Thursday, January 18, 2018

'A UCRÂNIA EM CHAMAS' Documento de Oliver Stone sobre a destruição da Ucrânia pelos EUA. Finalmente disponível no OCIDENTE (VIDEO)


'UCRÂNIA EM CHAMAS'
Documento de Oliver Stone sobre a destruição da Ucrânia pelos  EUA. Finalmente disponível no OCIDENTE (VIDEO)

"O filme foi originalmente lançado em 2016, mas sem causar surpresa, Stone enfrentou problemas na distribuição do filme nos EUA e nos países ocidentais. Uma versão dobrada em russo ficou disponível quase de imediato e foi exibida na TV, na Rússia, mas os povos do "mundo livre" ficaram sem acesso ao filme completo."
Foi, finalmente, permitida a exibição no Ocidente, do documentário influente e importante de Oliver Stone, Ucrânia em Chamas.

A Ucrânia, a “fronteira” entre a Rússia e a Europa “civilizada” está em chamas. Durante séculos, esteve no centro de um jogo do ‘puxa a corda’, causado pela guerra entre os poderes que procuraram controlar o seu território fértil e o acesso da Rússia ao Mediterrâneo.

O Massacre de Maidan, no início de 2014, desencadeou uma revolta sangrenta que expulsou o Presidente Viktor Yanukovych e encorajou os habitantes da Crimeia a separarem-se e a juntarem-se à Rússia e provocou uma guerra civil no leste da Ucrânia.

A Rússia foi ostentada pela comunicação mediática ocidental como sendo a criminosa e foi sancionada e amplamente condenada como tal. Mas será que a Rússia foi responsável pelo que aconteceu?

A Ucrânia em Chamas fornece uma perspectiva histórica sobre as divisões profundas que existem na região e que conduziram à Revolução Laranja de 2004, aos tumultos de 2014 e à destituição violenta de Yanukovych, eleito democraticamente.

Noticiada pela comunicação mediática ocidental como sendo uma "revolução popular", foi, de facto, um golpe de Estado, cuja argumentação e encenação, foram levadas a cabo por grupos ultra-nacionalistas e pelo Departamento de Estado dos EUA.

O jornalista investigador, Robert Parry, revela como as ONGs e as empresas da comunicação mediática ocidental, financiadas pelos EUA,  surgiram desde a década de 1980, substituindo a CIA na promoção da agenda geopolítica dos Estados Unidos no exterior.

O produtor executivo, Oliver Stone, ganhou um acesso sem precedentes à explicação conhecida, apenas, pelos que estavam mais envolvidos neste assunto, devido às suas entrevistas filmadas com o antigo Presidente Viktor Yanukovych e com o Ministro do Interior, Vitaliy Zakharchenko, que esclarecem como o Embaixador dos EUA e as facções em Washington, planearam, activamente, a mudança de regime.

E, no seu primeiro encontro com o Presidente russo, Vladimir Putin, Stone solicita a opinião de Putin sobre o significado da Crimeia, da NATO e a história da interferência dos EUA nas eleições e na mudança de regime, na região.

O filme foi originalmente lançado em 2016, mas sem causar surpresa, Stone enfrentou problemas na distribuição do filme nos EUA e nos países ocidentais. Uma versão dobrada em russo ficou disponível quase de imediato e foi exibida na TV, na Rússia, mas os povos do "mundo livre" ficaram sem acesso ao filme completo.

Finalmente, a exibição completa está agora disponível no YouTube. Embora, claro está, incentivemos todos a comprar uma cópia do mesmo, a fim de apoiar esta obra importante de Stone.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Oliver Stone Exposes US Coup d’État In Ukraine

