Germany didn’t start WWI; the British did. Germany was the only country standing in the way of the British elite creating a new world order.

Lew Rockwell interviews John V. Denson [see his books here].  Here is the full and complete transcript

How do you get a world war over the assassination of Archduke of Ferdinand?  

Germany didn’t start WWI; the British did.  Germany was the only country standing in their way of the British elite [Cecil Rhodes, Milner, and others] creating a new world order. 

1870, John Ruskin at Oxford: Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner created a group that started the Boer War against the Dutch farmers in South Africa.  Their farmland happened to control the world’s best supply of gold and diamonds. Country of Rhodesia is named for Cecil Rhodes.  So is the Rhodes Scholar.  Rhodes made Milner the executor of his 7th will, and that’s when he created the Rhodes Scholarships, 1902.  Ruskin thought that the British Empire was the greatest political organization that had ever been in the world, created by the most intelligent, wealthy people and that needed to be expanded into reclaiming America into the Anglo-American establishment or secret elite. 

Both books contain a diagram of who exactly these people are.  It shows you an inner circle of about 7 people.  Wow.  Tragedy and Hope, this group had a terrible effect on the 20th century by causing WWI and WWII.  Wars are not natural events.  They’re man=made.  The way to end wars is to learn of these mistakes.  The sources they went to were phenomenal, all over the world.  Rothschild was a member and financed many wars.  Control the academia, politics, and international finance.  JP Morgan and Rockefellers became members.  For getting into WWI, they needed America and needed a central bank.  they went secretly to Jekyll Island and created the federal reserve.  First, the bill was opposed by President Taft.  They had to get rid of Taft, so they promoted Teddy Roosevelt.  Colonel House went to promote Woodrow Wilson to New Jersey Governorship who wanted to create the federal reserve and get America into the war. 

Here’s their plan: the only way they could create a new world order with English speaking hierarchy in control was to get rid of Germany.  Germany had progressed to the point economically and other ways to even surpass the British Empire in some ways and was a real threat to their idea of English speaking Anglo-Saxon world government.  So they planned this war.  And they knew that they had to get Russia and France, their land armies, to squeeze Germany, and there was a lot of behind-the-scenes talking to Russia and France back as early as 1904 about the war.  None of this was known to Parliament all secretly done.  So they promised the Russians that if they get into this war, they would get Constantinople.  And get your war port and get into the Mediterranean.  When in reality they never intended Russia to be successful with that.  And they promised Alsace Lorraine to the French [that the French lost in the Franco-Prussian War].  

England is more of an Atlantic state than a European one.  

They were waiting for a spark to fan the flames to get Germany into war.  There was an incident in Morroco that looked promising but the Germans didn’t take the bait.  But the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, they took that spark by putting in representatives inside the Austrian gov’t and in Serbia to make sure that they did not settle that incident.  The demand that Austria made was we want to come into Serbians and make our own investigation, and the Serbians were instructed not to agree to that.  And the Kaiser had indicated to the Austrians that he would support them.  And then when he saw how bad it was getting, he tried to talk them out of the conditions, and Austria then declares war. 

Edward VII, related to the Russian Czar, he was considered a ne’er do well by Victoria and she had him on a very strict allowance.  But he was traveling, going around on pleasure trips.  But Lord Rothschild created an unlimited expense account for him.  And he would talk to heads of government.  The Russians were convinced that they needed to mobilize and go to war.  So then the Treaty with France brought France in.  So Russia and France mobilized before Germany did anything.  Germany had to act to protect itself.  So that’s how they got WWI started, using the Archduke as the spark, but they had all these other plans to get the war going.  



Rand Paul: “Lindsey Graham is a danger to the country”

h/t Target Liberty


“We perpetuate war by exalting sacrifices.”

Some striking lines in this clip by James Garner.  My favorite, I guess, is the one that goes, “We perpetuate war by exalting sacrifices.”  Think about what that means.  It means that everytime that war is presented to the American people the Pentagon and the Defense War Department exploit our feelings of patriotism through the prism of sacrifice.  But we’ve already sacrificed millions of sons to war.  How is the next war any different? 

