Sunday 25th of October 2020

clear and present danger...

the truth hurts...

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sounded the alarm on the threat of a Russian-waged information war waged for Western democracies in a speech in California on Friday.

Calling Russian information war, or influence operations, a "clear and present danger to our democracy", the former candidate for president gave the example of the use of social media accounts to stir up divisions over race and politics in the US in recent weeks.


read more:


a liberal warmonger...

Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed not to notice a video playing in the main entrance. The world’s third biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.  

It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is now led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different and is rare in British establishment politics.

Addressing the conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein described the rise of Corbyn as

“... part of a global phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign in the US primaries, powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future.”

In fact, at the end of the U.S. primary elections last year, Sanders led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal warmonger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.

As President Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton presided over the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to a stampede of refugees to Europe. She gloated at the gruesome murder of Libya’s president. Two years earlier, Clinton signed off on a coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. That she has been invited to Wales on 14 October to be given an honorary doctorate by the University of Swansea because she is “synonymous with human rights” is unfathomable.

Like Clinton, Bernie Sanders is a cold warrior and “anti-Communist”, obsessive with a proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He supported Bill Clinton’s and Tony Blair’s illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the invasions of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama's campaign of terrorism by drone. He backs the provocation of Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward Snowden should stand trial. He has called the late Hugo Chavez – a social democrat who won multiple elections – "a dead Communist dictator".

read more:

spooked by the boogey vampiring bolsheviks...


WASHINGTON — State election officials, worried about the integrity of their voting systems, are pressing to make them more secure ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

Reacting in large part to Russian efforts to hack the presidential election last year, a growing number of states are upgrading electoral databases and voting machines, and even adding cybersecurity experts to their election teams. The efforts — from both Democrats and Republicans — amount to the largest overhaul of the nation’s voting infrastructure since the contested presidential election in 2000 spelled an end to punch-card ballots and voting machines with mechanical levers.

One aim is to prepare for the 2018 and 2020 elections by upgrading and securing electoral databases and voting machines that were cutting-edge before Facebook and Twitter even existed. Another is to spot and defuse attempts to depress turnout and sway election results by targeting voters with false news reports and social media posts.

West Virginia’s elections team has added a cybersecurity expert from the state National Guard with a top-secret federal security clearance. Colorado and Rhode Island will now verify election results via an advanced statistical procedure called a risk-limiting audit.

read more:

These voting machines are as secure a the ATM of your bank. They cannot be tampered with, even by the Ruskies. But the spooking is amusing the Russians. The best way to improve voting in the USA is to remove the colleges of voters and do a DEMOCRATIC direct voting system.  The present system is totally UNDEMOCRATIC.


the neo-liberal machine...

Fascists are divided into two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists.”

– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini’s greatest film scripts.

In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist.  Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political.  It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as “fascists”.

Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America’s steady descent into violence.

Historical Pretensions

Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley’s proud “free speech” tradition by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were “good people on both sides”. With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to condemn the despised President for his “moral equivalence”, thereby bestowing a moral blessing on Antifa.

Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook, whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa in both theory and practice. The book is “really taking off very fast”, rejoiced the publisher, Melville House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of all those by revolutionary anarchists.

The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for “insurgent activist movements” and observed that: “The book’s most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists.”

Bray’s “enlightening contribution” is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today’s Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label “Antifa” by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.

read more:

a cold creepiness rarely seen...

Julian Assange has launched a personal attack on Hillary Clinton, accusing her of lying and displaying a "cold creepiness" after the former US presidential candidate told the ABC the WikiLeaks founder is a "tool of Russian intelligence".

In an exclusive interview with Four Corners, Mrs Clinton alleged Mr Assange colluded with a Russian intelligence operation to disrupt the 2016 US election and damage her candidacy for president.

"Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator," she said.

"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence."

The Wikileaks founder, who has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, hit back this morning, tweeting that Mrs Clinton was "not a credible person".

Tweeting a link to the Four Corners interview, Mr Assange said there was "something wrong" with her.

"It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement," he said. "Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."

read more:

we came, we saw, he died...

read more at:,10845

The ABC Four Corners interview with Hillary Clinton, aired this week, is an outstanding example of smear and censorship by omission, writes John Pilger.

ON 16 OCTOBER, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation aired an interview with Hillary Clinton — one of many to promote her score-settling book about why she was not elected President of the United States.

Wading through the Clinton book, What Happenedis an unpleasant experience, like a stomach upset. Smears and tears. Threats and enemies. “They” (voters) were brainwashed and herded against her by the odious Donald Trump in cahoots with sinister Slavs sent from the great darkness known as Russia, assisted by an Australian “nihilist”, Julian Assange.

In the New York Times, there was a striking photograph of a female reporter consoling Clinton, having just interviewed her. The lost leader was, above all, 'absolutely a feminist'. The thousands of women’s lives this “feminist” destroyed while in government – Libya, Syria, Honduras – were of no interest.

