Dawn Meredith Wrote:People should also learn from Antony Sutton, the master.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:I have long wondered just what Bill Clinton learned from Quigley.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:I have long wondered just what Bill Clinton learned from Quigley.

No, I don't know, but I think he learned where the money was -- and signed on with the CIA. My guess is that Clinton put the reference to Quigley as coded message that he was in the cabal.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:People should also learn from Antony Sutton, the master.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:I have long wondered just what Bill Clinton learned from Quigley.

No, I don't know, but I think he learned where the money was -- and signed on with the CIA. My guess is that Clinton put the reference to Quigley as coded message that he was in the cabal.

This was always my suspicion about his reference as well.

Quote:Whether wishful thinking, the enemy of my enemy is my friend syndrome, or just plain misreading of Trumpf - mostly likely each of the above, I have to disagree almost entirely with Meyssan's piece and views. Yes, Trumpf is not in the usual neocon camp; he is in a different outright fascist camp [not that neocons were not neo-fascist, as well]. I do NOT believe that Trump was 'championed' by nor saw himself as an anti-neocon. While some [SOME] of his policies seem to be at odds with the neocons we have known, others are perfectly in sync - Israel would be just one I could mention; strengthening of the military and internal repression apparatus another.

His 'Generals' are all guilty of war-crimes, but none more so than Mattis who executed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Faluja. The others are not much better - and I see nothing about them that says they are / were opposed to the orders they got under the neocons.

I think most non-US citizens can not get a full feel yet for what we are dealing with here with Trump. He was NOT wanted by the Republican establishment, who along with the Democrats kept: money flowing from the poor and middle-class to the rich [which Trump will continue], the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex fat [which Trump will continue], which kept up the cryto-imperialism [which it is not sure what Trump will do, but I think it will be continued if not in as many new wars; he is continuing in Obama's drone killings already], kept the public dumb, fat, and uninformed/propaganda saturated [which Trump has already proven he will continue], which denied antropogenic climate change on the Republican side [which Trump will surpass them on]...and I could go on. I see nothing about Trumpf, which makes me believe that he is going to try to roll back the activities of the neocons, nor expose their false-flag operations.... Sorry. He is a different kind of monster, but a monster none the less - one who is a demagogue, fascist, oligarch, sexist, racist, xeonophobe, homophobe, misogynist, et al. Yes, he doesn't like NAFTA nor other similar, the few things about him I agree with, but he doesn't for reasons that are 'other' - and mainly a ploy to rise to the top with his 'following'. He is an outsider in part, but his values are not that far from the ruling elites since WW2, sadly. He is more in it for himself and his ego. He will never, IMO, ask for the facts of 911, or all the wars and horrors that followed from that to be investigated or documents released. Again, sorry. I wish it was otherwise. A plague on both the house of the Neocons and that of Trump. I'd never want to be in the position to say which was worse - either is so bad as their total destruction necessary. That one evil has replaced another doesn't warm my heart at all.........they have more in common than in disagreement - and neither have the average person nor the environment [and humans living in harmony with, not in destruction of it] in mind - such ideas NEVER enter their minds except in propaganda lines to fool the average Joe and Jane.
Do I think that ISIS in part has been built up by hidden forces in the US - yes, as was true for other groups such as bin Ladin's and others; however, I do not see Trump as about to do more than say Obama - who also said he was going after ISIS, while also secretly arming them and building them up in the beginning. Again, Trump ever the actor and populist in the worst sense of the word, said what would appeal to his following. He cares not for his followers - only for enriching himself and his class-mates. I do not think it will take long to see that this is so, and that he is going to ratchet-up the move to full-blown fascism even more than his predecessors. Sorry to say. I see him as no alternative to what we had - only somewhat different, yet a whole lot worse.

Quote:Anti-Donald Trump: war propaganda
by Thierry Meyssan
Our previous articles concerning President Trump have caused some fierce reactions from our readers. Some of them have been wondering about the naïvety apparently displayed by Thierry Meyssan despite the warnings issued by the international Press and the accumulation of negative signals. Here is his response, well-reasoned as always.


VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 7 FEBRUARY 2017
ESPAÑOL FRANÇAIS РУССКИЙ TÜRKÇE DEUTSCH PORTUGUÊS ITALIANO
+
JPEG - 18.8 kb
Two weeks after his investiture, the Altantist Press continues with its work of disinformation and agitation against the new President of the United States of America. Trump and his new collaborators are multiplying declarations and gestures which are apparently contradictory, so that it is difficult to understand what is going on in Washington.


The anti-Trump campaign


The bad faith of the Atlantist Press can be verified for each of these four main themes.


- 1. Concerning the beginning of the dismantling of Obamacare (20 January), we are obliged to report that, contrary to what is being announced in the Atlantist Press, the underprivileged classes who should have benefited from this system have avoided it en masse. This form of «social security» turned out to be too expensive and too directive to attract them. Only the private companies who manage this system have been truly satisfied by it.


- 2. Concerning the prolongation of the Wall at the Mexican border (23 to 25 January), there is nothing xenophobic about it - the Secure Fence Act was signed by President George W. Bush, who began its construction. The work was continued by President Barack Obama with the support of the Mexican government of the time. Beyond the fashionable rhetoric about «walls» and «bridges», reinforced border systems only work when the authorities of both sides agree to make them operational. They always fail when one of the parties opposes them. The interest of the United States is to control the entry of migrants, while the interest of Mexico is to prevent the import of weapons. None of that has changed. However, with the application of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), transnational companies have delocalised, from the United States to Mexico, not only non-qualified jobs (in conformity with the Marxist rule of «the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF)», but also qualified jobs which are performed by under-paid workers («social dumping»). The appearance of these jobs has provoked a strong rural exodus, destructuring Mexican society, on the model of what happened in 19th century Europe. The transnational companies then lowered wages, plunging part of the Mexican population into poverty which now only dreams of being correctly paid in the United States itself. Since Donald Trump has announced that he intends to remove the US signature from the NAFTA agreement, things should return to normal in the years to come, and satisfy both Mexico and the United States [1].


- 3. Concerning the abortion issue (23 January), President Trump has forbidden the payment of federal subsidies to specialised associations which receive funds from abroad. By doing so, he has warned those specific associations that they must choose between their social objective to help women in distress or being paid by George Soros to demonstrate against him as was the case on 21 January. This decree therefore has nothing to do with abortion, but with the prevention of a «colour revolution».


- 4. Concerning the anti-immigration decrees (25 to 27 January), Donald Trump announced that he was going to apply the law - inherited from the Obama era in other words, to expel the 11 million illegal foreigners. He has suspended federal aid to those cities which announced that they would refuse to apply the law where will we get our cleaning ladies if we have to declare them? He specified that among these illegal immigrants, he would begin by expelling the 800,000 criminals who have been the object of criminal proceedings, in the United States, Mexico or elswhere. Besides this, in order to prevent the arrival of terrorists, he has suspended all the authorisations for immigration to the United States, and has placed a three-month ban on people from countries where it is impossible to verify their identity and their situation. He did not draw up the list of such countries himself, but referred to a previous text from President Obama. For example, here in Syria, there is no longer a US embassy or Consulate. From the point of view of the administrative police, it is therefore logical to put Syrians on this list. But this can only concern a minimal number of people. In 2015, only 145 Syrians managed to obtain the US «green card». Aware of the numerous special cases which might arise, the Presidential decree allows all liberty to the State Department and Homeland Security to issue dispensations. The fact that the application of these decrees was sabotaged by civil servants opposed to President Trump, who applied them with brutality, does not make the President either a racist or an Islamophobe.


The campaign led by the Atlantist Press against Donald Trump is therefore unfounded. To pretend that he has opened a war against Muslims, and to evoke publicly his possible destitution, even his assassination, is no longer simply bad faith it's war propaganda.





Donald Trump's objective


Donald Trump was the first personality in the world to contest the official version of the attacks of 9/11, on television that very day. After having noted that the engineers who built the Twin Towers were now working for him, he declared on New York's Channel 9 that it was impossible that Boeings could have burst through the steel structures of the towers. He continued by stating that it was also impossible that Boeings could have caused the towers to collapse. He concluded by affirming that there had to be other factors of which we were as yet unaware.


