Jerry Kroth – July 11, 2018  “Information Clearing House”

In November, 2017 President Trump released 35,000 documents the Kennedy assassination that were withheld for half a century. He wanted to release more, but the CIA requested more time. He gave them six months, and, on April 26 of this year another 18,000 documents came forth.

The media hardly covered the April release, and, overall, the reporting was cursory at best and pathetic at worst. These documents consummately alter our understanding of the assassination, and of Jack Ruby, of Marina Oswald, David Ferrie, Richard Helms, J. Edgar Hoover, and certainly Lyndon Johnson. [This exposé confirms once again that the US Government is a criminal organization secretly ruled by money and blackmail. We can NEVER trust it or its CIA-controlled news media.]

But let us take a smaller bite from this apple.

Introducing Eugene V. Dinkin. Two documents were released about this man in November which caught my attention, and one more appeared in the 2018 release.

Frankly, as an academic who wrote two books on JFK, I never heard of him.

Since it took 54 years to lift the veil of censorship on this account, perhaps Eugene should not be ignored any more than he already has.

Private First Class Eugene Dinkin worked in Metz, France. He was a cryptographic code operator for the U.S. Army and in early November, 1963, three weeks before the assassination, he discovered something sobering, a plot to assassinate the President of the United States. He intercepted—or decoded— two messages, and the names he relayed all make a lot of sense today, a French/Corsican assassin, Jean Souetre, Guy Banister, and William Harvey.

That was in 1963, but in 2007, former CIA majordomo, Howard Hunt, made a deathbed confession about the assassination to his son and mentioned two of those suspects. His son, quite unaware of Eugene Dinkin, scrambled to take notes and videotape his father. Hunt’s revelation can been on Youtube today.

Retuning to Dinkin, in early November, Private Dinkin was so concerned about his discovery, he had his friend mail a letter to Robert Kennedy. The letter warned RFK that an assassination plot was underway and would occur in Texas about November 28th.

Dinkin said that plans were that the murder would be blamed on either a communist or a Negro.

Dinkin had serious doubts his letter would ever each him, so with a jolt of derring-do, he deserted his post and made it to Switzerland to a UN press briefing room where he thought he might get better reception. The U.S. military picked him and shipped him off to Walter Reed to a psychiatric ward. He was confined for the next six months.

Trump’s two released cables say Dinkin went to Geneva on the 6th of November with his story.

That was exactly 17 days before Kennedy was murdered. “Neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission ever investigated the Dinkin case, ” despite his clear prediction.

A second soldier peeks through Trump’s document dump too, and entirely independent of Eugene Dinkin, David Christensen:

There are two CIA documents on him which were released in April. Christensen was an Air Force Sergeant who was stationed at Kirknewton, Scotland. He intercepted a communication just before Novemeber, 1963 that an assassination attempt would be made on President Kennedy.

Little substantive information beyond this fact is given except that Kirknewton was an RAF base, which had a relationship with the CIA, which was using it as a top-secret listening station.

Christensen heard something he shouldn’t have heard, and he heard it in a top-secret CIA listening post. As you can probably guess, Sgt. Christensen, like Eugene Dinkin, was summarily “committed to a mental institution.”

One should raise an important question here as with all of these released documents: why were they withheld for half a century?

Clearly, if two psychotic persons ranted off about the President being killed—and both properly confined to mental institutions as deranged —such stories would merely constitute tabloid pulp and not rise above the level of the National Enquirer. The fact that these stories never graced our supermarkets, but were withheld from the public and from scholars for five decades is certainly worth more than a raised eyebrow.

Two code operators, in secret American military installations, quite independently of each other—and both obviously with clearances—discovered chatter, decidedly secret chatter, about the coming assassination of the President of the United States. If taken seriously, it meant a deep conspiracy was afoot involving high level government and military plotters, not little Lee Harvey who was sorting textbooks in the Texas School Book Depository for $1.25 an hour.