In  the New York magazine, Rebecca Trainster wrote that Clinton was finally'expressing some righteous anger'. It was even hard for her to smile: 'so hard that the muscles in her face ache'. Surely, she concluded, 'if we allowed women’s resentments the same bearing we allow men’s grudges, America would be forced to reckon with the fact that all these angry women might just have a point'.

Drivel such as this, trivialising women’s struggles, marks the media hagiographies of Hillary Clinton. Her political extremism and warmongering are of no consequence. Her problem, wrote Trainster, was a 'damaging infatuation with the email story'. The truth, in other words.

The leaked emails of Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, revealed a direct connection between Clinton and the Foundation and funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East and Islamic State (IS). The ultimate source of most Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, was central to her career.

One email, in 2014, sent by Clinton to Podesta soon after she stepped down as U.S. Secretary of State, discloses that Islamic State is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton accepted huge donations from both governments for the Clinton Foundation.

According to a leaked Hillary Clinton email, Saudi Arabia was directly funding ISIS. They also gave $25 million to the Clinton

— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) October 11, 2016


As Secretary of State, she approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her benefactors in Saudi Arabia, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, U.S. arms sales to the world – for use in stricken countries like Yemen – doubled.

This was revealed by WikiLeaks and published by The New York Times. No one doubts the emails are authentic. The subsequent campaign to smear WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, as “agents of Russia”, has grown into a spectacular fantasy known as “Russiagate”. The “plot” is said to have been signed off by Vladimir Putin himself. There is not a shred of real evidence.

The ABC (Australia) interview with Clinton is an outstanding example of smear and censorship by omission. I would say it is a model.

“No one,” the interviewer, Sarah Ferguson, says to Clinton, “could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at that moment [of the inauguration of Trump] .… Do you remember how visceral it was for you?”

Having established Clinton’s visceral suffering, Ferguson asks about “Russia’s role”.

CLINTON: I think Russia affected the perceptions and views of millions of voters, we now know. I think that their intention coming from the very top with Putin was to hurt me and to help Trump.

FERGUSON: How much of that was a personal vendetta by Vladimir Putin against you?

CLINTON: … I mean he wants to destabilise democracy. He wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic Alliance and we consider Australia kind of a … an extension of that …

The opposite is true. It is Western armies that are massing on Russia’s border for the first time since the Russian Revolution, 100 years ago.

FERGUSON: How much damage did [Julian Assange] do personally to you?

CLINTON: Well, I had a lot of history with him because I was Secretary of State when ah WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive ah information from our State Department and our Defence Department.

@ChrisCuomo @JustinRaimondo re #podestaemails how about them apples?

"US diplomats spied on UN leadership"

— Mr Ivan Johnson (@MrIvanJohnson) October 17, 2016


What Clinton fails to say – and her interviewer fails to remind her – is that in 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the United Nations leadership, including the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent Security Council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive, signed by Clinton, was issued to U.S. diplomats in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top U.N. officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks.

This was known as Cablegate. It was lawless spying.

CLINTON: He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And ah, he has done their bidding.

Clinton offered no evidence to back up this serious accusation, nor did Ferguson challenge her.

CLINTON: You don't see damaging negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks. You didn't see any of that published.

This was false. WikiLeaks has published a massive number of documents on Russia – more than 800,000, most of them critical, many of them used in books and as evidence in court cases.

CLINTON: So I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.

FERGUSON: Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr for free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him? Well, you've just described him as a nihilist.

CLINTON: Yeah, well, and a tool. I mean he's a tool of Russian intelligence. And if he's such a, you know, martyr of free speech, why doesn't WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?

Again, Ferguson said nothing to challenge this or correct her.

Hillary Clinton: Wikileaks is a 'tool of Russian intelligence' and Assange does the 'bidding of a dictator'

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 16, 2017


CLINTON: There was a concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to weaponise that information, to make up stories … to help Trump.

FERGUSON: Now, along with some of those outlandish stories, there was information that was revealed about the Clinton Foundation that at least in some of the voters' minds seemed to associate you ….

CLINTON: Yeah, but it was false!

FERGUSON: … with the peddling of information …

CLINTON: It was false! It was totally false! ….

FERGUSON: Do you understand how difficult it was for some voters to understand the amounts of money that the [Clinton] Foundation is raising, the confusion with the consultancy that was also raising money, getting gifts and travel and so on for Bill Clinton that even Chelsea had some issues with? ….

CLINTON: Well you know, I'm sorry, Sarah, I mean I, I know the facts ….

The ABC interviewer lauded Clinton as “the icon of your generation”. She asked her nothing about the enormous sums she creamed off from Wall Street, such as the $675,000 she received for speaking at Goldman Sachs, one of the banks at the centre of the 2008 crash. Clinton’s greed deeply upset the kind of voters she abused as “deplorables”.

Clearly looking for a cheap headline in the Australian press, Ferguson asked her if Trump was “a clear and present danger to Australia” and got her predictable response.

