TRUMP’S VICTORY: A DEFEAT FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States by the American people, contrary to the majority of polls predicting a victory for Hillary Clinton, the establishment candidate.

This victory, which was only a surprise for the mainstream media system and for those who still give it credence, is a terrific lesson in hope given by the American people to all those who fight against globalism and world domination by the predatory class.

For the first time in modern history, a candidate condemning media manipulation and the system of corruption put in place by the globalist elite, has managed to prevail within a political system which had been created precisely in order to prevent such an event from ever happening.

This victory not only marks the ideological defeat of globalism but also that of its media system, whose mission is to impose a parallel universe in which any rational choice against the interests of the predatory class is impossible. The truck loads of polls commissioned by pro-Clinton TV channels (CNN, CNBC and ABC), aiming to convince the American people of the inevitable victory of their chosen candidate, were proven wrong, as was the case with Brexit.

Broadly speaking, the entire parallel universe constructed by the main-stream media has been shattered. Trump’s victory thus marks the fact that the American people have woken up to several facts: the collusion between the media and politicians; the system of corruption established by the international elite; the influence of George Soros and the Wahhabi principalities on the American political system; and, more generally, the fact that there is a caste of worldwide predators which actively works to maintain and consolidate its privileges contrary to the interests of people and nations, and does so via a vast system of corruption and collusion, of which the media machine forms an essential component.

Trump’s victory proves that the majority of American voters support anti-globalist views which hitherto could only be found in the independent press and media, dismissed as being pro “conspiracy theory”, and signals the defeat of a system of media approval: it marks the victory of Infowars against CNN and the New York Times.

In this sense, this victory gives great hope to all those in Europe and elsewhere who struggle to inform people honestly. It also represents real hope for all those independent journalists, constantly attacked and criticised, who condemn: political and geopolitical fraud; the false fight against terrorism; neo-colonial invasions in Ukraine, Libya and Syria; and the collusion between the political system and the mainstream media.

Donald Trump’s election is the sign that the American people have chosen to wake up and see the truth, despite the fiction fabricated and promulgated by the mainstream media. It shows that they have chosen to regain control of their destiny at a national level by recovering its political and economic sovereignty.

It remains to be seen, however, if Donald Trump has the political means to keep the promises he made during his campaign and to put an end to globalisation and the corruption of the establishment system. His programme is seen as a declaration of war by the predatory caste, because it directly and openly attacks their interests. He himself defines his programme as being a real revolution.

Even if Donald Trump benefited from the support of some members of the “Deep State” and the intelligence services during his campaign against Hillary Clinton, nothing indicates that he is capable of defeating a system of collusion which has infiltrated all departments, the whole of the media system and which represents the interests of the majority of multinational companies. The hardest battle, then, has yet to come…


Article Translated from French

The original author was Guillaume Borel, political anlayst and author.

Source:  http://arretsurinfo.ch/le-formidable-espoir-ne-des-elections-americaines/

I

Obama rescues ISIS

The US president will soon take his leave but, before joining the 100 000 dollar a speech conference circuit, he will have committed another heinous crime in Syria. On the 17th September, his air-force killed some 80 soldiers belonging to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. Far from being accidental, this attack was carried out at the very moment when the Syrian national army was being attacked by ISIS.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

The Pentagon declared that it was an error. But who can believe such a lie? Besides, this official version was modified by the American UN ambassador. She admitted to the Security Council that the US was behind this attack, but she minimised its importance by comparing this “unintentional” error with the “deliberate attacks” carried out by Damascus against civilians. What a bizarre explanation!

The theory of an accident doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You just have to look at the facts to realise this.

First of all, we have the modus operandi of the attack. According to witnesses, the attack lasted 45 minutes, and successive bombardments were carried out by several fighter jets.  Therefore it cannot be the act of a stray pilot who had misunderstood orders.

Secondly, consider the location of the attack. The position targeted was Jebel Tudar, 4km to the south of the town’s airport. This is a strategic high-point for the defence of the entire zone, where 100 000 civilians are surrounded by ISIS. It’s a fixed position, which has been visibly occupied by the Syrian army for months.

Thirdly, there is the triumphant press release made by ISIS. Indeed, the ISIS propaganda agency “Amaq” confirmed that the jihadist group had taken control of the hill where the supposed “anti-terrorist” coalition had carried out the attack. This superb coordination between the US and their unofficial mercenaries is worth highlighting.

Finally, it is highly unlikely that the US air-force would support the Syrian army. If it were a blunder, this would be the only possible explanation, but it is absurd. NATO forces have never lent air support to the Syrian army. Why would they? This is the question that the Russian ambassador recently asked at the UN. The answer is obvious: the aim was not to help the Syrian army but to help ISIS.

