Transcript: InfoWars PsyOp

ꕤ Article SOURCE Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVKgg2qGxzE&feature=youtu.be The following is a transcript of what I thought was a serious disclosure of suppression of information by German police and the media in Germany. However, later in the video, Alex Benesch, who is interviewed from Germany, begins to talk absolute sh*t -- like he's having a moment of complete mental dissociation from reality -- sh*t that is so far-fetched and insane that I question whether this is: (a) a piss-take; or (b) a psy-op I'm going with (b) for some kind of establishment BULLSH*T. Disseminating this 'InfoWars' crap, is a loud-mouth Yank at the helm, a pom interviewer & a German 'political analyst' who sounds batshit crazy. I'm going to guess that this is a CIA, GCHQ & BND joint effort psy-op, as it's the most plausible explanation for the nutcase video presentation that undermines the credibility of what it purports to draw attention to:  police and media suppression of information in Germany. Presume this is a production designed to discredit questioning the daily diet of corporate media distortion and propaganda. Obviously, there is no elite conspiracy to import 'personality disorders' to traumatise the population (conditions that Benesch doesn't even name correctly), and this is absolute crap he's talking. That this has gone to video on the internet, tells me InfoWars is a total fraud. These d*ckheads ought to be ashamed of themselves. Edit:  still think the broadcasts include a good deal of nutty crap, but I'm probably a bit hasty concluding this as part of a psy-op.  It could just be filling a 'genre' vacancy for commercial reasons.  lol TRANSRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] Paul Watson I've just posted an article over on Prison Planet Twitter, which you can check out. Now, we've had these articles over the past 3 weeks. The rape crisis that is now engulfing Germany as a result of this migrant influx is now really reaching epidemic proportions. Police in Germany kept quiet a migrant raping a 13 year old girl so as not to 'legitimise critics of mass migration.' And we're going to talk to Alex about this when we get him back on line, because he's there in Germany.  He's talking to people in Germany about this situation, about how the media is covering it up, which relates to my top story on InfoWars.com, which is that the German broadcaster ZDF, which is like a true crime program that relates on one of Germany's top networks other there in Europe.  They've basically had a case where a Muslim migrant who came over in the last 3 months raped a young girl -- who was a prime suspect in raping a young girl -- they decided against airing the story because they said it might offend Muslim migrants coming over to Germany and it might 'inflame tensions'. Now this is not in isolation. We've had numerous stories about this over the last few weeks. Now we've got more. And I've only just found out about this in the last hour or so. So we've got this 13-year-old girl who was raped in a migrant camp in Germany. The police sat on the story for 3 months because they said they did not want to 'legitimise critics of mass migration.' No concern about the actual victim.  No concern about the other women and children in those camps who are being preyed upon. We are now seeing articles about them charging ten euros each to rape these women and children.  They're being forced into prostitution. Another case, in a town of Meyering[?], a Bavarian town there in Germany, where police are now telling parents, as a result of another rape, which occurred on September 11, just about ten or eleven days ago, the police are telling parents in that German town not to let their children go outside unaccompanied. We also had the case in Pocking, another German town, where girls are being told not to wear shorts, or not to wear short skirts, because there's a migrant camp attached to that school, in its gymnasium, so now the head teacher wrote a letter to the parents, saying:  we're not going to allow girls to wear shorts, we're not going to allow them to wear short skirts, because they could provoke attacks from these Muslim migrants, because they might offend these Muslim migrants and the media, and although this is being picked up on in, you know, local media, the major media networks in Germany are not broadcasting this, so it's unsurprising that in the polls which have come out in Germany suggest that upwards of 60% of Germans support this migrant invasion, which of course will be 800,000 migrants before the end of the year.  Potentially millions after that. 3:36 Do we have Alex on the line yet? We've got Alex.  So you've heard me talk about that there, Alex. Are Germans even aware that these rape cases are happening? Is the media cover-up in Germany successful at this point? Alex Benesch Well, it used to be pretty successful, because you normally like have about 250,000 coming here per year, but now, of course, it's about up to 800,000. Now everybody is talking about it -- everybody's talking about it. And I've looked at a scientific study, and it's a mainline study -- and I'm sure there are similar studies on American immigration -- and the study says that 25% of migrants coming here are backwards, radicals, sometimes criminal, and if you do the numbers that makes four (4) million troublemakers in Germany, in a country with 80,000,000 (eighty million) people. So, just to give you a comparison:  Germany, right now, has 180,000 (one hundred and eighty thousand) active military personnel severely under-equipped; 250,000 (quarter million) cops.  