In order to preserve the Warren Commission myth that a single, lone assassin shot the President required—absolutely and irrevocably—that such news be hidden, covered up, and sequestered from any public awareness—and indeed it was. Frankly, it is a miracle these files survived at all considering their significance.

A very belated thanks and a few hosannas from the American people, Eugene and David, wherever you may be.

________________________________________________________________________

9-7-2018

[“The Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Found No Evidence of Chemical Weapons Use in Douma

Can anyone remember the last time Washington told the truth about anything?

Is Putin really going to make a deal with people who are incapable of telling the truth about anything or keeping their word about anything?” – Paul Craig Roberts]

A preliminary report published Friday by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no traces of any nerve agent at the site of a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma. The OPCW report states this unambiguously as follows:

“No organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties.“

Compare the newly published official OPCW findings with the 5-page White House assessment released on April 13^th, just days after the alleged attack. Now contradicted by the new OPCW findings, the White House asserted that sarin was used at Douma,

A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Duma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin.

Yes, a real headline: CNN screenshot of coverage of the alleged chemical attack in April 2018 which we discussed here. If real chemical agents were present sniffing them would be deadly, and the reporter would know it. This was an obvious ruse.

Firebrand British MP George Galloway responded as follows moments after the OPCW’s findings were made public:

Was that, was that the news? What about Douma? The chemical weapons attack? The nerve agent bombs that rained down on Douma that took us to the brink of World War 3?

The OPCW have just reported, well two hours ago… There was no nerve gas attack on Douma. There was no nerve agent deployed on Douma. We were taken to World War 3’s brink on a crock. A crock of vile propaganda. Ring any bells?

No Nerve Agents, Concludes OPCW Report

The April 7^th alleged chemical attack, widely blamed by Western countries and the media on Assad’s forces, resulted in massive US-led retaliatory airstrikes mostly concentrated on suspected chemical production facilities in Damascus.

Though at the time both UN and OPCW officials urged caution in the rush to blame “animal Assad” for “using nerve agents” as many world headlines breathlessly concluded a mere moments after videos purporting to show scores of chemical attack victims first surfaced (and though CW experts themselves warned that not a single neutral observer was on the ground to verify such claims when it happened), the latest OPCW report flatly contradicts the narrative that quickly solidified in the mainstream.

Nerve agents like sarin were quickly associated in headlines with unverified allegations of a chlorine attack, for example in the following major UK headline a day after the incident: Syrian government accused of using nerve agents as death toll from Douma ‘chemical weapons attack’ rises.

Like dozens of others, the story uncritically promoted the following:

The pro-opposition Ghouta Media Centre alleged that a helicopter had dropped a barrel bomb containing sarin, and another organisation claimed that a hospital had been hit by a chlorine bomb. 

With images of women and children foaming from the mouth and nose circulating on social media, the death toll from Saturday evening’s attack on the town was said to have risen to at least 49, with some observers saying more than 150 people have been killed.

This as the White House said it had “very high confidence” the Syrian government carried out the attack, basing its assessment, as MSNBC reported at the time, in part on the following: “blood and urine samples obtained by the U.S. from victims of the chemical strike tested positive for chlorine gas and a nerve agent.” 

The 5-page White House assessment released on April 13^th asserted that sarin was used at Douma, something now contradicted by the OPCW:

A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Duma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin.

Media Headlines Debunked

Throughout April and subsequent months, journalists and pundits continued to connect the suffering of victims in Douma with the deadly sarin nerve agent, as one NPR piece with the emotionally gripping headline, Syrian 7-Year-Old: ‘I Want To Be A Doctor So I Can Help In A Chemical Attack’, suggested: “The U.S. says it’s highly confident that evidence points to the use of chlorine and possibly a nerve agent, perhaps sarin.”

The White House began building its case against Assad upon this mysterious blood and urine “data”, ultimately leading to President Trump unleashing over 100 tomahawk missiles on Damascus, was nowhere to be found in the OPCW’s findings released Friday.

