Sunday, February 23, 2020

(((John Hannah)))

"Iraq Needs Regime Change Again" (Hannah).

(((John Hannah))), one of the worst of the neocons who conspired for the worst foreign policy decision in American history, wants a do-over!

  • from 2016, pre-Trump, and pre-Trump blackmailing, hoping that President Killary would scupper the Iran deal:  "Hillary Clinton, Neocon?"
  • "John Hannah is IMO a shill for Israel" (Lang) 
  • "John Hannah" (Militarist Monitor)
  • "Are the Neocons Finally with Trump?" (Mills)
  • withering attack on Hannah from Corn (!):  "GOPers Probing Iran Deal Turn to Cheney Aide Who Was Involved With Bogus Iraq Intel"
  • in case you wonder about the ((())) (I like how it is common now to send subtle ((())) warnings, as it is the most important thing you can know about someone, as well as the worst):  "Hannah and his wife Laura joined Temple Sinai, Washington DC, in the fall of 2006."

A vote for Bernie is a vote for democracy

Tweet (Rania Khalek);
"Greatest democracy in the world. This is why we invaded Iraq, to bring them this..."
Tweet (Matt Stoller):
"First Putin installed @TomPerez as DNC Chair. Then he hired ACRONYM to build an app for the Iowa caucuses ominously named Shadow. Then he got Bloomberg to spend $400 million on ads. Then he made sure Democrats had no agenda..."
Tweet (Ryan Grim):
"James Carville says the big winner in Nevada is Putin"
It has reached the point where people who might not vote Bernie have seen enough of the derangement of the Clintonistas, and enough of the open crookedness and bias of the DNC, and are starting to assert themselves, and reclaim the franchise which Clinton wants to steal, by voting for Sanders.  This has become a trend, with voting making a particular statement - besides wanting their vote back, it is also a statement against the War For The Jews known as WWIII (ironically, perhaps, as the Khazar Bernie may not be able to help himself) - which will need to be made through all the remaining states.

Saturday, February 22, 2020


"Karl Marx and Jewish Power" (Guyénot):
"Marx redefines Jewish religion as the cult of money: “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.” He does the same for Jewish nationality, in one short sentence: “The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.” It follows naturally, according to Marx, that if you abolish money you will solve the Jewish question:

“Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society.”

Jews will be emancipated when all men will be emancipated, for there is no other emancipation than emancipation from money.

Marx makes the radical claim that love of money and economic alienation came to the world from the Jews. He equates economic alienation to Jewish influence:

“the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. … The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. … The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world”

And so, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” That sounds terribly anti-Semitic, from today’s standards. Because of these essays on the Jewish Question, Marx’s biographers have been more concerned by the question, “Was Marx an anti-Semite?” (see Edmund Silberner’s 1949 book of that title) than by the issue of his Jewish background, environment, and mindset. This is best illustrated by this article by Michael Ezra, “Karl Marx’s Radical Antisemitism.”

But in the context of the time, Marx’s view of the Jews as money worshippers was rather banal. It was almost unanimously shared among socialists, as Hal Draper reminds us in “Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype.”[18] It was especially common among revolutionary Jews as well as among Zionists who were generally socialists. Moses Hess himself, for instance, wrote in “The Essence of Money”: “The Jews, who in the natural history of the social animal-world had the world-historic mission of developing the beast of prey out of humanity have now finally completed their mission’s work.”

What Marx did was to push the stereotype to its limit: he made the love of money not just an attribute of some Jews, but the very essence of the Jews. But by doing so, he was in effect dissolving the Jewish question into a socio-economic question: the Jew becomes the archetypal bourgeois. By this sleight of hand, Marx eliminated the Jewish question once and for all. He would never come back to it.[19]

In fact, never again would Marx target specifically Jewish financiers. Nesta Webster draws attention to that anomaly in her World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (1921):

“The period of 1820 onwards became, as Sombart [Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, 1911)] calls it, ‘the age of the Rothschilds,’ so that by the middle of the century it was a common dictum, ‘There is only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild.’ Now how is it conceivable that a man who set out honestly to denounce Capitalism should have avoided all reference to its principal authors? Yet even in the section of his book dealing with the origins of Industrial Capitalism, where Marx refers to the great financiers, the stock-jobbing and speculation in shares, and what he describes as ‘the modern sovereignty of finance,’ he never once indicates the Jews as the leading financiers, or the Rothschilds as the super-capitalists of the world.”[20]"
and (my emphasis in red):
"Jewish movements seem to be working history through dialectical antagonisms that ultimately advance the Big Project. The capacity of the Jewish community to present itself either as a religion or as a nationality, depending on the circumstances, is the prime example. After gaining political emancipation in the name of religious freedom in the first part of the 19th century, European Jews were in the position to reclaim their special nationhood. For a few decades, reformed rabbis would ostensibly oppose Jewish nationalism, proclaiming in the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religion community.”[25] Yet the same Pittsburgh Conference saw no contradiction in adopting the theory of German rabbi Kaufman Kohler, that “Israel, the suffering Messiah of the centuries, shall at the end of days become the triumphant Messiah of the nations,”[26] which amounts to say that Israel is not an ordinary nation, but the super-nation. In the 20th century, any trace of a contradiction between Reformed Judaism and Zionism was removed.
The early collaboration between Marx and Hess and the late encounter between Marx and Graetz both prefigure another dialectical opposition between Communism (the International revolution aimed at destroying Christian nations) and Zionism (the national project aimed at building the Jewish nation). Both movements developed in the same milieu. Chaim Weizmann recounts in his autobiography (Trial and Error, 1949) that in early twentieth-century Russia, revolutionary communists and revolutionary Zionists belonged to the same milieu. Weizmann’s brother Schmuel was a communist, and that was not a source of family discord. These divisions were relative and changeable; many Zionists were Marxists, and vice versa. The borderline was all the more vague that the Communist Bund, born the same year as Zionism (1897), inscribed in its revolutionary agenda the right of the Jews to found a secular Yiddish-speaking nation. As Gilad Atzmon recently wrote, the Bund was “also an attempt to prevent Jews from joining the ‘Hellenic’ route by offering Jews a tribal path within the context of a future Soviet revolution.”