Thanks to Charles Burris for this and for Jacob Hornberger for his eloquent denunciation of war, and the faux exaltation of war through Memorial Day.  Next, it’ll be Flag Day.  After that, 4th of July.  Then D-Day as the press acknowledges through subdued condemnations, almost off the radar, the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945, and certainly not a peep about closing military bases around the world, before a few week’s lull primes us again as a Pearl Harbor type victim, evoking Cold War themes, on the latest war holiday of 9/11.  Following the parades and adulation to servicemen the world over punctuated by retail discounts here and there, we will then hear about Veteran’s Day, formerly Armistice Day, before we exalt the dead and tragedy of a “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th.  Some will argue, “Well, we need a strong defense.”  Without a doubt.  But, as we spread our military around the world in the services of the empire it means that we’re making our home defense less effective.  I think that if Americans saw the destructive results or our military in other countries that perhaps we would not be so gung-ho to wipe an enemy composed by media propaganda.  Though the opening tribute to the prosperous efforts of Americans is excellent, this is an example of exalting sacrifices.

“Coup in Ukraine was revenge for Putin cooperating with Obama in Syria. This has got to be stopped—this getting along and making agreements and stuff.”

One of the best interviews on the chemical weapons attack in Syria.  Chlorine is not even on the list of forbidden chemicals.  It’s used to clean water.  So there’s that.  But it gets even better.  Scott Horton interviews Rick Sterling.  Find Sterling’s work here.

Sterling makes several good points.  At the 33:10 mark, he says

We need international law.  We need due process.  We need a multilateral world.  Where independence countries can chart their own leadership.  Can determine their own leadership, capitalist, communist, whatever.  It’s up to each country what they want to determine. 

The conflict in Syria is a focal point of a conflict over the world.  Is the world going to be run by the United States?  Is it going to be a unipolar world with the US as the unquestioned, unchallenged, economic, military, political determining force?  That certainly runs against what was established after WWII.  And I think we need to get back to that.  That’s really what’s at stake here.  Can China and Russia support other governments around the world?  Even if the US doesn’t like it?  Does the US have the right to overthrow other governments, like Syria?  Does Israel have the right to create mayhem and support mayhem in Syria because they don’t like Iran?

Certain departments of the United Nations are not independent; some are tools of U.S. policy. 

Our ambassador, Nikki Haley, at the United Nations, says if the Security Council isn’t going to act, we’re going to act alone, which is flat out in violation.  Under international law you’re not allowed to attack another country without authorization of the Security Council or in self-defense.  When int’l law can be violated with impunity it undermines the credibility of int’l law. 

Remember this

In 2012, Obama was overheard on an open mike telling Putin’s close political ally, then-President Dmitri Medvedev, that “after my election, I have more flexibility,” suggesting greater cooperation with Russia. (Because of the Russian constitution barring someone from serving more than two consecutive terms as president, Medvedev, who had been prime minister, essentially swapped jobs with Putin for four years.)

Obama’s promise was not entirely an empty one. His relationship with the Russian leadership warmed as the two powers confronted common concerns over security issues, such as convincing Syria to surrender its chemical-weapons arsenal in 2013 and persuading Iran to accept tight limitations on its nuclear program in 2014.

In an extraordinary op-ed in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2013, Putin described his relationship with Obama as one of “growing trust” while disagreeing with the notion of “American “exceptionalism.” In the key last section that he supposedly wrote himself, Putin said:

“My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’

Sterling explains that after Putin and Obama made friends on Iran that Secretary of State, John Kerry, serving the neocon agenda, went after Syria and the Iranian Nuclear Deal. 

Rick Sterling on the Supposed Assad Chemical Attack in Syria

Investigative journalist Rick Sterling joins Scott to discuss his latest article for Consortium News, “Taking the World to the Brink.” Sterling describes what he’s seen in his time in Syria and shares his perspective on the war and the most recent chemical attack in Douma. Sterling then explains why he’s very skeptical, once again, that the Syrian government is responsible for the latest chemical attack. Scott and Sterling discuss the failures of U.S. foreign policy generally, and then consider why the reception to ridding Mosul of Islamist terrorists was received so differently form Syria.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement. Read more of his work at Consortium News.

