Volcanic Heat Source Discovered under the Melting Antarctic Glacier

There is a significant source of volcanic heat deep under the fast-melting Pine Island Ice Shelf in Western Antarctica, researchers found, after stumbling on the evidence while studying heat transfer in the icy continent’s oceans.

The Pine Island glacier is one of the biggest ice flows in Antarctica and is also among the most affected by melting. Big chunks of ice have been ‘calving’ off it on regular basis since the 2000s, with an iceberg about the same size as Washington DC breaking away last September. While warm ocean currents are the main cause for the melting, there are other factors, including heat coming from a volcanic source under the glacier, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Communications.

This part of Antarctica sits atop a volcanic ridge. Previous studies suggested an eruption in this general area about 2,200 years ago. Apparently, there still is significant volcanic activity underneath kilometers of ice.

Read more
FILE PHOTO © Bob StrongIceberg the size of Washington DC breaks off Antarctic glacier (PHOTOS)

The authors of the paper discovered this in 2014 when they were sampling water off Western Antarctica from the RRS James Clark Ross, an icebreaker operated by the British Antarctic Survey.

“We were looking to better understand the role of the ocean in melting the ice shelf,” Assistant Professor Brice Loose of Newport, the lead author, said. “I was sampling the water for five different noble gases, including helium and xenon. I use these noble gases to trace ice melt as well as heat transport.”

But then Loose, a chemical oceanographer at the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, along with five other scientists, found what they first believed to be bad data: High concentrations of the rare isotope Helium-3. On earth it is mostly encountered in the mantle, the part of the planet right under the crust. When the readings collected in other parts of the ocean showed similarly high concentrations of Helium-3, the researchers concluded that it came with meltwater from under the ice shelf.

“The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters,” Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia at Norwich in the UK and the chief scientist with the expedition, explained. “It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.”

The team estimates that the amount of volcanic heat generated under the Pine Island Ice Shelf is about half of that coming from the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland and is released about 50 to 250 meters below the ocean level. The estimate may be lower than the actual amount, because Helium-3 indicates only convective heat transfer, one of several ways thermal energy may be exchanged, they note.

Loose, however, warned against overstating the impact of volcanic activity on glacial melting: “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”

Jared Kushner and the Palestinian Plan

by Thierry Meyssan

We were wrong to believe that the US project for the Middle East was a peace plan for Palestine. Despite the communications from the White House, this is not what President Trump is seeking. He is approaching this question from a radically different angle than that of his predecessors – not attempting to render Justice between his vassals, as an emperor would, but to unblock the situation in order to improve the daily lives of the populations involved.

The Israëlo-Arab conflict, which was originally a late episode of the European colonial conquest, was developed in order to hinder Arab unity. It was no longer a case of affirming the strength of the Western powers in the Middle East, but of making sure that the Arabs did not constitute a bloc which could compete with them. At first colonial, the logic of the conflict became imperial by aligning itself behind the United States.

But today, the Western powers which have dominated the world for the last few centuries are in decline, while Asia, the bearer of other civilisations, has once again become the centre of the world. It follows that the pressure brought to bear on the Arabs is dwindling. It is in this context that President Trump is putting an end to the Cebrowski doctrine of the destruction of social and State structures in the region, and is attempting to pacify the Israëli conflict.

Donald Trump’s personal team for international negotiations – composed of his faithful lieutenants Jared Kushner (his son-in-law) and Jason Greenblatt (ex-vice-president of his conglomerate, the Trump Organization) – therefore approach the Palestinian question from a geopolitical angle . Since they have no diplomatic experience, their plan is not to find a solution which satisfies all the protagonists, but to reduce the pressure on this population in order that they might live a normal life according to the ideal of the right to happiness as it is set out in the US Constitution. This is a major objective for Donald Trump, who intends to dissolve US imperialism and replace it with the logic of commercial competition.

Of course, it is easier for Kushner and Greenblatt, two Orthodox Jews, to understand the Israëlis rather than the Arabs, but from the point of view they have adopted, it doesn’t really have much importance. Whatever they say, their objective is not to arrive at peace, but simply to unblock the situation. They use their Jewish identity as a winning card, because it influences them not to explore the question of responsibility – a question which will arise, however, if they seek to establish a fair and definitive peace .

The « Trump method » in which they have been trained for long years, may be resumed as follows:
- first of all, to acknowledge reality, even if that implies abandoning well-tried official rhetoric;
- secondly, to consider all the advantages that can be taken from anterior bilateral agreements;
- and thirdly, to take multilateral Law into account as far as possible [1].

The two men, who abstain from any public declaration, travel throughout the region without ever revealing their plans for the next day. However, their interlocutors are much more talkative. Little by little, they allow the developing plan to become known.

Finally, Kushner and Greenblatt are giving new life to the initiative of Prince Abdallah (2002) [2]. At that time, the future King of Saudi Arabia stimulated the evolution of the Arab point of view, not by basing himself on the Oslo Agreements, but on Resolutions 194 (1948) [3] of the General Assembly, and 242 (1967) [4] and 338 (1973) [5] of the UN Security Council. His basic principle was « land for peace » – the Arabs were ready to recognise and live in peace with Israël on the condition that it withdrew to the borders of 1967. This was rejected by the Israëli Prime Minister of the time, Ariel Sharon, who had begun his career in 1948 as commander of one of the terrorist units which assassinated Arabs at random and forced the survivors to flee (la Nakba). Steeped in colonial ideology, he nourished the ambition of conquering all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Kushner and Greenblatt readopted the principle of Prince Abdallah, but noting the daily theft of land by Israël, they considered the idea of giving up much more, just so that it would cease.

Today, approximately one third of Israëlis consider their destiny by referring to the racism in the Talmud. But for the majority of the Jewish Israëli population, they were born in Israël and have no connection with the dreams of yesterday. They are simply people who want to live in peace. They are not responsible for the crimes of their grandparents, unless we accept the idea of a collective responsibility. They can therefore accept to withdraw to the frontiers of 1967.

Just the same, there remain almost no survivors of the Nakba. International Law condemns this ethnic cleansing and obliges Israël to recognise the inalienable right of the victims and their descendants to return to the lands from which they were expelled. But the Palestinian Arabs lost the Israëlo-Arab war of 1948. They may therefore demand indemnities, but they can not claim to recover the real estate properties that their grandparents abandoned, then lost. This final point was implemented by the peace initiative of Prince Abdallah, but has still not been assimilated by Arab public opinion.