Oliver Stone Exposes US Coup d’État In Ukraine
The people in Western Ukraine had to be completely stupid to be so easily deceived and turned against their own democratically elected government. But the overthrown government was also stupid for believing in negotiations, for trusing the US, and for not arming the police who were being killed by snipers. The Russian government was too focused on the Sochi Olympics to realize what was happening and that the coup was directed at Russia. Russian trust of Washington also resulted in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya. Trusting America, Russia withheld its veto over the no-fly zone imposed on Libya, because Russia trusted the assurances given by Washington that regime change was not the purpose.
Here is Oliver Stone’s documentary on Washington’s coup in Ukraine. The truth differs greatly from the lies told by the Western presstitutes and the US government.
'Ukraine on Fire': Oliver Stone Docu on US Destruction of Ukraine Finally Available in the West (VIDEO)
"The film was originally released in 2016, but unsurprisingly, Stone came up against problems distributing the film in the US and western countries. A Russian-dubbed version was available almost immediately and was aired on TV in Russia, but people in the 'free world' were left without access to the full film."
(Sott) Jan 16, 2018 

Oliver Stone's seminal documentary Ukraine on Fire has finally been made available to watch in the West. 


Ukraine, the 'borderlands' between Russia and 'civilized' Europe is on fire. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and Russia's access to the Mediterranean. 

The Maidan Massacre in early 2014 triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, spurred Crimeans to secede and join Russia, and sparked a civil war in Eastern Ukraine. 

Russia was portrayed by Western media as the perpetrator, and has been sanctioned and widely condemned as such. But was Russia responsible for what happened? 

Ukraine on Fire provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which led to the 2004 Orange Revolution, the 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically-elected Yanukovych. 

Covered by Western media as a 'popular revolution', it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by ultra-nationalist groups and the US State Department. 

Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how US-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 1980s, replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad. 

Executive producer Oliver Stone gained unprecedented access to the inside story through his on-camera interviews with former President Viktor Yanukovych and Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who explain how the US Ambassador and factions in Washington actively plotted for regime change. 

And, in his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Stone solicits Putin's take on the significance of Crimea, NATO and the US's history of interference in elections and regime change in the region. 

The film was originally released in 2016, but unsurprisingly, Stone came up against problems distributing the film in the US and western countries. A Russian-dubbed version was available almost immediately and was aired on TV in Russia, but people in the 'free world' were left without access to the full film. 

Now, at last, the full exposé is available on YouTube. Though, of course, everyone is encouraged to purchase a copy to support Stone's important work. 

Source: SOTT

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Diversity Politics Vs. White People: Who Will Win?


Diversity Politics Vs. White People: Who Will Win?