Here‘s CNN reporting in the days after events at Douma:

But again, Friday’s OPCW preliminary report, which unlike most others among its assessments included a verified full OPCW chain of custody for most samples as its investigators actually studied the site (notably, the April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun alleged CW attack site was never visited by investigators), reads as follows:

OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions.

You remember straight after Skripal attack a huge neo-con push to bomb Syria due to alleged nerve agent attack on jihadi held Douma? Before Robert Fisk arrived and found it untrue? Now OPCW confirm no nerve agent. Some chlorine compounds found but origin and significance unclear.

“Chlorinated Organic Chemicals” But No Chlorine Confirmation

Interestingly, headlines are now making much of the mention of “various chlorinated organic chemicals” — with Reuters for example emphasizing, Chemical weapons agency finds ‘chlorinated’ chemicals in Syria’s Douma.

The word “chlorine” is only used twice in the OPCW interim report, both in characterizations of social media and does not contain any declaration “confirming” chlorine allegations, in spite of current media reports wrongly suggesting the OPCW has found victims at Douma that died from chlorine exposure.

Apparently both Reuters and the BBC were forced to quickly correct their reporting of Friday’s OPCW document, as both initially claimed that OPCW investigators confirmed chlorine used at Douma, whereas the document reads various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites (Reuters issued the following correction: Corrects to “various chlorinated organic chemicals” instead of chlorine; and the BBC changed its headline from “chlorine gas” to “possible chlorine”).

This subtle distinction is significant as Moon of Alabama blog explains:

The “various chlorinated organic chemicals” are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and “chlorinated organic chemicals” will be found in any household.

In the technical notes of the OPCW report note that one of its laboratory found “Dichloroacetic acid”, “trichloroacetic acid”, “chloral hydrate”, “trichlorophenol” and “chlorphenol” in some of the samples its fact finding mission took at the claimed incident sites. These are all substances that are no surprise in any upbuild environment and especially within any home. Dichloroacetic acid” is for example “a trace product of the chlorination of drinking water”. Chloral hydrate is likewise “a minor side-product of the chlorination of water when organic residues such as humic acids are present”. The other substances are also not uncommon and of various household uses.

And importantly, the interim report does not include indications of quantities or concentrations in which these common substances were found, making it impossible to conclude further whether they were part of a chemical attack or were weaponized.

Instead, listed repeatedly throughout the technical notes of samples taken is “No chemicals relevant to CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] have been found.”

The OPCW report for example, concludes of a separate alleged chemical attack site in the same report: “the FFM [Fact-Finding Mission] cannot confidently determine whether or not a specific chemical was used as a weapon in the incidents that took place in the neighbourhood of Al-Hamadaniyah and in the area of Karm al-Tarrab.”

“Non-persistant, irritating substance”

The report did have this interesting line, however: “The FFM noted that the persons affected in the reported incidents may, in some instances, have been exposed to some type of non-persistent, irritating substance.”

This appears consistent with sources we highlighted in Famed War Reporter Robert Fisk Reaches Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’ Site, Concludes “They Were Not Gassed” — sources which suggested, as one doctor interviewed by Robert Fisk in Douma testified, that “the patients… were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation” due to conventional weapons landing on or near an underground shelter in which civilians were hiding.

Fisk identified the doctor by name — Dr. Assim Rahaibani — which is notable given the fact that all early reporting from Douma typically relied on “unnamed doctors” and anonymous opposition sources for early claims of a chlorine gas attack (which had quickly morphed into an unverified “mixed” chlorine-and-sarin attack).

Fisk detailed the Syrian doctor’s testimony for The Independent. The doctor was adamant in his emphasis that civilians were suffocating en masse, and were not gassed:

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night–but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia–not gas poisoning.”

