Friday, July 20, 2018

Jews Promoting Anti-Semitism

In an interview with Recode, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, said that Facebook will not automatically remove posts denying the Jewish Holocaust. Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that "people get [things] wrong" and that he doesn't think they are "intentionally getting it wrong." He then stated in a post-interview email that he personally finds Holocaust denial "deeply offensive" and that he "absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that [i.e., the Jewish Holocaust]".

On the face of it, Mark Zuckerberg seems mentally challenged on the issue. If people who deny the Holocaust are simply misinformed, as Zuckerberg appears to assume, then that is a matter for error correction, not deep offense. If on the other hand, Zuckerberg finds, as he claims, that Holocaust denial is "deeply offensive" that can logically only mean that he assumes the denial is inspired by anti-Semitism not a commitment to historical truth.

What we see, then, is a Jew running what is the World's most wide-reaching media corporation facilitating the spread of anti-Semitism, in the pretense that it is not anti-Semitism, while simultaneously holding that it is deeply offensive because, well, it is obviously anti-Semitism.

If this were the position adopted by just a single Jew, notwithstanding his enormous influence in the media world, one might dismiss it as some kind of unfortunate muddle-headedness. But action by Jews that promote anti-Semitism is remarkably common. For example, Ron Unz, a multi-millionaire California Jew with political ambitions recently published an extraordinary article in his own so-called Web-Zine, the Unz Review, in which he lends credence to the age-old anti-Semitic claim that Jews engage in ritual sacrifice of Christian babies, stating:

I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

and suggests that Jews pay little attention to the Torah, and may more often pray to the Devil than to God. In which connection he writes:

Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition.
To acknowledge the possibility that Jews may have engaged in the sacrificial murder of Christian babies, and even drunk their blood, or that some Jews may pray to Satan is one thing. But to do so in a manner as to suggest that the typical American Jew is a blood-thirsty, Devil-worshipping, Holocaust-faker is simply preposterous. However, it serves very effectively to make the the Unz Review comment section a magnet for anti-Semites and hence a site for the propagation of anti-Semitism.

And these are not isolated cases. There is a long line of Jews with fake Holocaust survival stories, and many instances in North America of fake anti-Semitic harassment and terrorism, most recently involving an Israeli citizen making over two thousand bomb threats targeting U.S. Jewish community centers, airlines and shopping malls.

The implication must be that, by promoting anti-Semitism, a component of the Jewish population seeks to maintain what is tantamount to a libel against the people among whom they live, specifically, the claim that Americans, Canadians, the people of Europe are all carriers of what Elie Wiesel called "the age-old disease of anti-Semitism" and must, therefore, be subjected to close control.

The consequences of such behavior are clear. First, to encourage Jewish paranoia and hence group solidarity, and second to disarm the public at large against the group self-advancement tendencies of the Jews among them. This is an outrageous, behavior that should be punished as it deserves.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Toxic Feminism

By Heather E. Heying

Male lions can be monsters, murderous and focused. Toxic, if you will.

Given the opportunity, male lions will kill the kittens in a pride over which they have gained control. They commit infanticide, which brings the new mothers, freshly childless, back into estrous. The females are quickly impregnated. This, we can all agree, is disturbing behavior, and may make some people feel rather less pleased with lions.

Given the opportunity, the vast majority of modern human males would do no such thing.

Those who argue that men are inherently toxic are, ironically, making arguments that are biologically essentialist. And they are making them badly, at that.

Read more

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Trump Putin Meeting: What Does the Media Want to Hide?



Is this what upset them?

Putin's statement during Helsinki press conference with Trump?

President Putin:

"For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. " Source

Meantime, the deep state breaks cover:

Ex-CIA Chief Brennan: Intel Community may begin to "Withhold Vital Intelligence” From President Trump.

Fired FBI Director Comey: "vote for Democrats in midterm elections."

Trump responds:



And


Media-Ite: Trump Calls Media ‘Real Enemy of the People’ While Revealing ‘Second Meeting’ With Putin

Media-Ite: Matt Drudge Weighs in on Latest New Yorker Cover: The Left Has a ‘Fetish’ For Trump’s Death

Daily Caller: FBI Director Fingers The 'Most Significant' Spy Threat To The US, And He Isn't Talking About Russia

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The Best One Hundred Words on the Trump–Putin Meeting

This morning, Craig Murray demolishes the hysterical media reaction to the Trump–Putin conversation in a couple of paragraphs:

The entire “liberal” media and political establishment of the Western world reveals its militarist, authoritarian soul today with the screaming and hysterical attacks on the very prospect of detente with Russia. Peace apparently is a terrible thing; a renewed arms race, with quite literally trillions of dollars pumped into the military industrial complex and hundreds of thousands dying in proxy wars, is apparently the “liberal” stance.

Political memories are short, but just 15 years after Iraq was destroyed and the chain reaction sent most of the Arab world back to the dark ages, it is now “treason” to question the word of the Western intelligence agencies, which deliberately and knowingly produced a fabric of lies on Iraqi WMD to justify that destruction.

It would be more rational for it to be treason for leaders to blindly accept the word of the intelligence services.
Read the rest of Murray's blog post: Detente Bad, Cold War Good

Sorosism: What Is It About?

What globalist billionaires like George Soros want, so Vox Pop explains, in a piece entitled the Defeat of Sorosism, is to destroy every nation state so that Soros and a handful of the world's richest people can safely pursue whatever lifestyle, and political or financial manipulation they want, wherever in the world they chose to live.

Thus, speaking of Alex, the son of George Soros:

... for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”
The fraud at the bottom of the globalist scheme that George Soros promotes is thus clear. It is to destroy every race and national culture on earth for the benefit of the adherents of a religion and culture of fanatical racism.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Novichok on a Door Knob: An Official Conspiracy Theory

As promised, UK Ambassador Craig Murray has followed up his blog post on the Amesbury poisonings with an analysis of the Official Metropolitan Police/UK Government account of how Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley came to be poisoned with a deadly, as-developed-in-Russia, nerve agent, while rifling though garbage cans or gathering cigarette butts in a park in Salisbury, England.

The analysis confirms the faith that British authorities have in the capacity of the British public to swallow any lie provided it emanates from a sufficiently authoritative source, the Prime Minister, for example, or the Foreign Secretary and is then repeated endlessly with a multiplicity of trivial elaborations and distractions by the BBC and the commercial media.