Of course, they don't work at the same time at any given hour.  And then we have a couple of thousand (2,000) folks working in intelligence. That's it. How can they possibly manage 4,000,000 (four million) troublemakers in Germany, plus the quarter percentage of new migrants coming in that are troublemakers as well. I understand.  I've looked at the study and, of course, 25% (twenty-five percent) of migrants are over-achievers, you know, people who come from Vietnam, they outperform German students and they do really well; and another 25% (twenty-five percent) of migrants they do OK, they well; another 25% (twenty-five percent) gets by; but 25% (twenty-five percent) are real troublemakers. They've created a problem that's way too big for the German state to handle, so what's going to solve this problem? Of course, Brussels.  Of course, the European Union is creating this multi-national border guard force and they want these centres in countries of origin in North Africa and Syria, so people to to these places and then they're being assessed and then they're being brought here. So this is a serious problem. So if you can find studies like this on American immigration, or no matter where you come from, find these studies and do these numbers and see how many troublemakers you have that have no loyalty to your country. Paul Watson And that's the point, isn't it? You know, they're bringing in so many.  Obviously, you know, most of them eventually you would hope will integrate, will assimilate into society. But with the sheer volume of people that are being brought into Germany right now, many of them by people smugglers, there are going to be huge problems for social cohesion, going forward over the next five (5), ten (10), twenty (20) years. And now it's confirmed.  I was saying 50% (fifty percent) -- I was merely going off of what the media was telling us, that 50% (fifty percent) were 'Syrian refugees.' It now turns out we've got the numbers. Only one-fifth (20% / twenty percent) of these 'refugees' are actually Syrian.  The rest are economic migrants fleeing to a higher standard of living, yet we've been browbeaten by politicians in Europe, [and] by the media, into supporting this on humanitarian grounds when it's based on a completely flimsy and inaccurate statistic that 50% (fifty percent) of these people coming in were actually Syrian.  We now know that not to be the case. But from your research, the bigger picture -- what is the EU and the politicians in Germany hoping to achieve by rolling out the red carpet for this migrant influx.  What is the long-term agenda, geopolitically? Alex Benesch Well, every American listening now needs to understand that it's important to keep an eye on Europe because the global power balance is rapidly shifting and changing. What the elite is doing in Europe right now is expanding the European Union into a Mediterranean super-union, that's kind of a super-empire that would match or surpass the other three (3) big empires in the world -- the United States, Russia and China. So I think this Mediterranean empire is at the heart of this migration crisis. The people in charge and the politicians above them, they are mixing populations through migration and they create a common history among the different nationalities. Syrians have no idea about Germany.  Germans has no idea about Syria. There is no common positive history between Germany and North Africa. The only thing that comes to mind, if you're interested in history, the only thing that comes to mind is that dark chapter in modern history when General Rommel tried to conquer North Africa and then moved east towards Middle East and Syria, where he was stopped by the British and then the America on the other side and pushed him back. So they're creating an artificial common history that wasn't there before, because you want to merge 43 (forty-three) completely different countries, you want to include Turkey, Syria, Israel and so on, into this Mediterranean union. It's kind of a hyped up version of ancient Rome.  So in the last few years this Mediterranean union process has officially stalled.  The Mediterranean union is supposed to only exist on paper.  But the European union is real, and they're playing a long game here.  Ten (10) years can make all the difference in the world. Years ago, the bureaucrats were already shopping for this Mediterranean union.  At that time, you still had Gaddafi in Libya and you had Mubarak in Egypt, and so on.   So then the Arab Spring revolutions, they got rid of these old dictators and their families, paving the way for integration of North Africa, possibly Syria, into this Mediterranean super-empire. So the flood of migrants right now comes from North Africa and Syria.  See how that works? And if realised, this Mediterranean empire could be a very close partner of the United States.  There could be a merger in the very near future, in order to keep up with the empires of the east. I mean, you've seen the Trans-Atlantic free trade agreement that's the building block of this European-American empire, but every American listening to this understand the following: A Mediterranean empire would have more than twice the population of the United States. The combined military force would be enormous; maybe even surpassing the American military force. Paul Watson For now we're going to talk to ... [ADVERTISING] Hillary 4 Prison 2016 T-Shirts popular.  