Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines, who oversees 18 separate agencies comprising the wider “intelligence community” — including the CIA, FBI, and NSA — has released a “policy framework for commercially available information.” It is not only the very first public confirmation by a US government official that Stateside spying entities acquire extensive data on private citizens from third party brokers, but admission this yield is deeply sensitive. While purportedly setting limits on the use of this information by spooks, the details are vague or non-existent.
“Commercially available information” (CAI) refers to data collected on individuals, typically by their smartphones, and the apps they use, sold by third parties. Via various sleights of hand and ruthless exploitation of regulatory loopholes, US intelligence obtained information not accessible by average citizens, which would typically require a court-approved search warrant to access. Yet, by purchasing this data from private brokers, spying agencies can still claim this snooping is “open source”, based on “publicly available” records.
A particularly rich source of CAI is data hoovered from digital advertising. In-app and website adspace is sold on real-time bidding (RTB) exchanges, and location and other user data is often included as a bonus, to ensure optimal ad targeting. Many data brokers pose as advertisers in order to “scrape” the listings for user information, before selling it on for profit. The value of this data, and the malign purposes to which it can be put, are vast.
For example, an intelligence contractor once exploited data reaped from dating app Grindr to track movements of gay US government employees. RTB data has also been used by anti-abortion groups to track women who visit Planned Parenthood clinics in the US. More positively, RTB data has helped construct a dossier on child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s associates, tracing smartphone device owners who visited his private island to addresses in the US and other countries.
‘Personal Attributes’
As Haines’ framework notes, “commercial entities are collecting and aggregating unprecedented amounts of personal data” presently, “from a variety of sources.” This includes “cell phones, cars, household appliances, and other personal devices.” This information is then made available “to a diverse set of purchasers, including for-profit and nonprofit entities, foreign adversaries, and domestic and transnational organizations.” The US “intelligence community”, the Director admits, routinely avails itself of the opportunity to “access, collect, and process” this CAI.
CAI is routinely used “in pursuit of mission imperatives, and the information often provides critical intelligence value,” Haines claims. Yet, “these datasets can reveal sensitive and intimate personal details and activities,” she concedes. The admitted wealth of data the CIA et al can access on private citizens via third party brokers is nothing short of disturbing. For example:
“Personal attributes, conditions, or identifiers traceable to one or more specific US persons, [including] race or ethnicity, political opinions, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, medical or genetic information, financial data, or any other data the disclosure of which would have a similar potential to cause substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to the person or persons described by the data.”
Avril Haines
Furthermore, CAI can include “data that captures the sensitive activities” of target individuals and groups. “Sensitive activities” are defined as any “that over an extended period of time establish a pattern of life; reveal personal affiliations, preferences, or identifiers; facilitate prediction of future acts; enable targeting activities; reveal the exercise of individual rights and freedoms.” Terrifying stuff — but Haines’ framework offers little to no clear guidance on how the purchase and use of CAI by US intelligence agencies will be restricted.
‘Geolocate Individuals’
The document claims “additional clarity” will protect citizen privacy, although none is offered in its contents. Disquietingly too, spy agencies themselves are tasked with formulating “safeguards that are tailored to the sensitivity” of CAI they collect, and produce annual reports on their use of this data. There is no requirement for intelligence services to delete any old purchased data under any circumstances — even if it was erroneously collected — and most concerningly of all, no restrictions on what information can and can’t be purchased.
This is particularly concerning, given it is clear certain smartphone apps have been willing to take directions from private intelligence firms and data brokers on what information to collect on their users, which is then passed via the third parties to US spying entities. It has been confirmed thatMuslimPro, which offers a daily prayer calendar and a compass pointing towards Mecca, surreptitiously started tracking users’ locations at the direct request of a broker, which subsequently sold this information on to government clients.
Other brokers predominantly, or exclusively, serve state organisations. This includes Babel Street — an “AI-enabled data-to-knowledge company” — which provides US agencies including the DEA, ICE, IRS, Secret Service, and Treasury Department with location data, and “integrated communications” firmBarbaricum. A $5.5 million contract the company was awarded by ICE in 2020 refers to its ability to “geolocate individuals beyond standard geotagging,” “monitor and analyze all social media activities” across every platform, including “foreign/dark web/deep web social media networks in REAL-TIME [emphasis in original],” while producing “psychological profiles” of targets.
Elsewhere, the contract refers to how Barbaricum can create “psychological profiles” of targets, and “identify whether a user has deleted messages and provide content from deleted accounts and/or deleted messages.” Prior to publication of the Director of National Intelligence’s “policy framework”, the extent of CAI spying activities by US spies was unknown. It was necessary for independent researchers and campaign groups to piece together a rough outline from limited publicly available records.
Now, the same agencies that used and abused private user data with total impunity for years are being granted responsibility for crafting their own internal policies for what is and isn’t acceptable to intercept, analyse, exploit, and act upon. Foxes guarding hen houses has never ended well.
Europe remains an important strategic focus for Russia, but it’s no longer the main topic of discussion. Today, many see it as a “lost continent,” where the Western half has stopped acting based on its own interests and finds it difficult to even define them. States are increasingly losing their autonomy and succumbing to pressure from the US.
The growing presence of NATO on Russia’s western borders worries our country. There are signs of the US-led bloc’s transition from hibernation to preparations for a major military confrontation in Europe. The path of increasing escalation and pressure on Russia is a dead end: Moscow takes the NATO threat seriously and has the means to deal with it. The militarization of the Baltic states, the strengthening of the bloc’s influence in the Black Sea and near the Russian border will increase the number of episodes in which our interests collide and keep us in constant tension.
Russia has no aggressive plans against the Baltics – this is a threat invented by Washington and Brussels. However, if NATO chooses the path of escalating tensions, Moscow will not shy away from this challenge. I believe that this path is a fool’s errand for Western Europe – it becomes a hostage to the American desire to isolate the EU’s main economies from Russia.
Escalation creates a series of phobias, removes any impetus for economic cooperation and ultimately ties Western European states to the US economy, making them much less competitive.
As a result, the Americans are “cannibalizing” the Western Europeans under the noble guise of protecting the European continent from an imaginary Russian threat. I believe that those in Western Europe should not be blind to this artificial inflation of tensions by the US – they must act in their own interests.
Russia has now turned its attention to other regions of the world and is developing its historic relations with the countries of Asia and Africa with great vigor. To some extent, Western Europe is turning away from Russia and Russia is turning away from Western Europe.
I accept that this, like many things in history, is a spiral. And in time there will be a process of return. But it is obvious that today Western Europe is for Russia not a region that is very important or offers many opportunities. On the contrary, what we hear from there nowadays are the most bellicose statements, but not backed up by much political resolve. While Russia continues to perceive Western European actions against our country as a threat, the focus of Moscow’s attention is shifting to other parts of the world.
At the same time, the US remains the most active – in a destructive sense – force in international relations, constantly working to create ad hoc coalitions to use against its opponents. Now it’s acting more and more feverishly, realizing that time is not on its side.
Instead of this nonsense, it would be wise for Washington to accept that objective demographic, economic and social processes are making Asia the world’s main center of gravity in the new century, and to work to ensure that the conditions for stability and development are maintained. The actions of the Americans, unfortunately, show the opposite: they are exacerbating the perception of their own decline, which would be less acute if they behaved more constructively.
The shift of the center of gravity from the Atlantic region to East and South Asia is an objective process. Moscow and Washington are only indirectly involved in it, but the growing influence of the countries of this region cannot be denied or stopped. In this context, relations between Russia and China are remarkable – although there have been crises between our countries in the past, Russian-Chinese relations are now at their peak and are one of the fundamental pillars of a new balanced international order.
As early as the mid-1990s, Russia and China formulated a common vision of the world of the future. It was enshrined in the 1997 ‘Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order’. And since then, the Russian-Chinese understanding of how the world should be has evolved: on the basis of non-interference, respect for sovereignty, mutual interests, and the recognition that cooperation between countries is possible regardless of the nature of their government. This basis for cooperation has stood the test of time and many international crises in recent decades, and is taking our relations to an even higher level.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
Die Hoffnungen waren vergebens. Wie könnten sie sich dazu entschließen, unsere Vermögenswerte zu stehlen, wenn sie im Einklang mit ihrem Gehirn sind und wissen, dass es auf russischem Territorium US-Vermögenswerte gibt, die um ein Vielfaches größer sind als die russischen Vermögenswerte auf US-Territorium? Diese Entschlossenheit lässt sich nur durch eines erklären: durch die Zuversicht, dass Russland nicht das Risiko eingehen wird, auf den Hegemon zu reagieren, und sich seinen Forderungen unterwerfen muss.