Major pro-rebel outlet said ‘mass asphyxiation’ after shelter collapse

The doctor’s testimony was consistent with that of the well-known Syrian opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which initially reported based on its own pro-rebel sourcing that heavy government bombardment of Douma city resulted in the collapse of homes and underground shelters, causing civilians in hiding to suffocate.

According to SOHR, which has long been a key go-to source for mainstream media over the course of the war, “70 of them [women and children] have suffered suffocation as a result of the demolition of home basements over them due to the heavy and intense shelling.”

Though outlets from The Guardian to The Washington Post to The New York Times had quoted SOHR on a near daily basis throughout the pior six years of war, the anti-Assad opposition outlet’s reporting of mass asphyxiation due to collapse of shelters remained notably absent from the same publications.

Though the mass asphyxiation theory is speculation at this point (we weren’t there and neither were the hundreds of journalists claiming while writing from hundreds or thousands of miles outside Syria that “Assad gassed his own people”), it will be interesting to see what the future full and complete OPCW report includes.

But at least at this still somewhat early point in what will likely be a continued lengthy investigation, we have absolute scientific confirmation from the OPCW that the White House once again lied us into bombing yet another Middle East country based on spurious “nerve agent” claims. 

__________________________________________________________________________

Paul Craig Roberts – June 28, 2018

– The meeting that the Deep State strived to make impossible with fabricated “Russiagate” assertions and an orchestrated “investigation” by Mueller has now been set in place by no less that Deep State neocon operative John Bolton. Patrick Lang explains how this came about:

Many see benefits from the Putin/Trump meeting. For example:

Putin himself sees benefits in the meeting as does Trump. Putin sees hope of improving relations between the two governments. Of course, the “strained relations” are entirely due to Washington, which has demonized both Russia and Putin with false accusations and hostile acts such as illegal sanctions. It was miscalculation for Washington to expect Russia to give up its Black Sea naval base to Washington’s coup in Ukraine.

What can an agreement be based on? Bolton’s position has been opposed to making any agreement with Russia or cooperating with Russia in any way. From the neoconservative standpoint, Russia is in the way of US world hegemony. As the neoconservative foreign policy doctrine states, it is a principle US goal to prevent the rise of any country that could serve as a check on American unilateralism. Russia is a challenge to the American World Order because Russia stands in the way of the American unipolar world.

A successful summit will require Trump to reject this neoconserative doctrine. If Trump can pull this off with Bolton sitting by him, it will be a surprise. Do Bolton and the Deep State have a way of baking failure into the summit that will ensure the continuation of Russia’s enemy status, thereby sustaining the enormous budget and power of the US military/security complex? Is Trump a superman who can overcome this powerful vested interest about which President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961? How much stronger is this complex more than half-a-centurey later after being nourished by decades of Cold War and War On Terror?

Assad and no doubt Iran are convinced that negotiations with Washington are a waste of time. Assad has concluded that “the problem with US presidents is that they are hostage to lobbyists. They can tell you what you want to hear, but they do the opposite. That’s the problem, and it’s getting worse and worse. Trump is a stark example. That’s why when talking to the Americans, discussing something with them does not settle anything. There will not be any results. It’s a simple waste of time.” https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/06/assad-says-talks-with-the-trump-a-waste-of-time/

Assad’s view has the evidence on its side. One of Trump’s first actions was to unilaterally pull out of the multi-nation Iran nuclear agreement. There is no evidence that supports the hopeful Russian view.

It would be an interesting exercise to list all the agreements Washington has made over the course of US history and to calculate the percentage that Washington kept. If Putin doesn’t want to be taken for a ride, he should contemplate the words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce summing up his negotiations with Washington: “I have heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and broken promises.”

___________________________________________________________________________

You’re thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.

Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly out of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that’s not a typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn’t get into the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President George W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the international community.

Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen—countries the U.S. was neither at war with nor had ongoing conflicts with. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk that went something like, “Wait a second. We’re bombing in countries outside of war zones? Is it possible that’s a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) … Nah. Whichever president follows Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some sort) and will therefore stop this madness.”