But the most important thing to note is that, from the early days, Jewish revolutionary activity provided Zionists with a diplomatic argument in favor of their alternative program for the Jews. Herzl mentions in his diary (June 4, 1900) that “intensifying Jewish Socialist activities” was a way to “stir up the desire among the European governments to exert pressure on Turkey to take in the Jews” (Palestine was then under Ottoman control). He hawked Zionism as a solution to the problem of Jewish revolutionary subversion when meeting Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1898, and again when meeting Russian ministers in St. Petersburg in 1903.[27] The next generation of Zionists continued the stratagem. Churchill, who spoke with one voice with Chaim Weizmann,[28]dramatized the opposition between the “good Jews” (Zionists) and the “bad Jews” (communists) in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.” He referred to Bolshevism as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization” and to Zionism as the solution “especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.” (Churchill’s later alliance with Stalin proves that his Zionism was stronger than his anti-communism.)
In the aftermath of World War II, the rivalry between the Communist and the Capitalist worlds remained the indispensable context for the creation and expansion of Israel. That explains why Roosevelt’s administration, largely controlled by Jews, helped Stalin conquer half of Europe and thwarted all attempts to stop him. Curtis Dall, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, has revealed a secret diplomatic channel demonstrating that the White House went out of its way to give the USSR all the time and the armament necessary to invade Central Europe.[29] Thus the Second World War was completed with the determined aim of laying the foundations for the Cold War, that is, a highly explosive polarization of the world that would prove crucial for Project Zion. In fact, during this whole period, it is almost impossible to distinguish, among the Jewish advisors of Roosevelt and Truman on foreign policy, the pro-Communists from the pro-Zionists, as David Martin remarks in The Assassination of James Forrestal. A case in point is David Niles (Neyhus), who was guilty of spying for the Soviets while advising Roosevelt, but then played a key role in Truman’s support of the U.N. Partition Plan and the recognition of Israel.[30]
The Cold War proved instrumental when Nasser, Israel’s most formidable enemy, was pushed into the communist camp in 1955, setting off an intense Zionist campaign to present him as a danger to the stability of the Middle East, and to present Israel, by contrast, as the only reliable ally in the region. The Cold War was also the crucial context for Israel’s defeat of Egypt in 1967 and Israel’s annexation of territories stolen to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon."

Everyone on videotape

""Jeffrey And I Had Everyone On Videotape" Ghislaine Maxwell Reportedly Told Friend" (Durden). While this is without any doubt what they did, I'm a little skeptical that she would tell a friend.  On the other hand (((Oxenberg))) and (((Jizzlaine))) have good reasons to keep up the ongoing pressure on the blackmail victims, and this kind of story is just the thing to keep them compliant with Khazar demands.

"Gloria Allred Is Using A School Bus To Shame Prince Andrew Into Talking To The FBI About Jeffrey Epstein" (Kristian).  The same, from (((Allred))).  Randy Andy isn't going to talk to any investigator, but this kind of stunt keeps the blackmail in play.

"UK minister who approved Trump’s request to extradite Assange spoke at secretive US conferences with people calling for him to be “neutralized”" (Kennard/Curtis).  They all move in the same creepy circles.

"New conflict of interest evidence against UK judge in charge of Assange extradition process" (Reed).  What amazes me is that the judges don't even attempt to hide the bias - they seem to revel in it, as if they are sending signals out to their peers of how everybody can rely on how crooked they are.  If you add all the petty ways they hinder the preparation of a proper defense, it is not a good look.  On the bright side, when he's garroted, nobody will be able to claim with a straight face that he got a fair trial.

"Former Congressman Says He Did Promise Julian Assange a Pardon If He Proved Russia Didn’t Hack DNC" (Anglin). Rohrabacher was looking for a public statement on the truth about Seth Rich.

"Pro-Israel Super PAC to stop running negative ads against Bernie Sanders".  It backfired!  With enemies like (((these))), who needs friends!

"Russiagate 2.0: Russia Is Boosting Bernie Sanders Campaign" ('Hunter Wallace'). "US Government Tells Bernie Sanders He’s Being Secretly Supported by Russian Hackers" (Anglin).

Tweet (Resist the RESISTANCE-BloombergIsaRacist):
"According to some very dumb pundits, Russia is supposedly helping Sanders win the nomination , but @MikeBloomberg is the one caught with several social media bot accounts. You can’t make this shit up. Another proof the Russia narrative is created by corporate media."
"This Week’s Lunacy" (Robinson). "Russia isn’t just mapping Ireland’s internet cables – it’s planning to INVADE, foams Cold-War-revivalist DC think tank" (Buyniski).  Obvious lunacy is no longer a deterrent to the publication of anti-Russian PR.

Entertaining the bio-weapon hypothesis:  "Escobar: No Weapon Left Behind - The American Hybrid War On China".  Added: the fact this isn't a great bio-weapon is a feature not a bug.  They don't want to kill millions, just put pressure on the Chinese government and disrupt the economy.

"Pentagon 'Accidentally' Tells The Truth About Idlib" (Durden).  I'd like to know what the critics of the Resistance operations would like to see.  Is the Syrian government really supposed to leave these monsters in charge of large areas of Syria?  The complaints all break down to the fact that the Reisitance is having success in removing the Zionist-Assholian proxy armies.

"Homeland Security Algorithm Revokes U.S. Visa of War Crimes Investigator Eyal Weizman" (Mackey).  Very, very iffy (((character))), part of the Douma gas hoax/false flag.

"Huawei in the Crosshairs" (Whitney). Americans no longer have money for R & D as they sadly must spend everything on Wars For The Jews. When this starts having practical implications, the only thing left to do is to attempt to bully and bluster, and it's not working.

"Netanyahu between the Nakba Arabs and the Arabs who are a joke" (Qandil). The Palestinian people are pretty much on their own on this one, except for Iran-Hezbollah.

"Trump-Kushner “Peace” Plan ignores elephants in the room: Israel created this mess" (Shihadah).  Khazarocracy, the most cruel form of government yet devised.

"Labour’s Next Leader has Already betrayed the Left" (Cook).  They've subjected the British people to years of one of the worst possible governments in the world, all because Corbyn was a threat to their kleptomania.  Now they are making sure no moral person can possibly be Labour leader.  We have no word in English to describe how vile they are.

"US War Criminal Elliott Abrams Goes After teleSUR As Part of Regime Change Plot". "Trump Not Giving Up On "Military Options" For Maduro's Ouster, Considers Naval Blockade" (Durden).

"Trump’s New Spy Chief Used to Work for a Foreign Politician the U.S. Accused of Corruption" (Arnsdorf).

"Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis" (Todhunter).