Furthermore, there are today as many Palestinian Arabs in Jordan than in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem together. Returning to an old Britannico-Arab hypothesis, Kushner and Greenblatt propose to fusion the four territories into a single State. New Jordan would still be a Hashemite Kingdom, governed by King Abdallah II (not to be confused with the previous Saudi Prince) and a Palestinian Prime Minister. Kushner and Greenblatt imagined that by absorbing the independent West Bank into the Jordanian Kingdom, they would force President Mahmoud Abbas (83 years old) to retire – one of the reasons for which the Republican has declared his undying hatred for them, and refuses to receive them.

Until 1967, Jordan included the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the Trump team wants to add Gaza. This last point is still in suspension. Another hypothesis would be to conserve the current situation of an autonomous Gaza. In this case, this territory would be attached to Egypt. A free-exchange zone would be organised with a part of the Sinaï in order to allow its economic development. The Gulf countries, led by Saudi Arabia, would finance the reconstruction of the waste-water collection system, a solar electricity centre, a port and an airport.

This is where things get complicated. Since they signed a separate peace agreement with Israël, the Egyptians have complicated relations with the inhabitants of Gaza. They participate regularly in the Territorial siege. A few years ago, the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ahmed Aboul Gheit (current General Secretary of the Arab League), closed the frontier and threatened the civilians who wanted to escape from their open-air prison that he would « break their legs ».

As for the historical Jordanians, who are the descendants of the Bedouin tribes, they only represent 20 % of the population of their country, which is drowning in an ocean of Palestinian refugees. After the fusion, if it were to be implemented, they would represent no more than 10 %. They could attempt to reinforce their culture by naturalising the Syrian refugees who are descendants of the Bedouin tribes to whom they have given asylum. Above all, the Hashemite monarchy only exists because of the dream of the founder of the dynasty, Cherif Hussein, to create Arab unity (the « Great Arab Revolt of 1915 »). If the Palestinians interpret fusion as a failure of this project faced with Israël, a revolt comparable to that of 1970 (« Black September ») would be inevitable, and the monarchy could be overthrown.

All of the bargaining presently under way is aimed at evaluating how to make this projet viable, and how to ensure that the other powers in the region do not sabotage it. Because as time went by, what was at first a localised colonial conflict has become Israël’s war with the whole region – not only with the Arabs, but also with the Turks and the Persians. If one of the protagonists should consider itself mistreated by this new configuration, it would not hesitate to scupper the project.

For seventy years, the United Nations has been quoting the Law and condemning Israël for not respecting it, but almost no-one acts in order to apply it. Today, not only is the political situation of the Palestinians in continual decline, but their daily existence has become unbearable.

The White House plan has already triggered bitter recriminations among the leaders of the region and the Western states, who still benefit from the situation. It seems to be much better accepted by the populations concerned.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

[1] “Jared Kushner reorganises the Middle East”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 19 December 2017.

[2] “The Arab Peace Initiative on Recognition of Israel in Return for Israeli-Palestinian Peace”, Voltaire Network, 28 March 2002.

[3] “UN General Assembly Resolution 194”, Voltaire Network, 11 December 1948.

[4] “UN Security Council Resolution 242”, Voltaire Network, 22 November 1967.

[5] “UN Security Council Resolution 338”, Voltaire Network, 22 October 1973.

American Pravda: the JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?



A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once I came to accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.

On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.

From such a considerable distance in time, a bird’s-eye view may be a reasonable starting point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W. Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was very likely the mere “patsy” that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.


An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement. Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences. Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.

During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny, and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK’s assassination. In 1978 longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting story in The Spotlight, a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby, a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost 400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic, The Nation, and National Review.

Marchetti’s article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in 1985.


As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial, his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been merely peripheral. Hunt’s explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot’s books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media.

Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam, sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of the Cold War.

While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on Kennedy’s elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable operation they were undertaking.

We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron’s death. On the other hand, the very considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of the conspiracy.

These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek to locate the organizers of Kennedy’s elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.

But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy’s elimination because he backed away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an American president?

A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy’s shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?


Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot’s 2015 book The Devil’s Chessboard, something of a sequel to Brothers, suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.

While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower’s secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence, which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything—including his family’s reputation in the history books—to organize the murder of America’s duly-elected president, an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK’s notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J. Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar reasons.

On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination.

Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son’s presidential campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.

However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in this failed bargain, only sparing the singer’s life when he considered how much he personally loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.

These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy’s own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.

Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrating the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America’s political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.

If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country’s politics in such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader’s immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary.

The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson’s involvement. Talbot’s first book reports that immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot’s second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice. Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.

Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence. Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK’s martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.

Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures in JFK’s government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.

An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot’s strong reputation, his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes. But if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of “outrageous conspiracy theory” would have ensured that his book sank without a trace.

However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson’s involvement seems quite compelling.

Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic “lone gunman” conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.

A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce.

Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson’s foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.


But the specific details of Johnson’s career and his political situation in late 1963 greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the “See No Evil” approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone’s The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so.

Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information regarding Johnson’s decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961 incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission’s “lone gunman” finding, a federal government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was officially ruled a “suicide” by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a straight face in the pages of the Washington Post.

Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson’s career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history, having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife’s business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago.


Stone also effectively sketches out the very difficult political situation Johnson faced in late 1963. He had originally entered the 1960 presidential race as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country and the obvious front-runner for his party’s nomination, certainly compared to the much younger Kennedy, whom he greatly outranked in political stature and also somewhat despised. His defeat, involving a great deal of underhanded dealings on both sides, came as a huge personal blow. The means by which he somehow managed to get himself placed on the ticket are not entirely clear, but both Stone and Seymour Hersh in The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy’s paper-thin 1960 victory would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column, and election fraud there by Johnson’s powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have been an important factor.

Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson’s long record of extreme corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead filled by the JFK assassination story.