lol end transcription at:  11:49 resumed 15:58 Paul Watson We're talking to geopolitical analyst and author, Alexander Benesch, who is over there in Germany tracking the migrant crisis. Just before the last segment, we dipped into the fact that they're using this crisis, that they've created in the first place, to centralise power into fewer hands. Now we've had a union for the Mediterranean which was this concept proposed by EU leaders and Bilderbergers, back in 2008-2009, to aborb these North African countries and these Middle Eastern countries into this Mediterranean union, which would then be allied with the North American union, again, centralising power into fewer hands as these federal super-states, which are anti-democratic -- which is what the EU has built its whole platform, it's whole raison d'etre around -- into conglomerating into these huge power blocks that aren't representative, that aren't democratic. Now they're exploiting the migrant crisis for that very purpose. Now Alex, I read a quote from Javier Solana, who is the former NATO secretary general and a top Bilderberger, who is espousing this plan for a Mediterranean union involving all these different Middle Eastern and Northern African countries, to absorb them into the EU. He said that it was necessary as a process to foster cultural unity. So bearing in mind we just talked about the rape crisis that is now sweeping these migrant camps in Germany, why would we want cultural unity with a culture based on a barbarous religion, that is stuck in the 7th Century? Why can't we maintain our culture separately? We know that multiculturalism has been a complete failure, even Merkel herself admitted that a few years ago. So why are they trying to fuse our cultures together, when it's been proven not to work? THE FOLLOWING IS TOTAL BULLSH*T Alex Benesch Well, the most important answer to this question is this:  the biggest and most important control mechanism for populations is personality disorders, whether it's paedophile -- which is often linked to antisocial [personality] disorder and narcissism -- or it's migrants that come from countries of origin where they're dominated by people with antisocial [personality] disorder, and these really nasty, nasty disorders. So a single person could be a paedophile, could be a really bad migrant.  Every single bad person can hurt any number of healthy people out there. So if you have a certain percentage of people out there with heavy disorders and you think, OK, every dangerous single will keep a certain number of other healthy people busy or hurt these other people, then you can do the numbers in your head and you realise that every country -- according to the elites --  every country needs constant traumatisation to create new people with disorders. So some of the migrants are being hurt by bad migrants and that gives them post traumatic stress and that keeps them busy for the rest of their lives and, let's not also forget, every second German -- every other German -- statistically, from the old baby boomer generation, has cancer, so Germany has one of the lowest growth rates. We have like a 1.3 growth rate, which is actually a shrinking rate, so Germany is actually shrinking and the argument is that we need a flood of migrants every year for the next 35 years in order to prevent a collapse of population numbers, a collapse of the retirement system and so on. So we're being flooded with traumatised people, people with antisocial [personality] disorder, narcissistic disorder and a mixture of disorders, to keep us all very busy, and everybody who got cancer, presumably from the shots they get, getting cancer is traumatic and it's not just traumatic for the person getting ill, it's traumatic for the whole family, so it's a system where you keep a population busy, so they have no time and energy to deal with the evil system that is above them. So in Europe right now, we see the same kind of things going on that we see in the United States.  Listen to this. If you have a Jeb Bush president, right, if you have a Jeb Bush president, my prediction will be he will intensify a North American union process and he will intensify in an unprecedented way cooperation with Europe. So America's military forces have been reduced, the banking crisis is still on, you have floods of illegal immigrants, and the argument will be, we need an American Union from Canada down to Colombia, in order to match the other empires in the world ... -- cannot listen to more of this crap -- end at 21:21 -- __________________ welt.de article - Pocking, Germany Girls being told not to wear shorts & short skirts because there's a migrant camp attached to that school, in its gymnasium English translation Link | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- The above is a transcript of what I thought was a serious disclosure of suppression of information by German police and the media in Germany. However, later in the video, Alex Benesch, who is interviewed from Germany, begins to talk absolute sh*t -- like he's having a moment of complete mental dissociation from reality -- sh*t