Discussed on the show:

1. Douma, Syria
2. Jaysh al-Islam
3. “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” by Seymour Hersh (London Review of Books)
4. “The Obama Doctrine,” by Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic)
5. “4/6/17 Philip Giraldi says IC-Military Doubt Assad Gas Narrative” (The Scott Horton Show)
6. “Trump’s Red Line,” by Seymour Hersh (Welt)
7. “Syrian Chemicals Destroyed on U.S. Ship” (Arms Control Association)
8. Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, by Robert Dreyfuss

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen CashThe War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.comRoberts and Roberts Brokerage; and


“And ask yourself how has it profited Assad?  Please, engage your brain.  Answer the question”

h/t Daniel McAdams at the Ron Paul Institute

00:30  The worst case is that Trump does launch off with some very unwise multiple attacks on Syria, and given that Russian forces are deeply embedded with Syrian forces particularly air defense it’s highly likely that scores of Russian soldiers will be killed.  [U.S. forces already killed 200 Russian soldiers.  Sad to say that this is escalating and escalating fast.]  If anyone thinks that Russia will take that just lying down, I think they need to think again.  Russian planes in the last 12 hours have been buzzing U.S. destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Please, I think everybody needs to take a deep breath before something truly horrible occurs affecting the security of us all including in this country.  We have forces in Syria.  The government don’t like to talk about this but one was sadly killed a few days ago, revealing the extent of our existing military involvement in Syria.  So at the very least our own forces would be exposed to grave danger.  

. . . 

2:00  What should be the response of the use of these chemical weapons if it’s proved?

2:02  The correct response is obviously, and I think a child could see this, is to get inspectors onto the alleged sites of the alleged offenses.  And in fact in the last few hours, Russia has offered to provide military escorts for inspectors from the recognized body in this field, The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW.

And if it’s proved, then what?  Because, of course, we know that Assad has form on this.  We’ve had investigations previously.  And there has been fairly conclusive proof that chemical agents have been used.  

Ah, I don’t think that Assad is in the least worried that the inspectors would find out his guilt because he’s probably not guilty at least not on this occasion.  We have to engage our brains as well as our emotions here not be stampeded by those videos which describe those being unverified but which by dent of being repeated over and over and over again come to acquire a spurious credibility.  We have to ask ourselves what are the sources of the information on which we’re on the stamped to war–they are twofold.  I am sorry but the media is falling down on the job in investigating this.  The source is the Syrian American Medical Society, which is a pro-Islamist propaganda outfit based in the United States funded by the CIA . . . 

3:37  so you’re saying these pictures have been staged, that people haven’t died, that people haven’t been  . . . ?

3:42  Yes!  in all probability, the incident has been staged.  Come on, we know how easy it is to fake images for the internet.  Look at the images.  Anybody could stage those.  And then the second source is supposed to be so-called responders who are the first responders?  In this case, they are the White Helmets. which is another pro-Islamist, pro-Jihadi propaganda outfit . . . 

4:16  this is a  lot of effort to discredit Assad, isn’t it . . .

4:18  Please let me finish . . . please let me finish this important point.  The witnesses to this terrible event were themselves involved in beheadings, literally picking up the body parts and we choose to give credence to testimony to these alleged first-responders . . . 

4:38  But Assad’s reputation is already . . . 

4:43  Please don’t interrupt . . . let me finish . . . 

4:45  I’m trying to ask you a question to prove your point you’re making . . . 

4:50  The BBC does not allow questions of important detail to be addressed . . . 

4:55  We have a short period of time.  I’m trying to prove your point of what you’re saying.  The point is that surely that surely Assad’s reputation is already dented.  What would be in the interest of these people to stage these events?  

Isn’t that not obvious?  A child can see that the intention is to produce the hysteria and now the military action that we are on the point of taking, risking our own safety.  What the jihadis have done is jerk our leash.  And frankly, for one, I think it’s pretty disgusting that we are allowing ourselves to have our own leash jerked by these Islamist fanatics.  And ask yourself how has it profited Assad?  Please, engage your brain.  Answer the question.  How has Assad benefitted from all this mayhem?  In fact, it’s rebounded against him.  Why would he do such a thing when he was already winning?  The battle for Eastern Ghouta was virtually over.  Why would he choose this moment to do the one thing that was guaranteed to pluck defeat from him in the jaws of victory? 

