One might ask how the US or Australia were able to cope when they built their countries on mass immigration. Those who see American tourists walking around different countries as if they own them, expecting the highest standards of service from everyone, understand that wanting a better life is still seen as a virtue there, not something to condemn people for. Furthermore, as Europe is supporting all the conflicts which create waves of migration, claiming these are somehow supposed to benefit local populations, it cannot very well pretend that these people have no reason to flee those conflicts – or to object to them trying to obtain the better life these conflicts are supposed to provide in some dim and distant future.

But the so-called “migrant crisis” is actually nothing to do with migrants. It is about the threat it poses to the European Project, already reeling from the UK’s decision to leave and demands for similar referenda in other countries. That threat has always been there, but there have been political reasons for pretending it wasn’t. Now, as migrants can’t vote and are thus the easiest target in a democracy which is failing to deliver for its own people, the political reason for ignoring the threat has gone, and it is being brought to the surface by the same countries that once had a vested interest keeping it buried.

Now we understand that the founding fathers of modern Europe chose to ignore one simple fact. They recognised that however much Europe’s disparate countries may agree on, each will always have its own individual character which can only change temporarily. But they could not accept that each country’s character will always be expressed through its migration policy: and thus the internal wars the EU sought to end will always ultimately be fought over this issue.

Expressing identity, rather than forging trade deals, will always be the irreducible minimum for every country. The self-proclaimed island nation of the UK has demonstrated this, and will continue to do so throughout the agonies of its attempted separation from Europe.

Not us, mate

Germany is often blamed for the present “migrant crisis”. It is accused of not standing up to the hordes of people who are allegedly hell-bent on terrorising the civilized West which bombed them out of their homes to begin with. In response it tries to impose controls by the back door, by telling Turkey it will only get more support if it stops the flow of migrants.

If Germany does what other countries are demanding it do, it will be discriminating against people on the grounds of racial origin, religious background and political status for the sake of preserving the German people. Has the world really forgotten that we have heard all this before? The German people still thank their former enemies for removing the government which based its policy on such principles, even though it took the loss of thousands of lives in World War Two to do it.

The Nazis and their works might be held to be extreme examples of immigrant-bashing. They were indeed seen as such by most of Europe in 1933, when they were taken seriously at all. Then similar parties started appearing across Europe, which either hadn’t existed before or had had different ideas but were able to profit from tapping into the fears which bred Nazism. Most members and supporters of these parties, such as the Rexists in Belgium and the FSB in the Netherlands, were not necessarily anti-immigrant or anti-foreigner in themselves, but these ideas were lumped in with others which met their concerns, and thus became attractive to people as part of a general package, in countries where electors often had to make such compromises due to their tradition of coalition governments.

It is this process which enabled the Nazis to gain power and exercise it in the manner they did. But Germans themselves eventually said “enough is enough”. They themselves decided that the evils done in the name of the German people were not what being German was about. They are no more reflective of the German people, or the German state, than Pol Pot reflected Cambodia, as Germans have a different character and must build their country on expressing that.

Furthermore, Germany has had to build a new state twice within living memory: first after 1945 and then after the reunification in 1990. It has had to work hard to discover what Germans are, and therefore what their country should be. It knows however that if every other country turned to a new version of Nazism Germany would not. Only when the country hosted the World Cup soccer tournament in 2006 did Germans feel free to fly flags again, due to the connotations with the inglorious interwar period, and therefore the last thing Germany is going to do is go down the road of discrimination again, however mild it may be in comparison with what happened before.

The person most associated with the creation of the “touchy-feely” Germany which is the antithesis of its past is Helmut Schmidt, the Social Democrat Chancellor of West Germany from 1974 to 1982. Like many of his generation, he had also been an ardent member of the Hitler Youth and as late as 1944 was being praised for his “impeccable National Socialist views”, despite being part Jewish. Like his whole country, he had to spend the rest of his life explaining that his past wasn’t him, and putting that into practice. Every German family has been through this painful process, and is not going to reverse it because immigrants want to come to their country, whatever fears they may have in private.

Not old enough to be blamed

If the rest of Europe had been through the same process Germany has over the past 70 years there would be no “migrant crisis”, however many people wanted to enter Europe from elsewhere. The trouble is, Europe is no longer what it was. Its older members have dealt with similar issues, such as decolonisation and the practicalities of having to commute across land borders to “foreign” countries on a daily basis. However the newer ones have had to establish their identities in exactly the opposite way, and are similarly unlikely to compromise on migrant questions.

The EU members which were once part of the Soviet bloc always resented their “foreign domination”, or outright occupation. In order to establish their identities now they have to rediscover what they regard as their native values. This is a process of active discrimination, in which the “local” is promoted above the “foreign”, and although this discrimination has specific targets anything regarded as non-native, such as Islam or French wine, is seen with equal suspicion.

Despite this, joining the EU, that foreign-run, multi-ethnic and pan-European organisation, is seen as one of the steps towards re-establishing the national identities which are the basis of these independent nations. Consequently they expect the EU to support them in this process, even when new national laws violate EU principles. The effort to rebuild countries, which begins and ends with finding a national identity everyone can agree on, is not going to be derailed by freedom of movement, which sucks away the young to the richer countries and leaves them with poorer immigrants from elsewhere to take care of, just as Third World countries, which EU members consider inferior to themselves, have long experienced.

Thus there are conflicts within the EU over how to deal with both migrants and internal populations. In Bulgaria one of the catalysts for the overthrow of the Communists in 1989 was the government dumping rubbish outside a mosque, and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, a pro-Turkish party which represented the country’s Muslim population, played a significant role in removing the hated Soviets. Subsequently the country adopted a law which stated that Orthodox Christianity is the state religion and all other religious groups have to register, and this law is generally regarded as reasonable, because even Muslims do not dispute the primacy of Orthodox Christianity amongst the Bulgarian people.

These differences of approach cannot be glossed over by appealing to a European ideal. The newer members never had that ideal, as EU membership simply showed they were independent and non-Soviet, and as such gave international credibility for whatever they wanted to do at home, whether it was harmonised with the EU or not. If they can get away with being in the European club but having contrary native practices, others can too. No longer can Europe’s malcontents be dismissed as intellectually and morally inferior when whole countries are doing what the elite have always said Europeans can no longer do.

These malcontents are the ones objecting to migration from those very same newer EU countries, claiming that their fellow Europeans are either desperate to live on Western welfare or taking jobs and homes from the locals, whichever accusation is most convenient at the time. Such accusations resonate with those who are struggling, who may believe in the European ideal but feel that having proper jobs and decent homes, or greater welfare in the short term, are more important right now. But it is obviously a contradiction in terms to use the same tactics used in these newer EU countries against people from those same countries. These people can’t be all bad if their own countries do the same, and increasing numbers of nationals of the complaining country go and live there despite this, taking advantage of the lower cost of living to make pensions and savings go further.

Migrants from elsewhere are a different matter. It is easy to point the finger at anyone different and say they are destroying the native culture – even in Spain, where the country was ruled by Muslims for centuries and their cultural contribution is part of what is typically “Spanish” today, or the UK, where the favourite food, according to various surveys, is curry and bastions of English tradition such as Morris Dancing and Christmas trees are of foreign origin, like its royal family. By doing this you can be both European and anti-European, having your cake and eating it too.

Inevitably therefore we are now hearing about a “migrant crisis”, and European domestic polices, rather than foreign adventures which displace and radicalise, being responsible for this. The old industries have largely gone, so migrants can’t be absorbed into them as they once were, but this is because the newer service industries won’t hire people with the old skills, however transferable they may be. There is a housing shortage everywhere, but this is because internetworking online has not been properly promoted. In Sweden it is very difficult to find legal accommodation in the prosperous areas, but hundreds of homes are demolished every year in the north of the country because the locals have long left due to lack of work. Internetworking would resolve both employment and housing problems, but also take away the blame, so there isn’t enough interest amongst those who could make it happen.

Crisis? What crisis? If there were better public services all round, for all people, there wouldn’t be any talk of this. This is contrary to the economic thinking of today, but that same thinking caused the global financial crash which is still affecting most countries. The crisis exists because no one wants to resolve it, as trying to do so would highlight the fact that Europe can never unite, but only divide, on this issue.

We’re not tired of telling you

The alleged “migrant crisis” brings largely self-supporting communities, as the shops in any country testify, to settle in new places and offer their skills. But it is having an effect simply because it is being talked about, not because most of those who hear the talk are affected by it in the real world.

When you hear something often enough, you take that something into account. For example, when NASA was conducting its moon landing programme in the 1970s this was always in the news and thus blamed for many things. Bad weather? Unexplained radio interference? Holes in the ozone layer? All this was due to all those rockets being sent up, we were told at the time, simply because this was an explanation rooted in something people knew about.

The same process which happened across Europe in the 1930s is happening again. Political groups which were not particularly anti-immigrant are adding this element to their ideology, and achieving electoral success, simply because the issue is being talked about and provides easy answers. Before the late Jörg Haider came along the Austrian Freedom Party was a member of Liberal International, but he transformed it into a right-wing “populist” party exploiting fears of “foreign domination“. Even though it subsequently split in several directions as a result of this shift the party retains this ideology today, as it is easier to connect with electors by doing this than by other means, as they hear about “migrant crisis” every day on the news.

More migrants will soon be heading Europe’s way thanks to John McCain’s attempt to ramp up the conflict in Ukraine. Europe has seen this before too: after World War Two, and various other conflicts where the West identified a “good” and “bad” side, the migrants these conflicts produced were heroes who deserved all the support they could get, even if only for a little while. How will the “good victims” of further fighting in Ukraine be treated? Europe cannot take a stand one way or another for fear of exposing its own weakness, so it is likely that there will be a huge disconnect between the rhetoric used about these people to justify the war, and the way they are actually treated on the ground when they try to enter the countries which spout it.

The European ideal is what is in crisis, not immigration controls. The EU only has itself to blame for this, as it blithely assumed that every aspiring new member had this ideal as its highest principle, when in fact they had completely different reasons for joining. The EU will only resolve this problem by deciding what it really is and what it should be, as each of its member states has done and is doing. If it can’t do this, it has no future. If it can, it will no longer feel threatened by migrants – so we will soon see for ourselves what is really going on in those mysterious corridors of power the EU so loves to protect its own public from.

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In real life, however, a similar scenario is unfolding, and a similarly childish narrative is being foisted upon the public to conceal where real villains are drawing their vast resources from. Unlike in a children’s cartoon, a real explanation is needed.

The threat of “terror,” or “radical Islamists” as US politicians and media refers to them, has become as cartoonish in reality as Cobra was in fiction.

Organizations like Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) appear to draw from inexhaustible reserves of money, men, materiel, weapons, and even vehicles. They appear capable of transiting national borders, even the seas with fighters, logistical support, and financial resources in quantities that would confound all but the largest, most competent global military forces.

These terrorist organizations, espousing Wahhabi ideology originating in the Persian Gulf states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, are waging war simultaneously in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, all while carrying out terrorist operations globally from North America and Europe to Eurasia and the Far East.

They are fighting the collective forces of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Few nations on Earth possess the political, military, and financial resources required to create and sustain such a force, and fewer still, possess the motivation to do so.

A Travel Ban Addressing Not Even the Symptoms 

US President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry into the United States of citizens from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen,  Libya, and Somalia was predicated on protecting the American people from what the order claimed were “terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”

The order makes specific reference to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 on New York and Washington in which nearly 3,000 would die.

However, the ban in fact omits literally every nation from which the alleged hijackers on September 11 hailed – 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 1 from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

Louvre Attack Exposes Impotence of the Travel Ban 

More recently, amid the attack on France’s Louvre, the suspect now identified as Abdallah Reda Refai El Hamahmy, was born in Egypt – not on President Trump’s list – had traveled to France from the United Arab Emirates – also not on the list – where he had worked for two years as a lawyer. He had also previously traveled to Saudi Arabia – also not on the list – where his wife and child currently reside.

Despite none of the nations the Louvre attack suspect resided in or frequently traveled to being on President Trump’s list, he would exclaim in a message posted on social media platform Twitter:

A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S.

Yet, by “getting smart,” one assumes President Trump means the US should acquiesce to his executive order and the travel ban it authorized. Yet the ban would not have prevented Abdallah Reda Refai El Hamahmy from entering the United States, finding a knife, and attacking any target of his choosing.

It should be noted that suspected hijackers from Egypt and Lebanon, as well as the Louvre attack suspect, were members of or inspired by terrorist organizations funded and politically backed by Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi neighbors.

In fact, the groups these terrorists are drawn from includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization from which Al Qaeda was originally gestated – and a group defended by US and European political interests from states attempting to dismantle their networks, under various excuses including “freedom of expression” and “democracy.”

In this sense, the US and Europe are not just failing to fight terrorism, they are intentionally fueling, aiding and abetting it.

Still, President Trump’s supporters maintain that the list included in the executive order originated from the Obama administration, and that Saudi Arabia “may” be added later. However, recent events suggest otherwise.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words 

In addition to omitting Saudi Arabia from the list of nations included in his executive order’s travel ban, President Trump would send US warship USS Cole to the coast of Yemen to provide security for Saudi ships in the region.

Saudi warships have been targeted amid the full-scale war Riyadh is waging against its Yemeni neighbors.

The USS Cole is of course the ship attacked in 2000 by Al Qaeda while at port in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen US sailors would die. It is unlikely that a single US warship can “protect” Saudi ships, but it could significantly increase the likelihood of Yemeni forces inadvertently hitting the US ship in an attempt to defend themselves against Saudi attacks.
The logical progression of events after an accidental strike on a US ship by Yemeni forces would be wider US involvement in the Yemeni conflict, on the side of Saudi Arabia – the nation President Trump’s supporters believe “may” be added to the travel ban “later.”

From Whence Terrorism Really Flows 

It is clear that terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS – cited by US President Donald Trump as the pretext for his recent executive order – are creations and perpetuations of joint US-Saudi collusion. They have jointly created a global mercenary force that can fight where their regular forces cannot, using tactics and methods on a scale that even their respective covert operations forces could never achieve.

And while it could not be any clearer that these terrorist organizations draw from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – with US and European backing – the summation of their political, financial, and military resources, President Trump – despite vowing to fight and defeat terrorism – has doubled down on protecting this very source of their power.

By doing so, President Trump ensures that Al Qaeda and ISIS – just like the fictional Cobra organization – reappears each week with more men, weapons, and vehicles – no matter how badly battered they were the previous week.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?” – US President Donald Trump

Détente, negotiations of any kind, politics and every form of human interaction on this planet depend on a single premise – trust. The truth of American policies in the last half century is, truth and real trust have been supplanted by apathy or dire, helpless hope. The American people’s sense of “believing” was irreparably damaged in the Vietnam era, further damaged by Watergate, propped up in the Reagan era, and betrayed by successive Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations. Then the Barack Obama administration applied death spike to any sense of America as a credible partner in the world. Our relationships with every country have been utterly compromised.

At home three hundred million souls wander in a hazy fantasyland where one day’s frivolity fades to tomorrow’s nightmare. An elite controlling cabal trickles money and power down through the top 10%, bleeding the rest like some sinister creatures from a Sci-Fi classic. Half of society in America is drugged with the endless stream of self-gratifying goods and comfort foods. The other half of the country clung in silence to their old TV shows, small town legends, and the churches and synagogues that teeter perilously in between God and Satan. Morals transfigured into a kind of masochistic new freedom compel ignorance and meanness on a level that is biblical. Past presidents have been the big street dealers of these drugs, the urban legends addicts illuminate as “super cool” and above it all. Obama was a kind of celebrity for two generations of dopamine addicts – a man set in place to finally ruin it all.

These ideas, this reality is an impossible pill for most Americans to swallow. The reset a societal consciousness, to embrace a real truth, is something human organisms find nearly impossible. In order for the left wing radical college student to construct a real truth today, he or she must totally deconstruct a living system promulgated from a fallacy. For America to accept the real truth of its legacy, the country will have to deconstruct itself first. Enter President Donald Trump – the anti-politician.

Putin is a killer! Nobody has come close to proving this. It’s amazing too, considering the trillions of dollars spent trying! Step back, think about it. Where is the certifiable proof the Russian president did any one thing he is accused of? There is none. Let me say it again, there is no proof Putin has been complicit in any crime. He has done his job. He has represented HIS people. In the four years I have researched, analyzed, studied, and reported on Putin’s affairs and leadership, there is exactly one untrue statement. It involved a covert plan to secure safety for Russian speaking people in Crimea – the so-called “Little Green Men” who secured Russia’s bases in that peninsula, they could not be announced for obvious reasons. Don’t take my word, find a “smoking gun” lie on Vladimir Putin. You can’t. All you’ll find are groundless or cooked up allegations. Considering the weight of these allegations, the sheer number of them, you’ll also reach the same conclusion as me – Putin’s enemies have been the liars.

This simple truth is a template for studying Donald Trump as well. The new American president has been in office two weeks and already he’s accused of everything imaginable. Billions of dollars have already been spent in an attempt to discredit or destroy him. Racist, sexist, incompetent, liar, cheating businessman, fascist – the enemies of Donald Trump are the enemies of the real truth. Anyone who looks closely can see this. Corporations that made billions of the drug of self gratification hate Trump like a beast. Silicon Valley and all of California are like rabid animals willing to eat off their own paws to free themselves from Trump’s “truth trap”. The media has been the purveyor of the big American lie, you by God you all know this. Hollywood has the people believing Rambo or Superman will rescue America if things get bad. US soldiers in Afghanistan did not die and lose, the X-Men have just not arrived yet! This is not cynicism on the part of a disillusioned American, this is a cruel reality.

Trump stood before a record TV audience on inauguration day. He stood naked and alone in front of the world to proclaim truths no politician has been courageous enough to proclaim. Rabid in their clown suits of ultra-liberalism the “New New Left” screamed, cried, and attacked like soulless zombies – they could not hear. They did not care to even try. Look at what Donald Trump said, then look at what he is doing now. Snap out of it! This is the truth. Let me show you the monumental truth Donald Trump had the courage to profess.

“For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth.”

President Trump went on to proclaim that what is important now is “not which party is in control of the government, but that government is controlled by the people again.” This is vital for understanding my point, the “people” have not been in control of America for decades. America has been drugged and date raped – grasp this. Trump’s further conviction on inauguration day struck at the heart of the leftist and elitist lie, he said America must exist to serve her people – he meant all of her people, not just those that want a free ride, free abortions, and free transgender sex in the streets. “We” are all Americans, my distaste for parading LGBT radicals in our streets is valid – and my distaste does not make me a homophobe. I have the right to say this. I have the right to vote against this. This is what America is about.

President Trump proclaimed resilient truth in his assessment of US foreign and domestic policies of the last decades. Whether or not Americans care to take note, our country could have been far better off if certain policies had been abandoned. Mr. Trump continued:

“We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own and spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.”

As before, these truths are unimpeachable, unarguable, just plain true. Don’t take my word, read the New York Times annotated speech here. Even Trump’s most vehement enemies have to admit a modicum of truth. This inauguration speech was one of the greatest and most candid in American history, and half of America did not care to listen! What can cause such uncivilized idiocy? I think the reader knows. Donald Trump talked about closed factories, decaying cities, civil strife, the veterans in horrid hospitals and on the streets, and the robbery of the American people and the American Dream. Then he set out the next day to do exactly what he said he would.

Still, the forces against were not swayed in the least. What drug dealer wants his customers to go straight, after all? Drugged! Drugged into submission! Manipulated like pitiful junkies, the “pusher man” has a hose pipe running into the jugular of a once great people. So can you see through the fog? Can you feel the dope of anything goes chugging into your blood? Get it, want it, eat or use it all! Yes, you can become a transgender abomination before the children of God almighty and still be revered as a kind of savior! Extremes, we must recall the deserts of all such extremes. Mr. Trump is trying to save America from the Goddamned pusher man – understandably this drug dealing scum will not just quit and take an honest job. Truth. It hurts I know. The withdrawal will be even more painful but tens of millions are committed, alongside Mr. Trump, to seeing our countrymen past the cold sweats and spasms of withdrawal. We’re dedicated to breaking free of the globalist pusher man.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Instead of facts we have confusion since first reports are of two figures, wearing ski masks, blasting away with Ak-47’s. Now the two are declared to be one. We have a conversation on a bridge between a “suspect” and the police, after the “suspect” is alleged to have called them “because he feels bad,” to tell them he “was involved.” What that means is not stated but is played in the press as a confession, but there is no confession. At his bail hearing on Monday, the sole accused Alexandre Bissonnette, entered no plea and said not a word.

He is portrayed in the press as a right wing oddball, a loner type. Friends and family never saw it coming. Much is made of his mundane “likes” on his Facebook site as if these indicate his guilt or innocence any more than my “likes” indicate mine. Was he a hidden ideological time bomb and killed with an objective in mind, to make a cruel statement, to create terror for political objectives? If so, and after so brazen a massacre, where were the shouts of defiance, of bragging, from this terrorist madman? Instead, a man shuffled and hung his head and dared not look anyone in the eye, tried to keep a low profile when all eyes were focused on him. Why? Is he one of the shooters? Were there two or just one?

The Toronto Star reported on the Sunday, January 30, that,

“Two attackers carried out a shooting at a Quebec City Mosque…”

Quoting Radio-Canada, the Star stated that,

“One man who was at the mosque told Radio-Canada that there were two attackers wearing ski masks who burst into the building and opened fire. The man, who didn’t want to be identified by name, said they had strong Quebecois accents, but added that he believed them shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’…The man said he narrowly escaped when a bullet whizzed over his head. He said the gunmen took aim at those who were still praying.”

There we have it, a recent direct witness statement that there were two shooters, not one, as the police now claim. The witness talks in the plural all through his statement. There can be no doubt this event is seared in his mind. He was there. There can be no doubt there were two men involved. But now one has disappeared from the official narrative. I am not surprised he feared to give his name because if killers can disappear witnesses can too.

