1061 911 Mossad ran Arab hijacker cells - WIKILEAKS/ Madsen

911 Mossad ran Arab hijacker cells - WIKILEAKS/ Madsen

Newsletter published on September 21, 2019

(1) 911 Mossad ran Arab hijacker cells - WIKILEAKS/ Madsen
(2) Yemini drones are designed in Iran but made in Yemen. Trump won't
attack Iran, because he wants to be re-elected
(3) Trump's 'Maximum Pressure' has brought us to the Brink - Pat Buchanan
(4) Economist calls Trump's response 'Tepid'
(5) CIA-Mossad-Epstein-network's Orwellian solution to Mass Shootings is
similar to China's Social Credit

(1) 911 Mossad ran Arab hijacker cells - WIKILEAKS/ Madsen

From: chris lancenet <chrislancenet@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019
12:42:17 +0900 Subject:
analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab. WIKILEAKS/ Madsen

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global
Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas
headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date
between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings
of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides
confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as
Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland
Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The
emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment
laundering techniques and psychological methods.

[Analytical & Intelligence Comments] Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker"
terrorist operation

Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT

Email-ID 1332210 Date 2011-05-04 16:26:59 From jetdrive@earthlink.net
To responses@stratfor.com [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] Mossad
ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation


CROYDON KEMP sent a message using the contact form at
https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation

By Wayne Madsen

British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad
ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S.
government's 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British
intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime
Minister Tony Blair.

A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews
infiltrated "Al Qaeda" cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali
cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the
months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to
run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate
in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in
Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.

The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two
cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad
base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the "Al
Qaeda" cells. One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted
to the operational control of the Mossad's Europe Station, which
operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The
three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact
with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In
fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.

The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern
Florida where they began to direct the "Al Qaeda" cells operating from
Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli
"art students," already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement
Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law
enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance
of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab
"hijacker" cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.

In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg
"Al Qaeda" members to Boston. Logan International Airport's security was
contracted to Huntleigh USA, a firm owned by an Israeli airport security
firm closely connected to Mossad - International Consultants on Targeted
Security - ICTS. ICTS's owners were politically connected to the Likud
Party, particularly the Netanyahu faction and then-Jerusalem mayor and
future Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was Olmert who personally
interceded with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to have released from
prison five Urban Moving Systems employees, identified by the CIA and
FBI agents as Mossad agents. The Israelis were the only suspects
arrested anywhere in the United States on 9/11 who were thought to have
been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The two Mossad teams sent regular coded reports on the progress of the
9/11 operation to Tel Aviv via the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC.
WMR has learned from a Pentagon source that leading Americans tied to
the media effort to pin 9/11 on Arab hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, and the
Taliban were present in the Israeli embassy on September 10, 2001, to
coordinate their media blitz for the subsequent days and weeks following
the attacks. It is more than likely that FBI counter-intelligence agents
who conduct surveillance of the Israeli embassy have proof on the
presence of the Americans present at the embassy on September 10. Some
of the Americans are well-known to U.S. cable news television audiences.

In mid-August, the Mossad team running the Hamburg cell in Boston
reported to Tel Aviv that the final plans for 9/11 were set. The
Florida-based Mossad cell reported that the documented "presence" of the
Arab cell members at Florida flight schools had been established.

The two Mossad cells studiously avoided any mention of the World Trade
Center or targets in Washington, DC in their coded messages to Tel Aviv.
Halevy covered his tracks by reporting to the CIA of a "general threat"
by an attack by Arab terrorists on a nuclear plant somewhere on the East
Coast of the United States. CIA director George Tenet dismissed the
Halevy warning as "too non-specific." The FBI, under soon-to-be-departed
director Louis Freeh, received the "non-specific" warning about an
attack on a nuclear power plant and sent out the information in its
routine bulletins to field agents but no high alert was ordered.

The lack of a paper trail pointing to "Al Qaeda" as the masterminds on
9/11, which could then be linked to Al Qaeda's Mossad handlers, threw
off the FBI. On April 19, 2002, FBI director Robert Mueller, in a speech
to San Francisco's Commonwealth Club, stated: "In our investigation, we
have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United
States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in
Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September
11 plot."

The two Mossad "Al Qaeda" infiltration and control teams had also helped
set up safe houses for the quick exfiltration of Mossad agents from the
United States. Last March, WMR reported: "WMR has learned from two El Al
sources who worked for the Israeli airline at New York's John F. Kennedy
airport that on 9/11, hours after the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) grounded all civilian domestic and international incoming and
outgoing flights to and from the United States, a full El Al Boeing 747
took off from JFK bound for Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport.
The two El Al employee sources are not Israeli nationals but legal
immigrants from Ecuador who were working in the United States for the
airline. The flight departed JFK at 4:11 pm and its departure was,
according to the El Al sources, authorized by the direct intervention of
the U.S. Department of Defense. U.S. military officials were on the
scene at JFK and were personally involved with the airport and air
traffic control authorities to clear the flight for take-off. According
to the 9/11 Commission report, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
ordered all civilian flights to be grounded at 9:45 am on September 11."
WMR has learned from British intelligence sources that the six-man
Mossad team was listed on the El Al flight manifest as El Al employees.

WMR previously reported that the Mossad cell operating in the Jersey
City-Weehawken area of New Jersey through Urban Moving Systems was
suspected by some in the FBI and CIA of being involved in moving
explosives into the World Trade Center as well as staging "false flag"
demonstrations at least two locations in north Jersey: Liberty State
Park and an apartment complex in Jersey City as the first plane hit the
World Trade Center's North Tower. One team of Urban Moving Systems
Mossad agents was arrested later on September 11 and jailed for five
months at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Some of their
names turned up in a joint CIA-FBI database as known Mossad agents,
along with the owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, whose name
also appeared on a "Law Enforcement Sensitive" FBI 9/11 suspects list,
along with the names of key "hijackers," including Mohammed Atta and
Hani Hanjour, as well as the so-called "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

Suter was allowed to escape the United States after the FBI made initial
contact with him at the Urban Moving Systems warehouse in Weehawken, New
Jersey, following the 9/11 attacks. Suter was later permitted to return
to the United States where he was involved in the aircraft parts supply
business in southern Florida, according to an informed source who
contacted WMR. Suter later filed for bankruptcy in Florida for Urban
Moving Systems and other businesses he operated: Suburban Moving &
Storage Inc.; Max Movers, Inc.; Invsupport; Woodflooring Warehouse
Corp.; One Stop Cleaning LLC; and City Carpet Upholstery, Inc. At the
time of the bankruptcy filing in Florida, Suter listed his address as
1867 Fox Court, Wellington, FL 33414, with a phone number of 561 204-2359.

 From the list of creditors it can be determined that Suter had been
operating in the United States since 1993, the year of the first attack
on the World Trade Center. In 1993, Suter began racking up American
Express credit card charges totaling $21,913.97. Suter also maintained
credit card accounts with HSBC Bank and Orchard Bank c/o HSBC Card
Services of Salinas, California, among other banks. Suter also did
business with the Jewish Community Center of Greater Palm Beach in
Florida and Ryder Trucks in Miami. Miami and southern Florida were major
operating areas for cells of Israeli Mossad agents masquerading as "art
students," who were living and working near some of the identified
future Arab "hijackers" in the months preceding 9/11.

ABC's 20/20 correspondent John Miller ensured that the Israeli
connection to "Al Qaeda's" Arab hijackers was buried in an
"investigation" of the movers' activities on 9/11. Anchor Barbara
Walters helped Miller in putting a lid on the story about the movers and
Suter aired on June 21, 2002. Miller then went on to become the FBI
public affairs spokesman to ensure that Mueller and other FBI officials
kept to the "Al Qaeda" script as determined by the Bush administration
and the future 9/11 Commission. But former CIA chief of
counter-terrorism Vince Cannistraro let slip to ABC an important clue to
the operations of the Mossad movers in New Jersey when he stated that
the Mossad agents "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an
intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area,
particularly in the New Jersey-New York area." The "intelligence
operation" turned out to have been the actual 9/11 attacks. And it was
no coincidence that it was ABC's John Miller who conducted a May 1998
rare interview of Osama Bin Laden at his camp in Afghanistan. Bin Laden
played his part well for future scenes in the fictional "made-for-TV"
drama known as 9/11.

WMR has also learned from Italian intelligence sources that Mossad's
running of "Al Qaeda" operatives did not end with running the
"hijacking" teams in the United States and Hamburg. Other Arab "Al
Qaeda" operatives, run by Mossad, were infiltrated into Syria but
arrested by Syrian intelligence. Syria was unsuccessful in turning them
to participate in intelligence operations in Lebanon. Detailed
information on Bin Laden's support team was offered to the Bush
administration, up to days prior to 9/11, by Gutbi al-Mahdi, the head of
the Sudanese Mukhabarat intelligence service. The intelligence was
rejected by the Bush White House. It was later reported that Sudanese
members of "Al Qaeda's" support network were double agents for Mossad
who had also established close contacts with Yemeni President Ali
Abdullah Saleh and operated in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Eritrea, as well
as Sudan. The Mossad connection to Al Qaeda in Sudan was likely known by
the Sudanese Mukhabarat, a reason for the rejection of its intelligence
on "Al Qaeda" by the thoroughly-Mossad penetrated Bush White House.
Yemen had also identified "Al Qaeda" members who were also Mossad
agents. A former chief of Mossad revealed to this editor in 2002 that
Yemeni-born Mossad "deep insertion" commandos spotted Bin Laden in the
Hadhramaut region of eastern Yemen after his escape from Tora Bora in
Afghanistan, following the U.S. invasion.

French intelligence determined that other Egyptian- and Yemeni-born
Jewish Mossad agents were infiltrated into Sharjah in the United Arab
Emirates as radical members of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the
"Muslim Brotherhood" agents actually were involved in providing covert
Israeli funding for "Al Qaeda" activities. On February 21, 2006, WMR
reported on the U.S. Treasury Secretary's firing by President Bush over
information discovered on the shady "Al Qaeda" accounts in the United
Arab Emirates: "Banking insiders in Dubai report that in March 2002,
U.S. Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill visited Dubai and asked for
documents on a $109,500 money transfer from Dubai to a joint account
held by hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi at Sun Trust Bank
in Florida. O'Neill also asked UAE authorities to close down accounts
used by Al Qaeda . ... The UAE complained about O'Neill's demands to the
Bush administration. O'Neill's pressure on the UAE and Saudis
contributed to Bush firing him as Treasury Secretary in December 2002 "
O'Neill may have also stumbled on the "Muslim Brotherhood" Mossad
operatives operating in the emirates who were directing funds to "Al Qaeda."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise to power of the
Taliban in Afghanistan, Sharjah's ruler, Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qasimi,
who survived a palace coup attempt in 1987, opened his potentate to
Russian businessmen like Viktor Bout, as well as to financiers of
radical Muslim groups, including the Taliban and "Al Qaeda."

Moreover, this Israeli support for "Al Qaeda" was fully known to Saudi
intelligence, which approved of it in order to avoid compromising
Riyadh. The joint Israeli-Saudi support for "Al Qaeda" was well-known to
the Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah-based aviation network of the
now-imprisoned Russian, Viktor Bout, jailed in New York on terrorism
charges. The presence of Bout in New York, a hotbed of Israeli
intelligence control of U.S. federal prosecutors, judges, as well as the
news media, is no accident: Bout knows enough about the Mossad
activities in Sharjah in support of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan, where Bout also had aviation and logistics contracts, to
expose Mossad as the actual mastermind behind 9/11. Bout's aviation
empire also extended to Miami and Dallas, two areas that were nexuses
for the Mossad control operations for the "Al Qaeda" flight training
operations of the Arab cell members in the months prior to 9/11.

Bout's path also crossed with "Al Qaeda's" support network at the same
bank in Sharjah, HSBC. Mossad's phony Muslim Brotherhood members from
Egypt and Yemen controlled financing for "Al Qaeda" through the HSBC
accounts in Sharjah. Mossad's Dominik Suter also dealt with HSBC in the
United States. The FBI's chief counter-terrorism agent investigating Al
Qaeda, John O'Neill, became aware of the "unique" funding mechanisms for
Al Qaeda. It was no mistake that O'Neill was given the job as director
of security for the World Trade Center on the eve of the attack. O'Neill
perished in the collapse of the complex. Mossad uses a number of Jews
born in Arab countries to masquerade as Arabs. They often carry forged
or stolen passports from Arab countries or nations in Europe that have
large Arab immigrant populations, particularly Germany, France, Britain,
Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

For Mossad, the successful 9/11 terrorist "false flag" operation was a
success beyond expectations. The Bush administration, backed by the
Blair government, attacked and occupied Iraq, deposing Saddam Hussein,
and turned up pressure on Israel's other adversaries, including Iran,
Syria, Pakistan, Hamas, and Lebanese Hezbollah. The Israelis also saw
the U.S., Britain, and the UN begin to crack down on the Lebanese Shi'a
diamond business in Democratic Republic of Congo and West Africa, and
with it, the logistics support provided by Bout's aviation companies,
which resulted in a free hand for Tel Aviv to move in on Lebanese
diamond deals in central and west Africa.

Then-Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented on the 9/11
attacks on U.S. television shortly after they occurred. Netanyahu said:
"It is very good!" It now appears that Netanyahu, in his zeal, blew
Mossad's cover as the masterminds of 9/11.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author
and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and
blogs.

Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent
political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also
appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen
has taken on Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows.
He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of
Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism
investigation panel of the French government.