Aside from effectively documenting Johnson’s sordid personal history and the looming destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him, as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947, Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an investigator, being told that “he was one of Lyndon Johnson’s boys.” Stone also claims that Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson “I wasn’t willing to kill for it.” He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson’s direct involvement in the assassination.

Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession, and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally, I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to the sordid details of LBJ’s history that the book provides.

Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions of Johnson’s involvement.

Just prior to the outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967, Johnson had dispatched the U.S.S. Liberty, our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye on developments and perhaps also to “show Israel who was boss.”

Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the region.

Despite these very difficult conditions, a member of the crew heroically managed to jerry-rig a replacement antenna during the attack, and by trying numerous different frequencies was able to evade the jamming and contact the U.S. Sixth Fleet, informing them of the desperate situation. Yet although carrier jets were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack, and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen in any naval incident since World War II.


Although numerous medals were issued to the survivors, word of the incident was totally suppressed by a complete blanket of secrecy, and in an unprecedented step, even a Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded only in a private ceremony. The survivors were also harshly threatened with immediate court martial if they discussed what had transpired with the press or anyone else. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the attack had been intentional, a naval court of inquiry presided over by Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., father of the current senator, whitewashed the incident as a tragic accident, and a complete media blackout suppressed the facts. The true story only began to come out years later, when James M. Ennes, Jr., a Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the Liberty in 1979 .

As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate, and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training program required for all intelligence officers.

In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the Tribune Company, parent of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, investing merely a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as “the grave dancer” for his shrewd financial investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed, the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country’s largest and most prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007, the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word story on the Liberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.

By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card, thereby showing LBJ “who was really boss,” and once I discovered the reality of the JFK assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.

Regardless of such speculation, the strange circumstances of the Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on particular toes.

These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.

For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960 election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy, with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.


However, in the early 1990s highly-regarded journalists and researchers began exposing the circumstances surrounding the development of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Seymour Hersh’s 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationshipby Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered similar ground.

Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone, Kennedy’s choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium.


The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel’s founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. Piper notes that Stephen Green’s 1984 book Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy’s assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.

Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive. Although this analysis seems largely correct, America’s behavior towards Israel and its nuclear weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern.

An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies. During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK’s death, this project was quickly abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to reconstitute itself as AIPAC.


Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994 appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling. Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it, might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54, suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.

As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot’s 2005 book contains almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment, nor does his very comprehensive index include any entry for “Jews” or “Israel.” Indeed, at one point he very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy’s entirely Jewish senior staff by stating “There was not a Catholic among them.” His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles, his principal bête noire. Stone’s book, while fearlessly convicting President Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes “Jews” and “Israel” from the long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass’s book follows this same pattern.

Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper, Lane told him that Final Judgment made “a solid case” for a major Mossad role in the assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot’s own analysis. By contrast, New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden controversy, they gave Lane the long and glowing obituary that his career fully warranted.

When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions here and there, the same applies to the CIA.

By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman’s daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947 when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.


If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those reports seriously at the time. And although I have not yet read it, the recent, widely-praised book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations by journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.


There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman, Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by saying “I did it for the Jewish people.”

An intriguing aspect to Oliver Stone’s landmark JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly played a central role in the enormous espionage project to divert American technology and materials to Israel’s nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as “the Israeli James Bond.” And although the film ran a full three hours in length, JFKscrupulously avoided presenting any of the details that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger America’s fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.

Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper’s history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis.

In many respects, JFK Assassination Studies has become its own academic discipline, and my credentials are quite limited. I have read perhaps a dozen books in the subject, and have also tried to approach the issues with the clean slate and fresh eyes of an outsider, but any serious expert would surely have digested scores or even hundreds of the volumes in the field. While the overall analysis of Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.

Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other authors, and comparing them against Piper’s claims, then decide which argument seemed the stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.

However, Piper’s inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.

Final Judgment
The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better starting point.

Default Judgment
Questions, Answers & Reflections About the Crime of the Century

There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they were.

The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric “lone gunman” was almost entirely suppressed by our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term “conspiracy theory” soon became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what other lies may be out there.

Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.

However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.

And the third layer of media dishonesty is the the most extreme of all. A quarter century ago, Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our 35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to that of Johnson’s involvement. Yet Piper’s hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost entirely by underground word-of-mouth.

So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over “Who Killed JFK,” I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of “Our American Pravda.”

Pre-Putin-Summit Positioning? U.S. Leaves Syrian Rebels Out To Hang

Authored by Tom Luongo,

The more I think about a Trump-Putin summit, the more I believe that it should focus on Syria. If reports this morning are true (which they likely are not), that Trump doesn’t want to run in 2020 but would rather get the job done, whatever that means, in one term, then this is absolutely the topic of highest priority between him and Putin.

And up until this weekend that was simply my personal wish. There was no supporting evidence for it. Now, there may be.

Over the weekend an apparent letter from the U.S. Embassy in Amman was posted by Sam Heller stating that the Syrian rebels in the deconfliction zone in Dara’a should no longer expect any support from the U.S.

This letter, if real, comes at the same time as the Syrian Arab Army launched its offensive to retake the region. Most notably, we haven’t heard one peep out of Israel in protest over this, other than the boilerplate stuff about Iran not being involved.

But, with Hezbollah forces on the ground there and still no airstrikes by the Israelis, I’d say that the campaign to regain the area up to the Golan Heights and the Jordanian border has everyone’s blessing.

This, to me, would signal why Trump is pushing for a summit with Putin in July. No other matter is pressing in this time frame that requires the two to talk. And like Kim Jong-un’s displays of good faith ahead of his summit with Trump, Trump is giving Putin some peace of mind over Syria.

It also shows that no matter how much he bloviates and thinks he sets policy in the region, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is at the mercy of both his U.S. and Russian benefactors.

And this letter tells him all he needs to know about the limit of the U.S.’s support for Israeli regional ambitions.

The Dara’a campaign is a perfect opportunity for both leaders to show their willingness to lead and guarantee the behavior of their proxies to each other.

At the same time, however, things are getting complicated in Deir Ezzor where the SAA is now openly probing areas around the U.S. base at Al-Tanf. According to Elijah Magnier thousands of Russian troops are massing in Palmyra as a pressure move to get the U.S. to give up its base at Al-Tanf.

