Monday, May 13, 2019

Fat Slim

"Assessment by the engineering sub-team of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma in April 2018".  So:
  • the cylinders were placed, not dropped from an aircraft
  • the victims were killed elsewhere by the terrorists (and were probably gassed while being held captive), and arranged to form the tableau to blame the Syrian government
  • the White Helmets were complicit in this
  • the OPCW is incredibly crooked (although some OPCW whistle-blowing employees are not).
The latest trick is to tell you that 5G is healthy but Putin is trying to drain your precious bodily fluids by tricking you into thinking 5G will fry your brain:  tweet (Rania Khalek):
"This is INSANE anti-Russia hysteria from the New York Times. There are experts who have raised the alarm about the negative health impact of 5G. Journalists at RT covered it bc they’re journalists. NYT spins that journalism as Putin attacking America. Wow"
Tweet (Dan Cohen):
"Another massive conflict of interest doesn’t acknowledge: NYT biggest shareholder is Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom billionaire who owns America Movil. He’s slated to make billions more off of 5G"
Tweet (Mark Ames):
 "According to this paranoid article, America's anti-fracking activists are as dangerous & unhinged as anti-vaxx conspiracists—and both are controlled by Putin to destroy America from within. Corporate propaganda at its sleaziest. "
The template is to claim that any story you don't like is a Putin trick.

Tweet (Ian56) (funny video; you'd think the Rothschilds could have hired a few more people!):
"Many French TV stations showed waving to "cheering crowds". There was only One Problem with this: As these pictures show - the crowds simply didn't exist. MSM is "
Omidyar's honeypot: tweet (Jordan):
"All you need to know about their owner"
Tweet (Glenn Greenwald):
"How do Adam Schiff and other Democrats get away with posturing like this without at least being asked about the DNC sending contractors in 2016 to work directly with the Ukrainian Govt to get dirt on Manafort & Trump (which they got)? "
 Tweet (Ben Norton):
"The corporate newspaper of record that is supposedly defending our fake capitalist "democracy" from Trump is openly taunting the far-right bigot-in-chief to pressure him to wage war on North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. This is the neoliberal "Resistance""
"Fat Bastard Pompeo Postpones Moscow Visit, Flies to Brussels to Warn of Looming Iranian Threat"(Anglin).  He gets nowhere with these visits, but the point seems to be to dis the countries he postpones visiting, Germany and Russia.  Bolton was kind enough to write up the 'diplomacy' back in 2017:  "How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal".

"Even Down Syndrome Sufferer Charlie Kirk is Telling Trump Not to Start a War" (Anglin).

"Viewing Venezuela through a Fairy Tale Lens" (Bonello).

"Jews Had to Overthrow Our Civilization Because It Couldn’t Accommodate Them as a “Superior Species”" (Diversity Macht Frei).  Everything becomes clear once you realize that everything they do comes out of a supremacist mindset.

"Eurovision fail: Israel takes heat for promo joking about occupation, greedy Jews & ‘lovely b*tches’".

"State reaches plea bargain with teen accomplice in Duma terror attack" (Magid). Burning Palestinians alive isn't a crime in Israel, although setting fire to things may be a minor issue.

"Major Terror Attack in UAE…Tanker Explosions".  "Saudi Arabia says 2 oil tankers attacked near UAE".  Provides a reminder in this Trump era of restricting oil supplies that these vessels are impossible to secure, and anybody who wanted to mess up oil transportation could easily do so.  It is interesting that the UAE initially tried to cover it up, then downplayed the importance, and isn't going full bore at blaming Iran.  The false-flag has already been set up:  "On Thursday, the US Maritime Administration issued an advisory warning that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting commercial vessels and oil production infrastructure in the region."

"How the Venezuelan intelligence service defeated the CIA".

