American Resistance To Empire

Is This Another Episode of Pre-Positioning Anarchist Supplies Before Nov. 3?

[SEE: Antifa Logistics Proven By Pallets of Conveniently Pre-Positioned Bricks In Riot Areas ]

Philadelphia police discover van loaded with explosives amid unrest over fatal shooting of Black man

N’dea Yancey-Bragg, Anthony V. Coppola

PHILADELPHIA  — Philadelphia remains on high alert after police reportedly found explosives inside a van following multiple nights of protest over the shooting death of a Black man with a history of mental health problems.

Police recovered propane tanks, torches and possible dynamite sticks from the van Wednesday and it is unclear if anyone has been arrested in connection with the vehicle, WPVI reported. The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.

The city fell mostly silent Wednesday after officials instituted a citywide curfew following several nights of unrest over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr.

While scattered reports of looting were still popping up throughout the city Wednesday night, the protests and confrontations that marred Philadelphia since Monday had all but dissipated. Police showed a heavy presence in the neighborhood near where Wallace died Wednesday in anticipation of a third night of discord, but that never materialized.

By 7:30 p.m., just 15 people had gathered for a “Justice for Walter Wallace Jr” protest in Center City. The group slowly disbanded and went its separate ways not long after.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said at a news conference Wednesday she plans to release 911 tapes and police body camera footage of the shooting once the department shares it with Wallace’s family.

Mayor Jim Kenney said the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.

Wallace, a 27-year-old aspiring rapper and father of nine, was shot Monday as officers responded to a report of a person with a weapon, police spokesperson Tanya Little said. Officers ordered Wallace to drop the knife, but he instead “advanced towards”  them. Both officers then fired “several times,” Little said.

From Wednesday:Philadelphia prepares for another night of protests over Walter Wallace killing after second night turns violent

Video of the shooting was taken by a bystander and shared on social media which sparked protests in Philadelphia, the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland.

Protesters have also gathered in Washington, D.C. multiple nights this week following the death of 20 year-old Karon Hylton-Brown. Police say he died after officers attempted to make a traffic stop and Hylton-Brown’s moped collided with a passenger vehicle, but Hylton-Brown’s family told local media police are responsible for the crash.

The scene in Philadelphia on Wednesday was a stark contrast from what unfolded the nights before during which more than 170 people have been arrested and more than 50 police officers injured in clashes with protesters and vandals. Police said more than 1,000 people were looting businesses in the Port Richmond section of the city, breaking windows and stealing merchandise Tuesday night.

A lawyer representing the family told reporters Tuesday that Wallace had mental illness and had been taking lithium. Police officers responded twice to the Wallace residence Monday before returning a third time. Wallace’s brother reportedly called 911 looking for an ambulance.

‘Stop this violence’:Philadelphia police report large crowd of looters as Wallace’s father calls for peace

Outlaw said her department lacks a mental health unit or consistent way to coordinate police calls with specialists.

“We don’t have a behavioral health unit, which is sorely needed,” Outlaw said. “There’s clearly a disconnect on our end in terms of knowing what’s out there “ at the scene.

Both Kenney and Outlaw pledged to address the lack of coordinated mental health services.

“We have limited resources and we have a large number of people with problems,” Kenney said. “We need to do a better job.”

Police shootings amid mental health crisis:Police have shot people experiencing a mental health crisis. Who should you call instead?

Contributing: The Associated Press

Russian Oil Tanker, Named After Azeri General, Explodes Near Kerch Straits, In Sea of Azov

“Azerbaijani servicemen pay tribute to Major General Hazi Aslanov,twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Major General of Tank Troops Hazi Aslanov in Beylagan district.”

[Ten miles from Kerch Straits, scene of last tanker explosion in Sea of Azov.  Was the Russian ship attacked by Turkish forces?  Or, should we ask whether the Russian ship, named after a famous Azeri general, was attacked by Armenians”]


Russian oil tanker suffers explosion, fire in Sea of Azov

Officials say a Russian oil tanker experienced an explosion in the Sea of Azov and an operation to rescue three of its crew members is underway

MOSCOW — A Russian oil tanker experienced an explosion in the Sea of Azov and an operation to rescue three of its crew members was underway Saturday, officials said.

The Russian Emergencies Ministry said the explosion on the General Azi Aslanov took place as the tanker was traveling from the port of Kavkaz to the city of Rostov-on-Don. Authorities said 10 members of the tanker’s 13-person crew havebeen rescued, while the remaining three were believed to be in the water.

The tanker has tilted and efforts to stabilize the ship were underway.

Maritime officials said the tanker wasn’t loaded explosion may have been triggered by flammable vapors left behind from the vessel’s previous cargo.

Sudanese Protesters Rally to Condemn Normalization with Israel

Sudanese Protesters Rally to Condemn Normalization with Israel

Sudanese people have taken to the streets of the country’s capital to condemn the c junta’s decision to normalize relations with Israeli regime.

They rallied in Khartoum Friday evening, calling on Sudan’s Sovereign Council chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to reject the normalization deal.

“No to negotiations, peace … and reconciliation with the [Israeli] regime,” they chanted. “We will neither surrender, nor will we relinquish … We are standing with Palestine,” they cried as they set the Israeli flag on fire.

Numerous Sudanese political parties also lined up to declare their outright rejection of the normalization agreement between their country and Israel, stressing they are going to form a front to oppose the move.

Sudanese Ba’ath Party, the Sudanese Communist Party, National Consensus Forces (NCF) – a coalition of political parties – the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance, the Popular Congress Party as well as Sudan Change Now political movement stated that they are fiercely against any relationship between Khartoum and Tel Aviv.

“A few days ago, we embarked on intense political contacts with distinguished artists as well as cultural and literary figures to form a front against normalization,” spokesman for the Sudanese Baath Party Muhammad Wadaa said.

“There are a number of parties within the FFC that have warned to withdraw support for the government upon normalization, and other parties have announced similar positions.”

Wadaa highlighted that there are consultations and meetings on how to stand against the normalization.

“Normalization with Israel is an unacceptable step… The government is not authorized to take such a measure with a usurping and racist regime, which practices religious discrimination,” he said.

Wadaa lashed out at the Sudanese government over making normalization with Israel a condition for resolving economic woes.

“The government must not have invoked to sell the country and Sudan’s history on the pretext of economic difficulties,” he said.

“The government must resign and cede power to the people if it is unable to overcome difficulties by itself.”

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday at the White House that Sudan and Israel had agreed to normalize relations.

Trump sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese prime minister Abdalla Hamdok and Burhan, senior US officials said.

Sudan’s acting foreign minister Omar Gamareldin, however, said on Friday the accord will depend on approval from its yet-to-be formed legislative council. It is unclear when the assembly will be formed under a power-sharing deal between the country’s military officers and civilians.

One of My Cousins Just Died From Covid, the “Fake Virus”

For anyone who cares, my uncle Paul’s family in Naples, Florida became infected by  Covid-19, the “Fake Virus” at a nearly deserted local bowling alley.  After a week in intensive care on ventilators (still on ventilators), both my uncle and his  wife were pronounced cured and released…their son stayed in the hospital until he passed away.  He was a diabetic.  He did NOT die from the flu!

Trouble-Making UAE Sends Guantanamo Terrorists To Reinforce Al-Qaida In Yemen

Guantanamo and The Saudi Rehabilitation Program Behind AQAP–(Intentional, or Major Fowl-UP?)

Saudi Terrorist Indoctrination Program Hidden Within Bin Naif Rehabilitation Program

Al-Qaeda In Arabian Peninsula Formed By Saudi Guantanamo/”Rehabilitation” Graduates

Yemen al-Qaeda link to Guantanamo Bay prison

1 of 2
This combination of photos obtained by WikiLeaks shows 16 of the 18 Yemeni prisoners who were detained in Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade and were transferred years ago by the United States to the UAE with promises that they would be integrated into society. Instead, the UAE held the men in indefinite detention, according to families and lawyers. Most recently, UAE is allegedly forcing the men to return to Yemen, a country torn among rival factions, each running networks of secret prisons. (WikiLeaks via AP)
The Guantanamo detainees were promised they were being sent to a Muslim country for rehabilitation that would help integrate them into society, opening the way to jobs, money, and marriage, according to their lawyers and families.
It was a lie [SEE: Yemen–al-Munasaha , Saudi Re-Education].

Instead, the detainees — 18 Yemenis and one Russian, swept up from Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks — have languished in custody in the United Arab Emirates for as long as five years, their families and lawyers tell The Associated Press.

In short, sporadic phone calls from undisclosed locations in the UAE — including a notorious prison rife with torture — several whispered to their families that as bad as life in Guantanamo was, they wish they could return there.

When one complained of “pressures” three years ago, the call was cut off; he has not been heard from since. When the Russian staged a hunger strike, he was dumped in solitary confinement and roughed up.

Now there are plans to send them to Yemen, where their families fear their treatment will be even worse.

A senior Yemeni government official confirmed the plans, pending security arrangements; a State Department official indicated the U.S. government was aware that it was happening. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. The UAE didn’t respond to AP questions.

Youtube video thumbnail

United Nations rights experts described the men’s upcoming repatriation as a “forced return,” warning that it violates international laws.

Their destination is a poor Arab country wracked by a grinding civil war for the past six years. Torture and arbitrary detention are widespread in networks of secret and formal prisons run by various factions controlling different parts of the country.

“Here the legitimate government itself is not safe. Who will be in charge of them?” said Hussien, a brother of Bir, one of the detainees.

The family of a second detainee, Salem, said: “We fear they will be gunned down or rounded up as soon as they put a foot in Yemen.”

And if they survive, they may be prime recruits for terrorists in Yemen. Ibrahim al-Qosi, is a former Guantanamo detainee who was transferred to Sudan in 2012 before surfacing as an al-Qaida group leader in Yemen two years later.

The lingering confinement of these men violates promises made by U.S. officials when they were sent to the UAE in 2015-17. It underscores flaws in the transfer program and the failure of President Donald Trump’s administration to ensure their humane treatment.

President Barack Obama pressed to close the Guantanamo facility amid opposition from Congress. The plan was to prosecute some detainees and to continue to hold others without charges while their cases were evaluated by review boards Those no longer deemed dangerous were to be transferred to their homelands or third countries.

Trump had other plans. Before taking office, he declared on Twitter that there would be “no further releases from GITMO.” His administration dismantled an entire office tasked with closing the Guantanamo facility, overseeing transfers, and following up on the resettled detainees.

Terms of the agreements the U.S. struck with the UAE and dozens of other countries that received Guantanamo detainees weren’t made public. But Ian Moss, a former chief of staff for the State Department’s Guantanamo envoy, insisted that, “We wanted these individuals after they were released to have a fresh start in life. It wasn’t part of the deal that they be incarcerated. That was never part of the deal.”

Moss blamed the current administration for lack of engagement, saying that “the Emiratis knew that the Trump administration didn’t care about what they did with these people or how they treated them. This is disgraceful.”

Lee Wolosky was the special envoy for Guantanamo closure from 2015 to 2017, the period when the Yemenis were transferred to the UAE. “I can categorically deny that there was a plan to keep the men in detention following their transfer from U.S. custody,” he said in an email.

Under Trump, only one prisoner, a Saudi, was transferred to Saudi Arabia to serve the remainder of his sentence after he agreed to a plea bargain.

Under Obama, a total of 197 were transferred to other countries, while 500 were transferred by George W. Bush. The U.S. base now has 40 detainees; most are being held without charges and a third are Yemenis.

Katie Taylor is deputy director of the United Kingdom-based group Reprieve and coordinator of the group’s Life After Guantanamo project. She told the AP that after documenting the lives of nearly 60 former detainees in 25 countries, “I have to say that the situation facing the men resettled in the UAE is among the worst and most troubling.”

It is not clear whether there are now 17 or 18 detainees in UAE hands; unconfirmed reports suggest one Yemeni left prison because of medical complications.

One detainee is represented by lawyer Patricia Bronte. (His name and the full names of all the Yemeni detainees are being withheld for fear that they might face retribution.) She recalled that State Department officials had told her and the detainees that they would be held from six to 12 months in a rehabilitation facility, and then they would be allowed to reunite with their families in the UAE.

“From early on, the assurances I have been given weren’t lived up to,” she said.

She has had no contact with her client since his arrival in the UAE in 2016. Families of the detainees say their communication with their loved ones has been infrequent, and troubling:

—Abdo, 41, told his brother that he spent 70 days in solitary confinement — blindfolded, handcuffed, and with hands and feet chained to the ground — upon his arrival. There was no rehabilitation or “de-radicalization sessions,” his brother Ahmed told the AP. Abdo and other detainees moved to a “filthy and dark prison” for 16 months.

“It was just terrible there,” the brother quoted Abdo as saying. He was later moved to al-Razin prison, located nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles) from Dubai, where human rights groups have documented abuses and torture.

In the spring of 2019, Abdo was brought back to the “filthy” prison, where he remains.

The brother quoted Abdo as saying, “It’s not what I thought. I wish I return to Guantanamo … it’s 1,000 times worse here.” Then the phone call was cut off.

—Bir, a 41-year-old nurse, was identified by Guantanamo’s Periodic Review Board in 2015 as a “low-level Yemeni militant” who was arrested in Pakistani raids in Sept 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo.

His brother, Hussein, told the AP that despite earlier promises of a new life, his brother ended up in “mysterious conditions. We know nothing.”

“He continues to live behind bars with other Yemeni detainees, they are facing the most brutal injustice in the history,” Hussein said. In phone calls every 10 days, he said, “He says nothing except for, ‘How are you?’ He can’t speak. They are banned.”

—Ravil Mingazov, a former ballet dancer and an ex-member of the military, was the only Russian left in Guantanamo when he was sent to the UAE. He was accused of fighting with the Taliban. A Pentagon profile also alleged he had links to an Islamic group in Uzbekistan with ties to al-Qaida, and said he was captured in Pakistan at a safe house associated with Abu Zubaydah, a “facilitator” for the terrorist organization.

He has never physically met his 19-year-old son Yusuf, who lives in London. But they have talked: Yusuf said his father complained that he had been humiliated by his captors and had been deprived of food and medicine.

Mingazov’s mother, Zoria Valiullina, said her son wanted to return to Guantanamo. “It’s better there.”

—The family of Abdel-Rab, 44, said he disappeared three years ago after two phone calls during which he complained about conditions, and nervously said, “I am under pressure … Guantanamo was much better. One billion times.”

The call was cut off; he never called again. His family members said they have no clue if he is alive.

According to records, Abdel-Rab had told interrogators that he worked as a house painter in Yemen before he left for Afghanistan in 2000 to study and teach Quran. He was captured in a crackdown on those suspected of links to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and landed in Guantanamo in 2002.

In June, a man pretending to be Abdel-Rab called the family. “It wasn’t his voice. He wasn’t the same,” said his brother.

Hamidullah, another detainee, lived to tell about the conditions of his imprisonment in the UAE, though only barely. He spent 3½ years in UAE prisons before he was returned to Afghanistan in December.

Hamidullah’s private counsel wrote that his client was a “model detainee” a “peaceful man” who had never been a member of the Taliban, and “in fact, he was imprisoned by the Taliban in late 1990s.”

Surviving a decade in Guantanamo, pictures in official documents showed a cheerful man with salt-and-pepper, curly hair.

He and the other Afghani detainees were sent to the UAE in 2015. His son Ahmed recalled in labored English the first time he visited his father there, how he was “brought with chains in hands and feet, covered eyes with black cloth, and was also tighten with chains in the seat.”

After his return to Afghanistan, Hamidullah shared more details of his imprisonment. Guards forced him to strip naked every time he went to the bathroom. They would harshly clutch his shoulders and put his head down while leading him out of the cell.

“It was mental torture,” he said.

Hamidullah died in May, having enjoyed just four months of freedom after nearly 20 years in detention. His family believes that the conditions he endured in UAE prisons contributed to his death.

The Stupid French Answer To Recent Beheading of Teacher Is Massive Nationwide Provocation of Radical Islamists

French newspaper faces threats after republishing Prophet Mohammed cartoon

French newspaper faces threats after republishing Prophet Mohammed cartoon

La Nouvelle Republique newspaper was attacked on social media after it published a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed on its front page on Sunday, in an editorial response to last week’s brutal killing of teacher Samuel Paty.

Editorial director of La Nouvelle Republique, Christophe Herigault, told BFM TV on Wednesday that, despite the mostly positive response that their front page got on October 18, they received “four or five threats, notably on Facebook, which has led us to lodge a judicial complaint.”

Herigault defended the publication’s decision to publish the cartoon despite the threats, stating that “there was absolutely no desire to provoke” but it was done to express the paper’s anger over the teacher’s killing.

The police in France have not yet commented on the recent threats. However, French President Emmanuel Macron promised on Tuesday to take “concrete actions” against “the evil that is radical Islam” and announced that the Cheikh Yassine Collective, a Muslim group linked to Hamas that was “directly implicated” in the recent murder, would be broken up.

Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin also called for two Islamic NGOs to be dissolved, after they were accused of taking part in a social media campaign against Paty that led to his death.

ALSO ON RT.COMFrance will dissolve pro-Hamas Muslim group, as Islamist crackdown continues – Macron

Paty’s brutal killing has provoked deep emotions across France, which has a long history of combating violent acts of extremism, and sparked rallies to pay tribute to him and pledge support for free speech throughout the nation.

Less than a month before Paty’s murder, four people were wounded outside the old headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in retaliation for the magazine republishing a 2015 front page that featured a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. The act was to mark the start of the trial of three men accused of aiding a terrorist attack carried out against Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Twelve people were killed at the magazine’s office by gunmen angered by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of caricatures of the Islamic prophet.

The Criminal Politics of Former French Pres. Sarkozy Still Reverberating In Return of “Karachi Affair” Investigation

[SEE: Karachi affair ]

Libya campaign funding: Nicolas Sarkozy is back in court

Army chief orders immediate inquiry into ‘Karachi incident’: ISPR

Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of the Karachi incident. — 
Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of the Karachi incident. — AFP/File

Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of and ordered an immediate inquiry into the “Karachi incident”, the military’s media wing said on Tuesday.

He has directed the Karachi Corps Commander to “immediately inquire into the circumstances to determine the facts and report back as soon as possible”, according to the statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

While the ISPR did not specify which incident it was referring to, the statement came minutes after PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari called on Gen Bajwa and Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Faiz Hameed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest of PML-N leader retired Capt Mohammad Safdar in Karachi a day earlier.

In a tweet from its official account, the PPP said Gen Bajwa also called Bilawal “over the telephone to discuss the Karachi incident this evening”.

“The Chairman PPP expressed his appreciation to the COAS for taking prompt notice of the Karachi incident and his assurance of conducting a transparent inquiry on the incident,” it added.

Safdar and his wife, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz, were in the city to attend a rally of the opposition’s Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) when he was arrested from their hotel early on Monday morning. He was subsequently released on bail.

Addressing a press conference in Karachi, Bilawal said all top officers of Sindh Police were wondering “who were the people who surrounded” the Sindh police chief’s house in the early hours of Monday and took him to an unspecified location before Safdar was arrested.

He also demanded to know the identities of “the two people who went inside the IG’s house” and where they allegedly took the police chief at around 4am.

“I demand of DG ISI Faiz Hameed and Chief of Army Staff Gen Bajwa to investigate your institution [and] how it is operating in this province,” the PPP leader said, adding that the provincial government will carry out its own inquiry.

He said the advice to carry out Safdar’s arrest in that manner was “wrong” and could damage the armed forces’ “institutional integrity”.

Following Safdar’s arrest, a purported voice message by PML-N leader and former Sindh governor Muhammad Zubair was shared by a journalist in which Zubair alleged that the inspector general of police was kidnapped and forced to register the first information report against Maryam, her husband Safdar and 200 others for violating the sanctity of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s mausoleum.

In the audio clip circulating on Twitter, Zubair purportedly said that Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah confirmed to him that police was pressured into making the arrest. “When they (police) refused to do that, Rangers kidnapped [the IGP],” Zubair said.

Maryam had also alleged that the Sindh police chief was forcibly “taken to the sector commander’s office and asked to sign on the arrest orders”. She claimed that when the IGP showed reluctance, he was told that the arrest would be carried out by the Rangers. “After his signatures were forcibly taken on the arrest orders, he was told police would carry out the arrest.”

The allegation was denied by Maritime Affairs Minister Ali Zaidi as “nonsense narrative”.

I am ashamed: Bilawal

Terming the manner in which Safdar was arrested as “shameful”, Bilawal said he could not condemn it enough.

“I am ashamed [and] unable to show my face over what has taken place in my province,” he added.

He said there was a furore over the political slogans raised by Safdar at the Quaid’s mausoleum, but asked why no action was taken when PTI workers “did similar sloganeering” during Imran Khan’s visit to the tomb and when “banned outfits” raised their own slogans there.

“Harassing them (Maryam and Safdar) early in the morning and arresting Safdar is an insult to the people of Sindh who had invited Maryam sahiba and the N-league delegation to attend the PDM jalsa,” the PPP leader said.

He said the numbers in which the people of Sindh had attended the rally was “an open referendum against Imran Khan and his facilitators”.

Vowing that the Sindh government will fully pursue the investigation into the episode involving Safdar’s arrest, Bilawal said a number of top Sindh Police officers were “resigning or going on leave” because the incident had become a “question of their honour”.

He said the Sindh government did not want any political interference in the police “but this does not mean we will tolerate interference from somewhere else”.

“How does it make sense that the IG is holding a meeting at 4am about some slogans that were raised at the Quaid’s mausoleum?” he said, adding that there were many other issues to discuss in meetings.

“The job of the offices of such an important institution in this province should be [regarding] national security [and] to maintain peace in the province.

“If there is no respect left for my police, how will they do their jobs? This is unacceptable,” Bilawal stressed.

He said “there should be some red lines which are not to be crossed” and, “I think many red lines were crossed in this incident which should not become a precedent.”

Bilawal was asked by a journalist whether it was through a strategy that Chief Minister Shah had not issued the hard-hitting statements that he (Bilawal) did during his press conference earlier in the day. According to the journalist, police officers were “disappointed” that Shah had “not once” taken the IG’s name during his presser.

In response, Bilawal said the police officers were going on leave because they were disrespected “not by the chief minister, but from somewhere else”. He said the entire PPP and Sindh government stood with the police department.

‘Pakistan has changed’

Maryam on Twitter lauded Sindh Police officers for stepping back from their duties over the incident. “I salute the Sindh Police!,” she wrote, including a quote by the Quaid-i-Azam advising public servants “not [to] fall victim to any pressure”.

She said it was “heartening to see civilians breaking shackles of fear, standing up for supremacy of constitution & reclaiming their long lost rights. The conspiracy & conspirators stand badly exposed.”

She also thanked Bilawal for his “support and clear stance”, saying “Pakistan has changed.”

Meanwhile, PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif said the events that unfolded in Karachi were “clear proof of our narrative that there is ‘a state above the state'”.

Without naming anyone, he said: “You made a mockery of the elected provincial government’s powers” and “brought a bad name to the Pakistan Army”.

‘Cruel joke’

Reacting to Bilawal’s statements, Minister Ali Zaidi said: “Sindh government and its inept governance are proving to be a cruel joke as IG & Additional IG go on long leave in the aftermath of Capt Safdar’s arrest.”

“Who is really in charge of this government which is being run worst than a zoo?” he asked.

Zaidi alleged that even “simple enforcement of the law in Sindh has become laughable due to the politicisation of police by PPP for 12+ years”.

“How can they even think of publicly claiming that the IG was kidnapped in the middle of the night! Who are they trying to fool?”

The radical war on America

The radical war on America


Now that burning down America has “suddenly” become unpopular in the secret in-house DNC polls, the Democratic candidates are no longer calling arson “peaceful protesting,” rioting “freedom of expression,” the sacking of department stores “mothers in search of bread for their hungry children,” and the beating of people wearing MAGA hats “public discussion.” Therefore the Democrats need to rebrand its cheered-on destruction of American cities. The solution is the usual one. Trump did it! And the media leash-dogs of the DNC instantly start barking out lead stories. “Trump burned down America’s cities!” “Trump did nothing to stop the carnage!” Of course, nothing is said of Trump’s endless offers to send in the National Guard only to be abusively rebuffed by Democratic mayors and governors, and then threatened with lawsuits.