Indeed, attacking the Syrian army for ISIS allows the US to achieve three objectives. By relieving the Aleppo front, this new front in the far east of the country crushes the dream of of recapturing national territory. It weakens the Syrian state. But it also sends a clear message to the Takfiri extremists, who were in a bad position ever since the neighbourhoods in the south of Alep were recaptured. Furthermore, it strengthens Washington’s regional allies in the implementation of the deadly “constructive chaos” policy, at a time when the end of Obama’s term in office could lead to fears of a softening in the Washington line.

We knew that American cynicism was limitless. But they have just a made a quantum leap. This is the first time that the US has directly attacked the Syrian army. This new infringement is a test case, and it cannot be too long before the Moscow-Damascus axis retaliates. This support for the terrorist group shows that the neo-cons do not intend to let go of the Middle East. The fact that this attack coincides with the American donation of 38 billion dollars of military aid to Israel is revealing. Contrary to what one sometimes reads, Washington is not withdrawing from the region. It will continue to spread chaos in the region by arming all sorts of assassins.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Bruno Guigue, a political analyst and author, whose works include Les raisons de l’esclavage (L’Harmattan, 2001) et Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident, (L’Harmattan, 2002).

Source : Agoravox

http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/obama-au-secours-de-daech-184756


See also: Are we honestly fighting against ISIS? https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/

Brexit victorious. And now what?

The victory for the supporters of Brexit, which was notably backed by the mutli-millionaire Paul Sykes, marks an important step in the distribution and adjustment of political and financial power within the framework of the forthcoming transatlantic market. The UK was already benefitting from a disguised Brexit – it had special rights within the EU – and is now merely making its separation from the EU official.

In theory, the final structure of the project will be as follows. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, signed on the 4 February 2014, will bring Pacific Rim countries (with the exception of China) into the American trading block. Meanwhile, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) *, currently under negotiation, will enter into force, with the UK acting as a bridge between the Old and the New World, which is exactly what Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi + was already calling for in 1950 with his idea of the ‘Paneuropean Union’.

Within this framework, the US will play a role similar to that of a multiple plug socket, connecting the Pacific Rim with Europe. As it seeks to impose Anglo-Saxon standards, this trading block will be primus inter pares to the detriment of the BRICS countries, especially Russia and China.

This policy can only succeed through coercion and will unleash the most frenzied form of consumerism. It will mean that law courts take priority over nation-states. Those living in this immense free-trade zone will merely serve as instruments for the predatory elite who will form the future world government.

Woe betide those who are not adapted to the smooth functioning of the globalist Moloch for they will be considered to be just “useless mouths to feed”.

This purely utilitarian vision will mean that money will govern everything or, to use one of Jacques Attali’s favourite phrases, money will act “like a superior method of organising human relations allowing the peaceful resolution of all conflicts, even religious ones”.

The origin of this ideal can be traced back to Anacharsis Cloots (1755-1794) who, in one of his works published in 1792, made it clear that the French Revolution of 1789 was a merely a step towards “the universal republic”. Ahead of his time, this nomadic soul advocated international free-trade within a unified world (“the single nation”), governed by “the universal application of the rights of man”. He foresaw a single, overarching policy for the whole world. We can see that this project is being finalised today with the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), which aims for a universal religion (Noahidism).

But Brexit could be subject to several disruptions owing to the collapse of the American economy (the so-called ‘debt bomb’) and, let’s not forget, the 200 trillion dollars worth of world debt.

The world’s leaders (Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande…) are mere employees, not especially talented and liable to contradict themselves. The true leaders are hidden in the deep state**. They form different factions, who, though they disagree on the means, all agree on the final goal. They can sometimes be led to change the way in which they establish a world government.

The Economist predicts a single world currency (the ‘Phoenix’) for 2018. The New York Times reveals that the US could be divided into seven mega-states within the framework of the North American Union, in liaison with other continental blocks (the Eurasian block, Union of South American Nations…). These are all different possible combinations which could lead to world government, while taking advantage of EU financial and political crises (further referendums, resurgence of regional independence movements) triggered by Brexit.

The famous principal of ordo ab chao, extremely useful for moving up to the next level of a grand project, could come to reveal its true meaning.