This high-profile journalist made no mention of Clinton’s own “clear and present danger” to the people of Iran whom she once threatened to “obliterate totally”, and the 40,000 Libyans who died in the attack on Libya in 2011 that Clinton orchestrated. Flushed with excitement, the Secretary of State rejoiced at the gruesome murder of the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi.


“Libya was Hillary Clinton's war”, Julian Assange said in a filmed interview with me last year.

Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That's documented throughout her emails … there's more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we've published, just about Libya. It's not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for president.

So, in late 2011, there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it's the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis. 

Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it.

This – not Clinton’s “visceral” pain in losing to Trump nor the rest of the self-serving scuttlebutt in her ABC interview  – was the story. Clinton shared responsibility for massively de-stabilising the Middle East, which led to the death, suffering and flight of thousands of women, men and children.

Ferguson raised not a word of it. Clinton repeatedly defamed Assange, who was neither defended nor offered a right of reply on his own country’s State broadcaster.

In a tweet from London, Assange cited the ABC's own Code of Practice, which states:

'Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.'

No wonder Australian state TV @ABC @4corners broke their code of conduct over their Hillary Clinton interview. Look at the extreme unprofessionality of the ABC 'executive producer' behind it.

— Julian Assange

happy birthday...


Happy Birthday, Hillary

Hard left, hard right—try though we might we just can't seem to quit her.

Today, Hillary Clinton turns the big 7-0. Save your streamers though: this birthday is wrapping up a rather sad year.

In the fall of 2016, Hillary looked poised to win the biggest present of all: the White House. Then James Comey and a bunch of mad-as-hell, white working-class voters in the Rust Belt dropped an electoral atomic bomb into her birthday cake. In the aftermath, millions of conservatives breathed a sigh of relief, and even now console themselves amidst the circus-like atmosphere of Donald Trump’s administration that “at least we don’t have Hillary!” Meanwhile, millions of liberals are still alternating between sadness and anger over their heroine’s unexpected defeat.

Yet the most revealing response today to the life and times of Hillary (and her husband) is coming from young left-wing voices, many of whom were mere children during her and Bill’s presidential reign (and her 2002 Iraq war vote). Left-wing Twitter and Facebook exploded when Hillary released her bestselling executive summary of What Happened—and not in a good way. As soon as Clinton opens her mouth on national television, leftist voices swarm social media to silence her. Rather than seeing her the way garden-variety liberal Democrats do—as a wrongfully denied Madam President—it seems today’s young progressive left is as “ready for Hillary” as your average right-wing dittohead.

read more:


See also the garden-variety Trumpweed at: 

invasion of the triffids...



Read from top...

deserving kudos pretext...

On Thursday, Twitter barred Sputnik and RT from using its platform for advertising on the pretext of their alleged attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

The RT broadcaster has published Twitter's full pitch for an ample advertisement buy just prior to the voting in the United States. RT has said it spent less than $280,000 in US Twitter ads in 2016, with only a small portion of that being used for covering the election.

IT specialist Zdravko Jankovic joked that RT's actual spending would have deserved kudos if that sum of money could have been enough to influence the US vote.

a bad novel according to an expert...


The revelation that Hillary Clinton and the DNC helped fund the controversial dossier making claims of Trump-Russia collusion after the 2016 election has deflated the Democratic Party's effort to smear the president. Speaking to Radio Sputnik, Earl Rasmussen, director of the NGO Eurasia Center, recalled that the report reads like a bad spy novel.

Sputnik: Hillary Clinton started funding the 'dossier' when her position as presidential candidate became shaky. What's your take on this?

Earl Rasmussen: We know that the initial funding, the initial work on the dossier was actually from [Trump's] Republican opponents leading back to 2015. When it [became] clear that he was going to win the primary, the DNC and Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign picked up the ball and carried it. Opposition research is common, but this goes kind of to the borders of what one would expect. Just knowing some of the other things that have occurred in the past, it's not surprising that she would employ whatever's possible to discredit an opponent, whether it was based on fact or not, (in this case it's not), and get information that would be potentially scandalous.

Sputnik: In the pantheon of the dirty tricks in US politics, where does this scandal rate?

Earl Rasmussen: This is probably one of the best…I have a copy of the report sitting in front of me right now, and have read through it. It would probably be better if it was funded as a fiction novel or something – like a very off-the-wall spy novel…To think they actually put money in this; we don't know exactly how much, but it's got to be in the seven digits, for this type of work, which probably wouldn't get published by any publisher -I know from when I worked in the government that it would not have been accepted as an acceptable piece of work. It probably sets the tone and the example for other opposition research [in pushing] the extreme of ethical behavior.

I hate to tell you people who fell for @Maddow & Fake News conspiracy theories, but there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and none is coming. It didn't happen. Congressional probes show the fake dossier started all this AND... it's fake. You'll just have to deal with it.

read more:


the bookends festival...


Hillary Clinton's recent appearance at the Times/HSBC/Waterstones-sponsored Cheltenham Literary Festival, where she urged the west to "get tough" on Putin, Russia and its media outlets, was proof once again that these UK "festivals" have little to do with promoting great writing, but quite a lot to do with promoting neocon geopolitical narratives.