From that day on, Donald Trump has never ceased to resist the people who had committed those crimes. During his inaugural speech, he emphasised that this was not a passage of power between two administrations, but a restitution of power to United States citizens, who had been deprives of it [for sixteen years] [2].


During his electoral campaign, once again during the transitional period, and again since he took office, he has repeated that the imperial system of these last years has never benefited US citizens, but only a small clique of which Mrs. Clinton is the emblematic figure. He declared that the United States would no longer attempt to be the «first», but the «best». His slogans are - « Make America great again» and «America first»


This 180° political turn has shaken a system which has been implemented over the last 16 years, and has its roots in the Cold War, which, in 1947, only the United States wanted. This system has gangrened numerous international institutions, such as NATO (Jens Stoltenberg and General Curtis Scaparrotti), the European Union (Federica Mogherini), and the United Nations (Jeffrey Feltman) [3].


If Donald Trump is to reach his objective, it will take years.


Towards a peaceful dismantling of the United States Empire


In two weeks, many things have begun, often in the greatest discretion. The booming declarations of President Trump and his team deliberately spread confusion and enabled him to ensure that the nominations of his collaborators were confirmed by a partially hostile Congress.


We must understand that it's a fight to the death between two systems that has just begun in Washington. Let's leave the Atlantist Press to comment on the often contradictory and incoherent statements by this one or that, and look at the facts on their own.


Before anything else, Donald Trump made sure that he had control over the security apparatus. His first three nominations (National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly) are three Generals who have contested the «continuity of government» since 2003 [4]. Next, he reformed the National Security Council to exclude the inter-army Chief of Staff and the director of the CIA [5]


Even though the latter decree will probably be revised, it still has not been. Let us note in passing that we announced the intention of Donald Trump and General Flynn to eliminate the post of Director of National Intelligence [6]. However, this post has been maintained and Dan Coats has been nominated for it. It transpires that talk of its supression was a tactic to demonstrate that the presence of the Director of National Intelligence in the Council was enough to justify the exclusion of the Director of the CIA.


The substitution of the word «best» for «first» leads to the engagement of partnerships with Russia and China, rather than a tentative to crush them.


In order to hobble this policy, the friends of Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Nuland have relaunched the war against the Donbass. The important losses they have experienced since the beginning of the conflict have led the Ukrainian army to withdraw and put paramilitary Nazi militia in the front line. The combats have inflicted heavy civilian casualities on the inhabitants of the new popular Republic. Simultaneously, in the Near East, they have managed to deliver tanks to the Syrian Kurds, as planned by the Obama administration.


In order to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, Donald Trump is looking for a way to help to eject President Petro Porochenko. He therefore received at the White House the head of the opposition, Ioulia Tymochenko, even before he accepted a phone call from President Porochenko.


In Syria and Iraq, Donald Trump has already begun operations in common with Russia, even thought his spokesperson denies it.The Russian Minister for Defence, who had imprudently revealed it, has ceased to say anything on the subject.


Concerning Beijing, President Trump has put an end to US participation in the Trans-Pacific Treaty (TPP) - a treaty which had been conceived in order to inhibit China. During the period of transition, he received the second richest man in China, Jack Ma (the businessman who confirmed - «No-one has stolen your jobs, you spend too much on war»). We know that their discussions touched on the possible adhesion of Washington to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). If this were to be the case, the United States would agree to cooperate with China rather than hindering it. They would participate in the construction of two Silk Roads, which would make the wars in Donbass and Syria pointless.


In matters of finance, President Trump has begun the dismantling of the Dodd-Frank law which attempted to resolve the crisis of 2008 by averting the brutal collapse of the major banks («too big to fail»). Although this law has some positive aspects (it's 2,300 pages long), it establishes a guardianship of the Treasury over the banks, which obviously hinders their development. Donald Trump is also apparently preparing to restore the distinction between deposit banks and investment banks (Glass-Steagall Act).


Finally, the clean-up of international institutions has also begun. The new ambassador to the UNO, Nikki Haley, has requested an audit of the 16 «peace-keeping» missions. She has made it known that she intends to put an end to those which seem to be inefficient. From the point of view of the United Nations Charter, all such missions will be audited without exception. Indeed, the founders of the Organisation had not foreseen this type of military deployment (today, more than 100,000 men and women). The UNO was created to avert or resolve conflicts between states (never intra-state conflict). When two parties conclude a cease-fire, the Organisation may deploy observers in order to verify the respect of the agreement. But on the contrary, these «peace-keeping» operations are aimed at enforcing the respect of a solution imposed by the Security Council and refused by one of the two parties involved in the conflict - in reality, it is the continuation of colonialism.


In practice, the presence of these forces only makes the conflict last longer, while their absence changes nothing. So the troops of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL) deployed at the Israëlo-Lebanese border, but only on Lebanese territory, do not prevent either Israëli military operations or military operations by the Lebanese Resistance, as we have already seen many times. They serve only to spy on the Lebanese on behalf of the Israëlis, thus prolonging the conflict. In the same way, the troops of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, or UNDOF, deployed at the demarcation line in the Golan have been chased away by Al-Qaïda, without that changing anything at all in the Israëlo-Syrian conflict. Putting an end to this system means returning to the spirit and the letter of the Charter, renouncing colonial privileges, and pacifying the world.


Behind the media controversy, the street demonstrations, and the confrontation between politicians, President Trump is holding his course.


Thierry Meyssan
Translation
Pete Kimberley
<:ver_imprimer:> Facebook Twitter Delicious Seenthis Digg RSS
[1] "Behind the bipartisan wall", by Manlio Dinucci, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2017.


[2] "Donald Trump Inauguration Speech", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 21 January 2017.


[3] "Germany and the UNO against Syria", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.


[4] "Trump enough of 9/11!", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2017.


[5] "Donald Trump winds up "the" organization of US imperialism].]", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 31 January 2017.


[6] "General Flynn's Proposals to Reform Intelligence", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Contralínea (Mexico) , Voltaire Network, 1 December 2016.

Quote:

Castigating Trump for Truth-Telling

February 7, 2017

Exclusive: President Trump says much that is untrue, but he draws some of Official Washington's greatest opprobrium when he speaks the truth, such as noting that senior U.S. officials have done a lot of killing, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Gaining acceptance in Official Washington is a lot like getting admittance into a secret society's inner sanctum by uttering some nonsensical password. In Washington to show you belong, you must express views that are patently untrue or blatantly hypocritical.

Fox News' anchor Bill O'Reilly interviewing President Donald Trump.

For instance, you might be called upon to say that "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" when that title clearly belongs to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state allies that have funded Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic State. But truth has no particularly value in Official Washington; adherence to "group think" is what's important.
Similarly, you might have to deny any "moral equivalence" between killings attributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin and killings authorized by U.S. presidents. In this context, the fact that the urbane Barack Obama scheduled time one day a week to check off people for targeted assassinations isn't relevant. Nor is the reality that Donald Trump has joined this elite club of official killers by approving a botched and bloody raid in Yemen that slaughtered a number of women and children (and left one U.S. soldier dead, too).
You have to understand that "our killings" are always good or at least justifiable (innocent mistakes do happen from time to time), but Russian killings are always bad. Indeed, Official Washington has so demonized Putin that any untoward death in Russia can be blamed on him whether there is any evidence or not. To suggest that evidence is needed shows that you must be a "Moscow stooge."
To violate these inviolable norms of Official Washington, in which participants must intuitively grasp the value of such "group think" and the truism of "American exceptionalism," marks you as a dangerous outsider who must be marginalized or broken.
Currently, President Trump is experiencing this official opprobrium as he is widely denounced by Republicans, Democrats and "news" people because he didn't react properly to a question from Fox News' Bill O'Reilly terming Putin "a killer."
"There are a lot of killers." Trump responded. "We've got a lot of killers. What do you think our country's so innocent. You think our country's so innocent?"
Aghast at Trump's heresy, O'Reilly sputtered, "I don't know of any government leaders that are killers."
Trump: "Well take a look at what we've done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning."
O'Reilly: "But mistakes are different than "
Trump: "A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me."
Moral Equivalence'
Though Trump is justly criticized for often making claims that aren't true, here he was saying something that clearly was true. But it has drawn fierce condemnation from across Official Washington, not only from Democrats but from Trump's fellow Republicans, too. Neoconservative Washington Post opinion writer Charles Krauthammer objected fiercely to Trump's "moral equivalence," and CNN's Anderson Cooper chimed in. lamenting Trump's deviation into "equivalence," i.e. holding the U.S. government to the same ethical standards as the Russian government.

Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush with CIA Director William Casey at the White House on Feb. 11, 1981. (Photo credit: Reagan Library)

This "moral equivalence" argument has been with us at least since the Reagan administration when human rights groups objected to President Reagan's support for right-wing governments in Central America that engaged in "death squad" tactics against political dissidents, including the murders of priests and nuns and genocide against disaffected Indian tribes. To suggest that Reagan and his friends should be subjected to the same standards that he applied to left-wing authoritarian governments earned you the accusation of "moral equivalence."
Declassified documents from Reagan's White House show that this P.R. strategy was refined at National Security Council meetings led by U.S. intelligence propaganda experts. Now the "moral equivalence" theme is being revived to discredit a new Republican president who dares challenge this particular Official Washington "group think."
Lots of Killing
The unpleasant truth is that all leaders of major countries and many leaders of smaller countries are "killers." President Obama admitted that he had ordered military strikes in seven different countries to kill people. His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejoiced over the grisly murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with a clever twist on a famous Julius Caesar boast of conquest: "We came, we saw, he died," Clinton chirped.

At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."

President George W. Bush launched an illegal war against Iraq based on false pretenses, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children and other civilians.
President Bill Clinton ordered a vicious bombing campaign against the Serbian capital of Belgrade, which included intentionally targeting the Serb TV building and killing 16 civilian employees because Clinton considered the station's news reports to be "propaganda," i.e., not in line with U.S. propaganda.

After the U.S. bombing in 1991 that incinerated more than 400 civilians, the Amiriyah Bunker in Baghdad was turned into a memorial to the victims. Since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the memorial was closed to the public.

President George H.W. Bush slaughtered scores of Panamanians who happened to live near the headquarters of the Panamanian Defense Forces and he killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, including incinerating a civilian bomb shelter in Baghdad, after he brushed aside proposals for resolving Iraq's invasion of Kuwait peacefully. (Bush wanted a successful war as a way to rally the American people behind future foreign military operations, so, in his words, the country could kick "the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.")
Other U.S. presidents have had more or less blood on their hands than these recent chief executives, but it is hard to identify any modern U.S. president who has not been a "killer" in some form, inflicting death upon innocents whether as part of some "justifiable" mission or not.
But the mainstream U.S. press corps routinely adopts double standards when assessing acts by a U.S. president and those of an "enemy." When the U.S. kills people, the mainstream media bends over backwards to rationalize the violence, but does the opposite if the killing is authorized by some demonized foreign leader.
That is now the case with Putin. Any accusation against Putin no matter how lacking in evidence is treated as credible and any evidence of Putin's innocence is ridiculed or suppressed.
That was the case with a documentary that debunked claims that hedge fund accountant Sergei Magnitsky was murdered in a Russian prison because he was a whistleblower when the documentary showed that he was a suspect in a massive money-laundering scheme and died of natural causes. Although produced by a documentarian who started out planning to do a sympathetic portrayal of Magnitsky, the facts led in a different direction that caused the documentary to be shunned by the European Union and given minimal distribution in the United States.
By contrast, the ease with which Putin is called a murderer based on "mysterious deaths" inside Russia is reminiscent of how American right-wing groups suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton were murderers by distributing a long list of "mysterious deaths" somehow related to the Clinton "scandals" from their Arkansas days. While there was no specific evidence connecting the Clintons to any of these deaths, the sheer number created suspicions that were hard to knock down without making you a "Clinton apologist." Similarly, a demand for actual evidence proving Putin's guilt in a specific case makes you a "Putin apologist."
However, as a leader of a powerful nation facing threats from terrorism and other national security dangers, Putin is surely a "killer," much as U.S. presidents are killers. That appears to have been President Trump's point, that the United States doesn't have clean hands when it comes to shedding innocent blood.
But telling such an unpleasant albeit obvious truth is not the way to gain entrance into the inner sanctum of Official Washington's Deep State. The passwords for admission require you to say a lot of things that are patently false. Any inconvenient truth-telling earns you the bum's rush out into the alley, even if you're President of the United States.