the way that Americans are thinking these days. We have a fabulously qualified and totally competent woman running for president right now -- Dr. Jill Stein -- and yet most Americans are dead set on voting for gross and weird people like Donald Clinton and Hillary Trump. This fact truly makes me wonder where Americans' heads are at right now -- and what other parts of their bodies they seem to be using to think with instead of their brains. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/donate
Perhaps they are confusing Clinton with Tia Leone in "Madam Secretary"? But guess what? "Madam Secretary" is not a reality show. But PrezClint2 will be -- all too real. ___________________________
Anyone who has not watched a Donald Trump speech will be stimulated by his unusually direct characterisation of the mass media, the Clinton campaign and the US 'government cartel'. As an alternative media source, we continue to publish Trump's responses to the mass media accusations against him, since the western media gives such an unbalanced representation of the two candidates for the US election 2016. If they're going this hard to keep him out of politics, there must be something good about Trump.
"Mr. Trump visited Florida and delivered remarks on the corrupt Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it. There is no lie this establishment will not tell to hold prestige and power at your expense.
The Clinton Machine is at the center of the power structure of the political establishment that is responsible for disastrous trade deals, destruction of factories and jobs, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry. Its economic decisions have robbed our working class and stripped our country of its wealth while putting money in the pockets of corporate and political entities.
The WikiLeaks documents released prove that Senator Clinton has met in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich global financial powers.
These emails also show that the Clinton Machine works so closely with media organizations that she is given questions and answers in advance of her debates. The New York Times gives Senator Clinton veto power over the things written about her and her emails further show her collaboration with reporters to help her win the Election.
With trillions of dollars and their control of our government on the line, the Clinton Machine is determined to destroy our campaign. Their most powerful weapon is the corporate media who are no longer involved in journalism, they have become a political special interest.
The Clintons have engaged in criminal activity at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Senator Clinton bleached 33,000 congressionally subpoenaed emails and destroyed thirteen phones among other pieces of evidence.
Now, at the same time the WikiLeaks documents are exposing her corruption, Mr. Trump is being accused of inappropriate conduct with women. These completely false and inaccurate claims would easily be disapproved by simple investigation. They come from outlets whose past stories and claims have been discredited.
The New York Times has been discredited by the campaign before and refused to print a retraction. In a smear piece printed this weekend by the Times, they declined to use the evidence presented to them that discredited their story entirely and chose instead to print a full page hit piece that other outlets refused to publish following our evidence.
These media attacks are orchestrated by the Clinton machine and their media allies in an attempt to destroy our movement of change so that they can maintain their control over our corrupt government.
Our political establishment has no soul and the only thing that can stop this corruption is you. The blatant disregard for Senator Clinton’s criminal activities by the corrupt government and the media is a conspiracy against the American people.
Mr. Trump knows what it’s like to be an insider, and he is the only one who can fix this corruption. Mr. Trump is running for the people, and the corrupt establishment knows that we are a threat to their criminal enterprise.
The slander committed by the Clinton machine is reprehensible. But it is not about the slander. It is about the Veterans who need medical care, it is about defeating ISIS, enforced immigration policy, jobless Americans, those being crushed by Obamacare, defeating ISIS, rebuilding inner cities, and appointing Supreme Court Justices who will defend our Constitution.
We will rise above the smears because this election is about every man, woman, and child in our country who deserves to live in safety, prosperity and peace. We will put an end to this corrupt government."
The Australian and American mass media have failed to give fair coverage to Donald Trump's responses to Mrs Clinton's smear campaign, so we are publishing them here. "I vaguely remember Ms. Zervos as one of the many contestants on The Apprentice over the years. To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago. That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I’ve conducted my life. In fact, Ms. Zervos continued to contact me for help, emailing my office on April 14th of this year asking that I visit her restaurant in California." (Donald Trump)
Another accusation in a loaded contest
A former contestant on the Apprentice, Summer Zervos, on Friday accused Donald Trump of groping or aggressively kissing her on two separate occasions in 2007, when she met the businessman in private for what she thought were going to be discussions about job opportunities, but Trump has denied this ever happened. See below for his statement. Mainstream press credibility sinks as it fails to report Trump's responses to this campaign against him. Mrs Obama's participation in the character assassination does not dignify her. This press-in-the-gutter campaign is particularly irresponsible and dangerous as this mainstream is character-assassinating the only US candidate who may pull us back from the WW3 which Clinton appears to be rushing towards.