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security
programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National
Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State,
RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ),
Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press
Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker

(2) Yemini drones are designed in Iran but made in Yemen. Trump won't
attack Iran, because he wants to be re-elected
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/09/the-crisis-over-the-attack-on-saudi-oil-infrastructure-is-over-we-now-wait-for-the-next-one.html#more

September 19, 2019

The Crisis Over The Attack On Saudi Oil Infrastructure Is Over - We Now
Wait For the Next One

The Saudis and the U.S. accuse Iran of being behind the "act of war" as
Secretary of State Pompeo called it. The Saudis have bombed Yemen with
U.S. made bombs since 2015. One wonders how Pompeo is calling that.

The Yemeni forces aligned with the Houthi Ansarallah do not deny that
their drones and cruise missiles are copies of Iranian designs. But they
insist that they are built in Yemen and fired from there.

President Trump will not launch a military attack against Iran. Neither
will the Saudis or anyone else. Iran has deterred them by explaining
that any attack on Iran will be responded to by waging all out war
against the U.S. and its 'allies' around the Persian Gulf.

Trump sent Pompeo to Saudi Arabia to hold hands with the Saudi gangster
family who call themselves royals. Pompeo of course tried to sell them
more weapons. On his flight back he had an uncharacteristically dovish Q
& A with reporters. Pompeo said:

I was here in an act of diplomacy. While the foreign minister of Iran is
threatening all-out war and to fight to the last American, we’re here to
build out a coalition aimed at achieving peace and a peaceful resolution
to this. That’s my mission set, what President Trump certainly wants me
to work to achieve, and I hope that the Islamic Republic of Iran sees it
the same way. There’s no evidence of that from his statement, but I hope
that that’s the case. The crisis is over and we are back to waiting for
the next round. A few days or weeks from now we will see another round
of attacks on oil assets on the western side of the Persian Gulf. Iran,
with the help of its friends, can play this game again and again and it
will do so until the U.S. gives up and lifts the sanctions against that
country.

The Houthi will continue to attack the Saudis until they end their war
on Yemen and pay reparations.

As long as no U.S. forces get killed the U.S. will not hit back because
Trump wants to be reelected. An all out war around the Persian Gulf
would drive energy prices into the stratosphere and slump the global
economy. His voters would not like that.

In our earlier pieces on the Abqaiq attack we said that the attacked
crude oil stabilization plant in Abquaq had no air defense. Some
diligent researchers have since found that there was a previously
unknown Patriot air-defense unit in the area which was itself protected
by several short range air-defense cannons:

Michael Duitsman @DuitsyWasHere - 7:02 UTC · Sep 18, 2019 On paper, the
point air defenses at the Abqaiq oil processing facility are rather
formidable... by 1995 standards, at least.

But one Patriot system covers only 120° of the horizon. The attacking
drones came from a western directions while Saudi Arabia's enemies are
to its east and south. The older Patriot 2 version the Saudis have is
also not of much use against low flying drones and cruise missiles.

There is also the oddity that the Patriot unit's radar system was shut off.

Putin is a Virus @PutinIsAVirus - 4:53 UTC · Sep 19, 2019 No patriot
radars have been active in recent months (at least not consistently) in
the vicinity of the plant, not in the short range required to detect low
flying cruise missiles or drones. Closest installation is in Barhain.
(using Sentinel 1 CSAR sat for detection)

Satellites with synthetic-aperture radar can 'see' the radar of Patriot
and other air-defense system. None was detected around Abqaiq.

The explanation for that is likely rather trivial. Colonel Pat Lang was
stationed in Saudi Arabia as a military liaison officer. As he recently
remarked:

Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my
experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require
manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the
weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar soon
to prove they are responsible.

Abqaiq was attacked on the night of Friday to Saturday. That is the
weekend in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by b on September 19, 2019 at 18:12 UTC

(3) Trump's 'Maximum Pressure' has brought us to the Brink - Pat Buchanan

https://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-still-avoid-war-with-iran-137515

Can Trump Still Avoid War with Iran?

September 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

A more fundamental question arises: If the United States was not
attacked, why is it our duty to respond militarily to an attack on Saudi
Arabia?

President Donald Trump does not want war with Iran. America does not
want war with Iran. Even the Senate Republicans are advising against
military action in response to that attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities.

"All of us (should) get together and exchange ideas, respectfully, and
come to a consensus — and that should be bipartisan," says Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch of Idaho.

When Lindsey Graham said the White House had shown "weakness" and urged
retaliatory strikes for what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Iran’s
"act of war," the president backhanded his golfing buddy:

"It’s very easy to attack, but if you ask Lindsey … ask him how did
going into the Middle East … work out. And how did Iraq work out?"

Still, if neither America nor Iran wants war, what has brought us to the
brink?

Answer: The policy imposed by Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton after our
unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

Our course was fixed by the policy we chose to pursue.

Imposing on Iran the most severe sanctions ever by one modern nation on
another, short of war, the U.S., through "maximum pressure," sought to
break the Iranian regime and bend it to America’s will.

Submit to U.S. demands, we told Tehran, or watch your economy crumble
and collapse and your people rise up in revolt and overthrow your regime.

Among the 12 demands issued by Pompeo:

End all enrichment of uranium or processing of plutonium. Halt all
testing of ballistic missiles. Cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in
Gaza. Disarm and demobilize Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. Terminate
support for the Houthi rebels resisting Saudi intervention in Yemen.

The demands Pompeo made were those that victorious nations impose upon
the defeated or defenseless. Pompeo’s problem: Iran was neither.

Hezbollah is dominant in Lebanon. Along with Russia and Hezbollah, Iran
and its militias enabled Bashar Assad to emerge victorious in an
eight-year Syrian civil war. And the scores of thousands of
Iranian-trained and -allied Shiite militia fighters in the Popular
Mobilization Forces in Iraq outnumber the 5,200 U.S. troops there 20
times over.

Hence Tehran’s defiant answer to Pompeo’s 12 demands:

We will not capitulate, and if your sanctions prevent our oil from
reaching our traditional buyers, we will prevent the oil of your Sunni
allies from getting out of the Persian Gulf.

Hence, this summer, we saw tankers sabotaged and seized in the Gulf,
insurance rates for tanker traffic surge, Iran shoot-down a $130 million
U.S. Predator drone, and, a week ago, an attack on Saudi oil production
facilities that cut Riyadh’s exports in half.

This has been followed by an Iranian warning that a Saudi attack on Iran
means war, and a U.S. attack will be met with a counterattack. We don’t
want war, the Iranians are saying, but if the alternative is to choke to
death under U.S. sanctions, we will use our weapons to fight yours.

America might emerge victorious in such a war, but the cost could be
calamitous, imperiling that fifth of the world’s oil that traverses the
Strait of Hormuz, and causing a global recession.

Yet even if there is no U.S. or Saudi military response to Saturday’s
attack, what is to prevent Iran from ordering a second strike that shuts
down more Arab Gulf oil production?

Iran has shown the ability to do that, and, apparently, neither we nor
the Saudis have the defenses to prevent such an attack.

A more fundamental question arises: If the United States was not
attacked, why is it our duty to respond militarily to an attack on Saudi
Arabia?

Saudi Arabia is not a member of NATO. It is not a treaty ally. The
Middle East Security Alliance or "Arab NATO" chatted up a year ago to
contain Iran — of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states —
was stillborn. We are under no obligation to fight the Saudis’ war.

Nor is Saudi Arabia a natural American ally.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman runs an Islamic autocracy.

He inserted himself into first position in the line of succession to the
throne of his father, who’s in failing health. He locked up his brother
princes at the Riyadh Ritz Carlton to shake them down for billions of
dollars.

He summoned the prime minister of Lebanon to the kingdom, where the
crown prince forced him to resign in humiliation. He has ostracized
Qatar from Arab Gulf councils. He has been accused of complicity in the
murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.

With his U.S.-built and bought air force, the Crown Prince has made a
hell on earth of Yemen to crush the Houthis rebels who hold the capital.

The question President Trump confronts today:

How does he get his country back off the limb he climbed out on while
listening to the Republican neocons and hawks he defeated in 2016, but
who have had an inordinate influence over his foreign policy?

(4) Economist calls Trump's response 'Tepid'

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/09/19/a-strike-on-saudi-arabia-moves-a-shadowy-conflict-closer-to-open-war

Iran’s dangerous game

A strike on Saudi Arabia moves a shadowy conflict closer to open war
America’s response needs to balance deterring Iran with the risk of
escalation

Sep 19th 2019

The missiles streaked down and turned the night sky orange. In the early
hours of September 14th a barrage of fast-moving weapons hit Abqaiq, a
town in the eastern Saudi desert that is home to the world’s largest
oil-processing facility. They punched holes in the spheroids that
process crude oil and smashed five of Abqaiq’s 18 stabilisation towers,
lighting up the night. A separate volley set ablaze the Khurais
oilfield, 185km to the south west.

When the sun rose a few hours later, thick plumes of smoke were visible
from space. The images reminded some of the 1991 war with Iraq, when
Saddam Hussein’s retreating army set fire to oilfields in Kuwait. Oil
prices briefly surged 20% on news that more than 5.7m barrels a day of
oil production had been halted. This was the biggest disruption to the
world’s energy supply in decades (see article).

The attack appears to be the most dangerous escalation yet by the
Islamic republic in its simmering conflict with America and its allies.
After months of sabre-rattling and increasingly brazen acts of
aggression—from mine attacks on ships to the seizure of a
British-flagged oil tanker—Iran (or its proxies) has moved on to strike
directly at the jugular vein of the world’s economy. The barrage, by a
mix of cruise missiles and drones, also marks a worrying transition to
open war from the shadowy proxy conflict that Iran has waged with Saudi
Arabia and its allies.

Iran has made mischief in the region, and beyond, for years. The Quds
Force, a special-operations arm of the hardline Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (irgc), provided explosives used in attacks on American
troops in Iraq a decade ago. Iran was also implicated in terrorist
activities in Europe and the Americas long before that.

But the regime’s most dangerous card—a nuclear programme that may have
left it months away from the ability to manufacture an atomic bomb—was
removed from the deck in 2015. An agreement struck between Iran and six
world powers saw it accept strict limits on uranium enrichment in
exchange for relief from some economic sanctions. The deal may have also
helped to dissuade Iran from aggressive acts that could have threatened
the foreign investment and other benefits promised by the deal. But that
calculus changed when President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew
America from the agreement in May 2018 and in effect banned the export
of its oil a year later. Iran’s exports have shrunk from a peak of 2.8m
barrels a day last year to less than 1m now. Mr Trump has since added to
the pain with new sanctions on entire industries, such as petrochemicals
and the gold trade, and on individuals including Mohammad Javad Zarif,
the foreign minister.

This pressure has prompted Iran to hit back. It first sabotaged oil
tankers in the Persian Gulf. Then it stepped up a notch to seizing them,
most recently grabbing a vessel on September 16th that it said was
smuggling fuel to the United Arab Emirates (uae). Iran has also begun to
flout some aspects of the nuclear deal itself, by enriching uranium to
proscribed quantities and levels of purity.

There was a logic to this escalation. Iran hoped that by threatening to
step away from the nuclear pact it would press the other signatories, in
particular France, Germany and Britain, into offering it support such as
credit lines to mitigate the impact of American sanctions. And by
menacing shipping in the Gulf it wanted to demonstrate that the regime
could impose costs on America and its allies. But what may have started
as a way of signalling Iran’s unhappiness has since escalated into more
dangerous actions such as the latest attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil
facilities.

In part this is because of Mr Trump’s tepid response to earlier
provocations. For all his hawkish rhetoric and sanctions, a campaign he
calls "maximum pressure", the president is averse to military conflict.
He ordered retaliatory air strikes after Iran shot down an American
drone flying over the Gulf in June, only to recall the bombers at the
last minute.

Much is still unknown about the latest attack. But it is reasonable to
conclude, as Saudi Arabia (and its ally America) soon did, that Iran had
a hand in it. The Islamic republic denies involvement, but
circumstantial evidence links it to the weapons used. The first claim of
responsibility came from the Houthis, who control northern parts of
Yemen and its capital, Sana’a. un investigators have previously said
that Iran had supplied the Houthis with advanced weapons, including
drones, missiles and equipment to make rocket fuel.

Many Houthi drones look almost identical to Iranian ones. Scores have
been flown into Saudi Arabia, aimed at airports, military bases and
other targets. In December 2017 the Houthis even launched missiles
towards a nuclear reactor under construction in Abu Dhabi. In January
the un noted that the Houthis had acquired a new drone with a range of
up to 1,500km. In May the group claimed to have struck two oil-pumping
stations and a pipeline deep in Saudi territory using such drones.

Houthi dunnit?

The weapons used in the latest attack seem to have been developed in
Iran. Fabian Hinz, an analyst with the James Martin Centre for
Nonproliferation Studies, wrote that wreckage found near Abqaiq looked
like a cruise missile known as the Quds-1, probably designed by Iran. At
a press conference on September 18th Saudi Arabia showed the wreckage of
drones and missiles that it claimed proved Iran’s involvement. America
says that these were launched from a base in southern Iran. Satellite
photos indicate a sophisticated and precise operation, with clean
strikes on Abqaiq’s facilities. It is hard to imagine the Houthis
conducting such an attack without Iran’s help.

If oil output, and by extension the world economy, was the first
casualty, then the second was surely Saudi credibility as a dependable
guardian of that supply. Last year Saudi Arabia spent between $68bn and
$83bn on defence (estimates vary), behind only America and China. Saudi
Arabia was one of the first foreign buyers of America’s Patriot
missile-defence system in 1991 and now operates six batteries of them.

Yet its ground forces have been humbled by four years of fighting rebels
waging guerrilla warfare in Yemen. And its air defences seem to be just
as inept at fending off conventional threats. To be fair, drones and
cruise missiles are especially hard to stop, particularly if they
overwhelm defences by arriving in large numbers. They are small and they
fly low, hiding from radar behind the curvature of the earth. And they
are manoeuvrable, so they can skirt known missile-defence sites. Some
reports suggest the Aramco barrage snuck in via Kuwait. Saudi air
defences are relatively thin in the eastern province, with most of its
batteries focused to the south on the threat from Yemen.