+ See also Pierre Hillard, Trilateral Commission: Working Towards World Government https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/trilateral-commission-working-towards-world-government/

* See also Adrien Abuzit, Transatlantic Market – When Conspiracy Theory becomes Reality, https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/transatlantic-market-when-conspiracy-theory-becomes-reality/

** Wikispooks defines the deep state as follows: a state within a state, shadow government, or permanent government is a network of individuals and groups which are in actual charge of a national government. Many “democratically elected” governments work as fronts, providing a level of plausible deniability and allowing the deep state to operate in secret. On matters of deep political importance, the public machinery of government is routinely subverted by agents of the deep state.

See https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_state


Translated from French

The original author was Pierre Hillard

Source: Boulevard Voltaire

http://www.bvoltaire.fr/pierrehillard/le-brexit-victorieux-et-maintenant,264389

Washington asks Moscow not to attack Al-Qaida

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, revealed on 4 June 2016 that the United States had asked Russia to not attack Al-Qaida in Syria.

In the Idleb region, armed groups described by Washington as being “moderate rebels” have become involved with Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaida. The cease fire agreement, which came into force on 27 February, planned that armed groups supported by the US would disassociate themselves from armed groups, classified as terrorist groups by the UN.

Officially, Al-Qaida had planned and carried out the 11 September terrorist attacks which killed 2 977 people. The US went to war against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds that they had supported Al-Qaida (even though Washington has since admitted that Iraq was in fact not involved).

In recent years, Al-Qaida has financed the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP), helped NATO to overthrow the Gaddafi regime (Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), and did “good work” in Syria, to quote Laurent Fabius, the former French foreign minister.

Since the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s book, 9/11: The Big Lie, most NATO member states regard any attempt to contest Al Qaida’s responsibility for the attacks as being “conspiracy theory”.

Translated from French

Source: Réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192145.html

The Secret US-Saudi Axis

The New York Times* article on the links between the CIA and Saudi intelligence doesn’t reveal anything new. It is, however, the first time that this information has appeared in a major American newspaper, and the article’s publication comes at a time when the pro-Atlanticist press is publishing an ever increasing number of articles on Saudi crimes. It’s as if the United States is threatening to cut its ties with Saudi Arabia. As Manilo Dinucci highlights, the New York Times covers the current US-Saudi collaboration in the fight against Syrian government, but does not mention military cooperation in Yemen.

Code name “Timber Sycamore”: this is the name of the operation to arm and train Syrian “rebels”, a mission secretly authorised by President Obama in 2013. This is what is revealed by an investigation, published on Sunday by the New York Times.

When the president gave this secret mission to the CIA, “it already knew that it had a partner who was prepared to finance it: Saudi Arabia”. Along with Qatar, “it provided several millions of dollars, while the CIA directed the training of the rebels”. The supply of arms to the “rebels” (including radical groups such as Al Qaida) had begun in 2012 when, via a network set up by the CIA, Saudi agents had bought thousands of Ak-47s in Croatia together with millions of bullets and the Qataris had smuggled over the Turkish border into Syria Chinese Fn-6 shoulder-fired missiles, bought on the international market.

As the supply of weapons was not properly organised, the CIA director, David Petraeus, summoned the allies to Jordan and imposed a tighter system of control on the whole operation. A few months later, in the spring of 2013, Obama authorised the CIA to both train the “rebels” in Jordan and in Qatar and to supply them with arms, including TOW anti-tank missiles. Again, using the billions of the “greatest contributor”, Saudi Arabia. This is standard procedure for this type of operation.

In the 70s and 80s, Saudi Arabia helped the CIA with a series of secret operations. In Angola the CIA, using Saudi funds, supported the rebel forces against the government, an ally of the Soviet Union. In Afghanistan, “the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar via a CIA Swiss Bank Account”.

When the Reagan government launched a secret plan to support the Contras in Nicaragua, the Saudis, via a bank in the Cayman Islands, gave 32 million dollars to support the operation. It was through these secret operations and others like this, including the current one in Syria, that the long relationship between the CIA and Saudi intelligence was forged.

Despite the resumption of diplomatic relations with Iran, a development which did not please Riyad, “the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest”. This explains why the US has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting. It also explains why “The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia’s beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged the royal family.”

Added to this, and this is something the New York Times does not mention, is the fact the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, on his visit to Riyad on 23 January, had reaffirmed that in Yemen, where the Houthi insurgency threatens Saudi Arabia, “the US stands with our friends in Saudi Arabia”. Friends who, for almost a year now, have been massacring civilians in Yemen, by bombing even hospitals. The US helps them by providing them with intelligence (that is to say, they indicate which targets to strike), weapons (including cluster bombs) and logistical support (which includes aerial refuelling of Saudi bombers). Last November, these same friends held a meeting in Riyad with the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, who promised to support their military efforts and supply them with weapons “in the fight against terrorism”

*U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels”, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzojan, The New York Times, January 23, 2016.

