Thursday, May 09, 2019

Strange case

A comment at Zero Hedge by boattrash:
"Instead of ousting Maduro, Trump should be getting pointers from him on how to deal with a coup."
"The Strange Case of Chrystia Freeland and the Failure of the ‘Super Elite’" (Ehret).  Some surprisingly very woke stuff here, including the roles of Freeland mentor and fellow Rhodes Scholar Bob Ray (who, for a while, between bouts of being a Liberal, posed as the 'socialist', and disastrous, premier of Ontario), and - footnote 4 - ur-globalist Maurice Strong, who was up to this kind of serious evil decades before anybody else.

This is the 'help' with China that Freeland asked the Assholians for, and, exactly as you would expect, makes things much, much worse for Canada:  "U.S. Senate passes resolution commending Canada for its actions in Huawei case".

Speaking of Canuck conspiracies, this one is pretty much mainstream thinking amongst Alberta knuckle-draggers:  "Vivian Krause: Rachel Notley, the Rockefellers and Alberta's landlocked oil" (since this was published Alberta premier Notley has lost to über-piece-of-shit Kenney).  Say what you will about the details, but there is a staggering fact - a billions of dollars fact - which requires explanation, which is that western Canadian oil doesn't fetch near what world prices would indicate it should fetch.  If this much money was disappearing in any other context, people would be scrambling to find reasons and fixes, conspiracy theory or otherwise, but this one is essentially ignored in Canada.

"Anti-Racist Canada promotes Video by Anti-Palestinian, FOX News Filmmaker" (Engler).  What we should have learned by now is that the 'left' is hopelessly beshekeled, having the world's worst ((('donor'))) problem.  It has always been this way, as the oldest trick in the book is Khazars passing their anti-Gentilism off as 'progressive', with the shekel donations to match.

"New Green MP's fraught history with the NDP over Israel paved the way for his election" (Smith). He had been booted from the NDP - another group with a debilitating ((('donor'))) problem - for saying a few relatively sane things about Israel.

"Venezuelan police tow deputy opposition leader Edgar Zambrano to jail in his car"!

"Found this, thought it was pretty good for people who don't realise what's going on." (Doll).  Even if we get around to doing the tiny things politicians have come up with in pretending to be doing something - and there is no evidence that any of these things are going to happen - we are still grievously far from the bare minimum required to avoid total disaster.

I'm not suspicious of Anglin on the JQ, as real hoaxers simply don't mention it, or try to change the subject in various defined ways (even if Anglin is being used as some kind of cautionary tale allowing for more Khazar whining and subsequent anti-gentilism, mass murdering, and land theft, they'd still remove the truth from his JQ writings, which are good enough to be very convincing), but his Koch-sucking writing on climate change, an issue which is already grievously affecting the very people Anglin claims to champion, is extremely suspicious.  Climate change denial is where I get the strongest CIA-feel from Anglin.

"David Duke and Richard Spencer are Purposefully Not Being Banned From Twitter" (Anglin).  If they ban everybody, they will lose the foundations of their political lies.

"Iran Withdraws From Certain Aspects of the Nuclear Agreement" (Dagres).  It is interesting that the Atlantic Council fuckwits are relatively sympathetic to the position of Iran, and even give them strategic kudos.

"Environmental Crisis, Oil Geopolitics and the Trump Diversion" (Urie).  I'm no more inclined to give Assholians the benefit of the doubt on this than I am inclined to give the average Khazar a pass due to the fact his or her leaders are said to be 'crazy'.  It is a very convenient out.  We get the politicians we deserve.