Even so, Saudi forces seem to have had only limited success in using
their Patriots against ballistic missiles, which are easier to spot. The
company that makes the Patriot claims that its batteries have batted
away more than 100 Houthi missiles over Saudi Arabia and the uae. But
Jeffrey Lewis, an expert at the Middlebury Institute of International
Studies at Monterey, says there is no evidence that they have
intercepted any missiles. If the Patriot and similar systems are leakier
than assumed, Saudi oil facilities may be worryingly vulnerable to Iran
should the conflict escalate.

America’s standing as the ultimate guarantor of security in the region
has also been damaged. Mr Trump first said that America was "locked and
loaded" to respond to the attack. Then he prevaricated, as he had done
in earlier incidents, kicking the ball back to Saudi Arabia, saying he
would wait "to hear from the kingdom" before acting. The following day
he stressed his desire to make a deal with Iran. On September 18th Mr
Trump announced that he would impose further sanctions. But their impact
will be limited, because the administration is running out of effective
targets.

An aide to the vice-president, Mike Pence, said that "locked and loaded"
was in fact a reference to American energy independence, a prize bit of
spin even for Mr Trump’s White House. The erratic swerves then continued
with Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, calling the attack an "act of
war" in a visit to the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia has tried to downplay the incident at home. King Salman
said that his country has the "ability to respond"—hardly a war cry.
Much of the public commentary on the attack has come from oil officials,
not military men. Two days after the attack the front page of Al-Riyadh,
a pro-government daily, led with a story about the crown prince
attending a camel race. Coverage of the Aramco incident came further
down. It emphasised international support for the kingdom and avoided
photos of burning oilfields.

This seems in keeping with Saudi tradition. For decades the kingdom was
conservative in its foreign policy and shunned the use of hard power.
Under the previous monarch, King Abdullah, it would have been
unthinkable for Saudi Arabia to conduct a military strike without
America’s full support.

Times have changed. The crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, has ploughed
ahead with a ruinous war in Yemen despite deep misgivings in Washington
and other Western capitals. He has also worked to cultivate a new Saudi
identity, one rooted in muscular nationalism instead of Islam. Officials
in the Gulf have warned for months that the kingdom would eventually
have to retaliate against Iran for the seemingly endless string of drone
and missile attacks on its facilities.

Yet Saudi Arabia remains hesitant to pick a fight with a foe that can
fight back. The experience of its air force in Yemen is not encouraging.
Air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed thousands of
civilians, despite Britain and America providing precision munitions
from their own arsenals and targeting assistance in a bid to reduce
"collateral damage". Iran, which operates the Russian s-300 air defence
system, would be an even harder target for Saudi warplanes. (Vladimir
Putin, in a sublime bit of political trolling, suggested on September
16th that Saudi Arabia might want to buy the same system, while Mr
Rouhani chuckled on a stage next to him.) The kingdom does have its own
arsenal of Western-built cruise missiles, but their short range means
they could reach only parts of Iran.

Iran takes aim

If further evidence of Iran’s role comes to light, Mr Trump may face
more pressure to act. "The strike on Abqaiq is arguably the most serious
attack on energy infrastructure in the Gulf since Saddam Hussein’s
forces invaded Kuwait in 1990," says Michael Singh of the Washington
Institute for Near East Peace Policy, a think-tank.

Mr Trump has a range of options. His proposed strike in June was aimed
at the radar and missile batteries involved with shooting down the
American drone. This time he could target facilities from which the
attack on Saudi Arabia was launched—although drones and cruise missiles
tend to be mobile and easy to launch from austere sites.

Another option would be to target facilities associated with the irgc.
Attacking their bases and personnel outside Iran—whether in Iraq, Syria
or Yemen—might be considered less escalatory than striking Iranian soil.
A larger show of force is also possible. In 1988 America responded to
Iranian attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf with Operation Praying
Mantis, a major air and naval assault on Iranian ships and platforms.

Quds in

Iran would not sit by. Its conventional means are limited; its $13bn
defence budget is a fifth of Saudi Arabia’s, and one-fiftieth that of
America’s. But it could target further missile volleys at ships, bases
and other critical infrastructure throughout the Gulf. The Quds Force
could also mobilise regional allies, from the Houthis in Yemen to
Hizbullah in Lebanon, to attack Western and Arab interests, which is one
reason that the Pentagon is discouraging Mr Trump from ordering a
military strike. More subtly, Iran’s accomplished cyber-forces could
disrupt energy, financial and political networks within the region and
beyond. In 2012 Iranian hackers were blamed for crippling 30,000 of
Saudi Aramco’s computers in one of the costliest cyber-attacks ever.

A wild and uncontrolled backlash is unlikely. In choosing their parry,
Iran’s leaders would need to balance between facing down America by
raising the stakes, and avoiding an all-out war that would threaten the
regime’s survival. Their hope is that Mr Trump would lose the stomach
for a fight long before matters reached such a stage.

This was always the inexorable endpoint of Mr Trump’s policy of "maximum
pressure". He and his aides thought they could pummel Iran into a new
deal that constrained not only its nuclear programme but also its
foreign policy. Instead they convinced Iran’s hardliners that the only
way of dealing with America was through muscular confrontation. Neither
side will find it easy to back away. ?

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print
edition under the headline "Iran’s dangerous game"

(5) CIA-Mossad-Epstein-network's Orwellian solution to Mass Shootings is
similar to China's Social Credit

From: chris lancenet <chrislancenet@gmail.com> Subject:
webb-how-CIA-Mossad-Epstein-network-are-exploiting-mass-shootings-create-orwellian

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-07/webb-how-CIA-Mossad-Epstein-network-are-exploiting-mass-shootings-create-orwellian

Webb: How The CIA, Mossad, & "The Epstein Network" Are Exploiting Mass
Shootings To Create An Orwellian Nightmare

Sun, 09/08/2019 - 00:00

Authored by Whitney Webb via MintPressNews.com

1060 Hub airports of Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines at risk from Yemeni Drones

Hub airports of Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines at risk from Yemeni
Drones

Newsletter published on September 19, 2019

(1) Hub airports of Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines at risk from
Yemeni Drones
(2) Yemen warns of more attacks in Saudi, Abu Dhabi & Dubai unless they
stop bombing

(1) Hub airports of Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines at risk from
Yemeni Drones
- Peter Myers, September 19, 2019

The Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored for the last few years, but
suddenly it's front-page, because the world economy is at risk over it.

The drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities have become a major event in
military history, as an example of asymmetric warfare, because
relatively cheap and home-grown technology was able to defeat the best
that the USA could supply to Saudi Arabia.

If Trump or the Saudis were to attack Iran, the war would spiral out of
control; we could say goodbye to oil and gas exports from that part of
the world for years.

Trump expressed scepticism that the drones could have come from Yemen.

This morning, I took the trouble to locate a Yemeni news site - the
first I've ever visited - so as to get news from the horse's mouth
rather than second-hand.

In the video below, Yemeni armed forces General Yehya Sarea sounds quite
genuine and serious when warning of more attacks unless the Saudi
bombing stops.

He specifically mentions Abu Dhabi and Dubai as targets.

The airports in those city-states are the hubs of Etihad Airways and
Emirates airlines, two of the biggest airlines in the world, with huge
numbers of expensive planes on the ground. Emirates has the world's
biggest fleet of Airbus 380s, and large numbers of Boeing 767s and 777s.

Hundreds of thousands of passengers from around the world change planes
in Abu Dhabi and Dubai every day.

These airlines cannot afford even one drone attack in their cities.

I urge you to watch the video below, and judge for yourself if General
Yehya Sarea is genuine. I believe so.

It looks as if Yemen DOES have the drones, and the capability of
inflicting more damage.

One cannot blame it for using such means, given that its economy has
been devastated and thousands of its people killed in the Saudi bombing.

There is a simple solution: Saudi Arabia must call off its war on Yemen.
The United States and other countries must pressure it to do so, before
things deteriorate further.

(2) Yemen warns of more attacks in Saudi, Abu Dhabi & Dubai unless they
stop bombing

https://www.yemenpress.org/yemen/yemens-armed-forces-dozens-of-targets-in-uaes-abu-dhabi-and-dubai-will-be-certainly-struck-if-it-doesnt-quit-saudi-led-aggression/

Yemen’s Armed Forces: Dozens Of Targets In Uae’s Abu Dhabi And Dubai
Will Be Certainly Struck If It Doesn’t Quit Saudi-Led Aggression

September 18, 2019

Spokesman of the Yemeni armed forces general Yehya Sarea briefed the
media outlets on the details of the drone attack which targeted Saudi
oil facility of Aramco, stressing that the losses were more than those
acknowledged.

General Sarea clarified that Sammad 3, Qasef and jet drones were used in
the attack, adding that they were launched from three positions.

General Sarea highlighted the Yemeni professionalism at producing
drones, pointing out that the armed forces will never hesitate to use
them in future attacks.

In this context, General Sarea called on UAE to quit the Saudi-led
aggression on Yemen, warning that otherwise dozens of targets in the
various emirates, including Abu Dhabi and Dubai will be certainly struck.

1059 Israeli election - commentary from Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon

Israeli election - commentary from Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon

Newsletter published on September 19, 2019

(1) Israel election: Bad Guys win, but at least Netanyahu looks like losing
(2) Jewishness on show in Israel - Gilad Atzmon
(3) Economist: Netanyahu has yet to realise he is no longer the magician

(1) Israel election: Bad Guys win, but at least Netanyahu looks like losing

From: israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com>
Subject: Israeli elections, by Israel Shamir

The Israeli Elections: Who Cares?

Repercussions in Washington and Moscow, in Gaza and Damascus, but not so
much locally.

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-israeli-elections-who-cares/

Israel Shamir

SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Israelis held new snap parliamentary elections, as the previous round in
April had been inconclusive. Surprise! The new round has been also
inconclusive. The voters could not make up their mind and choose between
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, two major parties of little substantial
difference. The only noticeable distinction is personal: one party,
Likud, is lead by Mr Netanyahu; another party, B&W (Blue and White, the
colours of Israeli national flag) is dead-set against Netanyahu. Their
policy, otherwise, is identical; the leaders of B&W are ready to join
Likud-led government provided Netanyahu takes a hike. Likud has no
problem in joining with B&W if they would agree to accept Netanyahu.

Netanyahu sticks to his Prime Ministerial seat like Adonijah to the
horns of the altar (1 Kings 1:50), for the moment he lets off he would
be tried for assorted crimes of a pecuniary character and carried off to
gaol. While he is a PM, he is immune, and he intends to stay immune as
long as he can.

Netanyahu will fight to the bitter end, no holds barred, for he does not
want to go to jail. In Israeli politics, the politicians and statesmen
are imprisoned so often that it appears a normal professional hazard.
Perhaps the idea that 'no one is above the law' sounds good to you, but
it is a very troublesome concept for it makes a person in power
unwilling to relinquish the reins. The B&W leader's will for power can't
be compared with Netanyahu's desire to remain free. The Prime Minister
almost started a war with Gaza a few days ago, but his generals refused
to march it was reported
<https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-attempted-to-launch-military-operation-in-Gaza-before-election-601947>.
If he gave orders to shell Gaza before the election, what shall he shell
while facing defeat? That is why I do not expect a smooth transition of
power.

Liberal American Jews are involved: they want to break off the
Netanyahu-Trump connection and to restore the bi-partisan standing of
Israel in the US politics. Wily Trump created a schism between Zionists
and Liberal Jews. Netanyahu is a great friend of President Trump who is
a great friend of Israel. Naturally he is not a friend for Democrats in
the Congress and Senate, and he is not a friend for the US Jews,
predominantly Democrats. This is a new development; Netanyahu is not the
non-partisan figure he was when the Congress applauded to each word off
his lips. That was in Obama days; Obama loved Liberal Jews and was not
very friendly towards Israel. Netanyahu hated and despised Obama, but he
befriended Putin and Trump.

The Liberal Jews in the US and in Israel, closely connected with the
deep state, intelligence agencies, finances, and media in both countries
want to get rid of Netanyahu and install a man of their own who will
chill the Trump connection and restore the old link with the Democrats.
Hopefully he will restore the bipartisan standing of Israel. Such a man
is General Benny Gantz, a good-looking lanky man slightly similar to
late General Yitzhak Rabin. He is supported by Avigdor Lieberman, a
shrewd politician.

Probably here is the right moment to remind the reader that in this
story there are no good guys. Israeli politicians, whether pro-Trump or
pro-Democrat, are equally evil and bloodthirsty. Prime Minister
Netanyahu is complicit in uncountable murders of civilians, though the
Israeli media only accuses of some financial irregularities. Killing
Palestinians, bombing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, inciting US wars from Iran
to Afghanistan is a feather in Netanyahu's cap, according to Israeli
morals. His opponent Benny Gantz is a war criminal who is wanted for
numerous war crimes he committed in 2014 as the commander of the Israeli
assault on Gaza
<https://www.thenation.com/article/israel-elections-benny-gantz-war-crimes-gaza-holocaust/>.
He actually boasted of committing mass murder in his campaign ads.

One boasts of killing 1,364 Palestinian terrorists during the war, while
another says that under Mr Gantz's command "parts of Gaza were sent back
to the Stone Age." The videos make no mention of the 1,462 civilians
killed during the conflict, according to a UN count.

reportedThe Daily Telegraph
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/27/israeli-ex-general-benny-gantz-uses-stolen-palestinian-film/>.
Now that we have dealt with the question of moral preference between the
twain (there is none), we can proceed.