The world of UK "literary festivals" is an incredibly cliquey one — open to a certain approved few — an upper 'caste' of well-connected "Inside the Tenters," who can be sure to say the right things, whether its bashing Russia (de rigeur in 2017), or calling for "regime-change" in Syria. 

Don't Call Us, We Call You!

The trick, if you want to dine at the high table, is to be a politically correct, holier-than-thou virtue-signaling "liberal" on domestic issues and a pro-war "liberal interventionist" hawk on foreign policy. Then you'll have the big literary agencies fighting over themselves to gain the rights to your latest "masterpiece," and have a standing invitation to all the "best" book events.


The Neocon History Boys

Things are even worse now than in Cold War 1.0. A small group of well-connected historians — all pushing Establishment-friendly narratives, predominate. Dominic Sandbrook seems to have cornered the market in writing about post-war Britain, and has done very well, trashing the 1970s, the most genuinely egalitarian decade of the 20th century. In book form — newspaper serialization — and of course in a BBC series. The Iraq-war supporting duo Niall Ferguson, an adviser to John "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain's presidential campaign in 2008, and Andrew Roberts, who in 2013, fiercely berated MPs for voting against bombing the secular government in Syria that was fighting Daesh and al-Qaeda, are regulars on TV and at "literary festivals."

In 2016, Roberts won a Bradley Prize, from a foundation which supports "a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions."

Simon Sebag Montefiore, a very well-connected scion of the famous family of bankers and diplomats, who in 2016 attacked Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters for having a world view "that is entirely different from that of virtually all Western governments" is another member of the "Establishment Historians Magic Circle."

Toeing the Party Line

Top authors — whether they're writing fantasies about Iraqi WMDs, Kremlin hacking plots or boy wizards — know on which side their bread is buttered. Harry Potter author JK Rowling did much to publicize the story of Bana Alabed, the little girl from a fiercely anti-Assad family who became designated "the face of Aleppo," but she and her literary friends have shown less interest in tweeting about the plight of children in war-zones in Yemen, Gaza or Raqqa.

Read more:


Read from top...


another controversial book by klein stirs the swamp...


From Wikipedia:

Edward Klein is the former foreign editor of Newsweek and served as the editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987. He frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade and writes a weekly celebrity gossip column in Parade called "Personality Parade" under the pseudonym "Walter Scott." (The Walter Scott pseudonym had originally been used by Lloyd Shearer, who wrote the column from 1958 to 1991.)

Klein also writes books, many of which have been on the New York Times Bestseller list. Additionally, he was the principal for the Business Communications School at The Euclid High School Complex. He was photographed by popular Humans of New York photographer Brandon Stanton, on June 12, 2014, which led to his personal website crashing due to a high volume of visitors. Klein is also a contributor for The New York Post.


Klein received extensive criticism for his 2005 biography of Hillary Clinton, The Truth About Hillary

Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." 

The conservative columnist John Podhoretz criticized the book in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word."

In the National Review, conservative columnist James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review asked Klein in a June 20, 2005 interview, "Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book...that looks to be flimsily sourced at that?," regarding his suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in an act of marital rape. Facing criticism from both the left and right for making the claim, Klein eventually backed away from the insinuation in an interview with radio host Jim Bohannon on June 23, 2005.

The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein's 2014 book Blood Feud.

Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason, Salon's Simon Malloy and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan. "Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don't know people who speak this way," Limbaugh said of Klein's work, describing the sources as "grade school chatter."




So having established that Klein is a writer of VERY controversial stuff, one should not be surprised at his latest effort...



The latest title from Edward Klein, the former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine and author of 'Guilty As Sin,' a book about Hillary Clinton, hit shelves on Monday.

Called 'All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump,' it focuses on the Obama White House's alleged plan to destroy the current leader, reports the Washington Times.

"In are not entitled to overthrow the democratically elected president of the United States...That, however, is what Donald Trump's enemies on the Left and Right are doing," the description posted to Amazon notes. "Through a variety of underhanded tactics―lies, leaks, obstruction, and violence―they are working to delegitimize President Trump and drive him from office before he can drain the swamp and take away their power."



read more:


And by the way, Klein believes that the FBI has probably uncovered a plot, jointly thought up by US anarchists and jihadi groups.


Last July (2017), members of Oakland (an anarchist group) probably met two leaders of al-Qaeda on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg (Klein published a copy of an FBI report on this subject as an annex to his book). Following this, one of these anarchists went to Syria to meet several Daesh leaders.

This would be the most dangerous conspiracy for the Bureau since the Weather Underground affair during the Vietnam War.

According to the FBI, the anarchists had probably received some training on how to make bombs and poison gas.

Source: The Voltaire network...


How unlikely that anything like this would happen in the US where everything is possible, including some lunatic going to a hotel room in Las Vegas with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition that would rival that of the US army in Kabul...