Among other key points, Murray takes aim at the claim that the original "Russian" Novichok poisoning in Britain, namely that of the Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, was carried out by Russian agents specially trained to apply Novichok nerve agents to door knobs. Thus, Murray writes:

Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours, and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknob, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?

A ludicrous theory indeed.

But read the whole piece: Craig Murray: Holes in the Official Skripal Story

Related:

CanSpeccy The Novichok File (17)

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Trump: May Screwed Up on Brexit; Immigration is Destroying European Culture

Skripal Tripal, No. 39: Where the Skripals Crossed Paths With the "Amesbury Poisonings" Couple

Thus far, not much about the official account of the Skripal poisonings has made sense. Now, Rob Lane of the Blogmire Blog reveals a huge hole in the account of the affair as provided by the London Metropolitan police, the agency supposed, one might assume, to be investigating not obfuscating, what happened.

According to the Metropolitan police, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fed the ducks in the Avon Playground, where they were soon afterwards found near death due to what was claimed to be Novichok poisoning.

However, it now emerges that the Skripals went to a different park, the Queen Elizabeth Gardens, not the Avon Playground, to feed ducks after they had been poisoned, a fact confirmed by a report in the Sun newspaper published more than three weeks after the alleged poisonings.

I say "alleged poisonings," since if nothing much else about this tale bears scrutiny, it is only rational to question the central fact of the case, namely the reported poisoning of the now disappeared Skripals from whom we have heard nothing other than a video statement of questionable authenticity from the "recovered" Yulia Skripal.

What this new fact that Rob Lane has brought to light reveals is not only that the original published reports about the movement of the Skripals the day they were poisoned were false, but that immediately before their collapse, the Skripals had been to the Queen Elizabeth Gardens where Charlie Rowley and the now deceased Dawn Sturgess, of the "Amesbury Poisonings" are believed to have been poisoned.

In other words, the media have thus far managed to avoid mentioning what was very likely the critical location at which the paths of the poisoned Skripals, and the poisoned Amesbury couple crossed.

Make what you like of it, but based on their performance on the Novichok file thus far, I wouldn't trust the London Metropolitan Police to investigate the theft of a bicycle, let alone acts of murder leading to an international crisis.

Indeed, it is clear that the performance of the Met in this case is sad evidence of a catastrophic decline in the competence and integrity of British institutions. My late uncle, a man of both intelligence and integrity, was a CID Inspector with the London Met back in the 60's and there's no way I could see him having been involved in such a ridiculous farrago of nonsense as the Skripal investigation.

Related: 

Sputnik: UK Police Says Found Source of Deadly Substance Used in Amesbury Incident
ARD Mediathek: The Skripal Case: Berlin has until today no evidence from London

Translation via John_a at Craig Murray's blog:

Until today the German Federal Government has been waiting in vain: As RBB Radio has learned from government circles, until today the British Government has presented absolutely no evidence to the Federal Government that would prove that Russia is responsible for the poison attack on the double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The Federal Government reported this yesterday to the Parliamentary Control Committee of the German Federal Parliament in a closed session. Up till now it has simply been learned that the poison concerned was Novichok, a chemical weapon that was produced in the Soviet Union. Beyond this the British Government has so far presented absolutely no evidence. It could neither prove that the poison used came from Russia, nor that the Kremlin was responsible for the attack, it was reported.

 According to RBB information, the German intelligence services also have no information from their own sources that would permit such conclusions.

 After Yulia Skripal, her father Sergei has also now left the hospital. In recent days, Yulia Skripal made a brief statement before the cameras in Great Britain.[A SHORT EXCERPT IN RUSSIAN IS HEARD.] She said that she still found it hard to believe that she and her father were attacked in this way, and that their recovery had been slow and painful. The doctors in the hospital in Salisbury said that the Skripals’ recovery bordered on a miracle; it had really been assumed that they would not survive.

The Skripal case led to a dramatic deterioration in diplomatic relations between Russia and numerous western countries. After the British Government had declared that it was convinced that Russia was responsible for the poison attack on Skripal and his daughter, over 140 Russian diplomats were expelled from a total of 26 European countries, the USA and NATO, an event that was unique in its scale. Germany also participated, and expelled four Russian diplomats. In return, Russia expelled the same number of diplomats from the countries concerned.

NDR, WDR, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit had reported that in the 1990s a Russian scientist had offered a sample of Novichok to the [German] Federal Intelligence Service [BND]. Since then it is known that the nerve poison was exported from Russia, at least to the West. It is not clear where else it might possibly have found its way to.

The conduct of the British Government is increasingly putting the German Federal Government in a position where it is difficult to explain itself. Beyond the fact that the poison has been identified as Novichok, there is no trail that leads to Russia, let alone to the Kremlin. The decision to participate in the expulsion of Russian diplomats therefore appears more than questionable.

Farage: The Rebirth of the Nation State



Related:
Daily Telegraph: Is Theresa May guilty of treason? Plenty of readers think so. Politicians would be wise to listen up
Justin Raimondo: The three stages of Trump derangement syndrome
Daily Caller: PRESSURE IS BUILDING ON DEMOCRATS TO DRIVE OFF THE IMMIGRATION CLIFF

Monday, July 9, 2018

UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge

Craig Murray, who was booted from the diplomatic service for objecting to Britain's use of intelligence obtained by boiling people to death in an Uzbek gaol, summarizes on his blog the British Government's position on the recent fatal poisoning of Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, Wiltshire. Sturgess became ill following a visit with her "partner" Charlie Rowley to the scene of the Skripal poisonings in the nearby town of Salisbury. Rowley also became ill and remains under medical care:

Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs. The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously.

Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals.

The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow. Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.

The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.

Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknb, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.

Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.

Source
Almost (but not quite) every sentence in the above statement, says Murray, is "very obviously untrue" for reasons he promises to set forth tomorrow.


PostScript:

To anyone who has followed the Novichok Saga in any detail, the following comment on Murray's blog is riveting:

Jack: 

[T]here is still the case of the suspicious couple [in the Skripals poisoning case] on CCTV back in march, that very much resemble [latest poisoning victims] Charlie and Dawn!


I summarised [the photo evidence] here. Feel free to spread.