The man who undermined Mr Netanyahu is Mr Avigdor Lieberman, the head of
his own small party. Until recently, it was predominantly a "Russian"
party of elderly émigrés from the former Soviet Union. Mr Lieberman is a
hawk, or rather a chicken hawk for he never served in the army. He
demanded bombing Gaza back to the stone age, bomb the Aswan Dam,
executing Arab guerrillas; he never asked anything for his own
electorate, but they did not mind and voted for him, time and again.

Lieberman served under Netanyahu in all his governments, as a Defence
Minister or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he was considered a sure
partner in a new government. But after April elections, he rebelled and
demanded drafting observant Jews into the army. Failing that, he is out,
he said. And he was out, for Netanyahu was forced to choose: to part
with Lieberman or to part with Jewish religious parties. He didn't want
to part with his loyal and undemanding observant Jews to please the
troublesome Moldovan politician. Without Lieberman, Netanyahu could not
form a coalition, and the country went to new elections.

Since April, Lieberman upped the ante of his anti-clerical rhetoric. He
said he wouldn't sit in a government comprising Arabs or observant Jews.
He proposed forming a grand secular coalition of Likud, B&W and his own
party. I think it is a misnomer: Likud and B&W can form a coalition
without Lieberman any time they want, and the Jewish religious parties
will eagerly join it. Anti-clericalism has a very limited appeal in
Israel. You can't convincingly claim God Almighty promised you the Holy
Land, if you deny His existence and His faith. You can't vote for the
Jewish State Law declaring Israel is the Jewish state for Jews, and keep
Jewish religious parties out of government.

There are Israelis who dislike the Jewish religion. Some of them
consider themselves "Israelis", but there aren't many of that ilk. Gilad
Atzmon recently argued with a Haaretz journalist
<http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/jews-vs-israelis/> about who won the
elections, Jews or Israelis
<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-israelis-vs-the-jews-the-real-voters-who-will-decide-netanyahu-s-fate-1.7836896>.
Pfeffer suggested the majority are Israelis and Jews, not single malt.
Israelis were defeated by Jews, said Gilad. In my view, anti-clerical
Israelis are a rare brand, and not an especially wonderful one. They are
extremely short of compassion. Religious Jews have some modicum of
compassion towards other Jews; irreligious Jews have no compassion to
anybody. That's why I think Lieberman will eventually lose his bet. But
meanwhile he harvested many votes of Israelis who hate the religious Jews.

Jews and Israelis, religious and irreligious Jews are perfectly united
in their rejection of non-Jews. The third party by size, after Likud and
B&W, is the Joint List, the party Israeli Palestinians ("Arabs") vote
for. Israeli Jewish parties swore they would never sit in a government
with the goys. They prefer to have no government rather than have a
government together with Arabs. It does not matter that these "Arabs"
are citizens of Israel – the Jews are not famous for sharing anything,
especially power. Neither Likud nor B&W want to let them into a
government coalition. There is no tangible political difference between
the big parties in this aspect.

Netanyahu claimed he belongs to the Right, while his opponents are the
Left. Bollocks! The Jewish Left does not exist anymore. Once it was
strong; it was the force that created the Jewish state and the mighty
Army of Israel. It ruled for 30 years unopposed, and afterwards
intermittently, but now it is dead. There was fear that the Labour Party
wouldn't even make it to the Knesset; it made it – just. I, for one,
won't regret its demise. They had their chance to sort out the relations
with Palestinians, the most important problem of Israel, but they blew
it. The Israeli Left, like an American or French Left is concerned with
gender problems, with illegal African immigrants, with feminist issues –
their Palestinian neighbours do not interest them.

The Palestinians and their fate haven't been on the agenda in these
elections. The parties did not even bother to propose some treatment to
this terrible state, when millions of human beings are deprived of most
basic rights just because they aren't Jews. Still Palestinians with
Israeli citizenship (Jews call them 'Arabs', while Palestinians of the
West Bank call them Palestinians-[19]48) went to vote and elected 13 MK,
among them one great Jewish communist, Offer Cassif. This fraction could
break the deadlock and save Israel from itself – if a Jewish party will
break self-imposed taboo.

Trump and Putin gave some cautious support to Bibi Netanyahu. Trump had
promised to present his grand plan after the elections. He did not
object to Netanyahu using his images for the election ads. The fall of
Netanyahu will be a terrible blow to Trump, said a
<https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-trump-just-lost-his-wall-the-one-he-called-bibi-netanyahu-1.7859766>
liberal Israeli journalist, usually hostile to Trump and Netanyahu.
However, even he noted that Trump did not go far enough to help Bibi.

Putin agreed to meet Netanyahu a few days before the elections,
providing him with a good photo opportunity. Still, Putin refused to
give Netanyahu anything more tangible, like a condemnation of Iran or a
promise to observe Israeli interests in Syria. Moreover, Putin condemned
the Israeli bombing of Syria at his meeting with the Turkish and Iranian
presidents in Ankara.

On the other hand, President Putin came in person to meet the main
American supporter of Netanyahu, the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson
on September 17, the Israeli Election day, at the gathering of Keren
Hayesod, or United Israel Appeal, in Moscow. The United Israel Appeal is
the fundraising arm of the Zionist movement, one of Israel's three
national institutions (along with the government and the Jewish Agency),
raising money for the state. At its biannual sessions (like the one that
took place in Moscow) the world's foremost Jewish philanthropists, the
fattest cats get together and gift millions of dollars to the Jewish state.

President Putin had been the guest of honour at this gathering, and he
referred to his recent meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Putin
said, "Prime Minister reminisced of his grandfather the Rabbi frequently
appearing at the Keren Hayesod actions. He was an excellent orator, said
the Prime Minister, and for his eloquence he was compared with the
renowned Jewish poet Hayim N Byalik. Netanyahu cherishes the Keren
Hayesod diploma of his grandfather etc". A Kommersant (an important
Russian daily) journalist who <https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4095749>
reported on this event, felt that the Russian President went, perhaps,
too far in his lauding of the Israeli Prime Minister.

Putin and Trump hedged their bets. They expressed enough support for
Netanyahu to be seen as his benefactors if he wins, and as friends of
Israel rather than of Bibi personally, if he loses. Probably both
presidents will regret his departure, as the liberals of Israel do hate
Trump and Putin, just like their American brethren. But for Israelis and
Palestinians the change will be small.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review

(2) Jewishness on show in Israel - Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon rightly rejects the line of Alan Hart and others, that
Zionism is not Judaism; that Judaism is just a harmless apolitical
religion, and should not be judged by Zionism or by what Israeli do.
Judaism - or Jewishness - is not just an academic matter. To the
contrary, what (Jewish) Israelis do is Judaism - Gilad calls it the more
secular term 'Jewishness' - on display. He's right; but non-Jews who say
so are branded 'nazi'. - Peter M.

http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/jews-vs-israelis/

Jews vs. Israelis

Gilad Atzmon

September 16, 2019

Now would be the correct time for Ali Abunimah, JVP, & CO to form an
orderly queue to issue their deep and sincere apology to me. Since the
early 2000s my detractors within the so called Jewish 'Left' together
with their sometime stooges, have been  harassing me, my publishers and
my readers for pointing out that Zionism is an obsolete concept with
little meaning for Israel, Israelis and their politics let alone the
conflict that has been destroying the Eastern Mediterranean region

In my 2011 book The Wandering Who, I argue that "Since Israel defines
itself openly as the 'Jewish State', we should ask what the notions of
'Judaism', 'Jewishness', 'Jewish culture' and 'Jewish ideology' stand
for." Just before the publication of the book I was urged by both JVP's
leader and Ali Abunimah to drop the J-Word and focus solely on Zionism.
In Britain, a gang of so called 'anti' Zionist Jews relentlessly
terrorised my publisher and promoters. Funny, most of these
authoritarian tribals who worked 24/7 to silence me have been expelled
from the British Labour Party for alleged anti-Semitism. Now, they
promote the ideal of 'freedom of speech.'

In 'The Wandering Who' and in the years preceding its publication, I
realised that the Palestinian solidarity discourse has been suffocated
with misleading and often duplicitous terminology that was set to divert
attention from the root cause of the conflict and that acted to prevent
intelligible discussion of possible solutions.

Let's face it. Israel doesn't see itself as the Zionist State: not one
Israeli party integrated the word 'Zionism' into its name. To Israelis,
Zionism is a dated and clichéd concept that describes the ideology that
promised to erect a Jewish homeland in Palestine. For Israelis, Zionism
fulfilled its purpose in 1948, it is now an archaic term. In 'The
Wandering Who' I presented a so-far unrefuted argument that an
understanding of 'Jewishness', a term familiar to every self-identified
Jew, may provide answers to most questions related to Israel and its
politics. It may also help us to grasp the fake dissent that has
dominated the so- called Jewish 'anti' Zionist campaign for the last two
decades.

Though I was probably the first to write about the crucial shift in
Israeli society in favour of Judeo-centrism, this shift is now
mainstream news. Haaretz's lead writer, Anshel Pfeffer, just wrote a
spectacular analysis of this transformation. Pfeffer's view is that
Israelis are going to the polls this Tuesday to decide whether they are
"Jews" or "Israelis."

According to Pfeffer, in the mid 1990s it was Netanyahu's American
campaign guru, Arthur Finkelstein, who promoted "a message that could
reach secular and religious voters alike. In his polling, he had asked
voters whether they considered themselves 'more Jewish' or 'more
Israeli.' The results convinced him there was a much larger constituency
of voters, not just religious ones, who emphasized their Jewish identity
over their Israeli one."

In light of Finkelstein's observation, Likud focused its message on
Jerusalem. Its campaign slogan was: "Peres will divide Jerusalem." In
the final 48 hours before Election Day there was also "an unofficial
slogan, emblazoned on millions of posters and bumper stickers
distributed by Chabad Hasidim: "Netanyahu is good for the Jews."

In a Haaretz interview after his narrow 1996 defeat, Peres lamented that
"the Israelis lost the election." When asked then who had won, he
answered, "The Jews won."

Pfeffer points out that Netanyahu learned from Finkelstein that the
"Jew" is the primary unifier for Israelis. This certainly applies to
religious Jews but also to those who regard themselves as secular. After
all, Israel has really been the "Jewish State" for a while.

This is probably the right place to point out that Netanyahu's move of
locating Jewishness at the heart of Israel is a reversal of the original
Zionist promise. While early Zionism was a desperate attempt to divorce
the Jews from the ghetto and their tribal obsession and make them
"people like all other people," the present adherence to Jewishness and
kinship induces a return to Judeo-centric chauvinism. As odd as this may
sound, Netanyahu's transformation of Israel into a 'Jewish realm' makes
him an ardent anti Zionist probably more anti Zionist than JVP,
Mondoweiss and the BDS together.

Pfeffer points out that when Netanyahu returned to power in 2009 and
formed a right-wing/ religious coalition, was when "the Jews prevailed —
and have done so ever since in four consecutive elections, including the
last one in April 2019."

To illustrate this Pfeffer cites the 2012 Israeli High Court of Justice
decision to deny a petition by writer Yoram Kaniuk and others to allow
themselves to be registered solely as 'Israelis' as opposed to 'Jews.'

Every so often we hear from one Torah rabbi or another that "Zionism is
not Judaism." Those who have reached this point surely grasp that
'Zionism vs. Judaism' is a fake dichotomy. It serves to confuse and to
divert questioning minds from the path toward an understanding of the
conflict: In Israel Zionism is an empty concept, politically,
ideologically and spiritually. Israel defines itself as 'The Jewish
state' and orthodox rabbis are at the centre of this transition in
Israeli politics and life.

I guess that Abunimah and JVP were desperate to silence me at the time
as they foolishly believed that shooting the messenger or alternatively
burning books was the way forward for human rights activism. I stood
firm. The observations I produced in 'The Wandering Who' were endorsed
by the most profound thinkers associated with the conflict and the anti
war movement. My observations are more relevant than ever and in Israel
they have entered mainstream analysis. When it comes to Palestine
solidarity we have managed to waste a good two decades of intellectual
progress thanks to authoritarian lobbies operating in our midst. For
truth and justice to prevail, we have to learn to speak the truth as we
see it, and to accept JVP and Abumimah's apologies when they are mature
enough to come clean.

(3) Economist: Netanyahu has yet to realise he is no longer the magician

Lord Rothschild and George Soros have been trying to get Netanyahu out -
Peter M.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/09/18/israels-prime-minister-will-desperately-struggle-to-stay-in-office

Second time unlucky

Israel’s prime minister will desperately struggle to stay in office

Binyamin Netanyahu is down but not out

Sep 18th 2019

BINYAMIN NETANYAHU spent the last two hours of voting in Israel’s
general election on September 17th speaking through a camera to an
online audience, begging people to come out and vote for Likud, his
ruling party, before it was too late. "All the battles I fought as a
soldier in an elite unit, all the battles I fought against a president
of the United States [Barack Obama], all my other battles in Congress
and at the United Nations—I did it for you. And now I’m asking you for
something small. Go the polling station. It’s only a five-minute walk."

As he wheedled and begged his voice grew hoarser. He took phone-calls
from fans. Occasionally he stood up to gesture at a map of the Middle
East on the wall, pointing to the menace of Iran. At one point, he
mockingly showed puppets of his rivals. It was a bravura and sometimes
bizarre performance of an embattled prime minister, frantic for every
last vote. For the first time in over a decade he was staring at defeat.
As the results came in, they confirmed that he had failed. Likud and the
clutch of right-wing and religious parties backing him would lack a
majority in the new Knesset.

On May 30th, seven weeks after the previous election, Mr Netanyahu took
the unprecedented step of dissolving the Knesset to call for a second
election, since he was just one seat short of a majority in the
120-strong parliament. Now he is short by six.

He had thrown everything at his foes. He had accused them of treasonous
behaviour. He smeared Israel’s Arab citizens with allegations of
voter-fraud (Facebook briefly suspended a chatbot on his page after a
message accused Arabs of wanting "to destroy us all"). He promised his
right-wing base that he would annex chunks of the occupied West Bank.
And he tried to enlist other world leaders, including Donald Trump and
Vladimir Putin, to endorse him. But this time it wasn’t enough. The man
dubbed "the magician" for defying the odds to pull off improbable
election victories had run out of tricks.

About 54% of Israel’s voters, spanning the spectrum from Arab communists
to Jewish nationalists, voted for parties opposed to Mr Netanyahu. Some
are right-wingers who back many of Mr Netanyahu’s policies yet refused
to vote for Likud or any of its allies. This was a personal rebuff.

Ironically, a key constituency that helped bring him down was the Arab
one, which he had tried to deter from voting with a law, which failed to
pass, that would have let party officials film voters in
polling-stations. The turnout of Arab voters rose by around ten
percentage points. Their Joint List won three extra seats.

Mr Netanyahu has not yet had to concede. He will remain in office as a
caretaker prime minister until a new government is sworn in. That can
take up to six weeks. Benny Gantz, a former general who leads the
centrist Blue and White party, which is now narrowly the largest in the
Knesset, lacks a majority too. Mr Netanyahu’s assorted opponents do not
share enough common ground to form their own coalition government. Many
Israelis refuse to consider the Arab parties as legitimate coalition
partners, though a growing number of Arab voters want to play a bigger role.

So Israeli politics looks deadlocked all over again. But there is a
precedent for solving the conundrum. In 1984 neither Likud nor its main
rival, the Labour party, could form a ruling coalition. Instead they
agreed to a national-unity government with a "rotation" between Labour’s
leader, Shimon Peres, and Likud’s Yitzhak Shamir, with each agreeing to
serve two years of the prime minister’s term.

This just might work again. Likud and Blue and White are nearly even in
their tally of seats. Together they command a majority, which could be
strengthened by a couple of other parties joining such a coalition. Mr
Gantz is experienced in military matters, having commanded Israel’s
army, but is a political novice. He could benefit from working with Mr
Netanyahu.

But big obstacles remain. On October 2nd Mr Netanyahu faces a pre-trial
hearing before the attorney-general, which may herald criminal charges
for bribery and fraud. Mr Gantz has promised not to serve under an
indicted prime minister. Mr Netanyahu, however, hopes that by clinging
to office he will be shielded from prosecution. Had he won even a narrow
majority, he could have tried to pass a law granting immunity. That
prospect is now fading.

A third obstacle to forming a national-unity government is the former
defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, a hardliner whose party, Yisrael
Beitenu, broke last year with Mr Netanyahu’s coalition. He is now
refusing to back either candidate for prime minister without a promise
to pass a bunch of laws that would enrage the religious parties, who are
Mr Netanyahu’s closest allies. Among these is a law that would conscript
religious seminary students into the army. Another would force
ultra-Orthodox schools to teach a national curriculum or lose state
funding. And another would cancel a prohibition on shops from opening on
the Sabbath, the sacred day of rest. Once notorious for vilifying
Israeli-Arab citizens, Mr Lieberman can now be credited with bringing Mr
Netanyahu down. As well as acting as kingmaker, he wants to establish
himself as the champion of secular Israelis, who complain of the rabbis’
excessive influence in politics.

But Mr Netanyahu is not going anywhere yet. Despite losing his majority
twice this year and still facing indictments, he will try to stymie any
attempt to form a coalition without him. He has yet to realise he is no
longer the magician.

1058 Kalergi Plan - discrepancy at Wikipedia. DSA partners with Brazilian Trotskyists

Kalergi Plan - discrepancy at Wikipedia. DSA partners with Brazilian
Trotskyists

This newsletter of September 19, 2019 is at
http://mailstar.net/Kalergi-Plan-Wiki.doc

The newsletter of September 8, 2019 is appended to it at the bottom,
because several comments (items 1 to 4) relate to an article in the
earlier newsletter: Fed & IMF may switch from $ to SDR as World Currency
- William Engdahl.

(1) If the future of the USA is Greece, then the future of Australia is
Sudan
(2) Positive interest rates in USA, with negative interests in Europe,
will destroy Europe
(3)  What if the "powers that be" behind the Fed want an Elisabeth
Warren agenda - William Engdahl
(4) If cash is removed, fiat currency is digitized and all deposits are
bailed-in, only the Bankers will have any Money
(5) Kalergi Plan - discrepancy at Wikipedia
(6) Kalergi Plan Conspiracy Theory
(7) HPV vaccine a cause of sterility (yet this is not mentioned in sites
promoting HPV)
(8) Too Much Breast Cancer and Not Enough Answers - Dr David Brownstein
(9) Snowden says he broke non-disclosure agreement to reveal that
Government is violating the Constitution
(10) Teen kicked out of class for claiming there are only ‘two genders’
(11) NYT Forced To Issue Major Correction To Kavanaugh Hit-Piece
(12) Times Makes Major Correction That Undermines Its Big Brett
Kavanaugh Story
(13) New York Times sinks its Kavanaugh claim with Editor's Note stating
alleged victim 'does not recall the incident'
(14) Looking at the 9/11 False Flag After 18 Years - Greg Bacon, at
Off-Guardian
(15) DSA partners with Brazilian Trotskyists to attack Trump and Bolsonaro

(1) If the future of the USA is Greece, then the future of Australia is
Sudan

Subject: Re: The 2008 Bailout: Fed loaned $16 trillion to banks &
businesses. No Recovery for ordinary people
From: Michael Crighton <micdavid@zo.com.au>
Cc: Robert Crighton <rob.crighton@gmail.com>

 > http://michael-hudson.com/2017/06/harpers-slow-crash/
 > MICHAEL HUDSON: No, we haven’t at all recovered.
 > That’s why Hillary lost the election. ...
 > The whole economy at the end of the road is going to
 > look like Greece or Spain or Portugal or Italy. All of
 > these economies are shrinking by what’s called debt deflation.

Globalised Banks. No borders.
Bailed out by the poor. Ditto.
Not nationalised as the dominant ideology,  the ownership of government,
via the government’s, is theirs.

See Boris Trump-Morrison.

If the future of the ZSA is Greece, then the future of Australia is
somewhere way south. Sudan?

Sorry kids.

m

(2) Positive interest rates in USA, with negative interests in Europe,
will destroy Europe

From: Orwell <orwell2@orange.fr>
Subject: the Fed might be holding interest rates high as a strategy to
cause  recession

To understand what happens in the world, or is done, one has to take in
account the actions of destroyers.
The universal suffrage has created ideal opportunities for psychopaths,
among them the destroyers,
or nécrophiles*. So positive interest rates in the USA, with negative
interests in Europe can be
considered as an operation to destroy Europe. With an argument pleasing
the Americans.
Negative interests have en plus the advantage of inciting governments to
increase their debts.
ms

*one of the greatest in history is, according to Eric Fromm, in his
Anatomy of Human Destructivity,
Winston Churchill.

(3)  What if the "powers that be" behind the Fed want an Elisabeth
Warren agenda - William Engdahl

From: "William Engdahl" <engdahl@t-online.de>
Subject: AW: Fed's attempt to oust Trump may put Sanders, Warren or
Gabbard in by mistake

Peter,
I read with interest your reports since some years. I would add the
disturbing thought: what if the "powers that be" behind the Fed want an
Elisabeth Warren agenda. Next step in their New World (Dystopian) Order?
BIS-IMF-UN Agenda 2030, eugenics?
Thanks for your ongoing work,
William

(4) If cash is removed, fiat currency is digitized and all deposits are
bailed-in, only the Bankers will have any Money

From: "Bill Madden" <BMadden@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <fritza2tt@yahoo.de>
Cc: "Henry Pierson" <henry.pierson...snip...Myers Peter"
<peter@mailstar.net>
Subject: Re: A financial meltdown coming?

Fritz:

I read some of the attachment and it becomes obvious after a few quotes
from the Goldman Sachs graduates why both Pierson and Aristotle include
the factor of "store of value" when defining money.  If money were a
store of value or if any fiat currency used for convenience could be
converted to some official amount of value, the discipline would
drastically shrink the world economy.

If cash is removed, fiat currency is digitized and all deposits are
bailed-in, only the bankers will have any money and the masses will
become slaves.  SDRs are fiat unless convertible at some official rate
to something of value.  A basket of fiat currency from different
bankrupt countries is like a basket of shit from different dogs.

Thanks for sharing the information.

Bill Madden

(5) Kalergi Plan - discrepancy at Wikipedia
- by Peter Myers, September 19, 2019

Wikipedia's page on Count Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove Kalergi, founder
of the EU, is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

I first visited that page in 2017.

In 1925, Kelergi set out his ideas in a book called Practical Idealism
(Praktischer Idealismus). It envisaged mass immigration into Europe, and
the forming of a new, mixed-race European type similar to the Ancient
Egyptians.

However, the current Wikipedia page suppresses this, and instead calls
it a conspiracy theory.

It says:
{quote} Nazi criticism and propaganda against Coudenhove-Kalergi, and
his European worldview, would decades later form the basis of the racist
Kalergi plan conspiracy theory.[26]
Nazis considered the Pan-European Union to be under the control of
Freemasonry.[27]
{endquote}

But when I visited Wikipedia page on Kalergi in 2017, at the same
address (above), it contained the following quote from Kalergi's book
(which has since been removed):

{quote}
In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in
1925, he describes the future of Jews in Europe and of European racial
composition with the following words:[45]

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes
will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and
prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its
appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of
peoples with a diversity of individuals. [...]

Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will,
refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through
this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that
escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe.
Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of
nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when
Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish
emancipation.

  Coudenhove-Kalergi 1925, pp. 20, 23, 50

  Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard Nikolaus (1925). Praktischer Idealismus
[Practical Idealism] (in German). Wien-Leipzig: Pan-Europa-Verlag.
UBR069031840355. Retrieved 2014-11-07.
...

This page was last edited on 1 September 2017, at 17:55.
{endquote}

I always save the timestamp at the bottom of a Wikipedia page.

That came in handy yesterday morning (Sept 18, 2019) - when I found the
quote from Praktischer Idealismus missing.

Wikipedia lets you look at previous version of the page, under Page
History. I went there, and found the version for the date & time I had
saved,  1 September 2017, at 17:55.

Lo and behold, the missing quote was there. You too can see it at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi&oldid=798397873

So how is that this is deemed a Conspiracy theory?

(6) Kalergi Plan Conspiracy Theory - 'akin to Protocols of Zion'

Wikipedia recently added a new webpage on Kalergi, called "Kalergi Plan"
or Kalergi Conspiracy Theory. The history of the page says that it was
created at 18:46 on 7 May 2019.

Here is the latest version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_plan

Kalergi plan

The Kalergi plan (Italian: piano Kalergi), or sometimes called the
Coudenhove-Kalergi Conspiracy,[1] is a far-right,[2] anti-semitic, white
nationalist conspiracy theory,[3] which states that a plot to mix white
Europeans with other races via immigration was constructed by Austrian
politician Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi and promoted in aristocratic
European social circles.[4] The conspiracy theory is most often
associated with European groups and parties, but it has also spread to
North American politics.[5]

Origins

Austrian writer and neo-Nazi Gerd Honsik wrote about the subject in his
book Kalergi Plan (2005).[6] Investigative newspaper Linkiesta have
described the Kalergi plan as a hoax which is comparable to the
anti-semitic fabrication The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[7]

Reception

The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) denotes that the Kalergi plan
conspiracy theory is a distinctly European way of pushing the narrative
of white genocide on the continent, with white nationalists quoting
Coudenhove-Kalergi's writings out of context in order to assert that the
European Union's immigration policies were insidious plots that were
hatched decades ago in order to destroy white people.[8] Hope Not Hate,
an anti-racism advocacy group, has described it as a racist conspiracy
theory, which alleges that Coudenhove-Kalergi intended to influence
Europe's policies on immigration in order to create a "populace devoid
of identity" which would then supposedly be ruled by a Jewish elite.[9]

In his 2018 novel Middle England, author Jonathan Coe uses the Kalergi
plan to satirize the concept with his conspiracy theorist character
Peter Stopes.[10]

This page was last edited on 16 September 2019, at 06:04 (UTC).

Comment (Peter M.): Given that the current mass immigration into Europe
seems to be fulfilling the "Kalergi Plan", might this not indicate that
the Protocols of Zion is genuine after all?

(7) HPV vaccine a cause of sterility (yet this is not mentioned in sites
promoting HPV)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29889622/?fbclid=IwAR0NH_zAZPFvMODZTKyVCFcf4bSjUpbrx2CYqVttikdrmIXmr07kylTc5iE

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2018;81(14):661-674. doi:
10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640. Epub 2018 Jun 11.

A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25-29 who
received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection.

DeLong G1.

Abstract

Birth rates in the United States have recently fallen. Birth rates per
1000 females aged 25-29 fell from 118 in 2007 to 105 in 2015. One factor
may involve the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV).
Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients
experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged. This study analyzed
information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women residing in
the United States between 2007 and 2014. Approximately 60% of women who
did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas
only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived. For
married women, 75% who did not receive the shot were found to conceive,
while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. Using
logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been
pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared
with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females
who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant
than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100%
of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the
number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.
Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus
warranted.

PMID: 29889622

DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640

(8) Too Much Breast Cancer and Not Enough Answers - Dr David Brownstein
https://www.drbrownstein.com/too-much-breast-cancer-and-not-enough-answers/

Too Much Breast Cancer and Not Enough Answers

In the US, breast cancer rates are out of control. Presently, one in
seven US women suffer from breast cancer.

In 2019, an estimated 268,600 women will be diagnosed with invasive
breast cancer.

Think about those numbers: One in seven and nearly 270,000 women
diagnosed with invasive cancer—THIS YEAR!   Those numbers are
unacceptable, or at least they should be!