Is Edward Klein crazy, fabricate views with a vivid imagination or does he know too much? 




Meanwhile, at the barricades manned by billionaires:



Americans didn’t just go to the polls in 2016. They joined a movement that swept the unlikeliest of candidates, Donald Trump, into the Oval Office. Can he complete his agenda? Or will his opponents in the media, protestor class, and political establishment block his efforts and choke off the movement he represents?

In Billionaire at the Barricades, Laura Ingraham gives readers a front row seat to the populist revolution as she witnessed it. She reveals the origins of this movement and its connection to the Trump presidency. She unmasks the opposition, forecasts the future of the Make America Great Again agenda and offers her own prescriptions for bringing real change to the swamp of Washington.

Unlike most of her media colleagues, Ingraham understood Trump’s appeal and defied those who wrote his political obituary. Now she confronts the president’s critics and responds to those who deny the importance of his America First agenda. With sharp humor and insight she traces the DNA of the populist movement: from Goldwater’s 1964 campaign, to Nixon’s Silent Majority, to Reagan’s smashing electoral victories.

Populism fueled the insurgency campaigns of Buchanan and Perot, the election of George W. Bush, and the Tea Party rallies of the Obama presidency. But a political novice―a Manhattan billionaire―proved to be the movement’s most vocal champion. This is the inside story of his victory and the fitful struggle to enact his agenda.


read more:


It is still noteworthy to consider that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump who got the Colleges. At this level, the other billionaire that manned the barricades for Trump is our own Uncle Rupe WITHOUT WHOM TRUMP WOULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED. Putin had nothing to do with Trump's victory but he will get the blame for it nonetheless, because to a great extend, Murdoch is "untouchable". His marriage to Jerry Hall is both a "love story" and an "insurance policy" in looking "good'...



hoarding the democratic cash...


Former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile has accused former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton of shady financial dealings that essentially rigged the 2016 Democratic primary to ensure Bernie Sanders would not have a chance at becoming the party’s nominee for president.

That Brazile is casting blame on other people for creating an unfair primary advantage for Clinton is disingenous: Brazile was complicit in the scheme and fed debate questions to Clinton prior to Democrat debates, a scandal she has expressed remorse for.

Details about the 2016 election collusion emerged in an excerpt from Brazile's upcoming book published by Politico Thursday. A fundraising agreement signed in 2015 allowed Clinton's campaign to manipulate a cash-strapped Democratic Party and funnel donations straight into her campaign coffers, aligning the interests of the former secretary of state and the party as a whole.

"We perceive Bernie supporters as those who are outside of the main Democratic circles," Anoa Changa, host of The Way With Anoa podcast, explained to Sputnik Radio's Loud & Clear program on Thursday. Those supporters saw the "one-sided control and favoritism" of one candidate over the rest of the field from August 2015 when the agreement was reached until the primary a year later, but were consistently shouted down, accused of sexism and told they weren't appreciating the "most qualified candidate" ever to run for president — and to let the Clinton coronation continue.

​The DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund (the campaign's finance arm) and Hillary For America (the campaign itself) inked a joint fundraising agreement. The accord stipulated "that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised," Brazile said. Clinton's campaign was "grabbing money from the state [Democratic] parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races," but "the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fundraisers Hillary's campaign was holding."

Read more:


Read from top...


the odor of failure...


Former DNC chair Donna Brazile says she seriously considered Biden to replace Clinton


In her explosive new memoir, “Hacks,” the former acting chair of the Democratic National Committee reveals that she considered setting in motion a process to replace Hillary Clinton after Clinton collapsed in New York on Sept. 11, 2016 — in part because Clinton’s campaign was “anemic” and had taken on “the odor of failure.”


Exclusive of the Washington Post. 


Read from top and also: 

The story of Fancy Bear

in a parallel universe...


Sod it, let’s pretend Hillary Clinton won the election last year



19 August 2017

To distract from impending impeachment, Hillary ups the rhetoric against North Korea, threatening explosive, destructive, reckless trade sanctions. Trump tweets: “If I were president, I’d fly over North Korea, jump out of Air Force One, beat up every single member of Kim Jong-un’s government with my kung fu moves (I know really good kung fu actually, the best, the most amazing), and kick Kim right in the nuts. Then I’d blow up Pyongyang. Not good for North Korea!” When people complain, Twitter maintains that Trump is an entertainer, not a politician – if he were president, he obviously wouldn’t be allowed to say such inflammatory things.

30 October 2017

The net is closing in on Hillary. Special investigator Robert Mueller has opened a formal investigation against Hillary’s decision to use the same password (chelsea4prez2032) for her Google account and work account. A rumour swirls that Bill Clinton has left Hillary, and the person standing next to her at public engagements is actually noted character actor Harvey Keitel wearing a fake nose and platform shoes. On the plus side, Hillary finally has a majority in the House and Senate – but that’s only because every state apart from New York has been annexed. In every other state millions of Trumpistan flags fly (like the American flag, but instead of stars it’s Trump’s face, and instead of stripes it’s Trump’s face).