Yes, its a convincing match.

The Pope Is An Agent of the International Money Power Intent on the Destruction of the European Peoples: Catholic Bishop

It has long been evident to me that the Pope is an unChristian, globalist tool.

We now have confirmation of that from Catholic Bishop, Athanasias Schneider. Presumably, Pope Bergigolo is now trying to figure out a way of having Bishop Schneider burnt at the stake. Here is Bishop Schneider's take on the Pope's insidious role:

The Catholic church is being used as a pawn in a well-orchestrated plan to radically alter the Christian identity of European nations through mass migration, said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a bombshell interview last week.

Schneider, who serves as auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, told the Italian daily Il Giornale that the current migrant crisis “represents a plan orchestrated and prepared for a long time by international powers to radically alter the Christian and national identity of the peoples of Europe.”

To achieve their objectives, these powers abuse “the true concept of humanism and even the Christian commandment of charity,” Schneider said, exploiting the moral authority of the church for anti-Christian purposes.

The powers in question “use the enormous moral potential of the church and their own structures to achieve their anti-Christian and anti-European goal more effectively,” he said.

The interview was released in the midst of a series of initiatives by Pope Francis to bring about a “change in mindset” regarding immigration by focusing on the positive contributions of immigrants rather than the negative fallout from mass migration.

Read more

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Theresa May's Tangled Web Of Toxic Nerve Agent Deception

The ludicrous, evidence-free, assertion by Britain's Home Secretary, Sajid Javid (should his title not be Foreign Secretary?), that Britain's latest poisoning by an alleged nerve agent was due to careless Russians leaving toxic garbage where it was liable to be picked up by and poison some harmless English scavenger, has been nicely ridiculed by Rob Slane, of the Blogmire Blog:

In his statement to the House of Commons on 5th July, the British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, stated the following:
“The use of chemical weapons anywhere is barbaric and inhumane. The decision taken by the Russian government to deploy these in Salisbury on March 4 was reckless and callous – there is no plausible alternative explanation to the events in March other than the Russian state was responsible. The eyes of the world are on Russia, not least because of the World Cup. It is now time the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on.” 
 Anyone with their wits about them will immediately notice the cognitive dissonance in Mr Javid’s statement. On the one hand, he states that the Russian government took a decision to deploy chemical weapons in Salisbury on 4th March, 2018. This is an emphatic declaration, and implies that the British Government possesses irrefutable evidence that this is so. Then in the next breath, he states that there is “no plausible alternative”. This is very much less than emphatic, and the word “plausible” implies that the British Government does not have irrefutable evidence to back up their claim. 

This is not a subtle difference. It is the difference between suspecting something and knowing something. If you know something to be true, because you have the hard evidence to back it up, you don’t use equivocal phrases like “no plausible alternative”. You simply say, “here is the evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.” On the other hand, if you do not possess irrefutable evidence of something, as the weasel phrase “no plausible alternative” suggests, then you have no right to pronounce definitively on the matter, as Mr Javid felt fit to do.

Still, he’s only the Home Secretary. You can’t expect him to understand such petty legal concepts.

Having thus disposed of the Home Secretary's imbecility, feigned or otherwise, Slane discusses how Mr. Sajid Javid might have pursued the facts of the case had he the slightest interest in doing so. Slane's proposed line of inquiry makes such excellent sense that I quote it in full, below:

As it happens, there are plenty of plausible alternatives, as Mr Javid no doubt knows only too well. If he’s interested, he can check out the one I have put forward here. Of course, regardless of whether my “plausible alternative” is correct or not, it is unlikely that Her Majesty’s Government would want investigations to follow the line of inquiry I advanced, since it might raise an awful lot of troublesome questions about the role of British Intelligence in the attempt to stop Donald Trump getting elected. Apparently, they want to keep that quiet. Which is why they slapped D-Notices on various aspects of Skripal 1.0 to hush all that up.

So Mr Javid states that Russia must explain itself, but in so doing unwittingly admits that the Government has no hard evidence of Russian state involvement. It merely is unable to imagine a “plausible alternative”, which either means that its members are somewhat lacking in imagination, or they don’t wish other “plausible alternatives” to be discussed (of course, it could even be both). Nevertheless, since he and the Government are the ones making the claim, I’d say that actually it is incumbent on them to explain themselves, not the ones they are accusing. That is how these things are supposed to work, is it not?

This being the case, I have a number of questions for them, which urgently need answering. Urgent, because they could prove vital to the investigation. However, before I come onto the questions, I must explain the nature of them, which may well come as something of a surprise, given the latest twist to this sorry tale in Amesbury. The surprise is that not one of the 10 questions relates to the Amesbury case. This might seem odd, but there is a very important reason for it.

At the moment, very few details have emerged about the Amesbury case, and so it is not exactly clear which questions could even be asked. True, the details that have emerged so far in the official narrative are about as coherent and plausible as those in the original case, one of which I have already debunked here. However, what Mr Javid sought to do, with a very clever sleight-of-hand to cover his case of cognitive dissonance, is to make definitive claims about Case 2, based on the assumption that Case 1 has somehow been proven. But of course it hasn’t. Not even remotely. In fact, there are a ton of questions about Case 1 still hanging in the air that have not been answered, and I really don’t think that we should let Mr Javid and Co. off the hook before they’ve given us the answers to them.

But in the spirit of decency, let’s make it extremely easy for them. Let’s not ask them any hard questions. Nothing like, “C’mon, tell us the names of the people wot did it,” for instance. No, let’s instead satisfy ourselves by asking them some remarkably simple questions that they – or at least the Metropolitan Police – must know the answers to if their narrative is correct, and for a very simple reason, as you will see. So here goes:
What were Mr Skripal’s and Yulia’s movements on the morning of 4th March?
Why were their phones switched off?

Did Mr Skripal see anyone or anything suspicious near his house that day?

According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be very agitated. Was this because he was feeling unwell?

According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Was this because he had an appointment to keep?
What did Mr Skripal do after he left Zizzis?

Can he confirm or deny that the couple seen on the CCTV camera in Market Walk, one of whom was carrying a large red bag, are him and Yulia?

Did either Sergei or Yulia have a large red bag with them that day?

What are his last memories before collapsing at the bench?