Moreover, Russia is not aiming for a partial victory in the Levant now that the useful part of Syria (the most populated geographic area of the country) is liberated, with the exception of the north. This is why the south becomes a necessity that must be liberated.

Russia has bigger plans in the Levant: during my visit to the city of Palmyra and its surroundings, the presence of thousands of Russian troops is striking, indicating that Moscow is sending new infantry and special forces in very large numbers. This large presence has not been announced.

Courtesy: Moon of Alabama

At the same time there was a major strike on Iraqi PMU forces which killed at least 20 soldiers at the Al Qa’im border crossing (far right of map) that was claimed by the Israelis, but Iraq doesn’t believe that for a second. The U.S. has been very aggressive in defending its position in Deir Ezzor as a bargaining chip in negotiations over Syria’s future and to pressure Iran directly.

The problem with that is now that the Kurds, under the SDF, know the U.S. cannot secure an independent future for them came to the bargaining table with the Assad government recently. This is undermining the U.S. position east of the Euphrates.

Assad and Putin tried to get the U.S. to give up Al-Tanf in exchange for removing Hezbollah from the Dara’a campaign, but to no avail. So, now it looks like Putin is engaging in a little brinksmanship of his own with those troops in Palmyra to back up the SAA as it pushes against the U.S.-imposed boundary around Al-Tanf (green area).

I expect that force is there to contain any desperate counter-attack by recently trained militants by the U.S. at Al-Tanf. And their presence ups the probability that the red line of direct U.S./Russian conflict is crossed.

With Assad’s Tiger forces making quick work of the militants in Dara’a the need for Trump to negotiate a settlement for U.S. forces in Syria becomes acute before it spirals out of control.

Remember what I always say, the U.S. is only willing to negotiate when it’s losing. The situation in Syria is slowly grinding towards the inevitable conclusion that the U.S. will be pushed out of Syria eventually, both through the active advances of the SAA and its allies and/or the further defection of the U.S.’s allies there, i.e. The SDF Kurds.

Turkey has already jumped ship and with Erdogan winning re-election there is little doubt that relations with Turkey will improve after first a coup attempt and then a hybrid war attack on Turkey’s currency and financial infrastructure.

Trump needs to walk away with a win from any meeting with Putin and in Syria there is one. He can Declare victory over ISIS in Dara’a and the Southwestern Syrian desert.

Negotiating a withdrawal of troops from Al-Tanf is the first part of a deal towards a new multi-party reality which lessens Iran’s future threat to Israel, which is what this is all about now anyway.

I don’t think there’s much more on the table than this officially at the moment, unfortunately. Trump is still fully committed to trade and tariff wars to force substantive change to the way the world trades goods. So, he’ll offer up concessions on Nordstream 2 and sanctions on Rusal, the State owned Russian aluminum company, to get Putin to give up his support of Iran and its ‘nuclear ambitions.’

This Kissinger-esque approach of offering nothing for something will not work since Putin holds all the cards on these issues. The more likely scenario is a Singapore-like agreement to begin draw downs of U.S. troops in Central Asia, including Afghanistan and Iraq, in exchange for a security guarantee from Putin on Iran’s presence in Syria.

Eventually that can move towards a new discussion of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But, make no mistake, Trump has a weak hand here, just like he had with North Korea. It looks like with Russiagate receding he may have enough room to begin playing some cards.

Multiculturalism, Open Immigration = Jewish Christianity in new clothes

As everybody knows, Christianity was organized by Jews. Yes, all the personages in the story, Jesus and his disciples were Jews; and they propagated the idea of brotherhood in God, which is the equivalent of today’s multiculturalism. Being very entrepreneurial and motivated, they managed to promote Christianity and the mythology of Jesus in the most effective way; just as they promoted the Communist idea of “the brotherhood of the working class.” (This is not unlike what Engels himself was puzzled to notice – what a coincidence of similarity between the Communist movement and the early Christianity, both promoted by Jews, at both stages of history!)

Through the same organized efficiency, and in competition with many dozens other cults, all emerging at the same time within the multicultural Roman Empire, they succeeded in beating the odds and emerging as the most attractive and persuasive form of religious superstition, by testing the appeal of various myths and finessing the mythology of the so-called founder, Jesus Christ.

At the same time, being politically astute, Christian Jews maneuvered to get the message out ahead of the others’ to the highest levels of the empire, by hook or by crook. What kind of means could they have used to persuade Constantine to select their superstition of Jesus Christ against all other cults as the state religion? And what role did his mother, Elena, who got the virus first, play?

From this point on, it was a straight line. By impoverishing the minds and the imagination of millions, these Christian Jews have convinced the rest to be subservient to a mass delusion of universal proportions; masses and masses of people now accept living with this psychosis, i.e., believing that the shadow of a dead man from 2,000 years ago is following them step by step and watching what they do and reading their thoughts through the air; a dead man who “proved” his powers through an even more surreal and impossible fact of life – resurrection from death.

Today, multiculturalism and the mixing of the races is promoted by the mass media in the same way that the idea of brotherhood between various tribes, different classes and individuals of different abilities was promoted by the belief in universal “salvation” through “liberation from life” – “salvation” in death and the afterlife – when we all will be equally happy; collective submission in this life and individual, personal dignity in the afterlife – for all but the Chosen Israelites.

Through clever hocus-pocus, the Jewish founders of Christianity turned this absurd superstition into the most powerful form of enslavement of the millions for the benefit of a minority outside of it. A form of concentration camp self-administered by the inmates, through their own priests, bishops and cardinals, a mental concentration camp.

The bigger the lie, the more it’s accepted.

Military Industrial Complex – Spending

Read yesterday, that from 1999 to 2015, the Pentagon spent 21 Trillion dollars that it can ‘not account for’. Currently there are 2,400 ‘auditors’ trying to audit the operation.

However, it is not just the 21 Trillion of ‘unallocated spending’ that is the problem, the problem is much bigger than that, because in addition to the 21 Trillion, the Pentagon has also spent an ‘authorized’ 650 Billion, annually, for the so-called ‘defense’. That ‘authorized expenditure’ amounts to another 10.4 Trillion, so, in fact, the Pentagon has received, and spent, 31.4 Trillion in 16 years, or roughly 2 Trillion per year, to maintain over 1,000 foreign ‘bases’ and to keep feeding the total incompetents in the armament industries with ever greater amounts of money to produce ‘weapons’ that would be wiped out on the battlefield within minutes.

