Tag Archive | 2014

Turkey Shells Syrian Government Forces*

Turkey Shells Syrian Government Forces*

The Turkish army has shelled Syrian government forces stationed in the Latakia province near the Turkish border, the Russian centre for Syrian reconciliation said.

Syria has been mired in civil war since March 2011, with government forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad fighting numerous opposition factions and extremist groups.

“Once again, Syrian territory came under shelling by the Turkish Armed Forces. Between 8:30 a.m. and 9:20 a.m. [6:30 — 7:20 GMT] on April 10, 2016, Turkish artillery shelled Syrian government positions in the Latakia province from the town of Metisli in Turkey. At 13:00, an artillery strike hit the town of Gebelli from the same positions,” the center said in a daily bulletin posted on Monday on the Russian Defense Ministry’s website.

The ceasefire in Syria worked out by Russia and the United States took effect on February 27. The cessation of hostilities does not apply to groups designated by the United Nations to be terrorist organizations, such as Daesh and the Nusra Front, outlawed in a number of countries worldwide including Russia.


Related Topics:

U.S. Delivers 3,000 Tons of Weapons, Ammo to Terrorists in Syria*

Fallujah’s Residents Starving, Murdered, Besieged by U.S. Backed Government Forces and ISIS*

Pentagon is Currently Training Terrorists in Syria*

Putin: Illuminati Plans to Use Islam To Spark World War III*

Putin Congratulates Assad on Liberating Palmyra*

The U.S. Military Back on the Battlefield in Iraq*

The Occult Reasoning behind the Cabal’s Battle for Syria*

France, U.K., and Germany produce the most ISIS Terrorists from Europe*

Syria Grand Mufti: Rebels Offered Peace In Return for Concessions to Israel*

The Rothschild’s Zionist World Order*

Ukraine’s Kolomosky was Aiming at the Plane with Putin When he Hit MH-17

Ukraine’s Kolomosky was Aiming at the Plane with Putin When he Hit MH-17

From Alexandra Bruce

This clip is of a drunken Ukrainian Oligarch, Igor Kolomosky, who’s the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk State, being goaded into admitting that he was in charge of a rogue operation that attempted to hit “Plane Number One”, Russia’s equivalent of the U.S.’
Air Force One, to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin – but which, instead, “accidentally” ended up shooting down the commercial airliner MH-17, killing all 298 aboard, more than 200 of which were Dutch citizens.

Interviewer: And what about the Boeing?

Igor Kolomoysky: What do you mean?

Interviewer: Well, what was Poroshenko
thinking about?

Igor Kolomoysky: What? There is nothing
to wonder about. Apparently, it was an
accident. Nobody had any intent to take it

Interviewer: Well, I am sure it is the work
of your people.

Igor Kolomoysky: Oh, stop that! What are
you telling me? The shot was accidental – we
wanted to shoot down the Number One Plane
but hit another plane. It’s totally normal, not
that bad. Sorry about the Boeing, about the
people, however it’s a trifle. You know,
[unprintable]. When serious stuff [weapons]
gets into the hands of a novice, this kind of
[unprintable] rubbish is the result…So you
believe that we did that [unprintable]?
Intentionally, no, there was another [plane

This clip was was found on the blog of Dutch author, Joost Niemöller, who’s recently released the book, ‘MH-17: de Doofpotdeal’ translates to ‘MH-17: The Cover-Up Deal’, in which he takes the more “Russian” view of the events of that day than the official ruling put out by his own government last month, which was accompanied by an animation eerily reminiscent, in its intent to sell a story, to the one put out in 1996 by the CIA, to drive home
the spurious official explanation for the downing of TWA’s Flight 800.
The Dutch animation was also supposed to make up for the fact that the voice recordings from the (orange) “black boxes” were never publicly released because, according the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte last November, “The benefits of disclosing information about the MH-17 investigation were outweighed by the risk of damage to the Dutch state’s relations to other states and world bodies.”

In his attempt to avoid saying anything, PM Rutte sure said a lot!
Similarly, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson, Marie Harf speaks volumes with her intensely smug prevarications over why the U.S. would not release its own intelligence and satellite data to counter the “misinformational” Russian satellite photos of a Ukrainian Air Force fighter jet firing on the commercial airliner. The U.S has yet to back up its accusations with anything other than social media posts and what it mendaciously calls “common sense.”

