Putin Demonized for Thwarting Neocon Plan for Global Domination

America’s Celebrity Killers

By Ellen Finnigan
November 11, 2014

On November 21, Mockingjay: Part I will be released in theaters. This will be the third of four films based on Suzanne Collins’ young adult trilogy. In anticipation I have re-watched the first two films, The Hunger Games (2012) and Catching Fire (2013), and reread the books. Collins has said that with these stories she wanted to educate children about the “realities of war.” The realities she seems to be concerned with are not only the realities of fighting in a war, but also the realities of living in a country at war. What Collins is teaching American children is very important: that a government of the few can dominate a populace of the many using not only the brute force of a police state but also the more subtle, insidious, and hypnotic power of mass media. It is a valuable lesson for us all.

In case you haven’t heard, the trilogy is set in a future America called Panem after the Latin “panem et circenses” or “bread and circuses.” Divided into twelve Districts, most of the country is impoverished, except for the Capitol. Each year, one boy and one girl from each District are chosen by lottery and sent to fight to the death. They are called “Tributes.” The Games provide live, reality-television-style entertainment for the masses and yield exactly one “Victor,” who becomes an instant celebrity. The Hunger Games are touted as a pseudo-religious festival that brings everyone together in a ritual of punishment and atonement necessary to maintain unity and peace. Everyone must participate in the Hunger Games – as a Tribute or as a spectator — to maintain the illusion of unity. But how do you get an entire country to watch something so horrific on television day after day, to pay attention to the spectacle let alone support it?

Well, the Capitol threatens to nuke any District that rebels, and the people take that threat seriously. On the day of the lottery, citizens let their children be “herded into roped off areas like cattle.” The Hunger Games are a demonstration of power that terrorizes the people and instills fear. But the secondary purpose of the Hunger Games is to distract and mollify the population, especially those in the Capitol, with “circuses.” Part of the job of the Head Gamemaker is, with the help of talking heads in the media, to invent and disseminate storylines that will drum up interest in and enthusiasm for the Games and keep the people titillated, using each child’s unique personality and background to create “characters” of interest. The narratives they concoct create sympathy for the Tributes among the viewing audience. Lesson about war: Give citizens someone to root for in war, and they will be less likely to root against the State or against the wars themselves. Make sure they can’t see the forest for the trees, or the circus for the act.

It is not hard to see a few parallels at work here in our own society as convenient feel good narratives and soldier pseudo celebrities emerge with regularity in the War on Terror. Remember Jessica Lynch? Pat Tillman? Chris Kyle? Just like we have Internet articles titled “Where Are They Now?” about child celebrities or one-hit-wonders from the 80s, we have “Where Are They Now’s?” about War on Terror celebrities. The American government now uses the most sophisticated techniques of advertising, public relations, storytelling, and Hunger Games-style celebrity making, harnessing the full power of the mass media (print, television, radio, and film) to shape and mold the public consciousness, to influence our attitudes and beliefs about war, and to propagate American “wars” by keeping us enthralled and distracted with titillating stories. This is not difficult to do in a society in which six companies own 90% of the media, reduced from 50 in 1983. But before I come back to the here and now, let me tell you a little bit more about the plot. (I won’t include anything about Mockingjay that you couldn’t learn from watching the trailer.)

In the first book, our fifteen-year-old protagonist Katniss Everdeen wins the Hunger Games in more ways than one: Through cunning and compassion rather than outright resistance, she manages to undermine the Capitol. She emerges as a Victor and a symbol of potential revolution in Panem. Victors have to play their roles long after the Games are over, though, or else. They are forced to go on publicity tours, be spokespeople for the Capitol, and mentor new Tributes from their District. In exchange they get to live in wealth and luxury for the rest of their lives. In the sequel Catching Fire, Katniss is on tour, smiling, waving, and trying her best to convince everyone that she is not a dissident, for fear her beloveds will get killed. She stands in front of the people of each District and robotically recites the lines written for her on cue cards, but the people aren’t buying it. The people are restless and looking to her for hope. They yell from the crowd, “Tell us what you really think!” The police are cracking down. People are getting publicly executed for showing even the smallest signs of solidarity with her. She just wants the tour to be over and to go home, so nobody else will get hurt, but her mentor reminds her that the game never ends. Every year the Capitol will trot her around like a show pony. “Your job now,” he says, “is to be a distraction, to make people forget what the real problems are.” Resigned to her fate as a puppet of the Capitol, she decides to get engaged to her friend Peeta, even though she is not in love with him, in a desperate attempt to keep up appearances.