Friday, February 21, 2020

Buzz saws and cleavers

"What’s Really Behind Rohrbacher’s ‘Assange Pardon’ Story?" (Henningsen),  Solid summary.  The outrageous spin of the (((media))) is one of those things that is both amazing - where do they find the chutzpah to lie so much? - and completely expected.

"Defense lawyers say they will seek French asylum for Assange" (Cetinic). How do they plan to spring him from the clutches of the crooked British 'justice' system?  It would be interesting to see if Globo-Homo-Rothschild-o would actually take him in.

"Why Is Maduro Still Pushing The Petro?" (Luther) (read the whole thing):
"International transactions executed in U.S. dollars are typically cleared in a New York bank. Those banks know their customers and are obliged to hand over transactions data to the U.S. government when subpoenaed or if they suspect a crime is being committed.

If the international transaction is executed in some other currency, like euros, the information is a little more difficult for the U.S. government to access. Of course, most European banks will refuse to clear the transaction as well since the U.S. government can require they hand over the relevant transactions data, in which case they would be found to have violated sanctions by processing the transaction, or they would lose access to U.S. markets on grounds of non-compliance; and, since most international transactions are executed in U.S. dollars, a European bank that cannot transfer money to and from U.S. banks will struggle to serve its international transactions-making customers.

Nonetheless, the risk of detection is probably a little lower than it would be if the transaction were made in U.S. dollars. And, as a result, the transaction is more likely to be executed.

The international financial plumbing has a lot of pipes running to and from the U.S. And that gives the U.S. a lot of power to levy sanctions, not just on its own citizens, but also on citizens and companies of other countries interested in international trade.

You can probably see where this is going. If Venezuela were able to create a parallel financial system, one with no pipes going to and from the U.S., it could make and receive international transactions with even less risk of detection than is afforded by other national currencies, like the euro, ruble, or renminbi.

That’s where the petro comes in. As a digital currency, it enables one to send or receive funds virtually anywhere around the world. And, to the extent that those transactions are disconnected from the U.S. financial system, they are much less likely to be detected by the U.S. government.

Again: the sanctions still apply. But, by conducting transactions in petros, they are easier to get around.

Why, then, does Venezuela push the petro at home? Why not just require it for international transactions? For one, few will be willing to accept the petro if there isn’t a very big market for petros. Hence, by increasing the demand for petros at home, Venezuela makes it less risky for foreigners to accept them — if only for a short period of time."
"Christopher Caldwell: the Weirdly Parallel Childhoods of Houellebecq and Obama"(Sailer).  Both abandoned by mothers who preferred 'progressive' causes over them.

"Bloomberg surrogate was PR guru for Brazil’s extreme-right leader Bolsonaro" (Norton).

He's bought - literally bought! - the whole Democrat party:  "Bloomberg Wants to Swallow the Democrats and Spit Out the Sandernistas" (Ford):
"In addition to the nearly million dollar down payment to the party in November that sealed the deal for the debate rules change, Bloomberg has already pledged to pay the full salaries of 500 political staffers for the Democratic National Committee all the way through the November election, no matter who wins the nomination. Essentially, Bloomberg will be running the election for the corporate wing of the party, even if Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with PBS’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday night, senior Bloomberg advisor Timothy O’Brien made it clear that the DNC is in no condition to refuse being devoured by Bloomberg, even if they wanted to. O’brien predicted the Republicans will spend at least $900 million on the election, while the DNC has only about $8 million on hand. Even the oligarch’s underlings are telegraphing the takeover game plan.

Bloomberg is not so much running for president as making sure that the Democrats don’t go “rogue” anti-corporate to accommodate the Sandernistas. He is ensuring that the Democratic Party will be an even more hostile environment for anti-austerity politics than in the past – not in spite of the phenomenal success of the Sanders project, but because of it.

Such a party cannot possibly accommodate both sides, and is ultimately destined to split."
"When Bloomberg News’s Reporting on China Was Challenged, Bloomberg Tried to Ruin Me for Speaking Out" (Fincher).  Though the underlying story sounds like the usual anti-China crap PR.

The NSA in Britain, and 'diplomatic immunity':  "Diplomatic Immunity and RAF Croughton: Trump Goes After the Brits" (Giraldi).

Very close to Potemkin village territory:  "Trump’s exciting event in Ahmedabad" (Bhadrakumar):
"Trump would have calculated that even if just about ten percent of what Modi promised actually show up for the road show, that would present a breathtaking spectacle on the TV screen as the images get beamed into the American homes.

The overpowering impression that the spectacle would create in the American public will be that Trump is an immensely popular leader among mankind, contrary to what one half of Americans speak of him.

To be sure, Modi government is leaving no stone unturned. The government hopes to arrange 1.2 lakh people to attend the rally at Motera Stadium. 3,000 buses will be deployed to ferry people from the districts to the stadium."
"BT Cotton: Cultivating Farmer Distress in India" (Todhunter).

"My Struggle" (Atzmon).  According to the Jews, Jews are the only group that aren't, and can't possibly be, racist.

"Separation & Black-Jewish Discontents" (Moriarty).  Despite a simply massive PR campaign, you'd be hard pressed to find a black person who believes Jewish motives in dealing with blacks are in any way altruistic.

Khazar 'negotiating':  "‘Whether they accept it or not, it’s going to happen’ — Netanyahu lays out Palestinian submission to Trump plan" (Weiss). Actually, the 'deal' isn't going to happen - they'll just use it as the pretense to steal the land, and any obligations on Israel will, of course, never be fulfilled.

"Roundup: Looking for the path forward" (Smith):
"So where to from here? It seems to me that given that the government cannot order the RCMP or other police forces to clear the blockades – particularly without escalating the situation and creating a series of Oka or Ipperwash crises across the country – nor can they order the RCMP to withdraw from Wet’suwet’en territory, it means that it’s up to Coastal GasLink to swallow the losses and go to the court to withdraw the court order that the RCMP went in to enforce that touched off this whole mess. One has to wonder whether anyone is counselling them to that very effect, but if that’s the way out of this situation, then they may have to take their lumps and do their part to walk the country back from the brink, because there don’t appear to be any clear paths out of this particular mess otherwise. It should also be a warning to other developers that they can’t keep cutting corners, particularly with regards to Indigenous peoples. CGL should have consulted the hereditary chiefs as well as the elected ones, provided proper reassurances that no, this was not a stealthy way to put a bitumen pipeline through their territory (because yes, that conspiracy theory is floating around), and done that work ahead of time. The days of cutting these corners has to stop, or we’ll keep going through this exercise time and again."
The corner cutting: "Pipeline approval record reveals conflict with Wet'suwet'en years in the making" (Proctor).  I think the shareholders of Coastal GasLink have a good case that the laziness of management - failing to consult everybody in the hope they could just muscle their way through - was a gross dereliction of their duties.