U.S accusations, accompanied by spurious “evidence” about Russia’s role in the downing of Flight MH-17 are the foundation of its economic sanctions against Russia – and of the U.S’ strong-arming of NATO countries, to follow suit with those sanctions – at their own peril, as Europe formerly obtained most of its hydrocarbons (petroleum and gas) from Russia before these sanctions were put into place. They’ve since watched the euro tank, more than 25% against the U.S dollar. This and the War in Syria have precipitated a war against the dollar on the part of Russia and its trading partners, including China and Iran.

Then, we have those pesky rumours about a  Ukrainian Air Force pilot, Captain Vladislav Voloshin , who’s been identified by an alleged former employee at the Dnepropetrovsk Air Force Base as the pilot who mistakenly shot down the commercial airliner. The witness, being heralded in Russia as “Ukraine’s Snowden” has apparently passed a lie detector test.
If this Kolomoysky clip doesn’t clinch the deal, as far as getting the truth out, I don’t know what will. Actually, it’s more than likely that the truth will never become official, as the New York Federal Reserve Bank agreed to repatriate $5 billion worth of gold to the Netherlands government (the entirety of that nation’s holdings in the U.S), possibly in
exchange for their complicity with the US’

agenda-driven lies.

I guess that’s the price of 200 Dutch lives.
Related Topics:

Rebels Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH-17*

Victims of Malaysian Flight MH-17 in with Victims of Malaysia Flight MH370?

Russian Source: Saudi Intelligence Responsible for A321 Bombing Killing *

Water Pipes that Generate Electricity in Portland*

Water Pipes that Generate Electricity in Portland*

By John Vibes

Lucid Energy, a Portland-based energy company, has come up with a brilliant idea to harness electricity from the water that flows through a city’s pipes. Small turbines are installed into the pipes which send the energy collected from the flowing water into a power generator.

“It’s pretty rare to find a new source of energy where there’s no environmental impact. But this is inside a pipe, so no fish or endangered species are impacted. That’s what’s exciting,” Gregg Semler, CEO of Lucid Energy, said in a statement.

“We have a project in Riverside, California, where they’re using it to power streetlights at night. During the day, when electricity prices are high, they can use it to offset some of their operating costs,” Semler says.

Lucid’s new power-generating pipes have recently been installed in Portland, where they are powering many different public spaces throughout the city. This is even more efficient than many other renewable forms of energy because these pipes can harness electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, in any weather.

“We made electrical infrastructure really smart over the last 20 to 25 years, but the same hasn’t happened in water. They didn’t really know that the pipe burst until somebody from UCLA called. Our pipe can get indicators like pressure, a leading indicator for whether a pipe is leaking or not. So before it bursts and before we waste all the water, there are onboard information systems that water agencies can get to more precisely manage their infrastructure,” Semler said.

Sensors in the pipe can even monitor the quality of the water to ensure that it is safe to drink.

Semler said that this technology could be even more useful in remote areas that are farther away from central power grids.

“It’s a great source of remote power. So in places outside the city that don’t have an electrical grid, you’re able to use the system to generate energy. There’s a lot of energy in going into making sure we have safe clean drinking water. Our focus is really on helping water become more sustainable,” he said.


Related Topics:

Making Living off the Grid Illegal is about Controlling You and Paying Them

Canadian Aborted Babies Used to Facilitate Electricity*

Nigerian Students Discover One Litre of Urine Produces One Hour of Electricity*

Creating 1,000 Liters of Drinking Water from Air!*

U.S. Running out of Water*

A Small Town Fights Back When Nestlé Tries to Sell Them Their Own Water*

CDC is Rather Cool about a Brain-Eating Disease in the Water Supply*

Student Uses Solar Energy to Purify Water*

It Didn’t Stop at Detroit: For Your Water Pay Up or Die *

‘We Won’t Pay’ say Thousands of Irish to Water Privatization*

How Nebraskans took Control of their Energy Grid*

Smart Grid Deployment Across the U.S.*

Vermont, First US City to Run 100 Percent on Sustainable Energy*

Vermont, First US City to Run 100 Percent on Sustainable Energy*

By Christina Sarich

With Fukushima radiation still raining down on us, fracking causing earthquakes in Dallas, TX and other cities, and petroleum-based energy polluting the air and waterways, it’s good to know that one US city is currently supplying 100% renewable, sustainable energy for all its residents’ electricity needs. Vermont, the same state that has successfully challenged the biotech industry by instituting GMO labeling laws, is also home to Burlington – where green energy powers life.