Diversity Politics Vs. White People: Who Will Win?
Paul Craig Roberts
Identity Politics is the ideology of the liberal/progressive/left and the Democratic Party. Identity Politics teaches hatred of white people, all white people. An article last November in the student newspaper at Texas State University declared that white DNA is an abomination.
Americans, assuming that they are aware of this hostile statement toward white people, dismiss it as student sillyness. They do not understand that it is the logical conclusion of the reigning ideology in America today. Naomi Klein, for example, writing in the current issue of Sierra, takes for granted the explanations of Identity Politics when she writes that the stakes in the 2016 election were enormously high for “those targeted by racist attacks as Trump fanned the flames of rising white nationalism . . . to the prospect of women losing the right to decide whether or not to become mothers, to the reality of sexual assault being normalized and trivialized at the highest reaches of power.”
Formerly, the liberal/progressive/left and the Democratic Party stood for the working class. In those days societal conflict was understood in class terms, and the capitalist was seen as the exploiter. Today the conflict is identity driven, with the white heterosexual male placed in the role as the exploiter of blacks, homosexuals and women.
The idea that power resides in the white heterosexual male is obviously erroneous. Imagine if the Texas college student had written that black DNA is an abomination or homosexual DNA is an abomination. The article would not have been published. But it is perfectly OK to denigrate whites. Indeed, white males have no protection against abuse, because they are not protected by quotas, political correctness, and hate speech prohibitions.
Whites are easily discriminated against, as the recent firing of James Damore by Google illustrates. Damore simply stated a scientific fact that males and females have different traits that suit them to different jobs. But this is a fact that is inconsistent with Identity Politics. Just as Trofim Lysenko managed to destroy Soviet genetics by denying facts, Identity Politics is destroying American society by denying facts. http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture Ideologies are only interested in facts that confirm the ideology. When no such facts exist, ideologues make up the facts.
Americans, especially white people who are the target of the deadly ideology of Identity Politics and are placed by the ideology in the same position as Jews in Nazi Germany and capitalists in Soviet Russia, are unaware of the extent to which Identity Politics is now the dominant force in American culture. For example, as James Damore’s lawsuit against Google proves, Google’s corporate culture is 100 percent Identity Politics. Damore was fired because he challenged Identity Politics. Read here https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-14/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-about-googles-office-environment examples of the raw hatred that Google employees expressed against Damore. None were fired for hateful and threatening language that went far beyond Damore’s mild statement that males and females have different traits. Google actually rewards employees for beating up on white heterosexual males and conservatives and holds diversity training sessions, the purpose of which is to put whites on the defensive. The whites who survive at Google are the ones who deplore their whiteness.
Clearly, Identity Politics has turned Google into a totalitarian organization, one that cooperates with police state agencies in restricting access to non-approved information. We must hope that a blockchain Internet soon replaces Google and that Google’s stock declines in value to zero.https://hackernoon.com/decentralized-internet-on-blockchain-6b78684358a
As few people understand the role played by Identity Politics in the attack on President Trump and the American working class that elected him and the role of Identity Politics in falsifying American history, it is beneficial to revisit the Charlottesville, Virginia, staged show of last August and the way the presstitutes cast an Identity Politics explanation over the show.
As the liberal/progressive/left, the Democratic Party, major corporate cultures, and the print and TV media have no compunction about attacking white people in the most threatening and hurtful ways, Amnesty International’s Margaret Huang is clearly wrong when she declares whites, with gags in their mouths, to be the “emboldened and empowered violent segments of our society.”https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/15/amnesty-international-barking-wrong-tree/
Listening to NPR last August confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin. NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville. The several “interviews” with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault. It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan “America first.”
Of course, what Trump means by “America first,” is precisely what the voters understood him to mean—the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other countries and the narrow profit interests of global corporations. However, the NPR propagandists put words in Trump’s mouth and twisted the meaning of the slogan to be “White America Comes First.”
In other words, “America first” according to NPR is code language to white supremacists to take advantage of the electoral college and elect a leader over the popular vote of the heavy population densities in the narrow geographical areas that comprise the northeast and west coasts, the centers of moral rot. Thus, Trump was the candidate of white supremacists and, thereby, illegitimate.
NPR next conveyed the message that Trump proved he was the Nazis’ candidate when he criticized both sides for the trouble in Charlottesville. NPR used its orchestrated interviews to place all blame for violence on the group that had a permit for their rally. According to NPR, the group that had no permit and formed in order to protest the rally consisted entirely of white hats defending America from free speech by alleged Nazis and racists.
