Israel only reason for US intervention in Syria

In the third paragraph, the Letter asserts: “While our nation has encouraged more stable and inclusive political systems in the Middle East, the regime in Tehran has spread its influence and destabilized its neighbors for its own gain.” To say this is an outrageous distortion of the truth would be an understatement. There is not a sane Iraqi, Syrian, Lybian, Yemeni and most Muslim Arabs who would vouch to such a distortion. In fact, internationally, the US and Israel are viewed as sources of threat to international peace and security; both have boots on foreign grounds but no foreign boots on their grounds. […]

Beyond any conceivable doubts, the Letter was dictated by Israelis or their advocates in Washington, signed and submitted by the 400 congressmen to Trump; the height of hypocrisy. What is dismaying is that hardly any voices of protests were raised in the American society at large or the political or intellectual segments about the fact that four hundred congressmen, who are elected by Americans to serve American interests, at a time when the US is bogged down in the Arab region, sign and submit a letter to the US President concerned almost exclusively with Israel Security.

These congressmen had an opportunity to make a coherent recommendation on US policy in the Arab region in the interest of American National Interest, but instead chose to make recommendations to safeguard the wellbeing and security of a foreign state: Israel.

Read the full article by Elias Samo here.

US Establishment working to rig 2020

by Serban V.C. Enache

The [conservative] investigative group, Project Veritas, did a probe into Google’s new “safeguards” to prevent another Trump presidency. It includes interviews with a whistle-blower from that company, and two secretly filmed conversations with a Google executive and a Google engineer. Unsurprisingly, Youtube, a subsidiary of Google, took down the video, claiming it violated privacy rules.

Jen Gennai, head of ‘responsible innovation,’ says the following… “Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her, but she’s very misguided; like that won’t make it better, it will make it worse – ’cause now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, […] a small company can’t do that. […] We got called in front of Congress multiple times. […] They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.”

Let’s briefly dissect the above paragraph. Breaking up a company – one that has a de facto monopoly in several fields, monopoly obtained through preferential relationship and access to technology from specialized US Government institutions and anti-competition practices – is a political choice. Unless she wants to become a politician or a lobbyist, the head of the “responsible innovation” department of Google should refrain from emitting such obviously biased and self-serving, political opinions. More to the point, she should not manipulate the audience by conflating her political preference with what is and isn’t technologically and logistically feasible. Multiple companies policing reprehensible behaviors online is not akin to having multiple companies digging up the ground and planting their own pipe and sewer systems underneath a city, a task which is neither economically nor environmentally feasible. We’re talking about the digital realm, where the constraints are vastly different. And if we’re talking about a lack of financial resources for these smaller companies, that’s a red herring too. So long as there’s demand for a service, there is profit to be made, and investors and business loans can be secured. But of course, this
Jen Gennai wasn’t talking about any sort of reasonable standard of content policing [child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist cells etc] she was referring wholly to Google preventing the reelection of Donald Trump. In short, this Google executive is full of it.

Another hallucinating aspect raised by Project Veritas in their probe on Google is “algorithmic unfairness,” as the company understands it. A passage from this document, under the sub-title “If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?” reveals the following… “Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men… even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness.” Google software engineer, Gaurav Gite, is secretly caught on camera stating that, “So they’re trying to modify the model, such that even if the data for female CEO is low, it still balances out.” This is social-engineering gone berserk. Instead of depicting actual reality and striving to promote equality of opportunity, not just de jure, but de facto, while also taking merit into consideration, without which the outcome cannot be just, Google is trying to deform reality to suit its fantasy, however progressive it may be. The goal doesn’t justify the means; but the mantra of the ‘PC police’ is ‘judge us by our motives, not our methods.’

These type of secret and invisible filters to its algorithms are unacceptable in a society that’s supposed to be free and democratic. Ultimately, the fate of this society depends on the will of the citizenry to be informed and stay informed, not on shady, corporate giants, who are unelected and accountable to none. A state and a press that fears the people, or I should say, the groups in control of the state and the press who fear the people must be brought down from these institutions – initially through democratic exercise at the ballot box, and if they refuse, then by force of arms. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”

Meanwhile, the Establishment’s mouthpieces, those ‘woke’ intellectuals, whose hearts bleed for the fate of immigrants and Muslims in the US, who manufacture crocodile tears on air, and who – prior to Trump’s election – were criticizing the Donald’s potential “isolationist” foreign policy and were bemoaning the possible demise of US internationalism were in fact fearing that the next POTUS might shed away the empire in favor of the nation state. I hope it’s evident by now, to the average spectator who still has a soul in his or her chest, that all of these internationalists and bleeding-heart intellectuals are in fact political prostitutes, mercenaries, and war profiteers, and in no way, shape, or form do they serve the national interest of the United States. And when I say national interest, I mean the national interest defined in Westphalian terms: nations forgiving and forgetting past transgressions among and between them, while working to “further the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other.” The Westphalian national interest should be the cornerstone of any civilized country, especially for those countries which claim to be Christian. For more on this, please read my articles The Sovereign Nation State and The Globalists of Left & Right.

What have these mainstream commentators [tories and libs] done during the Trump presidency? They’ve applauded every belligerent action taken by the Government and condemned every sensible and diplomatic action as “weakness,” as evidence of “Russian meddling,” as “gross disorganization” because Trump didn’t launch military attacks. Isn’t it ironic that the vast majority of these elites are the most rabid for military confrontation? Of course, they’d never want to be in the front lines or to have their kids there, just the plebs recruited by the Military, because who cares about them? And isn’t it also ironic that the far right, to an increasingly larger and vocal degree, doesn’t share the same affliction? Quite the opposite, it condemns former and future military involvements and opposes US soldiers going abroad to kill and be killed on behalf of foreign interests. But the pro-peace voices [no matter their political color] are being denounced as out of touch, isolationist, extremist, and militant. So what are these elites telling us? That censorship is freedom, secrecy is accountability, might is right, and war is peace.