Vermont is known for socially conscious politics, and geographically hosting the first 100% sustainably-run city is a huge milestone, not only for residents of Burlington, but for all US cities – because it shows that sustainable energy is a possibility.

PBS recently reported on the city’s milestone in William Brangh’s PBS NewsHour. The city gets its energy primarily from wind farms, hydro-electric projects, and solar panels. You can see how Burlington achieved this monumental feat…

Norwhich, Vermont, is also trying to go 100% green with solar panels. 308 solar panels now supply half the city’s energy. The state actually provided a large portion of funding for the project through a grant, which is expected to pay for itself in less than 20 years.

Burlington, VA has also updated its story, and now gets more power from the sustainable grid than their residents actually use.

Avaaz recently sent a petition to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, featuring the signatures of  2.2 million people. It requested that local, national, and international leaders make the transition to 100 percent renewable energy. Avaaz is currently aiming to get at least 100 cities around the world to join its campaign over the next year.

Other places on the planet aiming toward, or already running on 100% sustainable energy include:

  • Aruba – a plan is in place for Aruba to run on 100% sustainable energy in just five more years.
  • Oslo, Norway – is all about running on green energy, and having extra energy to spare. They also recycle their waste.
  • Malmö, Sweden – everyone could learn a trick or two from Malmö. Most of the country’s electricity comes from nuclear and hydropower. Cities such as Malmö are contributing to the greening of Sweden with planned to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 25% between 2008 and 2012, far exceeding the 5% goal set by the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, Malmö aims to have the entire municipality running on 100% renewable energy by 2030.


Related Topics:

Vermont Towns Vote to Start a Public Bank that Works for Them*

Raw Milk Delivery Allowed in Vermont*

How Nebraskans took Control of their Energy Grid*

Sweden Recycles 99per cent of Its Waste*

Australia to Use Clean Renewable Energy to Source Mining*

How Nebraskans took Control of their Energy Grid*

How Nebraskans took Control of their Energy Grid*

21st Century Wire says…

Should all states have privatized power grids? Considering the sharp rise in consumer prices (400% in some cases) since the energy deregulation and privatization revolution of the 1990′s, questions of ownership are now resurfacing in the US and parts of Europe. Is there any way to reverse this trend (see some solutions, please see the full report on Nebraska’s success story below).

There are alternatives to the current privatized energy cartel system, but to explore these, we first need to understand how we got to to this current crisis. Amazingly, most people have already been brainwashed enough to believe that there is no other alternative to consumer power and energy than the current system of corporate cartel ownership and legalized price fixing.

Enron’s Legacy Lives On

Much was made by the media about the collapse and fraud of the notorious Enron Corporation, and despite all the condemnations and attention, no one seemed to protest when similar corporations moved in to take over their business contracts, and these corporations continued to fix and raise prices beyond average affordability. Profits soared, however, as the private cartels (and their banking financiers) managed to effectively takeover what public utilities had built over the previous century.

Most people are unaware that one of the key players behind the scenes in helping Enron operate in California was its soon-to-be governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who cut a secret deal with criminal financiers.

In Britain, at around the same time, the same cartels took control of the power grid from the state in a sweet heart deal, which also ended driving up prices for consumers. Enron was there, too. In both cases, the privatization was sold to an unquestioning media as a solution that would “provide more competition and lower prices for consumers”. Of course, the opposite happened.

California’s story is a classic example. The first step is load the system with debt so that the government and institutions will be vulnerable to a fire sale later. Step two is deregulation, where corporation lobby lawmakers  relax anti-trust, mergers, acquisitions – so that the cartel can buy up public utilities. Step three is to create a new class of middlemen – futures traders who can distort the entire market, create artificial scarcity and drive up prices. In 1997, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) reorganized as a holding company, PG&E Corporation. In the late 1990s, under electricity market deregulation they sold-off most of their natural gas power plants, but held on to its hydroelectric plants and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Suddenly, the state had to buy its power from outside energy generators – at wildly fluctuating prices thanks to the new class of energy speculators like Enron – but still forced to sell its power to consumers at costs fixed by the state’s utility board. The newly formed private ‘market’ for electricity was completely controlled by the Enrons, and with the help of its other corporate cartel partners, artificially drove prices upwards. This led to many state and municipal organizations unable to pay their their new electricity bills, PG&E was on the verge of bankruptcy in the wake of a full-blown California electricity crisis. With a power shortage, energy providers were forced to begin instituting rolling blackouts which began on January 17, 2001. (Source: Wiki)

Enron’s fraud carried on over state borders too. Portland General Electric worked with Enron to fix the market. Oregon news reported then, “PGE traders played a role in helping their Enron counterparts loop electricity from California into the Northwest and then back again — creating false congestion on California’s energy grid and the threat of electricity shortages.”

