Duran, The

Subscribe to Duran, The feed Duran, The
World news and geopolitical analysis
Updated: 4 hours 19 min ago

Epstein Autopsy and Cement Mixers on Orgy Island (Video)

Sun, 2019-08-18 22:31

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the questions that linger after the NYC autopsy stated that Jeffery Epstein’s death was the result of suicide in his jail cell by hanging.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“It Took A Billionaire Pedophile To Die In Jail For Media To Finally Report On Elite Child Sex Trafficking,” authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project:

Adult and child sex trafficking is an unfortunate and horrifying reality that plagues countries around the world—including the United States. As TFTP has reported, people have been arrested attempting to purchase children as young as three-months-old to abuse them, including police officers. Even former child sex slaves have come forward to tell their stories and provide insight into the elite sickos who have the money and resources to deal in the lives of children. This has been ongoing for decades, yet the media and Americans alike, have largely ignored it, until now.

The arrest of Jeffery Epstein and his subsequent demise in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York has catapulted the massive problem of elite child sex trafficking into the limelight. Naturally, politicians on both sides — including the president — are attempting to use Epstein’s death for political advantage which has skewed the discourse. However, for the first time, Americans are actually talking about the problem of child sexual abuse among the elite, and this is healthy.

While some Americans are hearing Epstein’s name for the first time, TFTP has been reporting on his special treatment and ties to the elite for years. The child trafficking scandal doesn’t stop at the White House either, it crosses the pond and implicates the royal family too. Last year, a photo of the Queen’s son, Prince Andrew, surfaced as evidence during legal proceedings, showing him with his arm around one of the underage victims.

Epstein is a convicted child molester and sexually abused no less than 40 underage girls. Despite this fact, Alexander Acosta protected him while serving as a U.S. Attorney in Florida. After letting an admitted pedophile off with a wrist slap, instead of being fired, Acosta was then appointed to Trump’s labor secretary in 2017 before resigning last month amid the Epstein controversy.

Instead of going to prison for life, as he should’ve considering the evidence against him, Epstein only got 13 months and was allowed to stay in the Palm Beach County Jail in his own private cell where he was allowed to leave the prison six days a week for “work release”.

Epstein was forced to register as a sex offender for life, but with his money and his connections he wasn’t too bothered—until last month.

Despite the left and the right pitting Epstein against their political foes, this pedophile was tied to all sides of the political spectrum.

As a report in the Miami Herald noted:

The eccentric hedge fund manager, whose friends included former President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew, was also suspected of trafficking minor girls, often from overseas, for sex parties at his other homes in Manhattan, New Mexico and the Caribbean, FBI and court records show.

However, he was never held accountable until last month – only after his victims and dedicated reporters pushed for justice for nearly a decade.

Now, as a tornado of conspiracy theories over Epstein’s death continues to travel across the internet like wildfire, the media can no longer ignore the problem, nor Epstein’s connections.

Maybe now, as the DOJ investigates, the media may start to actually report on this massive problem. This is not the first time high profile figures have been arrested for sick crimes against children and let off with a wrist slap, but it is the first time the media is giving it so much attention—because this sicko is now dead.

As TFTP reported, in April of 2016, Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House under Clinton and Bush — and admitted child rapist — was sentenced to 15 months in prison after he was caught paying his victims to keep quiet. However, he was released in 2017 — two months before finishing his already insultingly lenient sentence.

Hastert was sentenced, not for raping children, but for illegally structuring bank transactions in an effort to cover up his sexual abuse of young boys.

Just like Epstein, Hastert was an admitted serial child rapist, yet because he is a well-connected politician and former Speaker of the House, this vile man’s victims received no justice. In fact, Hastert attempted to sue his victims for speaking out after he paid them to stay silent about their abuse.

As TFTP has reported, Washington D.C. not only protects sex abusers but they use your tax dollars to silence their victims. Sadly, most people ignore at least half of all the abuse because blowhards in the media try to turn sex abuse into a partisan issue. Those on the left ignore the crimes of their party, just like those on the right claim sex abuse is a liberal issue. But as we’ve shown, there is no difference between a blue child rapist and a red one.

As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, the problem of child sex trafficking goes all the way to the top in the UK as well. Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was found by the police chief to be a pedophile. Just like what happens in the US, his vile crimes against children were allegedly ‘covered up by the establishment.’

Unfortunately, pedophilia and human trafficking is all too common among those in power. Sadly, however, those who attempt to draw attention to this problem are labeled as conspiracy nuts or perpetrators of fake news. Hopefully, as the truth comes out in regard to Jeffrey Epstein, the establishment will have a harder time protecting society’s worst.

The post Epstein Autopsy and Cement Mixers on Orgy Island (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Salvini Thwarted Is Not Salvini Denied

Sun, 2019-08-18 21:22

Authored Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Italian Interior Minister and leader of The League Matteo Salvini was thwarted in his push to get control of Italy’s fractious political landscape recently. Salvini pushed for new elections after declaring the coalition government with Five Star Movement unworkable.

His motion to bring a vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte failed in the Italian senate after his former coalition partners entertained a proposal from the formerly-powerful Democrats.

In the end it shouldn’t have been a shock to see Five Star make strange bedfellows with the party and the political apparatus it was built to fight. Because had they backed Salvini they would have had to accept outsider status since polls have moved so far against them over the fourteen months of their working together.

It turns out that no matter how revolutionary one is supposed to be, in politics, retaining access to power becomes the over-riding concern. In general, the first goal of any organization is survival and Five Star made the Hobson’s Choice of siding with Matteo Renzi’s Democrats to stay in power rather than stand on their principles and abide by the will of the Italian people, who are clearly now behind Salvini and his League.

As I pointed out in my last article, The League is polling at levels Five Star has never reached, 38-40%, while Five Star’s support has collapsed to the high teens after taking more than 28% in March 2018’s election.

So, Salvini’s ‘betrayal’ of Five Star, who foot-dragged implementing any of Salvini’s part of their stated agenda, led directly to Five Star’s betrayal of Salvini.

But looking at the polls it’s clear that Salvini’s brand of right-of-center populism is popular. And Five Star Leader Luigi Di Maio’s decision to go against that grain will not bode well for his party going forward.

It’s clear Salvini has the population’s ear on reforms, tax cuts, infrastructure spending and ending German-led, EU-imposed austerity.

In the near term it looks like Di Maio has gotten the better of his former ruling partner. The president, Sergei Mattarella, will happily countenance a Democrat/Five Star coalition to ensure that nothing radical happens over the crucial next two years as the European Union faces the biggest challenges to its future ever.

This is especially true with it looking increasingly likely that the United Kingdom will leave the EU on Halloween without a withdrawal agreement.

But Di Maio is now in the same position that another reformer turned toady was in after he betrayed his country in 2015, Greece’s Alexis Tsipras.

To remind everyone, Tsipras is now out of a job and one of the most hated people in Greece. So complete was his sell out of the Greek people, he ushered back into power a center-right government in July.

Five Star was born out of the disgust Italians had for its leadership in Rome and the technocratic overthrow of Silvio Berlusconi’s government back in 2011.

It was a pure protest party, especially when Beppe Grillo was its figurehead. Now, it’s making deals to stay in power with those same technocrats.

Di Maio has to think very carefully about where things go from here. Remember, it was the Democrats who refused to ally with Five Star last year leading to the nominally Euroskeptic alliance between it and The League that has tried to govern since last June.

It’s true that Five Star has suffered since it teamed up with The League but that’s a self-inflicted wound as Salvini ran rings around them for not supporting him as his popularity grew.

What’s coming here is that if Five Star does a deal with Renzi and the Democrats it will be a betrayal of the same order as what Syriza under Tsipras pulled with Greece. And Salvini, cast in the role of opposition, will have a field day sniping the government at every turn as Conte, Mattarella and their pet Finance Minister Giovanni Tria sell Italy out back to Brussels.

And it will be Salvini that has the last laugh as Five Star gets nothing in return for selling out, Italy gets crushed further and the migrant caravan of George Soros re-opens. Di Maio and Five Star had their opportunity to stick it to the EU as it struggles with a sovereign debt crisis and the German financial and political system is stressed to the gills.

And it failed.

Politics at this level is all about ego. Di Maio wasn’t able to quell the leftist malcontents within his own party and because of that couldn’t deliver on promises made when the coalition formed.

He’s now set his party on the path to destruction while Salvini gets to walk away having lost nothing of note. His policies weren’t going to be implemented in a coalition with Five Star and Conte as Prime Minister.

Now he’s exposed all of them, inadvertently or otherwise, including his former partners, as the useless social climbers they are rather than the patriots and rebels they advertised themselves to be to the Italian people.

Salvini’s best move here is to continue with his plans to call for another vote. Force Five Star on record and undercut their position with the electorate further. And after that, bide his time, and work The League’s position in the European Parliament.

Because while you can manipulate events in the short-term you can’t change the overall trend. This is something both the EU and the Italian deep state have yet to learn.

The post Salvini Thwarted Is Not Salvini Denied appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The Anglo-American Origins of Color Revolutions & NED

Sun, 2019-08-18 21:19

Authored Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

A few years ago, very few people understood the concept behind color revolutions.

Had Russia and China’s leadership not decided to unite in solidarity in 2012 when they began vetoing the overthrow of Bashar al Assad in Syria- followed by their alliance around the Belt and Road Initiative, then it is doubtful that the color revolution concept would be as well-known as it has become today.

At that time, Russia and China realized that they had no choice but to go on the counter offensive, since the regime change operations and colour revolutions orchestrated by such organizations as the CIA-affiliated National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Soros Open Society Foundations were ultimately designed to target them as those rose, orange, green or yellow revolution efforts in Georgia, Ukraine, Iran or Hong Kong were always recognized as weak points on the periphery of the threatened formation of a great power alliance of sovereign Eurasian nations that would have the collective power to challenge the power of the Anglo-American elite based in London and Wall Street.

Russia’s 2015 expulsion of 12 major conduits of color revolution included Soros’ Open Society Foundation as well as the NED was a powerful calling out of the enemy with the Foreign Ministry calling them “a threat to the foundations of Russia’s Constitutional order and national security”. This resulted in such fanatical calls by George Soros for a $50 billion fund to counteract Russia’s interference in defense of Ukraine’s democracy. Apparently the $5 billion spent by the NED in Ukraine was not nearly enough (1).

In spite of the light falling upon these cockroaches, NED and Open Society operations continued in full force focusing on the weakest links the Grand Chessboard unleashing what has become known as a “strategy of tension”. Venezuela, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjian (dubbed East Turkistan by NED) have all been targeted in recent years with millions of NED dollars pouring into separatist groups, labour unions, student movements and fake news “opinion shapers” under the guise of “democracy building”. $1.7 million in grants was spent by NED in Hong Kong since 2017 which was a significant increase from their $400 000 spent to coordinate the failed “Occupy HK” protest in 2014.

The Case of China

In response to over two months of controlled chaos, the Chinese government has kept a remarkably restrained posture, allowing the Hong Kong authorities to manage the situation with their police deprived of use of lethal weapons and even giving into the protestors’ demand that the changes to the extradition treaty that nominally sparked this mess be annulled. In spite of this patient tone, the rioters who have run havoc on airports and public buildings have created lists of demands that are all but impossible for mainland China to meet including 1) an “independent committee to investigate the abuses of Chinese authorities”, 2) for china to stop referring to rioters as “rioters”, 3) for all charges against rioters to be dropped, and 4) universal suffrage- including candidates promoting independence or rejoining the British Empire.