UPDATE, 04/13/2018:


Note how the media runs this war for the War Departments in the U.S., Britain, and I am sure in France.  They frame the opinion outright, as in this case where the Former Commander of British Armed Forces in Iraq, Jonathan Shaw, is cut off by SkyNews reporter, Sam Washington, apologizing to him as his internal gaze on what just happened is fixed in disbelief. 

Sky News cut off the former commander of British Armed Forces Jonathan Shaw in Iraq during Syria discussion after he said the gas attack in Douma was a false-flag.

h/t Michael Rivero

A newsflash ribbon pinned to the bottom of the screen reads BREAKING NEWS: UK’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SAYS RUSSIAN HAVE BEN SPYING ON SERGEI & YULIA SKRIPAL FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.  So the interview is used to blame Assad AND Russia or at the very least show Russian complicity in a chemical attack.  It’s since been established that the UK staged the chemical attack on Syrian children.  The details of this report are incredible.  It turns out that the Syrian American Medical Society received its funding, up to 58% of its funding, from U.S. Aid, which has close ties to the U.S. State Department.  This is in the truest sense of the word a true false flag. 

Russia Times’ Senior Correspondent, Murad Gazdiev, provides you with the latest as well as all the important details that you’ll miss from mainstream.  What bothers me is the U.S. mainstream news stations, which are dying, try to portray the proxy conflict with Russia as an old Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.  It’s not that.  Not by a long-shot.  First, Russia is western by most standards.  They are European.  Even Stephen F. Cohen said that Putin is more European than some holdover from the Eastern Bloc.  And so in this context, it becomes a threat between two western countries who are trying to impose their will onto the other.  We’ve already seen China reciprocate with tariffs AFTER the U.S. imposed tariffs on them.  

World War III Is Not Imminent

by Michael Rozeff @

Russia doesn’t have to respond in force to American bombs, and it doesn’t have to engage the U.S. forces directly. All it has to do is outlast the Americans. That’s all that Assad or a successor to him have to do.

The Taliban has shown in Afghanistan that Americans can be defeated, just as Ho Chi Minh showed in Vietnam. Before that, both China and North Korea showed that American forces can be neutralized.

America’s leaders are living on myths of American superiority. Trump’s shiny new and smart missiles are a graphic example of this kind of thinking, as is Obama’s “American exceptionalism” and Rumsfeld’s “shock and awe”. They’re all living in a dream world.

America is committing suicide by degrees. Russia need only exercise patience as we kill ourselves. What are thought to be nickel and dime wars and engagements turn out to be long lasting sponges that soak up enormous resources. Russia and China need only wait.

The U.S. government has outmoded second generation military forces that are incapable of conducting 4GW (fourth generation warfare). The U.S. leadership is poor. It doesn’t think ahead. It focuses on unimportant side issues. It acts emotionally. It’s motivated at times by moral considerations that are irrelevant, and then at other times it ignores moral issues that are of great importance. To top it off, the U.S. makes huge strategic blunders, as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere. American taxpayers are stretched thin paying for expensive military hardware that cannot deal with foes who are prepared to fight the Americans for 100 years if they have to. Americans are losing the spirit, morale and trust to maintain a far-flung empire.

Russia doesn’t have to engage the U.S. to the point where World War III starts. If it understands America’s weaknesses, it can wait while we self-destruct.

“Russia will ensure that what happened in Libya does not repeat” —Vladimir Putin

by Melkulangara Bhadrakumar  and originally posted at the Ron Paul Institute.

Jet 5a0396e5-490e-4e55-a455-699240b3829c

The United Nations Security Council turned down a compromise resolution on Syria, proposed by Sweden and seconded by Russia seeking investigation on the alleged chemical attack in Douma. Five countries supported the resolution with two permanent members – United States and Britain – opposing it. Earlier, a resolution on the same lines which was supported by Russia and China was also opposed by the US and Britain.

This is a significant political and diplomatic victory for Russia insofar as only two other countries joined the US and Britain to oppose the Swedish resolution. Six countries abstained.

The big question is whether this development portends an impending US attack on Syria, bypassing the UN. The UN has refused to confirm there has been any attack at all. Russia and Syrian government insist there has been no attack and have approached the Organization for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for an international investigation. The good thing is that the OPCW is deputing two teams of experts to go to Douma later this week. Russia has offered to give them full security protection.