"I vaguely remember Ms. Zervos as one of the many contestants on The Apprentice over the years. To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago. That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I’ve conducted my life. In fact, Ms. Zervos continued to contact me for help, emailing my office on April 14th of this year asking that I visit her restaurant in California.
"Beyond that, the media is now creating a theater of absurdity that threatens to tear our democratic process apart and poison the minds of the American public. When Gloria Allred is given the same weighting on national television as the President of the United States, and unfounded accusations are treated as fact, with reporters throwing due diligence and fact-finding to the side in a rush to file their stories first, it’s evident that we truly are living in a broken system.
"Hillary Clinton can spend all of her time and money pushing complete lies against our campaign, but I refuse to fall victim to this vicious cycle of personal attacks. In the coming days I plan on addressing our nation in a more personal way to present my vision for how together we fight to bring back American jobs and defend our country against radical Islamic terrorism. I will take my message directly to the American people and bypass the unethical press that wants to see their candidate elected. Together, we will make America great again." - Donald J. Trump
Disconnect between Trump support on the ground and how the mainstream reports it
"[Ivanenka, Trump's daughter, has said that she is
"always is a bit stunned to attend an event and see the energy of supporters, only to read news reports the next day that have Trump sinking: “The disconnect is jarring.”
She said the one thing that no one really understands is why her father ran in the first place. “I think we are at a place and moment in time where this country needs fresh solutions, and the problems ... become so systematic that they continue, decade after decade, without much progress to report,” she said. That is why he ran, she said: “I do believe that. He looks at the issues this country is facing and sees past the noise and knows he can change that.”
He is not beholden to any interest group, she added, "I wonder, will we ever be able to say that again about a candidate for president? It is such a unique circumstance we find ourselves in.”"
On Friday 9th September 2016, Hillary Clinton called people who would vote for Donald Trump, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” Now, where have we heard those words together before? Ah, yes, from Moveon.org, GetUp.org's United States prototype. Moveon.org pretends it is independent and that it survives from small donations from its supporters, but it is actually billionaire George Soros's major propaganda vehicle. He teaches his workers to bring people down politically or shut them up through contrived accusations of racism etc. Hillary Clinton and Soros have had a close relationship for years and Moveon.org is the source of most of the mainstream media's repetitive anti-Trump chorus.
Moveon.org leads anti-Trump beat-up
Currently Moveon.org employs organisers to push a line that Trump is a racist etc out to destroy America. And the only way to save America, is to elect Hillary Clinton. Here are direct quotes from Moveon's website:
"MOVEON.ORG HIRING DOZENS OF ORGANIZERS IN 8 BATTLEGROUND STATES TO DEFEAT TRUMP. In an expansion of MoveOn.org’s United Against Hate campaign to prevent Donald Trump from winning the White House while demonstrating that hatred, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia are a losing strategy, MoveOn is hiring more than three dozen organizers to lead door-to-door volunteer canvassing operations in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania."by Brian Stewart, August 26, 2016
"We know that the only way to defeat Donald Trump is by electing Hillary Clinton. And we applaud Secretary Clinton’s commitments to overturn Citizens United — proposing a constitutional amendment within her first month in office — and appointing Supreme Court justices who will “protect Americans’ right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections.” (Source: @MoveOn.org/its-time-to-unite-against-hate-50798df7bdf4#.48i8842sw">https://medium.com/@MoveOn.org/its-time-to-unite-against-hate-50798df7bdf4#.48i8842sw
It is ludicrous for Moveon.org to pretend that billionaire Soros's puppet, Clinton, a multi-millionaire herself, is anti-billionaire.
Soros is behind Moveon.org
“Wes Boyd [...] was also creator of the radical website MoveOn.org, which he founded during the Clinton impeachment trial to get the nation to "move on" to "more important issues" and since then had made an Internet cash cow for leftwing Democrat candidates. Soros offered Boyd a deal. He and Peter Lewis would match up to $5 million for any new money Boyd raised to expand MoveOn's reach for 2004.” [Source: Perazzo, John; Horowitz, David. From Shadow Party to Shadow Government: George Soros and the Effort to Radically Change America (Kindle Locations 147-150). David Horowitz Freedom Center. Kindle Edition.]
Soros Media Influence, the Australian Press and the ABC
The bulk of the Australian mainstream media is actively avoiding reporting this far reaching scandal and subversion of our political process and the global political process. The quiet from the Fairfax Press and ABC Radio and television is deafening, even though Bill Shorten, the Labor leader, has been shown to be on the board of Soros-financed GetUp, along with Greens members. The Soros influence on our press is however belied by the ubiquitous overuse of Soros words and concepts - "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" - to the substantial exclusion of any other topics.
Indeed, many tantalising leads to Soros-funded journalism in Australia beckon the researcher. One that immediately struck me was OzProspect fellowships for journalists, an organisation that cropped up early as the push to normalise mass immigration hotted up in Australia. OzProspect was modeled on the New America Foundation and had funding from that Soros foundation. Tim Watts founded OzProspect and he co-edited with Steve Vizard and Hugh Martin Australia’s Population Challenge, a book presenting talks given at the [Victorian Premier] Steve Bracks 'Melbourne Population Summit' 2002. Incidentally, this was an event where journalists frequently replaced academics and which featured Soros-style population booster, billionaire Richard Pratt. Click on the link to see some of the people involved with OzProspect.
Murdoch media and Soros
There is one surprising exception to this media silence on Soros - the Murdoch press. The Australian's recently published a highly informative article by Jennifer Oriel, "Dumped files show influence of George Soros on Western politics,"The Australian, August 22, 2016.
Maybe The Australian allowed the recent report by Jennifer oriel of Soros's behind the scenes political machinations because Murdoch feels his media empire may be threatened. Another reason Murdoch might not be sympathetic to Soros is that Israel considers Soros, despite having Jewish origins, as a threat to Israel and the Middle East in general. Many on the other side from Israel would also agree, including people trying to survive in Syria. (Source on Israel's attitude to Soros: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/funder/open_society_institute_osi_/ See report in "Notes" section at end of this article).[2] Another Murdoch media outlet, Fox News, not usually known for its critical reporting, has also done specials on Soros. [1] (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations.html His influence anyway gives itself away though where media adopts those Soros-words that Hillary used to castigate America: "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic."
Here is a rundown on the subject from Forbes: #739de665183e">"Billionaires Battle Over Media Influence: Koch Bros./Murdoch Vs. Soros/Buffett/GE" by Larry Bell.
"It’s hard to argue with the notion that money can buy lots of influence. Consider George Soros for example, a big spender with ties to more than 30 predominantly liberal news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $48 million funding media properties…often funding foundations which in turn, fund other organizations. This arrangement makes complete outside accounting nearly impossible because the media component of the support is hard to track.
One of those money distribution centers, the Open Society Institute (OSI), funds his Center for Public Integrity (CPI), an organization which is open about its liberal politics. OSI gave them $651,650 in 2009 alone. Among other activities, CPI has conducted detailed investigations into the “web of influence’ of David and Charles Koch. CPI’s board of directors includes prominent ABC journalist Christine Amanpour and Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and AOL. Amanpour of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program “This Week with Christine Ananpour”, has referred to tax cuts as “giveaways”, to the Tea Party as “extreme”, and to Obama as “very Reaganesque”.
OSI is one of several foundations funding the Investigative News Network (INN), a collaboration of 32 non-profit news organizations producing what they claim to be “non-partisan investigative news”. OSI also provided nearly $1 million to the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) from 20003 to 2008 which produces lots of stories on climate change alarmism and evils of big companies. CIR’s board and advisory board members include San Francisco Chronicle President Phil Bronstein, former Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie (now VP), and CBS News Producer George Osterkamp.
Soros spent $27 million on media programs aimed at defeating President George W. Bush in 2004, and has contributed at least $1.8 million to NPR. Other recipients include The Columbia Journalism Review which bills itself as “a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms”, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, The National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Organization of News Ombudsmen (supported by OSI), which has NPR’s Alicia Shepard and PBS’s Michael Getler as directors.
"
Don't you think that Australians deserve better service from their media and governments? Doesn't the world?
OSF’s declared objective is “to work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.” This is the basis for OSF’s often intrusive activities in both closed and democratic societies, including large scale funding of political NGOs.
According to OSF’s 2016 budget, $27.8 million is allocated to programs in the Middle East.
Funding of NGOs is entirely non-transparent. Annual reports do not provide names of NGO grantees or amounts transferred to individual groups. Details below were obtained through independent research by NGO Monitor, based on NGO reporting to the Israeli Registry of Non-Profits or information provided by the groups on their websites. (Note – all the Israeli and Palestinian NGOs also receive funding from European governments.)
On August 14 2016, leaked documents from OSF were posted anonymously on the DC Leaks website. A number of these as yet unverified documents deal with OSF’s grants to political NGOs through its “Arab Regional Office (ARO) – Palestinian Citizens of Israel” department. Headed by Ammar Abu Zayyad, the ARO is one of a number of funding mechanisms for Israeli and Palestinian NGO’s in the OSF network.
