Saturday 21st of April 2018

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 07:14

"You came here but your return was disastrous"

"You are in my country now, behave!"

"Don't ever think of invading us again"

"You can't go around half naked among martyrs, have some respect!"

"May God curse those who attack us"

"F**king infidels!"

read more:



by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 06:53

Heather Stewart, The Guardian’s chief stenographer political editor, has copied and pasted a press release written a new article all about “Russian bots”. The trouble is she doesn’t seem to know what either of these words actually means.

The article – headlined “Russia spread fake news via Twitter bots after Salisbury poisoning – analysis” – is a direct lie from the outset, as it offers absolutely no “analysis”.

Instead she does this:

Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts since the attack,– many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

She simply directly quotes Whitehall via anonymous “sources”. Does she interrogate the veracity of these claims? No. Does she offer evidence to support them? Of course not. Does she question the agenda behind them? I doubt she even remembers how.

Ctrl-C, ctrl-V. It must be true the government says so.

This is modern media in a nutshell. This new take on the meaning of “journalism” has hurt the world in general and press in the specific. Refusal to abide by its rules has pushed important voices out of the mainstream – the careers of many decent people of principle – John Pilger and Seymour Hersh for example – are forced out into alternate sources.

Kowtowing to the government line has its own cost though – the unquestioning acceptance of government authority has a price – and very often it’s looking incredibly foolish.

Heather seems happy to pay this price.

She cites only two examples of “Russian bots” in her article, a revelation tainted only by the fact that neither of them are Russian and neither of them are bots.

Now, before we refute the specifics Ms Stewart’s bizarre claims, let’s take a look at the definition of a bot, from wikipedia:

An Internet Bot, also known as web robot, WWW robot or simply bot, is a software application that runs automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone.

Simply put – bots are automated, internet based software programs that do simple repetitive tasks faster and more efficiently than humans. It’s not a difficult concept.

Spamming ads? Bots.
Automatic likes/retweets? Bots.
Writing tweets that reflect complex political realities? NOT bots.

Heather clearly doesn’t know exactly what a “bot” is, and perhaps even worse, can’t even be bothered to do some incredibly easy research to familiarise herself with the term. The government says so, so it must be true. Copy. Paste.


Read more:


Read from top...

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 06:41

The royal commission's public hearings changed this week.

The first hearings were tragically comic. Awful, dumb stuff: gym owners helping to write $122 million in loans, shonky car dealers selling lemons to hard-luck customers, a gambling addict given credit card limit increases.

But what we heard this week from senior financial institution executives was utterly shocking. 

Extraordinary deception. Atrocious behaviour. No concern about consequences. 

This week was consequential. The political environment around the commission has changed.


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 06:22

The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s campaign and WikiLeaks, alleging a widespread conspiracy to help swing the 2016 US presidential election in Trump’s favor.

The multimillion-dollar lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal court in the southern district of New York. The complaint asserts that senior officials within the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in an attempt to damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and seeks damages for the hacking of DNC’s servers.

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” the DNC chairman, Tom Perez, said in a statement.

Read more:


See also:


an angry shot...

the CIA lies... 

your mission is to self-destroy...

etc. Read from top.


Note: the DNC screwed itself up but will never admit to it. All this might come to Assange revealing the source of the DNC emails and this will not look pretty for the DNC. But I suppose with Assange unable to get out of a hell-hole created for him by the Brits, the DNC lawyers think the coast is clear...

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 06:08

One reason it’s so easy to get an American administration, the mainstream media, and the American people to jump on an anti-Russian bandwagon is of course the legacy of the Soviet Union. To all the real crimes and shortcomings of that period the US regularly added many fictitious claims to agitate the American public against Moscow. That has not come to a halt. During a debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, candidate Ben Carson (now the head of the US Housing and Urban Development agency) allowed the following to pass his lips: “Joseph Stalin said if you want to bring America down, you have to undermine three things: Our spiritual life, our patriotism, and our morality.” This is a variation on many Stalinist “quotes” over the years designed to deprecate both the Soviet leader and any American who can be made to sound like him. The quote was quite false, but the debate moderators and the other candidates didn’t raise any question about its accuracy. Of course not.

Another feature of Stalinism that was routinely hammered into our heads was that of the “non-person” or “unperson” – the former well-known official or writer, for example, who fell out of favor with the Stalinist regime for something he said or did, and was thereafter doomed to a life of obscurity, if not worse. In his classic 1984 George Orwell speaks of a character who “was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed.” I was reminded of this by the recent sudden firing of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Matthew Lee, the courageous Associated Press reporter who has been challenging State Department propaganda for years, had this to say in an April 1 article:

Rex Tillerson has all but vanished from the State Department’s website as his unceremonious firing by tweet took effect over the weekend.

The “Secretary of State Tillerson” link at the top of the department’s homepage disappeared overnight Saturday and was replaced with a generic “Secretary of State” tab. When clicked, it leads to a page that informs visitors in a brief statement that Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan “became acting Secretary of State on April 1, 2018.” It shows a photo of Sullivan signing his appointment papers as deputy in June 2017 but offers no explanation for the change in leadership.

In addition to that change, links that had connected to Tillerson’s speeches, travels and other events now display those of Sullivan. The link to Tillerson’s biography as the 69th secretary of state briefly returned a “We’re sorry, that page can’t be found” message. After being notified of the message, the State Department restored the link and an archive page for Tillerson’s tenure was enabled.

The most repeated Cold War anti-Communist myth was of course Nikita Khrushchev’s much quoted – No, eternally quoted! – line: “We will bury you.” On November 20 1956 the New York Times had reported: “In commenting on coexistence last night Mr. Khrushchev said communism did not have to resort to war to defeat capitalism. “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side,” he said. “We will bury you.”

Obviously, it was not a military threat of any kind. But tell that to the countless individuals who have cited it as such forever.   So, as matters turned out, did communism, or call it socialism, bury capitalism? No. But not for the reason the capitalists would like to think – their superior socio-economic system. Capitalism remains the world’s pre-eminent system primarily because of military power combined with CIA covert actions. It’s that combination that irredeemably crippled socialist forces in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Guatemala, Haiti, Ecuador, the Congo, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Chile, Angola, Grenada, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Albania, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, etc., etc., etc.

We’ll never know what kind of societies would have resulted if these movements had been allowed to develop without US interference; which of course was the idea behind the interference.

Political assassination. Political propaganda.

In the Cold War struggles against the Soviets/Russians the United States has long had the upper hand when it comes to political propaganda. What do the Russkis know about sales campaigns, advertising, psychological manipulation of the public, bait-and-switch, and a host of other Madison Avenue innovations. Just look at what the American media and their Western partners have done with the poisoning of the two Russians, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, in the UK. How many in the West doubt Russia’s guilt?

Then consider the case of Hugo Chávez. When he died in 2013 I wrote the following: “[W]hen someone like Chávez dies at the young age of 58 I have to wonder about the circumstances. Unremitting cancer, intractable respiratory infections, massive heart attack, one after the other … It is well known that during the Cold War, the CIA worked diligently to develop substances that could kill without leaving a trace. I would like to see the Venezuelan government pursue every avenue of investigation in having an autopsy performed.” (None was performed apparently.)

Back in December 2011, Chávez, already under treatment for cancer, wondered out loud: “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” The Venezuelan president was speaking a day after Argentina’s leftist president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, announced she had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. This was after three other prominent leftist Latin America leaders had been diagnosed with cancer: Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff; Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo; and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

“Evo take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don’t know,” Chávez said, referring to Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, both leading leftists.

Chávez said he had received words of warning from Fidel Castro, himself the target of hundreds of failed and often bizarre CIA assassination plots. “Fidel always told me: ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.”  

When the new Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, suggested possible American involvement in Chávez’s death, the US State Department called the allegation “absurd” even though the United States had already played a key role in the short-lived overthrow of Chávez in 2002. I don’t know of any American mainstream media that has raised the possibility that Chávez was murdered.

I personally believe, without any proof to offer, (although no less than is offered re Russia’s guilt in the UK poisoning) that Hugo Chávez was indeed murdered by the United States. But unlike the UK case, I do have a motivation to offer: Given Chávez’s unremitting hostility towards American imperialism and the CIA’s record of more than 50 assassination attempts against such world political leaders, if his illness and death were NOT induced, the CIA was not doing its job. The world’s media, however, did its job by overwhelmingly ignoring such “conspiracy” talk, saving it for a more “appropriate” occasion, one involving their favorite bad guy, Russia.

If I could speak to British prime-minister Theresa May and her boorish foreign minister Boris Johnson I’d like to ask them: “What are you going to say when it turns out that it wasn’t Russia behind the Skripal poisonings?” Stay tuned.

Another of the many charming examples of Cold War anti-communism

Nostalgia is on the march in Brazil, a longing for a return to the military dictatorship of 1964-1985, during which nearly 500 people were killed by the authorities or simply disappeared. It was a time when the ruling generals used systemic brutality, including electric shocks, as well as psychological torture in their effort to cement power and ward off what they called “communism”. They also stole many of the very young children of their victims and gave them to their followers, whom the children then believed to be their parents.


Read more:


See also:

an angry shot...

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2018-04-21 06:06

Many fear that the Alliance missile strikes on Syria on the weekend utilities will trigger another world war, however contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence says the first one never ended.

WORLD WAR THREE has started. On Saturday, I heard that said a number of times.


Both were shot at close range by the Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip, triggering a sequence of events that led to the First World War, such is the power of the odd angry shot.

The hapless couple had already escaped a bombing in their motorcade earlier in the day and yet after their civic duties, with great trepidation, they got back into their open-hooded double phaeton, despite heightened concerns for their safety, only to become literal sitting targets for their killer.

They apparently died whilst sitting upright, maintaining a surreal regal decorum in the horrifying and bloodied dying seconds of their lives, in what was regarded as a true love match and marriage.

Wikipedia also has a very competent summary leading up to the assassination and subsequent events.

Achille Beltrame's vivid illustration of the assassination appeared in the Italian weekly, Domenica del Corriere, 12 July 1914, editon and bears an eerie echo to photos and footage of the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas.

From Tess Lawrence at:,11414


Tess does good, then (I hope sarcastically) seem to takes the CIA/FBI reports on Lee Harvey Oswald at face value. I would not. The CIA lies. This is the main job of the CIA. Spread bullshit in order to blame someone else such as the Russians. This is common practice in the "intelligence industry". Remember the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" mantra. It was a lie (not an "intelligence failure") like those of the former director of the CIA, William Casey.

During his tenure at the CIA, Casey played a large part in the shaping of Reagan's foreign policy, particularly its approach to Soviet international activity. Based on a book, The Terror Network, Casey "believed" that the Soviet Union was the source of most terrorist activity in the world, in spite of CIA analysts providing evidence that this was in fact black propaganda by the CIA itself. His famous quote: 

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the US public believes is false.

I can formulate from my own research on another subject which is not part of YD, though I have mentioned it here already, the 30 Year War in Europe ((1618-48) is at the origin of the "cascade" of our modern conflicts. Beforehand there were other conflicts, including the "crusades" that cascaded into the 30 Year War....

By 1911, some teachers in schools in Europe were telling their young pupils that "...a war will be started soon and you will be the one to finish it." quote/unquote. The assassination of the Archduke was only a "pretext" to begin what had already been planned for a long time.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was "under surveillance from the CIA", how did he manage to single-handedly kill JFK? My personal take on this from various psychological/historical assessment is that he was not in relations with the Soviets, but possibly with the "White Russians" (and the CIA), those Russians who opposed the Soviets (a bit like the exiled oligarchs are opposed to Putin and will do anything to sabotage Russia). JFK, having been part of the solution with Krutchev to the Cuban missile crisis wanted a "rapprochement" with the Soviets. This was not on on for the "white Russians", NOR for THE CIA. JFK had to be eliminated.

Same with Trump. He is not allowed to have a rapprochement with Russia. Being the flip-con-artist of the whatever deal, he goes with the "deep State" and bomb Syria instead, carefully avoiding Russian positions because after he did not hesitate to tweet to Russia "that he was going to fire missiles of a new generation on its soldiers in Syria", the Russian ambassador, Alexander Zasypkine, immediately responded that these missiles would be intercepted and the planes and ships that fired them would be destroyed. And the Russians meant it AND they have the technology to do so. WW3 was on the cards from a single tweet. At present, the "deep State" does not want to get rid of Donald, just contain him.

I am not saying the Russians are clean, but the boffins at the CIA (and its precursor the OSS) were experts at lying and at manipulating "world events". MI6 (UK) and the SCEDE (France) were experts at "lying" as well. ASIO does not understand anything of these manipulations. Our PM in London is like a dumb lap dog to Theresa May. 


and :


More can be said...

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2018-04-20 22:48

Hillary Clinton's had a year and half to demonstrate to the American people that they elected the wrong candidate, a message reinforced in every way imaginable by a mournful media suffering from a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Her endless book tour has explained again and again "What Happened" to her inevitable candidacy, including weak-willed women, widespread racism, Middle American ignorance and those sinister Russian bots. So how are Americans feeling about the woman they failed to elect in 2016? Even worse. In fact, a lot worse.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Clinton's favorability rating is even more grim than it was when she lost in 2016. Both Trump and Clinton made history in the election by being the least liked presidential candidates ever. Clinton staggered into the election with a 10-point deficit in her favorability rating (Trump was actually in worse shape). Now, Clinton's at an abysmal -25.

The Wall Street Journal reports on what's happened to public perception of the highly "unusual" political figure post-election:

Historical WSJ/NBC polling shows that recent losing presidential candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry and Al Gore — experienced post-election declines in positive sentiment. But Mrs. Clinton’s dropoff is a bit steeper–her positive rating is at a new low of 27%, compared with 52% who have a negative opinion. That spread of 25 percentage points is greater than President Trump’s, who is under water by 18 points.


Read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2018-04-20 19:43

The precise details of Alexander Downer's role triggering the FBI probe into alleged dealings between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign team will remain shrouded in secrecy, with the Australian government refusing to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of diplomatic cables that likely cast light on Mr Downer's role sparking the inquiry.

Mr Downer, Australia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom, became a key figure regarding the question of how the Trump-Russia investigation began, after details emerged of his London bar room chat with a young Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos.

During their May 2016 conversation, Mr Downer was told that Russia had a dirt file on Hilary Clinton, including hacked Democratic Party emails.

But Mr Downer, the foreign affairs minister in the Howard government, is understood to have taken several weeks to officially relay Mr Papadopoulos’ information to Canberra via a diplomatic cable.

The reason for his delay is not known. However, it is possible Mr Downer only realised the significance of Mr Papadopoulos’ Russian claims after Wikileaks released hacked Democrat emails that embarrassed the Clinton campaign in late July, 2016.


Read more:


Downer is a liar. Remember his "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" nauseating repeat while he would have been a dork not to know that Saddam did not have any.  Okay, he could be a dork or a liar — or more realistically BOTH. Either way his "testimony" is as good as a dead pig in the sky or an old pie in a sewer.


by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2018-04-20 18:12

in new orleans

Barbara Bush is fondly remembered... OF COURSE THE PICTURE IS FAKE! GEEZ!...

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2018-04-20 08:28

The CIA lies. The FBI lies. The USA have always tried to create situations that will force other countries into “defending their patch” or “submitting to the hegemony”. The aim is simple: world domination. The purpose is simple: money. The trick is complex and based on lies that are more sophisticated mantras than the Nazis propaganda in Germany, during the 1930s, but still as deadly. 

The Dollar is fascism in disguise. Fascism brings comfort to some people and misery to others. It has always been a question of proportions between the kings and "their" subjects. 

Democracy is supposed to do away with this concept, this is why the lies than maintain the Dollar are cleverly crafted to promote “democracy” while still maintaining the hierarchy of cash and power. This is why less than one per cent of people own more than half the wealth. Most of us, the 99 per cent, are in debt. Armies to defend "our freedoms” — freedoms that are no more than the freedom of the rich to tell us what to do, including die for “your country” — are used in this overreach.

In regard to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK, the CIA would not be stupid enough to mention him as a CIA operative or even as a “double agent”, would they? They would write their documentation so that everything points in the direction of the soviets, wouldn’t they? If you believe anything else, your a ...

So we are constantly at the mercy of deceit. 

Remember Bush’s “axis of evil”? Remember Iran’s “the US is the Great Satan”? These emotive bursts of language remind me of Jules Verne’s “Master of the World”'s last lines:

“Nonsense; this Robur was not the devil!”
“Ah, well!” replied the old woman, “he was worthy of being so!”

The CIA lies, has lied and will lie...

Search Results

CIA Director Mike Pompeo distorts Russia intelligence to help Trump ...
Nov 9, 2017 - On October 19, CIA Director Mike Pompeo took the stage at a prominent Washington think tank — and promptly told a lie. ... visit would have created: equating a conspiracy theory with the high-confidence judgment of the intelligence community,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden told me in an interview.

James Clapper - Wikipedia
James Robert Clapper Jr. (born March 14, 1941) is a retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is the former Director of National Intelligence. A career intelligence officer, Clapper has held several key positions within the United States Intelligence Community. He served as director of the Defense ...
Early life and education · ‎Military career · ‎Director of National ... · ‎In the media

Central Intelligence Agency - Wikipedia
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the United States federal government, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT). As one of the principal members of the U.S. ...

News of the News: How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted the FBI ...
Feb 9, 2018 - Former CIA director John Brennan is having trouble keeping his Trump-Russia stories straight. On Meet the ... What seems more likely is that the former CIA director told the truth. .... Brennan's CIA spied on U.S. Senators, a fact he first lied about and then grudgingly admitted to Congress and apologized for.

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/17: CIA-RDP91- 00587R000200780002-5. LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER(KY) 13 October 1986 FI[E f)F,y (21A lies to the public, ex-agent says. By Cindy Rugeley Herald-Leader staff writer. The Central Intelligence Agency deliberately misinforms the American public to build ...

Why Promote a Lying CIA Director? – LobeLog
Apr 11, 2018 - “Pompeo is playing politics with intelligence,” former CIA analyst and Obama national security aide Ned Price said at the time, “using these files in a ploy to bolster the case against Iran by reinvigorating the debate on its terrorist ties.” Regarding the inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the ...

John Brennan, former CIA director, on working with 4 US presidents ...
Sep 15, 2017 - Former CIA Director John Brennan reveals what it takes to join the agency and how he rose through the ranks to tackle top-secret missions for multiple presidents ..... Brennan: No, I couldn't, and so she would be the one who would lie awake at night and I'm there snoring, so maybe it's just you get used to it.

Ex-CIA chief John Brennan to Trump: 'America will triumph over you'
Mar 17, 2018 - The ex-CIA chief said of Trump, "You will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." ... Former CIA director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in 2016. ... McCabe, the president claimed, "knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!".