What are the Powers-That-Be doing to stem this tide? The answer: They
are too busy diagnosing and treating and are not properly searching for
the underlying cause of why too many US women suffer with breast cancer.

The Powers-That-Be promote routine mammograms as the answer to the
breast cancer epidemic. But, it is important to understand that
mammograms are only a diagnostic tool. Mammograms are not preventative.
In fact, they are the opposite of preventative. The radiation from
mammograms increases a woman’s risk for breast cancer with EACH
mammogram she receives. Studies have shown that mammograms result in
more diagnoses of breast cancer without a significant difference in the
overall rate of death from the disease. (1)

So, what is causing the breast cancer epidemic?

I think there are many reasons why so many US women are suffering and
dying from breast cancer. Remember, to be affecting an entire
population, the causative factors have to be widely prevalent in the
society.

Here’s what I think is going on:

We are exposed to too many synthetic hormones which can disrupt the
normal hormonal milieu. Women are prescribed synthetic hormones in birth
control pills and conventional hormonal replacement therapy which have
been conclusively shown to increase the risk for breast cancer. Needless
to say, I do not prescribe synthetic hormones for any reason nor do I
recommend my patients take them. This was one of the main reasons, 25
years ago, that I began researching and working with bioidentical,
natural hormones. More information about natural hormones can be found
in my book, The Miracle of Natural Hormones.

Iodine deficiency is one of the main reasons we are seeing so much
breast cancer. I have been writing and lecturing about iodine for almost
20 years. Iodine levels in the US have fallen over 50% during the last
40 years while at the same time breast cancer rates have risen to
epidemic levels.

For well over 50 years, iodine has been the most researched nutrient in
treating fibrocystic breast disease. Over 80% of US women have
fibrocystic breast disease which is a precursor to breast cancer.
Research dating back decades ago proved iodine replacement successfully
treats fibrocystic breast disease.

For nearly 20 years, my partners and I have been checking iodine levels.
After reviewing results from over 7,000 patients, we have found nearly
97% of those tested are low in iodine, the majority very low.

What can you do to prevent becoming a breast cancer statistic? First, do
not take synthetic hormones. Especially synthetic forms of progesterone
commonly known as progestins. Next, eat a clean diet free of hormones
and pesticides as well as exercise daily and do not smoke cigarettes.

Finally, make sure you maintain optimal iodine levels. It is best to
work with an iodine-knowledgeable health care practitioner. At my
office, the Center for Holistic Medicine, you don’t have to worry about
that. We are all knowledgeable about how to properly use iodine. In our
toxic world, it is impossible to maintain optimal iodine levels through
dietary means alone. I think supplementation is a must. My research has
shown that optimal iodine supplementation varies between 6-50 mg/day for
most people. However, those with glandular diseases such as breast
illness may require more.

More information about iodine can be found in my book, Iodine: Why You
Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It.

David Brownstein, M.D.

(9) Snowden says he broke non-disclosure agreement to reveal that
Government is violating the Constitution

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-lawsuit/u-s-wants-to-seize-all-money-edward-snowden-makes-from-new-book-idUSKBN1W223Z?il=0

WORLD NEWSSEPTEMBER 18, 2019 / 3:35 AM / UPDATED 25 MINUTES AGO

U.S. wants to seize all money Edward Snowden makes from new book

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States filed a lawsuit on Tuesday
against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor
who leaked secret documents about U.S. telephone and internet
surveillance in 2013, saying his new book violates non-disclosure
agreements.

Edward Snowden speaks via video link as he takes part in a discussion
about his book "Permanent Record" with German journalist Holger Stark in
Berlin, Germany, September 17, 2019. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch The Justice
Department said Snowden published his memoir, "Permanent Record,"
without submitting it to intelligence agencies for review, adding that
speeches given by Snowden also violated nondisclosure agreements. In
2013, Snowden wrote "Everything You Know about the Constitution is Wrong."

The United States is seeking all proceeds earned by Snowden for the
book, the Justice Department said. The lawsuit also names the "corporate
entities" behind the book’s publication as nominal defendants.

Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who
represents Snowden, said the lawsuit was without merit.

"This book contains no government secrets that have not been previously
published by respected news organizations," he said in a statement,
adding that Snowden would have submitted it for review if he thought the
government would review it in good faith.

Representatives for the book’s publisher, Macmillan Publishers, and its
unit Henry Holt & Co, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Snowden has lived in Russia since he revealed details of U.S.
intelligence agencies’ secret surveillance programs.

Though he is viewed by some as a hero, U.S. authorities want him to
stand in a criminal trial over his disclosures of classified information.

Speaking by video link at an event in Berlin to promote the book,
Snowden said that while he had signed a non-disclosure agreement to
maintain secrecy, he had also sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

"You’ve told the government you’re not going to talk to journalists.
You’ve told them you’re not going to write a book," Snowden said. "At
the same time you have an oath to defend the Constitution. And the
secret that you are asked to protect is that the government is violating
that Constitution and the rights of people around the world."

Reporting by Makini Brice; Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in
Washington and Paul Carrell in Berlin; Editing by Marguerita Choy and
Lisa Shumaker

(10) Teen kicked out of class for claiming there are only ‘two genders’
https://www.rt.com/uk/462327-student-kicked-out-two-genders/

Published time: 20 Jun, 2019 16:08 Edited time: 20 Jun, 2019 16:36

A 17-year-old Scottish student claims he was told to leave his class
after saying there are only "two genders" – a statement which earned him
a reprimand from the teacher, whose reaction he secretly recorded on camera.

The three-minute-long video shows the teacher at the Aberdeenshire
secondary school explaining that he was asked to leave the class because
his opinion on genders is "not very inclusive" and out of line with
"national school authority policy."

The student then turns that argument on the 56-year-old teacher, telling
him it’s also "not very inclusive" to prevent him from airing his own
personal views on the subject. When the teen says that claims of more
than two genders are "not scientific whatsoever," the teacher tells him
"not every policy is scientific."

As the debate heats up, the teacher tells the boy he was "clearly given
an opportunity not to pursue" his point, but did so anyway. "Could you
please keep that opinion to your own house? Not in this school," the
teacher asks.

The verbal spat continues, with the student accusing the staff member of
wasting 30 minutes of his time. The teacher then advises him to "make an
official complaint."

"I was simply saying there are two genders – male and female. Anything
else is a personal identification," the boy continues.

Media reports said the teen had been disciplined for sharing the video
online without consent, but not for its content.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Aberdeenshire Council told the
Scottish Daily Mail that the video didn’t give the full context of the
discussion. The council’s aim, he said, is to "foster good relations
between those who have protected characteristics and those who don’t"
and to support an "inclusive environment for all."

The general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association,
Seamus Searson, also supported the teacher, saying he didn’t know the
full details of the case, but that it sounded like "a youngster looking
for trouble."

(11) NYT Forced To Issue Major Correction To Kavanaugh Hit-Piece
The NYT hit-job is at
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren responded by calling for Kavanaugh's
impeachment. As a result, I can no longer support them; I support Tulsi
Gabbard instead.

the WaPo covered the Times' apology at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/16/new-york-times-apologizes-inappropriate-offensive-tweet-about-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-kavanaugh/?noredirect=on

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyt-forced-issue-major-correction-kavanaugh-hit-piece-trump-says-they-should-be-sued

NYT Forced To Issue Major Correction To Kavanaugh Hit-Piece; Trump Says
'They Should Be Sued!'

by Tyler Durden

Mon, 09/16/2019 - 10:13

The New York Times was forced to issue a major correction to an article
about alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, after the two journalists who wrote it failed to include
evidence from their own anti-Kavanaugh book which significantly NYT's
??Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly

While digging into an unsupported allegation by a woman named Deborah
Ramirez that Kavanaugh waved his penis in her face during the 1983-1984
academic year at Yale, the Times's Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claimed
to have uncovered another alleged incident in which Kavanaugh's penis
was thrust into a female student's hand.

A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a
different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the
hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization
in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but
the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it
publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have
communicated with Mr. Stier.) -New York Times

The only problem - which Pogrebin and Kelly omitted from their NYT
article, yet is contained in their new book "The Education of Brett
Kavanaugh: An Investigation."- is that the woman has no memory of the
incident.

NYT Reporters’ essay about a supposed second Yale incident omitted their
own book reporting that completely undercuts it: alleged victim denies
any memory of it. Journalistically indefensible, though gullible
additional reporters are spreading it of course. — Mollie (@MZHemingway)
September 15, 2019

After The Federalist's Mollie Hemmingway and others pointed this out,
the Times issued a major correction to what the National Review's John
McCormack called "one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in
recent memory."

An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming
book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an
assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his
penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The
book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and
friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has
been added to the article. -NYT [...]

Meanwhile, the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - who was mentioned
in the article, tweeted several items of note to address the original
claims by Ramirez:

1. Senate Judiciary staff "proactively contacted Ms. Ramirez' lawyers
soon after the New Yorker story broke."

2. "Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez' lawyers declined to
provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts
to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to
speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement"

3. Nonetheless, our investigators spoke to and reviewed material from
several Yale classmates of Ms. Ramirez and Justice Kavanaugh in order to
assess the claim. You can read the committee’s 414-page investigative
summary here: http://bit.ly/30nwLKG

4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the
claims. The @nytimes' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't
find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she
couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved:

4. The committee's review found no verifiable evidence to support the
claims. The @nytimes' own reporting at the time noted that it couldn't
find anyone with firsthand knowledge & that Ms. Ramirez told friends she
couldn’t be sure Kavanaugh was involved: https://t.co/e1B4ckSGhr
pic.twitter.com/Wj1g9dCleo — Sen. Grassley Press (@GrassleyPress)
September 15, 2019

5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the
claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its
supplemental background investigation. More on those background
investigations here:

5. Ultimately, Ms. Ramirez’ team agreed only to contact the FBI with the
claims. She was reportedly interviewed by the FBI during its
supplemental background investigation. More on those background
investigations here:https://t.co/nGQfCovkPb — Sen. Grassley Press
(@GrassleyPress) September 15, 2019

(12) Times Makes Major Correction That Undermines Its Big Brett
Kavanaugh Story

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/nyt-correction-kavanaugh-story.html

By Benjamin Hart @realaxelfoley

On Sunday, the New York Times updated its story reporting a new assault
allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, which had drawn widespread
attention, to clarify that the woman at the center of the incident does
not recall it.

A newly attached editor’s note at the bottom of the story reads: "An
earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming
book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an
assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his
penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The
book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and
friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has
been added to the article."

That clarification put already substantial right-wing backlash to the
story into overdrive, with many conservative defenders of Kavanaugh —
most prominent among them President Trump — alleging journalistic
malpractice or worse.

"The New York Times walks back report on Kavanaugh assault claim."
@foxandfriends The one who is actually being assaulted is Justice
Kavanaugh - Assaulted by lies and Fake News! This is all about the
LameStream Media working with their partner, the Dems. — Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) September 16, 2019

Just Out: "Kavanaugh accuser doesn’t recall incident." @foxandfriends DO
YOU BELIEVE WHAT THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE WILL DO OR SAY. They are looking
to destroy, and influence his opinions - but played the game badly. They
should be sued! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 16, 2019

The story, which is an adaptation from an upcoming book about Kavanaugh
and his confirmation to the Supreme Court by Times reporters Robin
Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, disclosed an incident that had not been
previously reported from Kavanaugh’s party-heavy days at Yale. It
reported that "a classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants
down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis
into the hand of a female student." The story says that Stier notified
the FBI about what he’d seen but has not spoken publicly about it. But
it did not originally mention that the unnamed woman has no recollection
of it.

The story also includes new details about Deborah Ramirez, who last year
alleged that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a party during
their time together at Yale. The Times reports that at least seven
people, including Ramirez’s mother, heard about the incident shortly
after it occurred, but that the FBI, in its seemingly perfunctory
investigation of Kavanaugh’s past conduct just before his confirmation
vote, did not talk to any of them. Instead, the agency focused on the
allegations brought forward by Christine Blasey Ford, who said that
Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothes during a
high-school party, but whose claims could not be corroborated.

In the wake of the new information, several Democratic presidential
candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, called on
Kavanaugh to be impeached.

Even before the correction appeared, the Times had been criticized for
its presentation of a major new revelation about Kavanaugh, who was
confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 50–48 Senate vote last year amid the
misconduct accusations. The article containing the new information
confusingly appeared in the "Opinion" section, rather than as a straight
news item, and seemed to be framed mostly as a story about Ramirez’s
unhappy college experience; the information about the previously unknown
accuser appears 11 paragraphs in, and the headline — "He Fit in With the
Privileged Kids. She Did Not." — does not give any hint of the explosive
content within. The "Opinion" section also ran a tone-deaf tweet
downplaying the allegations against Kavanaugh, before deleting it in the
face of blowback.

(13) New York Times sinks its Kavanaugh claim with Editor's Note stating
alleged victim 'does not recall the incident'

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-updates-kavanaugh-report-to-note-alleged-sexual-misconduct-victim-is-said-to-not-recall-the-incident

by Daniel Chaitin

| September 16, 2019 12:06 AM | Updated Sep 16, 2019, 12:44 AM

More than a day after publishing a bombshell exposé detailing a new
sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, the New York Times added a significant passage, along with an
editor's note, that undercuts the claim.

The report published Saturday evening was adapted from an upcoming book
by reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly titled The Education of Brett
Kavanaugh: An Investigation and due out Tuesday.

The Times reporters revealed the account of one of Kavanaugh's male
classmates at Yale University, Max Stier, who said he witnessed
Kavanaugh make inappropriate sexual contact with a female student in the
mid-1980s. Stier notified the FBI and senators about the incident.
Although the FBI did not investigate the claim, two officials who
communicated with Stier corroborated the story to the Times.