But all of this is just the political theater of the socialist absurd, which is a cunningly dumb play written by the liberal media and funded by secret opinion puppet masters. The really strategic question is why the Democrats would allow their cities to be ruined in the first place.

Unfortunately the answer is simple and even obvious. The radical Democrats consider themselves to be in a state of war with Trump. As any general can tell you, you must waste some of your forces if you fight a war. That being the case, these radical Democrats are quite willing to “waste” hundreds of their cities’ buildings and businesses and cause numerous deaths to win Washington in November. And why not? If they win, they can write themselves a Washington check to rebuild what they themselves wrecked through their hatred of private property and the rule of law.

Some readers will express astonishment at this seemingly cynical assessment, and therefore doubt its credibility. But anyone who has studied communism knows that the ends always justify the means for such ruthless revolutionaries, and that “peace-loving” radicals will destroy anything to take control of everything. “You can’t make an omelet without cracking eggs!” is the old communist mantra, and it’s always repeated with a crass and nasty laughter.

Replace “eggs” with “heads” and you’ll get its meaning. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had no problem with cracking eggs — millions of them — to move history “forward” into their rude and brutal hands. The same cynical disregard for individual lives and private property is now on display in America’s own DNC “liberation” cities. There’s only one small problem. You could be the next “sacrifice to progress” in the name of “the people’s freedom” in these tyrants’ bid for total and permanent power. And then they’ll laugh at the human omelet they’ve made of you and your family and your reputation and your property.

Stop this “Radical War On America”!



Williamsport, PA

FACEBOOK and TWITTER Are A Greater Threat To Democracy and the American Republic Than Any Foreign Power

[The illegal merger between mainstream media and the Democratic Party has to be broken-up if this country is to survive.  Both the media and the Party are dominated by intelligence agency assets, and together, have been waging a media war against the Trump Administration since Trump’s first day in office, even before he took office (SEE: DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on allegation that Hillary Clinton approved plot to tie Trump to Russia).  This propaganda war has been documented in several ways, by separate sources, who first polled national reporters, revealing an overwhelming liberal bias among them…SEE BELOW. ]

“According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 28.1% of US journalists identify as Democrats 7.1% as Republicans, and 50.2% as independents.[85][86][87] Additionally, a 2018 Arizona State University and Texas A&M University study of 462 financial journalists found thirteen times more financial journalists identified as “liberal,” as opposed to “conservative.” The study found 58.47% of financial journalists surveyed identified as “liberal,” but only 4.5% identified as “conservative.”[88]

[Researchers then compared the mostly negative news items about Trump in his first 100 days in office to the mostly positive news items about Obama during his first 100 days…SEE BELOW. ]

“An October 2017 Pew Research report found that 62% of stories involving US Republican President Donald Trump during his first 60 days in office had a negative assessment, compared to only 5% of stories with a positive assessment. By comparison, the study found that Democratic President Barack Obama received far more favorable coverage in his first 60 days in office; 42% of stories involving Obama during that period were identified as positive, and only 20% were identified as negative.[89][90] A May 2017 study from Harvard University‘s Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump’s first 100 days in office also identified a similar negative tone in coverage. The study found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of New York Times coverage was negative during Trump’s first 100 days.[91]”

[They next polled American voters to ascertain whether the general public sensed an apparent Liberal/Democrat bias among those trusted news “talking heads”…]

“An October 2018 Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters found 45% of Americans believed that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate. Alternatively, only 11% believed that most reporters aimed to help Republican candidates.[92]“–WIKI

[In the face of this obvious Liberal bias among the Mainstream Media, and as a direct reaction to it, the people have developed their own media sources, calling it the ”Alternative News.”  Since the Mainstream media has been so effective at dividing the people around overly politicized issues, they have accomplished their main task of polarizing the American electorate.  The people’s Alternative News is itself totally polarized, as well, making it a powerful tool for multiplying and intensifying politicized arguments, to the point where “social media” is now a source of open conflict, pitting close friends, family members and associates against each other, in the process, drawing even more people to it.  Making these inter-personal conflicts even worse, is the tendency among many of us to post whatever we think, causing many to post things which should never be said, and can never be taken back…sometimes even causing the writer to lose his job, or to end-up in jail.  This has all been allowed, even encouraged by the people supposedly in charge in “our Democracy”, further pressurizing the pre-election circus we find ourselves locked into today. 

Now we are left wondering about the political circus we have built for ourselves, wondering whether the circus has, in fact, brought our country to the brink of another CIVIL WAR…

FACEBOOK and TWITTER MUST BE SHUT DOWN, for all our sakes.]

[ Social media’s arbitrary actions could be controlling our minds – analysis]

Social media censorship threatens to widen rift in U.S.

FILE – This May 16, 2012 file photo shows the Facebook app logo on a mobile device in Philadelphia. On Monday, Oct. 12, 2020, Facebook announced it is banning posts that deny or distort the Holocaust and will start directing people to authoritative sources if they search for information about the Nazi genocide. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

This week, social media giants Twitter and Facebook proved that their monopolistic malpractice is a big problem for politics and culture in America.

When the New York Post published a story about suspicious emails that had been allegedly discovered between Hunter Biden and officials at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to serve on the board, the revelations were remarkable.

In one alleged missive from 2015, a Burisma adviser named Vadym Pozharskyi thanked the vice president’s son “for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together. It’s realty (sic) an honor and pleasure.”

The Biden campaign has insisted that no such meeting was found to be on the official schedule, but they do not outright dispute the content of the emails or deny that an informal meeting could have occurred.

A year earlier, right after the younger Biden had been added to the company’s board, Pozharskyi asked him for “advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal” to put a stop to an investigation into the company. Later, Vice President Biden bragged he had been able to get the prosecutor fired.

The trove of correspondence was passed on to the Post by Rudy Giuliani who has been loudly trying to draw connections of corruption between interests in Ukraine and Joe Biden via his son, Hunter.

According the the New York Post, the emails were recovered from a computer that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and never retrieved. It is not known who dropped the machine off.

What makes all this most newsworthy is that Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, has been denying that he’d ever taken part in his son’s business overseas or that he was even aware of what that business was.

These emails go directly to refuting that and suggest that Biden was used by his son for payment in exchange for influence.

Thus, the story ran and was distributed through social media until prominent, anti-Trump users demanded that it stop.

Kyle Griffin, an MSNBC producer with more than 900,000 followers tweeted, “No one should link to or share that NY Post ‘report’. You can discuss the obvious flaws and unanswerable questions in the report without amplifying what appears to be disinformation.”

Andy Stone, who works in the communications department at Facebook but has a long resume featuring jobs with various Democratic organizations was also containing the story. “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post,” Stone tweeted, “I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”

By the afternoon, Twitter started blocking sharing of the article in any form, warning users away from the link, and locking prominent accounts that shared it, including that of the New York Post itself, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the Trump campaign account @teamtrump.

In doing so, they turned a shady October surprise leak that would have been ignored by many in the mainstream into a major story that is reverberating through the country. What, many Americans wonder, do these massive tech companies want so badly to hide from them?

The selective censorship by social media monopolies threatens to divide our nation to a degree we have never seen before.

Even Jewish Media Confirms Guiliani’s, So-Called “Anti-Semitic” Anti-Soros Comments

[Even Jewish media sources confirm the worst being said about Soros…the first link is to the Jewish Forward, …the second link is from Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).]

Giuliani: Soros wants to destroy America because of his ‘sick background’

George Soros is a leading target of anti-Semitism. These Jews openly criticize him anyway

[Here is the original 2008 media source of all the current anti-Soros conspiracy theories, Lyndon LaRouche, Your Enemy, George Soros.  Photocopied at bottom of this report.]

Criticism of George Soros isn’t anti-Semitic, conservative Jewish groups say

George Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence,” says the president of the American Zionist Organization

September 23, 2020



Hungarian-born American financier George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundation, may be Jewish, but many prominent conservative Jews says that legitimate criticism of Soros is not anti-Semitic and completely warranted due to his power and progressive positions.

In fact, there is substantial opposition to Soros’s views that are by no means uncommon in centrist and right-wing Jewish circles, with the billionaire’s anti-Israel activities at the forefront, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

Prominent Israeli orthodox rabbi Pesach Lerner says that Soros is only “superficially Jewish” and works against the Jewish people.

“Yes, Soros is part of the Jewish nation, but ideologically he is not merely distant but openly hostile towards Israel and Jewish interests,” Lerner said last December, when when American conservative and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated he was more Jewish than Soros. “It is ridiculous to link an accurate critique of the use of Soros’ wealth to influence certain public officials to hateful, anti-Semitic lies about Jewish communal control over government at large.”

Famous right-wing pro-Israeli donor Adam Milstein voiced an even harsher criticism, saying Soros was funding the anti-fascist network Antifa, calling him a “self-hating Jew” and even questioning his Holocaust survival. In 2017, Milstein tweeted and then deleted a picture of Soros depicted as an octopus with his tentacles spreading across the globe.

The American Zionist Organization recently issued a press release calling Soros a “radical anti-Zionist.” The group’s president, Morton Klein also recently tweeted that “condemning anti-Israel extremist George Soros is not anti-Semitic just like condemning racist David Duke is not anti-White.”

Klein says he is not worried about fueling anti-Semitisim, saying that if he was an artist, he would also depict Soros as an octopus spread out across the globe because Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence.”

According to the JTA article, “Klein acknowledged that such an image could echo an anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews, money and power, but said that in Soros’ case it is warranted.”

Despite what Jewish conservatives may believe about Soros, criticism of the progressive billionaire is increasingly frowned upon and even outright censored in some instances in countries such as the US.

Just last week, Fox News hosts cut off prominent conservative Newt Gingrich when he brought up Soros and his funding of progressive District Attorneys in races across the United States, which Gingrich saying these DAs are against law and order and responsible for releasing violent criminals on the streets of the US. The video of the hosts essentially censoring Gingrich for bringing up Soros went viral across the web and led conservatives to question why Soros’s name cannot be mentioned even when pointing to specific policies and facts surrounding his progressive activities. 

Although the host issued an apology, saying they “don’t censor” on the show, Gingrich complained that criticism of Soros is illegitimately tied to claims of anti-Semitism.

Former Fox News host and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly also mentioned that it is increasingly difficult to mention Soros due to claims of anti-Semitism and that it is serving as a restriction on discussing Soros’s political activity.

The issue of Soros has cause consternation in the Jewish conservative community, with the billionaire becoming the face of progressive movements around world through his massive spending through his Open Society Foundation.

Some experts believe caution is necessary and special care should be given to criticizing Soros, such as University of Michigan professor Josh Pasek, who studies new media and political communication.

“It cannot be the case that all criticism of something Jewish is necessarily anti-Semitic,” Pasek said, but added that “the decision that you want to make it about Soros, even if for you it isn’t about his Jewishness, will almost undoubtedly feed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes that much of the theories about Soros sprung up in reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis and that “conspiracy theories about Soros have been around for a long time, but they gained momentum during the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe. Soros’ charity network, the Open Society Foundations, donated to groups that helped migrants seeking entry into Europe, and anti-Semites accused Soros of trying to replace Europe’s white residents with Muslim refugees.”

At the time, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán directed criticism at Soros for his pro-migration stance, his support for pro-migration NGOs, and his comments on the crisis, including his belief that Europe should borrow billions of euros to pay for refugees.

Although left-wing news outlets like the Guardian and even Soros himself have tried to paint Orbán’s criticisms as anti-Semitic, the government has adamantly denied this claim, saying it is not anti-Semitic to point to Soros’s activities undermining democratically-elected governments. It also points to the Hungarian government’s steadfast support for Israel and Hungary’s Jewish community.

At the same time, comments from Soros such as, “[Europe] has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future” did lend real worries that Soros was participating in population experiments that would affect the demographic future of Europe.

Soros has become an increasingly popular target for the right within the US, especially due to his activities over the last years, including his recent decision to donate over $50 million to support presidential candidate Joe Biden, however, much of his activities began in Central European countries like Hungary, which underlines his global reach.

Emily Tamkin, a Jew and the author of the book “The Influence of Soros” says right-wing Israeli Jews are not hesitant to criticize Soros because funding left-wing Israeli groups could also harm Jewish interests there, including Soros’s funding of pro-Palestinian groups. 

P.O. Box 6157 Leesburg, Virginia 20178
On the cover: George Soros; Cover design: Chris Jadatz; Photo: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis.
© June 2008 LLPPA-2008-006
Paid for by the Lyndon LaRouche PAC, P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178. and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate’s Committee
Your Enemy,
George Soros

George Soros: Hit-man for the British Oligarchy 2
Does Soros Have a Drug Problem? 6
George Soros: The Forced-Open Society 9
The Case of Malaysia 13
George Soros Buys the Nomination,
Obama Borrows It 16
Lessons for Denver: FDR’s 1932 Victory
Over London’s Wall Street Fascists 18