As violence continues to grow, and as it has become an increasing reality that some form of intervention from the mainland may occur to restore order, the British Foreign Office has taken an aggressive tone threatening China with “severe consequences” unless “a fully independent investigation” into police Brutality were permitted. The former Colonial Governor of China Christopher Patten attacked China by saying “Since president Xi has been in office, there’s been a crackdown on dissent and dissidents everywhere, the party has been in control of everything”.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded saying “the UK has no sovereign jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong… it is simply wrong for the British Government to exert pressure. The Chinese side seriously urges the UK to stop its interference in China’s internal affairs and stop making random and inflammatory accusations on Hong Kong.”

The British have not been able to conduct their manipulation of Hong Kong without the vital role of America’s NGO dirty ops, and in true imperial fashion, the political class from both sides of the aisle have attacked China with Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi making the loudest noise driving the American House Foreign Affairs Committee to threaten “universal condemnation and swift consequences” if Beijing intervenes. This has only made the photographs of Julie Eadeh, the head of Political Office at the American Consulate in Hong Kong meeting with leaders of the Hong Kong demonstrations that much more disgusting to any onlooker.

While both Britain and America have been caught red handed organizing this colour revolution, it is important to keep in mind who is controlling who.

The Foreign Origins of the NED

Contrary to popular opinion, the British Empire did not go away after WWII, nor did it hand over the “keys to the kingdom” to America. It didn’t even become America’s Junior Partner in a new Anglo-American special relationship. Contrary to popular belief, it stayed in the drivers’ seat.

The post WWII order was largely shaped by a British coup which didn’t take over America without a fight. Nests of Oxford-trained Rhodes Scholars, Fabians and other ideologues embedded within the American establishment had a lot of work ahead of them as they struggled to purge all nationalist impulses from the American intelligence community. While the most aggressive purging of patriotic Americans from the intelligence community occurred during the dissolution of the OSS and creation of CIA in 1947 and the Communist witch hunt that followed, there were other purges that were less well known.

As an organization which was beginning to take form which was to become known as the Trilateral Commission organized by Britain’s “hand in America” called the Council on Foreign Relations and international Bilderberg Group, another purge occurred in 1970 under the direction of James Schlesinger during his six month stint as CIA director. At that time 1000 top CIA officials deemed “unfit” were fired. This was followed nine years later as another 800 were fired under a list drafted by CIA “spymaster” Ted Shackley. Both Schlesinger and Shackley were high level Trilateral Commission members who took part in the group’s 1973 formation and fully took power of America during Jimmy Carter’s 1977-1981 presidency which unleashed a dystopian reorganization of American foreign and internal policy outlined in my previous report.

Project Democracy Takes Over

By the 1970s, the CIA’s dirty hand funding anarchist operations both within America and abroad had become too well known as media coverage of their dirty operations at home and abroad spoiled the patriotic image which the intelligence community then desired. While the internal resistance to fascist behaviour from within the intelligence Community itself was dealt with through purges, the reality was that a new agency had to be created to take over those functions of covert destabilization of foreign governments.

What became Project Democracy herein originated with a Trilateral Commission meeting in May 31, 1975 in Kyoto Japan as a protégé of Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski named Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington delivered the results of his Task Force on the Governability of DemocraciesThis project was supervised by Schlesinger and Brzezinski and presented the notion that democracies could not function adequately in the crisis conditions which the Trilateral Commission was preparing to impose onto America and the world through a process dubbed “the Controlled Disintegration of Society”.

The Huntington report featured at the Trilateral meeting stated: “One might consider… means of securing support and resources from foundations, business corporations, labor unions, political parties, civic associations, and, where possible and appropriate, governmental agencies for the creation of an institute for the strengthening of democratic institutions.”

It took 4 years for this blueprint to become reality. In 1979 three Trilateral Commission members named William Brock (RNC Chairman), Charles Manatt (DNC Chairman) and George Agree (head of Freedom House) established an organization called the American Political Foundation (APF) which attempted to fulfil the objective laid out by Huntington in 1975.

The APF was used to set up a program using federal funds called the Democracy Program which issued an interim report “The Commitment to Democracy” which said: “No theme requires more sustained attention in our time than the necessity for strengthening the future chances of democratic societies in a world that remains predominantly unfree or partially fettered by repressive governments. … There has never been a comprehensive structure for a non-governmental effort through which the resources of America’s pluralistic constituencies . .. could be mobilized effectively.”

In May 1981, Henry Kissinger who had replaced Brzezinski as head of the Trilateral Commission and had many operatives planted around President Reagan, gave a speech at Britain’s Chatham House (the controlling handbehind the Council on Foreign Relations) where he described his work as Secretary of State saying that the British “became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”. In his speech, Kissinger outlined the battle between Churchill vs FDR during WWII and made the point that he favored the Churchill worldview for the post war world (And ironically also that of Prince Metternich who ran the Congress of Vienna that snuffed out democratic movements across Europe in 1815).

In June 1982, Reagan’s Westminster Palace speech officially inaugurated the NED and by November 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy Act was passed bringing this new covert organization into reality with $31 million of funding under four subsidiary organizations (AFL-CIO Free Trade Union Institute, The US Chamber of Commerce’s Center for International Private Enterprise, the International Republican Institute and the International Democratic Institute) (2).

Throughout the 1980s, this organization went to work managing Iran-Contra, destabilizing Soviet states and unleashing the first “official” modern color revolution in the form of the Yellow revolution that ousted Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. Speaking more candidly than usual, NED President David Ignatius said in 1991 “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the NED was instrumental in bringing former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO/WTO system and the New World Order was announced by Bush Sr. and Kissinger- both of whom were rewarded with knighthoods for their service to the Crown in 1992 and 1995 respectively.

Of course, the vast web of NGOs permeating the geopolitical terrain can only be effective as long as no one says the truth and “names the game”. The very act of calling out their nefarious motives renders them impotent and this simple fact has made the recently announced China-Russia arrangement to formulate a proper strategic response to color revolutions so important in the current fight.


(1) Undoubtedly President Trump’s gutting of NED funding by two thirds in 2018 only re-enforced Soros’ accusations that Putin is the guiding hand in America while pouring millions into anti-Trump regime change operations in America. While neocons such as Bolton, Pompeo and Senate leader Mitch Mcconnell have taken a hardline stance against China in support of the color revolution, it should be noted that Trump has continuously taken an opposite line Tweeting on August 14 that “China is not our problem” and that “the problem is with the FED”.

(2) At the beginning of 1984, a similar re-organization had occurred in Canada under the guidance of Privy Council Clerk/Trilateral Commission member Michael Pitfield who created CSIS when the RCMP’s “dirty operations” during the FLQ crisis were made known in a series of newspaper reports.

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and the Rising Tide Foundation. He has published the report “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com.

The post The Anglo-American Origins of Color Revolutions & NED appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America

Sun, 2019-08-18 21:19

Authored Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Until recently I had believed like many that Jimmy Carter is not your typical politician. Standing out from the vast array of sellouts and establishment hacks, the ex-President has often appeared as the lone voice of reason in America’s establishment calling out the injustices of American military, the wrongs of the Zionist lobby and the self-destructive nature of the American oligarchy. Surely a man who speaks so candidly cannot be bad.

While I believe Carter probably has good intentions, I also believe that the man is likely just as clueless today as he was when he was used as a puppet by those forces now identified as the international Deep State which took over American foreign and internal policy during his 1977-1981 presidency.

Under Carter’s reign, an organization which grew out of the combined influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group took over America under the name of the Trilateral Commission which overturned the last remnants of anti-imperial impulses left over from the vision provided by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, converting America into the self-destructive basket case we have come to know it as today.

Since those Trilateral reforms were so all-encompassing and touch on issues of economic policy, the creation of foreign debt slavery, terrorist financing and green energy, it is worth conducting a brief assessment of how this happened while also looking at some of the key players that made it happen.

The Trilateral Commission takes over

While James Carter became America’s 39th president in 1977, the Trilateral Commission was actually created in 1973 under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic. The idea of consolidating three global zones of power (North America, Western Europe and Japan) during the height of the Cold War under a unified command structure was the motive behind the creation of this think tank at that time.

A leading figure in the Trilateral Commission who later became Carter’s National Security Advisor was named Zbigniew Brzezinski who referred to this agenda as the “Technetronic era” which he described in 1970 as an age involving “the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.”Who would these specialists represent? In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Senator Barry Goldwater called out this foreign beast transforming America in his 1979 autobiography With No Apologies by saying “The Trilateralist Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”

Another American political figure then combating this foreign virus was Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who prophetically wrote The Trilateral Commission’s Rapid End to Democracy on August 4, 1981 stating: “The plan is to combine the collapse of the financial system of the United States and most of Western Europe with other countries to create a ‘global crisis management’ scenario on the largest and most catastrophic scales… the financial crisis is to be used to subject the United States, among other nations so treated to a dictatorship by decree of the IMF.”

Under Brzezinski’s leadership one third of the Trilateral Commission’s members were appointed to top cabinet posts under Carter. Notable members here worth mentioning include Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar), Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman). Just to get across the British pedigree of this group, Brzezinski and Blumenthal were not only Bilderberg members, but 2 of the 9 directors of the Council on Foreign Relations Project for the 1980s. The CFR is the Cecil Rhodes/Roundtable Group that set up in America in 1921 to advance Rhodes’ mandate to recapture America as the lost colony and re-establish a new British Empire.

The Crisis of Democracy                      

In 1975, Brzezinski’s assistant Samuel P. Huntington authored a book called Crisis of Democracy as part of the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project that published 33 books by 10 Task Forces in order to usher in the Technetronic era. Huntington said “we have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lacks authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices which will be necessary.”

Huntington and Brzezinski conducted a foreign affairs reform that began funding radical Islamic schools and political movements beginning with the USAID-led overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The US funding of Al Qaeda and the Mujahedeen was nominally done for the pragmatic reason of countering the Soviets in Afghanistan, however the real reason was to justify a “Clash of Civilizations” thesis that Huntington later published under the presumption that the major religions could have no peace unless a global Leviathan were created to impose order from above. This was a clear cut case of the Pygmalion effect to the extreme.

It is here noteworthy that the Shah, along with many leaders of the Non-Aligned movement were then engaged in a major struggle to break free of the neo-colonial debt-slavery structure under Anglo-American control by using their inalienable sovereign powers to cancel the unpayable debts while unleashing investments into scientific and technological progress using the post WWII “Japan-model”. Japan’s inspiring post-WWII leap from feudalism to an advanced scientific-industrial economy made its membership in the Trilateral Commission that much more important in the minds of the new Olympian gods who feared other developing nations would follow suite.

The Controlled Disintegration of the West

Two months after being appointed Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker gave a lecture in Warwick University London proclaiming “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s”.

Volcker managed this controlled disintegration by raising interest rates to 20-21.5% beginning in 1979- leaving them there until 1982 while also raising reserve requirements for Commercial banks. The effect forever crippled America’s economy with agricultural production collapsing vastly, metal-cutting machine tools collapsed by 45.5%, automobile production collapsed by 44.3% and steel production collapsed by 49.4%. During this traumatic period, small and medium enterprises were intentionally bankrupted across all sectors of the North American and European economies leaving only multinational corporations in a position to afford such interest rates. Volcker’s program paved the way for the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Act that opened up real estate speculation and the 1982 Garn- St. Germaine Act which de-regulated U.S. Banks and advanced the creation of universal/too-big-to-fail banking.

In that same period, third world debtors having to pay 20% interest saw their debts skyrocket by 40-70%. Leaders who resisted this program such as Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, India’s Indira Gandhi, Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara, and Mexico’s Lopez Portillo et al. were systematically killed or overthrown.