 

Article Translated from French

The original author was Manlio Dinucci, a geopolitical analyst and geographer. His latest publications include: Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Geocommunity (en trois tomes) Ed. Zanichelli 2013 ; Escalation. Anatomia della guerra infinita, Ed. DeriveApprodi 2005.

Source: Réseau Voltaire

www.voltairenet.org/article190080.html

 

 

“20 Good Reasons to be Anti-American”, by Martin Peltier

Book : Martin Peltier, 20 bonnes raisons d’être anti-américain (20 Good Reasons to be Anti-American), éditions Die, June 2015, 210 pages.

Some might object that this is just knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Besides the fact that this description would not bother the author in the slightest, his chapters are in fact packed with specific examples (for instance, on the impact of the Blum-Byrnes agreements on French cinema) and the chapter on the “Control of Images” (a key priority for the US, because this ensures that emotion triumphs over reason) as well as the chapter entitled “The American: from Imperial Communication to the Confusion of Thought” are highly informative.

Equally convincing, because they are all supported by facts from history and current events, are the chapters “America Spies on us and Misinforms the World” (a chapter which examines the fact the Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons’ arsenal did not exist as well as the recent massacre in Ferguson, a master-stroke of Obamian propaganda, deconstructed with precision in this chapter); “The NGOs – Agents of American Globalism”; and “The Judges, the New Kings of the World”, a chapter that owes a great deal to Eric Delcroix’s masterpiece, “Le Théâtre de Satan” (Satan’s Theatre), which shows the pollution and subversion of Roman and Germanic law by American legalism based on morality, a morality which is selective, biased and circumstantial, even though the First Amendment gives the illusion of complete freedom of expression.

This brings us to the chapter entitled “Against American Morality” and the education policy produced by the American way of thinking: this “education of separation”, currently favoured by our system, aims to “divide the different generations from one another” in order to prevent the natural transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next. The result of this form of education is that “a 60 year-old man is inevitably despised by the Balilla of the anti-racist movements (the “Vallaud Belkacem Youth”) if, despite the onslaught by the mass-media, he has managed to preserve his way of thinking that was given to him by his parents”.  According to the author, this explains the current crisis in the Front National  because “despite being wary, the Marine Le Pen generation is not untainted” by this contamination.

Martin Peltier, who dedicates his book to Marcel Aymé (an allusion to his book “Travelingue”) is not the first author to show the damage of the American way of life and, especially, the American way of thinking. Both the Hungarian Thomas Molnar (professor at the University of Colombia in New York) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his famous Harvard Commencement Address have higlighted the dangers of an alignment with the US. This has been condemned more recently by the academic and former Croatian diplomat, Tomislav Sunic, in his book Homo Americanus, a species which exists in infinite varieties from Bangok to Warsaw and which the author describes as being “the child of the postmodern age”.

Martin Peltier’s achievement is to describe the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon and to make a comprehensive assessment of the damage inflicted on our countries and on our relations with “the destitute of the world” (see chapter 8 “America Teaches Us How to Live Together” … by beating us with the big stick marked “feel guilty”, a technique which has proven successful in Germany).

Some will criticise him for his treatment of a highly controversial issue, the subservience of America to Jewish messianism, thus following the footsteps of the ill-fated Pierre-Antoine Cousteau and his book “Jewish America”. Does he not examine the “Jewish origins” of the US and the “Judeo-Masonic and Protestant collusion against Rome”?

But criticising him for this would be to forget that some of the US Founding Fathers were already wary of the “chosen people”. The historian Paul del Perugia, for instance, states in his “Louis XV” (Albatros 1976) that in the preliminary debates on the American Constitution, Benjamin Franklin had asked to prevent the Jews from entering the US. He received little support. If Cleopatra’s nose had been shorter and the voice of Benjamin Franklin had been louder, world history would have been totally changed. And perhaps Martin Peltier would never have embarked on his indictment…

Translated from French

The original author was Camille Galic

Source : Polemia

http://www.polemia.com/20-bonnes-raisons-detre-anti-americain-de-martin-peltier/

 

Does the FBI create terrorists?

Are all means justified in the fight against terrorism?

This is a question for all democratic countries. Especially the US where, to hunt jihadi apprentices in America, the FBI uses a growing army of undercover operatives, who are accused of sometimes pushing impressionable minds to commit terrorist attacks.

Working under cover and benefitting from legal immunity, these infilitrators can even go so far as to designate a target or provide weapons in order to better deceive terrorist suspects. According to human rights organizations, this amounts to “creating the terrorist” on the pretext of combating terrorism.

This situation is inevitable, according to Mubin Shaikh, a former Canadian undercover agent and author of Undercover Jihadi. He justifies this sort of action by saying:

“We need the suspects to be convinced that you are on their side. You must play the game, do what they tell you. Otherwise, the whole operation is compromised.”

According to him, making suggestions is all part of the “game”. He recalls a conversation he once had with an alleged extremist. “In December we may organize a training camp. Would you like to come along and train a few guys? He understood perfectly well, but refused: ‘No, brother, I’m here to study religion’. From this, I concluded that he was not the type of peson we were looking for, as he did not bite the bait. But, if I say exactly the same thing to someone who says ‘yes’, then it’s not entrapment, he is simply caught.”

Set-ups

According to agreed figures, the FBI has at least 15,000 underground informants, who are often generously paid and involved in a wide range of investigations, from pedophile rings to the drugs trade. But identifying ISIS supporters, the number of which has increased “spectacularly”, is now the focus of all efforts. James Comey, FBI chief, stated on 8 October that:

“This summer, we have tracked dozens and dozens of people, over the whole of the United States. We have disrupted the plans of many terrorists.”

The only thing is that, in some cases, infiltrators apply pressure to encourage suspects to commit terrorist acts that they might not otherwise have committed.

On the 10 April, the FBI announced the arrest of a man, John Booker, who was on the verge of carrying out a suicide attack using a car bomb against a Kansas military base. But according to the investigation report, seen by AFP, Booker was subject to FBI manipulation for six months. It was the undercover agents who helped the jihadi apprentice to make his martyrdom video. They provided a list of the necessary components to make his bomb. Finally, they constructed the device – which in fact was disactivated – and gave it to the suspect along with the car.

In a July 2014 report, the human rights NGO Human Rights Watch accused the FBI of “creating terrorists’ by targeting vulnerable people in its operations. This is the focus of a documentary “(T) ERROR”, which appeared this year at the Sundance festival. Murtaza Hussain co-directed a very informative investigation released in late June on the “Fort Dix Five”, a group of Albanian men involved in planning an attack against a military base in New Jersey. Four were sentenced to life imprisonment, including three brothers.

Before their arrest in 2007, they had been placed under surveillance eighteen months after a holiday video showing them shooting at targets in nature – a popular hobby in the United States – shouting “Allah is the greatest”. They had previously shown no inclination for terrorism. In footage secretly filmed by the FBI, the undercover agent quite clearly pushes the Albanians to stage a terrorist attack, despite their reluctance. The agent rebukes the brothers:

“You live according to the Koran, yet you do not fight for Muslims! Make your minds up!”

Strategic necessity

Murtaza Hussain concludes that the use of infiltrators “is a necessary strategy, but one that we should use in moderation and only for proven plots”.

He regrets that “there is a now a real sense of paranoia, especially in the Muslim community. They can no longer discuss or engage in political campaigns without fear that someone in their entourage is an informant.”

The FBI officially admits that the use of informants “may include an element of deceit, interference in private lives or cooperation with people whose seriousness and motivations are dubious.”

But to justify its actions, the FBI points out that the judiciary acknowledged that this method was”legal and often vital to the success” of an investigation. In addition, the FBI assures that the use of informants “is subject to careful assessment and close supervision in order to ensure that rights of people under investigation are not violated.”

Many think that some “radicalized” Americans are basically young misfits, for whom the internet offers a way of feeling that they exist. This is the case of a young Jewish boy living with his parents in Florida, Ryne Joshua Goldberg, who had created a second life by pretending to live in Australia and inundated social network sites messages advocating jihad. He was caught by the FBI, to whom he sent information on how to make a bomb. Arrested last month, this boy of twenty may spend the next twenty years in prison.

Another example is Ali Amin, a skinny teenager from Virginia, who was sentenced in late August to eleven years in prison for having supported ISIS on his Twitter account, which numbered some 4000 subscribers. For the former undercover agent Mubin Shaikh, this “skinny, weakling” is a “tragic case.”

“This kid went from ‘zero’ to ‘hero’, thanks to 140 characters (a message on Twitter). Suddenly, he becomes important, people consult him for a religious opinion …”

On the other hand, he continues, “when such guys connect to the internet to spread the ideology of ISIS, attempt to indoctrinate and recruit people, are we not forced to take action?”

Yes, but how far and how?


Article Translated from French

Source : Le Point

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/le-fbi-fabrique-t-il-des-terroristes-21-10-2015-1975418_24.php