Even the CBC, on Tuesday January 31, in reference to a witness who was arrested as a suspect by mistake, quoted that witness as stating, “I found a victim near the door. I didn’t know if he was alive or dead…when I gave him my jacket to keep warm, I saw the image of someone with a firearm. I didn’t know it was the police. I though it was a shooter who’d returned.”

He refers to “a” shooter not “the” shooter implying there were more than one. He even thought the police officers were the shooters. But clearly he misunderstood why they were there. And the CBC article also cited the witness who saw two attackers and repeated the Radio-Canada story.

The police now state there was only one shooter. Yet the police statement from the Surete de Quebec on January 30 said, “The Surete de Quebec confirms that only one of the individuals arrested yesterday evening is connected with the attack in Quebec and is considered a suspect.” That does not exclude other attackers and does not say that Bissonnette is the only attacker. Now the press are quoting witnesses saying there was one attacker but the police state they have two long guns used in the crime. Witnesses described them as AK 47’s. They also say that a shooter also used a 9 mm pistol after his rifle jammed. The 9mm could hold 15 rounds and since more than 20 people were shot the question of two shooters does not go away.

What is the motive? Not a word on that from anyone though the media is heavy with speculation it is because of alleged right wing views. But many people in Quebec and Canada share these opinions. This is not evidence. If it was Bissonnette, was this a hate attack against Muslims and if so how did this come about? If it wasn’t, is he insane so that now he is arrested we no longer need worry? Very different scenarios cause different reactions and consequences. But we are left with the word “terrorism” as if saying it explains things. Where and how did he or they get the automatic weapons they used? Was CSIS, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service aware of any of this developing? If not, why not?

Who benefits from this crime? We know that President Trump issued an executive order banning entry of Muslims from certain countries on Friday. The Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, in reaction to the Trump travel ban, stated on Saturday,

“To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of faith. Diversity is our strength.”

One day later, on Sunday, came the message in the form of the attack that Muslims better forget Canada as a safe place to be. So, was there a political objective? If so, was it to damage Trump through the murder of innocents? Was it to slap down Trudeau and damage Canada’s reputation? Will it be another in a long string of such incidents the past few years which have been used to excuse even more draconian security laws and loss of civil rights and freedoms?

The anti-Trump media, political opponents and commentators are using it to link Trump to right wing murderers, while Trump has tried to use it to call for more security and offered Canada the help of American security services.

The Canadian media are in a frenzy putting out stories about Canada as a welcoming country that is horrified by this crime and condemning violence against Muslims. The only thing the public knows is that we do not know the whole story.

But the massacre in Quebec City was not the only massacre that took place on that Sunday. That same day American special forces invaded Yemen and carried out a series of “raids,” in reality a series of invasions of a sovereign country to kill its citizens. One of these raids was against a man they claim was a “suspected Al-Qaeda leader” their code phrase for anyone they want out of the way in the Middle East, since Al-Qaeda does not exist; it is just a label attached to any group in the middle east that resists US hegemony, or in Yemen, is part of the resistance to the US-UK sponsored war conducted by Saudi Arabia against Yemen.

This invasion of Yemen, an act of aggression against a member of the United Nations, was planned by President Obama and approved by President Trump, showing the seamless continuity of American imperialism. It was supposedly to “gather intelligence,” in the form of a computer hard drive. To obtain that hard drive, the Americans slaughtered dozens.

In one version in the US media, the American soldiers descended from their helicopters, surrounded a house, and then killed everyone in it. They then began to meet resistance and more violence ensued as the Yemenis tried to resist the American invaders. A US helicopter was shot down, and as is often the case with them, the Americans fired and bombed indiscriminately and killed, according to local media, 30 people including civilians, 8 women and children among them, and bombed a school, a medical facility and a mosque. It was reported that the Americans killed more people in Yemen in other raids that day.

This is a war crime under international law, a crime against humanity, to invade a country and kill its citizens who have every right to resist the attack. Yet where is the condemnation of President Obama for planning this operation and for President Trump for carrying it out? Where are the arrests of these two men and the soldiers who carried out this atrocity? Are they not as guilty as Alexandre Bissonnette, if indeed he is one of the attackers in Quebec? Why is it insignificant that Muslims are murdered in their homes and mosques in Yemen by a powerful state but a world tragedy when Muslims are murdered in a mosque in Canada?

Yet, as the Surete de Quebec and the other Canadian police forces and intelligence agencies carry out their activities to determine what happened in Quebec City and as the Canadian and world media put out wall to wall coverage of the massacre in Canada, the same media do nothing more than regret the death and wounding of the American murderers who carried out the massacre in Yemen and excuse this mass slaughter while the prosecutor of the ICC sits at her desk and wonders why she and the court she represents have become totally irrelevant to what seems to be a hopeless quest to prevent war crimes and the wars from which they arise and which have led directly to the crimes in Canada and Yemen.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

What is actually going on? The answers from both sides of the political spectrum are loaded with emotion and lacking truthful content.

“Trump is trying to protect us from terrorists! He’s keeping the Muslims out of our country!” shout Trump’s defenders. Well, no terrorist attack on US soil has ever been carried out by anyone from the 7 countries restricted. The countries that have been linked to recent terrorist attacks, such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, are not included.

“Trump is a racist! He’s banning Muslims! We can’t block people because of their religion!” Scream the liberal protesters. Well, many Muslim majority countries such as Turkey and Indonesia are not included in the ban. Furthermore, the ban applies to all people from these countries, not just Muslims. The Syrian Arab Republic, for example, is home to many Christians, Druze, and even a small Jewish community. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a large population of Armenian Christians, Jews, and many adherents to an ancient faith called Zoroastrianism. All of these non-Muslims are also subject to the ban.

One contributing factor to the outburst of rage is the crass, sudden, “slap in the face” nature of the executive order. Until the administration backed down, even green-card holding permanent residents were being turned away at airports, something that definitely caused anguish and panic among many people.

Calling It A “Muslim Ban” – Good for Trump & the Democrats

Throughout his Presidential election campaign, Trump repeatedly appealed to contempt and distrust of those who practice Islam. He talked about “banning Muslims” from entering the USA. His speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee included a lot of pandering to Anti-Islamic sentiments. Millions of working class people in rural and suburban areas voted for Trump, because of these very statements. In the aftermath of 9/11 many Americans have come to see all adherents of the Islamic faith as a single scary, foreign, violent group.

The idea that Trump would enact a “Muslim ban” is something that will increase, not decrease his credibility to millions of the middle aged right-wing working class whites who voted for him in rustbelt and southern states. It plays into Trump’s well crafted image as a bold defender of the common man, who is not politically correct, and unafraid of being scorned by elitist urban liberals.

However, as much as it would please his right-wing, anti-Islamic base, and as much as his opponents proclaim it in condemnation, the reality is that Trump has not enacted a Muslim ban. Donald Trump has temporarily suspended entrance to the United States from seven countries: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Sudan. Now the US public is having a heated argument about a “Muslim Ban.” Opponents call it bigoted, supporters call it bold, and neither side acknowledges reality.

Observers of American politics should be reminded of the healthcare debate in the early years of the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” was not universal healthcare or socialized medicine, and did very little to change the country’s private healthcare system. However, the right-wing rallied against it, proclaiming it was socialism, and the left rallied in its defense, employing socialistic rhetoric. Both sides of the American political spectrum clashed with each other, accepting a similar fictional narrative about the Affordable Care Act.

The Non-Spontaneous Airport Protests

After this sudden action, much like the healthcare debate, “the gloves have come off.” In 2009, Tea Partiers responded to the Affordable Care Act by displaying firearms at townhall meetings and engaging in other acts of protest that are normally considered “out of bounds.” In response to Trump, the Democratic Party apparatus mobilized its supporters to protest inside of airports. The demonstrations were mobilized very rapidly, and got intense with people being arrested, and maced with pepper spray at various locations.

Those who pretend that the protests were completely random, unplanned, or spontaneous are completely delusional. Airports are among the most free speech restricted locations in the country. While decades ago it was permitted to pass out political leaflets or petition at airports, courts long ago forbid such things. Under normal circumstances it is illegal, not only to engage in protest or “public disturbance” at an airport, but even to video record inside one.

Yet, without any widespread public announcement or organizing, thousands of Democratic Party activists flooded into airports for some rather rowdy protests. Under normal circumstances doing such things would result in immediate arrest and perhaps even terrorism charges. Not only did the police not arrest the initial protesters, but they allowed the demonstrations to grow bigger and bigger. Though videotaping is not permitted in airports, live streaming videos found their way on to social media, and TV news cameras conveniently found their way in as well.

In many countries when the elected government is toppled by the military, one of the first actions taken is seizing the airports. One could even read into the sudden mobilizations, clearly supported by some of the most powerful people in Democratic Party, a veiled threat of a military coup d’etat.

The CIA Strikes Back

But why was there such a swift response to Trump’s action? Why did the Democratic Party unleash its forces so rapidly in response to Trump’s move? Are the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who tweeted in support of the protests, simply humanitarians who hold deep compassion for immigrants?

The real answer can be found, subtly, in the news coverage surrounding the opposition to the ban. This mainstream news reports shows an Iraqi family blocked by Trump’s move, and describes how the father had “risked his life to support the United States” and his family was rewarded with a visa. This is not an uncommon practice. Allies of the United States in conflicts around the world are routinely rewarded with visas. The US military has many “green card soldiers” from Latin America, who are attempting to gain legal residency in the USA by serving in the military.

In each of the 7 countries listed in the ban, there are thousands of individuals who have collaborated with the United States in order to carry out foreign policy goals. In Syria, for example, hundreds of thousands of Wahabbi extremists have been working to topple the government. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia has cooperated with the United States in efforts to roll back Iranian influence among the Shia communities. In Yemen, Al-Queda, Saudi Arabia, and the United States are all working to topple the Revolutionary Committees aligned with the Ansarullah organization, commonly called the “Houthis.”

The individuals who have collaborated with the United States in the 7 countries are often Muslims, who adhere to an interpretation of the faith similar to that of Saudi Arabia or of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the aftermath of the executive order, it has been revealed that Trump is openly discussing a formal ban of the Muslim Brotherhood, and designating it as a terrorist organization.While many countries, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, already outlaw the Brotherhood, the USA does not.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has been a key ally of the United States in the Middle East for decades. The Brotherhood worked with the CIA to destabilize Abdul Nasser’s anti-imperialist, socialist government in Egypt. The Brotherhood staged a violent uprising against the Syrian Arab Republic during the 1980s, and has been aligned with anti-government militants in the current Syrian civil war. The Muslim Brotherhood enthusiastically worked with the Obama administration to topple Moammar Gaddafi and reduce Libya to chaos and poverty.

The Muslim Brotherhood functions across the Middle East. The reigning monarchy of Qatar, which also sponsors the TV network known as Al-Jazeera, is a key financial backer of the Muslim Brotherhood. The CIA has worked for decades to maintain the US government’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing them as allies or proxies in the fight against anti-imperialist, nationalist, and socialist governments in the region.

While the CIA sees the Muslim Brotherhood as a useful ally, other key players in US society disagree. The Israeli government and its network of supporters have deep contempt for the Muslim Brotherhood, due to the fact that its Palestinian affiliate, Hamas, is their battlefield enemy. Other figures in the security apparatus and the military see the Brotherhood as a threat due to its record of assassinations and terrorism.

Trump’s recent move indicates that he may represent a section of the US elite that wants to terminate the relationship between the US government and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as various Wahabbi fanatics. The CIA, on the other hand, feels that is very important to maintain these alliances which it has worked on for many decades. This disagreement among the most powerful leaders in the United States is the basis on which the sudden executive order, and the sweeping protests at the airports, has taken place.

Soros, Brzezinski & Brennan

 Articles like the UK Independent’s “‘Everything is destroyed’: on the ground as latest surge of deadly violence strikes eastern Ukraine,” sound the alarm, stating:

While the fighting has been largely kept to the outskirts of Avdiivka during the day, the nighttime has been hellish for residents. Shells have landed indiscriminately throughout the town, and civilian casualties are racking up.

The Independent would continue, stating:

According to Hug, both sides are making use of heavy weapons such as the multiple-launch Grad missile system, and they are doing so in plain sight of OSCE observers. Grads, along with 152mm and 122mm artillery, were banned under the Minsk II agreement, which was signed two years ago after the catastrophic battle of Debaltseve.

And to accent just how “in plain sight of OSCE observers” Ukrainian forces are operating, footage taken by BBC staff shows two OSCE observer vehicles following directly behind advancing Ukrainian tanks during one of the reported offensives.

Despite the BBC’s own staff capturing the footage, the BBC’s reporting on Ukraine features carefully cropped photos omitting the OSCE observer vehicles.

The OSCE itself, in its own official reports, states (emphasis added):

In violation of withdrawal lines, the SMM observed two tanks (T-64) between government-controlled Orlivka (22km north-west of Donetsk) and Avdiivka (17km north of Donetsk). In government-controlled Talakivka (90km south of Donetsk) the SMM saw two towed howitzers (D-30, Lyagushka, 122mm) towed by two military trucks (Ural). In government-controlled Ivanivka (59km south-west of Donetsk) the SMM saw four multiple rocket launcher systems (BM-21 Grad, 122mm) at a military compound which were previously seen on 29 November 2016. On 29 January, approximately 2.5km north of government-controlled Aslanove (85km south of Donetsk), an SMM mini unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spotted four self-propelled howitzers (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm) near a tent with two-three soldiers visible and stacks of what appeared to be ammunition boxes.

While US and European media portray US foreign policy as having shifted under incoming president Donald Trump, Ukrainian forces are emboldened by a systematic campaign of US-NATO support, including US-NATO forces operating both inside and outside Ukraine attempting to train and equip Ukrainian forces ahead of renewed fighting anticipated in eastern Ukraine.

CBS News in its February 1, 2017 article titled, ““Re-tooling an army from scratch,” as it fights a war,” admits:

The U.S. is working with Canadians, British and Lithuanian forces at the remote training center near Yavoriv, which is now referred to as the Joint International Peacekeeping Security Center.

Training ranges from gearing up ministry of interior troops to regular troops, military police and medical personnel, all admittedly for the purpose of reengaging rebel forces in the east in direct violation of agreements made with eastern Ukrainians, brokered between the US, NATO and Russia.

CBS News would admit as much, stating:

“The training here will increase their survivability on the battlefield,” Ducich said. “They’re going against an enemy that has very sophisticated weapons — and not just from the lethal standpoint… there’s an electronic warfare aspect to this that we have not seen that we are now incorporating into the training here. I don’t think it’s about matching (Russia’s capabilities). I think it’s knowing what you can do and maximizing that effectiveness on the battlefield.”

In addition to openly training Ukraine’s army to reignite hostilities, rebel leaders have been targeted and assassinated amid the fragile ceasefire.

In October 2016, Arseny ‘Motorola’ Pavlov, a prominent and effective rebel commander, was killed in a terrorist bomb-blast in Donetsk. More recently, the BBC would report that Oleg Anashchenko, the defense minister of the Luhansk People’s Republic was likewise killed in a targeted terrorist bombing.

It is no coincidence that US-NATO forces openly and diligently prepare Ukraine for war in violation of ceasefire agreements, while assassinations are carried out against military commanders of the very forces the West is preparing Kiev to fight against.

Despite this, US and European media sources are attempting to portray Ukraine as “abandoned” by the US. while portraying America’s new presidential administration as “sympathetic” to Russia.

Despite this elementary attempt at misdirection, it should be noted that US-NATO attempts to bolster Ukrainian forces and covert attempts to degrade eastern Ukrainian rebel forces ahead of renewed hostilities has only accelerated under the presidency of Donald Trump, not subsided.

For geopolitical analysts, understanding the actual interests driving hostilities and confrontation between Washington, London and  Brussels vis-a-vis Moscow, unfolding directly and indirectly, helps sift through political rhetoric and identify the actual motivations and special interests behind them moving this war forward regardless of who sits in the White House.

By all actual metrics, the war in Ukraine appears set only to expand, not in spite of US efforts under President Trump to the contrary, but precisely because US special interests plan to use Trump’s intentionally misleading and empty rhetoric as cover to reignite hostilities more drastically than before the ceasefire was struck.