When it became evident that an incoming President Ronald Reagan was not favorable to the Trilateral Commission/CFR agenda- pushing for bilateral meetings with Gandhi and Mexico’s Portillo in 1981 in order to assist their industrial growth policies and threatening to fire Volcker, his elimination was quickly orchestrated. After CFR/Trilateral Commission member George Bush was placed as Reagan’s VP (ousting Reagan’s friend Sen. Paul Laxalt during a Rockefeller-run media scandal), John Hinckley- an MK Ultra psych job deeply tied into the Bush family, was deployed to carry out an assassination shooting Reagan in the chest on March 30, 1981.

Reagan never recovered from this attempt and the well-intentioned but highly malleable Hollywood star became increasingly moulded by CFR-Trilateral Commission agents in spite of his tendency to allow himself to be influenced by pro-nation state figures exemplified by his endorsement of the Joint US-Soviet plan for the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 (later corrupted into a unilateral doctrine by Bush Sr.)

Green Depopulation

It should not be ignored that the transformation of the American economy from a pro-industrial growth open system model into a closed system Malthusian model was also an initiative of forces controlling the Trilateral Commission.

In 1974, David Rockefeller III keynoted the Club of Rome/UN World Population Conference in Bucharest stating “There is a need to revise the concept of economic growth. Particularly in recent years, the limits of growth have come into our consciousness. The depletion of resources, pollution, and the energy crisis have made all that very clear. The character and purpose of growth must be changed.”

The agenda for a “post-industrial society” driven by a green infrastructure revolution was laid out in the July 24, 1980 Global 2000 Report that called for energy conservation, population control and environmentalism as the foundation for the new economy. Later that year, the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Conservation Strategy is published paralleling the Global 2000thesis. The WWF was headed by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhardt during this time and its vice presidents during Carter’s administration included Louis Mortimer Bloomfield whose Permindex Bureau was caught coordinating JFK’s assassination and Trilateral Commission member Maurice Strong who called for a destruction of industrial civilization in a 1990 interview.

This was not just a history lesson

What you have just read may appear on the surface to be a history report but it is much more than that. It is a future report.

It is a future report since your future is being shaped by historical forces that you need to understand if you are going to be able to choose to influence your reality in accord with those historical trajectories that are actually in harmony with the real self-interests of mankind.

The forces of progress and anti-colonialism that the Trilateral Commission sought to snuff out 40 years ago have been revived under the renewed leadership of Russia, China and a growing array of nations who want to have a future. Increasingly, nationalist forces (as confused as they may be) have arisen as an anti-technocratic movement across North America and Europe which offers nations once believed lost to the New World Order, a chance to revive their lost renaissance heritage.

The only thing standing in the way from western nations joining the Belt and Road Initiative, re-organizing the bankrupt financial system and unleashing productive credit to revive the real economy is 1) a lack of understanding of history and 2) a confused sense of the true nature of humanity, as a species above other beasts of the ecosystem- capable of constant perfectibility and creative discovery.

Anything that denies this concept humanity and natural law such as the Green New Deal should be treated as the noxious wet dream of the Volckers, Rockefellers, Brzezinskis and other Trilateral Commission zombies who had a long way to go before qualifying themselves as human.

BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and the Rising Tide Foundation. He has published the report “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com.

The post How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Checkmate! Corbyn’s Please Make Me “Temporary PM” Scheme Fails Already

Sun, 2019-08-18 20:58

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk:

Two days ago I noted Corbyn Seeks to Stop Brexit Via “Make Me Temporary PM” Pretty Please Offer.

My ending comment was “There is little chance Corbyn’s ‘Make Me PM Pretty Please’ motion does anything but fall flat on its face. But if by some miracle it passed, I expect Johnson would refuse to resign until October 31. Happy Halloween.”

Well, that did not take long.

The Guardian reports No-deal Brexit edges closer as key Tories refuse to back Corbyn

Corbyn’s hopes of forming a unity government were fading on Friday as a number of prominent Conservatives working to stop no-deal Brexit ruled out any mechanism to put the Labour leader in No 10.

Dominic Grieve, who has previously suggested he could vote against the government in a confidence vote, said he would not go as far as facilitating a Corbyn government. “Jeremy Corbyn is unfortunately a deeply divisive figure and in trying to stop a no-deal Brexit it is not my purpose to help him into Downing Street,” he said.

Swinson dismissed Corbyn’s offer on Wednesday but has since said she is open to discussions, while warning that Labour would be unable to get enough Conservative votes – or votes from former Labour MPs sitting as independents – to make the plan viable even with Lib Dem support.

Conservative MPs came under heavy pressure on Friday to distance themselves from Corbyn’s proposal. The former justice secretary David Gauke tweeted: “If anyone thinks the answer is Jeremy Corbyn, I think they’re probably asking the wrong question.”

Other independent MPs also came out swinging against the Labour leader. Anna Soubry, the former Tory MP who now leads the Independent Group for Change, said her five MPs “will not support nor facilitate any government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

He cannot command unity of support amongst his own MPs but now Jeremy Corbyn calls on the rest of us to back him as ‘unity’ prime minister,” she said. “And we won’t even get a people’s vote but instead a general election which as we know will solve nothing.”

Extremely Difficult Math
  1. The default legal position is No Deal Brexit happens unless something stops it.
  2. There is insufficient support for anything that can stop it. There is no majority for Remain or for anything else.
  3. Any Tory who supported any opposition leader would quickly find themselves out of a job. They would be ousted from the party then lose their seat in the next election. There could be a couple MPs willing to fall on their sword, but that seems insufficient.
  4. Although the Tories have a majority of precisely one, it would take a couple of Tories and the entire opposition to unite behind a caretaker government.
  5. The independent MPs alone are sufficient to stop such an alliance. Add in a few Liberal Democrats and one or two Labour Party MPs even assuming those parties would back a caretaker government and it’s easy to see where this is headed: nowhere.
Theoretically Possible, Politically Impossible

It is not impossible for an alliance to form, but clearly it cannot involve Corbyn.

Would Corbyn stand down? Nope.

Irreconcilable Differences

Corbyn wants a customs union while the Liberal Democrats want to remain.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson wants to become PM and if not that, then the leader of the opposition. Why would she do anything to strengthen Corbyn?

That’s at the heart of the matter. Even if those difference were magically resolved, the math still does not quite make it.

This is why the Tories quickly (in one day flat) had second thoughts and backed away from Corbyn’s Pretty Please Offer.

Happy Halloween
  • Although there is a sufficient number of MPs who want to stop No Deal, there is no way for them to unite in a meaningful way.
  • And even if the opposition did magically unite, it is highly likely Boris Johnson would refuse to stand down allowing the caretaker government to take over.
  • Instead, Johnson would call for election on October 31 while running on a Brexit platform.

In that scenario, I believe Johnson would win in a landslide given the splintered opposition, each wanting a different thing.

Corbyn probably understands the math even as he hopes for something else. Thus, he may not call for a motion of no confidence unless his plan gets backing (which as described above won’t happen).


The post Checkmate! Corbyn’s Please Make Me “Temporary PM” Scheme Fails Already appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

America’s Benevolent Bombing of Serbia

Sun, 2019-08-18 20:47

Authored by James Bovard via the Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity:

Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance. Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign “was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called ‘dual-use’ targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorise the country into surrender.”

Clinton’s unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for “humanitarian” warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma’s bombing of Libya, and Donald Trump’s bombing of Syria.

Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard. A commentator in the United Kingdom’s Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton “with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999.” It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the US bombing campaign.

Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, “I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,

It’s scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend “our way of life.” The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose such policing. War is more social engineering, “fixitry” via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile…. As a tough therapeutic cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.

I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:

April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton’s Serbian policy based on the pictures of the bomb damage — rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing. The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities…. What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.

April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds — or for America’s saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to “uphold American values.” Make me barf! Just another … Hitler-of-the-month attack.

May 13: This damn Serbian war … is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world … and to problems within this nation.


The Kosovo Liberation Army’s savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them “freedom fighters” in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned “terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army.” The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen eager to portray US bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA “stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.”

In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that “some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton’s ‘finest hour.’” Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain’s Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.

In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children “love the United States … because we gave them their freedom back.” Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,

As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.

American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that “the [NATO] bombing hasn’t solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed. Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now.”

US complicity in atrocities

Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians. However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that he was “very, very proud” of what the United States had done in Kosovo.

I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled “Moralizing with Cluster Bombs” in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin’s Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the Denver Rocky Mountain News, “Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress.”

As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002 USA Today article (“Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield“) bashing the Bush administration’s push for war against Iraq, I pointed out, “A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill…. Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag, ethnic cleansing continued — with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians.”

In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, “After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO’s ‘peace’ produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees.”

In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in “unlawful killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites.”

The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: “Past investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses’ fears of testifying in a small country where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in the government.” American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as “the George Washington of Kosovo.” A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.

Clinton’s war on Serbia opened a Pandora’s box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray US bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.

The post America’s Benevolent Bombing of Serbia appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

EU in fear, as Matteo Salvini well positioned to lead next Italian government (Video)

Sat, 2019-08-17 20:48

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Matteo Salvini’s rise to be the front runner of possible elections that may take place in Italy. Brussels remains fearful and in shock as Salvini, an outspoken eurosceptic, is well positioned to win the next election due to ‘underestimated’ law.

If general elections are delayed, then EU globalists have been warned that Salvini could secure an even bigger win than expected, should elections be held now.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Express UK…

Chief economist and founder of ADA Economics Raffaella Tenconi told Bloomberg  “will win” the next general election in  and warned the Deputy Prime Minister would gather “even more” support if thanks to a bill approved by both parties in Government delayed an early election until next year. Ms Tenconi explained: “Although the Democratic Party and the Five Star Movement (M5S) technically have sufficient MPs to take over, neither of them actually really knows what to do to revive growth.

“So taking over now is a short-term gain for parliamentarians but it’s a very, very high chance of complete devastation in terms of popularity in the media now.

“So Salvini is going to win, it’s only a matter of when.

“He can win now, relatively soon with an early election, or he can win even more in a year from now.

“One thing that I think people completely underestimate is the fact that there is a constitutional reform that the Northern League has accepted together with the Five Star Movement.

“This is one of the things that the Five Star Movement is trying to push for approval.

“This constitutional amendment actually could very easily eventually give a stronger mandate to Salvini.

“So it’s not even obvious why M5S is insisting on getting this bill approved and avoid an election.

“Because, quite frankly, they have nothing to gain from it.”

The Lega leader said last week his coalition with the anti-establishment Five Star Movement had broken down and demanded early elections.

But M5S leader Luigi Di Maio said Mr Salvini “betrayed Italians” by pulling the plug on the government.

Mr Di Maio said in a Facebook post: “We are ready to head back to the polls, the League mocked Italians”.

Mr Salvini tabled a motion for a no confidence vote against Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte last week to be debated in the Senate.

A Senate panel failed to reach an agreement over a timetable for the debate.

Politicians from all the parties in parliament left the meeting still arguing over when the League’s no-confidence motion should be heard.

They said Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would address the Senate around August 20.

But this was opposed by the ruling right-wing Lega, along with Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia and far-right party Brothers of Italy.

Now Senate Speaker Maria Elisabetta Alberti Casellati said a vote in the Senate will have to take place on Tuesday to confirm the date.

An Italian election could trigger disaster for the European Union after a shock Ipsos survey revealed if a new vote was held, right-wing parties – Lega, the far-right of Brothers of Italy and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia would take 50.6 percent of the vote.

The post EU in fear, as Matteo Salvini well positioned to lead next Italian government (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

It’s Official: Epstein Committed Suicide By Hanging, Medical Examiner Rules

Sat, 2019-08-17 17:35

Via Zerohedge…

A New York medical examiner announced on Friday that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide by hanging himself in his jail cell, according to CNBC.

The 66-year-old millionaire pedophile was found in his cell on Saturday morning at the Manhattan Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), after which he was rushed to a nearby hospital and pronounced dead.

Epstein was remanded to jail pending trial on charges of sex trafficking of minors and sex trafficking conspiracy, which were lodged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan last month. He was accused of abusing dozens of underage girls in his mansions in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, between 2002 and 2005. –CNBC

The ruling comes after the Washington Post revealed that Epstein’s autopsy found multiple breaks in his neck bones commonly found in victims of homicide by strangulation, the hyoid bone near the Adam’s apple.

Epstein’s blood vessels in his eyes popped when his air supply was cut off by the bed sheet that was wrapped around his neck … this according to law enforcement sources briefed on the case. We’re told he suffered petechial hemorrhaging, caused when someone hangs himself or is strangled or smothered, but authorities are confident this was a hanging. We’re told the bed sheets were tied to the top of a bunk bed and Epstein either hurled himself off the top bunk or had his feet to the ground and leaned forward to cut off his air supply. Authorities believe the former is true, because throwing himself off the top bunk and falling violently to the ground could explain why his hyoid bone was fractured. –TMZ

That still doesn’t explain the shrieking heard from Epstein’s jail cell according to reports.

The post It’s Official: Epstein Committed Suicide By Hanging, Medical Examiner Rules appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism

Sat, 2019-08-17 17:33

Via The Washington Examiner, authored by Byron York…

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president’s alleged racism.

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday.

In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”

But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election. “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

Baquet used the gentlest terms possible — “the story changed” — but the fact is, the conspiracy-coordination allegation the Times had devoted itself to pursuing turned out to be false. Beyond that, Democrats on Capitol Hill struggled to press an obstruction case against the president. The Trump-Russia hole came up dry.

Now, Baquet continued, “I think that we’ve got to change.” The Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”

“I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?” Baquet said. “How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”

The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”

“I think one of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this … is because they care so much,” one staffer said to Baquet. “And they depend on the New York Times. They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors and getting through, because they need that right now. It’s a very scary time.”

Baquet vowed a transition to a new “vision” for the paper for the next two years. “How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about?” he said to the staffer. “How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”

The headline controversy, it appears, was a preview of a new 2019-2020 New York Times. If Baquet follows through, the paper will spend the next two years, which just happens to be the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. (Baquet added, almost as an afterthought, that the Times will “continu[e] to cover his policies.”)

The employee town hall was not intended to be public. But the Times is a news organization, and no one could be surprised that a recording of it leaked, possibly by Times employees who want to push Baquet in an even more anti-Trump direction. In any event, it’s now public. And the results will play out for the next two years.

The post New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

‘Remainer’ Coup in UK Hits a Snag as Corbyn Refuses to Step Aside (Video)

Fri, 2019-08-16 19:54

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the anti-Brexit plot to collapse the Boris Johnson government that is underway in the UK.  Remainer Conservative MPs have agreed to meet with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to discuss ending UK PM Boris Johnson’s pursuit of a no-deal Brexit.

Dominic Grieve, Caroline Spelman and Oliver Letwin, have said they are willing to meet with Corbyn before the British parliament returns from summer recess. The only problem in this plot is that the ‘remainer’ MPs want Corbyn’s support, without backing him to take over as “caretaker” Prime Minister, after they remove Johnson.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via MishTalk by Mike “Mish” Shedlock…

Desperation Sets In

Should this motion actually succeed (it almost certainly won’t), Boris Johnson’s likely response would be to refuse to stand down until October 31.

For starters the public is tired of this nonsense. More importantly, the Liberal Democrats refuse to go along.

Rebel Tories Agree to Meet Corbyn to Stop No-deal Brexit

The Guardian reports Rebel Tories Agree to Meet Corbyn to Stop No-deal Brexit.

The Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Caroline Spelman and Oliver Letwin, plus the former Conservative Nick Boles, said they would be willing to enter talks with the Labour leader in the weeks before parliament returns from recess.

“We agree that our common priority should be to work together in parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit and welcome your invitation to discuss the different ways this might be achieved,” they wrote.

Their tone was very different from that of Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, who dismissed the idea of Corbyn leading a caretaker government as nonsense and said the Labour leader would not be able to build even a temporary consensus.

“This letter is just more red lines that are about him and his position and is not a serious attempt to find the right solution and build a consensus to stop a no-deal Brexit,” she said. “I am committed to working in a credible way with those in other parties, and none, across parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit and will set out how that could work in my speech tomorrow.”

Anna Soubry, the leader of the Independent Group for Change (formerly Change UK), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday: “I would not support a government of national unity that is led by Jeremy Corbyn for all manner of reasons.

“One, because I don’t think it’s genuine, secondly because it is not going to deliver a people’s vote, which is the only way through the chaos; and, of course, he doesn’t command support or respect in his own political party, never mind across the parliamentary divide.”


If Corbyn would resign as Labour party head, there might be room for some sort of deal. But any Tories who voted for such a move would lose their seats in the next election.

And even if that happened, Johnson might refuse to stand down. The law is not clear on whether he would have to.

Refuse to Resign

Can Johnson Refuse to Resign? I believe so and so does Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s top deputy and strategist.

Mr. Cummings has let it be known, even if a rival were to attract enough support to form a government, the prime minister could legally call for a general election and refuse to vacate Downing Street. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011, which guides the procedures for a no-confidence vote, does not specifically require prime ministers to step aside at that point, even if custom and respect for democratic norms would seem to dictate that they should.

At this point, constitutional experts say, the queen could conceivably step in and dismiss Mr. Johnson, using her “reserve prerogative power.”

Thus, parliament would first have to modify the Fixed-Term Act of 2011 which is rather hard to do if Johnson does not propose any legislation for Parliament to amend. And here’s a hint: He won’t.

Would the Queen get involved? That’s highly unlikely, bordering on zero percent.

Even then, please note that Corbyn’s proposal is to ask for another extension for the purpose of holding another referendum or renegotiating after another election.

Who would win?

UK General Election Polls

In all likelihood, Johnson would be reelected if there was another vote. The reason should be easy to spot.

The Tories and the Brexit Party are highly likely to unite while Labour and the Liberal Democrats are highly unlikely to.

Swinson sees herself as leader of the opposition. She does not want to do anything to prop up Labour or increase the chances Corbyn would be elected.

Already Corbyn is blaming Swinson. She can just as easily say, make her the temp PM. Would Corbyn go along?

Is Corbyn’s plan to stop Brexit really that? If so, any caretaker would do. There are no guidelines that suggest it has to be the leader of the opposition.

Corbyn appointed himself the caretaker.

Would the Tories, who would immediately be outed from the party really go along?

And what about Labour MPs who really do want Brexit.

Add this all up, and there is little chance Corbyn’s “Make Me PM Pretty Please” motion does anything but fall flat on its face. But if by some miracle it passed, I expect Johnson would refuse to resign until October 31.

Happy Halloween.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock

The post ‘Remainer’ Coup in UK Hits a Snag as Corbyn Refuses to Step Aside (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

‘Xenophobic’ Latin America?

Fri, 2019-08-16 14:40

Authored by Serban V.C. Enache via Hereticus Economicus:

In this article, Megan Janetsky claims that “Venezuelans have faced increased xenophobic attacks and attitudes,” but doesn’t invoke a single example of such an attack. The fact that countries in Latin America have begun to take measures to stem immigration is not a sign of xenophobia, it’s the inevitable consequence of the reality on the ground. It’s simply impractical for these countries to accommodate higher and higher inflows of people from Venezuela. There’s only so much space, facilities, job offers, and money [foreign funds on which these countries are largely dependent] to go around. Instead of playing the xenophobia card, lecturing countries and governments about how bad they are for not being xenophiles, the author should lay the blame on Washington’s foreign policy, not just on Maduro’s Government. By the way, Megan Janetsky doesn’t mention the trade sanctions, doesn’t mention the West’s hostile policy toward the country at all. This fact alone betrays the article as being nothing more than propaganda, a liberal’s virtue signalling, false humanitarianism, and promotion of the ‘no-borders’ and ‘limitless immigration’ mentality.

Crippling Western sanctions and theft of Venezuelan assets held abroad, on top of efforts to foment civil unrest and treason within the country’s law enforcement and military, are the major factors – but Maduro’s Government certainly has its share of the blame, and it goes back to Chavez’s administration as well.

And, yes, it’s also a failure of Venezuelan type of socialism. Take Cuba, for instance. Cuba has lived under US trade sanctions for more than half a century [plus US-sponsored terrorism]; and despite the odds, living on the hegemon’s doorstep, it managed to retain socio-economic and political stability. Cuba doesn’t have a fraction of Venezuela’s natural wealth; but it does have 1/3 of Venezuela’s population. Since the 1960s, Venezuela’s birth rate, measured per 1000 people, has fallen dramatically as you can see in the graph below.

In order to move away from the ‘resource exporter’ model, a country requires an increase in population size in order to diversify production, without depriving its traditional sectors of manpower. Simply put, if you want to diversify without causing shortages elsewhere, you need a bigger labor force. Chavez and Maduro didn’t even try to diversify, nor would they have succeeded without promoting population growth. The fact that a country the size of Venezuela has only three times the population of Cuba is a statistic worthy of national shame. The same goes for my country of Romania, which has only two times Cuba’s population. The fact that there are stores, filled with produce while people face severe malnutrition, that gasoline basically has no price in Venezuela, but electricity is rationed and public transportation is curtailed or paralyzed, points to the fact that Bolivarianism, or more accurately Chavism, was carried out with a total disregard for true economic and geopolitical planning. While hostile state actors and domestic renegade forces do offer the ruling political class in Venezuela a degree of extenuating circumstances, such adversity doesn’t wash away the complacency and criminal incompetence of the country’s Left wing governing parties and leaders. All decision factors across the hierarchical chain, who place ideology or their own status above the Nation must be ejected and their designs carefully examined and purged of any ideological adventurism and self-seeking schemes. Maduro and his crew aren’t fit for office, and Guaido should be arrested and condemned for high treason.

The post ‘Xenophobic’ Latin America? appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

73rd Independence Day-repealing of Article 370

Fri, 2019-08-16 14:40

Submitted by Mousumi Roy…

Wish all Indians and Pakistanis a very Happy Independence Day. In 1608, the British came to the subcontinent under the pretext of trade and established their rule. Our ancestors faced much hardship and created a separate country for us. Now in 73rd Indian independence Anniversary we are still facing poverty. It is the great poet’s stirring words “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,” remind us what a hugely inspiring and prophetic figure Tagore continues to be, when his deeply sublime words appear so relevant, how freedom has always been non-negotiable.

India is merely an experiment and the only one of its kind on earth where multiple native populations came to accept a common identity, some wholeheartedly, some with deliberations, some not accepting it at all, and some even going against it too. India surprisingly seems to continue to have a place for all of them, 72 years and counting.

To the countless innocent humans who lost their lives, who turned homeless, who turned poor overnight losing their all, who lost their families to decisions that they didn’t take for themselves, may today’s Kashmir find solace and heal soon. I’m very hopeful that Kashmir will have a bright future, will turn into a safe, peaceful and thriving region in the days to come if the dialogue begins and a firmer decision arrived at.

Please remember to stay informed about all sides of the story, yours, others’ and the actual truth, and not get carried away with lopsided discourses and propaganda. It’s only those who haven’t learnt from history that will continue to repeat their own mistakes. We have had our learnings and may we not repeat them and make the mistakes more costlier than ever in the days to come.

There may be a thousand arguments placed in the way in which the Kashmir issue is viewed and debated about. The only thing I always wanted is all long standing status quo be broken in any issue, which is how one gets to see what’s on the other side of the hard wall. There seems to be not many taboos in 21st century compared to the 20th and we are now at the very beginning of an era where artificial intelligence is already setting up shops to rule human race.

As always Nehru and Patel are impressive. Nehru and Patel, their differences not withstanding, walked more in lock step on Kashmir than is commonly understood. Nehru tries to keep Patel informed and seeks consent. Sheikh Abdullah, treated with due deference by Nehru, Patel and Gopalaswami Ayyangar tries to play all three. Then got arrested.

Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan if not for the perseverance of Nehru and his passion for his homeland. What began as a mere move resulted in gory and corrupt run which has lasted until 370 & 35A abrogation. A 1963 speech by Nehru refers to the ‘Erosion’ of Art 370. He was ok with it. As for the much discussed ‘no one not a Kashmiri can buy a land in Kashmir’ Nehru is supportive of it more to preserve the pristine beauty of the state from rapacious greed taking over. It’s no different from what any country has done to precious natural beauty. Of course that alone was not the motive…

The challenges with Article 370 and the attaching and grossly restrictive 35A which doesn’t just make Kashmir unique in the sub-continent, but also a magnet for trouble from outside and within. Everyone who opposed the move of the central govt to abrogate article 370 have had one point in common. The way in which the whole plan was executed in a matter of 48 hours disturbs them. I wholeheartedly accept that and respect their thoughts.

A human conflict would requires machines to solve them in future and we better try to have the least number of conflicts because we don’t know how AI would solve certain things when we know ourselves that we are bad coders and developers and leaving so many issues open-ended would be a recipe for disaster.

I say this not from just any ideological, political, religious or economic standpoint, but from a larger picture that I get to see from where we started in 1947 to where we have come today in 2019, taking into consideration the urging compulsions the other world nations today have, and the eagerness to involve themselves in the conflict in the name of solving it.

There are news that are hidden from plain sight and enormous light thrown on issues that don’t really matter to a commoner and that’s how technology and media is used to exercise control over the uninformed. The only counter measure is to stay somewhat informed, if not thoroughly, and not let any religious or ideological hysteria or brainwashing hold you hostage to its evil nature.

Kashmir valley is still in Zamindari times under the Abdullahs. To move out the Abdullah dynasty, a new generation of Muslim leadership can easily be bred and fed. I’m very sure the Abdullah dynasty is in its sunset in spite of the local support and the NC MPs getting elected. The rollback of 370 & 35A could eventually be their wrap up.

Happy Independence Day!

The post 73rd Independence Day-repealing of Article 370 appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

The Soviet Achievement

Fri, 2019-08-16 14:40

Submitted by George Callaghan…

I am a convinced anti-communist but as a fair minded person I cannot help but marvel at the achievements of the USSR. Consider the seemingly insurmountable problems confronting Russia in October 1917. The First World War was still ongoing, the country was teetering on the brink of internecine civil war, 70% of the population was illiterate, the transport network was dysfunctional, there were severe food shortages in the cities and the army was mutinous. As the Russian Civil War broke out several foreign countries intervened to assist the Whites against the Red.

The Russian Civil War was as savage as only civil wars can be. When the dust settled the Soviet Union was founded in December 1922. The Communist Party strove to bring about a total transformation of society. Almost every country was hostile. Most foreign governments refused to recognize the Soviet Government as legitimate. Despite these unpromising circumstances the USSR attained some remarkable achievements.

Many professional class people fled the country after 1917. This made the government’s ambitious goals even harder to achieve. The USSR soon began the mass production of doctors. Health improved dramatically. The USSR was the first country to have a female majority medical profession.

Within twenty years the USSR had all but abolished illiteracy. The USSR was the most feminist country on earth. Women were admitted to all educational courses and all careers. Women were allowed to join the army and serve in combat roles. The USSR had risen from a very low industrial base at the time of its foundation to have the second largest industrial output in the world by 1945.

The Soviet victory in the Second World War is surely the immortal accomplishment that we should all cherish. It was a triumph bought at a price so dear that it defies contemplation. The unimaginable suffering of the Soviet people does not garner sufficient recognition abroad.

The USSR continued to struggle against racism and religious prejudice. The Soviet people were committed to battling against reactionaries and obscurantists.

The cultural accomplishments of the USSR are not sufficiently appreciated in the West. Architecture, music, ballet, literature and film all thrived. Not many people will know that there was even a Soviet fashion industry.

Stalinist neo-classical architecture is handsome and practical. You may know of Shostakovich and Kharchatian. Muslim Magomed and Uzeir Hajibeyov are two Azerbaijani composers from this era.

The USSR was known for promoting sport and entertainment. The Soviet medal haul was deeply impressive.

Mosfilm cinema produced scores of enthralling and heartwarming films. One of these won the Oscar for best foreign language film in 1979.

There were some very negative aspects to the USSR. Stalin’s cruel repressions caused immeasurable suffering. The state planned economy was inefficient. Excessive ideological rigidity meant that Stalin would not acknowledge that his wrongheaded policies were causing famine.

It is the people of the USSR that I admire and not the government. That point cannot be emphasized enough. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) made many grave errors. It is hard to remember how it all began. It grew out of the trades union movement. Its objectives were ending privation and bringing about an equitable settlement.

The USSR was dissolved in 1991. By that time almost everyone could speak at least basic Russian. Gender equality was stronger in the USSR.



The post The Soviet Achievement appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Ghislaine Maxwell resurfaces at L.A. In-N-Out Burger

Fri, 2019-08-16 13:22

The British socialite accused of being Jeffrey Epstein’s handler and madam has resurfaced in the most unlikely of places.

Ghislaine Maxwell was spotted with her dog eating a burger and fries at an In-N-Out in Los Angeles on Monday.

Maxwell was sitting outside, enjoying her food, while reading “The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives.”

According to The New York Post, Maxwell seemed surprised someone recognized her, telling an onlooker, “Well, I guess this is the last time I’ll be eating here.”

Via The New York Post…

Jeffrey Epstein’s former gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell isn’t holed up in her British manor or summering on the Massachusetts coast.

The Post found the socialite hiding in plain sight in the least likely place imaginable — a fast-food joint in Los Angeles.

Maxwell, 57, the alleged madam to the multimillionaire pedophile, was scarfing down a burger, fries and shake al fresco at an In-N-Out Burger on Monday while reading “The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives,” a nonfiction best seller by journalist Ted Gup.

Sitting alone with a pet pooch, she was surprised to be found and told an onlooker, “Well, I guess this is the last time I’ll be eating here!”

Maxwell, accused in court papers of providing sex slaves for Epstein and engaging in threesomes with the financier and underage girls, had not been photographed in public since 2016.

The daughter of the late, disgraced publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell has not been charged with any crimes but could find herself in the feds’ crosshairs following Epstein’s apparent jailhouse suicide Saturday.

Attorney General William Barr declared on Monday, “Any co-conspirators should not rest easy.”

One of Epstein’s accusers, Jennifer Araoz, on Wednesday sued his estate, as well as Maxwell and three unidentified women for conspiring “to make possible and otherwise facilitate the sexual abuse and rape of [Araoz].”

It’s not the first time Maxwell has been accused of luring young women and girls into the convicted pedophile’s web.

Another accuser, Virginia Giuffre — who has said she had sex with England’s Prince Andrew and noted attorney Alan Dershowitz at Epstein’s command — sued the socialite for defamation in 2015 after Maxwell publicly stated Giuffre was lying about being sexually abused by Epstein.

Giuffre claimed Maxwell recruited her when she was a 16-year-old spa attendant at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., and trained her to be Epstein’s sex slave. Maxwell has denied the allegations.

A recently unsealed trove of documents from Giuffre’s lawsuit, which was settled out of court, characterize Maxwell and Epstein as two perverts in a pod.

The pair made Giuffre watch as they engaged “in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls,” the documents allege.

The papers also include testimony about a 15-year-old girl who once said Maxwell tried to “force her to have sex with Epstein through threats” and swiped her passport to hold her hostage.

For years, Maxwell “assisted in internationally trafficking” girls for Epstein and his pedophile buddies “for sexual purposes,” according to the court papers.

The British blueblood hopped on the New York social scene in the early 1990s and was linked to Epstein by 1992, first romantically, then platonically, according to media reports.

A 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein dubbed her the financier’s “best friend.”

She was spotted on his private plane, the Lolita Express, and at his Upper East Side townhouse, hobnobbing with everyone from Prince Andrew to Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.

“Every pretty girl in New York in those days, Ghislaine would invite to Jeffrey’s,” investment banker Euan Rellie recently told The Cut. “Her job was to jazz up his social life by getting fashionable young women to show up.”

A source close to Maxwell recently told Vanity Fair that she spoke openly about procuring girls for Epstein.

“Ghislaine was in love with Jeffrey the way she was in love with her father. She always thought if she just did one more thing for him, to please him, he would marry her,” the source said. “When I asked what she thought of the underage girls, she looked at me and said, ‘they’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.’”

But Maxwell seemingly dropped from the face of the earth when sex abuse allegations began to surface against her close pal.

On Wednesday, it was reported that she had been living with tech CEO Scott Borgesonin his mansion in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mass., since 2016. A neighbor told The Post that Maxwell left the residence about one month ago.

Borgerson has flatly denied any romance with Maxwell.

“I am not dating Ghislaine. I’m home alone with my cat,” he told The Post.

Asked about the status of their friendship, he said: “I don’t want to comment on that. Would you want to talk about your friends?”

The post Ghislaine Maxwell resurfaces at L.A. In-N-Out Burger appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Angela Merkel sinks German economy, hands over control of EU to Macron (Video)

Thu, 2019-08-15 22:37

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Angela Merkel’s sinking of the German economy, as her tenure as Chancellor has isolated Germany from its traditional allies and powerful trading partners.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Germany Stalls And Europe Craters,” authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation…

The influential economic commentator on Europe, Ambrose Pritchard Evans, writes:

“German industry is in the deepest slump since the global financial crisis, and threatens to push Europe’s powerhouse economy into full-blown recession. The darkening outlook is forcing the European Central Bank to contemplate ever more perilous measures.

“The influential Ifo Institute in Munich said its business climate indicator for manufacturing went into “free fall” in July, as the delayed damage from global trade conflict takes its toll and confidence wilts. It goes far beyond the woes of the car industry. More than 80pc of Germany’s factories are in outright contraction.”

Why? What is going on here? It seems that, though other European member-states used to be Germany’s largest market, Germany’s first and third largest export destinations are now the US and China, respectively. Together, they account for more than 15% of all outbound German trade activity. More than 18% of Germany’s export goods ended up somewhere in Asia. Therefore, Germany’s industrial struggles in 2019 point the finger in the direction of its external focus, which means the US, China, and Asia – i.e. its largest marginal trade partners. And the principal assailants in today’s trade and tech wars.

Clemens Fuest, the Ifo president, says: “All the problems are coming together: It’s China, it’s increasing protectionism across the board, it’s disruption to global supply chains”.

But if Germany’s manufacturing woes were not sufficient in and of themselves, then combined with the threat of trade war with Trump, the prospect indeed is bleak for Europe: And the likelihood is that any of that ECB stimulus – promised for this autumn, as Mario Draghi warns that the European picture is getting “worse and worse” – will be very likely to meet with an angry response from Trump – castigated as blatant currency manipulation by the EU and its ECB. EU Relations with Washington seem set to sour (in more ways than one).

But there is more: Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor Merkel for her, and Brussel’s, botched handling of Brexit (for which “she, Merkel bears some responsibility”). Weidel pointed out that “the UK is the second biggest economy in Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined”. “From an economic perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9. In the face of such an enormous event, the EU reaction verges on a pathological denial of reality … [they should recall] that German prosperity and jobs are at stake here. It is clearly in Germany’s interest that trade and investment continue unhindered. But, out of blind loyalty, you [Merkel], follow France, which wants to deny Britain access to the Single Market. Yes, you [Merkel] are considering not allowing Britain access to the European Economic Area, because France does not want it. [Sarcasm] that would be too much: Too much free trade; too much fresh air in the markets … France with its failed industrial policy serves as [the new] blueprint [for the EU]”. (See video here).

Weidel’s last point is key: She is implying that Macron is positioning himself to eclipse Merkel as the EU leader on the waning of the Chancellor’s influence and credibility. Macron intends to impose instead, the “failed” French industrial model, to Germany’s disadvantage, Weidel suggests.

She is not alone in this suspicion. Trump too, dislikes any prospective Macron take-over of the EU leadership that will (almost certainly) be more hostile to any trade agreement with the US (especially on agriculture), and which would open French industry to US competition. Hence Trump’s riposte (on French wine) in retaliation to France’s new taxes on US tech firms – contributing little, or nothing, to the French Treasury. Trump is enlisting too in the battle for the future shape of Europe. It is going to be a battle royal.

A major threat to the EU now emanates from the least anticipated direction – from the US. At no point did European leaders consider their project as a challenge to US power. Rather, they saw progress in their careers as contingent on receiving the US approval. Consequently, they deliberately chose not to found the Euro in anything other than within the dollar sphere. They never considered the possibility that the United States might change attitude. And now – suddenly – the EU finds itself exposed to all manner of sanctions through the Euro’s close vulnerability to dollar hegemony; from a possible trade and tech war between Europe’s two key trading partners; and even a falling-out as a result of a changing US defence calculus. Steering a course between the US and China will challenge deeply Europe’s imbedded cultural predisposition.

Weidel also warns the German Parliament that that the biggest consequence for Germany from Brexit is not just its exports, but rather, without the UK as a EU member, Germany will lose its ability to assemble a blocking majority (35%) in Council: And, absent this ability to block, Germany may not be able “to stop the crisis-ridden, Club-Med States and France, from reaching into community funds”.

This goes to the crux of the European crisis: an accord rooted in Germany’s traumatic experience of the inter-war hyper-inflation; in the Great Depression of the 30s; and to the social erosion to which it led. To exorcise these ghosts, Germany deliberately painted the EU into an automatic system of austerity ‘discipline’– enforced through a German surveilled, Central Bank (the ECB). The whole was ‘locked-fast’ in automaticity (i.e. in Europe’s ‘automatic stabilising mechanisms’). This was conceded by other European states (the core accord), since it seemed the only way (it was said), that Germany would agree to put its revered ‘Ark’ of the then stable Deutsche Mark, into the common ‘pot’ of the ECM system.

Professor Paul Krugman explains:

“How [then] did Europe manage to follow a common monetary policy … with an European Central Bank, explicitly … set up to give each country an equal voice, and yet satisfy the German demand for assured monetary rectitude? The answer was to put the new system on autopilot, pre-programming it to do what the Germans would have done if they were still in charge.

First, the new central bank – the ECB – would be made an autonomous institution, as free as possible from political influence. Second, it would be given a clear, very narrow mandate: price stability, period – no responsibility at all for squishy things like employment or growth. Third, the first head of the ECB, appointed for an eight-year term, would be someone guaranteed to be more German than the Germans: W. Duisenberg, who headed the Dutch central bank during a period when his job consisted almost entirely of shadowing whatever the Bundesbank did”.

Krugman is too polite to say it explicitly, but it never was a common policy. It was German control, hidden in stabilising mechanisms, designed by Frankfurt. The loss of this mechanism is what is frightening man of the German élite.

And Macron has just exploded that original Franco-German compact through putting a French woman (Lagarde) in charge of the ECB; a self-declared Federalist (“I want a United States of Europe”) as EU Commission President, and a Brexit hawk as President of the EU Council. Macron’s triumph over Merkel is intended to de-throne Germany. And a punishment Brexit – both to weaken Germany, and to sap Germany’s voting power at the Council – as well as the satisfaction of seeing a chastised Britain being chased from out of the EU.

So Macron is ushering in his notion of a closer centralised European governance – but who is to pay for it now? Without Germany’s former level of contributions and Britain’s input as a major contributor nation, the EU can neither reform itself (since many reforms would require Treaty re-writes), nor afford itself.

And wide political discontent to the Macron formula is already baked in for the future, as Frank Lee notes:

“Those Eastern European states which emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union had been led to believe that a bright new world of West European living standards, enhanced pay levels, high rates of social mobility and consumption were on offer.

Unfortunately, they were sold an illusion: the result of the transition so far seems to have been the creation of a low-wage hinterland, a border economy on the fringes of the highly developed European core; a Euro version of NAFTA and the maquiladora, i.e., low tech, low wage, low skills production units on the Mexican side of the US’s southern borders”.

And we are not talking ‘just Latvia’: For many in the East of Germany (the AfD’s electoral heartland), German unification in 1990 was not a merger of equals, but instead an “Anschluss” (annexation) with West Germany taking over East Germany. Reasons for East German disenchantment can be seen everywhere: The eastern population has shrunk by about 2 million, unemployment has soared, young people are moving away in droves, and what was one of the Eastern Bloc’s leading industrial nations is now largely devoid of industry.

And here lies the kernel of the crisis. There has been a call from all sides to try something different: such as relaxing the fiscal rules that are destroying public services; or, more daringly, to touch the ‘holy grail’: of reform of the financial and banking system.

But here is the rub: All such initiatives are prohibited in the locked-down treaty system. Everyone might think to revise those treaties. But that is not going to happen. The treaties are untouchable, precisely because Germany believes that to loosen its hold over the monetary system will be to open Pandora’s Box to the ghosts of inflation and social instability rising, to haunt us anew. Weidel was very clear on this danger.

The reality is that the European ‘lock-down’ derives from a system that has willfully removed power from parliaments and governments, and enshrined the automaticity of that system into treaties that can only be revised by extraordinary procedures. No one in Brussels sees any prospect of ‘that’ happening – hence the Brussels ‘record’ is stuck: repeating the mantra of ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA) to more, and closer, Euro-integration. And that is precisely what the European ‘sovereigntists’ are determined to oppose, by all means possible.

Only the onset of the coming recession in Europe and the associated sovereign debt crisis may prove sufficient to shake Brussels from its smug torpor, and to focus minds on how to manage the coming crisis. As Evans-Pritchard concludes, the ECB cannot save the eurozone another time. The baton passes to the politicians – if they are able?

Welcome to the new phase of Westphalian struggle: European ‘Empire’ – to be, or not to be.

The post Angela Merkel sinks German economy, hands over control of EU to Macron (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Erdogan: Bluffer or Potentate?

Thu, 2019-08-15 22:20

By Steve Brown

While the US concentrates on the crimes of its perverse and abjectly depraved Elite class, public exposure and the bright light thrown on their heinous crimes seems to have provided a window to get real work done, opposing corrupt US influence elsewhere, especially in Syria.

Syrian security forces are making progress in cutting supply routes to terrorist-held regions, especially versus Jaysh al-Ahrar and Ahrar al Sham … (at least that is what they call themselves at this hour, their names could change next hour)

But in light of the recent HTS terror offensive in Idlib, the informed observer must ask who is arming HTS and the motley crew of assorted ever-morphing terrorist groups still present and on the offensive in Idlib.

Based on intel sources it appears that Saudi and Israel are arming these groups with weapons sourced through a third party. As usual US weaponry supplied to “good rebels” is appearing in the hands of these motley terror groups, but most alarming of all, Turkey is continuing to destabilize the situation.

RTE (Erdogan) seems emboldened by his experience in Afrin but RTE is a questionable character, with his true motives known only to himself. Prima facie Erdogan seems to be playing both sides against each other, with regard to the major powers, ie Russia v US and vice versa. That’s a very dangerous game to play, as Yanukovych discovered in 2014.

RTE has proven himself to be a canny operator so far, narrowly escaping a coup attempt in 2016, but the major political problem Erdogan has now — in tandem with some popular loss of support in the capitol — is linked to the 4 million or so war refugees present in Turkey, most of them from Syria.

The refugees are there largely due to the US and its great ability to subvert and destabilize wherever and whenever it pleases, with Secretary of State Clinton’s 2011 “Arab Spring” igniting a powder keg in Syria, to the great joy of Israel.

According to reports, Erdogan would like to send back at least 700K of these refugees to Syria’s northeast province held by the SDF. Turkey seems to have forced some concession from the former United States to allow a safe zone along the Kurdish western front, west of Manbij, to take the Syrian refugees back, but how this will work in reality is another mystery. Meanwhile RTE continues to push the envelope and will need deeper ties with Russia to continue playing this double game.

Regardless, the US is known to be a treacherous Bad Actor and RTE must be cautious on how he plays off the (US) Evil Empire v any opposition including China, yet another complication.

In Libya, Turkey seems somewhat confident in its alliance with the GNA and appropriating cheap Misurata oil…  as can be seen from the conflict map, Libya is relatively quiet at this time.

So, what is Erdogan truly up to? Bluffer or potentate? He seems to be bluffing, but the US leadership enjoys that game as well, so we are “trending sideways” for now. And we are not quite to brinksmanship yet, even though RTE has threatened to invade the Northeast (of Syria).

Personally, and not to divert, in my opinion Iran is the true key to this game (overall) and look for the situation with Iran to warm up again very soon. It would indeed be ironic if Iran were the deuce in the pack to finally call Erdogan’s bluff.

The post Erdogan: Bluffer or Potentate? appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Crime in Sweden – A Warning Example

Thu, 2019-08-15 22:20

Submitted by Alexekin Rockowia…

An article in The New York Times about Sweden, published on August 10, wrote about Trump’s infamous comment about “last night in Sweden” and claimed that “fake news” surround the image of Sweden. However, facts go in line with the image of Sweden. It is in fact the article from The New York Times that is fake news. Today Swedes are used to hearing and reading about shootings and bombs going off every day. Fewer and fewer Swedes feel safe, having not grown up in such circumstances and not recognizing the country they remember anymore. One can finally see the result of decisions made decades ago by all major parties – that is, except the Sweden Democrats, who just recently have set the tone for the debate. So how did it end up like this and what can we expect in the future at all?

Migration to Sweden has reached a record high level. Twenty percent of Sweden’s population (which is twice more than twenty years ago) are born in another country; not to mention the second generation of immigrants, and the birth rates among some of their ethnicities. No doubt, the attempts at their mass integration, in accordance with the so-called “Programs” (new neighborhoods around the major cities with almost only non-Swedes), have proven to be a failure. They did not succeed to integrate either them or their children – who, in many cases, turned out to be those responsible for the shootings or the ones who have left to fight for the ISIS.

What we witness today in Sweden is the outcome of too many domestic politicians’ bad judgments and mistakes (which must be pointed out): it is not necessarily the fault of the immigrants, who were objectively forced to flee from wars and poverty in their own countries. After all, they did not come to Sweden with an intention to spread violence, crimes and terrorism, even if some of them seem to want precisely that and openly profess hate and contempt for our way of life.

The politicians obviously did not take into account (or did not care enough about) all the tensions that are expected to arise when so different cultures intertwine and collide. In principle, immigration and integration or assimilation of peoples can work: there is a plenty of proof for that. After all, before the policy changed and became directed at welcoming into the country practically anyone who wanted to get in, we did not have today’s problems. The case of peoples from the former Yugoslavia, who arrived in Sweden at the beginning of the 1960s – the best integrated group in Sweden, with employment rates as high as among the ethnic Swedes – is the best illustration of this.

Then liberals started to promote “multi-culturalism” – a cheap idea backed up by the talk of political correctness – and the ones who were against it were immediately labeled as racists. Liberals seemed to say that we need as much of this “multi-culturalism” as possible. The truth is that only the few knew what such limitless multi-culturalism could bring. And now Sweden is where it is today.