that is so far-fetched and insane that I question whether this is: (a) a piss-take; or (b) a psy-op I'm going with (b) for some kind of establishment BULLSH*T. Disseminating this 'InfoWars' crap, is a loud-mouth Yank at the helm, a pom interviewer & a German 'political analyst' who sounds batshit crazy. I'm going to guess that this is a CIA, GCHQ & BND joint effort psy-op, as it's the most plausible explanation for the nutcase video presentation that undermines the credibility of what it purports to draw attention to:  namely, police and media suppression of information in Germany. Presume this is a production designed to discredit questioning the daily diet of corporate media distortion and propaganda. Obviously, there is no elite conspiracy to import 'personality disorders' to traumatise the population (conditions that Benesch doesn't even name correctly), and this is absolute crap he's talking. That this has gone to video on the internet, tells me InfoWars is a total fraud. These d*ckheads ought to be ashamed of themselves. Edit:  still think the broadcasts include a good deal of nutty crap, but I'm probably a bit hasty concluding this as part of a psy-op.  It could just be filling a 'genre' vacancy for commercial reasons.  lol ꕤ

Stand by for European Caliphate and the Destruction of the World Economy

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 Read Putin’s U.N. General Assembly speech Washington Post September 28 at 2:51 PM EXTRACT ONLY FULL ARTICLE - LINKED https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order. But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.  The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars. This swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.  The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council. However, I'd like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization. When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass. [...] Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way. It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force. We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories. What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words. Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us. It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally. But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.  Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned. It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries. First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them. To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it. We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries. Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he? Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria. We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality. Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all. However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions. On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide. Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter. We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe. I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter. In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria. Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues. First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result. We're confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia. Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition. Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors. I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries. Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space. These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) '20. Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China's initiative of the Silk Road economic belt. EXTRACT ONLY FULL ARTICLE - LINKED https://archive.is/aUSD8#selection-4373.0-4589.360 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The West is morally corrupt.   Europe is being destroyed by a flood of Middle Eastern and African immigration, created by Western interventions and destruction of functioning states. The terrorists that the West has been arming in the Middle East, will soon have cells set up in Europe, where they're now collecting welfare, and will soon be setting up head-hunter caliphate camps in Europe. And still, the West persists in undermining efforts to defeat the Islamic terrorist chaos in the Middle East, in the hope that the chaos they create will serve the West's regional interests, before eliminating them once they've served their purpose. But that's not all, as well as destruction of Europe, the West is secretly negotiating the collapse of the world economy. I reckon this entire planet should be nuked.  Seriously.  Why wait? ꕤ

Assange - Corporate Media & Government Collusion - USA - 60 Minutes - CBS Network