So, in fact, The country has been spending 60% of annual government budgets on the MIC. That is a fantastic and gross amount that have left the majority of the people in the country virtually destitute.

I first heard of that 60% number from a {former} American multi-millionaire. At first I didn’t believe it, but with the most recent ‘revelations’, I can now see that he was exactly correct. 60% of the budget is going to war production when the country is not ‘at war’ with any significant opposition, and with the addition of trillions more for missile defense, drumpf’s idiotic new ‘space force’ and the like, it is going higher.

Take the Abram’s tanks for instance. Right now, today, the military has over 10,000 Abrams in ‘cold storage’ in Texas and every year, Ohio produces another 1,500 of them. A tank that has long since lost any strategic advantage on the battlefield, a gas guzzler that depends for it’s effectiveness on crazy, massive, in theatre resupply support, using gasoline tankers that are air dropped to the tank battalions. That might work in a third world country like Libya or Iraq, but it won’t work where it counts.

The EU is trying to make North, Central and West Africa part of the Schengen zone

Marrakesh Political Declaration

WE, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of the Interior, of Integration, in charge of Migration and high representatives of the following countries:, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BENIN, BULGARIA, BURKINA FASO, CABO VERDE, CAMEROON, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CHAD, CONGO, CÔTE D’IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, DENMARK, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GABON, GAMBIA, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, IRELAND, ITALY, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MALI, MALTA, MAURITANIA, MOROCCO, NETHERLANDS, NIGER, NIGERIA, NORWAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE, SENEGAL, SIERRA LEONE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TOGO, TUNISIA and UNITED KINGDOM; High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship; and high representatives of the Economic Community of West African States Commission ; and Algeria and Libya as observer countries;

MEETING the 2nd May 2018 in Marrakesh, at the invitation of the Kingdom of Morocco;

ACKNOWLEDGING the growing relevance of migration issues at the global level in general, and in Euro-African and Intra-African relations in particular, as well as the need to identify adapted and coordinated responses for the management of migration flows in all their aspects;

RECALLING the commitments made by the Rabat Process partners in the framework of the 2006 Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development, the 2014 Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Mobility, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015 in which States pledged to “leave no-one behind”, the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted the 19th September 2016 by the United Nations, the United Nations Declaration of the High-level Dialogue on International Migration of 2013, and the Political Declaration of the 5th African Union – European Union Summit of 2017 ;

REAFFIRMING the commitments made by the Rabat Process partners at the Valletta Summit on Migration in November 2015 and the Senior Officials’ Meeting of Valletta in February 2017, as well as their adherence to the principles of solidarity, partnership and shared responsibility in the joint management of migration issues in full respect of human rights;

REITERATING the commitment of the Rabat Process partners to the effective implementation of the Valletta Joint Action Plan (JVAP);

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the mandate given to the Rabat and Khartoum Processes to monitor the JVAP, as well as the mapping exercise already conducted, to ensure its follow-up, and COMMENDING the efforts made to implement the technical instrument for the long-term monitoring of the JVAP;

RECALLING the commitments made by the Rabat Process partners at the Ministerial Conferences in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2014, and the principles contained in the 2011 Dakar Declaration (an operational and coherent dialogue, a flexible and balanced approach, committed partners and shared responsibility);

RECOGNIZING the progress achieved within the framework of the different plans and strategies of the Rabat Process and taking into account the lessons learnt from the analyses carried out at the end of the Rome Programme 2014-2017;

Page 1 of 8

NOTING the value of the technical expertise and experience of external observers such as international organisations working in the field of migration and asylum, civil society actors, members of the diaspora and academic representatives, in enriching and operationalising the dialogue; CALLING for the strengthening of cooperation with the latter through increased consultations;

CONSCIOUS of the driving force of the Rabat Process in identifying common political priorities for migration and asylum issues between Africa and Europe, and its contribution to the formulation and implementation of migration strategies;

ENDEAVOURING to ensure coherence with the implementation instruments which have emerged since 2014 and which redefine the partnership framework, AVOIDING duplication of actions being undertaken in this respect and ENSURING complementarity of interventions;

ADOPT the Marrakesh Programme for 2018-2020, which comprises the present Political Declaration as well as the targeted, operational Action Plan, and which is based on a regional approach whilst also respecting state sovereignty;

AGREE to align the said Programme with the five domains of the JVAP in order to maintain coherence and complementarity with it:

Domain 1: Development benefits of migration and addressing root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement;

Domain 2: Legal migration and mobility;

Domain 3: Protection and asylum;

Domain 4: Prevention of and fight against irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings;

Domain 5: Return, readmission and reintegration;

AGREE equally to effectively implement, in a balanced way, the Action Plan which is thus adopted by incorporating the following cross-cutting priorities:

1. A human rights-based approach: the implemented actions will contribute to fully respecting the human rights and dignity of refugees and migrants, irrespective of their migration status;

2. Particular attention will be paid to the issues of gender and the protection of migrants in vulnerable situations including, in particular, women and children;

3. Increased attention to the fight against xenophobia, racism and discrimination: the partners will undertake efforts to combat these phenomena, and to promote a balanced narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;

4. A regional approach: the identification, formulation and execution of actions will take into account local and regional specificities.

5. An inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach: in their interventions, the partners will seek to involve all the actors under the coordination of the national authorities (regional organisations, local authorities, traditional and customary authorities, representatives of civil society and migrant and refugee communities, social partners, the private sector, the media and academia) as well as relevant International Organisations, to ensure coordinated and orderly management of all dimensions of the migratory phenomenon.

6. Particular attention to the collection, analysis and sharing of disaggregated data: among the activities envisaged, the partners will endeavour to identify existing initiatives and studies, to share migration data and will undertake, if necessary, specific studies for operational purposes at national or regional levels. The data and information obtained will feed into and contribute to migration policy-making processes;

DECIDE to target concrete actions which reflect the specific added value of the Rabat Process. This resides, notably, in its ability to build networks of technical and political actors, to formulate actions which take regional specificities into account, and to centralise information gathered as a result of their implementation, whilst at the same time respecting geographical balance at all levels;

AGREE to specify the modalities for the implementation of the targeted actions and to use the relevant mechanisms and tools to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Marrakesh Programme for 2018-2020 on a periodic basis in order to improve its scope and impact.

Page 3 of 8

Domain 1: Development benefits of migration and addressing root causes of irregular migration and the phenomenon of displaced persons

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aims, in its Goal 10.7, to “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies”.

Since its inception, the Rabat Process has consistently promoted the positive potential of regular migration and the key role of the diaspora for countries of origin, transit and destination. The strengthening of synergies between migration and development constitutes a priority domain and a specific feature of the Rabat Process. The dialogue partners agree to pursue this path and will focus most of their actions on maximising the benefits of regular migration for development, including, as a priority, members of the diaspora in this process.

The Rabat Process partners recognise the multiple root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement. These root causes, most of which are interconnected, need to be increasingly addressed through a wide range of appropriate responses both at policy and operational levels. Taking into account the mixed nature of migration flows, the partners reiterate the commitments made in the Valletta framework to invest in development and the eradication of poverty, to fight the root causes of irregular migration, to support humanitarian aid and development assistance in the countries most affected by the phenomenon of displaced persons, and to address environmental and climate change issues in the most affected regions.

Objective 1: Maximising the positive impact of regular migration for development

Action 1: Identify and share good practices that enable countries to gain better knowledge of the profiles of their diasporas and to adopt or to optimise strategies that promote their economic, social and cultural potential for development, whilst also analysing the potential obstacles to the adoption and optimisation of these good practices.

Action 2: Contribute to reducing the costs of remittances and to facilitating remittances sent by migrants to their countries of origin, in particular by supporting innovative or existing initiatives using the potential offered by digitalisation. The partners might refer, for example, to the work carried out by the African Institute for Remittances and its network of focal points.

Action 3: Promote initiatives that support entrepreneurship and productive investment among young people from the African Diaspora (such as the flagship MEETAfrica programme, developed within the framework of the Rabat Process), and encourage these young people to use their skills for the benefit of their countries of origin.

Objective 2: Achieve a common understanding of the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement in the Rabat Process region

Action 4: Analyse the root causes and make practical recommendations (particularly through the organisation of thematic meetings on this subject) with a view to improving the incorporation of these issues into policy development.

Page 4 of 8

Action 5: Promote a more systematic inclusion of issues related to the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement into socio-economic development strategies and programmes at national level, and into development cooperation programmes, whilst also promoting ownership of existing regional normative frameworks.

Domain 2: Legal migration and mobility

Taking note of the above-mentioned Goal 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Rabat Process partners recognise the need to encourage and to strengthen the pathways to regular migration, based on efficient civil registration systems, and to promote the mobility of certain categories of travellers (in particular, businessmen and businesswomen, young professionals or researchers) between European and North, West and Central African countries.

Objective 3: Promote regular migration and mobility, especially of young people and women, between Europe and North, West and Central Africa, and within these regions

Action 6: Encourage the establishment of exchange networks between vocational training institutes and employment agencies in Europe and Africa, in order to draw full benefit from the skills of young migrants and to adapt technical training to the needs of the labour market. Particular attention will be paid to activities targeting women and youth.

Action 7: In accordance with the national legislative frameworks, promote projects which aim to strengthen the portability of the rights and social protection of regular migrants and their families, for example, through the conclusion and the implementation of appropriate bilateral, regional or international conventions.

Action 8: Identify good practices and success factors which can guide relevant policy development and support inter- and intra-regional mobility, in particular through the analysis of existing studies on circular migration, particularly at regional level.

Objective 4: Encourage facilitation of visa issuing procedures

Action 9: In a spirit of partnership, pursue an open dialogue regarding visa facilitation, in particular through meetings and technical training sessions.

Action 10: Support actions designed to improve the accessibility, efficiency and transparency of the various national systems for visa issuance, including support for the creation of local information structures or the establishment of online information portals.

Domain 3: Protection and asylum

Rabat Process partners reiterate their international commitments in the field of protection and asylum, including those contained in the Valletta Political Declaration, and in particular those aimed at providing protection “to all those entitled to it in accordance with international and regional instruments”. They reaffirm their respect for the dignity of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons, and for the protection of their human rights, irrespective of status. The partners encourage countries in their efforts to sign up to and implement existing international conventions on protection, including the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967

Page 5 of 8

Protocol. They also encourage capacity building of national institutions with regards to asylum systems.

Objective 5: Promote measures aiming to strengthen the protection of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons

Action 11: Identify existing cross-border and regional protection initiatives in one of the sub-regions of the dialogue, and propose actions to stakeholders aimed at improving the protection of refugees and forcibly displaced persons. Particular attention will be paid to take into account the most vulnerable people, the best interests of children and the needs of unaccompanied minors.

Action 12: Promote the adoption of local, national and regional action plans aimed at defining procedures for an effective response, especially in the event of massive displacements of people.

Objective 6: Promote the integration of refugees and forcibly displaced persons into host communities

Action 13: Promote the integration of refugees and forcibly displaced persons through the establishment of awareness-raising campaigns aimed, on the one hand, at local communities and on the other hand, at refugees and asylum seekers, covering their rights and obligations in host countries.

Action 14: Share experiences and good practices which promote access to work and which allow people benefitting from international protection to become more self-reliant.

Domain 4: Prevention of and fight against irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings

The Rabat Process partners reiterate their commitment to international obligations relating to the prevention and fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, which are two serious forms of organised crime under international law (the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the additional United Nations protocols against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air and Sea, and aimed to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children).

In accordance with the Valletta Political Declaration, the partners encourage the stepping-up of efforts to prevent and combat these phenomena, both in Europe and Africa, through various instruments. Within this framework, the search for alternatives to the informal economy stemming from the illicit smuggling of migrants and the trafficking of human beings, as well as awareness-raising measures, are particularly encouraged.

The partners recognise the contribution of regional and international organisations and civil society organisations in this domain. The added value of the Rabat Process lies, inter alia, in its ability to connect the actors concerned by these two phenomena, in order to promote mutual learning and to improve cooperation.