The British financial Oligarchy is desperately committed
to completely annihilating all forms of sovereign
nation states from our planet, most importantly the United
States, and George Soros is their chosen hit-man to accomplish
the task. Directly, on behalf of the city of London,
George Soros, with the aid of his puppet, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, bankrolled
filthy operations against Hillary Clinton’s presidential primary
campaign, to guarantee that no policies which reflect
a revival of Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment to the
lower 80% of family income brackets take hold in the
White House after November 2008. Soros is no new comer
to the world of criminal activity. According to former
associates and published reports he was handed his startup
money by Baron Edmond de Rothschild’s right-hand
man, George Karlweiss, who also launched the career of
fugitive narcotics-trafficker Robert Vesco. Since then, Soros
has been involved in various vicious operations, under
the direction of the British Empire, such as financial speculative
warfare to destroy national currencies, pushing
murderous, “useless eater” euthanasia policies, and massively
financing international campaigns for the legalization
of drugs. But of course, the disgraceful character of
George Soros is not solely attributable to himself, but
rather, it was partially generated by his handlers during
his formative adolescent years: the Nazis.
The Golem is born
The pathetic creature known as George Soros made a
willful decision early in life to become the character that
he is now: a Golem. A teenager during the Nazi Occupation
of his homeland, Hungary, Soros began his genocidal
legacy by working for the killing machines that slaughtered
500,000 Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.
Young Soros was given a job looting the properties of Jews
under the regime of SS Lt. Gen. Kurt Becher, head of the
Waffen SS section known euphemistically as The Economic
Department of the SS Command.
Back during Presidential campaign year 2004, my associates and I were calling attention
to an important book on the subject of The Confessions of an Economic Hit-
Man. That man had a conscience. In the following report, LPAC is featuring a much bigger
story, on the subject of George Soros as a political-economic hit-man. The George
Soros we present in this report, has no conscience about what he has done, or what he
does. This is a report written, in large part, by Soros’ own mouth.
George Soros is not a top-ranking financier, he is like the mafia thug, without a real
conscience, like a thug sent to kill a friend of yours, but only a hit-man for the really big
financial interests, hired out to rob your friends, and you, of about everything, including
their nation, and your personal freedom.
George Soros does not actually own Senator Barack Obama; some other people do;
but, Soros is a key controller, and seemingly the virtual owner of both Democratic Party
Chairman Howard “Scream” Dean, that Party, perhaps your political party, and, in fact,
your nation, which are both what political-economic hit-man George Soros is aiming to
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
June 16, 2008
George Soros: Hit-man for
The British Oligarchy
by Hector A. Rivas, Jr.
Soros credits his father for his own good fortune in
avoiding the gruesome scenes of the concentration camps.
In a broadcast on WNET/Thirteen TV on April 15, 1993
Soros recalled those experiences that formed his beastly
identity: “When the Germans came in, he [the father—ed]
said, ‘This is a lawless occupation. The normal rules don’t
apply. You have to forget how you behave in a normal society.
This is an abnormal situation.’ And he arranged for
all of us to have false papers, everybody had a different arrangement.
I was adopted by an official of the minister of
agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties,
so I actually went with him and we took possession of
these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange,
very strange life. I was 14 years old at the time.” His Father,
Tivadar Soros, professed further that, “as pseudo-
Christians, we had not quite reached that level of Christianity
where we were willing to return bread for stones.”
The Soros family indeed offered plenty of stones to the
many poor Hungarian Jews who were shipped off to Auschwitz
to meet their death.1
The Soros family was among the “elite” Hungarian
Jews, which afforded them the ability to make arrangements
to survive under the Nazi occupation. Prince Alexis
Scherbatoff, former member of the U.S. Army Counterintelligence
Corps before and after WWII, alleged that Soros
obtained his first small fortune by selling his share of the
loot seized with the Nazis. He reported that Soros’ first accomplice
was another Hungarian Jew, who sold rubies
and other Nazi plunder in Belgium after World War II.
Ben Hecht, author of the book Perfidy, documents the
activities of the Nazi Economic Department in Hungary,
and the atrocities committed by the employers of young
Soros. The Department was in charge of pillaging Jewish
properties and “removing the gold fillings from the millions
of teeth of the dead Jews; in cutting off the hair of
millions of Jewesses before killing them, and shipping
bales of hair to Germany’s mattress factories; in converting
the fat of dead Jews into bath soap, and in figuring out
effective methods of torture to induce the Jews awaiting
death to reveal where they had hidden their last possessions.”
George Soros was confronted with such images during
an interview with Steve Kroft on CBS’s 60 Minutes on December
20, 1998:
Kroft: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of
what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their
shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew. . .
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .who escaped the Holocaust. . .
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm. (Vintage footage of
people getting on train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Right. (Vintage footage of women
helping each other get on train; train door closing with
people in boxcar)
Kroft: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get
shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say
that that’s when my character was made.
Kroft: In what way?
Mr. Soros: That one should think ahead. One should
understand and–and anticipate events and when–when
one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I
mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
Kroft: My understanding is that you went out with this
protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted
Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.
Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation
of property from the Jews.
Mr. Soros: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
Kroft: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience
EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
George Soros
1. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001.
that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for
many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. Soros: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child
you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created
no–no problem at all.
Kroft: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. Soros: No.
Kroft: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and
here I am, watching these people go. I could
just as easily be there. I should be there.’
None of that?
Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c—I could be
on the other side or I could be the one from
whom the thing is being taken away. But
there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there,
because that was—well, actually, in a funny
way, it’s just like in markets—that if I weren’t
there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody
else would—would—would be taking it
away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was
there or not, I was only a spectator, the property
was being taken away. So the—I had no
role in taking away that property. So I had no
sense of guilt.
Crafted and Unleashed
Nazi collaborator George Soros, set off to
England in 1947 where he became the protégé
of radical positivist Sir Karl Popper, who
taught at the Fabian Society-initiated
London School of Economics in the
1950’s. This is the same Karl Popper
who blamed a large part of the crises
of developing countries on the “political
stupidity” of its leaders. Popper
himself states that, “We [the Empire—
ed] have liberated these states
too early and in too primitive a way.
These are no-law states yet. The same
would happen if you’d leave a kindergarten
to itself.” Soros’ mentor then
argued that the “civilized world” has
the right to launch wars against the
Third World for the sake of “peace.”
Soros bowed to his masters, and carried
out that war.
Soros used his Quantum Fund to
conduct financial warfare through
derivatives and currency speculation.
On the European front, in 1992 Soros
won a key battle against the European
Rate Mechanism (ERM), which
was Europe’s financial structure to
maintain stable exchange rates
among the currencies of Europe. Soros created a financial
crisis so that the system could be replaced by the Maastricht
Treaty, which established the Euro as the single European
currency, and put financial authority in the hands
of one central bank, controlled by the Anglo-Dutch Oligarchy.
This plot began when representatives of Soros met on
June 2, 1992, with top British and Anglo-Dutch financial
Acrhives of Mechanical Documentation, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives
A member of the German SS supervises the boarding of Jews onto trains during a
deportation action in the Krakow ghetto.
Hungarian Jews on their way to the gas chambers. Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, May
predators, on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s yacht Britannia.
Part of this operation can be understood by looking at
his attacks against the Italian lira in the early 1990’s, which
earned him 400 billion lira within a matter of days, while
the Bank of Italy was forced to spend $48 billion of its reserves
in a vain attempt to defend its currency. Within a
few years, Soros was under criminal investigation for
these sinister attacks. Members of the Movimento Internazionale
per Diritti Civili Solidarieta first submitted testimony
on Soros to the Milan court in 1995, and by the
next year, investigations were launched out of Rome and
Naples, which were reported on in the Dec. 24, 1996 issue
of Corriere della Sera: “The investigation has just started,
but the results could be explosive, and the name of the individual
being officially investigated gives an idea of how
delicate this investigation is: The name is George Soros. . .
The crime is stock-jobbing. . . It concerns the attack on the
Of course, not all of the money used in this operation
can be attributed to “Golem” Soros, but was only money
that was handed to him, by London. After all, a Golem
doesn’t make himself, he is created and, true to form, Soros’
natural instinct is only to do what he is told in order to
His father taught his boy how to follow his masters
very well under the Nazi occupation in Hungary: “The
most rational approach, in my view, was complete separation,
followed by a quiet effort to blend in with the general
population. That is the way animals do it: when they sense
danger, instead of presenting a clear target to their enemies,
their natural mode of self-preservation is to blend
with the scenery and simply disappear. Naturalists call
this phenomenon “mimicry.”3
Soros was raised to behave like a beast, and so he does.
Upon the destruction of the ERM, which set the stage for
Maastricht and, inevitably, the Lisbon Treaty, Soros had
only this to say: “I’m sure speculative actions have had
some negative consequences. But that does not enter my
thinking at all. It cannot. If I abstained from certain actions
because of moral doubts, then I would cease to be an
effective speculator. I have not even a shadow of remorse
for making a profit.” He continues, “I did it only to make
money. 4
Project Death
On Nov. 30, 1994 Soros spoke before an audience at the
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, and announced
his new foundation, Project on Death in America, to shift
the training of hospitals, nurses and doctors away from
expensive life-saving treatment, to the proper care of the
dying. In pushing euthanasia legislation, Soros made the
Nazi “useless eater” policy legal in the U.S.
A Soros-sponsored assisted suicide (a.k.a. homicide)
program to offer patients lethal prescriptions was the OreProject
on Death in America website.
Official portrait taken at Buckingham Palace, by Terry O’Neill
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince
Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh
3. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001
4. London Guardian Dec. 19, 1992.
2. This is the very same Queen Elizabeth which EIR discovered in the
1990’s was on the exclusive clients list of George Soros’ mega-million-dollar
offshore Quantum Fund in which he is once again currently active.
The Hustler on the
Street Corner
In 1985, in response to the chaos of
the British Empire’s dope trade, Lyndon
LaRouche called on nations to cooperate
in a “war on drugs”: “What we are fighting,
is not only the effects of the use of
these drugs on their victims. The international
drug traffic has become an evil and
powerful government in its own right. It
represents today a financial, political,
and military power greater than that of
entire nations within the Americas. It is a
government which is making war against
civilized nations, a government upon
which we must declare war, a war which
we must fight with the weapons of war,
and a war which we must win in the same
spirit the United States fought for the unconditional
defeat of Nazism between
1941 and 1945.”
Since then, the British Empire’s hustler
on the street corner, George Soros,
has continued pushing drug legalization
in the United States and has even strayed over to the other
side of the block and become a supporter of narco-terrorism
in South America and Asia. Soros’ immorality and
ruthless nature1 made him the perfect hit man for enforcing
the Empire’s drug operations. Provided with funding
through speculative activities, Soros launched his own
war against anyone opposing the looting policy of London.
Since the dope trade is the corner stone for the physical
and economic looting of nations by the British Empire,
Soros chose Lyndon LaRouche’s “war on drugs”2 as
gon Death with Dignity Act, which subsequently passed
in 1998: “As the first state in the United States to allow
physicians to help terminally ill patients end their lives,
Oregon’s experience will be closely watched by other
Through the Open Society, the Death in America project
and other organizations concerned with “end-of-life”
issues began collaboration on “transforming the culture
of dying.” Soros promoted on his website a one-day seminar
coordinated by Balfour Mount, M.D. of Royal Victoria
Hospital in the mid-1990’s entitled “Searching for the Soul
of Euthanasia.” Soros offered his personal thoughts on
the matter: “The use of technology to extend life when life
has no meaning, does not make any sense. . . It may be
more negative than positive, because it causes unnecessary
pain and suffering, not to mention the expense.” (emphasis
Does Soros Have a Drug
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
5. “”
Foto ANCOL. Fernando Ruiz
President of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Grasso, and negotiator for the FARC,
Raúl Reyes, during their 1999 meeting in the Colombian jungle.
1. See George Soros: Hit Man for the British Oligarchy by Hector Rivas, in
this report.
2. Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War Against the US, by a US Labor Party
Investigating Team, The New Benjamin Franklin Publishing Company,
Inc., New York, New York, 1978
his battleground. In defense of his drug hustling operations,
Soros wrote that, “The war on drugs was doing
more harm than the drugs themselves. . ..Drugs kill a few
people, incapacitate many more, and give parents sleepless
nights. . .”3 but, as he summed up, that is nothing
compared to the harm of nations intervening on the free
Through his Open Society Foundation, Soros consistently
funneled money into his Drug Policy Foundation
(DPF) and Lindesmith Center to aggressively pursue drug
legalization in the United States. Soros claimed, “When I
decided to extend the operations of my Open Society
Foundation to the United States, I chose drug policy as
one of the first fields of engagement. I felt that drug policy
was the area in which the United States was in the greatest
danger of violating the principles of open society.”4
Soros used the DPF to fund the Marijuana Policy Project
(MPP), an organization committed to reviving the Woodstock
pot-smoking days of 1968. The MPP has given support
to states across the nation in the fight to legalize
marijuana and threw its support behind Barney Frank,
who lost no time in bending over backwards and lighting
up for the drug lobby by introducing HR 2618, a bill for
the “medical use” of marijuana. In 1996, Soros reached
deeper into the Queen’s underpants and funded ballot initiatives
to legalize “medical marijuana” in California and
Arizona through propositions 215 and 200, respectively.
These propositions made it legal even for children to whip
out the bong and receive doses of class one drugs. In 2000,
Soros took the legalization efforts even further and funded
a bill to set up the legal retail distribution of marijuana
in Nevada, thereby taking the first step towards more serious
drug legalization.
Meanwhile, in South America, his activities were
much more disastrous. With his fist in the British Empire’s
laundered money bags, Soros threw his weight behind
narco-terrorism in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. His
group Human Rights Watch/Americas is a major part of
the drug cartel’s drug production and terror apparatus,
deploying millions of dollars annually for dope propaganda.
In Colombia, he became the leading financier in
the fight to legalize cocaine and, through Human Rights
Watch, attacked government forces deployed against
drug cartel guerrillas, who were slaughtering people
across the region. On November 8, 1990, the Medellin
Coming from the mouth of Dick Cheney and his ilk, the
expression “War on Drugs” has been used to justify
launching unprovoked wars on sovereign nations, imposing
regime change on their governments, throwing
millions of penny-ante users and small-time dealers in
jail in the U.S., driving desperate peasants in drug producing
countries over the cliff into starvation, and coyly
backing one cartel of drug runners against another,
to keep the market under control—while religiously
taking a hands-off attitude towards the big bankers
who actually run Dope, Inc. from the very top.
For Lyndon LaRouche—who coined the expression
“War on Drugs” back in the 1970s—it has always meant
the exact opposite. On March 9, 1985, LaRouche presented
a 15-point war plan at a Mexico City conference
which centered on cooperation among sovereign nation
states, to identify, attack, and destroy the Britishcentered
[financial] interests who actually run the drug
trade. These interests act as a powerful governmentin-
fact, against which we must wage war. Treaties
should be agreed upon among nations, to conduct
joint military actions against the drug trade, “to the effect
that necessary forms of joint military and law enforcement
action do not subvert the national sovereignty
of any of the allied nations. . .” Intelligence and
technological aid “should be supplied with assistance
of the United States,” in order to eradicate all illegal
plantations, processing centers, and laboratories, and
all unlogged aircraft flying across borders, which fail
to land according to instructions, should be shot down.
And most significantly, “A system of total regulation of
financial institutions, to the effect of detecting deposits,
outbound transfers, and inbound transfers of
funds, which might be reasonably suspected of being
funds secured from drug-trafficking, must be established
and maintained. . . . Special attention should be
concentrated on those banks, insurance enterprises,
and other business institutions which are in fact elements
of an international financial cartel coordinating
the flow of hundreds of billions annually of revenues
from the international drug traffic.” Those involved
are guilty of “crimes against humanity,” based on the
Nuremberg standard. Confiscated drug funds, La-
Rouche added, should be allotted “to beneficial purposes
of economic development, in basic economic infrastructure,
agriculture, and goods-producing
That is the essence of LaRouche’s “War on Drugs”—
and that is why George Soros, and his British masters,
hate it.
LaRouche’s War on Drugs
3. The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American
Power, George Soros, pg. 27, Public Affairs, New York, 2004
4. Ibid. pg. 27
drug cartel, leading the violent murder and kidnapping
operations in Colombia, sent out a letter demanding that
the government publish a report by Soros’ Americas
Watch, which denounced the government’s anti-drug actions
as violations of human rights. One week later, Juan
Mendez, the leader of the Colombian Americas Watch
Report, called for “the most total disarmament possible”
of the Colombian military in order to allow “free trade”
of drugs to resume.
Using two groups in which he was a leading financier,
the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers and the Andean
Commission of Jurists, Soros then established an international
project called “Coca 95,” to support the dope
trade in Bolivia and Peru. At a conference on March 13-
14, 1996, the Andean Commission of Jurists sponsored
the “International Meeting on Current Scientific Studies
on the Effects of Coca Consumption on Humans,” in
which speakers attacked the anti-drug efforts of governments
as a threat to the environment! Calling for free trade
of all drugs, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and
synthetics, the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers organized
for an armed revolt in Bolivia. Soros even cut into
the heart of Peru, funding the presidential campaign of
Alejandro Toledo, thereby toppling the anti-drug government
of Alberto Fujimori and once again plunging the nation
into chaos.
Sound pretty bad? Well, it’s not new. The British Empire’s
drive for imperial control is what is truly behind
these attacks on nations. Soros’ promotion of narco-terrorism
is the equivalent of the “gunboats” employed by
the Empire in their launching of the 19th century Opium
Wars against China and India.
British Diplomacy
One of the leading drug traffickers
of the British Empire wrote that as
long as drug use continues to dominate
a country, “there is not the least reason
to fear that she will become a military
power of any importance, as the habit
saps the energies and vitality of the nation.”
5 For the last two centuries, the
British Empire, using this policy to
maintain its imperial control over the
world, has dominated the dope trade,
using it to prop up its horrific system of
slavery. The British East India Company
first opened up the opium trade with
China in 1715 but, it was not until Lord
Shelburne’s 1763-1783 melding of the
bankrupt East India Company and
near bankrupt British nation into a
global empire, that Britain had a monopoly
in the dope and slave trade.
Under the evil free trade doctrine of
Adam Smith, this British Empire used its might as a sea
power to construct a system of controlled trade and drug
trafficking to economically and culturally suppress nations.
The prime drug of choice was opium. With the deployment
of East India Company merchants into India, the West Indies,
and the United States, populations were forced to
grow opium and cotton on slave plantations. Banning any
kind of manufacturing in the colonies, cotton was exported,
loaded onto Royal British Ships, taken on a long trek all
the way to “the manufacturing house” of England, spun
into cloth, and dragged all the way back to India. Meanwhile,
Indian opium was exported to China, and the profits
were used to pay for the entire shipping and manufacturing
of the imported cloth! This system succeeded in enslaving
the populations of India, the Americas, and China, destroying
their land, and rendering the nations incapable of improving
their impoverished condition!
The Chinese emperor, sick at the sight of his destroyed
nation and attempting to resist this cultural enslavement
and bombardment of the population, “seized every particle
of opium; put under bond every European engaged in the
merchandise of it; and the papers of to-day (1839) inform
us that he has cut off the China trade, ‘root and branch.’ ”6
Furious, the British demanded that their “produce” (a.k.a.
Opium) be imported, or else. As one of the London Times
editors puts it, “We have everywhere obtained that our
goods shall be imported into all these countries. . .. To attain
An opium den in Manila, the Philippines.
5. Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium Wars, pg. 258, New York: Harvest
Books, 1975
6. George Thompson, Lectures on India in Lectures, Letters, Debates, Pamphlets,
and Related Correspondence of George Thompson, Manchester University,
John Rylands Library, 1834-1886.
those ends, we use all sorts of means, from courteous invitation
to bombardments. We prefer to employ mere eloquence,
because it is cheap and easy; but if talking fails we
follow it up by gunboats, and, in that convincing way, we
induce hesitating ‘barbarians’ not only to accept our two
unvarying conditions, but also to pay the cost of the expedition
by which their consent to these conditions was extorted
from them. China was so unwilling to listen to our advice,
so blind to the striking merits of our opium and our
consuls, that we were obliged, with great regret, to resort to
gentle force with her.”7 Any challenge to British imperial
policy was immediately met with gunboats and, in the case
of China, two opium wars between the years of 1839-1842
and 1858-1860 were waged in order to complete the process
of “opening up all of China”8 to British free trade. This
British imperial drive continued and, by the end of World
War I, the extent of British imperialism was felt everywhere.
Nations which had attempted to avert British imperial control
were destroyed economically and culturally and their
countries were flooded with drugs.
Revive the War on Drugs!
The British Empire still exists as an active threat to the
world today, though the name has since become taboo. If
you’ve bought in to the media-fed cover stories that history
occurs only as isolated local events and are thinking,
“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” then you don’t
know history. In reality the same financier and oligarchical
circles which were responsible for the launching of the
China Opium wars throughout the 18th-19th centuries,
typified by the ancient imperial models of Babylon, Persia,
and Venice, are responsible for creating the current
global financial and economic collapse.
George Soros is one of the main British instruments,
carefully chosen to be a front man of the Empire, covering
up for its disgusting looting policy, now known, euphemistically,
as globalization. Through organizations such
as Human Rights Watch and Open Society, Soros pushes
drugs and destroys nations. Soros says that now, “The
United States, like nineteenth-century Britain, also has an
interest in keeping international markets and global commons,
such as the oceans, open to all.”9 Just like the British
East India Company’s devastation of India and China
through two opium wars and decades of free trade, the
same Empire calls on Soros as the assassin in the destruction
of the United States. It is only through the obliteration
of British hack George Soros and the British Empire
which he represents, that we can hope to sober up the
United __________ States today.
7. As quoted in Henry Carey, Reply to the London Times, Letter V, pg. 2.
8. LaRouche in 2004 Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—Shut Down Dope,
Inc!, pg. 96, LaRouche in 2004, December 2001
George Soros:
The Forced-Open Society
By Leandra Bernstein
As the world financial system hobbles on its last legs,
the City of London has once again unleashed George
Soros to open the gates of hell at the present strategic
turning-point in world history. Soros has long been a
front-man chosen to subjugate nations by funneling offshore
money into corruption conduits coyly masked as
“philanthropic” and “human rights” organizations. His
purpose is to eliminate the U.S. system of national sovereignty,
as he states himself, “Democracy and open society
cannot be imposed from the outside because the principle
of sovereignty stands in the way of outside interference. . .
Admittedly it is difficult to interfere with the internal affairs
of sovereign countries, but it is important to face up
to the problem.”
Not Philanthropy. Misanthropy
During his first criminal investigation for stock manipulation
in 1979, George Soros started The Open Society
Fund. The Fund was used to create “open societies”
through philanthropic organizations now operating in
29 countries. Asserting that “states have interests but no
principles,” Soros explains that the ideal open society
would suppress particular national interests, while an
international political and financial structure takes responsibility
for the good of the so-called common good.1
1. In this respect, Soros’s gushing admiration for the UN (emphatically the
5 member Security Council), WTO, World Bank, and IFTI (international
financial and trade institutions) is notable, as well as his past and present
collaboration with these institutions and their ranking members.
9. George Soros on Globalization, George Soros, pg. 61, Public Affairs,
New York, 2002
To serve that common good, Soros arms his philanthropic
organizations with cash, buying up key sectors within
the population who are then let loose to overthrow a government
that tries to maintain a “closed society.”2 If a nation
wishes to control its own natural resources, it’s a
closed society. If a nation wants to develop its economy
and power of labor through tariffs and regulations, it’s a
closed society. Any nation that rejects globalization (i.e.
British Imperialism), is a closed society and subject to
attacks from Soros and his shadow government of nationals.
The Open Society Institute (OSI), Human Rights
Watch, the Soros Foundation, the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute, are all British-style intelligence
outfits under the supervision of Soros. In 2002, Soros admitted
to personally spending over $2.1 billion in 5 years
on his philanthropic ventures. Of his organizations, he
writes, “They work with the government when they can
and independently of the government when they cannot;
sometimes they are in outright opposition. When foundations
can cooperate with the government, they can be
more effective; when they cannot, their work is more
needed and more appreciated because they offer an alternative
source of funding for civil society. As a general
rule, the worse the government, the better the foundation
because it enjoys the commitment and support of
civil society.”
That same year, George Soros and Liberal Imperialist
(limp) Tony Blair launched the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute (EITI), to create an international
standard by which nations rich in
oil, natural gas, and strategic metals
would report government-to-company
revenues. The international
organization (EITI) lobbies the governments
to adopt a standard for
revenue reporting which allows
them to peer into government-company
revenues in strategic industries.
Whatever they view as “closed
society” behavior is brought before
the tribunal of the paid-for demos;
or, if the behavior seriously threatens
imperial interests, the UN,
World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc can be
mobilized to implement sanctions.
This process of subjecting a sovereign
nation to a fixed international
standard of behavior is called,
“transparency.” The fixed relationship
among those subject nations is
called Empire.
Blair explicitly stated his vision for such international
institutions in a speech before the UN World Summit in
September 2005: “For the first time at this Summit we are
agreed that states do not have the right to do what they
will within their own borders, but that we, in the name of
humanity, have a common duty to protect people where
their own governments will not.”3 Already the EITI has 23
countries lined up to be swallowed into the Commonwealth
and looted. These nations are primarily throughout
Africa, but include crucial states bordering Russia and
Yet, many well-meaning people inside the U.S. and
elsewhere have thrown their support behind Soros for his
“human rights advocacy,” rallying to the call of ending
“authoritarian regimes,” and increasing “transparency.”
The Fight for Eurasia
In his historic 1983 economic forecast, Lyndon La-
Rouche warned that if the Soviet Union were to reject his
Strategic Defense Initiative, adopted by President Reagan,
then “the strains on the Comecon economy would
lead to a collapse of that economic system in about five
years.” At his 1988 address at the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin,
LaRouche repeated that warning: “All of us who are
members of that stratum called world-class politicians,
know that the world has now entered what most agree is
the end of the postwar era. . . What governments do during
2. To better understand this process, see Euripides’ Greek tragedy, The
Bacchae, on the cult of Dionysus.
3. Earlier, in 1999, Blair demanded the NATO bombing of Serbia/Yugoslavia,
under the humanitarian guise of protecting Kosovo and Albania
against the Serbs. Blair’s rejection of the principles of the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia have pioneered the modern era of pre-emptive war, and much
of the mess of our war-torn planet today.
Chris Jadatz
the coming two years will decide the fate of all humanity
for a century or more to come. . .The time has come for a
bold decision on U.S. policy toward Central Europe.” At
that time, the LaRouche Movement was recruiting from
the influential circles throughout Eurasia around the
prospect of building the Productive Triangle and later the
Eurasian Land Bridge to transform the region into a prosperous
community of nation-states.
LaRouche was the first to identify and act on the coming
turning point in world history, but the British establishment,
also thinking in terms of long historical waves,
saw the crisis in Germany and the Soviet Union as an
opening for a drastic turn to their system.
Soros was their point-man, deployed into the fight to
build his foundations throughout the contested Eastern
European bloc. The Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland
was ground-zero for the European test-run of Jeffrey
Sachs’ “shock therapy” model, later used
throughout the region to implement free-market
looting, and monetary austerity. Soros wrote of the
Polish implementation, “The IMF approved and
the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was
very tough on the population, but people were willing
to take a lot of pain in order to see real
change. . .Inflation has been reduced, but the outcome
still hangs in the balance because structural
adjustment is slow in coming. Production has fallen
30%, but employment has fallen by 3%. This
means the entrenched management of state enterprises
is using the respite it gained from wage
claims to improve its profit margins and keep the
workers employed. There is an unholy alliance between
management and labor that will be hard to
break.” In other words, Shachtian monetary austerity,
slave labor, and wrecking guarantees to state
This was the same model used to cripple Russia, where
Soros pushed the Shatalin Plan to shut down the Soviet
military-industrial economy and impose “budgetary discipline.”
Soros’ program was a disaster: the privatization
of state industry, rotten deals to sell off Soviet military industrial
stockpiles, smuggling raw materials, weapons,
and drugs. In only five years, the labor force had largely
shifted from production to criminal activity, and Russia
saw the largest expansion of drug trade and drug use in
that region. 4
In the years following the Soviet break-up, Soros set up
Foundations in 23 countries. On the launching of the 1991
Balkans War, Soros dumped millions into the region, earmarking
$15 million in funds for political subversion in
Croatia alone. In December 1996, Croatian president,
Franjo Tudjman, launched a useful attack, saying, “With
the help of Soros, [the organizations] have entirely infiltrated
society. . . They have involved in their project 290
different institutions, as well as hundreds of people. . .
[T]hrough financial support, they roped in members of all
ages and classes, from high school students to journalists,
university professors, and academicians, from all circles
of culture, economy, science, health, law, and literature. . .
They openly say: Their duty is to change the property and
government structures through donations. . . To create favorable
circumstances for the subversion of the present
authority and situation in Croatia, to gain control over all
spheres of life, they intend to focus their energies and influence
on the media and the world of culture.”
4. The spread of drug use coincided with an epidemic of HIV/AIDS largely
along the drug trade route into Afghanistan. Today, the Soros Foundation
prides itself in “treatment, advocacy, and harm reduction services” to deal
with HIV/AIDS and TB, the results of Soros’ free-market reforms.
Russian peasants. Ogonyok..
Soviet women show ration cards to buy food. Ogonyok 1991.
During the same time, Soros set up the International
Science Foundation, offering sizable grants to Russian
scientists. People were poor and looking for a living; Soros
stepped in with projects and money. Many confided that
they knew it was wrong, but they needed the money to
survive. Though he was able to pay the scientists, Soros’
R&D investments were not nearly enough to accomplish
breakthrough work. U.S. intelligence sources were convinced
that Soros was just picking their brains. The ISF
initially offered large grants, but as Soros steadily withdrew
funds, he drew young scientists out of the country,
taking from Russia its most vital natural resource.
In 2003, Soros announced that he was officially withdrawing
support to Russia in order to focus more on the
United States, after becoming “preoccupied with problems
of globalization” and, since September 11, “with the
role that the United States plays in the world.” On June 12
of this year, the OSI announced an initiative to spend
$800 million over the next 10 years “to advance democracy
and progressive reform in the United States.” Grantees
will be funded to study how institutions like the EU
and the UN can be used to “influence or constrain illiberal
behavior,” and how stability and order can be maintained
after an “authoritarian regime” has been collapsed.
The shock troop attacks from Soros’ hordes in the East
should be fair warning to those in the U.S. who continue
to be soft on Soros’ “democratic reforms” and “open society”
There Is No Transparency Off-Shore
Contrary to the romantic view of super-financier,
George Soros, he has never acted alone in any of his operations,
and his primary self-interest has been saving his
sorry neck from his sponsors.
A decade before launching The Open Society Fund, Soros
left his post at Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc.5 with
sponsorship to launch the off-shore Quantum Fund N.V.,
which was reportedly managing $11-14 billion in 2001.
Both the Quantum Fund and Soros Fund Management,
operate as crucial sources for the money going to the international
projects cited above. By setting up in the Netherlands
Antilles, a British Protectorate, and excluding
American citizens from investing in the fund or sitting on
the board of directors, Soros eludes U.S. law enforcement
scrutiny, U.S. taxes, and other regulations, while demanding
transparency from everyone else.
Soros has gone so far out of his way to avoid U.S. laws
that he is not even on the board of his own fund, but serves
as official “Investment Advisor” through the New York
based Soros Fund Management. Instead, the list of investors
and the board of the Quantum Fund is stacked with
British, Italian, and Swiss financiers, with Queen Elizabeth
II holding a special position on the list of exclusive
clients. Quantum board member Richard Katz is also on
the board of the London N.M. Rothschild & Sons merchant
bank, and is the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A.;
Nils O. Taube, is the head of the London investment group,
St. James Palace, a major partner with Lord Rothschild;
and George Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild’s Swiss
Banca Privata. According to interviews and published
sources, Karlweiss played a key role in giving Soros the
initial start-up capital for Quantum. The Rothschilds’
banking apparatus, with its international branches, has
been, and remains at the center of British sponsored dirty
money and financial warfare operations, from money
laundering, to raw materials grabs, drugs-for-weapons
deals, sponsorship of international crime networks, and
significant control over the gold trade—which is essential
for the global drug trade.
Quantum board member and top Swiss financier, Edgar
de Picciotto, was involved in launching attacks against
LaRouche’s European organization through the mid-late
1980’s when he pushed money through the Swiss thinktank,
Geo-Pol, to fund the corrupt Laurent Murawiec,
presently residing at the neo-con Hudson Institute.6 De
Picciotto is presently the chair of the Union Bancaire Privee,
the offspring of a shady merger with Edmund Safra’s
Trade Development Bank, notably involved in the Iran-
Contra affair. Safra, who became too dirty for even the
British to use, was famously murdered in 1999 when under
investigation by Swiss and US authorities for using his
Republic Bank of New York to transfer billions of Federal
Reserve notes to Mafia-controlled banks in Moscow in the
early 1990’s. He was also under investigation for laundering
money through the Turkish and Colombian drug
According to former U.S. State Department intelligence
officers, familiar with the Soros case, Soros’ Quantum
Fund amassed its billions from “silent investors,” like
Marc Rich—as well as Mossad agents Shaul Eisenberg
and Rafi Eytan. During Soviet break-up, Quantum Fund
investor, Marc Rich,7 was crucial in the raw materials
smuggling. He did the ground work of coercing desperate
and corrupt Russian and Soviet leaders to sell the nation’s
raw material wealth to the global markets. That money
5. Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc. represented Rothschild banking interests
in Germany during the period of Chancellor Bismarck. As of 1993 it
was the principal custodian of the Quantum fund, along with Citibank.
6. In his 2001 Strategic Memorandum: Look What Happened in Brazil, Lyndon
LaRouche describes Laurent Murawiec as “a real-life ‘Beetlebaum’
of the legendary mythical horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass,
currently in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.”
7. Before running $2.5 billion in “natural resources” trade with Russia,
Marc Rich got his start in the triangular trade of weapons, oil, and drugs,
around the Afghan and Iran-Iraq Wars. EIR Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—
Shut Down Dope Inc. (2001), and EIR Special Report, The True
Story of Soros the Golem (1997).
was then taken out of the country and invested in offshore
accounts. Rich, a U.S. fugitive since 1984, organized the
looting from his office in London, where he helped his
Russian contacts sell those materials normally used for
domestic consumption.
For 17 years, Rich was a fugitive in London from charges
of tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran).
Rich hired Lewis Libby as his personal attorney. In 2001,
Al “stinking possum” Gore helped get a Presidential pardon
for Rich in the final hours of Bill Clinton’s term. Later,
in testimony before Congress, Libby admitted that he secured
the pardon for Rich by working through Gore’s former
chief of staff, Jack Quinn (as well as two former Mossad
agents employed by Rich).
A Piece of Advice:
The global economy is presently undergoing a hyperinflationary
blow-out. The international institutions and financier
networks outlined above, whose activities are illegal under
the United States Federal Constitution, have been positioning
themselves for decades to seize control now. It is now possible
for the government of the United States to immediately
shut down Soros’ filthy operations and launch the recovery
prescribed in LaRouche’s “Three Steps to Survival.”
It were wise for all those who are presently defending
George Soros by accepting his money to take pause: Whatever
happens otherwise, if the United Kingdom continues
its present course Britain’s imperial design (1763-2008) is
now soon doomed to a very early and ugly end. All that remains
in doubt on this account, is, whether or not the disintegration
of the British empire will carry the rest of European
civilization down with it, down into a prolonged,
planetary-wide dark age, down forever from the Britain of
Lord Shelburne which aspired to become a permanent
successor to the failed Roman Empire. Is the money really
worth it?8
The Case of Malaysia
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
8. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., “That Doomed & Brutish Empire,” EIR Volume
35, Number 11, March 14, 2008.
Technically, Malaysia gained its independence from the
British Empire in 1957. Since then however, the British
intention has been to continue using the nation as its
very own playground for its free trade chaos and looting
operations. In 1997 Lyndon LaRouche stated, “free trade,
practiced against the nations of Southeast Asia, is simply
a new form of colonialism, whose fruit is mass murder. In
that sense, there is no difference, in effect on people, between
free trade and Nazism.”
Up until the mid 90’s currency crisis, Malaysia was a
staunch follower of globalization, albeit taking significant
steps toward development in the years following their independence.
Since the British deployment of George Soros
into Southeast Asia to loot the currencies of these nations,
Malaysia has changed its view. In the mid-1990’s,
Lyndon LaRouche forecast that the so-called “Tigers” of
Southeast Asia,1 after years of globalization, hot money
flows, and destructive speculative activity would suffer
the same fate as Mexico after 1995—utter collapse. Indeed,
in the months leading up to July 1997, Soros worked
tirelessly to carry out London’s currency warfare, with the
intent to collapse the Southeast Asian economies. The Tiger
economies had succumbed to the flood of hot money
in the 1990s, which created bubble economies based on
inflated stock values and financial services. The government
“guarantees” on foreign investments, imposed by
the western speculators, ultimately bankrupted the Southeast
Asian national economies.
Soros financed a large portion of this hot money. He
began his attack on the Thai and Malaysian currencies in
February of 1997 “with a zeal I haven’t seen since the successful
assault on several European currencies around
three years ago” according to one analyst. 2 Through speculation
in futures markets, Soros’ Quantum Fund leveraged
$1.2 trillion. He took short positions against the
Thai baht, the Philippine peso, the Indonesian rupiah,
and the Malaysian ringgit, sending these currencies falling
by 40-70%, collapsing stock markets, and wiping out
currency reserves. The breaking point was in July of 1997
when the Thai baht was forced to float, with greater than
20% devaluation, after the government had unsuccessfully
spent over $15 billion trying to defend the currency.
The IMF austerity conditions imposed on these nations
following the collapse drove their economies back 15-20
years in their potential for development and their standard
of living.
On September 20, 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr.
Mahathir Bin Mohammed stood before the IMF and defi14
antly spoke out against the looting
policies of the British Empire:
“We in Malaysia laughed at
the suggestion that our country
would follow the fate of Mexico.
. . . But now we know better.
We know why it was suggested
that Malaysia would go the way
of Mexico. We know now that
even as Mexico’s economic crash
was manipulated and made to
crash, the economies of other
developing countries, too, can
be suddenly manipulated and
forced to bow to the great fund
managers who have now come
to be the people to decide who
should prosper and who
Prior to the attack on the
Southeast Asian markets, Mahathir
had been an outspoken
follower of globalization. However,
following the British Empire’s
organized takedown of
the Malaysian economy, the fantasy
of “free trade” was broken.
Reflecting the proposals of
economist Lyndon LaRouche,
Dr. Mahathir launched his own attack against speculator
George Soros, calling him a “moron.” EIR’s special report
“The true story of Soros the Golem; A profile of mega
speculator George Soros,” circulated widely in Malaysia’s
leading circles. London, surprised by Mahathir’s sudden
backlash, unleashed a string of slanders, including an article
published in the Asian Wall Street Journal on September
19, 1997, titled: “Malaysia’s Mahathir Finds
Strange Source for Soros Campaign; Asian Country’s Media
Tap U.S. Conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, Jr.”
In an attempt to destroy any influence or connection Malaysia
had to LaRouche, London deployed Soros once
more to clean up the mess. Soros was given a chance to
defend himself against Prime Minister Mahathir’s accusations
and attempted to deny the charges—he was not
Ted Koppel: “You’re talking here about the Malaysian
Prime Minister.”
George Soros: “That’s right.”’
Ted Koppel: “And he, I mean
his charge is that you, in effect,
systematically set out to destroy
Malaysia’s currency.”
George Soros: “And that is
absolute nonsense. Now, you
know, what more can I say? It’s
just absolutely no foundation at
Ted Koppel: “Because—I
mean put it in easily understandable
terms. I mean if you could
have profited by destroying Malaysia’s
currency, would you have
shrunk from that?”
George Soros: “Not necessarily,
because that would have
been an unintended consequence
of my action. And it’s not
my job as a participant to calculate
the consequences. This is
what a market is. That’s the nature
of a market. So I’m a participant
in the market.”
Ted Koppel: “Apolitical,
George Soros: “That’s exactly
The Backlash
In September 1998, Dr. Mahathir shocked the world by
declaring sovereign currency controls on the Malaysian
ringgit, pegging their currency to a fixed exchange rate
against the dollar, and thereby effectively ending the speculators
ability to loot the country through currency speculation.
Soros, and the entire western financial oligarchy,
went berserk, claiming that Dr. Mahathir’s actions against
IMF orthodoxy would bring damnation down upon his
country. In fact, as was later obvious to all, his defense of
the nation’s sovereignty saved the population from the
devastation suffered by every other nation that had been
subjected to Soros’ butcher knife.
Following Malaysia’s break with globalization, London
launched an even nastier operation to create an internal
crisis in Malaysia. Anwar Ibrahim was the deputy prime
minister and chosen heir to Mahathir; he became the target
to carry out the Empire’s brutal operation.
Anwar was later kicked out of his post as deputy prime
minister because he “lacked the moral standards required”
to lead the nation. Financed by Soros and his cronies
through the Open Society Foundation, Anwar pro- Steinegger
Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohammed
in 2002.
3. Pre-recorded interview with Ted Koppel, ABC News Nightline, Wednesday,
October 7, 1998
1. It turns out that the Southeast Asian Tigers were no better than those
tigers of infamous “magicians” Siegfried and Roy—all doped up.
2. As described by Dawai Institute of Research Director Peter Scheifelbein
days after the meeting of Myanmars SLORC (State Law and Order
Restoration Council)
ceeded to launch a campaign to bring down the
government of Malaysia. He portrayed himself as a
freedom fighter and champion of free market society,
denouncing the new government’s protectionist
economic policies and accused them of carrying
out a conspiracy to destroy him. Meanwhile, Soros’
Human Rights and Open Society organizations
played their part in labeling Mahathir as the “last of
the old-line Asian authoritarians” and showed Anwar
as the “reformer” trying to free the people of
Malaysia. The western media, including the Wall
Street Journal, continued to fuel the turmoil in Malaysia,
saying: “The sacking Wednesday night of
Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
signaled the end of a battle for the soul of an important
nation. . . . At home and abroad, Mr. Anwar had
come to symbolize the democratic aspirations and
open-mindedness of a new generation, more at ease
in the world and less burdened with the pain of old
sleights and frustrations than the man he was expected
to succeed.” 4
Even Soros buddy, Al Gore, threw his weight behind
the speculators.5 On November 13, 1998, President
Clinton had been invited to speak at the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, hosted by
Malaysia. Due to the severity of the Iraq crisis, Clinton
was forced to stay back and dispatched Al Gore
in his place. The resulting catastrophe occurred on
November 16 when Gore delivered a speech to the
APEC business advisory council where he called for
“short term” recovery by allowing “free markets to
work their magic” and, though not naming him, endorsed
Anwar Ibrahim over Mahathir to lead the nation. 6
Sprinkling salt in the wound, Gore echoed Anwar’s cries
for a new government: “People will accept sacrifice in a democracy,
not only because they have had a role in choosing
it, but because they rightly believe they are likely to benefit
from it. . . . The message this year from Indonesia is unmistakable:
People are willing to take responsibility for their
future—if they have the power to determine that future. . . .
Democracy confers a stamp of legitimacy that reforms
must have in order to be effective. And so, among nations
suffering economic crises, we continue to hear calls for democracy
and reform in many languages—‘people’s power,’
‘doi moi,’ ‘reformasi.’ We hear them today—right here,
right now—among the brave people of Malaysia.” With the
Malaysian government incensed and the Malaysian people
riled up, Gore promptly left the venue. A few days later,
then foreign minister Abdullah Badawi, sent the US a heated
letter of protest, warning that the United States would
be held accountable for inciting instability.
Malaysia Today
The escapades of Soros, Gore, and other London cronies
in Malaysia can only be seen in one light—the British
Empire’s continued aims at destabilization in Southeast
Asia. Today, Abdullah Badawi has taken over the post of
prime minister and Anwar, with one hand permanently
glued to Soros’ gluttonous money bags, is still running operations
aimed at destabilizing the government, including
his intended buy-off of parliamentarians in the opposition
party, the United Malays Political Organization. The fate
of Malaysia remains to be seen. However, in the context of
the current global financial collapse, its future lies in the
implementation of Lyndon H. LaRouche’s four powers
agreement7 and in the destruction of the British Empire
and its crony, George Soros.
World Economic Forum/
Al Gore at the Davos meeting in January 2008.
4. The Wall Street Journal, September 3, 1998 issue
5. In the intervening decade, with weight to spare, Al Gore threw it behind
his own speculative venture in the cap and trade carbon market.
6. At that time, Anwar had been under arrest and on trial for charges of
corruption and sodomy.
7. See Lyndon H. LaRouche’s, Three Steps to Survival
George Soros Buys the
Nomination, Obama Borrows It
By Ed Hamler
The ongoing 2008 Presidential election represents
Soros’ importation of the techniques he has utilized
for popular subversion in foreign lands to the U.S. political
process. MoveOn.Org, an organization hugely funded
by George Soros, played a central role in Barack Obama’s
capture of the Democratic nomination, despite Hillary
Clinton’s clear superiority in the popular vote. Although
positioned as a pro-Obama instrument long before, as of
February of 2008, MoveOn officially backed Obama’s campaign,
sending him an army of “volunteers” and an established
money machine and fundraising base. As Lyndon
LaRouche has repeatedly warned, Obama himself is a
throwaway in the financial oligarchy’s plan to capture the
Presidency of the United States under conditions of economic
collapse. He was promoted to destroy the Clinton
candidacy and its potential for a Rooseveltian solution to
the financial collapse.
MoveOn.Org got its start in 1998, receiving major support
from the most fascist Democrats in the party, Joe
and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to censure President
Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Faced in
1998 with a worldwide economic collapse, President Clinton
called for a “new financial architecture,” echoing Lyndon
LaRouche’s call for a New Bretton Woods financial system.
Soros, at the same time, engaged in currency warfare,
which intentionally collapsed the Thai baht, the ringgit of
Malaysia, and the lira in Italy. In short order after the President
called for a new financial architecture, the Lewinsky
scandal blew-up. The Newt Gingrich-led Congress, along
with Al Gore’s treasonous faction inside the Democratic
Party fed the ensuing media frenzy, effectively destroying
the Clinton Administration’s economic program in its remaining
years. In its drive to censure President Clinton,
MoveOn demonstrated a proclivity for political prostitution,
appreciated by Soros’ controllers. Soros moved to buy
up MoveOn. By 2004, MoveOn, the so-called “grassroots”
organization, was practically owned by George Soros.
According to a Michelle Goldberg article in,1
this process began in 2003. Soros and his associates had
decided to pour tons of money into the MoveOn coffers.
The total contributed from 2003-04 was about $6.2 million
dollars, the largest “soft money” contribution ever.
During 2003-2004, Soros and MoveOn heavily backed
Wall Street suckling Howard “Scream” Dean for President.
They later mobilized to ensure him a comfortable
seat as Chairman of the Democratic Party to do what he
does best: lose! As chairman, Dean’s mission has been to
demoralize the lower 80% of income brackets (the true
base of the Democratic party) while recruiting white collar
and affluent professionals, myspace addicted youth,
and as many minorities and trade unionists who will sell
their souls as a new “Democratic majority.” Despite Dean’s
sabotage, the American population gave the Democrats a
resounding victory in the 2006 mid-term election, turning
out in record numbers to vote on the basis of ending the
war and fixing the economy. But by October of the next
year, Congress’ support from the population fell, from
80% to below that of President Bush, due to Dean and
Pelosi’s roles in blocking any initiative to reverse the damage
wreaked by Bush and Cheney. Mission accomplished.
MoveOn also played an active and significant role in
the pressure campaign to make sure Senator Clinton
dropped out of the race for President, thus acting as a
front organization for Soros and his masters.
sent out a sophistry-ridden email petition, ironically attacking
Clinton for putting pressure on the superdelegates
for support. It called on the superdelegates to let the voters
decide who the Democratic nominee will be:
“Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.
“A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening
to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because
Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates,
should decide the Presidential nomination.
“They’re Clinton supporters and they’re trying to use their
high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.
“So let’s tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up
for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.
“A compiled petition with your individual comment
will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic
1. Michelle Goldberg, MoveOn Moves Up,, Dec. 1, 2003.
“Full petition text:
“The Democratic nomination should be decided by the
voters—not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We’ve
given money—and time—to progressive candidates and
causes, and we’ll support Speaker Pelosi and others who
stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.”
Of course, when Senator Clinton won the popular vote
and the real high-rollers of the world and the party establishment
united behind Obama, MoveOn stood fully exposed
as the expendable creation of these same forces.
Since Senator Clinton actually won the popular vote, will
MoveOn stand by its original statement?
Never one to miss an “opportunity” Soros also personally
profited from one of MoveOn’s biggest political campaigns.
In 2006, MoveOn and Center for American Progress
waged a campaign against Cheney’s Halliburton.
Halliburton’s stock dropped from $40 to $26 a share.
While MoveOn railed against Halliburton, Soros gradually
bought 1,999,450 shares. By December 2006, these
shares comprised more than 2% of his total portfolio,
making Halliburton the Soros Fund Management’s biggest
investment that year. Then, the attacks on Halliburton
stopped, and the stock value began climbing, climbing
all the way up to today’s $50/share.
Democracy Alliance
One further maneuver in Soros’ effort to take over the
Democratic Party was his formation of the Democracy
Alliance. In 2005 George Soros and 70 millionaires and
billionaires got together to discuss further prospects for
buying up the Democratic Party. On July 27, 2006 the
Washington Post reported that there was a requirement
that every member of the Democratic Alliance give
$200,000 to the organization, but most members gave
more, and Soros was one of the top three contributors.
Democratic Alliance funds were thrown into organizations
like the Center for American Progress (CAP) and
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN). These organizations also played a role
in operations against Senator Clinton in the primary
For example, on May 13, the day of the West Virginia
primary, John Edwards publicly stated his neutral position
concerning which candidate he would back for President
until the nominating convention in August. A day later
he came out to endorse Obama, following Obama’s
defeat by Senator Clinton by huge margins in the West
Virginia primary. Edwards thus participated in a public
spectacle meant to take the sting away from the millions
of votes Clinton received from the poorest state in the nation.
Edwards had just launched an anti-poverty campaign
called “Half-In-Ten,” which proposes to cut poverty
in half in the next ten years. Edwards anti-poverty campaign
received significant funding from the Soros controlled
CAP and ACORN organizations. In addition to
threats and other pressure tactics known to have been utilized
against super-delegates, one wonders what might
have been brought against Edwards concerning the funding
of the programs dearest to him?
Barack Obama
Obama himself has been blessed with Soros’ “soft money”
since he was an Illinois State Senator. Obama’s career in
national politics was catapulted by George Soros’ pool of
dough during his run for U.S. Senate in 2004. Throughout
that campaign year Soros kept tabs on Obama. On July 4,
2004, one month before the Democratic Nominating Convention
in Boston, Obama was the only candidate Soros personally
met with that year in Soros’ New York home. This
same year, Soros and his family raised $60,000 for Obama.
In 2006 Obama, as U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois,
had his sights set on bigger things. He met with Soros
again in his Manhattan office. That meeting lasted about
an hour. Immediately afterward Soros introduced Obama
to a dozen of the biggest money bags in politics, including
financier and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer and
Union Bank of Switzerland U.S. Chief Robert Wolf. A
week later Wolf had dinner with Obama in Washington
D.C. to craft his campaign strategy, one month before
Obama officially launched his Presidential bid.
Obama announced his candidacy for President in January
2007. In just four months, Soros and Wolf raised
$500,000 for Obama. From April until the closing months
Photo: John Pettitt /
Howard “Scream” Dean
of the primary campaign season, Soros and his associates
held a series of fundraisers and practically guaranteed a
steady flow of money into his campaign. In fact, Soros
played a major role in changing how political campaigns
are run in the United States, through his support for the
McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation in 2002.
Soros’ Open Society claims that it provided the key logistical
support for the legislation by mobilizing itself and other
foundations to lobby for the legislation and to raise the
money needed to defend it against subsequent court challenges.
As a result of the McCain-Feingold act and subsequent
developments, PACs with wealthy sponsors, like
MoveOn, internet based “movements,” and wealthy bundler,
like those who predominate in Obama’s campaign,
have taken the place of constituency organizations, and
have thus become the central focus of all political activity.
So, after the vast sums of cash that were thrown around,
after key Clinton support was simply bought off, should
there be any mystery as to how Obama apparently got the
FDR’s 1932 Victory Over
London’s Wall Street Fascists
by Jeffrey Steinberg
On July 1, 1932 , New York Gov. Franklin
Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic
Party Presidential nomination
by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his
nearest rival and avowed political enemy,
the former New York governor and
J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On
Nov. 8, 1932 , Roosevelt won a second
landslide victory, this time over incumbent
Republican President Herbert
Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular
vote, and swept the Electoral College
by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate
for change in memory, and FDR
immediately set out to return the U.
S.A. to the tradition of the American
System of political-economy, and, in so
doing, brought the country out of the
depths of the Great Depression, and
prepared the nation for the great battles
to come, against Nazism and Fascism—
and an expected post-war battle
to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.
Most Americans, with even a slight
degree of historical literacy, know these
basic facts about the election of 1932 . Few, however, know
how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic
nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came
to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite
a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his
Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn
the outcome of the 1932 election, through attempted
assassination and coup d’état.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s nomination as the Democratic candidate for President was far from
assured when the 1932 convention met in Chicago; it took four ballots, and a knock-down
drag-out political fight against the London-Wall Street interests who backed FDR’s opponents.
He is shown here campaigning in Kansas in 1932.
It is that story, rarely told, that offers a vital lesson today
to the Democratic Party, and to the American people,
as the nation faces another monumental Presidential election—
an election, like 1932 , that once again may determine
whether the United States survives for another generation,
as the sovereign republic established by the
Founding Fathers.
A Challenge to Wall Street
From the time that Franklin Roosevelt was reelected
governor of New York in November 1930, by a sweeping
majority, he emerged as the clear frontrunner for the
Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 1932 . He
had already staked out a new direction for the nation,
through his published writings and speeches, and some of
the emergency measures he had taken as governor, to deal
with the crushing impact of the 1929 Wall Street stock
market crash, and the ensuing collapse of the U.S. economy.
In 1931, he pushed legislation through the Republicanmajority
New York State Legislature, which created the
Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA),
with Harry Hopkins as the executive director. The $20 million
program created jobs for the construction of hospitals,
schools, and other vital infrastructure in the state,
and provided other relief for the growing legions of unemployed.
But Roosevelt made it clear that his efforts in New
York were being countered, at every turn, by the Hoover
Administration in Washington, that was more committed
to bailing out the bankrupt financial institutions, than it
was to providing for the welfare of an increasingly desperate
American people.
In July 1928, FDR had penned an article for Foreign Affairs,
the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which presented a “Democratic View” of “Our Foreign
Policy,” in which he boldly spelled out a radical overhaul
of American foreign policy, in the tradition of John Quincy
Adams and the Treaty of Westphalia. Before being striken
with polio in 1921, FDR had been Assistant Secretary
of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson, and had
been the unsuccessful Democratic Party Vice Presidential
candidate in 1920.
FDR wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The time has come when
we must accept not only certain facts but many new principles
of a higher law, a newer and better standard in international
relations. We are exceedingly jealous of our
own sovereignty, and it is only right that we should respect
a similar feeling among other nations. The peoples of the
other Republics of this Western world are just as patriotic,
just as proud of their sovereignty. Many of these nations
are large, wealthy and highly civilized. The peace, the security,
the integrity, the independence of every one of the
American Republics is of interest to all the others, not to
the United States alone. . . . Single-handed intervention by
us in the internal affairs of other nations must end; with
the cooperation of others we shall have more order in this
hemisphere and less dislike. . . . The time is ripe to start another
chapter. On that new page there is much that should
be written in the spirit of our forebears. If the leadership
is right—or, more truly, if the spirit behind it is great—the
United States can regain the world’s trust and friendship
and become again of service. We can point the way once
more to the reducing of armaments; we can cooperate officially
and whole-heartedly with every agency that studies
and works to relieve the common ills of mankind; and
we can for all time renounce the practice of arbitrary intervention
in the home affairs of our neighbors.”
The policies and ideas presented by FDR were not only
anathema to his Republican rivals. They were at fundamental
odds with the London-allied Wall Street interests
that held a vise-grip control over the Democratic Party,
from the top down.
Following his 1928 defeat by Hoover, the Democratic
Party Presidential candidate, Alfred Smith, FDR’s earlier
sponsor, turned bitterly against Roosevelt. Smith was furious
that FDR had won the 1928 New York gubernatorial
election, while he had been overwhelmingly defeated in
New York State by Hoover. FDR had also refused to give
Smith hands-on control over his top Albany appointments.
Even more to the point, Smith had already been coopted
by the powerful J.P. Morgan banking interests, which
were among the City of London’s flagship assets inside
Wall Street. Smith was installed as a top executive of the
Morgan-financed Empire State Corp., which built the Empire
State Building, and became a witting tool of the Morgan
interests, who had other, equally powerful hooks into
the Democratic Party.
Following the disastrous 1928 Hoover victory over
Smith, the Democratic Party had fallen deep into debt.
The party owed an estimated $1,600,000—a considerable
sum of money in those days. To bail out the party, Morgan
asset John Jakob Raskob stepped in to loan the party over
$370,000. In return, Raskob, who had managed Smith’s
failed Presidential campaign, was named chairman of the
Democratic Party. He, in turn, appointed another Morgan
man, former Democratic Congressman Jouett Shouse, as
the party’s executive director. Just months before taking
over the party, Raskob had lamented that he was not able
to vote for his favorite politician, Calvin Coolidge, for
President in 1928. Raskob had been a life-long Republican
up until that point.
Born in 1879, Raskob went to work for Pierre du Pont
in 1900, and rose rapidly through the ranks of the Morgan-financed
chemical and arms combine. By 1914, Raskob
was treasurer of the DuPont Corporation. Four years
later, after DuPont took control of 43% of the stock in General
Motors, Raskob was named vice president for finance
of both GM and DuPont. By the early 1920s, Morgan had
bought a $35 million stake in GM, making it a joint Du-
Pont-Morgan venture. Raskob remained vice president of
GM until 1928, when he took over Al Smith’s Presidential
campaign, steering the New York Governor hard-right,
into the Morgan camp. Raskob remained at DuPont for
another decade, amassing a very large personal fortune.
Throughout the 1920s, Raskob was on Morgan’s list of
“preferred customers,” who were beneficiaries of insider
trading, and privileged stock purchases.
Fascism for All
During the 1920s, Morgan and allied London and Wall
Street banks had financed Italy’s Fascist leader Benito
Mussolini. In 1925, for example, Morgan partner Thomas
Lamont arranged a $100 million loan to the Mussolini
regime, at a point that the regime was in deep political
At the same time that Morgan was bailing out Mussolini,
the DuPont and Morgan interests were launching a
movement in the United States—ostensibly
in opposition to Prohibition, which had been enacted
with the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified
in January 1919. The Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment (AAPA) was headed by Capt. William
H. Stayton, but was run by a tightly knit group of Wall
Streeters, including Pierre du Pont, Irénée du Pont, Lammot
du Pont, John Raskob, and Charles Sabin. Sabin
was the chairman of the Morgan-owned New York Guaranty
Company. According to a Senate investigation into
the AAPA, by 1928, of the 28 directors of GM, 15 were
listed as members of the group, which promoted the repeal
of Prohibition, and the replacement of corporate
taxes with a tax on beer and liquor, based on the British
The 1932 Democratic Convention
On Jan. 22 , 1932 , Roosevelt announced his candidacy
for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. The
convention was scheduled for late June in Chicago. From
the very outset, FDR was by far the favorite to win the
nomination and the Presidency. However, the top-down
Morgan interests that literally owned the Democratic Party,
through Raskob and Shouse, had other plans. They
launched a “Stop Roosevelt” operation, employing a number
of Morgan assets, and drawing upon party factions,
which had their own differences with FDR.
Morgan man Al Smith announced his candidacy on
Feb. 6, immediately creating a serious split in the New
York Democratic Party. A number of “favorite son” candidates
also entered the race, most with the understanding
that they would ultimately throw their support—at a
price—behind either FDR or some rival, in the event that
the convention was deadlocked. The Raskov-Shouse-Morgan
strategy was to deny Roosevelt the nomination on the
first series of ballots, and then draw support away from
the New York governor, and behind their chosen “compromise”
candidate, Newton D. Baker, Woodrow Wilson’s
Secretary of War (1916-1921), and later a lawyer for the
Morgan interests in Cleveland, Ohio.
Although FDR competed in the Democratic primary
elections, winning over half the delegates, he suffered
several setbacks, orchestrated by the Morgan crowd and
others. The biggest upset came in California, where Texan
John Nance Garner, the Speaker of the House, won
41% of the vote, to Roosevelt’s 32 % and Al Smith’s 26%.
Garner had campaigned against Roosevelt and Smith as
“Tammany Hall” politicians, and had the backing of William
Gibbs McAdoo, the California lawyer, who had been
Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury (1913-1918), and a
two-time contender for the Democratic Presidential
nomination, in 1920 and 1924. McAdoo was the son-inlaw
of President Wilson, and, appropriately, had the
strong backing of the Ku Klux Klan in his 1924 bid for
the nomination (Wilson had shamelessly boosted the revival
of the KKK from the White House, through his promotion
of the Hollywood film, Birth of a Nation, which
lionized the racist organization). In 1924, McAdoo had
gotten into a pitched battle with Smith over the nomination,
deadlocking the convention for days, and leading,
ultimately, to the selection of a “compromise” candidate,
John W. Davis—yet, another lawyer for the Morgan interests.
McAdoo also had a very close relationship with the
country’s leading publisher, William Randolph Hearst,
who, at one time, had also sought the Democratic Presidential
Going into the Chicago convention, Roosevelt had
well-over half of the 1,154 delegate votes needed to clinch
the nomination. However, the rules of the party required
a two-thirds majority, which meant that 770 votes were
needed to win. As long as the Morgan forces could block
any large crossovers, FDR could be defeated, despite the
fact that he had won 11 of the 13 primaries in which he
competed, and had won 44.5% of the total votes cast.
Memories of the disastrous 1924 nominating convention,
which took 103 ballots to break the deadlock between
Smith and McAdoo, added to the political climate,
favoring a Morgan-led anti-FDR “compromise”
Adding to the political minefield facing FDR, was the
fact that Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Anton Cermak, was
allied with the “Stop Roosevelt” forces, and was a leading
proponent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (he coveted
control over liquor licensing and taxation, which
would greatly enhance his financial and political power),
and he would control who would be allowed into the galleries
at the convention center, an important psychologi21
cal intimidation factor. Cermak had gone East on the eve
of the convention, to meet with Raskob and Shouse, ostensibly
to push an anti-Prohibition plank for the party
The Backdrop to the Convention
Cermak also hoped that the revenues generated by
hosting both the Democratic and Republican nominating
conventions would bail Chicago out of a desperate financial
crisis. 750,000 Chicagoans had lost their jobs since
the 1929 Crash; over 100,000 families were on some kind
of public welfare; half of the banks in Chicago had gone
under; city workers, including police and teachers, were
being paid in IOUs; and almost every luxury hotel in the
city’s famous downtown Loop was in bankruptcy receivership.
On the eve of the convention, 759 teachers had lost
their homes, because they had not been paid in five
months, according to the authoritative account of the
1932 convention, Happy Days Are Here Again, by Steve
Neal (HarperCollins, New York, 2004). And garbage collectors
had also gone on strike, after missing months of
pay, resulting in a pile-up of garbage everywhere.
Arriving delegates were greeted by “Hoovervilles” all
over the city. Writing for The New Republic, John Dos
Passos described the scene on Michigan Avenue: “Down
here the air, drenched with the exhaust from the grinding
motors of trucks, is full of dust and the roar of the
heavy traffic that hauls the city’s freight. They lie in rows
along the edges above the roadway, huddled in grimed
newspapers, men who have nothing left but their stiff,
hungry, grimy bodies, men who have lost the power to
Weeks before the convention opened, Samuel Insull,
the leading industrialist in Chicago, had lost his entire
$170 million personal fortune, when debts were called
in on his utility companies, which suffered huge losses
through the collapse of industry and the fall-off in electricity
consumption. The Morgan interests were widely
accused of being behind the pulling of the plug on Insull.
In June 1932 , thirty-nine small and medium-size
Chicago banks all went bankrupt, as part of the Insull
Days before the convention opened, the major Chicago
banks, including First National Bank of Chicago and First
Union Trust, were hit with a run on deposits, estimated at
over $50 million. Next, Charles G. Dawes, former head of
Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, announced
he was about to shut down his Central Republic
Bank and Trust Company, which had lost half of its $240
million in assets. Had Dawes’ bank shut down, the chain
reaction would have wiped out all of the major Chicago
banks. As the convention was opening, the RFC stepped
in with a $100 million emergency bailout loan, thus averting
a full-blown financial meltdown.
Morgan Versus FDR
Even before the battle over the nomination commenced,
a number of other issues had to be addressed,
that would vitally effect the outcome of the convention.
The first involved the seating of the Louisiana delegation.
Three contending delegations all showed up in Chicago,
reflecting the larger splits in the party between the proand
anti-FDR factions. At the time of the convention, Sen.
Huey P. Long was backing Roosevelt, and his delegation
was being challenged by a former Louisiana governor, Jared
Sanders. After a rousing debate between Long and
Sanders, punctuated by loud anti-Long rants by Cermak’s
bleachers rabble, the Long delegation was seated, by a
convention vote of 638-514.
Next, the crucial vote on who would be the convention
chairman took place. Roosevelt had chosen Montana’s
Thomas J. Walsh, a 73-year-old, 20-year Senate veteran, as
Library of Congress
During the 1920s, J.P. Morgan (shown here), and allied London and
Wall Street banking interests financed Italy’s Fascist dictator
Mussolini. They intended to establish Fascism in the United States—
but they had to try to eliminate FDR in order to do it.
his candidate. Walsh had presided over the tumultuous
1924 convention, before Morgan man Davis had won the
nomination, but was widely respected for the way he handled
that chaotic affair. The candidate of party chairman
Raskob was his fellow Morgan man, Shouse, the party’s
executive director.
By another close vote, 626-528, Walsh won the pivotal
chairmanship. The two narrow victories for the FDR forces
would prove decisive. FDR’s pointman in Chicago
(Roosevelt, in the tradition of nominating conventions,
stayed back in Hyde Park, New York, but had a special
speaker-phone hookup to his Chicago convention stadium
headquarters), James Farley, would write in his diaries:
“To me the most vital moment of the convention was the
seating of Huey Long’s delegation.”
Efforts by the Roosevelt team to change the party
rules, to end the two-thirds majority requirement, flopped
miserably, and almost cost FDR the support of some of
his Southern backers, who saw the rule as key to their
party influence. The Morgan faction, allied with many of
the urban political machines, from Cermak to Tammany
Hall, tried to push through an anti-Prohibition resolution,
with the aim of drawing Roosevelt into a divisive
side issue, that could split off some of his Southern backers,
who were among the leading proponents of the ban
on alcohol. Ultimately, the convention voted 934-213 in
favor of repeal of the 18th Amendment. Roosevelt had
successfully stayed on the sidelines, averting the Morgan
On June 30, Walsh convened the nominating session.
By the time the nominating speeches and seconding
speeches had been completed, it was 4:28 AM, on the
morning of July 1. All told, 11 names had been placed in
nomination. Among the key candidates hoping to win the
nomination in the wake of another disastrous 1924-type
stalemate, in the event the Morgan “Stop Roosevelt” operation
succeeded, were: Newton D. Baker, Speaker of the
House John Nance Garner, Maryland Gov. Albert Ritchie,
and Al Smith.
At the end of the first round of balloting, FDR had 666
votes, followed by Smith, with 201, Garner with 90, Ohio
governor and favorite son George White, with 52; and a
lineup of other favorite sons with a total of 143 votes
among them. On the second ballot, Roosevelt gained 11
votes, but the failure of any major holdout delegations to
break was a bad sign. Furthermore, Cermak was working
non-stop to break away Roosevelt delegates, as part of the
Morgan scheme to deadlock the convention for a half-dozen
ballots, thus forcing Roosevelt to throw in the towel.
While his efforts failed, the third ballot also was inconclusive.
At 9:15 a.m., the convention adjourned, to resume
again that evening.
From the opening gavel of the convention, FDR was
targeted for massive dirty tricks, including a vicious rumor
campaign that he was “too sick” to be President, another
that he was in bed with the KKK. One of the leaders
of the “Stop Roosevelt” operation was Walter Lippman,
who was circulating a petition among the convention delegates
to draft Newton Baker as the compromise candidate.
Lippman lied, “All through these various delegations
there is an astonishingly strong though quiet conviction
that the party can unite on a man who is stronger than any
of the leading contenders. That man is Newton Baker of
Ohio. My impression is that he is the first real choice of
more responsible Democrats than any other man, and
that he is an acceptable second choice to almost every
one.” Lippman’s petition was accompanied by a massive
telegram campaign, touting Baker as the savior of the party,
against FDR’s divisiveness.
FDR responded with his own telegram to all the delegates,
in which he promised, “I am in this fight to stay.
This is a battle for principle. A clear majority of the convention
understands that it is being waged to keep our
party as a whole from dictation by a small group representing
the interests in the nation which have no place in
our party.” FDR concluded, “My friends will not be misled
by organized propaganda by telegrams now being sent to
delegates. Stick to your guns. It is clear that the nation
must not and shall not be overridden. Now is the time to
make clear that we intend to stand fast and win.”
Roosevelt’s use of the term “the interests” was a direct
shot at the Morgan Wall Street and London crowd
that was behind the desperate drive to deny him the
There are varying accounts of what happened next.
What is clear is that during the hours of July 1, between
the adjourning of the convention, and its resumption in
the evening, a deal was reached between the FDR forces
and Garner. Clearly, McAdoo had a role in the effort, and
Neal’s account identified Joseph Kennedy as a mediator
with Hearst. What is clear is that, faced with a prospect of
either Newton Baker or Al Smith winning the nomination,
should FDR fail to win the showdown fourth balloting, the
Texas and California delegations, both pledged to Garner,
went over to FDR, with the understanding that Garner
would be Roosevelt’s choice as Vice Presidential runningmate.
But even in the Texas caucus, the vote to support
FDR was by the narrowest 54-51 majority. And in the California
caucus, McAdoo was so uncertain of the outcome,
that he never took a vote, choosing instead to inform his
delegation that Garner had released the votes, but taking
the unilateral decision to pay back his rival Al Smith, by
personally announcing both the California and Texas endorsements
for FDR.
But there was more here than a backroom deal. Roosevelt
had clearly touched a deep chord among progressive
Democrats, who understood the implications of another
Morgan hand-picked candidate leading the Democratic
By the time the convention reconvened, on the evening
of July 1, the Morgan-Raskob-Smith gang had been defeated,
albeit by a near-miracle of political perseverence.
Once Texas and California broke, Cermak delivered the
Midwest states to FDR, and triggered a stampede of all the
favorite son delegations.
Shouse, the Morgan man, bitterly wrote to Newton
Baker after the vote: “If McAdoo had not broken the pledges
he made, Roosevelt would not have been nominated.
On the fourth ballot there would have been serious defections
from his ranks with the result that some other nominee
would have been certain. That nominee would have
been either you or Ritchie.”
Understanding the divisive role of the Morgan gang
and the urgent need to heal the wounds of the convention
fight, FDR took the unprecedented step of flying out
to Chicago, to directly address the convention. The
whole country followed in rapt attention, as FDR flew,
through inclement weather, from Albany to Chicago. He
delivered a powerful speech, proclaiming his “New Deal”
for America.
Assassination and Coup d’Etat
In the wake of FDR’s landslide victory over Herbert
Hoover in the November 1932 general elections, the Morgan
and City of London financier faction quickly regrouped.
If they could not defeat FDR by the manipulation
of the ballot, they would use other means.
On Feb. 15, 1933 , less than a month before Roosevelt’s
March 4 inauguration as President, a “lone assassin” attempted
to kill him, during a rally at Bay Front Park in
Miami, Florida. An Italian immigrant unemployed laborer,
Giuseppe Zangara, fired at the podium, as Roosevelt,
ironically, was shaking hands with Mayor Cermak. Cermak
took the shot, and died several weeks later. While investigations
into the shooting never developed evidence of
a broader plot, interrogations of Zangara confirmed that
he intended to kill the President-elect, thus dispelling later
claims that he had been sent by Chicago mobster Frank
Nitti, to kill Cermak, who had cracked down on his Capone
mob rivals.
The Morgan hand was all over another plot to oust
Roosevelt, in the early months of his Presidency. As reported
to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee of the
House of Representatives, by Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington
Butler (USMC-ret.), a group of leading Morgan
and DuPont operatives, including the recently deposed
Democratic Party chairman John J. Raskob, and his executive
director, Jouett Shouse, conspired to organize a
miltary coup d’état against FDR, claiming that Roosevelt
was a “Jew Communist,” who would destroy the United
John J. Raskob photograph collection
John J. Raskob (right) went to work for the Morgan-linked Pierre du Pont (left), where he amassed a fortune, as one of Morgan’s “preferred
customers,” who benefitted insider trading and priviliged stock purchases. Raskob was the pointman for the Morgan-led opposition to FDR
within the Democratic Party.
Library of Congress
States through New Deal hyperinflation.
Members of the conspiracy first contacted Butler in
July 1933 , in an effort to recruit him to the plot; they asked
him to recruit an army of 500,000 World War I veterans, to
march on Washington and force Roosevelt’s resignation,
and the imposition of a regime, modeled on Mussolini
and Hitler.
In September 1934, the plotters established the American
Liberty League, with Al Smith, Raskob, the Morgan
lawyer John W. Davis, joining the ranks of the Grayson
Mallet-Prevost Murphy, Pew, Pitcairn, Rockefeller, and
Lamont interests. To set the stage for the outright pro-Fascist
bankers putsch, Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine devoted
its entire July 1934 issue to praise of Mussolini. Anglophile
editor Laird Goldsborough penned a signed
editorial, which proclaimed, “Fascism is achieving in a
few years or decades such a conquest of the spirit of man
as Christianity achieved only in ten centuries. . . .”
The true nature of the plot was exposed by General
Butler, who had been repeatedly approached by one of the
Morgan operatives, Gerald MacGuire, who had spent seven
months in Europe, at the start of 1934, making contacts
with leading Synarchists in Italy, France, and Germany.
Hesitant to signal Butler that the Morgan gang was
plotting a Hitler-Mussolini-style takeover of America,
MacGuire told Butler that the new movement, to save
America from FDR, was modeled on the French secret
military organization, Croix de Feu (Fiery Cross), which,
he lied, was like America’s Veterans of Foreign Wars or
Aemrican Legion. In fact, the Croix de Feu was a hardcore
pro-Fascist, pro-Nazi apparatus that had failed in
coup plots in France, and ultimately became part of the
collaborationist Vichy regime.
Butler smelled the rat and took his story to the news
media and the Congress, resulting in a tremendous scandal—
in part due to the fact that Congress was afraid to
implicate the top Morgan bankers in such an obviously
treasonous scheme. Working with Philadelphia Record
journalist Paul Comley French, Butler substantiated every
detail of the scheme. In one meeting with French, at the
offices of Grayson M.P. Murphy and Company, MacGuire
openly declared, “We need a fascist government to save
the nation from the Communists.” He explicitly endorsed
Hitler’s forced labor camps as the “solution” to unemployment
in America.
When the American Liberty League formally announced
their founding, the press was called in to the office
of none other than Jouett Shouse, at the National
Press Building in Washington. Shouse, who had headed
Morgan’s Association Against the Prohibition Amendment,
had merely changed the masthead on the old AAPA.
At its heart, it was a London-allied bankers cabal, committed
to imposing corporatist fascism—over the political
corpse of FDR.
A closer approximation of what drove London bankers
and their Wall Street cronies wild was revealed by
FDR and Henry Morgenthau biographer John Morton
Blum. According to Blum, in the autumn of 1933 , Roosevelt
and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau,
launched a drive to push up the price of gold and
strengthen the value of the U.S. dollar. As Blum reported
in Roosevelt and Morgenthau (Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1970), “To take charge of the foreign exchange
operation Roosevelt called upon the Governor of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, George Harrison,
an urbane, experienced, conservative financier, who was
conscious and jealous of the traditional powers of his
office. Harrison insisted on having full authority over
the technical aspects of his job, to which Roosevelt
agreed, but the President hesitated to accept the banker’s
suggestion that the United States talk with the
British and the French before beginning to trade in
gold abroad. ‘Every time we have taken the British into
our confidence,’ he remarked, ‘they have given us a
“After further thought persuaded him to let Harrison
go ahead, the President thoroughly enjoyed the shocking
surprise of the Europeans. The French, Harrison reported,
had nearly jumped out of their skins. Governor Montagu
Norman of the Bank of England, a die-hard Tory
whom Roosevelt called ‘old pink whiskers,’ heard Harrison’s
news about American plans with incredulity. ‘This is
the most horrible thing that has happened,’ Norman
wailed into the transatlantic telephone. ‘The whole world
will be put into bankruptcy.’ Harrison’s instinct was to reassure
Norman, but Roosevelt and Morgenthau, picturing
foreign bankers with every one of their hairs standing on
end in horror, caught each other’s eye and began to roar
with laughter. Within 24 hours, Roosevelt told Morgenthau,
he expected to ‘see the whites of the eyes of the enemies,’
and he expected Harrison to shoot.”
It was Roosevelt’s open contempt for the British system
of usury and colonialism that drove London’s Wall Street
allies, led by Morgan, to plot outright treason, when they
failed to defeat FDR in Chicago at the convention.
Today, the financial disintegration has gone far beyond
the collapse that FDR faced, and today, once again, London’s
fascist agents, like Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz,
stand in horror at the remotest prospect of the Democratic
Party returning to the spirit and substance of FDR.
They know that the voice of FDR in today’s Democratic
Party is that of Lyndon LaRouche, and, while they know
that LaRouche is not running for President, they fear his
impact on the next Presidency, as much as they feared
FDR’s election in November 1932.
John Ascher, Richard Freeman, and Lonnie Wolfe contributed
research to this article.

Japan Ready To Release Massive Amounts of Fukushima Radiation Into Pacific

Fukushima Radioactive Ocean Impact Map – March 2012

Japan Wants To Release One Million Tons Of Contaminated Water From The Fukushima Disaster Into The Pacific


CleanTechnica maintains a Google document that lists all the stories available for our team of writers to write about. One column in that document categorizes the available stories by subject matter — renewables, fossil fuels, plastics, EVs, etc. It’s hard to say precisely where this story fits, so I have decided to classify it as news from the Insanity Desk. After the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear generating station by a tsunami in 2011, more than 1 million tons of water contaminated by radiation were stored onsite, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it.

Now the Japanese government says it has decided to release the water — which is currently stored in more than a thousand steel tanks — into the Pacific Ocean, a process it says could take decades to complete. Local fishermen are aghast at the idea. Their livelihood was decimated by the original incident at the Fukushima facility. Who wants to buy fish that have been swimming around in nuclear waste? Now nine years later, after struggling to find markets for their seafood again, the government wants to hammer them one more time. The government says, “Not to worry, fisher persons.” It says it will address concerns that consumers will once again shun seafood from the area, whatever that means. That and ¥1,000 will get you a latte.

Alternative solutions include evaporation or the construction of more storage tanks at other locations. That second idea would involve transporting the polluted water from one site to another. What could possibly go wrong in that scenario, huh?

South Korea has banned sales of seafood harvested near Fukushima and has expressed strong concerns about the plan to dump that contaminated water into the ocean. It calls the plan a “grave threat” to the marine environment. Environmental groups also oppose the move, according to a report by The Guardian.

Is There Really An Environmental Threat?

Tepco, the Japanese utility company that owns the Fukushima facility, has developed what it calls its Advanced Liquid Processing System, which removes highly radioactive substances from the stored water. But the system is unable to filter out tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that nuclear power plants routinely dilute and dump into the ocean. A panel of experts advising the government said earlier this year that releasing the water was among the most “realistic options.”

The members of the panel claim that tritium is only harmful to humans in very large doses, while the International Atomic Energy Agency says it is possible to dilute filtered waste water with seawater before it is released into the ocean. The water at the Fukushima facility will be diluted inside the plant before it is released so that it is 40 times less concentrated. That process that will take 30 years according to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.

Pressure to decide the water’s fate has been building as storage space on the nuclear plant site runs out. Tepco estimates all available tanks will be full by the summer of 2022. As of last month, 1.23 million tons of water were being stored in 1,044 tanks, with the amount of waste water increasing by 170 tons a day. The water becomes contaminated when it mixes with other water used to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting.

Hiroshi Kishi, president of a nationwide federation of fisheries cooperatives, voiced opposition to the move in a meeting with the chief cabinet secretary, Katsunobu Kato, this week. Kato told reporters after the meeting that a decision on the water “should be made quickly” to avoid further delays in decommissioning the plant — a costly and complex operation that is expected to take around 40 years.

It’s About More Than Fishermen

Of course local fishermen should be concerned. Imagine if cesspool pumping companies told farmers they were going to dump their waste products on farmers’ fields but don’t worry — first we are going to dilute them by 40 times with clean water. Do you think those farmers would embrace the idea?

The issue is that the thirst for energy clouds the minds of otherwise rational people. Nuclear power is safe because accidents almost never happen — until they do. Drilling for oil and gas is safe because how much harm can one well do in the grand scheme of things? How much harm can the emissions from one Toyota Aygo do? How much harm can the phosphates and nitrogen put on a corn field in Iowa do? How much effect will the emissions associated with constructing a concrete office building in Nairobi do? How can the pollutants going up the smokestack of a single steel mill in Europe threaten the entire environment?

Humans look out at the vastness of the oceans and the skies and convince themselves that Nature is just too vast to ever be affected by human behavior. And besides, who wants to live in a world with no cars, no lights to drive away the darkness, no internet, and no air conditioning? What will people do with themselves if they don’t have ready access to cheap, abundant energy?

Apologists for nuclear energy argue it is mostly a boon to humanity and that the Chernobyls and Fukushimas are few and far between. The risk is manageable, they say. Apologists for the oil and gas industry crow about how they power the world economy, leaving aside the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez catastrophes as outliers. Same with leaking pipelines. They are just a cost of doing business, one that can be managed.

What about all those more than 100,000 abandoned wells that dot the American landscape? Joe Biden says that capping them will provide lots of jobs, which may be true, but why should taxpayers be stuck with the bill while the companies who drilled them declare bankruptcy and walk away Scot free? Does that make any sense?

What we need is a new consensus, one which recognizes that human action has global consequences. Our tiny blue lifeboat out at the far edge of the universe is not immune to human caused degradation. It needs to be protected from harm. Turning our eyes longingly to distant planets to rescue us from our own foolishness is short sighted in the extreme. Ours is not a throwaway planet, although we treat it as one. We desperately need a check up from the neck up — the old ways aren’t working any more and time to save ourselves from our own actions is rapidly running out.

Computer Repairman Turns In Hunter Biden Laptop To FBI…incriminating evidence cover-up?

“So a laptop with video of the candidate’s son smoking crack while having sex was left for repairs, but after that someone uploaded fake correspondence on the device?”Matt Taibbi  @mtaibbi

The Delaware computer repair shop owner who turned over the Apple Macbook Pro containing Hunter Biden’s emails, photos and (according to Rudy Giuliani) a sex tape featuring Hunter Biden and another woman has come out to the public in an interview with Fox News.

John Paul Mac Isaac told Fox News that he is legally blind, and therefore he “can’t be 100% sure” that the individual who dropped off the laptop was Hunter Biden. But when he was backing up the hard drive, he stumbled upon “disturbing” images, including “pornography”, that freaked him out. Apparently, although Isaac’s blindness prevented him from positively ID-ing Hunter Biden, it didn’t stop him from viewing the contents of the hard drive.

Although it was only April 2019 at this point, Joe Biden was already considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Isaac quickly became frightened, and started to worry about shadowy figures “coming back” for the laptop. To be sure, Fox News reported that whether Hunter Biden was indeed the owner of the laptop “has yet to be substantiated”.

“I just don’t know what to say, or what I’m allowed to say,” Isaac said. “I know that I saw, I saw stuff. And I was concerned. I was concerned that somebody might want to come looking for this stuff eventually and I wanted it out of my shop.”

During the interview, Isaac rejected the notion that the laptop was an “attempt to set him up” (perhaps with hacked photos and emails implanted in the hard drive?).

The man whom Isaac believes to be Hunter Biden dropped off three laptops at his shop in April 2019, but only one was salvageable. Isaac said the customer never returned for the laptop, and, after being unable to get in touch with the customer, Isaac began looking through the contents of the hard drive. He searched the emails by keyword in June or July.

“If I’m somebody that has no journalistic ability, no detective ability or investigative ability and I was able to find stuff in a short period of time, somebody else should have been able to find something to show,” Isaac said.

Isaac contacted an “intermediary” about the laptop, and the intermediary then contacted the FBI. Isaac said the intermediary is somebody whom he has known “for decades”, and declined to identify him beyond saying he was an American citizen. According to Isaac, the FBI first made a forensic copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it. After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello.

Interestingly, when Fox News contacted the US Attorney’s office in Delaware, a spokesperson said “My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.” This was after the New York Post published photos of the Delaware federal subpoena detailing the request for the laptop’s seizure.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the same committee that released a recent report on Hunter Biden’s international business dealings, has confirmed that it is investigating this new leak.

Biden’s campaign insisted that there was no record of a meeting between Joe Biden and a Burisma executive, as described in one of the email chains reported by the post. However, his campaign has left room for the possibility that the two may have met briefly in an informal capacity.

When asked by Fox about his motives for turning over the emails, Isaac said the impeachment of President Trump by Nancy Pelosi and the House, along with the contemporary political climate, had inspired him.

The Original “New World Order” Plot, As Plainly Described By the Conspiracy’s Author–H.G. Wells

[Mr. Wells may have been a genius, but he was a diabolical genius…so devious, that he privately developed a “conspiracy of one”, as a seed to plant, which would grow rapidly, spreading like “kudzo“, until it covered the face of the earth.  The seed/idea (“meme“) was designed to spread subtly through repetition and peer pressure, until the idea became known to most people, at which point the peer pressure would be amplified by the power of the mob, under the guise of humanitarianism“, where it would eventually ignite the world revolution, which we see all around us today, until the mob could overwhelm the old order, and with it all authority derived from national identity, enabling the overrunning of all national borders by stampeding herds of deprived, hungry human refugees…the weaponizing of the poor (SEE: Camp of the Saints ).]

H.G. Wells Plots The World Empire by Michele Steinberg

In 1928, the leading British Round Table strategist, H.G. Wells, wrote The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company). The Open Conspiracy is Wells’ Mein Kampf —a recipe for how to establish a world government that would, over time, perhaps even over generations, recruit individuals and set up institutions to create a world “directorate” to run a “new world order.”Wells does not stand in opposition to fascism or communism, he merely sees these forms as experiments or immature expressions of the “new order” which will be replaced by his vision of the new order.

“The Open Conspiracy is not so much a socialism,” says Wells, “as a more comprehensive scheme that has eaten and assimilated whatever was digestible of its socialist forebears.” He even suggests that “young people” be incorporated into the Open Conspiracy through organizations like “the Italian fasci.”

No, Wells has one essential enemy that the Open Conpi-racy must destroy: that is, the sovereign nation-state. The goal of its destruction is his life’s work.

As Wells put it, “This is my religion …. This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspectives of my world. My other writings, with hardly an exception, explore, try over, illuminate, comment upon or flower out of the essential matter that I here attempt at last to strip bare to its foundations and state unmistakably. . . . Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do…. [It is] a scheme for all human requirements.”

End the nation-state forever, replacing it with a world government run by the “Atlantic” elite: “The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory. It lies within the power of the Atlantic communities to impose peace upon the world and secure unimpeded movement and free speech from end to end of the earth.

“This is a fact on which the Open Conspiracy must insist.”

But, Wells cautions, the Open Conspiracy might have to make war in order to end war. He explains that the Open Conspiracy’s commitment to world peace and ending war does not mean an exclusion of soldiers, warriors, and military means. Rather, the question is to whom might these warriors be loyal. It may be necessary for the Open Conspiracy to use “enlightened” warriors: “From the outset, the Open Conspiracy will set its face against militarism . . . [but] the anticipatory repudiation of military service . . . need not necessarily involve a denial of the need of military action on behalf of the world commonweal, for the suppression of national brigandage, nor need it prevent the military training of members of the Open Conspiracy. . . . Our loyalty to our current government, we would intimate, is subject to its sane and adult behavior.”

• Control human population to a limit set by a “world directorate” created by this elite. The means to be used for this population control would be “science” (eugenics, sterilization, and birth control); and total economic control by the world “directorate” of all credit generation, and of all distribution of economic staples needed for human survival (food, water, and shelter).

The Open Conspiracy “turns to biology for. . . the regulation of quantity and a controlled distribution of human population of the world.” And without this degree of control, the human race is doomed. So instead of the General Welfare of the U.S. Constitution, Wells suggests a selective welfare where the world directorate eliminates population growth in order to perfect the race. This is not just a material necessity, explains Wells, but larger, for under the Open Conspiracy “[man] will not be left with his soul tangled, haunted by monstrous and irrational fears and a prey to malicious impulse. . . . He will feel better, will better, think better, see, taste, and hear better than men do now. All these things are plainly possible for him. They pass out of his tormented desire now, they elude and mock him, because chance, confusion, and squalor rule his life. All the gifts of destiny are overlaid and lost to him. He must still suspect and fear.”

• Eliminate forever the “illusion” that man is made in the image of God, and as such, has a capacity for the Good. Instead, Wells insists that man is an “imperfect animal”: jealous, rageful, easy to anger, and “not to be trusted in the dark.”

“Man is a malicious animal,” says Wells, with a “common disposition to be stupid, indolent, habitual and defensive.” In man, the creative impulses are weaker forces than “acute destructive ones.” Human nature is destructive, he insists, explaining: “To make is a long and wearisome business, with many arrests and disappointments, but to break gives an instant thrill. We all know something of the delight of the bang. Such impulses must be controlled by the world directorate.”

Wells, at one point, attempts to boil down his new religion to six “basic essential requirements”:

“1. The complete assertion, practical as well as theoretical, of the provisional nature of existing governments and of our acquiescence in them;

“2. The resolve to minimise by all available means the conflicts of these governments, their militant use of individuals and property and their interferences with the establishment of a world economic system;

“3. The determination to replace private local or national ownership of at least credit, transport, and staple production by a responsible world directorate serving the common ends of the race;

“4. The practical recognition of the necessity for world biological controls, for example, of population and disease;

“5. The support of a minimum standard of individual freedom and welfare in the world;

“6. The supreme duty of subordinating the personal life to the creation of a world directorate capable of these tasks and to the general advancement of human knowledge, capacity, and power.”

But the most telling of these “essentials” is the summation, in which Wells insists on an attack on the human soul, that quality that distinguishes human beings from beasts. He insists that all Open Conspirators embrace “the admission therewith that our immortality is conditional and lies in the race and not in our individual selves.”

Upon reading The Open Conspiracy, Bertrand Russell, the other leading British Round Table subversive, wrote to Wells, “I do not know of anything with which I agree more entirely.”

An Unbroken Continuity

The major target of Wells’ Open Conspiracy is “the United States and the States of Latin America,” where, Wells

explains, there is less of a “tangle of traditions and loyalties … of privileged classes and official patriots . . . than in the old European communities.”

Additionally, Wells is nothing if not a global thinker, and, in addition to the U.S., he sees Russia as a crucial target to be assimilated by the Open Conspiracy. At one point, he chuckles that, despite the Soviet Union’s formal commitment to the “proletariat,” the Open Conspiracy “may rule in Moscow before . . . New York.”

He sees America as uniquely important in the Open Conspiracy because of its growing economic strength. For Wells, the American System of economics, i.e., Hamiltonian economics, is the enemy of the Open Conspiracy, and the financier faction is its ally.

By 1928, Wells writes, “American industries no longer have any practical justification for protection, American finance would be happier without it,” but without the success of the Open Conspirators, this protectionism will simply go on and on.

There is no question that the institutions created by William Yandell Elliott and Robert Strausz-Hupe conform precisely to Wells’ “blueprints” for ending the American System that he found so offensive to his new religion. He instructed his current and future Co-Conspirators to further the “new religion.” He instructed:

“Through special ad hoc organizations, societies for the promotion of Research, for Research Defence, for World Indexing, for the translation of Scientific Papers, for the Diffusion of New Knowledge, the surplus energies of a great number of Open Conspirators can be directed to entirely creative ends and a new world organization” can be built up, superseding, but incorporating, “such dear old institutions as the Royal Society of London, the various European Academies of Science and the like, now overgrown and inadequate. . . .”

More broadly, in writing The Open Conspiracy, Wells set out to recruit a worldwide network of Open Conspirators, who would operate, within their national settings, on behalf of the global subversion of all nation-states, the “scientific” depopulation of the darker-skinned races of the planet, and the establishment of One World oligarchical domination, under Anglo-American leadership.

“The political work of the Open Conspiracy,” Wells writes, “must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate or supersede existing governments. . . . Because a country or a district is inconvenient as a division and destined to ultimate absorption in some more comprehensive and economical system of government, that is no reason why its administration should not be brought meanwhile into working co-operation with the development of the Open Conspiracy.”

But, Wells cautions, no one should be excluded from the Open Conspiracy, not for reasons of class, occupation, or nationality. Instead, “[T]he Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Young men and women may be collected into groups arranged upon lines not unlike those of the Bohemian Sokols or the Italian Fasci.. . .”

By the time the first edition of Wells’ Open Conspiracy bible had appeared, institutions like the Rhodes Trust, the Round Table, the British Fabian Society, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its New York City adjunct, the Council on Foreign Relations, were already engaged in the process of recruiting successive generations of agents, agents-of-influence, and agents provocateurs, to the One World banner. Wells’ The Open Conspiracy gave focus to the effort, stating bluntly the long-term objectives, and highlighting the critical importance of selecting and recruiting the best and the brightest, albeit corrupted, minds—what Wells called the “serious minority.”

Three-quarters of a century later, Wells’ “Open Conspiracy” is still trying to prevail.


Saudi Hand-Puppet Saad Hariri Recants Recent Refusal To Serve Lebanon Again

Hariri Says He Isn’t Candidate to Form Lebanon Government–Sep 27, 2020

Ex-Lebanon PM Hariri says he is in the running to head new gov’t

Saad Hariri who resigned last year amid protests said he ‘will not close the door on the only hope left for Lebanon’.

The former premier stepped down under street pressure last year after mass protests erupted demanding the overhaul of a political class accused of being inept and corrupt [File: Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters]

Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday said he was a possible candidate to head a new government to stem the country’s economic collapse after a massive port explosion.

French President Emmanuel Macron last month extracted a pledge from all political sides in the former French protectorate to back speedy government formation as part of a road map out of the crisis, but efforts so far have failed. Macron has said a reform-minded cabinet was essential if aid were to flow in to rebuild the country.

“I am definitely a candidate” to head the next government, Hariri said during a live interview on the MTV television channel.

“I will not close the door on the only hope left for Lebanon to stem this collapse,” he said.

The country is mired in its worst economic crunch in decades, and still reeling from a devastating explosion in Beirut on August 4.

The explosion of a massive stockpile of ammonium nitrate at Beirut’s only port killed some 200 people, wounded thousands more and ravaged buildings in surrounding residential neighbourhoods, leaving at least 300,000 people homeless.

President Michel Aoun is to hold parliamentary consultations on naming a new prime minister on Thursday next week.

Hariri said he was ready to start making phone calls during the coming week “if all political teams still agree on the programme” discussed with Macron.

The former prime minister stepped down under street pressure last year after mass protests erupted demanding the overhaul of a political class accused of being inept and corrupt.

The government that followed, headed by Hassan Diab, resigned in the wake of the Beirut blast.

The next prime minister-designate, Mustapha Adib, last month bowed out just weeks after being nominated, after his efforts to hammer out a cabinet were blocked by the country’s two main Shia political parties – Hezbollah and Amal – seeking to keep the finance ministry under their control.Forming a government can drag on for months in multi-confessional Lebanon, where a power-sharing agreement seeks to maintain a fragile balance between all sides.

But Hariri said all political sides had agreed with Macron, who visited Beirut twice in the wake of the blast, to set aside their differences for six months to save the country from further deterioration.

“Every political side can invent a problem to government formation,” Hariri said.

“But if the political parties really want to stem the collapse and rebuild Beirut, they must follow the French initiative,” he said.

The State of American Political Insanity–2020

A confrontation during the President’s visit to Kenosha, Wis., on Sept. 1

A confrontation during the President’s visit to Kenosha, Wis., on Sept. 1  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Alifetime ago, on Sept. 14, Greg Vanlandeghem sat outside a café in Holly, Mich., and explained to me that he planned to vote for the President’s re-election because he saw the race as a contest between two bad options. “We’ve got a guy trying not to die,” he told me, “and we’ve got Trump.”

The candidate Vanlandeghem described as “trying not to die” was Joe Biden, the 77-year-old former Vice President, who’s been dogged by right-wing attacks on his mental acuity. But now, the “guy trying not to die” might well be the 74-year-old President, who was being treated with supplemental oxygen and a battery of drugs after contracting COVID-19, a lethal virus that can cause everything from pneumonia to strokes to neurological impairment. Vanlandeghem, a 37-year-old home builder, is a social and fiscal conservative, but he didn’t vote for Trump four years ago and considers the President a “buffoon.” If anyone’s mind was going to be changed by Trump’s diagnosis, I thought perhaps it might be him.

Vanlandeghem was unfazed. “I think it’s unfortunate,” he said, after I called him back to ask his opinion on the latest updates. “But it’s something that a vast majority of the population is going to come down with at one point or another.” He still isn’t considering voting for Biden.

I wasn’t surprised. Once again, history was unfolding in Washington; once again, voters seemed to be reacting with a collective shrug. If there is one constant in this extraordinary presidential election, it’s that every time the political class declares that a news event will permanently reshape the race, it usually seems to evaporate into the ether. The President could be impeached for abuse of power, publicly muster white supremacists, tear-gas peaceful protesters for a photo op, pay less than his employees in taxes, declare that he’d refuse to accept the results of the election, hold a possible superspreader event at the White House–and millions of Americans will ignore it. To half of us, all this is an outrage; to the other half, none of it matters.

How voters are processing Trump’s behavior at this fractured moment may be the most important question of the 2020 election. But it’s a tricky one to answer in the midst of a pandemic that has turned the campaign into one interminable Zoom call. It’s hard to get a read on a race that has limited travel for both candidates and reporters, a contest with countless polls but few insights, lots of speeches but few crowds, plenty of talking heads but few ordinary voices. So in September, after recovering from COVID-19 myself, I spent three weeks driving across the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, trying to get a fix on what’s happening between the ears of the people most likely to determine the winner on Nov. 3.

The more people I met, the more I detected something deep and unpredictable lurking beneath the surface, something that I wasn’t sure was reflected in the polling data, something that maybe couldn’t even be measured at all. My phone was filling with news: news about wildfires engulfing the West Coast; news about Trump reportedly calling fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers”; news about the death toll from COVID-19 passing 200,000; news of Trump’s admitting to journalist Bob Woodward on tape that he had intentionally downplayed the virus, purportedly to avoid causing a panic. But almost nobody seemed to be talking about these headlines, and when I asked about them, people often didn’t believe them or didn’t care. I felt caught in the chasm between the election as it was being reported by my colleagues in the press and the election as it was being experienced by the voters.

Most Trump voters I met had clear, well-articulated reasons for supporting him: he had lowered their taxes, appointed antiabortion judges, presided over a soaring stock market. These voters wielded their rationality as a shield: their goals were sound, and the President was achieving them, so didn’t it make sense to ignore the tweets, the controversies and the media frenzy?

But there was a darker strain. For every two people who offered a rational and informed reason for why they were supporting Biden or Trump, there was another–almost always a Trump supporter–who offered an explanation divorced from reality. You could call this persistent style of untethered reasoning “unlogic.” Unlogic is not ignorance or stupidity; it is reason distorted by suspicion and misinformation, an Orwellian state of mind that arranges itself around convenient fictions rather than established facts.

At its most acute, unlogic manifested as a belief in dangerous falsehoods, from the cult of QAnon to the conviction that COVID-19 is a hoax. But the milder forms of unlogic were more pervasive: believing that most reports about the President were fabricated by lying reporters (they aren’t) or that Biden is a socialist (he isn’t) or that the coronavirus is no worse than the flu, as Trump keeps insisting (it’s far more deadly). Unlogic erupted on the left after Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis, with liberals online speculating that Trump is faking his illness (he isn’t).

With so many voters ignoring the headlines, it became increasingly hard to tell where most Americans fall on the continuum from reason to unlogic. In the absence of agreed-upon facts, the possibility of consensus itself seemed to be disappearing, and the effect was unsettling.

Most of the time, voters reacted to news events in ways that conformed to what they already believed. When I first met Eddie Kabacinski, a city-council member in Warren, Mich., in mid-September, he gestured to my mask and said, “So you’re saying the air that we breathe outside, there’s something wrong with that? That’s kind of like, you’re not all there.” I nodded and tugged my mask under my chin to appease him. “We need to get back to reality,” he added.

When I called Kabacinski back after Trump’s hospitalization, he was in the middle of a “MAGA drag,” a procession of cars waving Trump flags as they cruised down I-75 . “It does no good for our Commander in Chief to be showing cowardice and wearing a mask,” he told me. “He’s the President of the United States. Nobody has the right to question him.”

A Black Lives Matter supporter near the site where Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha, Wis.

A Black Lives Matter supporter near the site where Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha, Wis.  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Democracy, at least in theory, relies on a rational electorate acting in response to credible information. Since the dawn of mass media, elections have been shaped by voters’ reactions to the news. But as I drove through the three states that decided the 2016 election by a little less than 80,000 votes, I sensed a glitch in the information loop, like a scratch on an old-fashioned record. People kept repeating things that were false, and dismissing things that were true.

Over the course of three weeks, I spoke to nearly 200 people of all political persuasions. There were Biden diehards and Trump Republicans, tepid Democrats, old-fashioned conservatives, even the elusive undecided voter. I spoke to Wisconsinites in the conservative suburbs of Milwaukee and the streets of Kenosha, where the windows downtown were boarded up and spray-painted with phrases like “Love is the Answer” after nights of racial-justice protests; Michiganders in the swingy counties surrounding Detroit and in red-to-blue districts near Flint; Pennsylvanians in the suburbs around Pittsburgh and bellwether Luzerne County. I approached voters on sidewalks and in grocery stores and as they waited in line for restaurant tables. I was kicked out of Target parking lots and shopping malls. My diet consisted mostly of egg breakfasts, granola bars and dirty looks. I learned to say, “Hi there!” with an extra chirp, smiling with my voice since nobody could see my mouth behind my mask.

Much of the time, I got back into my white Ford rental with a pit in my stomach. Conspiracy theories like QAnon–the perverse delusion that Trump is the final defense against a “deep state” cabal of Democrats and Hollywood elite who traffic and rape children–kept cropping up in my conversations. Two women in Cedarburg, Wis., told me the “cabal” was running tunnels under the U.S. to traffic children so elites could torture them and drink their blood. When I checked into an airport hotel in Kalamazoo, Mich., the night manager made small talk about politicians running a pedophile ring as he directed me to the elevator.

The day after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, I asked two women carrying Trump face masks in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., what they thought of the late Supreme Court Justice. They would only give me their first names, Kelly and Karen, because they did not trust the media. “I think we’ve been lied to: she died last year,” Kelly said. “I’m furloughed, so I have a lot of time to research things.” Karen added that they both watch OANN, a pro-Trump news network, because “I’m fed up with being blasted every day, people telling me how I should think, how I should feel.” OANN, Kelly added, is “like dry toast. They just give you the facts.”

As he returned his shopping cart after a trip to a Walmart in Sterling Heights, Mich., Michael Thomas, a 41-year-old who works in automotive-paint delivery, listed all the reasons he planned to vote for Trump again: he’s a Christian who opposes abortion and backs the Second Amendment. But also: “I believe in Q [and] Pizzagate,” he said, referring to the conspiracy theory that Democrats trafficked children out of the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. Where does he find this information? He shrugged as he pulled out his keys.”The Internet,” he said simply.

The fact that a growing segment of the electorate has gone off the deep end is as much of a concern to many Republicans as it is to Democrats. “The only constant for a lot of voters has been ‘choose your own reality,’” says Tyler Brown, a former digital director for the Republican National Committee who is now president of Hadron Strategies. “Broadly speaking, Republican voters are less likely to accept what they read in the mainstream media on face value,” he adds. “I can see how that worldview can start to make people feel like they’re existing within two different realities.”

Kaitlin Martin, a 30-year-old nanny in Macomb County, Michigan, a politically purple region north of Detroit, was one of the few people I met who professed to be truly undecided about how to vote this year. She dislikes Trump: “I don’t respect someone who can be so unkind to people,” she says. On the other hand, she’s seen some things online that give her pause about Biden. “I don’t know what’s real and what’s photoshopped,” she said. “Is it dementia? Or is it his stutter? In a year or two, is he going to deteriorate? Now everybody is out there saying he’s a pedophile.” She’s not sure that she believes any of it.

All of these suspicions are like swirling clouds in a monster hurricane, tearing through the possibility of consensus in American democracy, chewing up the guardrails, ripping out the precedents; a hurricane going nowhere, with nothing at its center. The chaos and confusion can feel overwhelming, says Rolando Morales, a stay-at-home dad who’s retired from the medical-software industry, pausing on his way out of a Jimmy John’s sandwich shop in Racine, Wis. “You’re so sick of everything, you don’t know what to trust anymore,” he said. Morales voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and his wife and father-in-law are pro-Biden. But the violence over the summer in Kenosha made him wonder if he should vote for Trump. He doesn’t even know what to think anymore.

“It feels like there’s a new America being created, and I don’t know who’s cut out to deal with it,” he said. “We’ve headed somewhere different right now. And I don’t know where.”

A Trump supporter with a campaign flag turned out to see the President’s motorcade in Wisconsin

A Trump supporter with a campaign flag turned out to see the President’s motorcade in Wisconsin  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Distrust of the establishment has always existed in America; historian Richard Hofstadter famously called it “the paranoid style.” But now it’s amplified by social-media networks whose algorithms reward extremism, and championed by a misinformation warrior who happens to serve as the President of the United States. In a study of more than 38 million articles about the pandemic, researchers at Cornell University recently found that President Trump was the single biggest driver of false information about coronavirus. A major Harvard study released in October found that Trump had perfected the manipulation of mass media to spread false information about mail-in voting, and that the President was an even bigger source of disinformation than “Russian bots or Facebook clickbait artists.” No wonder, then, that so many Americans are caught in the confusion, unsure what to believe.

When I asked David Cracchiolo, a Michigan land developer, about a report in the Atlantic that Trump called American war dead “losers” and “suckers,” Cracchiolo explained it was “a complete lie”: “He didn’t say it.” Karen Martin, a registered nurse who works in Pittsburgh, said she was skeptical of all the “hype” around COVID-19. People die of the flu, too, she reminded me. “I think the media overblew a lot of it,” she said. Why else had her hospital been bracing for an influx of critically ill patients that never came?

When I called Martin back to ask about Trump’s health, she said the diagnosis changed nothing for her. “I don’t think you could really blame him,” she said. “I’m not sure what other precautions we could have been taking.”

“He’s clearly made some mistakes,” Tom Schettino said when I asked him about the President’s handling of the pandemic. Schettino and his wife Grace are senior citizens who have lost four friends to COVID-19, and they were wearing masks when I encountered them in a Wilkes-Barre, Pa., mall. “I don’t know if anyone could have done it better,” Schettino shrugged.

I called Schettino back recently to see if his thinking had changed. “It is what it is,” he said, inadvertently borrowing a phrase the President used to describe the pandemic’s death toll. “He’s probably not prudent doing all these rallies and stuff, but he’s gotta live with it, and hopefully it gets better.” He still plans to vote for Trump again in November because he opposes Democratic economic policies.

And then there is Greg Vanlandeghem. After Trump was inaugurated, “I prayed that he would say something unifying, be a leader, instead of being a spoiled brat,” he said. He was one of the rare people I spoke with who did, in fact, change his mind. When I called him back after the President’s diagnosis, he informed me that he no longer intended to vote for Trump–but not because of the frenzy around his COVID diagnosis. After watching his obnoxious antics at the first presidential debate, he had decided he probably wouldn’t bother voting at all. Still, he said, the President’s conduct “doesn’t really affect our lives as much as our government telling us to shut our business down for no reason or shelter in place.”

Trump opponents and supporters don’t just merely disagree on issues, many live in different realities

Trump opponents and supporters don’t just merely disagree on issues, many live in different realities  Patience Zalanga for TIME

Biden’s campaign is built on the opposite premise: that a President’s character is as important as his politics. Since launching his bid for the White House, the Democratic nominee has positioned himself as the antidote to Trumpian chaos, the steady leader who can guide the nation back to sanity and stability. His pledge to “restore the soul of America” promises a return to a time when Republicans and Democrats could be civil, even friendly, as they vigorously debated matters of great importance. The apple-pie vision did little to excite progressives enthralled with candidates like Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who promised “revolution” and “big structural change.” But while his primary opponents raced to the left to argue over who could change America faster, Biden won over the many voters at the end of their ropes. “I wish everything could go back to normal,” sighed Gwen Bogan, a Biden supporter shopping in the hardware aisle of a Walmart in North Milwaukee.

The polls kept showing Biden with a sturdy lead, but you wouldn’t know it from driving through the neighborhoods that make up Biden’s path to victory. Out in the battleground states, Biden’s statistical advantage seems muted compared to the ostentatious displays of Trumpian devotion. After four years of mobilizing grassroots armies that helped elect Democratic governors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and flip six House seats in those states, I expected to see more visible enthusiasm for Biden. Instead, everywhere I looked I saw Trump memorabilia: flags strapped to boats bobbing in Racine Harbor, trucks in Michigan parking lots with massive signs reading “Trump: No More Bullsh-t.” At a pro-Trump gathering in Kenosha, a week after the shooting of Jacob Blake, I saw a young woman, barely a teenager, in a T-shirt that read “Trump 2020: Because F-ck You.” I saw more Biden signs in one afternoon in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., than in eight days of driving through Michigan.

That’s partly because the Biden campaign, in a nod to public health, had until the final stretch focused almost entirely on digital organizing and phone banking instead of traditional canvassing. At two Biden events, I saw pro-Trump protesters show up with flags, while Biden supporters were few and far between. The Biden campaign says all this is intentional: they are seeking to keep events small to curtail transmission of the coronavirus. Only in the past week or so has the Biden campaign embraced on-the-ground campaigning, with teams of canvassers knocking doors in key states and a socially distanced crowd greeting Biden on a recent train trip through Pennsylvania.

But the battle for the nation’s future isn’t just about public shows of force from the rival campaigns. It’s playing out in intimate conversations all over the country, as Americans struggle to preserve what feels like an increasingly fragile union.

Jackie Brown and Josh Scott had been engaged for less than a day when they explained their diverging political views to me outside a Pennsylvania mall. Brown, who is Black, thought Trump was racist, sexist and erratic on foreign policy. “I think that Biden is a candidate who can work across the aisle,” she said. Scott, who is white, voted for Trump in 2016 and was considering voting for him again, because “I’m not for the social programs Biden has laid out,” which he thinks would require more taxes. The couple had been dating a year and a half; he proposed that morning.

After Brown, an attorney, rattled off her indictment of the Trump Administration–from the politicization of the Supreme Court to violations of the Hatch Act–I asked how their political conversations usually go. “Poorly,” Scott said, “but we respect each other’s opinions.” Brown looked at him sideways and, twisting the new ring around her finger, said, “He’s trying to convince me less than I’m trying to convince him.”

–With reporting by Leslie Dickstein and Simmone Shah

This appears in the October 19, 2020 issue of TIME.

Jewish Zealot Protesters Claim Cultural “Sensitivity” Should Exempt Them From Covid Emergency Restrictions

[It is the same way in the Middle East.]

Israel: Clashes erupt as police arrest ultra-Orthodox Jews who defied coronavirus rules

Amid COVID-19 spike in ultra-Orthodox areas, Jewish history may explain reluctance of some to restrictions

Joyce Dalsheim, Associate Professor of Global Studies, University of North Carolina – Charlotte

<span class="caption">COVID-19 has spiked in ultra-Orthodox Jewish parts of New York City.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:Spencer Platt/Getty Images">Spencer Platt/Getty Images</a></span>COVID-19 has spiked in ultra-Orthodox Jewish parts of New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

spike in coronavirus cases in several Orthodox Jewish areas of New York has prompted state and city authorities to impose new localized restrictions aimed at halting the spread.

On Oct. 5, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that nearly 100 public schools and 200 private schools in 20 ZIP codes – many of which have a large ultra-Orthodox population and have seen increased rates of positive test results of COVID-19 – would end in-person classes “temporarily.”

The move has sparked animosity among some Orthodox Jews, who claim that they are being unfairly singled out. It comes amid warnings from New York Mayor Bill de Blasio of further action to prevent the spread and follows earlier instances, including the breaking up a funeral for an Orthodox Jewish rabbi by police in Brooklyn on April 28.

Similar tensions have played out in Israel, where recent plans to implement a system to identify coronavirus hot spots met resistance from some ultra-Orthodox leaders, who suggested it was unfair to place restrictions on their communities while many secular Israelis have been gathering regularly to demonstrate against the government. Rather than loosen restrictions on the ultra-Orthodox community, the government tightened restrictions on demonstrations, resulting in additional tension between secular and ultra-Orthodox Israelis.

Most prominent rabbis around the world have supported government regulations intended to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means closing places of study and worship. But some observant Jewish communities in the United States and Israel have been reluctant to adopt social distancing.

Outsiders are often outraged when religious communities defy policies meant to protect the general public.

As an anthropologist who studies religion, politics, identity and conflict in Israel and Palestine, my research helps explain why some strictly observant Jewish communities disobey public health guidelines – and it’s more complicated than simply flouting the rules.

Who are Haredi Jews?

Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, Jewish communities are a diverse population, with varying spiritual and cultural practices. But they all follow Halacha, loosely translated as Jewish law.

As such, many do not share the same information sources that others take for granted. In accordance with the rulings of their rabbis, internet access, television broadcasts and certain cellphone functions are generally limited in strictly observant Jewish communities.

Maintaining their closeness to God by distancing themselves from the secular world prevented many Haredim from seeing news reports of the virus spreading worldwide in February and March.


Some Haredi leaders maintained that gathering to pray and study remained paramount. Studying the Hebrew scriptures, or Torah, is a commandment and a duty in Judaism. Haredi men generally gather to pray three times daily. Students at yeshivas, or Jewish seminaries, may spend 18 hours a day studying together.

More than a way of life, prayer and study are believed to be the means for protecting life itself. According to Jewish sages, “One who engages in Torah study also protects the entire world.” Indeed, “without Torah the world falls.”

The importance of engaging with the Torah explains why one prominent rabbi in Israel insisted in March that “canceling Torah study is more dangerous than the coronavirus.”

Ultimately, the Israeli government intervened to enforce its coronavirus restrictions. On March 22, police were sent into Me’a She’arim, a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem, to end public gatherings, close synagogues and shutter schools.

They were met with curses, slurs and thrown stones. Some Haredim even called the Israeli police “Nazis.”

Collective memory

While such responses might seem extreme to outsiders, they become clearer when considering Jewish history and the memories provoked by police intervention.

Anthropological research demonstrates that people give meaning to their experiences in different ways. Our perception, imagination and actions are deeply embedded in the whole of our experiences. The past – whether individually experienced or collectively nourished by the community – gives meaning to the present.

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, used the term “duration” to explain how the past shifts to show itself in ways that appeal to current experiences in different ways for different people.

In times of crisis like the coronavirus pandemic, this sense of duration becomes more acute.

For some, hospital tents erected in public places evoke World War I. A Holocaust survivor recently told me the stay-at-home order brought back memories of her childhood years of confinement hiding from the Nazis. One New Orleans resident found that the “flood” of coronavirus deaths recalled Hurricane Katrina.

Duration as personal memory is central to an individual’s sense of self, but it arises in collective memories, too.

Collective memory, including the stories we all tell ourselves and our children about our past, gives meaning and purpose to our collective selves. These stories recount struggles and triumphs and help define our moral community.

Duration interacts with collective memory, and is key to the formation of group identity.

History of persecution

The historical persecution of Jews around the world is central to both secular and strictly observant Jews. However, how that memory works in contemporary circumstances is not predetermined. My research demonstrates that different aspects of the past inform collective meaning and actions differently.

Unlike most Israelis – who see Jewish history as a justification for the state of Israel and understand the Israeli army and police as existing to protect them – some Israeli Haredim distrust the government and its functionaries.

In fact, Haredi Jews, who make up about 10% of Israel’s population, are foundationally opposed to Zionism, the political ideology of Jewish nationalism that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948.

While Haredi Jews believe that God promised the land of Israel to the Jewish people, they are also certain that promise cannot be fulfilled by human intervention in God’s work, such as the establishment of a nation state. They have previously clashed with the Israeli government and law enforcement over compulsory military service and other policies.


Suspicion of police

So when armed men in uniform entered their neighborhoods to close down synagogues and yeshivas, members of the Haredi community drew on their collective memories of soldiers and police wreaking havoc and destruction on Jewish communities in czarist Russia and later in Western Europe. Rather than feeling protected by the state, they were fearful and suspicious.

Suspicion of the police is common in other communities historically mistreated by law enforcement. The collective memories of both Black Americans and the Roma of Europe, for example, associate police with violence and danger.

When facing a crisis like the coronavirus, many people rely primarily on science, technology and governments for protection. And the Haredim do not reject science or medicine.

But for them, living the Torah life through daily study and prayer is the primary means by which all human life is maintained and preserved. When the political order interferes with their work, the consequences could be more disastrous than a pandemic. It could mean the end of Jewish life, if not humanity itself.

This article is an updated version of a story that was published on April 27.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Chevron Buys Noble Energy Assets, Shuts-Off Leviathan Gas To Israel

[SEE: Leviathan ]

After Acquiring Noble Energy, Chevron Shuts Off the Gas to Israel, Demands Higher Prices

Netanyahu said their entrance was “tremendous revolution in the supply of energy to the State of Israel” and “will bring billions, tens of billions and perhaps hundreds of billions of shekels to you, the citizens of Israel.” Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said, “The entry of the global energy giant is great news for the Israeli economy and opens up opportunities for investment in the high-tech and startups in the energy sector.”


Unfortunately, one of Chevron’s first moves in the Israeli market was to turn off the flow of gas to the Israel Electric Company (IEC) on Tuesday and demand much higher prices.

A bit more of a revelation than a revolution.

In 2012, the IEC agreed to pay $6.30 per BTU for the offshore gas from the Tamar gas field, but over the intermitting years, new agreements were made and the prices for gas dropped to $3.75 per BTU (according to a Globes report, the agreement was to sell for 10% less than the Leviathan price). The latest agreements were made with Isramco, Dor Gas, Tamar Petroleum and other partners, who have combined 53% control of the Tamar gas field, according to a TheMarker report.

Chevron and Delek, the remaining partners, refuse to honor that agreement. Noble Energy and Delek had unsuccessfully tried to block the deal for the past year.

In February, with the start of the Coronavirus crisis, natural gas prices dropped and the IEC imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the spot market, for an average $3.5 BTU. The pandemic also caused Noble Energy’s stock to crash which helped Chevron’s acquisition of the company.

Currently, global natural gas prices are approximately $2.60.

Chevron informed the Israel Electric Company that the they were cancelling the last price agreement, and were demanding the full 2012 price.

To leave the IEC with no alternative, Chevron also shut off the flow of gas to Israel from the Tamar gas field.

Without any other immediate options for gas to run the country’s electric generators, IEC switched over to buying gas from the Leviathan gas field at the higher price of $4.79.

It just so happens that Chevron and Delek control 85% of the Leviathan rights, so by the IEC moving over to Leviathan at its higher prices, they’ve already doubled the profits for Chevron and Delek.

Israel’s offshore drilling sites and gas finds. Credit: Noble Energy

The IEC is contractually required to buy 1.75 BCM from the Tamar gas field in 2020, and has so far purchased 1.5 BCM. The IEC now plans to buy only the minimum (0.25 BCM) from the Tamar field until the end of the year, and will look for other sources and contracts for gas for the rest of its needs (3 BCM), according to TheMarker.

As an aside, Chevron holds a 35% stake in Cyprus’s offshore Aphrodite gas field, Delek holds 30%, another 35% is held by Royal Dutch Shell. Netanyahu and Steinitz are hoping that Chevron will expand Israel’s reach into the global market via a pipeline to Europe (which may now be effectively controlled by Chevron).

The Israel Competition Authority had recently ruled that Isramco and Tamar Petroleum could make separate deals with the IEC from Noble (Chevron) and Delek, after they complained that Noble (Chevron) and Delek were blocking the the Tamar deal to halt competition, according to Globes.

But Deputy Attorney General Meir Levine declared that Chevron has veto rights over new contracts on the Tamar field until the end of 2021. While the IEC says that Chevron has no right to shut off the flow of gas to Israel, and they plan to turn to the courts.

Isramco and Tamar Petroleum have also demanded the Tamar gas flow be turned back on and accused Chevron and Delek of monopolistic practices and a conflict of interest to direct business to their more lucrative Leviathan holdings.

Chevron’s entry is definitely a game changer, just not the one that Netanyahu and Steinitz expected.

A Vote For Biden Is A Vote For More War

As our (un)civil war escalates towards the real thing, America is in throes of unrest unlike any in our 244-year history

In backing Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ to Trump is perpetuating illegal US invasions & wars, & handing victory to the neocons

Michael Rectenwald
Michael Rectenwald is an author of ten books, including the most recent, Beyond Woke. He was Professor of Liberal Arts at NYU from 2008 through 2019. Follow him on Twitter @TheAntiPCProf
In backing Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ to Trump is perpetuating illegal US invasions & wars, & handing victory to the neocons
Trump calls the Iraqi invasion ‘a disaster,’ wants to end ‘endless wars,’ and bring US troops home. It’s this that has fueled the deep state’s attempts to remove him from office by any means possible. The hawks want Biden to win.

In a recent op-ed on RT, I outlined the puzzling and ironic configuration that is the anti-Trump ‘resistance.’ But I didn’t explore one important ‘interest group’ within a ‘deep state’ intent on destroying Trump’s presidency at all costs—namely, the neocon hawks of both major political parties and the military and intelligence establishments that defy strict party affiliation.

This contingent includes members of top military brass and intelligence officers, of course, but also military and intelligence contractors, including those employed by the permanent bureaucracy to foil Trump’s first run for the presidency by attempting to tie him to “Russian collusion.”

Condemn Trump all you want. It’s quite fashionable and facile to do so. The penchant has long since leaked across the Atlantic via the US and international media establishments. But critics must be either uninformed or disingenuous to liken Trump to Hitler. Hitler was, after all, a fascist strong man and supremacist intent on militarism and world expansionism. And Trump is nothing of the sort.

The Trump Doctrine

Quite the contrary, Trump wants no part of expansionism. He has insisted that he deplores the endless wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Trump has been removing troops from both regions since his presidency began. And he’s reportedly been foiled in efforts for a complete withdrawal by his generals. But now he may be prepared to flout their prerogatives and take matters into his own hands, if given a second term.

While Trump touts a strengthened military, the Trump Doctrine involves a particular brand of populist American nationalism. This includes a foreign policy stemming from 19th-century Republican politics. Those who have subscribed to this political position have been traditionally non-interventionist, while demanding that a premium be laid on national self-determination, the protection of national sovereignty via strong borders, and the promotion of national self-interest over international or global entanglements.

Trump has suggested that the military brass wants to start wars to enrich military contractors.

The hue and cry coming from the political establishment over Trump’s foreign military policy is a thin scrim to cover for the interests of the military industrial complex. And the interests of the military industrial complex are for its own expansion and the profits that derive from it

Why the hawks want Biden

Trump’s foreign policy on the limited use of military force runs counter to those of the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden administrations. Both of these followed the orders of neocon hawks. Shocking his left-wing base, Obama retained many of Bush’s top cabinet members, including war hawk Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And, of course, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) voted in favor of and championed the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

The Obama administration not only continued the Bush campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it extended them with record-breaking bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. Recall that it was Obama who murdered, via a drone bomb, sixteen-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was the son of alleged al-Qaeda fighter (and American citizen) Anwar Awlaki, who Obama had bombed two weeks earlier, in Yemen. In fairness it must be noted that a US raid in Yemen resulted in the death of Abdulrahman’s 8-year-old sister in 2017.  But it was Obama who exploded the conflict in Yemen.

The Obama-Biden international adventurism extended to the invasion of Libya and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, an escapade that destabilized that country and led directly to the arming of jihadists. Under Obama, the Pentagon and CIA directly armed and trained Syrian “rebels” fighting Bashar Assad, many of whom then grew into the ISIS caliphate. A 2016 iconic headline in the Los Angeles Times said it all: “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA.” It is interesting to note that it was Trump who ended the CIA’s training of the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels whose intent was the toppling Assad’s government.

Obama was elected in 2008 on his promise to end Bush’s war in Iraq, a conflict he said he opposed from the outset. Instead, Obama and his war hawks expanded this war and added several others. And all of this after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for no apparent reason) in 2009.

The military escalation under Obama-Biden surely explains the deep state’s preference for Biden over Trump. But what about the voters? In opposing Trump and favouring Biden, the leftist ‘resistance’ is supporting the continuation of dodgy and illegal US invasions and endless wars. An achievement to be proud of. On the other hand, voters who support non-intervention and troop withdrawal favour the Republican, Donald Trump.

So, tell me again: who’s ‘left’ and who’s ‘right’ in this US presidential election?

DNI Declassifies CIA Memo On Reported Hillary/Brennan Sabotage Plan For Incoming Trump Administration

[CIA told Obama of claim Hillary Clinton conjured Trump-Russia scandal: spy chief;Hillary Clinton says Joe Biden should not concede on election night]

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has declassified notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan along with a CIA memo from 2016, citing intelligence claiming Hillary Clinton approved of an alleged plot by her campaign to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of collusion with Russia in order to distract from her email scandal ahead of the election.

Last week, Ratcliffe wrote a letter informing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), “In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”

Ratcliffe noted, “The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”

As TheBlaze previously reported:

Ratcliffe went on to say that former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on the claims garnered from Russian intelligence. Those claims were also forwarded to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.

On Tuesday, Ratcliffe provided documentation to back up his letter, releasing a heavily redacted CIA memo from September 2016 addressed to Strzok, which describes “an exchange … discussing U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Formal CIA Referral To FBI … by The Federalist

The DNI also released notes taken by Brennan, who was CIA director at the time, showing he jotted, “Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton (on 28 July) on proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to villify (sic) Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Brennan also wrote “any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russia,” in a bullet point next to where he had written “POTUS” in the margin.

According to an exclusive report from Fox News, “A source familiar with the documents explained that Brennan’s handwritten notes were taken after briefing Obama on the matter.”

The outlet pointed out that much of “the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads: ‘JC,’ ‘Denis,’ and ‘Susan,'” adding, “The notes don’t spell out the full names but ‘JC’ could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, ‘Susan’ could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and ‘Denis’ could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.”

Following Ratcliffe’s letter to Graham last week, a Clinton spokesperson called the Russian intelligence claims “baseless bulls**t.”

But Racliffe told Fox on Tuesday, “To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”

India, A Truly Racist State Which Classifies “Blacks” (Dalits) As “NON-HUMANS”

[One fact is certain…there were NO “George Floyd protests” in India.]

[ India Officially A Racist State For Treating Dalits As “Sub-human” “Untouchables”;

Life In the Racist Hindu State–For Dalits, Who Are Considered Less Than Human ]

[SEE: DALITS, Untouchables]

Raped to death: 4 upper caste men arrested in alleged gang rape of Dalit woman in India

Associated Press
Shiv Sena party youth wing activists hold posters of Uttar Pradesh state Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, his eyes covered with a face mask, during a protest condemning the alleged gang rape and killing of a Dalit woman, in Mumbai, India, Oct. 3, 2020.

NEW DELHI – Hundreds of protesters demanded the dismissal of the government of a northern Indian state where a 19-year-old woman from the country’s lowest caste was allegedly gang raped and later died in a hospital.

The demonstrators on Friday shouted “Hang the rapists” and “First raped by devils, then by the system” as they gathered near Parliament in New Delhi.

Police have said they have arrested four suspects, all from an upper caste.

The protesters, including Bollywood actress Swara Bhaskar, said police in the Uttar Pradesh state government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party cordoned off the family’s village.

An activist holds a placard reading "Hang the rapists" during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a Dalit (lowest caste) woman in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh, in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020.

A leader of the main opposition Congress party, Priyanka Gandhi, said at a prayer meeting at a temple in New Delhi on Friday that blocking off the village was an injustice to the family and showed that the state is unsafe for women.

Protesters accused authorities of trying to hush up the crime.

The state government suspended five police officer for alleged negligence in their handling of the investigation of the case, said Awanish Kumar Awasthi, a top state official.

Awasthi also said the police officers, the four suspects in the case and the victim’s family will also undergo lie-detector tests as part of investigation.

Indian television news channels on Friday showed journalists being refused entry to the village by many police officers. One posted outside the village said the media would be allowed in after the investigation into the case is completed.

Bhaskar said the hasty cremation of the victim’s body without the family’s approval showed the callousness by the state government. She demanded the dismissal of Yogi Adiyanath, the state’s top elected official.

The victim was cremated early Wednesday, with the family alleging that police did not allow them to perform her final rites. Videos on social media showed the family weeping as police insisted on cremating the body without allowing them to take it home.Priyanka Gandhi said she was prevented by police from visiting the family on Thursday with her brother, Rahul Gandhi.

Dalits – formerly known as “untouchables” and at the bottom of India’s Hindu caste hierarchy – are victims of thousands of attacks each year. According to human rights organizations, Dalit women are particularly vulnerable to caste-based discrimination and sexual violence.

In India, rape and sexual violence have been under the spotlight since the 2012 gang rape and killing of a 23-year-old student on a New Delhi bus. The attack galvanized massive protests and inspired lawmakers to order the creation of fast-track courts dedicated to rape cases and stiffen penalties for those convicted of the crime.

An activist holds a placard reading "No Racists No Rapists" during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a woman in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh, in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020.
An activist holds a placard reading “No racists, No Rapists” during a protest against the gang rape and killing of a woman in India’s northern state of Uttar Pradesh in Hyderabad, India, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020. Mahesh Kumar A, AP

Is Trump’s Covid the Real “October Surprise”, President Pelosi, Or, President Pompeo?

[SEE: ‘Continuity of Government’ Planning: War, Terror and the Supplanting of the U.S. Constitution ; If COVID incapacitates Trump, the 25th Amendment kicks in ; Continuity of Government – 2020 ]

The Real Nightmare Scenario: A Sick Mike Pence

The U.S. government knows how to handle an incapacitated commander in chief, but has no idea how to deal with a very sick vice president.

Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump at a White House coronavirus briefing.

ACovid-19 outbreak inside the White House brings into sharp relief the literal nightmare scenarios that constitutional and presidential scholars have warned about for decades. What happens if Donald Trump is sick or incapacitated and unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency? And what happens if both Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence get sick? Who takes over then?

Most Americans—if they think of presidential succession at all—probably assume that the government has clarified and settled the questions of who takes over at the White House in crisis situations. But there are two major problems with U.S. executive succession rules that inject enormous uncertainty: First, while the 25th Amendment neatly covers what happens if the president resigns, dies or falls sick in office, it says nothing about a sick or incapacitated vice president—a problem that led Dick Cheney to write a secret resignation letter and have his White House lawyer hide it away in case his heart problems ever left him unable to function as vice president.

Second—and more problematic for a scenario where Nancy Pelosi is second in line to the presidency—the presidential succession plan laid out by Congress is legally murky and might actually be unconstitutional. Today, it remains an open debate whether the House speaker is actually eligible to succeed to the presidency.

All this is to say that, while the news that Trump has tested positive and is showing symptoms of Covid-19 is worrisome, true fear about the future of the Republic shouldn’t settle in until either the vice president falls ill or the vice president takes over. Both these scenarios could lead to potential power struggles and fraught questions about whom military and government officials should be listening to.

We’re obviously a long way from Trump being unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency, and Pence and his wife have now tested negative for Covid-19—his separate travel schedule this week makes it seem likely that he’s dodged whatever disease vector has already sickened Hope Hicks, Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump. But any future questions about the vice president’s health might mean the nation would be in for a rocky time.

Given the current makeup of the executive branch, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo might, with the help of an aggressive attorney general, William Barr, challenge any attempt by Nancy Pelosi to ascend to the presidency if both Trump and Pence are incapacitated by Covid-19—perhaps even preemptively putting out a legal opinion that Pompeo is legally next in line for the acting presidency.

Could Nancy Pelosi assume the acting presidency and fire Barr to get her own contrary legal opinion? Would Barr treat such an order as legitimate? Would the Supreme Court weigh in? How those questions would be answered would almost certainly hinge less on actual legal fights and more on vague public sentiments—questions such as whether the president or vice president looks likely to recover.

“The nation could thus be deeply divided, in a hard-to-resolve way, on the very basic question: Who is the (acting) president of the United States?” legal scholars Jack Goldsmith and Ben Miller-Gootnick wrote back in March at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The 25th Amendment was a product of the Cold War, a desire to bring clarity to presidential succession as nuclear missiles collapsed time and space such that American government needed to know minute-by-minute who was eligible to succeed to the presidency. Until it was ratified in the late 1960s, in fact, the presidential line of succession had been a strange amalgamation of informal secret letters, confusing and shifting congressional legislation, and a seemingly unintentional misinterpretation of the Constitution itself.

Even when the Founders sat down to debate presidential succession, it wasn’t an academic argument. In an era when daily life was much more uncertain and hazard-filled, colonial governors had a track record of high mortality—nearly a third had died in office. Who should take over in the event of a president’s death? Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania originally argued for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, while others pushed for the president of the Senate; however, both proposals seemed to the Founders to inappropriately mix the branches of government. The heir to the executive should come from the executive branch, so a late suggestion came to establish the “Vice-President,” who would be elected in the same manner as the president, while also serving as the president of the Senate on a day-to-day basis.

After the vice president, U.S. law later laid out only the House speaker and the president pro tempore of the Senate in the line of succession for most of America’s first century—a period when four presidents and five vice presidents died in office. It was a thin bench for the highest office in the land. Moreover, there was no mechanism at all for dealing with a sick or incapacitated president, so for more than a hundred years, the United States dodged constitutional crises only through luck and chance. Sixteen different times—a period totaling nearly 38 years—in the country’s first nearly 200 years, the U.S. had been without a vice president. Seven of the first 34 presidents—one out of five—suffered some period of incapacitation, during which time there wasn’t really anyone technically able to execute the powers of the presidency.

When, in 1841, William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office, a spirited debate unfurled in Washington over whether Vice President John Tyler actually assumed the presidential office or merely the duties and power therein. John Quincy Adams, himself a former president and in 1841 a member of Congress, believed that Tyler was merely the “Acting President” or “Vice President, Acting as President.” Tyler moved into the White House and, despite ongoing attacks from his political opponents who would refer to him as “Your Accidency,” he was never seriously challenged as president; for years to come, though, he would return unopened any mail that came to the White House addressed to “Acting President” or “Vice President Tyler.”

The odd thing, Constitutional scholars now agree, is that Tyler was almost certainly wrong about becoming president. Little was known in the 1840s about the debates that went on during the Constitutional Convention—Madison’s notes from the debates, for instance, were only published for the first time in 1840, and the first major scholarly review of the Convention wasn’t published until 1911. But subsequent study has shown that the Founders clearly intended for the vice president to merely “act” as president during a vacancy or incapacity. At least three other sections of the Constitution actually refer specifically to the vice president only acting as president. The only way the Founders ever intended for someone to become president was to be elected by the nation; anyone else would merely be “acting.” Yet Tyler’s precedent would guide the nation for the next 120 years. No one questioned the “president” title when Andrew Johnson took over from Abraham Lincoln’s assassination or when Calvin Coolidge took over after President Warren G. Harding’s death from a heart attack.

Picking a successor for vice president was trickier—and many times impossible. Through the 19th century, Congress elected the speaker and Senate president pro tem only while the body was in session, meaning that those posts sat vacant through the long periods of congressional recess. When Grover Cleveland’s vice president, Thomas Hendricks, died in 1885, Congress was out of session, and had anything happened to Cleveland, no one knew who would become president. Presidential aides were so concerned that they recommended Cleveland not even travel to Indiana to attend Hendricks’ funeral. That potential crisis finally nudged Congress to act, and in 1886 it added Cabinet members to the line of succession ahead of the congressional leaders.

Harry Truman, 60 years later, tried to reverse that, arguing that the speaker of the House has the closest thing to a national electoral mandate after the elected president. As a result, in 1947 Congress passed a law that outlined the modern succession line—the vice president, the speaker, the Senate president pro tem, and the Cabinet secretaries in descending order of their department’s founding (leading to today’s quirk that the Department of Homeland Security, one of the officials most versed in national security, is actually dead last in succession, although acting Secretary Chad Wolf is ineligible for the presidency since he’s not a Senate-confirmed secretary).

Beyond just a clear line of succession, the presidency after Truman made clear that the U.S. government needed to wrestle with presidential illness or incapacity too. Dwight D. Eisenhower was hospitalized for seven weeks after a 1955 heart attack amid the height of the Cold War. “It was not until two weeks after the heart attack that the tension in Washington was eased,” then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon recalled years later. “The ever-present possibility of an attack on the United States was always hanging over us. Would the President be well enough to make a decision? If not, who had the authority to push the button?” The next year, Eisenhower had urgent intestinal surgery, as most of the nation slept, from 2:30 a.m. to 4:35 a.m., an experience that left Nixon worried. “On several occasions afterwards, he pointed out to me that for the two hours he was under anesthesia, the country was without a Chief Executive, the armed forces without a Commander-in-Chief,” Nixon wrote later. “In the event of a national emergency during those two hours, who would have had the undisputed authority to act for a completely disabled President?” Then, amid the high-stress weeks of the Cold War following the launch of Sputnik, Eisenhower in November 1957 suffered a minor stroke that left him disoriented and his speech slurred.

Eisenhower’s answer was an informal agreement, hidden from the American people and unknown until decades later: In February 1958, he summoned Nixon and Attorney General William Rogers to the Oval Office and handed them a four-page letter outlining conditions under which the vice president could assume the powers of the presidency. He distributed just three copies—one to Nixon, one to Rogers and one to the secretary of State. He wrote that Nixon “after such consultations as seems to him appropriate” could just assume the powers of the presidency if Ike seemed unable to function. It was a wild, extra-constitutional arrangement—one that cried out for a more formal process in the age of nuclear weapons. In the years ahead, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both wrote similar letters, a system that would work only as long as there was total trust between a president and a vice president. Otherwise, it was a literal recipe for a coup.

The letter of agreement between Kennedy and Johnson read, in part, “The Vice President agrees to serve as Acting President ‘after such consultation as seems to him appropriate under the circumstances’” and allowed the vice president to operate “with a free mind that this is what the President intended in the event of a crisis.” JFK’s assassination raised new problems and concerns (what if JFK had lain comatose after being shot, rather than dying immediately?) and left Johnson without a vice president for 1964. Through the end of that presidential term, House Speaker John McCormack kept in his Capitol office safe a secret two-page agreement that he and LBJ signed together on December 23, 1963, outlining when he could take over the presidency if Johnson fell ill or was otherwise incapacitated. “It is outside the law,” McCormack said later, “but it was the only thing that could be done under the circumstances.”

Finally, Congress moved on the 25th Amendment, which created the first-ever mechanism for replacing a vice president in the event of resignation, death or vacancy and created the first-ever system for dealing with presidential incapacity or illness. It arrived just in time: The resignation in 1973 of Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, amid the Watergate scandal was the first use of the 25th Amendment, allowing Gerald Ford to be nominated and confirmed by Congress as vice president—and later to succeed to the office and nominate his own vice president. It made Ford the first American ever to become president without being elected to either the presidency or vice presidency.

And yet there are two major holes still in the 25th Amendment and the related Presidential Succession Act that, at least until now, have remained only abstract and esoteric questions for presidential and constitutional scholars.

Dick Cheney himself figured out the first problem in the 25th Amendment itself: There is literally no mechanism for removing an incapacitated vice president from the line of succession. As Cheney—whose heart problems were well-documented—took office in 2001, he kept thinking about Woodrow Wilson, whose stroke had left him incapacitated for the final year and a half of his presidency and left his wife secretly managing the nation’s affairs. “I knew how important it was to ensure we had a plan in place for leadership succession and survival,” Cheney wrote later. “We had a duty to make sure an enemy attack could not result in decapitation of our government.”

For the Cheneys in the vice presidential mansion at the Naval Observatory, a vice presidential vacancy wasn’t too much of a thought exercise: One of Lynne Cheney’s novels, The Body Politic, published in 1988, had focused on the death of a vice president that the White House chose to cover up on the eve of critical primaries—setting up a Weekend at Bernie’s-style satire that followed the staff trying to ensure that no one noticed the vice president’s death.

To ensure that his own health problems wouldn’t leave the nation without an able vice president, Dick Cheney wrote a secret letter of resignation, dated March 28, 2001, and addressed it to the secretary of state—not unlike the letters that Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson had penned before the existence of the 25th Amendment. Sitting in his office two months after his inauguration, Cheney attached a cover letter to his resignation addressed to his legal counsel, “Dave Addington—you are to present the attached document to President George W. Bush if the need ever arises. — Richard B. Cheney.” He handed the letters to Addington with a cautionary speech: “I won’t give specific instructions about when this letter should be triggered, but you need to understand something. This is not your decision to make. This is not Lynne’s decision to make. The only thing you are to do, if I become incapacitated, is get this letter out and give it to the president. It’s his decision, and his alone, whether he delivers it to the secretary of state.”

Addington slipped the resignation letter inside two manila envelopes, and hid it in a dresser drawer at his home—where it would be safe, even from a crisis that destroyed the White House. Cheney told Bush what he’d done and that Addington had the letter, if the need ever arose. Other than that, their plan remained secret throughout the presidency.

There’s still no more formal mechanism for an incapacitated vice president. Did Joe Biden write a similar letter as Barack Obama’s vice president? Has Mike Pence filed away such a letter? If he hasn’t, and Pence is incapacitated, the U.S. would be stuck without a functioning vice president until January 20, 2021 (and perhaps beyond, if Trump wins reelection). That would mean that there would be no one ready to step in if something happened to the president—the presidency would pass to Mike Pence, even if he were comatose and unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency. Nor is it clear that the 25th Amendment’s clause whereby members of the Cabinet can sign a letter removing the president from office would pertain to a vice president since that very clause vests the letter’s authority in the vice president. If there’s no functioning vice president, there’s no one to trigger the letter from the Cabinet saying the president can’t function.

The second problem is with the statute, the Presidential Succession Act, that guides the line of succession beyond the vice presidency. It may not really be constitutional—and the nation may find the law tested in a moment of great crisis. There’s a clear and well-understood debate that the law dodges a vexing question: Are the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem considered “officers of the United States” for constitutional purposes and thus eligible to succeed to the presidency at all? No less an authority than the author of the Constitution himself, James Madison, argued that they were legislators, not constitutional officers, and thus ineligible to become president. Congress has worried particularly since 9/11 about how, in a divided government, a terror attack or assassination attempt could alter government. “You could shift the entire direction of this country with one or two bullets,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) explained during one hearing. “What an invitation to assassins. We could have replaced George W. Bush with Nancy Pelosi.” The process outlined in the law appears to be in conflict with other parts of the Constitution that hold that only executive branch officials are “officers” and that uncertainty could allow it to be disputed in court.

Legal scholar Akhil Amar told Congress during one post-9/11 hearing, “The current Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. Section 19, is in my view a disastrous statute, an accident waiting to happen. It should be repealed and replaced.”

Republican Senator John Cornyn raised the question of what would happen if a speaker of the House or Senate president pro tem ascended to the presidency—and then was challenged by the secretary of State, who argued that the legislators didn’t count as constitutional officers. “Believe it or not, the secretary actually has a rather strong case, in my view,” Cornyn said. “Who is the president? Whose orders should be followed by our armed forces, by our intelligence agencies, and by domestic law enforcement bureaus? If lawsuits are filed, will courts accept jurisdiction? How long will they take to rule? How will they rule? And how will their rulings be respected?”

Later, a special bipartisan “continuity of government” commission led jointly by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, concluded, there “are serious policy and constitutional objections to having congressional leaders in the line of succession.”

The United States semiroutinely deals with moments when the vice president officially assumes—without taking any meaningful action—the presidency. In 2002, Vice President Cheney officially assumed the powers of the presidency when George W. Bush was sedated for a colonoscopy, and did so again in 2007. Officially, Cheney was in charge from 7:09 a.m. to 9:24 a.m. on June 29, 2002, and from 7:16 a.m. to 9:21 a.m. on July 21, 2007. And this summer, a new book by New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt reported that Pence was told to be ready to assume the powers of the presidency after a still unexplained urgent weekend trip by Trump to Walter Reed Hospital in November 2019.

But if the vice president’s not there—either for a routine matter or an urgent crisis—we don’t have any rule book ready.

For now, the nation waits.

Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) is the author of RAVEN ROCK: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself—While the Rest of Us Die, from which parts of this essay have been adapted.

“Publicly endorsing the mass murder of your political adversaries”

Ex-Twitter CEO says selfish capitalists will be ‘shot in the revolution’

By Nicolas Vega

Dick Costolo

Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo.Corbis via Getty Images

Jumping into a recent controversy over employee activism at tech companies — kicked off when Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong announced in a blog post this week he was banning at-work discussions about politics and societal issues — Costolo bemoaned the end of an era where “tech companies used to welcome lively debate about ideas and society.”

Costolo said that the openness within Silicon Valley companies  was what “differentiated tech culture from, say, Wells Fargo culture.”

Things got testy, however, when another Twitter user said that tamping down political activism within companies would “be rough for people who want an activist job on a tech person’s salary.”

“Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution,” Costolo shot back. “I’ll happily provide video commentary.”

The remarks were met with swift blowback from conservatives on Twitter, with many complaining about the violent language in the tweet.

“This tweet is an actual violation of twitter TOS for glorifying violence,” alt-right personality Mike Cernovich replied. “That aside, thanks for publicly endorsing the mass murder of your political adversaries. This is clarifying.”

Costolo was in charge of Twitter from 2010 until 2015 when he was replaced by Jack Dorsey, and is currently a venture capitalist.

Representatives for Twitter and Costolo did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

Look For Trump To Attack Latest Enemies Before Election…think S. China Sea, Venezuela

The stage is set for a Venezuela October surprise


With an Eye on China, Reaper Drones Train for Maritime War

Does this US military uniform suggest it is preparing for war with China?

Is Trump preparing an “October Surprise”?


With the US presidential election barely five weeks away, Washington is stoking dangerous conflicts across the globe. With the danger that any one of them could escalate into a military confrontation, the question that is increasingly being discussed in US foreign policy circles and by worried governments around the world is whether US President Donald Trump is preparing an “October Surprise.”

There is a long history of events taking place in October, either planned or unplanned, which have major effects on an upcoming presidential election. In 1956, the eruption of the Sinai War and the Hungarian Revolution helped solidify support behind President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1968, the Johnson government’s announcement that it would suspend the bombing of North Vietnam almost swung the election to Democrat Hubert Humphrey. In 1972, Henry Kissinger infamously declared that “Peace Is at Hand” in Vietnam, giving Nixon a boost in the polls over George McGovern.

But the phrase “October Surprise” was coined by William Casey, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager in 1980 and subsequent CIA director. In the case of Reagan and Casey, the “surprise” in question was the prospect that Iran would release US personnel taken hostage in the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy by Iranian students. According to both US and Iranian officials, Casey and the Reagan campaign conducted secret negotiations with Tehran to prevent the hostages’ release until after the election.

Four F/A-18 Hornets and two F-22 Raptors participate in a training exercise (Image Credit U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer Wade Spradli)

Today, the threat is that the “October Surprise” will come in the form of an eruption of American militarism.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a column last week warning, “Iraq is the place where a U.S.-Iran confrontation could explode in the next few weeks, creating an ‘October surprise’ before the U.S. presidential election.” It is doubtful that Ignatius, who has close connections with the US military-intelligence apparatus, is using this phrase loosely.

He was referring to an ultimatum delivered by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Iraq’s new Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi that Washington will close its Baghdad embassy unless the regime cracks down on Iraqi Shi’a militias aligned with Iran that have lobbed rockets in the general vicinity of the US facility. Such a crackdown would likely trigger the government’s downfall.

Ignatius pointed out that the embassy’s “closure could also be a prelude to heavy U.S. airstrikes against the militias.”

Such military action could quickly escalate into a confrontation with Iran, which is already escalating on other fronts. A US Navy carrier strike group has been sent through the strategic Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf for the first time since last November. The deployment comes as the Trump administration has arrogantly claimed the right to unilaterally reimpose United Nations sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the major powers, a deal that Washington unilaterally abrogated.

Chief among the sanctions that the US is now claiming is the right to enforce a ban on the export of conventional weapons to Iran that is set to expire in the middle of next month. Both Russia and China are prepared to resume such exports. The US vow to continue enforcing the ban raises the prospect of American warships seizing Russian or Chinese vessels in the Persian Gulf or on the high seas.

The threat of direct conflict between US imperialism and its two major nuclear rivals continues to escalate across a wide field of military operations.

The Pentagon is staging nearly continuous provocative military exercises on Russia’s borders. Last week, it brought along NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who flew in an Air Force F16 as US warplanes simulated large-scale “dogfights” on the border with Russia. As an “embedded” reporter, Engel cast the aerial provocation in heroic terms.

This operation follows by only weeks, live fire exercises in Estonia involving what the US Army described as “multiple launch rocket systems” in shooting range of Russia. Moscow’s embassy in Washington described the action as “provocative and extremely dangerous for regional stability.” It asked, “How would the Americans react in the event of such shooting by our military at the US border?”

Meanwhile, Washington is staging relentless provocations against China, particularly over the island of Taiwan, where a pair of visits by high-level US officials over the past two months, combined with multibillion-dollar arms sales, have been directed at strengthening US-Taiwanese relations and effectively overturning the “One China” policy that has been central to US-China relations for more than 40 years.

In what Beijing has justifiably interpreted as a gross provocation and unconcealed threat, Military Review, the US Army’s principal publication, dedicated its entire September-October issue to the prospect of a US war with China over Taiwan, based on the premise of Beijing’s military takeover of the island.

One article in the Army journal is titled “Drive Them into the Sea” and advocates “dispatching an Army heavy corps to Taiwan” that “will drive the enemy into the sea.”

Another, written by a US Marine Corps officer, titled “Deterring the Dragon: Returning U.S. Forces to Taiwan,” expresses concern over the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) military advances, particularly in terms of intermediate range missiles, and calls for deploying American troops to Taiwan. It concludes, “America needs to posture its forces in a way that would inevitably trigger a larger conflict and make plain its commitment to Taiwanese defense,” adding “it would be extremely unlikely that the U.S. government would not commit to a larger conflict after U.S. ground forces were engaged in Taiwan.”

The triggering of a direct military conflict in any one of these arenas could provide Trump with his “October surprise” at the potential cost of a massive loss of life and a spiraling conflict leading to world war. The aim would not be so much to sway voters, as Trump is not pursuing a strategy based on the popular vote which he failed to win in the 2016 election, but rather on creating the conditions for a coup d’état aimed at consolidating a presidential dictatorship and violently suppressing all opposition. War could serve as the pretext for making good on his threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and impose martial law.

Trump’s ostensible political opposition, the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate Joe Biden, have only helped to create the conditions for such a military provocation and its far-reaching political consequences. They have repeatedly denounced Trump for being too “soft” on Russia and China, including in the wake of a recent crash between US and Russian armored cars in Syria, in which they demanded retaliation for the minor injuries suffered by American soldiers.

Given this reality, in the event of a US military engagement against Russia or China, the Democrats would throw their support behind Trump’s war effort.

Underlying the threat of war is the insoluble crisis of the capitalist system and the turn by US imperialism toward military aggression as a means of offsetting the decline of its global hegemony. This has only been intensified by the uncontrolled spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, mass unemployment, poverty and growing social unrest. America’s ruling oligarchy seeks to divert these intense and insoluble domestic tensions outward in the form of an eruption of militarism.

The struggle against war, along with the fight against the devastation of jobs, living standards and the very lives of workers, as Republicans and Democrats alike pursue the homicidal back-to-work and back-to-school agenda, cannot be waged within the framework of the Trump-Biden electoral contest. Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election, the drive toward war and dictatorship will continue.

The threat of war and all of the life-and-death questions confronting the vast majority of the American people can be confronted only by means of the independent political mobilization of the working class in the fight for socialism. This poses the need for the formation of rank-and-file workplace and neighborhood committees to organize this struggle and the fight for a political general strike to halt Trump’s dictatorial conspiracies and topple his government.

Bill Van Auken