After much soul-searching, Hillary steps down, in order to spend less time around men who hate her. Unfortunately her vice-president, Tim Kaine, was so forgettable that the secret service has lost him. Thankfully, perennial not-presidential candidate Mark Zuckerberg steps up to fill the void, citing a little known constitutional precedent: “Should the president and the vice-president be incapacitated, the next president should be the one with access to all of your incriminating Facebook messages.” Zuckerberg assumes the presidency, running with his virtual-reality avatar as his vice-president.

Read more:


still misreading the result...


A year after her defeat by Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton says “there are lots of questions about its legitimacy” due to Russian interference and widespread voter suppression efforts.

In an interview with Mother Jones in downtown Manhattan, Clinton said Russian meddling in the election “was one of the major contributors to the outcome.” The Russians used “weaponized false information,” she said, in “a very successful disinformation campaign” that “wasn’t just influencing voters—it was determining the outcome.”

Republican efforts to make it harder to vote—through measures such as voter ID laws, shortened early voting periods, and new obstacles to registration—likewise “contributed to the outcome,” Clinton said. These moves received far less attention than Russian interference but arguably had a more demonstrableimpact on the election result. According to an MIT study, more than 1 million people did not vote in 2016 because they encountered problems registering or at the polls. Clinton lost the election by a total of 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

“In a couple of places, most notably Wisconsin, I think it had a dramatic impact on the outcome,” Clinton said of voter suppression.

Read more:


Hillary is still misreading the result. The "Russian government" had no intention in interfering in this election. That some people — some Americans and some "aliens" — disguised themselves as "Russians" in these days and age of electronic transmission is child's play.

As pointed out in an exclusive in The Saturday Paper, News Corp has been the culprit of many shenanigans in Australian politics, mostly playing to destroy Labor — and of course Gus saw the same Uncle Rupe's processes in the latest US Presidential elections, starting way back — even before Trump entered the race on behalf of GOP. 

Gus believes that, recently, the main purpose of Uncle Rupe, through his glorious troops of "journos", has simply been to delay as much as possible true information reaching the public about "global warming". This view has been expressed on many cartoons and satirical articles on this site. Please indulge.


.. and not a single russian in sight...

Time does not heal all wounds. Since November 8, 2016, the national divide has only grown deeper. During the campaign, Donald Trump stoked the fires of cultural and economic resentment while Hillary Clinton worshipped at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness. The social and demographic tectonics that led to the Trump presidency are still shifting. The election continues to be relitigated hourly in a non-stop loop.

With Chasing Hillary, Amy Chozick of The New York Times offers a clear-eyed assessment of what went wrong inside the Clinton campaign bubble. Drawing upon a decade of covering Clinton, first at the Wall Street Journal and then at the Times, Chozick depicts a campaign removed from America’s geographic and cultural center. While James Comey may have actually cost Clinton the White House, neither the candidate nor her minions were doing all that they could to get her to 270, the magic number. At times, they did just the opposite.

Most glaringly, Team Clinton seemed oblivious to the aftermath of the Great Recession and its resultant middle class anxieties. To put things in perspective, in April 2015, with the presidential race about to heat up, nearly half of Americans, 48 percent at that, self-identified as working or lower class. As Mandy Grunwald, a long-time Clinton advisor, framed things, Clinton could sound like she “DOESNT think the game is rigged,” only recognizing that the “public thinks so”—not exactly an “I feel your pain” reaction, and definitely not her husband’s kind of response. 

In contrast to the candidate, Chozick depicts former president Bill Clinton as still connected to the concerns of everyday Americans. Chasing Hillary documents Bill going “red in the face” almost daily as he warned his wife’s campaign of Trump’s “shrewd” understanding of white working class voters, voters who were Bill’s base in 1992 and 1996 but were neglected by Hillary’s data-driven endeavor. 

Chasing Hillary also describes how Robby Mook, the campaign manager, rebuffed Bill’s request that Hillary deliver a speech at Notre Dame, something that he and President Obama found time to do. As Mook saw things, “Catholics weren’t the demographic that Clinton needed to spend her time talking to.” On Election Day, Catholic voters returned the favor: Trump bested Clinton by four points among that key demographic. 

Disturbingly, the book makes clear that Clinton’s take on Trump’s “deplorables” was no one-off gaffe. Rather, it reflected her private and oft-repeated taxonomy of Trump’s supporters, one that elicited guffaws over chardonnay and canapes across Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, and Silicon Valley. 

Specifically, “BASKET #1” was comprised of Clinton haters and die-hard Republicans. “BASKET #2” was voters adversely impacted by the economic downturn. As for “BASKET #3,” the deplorables, this included “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic—you name it.” Suffice to say, insulting voters may win the hearts of donors feasting on a Friday night at Cipriani Wall Street; elsewhere, not so much.