Objective 7: Build the capacities of public institutions with competency in the areas of integrated border management, and the prevention and fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings

Page 6 of 8

Action 15: Improve the detection capabilities of national authorities with regard to smuggling of migrants and persons in need of international protection, trafficking in human beings, as well as in the area of integrated border management and control.

Action 16: Strengthen judicial and police cooperation at bilateral, inter- and intra-regional and international levels regarding the exchange of information, paying particular attention to financial investigations.

Action 17: Continue and accompany efforts designed to develop and to implement appropriate legislative and institutional frameworks at both national and regional levels, in accordance with the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the relevant additional Protocols against the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings.

Objective 8: Improve the protection of migrants and persons in need of international protection who have been smuggled, and victims of trafficking in human beings

Action 18: Facilitate the sharing of good practices in relation to awareness-raising and information on the risks of irregular migration and trafficking in human beings, targeting, in particular, children and women, and involving all stakeholders (the State, the diaspora, the media, social networks, civil society, international organisations and the private sector).

Action 19: Formulate concrete responses regarding the protection and assistance of people affected by smuggling and victims of trafficking in human beings, particular women and girls (reception structures, legal advice, social, psychosocial and health services, interpretation, reintegration, etc.) and promote their inclusion into national, regional and sub regional initiatives and policies.

Domain 5: Return, readmission and reintegration

The Rabat Process partners reiterate their adherence to obligations under international law in the area of return and readmission and recall the importance of sustainable reintegration. They reiterate their support for the principle of non-refoulement and agree to give preference to voluntary return. They recall that policies in the area of return and readmission are the shared responsibility of States, and that they should be efficient, transparent and carried with full respect for the human rights, security and dignity of migrants.

The partners of the Rabat Process applaud the joint progress achieved through the political dialogues which have been initiated in this domain. It is important that these efforts are pursued and that this dialogue is translated into action, leading to strengthened cooperation and more efficient return and readmission.

Objective 9: Strengthen the capacities of the competent authorities in order to improve and ensure the identification processes and the issuing of travel documents.

Action 20: Exchange best practices related to return, readmission and reintegration at national, regional and cross-border levels (in particular through regional consultations).

Action 21: Promote the use of innovative identification techniques. The thematic meeting on return, readmission and reintegration organised in Brussels in 2016 proposed, among other things, the use of videoconferencing for identification or pre-identification, more systematic use of fingerprints, or recourse to joint actions for complex cases. Depending on the needs, provide support (technical assistance, peer support or training) to a specific group of countries in order to help them put these techniques in place.

Page 7 of 8

Objective 10: Encourage programmes that ensure the safe return and sustainable reintegration of migrants, in full respect of their rights and dignity

Action 22: Organise peer-to-peer meetings between European and African cities, and with other competent authorities, to enable mutual learning in migration management, including sustainable return, building on existing networks (such as the City-to-City initiative) and capitalising upon their achievements.

Action 23: Strengthen assisted return programmes and promote actions aimed at accompanying and including all returned migrants in development policies and programmes at local level.

Click to access 20180503_declaration-and-action-plan-marrakesh_en.pdf

Has The West The Will To Survive?

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

If you’re … pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart; that’s a tough dilemma. … I’d rather be strong.

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came?

Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?

Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possess?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: they could never have built a nation like ours.

Which brings us again to the larger questions.

While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.

Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.

They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity and equality.

And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.

“If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump on Wednesday. Is he wrong?

Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat comes from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

This is the existential crisis of the West.

Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday.

Nikola Tesla about Albert Einstein

By Rand Clifford for Veterans Today

When Albert Einstein was asked how it felt to be the “smartest person alive”, Einstein replied: “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

Certain scholars question the validity of this exchange, largely because Tesla…well, in 1934, on his 79th birthday, Tesla called Einstein’s Relativity Theory “…a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.”

Other Tesla quotes amid his public disagreement with Einstein, regarding Relativity Theory:

— “…a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense…the theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”

— “Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.” (NYT, 7/11/1935, p. 23).

Reverence of Einstein, historically and publicly seems rather full-scope. His eminence has been welded into the public mind by those who control the public mind, the Power Status Quo (PSQ).

Germany and Syria

JPEG - 39.3 kbIn Berlin, in January 2015, a march for tolerance united political and Muslim leaders in reaction to the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Madame Merkel marched arm in arm with Aiman Mazyek, general secretary of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. Although he pretends to have broken with the Muslim Brotherhood, and maintains an open dialogue, Mr. Mazyek offers protection within his organisation to the Milli Gorus (the supremacist organisation of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) and the Muslim Brotherhood (the matrix of jihadist organisations, under the international presidency of Mahmoud Ezzat, ex-right hand of Sayyid Qutb).by Thierry Meyssan

Relations between Germany and Syria, which used to be excellent under Emperor Wilhelm II, are today abysmal. This is because since the Cold War, Berlin has become the ground-base for the Muslim Brotherhood where they organized their attempt to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2012, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the federal think-tank SWP have been working directly on behalf of the US deep state for the destruction of the country.

Historically, beginning of the 20th century, Germany maintained excellent relations with the Ottoman Empire. Kaiser Wilhelm II, who was fascinated by Islam, pursued archeological excavations, notably in Baalbeck, and participated in the construction of the first railways, including the Damascus-Medina line. The Reich and the Sublime Porte stood together against the British when they organized the “Great Arab Revolt” of 1915. Then they lost the First World War, and as a result, were excluded from the region (Sykes-Picot-Sazovov agreements).

JPEG - 29.6 kbIn 1953, President Eisenhower received a delegation of the Muslim Brotherhood led by Saïd Ramadan. From then on, the United States supported political Islam overseas.

During the Cold War, the CIA recuperated some of the best Nazi officers in order to continue its struggle against the USSR. Among them were Gerhard von Mende, who had recruited Soviet Muslims against Moscow [1]. In 1953, this senior civil servant installed the chief of the Muslim Brotherhood outside of Egypt, Saïd Ramadan, in Munich [2].

JPEG - 19.1 kbAlois Brunner, considered to be responsible for the deportation of 130,000 Jews, was installed by the CIA in Damascus in 1954, in order to prevent the régime of President Choukri al-Kouatli from concluding an alliance with the Soviets.