The list of ARO grantees (current and discontinued) is located here, and below. The 2013 NGO Monitor report includes a number of Soros funding frameworks that are not included in the leaked documents, meaning that- if they are accurate- the actual funding is significantly higher than indicated by this leak.
In addition, ARO funds a number of Israeli NGOs in the NIF network, including some recipients that deny the legitimacy of Israel and Jewish sovereignty, and are involved in demonization campaigns. Grantees include Adalah ($2.7 million), Mossawa ($260,000), Mada al Carmel ($700,000), and I’lam ($1.08 million), which criticizes Israeli media for its coverage of the Nakba.
Amongst the leaked files are instructions on pressuring the EU to adopt product labeling policies touted by many NGOs as the first step to EU-sponsored BDS, and supporting Palestinian ascension to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
According to these documents, OSF provided $405,000 to Palestinian media outlet Wattan News from 2012-2014. Wattan has published a series of articles promoting virulently antisemitic content in the form of “anti-Zionism.” After inquiries were sent to OSF by Tablet magazine, the offensive content was removed from Wattan’s website, and OSF issued a condemnation, and claimed that it is “putting in place procedures that such a serious lapse in editorial oversight will not take place again.” OSF did not state that it was withdrawing funding from Wattan.
OSF shared a report entitled The Occupation’s Fig Leaf: Israel’s Military Law Enforcement System as a Whitewash Mechanism prepared by B’Tselem. The report claims that “Palestinians have been living under an Israeli military regime that has wrongfully killed, injured, and abused them.”
Soros pledged $750,000 over three years to J Street. J Street concealed this funding for many years, until The Washington Times revealed it in 2010. On its website, J Street addresses the “myth” that “George Soros founded and is the primary funder of J Street.” It claims that it would be “very pleased to have funding from Mr. Soros,” but denies this large donation.
The “Open Society Justice Initiative,” claims to “foster accountability for international crimes, combat racial discrimination… address abuses related to national security and counterterrorism.”
The Justice Initiative was asked by Adalah to assist in preparing a memorandum for the UN Human Rights Council’s follow-up Fact-Finding Committee (to the “Goldstone Report”). The resulting report alleged that “the Israeli investigations to date have not complied with international or comparative standards,” and that delays “violate[] international law and taint[] the independence and effectiveness of any subsequent inquiry.”
Is Trump just falling in line with the evil establishment and going for more 'regime change' in Syria like Obama who preceded him? Is this another illegal invasion of Syria by the United States and NATO? Probably not, because the Syrian President would have complained, but has said nothing. Neither has Russia. Nor has Turkey. Something new is going on in Syria and it may actually be good. Could the end of this terrible war inflicted by US-NATO upon Syria finally be in sight?
If you take your information from the mainstream media, then you could have thought that, under Obama/Clinton/John Kerry, Syria and East Ukraine were being rescued from dastardly governments by a benevolent US-NATO, which is standing up to Grizzly-bear Russia. If you read the articles on Syria and Ukraine on this site, which takes its information from a wide range of sources, you would be aware of how scary the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the US 2017 elections really was. Already guilty of tens of thousands of deaths in Libya and Syria as Obama's foreign secretary, she seemed to be enthusiastically marching straight into WW3 with the approval of George Soros, Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia, Israel .... The mainstream press was encouraging everyone to get right in there behind her. Hillary's very shallow brand of globalism, dressed up as 'progressive' attitudes to the oppressed, seemed to fool a lot of people who presumably didn't read much outside the MSN or took their information from corrupt NGOs and ersatz socialist alliances that actually work as a front for the establishment. So how is Trump doing now?
According to journalist Yanatab Zunger, Donald Trump currently appears to be targeting the CIA and its other Deep State cronies for extinction -- while at the same time hiring his own security team to protect himself. Ah, if only President Kennedy had engineered this kind of power-grab/self-protection combination when he was first elected, he would still be alive today and we would live in a whole different (and far better) world. 
In a rather alarming development for Syrians hoping that the danger of a no-fly-zone had passed when the US electorate passed on Clinton, the new ‘pro-Russian’ President Trump has suggested ‘Safe Zones’ in Syria should be pursued, so that Syrian refugees would have somewhere to go when he stops them coming to America.