"Israel’s New Plan to Annex the West Bank: What Happens Next?" (Shany):
"Three principal sets of issues need to be considered when reviewing the legality under international law of the planned annexation of settlements/settlement blocs. First, such a move appears to run contrary to the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. This principle is articulated in the preamble to U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967); in multiple U.N. resolutions proclaiming the status of the West Bank as occupied Palestinian territory and expressing opposition to any change in the status of the territory not agreed to by the parties through negotiation; and in the ICJ advisory opinion on the Wall, which rejected the de facto annexation of part of the West Bank.
The current annexation plans draw on the Trump administration’s recent recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Arguably, the unique circumstances cited by the U.S. as justification for annexation in the Golan case—occupation in a defensive war and the presence of an ongoing security threat—would be relied upon in the context of the West Bank too. While the U.S. position had been heavily criticized internationally, it may give Israel  the political cover it needs to avoid some of the diplomatic repercussions of the annexation. Or at the very least, the Israeli government may believe this to be the case. Significantly, unlike in the Golan Heights, Israel has never recognized the sovereignty of any other political entity in the West Bank—and this may lead it to have fewer inhibitions in asserting its sovereignty there.
Second, the annexation plans run directly contrary to the Oslo Accords—and more generally to the two-state vision that both parties, including Israel under Netanyahu, accepted in the past. The unilateral creation of Israeli sovereign enclaves runs contrary to the obligation to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with the Palestinians, and effectively creates Palestinian enclaves in the nonannexed area with limited contiguity and almost certainly no sustainable viability as an independent state. This division of territorial control looks more like the South African system of Bantustans than the foundation of a viable two-state solution.  
Third, the annexation plans will perpetuate Israel’s control over large parts of the West Bank, effectively subjecting the Palestinian residents living next to the annexed areas to its authority on a day-to-day and permanent basis. These residents will be dependent on Israel regarding their movement and in connection to their basic rights to health, work, family life and more. Involuntarily subjecting a large local population to the power and authority of a foreign state—without providing that population with the right to naturalize and to partake in the design of government policies that affect daily life—raises significant questions of democratic legitimacy. If indeed the annexation plans result in extensive de facto control over West Bank Palestinians, then the decision not to de jure annex their villages does not fully resolve the demographic challenge they pose. And it leaves in place the aforementioned democratic deficit.
This situation will result in a continuous state of affairs in which two sets of laws apply to two adjacent populations: one able to exercise the full rights attendant to citizenship, and the other barred from those rights. Such a development could push Israel over the edge, from a democracy toward a regime whose laws de facto underlie a structural and permanent system of ethnic discrimination."
"Pandering to Israel Means War With Iran" (Giraldi) (it is funny how all these scoundrels confirm, without the slightest question, all the worst 'anti-Semitic' conspiracy theories):
"Israel is desperate to confirm its legitimacy in international fora, where it has few friends in spite of an intensive lobbying campaign. It seeks to have countries that do not have an embassy in Israel to take steps to establish one, and it also wants more nations that do already have an embassy in Tel Aviv to move to Jerusalem, building on the White House’s decision taken last year to do just that. Not surprisingly, nations and political leaders who are on the make and want American support have drawn the correct conclusions and pander to Israel as a first step.
One only has to cite the example of Venezuela. Juan Guaido, the candidate favored by Washington for regime change, has undoubtedly a lot of things on his plate but he has proven willing to make some time to say what Benjamin Netanyahu wants to hear, as reported by the Israeli media. The Times of Israel describes how “Venezuela’s self-proclaimed leader Juan Guaido is working to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel and isn’t ruling out placing his country’s embassy in Jerusalem, according to an interview with an Israeli newspaper published Tuesday.”
One would think that Guaido would consider his interview sufficient, but he has also taken the pandering process one step farther, reportedly displaying huge video images of the flags of both Israel and the United States at his rallies.
This deference to Israel’s interests produced an almost immediate positive result with Netanyahu recognizing him as the legitimate Venezuelan head of state, followed by an echo chamber of effusive congratulations from US (sic) Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who praised the Jewish state for “standing with the people of Venezuela and the forces of freedom and democracy.” Donald Trump’s esteemed special envoy for international negotiations, Jason Greenblatt, also joined in, praising the Israeli government for its “courageous stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people.”
A similar bonding took place regarding Brazil, where hard right conservative leader Jair Bolsonaro was recently elected president. Netanyahu attended the Bolsonaro inauguration last December and the two men benefit from strong support from Christian Evangelicals. Bolsonaro repaid the favor by promising that Israel would be his first foreign trip. In the event he went to Washington first, but the state visit to Israel took place in April, just before that country’s elections, in a bid to demonstrate international support for Netanyahu."
The big question, is this brain cancer/frying a real thing, or an anti-Huawei American disinfo campaign:  "Selected Articles: The Dangers of 5G Wireless Communication"?  It would make sense that if there is documented danger from the current system (which there is, but we're taking the risk as too much money is involved), a system with even more energy involved would greatly increase the problem.

"U.S. campaign against Huawei hits a snag south of the border" (Love).  Note how they are lying about giving the northern work to the incompetents at Nokia.  People continue to work their way around Assholian stupidity/Evil.

Panopticon conspiracy corner.  "FBI has seized Deep Dot Web and arrested its administrators" (Whittaker).  "Peter Thiel’s Palantir Was Used To Bust Relatives of Migrant Children, New Documents Show" (Biddle/Devereaux).  "Chinese Fund Backed by Hunter Biden Invested in Technology Used to Surveil Muslims" (Fang).  "Facebook readies secretive blockchain currency for India with ex-PayPal recruits" (Verhage).  "Facebook's crypto project echoes board member Peter Thiel's original vision for PayPal" (Rodriguez).
blog comments powered by Disqus