The fact is that liberal politicians simply wanted to fill in the holes left by declining natality – that is, to replace the ethnic Swedes with immigrants, no matter who or what they were. For the most part, these immigrants were of the kind that can become Swedes as much as the Swedes can become Arabs.

Yes, without these immigrants the economy would be worse than it is today. But this is where the liberal mentality, the root of all problems, reveals its true nature – as demonstrated by a Swedish minister’s attack on Hungary, triggered by Orbán’s support to women giving birth to multiple children: “What is happening in Hungary is alarming”, warns us this over considerate minister. “Now, Orbán wants more ‘genuine’ Hungarian children to be born. This policy reeks of the 30s and as right-wing populists.”

I would say that this Swedish minister’s statement says more about her than about anything going on in Hungary, and that, on the contrary, her politics is what is “alarming” and “reeks” of ancient times: reminding us particularly of the fall of the Roman Empire. As we know, their whole civilization collapsed thanks to the immigrants who invaded it, or, in some cases, were even invited to settle there by the Romans themselves. Now, it may be the Western Civilization’s turn. No doubt, history repeats itself.

The crucial question for us today is how to avoid the same fate – or, in other words, what we can do to solve this problem that undeniably awaits us. The best answer would be that these immigrants must be integrated or even assimilated and that the damage has already been done. After all, immigrants of various ethnicities have always come to Sweden. We can take the Walloons, for example: a group that arrived to Sweden in large numbers and successfully assimilated themselves several centuries ago. All of their ancestors are today considered ethnic Swedes, and none of them would identify themselves as the Walloons. But we can also look at Gypsies, who have been in Europe for centuries and refuse to integrate and still live a life of poverty, and we could of course ask ourselves if the same will happen with those from the Middle East.

Otherwise, we have already seen the devastating tensions that can arise and the mass tragedies that follow. We saw them in the whole of Europe eighty years ago and in the former Yugoslavia thirty years ago. This is why we should not rule out the possibility that something similar can happen today. It is something most would be against, even I. But we cannot predict with certainty what will happen in twenty or thirty years – when, in all likelihood, even more terrorist attacks will take place. And we should keep in mind that, early as in the 19th century, Nietzsche wrote this: “Madness is rare in individuals – but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.”

Alexekin Rockowia (alexekin-rockowia.com) lives in Sweden and is of Serbian origin. He is editor-in-chief of For-Serbia The Website (for-serbia.org) and CEO of Yugoslav Wars Archive (yugowarsarchive.org) He is also the author of “A Short Book about Nationalism”, which is available for sale on Amazon. (amazon.com/dp/B07VDFLPHS/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb).

The post Crime in Sweden – A Warning Example appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

POLL: Biden & Sanders Both Beat Trump in Texas. No Other Democratic Candidate Does

Thu, 2019-08-15 22:19

Submitted by Eric Zuesse…

Emerson College polls are rated B+, well above average but not great, in the 538-dot-com carefully tabulated rankings of 497 polling organizations. The following Emerson College poll-findings from Texas registered voters were released on August 13th:

Emerson College Poll of 1,033 Registered Voters in Texas During 1-3 August:

Biden 50.8% v. Trump 49.2%
Sanders 50.6% v. Trump 49.4%
O’Rourke 48.1% v. Trump 51.9%
Buttigieg 48.0% v. Trump 52%
Warren 47.6% v. Trump 52.4%
Castro 47.2% v. Trump 52.8%
Harris 46.2% v. Trump 53.8%

Among only the poll’s 400 Democratic Party voters, Biden is strongly preferred above any other Democrat:

Biden 27.7%
O’Rourke 19.0%
Sanders 15.7%
Warren 13.7%
Buttigieg 7.2%
Harris 5.3%
Yang 3.1%

BOTTOM LINE — Reasonable inferences from this poll:

Biden is likely to win the Texas primary; and, in the general election, Biden is likely to beat Trump in Texas. If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he is approximately as likely to beat Trump in Texas in the general-election contest as is Biden. If Buttigieg or Warren win the nomination, then they would probably be within striking distance of being able to beat Trump in Texas, but they would be more likely to lose Texas to Trump. Harris would be even likelier to lose Texas to Trump.

In any case: Texas is no longer a sure bet to vote Republican. Trump could lose Texas, which he had won by a 10% margin — 52.2% to Clinton’s 42.2% — in 2016. Even against the weaker realistically possible Democratic candidates such as Harris, he has far smaller Texas victory margins in this poll than he actually enjoyed in the 2016 general-election contest against Clinton.

Therefore, Trump now seems to be far likelier to lose in 2020 than he had ever seemed likely to lose in 2016. In 2016, it was a real horse-race; but, now, even the formerly solidly Republican state of Texas — the largest of all of the states which voted for Trump in 2016, with 36 electoral votes (the second-largest state after California’s 55 electoral votes, and those votes went to Clinton) — is actually in play for a possible Democratic win of Texas in 2020.

Consequently, a Trump win of the national Presidential contest is far less likely even than was the case in 2016. This time around, Trump’s winning in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania won’t be nearly enough in order for him to have a fighting chance of winning the Presidency. His sharply lowered support now in Texas indicates that far more states are likely to be essential wins for him, in order for Trump to be able to retain his office.

None of the leading Democratic contenders this time around is even nearly as widely and deeply loathed nationally as Hillary Clinton was. The only candidate who likely will be is Trump himself, who, even in 2016, was approximately as widely loathed as she was.

Maybe a realistic estimate is that this time around, Trump will have a 10% chance of winning. He’s practically already a lame duck President. He has done that to himself, by what he has done while in office. Perhaps the only thing that might be able to keep him in office beyond 2020 would be devastating findings against Barack Obama and his Democratic Party, resulting from the current U.S. Justice Department’s investigation into possible rigging by the Obama Administration in 2016 in order for Democrats to have been able to present what turned out to have been a phony ‘Russiagate’ case against then-candidate, and now-President, Trump, which case against him consumed Trump’s first few years as the President. Such a shocker, such a counter-scandal (i.e., this time, against Democrats, and being backed by convincing evidence, if it turns out to be that) might happen between now and the November 2020 U.S. Presidential election. But, right now — and barring such a shocker as that — Trump’s prospects to retain office are bleak, on the basis of these poll-findings.


Normally, one poll doesn’t mean much, but this one actually does mean much — its findings are strong enough, and reliable enough, and in a large enough (the second-largest) state, so as for them to mean a great deal about the likelihood that Trump will turn out to have been a one-term President. That likelihood now is extraordinarily high.

Consequently, whoever wins the Democratic Party’s nomination will almost certainly become President in 2021. The voters in that Party’s Presidential primaries and caucuses will almost certainly end up having selected America’s next President. And, unless either Warren or Sanders early enough endorses* the other of those two (which each of those two has an obligation to do if that person cares more about the country than about him-or-her-self winning the nomination — and it furthermore actually could, for each of them, increase greatly his/her likelihood* of actually winning the nomination), that next U.S. President appears likeliest to be Joe Biden. Since his long record has already proven him to be excessively mistake-prone, Biden’s actually being the Democratic candidate could very well then reduce his voter-support in Texas well below the present poll’s showing, of Biden 50.8% v. Trump 49.2%; and I therefore predict that if  the nominee is Biden, he would actually lose in Texas and lose the election, just as Hillary did in 2016. Both are/were incompetent — even more so than is Trump. The present poll can’t even possibly show that — it’s way too early to show it.

America seems heading for hell. Yet another rotten U.S. President could tip the future into catastrophe. Voters in each Party are by far unrealistically respecting their particular Party’s latest Presidents — ALL of America’s recent Presidents (and Congresses) have produced (ever since 1980) historically unprecedented skyrocketing federal debt along with a transfer of national wealth from the public to the billionaires, which has resulted in no benefit to the public, but instead an equally soaring personal debt, so that only the billionaires have net-benefited, and everyone else is in a worse situation than was the case in 1980 (far worse, because not just government but also personal indebtedness has soared while the public’s standard of living has flatlined since 1980 and the only real change for the public has therefore been their skyrocketing debt. Too few voters know how to process information. That obliviousnesss gave Americans the Hobson’s choice, of Clinton versus Trump, in 2016; and I think that voters don’t learn from history and that they will therefore repeat it, even now at the precipice (heading off the ever-higher cliff). The majority of voters consider acceptable what is happening in America, no matter how bad it has actually become, and now is. Very few people will survive such a fall.

They don’t know how bad things actually are. For examples: they consider acceptable, as the U.S. President, Joe Biden who as a Senator in 2002 voted to allow then-President George W. Bush to make, all on his own, the decision as to whether or not to invade Iraq (when everyone already knew that Bush strongly wanted to do precisely that), and to consider acceptable also the choice in 2016 between Hillary Clinton who — also as a Senator — had likewise voted just as Biden did on that fateful occasion, versus Donald Trump, who had no record at all as a federal U.S. official and who therefore could be judged only on the basis of his lying words.

Americans think that this is democracy. It’s not. It’s instead voters who have never been educated about how to process information. (A country like that cannot be a democracy.) It’s a profoundly corrupt country — and that’s why the public haven’t ever been taught (as they should have been in elementary school) how to process information. Americans instead have been taught myths (lauditory toward the billionaires).

And Americans therefore find the present situation to be acceptable. It’s not, but they don’t know this, because they’ve been kept ignorant, not about what to think (those myths, religious and otherwise, taught to children) but how  to think (as any scientist must).

That fact (the public’s ignorance of how to think, and the corruption which produces that) can destroy a nation, and can even destroy the entire world. And it’s happening now, right before our very eyes, as we approach the cliff.

There won’t be any real mystery about why bad and worse result from this. The reason why is already clear, and has been evident for a long time — and, yet, most Americans know little or nothing about this dire situation, much less about the institutionalized corruption that is producing it.

Either the next U.S.President will be more of the same, or else it will be one who leads revolutionary changes, in the correct directions, which are far different from what this country has been on, ever since at least 1980. The options for America are now that stark.

*Here is how I propose that this be done: On the night of the New Hampshire primary, Tuesday 11 February 2020, both Warren and Sanders will announce that she/he will remain in the contest until all of the state primaries and caucuses are over on 2 June 2020; and that, then, whichever of the two will, by the end, have the fewer number of won delegates will throw her/his support to the other of these two candidates at the Convention. This will not only allow each of the two to remain in the contest until the end, but it will be a clear and unambiguous unity between them, announcing that what is the most important thing, of all, to each of them, is that one of the two of them ought to become the Party’s nominee. This unification between them will also free each of the two from ever at all criticizing the other during the primaries. They will already, after 11 February 2020, effectively constitute a team, moving forward together, not for him/her-self alone, but for the Party, and for the nation. That’s how it should be done.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The post POLL: Biden & Sanders Both Beat Trump in Texas. No Other Democratic Candidate Does appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

RAY McGOVERN: Rich’s Ghost Haunts the Courts

Wed, 2019-08-14 14:49

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com:

As if it weren’t enough of a downer for Russiagate true-believers that no Trump-Russia collusion was found, federal judges are now demanding proof that Russia hacked into the DNC in the first place.

It is shaping up to be a significant challenge to the main premise of the shaky syllogism that ends with “Russia did it.”

If you’re new to this website, grab onto something, as the following may come as something of a shock. Not only has there never been any credible evidence to support the claim of Russian cyber interference, there has always been a simple alternative explanation that involves no “hacking” at all — by Russia or anyone else.

As most Consortium News habitués are aware, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (which includes two former NSA technical directors), working with independent forensic investigators, concluded two years ago that what “everyone knows to be Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee” actually involved an insider with physical access to DNC computers copying the emails onto an external storage device — such as a thumb drive. In other words, it was a leak, not a hack.

VIPS based its conclusion on the principles of physics applied to metadata and other empirical information susceptible of forensic analysis.

But if a leak, not a hack, who was the DNC insider-leaker? In the absence of hard evidence, VIPS refuses “best-guess”-type “assessments” — the kind favored by the “handpicked analysts” who drafted the evidence-impoverished, so-called Intelligence Community Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017.

Dulles: Wielded “conspiracy theorist” as a weapon. Conspiracy Theorists

Simply letting the name “Seth Rich” pass your lips can condemn you to the leper colony built by the Washington Establishment for “conspiracy theorists,” (the term regularly applied to someone determined to seek tangible evidence, and who is open to alternatives to “Russia-did-it.”)

Rich was a young DNC employee who was murdered on a street in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2016. Many, including me, suspect that Rich played some role in the leaking of DNC emails toWikiLeaks. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that this may have been the case. Those who voice such suspicions, however, are, ipso facto, branded “conspiracy theorists.”

That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director Allen Dulles used the “brand-them-conspiracy-theorists” ploy following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when many objected — understandably — to letting him pretty much run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the murder. The “conspiracy theorist” tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just now.

Rich Hovers Above the Courts

U.S. Courts apply far tougher standards to evidence than do the intelligence community and the pundits who loll around lazily, feeding from the intelligence PR trough. This (hardly surprising) reality was underscored when a Dallas financial adviser named Ed Butowsky sued National Public Radio and others for defaming him about the role he played in controversial stories relating to Rich.On August 7, NPR suffered a setback, when U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant affirmed a lower court decision to allow Butowsky’s defamation lawsuit to proceed.

Judge Mazzant ruled that NPR had stated as “verifiable statements of fact” information that could not beverified, and that the plaintiff had been, in effect, accused of being engaged in wrongdoing without persuasive sourcing language.

Isikoff: Russians started it. (Wikipedia)

Imagine! — “persuasive sourcing” required to separate fact from opinion and axes to grind! An interesting precedent to apply to the ins and outs of Russiagate. In the courts, at least, this is now beginning to happen. And NPR and others in similarly vulnerable positions are scurrying around for allies.??The day after Judge Mazzant’s decision, NPR enlisted help from discredited Yahoo! News pundit Michael Isikoff (author, with David Corn, of the fiction-posing-as-fact novel Russian Roulette). NPR gave Isikoff 37 minutes on its popular Fresh Air program to spin his yarn about how the Seth Rich story got started. You guessed it; the Russians started it. No, we are not making this up.

It is far from clear that Isikoff can be much help to NPR in the libel case against it. Isikoff’s own writings on Russiagate are notably lacking in “verifiable statements of fact” — information that cannot be verified. Watch, for example, his recent interview with Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria on CN Live!

Isikoff admitted to Lauria that he never saw the classified Russian intelligence document reportedly indicating that three days after Rich’s murder the Russian SVR foreign intelligence service planted a story about Rich having been the leaker and was killed for it. This Russian intelligence “bulletin,” as Isikoff called it, was supposedly placed on a bizarre website that Isikoff admitted was an unlikely place for Russia to spread disinformation. He acknowledged that he only took the word of the former prosecutor in the Rich case about the existence of this classified Russian document.

In any case, The Washington Post, had already debunked Isikoff’s claim (which later in his article he switched to being only “purported”) by pointing out that Americans had already tweeted the theory of Rich’s murder days before the alleged Russian intervention.

‘Persuasive Sourcing’ & Discovery??

Butowsky’s libel lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which will include demands for documents and depositions that are likely to shed light on whatever role Rich may have played in leaking to WikiLeaks. If the government obstructs or tries to slow-roll the case, we shall have to wait and see, for example, if the court will acquiesce to the familiar government objection that information regarding Rich’s murder must be withheld as a state secret? Hmmm. What would that tell us?

Butowsky: Suit could reveal critical information. (Flickr)

During discovery in a separate court case, the government was unable to produce a final forensic report on the “hacking” of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC-hired cyber firm, CrowdStrike, failed to complete such a report, and that was apparently okay with then FBI Director James Comey, who did not require one.

The incomplete, redacted, draft, second-hand “forensics” that Comey settled for from CrowdStrike does not qualify as credible evidence — much less “persuasive sourcing” to support the claim that the Russians “hacked” into the DNC. Moreover, CrowdStrike has a dubious reputation for professionalism and a well known anti-Russia bias.

The thorny question of “persuasive sourcing,” came up even more starkly on July 1, when federal Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Robert Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency’s supposed attempt to interfere via social media in the 2016 election. Middle school-level arithmetic can prove the case that the IRA’s use of social media to support Trump is ludicrous on its face.

Russia-gate Rubble

As journalist Patrick Lawrence put it recently: “Three years after the narrative we call Russiagate was framed and incessantly promoted, it crumbles into rubble as we speak.” Falling syllogism! Step nimbly to one side.

The “conspiracy theorist” epithet is not likely to much longer block attention to the role, if any, played by Rich — the more so since some players who say they were directly involved with Rich are coming forward.

In a long interview with Lauria a few months ago in New Zealand aired this month on CN Live!, Kim Dotcom provided a wealth of detail, based on what he described as first-hand knowledge, regarding how Democratic National Committee documents were leaked to WikiLeaks in 2016.

The major takeaway: the evidence presented by Dotcom about Seth Rich can be verified or disproven if President Trump summons the courage to order the director of NSA to dig out the relevant data, including the conversations Dotcom says he had with Rich and Rich may have had with WikiLeakspublisher Julian Assange. Dotcom said he put Rich in touch with a middleman to transfer the DNC files to WikiLeaks. Sadly, Trump has flinched more than once rather than confront the Deep State — and this time there are a bunch of very well connected, senior Deep State practitioners who could face prosecution.

Another sign that Rich’s story is likely to draw new focus is the virulent character assassination indulged in by former investigative journalist James Risen.

Not Risen to the Challenge Risen: Called Binney a “conspiracy theorist.” (Flickr)

On August 5, in an interview on The Hill’s“Rising,” Risen chose to call former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney — you guessed it — a “conspiracy theorist” on Russia-gate, with no demurral, much less pushback, from the hosts.

The having-done-good-work-in-the-past-and-now-not-so-much Risen can be considered a paradigm for what has happened to so many Kool-Aid drinking journalists. Jim’s transition from investigative journalist to stenographer is, nonetheless unsettling. Contributing causes? It appears that the traditional sources within the intelligence agencies, whom Risen was able to cultivate discreetly in the past, are too fearful now to even talk to him, lest they get caught by one or two of the myriad surveillance systems in play.

Those at the top of the relevant agencies, however, are only too happy to provide grist. Journalists have to make a living, after all. Topic A, of course, is Russian “interference” in the 2016 election. And, of course, “There can be little doubt” the Russians did it.

“Big Jim” Risen, as he is known, jumped on the bandwagon as soon as he joined The Intercept, with a fulsome article on February 17, 2018 titled “Is Donald Trump a Traitor?” Here’s an excerpt:

“The evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win is already compelling, and it grows stronger by the day.

“There can be little doubt now that Russian intelligence officials were behind an effort to hack the DNC’s computers and steal emails and other information from aides to Hillary Clinton as a means of damaging her presidential campaign. … Russian intelligence also used fake social media accounts and other tools to create a global echo chamber both for stories about the emails and for anti-Clinton lies dressed up to look like news.

“To their disgrace, editors and reporters at American news organizations greatly enhanced the Russian echo chamber, eagerly writing stories about Clinton and the Democratic Party based on the emails, while showing almost no interest during the presidential campaign in exactly how those emails came to be disclosed and distributed.” (sic)

Poor Jim. He shows himself just as susceptible as virtually all of his fellow corporate journalists to the epidemic-scale HWHW virus (Hillary Would Have Won) that set in during Nov. 2016 and for which the truth seems to be no cure. From his perch at The Intercept, Risen will continue to try to shape the issues. Russiagaters major ally, of course, is the corporate media which has most Americans pretty much under their thumb.

Incidentally, neither The New York Times, The Washington Post, nor The Wall Street Journal has printed or posted a word about Judge Mazzant’s ruling on the Butowsky suit.

Mark Twain is said to have warned, “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!” After three years of “Russia-Russia-Russia” in the corporate — and even in some “progressive” — media, this conditioning will not be easy to reverse.

Here’s how one astute observer with a sense of humor described the situation last week, in a comment under one of my recent pieces on Consortium News:

“… One can write the most thought-out and well documented academic-like essays, articles and reports and the true believers in Russiagate will dismiss it all with a mere flick of their wrist. The mockery and scorn directed towards those of us who knew the score from day one won’t relent. They could die and go to heaven and ask god what really happened during the 2016 election. God would reply to them in no uncertain terms that Putin and the Russians had absolutely nothing to do with anything in ‘16, and they’d all throw up their hands and say, ‘aha! So, God’s in on this too!’ It’s the great lie that won’t die.”

I’m not so sure. It is likely to be a while though before this is over.

The post RAY McGOVERN: Rich’s Ghost Haunts the Courts appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy

Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ

Wed, 2019-08-14 14:48

Via SaraACarter.com:

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with SaraACarter.com on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow (Wednesday).

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told lawmakers, “things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it” are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

Google did not immediately respond for comment on the insider’s claims, however, this story will be updated if comment is provided.

The insider says Google is aware most people are unaware or not knowledgeable about these advanced IT systems and therefore unable to determine who is telling the truth.

“I honestly think that a free market can fix this issue,” he told this reporter at a meeting in Washington D.C.

“The issue is that the free market has been distorted and what’s happened is that the distortion is so grotesque and the engineering is so repulsive, all we need to do is just expose what’s going on. People can hear that it is bad but that can be bias. But when they see what Google has actually written with the documents, this will actually be taught in universities of what totalitarian states can do with this type of capability.”

“It will be so revolting that it doesn’t matter what the solution is, a solution will just form as a reaction to this manipulation they have done,” the Google insider said.

He said he’s asked himself many times if he’s overreacting “and every time I simply look back at the documents and realize that I am not.”

“It’s that bad,” he said. “Disclosing Google’s own words to the American public is something I am, must do, if I am to consider myself a good person. The world that google is building is not a place I, or you or our children want to live in.”

TOMORROW: Our ML Fairness Google insider comes out of the shadows.

AND: OVER A THOUSAND of pages of internal documents are released.

Google might take this new video down.

Sign up for our video list NOW — so you don't miss our latest on Google: https://t.co/dt1eVMYB71 pic.twitter.com/psyf36DTZs

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) August 13, 2019

Another Google insider, who has come forward already, told O’Keefe and other media outlets recently that it is the programers at Google who use the algorithms to manipulate the information to advance its leftist agenda.

Greg Coppola, a software engineer, told Project Veritas that he doesn’t “have a smoking gun.”

However,  “I’ve just been coding since I was ten, I have a Ph.D., I have five years of experience at Google, and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to make them do what we want them to do.”

“I look at Search and I look at Google News, and I see what it’s doing,” he said.

“I see Google executives go to Congress and say … that it’s not political, and I’m just so sure that that’s not true.”

Department of Justice officials declined to comment on the document dump.

But SaraACarter.com has reviewed the documents and obtained proof from the Google insider that the documents were delivered to the DOJ.

The unnamed Google insider first spoke to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. O’Keefe has been criticized by the left for outing the political bias of executives and employees of Google and other social media companies.

In the nonprofits most recent video, Project Veritas uses their undercover techniques to get Google employees to talk openly about their disdain for Trump and how their artificial intelligence operates.

Jenn Gennai, who heads Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, did not know she was being filmed by O’Keefe’s group. She told the undercover journalist that “the reason we launched our AI principals is because we’re not putting our line in the sand. They were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we’re a big company, we’re going to say it.”

The post Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ appeared first on The Duran.

Categories: America, Foreign Policy