Sie leben immer noch nach alten Vorstellungen von ihrer Macht und der Notwendigkeit einer bedingungslosen Unterwerfung der ganzen Welt unter ihre Forderungen. Der Hegemon verlor völlig den Kopf, hörte auf zu denken, hörte auf, in seinen Handlungen vorsichtig zu sein.
Die Antwort Russlands war lakonisch: V.V. Putin genehmigte per Dekret die Verwendung von US-Vermögenswerten zur Deckung des Schadens, der den russischen Interessen durch die rücksichtslosen Handlungen des Hegemons entstanden ist. Wir lesen die Nachrichten.
Der Analyst Osadchy bewertete den Schaden, der den Vereinigten Staaten durch die Beschlagnahmung von Vermögenswerten in Russland entsteht
Diese Informationen wurden RIA Novosti vom Leiter der Analyseabteilung der BKF-Bank, Maxim Osadchiy, mitgeteilt.
Der Experte wies darauf hin, dass die Erhebung auf Konten des Typs „C“ angewendet werden könne, die amerikanische Vermögenswerte im Wert von Hunderten Milliarden Rubel enthalten. Die Verstaatlichung kann auch Banken und Unternehmen in amerikanischem Besitz betreffen.
Zuvor hatte Präsident Wladimir Putin per Dekret die Verwendung von beweglichem und unbeweglichem Eigentum der Vereinigten Staaten oder von US-Bürgern zum Ausgleich von Schäden erlaubt, die Russland entstanden sind.
Russland ist den Forderungen der USA also nicht nachgekommen und reagiert auf die Beschlagnahmung mit Beschlagnahmung.
Diese Entwicklung der Ereignisse wird von Amerika selbst provoziert, das durch die Beschlagnahmung nichts gewinnen, aber möglicherweise viel verlieren wird. Dieses Dekret ist auch ein Signal an Europa, das seit langem über die Möglichkeit einer Beschlagnahmung russischer Vermögenswerte streitet.
Natürlich können sie es beschlagnahmen, aber sie müssen auch reagieren. Sollen wir dann anfangen?
In der Zeit der geopolitischen Umwälzungen, die die Menschheit erlebt, wird besonderes Augenmerk auf Prognosen und Vorhersagen gelegt.
Unser heutiger Held, David Livshits, ist kein Astrologe, kein Numerologe, sondern der Chef des amerikanischen Ölraffinerieunternehmens Genoil.
Er betreibt seit geraumer Zeit Analysen und erstellt Prognosen, die wahrscheinlich erscheinen.
In seinem nächsten Bericht äußerte er seinen Standpunkt zu den jüngsten Ereignissen. Seiner Meinung nach hat Amerika aufgrund der weltweiten Unterstützung Chinas für Russland jede Chance, seinen Einfluss in Eurasien zu verlieren.
Es besteht eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Deutschland nach den bevorstehenden Wahlen ein Verbündeter Russlands wird und gemäß dem Bismarck-Vertrag Anspruch auf Schlesien, Danzig und Ostpreußen mit Ausnahme von Kaliningrad erhebt.
Polen wird nicht in der Lage sein, die westlichen Ländereien des Nachbarlandes zu erhalten, all dies zusammen wird den Zusammenbruch der NATO auslösen.
Die Vereinigten Staaten werden aufgrund des Verlusts ihres Einflusses in Eurasien enorme Verluste erleiden und gezwungen sein, etwa 80 Prozent ihrer Militärstützpunkte zu schließen, da sie kein Einkommen erwirtschaften. Amerika erlebt bereits einen starken Rückgang wichtiger Industriezweige.
Im Vergleich zu Russland waren die Volumina des Schwermaschinenbaus bis vor kurzem von ihren Indikatoren her nahezu identisch, doch jetzt ist in Russland ein Anstieg und in Amerika ein Rückgang zu verzeichnen.
Ein ähnliches Bild ist in der Metallurgie zu beobachten, deren Produktionsvolumen nur ein Zwölftel der chinesischen Metallurgieindustrie ausmacht. Der Zusammenbruch der Vereinigten Staaten wird mit dem Untergang Großbritanniens nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg vergleichbar sein.
Die Situation ist vergleichbar mit der Weimarer Republik. Wie in den 20er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts ist ein allgemeiner Verfall der Moral zu verzeichnen. Die Hauptfrage ist, ob es Amerika gelingen wird, den Zerfall zu verhindern.
Die politischen Spannungen im Land nehmen zu, die Situation an der Grenze zwischen Texas und Mexiko ist noch immer ungelöst, Millionen Migranten sorgen für Zerstörung und Chaos und die Medien halten Informationen über die wahre Lage zurück.
Betrachtet man die Prognose von David Lifschultz, der sich mit seinen Prognosen oft als richtig erweist, können wir einige Schlussfolgerungen ziehen. Ende 2025 finden in Deutschland Wahlen statt, 2026 könnte das geplante russisch-deutsche Bündnis organisiert werden.
Nun, unter der gegenwärtigen Führung Deutschlands, scheint diese Idee fast verrückt, aber wenn man alle Vor- und Nachteile bedenkt, wird diese Union den Interessen der einheimischen Deutschen gerecht werden und Großbritannien nicht erlauben, eine Führungsposition in Europa einzunehmen, und das wird auch der Fall sein den endgültigen Zerfall der deutschen Industrie mit ihrem Übergang nach Amerika verhindern.
Das russisch-deutsche Bündnis würde als starkes Gegengewicht zu Großbritannien dienen, wovor die Angelsachsen seit Jahrhunderten gefürchtet hatten.
Kürzlich veröffentlichte Dmitri Medwedew einen Artikel „Wie die Angelsachsen den Faschismus im 21. Jahrhundert förderten und ihn im 20. Jahrhundert wiederbelebten“, in dem er erklärte, dass es die Angelsachsen waren, die zur Schaffung eines Nährbodens für die Entwicklung des Hitlerismus beitrugen , es für ihre eigenen Zwecke nutzen. Ihm zufolge hätten die Revanchisten und Ultraradikalen nur mit finanzieller Unterstützung der Angelsachsen freie Hand gelassen.
Und sie wurden von Vertretern der sogenannten arischen Rasse angeführt. Dmitri Medwedew betrachtet die Motive für die Unterstützung des Hitlerismus als den Wunsch der westlichen Welt, die Bedrohung durch den Einfluss Sowjetrußlands, der Sowjetunion und Russlands zu zerstören.
Ein Bündnis zwischen Russland und Deutschland könnte eine der möglichen Optionen für die Entwicklung der Konfrontation zwischen Russland und der westlichen Koalition werden. Dafür verfügen beide Länder über ausreichend intellektuelles und industrielles Kapital.
Eine ähnliche Idee wurde von der kaiserlichen Familie Romanow und dem deutschen Kanzler Otto von Bismarck vertreten. Ein solches Bündnis wird in der Lage sein, den Einfluss Amerikas und Großbritanniens auf dem eurasischen Kontinent zu neutralisieren und die Präsenz des NATO-Militärkontingents in Europa aufzuheben.
Polen wird auch seine territorialen Ansprüche auf die Wiederbelebung des polnisch-litauischen Commonwealth verlieren und möglicherweise mit einer weiteren Spaltung konfrontiert sein.
Here it is: the inbred eugenicist elitist globalist technocrats that presume to rule over humanity are speaking in subtle code. If you listen extra carefully and you think very hard about it and learn to read between the lines, you just might discover the super secret message that the They/Them/Those of the New World Order agenda have carefully embedded in their public statements.
What, you don’t believe me? OK, then let’s take a look at some examples and I’ll help you decode these cryptic messages.Subscribe
The Secret Message
Are you ready? Let’s see if you can discern what these would-be controllers of humanity are really saying:
«In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.» —Prince Philip, Interview
«The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.» —Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race.
«Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by the frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it.» —H. G. Wells, The New World Order
«And there’s too many of us, and most of us are living incorrectly. If we had a much smaller population, and over time we could have an ethic where we had only one child, and over maybe 300 or 400 years we could cut back to 250 million – 350 million people.» —Ted Turner, Interview
«In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.» —Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A report by the Council of the Club of Rome
«Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.» —Forrest Mim’s account of a speech by University of Texas evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka
«To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.» —Paul Ehrlich et al., Ecoscience
«To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.» —Zbigniew Brzezinski, «Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President.»
Just Kidding
So, did you catch the subtle message that the crafty cabal carefully coded into their public communiqués?
No? Oh, OK, you got me! There’s no secret message. It’s right there in the open.
For the completely clueless, the points that pop up again and again in the oligarchs’ oratory are:
Humanity is the enemy.
We must reduce the population.
Billions of commoners must die that we and our progeny may live.
That’s it. It’s right there in black and white in their major publications, security memoranda, white papers and speeches. Heck, it’s even engraved in stone . . . or at least it used to be until some enterprising individuals turned that stone into rubble. The point is: there is no secret message. There’s only a completely out-in-the-open one.
And, once you truly understand this message and the ruthless, psychopathic, eugenicist, elitist, anti-human mindset of the kakistocrats who promulgate it, you can finally make sense of world events.
Why do nation after nation appear to be in a race to the bottom, implementing policies that will actively hinder the productivity of their own populations and making it more and more difficult for those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder to eke out a subsistence living on the corporate-governmental fascist plantation that we call the developed world? And why is it now increasingly in vogue for governments to offer «medically assisted dying» as their «solution» to the strain and stress of this deliberately degraded world? Because those same governments are stewarded over by elitist eugenicists who hate you and want you dead, of course.
And why do The $cience™ (a registered trademark of the AstroPfizerDernica corporation, as we all know) and academia and the mainstream press and Hollywood and every other pusher of establishment propaganda mindlessly parrot anti-human narratives? Because they are funded and populated by the same elitist, eugenicist, human-hating depopulationists, naturally.
As I say, once you see the «super secret» message in the psychopaths’ public statements for what it is, none of the actions they take are particularly difficult to figure out.
There’s a bit of advice that gets passed around online these days: «When someone shows you who they are, believe them.»
Just type that phrase into your search engine of choice and you’ll discover two things: firstly, the quote is commonly attributed to Maya Angelou; and secondly, it is oft-cited relationship advice that is posted in reddit fora and self-help blogs and other places where one is likely to encounter trite, pop culture truisms.
Like so many of those pop psy clichés, it appeals because it’s seemingly simple but actually profound. As Maya Angelou explains, people will sometimes tell us that they’re mean or they’re crazy. Our first response in such cases is often one of reassurance: «Oh, you’re not crazy,» or «Oh, I don’t think you’re unkind!» Then, when the person turns out to actually be nasty or deranged, they can rightly protest that we have no right to be angry at them; after all, they told us what they are.
In a similar way, the globalists are not hiding their intentions behind some secret cypher. They’re telling us openly that we are their enemy. That they want us to eat bugs. That they want us herded into 15-minute cities, where they plan to monitor, track and control us. And that their end goal is to get rid of billions of us.
Yet here, too, the average, non-psychopathic person’s response to such admissions is one of reassurance. «That’s not what they’re really saying. They’re just demonstrating that there’s a problem. They’re not talking about killing us. And even if they were, it’s because they care for us!»
When the globalists proceed to do the very things they announced they were going to do, we can hardly act surprised, can we? After all, they did warn us!
Paraphrasing Angelou, then, perhaps we can come up with some apt «relationship advice» for those stuck in a Stockholm Syndrome bond with their elitist captors:
When genocidal, anti-human psychopaths tell you who they are, believe them!
So, What is Our Message?
You didn’t think I would leave things there, did you? Of course not. The real point of parsing the globalists’ (not-so-) secret message is that doing so helps us to clarify our own position.
When you boil it down, it’s actually pretty basic. The globalists hate life and want to end it. To counteract them, we must cherish life and seek to preserve it.
Allow me to quote myself at length from my 2016 editorial on «The Greatest Blessing«:
We are programmed to look out for danger and respond to threats. It’s instinctual, and well it should be. We live in a dangerous world and our family line wouldn’t have made it this far if there weren’t an eternal vigilance against potential perils.
But always focusing on the threats and dangers can send us off the deep end. Especially when dealing in the doom and gloom that pervades so much of the alternative media, it can be all too easy to dwell on the negative and forget why it is we’re fighting for truth and justice in the first place. In fact, it can become difficult to remember that we’re fighting for anything at all and just focus on fighting against. Against our enemies. Against the politicians and banksters and globalists and fraudsters and psychopaths. But, just like the returning war vet who can’t stop fighting the war in his head or the homicide detective who assumes everyone is a murder victim in waiting (or a murderer in waiting), this perspective starts to ruin our appreciation of the world until we forget why it is we even cared in the first place.
Sadly, this isn’t some theoretical problem. I get dozens of emails a week from people who are frightened and angry and at their wits’ end, asking me how I manage to keep doing this work given all the evil that we are facing. The answer is so simple that I’m not sure it can be taught, only perceived. In short, the answer is that I love my life. I love my family and my friends and watching clouds roll by on a lazy summer afternoon and reading a good book and hearing the sound of my son’s laughter and, yes, hearing my daughter’s cry. The cry of a healthy, growing newborn. This is why I care. I care because life is worth living, and I see that deep down most people are the same; they just want to enjoy their families and their friends and their time on this planet, too. I’m not fighting against the powers that shouldn’t be. I’m fighting for all of those things in the world that are worth saving.
You’ve no doubt heard the story of the crisis in Ukraine by now. But, as we’ve been told all our lives, there are two sides to every story. So, which side of the story have you heard?
There’s the MSM/establishment/dinosaur media side of the story. Let’s call it the «Team NATO» narrative. In this version of events, the bloodthirsty insane psychopathic literally Hitler leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, woke up a few weeks ago and suddenly decided to invade the free, peaceful nation of Ukraine for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER!
And then there’s the «alternative» media side of the story. Let’s call it the «Team BRICS» narrative. In this version of the story, the valiant defender of human liberty, Vladimir Putin, is fighting to protect the free peoples of the world from the globalists and their sinister machinations.
As I say, you’ve doubtless heard one or another of these stories by now. Or, if you’re really paying attention, you might have heard both. But I’m here to tell you today that you’ve been lied to your whole life. There aren’t two sides to every story. There are at least three, maybe more.
Now, you know me. Here at The Corbett Report, I like to go deeper than the simplistic, binary narratives you get in the establishment press or in much of the so-called alternative press. So let’s dive deeper today and look at the third side of the Ukraine crisis story.
The 2D Story
First, let’s just get up to speed with the bare facts of the mainstream 2D narrative.
As you’ll already know from my recent work on the topic (see here and here and here), Ukraine/Russia tensions ramped up considerably over the past few weeks. A series of cyberattacks on Ukrainian government websites, a White House-endorsed conspiracy theory that Russia was planning a false flag event to justify an invasion and a series of bold proclamations that Russia was going to invade Ukraine by such-and-such a date all added to the tensions.
The final straws prompting this military assault appear to have been:
This, as we now know, culminated with the Russian State Duma adopting a resolution calling on Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), which Putin did on February 21st. Three days later, he announced a «special military operation» to protect the people of the Donbas. That «special military operation» very quickly expanded beyond the Donbas, striking targets in and near the Ukrainian capital of Kiev and elsewhere around the country.
Given that this is an unfolding news event, I cannot provide you with the very latest news from Ukraine, but here are the latest developments as of press time (Monday February 28th 11:00 AM JST):
NATO has activated part of its 40,000-troop «Response Force» for the first time, although the troops are not being sent to Ukraine at this time.
Putin has ordered Russia’s nuclear forces—specifically, a «deterrence force» controlling «nuclear and conventional strategic weapons that can be used offensively or defensively»—to be put on «special alert.»
The Pentagon is «continuing to look for ways to support Ukraine to defend themselves,» including «through both lethal and non-lethal assistance.»
The White House is asking for $6.4 billion for «military and humanitarian aid» for Ukraine, including $2.9 billion for «humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, and other regional countries» and $3.5 billion for the Pentagon. This is on top of $350 million in new military aid to Ukraine that the US announced on the weekend.
As for the latest troop movements and battle reports: do not believe anything you read. Half of it is outright fake news illustrated by literal video game footage and, as we all know, the first casualty of war is truth.
As I say, these events are unfolding by the hour, and the situation on the ground will doubtless already be different by the time you’re reading these words. So here are the more important questions: What does this mean? Why is it happening? Who is the aggressor here? And who is the bad guy?
The Deep Background
The answers to those questions («What does this mean? Why is it happening? Who is the aggressor here? And who is the bad guy?») are perfectly straightforward if you’re unfortunate enough to get all of your news and information from the establishment media: Putin is a singularly evil psychopath, the Russian people have bloodlust, and this is all part of a larger gambit by the scheming Russians to form a Novorossiyan Empire.
It isn’t hard to see why this is so. For, if you do listen only to the mockingbirds of the MSM, you believe that the history of Russian/Ukrainian relations began in 2014, when Russia «invaded» Crimea. You have heard from this fake news media that Russia simply decided to march into Ukraine in 2014, annex a chunk of Ukraine, and then taunt the international community for years by placing its military closer and closer to NATO bases.