Worse than J. Edgar:  "Jimmy Comey, Sanctimonious Moron by Larry C Johnson".

Ha ha ha!:  "A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked" (Rosenberg):
"A methamphetamine production plant existed with the slaughterhouse, sanctioned by management. At the time of the raid, Barack Obama, then an Illinois senator said of Agriprocessors during a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, “They have kids in there wielding buzz saws and cleavers. It’s ridiculous.”"
I love it when the absolute shekel corruption is so obvious!:
"Sholom Rubashkin was convicted of eighty-six counts of federal-bank fraud. Prosecutors asked for a life sentence for Sholom Rubashkin, citing his lawlessness and lack of remorse, but more than one dozen former U.S. attorneys cried to the judge: Unfair!
“We cannot fathom how truly sound and sensible sentencing rules could call for a life sentence—or anything close to it—for Mr. Rubashkin, a 51-year-old, first-time, nonviolent offender,” said a letter signed by former attorney generals Janet Reno, William Barr, Richard Thornburgh, Edwin Meese III, Ramsey Clark and Nicholas Katzenbach.
A few years later in 2017, President Trump commuted Rubashkin’s sentence. The commutation resulted from pressure from both sides of the aisle said the White House–both Nancy Pelosi and Orrin Hatch. It also came from high-ranking law enforcement officials said NBC, who argued “the sentence was far too harsh for a first-time, non-violent offender.”"
"Colombia: Colonel Involves General in Extrajudicial Killings".  Old soldiers who have committed atrocities testifying against the superiors who gave the orders is a step on the road to recovery.

The revenge of the martyr is happening much more quickly than anybody - especially Khazars who ordered the hit and their Assholian stooges - could have possibly imagined:  "Is the “Axis of Resistance” in a Better or Worse Position? the Martyr Qassem Soleimani Achieves Even More Than the Major General Did" (Magnier).

"The Show Trial of A and B. Kafka comes to The Hague" (Hitchens).  The reaction of the OPCW to its whistle blowers is even more shameful than the original cooked-up 'investigation'.  The whole thing needs to be wound up, its directors and senior managers publicly shamed - they can go work  for the Assholes, which, as we know, they are already doing now - and a new non-crooked organization set up as a replacement to try to do something better than rubber stamping Asshole PR.

Khazars gonna Khaz - he may be the best choice, but he's still Evil:  "Sanders tells New York Times he would consider a preemptive strike against Iran or North Korea" (Crosse/Grey).

"Dresden Terror Bombing, Like Hiroshima, A Maniacal Warning To Moscow" (Cunningham).  Nothing has changed - the Assholes are still 'warning Moscow'.

"Pentagon expects US public to buy lame excuse about missing weapons sent to Syria, Iraq" (Malic). 'Lost' and 'missing', right into the hands of our proxy armies!

How do you deliver aid to people when political control of the area is by genocidal maniacs who will just use it to feed themselves, or sell it for weapons to commit more genocide?:  "Idlib and the “Interahamwe aid trap”" (Cobban).

"Syria and “Transitional Justice”" (Cobban).  The weaponization by Assholes/Zionists of legalistic 'human rights' tribunals.  It's 'victor's justice' even when they lose!

Thursday, February 20, 2020


It is curious that the American Empire has decided to pick Huawei as the hill it is going to die on.  It insists that its vassals follow, and the vassals are all revolting.  Once you get past the first such refusal to obey, the Empire is over.

"Intelligence Spats: Australia, Britain and Huawei" (Kampmark).

"Why the U.S. Is Losing Its War Against Huawei" (Goldman).

"Telus issues challenge to Ottawa with its decision to use Huawei 5G, tech expert says" (Boutilier).

"Westlessness as a Cover for US vs. China" (Escobar). "The Vector Of The European Political Agenda Is Changing: Russia Is Becoming A Necessary Partner" (Frank).  "At the Annual Munich Security Conference: The West Displays Its “Insecurity Complex”" (Johnston).  When you've lost the Euro-Trash . . .

"Lavrov at Munich: the Lone Voice for Peace" (Whitney).

Tweet (Donald J. Trump) (Bloomberg's problem with thinking on his feet is going to ruin him as a possible nominee):
"Mini Mike Bloomberg’s debate performance tonight was perhaps the worst in the history of debates, and there have been some really bad ones. He was stumbling, bumbling and grossly incompetent. If this doesn’t knock him out of the race, nothing will. Not so easy to do what I did!"
"Mike Bloomberg: Trojan Horse For Clintonista Revival" (Luongo).  If you were going to game this out, Clinton is the most obvious beneficiary.

Usually, these guys try to put on a façade of debonair sophistication, a 'man of the world', but Bloomberg is an out-and-out blood-pouring-from-the-fangs Zionist:  "Bloomberg once accused BDS supporters of wanting Israelis to be ‘massacred’" (Arria).

The coup plotters have to rig the Bolivian election, or lose: tweet (Ollie Vargas):
"Looks like Evo Morales is about to be banned from standing as a Senate candidate. There'd be no legal basis for this. Bolivia's elections are being rigged, with the cooperation of USAID."
The point being that Assange can be asked to deny something that didn't actually happen:  "Here we go again: Media report ‘Trump asked Assange to deny/cover up link with Russia’... quoting statement showing no such thing " (Malic) and "‘If It Did Happen, It Was Not an Offer to Assange to Lie’ – UN Expert on Alleged ‘Pardon Offer’" (background).  Assange has been keeping his powder dry.  Hopefully, this is the beginning of pressure applied on the Assholian government and Trump.

The weaponization of 'media freedom' by thugs like The Nazi leaves no room for the protection of actual journalism:  "‘Media Freedom’ Campaign Pushes Magnitsky Sanctions – But Ignores Case of Julian Assange" (Cross).

Solomon is one of the two or three actual journalists still working in the US, so of course they go after him:  "The Hill Goes Easy On John Solomon In Review Of Ukraine Disinfo Columns" (Kovensky).

"UK ran propaganda campaigns in Syria as cover for spying and potential military operations". Ironic that 'citizen journalists' gets its credibility from the fact that real journalists lie so much!

"Russia warns Turkey against rash moves in Idlib" (Bhadrakumar):
"The astonishing part is that amidst all this cacophony, on Tuesday, Turkish military quietly resumed the joint patrols with Russian forces in northeastern Syria where both countries are common interest in preventing a US comeback to the Turkish-Syrian border regions with their Kurdish allies. Certainly, as Peskov signalled today, the Kremlin has reason to hope that the better sense will prevail in Ankara."
"Could the Latest Outburst of Ankara’s Temper Lead to Escalation in Syria?" (Vltchek):
"Patrick Henningsen is a leading global affairs analyst, co-founder and executive editor of 21 Century Wire, with an in-depth knowledge of Syria. He agreed to share his thoughts with me – about the recent developments in Syria, particularly the Turkish operations there:
“Turkey’s apparent schizophrenic behavior in the region is a byproduct of the country’s legacy national security issues combined with the current ruling party’s sweeping domestic reformist agenda which also has a strong revanchist component to it. Turkey’s primary security objective of crushing any and all Kurdish PKK/YPG enclaves in Syria cannot be divorced from the historic transition which is taking place domestically. The right-wing nationalist coalition of Erdogan’s AKP Party and the Party of Nationalist Movements (the Grey Wolves) are in the process of rolling back the secular Kemalist Republic – into a ‘New Turkey’ which is effectively an Islamist state. This Neo-Ottoman revival would like to see Turkey regain its former position at the center of the Islamic world, which means it has to project influence and power regionally, and also globally. This includes both talking and acting tough in Syria. It is also intervening in Libya too. Erdogan’s dedicated support of the Muslim Brotherhood and co-opting of fundamentalist Islamist militants like Jabat al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army should be viewed as a tool to project power by proxy without having to sacrifice actual Turkish soldiers. The President’s pious nationalist base at home will support his calls conquest and regime change in Syria because they see Erdogan as a transformational populist leader who is returning Turkey to its rightful place in the world. Currently, Turkey is attempting a complicated dance routine between Russia, the US and NATO, pandering to all parties as is necessary, but always with Turkish interests in mind. While he may often be bluffing with periodic threats made to Syria, Russia and America, know that he is always doing so with his base in mind. It’s about ‘Turkey First’ and “Make Turkey Great Again.’ All of this makes for a very complicated state of affairs for Turkey. Dare we say, Byzantine.”"

Remember when we were instructed, as good goyim, that the War For The Jews on Iraq was actually a War For Oil!  Good times!  "Russia Is Defeating The U.S. In The Middle East Oil Game" (Watkins).

'Political pressure' = blackmail and bribery:  "Netanyahu “Optimistic” Israel Can Use Political Pressure to Shut Down ICC War Crimes Probe" (Webb).

"Sheldon Adelson To Host Major Trump Fundraiser" ('Hunter Wallace').

"Israel To Step Up "Offensive Action" - Will Turn Syria Into "Iranian Vietnam": Israeli Defense Chief" (Durden). More electioneering, but still reinforces the fact that the world has never been able to afford the luxury of Khazars, particularly Khazars with a country.

The Kleptomaniacs can't wait until the ink is dry on President Jared's eliminationist plan for the Palestinians to start stealing some of the pittance he left for them:  "Israel plans new settlement on occupied land earmarked for ‘Muslim tourism’ in Trump plan" (Patel). I'm wondering, given the indubitable evidence that all Khazars are kleptomaniacs, why do gentiles dare do any business with them?  Seriously!  You'd have to be out of your mind!

Third rail touching:  "Ayatollah Tweets "Wealthy Zionists" Control America Amid Push To Get Him Banned From Twitter" (Durden).

You wouldn't think being a banking executive was such a dangerous job:  "Credit Suisse MD Dies In Freak Accident After Slipping Through Chairlift And Being Suffocated By His Own Jacket" (Durden).

Tweet (Eldon Katz) (exactly as you might expect):
"% of each candidate's supporters who believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide"" (Rezendes).: Klobuchar 42% Bloomberg 34% Warren 33% Biden 31% Steyer 29% Buttigieg 25% Sanders 16% Gabbard 8%"
"After learning of Whitey Bulger LSD tests, juror has regrets" (Rezendes).  I love it when conspiracies collide.

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Bread and butter

"The Oligarch Stage of the American Disease: Bloomberg Edition" (Welsh).  For the combo "birth and gun control".  Trump would rip Bloomberg to pieces.  Bloomberg would have the Hillary disease - no Democrat turn-out where it counts, as he is obviously too much of a Republican to garner any enthusiasm (and blacks have particular reasons to hate him), and can't hide his distaste for the 'deplorables'.  He's basically a richer, shorter, less interesting, less articulate, much less entertaining, Trump.  Unlike Bernie, he won't be able to shrug off the level of taunting that Trump will apply.  As I've said, though, he's not in it to win, just to block Bernie.

"'Mossad Helped Boris Johnson'" (Aangirfan).  The best tweets are deleted tweets.

"Bernard Kerik, Police Response to 9 11" (Aangirfan), and its comments, linking to Reddit.  The technical term from conspiracy theory is cohencidence.

"Judge takes rare step to help serve elusive Ghislaine Maxwell with lawsuit" (Fonrouge).  It has been six months now and if Barr is doing any investigating of what happened, it is not apparent.

"Prosecutors Claim That Prince Andrew Openly Groped Girls On Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island" (Michael K). The only faith I have is in the Virgin Islands' investigation.

Trudeau is getting dangerously close to an emperor's new clothes situation, or, better, accepting the claims of one of those insane people who declare themselves as king, and even receive some recognition as such, like Emperor Norton (who surely had more claim to his title than Guido has to his!):  "Open Letter to Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Lima Group Meeting" (Pagliccia). "Canada, Get Out of the Lima Group, Core Group and OAS" (Engler).  This is the PM of Canada behaving like a clown.

The OPCW is an international, intergovernmental organization set up to implement an international arms control treaty, acting like a petulant rock star who doesn't fancy complaints about the new hairdo:  "Scandal-Ridden OPCW Now Using Twitter’s “Hide Replies” Function" (Johnstone).


"Trump’s Vanished ‘Liberal Middles’" (Crooke).  AIPAC is the victim of its own success.  President Kushner, Bibi, and the lite Zionists - take a bow lite Zionists, for keeping the farm animals at bay long enough so the Khazars could steal all they wanted to steal! - have accomplished everything that AIPAC was set up to achieve (at least in the short term - they now start on the rest of Greater Israel).  The key point is that MEGA Group blackmail means that there is no opposition to the very worst that the Zionists could do, and the idea that there were atrocities that would not be tolerated was a bluff that the Zionists have now called.

"Escobar: It's Time To Reclaim Syria's Road To Recovery" (Escobar). "Erdoğan says Syria talks with Russia unsatisfactory, operation 'matter of time'". Once you've figured out, as the Russians have, that Erdoğan is all bluff, you just keep calling bluffs until he leaves.

Why aren't there more women in politics?

Because they are not the degenerate perverts that men are.  Therefore most of them can't be controlled through the use of MEGA-Group-style blackmail operations, which are the key to any kind of understanding of politics in the West (somebody like Killary is probably a degenerate pervert herself, and in any event is controlled through Bill).  Of course, they can by bribed - Pelosi didn't become a multi-millionaire on her diet of government cheese - but bribery by itself is tricky and dangerous.  Somebody might grow a conscience - unlikely, I know - and decide to stop taking the bribes, and thus stop the high treason that is supporting Wars For The Jews.  Even worse, they might report the identity of their briber.  Blackmail is necessary to ensure that the bribery is never reported, and that it continues to supply the otherwise astonishingly unlikely results.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

A big price

"Trump goes on clemency spree, and the list is long":
""We have Bernie Kerik, we have Mike Milken, who's gone around and done an incredible job," Trump said, adding that Milken had "paid a big price"."
I winder what "a big price" is, in shekels.

Corridor wars

"Explaining Syria" (Giraldi).  Jeffrey isn't delusional.  It's shekels.  Knowing what we know about Washington, it is also possible probable almost certain he is being blackmailed.

You could make the case that our current awful slates of politicians in the West - it is striking, as you'd think just by chance there might be a few decent ones, but there are not! - is directly connected with the Khazar bribing and blackmailing campaign, as only the most degenerate people are now allowed to be politicians.  To qualify, you have to be bad enough to be bribed/blackmailed.  Anybody else either isn't allowed in, or flees from politics in disgust at the rest of them.

Why Beardboy just can't order the RCMP to start killing injuns, as Conservatives, and Albertans (but I repeat myself), would like:  tweet (Dr. Jennifer Robson):
"There’s been a lot of opinion flying about on whether the PM/Min. PSEP could/should order the RCMP to remove #Wetsuwenten protesters & supporters. I just stumbled across a paper by @UofT Kent Roach & found it really helpful :… 1/n"
"Why Coastal GasLink says it rejected a pipeline route endorsed by Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs"(Kurjata).  They refused to choose the acceptable route as it would have cost more, and endangered white people - aka 'urban areas' - rather than natives!  It has reached self-parody levels of Clarification.

We tend to forget that the RCMP is basically a paramilitary force, one that more recently has taken up police work, which earned its fame from 'managing' natives (which they were slightly better at than their American counterparts - unlike the Americans, they tended to chat before starting the shooting - but that is a very low standard to meet).

"Pipeline or a Pipe Dream: Israel, Turkey Hydrocarbon Conflict is Brewing in the Mediterranean" (Baroud).  "Gas Wars in the Mediterranean" (Whitney).  Turkey's 'corridor' blocks the Khazar khorridor, so the combined blackmailed/bribed political stooges of the West are going to be ordered to gang up on Turkey.  It wasn't that long ago that all the talk was about the Israelis building a pipeline up the coast of Lebanon to Turkey.

"Why Food Systems Are Breaking Down Across The World" (Todhunter).

"How Washington “Liberates” Free Countries" (Vltchek). "The US’s Inalienable Right to Violence" (Shupak).

"Plain of Jars University" (Dinh):
"The horrors of war are often drowned out by heroic propaganda or rendered much less bloody through dry historical accounts, penned by academics, but there’s a slim book, Voices from the Plain of Jars, that allows suffering civilians to recount their terror filled existence under constant American bombs.
Edited by Frederic R. Branfman, it has a foreword (in the second edition) by Alfred W. McCoy, who notes, “Since there is no other book written by the villagers of Indochina, these ‘voices’ can, in a sense, speak for the countless Vietnamese and Cambodians who also suffered under the U.S. bombing. Not only does the 2.1 million tons of bombs dropped on Laos from 1965 to 1973 rank among the largest air wars of the twentieth century, exceeded only by the 2.7 million tons dropped on Cambodia, but it also was a precursor for the way wars would be fought in the twenty-first century and beyond […] this book recovers an obscure yet significant moment in military history and documents an air war so intense that it became a testing ground for a new form of global force projection.” The CIA’s Secret War in Laos reverberates into everyone’s life, in short, as long as the American Empire is extant."
"An interview with Lula. Part One" (important because we never get any insider reports of political shenanigans from honest, decent people; my emphasis in red; we start with the actual origins of Obama's Iran deal and the fact that, pre-Bolsonaro, Brazil was becoming a major diplomatic player, rather than the joke it is now):
"First of all it is important to look at that moment when Brazil, together with Turkey, made a deal with Iran on uranium enrichment. It was a different historic moment from that which Brazil is in today. Brazil was more respected in the World. Brazil was almost an international protagonist because we had removed the FTAA [Free Trade Agreement of the Americas] from the debate and had strengthened MercoSul. We had created UnaSul, which was the union of the countries of South America. We had created the BRICS, we had created IBAS, we had created a union between Africa and South America, we had created a union between countries in the Middle East and South America, we had created CELAC which was the only international encounter which included Cuba but did not include the United States and Canada. We had created the BRICS bank, and the Bank of the South here in South America. Brazil was transforming into a protagonist and it was a strong candidate to become part of the UN Security Council. We believed that Brazil should have joined it, along with India, Germany and Japan. What we did not factor in was Japan’s contentious relationship with China – it was very contentious and very strong. China, which was so favorable to the expansion of the UN Security Council, did not support our idea. But we had support from Russia, France and the UK. Bush seemed very favorable to the idea at first. Obama was less supportive. When we proposed to negotiate with Ahmadinejad, it was historically important because we were in the United States at the time. We were in a G20 meeting in Princeton. I had spoken with Ahmadinejad in the hotel but at this point I did not have a friendly relationship with him. So I arrived in the meeting and I asked Obama if he had spoken with Ahmadinejad and he said no. I asked Angela Merkel and she said no. I asked Gordon Brown and he said no. I spoke with Sarkozy and he said no. The fact was that nobody had spoken with Ahmadinejad. I thought, ‘how do these people want to make a deal without a conversation’? Because international politics is really outsourced, especially in Europe. There are employees who do the negotiations and this makes it hard. I remember that Hilary Clinton worked hard against my idea to go to Iran. She even called the Emir of Qatar and asked him to convince me not to go. When I arrived in Moscow and met with Medvedev, I found out Obama had called and asked him to help convince me not to go, because I would be tricked.
Michael: Why were they so concerned?
Lula: Obama didn’t want me to go to Iran, but he had written a letter saying that if Ahmadinejad agreed with such and such terms, he would be happy with it. So it was with this letter that I traveled to Iran. We got there and after two days of very tough talks I told Ahmadinejad that I would not return to Brazil without his signature. He said, “can’t it just be an oral agreement?”
I said, “It’s not enough, because nobody believes in you over there. They say that Iranians are liars and they don’t honor agreements. So I’ll only leave with something in writing.”
So he accepted our agreement. I was surprised because I imagined that Obama would be happy with the deal but he increased the sanctions against Iran. Then we discovered that Hilary Clinton didn’t know about the letter that Obama had sent me. She got angry when Celso Amorim and I told her about the letter. So I had no option but to publish Obama’s letter so people could see that we hadn’t done anything crazy. The deal that we brokered was more precise than that which was later signed by Europe and the United States. So it was a very disagreeable situation and my impression was that the rich countries – influenced by the thinking of the US State Department – did not accept a new protagonist in the area. In their minds Brazil was not big enough to get involved in an issue of that scale. It was easy for me to speak with Ahmadinejad because I told him that the only thing I wanted from them is what we have in Brazil. I wanted him to have the same rights as Brazil. Brazil’s constitution supports the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but allows the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes – for the production of medicine and things like that. So, he and the President of Iran’s Congress agreed. I flew from Iran to Madrid for an EU meeting thinking that everyone would be happy because I had managed to broker a deal which they were unable to pull off and when I got there everyone was against it. Everyone was acting like Brazil had gotten into something that nobody had invited it to do – that Brazil was a personna non grata on the international political stage. It was unpleasant. I think as long as there are only conversations between the Israeli government and the US government we will not have peace in the Middle East, because they are responsible for the conflicts. If you don’t put all the people who are involved at the table and listen to everyone, you will not make a deal. Every once in a while they give a Noble Prize to some American or Israeli authority and peace, which is what the people really want, never arrives."
and (note that the 'science' of economics can't even comprehend this kind of talk):
". . . this intellectual theory here in Brazil that my government was successful because of the boom in agribusiness and that this is why things worked out. Think about the following: from 1950 to 1980, Brazil was one of the fastest growing economies in the World. On average, Brazil grew 7% per year from 1950-1980 – that’s 30 years of economic growth. Why weren’t any policies for income redistribution implemented? Why weren’t there any social inclusion policies? Why didn’t the growth of the Brazilian economy cause the people to grow together with it? Do you know why, Brian? Because the miracle of our government was not the commodities boom – it was the boom of social inclusion.
I was absolutely certain that the poor would not be a problem. The poor would be the solution in the sense that we could include them in the federal budget and guarantee that, if they had access to jobs and salaries, their income and credit would cause them to become consumers. There has never been, on the face of the earth – even to those people who think it’s flat – and in the history of humanity, a moment in which any economy grew without a strong internal demand or a strong external demand. We managed to increase the external demand and the internal demand. Brazil’s international trade increased from $117 Billion to $465 billion. Brazil’s internal credit, available from public and private banks, rose from R$360 billion to R$2.7 Trillion by 2010. We also generated 22 million formal sector jobs, with labor cards signed, with the right to vacation and retirement pensions, and we raised the minimum salary by 74%. So, the poorest 20% of the population’s income grew faster than that of the wealthiest 20%. It was the first time in our history that this happened, and Brazil was the only country in the World where the poor had proportionately higher income gains than the rich during the entire Lehman Brothers crisis. So the commodities boom was not the miracle. It was the miracle of the inclusion of the poor. It was the miracle of the social policies.
and (he's some kind of lunatic!):
"If you take $1 billion and give it to a rich man, he’ll deposit it in a bank account and use it for speculation. But if you take this $1 billion and divide it among 1 million people, giving each one $100, you will see that this dollar will start to work. It will circulate and make the markets work. People will buy food, they’ll buy shoes and socks and the economy will work. This was the PT’s miracle. This is why there is so much hatred of the PT."
"An interview with Lula. Part Two" (the CIA; lawfare):
"Brian Mier: When TeleSur’s Nacho Lemus interviewed you recently you said that you believe that foreign powers were involved in the June 2013 protests in Brazil. Immediately afterwards you were attacked by Brazilians from the vanguard left who accused you of reducing what had happened to a mere intervention by the CIA. I know that the PT historically takes a Gramscian view of the integral state – it is not just the government, it’s things like the corporations too. Could you explain exactly what you meant when you said there was external interference in 2013?
Lula: This question is important because it enables me to clearly explain what I said during the other interview. I did not say that the CIA started the movement. The movement started in the protests by people who were fighting for the right to collective transportation in several Brazilian state capitals and this was a legitimate social movement. But after it started, after the black blocs appeared and started breaking a few things, the movement was taken over. It wasn’t the transportation movement that put 1 million people from the middle class onto the streets protesting against the government, against the World Cup and against just about everything that was happening in Brazil. Globo TV had never interrupted it’s telenovelas before to broadcast a protest against busfare hikes or any workers protest – never. Suddenly TV GloboSBTBandeirantes and Record were all inviting people to the streets at 7 AM, Noon, 3PM. They were inviting people as if they were advertising a party. The protest marches were broadcast on live TV, which is something that had never happened before in the history of Brazil. So if it is true that it started here in São Paulo as a movement to fight for a 20 cent bus fare reduction, this struggle was taken over and held up by other interests. Today things are clearer to me then they were back then but I don’t think we will find out exactly who was behind all of it very quickly.
I remember the Arab Spring. I remember the downfall of Mubarak. Mubarak really had to go down. He was a dictator who was in power for so many years. But then the people elected Morsi. And how long did it take to take out Morsi? And who is there now? If it is true that the people were fighting for democracy, what are they doing now with 3 generals running Egypt, with no more protests and no more marches? The same thing happened in Turkey. Erdogan called us up in 2013 and said “this isn’t a movement trying to improve a public square – they want to overthrow the government. So be careful in Brazil.”
Therefore, I have plenty of reasons to be suspicious about what happened here in Brazil, first of all because no labor unions were protesting against the government. We didn’t know what this movement was. It appeared to be against nearly everything and favorable to one segment of society. It seemed like it was anti-PT, anti Dilma, anti-World Cup and anti-Olympics, so I wrote an article for the New York Times in which I said “the people who have gotten used to eating sirloin want filet mignon”. This is what I thought at the time, but today I think there was a lot more to it than this. It was not just economic, it was political. So I have a lot of mistrust about what happened here, what happened recently in Ecuador, what happened in Argentina and what happened in Bolivia. What was the logic behind what they did to me in Operation Lava Jato? Any lawyer who looks at case can see the lies that are being told and the con they are pulling on me. This lawfare attack, which was uncovered by my lawyers, is one of the most commentated subject in legal circles around the World today. It is a more modern and efficient way to destroy a democracy and end the popular representation of the vote. This is what they did here. This is what they did in Bolivia and they tried to do it with Rafael Correa in Ecuador. So I have a deep mistrust about this legalization of world politics."
"I saw Trump complain the other day that Iran has won over Iraq now, that the majority of them are Shia and now they like Iran. But it was the US that started the war.  I met with Bush around the time when the US started the war, in 2003. Later I met with Clinton in Davos and he said, “Bush is going to do some research. If he sees it will help him in the elections he’s going to attack Iraq.”"
"I had a good and respectful relationship with Tony Blair and I had a good relationship with Gordon Brown. Those were the two governments with which I had contact. Tony Blair’s role in the decision to join the war in Iraq was unfortunate. He knows this. He is regularly accosted on the streets of London because of the war in Iraq. He knew there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. Do you know why we also knew about this? Because the Secretary who took care of the UN’s department of nuclear weapons was Brazilian. It was Ambassador Bustani. He was the Secretary who dealt with chemical weapons. And he wore himself out saying, “they don’t have them”. The Americans ordered Fernando Henrique Cardoso to remove Bustani because of this. So they appointed someone from Japan who said they did have them. How long has it been since they invaded Iraq? Where are the chemical weapons? The only chemical weapons they had there were Saddam Hussein himself, who lied to his people the whole time and Bush, who lied to the World the whole time."
"But the truth is that Evo Morales and I were always odd men out. Imagine Evo, an Indian coca farmer, as President of Bolivia. I met Gonzalo, the Bolivian President. who I believe resigned in 2003, and he didn’t even speak Spanish. He wanted to explain something to me in English because he had problems speaking Spanish and he was President of Bolivia. Evo Morales was a real President. He implemented social inclusion policies, reduced inflation, generated jobs and increased Bolivia’s foreign reserves, which are now larger than the value of the GDP. Now the elites have deposed him."
"I have not had the pleasure of ever meeting Sanders. I know about him from the press and through people who have met him and I know about him from the things he’s said in solidarity with me. He spoke with a comrade from PT, Fernando Haddad, and my impression of him is as high as can be. The impression I have from his last campaign is that, although he was unable to win the democratic primary, he had a very exciting campaign for the youth with a good discourse which, by US standards, was very leftist. For 20 years, whenever I visited the US I tried to see if I could find leftist in an American bar and I never met one. So when someone like Sanders comes up it’s extraordinary news. It is hopefull to know that you have someone in the Senate of a certain age – I think he is as old as me – who is strong willed. I think this is important because a country that has an economy the size of the US could really improve the quality of life for its people if it stopped worrying so much about wars and spending so much money on the armed forces and espionage. It could use some of this money to improve the quality of life of the poor people in the US who also don’t live well, who have health problems. I dream that if Sanders can win these elections we can dream, even though we know that an American President has an entire, powerful war machine behind him which can complicate democratic actions. I think that you can only govern well if you have made up your mind about what you want to govern for, who you want to govern for and what side you are on. There are sides we have to take during our time on planet Earth. The fact is that the rich do not need the State but they gain power from it. They often perform the role of the State itself. I have always said that if anyone wants to learn how to govern they should look at how mothers raise their children. If a mother has 10 children she will love them all equally but if there is one who is debilitated and weaker, that is the one who will get the second piece of meat. That is the one who will get a second bottle. That is the one who she will put on her lap to help fall asleep. This is the role of the State. This is governing for the people who need the State. Who needs the State? It is the working poor and people who want jobs. I am very sad now because I was proud when our social inclusion policies caused Brazil to exit the World Hunger Map. I am very proud that the UN had recognized that Brazil no longer needed to be on the map. Today Brazil has returned to the Hunger Map. There is a neighborhood in Pernambuco called Brasilia Teimosa where we got rid of the wooden stilt shacks and paved a nice road and the beach became beautiful. Stilt shacks have started popping up there again. And the number of people who sleep on the streets in this country has…. I never used see children begging on the streets of Brazil anymore. Now the children are back on the streets begging and living under the bridges. This doesn’t make sense in a rich country like Brazil. People say I am a radical. I am not a radical. I learned how to be more human in jail. I reflect more. I look at my 70 years of life and realize that I have to fight more and I have to argue more. You cannot accept the idea that the Brazilian elites don’t accept the economic growth of the poor. They don’t accept that the poor can have the right to healthcare, education, water, school- everything that can feed them. They don’t accept that the poor have these things. So I am not radical. I have a lot more political consciousness now. And for this reason I want to fight a lot more. “Oh, but Lula wants to come back,” they say. “Lula got out of jail angry and now he wants to polarize things.” I really want to polarize. I want to hold deep ideological debates. I want the people to know that there is no teaching anywhere that says a person has to go three days without food. There is no teaching that says that a person is supposed to wake up in the morning and not have a cup of milk or a piece of bread to give to their child. In a rich country like this one? So this is why it looks like I am more angry. It looks like I am a radical but I am not. I am a man who likes to talk and likes to negotiate. I learned how to do politics by negotiating. But I don’t want to be fooled again and I want to help the Brazilian people raise their heads up. A guy who is working for Uber has to know that he deserves something better than Uber. A man who is delivering Pizza by bicycle has to know that he deserves something better. Citizens who are sleeping on the sidewalk have to know that they don’t have to sleep on the sidewalk – the State has a responsibility to them. If not, what is the State for?"