Is Mr Skripal prepared to make a public statement answering the above, and will members of the international media be free to ask him questions?
So why must they know the answers to these questions? Simple. Because all they have to do to get answers to them is ask Sergei Skripal. They know where he is, don’t they? They must have questioned him, haven’t they? And Mr Skripal must surely have been eager to answer them, since the answers he gives could prove vital in helping to find out who poisoned him and his daughter, mustn’t he?

Just pause there for a second and think about it. Here we are, a third of a year after Skripal 1.0, with both Mr Skripal and his daughter having recovered months ago, and we still don’t know the answers to these basic, vital, but extraordinarily easy-to-establish questions. Isn’t that amazing?

I could even make it easier for them by boiling it down into one question:

When will the world hear from Mr Skripal about the events and circumstances of 4th March 2018, from the time he awoke until 4pm that afternoon?

C’mon British Government. It really isn’t hard. Or at least it wouldn’t be if the case you’ve presented is true. Just ask Sergei. But in the continued absence of answers to these simple questions, it seems that there might well be no “plausible alternative” but to assume that your case simply does not stack up. Which is why the onus is on you, not those you accuse, to explain yourselves.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Novichok File 

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Trump in Europe: the Reaction of the Intelligent Left

Craig Murray is an exceptionally bright person with sometimes very strange ideas. But when he gets things right, he gets them right with great clarity and precision of language. In a blog post today, Murray is at his best explaining the total bogosity of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, and the viciousness of those who sought to use that faked war crime as a pretext for bombing the Hell out Syria:

Yesterday the OPCW reported that, contrary to US and UK assertions in the UN security council, there was no nerve agent attack on jihadist-held Douma by the Syrian government, precisely as Robert Fisk was execrated by the entire media establishment for pointing out. The OPCW did find some traces of chlorine compounds, but chlorine is a very commonly used element and you have traces of it all over your house. The US wants your chicken chlorinated. The OPCW said it was “Not clear” if the chlorine was weaponised, and it is plain to me from a career in diplomacy that the almost incidental mention is a diplomatic sop to the UK, US and France, which are important members of the OPCW.
Murray characterizes Trump's missile strike in Syria in reaction to "yet more lying claims by the UK government funded White Helmets and Syrian Observatory," as "foolish." That, however is about as mild a criticism as one could make, and reflects the reality that Trump's reaction to Britain's bogus claims of Syrian chemical weapons use was as bogus as the claim to which it responded.

 Indeed, Trump's rocket attack on alleged chemical weapons production facilities, caches, and research facilities in Syria was undoubtedly intended in mockery of America's warmongering Neocons, consisting as it did, of a  bunch of obsolete missiles fired at empty buildings and followed by a mocking reiteration of George Dubya Bush's ludicrous Iraq-war, "Mission Accomplished" claim.

What is to be seen in Murray's comments about Trump, are, I think, two things:

First, a rejection of the vicious, disgusting, and nihilistic behavior of the never-Trump Democrats and their European followers such as Sadiq Kahn, Mayor of London and the representative of Britain's settler Muslim immigrants.

Second, an acknowledgment that Trump may prove to be what he claims to be, namely, a champion of the common people, both of  America and Europe. As to that, the truth remains to be seen. But it must be remembered that the ship of state turns slowly, especially when, as in the US, it has been stacked with traitors and saboteurs determined to obstruct the present administration in every way possible.

In the US, however, the trend, is in the right direction:  unemployment is down, wages are rising, investment in US manufacturing is booming. And in Europe, Trump’s clearly hold's in contempt the Treason class, headed by the three M’s, May, Merkel and Micron, while he gives every encouragement to those in Eastern Europe, Italy and elsewhere who oppose the flooding of Europe with pseudo refugees of an alien race, religion and culture.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Genocide of the European Nations By Mass Immigration

Warning of the treasonous intent of European elites,  Brendan O'Neill writes:

It is becoming increasingly clear why immigration is so important to the EU elites: because they see the mass movement of people essentially as a weapon against national sovereignty. Their mass-migration project of recent years hasn’t been a humane endeavour to improve the lives of foreign peoples; it has been about further erasing borders, using migrant flows effectively as a tool to push the EU oligarchy’s post-nation agenda."

Um, yes, that's been obvious for years, as years ago we pointed out. If you destroy the fertility of a nation with a compulsory sex-ed program that teaches that the only sexual vice is reproduction, and then you bring in a lot of folks from elsewhere, you will inevitably destroy the sovereign democratic nation state. because you will have destroyed the people who made up the nation.

Until Trump, national genocide was the policy of just about every European-majority "nation," with the exception of Russia, which continues a desperate struggle to prevent a national population implosion.

Who is driving the destruction of the Western nations?

The Money Power, obviously, which is to say the global corporations that off-shored as many jobs as they could from the Western nations to the sweatshops and plantations of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle-East, while at the same time promoting mass immigration to the West, thereby driving down wages and hence the cost of providing the goods and services that could not be off-shored.

The result?

A massive increase in wealth disparity between rich and poor throughout the West.

Who is fighting with such ruthless determination to destroy Trump?

The globalist money power, obviously: the people who reap the massive windfall profits that have been won by exporting vast chunks of Western economies to tyrannies such as those of China, Vietnam, while importing scab immigrant labor to destroy the living standards of the working people of the West.

Who allowed this genocidal crime?

The political puppets of the West, such as the trust-fund kid, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, who rules what he calls the World's first post-national state.

How is the war on the Western nations and against Trump being waged?

As all genocides are waged: with racist hate speech.

In London, England, now a non-English majority city (like Birmingham, Britain's second city) a Muslim mayor of Pakistani origin approves a public insult to the visiting US President in the form of a Trump-like blimp clad in a diaper flying from London's Parliament Square.

Meantime the Guardian, which with the BBC is Britain's leading advocate of white genocide, smears those opposed to national self-destruction as far-right-wing racist, extremists.

How is it that the Western governments have been taken over by self-hating destroyers of their own people, leaders such as the former Communist Angela Merkel, the former Trotskyite, Tony Blair, the advocate of French "metissage," President Sarkozy, or England's silliest Prime Minister, Theresa May, who as Home Secretary advocated for Shariah courts in Britain?

Simple. Bribery.

Note to J.K. Rowling and the others for a diversity enriched Europe
Elected officials do not rule the Western democracies. The Money Power, the global corporations, the megabanks, a handful of plutocrats rule through the politicians they fund and to whom they provide after-office rewards (multi-million-dollar royalty payments for crap books no sane person would buy, corporate directorship, whatever, really, the scumbag politicians want)*.

Such payoffs are made with absolute reliability, not because the plutocratic elite are trustworthy or honorable, but to reassure the puppets in power now that they will get theirs: provided that they follow the script.

That's the reason for the particular hatred of Trump. He's always had whatever he wanted, women, planes, palaces, and he's still got a billion or two in hand, so the globalists have no handle on him.

———
* It's the same method that big Pharma uses to payoff corrupt scientists who approve their dodgy drugs.


Related: 
Patrick Buchanan: The Never Trumpers Are Never Coming Back
CanSpeccy: Europe's New Genocide
CanSpeccy: Are you a far-right-wing extremist, racist, anti-Semite against genocide?

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

More Skripal Tripal

The poisoning of a middle-aged couple at Amesbury, a small town in the vicinity of Britain's biological and chemical weapons research establishment at Porton Down, has been declared by local police a "Major Incident."

Since the poisoning of former Russian spy and traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, occurred in nearby Salisbury, the search is on for a link between the two "incidents." Craig Murray provides a useful synopsis of the story so far, and suggests that the latest poisonings could be a synthetic event designed to maintain the hate-Russia frenzy that was generated by the politicians and media as a consequence of the Skripal poisonings.

In that connection, there is the following comment on Murray's post, by the cryptically named "Bob," which provides good reason to believe that evidence of the poisoning of the Skripals was entirely fake:

@ Bob:

If it weren’t for Freya Church, an eyewitness of the couple on the bench, saying the

people in this video were “100% Definitely” the people she saw on the bench, you might assume the pair in the video were prime suspects. The red bag (carried by the person in the video), [which was later] witnessed at the scene [of the poisoning] is the clue.

But the official narrative is that this pair were not the Skripals, so we have to consider two things 1) What actually happened to the Skripals? And why no further police interest in this pair?

Only two eyewitness reports have been made public of the physical characteristics of the female on the bench:

1) Freya Church, “100% Definitely” the same couple [as seen in the video], and

2) Olly Field, who described the woman as a “blonde bird”. No witness described the female on the bench as having reddish brown hair.

The Russian speaking female witnessed in Zizzis (police have said this was Yulia) was described by a witness as having reddish-brown hair. Yulia was caught on CCTV in a Moscow airport the day before, and she can clearly be seen as having reddish brown hair.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to work out that the couple on the bench were not the Skripals.

And the police know this.

Why else would they only show interest in the CCTV capture above from the dozens of other individuals caught by the Snap Fitness camera (and Jenny’s Restaurant camera next door)?

Because no one else was of interest, no one that could have been the Skripals, and no one that could have poisoned them.

Yet 4 months on in this fast moving probe, the police pretend to be looking for suspects and still come up with ludicrous fantasy theories.

Don’t get me wrong I feel a bit sorry for these dimwits trying to sell this horses bottom of a conspiracy, but they don’t have to, they could say no I’m not playing this stupid game any more and resign, but they don’t and [so] the police become more ridiculous each day.

To recap:

The couple on the bench were not the Skripals.

The couple on the bench were not poisoned by a Novichok Nerve Agent.

The Skripals were in [the restaurant] Zizzis c 3:30pm (Sergei in an emotional state) but didn’t make it as far as the bench.

This is consistent with our own conclusion that the Skripals were not poisoned and that Yulia Skripal's statement following her supposed release from hospital was fake, based on an old video of a younger and slimmer Yulia, over which a contrived statement was lip-synched, while the apparent tracheotomy scar was added by photo-manipulation. 

What this seems to show is that the British intelligence services are so dumb they cannot fake in a convincing way even a simple poisoning, a fact consistent with the finding that the IQ of the Western nations is now in rapid decline, a decline that will surely be accelerated as the public are exposed to increasing quantities of horse manure such as the Skripal poisonings and the Sandy Hook School Massacre

Related: 
RT: Amesbury poisoning is a terrorist attack, secondary contamination impossible – expert to RT
ICH: The Skripal Incident Big Lie Won’t Die
Craig Murray: The Amesbury Mystery
CanSpeccy: The Skripal File
Daily Caller: KREMLIN SHOCKED THAT CITIZENS IN THE UK ARE BEING STRUCK DOWN BY A SOVIET NERVE AGENT
RT: 'New legal high?' Twitter awash with mockery & conspiracy after Novichok hits UK again

Sandy Hook: A Fake School Massacre to Justify the Constitutional Right of the American People to keep and Bear Arms? New Evidence

The Fellowship of the Minds, June 18, 2018: We are told that on December 14, 2012, a lone gunman, Adam Lanza, went to Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) in Newtown, Connecticut, where in the space of 11 minutes, shot and killed 20 first-graders and 6 adults.

We are also told that after the massacre, SHES relocated to an empty school in neighboring Monroe, CT — Chalk Hill Middle School at 375 Fan Hill Rd. — until a new swanky SHES was rebuilt with the $50 million from the state of Connecticut as a result of the shooting massacre.

It turns out that SHES had moved to Chalk Hill months before the alleged massacre, which leads to this question:

Since SHES had moved to Monroe, who, then, were the students and teachers whom Lanza shot to death at SHES on December 14, 2012?

The evidence of SHES’s move to Chalk Hill comes from Wolfgang W. Halbig, a humble straight-talking 71-year-old man with an impressive professional record as a law enforcement officer (U.S. Customs inspector and Florida state trooper), an educator (public school coach, teacher, assistant principal and principal), and a nationally-recognized school safety consultant who was an expert witness in the Columbine and other school shootings.

Read more

Related:
CanSpeccy: Bing Cache Shows Local Paper Reported Sandy Hook Shooting Before it Happened
CanSpeccy: The Sandy Hook Nuns had a purple getaway van
CanSpeccy: State crimes against democracy

Monday, July 2, 2018

Open Borders, Population Replacement, and Globalization

Vox Popoli has a couple of instructive quotes on open borders that tell you what mass uncontrolled migration means for the European peoples. From the financial analyst and author N.N. Taleb:
What intellectuals don't get about MIGRATION is the ethical notion of SYMMETRY: OPEN BORDERS work if and only if the number of people who want to go from EU/US to Africa/LatinAmerica equals Africans/Latin Americans who want to move to EU/US.
That makes sense supposing that your idea of what will "work" is for the ethnicities of the world to be homogenized in the way that former French President Sarkozy demanded of the French, saying: "Métissage" [racial mixing] - It's An Obligation!