Clinton, in Chozick’s view, was also damaged by a lack of rationale for her candidacy. While her personal ambition was most certainly there, an answer to the question “why” was AWOL. Comparing Clinton to Ted Kennedy and his infamous interview with CBS’s Roger Mudd wherein he seemed stumped after being asked why he wanted to be president, Chozick writes, “there was no meat on the bone. There was nothing for me, or anyone else, to grasp onto as ‘that’s why Hillary is running for president.’” 

Chasing Hillary spends three pages cataloging the 84 messages and themes that were weighed by Clinton’s campaign in an effort at a response. In the end, all lacked the simplicity and viscera summoned up by “Make America Great Again.” Somehow “Building a Fairer Future” and “A Better Bargain for a Better Tomorrow” just didn’t cut it, at least not after the economy took its biggest dip since the Great Depression. Clinton wasn’t FDR.

Ironically, early on the Clinton campaign did its bit to promote Trump, along with Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, aka the “Pied Pipers.” A 2015 campaign strategy memo to the Democratic National Committee spoke of building up these three, advising, “We don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates.” As frequently happens, answered prayers are the most dangerous—or, as the saying goes, be careful for what you wish for.

The book also probes the fraught relationship between Clinton and Joe Biden. As Chozick tells it, Biden was scared of running against Clinton, fearful of what could happen to him. Chozick paraphrases Biden as saying to the press (off the record): “You guys don’t understand these people. The Clintons will try to destroy me.” 

Chozick’s own relationship with Clinton appears to have been rocky at times, despite the author’s expressed personal fondness for the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Toward the beginning of the book, Chozick recalls the first time that she, then a 17-year-old, met Clinton in Texas in 1996. Back then, Chozick’s assessment was that Clinton “seemed nice.” Pages and years later, Chozick thanks Clinton for teaching her about grit and “how to revolt against the dunces.” Her gratitude, however, is alloyed: “Hillary taught me all of that. So what if she hated me?”

Sure, Chozick shares about hook-ups, grabby campaign staffers, and her own efforts to become a wife and mother. But Chasing Hillary is way more than that. It stands to do to Clinton and her campaign what Joshua Green’s Devil’s Bargain did to the president and Steve Bannon—deliver a highly readable and essential chronicle of the election that just was and likely will always be with us.


Read more:


Read from top...

another reason why she failed the test...

Hillary Clinton has offered a long series of reasons why her 2016 was such a no-good, deplorable year, but the newest addition to the basket of excuses may be the best of all: It’s because she’s a capitalist.

Asked at a city event Wednesday if identifying as such hurt her with Democratic voters, she said, “Probably.”

“You know, it’s hard to know, but if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist?’ and I say, ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability,’ you know, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist!’ ”

Maybe there’s some truth there, at least when it comes to her difficulties beating proud socialist Bernie Sanders. Plainly, lots of Democrats — especially the “base” voters who turn out for caucuses and primaries — are small-s socialists.

As for Clinton being a “capitalist”: Well, yeah, if crony capitalism counts.

You know, the kind of capitalism that “earns” a potential president hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches on Wall Street. Or the gobs of money donated to your family foundation in exchange for favors from the State Department you run.

If that’s the capitalism Hillary thinks cost her votes, she has a point.


Read more:

Read from top... The problem is that the Woman would not have a clue about what is capitalism...

the vatican's politcs...


As an excuse for its bombing campaign, NATO invented fictitious Serb ‘aggression’ in Kosovo. This lie was demolished by the fact that the so-called Kosovo ‘Liberation’ Army (KLA) had already been pursuing a relentless campaign of terror against Serbia. 60,000 Serbs had been the victims of KLA-conducted ethnic cleansing in the previous few years, a fact which understandably provoked Serbia into justified retaliatory self-defence; but the Western media manipulated the truth and falsely portrayed Serbia as the assailant.

The Serbs, like the Protestants of Northern Ireland, have been a consistent thorn in the flesh of the Vatican, particularly in its plans to establish an EU Superstate. During the Hitler era, under the auspices of Archbishop Stepinac – that mass murderer whom the Pope beatified in 1998 – the fascist Roman Catholic statelet of Croatia systematically slaughtered a quarter of a million Orthodox Serbs, and forcibly converted over a million of them to Roman Catholicism.

The KLA was a very convenient pawn in the Vatican’s obsession to dismember Yugoslavia and attack Serbia; indeed, the whole campaign against Yugoslavia, beginning with the illegal secession of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, was aptly described by the Russian nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky as “a Vatican plot”. In 2001 he told the Duma (the Russian Parliament): “A march to the East via the Catholic Church is actually taking place: NATO expands to the East, the Catholic Church expands to the East.”

The Vatican’s Nazi-sponsored crimes against the Serbs by the Croatian Ustashi in 1941-1943 are best documented and illustrated in Avro Manhattan’s book The Vatican’s Holocaust and Monica Farrell’s Ravening Wolves – neither to be read by the faint-hearted. In some countries Manhattan’s book is still on the banned list.