ꕤ Media Selling Unicorns❄ Corporate-Serving Media In Service of Aggressive Neoliberal Foreign Policy |  Manufacturing Consent Bias.  Compliance.  Censorship. Disinformation.  Distraction.  Diversion.  Suppression.  Smear. censorship & disinformation is denial of informed consent Dishonourable Mention 60 Minutes (CBS TV Network) 60 Minutes (CBS TV Network) Re:   WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange Australian journalist & political prisoner (London) US Government e-mail from Philip J Crowley to then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton CONFIRMS 60 Minutes raised questions US Government planted with the program. Link  |   here Program & Network Info source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes 60 Minutes is an American television program broadcast on the CBS television network Debut:  1968 2002 60 Minutes was ranked #6 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time The New York Times has called it "one of the most esteemed news magazines on American television". NSA Report 2013, 60 Minutes aired a report on the National Security Agency (NSA) that was widely criticized as false and a "puff piece." The story was reported by John Miller, who once worked in the office of the Director of National Intelligence and an ex-FBI spokesman. John Miller (journalist) Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence & Counter-terrorism of the NYPD former Associate Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analytic Transformation and Technology former Assistant Director of Public Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) formerly FBI national spokesman former ABC News reporter and anchorman, best known for conducting a May 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan named senior correspondent for CBS News on Oct. 17, 2011 reported for all CBS News platforms and broadcasts, including "CBS This Morning" and occasionally for "60 Minutes"  Other Son of:  late John J. Miller, a syndicated columnist and freelance writer roles:   Hollywood gossip columnist, foreign correspondent, Broadway critic, crime investigator, and political pundit. "My dad wrote seven columns under six different names... Antonio from Rome. Pierre from Paris. Nigel from London," Miller has said. father was also a close friend of Luciano crime family boss Frank Costello, whose wife, Lauretta, was Miller's godmother. Married 2002 -- Miller married Emily Helen Altschul, daughter of banking mogul and Goldman Sachs Group partner Arthur Goodhart Altschul and member of the Lehman family. Miller's brother-in-law, Arthur Altschul, Jr., worked for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley before becoming chairman of Medicis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Miller_%28journalist%29 Lehman Family Article that puts a face on some of corporate America http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/social-history/2007/lots-of-lehmans NSA goes on 60 Minutes: the definitive facts behind CBS's flawed report http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts EXTRACT The National Security Agency is telling its story like never before. Never mind whether that story is, well, true. On Sunday night, CBS’s 60 Minutes ran a remarkable piece that provided NSA officials, from director Keith Alexander to junior analysts, with a long, televised forum to push back against criticism of the powerful spy agency. It’s an opening salvo in an unprecedented push from the agency to win public confidence at a time when both White House reviews and pending legislation would restrict the NSA’s powers. But mixed in among the dramatic footage of Alexander receiving threat briefings and junior analysts solving Rubik’s cubes in 90 seconds were a number of dubious claims: from the extent of surveillance to collecting on Google and Yahoo data centers to an online “kill-switch” for the global financial system developed by China. Reporter John Miller, a former official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and an ex-FBI spokesman, allowed these claims to go unchallenged. Above http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts  CBS Sister businesses: Media conglomerate Viacom which owned CBS from 2000 to 2005, and is now a separate company owned by National Amusements, which is also the parent of CBS Corporation) Publisher Simon & Schuster (which remains a part of CBS Corporation after the 2005 CBS/Viacom split) History CBS from network's former name:  Columbia Broadcasting System American commercial broadcast television and radio network owned by:   CBS Corporation aka "Eye Network" (see logo, since 1951) founder William S. Paley origins:  collection of 16 radio stations that were purchased by Paley in 1928 Under Paley CBS would first become one of the largest radio networks in USA /  eventually one of the Big Three American broadcast television networks Westinghouse Electric Corporation acquired the network in 1995 2000 CBS came under the control of Viacom, which was formed as a spin-off of CBS in 1971 {so it acquired itself?  lol} 2005 Viacom split itself into two separate companies,  re-established CBS Corporation – through the spin-off of its broadcast television, radio and select cable television and non-broadcasting assets – with the CBS television network at its core.  CBS Corporation is controlled by Sumner Redstone through National Amusements, which also controls the current Viacom. CBS continues to operate a radio network -- mainly provides news and features content for its portfolio of owned-and-operated radio stations in large and mid-sized markets, and affiliated radio stations in various other markets.  CBS television network -- has more than 240 owned-and-operated and affiliated television stations throughout USA. Above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS William S. Paley Jewish-American family in cigar business 1927 -- Paley's father, brother-in-law and business partners buy struggling Philadelphia-based radio network of 16 station called the Columbia Phonographic Broadcasting System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Paley Sumner Redstone aka  Sumner Murray Rothstein Jewish-American  majority owner and Chairman of the Board  of National Amusements theatre chain Redstone and his family are majority owners of CBS Corporation and Viacom (itself the parent company of Viacom Media Networks, BET Networks, and the film studio Paramount Pictures).  According to Forbes, as of March 2014, Sumner Redstone is worth US $6.2 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Redstone ꕤ