For some people racial mixing may be desirable. But that is a far from a universally shared ideal. Consider, for example, the South African, Julius Malema*, leader of the Marxist-Revolutionary Economic Freedom Party, speaking about the state seizure of all land owned by South African whites: "we are" he declared "cutting the throat of whiteness." No call there for "Métissage," rather a call for extermination. 

Hateful though such racist speech may be to some, it actually reflects the feeling of the great majority of the people of all races, states and nations. It is perfectly natural to prefer your own kind, and if you are foolish enough to admit to your domain large numbers of people of a different kind, then naturally they will displace you kind, first as the majority, as has already happened in many great European cities including London, Birmingham, Paris, and Franfurt, and then even as a large minority, as happened to the Amerindians, the Australian aborigines, the New Zealand Maori, and in South Africa, the San people, or Bushmen, following settlement of their country first by Europeans from the Netherlands and them by Africans from the North.

Open borders is thus not an invitation to a chosen few to come in and share our wonderful culture and make your small contribution to our gene pool. It is national suicide.

This is the point that Patrick Buchanan makes, in explaining how the current wave of immigrants is pushing former waves of immigrants out of power in the Democratic Party. 
Just as Crowley’s congressional district had changed, so, too, has his party in Congress. Columnist Dana Milbank, who sees it as progress, writes, “A majority of House Democrats are … women, people of color or gay.” These rising forces in the Democratic coalition are looking to bury the Democratic Party of yesterday, where white males and older ethnic groups — Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews — were dominant.
So, if you love human diversity, and in particular if you feel any loyalty to your own family, race and nation, keep the nations of the world apart, each to its own country, its own homeland, its own religion and its own mode of government, for the object of globalization is death to the nations of the world.

———
* Julius Malema is author of the book: "Kill the Boer."

Saturday, June 30, 2018

BBC Complicity in Cover Up of UK Government Complicity in Torture

As follow up to a piece on the UK's use of intelligence obtained by the torture of terrorism suspects, Craig Murray draws attention to this video showing one of the BBC's purveyors of propaganda in panic mode as a BBC reporter blithely explains the direct involvement of Britain's foreign intel. agency, MI6, in the kidnapping of suspects for torture.


Very funny in a macabre way. And for the Brits, particularly humiliating, since not only are they being subject to propaganda, but if they own a TV set, then they have to pay a BBC license fee to cover the cost of their own indoctrination.

Friday, June 29, 2018

UK Government Complicit In Use of Torture: Parliamentary Committee

On his blog, today, Craig Murray, who in 2004 was removed from his post as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan during a dispute with his political masters over Britain's receipt of information obtained by the most brutal torture in Uzbekistan, writes:

Even I was taken aback by the sheer scale of British active involvement in extraordinary rendition revealed by yesterday’s report of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. Dominic Grieve and the committee deserve congratulations for their honesty, integrity and above all persistence. It is plain from the report that 10 Downing Street did everything possible to handicap the work of the committee. Most crucially they were allowed only to interview extremely senior civil servants and not allowed to interview those actively engaged in the torture and rendition programme.

Theresa May specifically and deliberately ruled out the Committee from questioning any official who might be placed at risk of criminal proceedings – see para 11 of the report. The determination of the government to protect those who were complicit in torture tells us much more about their future intentions than any fake apology.

In fact it is impossible to read paras 9 to 14 without being astonished at the sheer audacity of Theresa May’s attempts to obstruct the inquiry. They were allowed to interview only 4 out of 23 requested witnesses, and those were not allowed “to talk about the specifics of the operations in which they were involved nor fill in any gaps in the timeline”....

No one can disagree with Craig Murrays view that torture is a vile business. Yet when bullets are flying and there is a chance the prisoner in your hands could tell you where to hit the enemy's ammo dump, or fuel supply lines, whatever, you're gonna slap that prisoner around for information, even if he ends up dead. I think that the historical record would prove that to be a universal truth: War is a cruel business and banning torture won't prevent it or take the cruelty out of it.

It is doubtful, however, that anyone can make a compelling justification for torture as a routine bureaucratic function. Hence the lies, prevarication, and obfuscation over Britain's role in organized torture. Moreover, the lies, prevarication and obfuscation are an altogether different matter from the brutality they are intended to conceal. As Murray has with bloody-minded stubbornness revealed, Straw, Blair, and others on both sides of the house lied extensively to Parliament about torture.

As Murray writes of Jack Straw, his own political boss at the time:

I strongly recommend you to read the whole Hansard transcript, from Q21 to Q51, in which Jack Straw carries out the most sustained bravura performance of lying to parliament in modern history. The ISC report makes plain he was repeatedly involved in direct authorisations of rendition operations, while denying to parliament the very existence of such operations.

And the cover-up continues under Theresa May. Such scoundrels should be immediately and permanently barred from Parliament and any further role in government.

Related:
RT: Prosecute Blair govt officials at ICC after torture report – ex-diplomat Craig Murray (which will never happen.).

Thursday, June 28, 2018

How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination

President John F. Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the head received while traveling in a open car through Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on November 11, 1963. The Commission of inquiry into the assassination, which was headed by US Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone nut, fired the fatal shot from the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was located directly behind the President at the moment he was struck.

However, the evidence we have reviewed establishes that Kennedy was fatally wounded by a bullet to the head, not from behind, but from in front of the car in which he was riding. The critical evidence was suppressed at the time of the assassination, although it would have been readily available to the Warren Commission had they desired to have it. Therefore it can be concluded with confidence that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, it follows that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy, and apparently a rather elaborate one at that.

Oswald was not just a patsy, as he claimed before being himself assassinated. He was a patsy with Soviet connections, who'd defected to Russia, then returned to the United States, where he had agitated on behalf of a shadowy organization, the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," which sought to promote grassroots support in America for Cuba's Communist government.

Thus any inclination that the Soviets may have had to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission Report for propaganda purposes would have been negated by the fact that this would inevitably bring upon the Soviets the charge of complicity in the killing.