"Michael Oren accuses ‘New Yorker’ of anti-Semitism for questioning Jewish right to move from NY to West Bank" (North/Weiss).  Khazars really hate it when you stop their Jewsplaining with some facts/logic (Oren interviewed by Chotiner):
"It is definitely our right. I think it is our incontrovertible right as Jews to live anywhere in our ancestral homeland. . . Anywhere. And a member of the Sioux nation has a right to live on Sioux-nation territory. These are our tribal lands. The cradle of our civilization.
Q. Just to be clear: You were born in New York, correct?
Oren: I was.
Q. So you think that you, as a Jewish person born in New York, have a right to be anywhere in Israel —
Oren: Absolutely. . .
Q. Where did you get that right?
Oren: It’s my heritage for three thousand years. . . I live in Jaffa. The same right I have to live in Jaffa I have in [the settlement] Beit El or Efrat, or in Hebron. Exact same right. Take away one right, the other right makes no sense. By the way, P.S., most of the lands of pre-1967 Israel are not even in the Bible. Haifa is not in the Bible; Tel Aviv is not in the Bible . . .
Q. You are saying there are Palestinians living in various areas of the West Bank right now. . . which may or may not at some point become a state. But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.
Oren: I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.
Q. I’m sorry, I thought you just said that.
Oren: No, I did not say that in any way. Listen, I don’t think I want to continue this interview. I don’t think this is a constructive interview. You can do with it — I would like to request you withdraw it. I don’t think you are actually interested in anything I have to say. And that’s been my experience with the New Yorker all the time. You guys are just into delegitimization. You are not really interested. Why don’t we call it quits right here, and I will pull this interview? I am relying on you to do that, as a journalist. . .
Q. I am not going to take anything out of context.
Oren: Sure you are. You already have in the questions. Your questions are hostile, but they are not even informed hostile. You are not that good. So let’s just pull it, and we will call it quits, and please don’t call me again. Take care. [Hangs up.]"
Big chunks of history simply disappear if they don't fit the Official Story, making history more of a PR exercise than any kind of attempt to document reality:  "American Pravda: How Hitler Saved the Allies" (Unz).  Examples:
  • ridiculously stupid Allied plans to attack Soviet oil, which would have driven an alliance between Germany and the Soviets and changed the entire course of the war
  • Turkey really wanted to ally with the Nazis, and Stalin was preparing to make them pay for it until he was deterred by the atomic bomb attacks on Japan (this was repressed when Turkey became an American minion)
  • Stalin had a plan to quickly attack and overwhelm the Nazis and then take over all of Europe, which plan was thwarted by Hitler's panicked and ultimately disastrous (for Germany) counterattack, which means that Hitler saved Europe from disaster (and really should be the face on all Euro banknotes)
  • 'Communism' = Khazars, with Bolshevism financed by Jewish bankers
  • David Irving's career was ruined as he consistently told the truth
  • Kaiser Wilhelm was a peacenik, and the Germans didn't want WWI, and tried to stop it.
And, needless to say:
". . . Adolf Hitler and the Nazis seem to loom far larger in our cultural and ideological landscape today than they even did in the immediate aftermath of the war, with their visibility growing even as they become more distant in time, a strange violation of the normal laws of perspective. I suspect that the casual dinner-table conversations on World War II issues that I used to enjoy with my Harvard College classmates during the early 1980s would be completely impossible today.
To some extent, the transformation of “the Good War” into a secular religion, with its designated monsters and martyrs may be analogous to what occurred during the final decay of the Soviet Union, when the obvious failure of its economic system forced the government to increasingly turn to endless celebrations of its victory in the Great Patriotic War as the primary source of its legitimacy. The real wages of ordinary American workers have been stagnant for fifty years and most adults have less than $500 in available savings, so this widespread impoverishment may be forcing our own leaders into adopting a similar strategy.
But I think that a far greater factor has been the astonishing growth of Jewish power in America, which was already quite substantial even four or five decades ago but has now become absolutely overwhelming, whether in foreign policy, finance, or the media, with our 2% minority exercising unprecedented control over most aspects of our society and political system. Only a fraction of American Jews hold traditional religious beliefs, so the twin worship of the State of Israel and the Holocaust has served to fill that void, with the individuals and events of World War II constituting many of the central elements of the mythos that serves to unify the Jewish community. And as an obvious consequence, no historical figure ranks higher in the demonology of this secular religion than the storied Fuhrer and his Nazi regime.
However, beliefs based upon religious dogma often sharply diverge from empirical reality. Pagan Druids may worship a particular sacred oak tree and claim that it contains the soul of their tutelary dryad; but if an arborist taps the tree, its sap may seem like that of any other.
Our current official doctrine portrays Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany as one of the cruelest and most relentlessly aggressive regimes in the history of the world, but at the time these salient facts apparently escaped the leaders of the nations with which it was at war. Operation Pike provides an enormous wealth of archival material regarding the secret internal discussions of the British and French governmental and military leadership, and all of it tends to suggest that they regarded their German adversary as a perfectly normal country, and perhaps occasionally regretted that they had somehow gotten themselves involved a major war over what amounted to a small Polish border dispute.
Although our standard histories would never admit this, the actual path toward war appears to have been quite different than most Americans believe. Extensive documentary evidence from knowledgeable Polish, American, and British officials demonstrates that pressure from Washington was the key factor behind the outbreak of the European conflict. Indeed, leading American journalists and public intellectuals of the day such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes had publicly declared that they feared Franklin Roosevelt was seeking to foment a major European war in hopes that it would rescue him from the apparent economic failure of his New Deal reforms and perhaps even provide him an excuse to run for an unprecedented third term. Since this is exactly what ultimately transpired, such accusations would hardly seem totally unreasonable.
And in an ironic contrast with FDR’s domestic failures, Hitler’s own economic successes had been enormous, a striking comparison since the two leaders had come to power within a few weeks of each other in early 1933. As iconoclastic leftist Alexander Cockburn once noted in a 2004 Counterpunch column:
When [Hitler] came to power in 1933 unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending…There were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German military spending remained low until 1939.
Not just Bush but Howard Dean and the Democrats could learn a few lessons in economic policy from that early, Keynesian Hitler.

By resurrecting a prosperous Germany while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum. After an extended 1936 visit, David Lloyd George, Britain’s former wartime prime minister, fulsomely praised the chancellor as “the George Washington of Germany,” a national hero of the greatest stature. Over the years, I’ve seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely acknowledged as the world’s most popular and successful national leader, and the fact that he was selected as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.
Only International Jewry had remained intensely hostile to Hitler, outraged over his successful efforts to dislodge Germany’s 1% Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority. A striking recent parallel has been the enormous hostility that Vladimir Putin incurred after he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society and impoverished the bulk of the population. Putin has attempted to mitigate this difficulty by allying himself with certain Jewish elements, and Hitler seems to have done the same by endorsing the Nazi-Zionist economic partnership, which lay the basis for the creation of the State of Israel and thereby brought on board the small, but growing Jewish Zionist faction.
In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that “Saddam Hussein is another Hitler.” Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions, being told that “Muammar Gaddafi is another Hitler” or “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler” or “Vladimir Putin is another Hitler” or even “Hugo Chavez is another Hitler.” For the last couple of years, our American media has been relentlessly filled with the claim that “Donald Trump is another Hitler.”
During the early 2000s, I obviously recognized that Iraq’s ruler was a harsh tyrant, but snickered at the absurd media propaganda, knowing perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was no Adolf Hitler. But with the steady growth of the Internet and the availability of the millions of pages of periodicals provided by my digitization project, I’ve been quite surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.
It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-living Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks."
blog comments powered by Disqus