In the same period, the CIA secretly sent Nazi officers all over the world to fight the pro-Soviets. For example, Otto Skorzeny went to Egypt, Fazlollah Zahedi went to Iran, and Alois Brunner [3] to Syria. They all organised the local secret services on the model of the Gestapo. Brunner was only to be ousted much later, in 2000, by President Bachar el-Assad.

In the period between the Khomeinist revolution of 1979 and the attacks of 9/11, West Germany remained prudent in their dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. However, at the demand of the CIA, and while Syria recognised East Germany, it accepted to offer political asylum to the putschists who attempted the coup d’etat of 1982 against President Hafez el-Assad, including the ex-Supreme Guide Issam al-Attar (brother of Syrian Vice-President Najah el-Attar). In the 1990’s, the Brotherhood reorganised itself in Germany with the assistance of two businessmen, the Syrian Ali Ghaleb Himmat and the Egyptian Youssef Nada, who was later to be accused by Washington of financing Osama Bin Laden.

JPEG - 26.5 kbFor many years, German academic Volker Perthes participated alongside the CIA in the preparation of the war against Syria. He directed the most powerful European think-tank, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), and took part, in the name of the UNO, in the Geneva negotiations .

When the United States began the “never-ending war” in the “Greater Middle East”, the CIA encouraged reunified Germany to launch a “Dialogue with the Muslim world”. In Berlin, the Minister for Foreign Affairs based his work for that purpose mostly on the new local chief of the Brotherhood, Ibrahim el-Zayat, and on an expert, Volker Perthes, who would become the director of the main federal think-tank, the Foundation for Science and Politics (SWP).

JPEG - 23 kbIn the name of the UNO, Detlev Mehlis accused the Lebanese and Syrian Presidents, Emile Lahoud and Bachar el-Assad, of having assassinated Rafic Hariri. His work was based on false witness reports which, when revealed, forced him to resign.

In 2005, Germany participated in the assassination of Rafic Hariri by supplying the weapon which was used to kill him – (it was obviously not a classic explosive, contrary to the propaganda of the special “Tribunal”) [4]. Thereafter, Germany supplied the head of the UN inquiry, the ex-prosecutor Detlev Mehlis [5], and his assistant, the ex-police commissioner Gerhard Lehmann, who was implicated in the affair of secret CIA prisons.

In 2008, while the CIA was preparing the Syrian “civil war”, Volker Perthes was invited by NATO to the annual reunion of the Bilderberg Group. He worked with a Syrian civil servant of the CIA, Bassma Kodmani. Together, they explained to all participants the profit that could be made by the West by overthrowing the Syrian Arab Republic and placing the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Having adopted the double language of the Brotherhood, in 2001 he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times mocking President Assad who believed he had unearthed a “conspiracy” against his country [6]. In October of the same year, he participated in a meeting of Turkish business leaders organised by the private US intelligence agency, Stratfor. He told his listeners of the oil and gas resources that they could steal from Syria [7].

JPEG - 30.1 kbClemens von Goetze (director of the 3rd department of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs ) and Anwar Mohammad Gargash (Emirati Minister for Foreign Affairs), during the meeting in Abou Dhabi of the work group on the carving up of the Syrian economy.

Expanding this work, Germany organised in Abou Dhabi a meeting of the Friends of Syria under the presidency of one of its diplomats, Clemens von Goetze, who shared among those present the future concessions for exploitation which would be awarded to the winners once NATO overthrew the Syrian Arab Republic [8].

In mid-2012, Volker Perthes was tasked by the US Department of Defense with preparing “The Day After” (in other words the government which would be imposed on Syria). He organised meetings at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs with the participation of 45 Syrian personalities, including his friend Bassma Kodmani and Muslim Brother Radwan Ziadeh, who had come especially from Washington [9]. Finally, Perthes became one of Jeffrey Feltman’s assistants at the UN. With that title, he participated in all the Geneva negotiations.

The positions of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs were adopted word for word by the European External Action Service (EEAS) of Federica Mogherini. This administration, directed by a French senior civil servant, drew up confidential notes on Syria for the heads of state and government of the Union.

In 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who had become the world protector of the Muslim Brotherhood, organised the transfer of more than a million people to Germany [10], thus conforming to the demand by German industrial business leaders. A number of these migrants are Syrians, including those the AKP no longer wants, and which Germany does not want to return home.

Chancellor Angela Merkel will be in Beirut and Amman this week to talk about Syria.

Thierry Meyssan

Pete Kimberley

[1] The CIA under Alan Dulles placed Nazi ex-leaders as supervisors of almost all the secret services of the allied states on all five continents. This system was dismantled in the 1970’s, after the revelations of the Church and Pike Congressional committees. All the Nazi leaders were chased out by President Carter and Admiral Stanfield Turner at the end of the 1970’s. The Europeans wrongly believed that the CIA used the Nazis exclusively in Latin America (for example, Klaus Barbie in Bolivia). But the system was in fact generalised, including in Europe (operation Gladio). In all probability, the placing of these Nazi « experts » was coordinated from Germany by Reinhard Gehlen, whom the CIA nominated as the first head of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).

[2] A Mosque in Munich, Ian Johnson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.

[3] Alois Brunner is believed to be responsible for the deportation and assassination of 130,000 people, in Austria, Greece, France, Germany and Slovakia. In 2001, he was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment in France for his responsibility in the death of the children of Izieu.

[4] “Revelations on Rafik Hariri’s assassination”, by Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 29 November 2010.

[5] “The disgrace of the Mehlis Commission”, by Talaat Ramih, Voltaire Network, 12 January 2006.

[6] “Is Assad Capable of Reform ?”, Volker Perthes, The New York Times, March 30, 2011.

[7] « Küresel Enerji Stratejileri Simülasyonu : Türkiye’nin Gelecek 10 Yılı », Tusaid, 6 Ekim 2011.

[8] “The “Friends of Syria” divvy up Syrian economy before conquest”, by German Foreign Policy, Voltaire Network, 30 June 2012.

[9] The Day After Project, August 2012. The Day After. Supporting a Democratic Transition in Syria, United States Institute of Peace & Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, August 2012.

[10] Turkey took over from Saudi Arabia after it had dropped the Brotherhood, following the speech by Donald Trump in Riyadh, 21 May 2017.