The question remains: is there any way for a state or nation to reclaim its power grid from the corporations and bankers who took it?

There are answers, and possibilities…

By Thomas Hanna

In the United States, there is one state, and only one state, where every single resident and business receives electricity from a community-owned institution rather than a for-profit corporation.

It is not a famously liberal state like Vermont or Massachusetts. Rather, it is conservative Nebraska, with its two Republican Senators and two (out of three) Republican members of Congress, that has embraced the complete socialization of energy distribution.

In Nebraska, 121 publicly owned utilities, ten cooperatives, and 30 public power districts provide electricity to a population of around 1.8 million people. Public and cooperative ownership keeps costs low for the state’s consumers. Nebraskans pay one of the lowest rates for electricity in the nation and revenues are reinvested in infrastructure to ensure reliable and cheap service for years to come.

“There are no stockholders, and thus no profit motive,” the Nebraska Power Association proudly proclaims.

“Our electric prices do not include a profit. That means Nebraska’s utilities can focus exclusively on keeping electric rates low and customer service high. Our customers, not big investors in New York and Chicago, own Nebraska’s utilities.”

Payments (in lieu of taxes) from the state’s publicly owned utilities exceed $30 million a year and support a variety of social services throughout the state—including the public education system.

How the state went public

Nebraska has a long history of publicly owned power systems dating back to the beginnings of electrification in the late 1800s. Initially, these co-existed with small private utilities. However, in the post-World War I era, large corporate electric holding companies backed by Wall Street banks entered the market and began taking over smaller private and municipal systems.

Using their financial and political power, these corporations dramatically consolidated the power industry in Nebraska and attempted to stop new cooperatives and publicly owned utilities from forming. During this time more than one-third of the state’s municipal utilities were sold to private corporations.

Tired of abusive corporate practices, in 1930 residents and advocates of publicly owned utilities took a revenue bond financing proposal straight to the voters, bypassing the corporate-influenced legislature which had previously failed to pass similar legislation. It was approved overwhelmingly—signaling both popular support for publicly owned utilities in the state and also the beginnings of their resurgence.

Led by powerful Nebraska Senator George W. Norris—the driving force behind the publicly owned Tennessee Valley Authority—a series of state and federal laws were passed including: the state’s Enabling Act (1933), which allowed 15 percent of eligible voters in an area to petition for a decision on a publicly owned utility; the Public Utility Holding Company Act (1935), which forced the breakup and restructuring of corporate electricity monopolies; and the Rural Electrification Act (1936), which provided financing for rural electricity projects. By 1949, Nebraska had solidified its status as the first and only all-public power state.

Every Nebraskan can help make decisions

Local control and the possibility for democratic participation are defining features of Nebraska’s publicly owned electricity system. At the ground level, public utilities and cooperatives are run by publicly elected power district boards, cooperative boards, or elected city councils (often through appointed boards). These bodies establish budgets, establish service standards and policies, and set prices.

Regularly scheduled meetings of power boards and councils are open to public involvement and comment. Should they so wish, every Nebraskan has the opportunity to become involved in the decisionmaking of their local electricity provider.

One such example relates to the increasing use and proliferation of renewable energy facilities. While the state remains heavily reliant on coal and nuclear sources to provide low-cost energy to consumers, interest in renewable energy—primarily wind—has taken off in recent years.

In 2003, electricity consumers, many of whom drove more than 100 miles for the event, participated in an eight-hour deliberative polling survey for the Nebraska Public Power District (NPDD), a public corporation owned by the state of Nebraska that supplies energy to 600,000 people via local, publicly owned utilities and cooperatives.

The topic at hand was the potential addition of more than 200 MW of wind energy by 2010. Ninety-six percent of the participants supported the wind project, with 50 percent agreeing it was the right size and 36 percent wanting it expanded (compared to just 3 percent who wanted it reduced).

In addition to its other wind power facilities, in 2005 NPDD began operating the Ainsworth Wind Energy Facility, the nation’s second-largest publicly owned wind farm consisting of 36 turbines generating up to 59.5 MW of energy. In 2011, the state’s energy plan acknowledged both that power generation from wind had doubled every two years since 2006 and that developing just 1 percent of the potential energy from wind in Nebraska would satisfy the state’s entire peak demand…

Moreover, public ownership of electricity generation and distribution in Nebraska is complemented by another seemingly socialist idea—planning.

The Nebraska Power Review Board is a state agency that oversees the publicly owned electricity system. In addition to its regulatory functions—such as monitoring rate increases and arbitrating conflicts—the five person Review Board (appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature with party, occupational, and term limit restrictions) “oversees the preparation and filing of a coordinated long-range power supply plan,” as well as the location and construction of new electricity generation facilities.

Toward a century of local control

A common concern with public ownership of larger scale systems is that it can lead to inefficiency, unaccountability, and bureaucracy. But Nebraska’s nearly 100-year-old experience with a completely public and community-owned electricity system demonstrates that this does not necessarily have to be the case.

The principles of subsidiarity and local control can, in fact, be preserved through a networked mix of publicly owned institutions at various scales without sacrificing efficiency or service quality.

Of course, public ownership alone is not a fix-all solution. It does, however, provide an opportunity for a community, a city, or even a whole state to become actively involved in economic decisionmaking on important matters affecting their lives, their environment, and their future.


Related Topics:

‘We Won’t Pay’ say Thousands of Irish to Water Privatization*

Cities Making the Internet a Public Utility*

Creatively Conscientious Solutions: An Apartment Complex for the Homeless*

Sweden Recycles 99per cent of Its Waste*

Chevron and Exxon: The Criminals Behind Katrina*

Barbados Goes Solar and More*

Ebola Donations Never Materialized, but that’s not Surprising!*

Ebola Donations Never Materialized, but that’s not Surprising!*

When the Ebola crisis began spiraling out of control this summer, donors pledged nearly $3 billion to help rein it in. But some aid groups paid only a fraction of what they had promised, according to a new study.

The study examined thousands of international pledges and donations, based on data from the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. While many countries and organizations made generous pledges to curb the outbreak, several failed to deliver on their promises. The United States pledged nearly $1 billion, and paid almost all of it. The World Bank, on the other hand, pledged closer to $200 million, and has delivered on only about half of that. The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation proudly announced its commitment of $100 million to Ebola—but appears to have paid only $55 million.

Here’s a table of those figures, from the paper:

Ebola is now fading away in West Africa, but an estimated 8,000 people have succumbed to the virus since mid-March. It is still unclear why, even as the epidemic raged, some donors failed to come up with the cash. It probably didn’t help that the U.N. kept sending mixed messages about how much money it needed. Requests for $4.8 million in April became $71 million by August, and that figure ballooned to $1.5 billion by mid-November. Here’s an illustration of the ebb and flow of the Ebola epidemic:


Related Topics:

From Flu to Ebola: CDC a Corrupt and Dangerous Organization*

Further Proof Bill Gates is Linked to Ebola*

A Rotten Smell Emanating from the Ebola Scare*

Nigerian Logistics and How they Beat Ebola*

Ebola: CNN + NYT Caught Using CRISIS ACTORS!

In Ghana: Vaccine Induced Ebola*

Professor Connects the Dots between Ebola and the U.S. Military Complex*

U.S. Confusing Ebola with ISIS*

Research on Successful Ebola Drug Shut-down Two Weeks Before Proclaimed Outbreak*

U.S. Opposes Proven Cure for Ebola Confirmed by Sierra Leone*

In 1977 an International Group of Experts Asked if Ebola was ‘Real’*

Scientist Says U.S. Responsible for Ebola Outbreak in west Liberia*

WHO has been Blocking Ebola Cure, Nano-Silver *

Eugenics: The Genetic Engineering of Ebola in the 1980s*

Ebola Fears: Raising the Ugly Head of Racism*

No Quarantine for DoD Civilians Returning From Ebola Areas*

The Epi-Centre of the Outbreak, now Ebola-Free, and Scientific Sadism*

Anti-racist Masses Advance on German Islamophobes*

Anti-racist Masses Advance on  German Islamophobes*

By Victor Grossman

Recent events here in Germany remind me of a playground seesaw, with constant ups and downs of one side and the other.