Immigration - Europe: Media Suppression, Media Propaganda, Media Harassment, Media Blackout

ꕤ Media Selling Unicorns❄ Corporate-Serving Media In Service of Aggressive Neoliberal Foreign Policy |  Manufacturing Consent Bias.  Compliance.  Censorship. Disinformation.  Distraction.  Diversion.  Suppression.  Smear. censorship & disinformation is denial of informed consent Dishonourable Mentions The Huffington Post harassing ordinary Germans opposed to foreign invasion by immigration & Islamisation of Germany / suppression freedom of speech & expression of political dissent / by abuse of media position Link  |  here ZDF Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen taxpayer funded German broadcaster caught covering up rapes by migrants so as not to 'legitimise' critics of mass immigration  Link |  here (as above) Nordic Media Cover-ups Article #2 (in series of articles examined) Disastrous Consequences of Immigration & Rapes Suppressed "Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladet systematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals." Link  |  here Bloomberg View Economist for promoting the destruction of Europe & painting political dissenter group Pegida as a 'noxious' and 'xenophobic' / as if Germany & the nations of Europe ought to embrace alien invasion by immigration & resulting ethnic, cultural and national self-destruction as an obligatory 'moral' duty / Whose interests do you think Bloomberg & Economist serve? Link  |  here Media Blackout PEGIDA Dresden, Saxony, Germany 28.09.2015 Over 20,000 protest against Islamisation of West (Video) Link  |  here Sweden Tino Sanandaji Interview Swedish political elite & MEDIA SUPPRESSION re negative facts of immigration / speech oppression Link  |  here ꕤ

Western Prisoners of Technotyranny of Shadow Governments in the Service of Corporate Elites

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_nsas_technotyranny_one_nation_under_surveillance The NSA’s Technotyranny: One Nation Under Surveillance By John W. Whitehead May 26, 2015     “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”—William Binney, NSA whistleblower We now have a fourth branch of government. As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this fourth branch came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military. It is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC. You might know this branch of government as Surveillance, but I prefer “technotyranny,” a term coined by investigative journalist James Bamford to refer to an age of technological tyranny made possible by government secrets, government lies, government spies and their corporate ties. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it will all be recorded, stored and used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. Privacy, as we have known it, is dead. The police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state. Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to turn the nation’s soldier cops into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more. This is about to be the new face of policing in America. The National Security Agency (NSA) has been a perfect red herring, distracting us from the government’s broader, technology-driven campaign to render us helpless in the face of its prying eyes. In fact, long before the NSA became the agency we loved to hate, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration were carrying out their own secret mass surveillance on an unsuspecting populace. Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power. And of course that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine. The raging debate over the fate of the NSA’s blatantly unconstitutional, illegal and ongoing domestic surveillance programs is just so much noise, what Shakespeare referred to as “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It means nothing: the legislation, the revelations, the task forces, and the filibusters. The government is not giving up, nor is it giving in. It has stopped listening to us. It has long since ceased to take orders from “we the people.” If you haven’t figured it out yet, none of it—the military drills, the surveillance, the militarized police, the strip searches, the random pat downs, the stop-and-frisks, even the police-worn body cameras—is about fighting terrorism. It’s about controlling the populace. Despite the fact that its data snooping has been shown to be ineffective at detecting, let alone stopping, any actual terror attacks, the NSA continues to operate largely in secret, carrying out warrantless mass surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans’ phone calls, emails, text messages and the like, beyond the scrutiny of most of Congress and the taxpayers who are forced to fund its multi-billion dollar secret black ops budget. Legislation such as the USA Patriot Act serves only to legitimize the actions of a secret agency run by a shadow government. Even the proposed and ultimately defeated USA Freedom Act, which purported to restrict the reach of the NSA’s phone surveillance program—at least on paper—by requiring the agency to secure a warrant before surveillance could be carried out on American citizens and prohibiting the agency from storing any data collected on Americans, amounted to little more than a paper tiger: threatening in appearance, but lacking any real bite. The question of how to deal with the NSA—an agency that operates outside of the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution—is a divisive issue that polarizes even those who have opposed the NSA’s warrantless surveillance from the get-go, forcing all of us—cynics, idealists, politicians and realists alike—to grapple with a deeply unsatisfactory and dubious political “solution” to a problem that operates beyond the reach of voters and politicians: how do you trust a government that lies, cheats, steals, sidesteps the law, and then absolves itself of wrongdoing to actually obey the law? Since its official start in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman issued a secret executive order establishing the NSA as the hub of the government’s foreign intelligence activities, the agency—nicknamed “No Such Agency”—has operated covertly, unaccountable to Congress all the while using taxpayer dollars to fund its secret operations. It was only when the agency ballooned to 90,000 employees in 1969, making it the largest intelligence agency in the world with a significant footprint outside Washington, DC, that it became more difficult to deny its existence. In the aftermath of Watergate in 1975, the Senate held meetings under the Church Committee in order to determine exactly what sorts of illicit activities the American intelligence apparatus was engaged in under the direction of President Nixon, and how future violations of the law could be stopped. It was the first time the NSA was exposed to public scrutiny since its creation. The investigation revealed a sophisticated operation whose surveillance programs paid little heed to such things as the Constitution. For instance, under Project SHAMROCK, the NSA spied on telegrams to and from the U.S., as well as the correspondence of American citizens. Moreover, as the Saturday Evening Post reports, “Under Project MINARET, the NSA monitored the communications of civil rights leaders and opponents of the Vietnam War, including targets such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohammed Ali, Jane Fonda, and two active U.S. Senators. The NSA had launched this program in 1967 to monitor suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, but successive presidents used it to track all manner of political dissidents.” Senator Frank Church (D-Ida.), who served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that investigated the NSA, understood only too well the dangers inherent in allowing the government to overstep its authority in the name of national security. Church recognized that such surveillance powers “at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.” Noting that the NSA could enable a dictator “to impose total tyranny” upon an utterly defenseless American public, Church declared that he did not “want to see this country ever go across the bridge” of constitutional protection, congressional oversight and popular demand for privacy. He avowed that “we,” implicating both Congress and its constituency in this duty, “must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.” The result was the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the creation of the FISA Court, which was supposed to oversee and correct how intelligence information is collected and collated. The law requires that the NSA get clearance from the FISA Court, a secret surveillance court, before it can carry out surveillance on American citizens. Fast forward to the present day, and the so-called solution to the problem of government entities engaging in unjustified and illegal surveillance—the FISA Court—has unwittingly become the enabler of such activities, rubberstamping almost every warrant request submitted to it. The 9/11 attacks served as a watershed moment in our nation’s history, ushering in an era in which immoral and/or illegal government activities such as surveillance, torture, strip searches, SWAT team raids are sanctioned as part of the quest to keep us “safe.” In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans’ phone calls and emails. That wireless wiretap program was reportedly ended in 2007 after the New York Times reported on it, to mass indignation. Nothing changed under Barack Obama. In fact, the violations worsened, with the NSA authorized to secretly collect internet and telephone data on millions of Americans, as well as on foreign governments. It was only after whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 that the American people fully understood the extent to which they had been betrayed once again. What this brief history of the NSA makes clear is that you cannot reform the NSA. As long as the government is allowed to make a