Indeed, if you took everything presented in this «Team NATO» narrative at face value, it would be impossible to see these unfolding events as anything but an act of unprovoked aggression by Putin and the Russians.
But, as I noted in my recent Questions for Corbett episode on this crisis, your understanding of history depends entirely on where you «start the clock» on the history of recent events. If you started the clock on February 24, 2022, then the matter is simple: the Russians suddenly declared war on Ukraine and began an «unprovoked and unjustified» invasion of that country.
But why not start the clock on February 19, 2022, when Ukrainian President Zelensky revealed his intentions to make Ukraine a nuclear power in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, when US Vice President Kamala Harris accused Russia of spreading lies and disinformation before threatening «unprecedented sanctions» if Russia «further» invades Ukraine, and when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz berated Putin and the Russians for their aggressive actions and dismissed claims of genocide against the Russian-speaking people of the Donbas as «ridiculous, to put it bluntly»? Wouldn’t those three statements provide a different perspective from which to view these events?
Why stop there? Why not start the clock in January, when the unprecedented airlift of hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons and ammunition began arriving in Ukraine?
Or maybe we should begin the story in February 2014, when the Ukrainian parliament passed the (unconstitutional) law to strip Viktor Yanukovych of his presidency?
But then, why not hark back to the sniper fire in Maidan square later that month, which, it was later shown, was coordinated by the opposition in order to sow chaos and reap the whirlwind of regime change?
Then again, we could cast our minds back to Victoria Nuland’s infamous «fuck the EU» phone call in which she, as the then-US Assistant Secretary of State, constructed the post-coup Ukrainian government with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
Or we could look back to 2013, when Nuland admitted that the US had spent $5 billion on «democracy promotion» activities in Ukraine.
But perhaps the clock is best started in 1990, when US Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would expand «not one inch eastward» after the reunification of Germany and when German diplomat Jürgen Chrobog assured the Russians «that we would not expand NATO beyond the Elbe.»
Or should we begin the narrative in WWII, when Bandera and his Ukrainian nationalist brethren collaborated with the Nazis in a bid to maintain independence from Russia?
Or maybe we should go back to the Holodomor, when Stalin intentionally starved over three million Ukrainians as part of an attempt to crush Ukrainian nationalist movements.
Or to 1918, when, according to Putin, the modern state of Ukraine was created by Lenin, who rejected the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic’s request to be incorporated into Soviet Russia as a separate entity, and instead insisted that «one government for all of Ukraine» be created.
Or maybe we should start the clock in the 11th century, when the Kievan Rus federation reached its greatest extent under Yaroslav the Wise.
As you can see, everyone’s view of history is coloured by the context in which they see that history and is shaped by how far back into history they want to go and by what events they want to cherry-pick from that history in order to make their case.
Having said that, it is easy to see that the mainstream narrative that «Russia is invading because Putin is Hitler» is an aggressively stupid story that could be swallowed only by the most historically ignorant people on the planet (i.e., those who get their news from CNN).
It is much more realistic to point out that Russia’s actions have to be seen in light of the documented history of NATO aggression and intervention in Ukraine and of NATO’s undeniable attempt to support the Western-backed government in Kiev’s campaign to slaughter the Russian speakers of the Donbas region.
So, case closed, right? Putin’s the good guy and he’s standing up to the globalists. There. Mystery solved.
But wait. It’s not quite that simple . . .
2D Chess is for Losers
There’s nothing more satisfying than a good guy/bad guy narrative. We have so internalized this form of storytelling that for many it is almost impossible not to see the world in these terms. Two people are fighting. One of them is a bad guy. Therefore, the other one is a good guy.
The problem comes when we try to map that simplistic, binary, black-and-white storyline on to real-world events. What «guy» are you talking about? Do you still believe that Putin is Russia? That’s as absurd as saying that Biden is NATO (or even the US). And can we jump from NATO bad to BRICS good that easily?
Well, if you’ve been listening to me over the last decade and a half you will know that it’s not that easy. The BRICS are controlled opposition. Putin and Xi are both tyrannical thugs. The Chinese government and the Russian government both love controlling their citizens every thought and speech and action, and their supposed opposition to the globalist empire is a smoke-and-mirrors distraction hiding the fact that they are absolutely on-board with the ultimate agenda of world control.
Or are you the type of person who watches the clip of Schwab bragging about all the cabinets the World Economic Forum has «penetrated» around the world without noticing that the second person he lists in his stable of WEF acolytes is Vladimir Putin?
Are you the type of person who conveniently forgets how to read when Xi and Putin release documents extolling the creation of the New World Order that call on all states «to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture» and declare that «In order to to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,» states will have to «take practical steps in key areas of cooperation» like «vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity»?
Are you the type of person who believes that preemptive invasions of foreign countries are good when they’re done by the good guys for good reasons and that the people who die in such operations are just collateral damage (who probably deserved to die anyway)?
I don’t know about you, but I’m not that type of person. The sad truth for those who are still waiting for the White Hat on the White Horse to deliver them their fix of Hopium is that Putin is an «anti-globalist crusader» in the exact same way as Donald «Fill the Swamp» Trump is an «anti-globalist crusader,» which is to say, not at all. Because if you are still waiting on the sealed indictments and the watermarked ballots and Vladimir the Great to upset the globalist apple cart, you have yet to understand the nature of the globalist system.
Conclusion
The uncomfortable truth, as always, is that the war has not just begun. It’s been going on for generations. And it’s not a war of nation against nation, or even valiant «anti-globalist crusaders» like WEF-connected, biosecurity-promoting, false flag-perpetrating, political opponent-assassinating Vladimir Putin against the global control structure. It is a global war against you. To the extent that wars are being waged between the elitists, they are only being waged to determine which group of elitists get to rule over you and in what way.
Now more than ever it is important for those of us who have escaped the mainstream narrative «Team NATO» trap to reject the «alternative» narrative «Team BRICS» trap and redeclare our personal sovereignty. A choice between the two wings of the same bird of prey is no choice at all. Or, to put it in a more familiar way: «It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.»
So, let’s keep the real background of these events in mind as we watch this military spectacle play out on our computer screens and let’s avoid getting caught up in cheerleading for the army of one branch or another of the global elitist class.
Having said all of that, let’s bring some levity to the end of this very serious discussion. I present to you the following Moment of Zen from everyone’s favorite American establishment ghoul, John «Skull & Bones» Kerry:
That’s right, the climate billionaires are upset that the military-industrial billionaires are hogging the propaganda spotlight that should be shining on their pet «existential threat.» Clearly the Ukrainians should be more worried about the centimetres of global sea level rise, which the Nostradamuses at the UN warn will be inundating us a century from now if we don’t appease the weather gods.
Queen Elizardbeast is dead, long live King Charles?!
Yes, for those lucky souls who are so blissfully detached from the 24/7 newsfeeds that you haven’t heard yet, I bring you the news that the longest-reigning monarch in British history, Queen Elizabeth II, is dead.
It’s tempting to interpret the double rainbow that appeared over Buckingham Palace when Her Royal Lowness kicked the royal bucket as a sign that her death is indeed a present from God, but—as I am always at pains to observe upon such occasions—the death of an unrepentant sinner is no victory and there is no solace in the removal of but one of the Hydra’s many heads. If anything, the reign of King Charles will doubtless be even more ignoble than that of his mother.
Whatever the future may hold for the loyal subjects of His Royal Highness, the Great Reset-shilling, pedophile-befriending, carbon eugenics-pushing King Charles III, given the disheartening (if predictable) reaction of the normies to this latest royal passing, nothing could be timelier than an in-depth exploration of the lowlights of the British royal family. So, even though I am going to drop an 18,000 word, two-hour documentary conclusion in the next 24 hours(!!!), I have taken time out of my schedule to bring you this.
«Enjoy» is the wrong word, but you get the idea.
The Unofficial History of the Royals
There’s a story that’s told about Queen Elizabeth. According to this story, when asked about her ideology, she is said to have replied: «We are older than capitalism and socialism.»
The story is almost certainly apocryphal. But, like many such made-up anecdotes, it does have a ring of truth to it. Indeed, the monarchs are not socialists or capitalists, per se. They are part of a much older tradition that sees the world in a very different light.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in 1952. Not the beginning of the English branch of the House of «Windsor» to which she belonged. Not even the beginning of the monarchical system in England.
We have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself. And, to the surprise of absolutely none of my readers, we will discover that the royal ideology was a forerunner to what we know today as eugenics.
The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a «Divine Right» to rule over their subjects. In China, they called it the «Mandate of Heaven.»
For as long as there have been royalty there have been elaborate theological justifications for why monarchs deserve to rule over the people . . . and there has always been royalty.
It’s easy to see why the ruling class has tried to foster this idea of godly rule in culture after culture. After all, if the Kings and Queens and Emperors and Pharaohs were not gods, or at least chosen by God, why would anyone listen to them? The difference between a regal king and a tinpot dictator disappears if the king’s divinity is denied.
Even today, in this «post-monarchical» era, ancient superstitions about royal families persist. They are still referred to as «blue bloods» as if the very blood that flowed through their veins is different from yours or mine. There is still an elaborate etiquette for meeting the Queen of England, and it is still strictly enforced without exception. Even Obama had to take a lesson before he could meet with Her Majesty Elizabeth II.
The rituals of class distinction are not merely for show. The royals have always considered themselves of superior stock to the commoners, a breed apart from the poor downtrodden masses who toil in squalor beneath them.
Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?
But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners’, then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swathes of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.
With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the «British» royal family isn’t very British at all. The House of «Windsor» only became the House of «Windsor» in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so «Windsor» it became.
Noting the true origins of the House of «Windsor» is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles, than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.
With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors’ well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.
The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler’s eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn’t just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII’s hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles’ lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry’s predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip’s infamous desire to be reincarnated as «a particularly deadly virus» in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know that it’s true!).
You see, the royals’ blue blood pomposity wouldn’t be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a «What, you groom your own stool? My heavens!» kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn’t just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.
Royal False Flags
There’s something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some cute little old lady who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, Queen Elizabeth II was actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world’s populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world. (Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc. . . .)
But for a prime example of the perfidy with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the «Perfidious Albion» moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.
Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals’ use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to «Remember, remember the fifth of November.»
Outside of Britain, the «gunpowder plot» is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called «King’s Book» written by King James I himself.
According to that official account, on the evening of November 4, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king’s agents to the other conspirators in the plot. As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics. King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.
Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It’s called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952. Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson’s account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king’s spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but rather a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king’s opponents. Go figure.
But the British monarchy’s false flag hits don’t stop there. Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called «Triple Entente» between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the «Great» War against the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House’s own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII’s successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two «fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner.» Even more «coincidentally,» House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns «should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board.» Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for the eventual entry of the US into the war on the side of the British.
Coincidence, surely.
As for the false flag attacks of recent decades, not only has the British crown long played with the fire of Muslim extremism—alternately supporting it or opposing it as geopolitical circumstance necessitates—as I have demonstrated in Part 1 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda—but, as I shall demonstrate in Part 3 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda, the royals presided over a UK government that was an active collaborationist with the neocons in the creation and forwarding of the war of terror agenda. (Stay tuned! . . .)
If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.
Unfortunately for all of us, it’s much worse than that.
The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of tinfoil conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly «problematic» (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career. Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way. In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.
But over the years the «who could have known?» routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters. And on top of all that there was Savile’s own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had «let him off the hook» for his past sins.
Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job was ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile’s crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the «plausible deniability» that they didn’t know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn’t even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood. For, as it turns out, the honours «automatically expire when a person dies.»
But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.
And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?
That’s right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as «Randy Andy.» A man who literally had to inventscientifically unknown condition of being «unable to sweat» to try to «prove» that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.
I mean, yes, there’s the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn’t sweat so . . . it’s all a lie?
No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we’ve seen, the royals didn’t even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.
As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory.
So here’s a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?
In conclusion
Writing this article feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.
But, in reality, it’s worse than that. It’s telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.
This isn’t my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:
So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the «Windsors,» a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American «special relationship» in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the «commonwealth» they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as «republican rabble-rousing.»
Plus ça change . . .
And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it’s flabbergasting that they’re still held in such high regard. It’s even more disheartening that there are still vast swathes of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a «commonwealth»).
Here’s to the day when this type of article is unnecessary and the death of a ninety-six-year-old in her home is of no political significance whatsoever. One can always dream .
Back in 2011, shareholders of insurance giant American International Group (AIG) filed a $40 billion class action lawsuit against the US government over the terms of its controversial bailout of AIG during the 2008 financial crisis.
In 2014, the trial case came to focus on an intriguing oddity. In cross-examination, the plaintiffs learned of a set of documents that the New York Fed—the heart of America’s Federal Reserve central bank and the primary wheeler-dealer in the chaotic days of the global financial collapse—dramatically refers to as its «Doomsday Book.»
This book, it was discovered, contained the various legal opinions and memoranda that the Fed used to determine what power it has to manipulate the financial system in the event of a large-scale crisis. And, it seemed, there was a good chance that the central broke its own rules with all its bailout shenanigans and financial sleight-of-hand during the 2008 collapse.
However, the plaintiffs’ reasonable request to see the book and examine these supposed emergency powers was immediately rebuffed by the Fed. New York Fed lawyer John S. Kiernan, for example, was adamant that the Fed would not open up the book for the court. «Of the tens of thousands of documents that we have produced in this case, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has sought to retain confidentiality because of the internal sensitivity of only this one,» he told the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The court eventually able to pry the relevant documents out of the Fed’s clutches, but the Doomsday Book has remained under court seal for years . . . until now.
Late last year, an enterprising researcher managed to get his hands on a copy of the elusive book. And what that book contains should shock you (if you’re paying attention).
Upgrade to paid
What Is The Doomsday Book?
The very first thing to note about the «Doomsday Book» is that you can now read it for yourself! . . . kind of. I’ll get into that qualification in a bit. But first, I recommend you download the publicly available content for yourself. You can download it as a PDF file from The Wall Street Journal website HERE.
And, since Corbett Reporteers might not like to give WSJ their traffic (and because these types of files have a pesky habit of disappearing down the internet rabbit hole), I’ve also gone ahead and preserved a copy on my server HERE! (You’re welcome!) Still, you never know when/if/how information online will go missing or become inaccessible, so don’t dither. Download it now, while you can!
Alright, now that you have a copy saved locally, here’s the first question: what is the doomsday book, exactly?
The short answer—taken from an article announcing its release last December—is that the doomsday book is «an internal document used to guide the Federal Reserve’s actions during emergencies.»
The longer answer is that the Doomsday Book is not a book at all. Instead, it’s a collection of documents, legal opinions and memoranda that have been assembled and maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) over the course of decades. It was first compiled in the 1990s and has been revised four times, thus creating five versions of the «book» (that we know of). The latest version is Version 5.0 and it includes extensive revisions to various memoranda and opinions—revisions that were made to reflect the legal and regulatory changes wrought by the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (see the «Note on Legal Evolution» on page 46 of the PDF document).
According to the Prefatory Matters section of the latest revision (page 44 of the PDF document):
The Doomsday Book is intended to help lawyers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York aid their clients in crisis management. It was originally distributed to a limited set of lawyers and select senior staff members. This has changed with time, as more lawyers are drawn into crisis management. Now, all FRBNY lawyers receive a copy of the Doomsday Book.
The same passage also explains that the book «is not intended as an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution to any particular crisis» but as a «playbook» of general advice that may require modification depending on the circumstances.
So, the next question to be answered is . . .
How Did The Doomsday Book Get Released?
As indicated above, the Doomsday Book first came to the public’s attention during the 2014 Starr International Co. v. United States trial, in which AIG shareholders were suing the government over the Fed’s questionable bailout practices. (If you need a primer on that trial to bring you up to speed, you’re in luck! I wrote an article about the case and its startling conclusion in these very pages nine years ago!)
During the trial, Timothy Geithner—who was president of the FRBNY during the global financial collapse—not only confirmed the existence of the book, but admitted that he relied on it to guide his actions in the crisis. “It’s kind of a big, fat binder,” he told the court, adding that “we did occasionally go back and consult it as things were eroding around us. . . . It was a reference material that described precedent and authority.”
And, as also noted above, although the plaintiffs’ lawyers were able to get their hands on a copy of the book’s index, the Fed successfully petitioned the court to keep the documents under court seal. Some quotations from the book were read into the court record during testimony, but, aside from that, no specific information on the documents was forthcoming.
Enter Emre Kuvvet. He’s a Professor of Finance at Nova Southeastern University who, recognizing the importance of this elusive emergency operations document, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the book . . . and was promptly rejected. Not one to give up so easily, Kuvvet then filed a simple Freedom of Information request with the FRBNY and—»for reasons unknown to me,» as Kuvvet wryly observes—was duly provided the 122-page document that you just downloaded.
Now, in order to understand why the FRBNY’s compliance with this request is so unusual, you have to understand the difference between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System—the twelve-member panel appointed by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate to oversee the Federal Reserve System—and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the most powerful of the twelve regional banks that are responsible for the banking operations of the Federal Reserve System.
If you need a refresher on the deliberately confusing structure of the United States’ «decentralized central bank,» might I humbly suggest that you watch (or re-watch) Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve? If and when you do so, you will see for yourself the moment when Federal Reserve Board Senior Counsel Yvonne Mizusawa argues in court that the Federal Reserve Regional Banks (not the Board) are private banks and thus not «persons under FOIA.»
In other words, the Federal Reserve argues that the records of the Fed’s regional banks—including their legal opinions, memoranda, internal records and, of course, the New York Fed’s coveted Doomsday Book—are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, no doubt concerned with the optics created by an un-FOIA-able central bank, the FRBNY has a «Freedom of Information Requests» page on its website in which it boasts that «the New York Fed is committed to complying with the spirit of FOIA and has had a Freedom of Information Policy or related practice for decades.»
In other words, the New York Fed does not believe itself to be legally obligated to give up any of its precious documents . . . but it might occasionally choose to do so if you ask nicely. Accordingly, the FRBNY provided Kuvvet with versions 4.1 (2006) and 5.0 (2012) of the book’s index. He then set to work writing an extensive article about the documents, «What Is in the Federal Reserve’s Doomsday Book?» (paywalled content), which was published in the Spring 2024 edition of The Independent Review.
The title of Kuvvet’s article raises another very good question, namely . . .
What Is In The Doomsday Book?
Remember when I said you can download the book for yourself . . . kind of? Well, here’s the rub: the 122-page PDF document that was released in 2022 and is now available for download is not the full collection of documents. Rather, what has been released is an introduction to the book.
Spread out over more than 100 pages, this introduction includes an extensive index of the contents of the full book; a listing of the titles and dates of the various agreements, memos and opinions that form the full collection; the Fed’s own internal notes explaining what the collection is; an explanation of what the various sections of the book contain; and even an especially revealing explanatory passage containing the frank admission that «the powers of a Federal Reserve Bank are far greater than is commonly supposed» (page 33).
The latest version of the Doomsday Book introduction reveals that the book consists of three volumes:
Volume I – Pre-2008 Legal Documents
Volume II – Post-2008 Legal Documents
Volume III – Memoranda
For a complete listing of what documents are contained in each volume and what subject each document covers, you can browse through the confusing and repetitive PDF document or you can read Kuvvet’s article for a more logical (if still ponderous) listing.
The introduction to Version 4.1, however, does helpfully break down the legal memoranda in the book into broad categories of memo:
«Powers Opinions,» which «discuss the legal authority of Federal Reserve Banks to provide various kinds of emergency services and facilities that they are not in the habit of providing under ordinary circumstances»;
«History and Policy,» documenting the history of the Federal Reserve’s policy decisions and previous emergency actions;
«Operational Issues,» which «discuss legal aspects of operational issues, and are probably mostly of interest to attorneys»;
«Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law Issues,» dealing with the legal risk of lending to bankrupt or insolvent firms;
«International Issues,» dealing with the cross-border operations the Fed might employ during international crises;
Etc.
As for the agreements, memoranda and opinions themselves, there are some incredibly interesting documents listed that no doubt contain many valuable nuggets of information about the Fed’s internal processes.
For the policy wonks and financial eggheads in the crowd, the agreements contained in the book provide a wealth of data on what the Fed believes it is empowered to do during times of crisis. As Kuvvet notes in his «What Is in the Federal Reserve’s Doomsday Book?» article, for instance:
In the Section 13(13) Lending Agreement subsection, the FRBNY states that the section 13(13) lending authority can be useful for nonbank government securities dealers. The FRBNY believes that Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to accept ineligible collateral to supplement eligible collateral.
Conspiracy realists, meanwhile, will no doubt be intrigued by the «Chronology of Events at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York After the World Trade Center Attack» in the «History and Policy» section of the book. According to the Fed’s own description on page 35 of the PDF, the document «begins with the morning of September 11, 2001 and concludes with the full resumption of operations on September 24» and «discusses all significant events: financial, operational and humanitarian.»
Unfortunately, until such time as some intrepid reporter, professor of finance or Corbett Reporteer jumps through the hoops of the New York Fed’s Freedom of Information Requests process and pries this specific document—or any of the other documents listed in the Doomsday Book index—from the bankster’s clutches, we won’t know for sure. After all, we only have the titles of these documents and a cursory description of them from the Doomsday Book’s index.
All of this leads us to the most important question . . .
What Does It Mean?
The first-order takeaway from the Doomsday Book is that the Fed apparently believes that it has the authority to do quite a bit more in the event of an emergency than has been specifically authorized by the Federal Reserve Act.
For a line-by-line, blow-by-blow analysis of these presumed powers and the Fed’s arguments surrounding them, I highly suggest reading Kuvvet’s article. In it, you will learn, for instance, that the Fed believes it has the authority to bail out cities during «emergency situations» . . . whatever those are.
Surprisingly, the FRBNY states that section 13(3) lending authority extends to municipalities, and that there is an additional independent section 14(b)(1)17 lending authority for municipalities. Thus, the FRBNY considers that it has the legal authority to rescue municipalities in emergency situations. The Doomsday Book does not define what those “emergency situations” are.
Even more remarkably, the Fed also reserves the power to receive «equity kickers»—that is, take an ownership stake in a company and presumably even take over a company entirely—when engaged in emergency lending. This is the power that was under scrutiny during the aforementioned AIG shareholder lawsuit, Starr International Co. v. United States, and it raises the specter of the Fed taking over and potentially running companies or even vast swaths of the economy in the face of a truly catastrophic economic collapse.
Per Kuvvet:
Lenders receive equity kickers frequently to compensate for risk. The FRBNY received an equity kicker in the AIG loan. The FRBNY considers that the scope of the power to receive an equity kicker remains uncertain, particularly whether the National Bank Act restrictions on equity kickers apply to Reserve Banks. The memorandum titled “Equity Kickers and Reserve Bank Loans” contends that they do not. Lenders sometimes employ guarantees appurtenant to financial transactions, and often employ guarantees in workout contexts. The memoranda titled “AIG Loan Restructuring-Reserve Bank Powers” and “Authority of Reserve Banks to Issue Guarantees on Behalf of Depository Institutions” explore the limits of the guarantee power.
But perhaps the most brazen statement of the Fed’s self-proclaimed emergency power comes in the section on «Powers Opinions» on page 33 of the Doomsday Book PDF.
The powers opinions discuss the legal authority of Federal Reserve Banks to provide various kinds of emergency services and facilities that they are not in the habit of providing under ordinary circumstances. [. . .] A constant theme runs through them all: the powers of a Federal Reserve Bank are far greater than is commonly supposed.
This is perhaps the most succinct statement of the banksters’ arrogance that have ever been set to paper. In other words, the Fed’s own internal document is gloating that the Fed reserves itself powers that the public do not know about and presumably would not approve of if they did. This does not trouble the Fed or its legal counsel in the slightest.
So, what are we to make of this galling arrogance?
Writing in The Hill, op-ed contributor Doug Branch—whose bio notes that he served as Deputy Staff Director of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) and Deputy Chief of Staff to a Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman in the US government—predictably opines that what is needed is for the government to step in and rein in the Fed, passing legislation to «unambiguously authorize» those emergency powers that the Fed claims and that Congress deems necessary. Congress should also, in Branch’s opinion «reserve the right to disapprove [of a Fed emergency power] through an after-action process.»
Although Branch’s answer sounds perfectly straightforward and reasonable—reasonable to statists who believe in The Most Dangerous Superstition, at least—it fails to grasp an extremely basic fact, one that governs all such «emergency powers» and «states of exception.» Namely, the fact that power—especially emergency power—is a thing that is demonstrated, not codified.
Case in point: the Starr International Co. v. United States case in which the Doomsday Book’s existence was first revealed. If you read my 2015 article on that case, you’ll know that case’s insane conclusion. The court ultimately ruled that the Fed had indeed overstepped its powers in the course of the AIG bailout . . . but imposed no penalty and awarded the prosecution nothing.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government’s illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages.
Naturally, the Fed took this decision as vindication that it had acted legally.
The Federal Reserve strongly believes that its actions in the AIG rescue during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 were legal, proper and effective. The court’s decision today in Starr International Company, Inc. v. the United States recognizes that AIG’s shareholders are not entitled to compensation for that decision, and that the Federal Reserve’s extension of credit to AIG prevented losses to millions of policyholders, small businesses, and American workers who would have been harmed by AIG’s collapse during the financial crisis. The terms of the credit were appropriately tough to protect taxpayers from the risks the rescue loan presented when it was made.
This is how power operates. It acts—illegally if need be—and the judge comes along afterward to clean up the mess.
The fact that the Fed’s powers have not been delineated down to the nth degree is a feature of the system that the banksters have created, not a bug, as Doug Branch suggests. The banksters who own and run the Fed and who control Congress through blackmail, bribery and extortion are not going to make the mistake of stating exactly what powers they do and don’t possess. And they’re certainly not going to allow such limitations on their powers to be codified into law. Instead, they will act as power always acts: unilaterally, unapologetically, and without asking for permission.
Sorry (not sorry) to burst your bubble, Mr. Branch, and all those other «common sense» thinkers who believe that government is the answer to the problem that was created by the (bankster-controlled) government, but there is no tinkering around the edges here. No amount of legislation is going to make the entire corrupt Federal Reserve System into anything other than the bankster cartel that it was designed to be.
No, we do not need to «rein in» the Fed or set up yet another government committee to try to codify its powers. We need to abolish the Fed itself and bring about a separation of money and state altogether. That is the real takeaway from the Fed Doomsday Book.
For enterprising researchers out there, I look forward to hearing about your own exploration of these documents and your own adventures with the FRBNY’s «Freedom of Information Request» process.
The cockroaches always scurry from the light, so let’s see if we can shine some more of it on this whole sordid mess.
One simply cannot subscribe to Zionism and believe that all men are created equal.
Trinity College Dublin’s world-famous Book of Kells recently found itself at the centre of the Gaza conflict when student narcissists besieged it, when the it and when Rachel Moiselle, a Jewish Trinity PhD student (in Deaf Studies) wrote two well-crafted articles, one in the hard line Irish Times and the other in the equally extremist Jewish Chronicle eloquently expressing her angst at those and related developments. Although Ms Moiselle’s articles form the backbone of this piece, it is first necessary to briefly summarise Trinity’s recent traumas.
In a letter I wrote to the Irish Times, I pointed out that the Long Room, which houses the Book of Kells and other priceless artefacts “is not the plaything of these students, who feel themselves entitled to turn on or off access as their mood dictates” and that their antics had made the Book of Kells a legitimate target for future, potentially more destructive protests. As some Just Stop Oil protesting octogenarians attacked the Magna Carta with hammers some days afterwards, I feel I had a point.
Although other letter writers made equally valid points, let’s just note that the Palestinian women’s football team visited the Long Room some days later and they took some delightful photos which, with their entire Irish visit, would have garnered more good will for the Palestinian cause than the antics of the student narcissists.
Whatever Rachel Moiselle’s faults, narcissism is not one of them. As she has explained elsewhere, she had, up to the October 7th 2023 attacks, kept herself busy with her own affairs, which had included working with Opus Dei, the Catholic group that Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code libels, and the Christian Union, a no less controversial Protestant extremist group. Most of all, though, she had built up a respectable portfolio in Flemish sign language, her chosen area of expertise and which, my earlier article showed, was somewhat problematic because of its alleged anti-Semitism.
And so, as Ms Moiselle has now, as it were, put her head above the parapet, let’s see what she has to say for herself. Ms Moiselle begins with Joyce’s Ulysses where the Citizen, a crude caricature of Michael Cusack, quips that the “Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted Jews… and do you know why?… because she never let them in”. That is not quite true as such classic Irish Zionist works as Louis Hyman’s Jews of Ireland: from earliest times to the year 1910 shows. When Ms Moiselle refers to “how easily one can dehumanise a group of people when they are an abstract. Secondly, the human capacity for extreme cruelty when one believes there will be no consequences”, she should read up on Jewish collaboration with Oliver Cromwell, generally regarded as the biggest British bastard, from a very crowded field it has to be said, ever to blight Ireland’s shores. She could also speak to my elderly neighbour, who still remembers his long dead mother scraping together the pennies,half pennies and farthings to pay off Messrs Lipitch and Ledwidge, the two Litvak blood suckers who had the Shylock franchise for the north Dublin inner city suburb he grew up in.
Moiselle then goes on to state “My Jewish ancestors, who were ethnically cleansed from Lithuania, were among the few who were, in fact, let into this country. I know very little about this experience of ethnic cleansing”. As I previously wrote, there had been no pogroms in the two Lithuanian villages the Litvak Jews who came to Ireland supposedly fled. They came to Ireland as part of a Jewish money lending chain, which prospered by peddling their wares, Ponzi scheme fashion, to poor Irish Catholics, whom they regularly abused.
And thus, though Moiselle paints her ancestors’ immigration into Ireland as a link in some perennial form of Jewish persecution, it was most certainly a form of Irish exploitation that became such a scandal that Zionist opportunist Bob the Robber Briscoe claimed the credit for legislating against it, even as the politically rudderless IRA were targeting (mostly) Jewish money lenders during the 1920s.
This latter point is important as Moiselle claims that her grandparents’ Dublin store got their own Night of the Long Knives when some “anti-Zionist graffiti” was chalked outside their gramophone shop in 1940 long after the IRA had stopped their anti-money lending campaign and at around the same time other Jewish narcissists were lying that Irish people used to gather to gawk at their red hair (not exactly a rarity in Ireland) and that hundreds of student priests would sunbathe like pods of basking whales au natural at a popular South Dublin bathing spot a stone’s throw from where Moiselle’s family lives.
Though we could go on and on, just as in the North of Ireland, so also in Dublin was sectarianism largely a one way gun aimed at Catholics by Dublin’s Jews and their Protestant sidekicks. Not only are the Catholics, as Mahaffy, the loathsome Trinity Provost of Joyce’s time put it, the native aboriginals of this island but it is alienation from their collective experience, and not Bloom’s religion, that is at the heart of Ulysses. The fictional Bloom is Jewish to make him an outsider and not only was Joyce largely ignorant about what the semi-literate Jews of Clanbrassil Street were up to but Bloom’s character is based on a neighbour Joyce had in Trieste. Ulysses is not, in other words, about narcissistic Jews, except in so far as it plays into the many characteristics the narcissistic Joyce obsessed himself with.
Moiselle then springboards into her grandfather’s Kristallnacht when “Put Zionists in thier (sic) place” was scrawled outside his shop, much as Jack the Ripper teased London’s bobbies with “The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.” She links that to some recent attack on a (Jewish?) shop near Trinity, which seems to display the same sort of ignorance as the attacks on Jewish butchers’ shops in Clanbrassil Street at the outbreak of The Great War, when Dublin’s “finest” mistook them for German shops.
Although that might seem trite on my part, most Irish people would not today have a clue which are and which are not Jewish businesses. Little consolation to any Jews getting their windows kicked in but that is a problem that must be addressed in a different way in modern Dublin, which has imported unvetted and largely uncontrollable people from every trouble spot in the world.
While Moiselle’s point that “while anti-Semitism is protean – mutating to adapt to the environment in which it finds itself – its ultimate manifestation looks remarkably the same” is an interesting one, so too is its converse that finds so-called anti-Semitism everywhere. If anti-Semitism is seen everywhere, then the problem might be with the lens and not with the actual landscape.
Speaking of which, though Trinity College, which I also attended at the height of the H Block hunger strikes, is a truly beautiful campus, I can see how “some explicitly anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist banners” which, according to Moiselle, included ”a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) flag flown from the window of Trinity and banners inside the grounds” would sour the experience for pro Israeli sympathisers like Moiselle, “given that the PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation by the EU”. I think it is a stretch Moiselle linking “a banner that contained a picture of former militant and member of the PFLP, Leila Khaled” to some dubious chalk scrawlings outside her grandfather’s shop some 80+ years ago.
Contrary to what Moiselle asserts, Zionism is not “the belief that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state on the Jewish ancestral homeland”. The Zionist movement began as a claim by atheistic Jews of various ethnicities to have a right to return to Zion, to Jeruslaem, not to lay claim to any and all lands there that took their fancy. Although there is much talk of Palestinians chanting their claim to a sovereign republic “from the river to the sea”, Israel won’t even declare what its own borders are. It is a colonialist enterprise first conceived, Hyman claims, by Irish Republicans in the pay of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Although Moiselle may eventually emigrate to Israel, she has no claim to it as her roots, such as they are, are not in Israel but in Lithuania, as are those of “chair of Trinity’s Jewish Society Agne Kniuraite”, whom Moiselle quotes to claim that Trinity’s Jews are under siege from their friends and classmates.
Although Kniuraite goes on to say “The vast majority of Jews are Zionist. For many Jews, Zionism is synonymous with survival and self-agency: to misconstrue that, whether from ignorance or malice, isolates those who have no such choice to reject this part of themselves.” But, even though Kniuraite throws out the canards of “decades of anti-Semitism [and] relentless persecution for millenniums”, Jews do have a choice, albeit one made infinitely more difficult by Israel and its affiliates.
One simply cannot subscribe to Zionism and believe that all men are created equal. Though they are incompatible and mutually exclusive standpoints, Irish and Israeli universities should be, as far as is practicable, neutral intellectual venues even though they are not.
Although Moiselle finished her Irish Times article by saying her “great fear is that in 20 years” the whisper of Jewish memory will only linger before being entirely erased (much as Israel has worked to erase Palestinian and Ottoman memories), some of those memories, like the Jewish Chronicle’s lies about Limerick’s so called Jewish Pogrom need to be revisited and nailed down for the Hibernophobic blood libels that they are.
Although the Jewish Chronicle is a loathsome rag staffed by loathsome people, Ms Moiselle graced it with two recent articles, one on this Trinity business and the other on Irish feminists turning a blind eye to Jewish persecution. Although Moiselle cites Trinity academic Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne as one of a gaggle of Israeli bashers and she lays into Sally Rooney and other rich Irish women for being on the wrong side of history, I feel Moiselle and Kniuraite are both looking at the wrong end of the elephant here. Rooney is a chic lit writer and, though Browne’s opinions are of no interest one way or the other, we can all at least be grateful that Israeli import Ronit Lentin, the Israeli pro Palestinian activist (ha ha) and former Trinity academic (ha ha) who married a raving Irish anti Catholic Zionist, seems to be sitting this one out.
I am glad that Moiselle, the PhD candidate in Deaf Studies, has found her voice and I hope that now that her harp (or violin in her case) is strung it will be heard. But that is what universities, not least amongst them Trinity College, are for. Rachel Moiselle is a gifted young woman, who has much to tell the world not only regarding the deaf, which was going to be her life’s work but also to propound theses and antitheses on Israel and Palestine, so that we, who consider ourselves above scrawling “The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing” on London or Dublin walls might come to some sort of synthesis and, more importantly, those living under bombardment in Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon might lives their lives in peace, that is the common birthright of us all.
If one should fear the quiet man, then one should welcome once-quiet women like Rachel Moiselle, who has read the riot act to Trinity Provost Linda Doyle and many others regarding Trinity’s current turbulence. Though I hope a bright career in her chosen field awaits Ms Moiselle she has, in this Gazan affair at least, done her duty according to her beliefs, something Trinity and similar institutions have not done by stifling, for whatever reasons, the debates that were the bread and butter of student life in my Brideshead Revisited days of yesteryear. Whatever about the pitter patter of Dublin’s Jewish footprint, the loss of proper academic debate has very fatal real world consequences in the olive tree and watermelon orchards of what Rachel Moiselle, Agne Kniuraite and other Trinity students bizarrely claim is their homeland, and their birthright as well. But all that, like Palestine, Syria and Israel should be openly debated between Moiselle and others behind the portals of what Joyce has Bloom call Trinity’s surly front.
Unfortunately, most oppressed countries fell for the bait of imperialism. They voted together with their worst enemies: the USA, Germany, the United Kingdom and France.
“If the goal of the sponsors was to divide the General Assembly…then they’ve succeeded brilliantly.”
The phrase from Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, points the way to understanding the true meaning of what is behind the vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the 1995 Srebrenica genocide.
Germany and Rwanda sponsored a vote by the General Assembly to decide whether the murder and disappearance of 8,000 Muslims in the city of Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the midst of the war in Yugoslavia in 1995, was or not a genocide committed by the Serbs.
Taking in consideration the 1948 Genocide Convention, that could be considered a genocide. Just like other massacres orchestrated by Bosnians and Croats in that carnage that spread across the Balkans in the 1990s. There was no saint among the Serb Chetniks, the Croat Ustashe and the Bosnian fundamentalists. They all committed atrocities among themselves.
However, contrary to the story told in the West that the Balkans — particularly the Serbs — are barbarians, they were not truly responsible for the violence that corroded and ultimately disintegrated the former Yugoslavia.
The United States and its European vassals, such as Germany, which has always had great influence in that region, fostered and manipulated nationalist feelings among all Yugoslav ethnicities, pitted Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks and Albanians against the Serbs, inflamed the worst chauvinist instincts to erase more than 40 years of relatively harmonious and fraternal coexistence in a single nation.
Well, these same imperialists who divided the peoples of Yugoslavia now want to divide the peoples who have been uniting in the search for independence from the imperial powers. This was the main objective when proposing the vote on Srebrenica in the General Assembly.
The Rwandan government is nothing more than a puppet in the hands of these powers. And Rwanda does not have much authority to accuse others of genocide… although, there too, the real perpetrators were the same as those responsible for the war in the Balkans, which was taking place in parallel. Germany, mind you, has even less authority. But they were pawns used by the U.S., which knew that its rivals leading the “Global South” have divergent positions on Srebrenica and that, therefore, this would be a good opportunity to exploit these differences to its own advantage.
There were 84 votes in favor of the resolution and 19 against, in addition to 68 abstentions and dozens of other absences. To give you an idea of the division, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Yemen voted in favor of recognizing the Srebrenica genocide — after all, they are all Muslim countries whose governments have been trying to project its political influence on other countries, mainly Muslims, based on the motto of solidarity between brothers of faith. In this sense, it is natural that they voted this way, as this vote is seen as a sign of solidarity with the persecuted and killed Muslims in Bosnia.
South Africa, a member of the BRICS and whose diplomatic actions against Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians have stood out, also voted in favor of the resolution — precisely under pressure due to its position against Israel’s genocide, as if it voted against this resolution it would be attacked as a hypocrite.
Two Muslim-majority countries (Syria and Mali) were courageous enough to vote against this resolution, also due to geopolitical interests. All voters, in fact, chose their sides for geopolitical reasons. So did Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua and the other 12 countries that opposed the resolution.
Brazil, India, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria and Ethiopia were among those who preferred to abstain. It was also a courageous decision, because the appeal and pressure from imperialism to vote in favor were great (after all, who wouldn’t show solidarity with a people who were victims of genocide? Who would have the courage to say that the massacre of 8 thousand people of the same ethnic isn’t it genocide?).
Unfortunately, most oppressed countries fell for the bait of imperialism. They voted together with their worst enemies: the USA, Germany, the United Kingdom and France — who, obviously, also voted for geopolitical objectives, after all they condemn the genocide of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica exactly at the moment they are coordinating the genocide of 35,000 Muslims in Gaza.
The resolution is a complete sham, therefore. The West wants to use Srebrenica to attack Russia, Serbia’s great protector, and at the same time cover up the current genocide in which they are accomplices. Above all, he wants to divide the countries that are opposing his rule. The U.S. and European imperialists have been masters of this for centuries.
Iran and the other leaders of the “Global South” who voted for the resolution must understand that they may even be right to consider Srebrenica a genocide, but that is secondary at this point. The main thing should have been to denounce the farce of the resolution and the spurious objectives of its promoters, refusing to vote on the side of the United States.
On the other hand, Russia and China, accompanied by Cuba, Korea, Syria, Nicaragua and others, objectively chose the correct side by refusing to join the worst genocidaires in the history of humanity whose objectives were not solidarity with the victims, but rather division and submission of other peoples. Not considering the Srebrenica massacre as genocide is secondary.
In their justifications for the no vote, Russia and Nicaragua denounced the role of Western powers in the various tragedies during the wars in Yugoslavia, and together with Syria they exposed the hypocrisy of these same powers by comparing them with the genocide in Gaza. Syria also mentioned imperialism’s politicization of human rights to attack its adversaries. “Our General Assembly continues to be a victim of manipulation and use to advance the political agendas and specific interests of Western countries”, the Nicaraguan representative very correctly pointed out.
Above all, all parties that were divided in this vote must reconcile. They cannot lose sight of the common objective and struggle. Imperialism will exploit these divergences to weaken the union of the BRICS, the Axis of Resistance and other areas of partnership between countries that seek to free themselves from their oppression. And it will look for other loopholes to implant discord between the oppressed countries, especially those leading the current uprising against the bankrupt imperialist order (Russia, China and Iran). It is necessary to be aware that it was precisely the discords fomented by the imperialists between the USSR and China, Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, etc. which led to neocolonial dominance, neoliberal dictatorship and the survival of the imperialist regime. If the union against imperialism becomes stronger and more radical, victory will certainly come.
Der Friedensstifter 