Consistent with this view,  FBI Director,  J. Edgar Hoover, wrote in a memorandum to the office of the President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that according to "[a] source who has furnished reliable information in the past and who was in Russia on the date of the assassination. ..." news of the assassination was:

...greeted [in Moscow] by great shock and consternation and church bells were tolled in the memory of President Kennedy.... According to our source, officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the 'ultraright' in the United States to effect a 'coup.' They seemed convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man but that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part."

So the Commies, who were no dopes, concluded that Kennedy was killed because he was soft on Communism. That the Soviets came to that conclusion means that the objective of the conspirators, which was, in part, to send the Soviets a message, had been achieved: Kennedy may have failed the test of leadership, but American leadership consisted in more than one man and, the poor judgement of of a weak president would not be allowed to prevail.

Related:
CanSpeccy: Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy
CanSpeccy: Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resigning Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy

Yesterday I noted that publicly available evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President J. F. Kennedy was a cover up.

Specifically, there is the Zapruder film of the shooting which shows the President's head thrown violently backward as it explodes, the ejecta travelling to the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the photographic evidence proves, contrary to the Warren Commission Report, that the President was killed not by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building directly behind the President's car, but by a bullet to the head from somewhere in front of the motorcade. Moreover, there is explicit confirmation of the video evidence concerning the direction of the fatal bullet in the testimony of doctors and surgeons (and here) attending on the President at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where he died.

But as we noted yesterday, if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up government complicity in the assassination of the President.

So who in the Government was responsible? Surely, it would have been that branch of government specializing in the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA. But as we argued, yesterday, the CIA would not have assassinated the President  of the United States without bi-partisan approval. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy's VP, a man said to have had a maniacal desire to be President, would surely have been the go-to Democrat, and his consent would surely not have been withheld.

But who on the Republican side? Who but Richard Nixon? Nixon, as the Republican presidential candidate defeated by Kennedy in 1960, was in effect the head of the Republican Party, and a man with no great affection for Kennedy.*

But even politicians, or indeed especially politicians, must rationalize their actions, particularly their most questionable actions. What then was the rationale shared by both Democrats and Republicans that would have justified the unconstitutional removal of a president by means of assassination?

Wanted for Treason A handbill circulated 
on November 21, 1963 in Dallas, Texas

one day before John F. Kennedy visited

the city and  was assassinated.
To anyone familiar with the political climate of the time, the answer must be apparent. Kennedy was, as the British might say,  unsound on Communism. In the context of the times, this was of huge importance.

Tens of millions had died in the great European civil war, at the end of which the United States stood almost alone as the bulwark of Western freedom against the Communist tyranny of the Soviet Union and Red China.

It was under those circumstances that Kennedy's posture in relations with the Soviet Union was judged. And it was in this that he was judged to have shown weakness, not once, but again and again.

During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy failed to force a Soviet stand down. Instead, he opened a back channel with the oafish Khrushchev and agreed to remove American nuclear-capable Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the abandonment of the Soviet missile base in Cuba.

During the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, Kennedy refused to authorize US Air Force cover to the invading anti-Castro rebels when they became pinned down on the beach where they were soon destroyed by Cuban forces.

Then, as the Presidential election of 1964 approached, Kennedy revealed his intention, after the election, to pull US forces from Vietnam, abandoning the pro-Western, i.e., nominally democratic, South Vietnam regime to its fate at the hands of the Chinese- and Soviet-backed Communists of North Vietnam.

 Under the prevailing circumstances, Kennedy's reluctance to play hardball with the Commie bastards was more than a weakness, it was treason. And for those convicted of treason, it is universally agreed that the penalty is death.

———
* Nixon's involvement in the decision, if he was indeed involved, would would tie together the CIA, events in Dealey Plaza on November 11, 1963, and the Watergate Hotel burglary on June 17, 1972, the link being E. Howard Hunt. Hunt was  (a) the CIA station chief in Mexico City, where the CIA monitored Oswald’s contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies; (b) a self-confessed assassination “bench warmer” and, with Frank Sturgis, possibly one of the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination; and (c), with Frank Sturgis, arrested during the Watergate Hotel break-in, checking, perhaps, to see whether the Dems had evidence of Nixonian complicity in the JFK assassination.

Related: 
CanSpeccy: Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resignation Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?
CanSpeccy: How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination

Monday, June 25, 2018

Did Gerald Ford Blackmail US President Richard Nixon into Resigning Over Complicity in the JFK Assassination?

Who killed US President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Well for sure it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald as concluded by the report of the Commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren.

Oswald, so the Warren Commission Report concluded, shot Kennedy from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was directly behind the President's car at the moment Kennedy was killed. This, however, is refuted by the famous Zapruder video, which shows that the fatal head-shot drove the President's head violently backwards with a sound described by Texas Governor John Conolly, who was riding in the car with the President, as "like the sound of a pumkin dropped to the pavement from the roof of a five-story building."

Many will place no trust in the video record, video evidence being so obviously susceptible to tampering. However, there is conclusive evidence confirming what the Zapruder film shows; namely, the testimony of the doctors and surgeons who attended on the president at the Parklands Hospital where he died.

Here is the testimony of Dr. McClelland, the first doctor to observe the large exit wound at the back of the President's head from which a lump of brain tissue, part of the cerebellum, had fallen onto the stretcher on which the President had been laid.



And here is the sketch that Dr. McClelland made at the time showing the various wounds to the president`s head and neck:

Signed drawing entitled ''President Kennedy's Wounds," rendered by Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the physicians
who attended to John F. Kennedy at Parkland Hospital  after the President was shot. Source: The New York Post.

And lest you think Dr. McClelland some kind of nut, here`s confirmation from another of the attending physicians, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who explains why he, and others attending on the President remained silent for so long about the contradiction between what the public was told about the cause of the Kennedy`s death and what they knew from direct observation to be the truth:



As for Gerry Ford, appointed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to the Warren Commission, here is his role as reported by the New York Times 33 years after the assassination:
Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly -- the Warren Commission's main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas. Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.
But if Kennedy was shot from the front, then one can hardly doubt that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up. And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up a conspiracy to murder involving the government.

Who in the Government? Well almost certainly that branch of government specializing in the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA.

But it is one thing to say that the CIA killed Kennedy and another thing altogether to say that the CIA had gone rogue. Yes there were people in the CIA who hated Kennedy for failing to send in the USAF in support of the CIA-orchestrated Bay-of-Pigs invasion of Cuba, when the invading force was bogged down on the beaches and being destroyed by the Cuban army and airforce. But it is inconceivable that the CIA would have acted without at least a nod from LBJ, the man who, as a result of the assassination, would be in a position to either destroy the CIA or provide the agency with a roof.

Furthermore, the CIA, a bureaucracy after all, and thus subject to all the Machiavellian calculation of any major bureaucracy, would have wanted more than Johnson's backing: they would have wanted bipartisan political support.

So who on the Republican side gave them a green light? Allen Dulles, the CIA Director that Jack Kennedy fired in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs invasion, was no Democrat, but he was undoubtedly well connected on the Republican side of the aisle, his brother, John Foster Dulles, having served for six years as US Secretary of State under Republican president General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who then in the Republican political world would have been in a position, through Allen Dulles, to give the assassination a go?

Nixon, the Republican defeated by Kennedy in 1960, was the then top Republican guy. So was it he, who gave the CIA the Republican backing for a contract on JFK? As to that, there is nothing well known in the public domain to indicate the truth.

However, there is a chain of events connecting Nixon with the assassination, albeit remotely. Prior to the assassination, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City where he applied to both the Cuban and the Soviet embassy for a visitor's visa and where he communicated with Valeriy Kostikov, a Soviet diplomat suspected of attachment to the KGB’s Department 13, responsible for assassinations and sabotage. How do we know that? Because both the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic compounds in Mexico City were:
thoroughly monitored by the CIA, which possessed tape recordings and transcripts of Oswald’s telephone calls, as well as photographs of Oswald as he went in and out. Source
It is known, further, that the head of the CIA office in Mexico City at that time was E. Howard Hunt, who it has been suggested, was present at Dealey Plaza the day of the Kennedy assassination,where he may have been one of three men dressed as tramps who were arrested that day.

But whether or not Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day of the assassination, there seems no question that he made a deathbed confession to involvement in the assassination (serving he said as a "bench warmer"). And there is no question that Hunt was hired by Nixon, with another Dealey Plaza tramp lookalike, Frank Sturgis, to among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party's National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington DC.

Why did Nixon authorize such a reckless undertaking? The stakes must surely have been high, and to find out whether the Democrats had information compromising to Nixon relating to the Kennedy assassination seems a plausible explanation.

The nature of such incriminating information is not obvious. Although Gerald Ford, Nixon's Vice President, and LBJ's appointee to the Warren Commission, is among the few who might have known.

So was Gerry Ford, a man described by LBJ as "too dumb to find his arse with both hands," in fact, smart enough to gain the Presidency by blackmailing Nixon to resign? Why not?

Related: 
CanSpeccy: How the Soviets Read the Message of the Kennedy Assassination
CanSpeccy: Why the US Government Killed John F. Kennedy
The Daily Beast: Watergate Burglar Howard Hunt Was William Buckley’s Deep Throat
RealNeo: JFK Jr. Told The World Who Murdered His Father – But Nobody Was Paying Attention

Real Journalism: John Nolte on How the US Media and Its Foreign Imitators, from the CBC to the Guardian, Have Gone Full CNN

Driven by impotent rage, political extremism, and their own frustration at President Trump’s ongoing foreign and domestic successes, the establishment media had its worst week in years last week surrounding their now-debunked border separation hoax.

The timing of last  week’s disaster (which I will detail in a sec), could not have been worse. It came right on the heels of a Gallup poll full of dreadful news. A clean majority of 62 percent believe the “traditional news media” is biased. A full 44 percent believe the media is inaccurate, and another 39 percent believe the media spread misinformation.
Just like the far-left CNN, all of the media are now operating as a 24/7 Hate Machine

And those were the numbers before last week, a week full of hoaxes, lies, childish trolling, and the condoning of mob justice against Trump officials.
Here is a breakdown…
The Entire Media Narrative About Child Separation Is a Hoax

Last week’s rabid media storyline about the separation of illegal alien adults and children is a hoax, a fabricated outrage; which is not to say that children and adults are not separated into different detention centers. For their own good, for humane reasons, they most certainly are.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Victor Davies Hanson: The Death of the West

Ben Weingarten: As a classicist, you’ve lamented both the corruption of the academy within your own discipline and on the modern campus more broadly — in particular on its repudiation of the Western canon, its lack of adherence to principles of free inquiry and the overall triumph of progressivism. Is there any way to take back this institution, in the sense of restoring classical liberal arts education and the conditions it needs to flourish?

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, my criticism in the last 30 years of the institution, obviously a lot of us who voiced those concerns, it fell on deaf ears. So progressive thinkers and institutional administrators within the university got their way. And now we’re sort of at the end of that experiment, and the question we have to ask is what did they give us? Well, they gave us $1 trillion in student debt. They created a very bizarre system in which the federal government — subsidized through student loans, constantly increasing tuition beyond the rate of inflation — the result of which is that we’ve had about a 200 percent growth in administrative costs, and administrators and non-teaching staff within the university. We’ve politicized the education.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Rep Trey Gowdy's Exposition of the Bias, Animus, and Pre-judging of Facts by Senior FBI Agents and Attorneys Responsible for the Clinton e-mail Investigation and the Trump Russia Probe




Seems like the decline in the IQ of Western nations is impacting the performance of the FBI at the highest level.

Trudeau Lied About Trump's Steel Tariff: Canada Transships Chinese Steel to the US


Wilbur Ross, Donald Trump’s commerce secretary speaking before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday said:
The Canadian steel industry is not being accused directly and individually of being a security threat
but added that Canada was a problem because
along with other countries ...Canada allows Chinese steel to pass through on its the way to the United States.
Further Ross stated:
And while they’re complaining bitterly about the tariffs, the fact is they’re starting to take the kind of action, which, if they had taken sooner, would have prevented this crisis.
Source

So while Trudeau was whimpering about being insulted by Trump's tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, he was, in fact, toadying to the Chinese, at America's expense. Why, because, Trudeau, the lover of all dictatorships, prefers to curry favor with Communist China headed by President-for-Life Xi, than with the democratic nation state on our border.