Read more:


Read from top... History could have some wrong figures (numbers)... I know of the deads from the other sides but the record speaks for itself...

more deceitful bullshit from hillary...

Last month, former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a lecture at Trinity College Dublin made remarks condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin, blaming him for the resurgence of far right politics in the European Union and United States. Clinton stated that Putin…

…has positioned himself as the leader of an authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement that wants to break up the EU, weaken America’s traditional alliances and undermine democracy. We can see this authoritarian movement rippling out from the Kremlin, reaching across Europe and beyond. It’s emboldening right-wing nationalists, separatists, racists and even neo-Nazis.“

Before addressing the deceitfulness of her comments, the one part of them that is true needs to be recognized. At this point, it is universally acknowledged that there is a significant revival in far-right and neo-Nazi political activity being experienced in America and across the EU. It is also increasingly present in other countries such as India and Turkey, and even Brazil’s current leading candidate for President is being called a fascist. However, not only is Putin’s more traditional conservatism not in line with the rabidly anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant orientations mobilizing in the West, according to a recent study the actual determinant of such activity is historically contingent with austerity implemented by neo-liberals like Mrs. Clinton.

There is also one country in Europe facing a regrowth of far right nationalism which throws her narrative about Russia into disarray when considered. While not yet an EU member, the Ukraine was promised a still pending entry into the trade bloc and has undergone the same drift towards fascism. Recently, hate crimes committed by ultra nationalist gangs against its large Roma community have become increasingly widespread to the point where Human Rights Watch, an organization often politicized with a pro-Western bias, has even voiced concern. Forced evictions and violence against the Romani have been occurring under the post-Maidan authorities since 2014, but the attacks have sharply escalated in recent months. HRW reports that:

since the beginning of 2018, human rights groups have documented at least two dozen violent attacks, threats, or instances of intimidation by radical groups such as C14, Right Sector, Traditsiya i Poryadok (Tradition and Order), Karpatska Sich and others against Roma people…”

In April, members of C14 burned down Roma encampments in Kiev. After torching their homes, the vigilante mob terrorized Romani women and children with rocks and mace, posting cell phone video footage bragging about it on social media and vowed more attacks in the future. In late June, masked assailants carrying knives and bats assaulted a Roma camp in Lviv, killing one man and hospitalizing several others. On July 2nd, the body of a Romani woman was found with her throat cut after another siege by masked assailants. Rights groups say the perpetrators are enjoying freedom from any liability from authorities, perhaps because C14 is the recipient of state funding from the Ukrainian government.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Chief Military Prosecutor made publicized anti-Semitic statements in the midst of the violence that “Jews want to drown Ukraine in blood.” It’s no wonder that with such officials in charge of criminal investigations how hate crimes against ethnic minorities could go exempt from punishment. Many of these groups (particularly Right Sector and C14) played a significant role in the Maidan protests that led to a coup ousting the democratically-elected government of Viktor F. Yanukovych after he rejected an EU Association Agreement in favor of an austerity-free bailout from Russia. Their hatred of Russia is a shared interest with U.S. foreign policy, rooted historically in the collaboration between Ukrainian nationalists and Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union during WWII. Their hostility toward Moscow also eclipses their Euroskepticism as the Maidan brought the prospect of Ukrainian entry into the EU, but the same groups now regularly burn its flag in public demonstrations as well. The extremist militias were used as provocateurs during the protests, and they are now committing hate crimes against ethnic minorities like the Roma.


Read more:


Read from top. See also:

why trump is correct...

a product of US political-intelligence-media elites...



And if US elections are really so vulnerable to Russian “meddling,” what does this say about faith in American elections more generally? How many losing candidates on November 6 will resist blaming the Kremlin? Two years after the last presidential election, Hillary Clinton and her adamant supporters still have not been able to do so.

We know from critical reporting and from recent opinion surveys that the origins and continuing fixation on the Russiagate scandal since 2016 have been primarily a product of US political-intelligence-media elites. It did not spring from the American people—from voters themselves. Thus a Gallup poll recently showed that 57 percent of those surveyed wanted improved relations with Russia. And other surveys have shown that Russiagate is scarcely an issue at all for likely voters on November 6. Nonetheless, it remains a front-page issue for US elites.

Indeed, Russiagate has revealed the low esteem that many US political-media elites have for American voters—for their ability to make discerning, rational electoral decisions, which is the bedrock assumption of representative democracy. It is worth noting that this disdain for rank-and-file citizens echoes a longstanding attitude of the Russian political intelligentsia, as recently expressed in the argument by a prominent Moscow policy intellectual that Russian authoritarianism springs not from the nation’s elites but from the “genetic code” of its people.

US elites seem to have a similar skepticism about—or contempt for—American voters’ capacity to make discerning electoral choices. Presumably this is a factor behind the current proliferation of programs—official, corporate, and private—to introduce elements of censorship in the nation’s “media space” in order to filter out “Kremlin propaganda.” Here, it also seems, elites will decide what constitutes such “propaganda.”


Read more:


Read from top.