Sean Hannity is a TERRORIST

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris discuss the on air meltdown of Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday night, where his viewers witnessed the host screaming about how Trump [the US Government] should “bomb the hell of out Iran” for downing an American drone. Hannity lashed out at Fox News contributor and long time friend Geraldo Rivera, who advocated for restraint and diplomacy. Rivera rightfully insisted that Iran’s side of the story must be heard and even mentioned [civilian] Iranian Air Flight 655, which was downed by the US military on July 1988. “A strong message needs to be sent that a huge price will be paid if you take on the United State of America,” Hannity shouted. “Simple peace through strength, and it works.” Hannity continued, “they shot an American drone out of the air, they are not getting away with it.” Fox News’ Tucker Carlson praised the US President for resisting calls for military action.

My Comment: A great thing about the Trump presidency is that the US audience, inherently indoctrinated and tribal, have the rare opportunity to see who the warmongers and war profiteers are. These people are infiltrated in all layers of society, from the entertainment industry, to artists, journalists, politicians, think tanks, and trans-national business conglomerates. Alex Christoforou brings up the episode in which the Turkish military took down a [manned] Russian military jet near the Syrian-Turkish border; and how both parties talked to each other and diplomatically resolved the regrettable event – no trade sanctions, no bellicose statements, no military posturing against each other – on the contrary, diplomatic and military cooperation. Presumably, in the minds of sub-humans like Hannity, who foam at the mouth with fake emotion and sophistry in their satanic desire to see the US involved in another war, dialog and peaceful solutions are a blasphemy. Also notice that Hannity [a fiscal conservative] has no problem with Keynesianism [Government deficit spending] so long as the money is spent on the means of death, but should Government deficit funds be spent on the means of life [hospitals, schools, railways], that type of Keynesianism is just wrong…

The Evangelical Christians [the Christian Zionists] who have brain orgasms over fulfilling their [heretical and genocidal] end times prophecy by having the US destroy any sovereign nation state that Israel deems a “threat,” need to look themselves in the mirror and see that they’re in fact worshiping Mammon, not Jesus Christ, for Mammon is the god of greed and unlawful gain, and I can’t think of a more serious crime than war profiteering, which translates into death and misery. War profiteering truly is the apex of all sin. The struggle against these [inhuman] preachers of war will never be powerful enough if it rests purely on utilitarian arguments and perspectives – the struggle MUST also be spiritual, otherwise, it will not succeed…

Follow the Duran website, their youtube channel, their iTunes Podcast, their Soundcloud, on Minds, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Shop, their Patreon page, their Paypal to show your support.

Trump vs Iran, Reality vs PR

In this podcast from June 20th, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou of the Duran discuss the Iranian strike against the US automated spy plane [whom Teheran says it was violating the country’s sovereign air space, while Trump maintains it was in international waters], the involvement of foreign powers into the conflict [Russia and China], plus other implications, like Trump’s re-election campaign and the international price of crude. Tucker Carlson is invoked as a [lone] voice in the mainstream media, a voice of reason, which nails the neocons as the crazy, warmongers they are.

My Comment: Trump’s schizoid foreign policy will be his downfall. In a piece by Elijah Magnier, the following scenario is asserted – that Trump tried to get Teheran’s blessing to bomb two or three sites, so that the US could save same face after the spy plane’s knockdown. Elijah Magnier’s source says that the Iranian Government categorically rejected the offer, even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

I use the term schizoid to refer to Trump’s policy because that best describes it, in my opinion. The Donald is trying to serve more than one master and ancient wisdom tells us what comes about from such foolish attempts. Donald Trumps puts the most deranged mercenaries and war criminals in charge of key Government positions, ditto for all the corporate stooges he put in charge of economic policy, and then tries to comport himself as a rude, hard-ass, but ultimately sensible and even-handed guy. There’s nothing honorable in this strategy. In fact, this type of behavior is called political prostitution. Ironically enough, Trump’s not the best at it [political whoring]. Other US presidents have engaged in it, even with Iran, and had better outcomes than Trump – who pushed his usual strong-man approach and got tangled up in the nets instead.

Even if the automated US spy plane was approaching the end of its [functional] life, as a rumor goes, Iran has clearly shown its capabilities and – more importantly – the will to defend the sovereignty of its borders, land, water, and air. Lindsey Graham, the terrorist US senator, has made more bellicose statements against Iran, and Tucker Carlson rightly taxed him for it.

In the end, Trump will have no choice but to pick a master, and I’m convinced he will dump all the reasonable pledges made on foreign policy in order to save his hide and fortune, which ultimately rest in the hands of Wall-Street and the Deep State.

Follow the Duran website, their youtube channel, their iTunes Podcast, their Soundcloud, on Minds, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Shop, their Patreon page, their Paypal to show your support.

Interview with Iran’s Ambassador to the UK

Iran’s Ambassador to the UK Hamid Baeidinejad answers questions: the recent escalation of tensions between the US and Iran, the Gulf of Oman tanker accident, Western accusations, Iran’s ability to defend itself against the US and other Western powers, including Israel, the status of the Nuclear Deal as the Government increases uranium enrichment in response to the West’s treaty violations, and tensions with Saudi Arabia across the region.