mockery of the law—be it the Constitution, the FISA Act or any other law intended to limit its reach and curtail its activities—and is permitted to operate behind closed doors, [relying] on secret courts, secret budgets and secret interpretations of the laws of the land, there will be no reform. Presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone over the course of the NSA’s 60-year history, but none of them have done much to put an end to the NSA’s “technotyranny.” The beast has outgrown its chains. It will not be restrained. The growing tension seen and felt throughout the country is a tension between those who wield power on behalf of the government—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the militarized police, the technocrats, the faceless unelected bureaucrats who blindly obey and carry out government directives, no matter how immoral or unjust, and the corporations—and those among the populace who are finally waking up to the mounting injustices, seething corruption and endless tyrannies that are transforming our country into a technocrized police state. At every turn, we have been handicapped in our quest for transparency, accountability and a representative democracy by an establishment culture of secrecy: secret agencies, secret experiments, secret military bases, secret surveillance, secret budgets, and secret court rulings, all of which exist beyond our reach, operate outside our knowledge, and do not answer to “we the people.” What we have failed to truly comprehend is that the NSA is merely one small part of a shadowy permanent government comprised of unelected bureaucrats who march in lockstep with profit-driven corporations that actually runs Washington, DC, and works to keep us under surveillance and, thus, under control. For example, Google openly works with the NSA, Amazon has built a massive $600 million intelligence database for the CIA, and the telecommunications industry is making a fat profit by spying on us for the government. In other words, Corporate America is making a hefty profit by aiding and abetting the government in its domestic surveillance efforts. Conveniently, as the Intercept recently revealed, many of the NSA’s loudest defenders have financial ties to NSA contractors. Thus, if this secret regime not only exists but thrives, it is because we have allowed it through our ignorance, apathy and naïve trust in politicians who take their orders from Corporate America rather than the Constitution. If this shadow government persists, it is because we have yet to get outraged enough to push back against its power grabs and put an end to its high-handed tactics. And if this unelected bureaucracy succeeds in trampling underfoot our last vestiges of privacy and freedom, it will be because we let ourselves be fooled into believing that politics matters, that voting makes a difference, that politicians actually represent the citizenry, that the courts care about justice, and that everything that is being done is in our best interests. Indeed, as political scientist Michael J. Glennon warns, you can vote all you want, but the people you elect aren’t actually the ones calling the shots. “The American people are deluded … that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy,” stated Glennon. “They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. But … policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.” In other words, it doesn’t matter who occupies the White House: the secret government with its secret agencies, secret budgets and secret programs won’t change. It will simply continue to operate in secret until some whistleblower comes along to momentarily pull back the curtain and we dutifully—and fleetingly—play the part of the outraged public, demanding accountability and rattling our cages, all the while bringing about little real reform. Thus, the lesson of the NSA and its vast network of domestic spy partners is simply this: once you allow the government to start breaking the law, no matter how seemingly justifiable the reason, you relinquish the contract between you and the government which establishes that the government works for and obeys you, the citizen—the employer—the master. Once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution. And by revolution, I mean doing away with the entire structure, because the corruption and lawlessness have become that pervasive. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_nsas_technotyranny_one_nation_under_surveillance ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I switched my attention to another topic because the mass non-European invasion in Europe was seriously freaking me out, while the events in Israel were also beginning to do my head in.  But reading this is just as depressing. What applies in the US, applies elsewhere.  It's just different nations and different agencies, operating in much the same way and in cooperation with their US counterparts and allies (see Five Eyes & note the German BND cooperation with US spying, along with the Five Eyes partners). It sounds like all ordinary people are doomed to being controlled by shadow unelected governments, that are operating in the service of the corporate elite's interests, and evidently a law unto themselves. Can't see a revolution coming any time soon, so we're all prisoners and the entire Western democratic government edifice is a lie. ꕤ