Despite Katniss’ best efforts to play nice, President Snow knows she is a threat. He sends her back to the Hunger Games in hopes she will die. In the third book and upcoming film, Katniss has been broken free from the Games by a group of rebels, many of them her friends (she was unaware of the conspiracy), and they are hoping she will agree to lead the resistance. The rebels have somehow managed to take control of the airwaves, and like the Hunger Games, the revolution, too, will be televised. She finds she is still a celebrity, with a hair and make-up team, her own designer, and a costume. She is still being given cue cards. Cameras follow her into the battlefield. There are discussions about who should and should not appear with her on camera. How are they going to “cast” her friend Gale? Should he be her new lover or her cousin? What would play best with the audience? The rebels, like the Capitol, seem more interested in telling stories than in disseminating information. Image is everything. Truth is optional. The storyline that developed while she was in the Hunger Games: She must do nothing to contradict it. Why? Because the viewing audience is emotionally invested in it. In their constant concern with emotional appeal, the rebel “coverage” smacks of propaganda. Katniss wants to do what she can to help the people, but she is conflicted because she knows she is being used. She decides to embrace the role of “The Mockingjay” anyway in hopes she can use her power of celebrity for good. In a moment of genuine passion, after seeing the Capitol engage in a particularly horrific act of war, she curses President Snow and threatens him through the camera. Then somebody shouts, “That’s a wrap!”

People found the premise of The Hunger Games to be so offensive and obscene because it blurred something as serious as war with something as frivolous as entertainment, but in America, the lines between war, entertainment, and propaganda are increasingly hard to draw. They practically don’t exist. There was a BBC documentary exposing the rescue of Jessica Lynch as a PR stunt. A local eye witness described the incident as follows:

“Like a film of Hollywood they cry ‘Go! Go! Go!’ and shout ‘Go! Go! Go!’ and with guns with blanks, without bullets. Blanks and the sounds of explosions…They make a show for the American attack for the hospital. Action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking the door, with the photos, with the photos.”

Who doesn’t love a good “Rescue the Young Blonde P.O.W.” story to kick off a war? Lynch became America’s sweetheart, a real life Disney princess. She doesn’t remember a thing about her “rescue” (convenient) but that didn’t stop her from getting a seven figure book deal to tell her story, which became a bestseller.

Growing up in the 80s, I was exposed to films like Born on the Fourth of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. They were the scary movies of my childhood, far scarier than Nightmare on Elm Street or The Hunger Games. The Pentagon didn’t like how its activities were being reflected in our culture, so rather than cleaning up their act, they polished up their image by collaborating with the makers of a movie called Top Gun (“How Top Gun Made America Love War”, The Washington Post, August 26, 2011). Add an awesome soundtrack, and suddenly the military was cool again.

Read More:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/ellen-finnigan/americas-celebrity-killers/

German Newspapers Have Destroyed Themselves By Being The CIA’s Puppets

Germans Abandon Major News Sites in Anger Over Slanted Russia Coverage Triggered by reader disaffection, internet traffic has collapsed for half a dozen major German media websites

What’s going on in the German media is huge. It is one of the most popular subjects on our site.  The US and UK media have been hugely biased in their coverage of Russia, but German media has been far, far, worse, to the point which strains credulity.

Now it turns out that part of the reason is CIA fiddling with German media outlets.  Coming on the heels of the Snowden revelations, this has Germans seriously ticked-off.  Here’s the latest revelation from our correspondent in Germany.

They call it the Ulfkotte-effect. And it’s beginning to resemble an avalanche.

Since the publication of Udo Ulfkotte’s “Gekaufte Journalisten“ in September – now a #1 Amazon bestseller, in which he charges that the CIA regularly bribes top German journalists, himself included, – German readers’ disaffection towards their mainstream media appears to have crossed a point of no return.

Granted, sales of newspapers and magazines have fallen everywhere, not just in Germany. But this is different. This is a boycott that is affecting web traffic. Germans are steering clear of mainstream media websites.

Many Germans have not been too shy to announce their intention on social networks. Some have uploaded videos calling for a boycott on YouTube. Others have created groups calling for the same on Facebook.

The other visible result of reader disaffection has been that throughout September the number of unique visitors to six major German newspapers and magazines was falling steadily.

Read More:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/paul-craig-roberts/when-newspapers-follow-the-cia-line/

Five ways to protect your privacy in an increasingly intrusive world

Pair-Of-Black-Sunglasses(NaturalNews) We have moved into the age of Big Brother. Though not as crudely obvious as two-way TVs in everyone’s dwelling the way George Orwell depicted in his novel 1984, all the electronic devices we use can be tapped into by Homeland Security, the CIA and the the NSA (National Security Agency).

Let’s get a concise understanding of what the NSA is about from a couple of unnamed NSA officials interviewed in 2012 by WIRE magazine, as their hugely sprawling center was nearing completion in rural Utah.

They explained how the NSA had made incredible breakthroughs with cryptanalyzing, or breaking through any and all encryption codes for computers and cell-tower-dependent communications, which are crucial for maintaining privacy and security.

The mammoth Bluffdale, Utah, NSA center will be able to pry into any online activity and cellular or satellite communication anywhere to harvest data for its databanks. According to one of the officials, “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.” [1]

But it’s not just the Big Brother operations that one needs to be wary of. There are private companies and criminal hackers who want to get into your communication systems as well.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047564_privacy_NSA_electronic_surveillance.html#ixzz3JYvV9Kwy

Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans

African-Child-Vaccine-Shot-Arm(NaturalNews) Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.

A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_sterilization_genocide.html#ixzz3JYuuhewN

Facebook Boosts News Feeds of Top 100 Media Outlets in Secret Political Experiment

Eric Blair
Activist Post

What is the point of a social network that doesn’t share your content with friends and followers? Oh, yeah, for profit, government spying, emotional experiments and now, political manipulation.

Since they went public, Facebook has been playing with their algorithms to prevent “viral” content from occurring naturally in favor of charging users to show content to their followers. This profit-seeking strategy destroyed the only thing that made Facebook useful. Now it seems to serve as little more than an oversized telephone or IM app. But underneath, in the shadows, it’s still so much more than that.

Mother Jones reports that Facebook has been conducting stealthy political experiments on users, including tweaking the news feeds of almost 2 million users to boost articles shared from the top 100 media outfits. The purpose was to test voter turnout in the 2012 election.

As Huffington Post summarizes:

Facebook quietly tweaked the news feeds of 1.9 million users before the 2012 election so they would see more “hard news” shared by friends.

That change may have boosted voter turnout by as much as 3 percent, according to a little-known study first disclosed Friday by Mother Jones.

For the study, news articles that Facebook users’ friends had posted appeared higher in their feeds — the stream of status updates, photos and articles that show up when you first sign on to the site. The researchers wanted to see whether increasing your exposure to news stories shared by friends before an election would convince you to vote.

Facebook said the news stories being shared were general in nature and not political. They came were from a list of 100 top media outlets from the New York Times to Fox News, according to the Mother Jones story, written by Micah Sifry, a democracy activist.

Lost in the reporting about this voting experiment is how dangerous it is to only boost establishment news feeds for political outcomes. What if they switch to only boosting GOP or Democrat news feeds? Could they sway elections?

We already know they can sway users’ emotions without their knowledge.

As Huffington Post points out:

The revelation of the voter experiment comes four months after the social network was criticized for conducting a separate psychological experiment on about 700,000 users.

More on this study in the short video below:

Illegal or not, these experiments will likely continue in secret. Incidentally, it is well known that Facebook was funded by the CIA’s “not for profit” venture capital firm In-Q-Tel leading many to believe it’s a data collection hub for the U.S. government.

Facebook has clearly demonstrated that they dictate what you see in your news feed, not your social media friends. And they intend to continue to manipulate you in secret. Most troubling is that they’re targeting your emotions and political reality.

Your new TV is spying on you & its worse than you can imagine

Your-New-TV-Is-Spying-On-You-No-JokeI just bought a new TV. The old one had a good run, but after the volume got stuck on 63, I decided it was time to replace it. I am now the owner of a new “smart” TV, which promises to deliver streaming multimedia content, games, apps, social media and Internet browsing. Oh, and TV too.

The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.

It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition, that’s stealing you & your family’s identity. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.

More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.

TV manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Panasonic & Lenovo to name a few are making smart TV’s that spy on us.

All of the above HDTVs use voice activation and facial recognition. They feature a new customizable home screen, plus automatic content recommendations that each person in the home can fine-tune. There’s also an “Info Bar” that automatically displays customized weather forecasts and message notifications whenever you walk by the TV’s built-in camera!

DHS/NSA’s wet dream come true: You may not be watching but now your TV will spy on you 24/7!

Current laws afford little privacy protection to so-called “third party records,” including email, telephone records, and data stored in “the cloud.” Much of the data captured and transmitted by my new TV would likely fall into this category. Although one federal court of appeals has found this rule unconstitutional with respect to email, the principle remains a bedrock of modern electronic surveillance.

You might be asking who profits by this intrusive 24/7 spying on you & your family, why its the stakeholders, laughing all the way to the bank.

Click here to read more.

According to retired Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the CIA, Internet-enabled “smart” devices can be exploited to reveal a wealth of personal data. “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvester,” he reportedly told a venture capital firm in 2012. “We’ll spy on you through your dishwasher,” read one headline. Indeed, as the “Internet of Things” matures, household appliances and physical objects will become more networked. Your ceiling lights, thermostat and washing machine — even your socks — may be wired to interact online.

American Red Cross: A Corporate Fleecing Operation Exploiting Natural Disasters

red-cross-hurricaneThe American Red Cross is a corporate shell devouring millions of dollars in donations.

It not only fails to provide assistance to disaster victims but gets in the way of efforts by smaller, more efficient emergency relief efforts.

A joint investigation conducted by ProPublica and NPR discovered the Red Cross is not interested in its declared mission of “preventing and relieving suffering.” Instead, the organization diverts “assets for public relations purposes” and its distribution of relief supplies, according to one internal report, is “politically driven.”

This public relations agenda, designed to suck up donations from sympathetic Americans, resulted in a fake relief effort during Hurricane Isaac that was “worse than the storm,” according to Jim Dunham, a truck driver. Dunham said Red Cross trucks were dispatched “just to be seen” and were “sent way down on the Gulf with nothing to give.”

Demonstrating the Red Cross is nothing but a PR machine for wholesale theft, the report shows that during Hurricane Sandy “emergency vehicles were taken away from relief work and assigned to serve as backdrops for press conferences, angering disaster responders on the ground,” Justin Elliott, Jesse Eisinger and Laura Sullivan write for ProPublica.

The organization lacked basic supplies and when they were available often went to waste, the report states. Managers misdirected volunteers and, in the aftermath of Sandy, they wandered the streets of New York in search of hurricane victims because the Red Cross did not provide GPS equipment.

Handicapped victims “slept in their wheelchairs for days” because the charity did not provide cots. Sex offenders were “all over including playing in children’s area” because Red Cross staff were ignorant about and didn’t follow procedures, according to the Propublica report.

Despite countless problems and a bureaucratic malaise that resulted in botched disaster response efforts, the organization gave itself a high grade after Sandy. Red Cross Chief Executive Gail McGovern said its relief efforts were “near flawless.”
American Red Cross: Another Corporate and Bankster Fleecing Operation

Considering the fact Obama is the organization’s honorary chairman and its board of governors is dominated by the likes of Goldman Sachs, Merck, Circle One Financial Group, and other large corporations, the fact the Red Cross is merely a front for collecting donations should not come as a surprise.

It is telling as well that the Red Cross was created by congressional charter. It has a government mandate to work in league with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

As revealed during the Iran-Contra hearings exposing the inner workings of Rex 84, “the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law,” writes Allen Roland. “This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster — humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.”

The Red Cross has “totally mastered the science of extracting money from the unthinking masses,” writes John Hamer. “For the most part, they keep it for themselves as do the vast majority of major, household-name charities.”

Hamer provides striking examples of Red Cross fraud: in the wake of the “disastrous San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross donated only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and kept the rest” and “following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 many donations were also withheld. Even as far back as the Korean War, the Red Cross was plundering soldiers’ relief packages, the famous ‘Red Cross Parcels’ from home.”

The lesson learned from the Red Cross scam is that only small organizations and local, non-corporate charities are capable of providing honest humanitarian assistance following natural disasters. Large centralized organizations dominated by government, corporations and banks are not interested in helping people. On the contrary, they are designed to loot the public and have unfortunately elicited the help of useful tools like Bruce Springsteen and Heidi Klum to facilitate widespread robbery and perpetuate negligence.

Nobel Hypocrisy 101

noble-prize-150x150by Stephen Lendman

Nobel tradition is horrific. Disreputable. Long and inglorious. War criminals win peace prizes. Past honorees include a rogue’s gallery of some of the world’s worst.

Peace advocates are spurned. Ignored. Shut out for doing the right thing. Especially in today’s highly-charged atmosphere.

Selection is politicized. It’s longstanding policy. It’s no surprise.

Nobel Committee members violate their own rules. Alfred Nobel’s will was clear and unequivocal.

It says Peace Prize recipients “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Worthy candidates are routinely passed over. History’s most famous peace advocate never won.

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated five times. Nobel Committee members never recognized his accomplishments. They’re hugely important to this day.

He championed nonviolent resistance. He did so for social change. His October 2 birthday (Gandhi Jayanti) is a national Indian holiday. It’s commemorated worldwide as an International Day of Nonviolence.

Eleanor Roosevelt got three Nobel Peace Prize nominations. She never won.

She received 48 honorary degrees in her lifetime. Harry Truman called her “First Lady of the World.” He honored her humanitarian achievements.

They were notable. “Do what you feel in your heart to be right,” she said. She championed human rights, social justice and peace.

She was perhaps the driving force behind establishing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She submitted its principles to UN General Assembly Member States, saying:

“We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind.”

“This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all (mankind) everywhere.”

Anyone can be nominated for Peace Prize recognition. Scoundrels passed over included Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Rush Limbaugh among others.

Henry Kissinger and Obama were perhaps the most notable war criminal winners. They bear responsibility for horrific high crimes against peace.

Millions of deaths. Mass destruction. Unspeakable human misery. Contempt for rule of law principles and democratic values.

It didn’t matter. In awarding Obama its 2009 Prize, Nobel Committee members turned truth on its head.

They cited his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“His vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” He supports spending over a trillion dollars upgrading America’s arsenal.

He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He deplores peace, stability, equity and justice. He’s beholden to monied interests. He spurns popular ones.

He’s waged war on humanity throughout his tenure. World peace hangs by a thread on his watch.

Nobel Committee members shamelessly claimed he “created a new climate in international politics.”

“Multinational diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions play.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Nobel Committee members long “sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman.”

It’s hard imagining more convoluted rubbish. Twisted logic. Nonsense polar opposite truth.

It’s longstanding Nobel Committee reasoning. Politicizing annual awards. Doing so in lieu of choosing individuals most deserving.

Two recipients won this year. Seventeen-year-old Malala Yousafzai is the youngest ever winner.

She’s an activist for women’s education, a blogger, and Sakharov Prize winner. She’s a Pakistan National Youth Peace Prize honoree.

She was a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Desmond Tutu nominated her for the International Children’s Peace Prize.

Canada intends granting her honorary citizenship. She’ll receive it in Ottawa on October 22.

Taliban militants shot her in the head two years ago. For advocating female education rights. She survived the ordeal.

She became a human rights/female education activist. Her advocacy became an international movement.

In January 2013, Deutsche Welle called her “the most famous teenager in the world.”

UN Special Envoy for Global Education/former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in her name. He used the slogan “I am Malala.”

In its April 29, 2013 issue, Time magazine featured her on its cover. It called her one of “(t)he 100 Most Influential People in the World.”

She won Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize. Nobel Committee members ignored her anti-militarism advocacy.

Her outspokenness against drone attacks. Her calling them responsible for “fueling terrorism.”

Her saying “(i)nnocent victims are killed (by) these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”

Kailash Satyarthi is a longtime Indian children’s rights activist. He founded Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement) in 1980.

It’s the world’s leading civil society campaign of its kind. It protected the rights of about 83,000 children for over three decades.

It rescued them from human trafficking, virtual slavery, and repressive child labor. It helped restore their trust in society. It helps them achieve more promising futures.

Its vision is “creat(ing) a child friendly society, where all children are free from exploitation and receive free and quality education.”

Its mission is “(t)o identify, liberate, rehabilitate and educate children in servitude through direct intervention, child and community participation, coalition building, consumer action, promoting ethical trade practices and mass mobilisation.”

Nobel Committee members awarded Satyarthi and Yousafzai their 2014 Prize. It did so “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.”

Satyarthi “headed various forms of protests and demonstrations, all peaceful, focusing on the grave exploitation of children for financial gain.”

He “contributed to the development of important international conventions on children’s rights.”

Yousafzai fights “for the right of girls to education, and has shown by example that children and young people, too, can contribute to improving their own situations.”

“This she has done under the most dangerous circumstances.
Through her heroic struggle she has become a leading spokesperson for girls’ rights to education.”

Imagine if she was a Palestinian human rights/women’s education advocate. Imagine if Israeli soldiers shot her in the head.

Imagine her being passed over. Ignored. In Orwell’s Memory Hole. Consigned there by Nobel Committee Ministry of Truth members.

Imagine if Satyarthi spoke forthrightly against US ruthlessness. Its imperial lawlessness. Permanent wars. Mass slaughter and destruction.

Ravaging and destroying one country after another. Plundering them for profit and dominance. Exploiting their people.

Violating core human and civil rights. Spurning democratic values. Ignoring rule of law principles.

Supporting wrong over right. Believing might is right. Imagine how Satyarthi would be treated.

Spurned for doing the right thing. Ignored. Perhaps eliminated to silence him. Rogue states operate this way. What they say goes.

Opposition voices aren’t tolerated. Especially peace, equity and justice advocates. Longstanding US policy is polar opposite.

Nobel Committee members march in lockstep. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to do the right thing.

They support war. They deplore peace. They’re part of the problem, not the solution. Their awards are politicized.

Nominees most worthy are passed over. They never have a chance. It’s longstanding Nobel tradition.

It mocks what he had in mind. It turns his purpose upside down. It supports what late in life he rejected.

He was a wealthy 19th century chemist, engineer, dynamite inventor, armaments manufacturer war-profiteer.

Perhaps he tried compensating for enormous harm he caused. He remade his image late in life. He did so by establishing awards in his name.

Including one for peace. What’s perhaps more illusive now than ever. At a time it hangs by a thread.

Don’t expect Nobel Committee members to explain. Or say they’re sorry.

Forthrightness isn’t their long suit. It never was. It isn’t now.

Ebola hoax: hidden purpose of the operation

the-global-framework-for-controlBy Jon Rappoport
October 16, 2014

“The Reality Manufacturing Company paints a mural of reality for the masses; the Company paints a bigger and bigger mural, entangling more people in more systems…” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

Behind every phony pandemic, there are a number of agendas in play.

In this case, the Globalist heavy hitters, who are dedicated to managing the planet, view things this way:

***Use a crisis to build a larger structure than previously existed.

As in: one global healthcare system. All-encompassing.

The propaganda? “We can’t defeat Ebola unless all nations form one system that allows prevention and quarantine and immediate treatment anywhere on Earth.”

In that sense, Ebola is the occasion for adding wings to the system.

Ditto for every so-called epidemic.

“Well, we faced down and ultimately defeated virus X. But at great cost of life. Now we have to build better bridges between the healthcare systems of nations—and finally, we need one great Dispensary that adjudicates where drugs and vaccines go, who is quarantined, which borders are sealed off, at any point on the globe.”

We’re talking about a very high-level op here.

The Globalist dream? A single cradle-to-grave maze every person on earth follows, as a docile patient taking orders, submitting to diagnoses, taking vaccines and drugs, allowing their bodies and minds and energies and strength and independence to be drained away.

A single global medical system is the ideal structure of control.

Crisis A? Build a bigger system. Crisis B? Add to that system. Crisis C? Add more to the system.

And of course—invent each crisis.

The “medical crisis” is ideal, because it seems to involve no political agenda, no partisan position, no motive other than “helping those in need.”

You’ll be hearing phrases like “the pitfalls of privatized medicine,” and “uncaring corporations,” and “the UN has to step in to solve the Ebola crisis,” and “international cooperation.”

Realize that behind these phrases, there is another op in progress. It has nothing to do with predatory corporations or greedy doctors. It has everything to do with building Medical Central for planet Earth.

Under that system, up the line, a patient would have no choice about whether to accept a diagnosis or take a drug or vaccine.

The watchword will be: compliance.

For “the greater good.”

Over the past hundred years, no force has been more powerful in shaping modern medicine than the Rockefeller empire.

In his 2003 Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Rockefeller is acutely aware that one of the prime strategies for bringing his dream (nightmare) to fruition is: a one-world, all-embracing medical apparatus.

There are some who welcome such an enterprise, naively believing it will mean greater health for all.

For them, I cite (as I frequently do) Dr. Barbara Starfield’s shattering review: “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield was a revered public-health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her review was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system directly kills 225,000 people. Every year.

That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

So imagine, if you will, what would happen if the Globalist dream of one “healthcare” system for the planet came true.

And don’t imagine such a system would involve solving the ongoing, endemic causes of death in most of the world: contaminated water, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, overcrowding, poverty.

The World Health Organization has had decades to make a significant dent in those grinding problems. But they talk; they appoint task forces; they study; they demand the distribution of more (toxic) medicines, and vaccines that push already-compromised immune systems over the cliff.