Just like the US feigned rapprochement with Iran in an attempt to paint Tehran as unreasonably aggressive and ungrateful for American sympathy ahead of hostilities always meant to expand, Trump’s feigned affinity for Russia and its political leadership will be quickly converted into “regret” as Russia is portrayed as taking advantage of American “good-will,” “forcing” America to become more heavily involved in a Ukrainian crisis it itself ignited between 2013-2014.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> http://journal-neo.org/2017/02/06/new-adventures-of-north-korean-hackers/feed/ 0 http://journal-neo.org/2017/02/05/news-pooper-scooper-when-fake-news-is-just-dog-doo/ http://journal-neo.org/2017/02/05/news-pooper-scooper-when-fake-news-is-just-dog-doo/#comments Sun, 05 Feb 2017 11:22:32 +0000 http://journal-neo.org/?p=68661 Vladimir Putin has armies of admirers, and armies of detractors too. Predictably, every time one of his detractors slips on a banana peeling, the Daily Beast fake news evangelists foam at the mouth at another chance at fetching the propaganda stick for their handlers. In an age of nakedly aggressive media, I see no need to call the “Beast’s” idiocy by any other name. This time another Putin hating, ousted oligarch loving dissident names Vladimir Kara-Murza is supposedly Putin’s target.

Michael Weiss, a Daily Beast editor and lap dog for Putin hating Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky is yapping and wagging his tail again from the latest morsel he’s pooped onto the media landscape. “Has Putin Poisoned Another Opponent?” – it’s another monotonous foray into utter nonsense for the moronic Beast reader to smell. Sorry, this guy is just that aggravating and just that transparent. I honest to God hope he tries to punch me in the nose if we ever meet. This is how badly he and others have soiled journalism the last few years. The fact Vladimir Kara-Murza is a coordinator for Khodorkovsky’s nongovernmental organization, Open Russia, which Weiss also evangelizes for, is reason enough for Putin to be the arch villain again. Oh boy.

For those of your detecting a familiar stench, it should not surprise you that Senior democratic U.S. lawmakers just expressed their support for the activist (and by association his Russian mob boss), should come as no surprise. Having urged the new administration of President Donald Trump to smell this “doo doo” too, the message is as obvious as a sticky-smelly-brown-gob on the bottom of your shoe. Weiss even evokes a magical tweet from loser Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine.

The true colors of Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Putin’s opposition has now become crystal clear, or should I say dog poop evident? The Clinton’s shutting down the Clinton Global Initiative was not publicized by the Daily Beast, even though it signaled the gravy train (dog food pun intended) for Bill and Hillary had ended. No, Weiss and the Daily Beast did not make as big deal out of Senator John McCain passing a fake dossier on Donald Trump to the FBI. No, the Daily Beast, CNN, and the other wicked media children out there keep on keeping on, for nobody responsible has slapped them down. The world of decent human beings is sick and tired of “Putin probably” did this or that, and they grow even sicker of things being “Trump’s fault”, when he only just now took office. I won’t get into Kaine’s backers and left wing cabal connections, it’s enough for most he was picked by Hillary for a running mate. Let me just cut to the chase. The Daily Beast is on the side, owned by, runs with the globalists who have the world in the mess it is currently mired in.

Look at Weiss’ headlines: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Fascist Escorts to Syria”; “AD FOR HIMSELF Donald Trump Celebrates Himself, Proclaims His Inaugural Day a National One of ‘Patriotic Devotion”; “U.S. Spies Warn Trump and GOP: Russia Could Get You Next”; 2Russia’s Long History With Honey Traps—They Didn’t Start With Donald Trump” – and the list goes on and on and on and on without a whiff of proof and only the telltale smell of a killer’s propaganda pully to show (Mikhail Khodorkovsky allegedly ordered enemies murdered as Yukos Oil king).

A disciple of the self-proclaimed socialist, Marxist and an anti-totalitarian journalistic zealot Christopher Hitchens, Weiss envisions himself as some sort of British intellectual from the radical left. But Weiss is nothing more than an opportunist like Hitchens was, an unscrupulous man who targets political celebrity and easy targets to get his fame and his paycheck. His benefactor the Kremlin’s leading critic-in-exile Khodorkovsky was described by Britain’s Lord John Browne as basically “spooky-scary”. As for Weiss, James Carden profiled him perfectly with:

“Given his past association with the Henry Jackson Society, in his work as an errand-boy for Christopher Hitchens and the Khodorkovsky family, and as a high profile editor/contributor at the Daily Beast and CNN, Weiss has established himself as the leading neocon propagandist of his generation.”

The Daily Beast, CNN, Newsweek, most people don’t understand fully just how dangerous these media portals and the psychopaths representing them are. An article by Richard Silverstein with the lead; “How Daily Beast Editor, Michael Weiss Helped Send Iranian-American to Torture Chambers of Evin Prison” portrays Weiss and his rabies stricken pack are like. A final point of focus here is best illustrated in Weiss’ condemnation of the brave Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s trip to Syria recently, attempting to besmirch her by virtue of her guides in Syria. Weiss barks like an investigative journalist, in order to discredit Gabbard. This is in stark contrast to Weiss’ 2013 doggy style co-authoring of a The Atlantic piece with Elizabeth O’Bagy that advocated regime change in Syria. What Weiss never told anybody was that O’Bagy was a paid consultant for an NGO working to provide military weapons to the Syrian rebels and overthrow Assad, the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF).

Finally, the Silverstein story suggesting that Radio Free Liberty once sponsored Khodorkovsky’s online magazine The Interpreter is only slightly surprising. Weiss is the typist behind that anti-Putin pro-globalist rag, but what is surprising at the moment is that President Trump has not withdrawn funding for the Cold War dinosaur Refl.org. Maybe he will read this story after I Tweet him? Of passionate idealists, I know many including myself. But the gulf the separates well intentioned and opinionated journalists and these stray curs getting people killed is wide indeed. I think it’s time for a media dog catcher to round them up, or at least hand out a pooper-scooper to the public.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> http://journal-neo.org/2017/02/05/news-pooper-scooper-when-fake-news-is-just-dog-doo/feed/ 0