As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people. Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace. It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people. [Candobetter.net Editor: This communication was issued as an email to a list by Ms Gabbard and we reproduce it here in the assumption that it was intended as a kind of press release. More on Tulsi Gabbard, who was a distinguished soldier in Iraq: 
Trump has just done something good. WhiteHouse.gov has announced, via President Trump, that the TPP deal will no longer have the United States as a participant. The TPP was one of Obama’s deeply unpopular 'achievements', in terms of trade deals, and Trump has quickly lived up to his promise to remove the United States from the deal. Will anti-Trump demonstrators who shout about 'democracy' concede that this is what most of us wanted and the thing that the power-elite pre-Trump were determined to withold from us? The MSM (mainstream media) will probably hardly report this or it will report it as disastrous, using econogabble and corporate talking heads for hire to confuse everyone. 
"It's not often you hear about something like that happening. The man who called Donald Trump a 'would-be dictator' got bearish after the President Elect's victory in November and lost nearly a billion dollars. Reportedly, he thought a Trump win was going to cause massive sell. Wrong! The market rallied and the hedge fund legend and Clinton supporter lost out. The Dow Jones has climbed nearly 10% since November 9th." Analysts are saying that Trump's new policies could boost the economy and corporate earnings in particular for this market rally. "So it looks like Soros's millions of dollars sunk into a Superpac, back in the Clinton campaign, didn't work out." A super PAC is a modern breed of political-action committee that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. (Quotation from presenter in Boom Bust, [752] Why is the America middle class disappearing?) - see video inside for the report, plus an analysis of how and why the middle classes are disappearing from the United States.
During the US presidential inauguration ceremonies Trump's elegant and disciplined clan members appeared brave in the face of multiple violent threats, fanned by a jilted mainstream press, for example, CNN's, "Disaster could put Obama cabinet member in oval office." Beside their chubbier leader, beaming like John Candy, the females of the Trump clan, with their gazelle-like legs and long hair, flawless skin and physiques, seemed like avatars from another world. 
Just how effective is the power of prayer? For many of us who are poor and helpless, prayer is the only WMD that we can get our hands on.
President Bashar al-Assad : “[The ]West is telling Russia that Syrian Army went too far in defeating terrorists … Daesh could only attack Palmyra the way it did with supervision of U.S. alliance”. President Obama’s announcement of a waiver for arming unspecified rebel groups in Syria came shortly before the terrorist group Islamic State launched a massive attack on Palmyra. Syrian President Bashar Assad believes it was no coincidence, he told RussiaToday. In the interview, the Syrian leader explained how his approach to fighting terrorism differs from that of the US, why he believes the military success of his forces in Aleppo was taken so negatively in the West, and what he expects from US President-elect Donald Trump. [Full Video and Transcript]
Emails and the web are full of messages from the faux-left about how they underestimated how much of the West's population had sympathy for racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic ideas espoused by Trump and his ilk. That's what they pretend is behind what is actually the rejection of loss of sovereignty, loss of citizens' rights, through globalism and open borders. Here are two examples, both from organisations influenced by Soros money: The Australian Greens and GetUp. And what is their message? Send us more money! That's really what they are about. 
As the title suggests, this article argues, using six examples, that the left treated Hillary Clinton's war plans against Russia as a non-issue. The article begins with six numbered headings and follows with the correspondingly numbered reasons, using arguments from emails, interviews and other documents. The article also discusses the influence of the Trotskyists in riots against Trump.
"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT. And they love war. While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life." John Pilger. 
According to journalist Robert Parry, "As polls show Hillary Clinton closing in on victory, Official Washington’s neoconservative (and liberal-hawk) foreign policy establishment is rubbing its hands in anticipation of more war and more strife, including a U.S. military escalation in Syria, a take-down of Iran, and a showdown with nuclear-armed Russia." Doesn't this bother anyone else but me?
The future PrezClint2: Four more years of smirking...
Anyone who has not watched a Donald Trump speech will be stimulated by his unusually direct characterisation of the mass media, the Clinton campaign and the US 'government cartel'. As an alternative media source, we continue to publish Trump's responses to the mass media accusations against him, since the western media gives such an unbalanced representation of the two candidates for the US election 2016. If they're going this hard to keep him out of politics, there must be something good about Trump. 
The Australian and American mass media have failed to give fair coverage to Donald Trump's responses to Mrs Clinton's smear campaign, so we are publishing them here. "I vaguely remember Ms. Zervos as one of the many contestants on The Apprentice over the years. To be clear, I never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago. That is not who I am as a person, and it is not how I’ve conducted my life. In fact, Ms. Zervos continued to contact me for help, emailing my office on April 14th of this year asking that I visit her restaurant in California." (Donald Trump)
On Friday 9th September 2016, Hillary Clinton called people who would vote for Donald Trump, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” Now, where have we heard those words together before? Ah, yes, from Moveon.org, 
Recent comments