There is no doubt that a rally of what is called the “alt-right” will pull into itself all sorts of extremists and that the cause of the rally, apparently defending a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition or perhaps simply gaining attention for the organizers, was done harm by the young, apparently unbalanced, man who drove a car into counter-marchers, after the permitted rally had ended. The nonsensical element of this act has convinced some Americans that the entire scene was an orchestration by the deep state as a weapon against Trump and civil liberty.
Charlottesville has many aspects that are ignored by NPR and the rest of the presstitutes. For example, how does the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative assertion that Americans are the “exceptional people” whose country is the “indispensable country” differ from Trump’s proclamation of “America first”? No one among the liberal/progressive/left was disturbed when America’s first black president proclaimed to the world that Americans are the exceptional, indispensable people. Doesn’t Obama use much clearer language that puts America first? If Americans are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. If Americans are indispensable, everyone else is dispensable.
What is the difference? One difference is that Obama was elected by the good people, the non-racist, non-misogynist, non-white-supremacist people, and Trump was elected by “the deplorables,” to use Hillary’s term. Little wonder she lost, having dismissed everyone between the two coasts as “deplorables.” But she didn’t lose, right? Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election from her. Trump is illegitimate and therefore must be driven out of office. He is doubly illegitimate because white heterosexual males elected him. This bogus charge despite the fact that Hillary got 2 million less votes from women than did Obama. Either the 2 million women didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.
The other difference is that Trump’s use of “America first” refers to the loss of millions of American middle class jobs and tax base for former manufacturing cities and states, whereas the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative use of “exceptional, indispensable America” refers to Washington’s right to bomb other peoples into the stone age for not complying with Washington’s orders.
The campaign to drive Trump out of office has been going on 24/7 since Trump confounded the pundits and won the election. For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is the enemy against whom they are conducting war, and as in war, truth is crowded out by propaganda. The liberal/progressive/left gets away with this abuse of news reporting because Trump’s intent to reduce tensions with Russia is seen as threats to the income and power of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives. Powerful material interests, ideology, and media together comprise a very strong force against which a mere president hasn’t a chance.
Few Americans understand the fundamental transformation of their politics and society since the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was stood on its head by EEOC compliance chief Alfred W. Bloomrosen. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibited racial and gender quotas as methods to combat “discrimination,” which was mainly a product of history rather than of the motivations of white males. But it is difficult to make history a villain, and social engineering benefits from having a villain to overcome. Thus was the foundation of Identity Politics laid.
The initial stage of the new politics was that quotas established privilege for “preferred minorities,” and preference began prevailing over merit. Over the decades white males have slowly but surely experienced discrimination in university admissions, hiring, promotions, university appointments, and in their ability to exercise free speech. Remember, a senior male engineer at Google was recently fired because he expressed a truthful fact—men and women have different traits—that is unacceptable to Identity Politics.
It is common parlance that white heterosexual males are racists, sexists, and homophobic. To use comparable language to denigrate blacks, homosexuals, and transgendered is impermissible.
The liberal/progressive/left along with the media has abandoned the working class for Identity Politics. Identity Politics teaches that women, blacks, and homosexuals are all victims of white heterosexual males who are characterized as the victimizer class, that is, those who victimize others.  The doctrine delegitimizes white heterosexual males in the same way that Nazi doctrine delegitimizes Jews and communist doctrine delegitimizes capitalists. There is no difference.
Initially, white males, such as the University of Virginia history professor on NPR who obligingly demonized the white males who do not accept their second class status, survive by mouthing Identity Politics and crawling on their knees. But this is a temporary respite. For Identity Politics the only acceptable white heterosexual males are those who admit their gender and sexual preference guilt and accept their punishment for being the victimizers of women, blacks, and homosexuals.
In 1995 in our book, The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, Larry Stratton and I describe how one EEOC bureaucrat by ignoring the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act, legislation the intent of which was to enforce equality before the law, reintroduced legalized discrimination into US law, thus beginning the process of delegitimizing the white male. Today some would turn their backs on this fact, not because it is invalid but because it is politically incorrect. When our book was published 22 years ago, the major media endorsed our argument:
“A forceful and convincing case . . . vividly dramatic.” — New York Times Book Review
“There are important lessons to learn . . . not least how good intentions can go badly awry.” — The Wall Street Journal
“Roberts and Stratton make a strong case that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s has been distorted beyond recognition.” — The Washington Post
The consequence of quotas wasn’t obvious at first, and there were claims that the quotas were temporary, but today the consequence is obvious. Heterosexual white males are deplorables. On NPR one male said that the views of white males who defend both themselves and dead white males from attacks should not be allowed a voice in American politics. Clearly, if The New Color Line were published today, the same publications that praised the book in 1995 would denounce it today.
The liberal/progressive/left asserts that everyone knows that Robert E. Lee was an evil racist who fought for slavery and everyone who wants to protect his statue is obviously the same. Such people deserve no voice, no vote. They must be excluded from public discussion.
Imagine saying this about any other group, especially women, blacks, and homosexuals. How is it possible for the liberal/progressive/left to really believe that they are oppressed by powerful white male heterosexuals when they can demonize white males at will and prevent any backtalk?
If white males are so powerful, how can they be so easily fired by feminist thought control czars for “expressing harmful gender stereotypes.” Harmful to who? How harmful is getting fired?
As Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux predict http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-12-best-explanation-yet-of-what-happened-in-charlottesville-stefan-molyneux-and-faith-goldy-report-the-truth-you-wont-hear-in-the-media.html, white males have had enough of their demonization and the demonization of our country’s heros. They see the writing on the wall and are organizing to defend themselves.
As anti-white male propaganda is apparently the only mental activity of which the liberal/progressive/left is capable, Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux are probably correct that America, broken into pieces by Identity Politics, is heading into civil war. I wonder which side will control the nukes and bio-chemical weapons.
If the white heterosexual males lose, I wonder who will protect the white women. Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?
Of course, this is an impermissible question.
The liberal/progressive/left are incapable of understanding that by demonizing white heterosexual males they are demonizing all whites and, thereby, themselves.
They should go ask the liberal whites in Rhodesia how well they are faring in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. They should ask South African whites how secure they believe themselves to be now that they have turned over power and a second black political party has risen, forcing political competition between black politicians into which black party hates whites the most.
These also are impermissible questions.
Identity Politics always leads to violence, and Americans will not be spared.
What the liberal/progressive/left tried to do with Charlottesville is to associate Trump supporters with White Supremacists and in this way demonize Trump supporters so that they will not have a voice when Trump is overthrown in a coup. Or it can be put in a different way: Charlottesville is being used by someone to discredit Trump and the people who elected him in order to pave the way for a coup, and the liberal/progressive/left is enabling the plot.
Upon reflection, I think that for most of the liberal/progressive/left the denunciations and one-sided interpretation of Charlottesville are just the ingrained knee-jerk reaction of people brought up in Identity Politics. In Identity Politics, everyone is a White Hat except racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-nut white males. The only tolerable white males are those who accept this characterization of themselves. All others are “white supremacists” or “nazis.”
From what I read on progressive websites, those imbued with Identity Politics are letting the emotionalism of the politics run away with them. My friend, Rob Kall, who is fair and open-minded and posts my columns on OpEdNews, including those to which he takes exception, writes: “Trump is Now the Leader of White Supremacists and Nazis.” Rob reaches this conclusion because Trump held both sides responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. By seeing equivalence between the two sides, Trump “made it clear that he was siding with the White Supremacists, giving them aid, support and encouragement.” https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-is-Now-the-Leader-of-by-Rob-Kall-Donald-Trump_Hate-Groups-Neo-Nazis_White-Supremacist-170816-650.html (You might remember Jean Kirkpatrick who denounced liberals for seeing moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the US.) I doubt this is the way Trump saw his statement. From the news videos I saw, there seemed to be plenty of hate on both sides. Certainly, there is plenty of hate for Trump among progressives.
In the Washington Post, Alexandra Petri finds Trump’s words condemning the violence on both aides to be “despicable words.” Petri apparently thinks that, counter to what the news coverage shows, the counter protesters did not engage in any violence, or else she thinks that violence from this side was justified but not violence from the other side. She condemns Trump for his statement: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” In her opinion, the last three words, “on many sides” shows that Trump is partial to White Supremacists. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/15/donald-trumps-despicable-words/
Richard Eskow joins the chorus. He links together deaths in Charlottesville, New York, Portland, Charleston, under “white nationalist terror” and hands them to Trump. https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-Won-t-Say-It-But-We-by-Richard-Eskow-Hatred_Terrorism_Trump-Mental-State_White-Male-Effect-170814-424.html
The Daily Kos also equates Trump’s blaming both sides for the violence, which is what the media reports show to be the case, with a defense of “white supremacist/neo-Nazi violence.” https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-defends-white-suprem-by-Daily-Kos-Protest_Trump-Insults_Violence_White-Male-Privilege-170815-734.html
Joe Macare at Truthout tells us that “Truthout will continue to report on the threat of neo-Nazis in the street — as well as those in the White House who are in lockstep with their agenda. We’ll talk to the people organizing against fascism on all fronts. We won’t equivocate or condemn ‘both sides.’ We won’t blame the Nazis’ targets for the hate they receive. But we know that these are not the only faces of racism. Whether it manifests itself in education policy, in gentrification, in economic inequality, in racist policing or in the United States’ immigration and ‘defense’ policies, Truthout will continue exposing white supremacy in all its forms.”
Truthout’s Anna Sutton expresses her “Heartbreak, Anger.” She doesn’t know where to begin. But she sees a fundraising opportunity. Make a donation and Truthout will “tell it like it is” against the “corporate and right-wing media” that are “bending over backwards to normalize Trump and the violence and xenophobia displayed by his rabid followers.” One wonders what corporate right-wing media she is talking about, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, all of which denounce Trump 24/7?
How do we avoid the question: who is over the top, the “alt-right” at Charlottesville or their progressive critics?
Over at CounterPunch, a remnant of America’s left-wing, John Eskow tells us that he has walked among white supremacists “since I first learned to walk. They surrounded me in blue-collar Utica, New York—an early capitol of Rust Belt America, back in the 1950s.”
Here is Identity Politics’ association of the working class with White Supremacy. The all-powerful, all-threatening White Supremacists could do nothing to prevent—who?—from offshoring their jobs to Asia. But these people, who are so powerless that they could not even save their own jobs, are a great threat to us good people, who sat sucking our thumbs in unconcern while their economic lives were snuffed out. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/16/among-the-racists/
CounterPuncher John Wight, prior to affirming the dogma that from the very beginning America has been “synonymous with white supremacy,” first unleashes both barrels on the liberal/progressives: “Strident declamations against fascism in Charlottesville from those who supported fascists in Kiev, calls for action to be taken against extremists in America by those who’ve been supporting them in Syria. What is this if not rank hypocrisy?”
Ah, so, why did the liberal/progressives align with the military/security complex and the neoconservatives against Donald Trump who declared, to his undoing, his intention to normalize relations with Russia, thus removing the enemy needed to justify the $1 trillion annual budget of the military/security complex? These vast monies could have gone into health care for the unprovided, into public assistance for the unprovided, but the liberal/progressive/left would not have it. If the liberal/progressives are so against violence and hate, why do they support the hate campaign against Trump and Russia?
Has Identity Politics made the liberal/progressive/left deaf, dumb, and blind such that their reality is limited to the emotions that Identity Politics produces? This is a valid question. It is not meant to be derogatory. It is meant to lead to an understanding of our plight as a country. How does a country in which blacks are taught to hate whites, women are taught to hate men, and whose history is explained as white oppression successfully deal with the defining issues of our time?
Indeed, such a country is incapable of even recognizing the real issues. It seems clear enough that our doom is certain.
Identity Politics has such a firm hold on universities, media, all sorts of subject areas in public schools such as black studies, women studies, race studies, native American studies, and in Democratic Party politics that reality is absent from the picture.
Most of what is deplored by Identity Politics are simply products of history, not of the evil intentions of white males. It once was the case that the function of liberal progressivism was to reform what was inherited from the past and had been morally outgrown. But this progressive agenda has been abandoned to hate that is just as wrong and deadly as the hate to which the liberal progressives object. So we are left with what: hate against hate. This is not promising.
We have to come back to the question, why is the liberal/progressive/left comfortable with being aligned with the warmonger neoconservatives and the military/security complex against President Donald Trump who intended, until he was blocked, to reduce the extremely dangerous to all of mankind tensions between the US and Russia created over 24 years by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes? If you are really against violence, why oppose the only president we have had since Reagan who wants to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict?
I have asked this question a number of times. I have never had an answer from the liberal/progressive/left.
Are we to conclude that they are unaware, lost as they are in their hatred of white, heterosexual males, that they don’t care, that they want Trump destroyed even it Pence, the replacement, leads us into unwinnable war with Russia and China?
Why do the environmental and wildlife preservation organizations jump on the anti-Trump bandwaggon. Are they unaware of the consequences to all life of nuclear war?
What explains the total unreality in which Americans exist? We are supposed to be the leaders of the world. How can we lead when we are so utterly, hopelessly blind and stupid and consumed by hate?


The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate


The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate

The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate
By Ray McGovern
As I have reported from the beginning, Russiagate is an orchestrated hoax by the security agencies for the purpose of preventing Trump from normalizing relations with Russia and, if necessary, for removing him from office. Russiagate is an act of treason by the security agencies. Those responsible must be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. — PCR
“After months of breathless searching for ‘evidence’ of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House.” — Ray McGovern


Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes. 



January 12, 2017, Information Clearing House 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48572.htm
The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate
By Ray McGovern
Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end of this article.)
Despite his former job as chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence section, Strzok had the naive notion that texting on FBI phones could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through “Security 101.” Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page cannot be happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct their affair(s).
It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that.
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.
More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate.
Besides forcing the removal of Strzok and Page, the text exposures also sounded the death knell for the career of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in whose office some of the plotting took place and who has already announced his plans to retire soon.
But the main casualty is the FBI’s 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama administration’s Russia-gate intelligence “assessment,” electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.
Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for “evidence” of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call “means, motive and opportunity.”
Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers’ correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of the made-up “Resistance” narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn’t make sense on its face.
The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.
Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly “hacked” Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario.
The Trump Shock
But the shock of Trump’s election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot with the Resistance led to a situation in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by “hand-picked” analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an “assessment” that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.
Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”
But the “assessment” served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump’s election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free “assessment” was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian “hack.” Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged, the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian “hack” conclusion. Shane’s blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media’s approved narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian “hack” or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a “soft coup” were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.
It didn’t even seem to matter when new Russia-gate disclosures conflicted with the original narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a “Trump enabler” or a “Moscow stooge.”
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump’s longstanding lament that he was the subject of a “witch hunt.”
Justified or not, Trump’s feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous — particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of the Resistance’s strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to “get Trump.”
Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment’s storyline that there appears to be no room for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can’t stop stoking the smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump’s impeachment.
Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of the “rule of law” and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the “rule of law” and “pursuit of truth” appear to have been reduced to high-falutin’ phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence.
Strzok and Page
Peter Strzok (pronounced “struck”) has an interesting pedigree with multiple tasks regarding both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. As the FBI’s chief of counterespionage during the investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a personal email server for classified information, Strzok reportedly changed the words “grossly negligent” (which could have triggered legal prosecution) to the far less serious “extremely careless” in FBI Director James Comey’s depiction of Clinton’s actions. This semantic shift cleared the way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton.
Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts that joined “hand-picked” counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017 assessment accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016. (Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth, that poor excuse for analysis reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization — rivaled only by the fraudulent intelligence on “weapons of mass destruction“ in Iraq 15 years ago.)
In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page text-message exchange and told Mueller.
There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as “almost genetically driven” to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is good for the country than regular American citizens, including those “deplorables” whom Clinton said made up half of Trump’s supporters.
But Strzok/Page had no idea that their hubris, elitism and scheming would be revealed in so tangible a way. Worst of all for them, the very thing that Strzok, in particular, worked so hard to achieve — the sabotaging of Trump and immunization of Mrs. Clinton and her closest advisers is now coming apart at the seams.
Congress: Oversee? or Overlook?
At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily cozy role as “overlook” committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today’s technology permits blanket collection, and “Collect Everything” has become the motto.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have “six ways from Sunday to get back at you” if you are “dumb” enough to take them on.
Thanks to the almost 10,000 text messages between Strzok and Page, only a small fraction of which were given to Congress four weeks ago, there is now real evidentiary meat on the bones of the suspicions that there indeed was a “deep-state coup” to “correct” the outcome of the 2016 election. We now know that the supposedly apolitical FBI officials had huge political axes to grind. The Strzok-Page exchanges drip with disdain for Trump and those deemed his smelly deplorable supporters. In one text message, Strzok expressed visceral contempt for those working-class Trump voters, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. … it’s scary real down here.”
The texts even show Strzok warning of the need for an “insurance policy” to thwart Trump on the off-chance that his poll numbers closed in on those of Mrs. Clinton.
An Aug. 6, 2016 text message, for example, shows Page giving her knight in shining armor strong affirmation: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump].” That text to Strzok includes a link to a David Brooks column in The New York Times, in which Brooks concludes with the clarion call: “There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you’re not in revolt, you’re in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame.”
Another text message shows that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.”  Strzok added, “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you’re 40.”
Insurance Policy?
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the “insurance policy” when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated “Steele Dossier” was part of the “insurance,” as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC’s and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails and gave them to WikiLeaks.
If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, who commissioned the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele’s first report was published, drawing on seven sources.
“There is a snowball’s chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single ‘trusted intermediary’ to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence.”
Another VIPS colleague, Phil Giraldi, writing out of his own experience in private sector consulting, added: “The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable.”
It is now widely known that the Democrats ponied up the “insurance premiums,” so to speak, for former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “dossier” of lurid — but largely unproven — “intelligence” on Trump and the Russians. If, as many have concluded, the   dossier was used to help justify a FISA warrant to snoop on the Trump campaign, those involved will be in deep kimchi, if congressional overseers do their job.
How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any “death benefit” ever coming into play — save for Trump’s electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered — there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee of Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism, joined Sen. Grassley in signing the letter referring Christopher Steele to the Justice Department to investigate what appear to be false statements about the dossier. In signing, Graham noted the “many stop signs the Department of Justice ignored in its use of the dossier.” The signature of committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, however, was missing — an early sign that a highly partisan battle royale is in the offing.  On Tuesday, Feinstein unilaterally released a voluminous transcript of Glenn Simpson’s earlier testimony and, as though on cue, Establishment pundits portrayed Steele as a good source and Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson as a victim.
The Donnybrook is now underway; the outcome uncertain.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  He was an Army and CIA intelligence analyst for 30 years; prepared and briefed the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan; and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
+++++++++++++
Sample text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, released to Congress and the media on December 13, 2016
++++++++++++++
03/04/2016
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page – I know
++++++++++++
04/02/2016
Page – So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting, bc you feel bad that you’re gone so much but that can’t be helped right now.
++++++++++
07/08/2016
Strzok – And meanwhile, we have Black Lives Matter protestors, right now, chanting “no justice no peace” around DoJ and the White House…
Page – That’s awful.
+++++++++
07/14/2016
Page – Have you read this? It’s really frightening. For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance http://NYTI/ms/29WCu5!
Strzok – I have not. But I think it’s clear he’s capturing all the white, poor voters who the mainstream republicans abandoned in all but name in the quest for the almighty $$$
Page – Yeah, it’s not good.
Strzok – Poll Finds Emails Weighing on Hillary Clinton, Now Tied With Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/29RV5gf
Page – It is
+++++++++++++
07/26/2016
Strzok – And hey. Congrats on a woman nominated for President in a major party! About damn time! Many many more returns of the day!!
Page – That’s cute. Thanks
++++++++++
08/06/2016
Page – Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself. Moment in Convention Glare Shakes Up Khans American Life http://nyti.ms/2aHulE0
Strzok – God that’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.
++++++++
08/06/2016
Page – And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace. To that end comma, read this:
Page – Trump Enablers Will Finally Have to Take A Stand http://nyti.ms/2aFakry
Strzok – Thanks. It’s absolutely true that we’re both very fortunate. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps
++++++++++++
08/09/2016
Page – He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok – OMG did you hear what Trump just said?
+++++++++++
08/26/2016
Strzok – Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support…
Page – Yep. Out to lunch with (redacted) We both hate everyone and everything.
Page – Just riffing on the hot mess that is our country.
Strzok – Yeah…it’s scary real down here
+++++++++
10/20/2016
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.
Strzok – I CAN’T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!
Page– I don’t know. But we’ll get it back. We’re America. We rock.
Strzok– Donald just said “bad hombres”
Strzok– Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
This article was originally published by Consortium News –
====
Was the DNC/Clinton campaign-funded dossier used to obtain warrants on Trump team from the secret court?


Manlio Dinucci


SUBTITLES -- EN, FR, IT, PT, TR

SI VOUS VOULEZ TRADUIRE LES RAPPORTS DE MANLIO DINUCCI D'ANGLAIS, FRANÇAIS OU ITALIEN DANS VOTRE LANGUE MATERNELLE, SVP VEUILLEZ DEMANDER À

IF YOU WANT TO TRANSLATE MANLIO DINUCCI'S REPORTS FROM ENGLISH, FRENCH OR ITALIAN,INTO YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE KINDLY CONTACT

luisavasconcellos2012@gmail.com


PUTIN FRENCH

putin

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV WORLD ORDER

PRESIDENT

lie we live

pt

xmas





“Glory to God in the highest,

and on Earth

Peace, Good Will toward men.”

This Christmas, Give Peace