We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it’s first waking up in the morning.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack Obama there were “563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. …”

It’s not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific violation of international law and global norms. It’s also the morally reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we’re doing and what the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report” warned us about. (Humans are very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we’d listened to “1984,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of the National Security Agency. If we listened to “The Terminator,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of drone warfare. And if we’d listened to “The Matrix,” we wouldn’t have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of plastic waste. … But you know, who’s counting?)

There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon’s daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention it, the underlying sentiment was, “Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while he’s OK’ing endless destruction. He’s like the Steve McQueen of aerial death.”

And let’s take a moment to wipe away the idea that our “advanced weaponry” hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it, “According to the C.I.A.’s own documents, the people on the ‘kill list,’ who were targeted for ‘death-by-drone,’ accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone strikes.”

Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five points just for spelling your name right.

But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush—it was child’s play. DeGraw again: “[Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by 30,000 bombs and 2 countries.”

You have to admit that’s impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.

However, we now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.

Trump’s military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.

He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that’s behaving like Lil Wayne crossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back, and are like, “What the heck did you just do? I was gone for like, a second!”

Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour—every hour of every day. That averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.

And which is more outrageous—the crazy amount of death and destruction we are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump’s flaws. They say he’s a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally accurate)—but they don’t criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them killing 98 percent non-targets.

When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget—as we saw with the $21 trillion—and you have a president with no interest in overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then you end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running out of bombs.

Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those innocent civilians from … farming? Think of all the goats that will be allowed to go about their days.

And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be “unaccountable.”

Journalist Witney Webb wrote in February, “Shockingly, more than 80 percent of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.’s own documents have shown that they are not even aware of who they are killing—avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming all those in the strike zone as enemy combatants.”

That’s right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they’re enemy combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. … Want me to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.

This is not about Trump, even though he’s a maniac. It’s not about Obama, even though he’s a war criminal. It’s not about Bush, even though he has the intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven’t told a Bush joke in about eight years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I’ll get back into that.)

This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.

Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has gained some traction. Let’s get another one started: #121BombsADay.

One every 12 minutes.

Do you know where they’re hitting? Who they’re murdering? Why? One hundred and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away—in your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size popcorn at the movie theater.

We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response, there’s nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against humanity.

___________________________________________________________________

April 28, 2018

The ruling elite think you’re stupid. As a matter of fact, they’re counting on it.

When they wanted to invade Iraq, the excuse was weapons of mass destruction. Turns out, those weapons didn’t exist. Oops. When they wanted to topple Libya, they told you Gaddafi was murdering civilians. Turns out these “civilians” were CIA backed jihadists. Minor detail. They’ve wanted regime change in Syria for years. So they armed, trained and funded an insurgency. Most of the weapons ended up in the hands of extremists, who used them in rather unpleasant ways. This made for bad P.R.

Then the west claimed Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. They said they had proof, before there was even time for an investigation. That proof, unfortunately, was classified, so we can’t see it. How convenient.

They’ve tried the poison gas angle several times now. Each new episode sloppier than the last. In 2013 when sarin gas was used on civilians, the West instantly declared Assad guilty. Air strikes were on the table, and talk of regime change was in the air. The push to war fell apart when the official U.N. investigation into the matter found that the U.S. backed rebels were the ones responsible, not Assad.

Five years later, as the last rebel strong hold fell, and final victory was at hand, the west would have you believe that Assad lost his marbles. In spite of the fact that Syrian forces were easily wiping up the last militants using conventional weaponry, and Russia still had their back, Assad apparently got an uncontrollable urge to use poison gas on civilians, a move guaranteed to trigger a military response. Why would Assad do something so stupid? Because he’s a vicious animal that enjoys murdering his own people. Right.

President Assad is in the process of winning this civil war, and he was about to take over and occupy Douma (all that area) . He had a long hard slog slowly capturing that whole area of the city, and there just before he goes in and takes it all over apparently he decides to have a chemical attack. It just doesn’t ring true. It seems extraordinary, because clearly he would know that there’s like to be a response from the allies. What benefit is there for his military? Most of the rebel fighters, this disparate group of Islamists had withdrawn. There were a few women and children left around. What benefit was there militarily in doing what he did? I find that extraordinary. Whereas we know that in the past some of the Islamic groups have used chemicals, and of course there would be huge benefits in them labeling an attack as coming from Assad, because they would guess quite rightly that there would be a response from the U.S. (as there was last time) and possibly from the U.K. and France. – Lord Alan West – Admiral British Royal Navy

I find it very unbelievable that at this point, where Bashar Assad has WON in Syria, that he would jeopardize that victory by using chemical weapons and thus drawing the United States into the fray. – Col. Lawrence Wilkerson – Former chief of staff to Colin Powell

Quite apart from all that, the debate that seems to be missing from this is… What possible motive could have triggered Syria to launch this chemical attack at this time in this place? The Syrians are winning, don’t take my word for it, take the American military’s word for it. – Former commander British forces in Iraq Jonathan Shaw

There’s another problem with this story. The Syrian government destroyed the last of its chemical weapons stockpile in 2014, and they had absolutely nothing to gain by producing new weapons. The simple fact is, Syria didn’t need these munitions to win the war. They had full support of the Russian military.

The rebels on the other hand, did have chemical weapons, and had every incentive to use them. The U.S. Department of State admitted that Al-Nusra (renamed as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) had these weapons in a travel advisory released in October of 2017. This advisory has since been deleted, but an archived version is still online.

Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [formerly Al-Nusra], and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons

The Russian Foreign Ministry warned in February of 2018 that they had intelligence indicating that Al-Nusra was in the process planning another chemical provocation. This warning, was of course ignored.

Then there’s also the fact that numerous reporters who visited the scene of the supposed attack and interviewed those who were present at the time found no evidence that any chemical attack actually took place.

And here’s the punchline: one of the supposed victims from the film the west was using as its “evidence”, is in perfect health, and is directly contradicting the official story.

The west lied about Iraq. They lied about Libya. They are lying about Syria, and this is just the beginning. They’ll keep using the same formula as long as you keep falling for it.

The Psychology of War

When the powers-that-be want to start a war, they never declare their real motives or intentions. Doing so would undermine domestic support, weaken moral within the military, and invite an international backlash. Instead they follow a tested and proven template, designed to hijack human instinct.

Problem

First, the public must be conditioned to view the target as a threat. This is accomplished by coordinating narratives via media, and political puppets. The enemy is framed as an arch-villain. Their crimes built up, exaggerated and woven with total fiction. Repetition is used to etch that image into the mind of the masses.

If a proper enemy does not exist, one can be created. Today’s freedom fighters often serve as tomorrow’s boogie man. The U.S. backing and subsequent destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq are prime examples.

Reaction

To get their war, those in power need an excuse to attack. Military aggression must be promoted as an act of self defense, retaliation or humanitarian intervention. This can be accomplished by fabricating an attack and blaming it on the enemy, intentionally provoking the enemy into a response, or by justifying preemptive strikes as the only way to prevent an atrocity.

Solution

Finally, public support is consolidated with a crusade mythology: a narrative that presents the aggressors as fighting for a higher ideal, or a greater good, with war defined as the means to that end.

A war of aggression becomes “Spreading Democracy”, “Fighting Terrorism”, or “Bringing Civilization to Savages”. These euphemisms define “us vs. them” in exaggerated terms to dehumanize the target, sanitize the implied bloodshed, and activate the pack instinct (in the form of patriotism).

This formula hijacks the most primal and dangerous aspects of human nature. Out-group becomes a mortal enemy, a problem that must be dealt with imminently. Reaction is shaped by defining the boundaries of debate. “Should the president order a limited strike, or a full invasion? Was 100 bombs enough, or did this show a lack of resolve?” One way or another, the solution is always war.

The ruling elite think you’re too stupid to put two and two together. They think you’re too cowardly and apathetic to call them out. It’s up to you to prove them wrong.

If you want more people to hear this message, take a moment to share it with someone you know. This content is Creative Commons. You have permission download this araticle, copy and distribute it by any and all means.

__________________________________________________________________________

Threats against politicians have been skyrocketing lately. Many in Congress are now living in fear, purchasing body armor and hiring armed guards to protect themselves against the people they should be serving rather than controlling.

Members are keenly aware that the continued attempt to control and manipulate the public has finally put a target on their backs. “The true reality is if somebody wanted to do me harm, they could probably do that with relative ease and that is sad,” said Representative Chuck Fleishmann (R-Tenn.), a New York City native.

Mexican citizens have been executing politicians in the country south of the United States’ border.  So far, 113 political elites (or those attempting to become a political master by way of election) have been killed.

The majority of politicians experiencing the threats appear to be republican. Which just goes to show that liberals intend to use violence and theft to get people to conform to their ideas rather than use peace and voluntary interaction.

In 2016, there were 902 threatening incidents and communications against members of Congress. By 2017, the reports had more than doubled to about 2,000, according to the House Sergeant at Arms office. According to The New York Post, in response, the House Administration Committee allocated $25,000 to each member in 2017 and again in 2018 to beef up their personal and office security, prompting members to hire bodyguards for events and equip offices with panic buttons and shatter-resistant glass. Meaning they are using the funds of those who are making the treats to protect the ruling class.

The House Sergeant at Arms got an additional $5 million to improve office security for district offices. Congress also increased funding for Capitol Police by $29.2 million in 2017, and another $29.9 million in 2018. In recognition of the danger level to the political elites, the Federal Election Commission also ruled in July that lawmakers can also use campaign funds, which are typically spent on TV ads and mailers, to install security systems at their homes instead.

The chairman of the House Administration Committee, representative Gregg Harper that authorized security spending, said the shooting made clear that Congress needed to do more. “What we would never want to have happen is for an incident to occur and anybody – a member, a visitor or staffer – to say you didn’t give us what we needed to protect ourselves,”  Harper, who has hired personal armed bodyguards said.

While violence is not the answer, neither is the elite ruling class shoving their laws down the throats of the public on a whim with no consequences. Eventually, this ruling class vs. the slaves mentality was going to explode (just like it did leading up to the American Revolution.) People always eventually figure out that they don’t enjoy being slaves to a wealthy elite few. As soon as enough people wake up and realize whom the real enemy of liberty is, there won’t be a need for violence or threats though, liberals.  There will eventually hopefully be enough people who no longer wish to be slaves to politicians that government itself will become obsolete; peacefully.

________________________________________________________________________

CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections in the Past Century

June 10, 2018 by: Jayson Veley

Speaking before an audience during an event held by the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Stengel, a former high-level U.S. government official, head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013 to 2016, and regular commentator on the fake news network MSNBC, argued that governments have a responsibility to direct propaganda at their domestic populations and ultimately control the political narrative.

“Basically, every country creates their own narrative story and, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the ‘chief propagandist’ job,” Stengel explained during the CFR event. “We haven’t talked about propaganda… I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”

All major network news programs and social media like Facebook are controlled by the CIA. These, and scores of government-orchestrated think tanks, work 24/7 devising ways to interfer and control elections and policy in every country. The US even goes beyond interferring with elections – it creates wars in countries to overthrow democratically elected governments. Every war in recent history has been created by fake news and propaganda – mostly by the US Government, the British government, or the Israeli government.

And as always, the victims are blamed for the discord and chaos created by US agencies working in foreign lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

Alleged former CIA black site in Lithuania.

Lithuania and Romania, which hosted secret CIA prisons for terrorist suspects, are responsible for knowingly allowing the torture of prisoners, a European court ruled. It comes after the appointment of Gina Haspel as CIA head.