In the updated version of the article, the following passage was added:
"The female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does
not recall the episode."

"An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a
forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account
regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett
Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a
drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to
be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.
That information has been added to the article," read the editor's note
at the bottom of the story that was added Sunday evening.

After the report's publication Saturday, liberal activist organizations
and some 2020 Democratic candidates called for Kavanaugh to be
impeached. President Trump defended Kavanaugh in a salvo of tweets and
urged him to "start suing."

Stier's account echoes that of Deborah Ramirez, who previously accused
Kavanaugh of thrusting his penis into her face at a drunken dormitory
party, prompting her to swat it away and accidentally touch it in the
process.

As noted in the Federalist, the Times reporters also did not mention
that Stier was one of the attorneys representing President Bill Clinton
during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s while Kavanaugh was
part of Ken Starr's team leading the inquiry.

Kavanaugh faced other allegations of sexual misconduct, including that
of Christine Blasey Ford, who last year testified during Kavanaugh's
confirmation hearings that he had attempted to force himself on her at a
high school party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the
allegations put forth by Ramirez and Ford, but did not answer questions
about Steir's account.

(14) Looking at the 9/11 False Flag After 18 Years - Greg Bacon, at
Off-Guardian
Off-Guardian is a dissident platform for former readers of The Guardian,
who object to its censorship these days.

This webpage about 911 is well-worth studying thoroughly, and saving to
your computer.

https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/17/looking-at-the-9-11-false-flag-after-18-years/

Sep 17, 2019

Looking at the 9/11 False Flag After 18 Years

Greg Bacon

(15) DSA partners with Brazilian Trotskyists to attack Trump and Bolsonaro

NZ dissident Trevor Loudon is one of the few writers exposing Trotskyist
networks. However, he is a bit too 'Conservative' for my liking. For
example, he opposes Putin, and seems to support Laissez-Faire economic
policy. In contrast, I support Putin, and the mixed economy that both NZ
and Oz had in the postwar decades, prior to Thatcherism & Reaganonics. I
approved of the NZ Alliance Party led by Jim Anderton; but not Socialist
Alliance in Oz, because it was & is Trotskytist-led - Peter M.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/transnational-treason-dsa-partners-with-brazilian-trotskyists-to-build-mass-socialist-movements-attack-trump-and-bolsonaro_3075296.html

Transnational Treason: DSA Partners With Brazilian Trotskyists to Build
Mass Socialist Movements, Attack Trump and Bolsonaro

Trevor Loudon

September 16, 2019 Updated: September 16, 2019

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is working closely with
Brazilian Trotskyists from the Party of Socialism and Liberty (PSOL) to
coordinate attacks against U.S. President Donald Trump and Brazilian
President Jair Bolsonaro.

The U.S.–Brazil revolutionary alliance is conducted through
revolutionaries in both countries aligned to an international Trotskyist
revolutionary coordinating body—the Brussels-based United Secretariat
for the Fourth International.

One of the key point men in the alliance is Pedro Fuentes, an
Argentine-born revolutionary now living in the United States. Fuentes,
along with São Paulo-based "militant and leader of the Socialist Left
Movement" Bruno Magalhães (also known as Bruno Silviano), represented
PSOL at the August DSA convention in Atlanta. During his speech,
Magalhães declared, "We in Brazil are really, really excited with the
Democratic Socialist movement here in the U.S."

Also associated with PSOL are journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner David
Miranda, who is a federal congressman for Rio de Janeiro, and former
PSOL member Adélio Bispo de Oliveira, who stabbed Bolsonaro in the
stomach during a 2018 rally, almost killing him.

Pedro Fuentes Pedro Fuentes is the "nom de guerre" of Argentine
Trotskyist revolutionary Alberto Pujals. Born circa 1943, Fuentes "began
his activism [in Argentina] as a teenager, when he and his brother
joined a high-school student movement to reform the schools called
Movimiento de Acción Reformista. In the 1960s, he joined Palabro Obrera,
led by the Argentine Trotskyist revolutionary Nahuel Moreno," according
to a DSA Facebook event post. In 1971, Pedro’s older brother, Luis
Pujals, a leader of the Proletarian Revolutionary Army, died in the
"dirty war" against Argentina’s anti-communist government.

Fuentes was forced to flee Argentina, traveling across Latin America and
Europe, where he continued working with Trotskyist groups in several
countries.

Fuentes eventually settled in Brazil and, in 2000, began organizing with
Movimento Esquerda Socialista (MES), a Trotskyist tendency inside the
ruling leftist Workers’ Party. In 2003, the Workers’ Party split over
pension reform issues, and several Trotskyist factions, including MES,
subsequently founded PSOL—now Brazil’s fifth-largest political party.

Fuentes served for many years as PSOL’s secretary of international
relations and still works to build ties between PSOL and other leftist
parties. Though living in the United States, Fuentes still serves as a
leader of the PSOL’s MES faction.

Fourth International and Mass Party of the Left In the early 1990s, the
Fourth International used its national affiliates in an attempt to
rebuild the world revolutionary movement after the so-called "collapse
of communism." These efforts were modeled on the very successful
Brazilian Workers’ Party—an amalgamation of leftist Christians, Greens,
black radicals, ex pro-Soviet communists, former Maoists, and Fourth
International Trotskyists.

In my home country of New Zealand, this concept materialized in the New
Labour Party/Alliance Party, which ruled for a time in coalition with
the "old" Labour Party.

The Australian counterpart, Socialist Alliance, achieved little success,
but in Germany, the former East German communists joined up with several
Trotskyist factions to form the Party of Democratic Socialism (now Die
Linke), Germany’s third-largest party on the left. Similar coalitions
were formed with varying degrees of success in El Salvador, Mexico, Sri
Lanka, Pakistan, the Philippines, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and some
Scandinavian countries.

Many of these groups also maintained close ties to old-line communists,
including the Maoist-leaning Belgian Workers’ Party, the pro-Soviet
South African Communist Party, and of course everyone’s friend on the
left, the Cuban Communist Party.

In the United States, Trotskyists from a small "socialist feminist"
group called "Solidarity" joined with former pro-Soviet communists, DSA
activists, Maoists from the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and
ex-Maoists from the Frontline Political Organization, to form the
Committees of Correspondence (CoC) in Chicago in July 1994.

According to the September/October 1994 issue of Chicago DSA’s New
Ground publication, "Over 500 delegates and observers … attended the
founding convention of the Committees of Correspondence (CoC) held here
in Chicago in July."

New Ground reported that the speakers included Charles Nqukula, general
secretary of the South African Communist Party; Dulce Maria Pereira, a
senatorial candidate of the Workers’ Party of Brazil; Angela Davis of
CoC; Andre Brie of the Party of Democratic Socialism of Germany; and a
representative of the Cuban government.

CoC was supposed to lay the foundation for a new mass party of
socialism—one that could eventually replace the Democratic Party.
However, rampant sectarianism and lack of visionary leadership
eventually turned the project to dust. Today, the organization still
exists as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism,
but it’s down to fewer than 200 mainly elderly members nationwide—many
of whom hold dual membership in the DSA or the Communist Party USA.

While the Fourth International’s dream of an international alliance of
new mass parties of the left lived on in Brazil and Europe, it was dead
in the United States—until Bernie Sanders came along.

Rebirth of the DSA

 From the start, PSOL and the broader Trotskyist movement welcomed the
Sanders socialist movement that took the U.S. left by storm in 2015 and
2016. The DSA went to nearly 30,000 members from 6,500 in two years, and
is now approaching 60,000. This was very inspiring to many Trotskyist
revolutionaries, including Pedro Fuentes.

Writing on the Spanish language website Aporrea in August 2015, Fuentes
and his PSOL comrade Tiago Madeira urged Trotskyists to get behind the
Sanders movement:

"In our opinion, we must support Sanders. For us, the debate in the US,
with its specific characteristics, is similar to what we face in the
rest of the world. Will Trotskyists, without losing sight of our
strategy, intervene in events and real political movements—however
contradictory they are—to contend for influence. … We are talking about
building new organizations, new parties—and respecting their leaders,
even if we disagree with them."

And support Sanders they did. Solidarity, the U.S. affiliate of the
Fourth International, joined the DSA en masse to help lead the Sanders
movement.

Fuentes has worked closely with DSA members in the United States and
attended several DSA events. As mentioned, he was a PSOL delegate to
both the 2017 and 2019 DSA national conventions.

Fuentes and PSOL comrade Mariana Riscali wrote of their experience
attending DSA’s breakout 2017 national convention in Chicago on the
socialist website Left on the Move. The PSOL delegates were very welcome
and were given equal standing to large Marxist parties from Europe.

"PSOL was known by a large share of delegates. … We are proud to say it
was MES, a slate from PSOL, that has made the greatest effort to
establish this contact so that we are proud of our country being
recognized by the DSA at the same level as the Momentum from England,
Mélenchon’s Party [France], Podemos [Spain] and Bloco de Esquerda
[Portugal]," Fuentes and Riscali wrote.

The PSOL delegates look to the DSA as a breakthrough in world
socialism—the start of a new international hybrid left that might build
a mass revolutionary movement where older formations such as the CoC and
the Brazilian Workers’ Party have failed.

"Surely, this privileged relationship with DSA will allow PSOL to look
from a more internationalist point of view [at] the international
situation and the emergence of new political processes independent from
the old social democracy or false Latin American progressivism as PT
[Workers’ Party]. DSA is the best expression of the ‘new cycle.’"

In November 2018, Fuentes attended a DSA meeting in New York, where he
was photographed with two admiring members of the DSA International
Committee, Carrington Morris and Ella Mahony.

In June 2017, Mahony represented the DSA at the PSOL organized
"International Encampment of Youth in Struggle" in Rio de Janeiro. The
event was both a congress for PSOL’s youth wing and "a convocation of
international solidarity."

Solidarity and the DSA International Commission In 2018, the DSA revived
its decades-old International Committee. After splitting with the
"moderate" Socialist International in 2017, the DSA began looking for
revolutionary friends overseas. The International Committee became the
DSA’s diplomatic wing, charged with cementing ties to foreign socialist
and communist movements.

At least two Solidarity members made it onto the newly formed committee:
Boston-based David Grosser and New Yorker Dan La Botz.

Grosser is a longtime supporter of El Salvadorean revolutionary
movements, whose personal goal is to "build the internationalism
necessary to bring down the US Empire."

La Botz is a seasoned revolutionary with direct ties to the Fourth
International and to several Latin American revolutionary movements,
including PSOL.

La Botz was meeting with PSOL activists in Brazil as far back as 2014,
and also met with PSOL activists in New York in November 2016.

In April and May 2016, La Botz toured several countries in Europe and
Brazil speaking about Bernie Sanders and the U.S. elections. All of his
talks in Brazil were sponsored by either PSOL, or by Insurgencia,
another Fourth International affiliated group also active in PSOL.

In a May 2016 article on the DSA website, La Botz explained how Fourth
International Trotskyists were working with mainstream communists and
other Marxists to create broad-based political parties that could
compete electorally in Europe, Brazil, the UK, and the United States:

"In France, Spain, and Brazil, there have been and continue to be
attempts to found new broad left, radical socialist parties as an
alternative to the Social Democrats. In France we have seen both the New
Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) and the Front de Gauche, in Spain Podemos,
and in Brazil, PSOL. These efforts can be compared to those in the
English-speaking nations where Jeremy Corbyn in the British Labor Party
and Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party clearly represent a similar
popular reaction among youth and sections of the labor movement to the
conservative policies of Labor and the Democrats."

La Botz emphasized that the Fourth International had moved on from its
notoriously violent and sectarian past to a strategy of bringing about
socialist revolution through the electoral process. Forming broad-based
electoral alliances with communists and socialists was to be the new
path to the revolution:

"The New Anti-Capitalist Party came out of a merger of former members of
the French Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) with
environmentalists and other social activists. Anticapitalistas was
formed by people out of the Spanish Revolutionary Communist League
(LCR), also Trotskyist. Ensemble in France, which participates in the
Front de Gauche, has members who come from the Socialist and Communist
Party, as well as from NPA and the Trotskyist left. Similarly,
solidaritéS Suisse [Switzerland], though it has Trotskyist roots, has
also incorporated those from other traditions.

"These groups, if they were Trotskyist in origin, have by and large
turned away from many of the characteristics once associated with
Trotskyist organizations. At one time many of these groups held a
dogmatic view of socialist ideology based almost exclusively on a very
particular and narrow reading of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. …

"They worked to organize ‘vanguard parties’ based on a supposedly
‘democratic centralist’ model and often attempted to take control of and
to dictate to labor unions and popular movements. … The Fourth
International … has developed a more broad-minded view of revolutionary
socialism, and so have most (but not all) of its affiliated organizations."

Hating on Trump and Bolsonaro

According to an article by DSA comrade Ben Dalton:

"The official topic at the first Brooklyn Jacobin [DSA-aligned magazine]
reading group held after the [2016] election was socialist politics in
Brazil, but the conversation kept returning to Trump.

"’I think you should be in the first line against Trump,’ said Pedro
Fuentes, a visiting speaker and official in Brazil’s Socialism and
Liberty Party (PSOL). Around the room heads nodded. ‘Anti-Trump. This is
the first task you have.’"

If PSOL and the DSA are united in their goal of building mass
revolutionary parties in their home countries, they’re even more unified
in the hatred of their respective presidents, Trump and his friend
Bolsonaro.

In the United States, the DSA’s approximately 60,000 members are active
in the anti-Trump movement in all 50 states. DSA comrades and their
captive unions, non-profits, student unions, and even churches have
organized thousands of anti-Trump rallies and meetings across the
country. DSA comrades played a major role in taking back the House of
Representatives for the Democrats in 2018.

Currently, the DSA is working with two pro-China organizations—Communist
Party USA and Liberation Road (formerly Freedom Road Socialist
Organization)—in the Left Inside/Outside Project to flip North Carolina,
Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and even Texas to the Democratic column in
2020. If they succeed, Trump will be a one-term president, and the
United States will almost certainly be lost. All the remaining free
countries will then fall like dominoes.

PSOL has played a major role in almost every anti-Bolsonaro rally held
before or since Brazil’s 2018 election. Their American DSA allies have
tried to poison the waters for Bolsonaro in the United States as well.

At a meeting on May 26, the Collin County DSA (North Texas) Skyped in
"three comrades from Brazil who are members of the PSOL … to talk with
us about their organizing efforts against the current proto-fascist
president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. Thanks to Mr. Pedro Fuentes of the
PSOL, Ms. Alice Domingues, a student organizer, and Mr. Bruno Silviano,
an organizer with the teacher’s union."

"One of the most important things we learned from our comrades in Brazil
was that opposition to Bolsonaro is huge in Brazil right now. At the
most recent demonstrations against Bolsonaro before our conversation
(which happened around the same time as DSA NTX and other area
socialists, communists, anarchists, LGBTQ people, labor, and
antifascists were protesting against Jair Bolsonaro’s visit to Dallas …)

"We asked our comrades in Brazil what we in the U.S. can do to help —
the big ask right now was to boost awareness in the U.S. of the huge
protests against Bolsonaro and show our solidarity. …

"Solidarity with the working class and oppressed of Brazil against fascism!"

The Trump–Bolsonaro Alliance Must Continue Brazil was specifically
mentioned in DSA’s Resolution #4, titled "Building the DSA International
Committee," passed during the convention, where the comrades resolved in
part to "prioritize establishing relations with socialist and
working-class organizations in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Canada, Brazil, the
Caribbean, and Latin America broadly." The resolution claimed that "an
effective and orderly International Committee is necessary for DSA to
transition into an internationalist organization."

The DSA and their PSOL comrades are fully committed to destroying the
Trump–Bolsonaro alliance. From the revolutionary’s point of view,
presidents Trump and Bolsonaro are huge impediments to world socialism.

They understand that this auspicious pairing could do more to counter
world communism than anything we have seen since the Ronald
Reagan–Margaret Thatcher–Pope John Paul partnership of the 1980s.

If Trump can turn around the United States and Bolsonaro can save
Brazil, the positive consequences will be felt across the entire Western
Hemisphere. And it will not end there.

If Trump and Bolsonaro destroy the Marxist movements in their respective
countries, the world communist movement could be set back decades. This
would be a fantastic boon for world freedom.

Trump and Bolsonaro should immediately direct their intelligence
services to investigate the DSA and PSOL’s transnational interactions
and their network of international allies. The DSA–PSOL–Fourth
International alliance needs to be countered and dismantled. It poses a
more urgent threat to our freedoms than does ISIS or al-Qaeda.

This alliance is nothing short of transnational treason. We need
widespread media exposure, international governmental cooperation, and
firm legal action to put an end to this threat. ==

newsletter of September 8, 2019

Fed's attempt to oust Trump may put Sanders, Warren or Gabbard in by mistake

(1) Fed's attempt to oust Trump may put Sanders, Warren or Gabbard in by
mistake
(2) Fed & IMF may switch from $ to SDR as World Currency - William Engdahl
(3) Fed Banker says Fed should help defeat Trump in 2020 by keeping
interest rates high
(4) Most U.S. Companies Plan to Stay in China and Ride Out Trade Unrest

(1) Fed's attempt to oust Trump may put Sanders, Warren or Gabbard in by
mistake
- Peter Myers, September 8, 2019

Several months ago, F. William Engdahl postulated that the Fed might be
holding interest rates high as a strategy to cause recession, which
would be blamed on Trump, making his re-election unlikely.

He expressed such thoughts in his article  Did the Fed Already Decide
the 2020 US Election? http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO30June2019.php

Item 2 is his latest update on that topic.

I think he's right, that the Fed is trying to get rid of Trump, by
inducing a recession that he will be blamed for.

But the consequences might be different from what they envisage.

It could be that voters, sick of the whole rotten pack of cards, will
turn to Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard, in the belief that
only such candidates will bring real change.

Sanders has much in common with Trump. They are both outsiders, somewhat
isolationist (although Trump submitted to the Deep State when he
appointed Bolton).

At this stage, the above three 'Left' candidates look unlikely to win.

But the recession has yet to bite. When it does, voters might be more
appreciative of  their socialist (but non-Communist) ideas. They are Old
Left rather than New Left. They look to the North European kind of
Socialism.

Wall Street will oppose them as much as they oppose Trump.

If the Democratic Establishment (DNC) cheats these candidates as they
did Sanders in 2016, I hope that they consider running as Independents.

(2) Fed & IMF may switch from $ to SDR as World Currency - William Engdahl

http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO1Sept2019.php

Is the Fed Preparing to Topple US Dollar?

By F. William Engdahl

1 September 2019

Unusual remarks and actions by the outgoing head of the Bank of England
and other central banking insiders strongly suggest that there is a very
ugly scenario in the works to end the role of the US dollar as world
reserve currency. In the process, this would involve that the Fed
deliberately triggers a dramatic economic depression. If this scenario
is actually deployed in coming months, Donald Trump will go down in
history books as the second Hebert Hoover, and the world economy will be
pushed into the worst collapse since the 1930s. Here are some elements
worth considering.

Bank of England speech

The about-to-retire head of the very special Bank of England, Mark
Carney, delivered a remarkable speech at the recent annual meeting of
central bankers and finance elites at Jackson Hole Wyoming on August 23.
The 23-page address to fellow central bankers and financial insiders is
clearly a major signal of where the Powers That Be who run world central
banks plan to take the world.

Carney addresses obvious flaws with the post-1944 dollar reserve system,
noting that, "…a destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS
(International Monetary and Financial System) is growing. While the
world economy is being reordered, the US dollar remains as important as
when Bretton Woods collapsed." He states bluntly, "…In the longer term,
we need to change the game…Risks are building, and they are structural."
What he then goes on to outline is a remarkably detailed blueprint for
global central bank transformation of the dollar order, a revolutionary
shift.

Carney discusses the fact that China as the world leading trading nation
is the obvious candidate to replace the dollar as leading reserve,
however, he notes, "…for the Renminbi to become a truly global currency,
much more is required. Moreover, history teaches that the transition to
a new global reserve currency may not proceed smoothly." He indicates
that means it often needs wars or depressions, as he cites the role of
World War I forcing out sterling in favor of the US dollar. What Carney
finds more immediate is a new IMF-based monetary system to replace the
dominant role of the dollar. Carney declares, "While the rise of the
Renminbi may over time provide a second best solution to the current
problems with the IMFS, first best would be to build a multipolar
system. The main advantage of a multipolar IMFS is diversification… " He
adds, "… When change comes, it shouldn’t be to swap one currency hegemon
for another. Any unipolar system is unsuited to a multi-polar world… In
other words he says, "Sorry, Beijing, you must wait."

The Bank of England Governor proposes in effect that the IMF, with its
multi-currency Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a basket of five
currencies—dollar, Pound, Yen, Euro and now Renminbi—should play the
central role creating a new monetary system: "The IMF should play a
central role in informing both domestic and cross border policies. …
Pooling resources at the IMF, and thereby distributing the costs across
all 189 member countries…" For that to work he proposes raising the IMF
SDR funds triple to $3 trillions as the core of a new monetary system.

Then Carney proposes that the IMF oversee creation of a new payments
infrastructure based on an international "stablecoin." Referring to the
private Libra, he clearly states a "new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency
(SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a
network of central bank digital currencies." Note that Carney, a former
Goldman Sachs banker, is mentioned as a leading candidate to replace
Christine Lagarde as IMF head. Is his speech open admission of what is
being planned by the world’s leading central bankers as the next step to
a world currency and global economic control? Let’s look further.

Lagarde to ECB

The Carney speech, when deciphered from its central bank language, gives
us for the first time a clear roadmap where the powers that control
world central banking would like to take us. The world reserve role of
the US dollar must end; it must be replaced by some form of IMF SDRs as
basis for a multi-currency reserve. That in turn would ultimately be
based on digital money, so-called block chain currencies. Such
currencies, make no mistake, would be completely controlled by central
bank authorities and the IMF. That would require their often-proposed
elimination of all cash in favor of digital money where every cent we
spend can be monitored by the state. This cashless society would also
set the stage for the next great financial crisis and the confiscation
by governments of ordinary citizens’ bank deposits under new "bank
bail-in" laws now on the books since 2014 in every major industrial
country including the EU and USA.

The IMF is fully behind the turn to global blockchain digital currencies
and use of SDR to replace the dominant US dollar. In a little-noticed
speech in November 14, 2018, IMF chief Lagarde strongly indicated that
the IMF was behind central bank digital currencies as well as cashless
societies. She noted very carefully, "I believe we should consider the
possibility to issue digital currency. There may be a role for the state
to supply money to the digital economy." She added, "A new wind is
blowing, that of digitalization…What role will remain for cash in this
digital world? … demand for cash is decreasing—as shown in recent IMF
work. And in ten, twenty, thirty years, who will still be exchanging
pieces of paper?"

Dudley Remarks

The introduction of this central bankers’ new digital currency world
will require, as Carney suggests, dramatic upheavals of the status quo,
upheavals that would lead to the end of the dominant role of the US
dollar since the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. As that dollar reserve
currency role is a pillar of American power in the world, for that to
happen would require nothing short of catastrophe. Is this in fact what
the Federal Reserve is quietly planning with its money policies?

A remarkable hint of what might be in the works came in an OpEd by the
person who until 2018 was the very important President of the New York
Federal Reserve Bank, Bill Dudley, who like Mark Carney is a senior
Goldman Sachs alumnus. Dudley is no minor actor in the central bankers’
world. Until last year he also was a member of the Bank for
International Settlements Board of Directors and chaired the BIS
Committee on Payment Settlement Systems and the Committee on the Global
Financial System.

Dudley, pointing to the Trump trade war policies and economic dangers of
same, then issues the following rare undiplomatic declaration: "Trump’s
re-election arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy,
to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and
inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the
best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how
their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020." While it
shocked many, Dudley is merely making public what the Fed has done since
its creation in 1913 — influence the course of world and US politics
stealthily behind the cover of "neutral" monetary policies. Dudley
suggests not "Russian interference" but rather Fed interference.

The Fed could easily tip the US into crisis. The debt levels of the US
economy are at record high levels for private households, Federal
government, and US corporate debt. Most US corporations have used
growing debt, well over $9 trillion, to make stock buybacks rather than
invest in new plant and equipment, fueling an unprecedented bubble in
the S&P stocks. The rising stocks are not a sign of economic health but
of a dangerous speculative bubble vulnerable to collapse.

Were the Fed now to resume rate rises and continue its less-publicized
Quantitative Tightening into 2020, a domino-style series of debt
defaults, corporate bankruptcies, home mortgage foreclosures, default on
car loans and student loans could quickly make a second Trump Presidency
in 2020 more than doubtful. However that would be no grounds for the
rest of the world opposed to Trump policies to cheer. It would also
trigger collapse in major emerging market countries who have borrowed
hundreds of billions denominated in US dollars, including Chinese state
companies, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil to name a few. EU banks from Italy
to Germany to France would fail.

If this Dudley scenario comes to pass in 2020 or not, only the key
central bank actors know for sure. It is clear that, after almost eleven
years since the 2008 global financial meltdown, the unprecedented
central bank zero interest rate policies in the EU and until recently
the US, have fueled creation of what some call an "everything bubble",
not only in stocks, in corporate and public bonds, in home prices. Is a
new Fed intervention to raise rates and tighten credit the event– the
deliberate central bank rupturing of this inflated bubble using the
excuse of the Trump danger to the world economy– that Carney has in mind
when he says, "transition to a new global reserve currency may not
proceed smoothly,"? Let us hope not. The coming months will tell.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a
degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling
author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New
Eastern Outlook"

(3) Fed Banker says Fed should help defeat Trump in 2020 by keeping
interest rates high

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/us-fed-should-help-defeat-trump-in-2020-former-official-says/news-story/2665479c4df0680c022b76ed3b7ac321

Fed should help defeat Trump in 2020

A former top US central banker has sparked a firestorm with an opinion
piece calling on the Federal Reserve to do something truly outrageous.

AFP AUGUST 28, 2019 8:38AM

A former top US central banker leapt into the political fray on Tuesday,
calling on the Federal Reserve to oppose President Donald Trump’s
re-election effort next year.

Bill Dudley, the influential former president of the New York Federal
Reserve Bank, also said the Fed should not "enable" Trump’s escalating
trade war with China by lowering interest rates.

The stunning arguments in a Bloomberg opinion column flew in the face of
efforts of current Fed officials to remain strictly neutral, above the
political fray, despite Trump’s intense year-long campaign to demand
easier monetary policy.

But Dudley said the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections was
arguably "within the Fed’s purview" because a second Trump term
represented a threat to the global economy as well as the Fed’s
political independence and policy mandates.

"If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term
economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions
will affect the political outcome in 2020," he wrote. ...

(4) Most U.S. Companies Plan to Stay in China and Ride Out Trade Unrest

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-29/most-u-s-companies-plan-to-stay-in-china-ride-out-trade-unrest

By Jenny Leonard

August 30, 2019, 1:31 AM GMT+10

When President Donald Trump ordered American companies last week to
break off ties with China, he gave a directive that conflicts with the
plans of a vast majority of large U.S. firms doing business there.

That’s according to a new survey of U.S.-China Business Council members.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they neither have moved nor
plan to shift operations out of China, compared with 90% in a 2018
survey. Only 3% said their China operations were unprofitable, unchanged
from a year ago. ...