Counter demonstration against Pegida in Berlin earlier this month (Pic: Gilly on Flickr)

All autumn, we watched the upward swing of “Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West” (PEGIDA) most rapidly, but not only, in Saxony’s capital Dresden [in southeastern Germany]. Its main features were a fast-talking, shady leader with some eerie charisma, plus foggy dissatisfaction with just about everyone and everything: most politicians, the media, but especially poor job, rent and pension situations and fears for the future, plus, most dangerously, the channeling of such fears and worries into a dull hatred of anything and anyone “foreign,” especially the often arbitrary placement of newly arrived Syrian and Iraqi refugees into their hitherto closed communities. PEGIDA’s Monday “walks,” although ambling and nonviolent, disturbingly recalled the murderous stamp of booted, brown-shirted marchers of a previous generation. And some gimlet-eyed neo-Nazis reinforced such recollections.

But soon, all over Germany, the other end of the seesaw swung upward. More and more thousands demonstrated against the hatred crowd, welcoming asylum seekers and reassuring peaceful Muslim families long resident in Germany. They greatly outnumbered and at times blocked the path of the PEGIDA people — everywhere but in Dresden. In Leipzig, Dresden’s rival in Saxony and with a very different heritage, never a royal court but open to trade fairs since 1165 and book fairs since the 17th century, PEGIDA rallied 4,800 marchers in early January — but its opponents were 30,000.

Then came the “Charlie Hebdo” murders. Would narrow, blind distrust of “those Muslims,” dormant but present among about half the population, witness a new, upward PEGIDA thrust? It did — but, happily, only in Dresden. Five days after the murders in the Rue Nicolas-Appert, 25,000 people marched in Dresden, the city on the Elbe river, but everywhere else they were a small minority. At the far-off mouth of the Elbe, in Hamburg, only opponents of racism demonstrated. Leaders from almost all parties joined at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate with organizations of Turks in Germany to oppose both bloody violence and murder but also Islamophobia. Even Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke up, stating surprisingly that “Islam belongs to Germany” — almost a heresy only a few years ago.

Not everyone sang so happily in this new choir. Surface unity about Charlie Hebdo began to unravel, with some approving, some objecting to the provocative nature of its caricatures. Others noted that many of the presidents who lined up in Paris sinned against press freedom in their own countries, and that Netanyahu’s triumphant waving was aimed not at mourners or freedom lovers but at voters back home. Some in Merkel’s party broke ranks and voiced well-worn reservations: “Yes, maybe Muslims are OK, but certainly not Islam” and “Now we must tighten surveillance of just about everybody to save ourselves from all those fanatical terrorists.” These oversimplified old tunes caused some early hopes to sink again. It was back to Bush again — terrorists were the big enemy.

‘Bush, Blair are terrorists’

Though my optimism was reduced, I was inspired once again by Oskar Lafontaine, a key founder of the Die Linke (Left) party, largely in the background now, but as good a speaker as ever. At the annual Rosa Luxemburg Conference in Berlin, attended by leftists from all over Germany and beyond (and always featuring Mumia Abu-Jamal in a taped message), old Oskar hit out again:

“Unless we ask whether our allegedly so good West also bears responsibility for terrorist attacks … then we cannot conduct a meaningful debate or achieve any results. For years I asked the chancellor in the Bundestag what terrorism was. ‘Unless you tell us what it is, how can we really fight it?’ She never answered, for good reason. But some official framed a so-called ‘Anti-Terror Law’ which stated — now listen carefully — ‘Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence to achieve political goals.’ … I read that aloud in the Bundestag and said, ‘Do you know what you have just agreed on? You have just decided … that Bush, Blair and all the others who supported the Iraq War are terrorists.’ … Until we grasp that, in the Arab world at least, Bush is viewed as a major terrorist because hundreds of thousands were killed due to his wrong decision, we in the West will never be able to conduct a genuine discussion on how to fight terrorism in the world.”

On Jan. 13, terror did hit again. Not the kind loudly denounced in Paris, Brussels, Berlin or Washington, but in Dresden. Khaled Idris Bahray, only 20 years old, was found dead near the door to the building where he and other Eritrean asylum-seekers had been given a few rooms. For 30 long hours, crucial in finding clues and a murderer, the police called it “an accident,” somehow failing to notice the bloody gashes in his chest and neck.  Nor had they been worried about swastikas painted on the building, even on the victim’s door, nor the fears of his dark-skinned group to even go outdoors. It seems that some policemen can suffer under disturbing eyesight problems (not only in Dresden). Khaled had simply gone shopping; on a PEGIDA Monday that was evidently a fatal mistake!

That day, the marchers reached a strength of 25,000, while 8,000 courageous opponents used big brooms to “clear their streets of racist garbage.” Elsewhere the reaction to the murder was very strong; tensions heightened. Then, on Monday, Jan. 19, the Dresden authorities reported a mysterious, very peculiar Jihadist threat to kill PEGIDA leader Lutz Bachmann and decided to forbid not only his “walk” but all demonstrations in that city for a day, unleashing hefty debates across party lines on whether this might lead to more limitations on the constitutional right to demonstrate.

Debates also multiplied on whether to talk with the reticent PEGIDA marchers or with their hardly reticent leaders. A coy flirtation developed between them and the new, “respectable” right-wing party, “Alternative for Germany” (AfD) and grew cozier. Some right-wing “Christian” leaders called for a “dialogue” and a talk-show host invited a PEGIDA leader to voice her carefully-tailored “moderate” views on prime-time TV.  She and top boss Bachmann interrupted their shrill attacks on the “liar press” to hold an equally moderate-sounding, eagerly attended press conference.

Rightist march falls flat, fascist leader quits

Such P.R. opportunities seemed to pay off. For Wednesday, Jan. 21, PEGIDA called for 60,000 supporters to gather in hitherto unfriendly Leipzig (there to be called LEGIDA). They later scaled that down to 40,000 but a police force of 4,000 visored police still moved in from all over Germany.

A day before the big event, a Facebook“ selfie” of Bachman was unearthed showing him mustached, combed and leering uncannily like Hitler. “Only a joke,” he explained. Even less a joke were his

Facebook references to refugees as “a dirty mob,” “trash” and “animals.” Due in part to these discoveries, but also because his numbers were an empty boast, an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 bigots and unhappy fools showed up in  Leipzig. Though protected by the police they were met at every turn by at least 20,000 counter-demonstrators. Then, in the evening of the eventful day, Bachmann found it necessary to quit his leadership job. The problems and the poison were not gone, but the future of PEGIDA, LEGIDA and its offshoots (even some in Denmark) remained very uncertain.

Thus 2015 began in Germany with many protests and counter-protests, often centering on the fates of a flow of war-weary refugees, few of whom could understand the language, nasty or friendly, which circled over their heads and the provisional housing where they were lodged.

A very different protest, this time larger than expected, moved through central Berlin on Jan. 17.  Organized by over 120 environmental, consumer and political groups, it denounced the planned giant trade agreements of the European Union, CETA with Canada and, with the U.S., the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” or TTIP.  The police counted 25,000 attendees, the organizers 50,000, but either way it was impressive, and 80 farm tractors rolling through town were loud and more easily counted.

With the march scheduled during the annual Food and Agriculture Week, the protesters rejected everything from cruel stock-farm practices to American-style genetic modification, frequent antibiotic injections for animals and chemical meat treatment. A main organizer, Jochen Fritz, said: “The TTIP serves only the global concerns and will take away the means of existence from many farms here and across the world.” Countless signs and big puppets said, “We are sick of agribusiness.” Others lambasted Monsanto or demanded a global right to food and bans on genetic engineering.

U.S. and European politicians and big-business big shots have been secretly negotiating for over two years but, as more facts leaked out, growing pressure from an angry public was finally forcing Sigmar Gabriel, economics minister and Social Democratic Party head, to waver a bit in his all-out pro-TTIP stance, at least in public. Even Merkel became slightly defensive. An online petition against TTIP in the European Union now has over a million signatures, a large number from Germany. “This is especially embarrassing for the European Commission,” said John Hilary, a member of the anti-TTIP coalition, “since it has repeatedly tried to block any citizen’s involvement.”

TTIP and escalation of Ukraine war

Both PEDIGA and TTIP are very important. But the most basic question is war or peace. Sending first weapons, and then military advisers to “aid Iraq,” billed as humanitarian aid, reminded older critics of a similar escalation in Vietnam. Even more worrisome is the escalation in the Ukraine and support for the unsavory government in Kiev, with the incessant media beating of Germany’s belligerent anti-Russian drums containing as many echoes of past tragedy as the marching racists.

While Foreign Minister Steinmeier vainly bargains about a cease-fire, Merkel and her crew, disregarding both the profit interests of companies dealing with Russia and widespread, majority hopes for peace, slide ever more to the other side of this menacing seesaw, joining bellicose flag-wavers like President Gauck and Defense Minister von der Leyen. Last fall, Germany sent Phantoms and other fighter planes with the traditional “iron cross” markings to Baltic countries adjacent to Russia — for the sixth time since 2004. A government bulletin proudly headlined its note on these incendiary actions with the all-too-true words: “Long-standing German experience.”

Such experience was also recalled in naïve but frightening candidness by Ukrainian Premier Yatsenyuk. During a warmly smiling visit to Merkel to beg for money, weapons, or both, he said, “All of us clearly remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. That has to be avoided. Nobody has the right to rewrite the results of the Second World War. And that is exactly what Russia’s President Putin is trying to do.”

His words leave few doubts as to which side Yatsenyuk would have chosen … during that war — and still seems attached to. Neither Merkel nor the mass media took exception to his historic analysis and he will indeed receive more assistance from Berlin. The peace movement against the resulting menace is active but, sadly, still far from being united or powerful.

There were also some happier thoughts — or wishes at least. Despite great pressure, largely from German bankers and their elected friends, Sunday’s election in Greece could represent a badly needed upward turn in Europe. If the long-suffering people of that noble but oppressed country vote in the left-wing Syriza party, and even though such a government would face giant odds against domestic and foreign foes, the victory for working people could respond to a threat already voiced in an old rhyme which, rarely noted, reflected fears and hopes of “the 99%” through the centuries.

“Seesaw, Margery Daw, Jacky shall have a new master. Jacky shall earn but a penny a day because he can’t work any faster.”  (No one knows today who Margery Daw was — but I can think of several modern candidates.)

One answer to many present problems — of Jacky, refugees, farmers and all of us — was offered by Oskar Lafontaine:

“I am deeply convinced that peace in the world can only be fully achieved when a truly democratic society is constructed. That would be a social order in which the interests of the majority of the people are realized. … Democratic societies are inseparably connected with an economic order where human beings are in a central position, where the exploitation of the people is no more, where the wealth of the country, cooperatively achieved, is returned to the people who create it — and not with a social order where a minority becomes wealthy by making the vast majority work for it.”


Related Topics:

Think You’re All European or African? Most Are Mixed*

Silent Protests Making the German Government Nervous*

German Muslims Open Mosques to Non-Muslims*

Soros Turned Ferguson from a Local Protest to a National Flashpoint*

German Group Files War Crimes Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Other CIA Officials*

NWO: Landgrab a European Reality*

Nazism Back in Europe

Spanish Independence and the Re-colonization of Southern Europe*

TTIP: Corporate Power Taking Control of European Interests*

Civil Unrest Returns to Europe*

Bark and no Bite for Head of European Commission Helping Corporations Escape Taxation!?*

Humanity at the Crossroads: The Crisis in Spiritual Consciousness

Spanish Police also getting Training from Israel*

Soros Turned Ferguson from a Local Protest to a National Flashpoint*

Soros Turned Ferguson from a Local Protest to a National Flashpoint*

By Tyler Durden

In an apparent effort to ”keep the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August,” liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.

As The Washington Times explains,

There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.

Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.

Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.

The handouts, as The Daily Mail reports, revealed in tax filings from Soros’s private foundation, were given to dozens of different groups which weighed in on the crisis.

Organizers from professional groups in Washington, D.C., and New York were bussed into the Missouri town to co-ordinate messaging and lobby to news media to cover events using the billionaire’s funding.

The cash was reportedly funneled into keeping up numbers of protesters in the community over a period of months by bringing in outside activists.

Meanwhile papers from think tanks were disseminated to bring in extra coverage of the civil unrest, also linked to the police killings of Eric Garner in Staten Island and Tamir Rice, 12, in Cleveland, Ohio.

The slew of organizations reportedly created their own online ‘echo chamber’, by using their extensive social media presences to ‘like’, repost and comment on articles putting across their point of view.

The director of Soros’s fund said that they have no direct control over the groups they give to, and said they are all trying to improve accountability. He told the Washington Times:

“Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.

The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests – we don’t have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say.”

The Soros cash was also put to work driving buzzwords and social media campaigns to propel Ferguson into the national consciousness.

One recipient of his funding is the Organization for Black Struggle, which in turned established a group called the Hands Up Coalition, that has helped make ubiquitous the “hands up, don’t shoot” slogan.

Soros also gave money to the Drug Policy Alliance, which worked on the perpetuation of the ‘black lives matter’ buzz phrase, which has been incorporated into speeches by political figures including Hillary Clinton.


Related Topics:

With a Profile in Iraq and Afghanistan what is a “High Threat Team” Doing in Ferguson?*

Suppressing Press Freedom In Ferguson*

In the Middle of the U.S.- A No-Fly Zone over Ferguson, Why?*

A Communique From Ferguson*

Ebola as a Bio and Psych Warfare from Soros and Gates*