Bill sent this letter from Susan Lindauer to President Trump.
Susan had been privy to the surveillance network that was flashing red in spring 2001, for an attack on New York the fall.Mr. President,
Though it's impossible for most Americans to grasp to this day, without question US Intelligence possessed advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack in its precise configuration. Sworn civilian testimony in the Southern District of New York Federal Court in June, 2018 by Dr. Parke Godfrey, professor of Computer Technology at York University in Toronto and Kelly O'Meara former Chief of Staff for GOP Rep. Andrew Forbes of Long Island, has confirmed the following:
1. Godfrey testified under oath that in April, 2001, I shared a message from my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz. In precise detail, I told Godfrey, my closest friend in Washington, that the CIA expected a major terrorist attack involving airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings to strike the World Trade Center, as a known target in New York. The attack - according to the CIA's advance knowledge that was shared with me - could possibly include a mini-nuclear device to bring down the Towers. He testified that I told him the attack was expected in late summer or early fall of 2001.
Craig Murray, on The Ubiquity of Evil: The truth, of which I am certain, is this. If there genuinely was the claimed existential threat to Jews in Britain, of the type which engulfed Europe’s Jews in the 1930’s, Jeremy Corbyn, Billy Bragg, Roger Waters
,and I may humbly add myself
,would be among the few who would die alongside them on the barricades, resisting. Yet these are today loudly called “anti-semites” for supporting the right to oppose the oppression of the Palestinians. The journalists currently promoting those accusations, if it came to the crunch, would be polishing state propaganda and the civil servants writing railway dockets. That is how it works. I have seen it. Close up.
This US/Saudi attack on Iran meme just won't go away!
A war with Iran might sound far-fetched and may indeed lead to some unfathomable consequences, but the groundwork for such a confrontation is being laid right before our very eyes and the corporate media is almost all but completely silent. Whether or not a missile strike on Iran is looming on the horizon, Washington’s war with Iran has already begun in more ways than one, and appears to be set to escalate until the US can achieve the collapse of the Iranian regime through direct or indirect means.
Imran Khan has been elected PM of Pakistan, and he is of a different cut from either of the entrenched corrupt parties or the military. He is an actual, practicing populist, who presents a practical and populist and compassionate Islam for the working people, not the elites. Pakistanis have not had much wool over their eyes for a long time, for lots of reasons. they have had to do the hard and dirty work from the oilfields of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to their own slums, and US military bases in Afghanistan. He's an intelligent man, who has traveled the world, speaks Oxford English, and is not a globalist.There was no logical or rational reason for the New York Times to label Imran Khan as “unpredictable,” as if he’s some Kim Jong-un, or going one notch higher on the level of unpredictably, Trump the con-man himself. But in fact that headline aptly captured the fundamental anxieties of an empire in decline, that knows precisely how predictable leaders, movements, and countries are – but despise it.
Ray, a worldly-socialist, sends this article from the World Socialist Website, about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refusing to answer any substantive questions about policy from WSW reporters. Ocasio-Cortez is suddenly good for DNC marketing to leftist youth, and is being treated like a star, even before her own race is run. She has to be careful. Many would attack her on substantive policy statements. She's bound to be coached to avoid saying anything specific, and to speak glowingly of "the people working together". She's doing all of that well. Ocasio-Cortez is exactly the kind of brand the Democorporate Party desperately needs right now. If she will do as she is coached, and stick to her lines, and smile and glow, she will be an asset to the party and it's backers.
Koch Brothers funded research on Medicare for All, did not pitch any softball assumptions for this "socialized medicine", which the rest of the world calls "medicine".
The total bill for 10 years is a staggering $32.6 trillion (something like a New York City block of $100 bills stacked most of the way up the Statue of Liberty, as I recall.). Buried in the fine print is the news that despite covering ALL Americans, this would cost $2 trillion less than the current arrangement.
Emphasizing "racial-diversity" as a good thing leads to a formation of concepts that race is a real and fairly solid thing, that one should speak pleasantly of, but cannot actually change for the better.
Xenophobia is a human tendency to distinguish groups and react against "other". Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland point out the level of biological and cultural difference necessary to trigger xenophobia.
"Race" is primarily a concept used to activate xenophobia so our masters can keep us divided and conquered. It became politically important in the Americas during the period where (died too quick) white slaves were being phased out for (more durable and malaria-tolerant) black slaves. These slave cohorts were teaming up and escaping together.
Xenophobia was called into action to place the black slaves one full social-notch beneath the white slave-class, who became their "keepers".
This worked swimmingly for our wealthy owners. (Later, debt-slavery became cheaper and more profitable.)The researchers report that the students who had been thinking about the concept of multiculturalism and how it pertains to their campus reported higher levels of racial essentialism. Thinking about racial and cultural differences fed the idea that they are somehow determinative.
This finding was replicated in a second study featuring 150 American adults recruited online. Once again, those who read an essay "valuing differences between diverse groups" had greater racial essentialist beliefs than those who read a different essay "emphasizing similarities among diverse groups."
Even more problematically, "participants expressing greater racial essentialist beliefs were less likely to believe racial inequality is a problem in need of change." As the researchers note, this makes sense, in that if "inequalities are rooted in real, unchangeable differences in racial groups," there's no point in addressing them.
"We do not mean to imply that multiculturalism should be universally discarded," the researchers stress. "Neither multiculturalism nor color blindness offers a simple panacea for improving diversity."
Post a Comment