So Trump has a major decision to make. Logically, punishment follows a crime that has been committed and it seems no crime has been committed. This appears to be a false flag operation – that is, a fabrication with a view to trigger a sequence of events. That was how the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and it is an established fact today that Saddam Hussein did not have any program to develop weapons of mass destruction, as then US Secretary of State Colin Powell had misled the UN Security Council. (Powell later admitted that he was misled by his own administration.)

One difference in the present case is that Trump has been on record that he wants the American military presence in Syria to end. That stance and the present threat to launch an attack on Syria are contradictory. Because, a US attack on Syria will have serious repercussions, including possibly a showdown with Russia, which would mean a US drawdown in Syria may not be possible in a conceivable future.

Perhaps, Trump is indulging in doublespeak and the backdrop could be the criticality that has arisen over Robert Mueller’s investigation into his collusion with Russia, which has now dramatically expanded in scope. The FBI raid on the office of Trump’s attorney in the White House is a very serious development. Trump is just inches away from being implicated in the charges against him levelled by porn star Stormy Daniels. The CNN says, “There could be dark and unprecedented times ahead.”

A US attack on Syria can distract attention from the stormy controversy that may arise if at this point Trump axes Mueller and derails the investigation against him. There are precedents when beleaguered American presidents resorted to diversionary tactic. Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles at Kandahar when the scandal over Monica Lewinsky peaked and he was facing the prospect of impeachment.

That brings us back to the alleged chemical attack in Douma last weekend. Who would have staged a false flag operation? The finger of suspicion points toward Israel’s role. Israel is desperately keen that the US should have a permanent military presence in Syria. To that end, Israel is fueling tensions that will take matters to a point that a US withdrawal from Syria somehow gets stalled. This is also the impression conveyed by DebkaFile, the Israeli website with links to the intelligence, which specializes in disinformation tactic.

The coincidental Israeli attack on a Syrian air base on Sunday had all the hallmarks of a deliberate act of provocation. Four Iranian military advisors were killed in the Israeli raid. Israel must be hoping against hope that the Iranians will retaliate, leading to a flare-up where the US would get pitted against Iran at some point. Such subterfuges are typical of Israel’s strategy. The point is, Israelis lacks the capacity on its own to tackle the challenge of the expanding Iranian influence in next-door Syria.

Trump has reportedly cancelled a planned trip to Latin America. The New York Times has reported that Trump is weighing “more robust” military strikes against Syria. No doubt, tensions are rising. To my mind, however, Trump may not order an attack on Syria. Maybe it’s wishful thinking — frankly, I am a man of peace and am terrified of war — but I’ll explain why there is reason to believe still that sanity will ultimately prevail in Washington.

First, a US attack on the Syrian regime at this stage of the 7-year old war doesn’t make sense insofar as it cannot stop President Bashar Al-Assad on his tracks from attaining total victory. Bashar’s victory is a fait accompli. Period.

On the other hand, in order for the Syrian regime to be degraded to a point — like in Libya for example — and deposed from power, there has to be a massive western military intervention, including deployment of ground forces in tens of thousands. That seems improbable, given the level of disenchantment in Europe regarding Trump. So, the US has to go alone — at best with the (British) poodle. In such an enterprise, what does US hope to gain? Again, the chaos that follows will be beyond imagination.

Indeed, the risk of escalation is exceedingly high and that is not in the interests of Trump’s “America First.” By the way, hey, what about the “trade war” with China? What about the meet with Kim Jong Un? What about Afghanistan? What about Yemen? Above all, will another Middle Eastern war go down well in the US opinion? Will the US Congress support an attack on Syria when American interests are not directly facing threat?

Finally, the US cannot afford to overlook the explicit – and repeated – Russian warnings at various levels that an American attack on Syria will have grave consequences. Trump would know Vladimir Putin is “smart” and means business when he says something to the effect that Russia will ensure that what happened in Libya does not repeat. (TASS)

However, the Syrian conflict is approaching yet another new flashpoint. Make no mistake, Israel will have to pay a price for the killing of the Iranian 4 military advisors. The powerful Iranian statesman, Ali Akbar Velayati has has explicitly stated as much. Indeed, Israel is going to be in real fix if Trump now decides not to attack Syria.

The author is a retired Indian diplomat.

Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline.