President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, a Role Analysis

January 14, 2017

I originally wrote this biography/role analysis on 12th May 2015 when I played the role of Rouhani in a simulation for one of my Middle East units. It has essentially survived the test of time, however I have more recently become aware of the work of one Thomas Wictor. While I will be analysing Mr. Wictor’s work in detail in the (hopefully not too distant) future, it does appear that his assertion that a somewhat covert alliance between Israel and the Arab League countries is cleaning up the Jihadists across the Middle East is essentially correct. This means that the Globalist Criminal Syndicate’s Islamisation agenda, particularly its Greater Iran agenda, has probably been completely derailed.

That multi-decade agenda is quite real, as this video briefly outlines:-


The original biography now follows.


Iran's President Hassan Rouhani smiles during a session at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 23, 2014. REUTERS/Ruben Sprich (SWITZERLAND - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani smiles during a session at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 23, 2014. REUTERS/Ruben Sprich (SWITZERLAND – Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)


The seventh and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)0, Hassan Rouhani, appears to be an appropriately placed actor for the role which Iran is playing in the Middle Eastern and Central Asian geopolitical theatre. According to Dr. Clifton W. Sherrill, in his analysis of the 2013 election in which Rouhani attained the Presidency, Rouhani ‘…was the only candidate who could be described as a moderate’.1 At face value, this may be a reasonable description. Indeed, the Iranian state owned – but ostensibly independent – Press TV2 reported that Rouhani ‘…will prepare a “civil rights charter” if he succeeds in winning the presidential election.’3 There are however grounds to be sceptical of his Human Rights credentials. Certainly, Iranian Human Rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Abadi4 has highlighted ‘…a rise in executions since [Rouhani] took office…’ and has stated that ‘…[Rouhani] may have a reputation as a moderate reformer but so far the new government was sending “bad signals” on human rights.’5

It is nonetheless noteworthy, however, that Rouhani is being portrayed as something of a Human Rights oriented Iranian President.


Dr. Sherrill’s analysis6 paints a picture of a regime whose ‘democratic’ machinery is still largely under the control of the IRI’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei and the clerical elite which he represents. It seems that the Iranian regime, while essentially stable, is certainly not immune to internal conflicts. Apparently, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became something of a threat to the clerical elite – as well as undermining the perception of the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of the Iranian public –  making it necessary for him to be politically disciplined. According to Sherrill, Rouhani is ‘…[Khamanei’s]…ideal candidate, a respected cleric who appealed to moderates but was loyal to the system.’7 Given that Rouhani worked closely with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for years before the 1979 Iranian revolution, and has been a key regime insider since,8 Sherrill’s assertion is certainly plausible from the perspective of domestic Iranian politics. But what of international politics?


It is reasonably well known that the IRI wields considerable influence with Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen,9 Hamas in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority.10 However, in order to gain a more accurate picture of the relationship between the IRI and the US – and Rouhani’s role in it – it is necessary to digress briefly and to look beyond the often incendiary rhetorical exchanges between Iranian and Western (primarily US) leaders. The political and media analysis website, The Emperor’s New Clothes (TENC) began investigating the US-Iran relationship in 2003. Its investigation revealed that the US and other Western powers have a semi-covert and generally pro-Islamist foreign policy and, relevantly here, a foreign policy designed to boost the prestige of Iranian Islamism.11 The military destruction of Ba’athist Iraq and its effective conversion into Iran’s western province is the clearest example of this.12

Historian and social scientist Dr. Francisco Gil-White has further investigated this geopolitical relationship and found that much of the theatre surrounding it is designed to send a message that ‘…the Iranians are tough mothers’13 and draws a historical analogy between the current ‘appeasement’ of Iran’s nuclear program and the pre-WW2 allied ‘appeasement’ of Nazi Germany, cautioning that ‘History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. We should take heed, because antisemites are dangerous to us all. In World War II more than 54 million non-Jews lost their lives. For Hitler we were ‘subhumans’; for Khamenei, ‘infidels.’ Will the outcome be very different?’14

Unfortunately, this brief digression does not do true justice to the hypothesis of semi-covert US boosting of the prestige of the IRI, so interested readers are invited to listen to an interview of Dr. Gil-White by Israel National Radio’s Tamar Yonah,15 and view an abundance of supporting evidence.16

So, where does Rouhani fit into this scenario?


It appears that Iran is being set up to play an increasingly important role in the geopolitical system. It is strategically placed at the intersection of the Middle East and Eurasia and is likely to play a pivotal role in what geopolitical strategist, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called ‘The Grand Chessboard’.17 While, in the past, it was not politically possible for the US to be openly supportive of the IRI, with the ostensibly ‘moderate liberal’ and ‘Human Rights oriented’ Hassan Rouhani in the Presidency, it is now possible for the US-Iranian relationship to become quite open and appear to be the result of incidental evolution rather than covert design.

As a highly educated and intelligent man18 who has played a major role in Iran’s nuclear program,19 Rouhani is also in a position to assist in an engineered genocide of the Israeli Jews – an ambition which Iranian leaders have made no secret of.

A scenario which may unfold is this:- Iran, through the use of propaganda, ‘encouraging’ Israel to unilaterally attack its nuclear facilities, resulting in significant nuclear contamination of civilian areas. Then, Iran could ‘graciously’ not retaliate, and instead call on international inspectors who then reveal to the World that the destroyed and contaminated sites were not involved in weapons production at all. Then, antisemites across the World, echoing the Protocols of Zion, can declare ‘See! We told you the Jews cause wars. They attacked peaceful Iran!’

The rest will become history.

Of course, such a horrendous scenario need not become a reality. However, given the history of genocidal attacks on the Jews, and the stated intentions of Iranian leaders, it would be prudent to keep such scenarios in mind in order to avoid their coming to fruition.

As President Hassan Rouhani would likely agree, we do indeed live in interesting times.

Whether or not that’s a Chinese curse20 is anyone’s guess.








1    Why Hassan Rouhani Won Iran’s 2013 Presidential Election.

Middle East Policy, Vol. XXI, No. 2, Summer 2014 (‘Sherrill‘) p. 64


3    ‘Expediency Council member Rohani to run for president’Apr 11, 2013.



5    ‘Ebadi Criticizes Rohani’s Rights Record’ November 06, 2013. <;

6    Sherrill p. 64 – 75

7    Ibid p. 74



10  Gil-White, F. ‘PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship’ 25 May 2010 [revised and improved, 8 September 2010].



12  Israel, J. ‘Strengthen Iran, Contain Iraq…’ 26 April 2003. <;; Gil-White, F. ‘Bush Jr.’s War on Iraq A general introduction’ 1 Dec 2005 <;

13  Gil-White, F. ‘The Iranian Hostage Crisis – Again. Is this hostage crisis different from the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis?’ 3 April 2007.


14  Gil-White, F. ‘ ‘SUBHUMANS’ RHYMES WITH ‘INFIDELS’. Netanyahu, Obama, Iran, nuclear bombs, and a new Munich’ 20 March 2015.


15  ‘The Laws of Moses: Why the NWO and Globalists Seek Israel’s Destruction’ Nov 15, 2012.



17  Brzezinski, Z. ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives’ 1998.







January 2, 2017

[Originally written on the 8th October 2014]


The advent of New Media technologies has opened up a hitherto unknown potential for interactive Human communication. Notwithstanding the fact that, currently, the majority of people on this planet do not have meaningful if any access to these technologies, the potential for a future in which Humanity can more freely interact nevertheless remains.

However, such an exciting and liberated future could easily remain a mirage. Without more than just these technologies to bring it, it surely will.

The purpose of this essay is to address the notion of ‘constructed reality’ – which of course must address the construction of the perception of reality. I will be defending a thesis which maintains that the ability of New Media to enable an increasing number of people to play a meaningful role in ‘constructing reality’ will be squandered if not destroyed unless the nature of our current political reality is better understood and consequently dealt with.




In its simplest terms reality is what actually is. This can be – and often is – at significant odds to how we perceive what actually is. As an example, we may perceive a ‘friend’ on a social media site such as Facebook, and someone we haven’t actually met, to be an actual friend – someone we can trust. We may perceive them in this way for many reasons such as the friendly nature of comments we’ve exchanged with them; the appealing nature of their avatar or other graphical depictions on their page; various memes they’ve shared which resonate with us; or the fact that they’ve ‘defended’ us in hostile comment exchanges with third parties. All of this may convince us that they’re trustworthy enough to share some personal information with, which we then do. Then – they use this information against us in some way. Brad Warren (2012, p. 147) provides a realistic (if fictional) example of this in the context of web-based scams, and then goes on to explain (p. 148) that such scams prey ‘…on the vulnerable, seeking people willing to hope…’. Of course, it’s important to point out that this basic dynamic isn’t even remotely unique to New Media platforms. Indeed, it is doubtful that there are many people who, in a standard interpersonal context, haven’t had their trust betrayed in somewhat similar ways. The point here is that conduct of a manipulative nature relies for its efficacy on the psychological vulnerabilities and proclivities of the target. As such conduct necessarily works to the detriment of the target, it follows that those who engage in it are engaging in a form of psychological warfare which can only be successful if the target’s perception of what actually is diverges significantly from what actually is.

From all of this, we can begin to see what the notion of ‘constructed reality’ is truly about. In the above Facebook example, our ‘friend’ has constructed actual things – comments, graphics, memes, etc. – which serve to convince us that they’re trustworthy. We then actually impart our personal information to them – that is, we construct a condition whereby we’ve left ourselves vulnerable (as nobody else can). In other words, both we and our Facebook ‘friend’ have mutually constructed a reality in which we’ve acted against our own interest while perceiving the exact opposite. It’s important to point out at this juncture that the notion of constructed reality need not imply malicious deception and manipulation. What is important for the purposes of this discussion is the acknowledgement that when we allow others to play a significant role in determining the nature of our perception of reality, we leave ourselves open to constructing reality on behalf of those others rather than on behalf of ourselves.


In his multipart series which provides an analysis of psychological warfare, social scientist Dr. Francisco Gil-White (5th February 2014, P1) drawing on the work of historian Christopher Simpson (1994), demonstrates how the US Power Elite in the post WW2 era utilised the psychological warfare establishment to corrupt academia by creating a ‘communication research’ infrastructure. This infrastructure was utilised to train those who would go on to work in such fields as journalism, advertising, and public relations. The practical effect of all this was the creation of a media superstructure which deploys ‘psychological weapons’ against an unsuspecting public – and all this with many or even most of those working for it doing so quite innocently. All of this may sound quite ominous and overpowering, however it need not, as the path to defeating an attacker begins with knowing One is being attacked and then understanding the nature of the attack.

Gil-White goes a long way in doing this (5th February 2014, P2) by explaining that psychological warfare relies on grammatical rules for its efficacy. By providing examples from English sentence construction and from the culture of Mongolian nomads whom he studied, he provides us with the lesson ‘That every domain of behavior, in every culture, has a grammar: a set of rules, explicit or implicit, to specify ‘well-formed’ or ‘correct’ or grammatical behavior…’. Drawing on Mike Rapport’s (2008) history of the European revolutions of 1848, Gil-White maintains that one of the results of those revolutions – which were inspired by Enlightenment values – is that Western political grammar was substantially altered. Western Power Elites have been somewhat constrained by the change to a ‘left-liberal’ political grammar – that is, as at no other time in history, Power Elites must at least pay lip service to Enlightenment values. I observe at this juncture that Gil-White’s political grammar hypothesis, as well as explaining much about political and media behaviour, could likely play a role in demystifying the seemingly paradoxical collusion between the Military-Industrial-Complex and ‘1960s anarchic communalists’ to effectively create the kind of New Media cyberculture we enjoy today (Turner, 2006).

In order for a tyrannical Power Elite to give effect to policies which a public operating pursuant to a ‘left-liberal’ political grammar would normally oppose, it is necessary to construct in the minds of that public a misapprehension of what actually is, in order that said public be motivated to construct the reality which said Power Elite require. As Gil-White puts it ‘People want to defend their modern rights and liberties? Let them, says the elite psychological (or political) warrior; we’ll just feed them a false picture of reality. Their natural allies will appear as monsters to be slayed, and the monsters will seem victims in need. In this way, Westerners will destroy their democratic system while believing they defend it.'(5th February 2014, P2).

Fortunately, what may appear to be a bleak situation is not irretrievably dire. Far from it. In his concluding statements to this part of his analysis, Gil-White declares ‘Is this all hopeless? No. The dominant political grammar is still the one forged in 1848—it belongs to the people. The power elites are playing in our field.’


Can the advent of New Media technologies aid ordinary people in the fight to prevent the imposition of the misanthropic agendas of the Power Elite? Yes, however such technologies represent a tool, not a solution per se – more is needed.

The Power Elite – or at least, major factions of it – are quite identifiable. Professor Antony Sutton (1925 – 2002) produced an enormous body of work which documented that the major geopolitical forces of the 20th century such as Nazism, Bolshevism and Soviet Communism, were actually sponsored by the same entities which dominate the Western bodies politic and economic – that is, the Power Elite. Many others also have documented the existence and agendas of the Power Elite. New Media has enabled this kind of research and analysis to reach a far wider audience than it ever could before, and has enabled a broad spectrum of ordinary people to contribute to it as never before, leading to the proliferation of conspiracy cultures across the internet. The basic reason for this is that the Power Elite – a small group whose agendas are ungrammatical to most people, and thus must keep their agendas relatively secreted – must quite naturally conspire, thus any analysis of their agendas will quite naturally reflect this.

The scholarly books and articles I have read (Aupers, 2012; Knight,2000; Locke, 2009; Sommers, 2011) which analyse conspiracy culture, while providing interesting insights, are limited in that they essentially make observations and analyses of the sociological reasons for and impact of conspiracy cultures, and the psychological proclivities of conspiracy theorists. They provide virtually no observations or analyses about the quality of what conspiracy cultures actually produce. Even a relatively sympathetic review limits itself to arguing that ‘…conspiracy culture is a radical and generalized manifestation of distrust…produced by processes of modernization.’ (Aupers, 2012, p.22), rather than considering – for example – the possibility that said distrust is produced by processes of radical and generalised analysis of evidence pertaining to a conspiracy. This is somewhat like – if we use the analogy of a police detective who brings some Mafia members before a Court – focussing on the psychological motives of the detective, rather than on whether or not he has a case. It makes a kind of sense that the better elements of conspiracy cultures – that is, those elements which fulfil the roles of detectives, researchers and analysts with integrity, and who are thus constructing maps of reality – would be largely ignored in this way. For reasons already discussed, the Power Elite have an interest in ensuring that scrutiny of their activities is kept to a minimum. It should therefore come as no surprise that the media superstructure has made efforts to ensure that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ has a pejorative connotation (Gil-White, 4th October 2005). Returning briefly to the above Mafia analogy, considering that the Mafia have been known to have their agents inside police departments for the purposes of sabotaging investigations into them, is it not therefore likely that the Power Elite would have agents working within conspiracy cultures for the purposes of rendering them largely useless as a force for holding the Power Elite accountable? It would seem so. Considering that general public access to New Media technologies represents a potential threat to the perceptions management function of the media superstructure, it would be extraordinary if their wasn’t an effort to sabotage this new investigative utility.

Activist Andrew Johnson has produced a scholarly online book which documents inter alia the ‘…ongoing censorship of Dr Judy Wood’s research’ and expresses the view that ‘It is perhaps impossible to overstate how profound and far-reaching the implications of Dr Wood’s findings truly are.’ (Johnson, 2011, p.2). Dr. Wood is the author of the seminal book Where Did the Towers Go? (2010) – an enormous body of evidence pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Centre on 9/11 which has yet to be rebutted by any of her detractors. The censorship which Johnson refers to  pertains to the efforts of Wood’s detractors to stifle distribution and discussion of her work, misrepresent it, as well as censor mention of her or her work on Wikipedia (Johnson, 2011, p. 285-287). Significantly, those identified as being responsible for this are leading figures and organisations within the so-called ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ (Sommers, 2011) – a movement which is certainly part of conspiracy culture and which purports to ‘expose the truth about 9/11’ and demand ‘a new investigation’ into the 9/11 attacks. Considering that Wood’s work represents largely what this movement purports to desire, the key agenda of her leading detractors is quite clear. Regardless of all this, thanks to New Media, numerous video presentations and podcast interviews featuring Wood and Johnson are readily available to anyone with access to New Media technologies and the ability to use a search engine, so their work still likely reaches an increasing audience albeit at an attenuated rate.


In concluding, I would ask my noble readers to give thought to ways and means by which we can work to improve the quality of user generated content and thus improve the quality of the reality we are constructing together. As we have seen, the dominant constructors of reality have values which are at significant odds with the values most of us possess. While New Media technologies have lessened the power of the media superstructure at least slightly, it is clear that more than the mere proliferation of these technologies is required. It is axiomatic that there is a lot of extremely bad information available on the internet, and that this has real effects in the real World. If all New Media does is merely enable more people to spread more bad information, then it will have failed as a tool for Human liberation. Maybe, some kind of voluntary merit-based system needs to be created – something which can effectively provide an ethical and quality anchor for ‘produsers’. While obviously more thought needs to be given to this, it seems clear that something along these lines needs to be created if we are to create a New Media infrastructure which enables us to construct a reality we can be proud of.




                  LIST OF REFERENCES


Aupers, S. 2012, ‘ ‘Trust no one’: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture’

European Journal of Communication, vol 27, no.1, pp. 22-34.


Gil-White, F. 4 October 2005 ‘What is conspiracy theory? Is this website doing it?’


Gil-White, F. 5 February 2014 (P1) ‘Psychological warfare, communication research, and the media’


Gil-White, F. 5 February 2014 (P2) ‘Political grammar : How does psychological warfare work?’


Johnson, A. 2011 ‘9/11: Finding the Truth’ 3rd Edition


Knight, P. 2000 ‘Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to the X-Files’

Routledge, London


Locke, S. 2009 ‘Conspiracy culture, blame culture, and rationalisation’

The Sociological Review, vol 57, no 4, pp. 567-585.


Rapport, M. 2008 ‘1848: Year of Revolution’

Little, Brown Book Group, London


Simpson, C. 1994 ‘Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare’

Oxford University Press, New York


Sommers, S. 2011 ‘Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies?’

Skeptic Magazine, vol 16, no 2, pp. 13-16.



Sutton, A. ‘Published Works of ANTONY C SUTTON’

See also ‘Antony Sutton-1976 Lecture (Full Length)’

and ‘The Best Enemies Money Can Buy – An Interview with Professor Antony C. Sutton’


Turner, F. 2006 ‘From Counterculture to Cyberculture’

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.


Warren, B. 2012 ‘Constructed Reality: What’s ‘Real’ Nowadays?’ in

Chapter 13 ‘Communication, New Media and Everyday Life’

Oxford University Press, South Melbourne


Wood, J. 2010 ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11’

The New Investigation,

See also


Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a Biography

January 2, 2017

I originally wrote this biography on 16th September 2014 when I played the role of al-Sisi in a simulation for one of my Middle East units. It’s essentially survived the test of time, however I have more recently become aware of the work of one Thomas Wictor. While I will be analysing Mr. Wictor’s work in detail in the (hopefully not too distant) future, it does appear that his assertion that a somewhat covert alliance between Israel and the Arab League countries is cleaning up the Jihadists across the Middle East is essentially correct. This means that the Globalist Criminal Syndicate’s Islamisation agenda, particularly its Greater Iran agenda, has probably been completely derailed. The original biography now follows.




The sixth and current President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil al-Sisi is something of an enigma. According to Daily News Egypt,1 al-Sisi was ‘…promoted to full General and appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defence and Military Production, replacing [Field Marshal Hussein] Tantawi.’ on or about 12th August 2012 by former President and Muslim Brotherhood member, Mohammed Morsi. The editors of Wikipedia describe this event as the promotion of the ‘…then little-known el-Sisi’ [My emphasis].2 Given that Wikipedia’s first entry on al-Sisi was only made on 12th August 2012,3 and that there is a dearth of scholarly articles about him, this description seems reasonable. According to the Egyptian State Information Service, al-Sisi is a highly accomplished career military officer whose hobbies include sports and reading.4 This is suggestive of a man possessing considerable intellectual prowess. However, in the context of the theatrical dramas of geopolitics, he was – until quite recently, of course – a ‘nobody’.

In order to get some understanding of how this ‘nobody’ has risen to geopolitical prominence, a brief overview of the geopolitical forces he is dealing with is necessary. In an analysis of the relevant diplomatic language and activities of members of the US Foreign Policy Establishment (including President Barack Hussein Obama), Dr. Francisco Gil-White posits the hypothesis that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) was – or, at the time his analysis was written, was about to be – essentially imposed on the Egyptian people by the US.5 Further evidence and analysis which gives credence to this hypothesis is provided by the editors of the media and political analysis website, The Emperor’s New Clothes (TENC). In particular, TENC’s analysis of Western media coverage regarding the MB,6 and of its coverage of the tumultuous ‘Arab spring’ events in Egypt,7 demonstrate that such a hypothesis is worthy of being put on the table if not accepted outright. Given this, it is quite clear that the very popularly backed coup led by al-Sisi against the MB government was definitely not wanted by the US Establishment. The analyses by TENC of post-coup media and diplomatic behaviour confirm this, as it is clearly shown that various Western leaders demanded that Egypt include the MB8 in any future government, and the Western media gave the impression that violent and fortified MB activists were essentially ‘peaceful protesters’ engaged in ‘sit-ins’ and ‘vigils’ who were being brutally suppressed by the Egyptian police and military.9 Given the enormous pressure placed on Egypt by the major Western powers, it is noteworthy that Egypt hasn’t folded. That is, it has not complied with ‘orders’ that the MB be allowed to be a part of the government. It is significant therefore that the US sought to ‘mend fences’ with Egypt by having US Secretary of State, John Kerry, meet with al-Sisi (at the time, the Defence Minister) in November 2013 at a time when al-Sisi was moving towards defence cooperation with Russia.10 This strongly suggests that al-Sisi is a shrewd political operator possessing a sophisticated understanding of the geopolitical forces he is obliged to contend with.

In early 2014, at a time when it was not entirely clear whether or not al-Sisi would run in the Presidential elections, Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Steven A. Cook, writing in his blog, urged al-Sisi not to run stating inter alia that it would be ‘Bad for [him]’ to do so.11 As the CFR – an ostensibly private organisation – wields enormous influence over US Foreign Policy12, this may suggest that the US preferred not to see al-Sisi attain the Egyptian presidency. Nevertheless, regardless of the wishes of the US (or any other Power), al-Sisi gained the Presidency in a landslide election victory.

According to a very recent article in the Times of India,13 al Sisi has told John Kerry in a meeting that any coalition against terrorism shouldn’t be limited to targeting ISIS but ‘…should extend to encompass combating terrorism wherever it exists in the Middle East and African regions.’ The article goes on to assert that Kerry’s coalition of 10 Arab states appear to be quite non-committal. If the little known about hypothesis which asserts that the US is covertly seeking to boost Iran’s prestige is correct – as an abundance of evidence suggests that it is14 – it seems likely that Kerry’s coalition will be unsuccessful, and that Iran will emerge as the ‘saviour’ by being the key force behind a future defeat of ISIS. If this becomes the case, it may be that al-Sisi is effectively calling Kerry’s bluff, and will be in a position to in effect state ‘I warned you that we needed to fight terrorism properly’, and maintain his prestige accordingly – this would likely enable him to convince Egypt’s Gulf allies of the imperative of ceasing their support for various terrorist groups.

As stated at the beginning, al-Sisi is something of an enigma. If he can maintain a high level of popularity among the Egyptian population, he will remain a regional player to be reckoned with. Without further data, it is quite impossible to gauge his agendas with any real precision. It may be that he is a political opportunist harnessing the winds of populism; a man committed to secularism in a region blighted by Islamic ‘extremism’; a man who represents a military caste who perceived that the US was about to ‘throw them under the bus’; a hitherto unknown political anomaly; or some combination of the above. Either way, by gaining Mohamed Morsi’s trust and thus obtaining a key position of influence; by defying the Will of the US by ousting the MB; by refusing to buckle to pressure exerted by foreign powers; and by doing all this in a manner which has made it politically impossible for the US and other foreign Powers to prevent, al-Sisi has demonstrated that he is a shrewd political operator who is prepared to play a high stakes game.


1    Aboulenein A. ‘Morsy assumes power: Sacks Tantawi and Anan, reverses constitutional decree and reshuffles SCAF’ 12 August 2012.

2 Accessed 14 September 2014


4    Archived from 13 November 2013.

5    Gil-White F. ‘Here Comes the Muslim Brotherhood’. 9 May 2011.

6    Israel J. ‘Fact-checking the Muslim Brotherhood’. 4 March 2011. ; Israel J. ‘Egypt: Colonialism, terror and deceit’. 4 March 2011.

7    Israel J., Criscione S. ‘How The New York Times Lied About Egypt’. 4 May 2011.

8    Israel J., Criscione S. ‘Germany, the U.S. and the EU push to save their clerical fascist pet in Egypt’. 30 July 2013.

9    Israel J., Criscione S. ‘Egypt: Sit-ins?  Or terror camps?  What’s in a name?’. 18 August 2013.

10 ‘Egypt’s Sisi looks ahead to new defence cooperation with Russia’. Asharq Al-Awsat. 14 November 2013.

11 Cook S. ‘Do Not Run, al-Sisi…Do Not Run’. 14 January 2014.

12 Gil-White F. ‘What is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?’ 4 March 2008.

13 Reuters. ‘Egypt’s Sisi says coalition must battle Islamic State and others’. 14 September 2014.

14 Articles accessible via <> and


December 31, 2016

The text under analysis here is an episode of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror series called ‘The Entire History of You’ (2011). Like all of the episodes of this series which I have currently seen, this episode does not appear to espouse an ideology per se. Rather, the genius of texts of this nature lie in their taking ideologies which the audience has likely internalised – and thus normalised – and reflecting them back through novelties embedded within their narratives, creating a situation where the audience is confronted with hitherto unseen consequences of said ideologies. The meanings which will be looked at here are those pertaining to surveillance, sousveillance, and transhumanism.

The episode begins within what appears to be a fairly standard present-day boardroom, in which a young lawyer named Liam is being appraised by his corporate superiors. It’s all quite standard, though the significance of the phrases deployed in that scene such as ‘exhaustive redo’ and ‘major deletions’ is not made clear at that juncture. The novelty employed by the text is soon revealed:- a device called a ‘Grain’ – a sub-dermal implanted chip which records sensory information (sight, sound, smell, and more) which allows its possessor to ‘redo’ (read ‘relive’) any period in their recorded personal history. We are treated to a form of sousveillance – that is, ‘watching from below’ (Mann&Ferenbok, 2013, p. 19) – with Liam ‘redoing’ his appraisal in order to obtain a better insight into the attitude of his bosses (Appendix 1). That is, Liam is ‘watching his watchers’. However, for this to be truly sousveillant, the ‘mechanism of undersight and the power required to enact change [must be] approximately equal, [for] a kind of equiveillance..[to be] achieved’ (Ibid, p.29). It is clear that within this text that this necessary egalitarianism is not present. Indeed, a potentially leftist sousveillant paradigm in which the interests of the many are protected from the interests of the powerful few, is most likely utilised by a rightist surveillant paradigm in which the interests of the powerful few are protected from the interests of the many (Gil-White, 12th April 2006). This stark paradigmatic shift is portrayed in the scene where Liam is traversing airport security and is required to have his memories subjected to analysis by the security computer which, inter alia, performs facial recognition scans on the people he has seen (Appendix 2). This portrayal is amplified through the brief use of a camera angle which panoptically gazes down upon this security process through an upstairs window (Appendix 3). This dynamic is articulated by Michael Kowalski (2014) who suggests that ‘…[sousveillance] could be used by official oversight bodies to feed their own work‘ (p.284, Emphasis added), though it must be noted that he also suggests that ‘…civil society as such could also be strengthened by this kind of [grassroots] involvement’ – a theme not present in this narrative.

The social implications of the Grain are explored textually through the narrative device of a party which Liam arrives at and at which his wife, Fi,  is already present. It should be noted at this juncture that the Grain is the only item in this story which is futuristic. The houses and other props seem very much present-day and appear to portray what may be described as ‘middle class professional Brittania’. This is significant as it clearly implies that the Grain is not so much a representation of future technology, but a metaphor for current technology – the smartphone and related social media usage, it would seem. Curiously, the automobiles seen to be driven by the characters are all 1960s models, strongly suggestive of the notion that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ – that this a portrayal of a timeless Human condition, more than a Human future.

At the party, we are treated to the mundane and inane usages of the Grain as we witness one character redoing footage of frayed carpet in a 5 star hotel as he complains about the same, and the hedonistic and narcissistic character Jonas – who Liam takes an immediate dislike to and who, it is later revealed, his wife has been having an affair with – explaining how he masturbates to ‘redos’ of his previous sexual encounters. This is a reflection, not only of some of the mundane and inane uses to which current new media technologies are put, but of the concept of the spectacle, which Turner (1998) defines as ‘…an umbrella term suggesting…a “new opiate-of-the-masses,” or the “figuration of a radical shift in the way power functions noncoercively within…modernity” ‘ (p.95). Certainly, there is no indication that any of the characters are utilising Grain technology for any truly empowering purpose. It seems that, implicitly in the shadowy background, a ‘noncoercive’ power elite are utilising the mass deployment of Grain technology (read ‘new media technology’) for the purposes of maintaining what anthropologist Dr. Francisco Gil-White (August 2015) has dubbed a ‘sloppy totalitarian’ system.

This spectacle induced disempowerment is reflected in the text’s deployed term ‘redo’. It is axiomatic that someone who is a spectator of their own or others’ personal history is not re-doing anything. The notion of ‘redo’ here is a clear example of the ‘… [spectacular] moment when sign-value takes precedence over use-value’ (Turner, 1998, p.95).

The dysfunctional zeitgeist is further revealed in the characters’ reactions when it is revealed that the young woman, Hallam, does not possess a Grain as she was ‘gouged’ – that is, subjected to a criminal assault and theft of her Grain (a reflection of current ID theft and privacy invasion) – and who has not replaced it as she found she is happier without one. While not exactly shunned by the others because of this – and indeed receiving superficial expressions of sympathy – she is treated as something of a novelty who is brave and/or foolish for taking this stance. This is symptomatic of the spectacle tending ‘…to reduce the world and its inhabitants…into “mere representations,” encouraging us to see them as something less than they are: less real, less sustainable, less human’ (Turner, 1998, p.95). This attitude is reflected in the disapproving response and quizzical facial expression (Appendix 4) of the ‘Grain developer’ who manifests a transhumanist ideology. Transhumanism has been described by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson (2012) as a secularist faith, and by Steven Jensen (2014, p.215) as ‘…a movement that has lost sight of the simple goods in human life’. The views of these two academics are also given expression by vlogger Jarrod Schneider (YouTube, 21st December 2014) – who may be described as a lay-scholar/philosopher – in his highly esoteric discussion of transhumanism from an occulted and philosophical perspective. Schneider posits, inter alia, the notion that transhumanism must fail as its advocates have not determined what it actually is to be Human, nor do they advocate Humans (or ‘transhumans’) aligning themselves with ‘Universal Truth’.

The utter bankruptcy of transhumanism as a means to transcend the Human condition is exemplified by the sequence of events leading from Liam’s discovery, after a quasi-sousveillant investigation, that Jonas is the father of his child. It was after all Liam’s own Human intuition, not the Grain itself, which caused his suspicions to arise – the Grain merely provided the technological means for him to confirm his suspicions more easily. After the destruction of his marriage and fatherhood, we see Liam apparently wallowing in Grain memories with an expression on his face which may be anguish, or perhaps shock at how he’d deceived himself, or perhaps both – something which the Grain cannot provide relief from, as while it may have assisted Liam to discover a truth, it cannot assist him to discover the truth about his situation. The ‘eye-clouding’ effect of the Grain begs the question:- is our vision enhanced or diminished by transhumanist ideology? (Appendix 5)

As Liam gouges himself, the Grain ‘protests’ by sending a garbled tormenting stream of his personal history into his mind before the screen goes to the end credits, leaving us to ponder:- Just how evolved and advanced is Humanity, really?


WORD COUNT:1343 (Including citations; not including reference list & appendices)




Gil-White, F. 12 April 2006 ‘On the Orwellian use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right,’ and on the dangers therein to Israeli politics.’

Historical and Investigative Research


Gil-White, F. August 2015 ‘‘Sloppy’ totalitarianism : a much needed category of political analysis’

Historical and Investigative Research


Jensen, S.J. ‘The Roots of Transhumanism’

Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2014), pp. 515-541


Kowalski, M. ‘Between ‘sousveillance’ and applied ethics: practical approaches to oversight’

Security and Human Rights Vol.24 (2013) pp.280-285


Mann, S., and Ferenbok, J. ‘New Media and the Power Politics of Sousveillance in a Surveillance-Dominated World’

Surveillance and Society 11 (1/2) (2013) 18-34


Tirosh-Samuelson, H. ‘Transhumanism as a Secularist Faith’

Zygon, vol. 47, no. 4 (December 2012), pp. 710-734


Turner, J.S. ‘Collapsing the Interior/Exterior Distinction: Surveillance, Spectacle, and Suspense in Popular Cinema’

Wide Angle, Vol 20, No 4, October 1998, pp. 93-123


YouTube ‘Left-hand Apotheosis: Transhumanism and the Rulership’s Quest for Godhood (part one)’

Jarrod D. Schneider’s channel:-

21st December 2014


APPENDIX 1 – 2:57




                                                  APPENDIX 2 – 4:00



                                                    APPENDIX 3 – 4:10



                                                     APPENDIX 4 – 12:43



                                                 APPENDIX 5 – 46:21



Sousveillance as a Peoples’ Surveillance for Grassroots Intelligence Activism

September 17, 2015

The video I have created, ‘Sousveillance as a Peoples’ Surveillance for Grassroots Intelligence Activism’ represents a mere brief overview of a vast topic which holds the potential to play a key role in the liberation of Humanity. I invite you to view it, and to give further thought to the themes expressed within it.

The video is designed not so much to argue a case per se, but more to argue for an overall theme – namely, in part, that surveillance by ‘them’ is simply a reality which is unlikely to change at any time soon (if ever), and that solutions to the problems which this entails lie not in paranoia but in a citizenry empowering itself by utilising New Media technologies in an intelligent and responsible manner for the purposes of supervising those who have assumed the role of supervisors of the rest of us.

This is achieved textually by presenting notions provided by various scholars – which should transmit to the audience the message that ‘You are not alone. There are academics who give thought to your concerns’ – with those notions tied loosely together for the purposes of providing food for thought. In other words, the argument is made implicitly with the intention of keeping this field of thought wide open, rather than providing explicit dogmatic positions.

The video was made using Windows Movie Maker. I had originally intended using Wondershare Filmora – as it has a far more user-friendly interface – however, unfortunately, the watermark which the unregistered Filmora placed in the final video was unacceptably brazen. The slides within the video were produced using OpenOffice Impress (an analogue of Microsoft Powerpoint). Screenshots were then taken of these slides and imported into Movie Maker. Creative Commons images were sourced from Flickr. For the recording of my narration, I had to utilise my USB audio recorder, as the sound volume obtainable using my computer’s inbuilt microphone is grossly inadequate.

Gates and Magnet (2007) was useful to draw upon for the purposes of establishing surveillance as a matter for communications research; positing the notion of communication (and thus, surveillance/sousveillance) as a process for the production, maintenance, repairing and transformation of reality; and raising the possibility of surveillance as ‘us watching them’. Dr. Francisco Gil-White (2006) is drawn upon to raise the concept of the ‘free press’ being theoretically an agent for the public supervision of ‘the supervisors’, while demonstrating that it has been completely corrupted by the same totalitarian-esque forces which dominate the surveillance superstructure. Ganascia (2010) provides a salient warning about the dystopian dangers of surveillance technology, while providing examples of the use of sousveillance to counter those dangers. I was very impressed with Steve Mann’s (1998) analogous reference to the Situationist movement. Indeed, this has re-fired an interest in Situationism for me.

Certain material from two political movements which I’ve long taken an interest in – the Zionist movement with its grassroots investigations of the ‘Pallywood’ phenomena, and the so-called ‘Truth movement’ with its grassroots investigations of matters which are generally concealed by an unfortunate association with a perjorative connotation of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ – and which are both at or near the cutting edge of grassroots sousveillant intelligence analysis, are given passing reference to in the video. As well as hopefully attracting the attention of my more curious viewers, this reference enabled a segue to Dennis’ (2008) warnings about the abuse of sousveillance, Kowalski’s (2013) advocacy of grassroots intelligence analysis, and Mann and Ferenbok’s (2013) advocacy of utilising New Media technologies for the purposes of intelligent activism, and their indication that much more work needs to be done in this area.

Beyond the technical difficulties which are referred to above, the most challenging aspect of this assignment was drawing in a broad range of concepts which interest me, and presenting them in a reasonably coherent manner in the time available.

I feel that sousveillance likely holds a key to helping prevent Humanity from plunging into a dystopian nightmare of the kind we’ve never seen, and would likely never recover from.

WORD COUNT: 675 (Not including references)


Dennis, K. ‘Keeping a close watch – the rise of self-surveillance and the threat of digital exposure’

The Sociological Review Vol.56 No.3 (2008) pp.347-357

Ganascia, J.-G. ‘The generalized sousveillance society’

Social Science Information, 0539-0184; Vol.49 No.3 (2010) pp.489-507

Gates, K., and Magnet, S. ‘Communication Research and the Study of Surveillance’

The Communication Review Vol.10 (2007) 277-293

Gil-White, F. 3 January 2006 ‘Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press?’

Historical and Investigative Research

Kowalski, M. ‘Between ‘sousveillance’ and applied ethics: practical approaches to oversight’

Security and Human Rights Vol.24 (2013) pp.280-285

Mann, S. ‘ “Reflectionism” and “Diffusionism”: New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway’

LEONARDO Vol.31 No.2 (1998) pp.93-102

Mann, S., and Ferenbok, J. ‘New Media and the Power Politics of Sousveillance in a Surveillance-Dominated World’

Surveillance and Society 11 (1/2) (2013) 18-34


Journalism is the First Draft of History

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War

Further websites which analyse “Pallywood”

Special Report on the Boston Marathon: The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down (Part 1)

Youtube Channel of Betsy Lee McGee

9/11 Video & Radar Analysis by Richard D. Hall

Support website for the book ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11’ by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D

See also



bamco and karen eliot

bamco and karen eliot

bamco and karen eliot

Sousveillance - The Art of Inverse Surveillance - Conference at Aarhus University, February 6-8 2009

Stephanie's Drawing of Sousveillance and Surveillance

World Trade Center 9/11/01 attack memorial photo

World Trade Center 9/11/01 attack memorial photo

World Trade Center 9/11/01 attack memorial photo

Memorial 9/11 World trade center

Memorial 9/11 World trade center


August 13, 2015


Reflective Musings of a Cynical Optimist and

Misanthropic Humanitarian.

With the advent of New Media – albeit not particularly ‘new’ these days – various issues pertaining to the identity, celebrity, and prestige of those who utilise it arise quite naturally.

Having heavily utilised ‘New Media’ platforms – primarily in the form of the now defunct DIY news media site Melbourne Indymedia in both a contributory and editorial capacity – since the early 21st century, and then moving onto the YouTube platform in late 2006, I believe I can shed a relatively unique light on the limitations and the potentials of these platforms.

An exploration follows. I invite you to join me.

In his analysis of the sociological function of the celebrity, David Marshall explains that ‘…celebrity has been and is increasingly a pedagogical tool and specifically a pedagogical aid in the discourse of the self…’ and goes on to describe one of the purposes of the celebrity industry has been to ‘…[teach] generations how to engage and use consumer culture to ‘make’ oneself.’ (2010, p.36). This seems to imply that there exists an industry which seeks to ‘make people’. Perhaps more accurately, it seeks to convince people to adopt a certain range of marketable identities.

How might a celebrity market – or be used to market – identities? Joseph Henrich and Francisco J. Gil-White (2001) explore the evolution and psychology of prestige which they describe as ‘…noncoerced, interindividual, within-group, human status asymmetries…’ (p.166) which is distinguished from dominance which is described in terms of being the result of ‘force or force threat’ (p. 165). The authors explore these concepts in the context of cultural transmission or social learning – pedagogy. As celebrities do not rely on dominance in order to attain and maintain their status, it follows that they must rely on prestige – whether based on the merits of their works or the merits of a marketing department, is currently of no moment – in order to successfully impart elements of their identity to those who view them as prestigious.

As can be seen from the following screenshot of a very small sample of comments on my YouTube channel’s ‘discussion’ page, there are clearly some people who view my video (and likely, comments) work as being very valuable. That is, I have obtained a certain amount of prestige. That is, albeit in a quite modest way, I’m a celebrity.

YouTube_Discussion_Page                             Screenshot from YouTube Discussion Page

So, what elements of my identity may have enabled me to obtain this prestige?

Fleur Gabriel, in her analysis of the effects of social media use on youth (2014) has raised the notion of ‘Youth as performance’ (pp. 108 – 110), implying that ‘youthful identity’ is in part a product of ‘youthful performance’ – a result of actions. It seems that this notion can be extended to the concept of identity generally, reminiscent of the Biblical maxim ‘by their fruits you shall know them’.

My online work consists of primarily – though by no means exclusively – Geopolitical and social commentary and analysis. In the days when I was active on Melbourne Indymedia I posted under the psuedonym ‘Changeling’ in honour of the character in the 1990s sci-fi series Star Trek Deep Space Nine who I most empathised with, Odo. Odo was of a species of shapeshifters known as Changelings who could alter their form and shape at will and, in doing so, could begin to understand the existence of whatever thing they became (IMBd).

While I obviously can’t physically shapeshift in this way, I do have the ability to shift mindset in order to gain an understanding of different perspectives and to speak to those mindsets accordingly. This faculty enables me to more easily see where others may be in error and enables me to shine a new light on whatever matter is under discussion.

I am also able to analyse and articulate ‘conspiracy theories’ – a term which Dr. Francisco Gil-White (4th October 2005) demonstrates carries with it unnecessarily negative connotations – in a rational manner which doesn’t rely on paranoia for its efficacy.

I would humbly suggest that the elements of my identity – my online actions – which pertain to exposing absurdities, and articulating a path around them, are a key source of the prestige I have earned in the eyes of various others.

In an essay which I penned last year (2014) I posited the notion that New Media technologies have the potential to be a tool for Human liberation but that, without more, they will be little more than a tool which merely enables more people to spread more bad information more readily. I analysed the socio-political function of the ‘traditional media’ in terms of it being a psychological weapon utilised by a Power Elite for the purposes of, inter alia, perception management. This could be construed, in part, as a reflection of both the cynical and the optimistic elements of my identity, which can also be seen reflected in my new Twitter profile, and my first ever Tweet shown below.

In my analysis I also hypothesised that to counter the liberating effects of the utilisation of New Media technologies by political/social activists, New Media discourse pertaining to controversial issues would need to be actively sabotaged by counter-intelligence operations.

Indeed, it is being sabotaged by what appears to be a modern day incarnation of the infamous COINTELPRO of the 1960s and 1970s (Changeling9au, 31st August 2013; Unfortunately, a detailed analysis of COINTELPRO-type operations would take this post too far afield, so for now I would direct interested readers to study the blog of investigative journalist and former CIA psychological operations expert, Barbara Hartwell. In short, such operations work primarily to undermine the prestige (IE: Celebrity) of genuine activists while artificially bolstering the prestige of an array of liars and frauds – misidentification – with the effect that fruitful discourse on controversial issues becomes all but impossible.

The following Tweet and infographic reflect the role I have, and will continue to have, in exposing counter-intelligence functionaries – or ‘COINTELPROstitutes’ as I have uniquely labelled them.

Counter-Intelligence                                     Schematic Depiction of Counter-Intelligence (Pro-Stupidity) Operations. Drawn using Gliffy.

This is my identity. Welcome to my World.



Changeling9au. ‘PressTV, Veterans Today and Lasha Darkmoon – The Axis of Weevils in The Syndicate’s Syrian Propaganda Matrix’

31st August 2013

Gabriel, F. ‘Sexting, Selfies and Self-Harm: Young People, Social Media and the Performance of Self-Development’

Media International Australia No. 151 (May 2014), pp. 104 – 112.

Gil-White, F. 4 October 2005 ‘What is conspiracy theory? Is this website doing it?’

Hartwell, B. ‘Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA’

Henrich, J., Gil-White, F.J. ‘The evolution of prestige. Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission.’

Evolution and Human Behavior Vol 22 (2001), pp. 165 – 196.

Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Marshall, P.D. ‘The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of presentational media’

Celebrity Studies Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2010, pp. 35 – 48.

Melbourne Indymedia


Submitted for ALC102, Deakin University, Burwood. 8th October 2014

Is the “Modern Left” Really the “Psuedo-Left”? A Sample of Ideologically Induced Blindness

January 15, 2014

I have decided that I’m going to embark on a project which I first anticipated embarking on nearly 10 years ago, but somehow got distracted from. I’ve decided that it’s high time that many of those who describe themselves as “left wing” were seriously challenged on both the intellectual and moral integrity of their political positions which, of course, will need to be analysed. Not, as some may have already erroneously jumped to assume, from a “right wing” perspective. Indeed, I will be arguing that the so-called Modern Left – regardless of what the intentions and motivations of those under its umbrella may be – is essentially a plaything of the extreme right. One may call it the “phony left” or as I prefer to call it, the “psuedo-left”, but regardless of what label One wishes to apply to it, the Modern Left is working for the Reich.

This may seem like an outrageous statement to many, and understandably so, which is why I’ll be building up a body of evidence which will substantiate my claim. Being such a huge topic, it would be quite untenable for it to be dealt with adequately in a single blog post. What I’ll be doing instead, as time permits, is publishing a number of “evidence stubs” which I can later refer to as I develop my thesis. This is the first of those stubs.

This stub will exhibit an email exchange I had with one Jeff Sparrow – a reasonably well known Melbourne based leftist[1] – back in 2006. It concerned a comment I’d left in a thread on a blog he was running with his sister Jill, known as LeftWrites –

Unfortunately, that blog is no longer with us, however the thread in question may be viewed via

The comment I left on it (which appeared briefly at the very end of the above archived thread) was deleted on two occassions. This led me to send an email to request it be re-instated or at the very least an explanation for why it had been deleted. As will be seen, Mr. Sparrow’s explanation is highly problematic. It is worth having a read of the thread before viewing the following exchange.


Firstly, my deleted comment which I posted around 17th September 2006:-


Ablokeimet has every right to be angry about this deception. I would also suggest he also has every right to be angry about the deceptions which enabled this deception to pass by him – the alleged pro-Israel bias of the media (a deception which led me to beLIEve the Jenin “massacre” furphy in April 2002), and the alleged impartiality of the Red Cross.
There is nothing remotely unique about this type of deception – it’s actually very common. A short Flash video clip is available at
Also, I recommend downloading the 2 short (about 20 min. and under 20MB each) documentaries available at – they are eyeopeners. The fact that this sort of research tends to come from “right wing” sites has no bearing on its validity and I feel should be seen as a wakeup call to the Left – the modern battle against antisemitism is being led by the “Right”. Why?
While on the *surface* it may appear that the Western media is pro-Israel (it certainly isn’t pro-Arab or pro-Muslim), I would suggest that this is a facade – a memetic Trojan horse if you like. Blatant antisemitism is not generally acceptable in the West these days, hence the need for modern antisemitism to be subtle. If the Western media were truly pro-Israel, it would thoroughly expose these crude deceptions rather than promote them and then deny, whitewash and rationalise them like the Age article linked by Jeff Sparrow does. Incidentally, that Age article has already been dealt with on the zombietime page.
For a detailed analysis of how and why the media promote subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle) antisemitism, I strongly recommend reading “The modern “Protocols of Zion” How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII” available at
Why aren’t mainstream Jewish organisations doing much if anything about this? That answer can be gleaned from “THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE – How mainstream Diaspora Jewish
leaders are failing the Jewish people
today” available at
Two extracts which are pertinent:
“Edgar Bronfman, **President of the World Jewish Congress**, …suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze’ev] Sternhell in **advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers.**” [My emphases].
” The leader of the ADL is a man by name Abraham Foxman. It is more than a bit surprising, given that the ADL mission is supposedly to defend the Jews from antisemitism, that it should be so easy to find Abraham Foxman defending antisemites, and in particular antisemites who attack Israel.

For example, in October 2003 there was a bit of an eruption in the US House of Representatives when it was revealed that the Ford Foundation was financing openly antisemitic groups among the West Bank and Gaza Arabs.[30] An organization that is supposed to protect the Jews from antisemitism should have been spearheading the demands for a federal investigation into the Ford Foundation, but what the ADL’s Abraham Foxman did instead was protest these demands:

“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League told the Forward that it is too soon to call for a congressional investigation: ‘This is an institution that’s been around for a long time. They’ve established a credible reputation…’”[31] ”

For those who aren’t aware, Henry Ford played a major role in industrialising Nazi Germany and received the highest honour the Nazis bestowed on foreigners – he received it from Adolph Hitler personally.

As for the Red Cross – nasty outfit that one, though that isn’t to cast aspersions on individuals who work for it. I wrote a piece in the wake of Hurricane Katrina advising people to give their money to more worthy grass roots charities –

Type ‘ “red cross” rockefeller eugenics’ into Google.
I particularly recommend the exposé available at
It gives a comprehensive overview of the suppressed history of the Red Cross as well as looking at the more esoteric aspects.
Devil Doing Behind the American Red Cross

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional? I explained how and why, at the end of WWII, the Dulles brothers, in support of Rockefeller alliances, arranged false Red Cross identifications for Nazi war criminals, scientists, and military officials to escape through the “rat lines.” A couple of years ago, the New York Times carried a story that explained that Red Cross officials were aware of the Nazi atrocities occurring in the concentration camps of WWII. They said they were remiss in reporting their evidence. They omitted, however, the intelligence that the entire Red Cross organization was directed, from high above, by the same devils that directed the business dealings between the Nazis, I.G. Farben, the CIA and the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company from the rise of the Third Reich. No wonder, the New York Times reported in another article, much of the Nazi-stolen gold suddenly emerged in Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank.

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, you will also learn that the Laurence Rockefeller-directed New York City Blood Bank knowingly released thousands of pints blood contaminated with the AIDS-virus, HIV, despite holding secret the oxygenation technologies capable of clearing the virus from infected supplies. After developing AIDS, approximately ten thousand hemophiliacs died throughout the United States, along with countless others around the world. Likewise, in 1999, CNN reported that approximately 500,000 Chinese people became HIV infected similarly through contaminated blood. Not to mention the millions of others who received the hepatitis B, C and herpes (cancer) viruses through contaminated blood, likewise preventable, but purposely neglected.

Oh – and here’s the “Pro-Israel” Murdoch press reporting “Red Cross slams Downer hoax claim” –,20867,20300357-7582,00.html
Gotta love it – “THE International Committee of the Red Cross has rebuked Foreign Minister Alexander Downer for relying on an unverified internet blog to claim an Israeli missile strike on one of its ambulances in southern Lebanon was a hoax.

A spokeswoman for the ICRC in Geneva said yesterday there was no evidence to support Mr Downer’s assertion that the international media had been duped in reporting that Israel had deliberately targeted the ambulance. ”

Instead of investigating and exposing this hoax, the Murdoch press covers its butt by cheerfully assisting the Red Cross to do likewise, all the while making *Alexander Downer* look like a truthtelling defender of the Jews. After all, in this case, he has told the truth.

What’s wrong with this picture??

I believe a reasonable observer would agree that not only was my comment informative and raising issues which ostensible leftists should pay attention to, it was also not inappropriate in any way.

So I wrote the following email to both Jeff and Jill Sparrow:-



Dear Jeff and Jill Sparrow,
I am writing to request an explanation as to why a comment I made in the thread at <; has been censored twice now – the text of my comment is appended to this email. The comment was primarily a response to issues raised by Ablokeimet in that thread. I first posted the comment at about 7pm on Sunday 17/9/06. When I checked the thread at about 2am to see if anyone had responded, I saw that my comment had disappeared.
I was a little perplexed at this as a comment I’d made in the thread at <; was left intact, so the first thing I did was go to your “Comments Policy” page at <;. When I saw an error message, I then went to <; where I noticed a comments policy there. Upon reading it and realising that my comment didn’t breach it I thought that my comment disappearing may have been a technical glitch or an error (and being a moderator for Melbourne Indymedia I am well aware that such things can happen), so I reposted it. When I checked the thread again at about 7am and saw my comment had disappeared again, I realised that it was deliberate.
I would appreciate an explanation for this. My comment does not breach your policy. I quote:
“Abusive, repetitive or otherwise inappropriate comments will not be accepted.”

It is not abusive or repetitive, nor can I see any way that it is inappropriate particularly in the context of other comments in that thread.

“Leftwrites primarily aims to encourage debate within the left.”

This was part of the intention behind my comment. I believe that the left overall is seriously misguided on issues surrounding the Arab-Israeli dispute. Others obviously disagree with me on this, but that’s what debate is for.

“We are not interested in flame wars with right-wing trolls and will (happily) delete comments that seem to us to be posted by them.”

I am not interested in flame wars either, nor am I a troll of any kind. Unlike several of the uncensored comments in that thread, I have not attacked or insulted anyone else posting in that thread.

“We are far more likely to publish your comments if you are polite. It also helps if you provide a real name and email address.”

All of those criteria have been fulfilled.


[To briefly interject at this point, when Sparrow replied to this email his reply appeared here, suggesting that he may not have properly read my email or my comment]

In my comment, I demonstrate – with the provision of evidence – that:
1) The deceptions of the kind which Ablokeimet is justifiably angry about are very common.
2) That these deceptions can and do easily occur because of the misconception that the Western mainstream media is essentially pro-Israel. I demonstrate that this is not the case.
3) The Red Cross’ good reputation which played a major part in allowing the ambulance deception to pass largely unnoticed, is most definately not deserved.
4) That mainstream organisations set up *ostensibly* to expose and fight antisemitism are not doing so, and often the reverse.

I think these issues are relevant to that thread. I don’t consider these issues to be trivial in any way. My comment has not breached your policy.
Given all the above, I request that you please reinstate my comment or provide a reason-based explanation for why it has been censored.

Yours faithfully,
Nigel Waddington



Seems like a reasonable and polite request, does it not?

Maybe so, however it invited the following response from Mr. Sparrow:-


We’re not Indymedia; we’re under no obligation to publish anything. So
all decisions are purely discretionary and often pretty arbitrary.
Leftwrites is not about debating right-wingers (well, not primarily,
anyway). All first posts go into moderation and, if we approve someone,
they can then comment freely. We often receive links from Tim Blair and
other far right blogs. For that reason, if someone seems to be posting
right-wing nonsense, we mostly just delete them, cos if we don’t we will
be inundated by idiots.
I don’t know you, nor anything about your background. Your comments
about anti-Israel bias in the media are a typical talking point of the
right-wing blogs. If people want to discuss such rubbish, they can go to
Blair or LGF or any of the other nutcase sites. It’s not a debate we
want to have. There’s enough right-wingers already posting on the site.
We don’t need any more.
Your association with Indymedia suggests you might have other, more
sensible views. If you have some bee in your bonnet about Palestine,
perhaps you should comment on a different topic.
Alternatively, if you feel compelled to persist with this theme, perhaps
you should start your own blog rather than carrying on about censorship.


Clearly, coming from a relatively high profile leftist who is moderating what was a fairly important leftist blog, this response is quite unacceptable – unless One assumes that deploying leftist rhetoric in a dogmatic fashion and misrepresenting others’ position is acceptably leftist. At the time I considered replying, however I concluded that someone operating in such an unreasonable manner was unlikely to be persuaded by further reason and at the end of the day, it was his blog.

Noting just some of the problems with his response, I observe that:-


  1. The issue of “obligation” was never raised by me, nor can it really be an issue in this case. So why is he going on the defensive with this red herring?
  2. While “all decisions” may be “discretionary and often pretty arbitrary” – which frankly seems rather problematic – there was nothing preventing him from exercising his discretion and “arbitrarily” reinstating my comment. So why utilise what may be a reasonable explanation as an excuse?
  3. He brings up Tim Blair and “far right blogs”. How is this relevant?
  4. My comment could be no way construed as “right wing nonsense”.
  5. To suggest that an evidence based comment like the one I posted is “rubbish” speaks to an anti-intellectualism which is untenable in any Movement which claims to be interested in creating a better and fairer society.


It must also be pointed out that, considering that the LeftWrites blog purports to encourage – and indeed did facilitate – debates between leftists, the fact that an evidence based if somewhat unusual perspective on the World’s only Jewish state was censored from its readers frankly wreaks of the operation of a pathological ideology which is openly promoted by extreme right wingers[2].


See the problem here?


The so-called “Modern Left” has a dis-ease which needs to be dealt with if it’s to play any meaningful role in solving the numerous problems plaguing Humanity[3].







[2] “With the world upside down, is it still possible to stick your head in the sand?” –


[3] For a way of interpreting what “Left” and “Right” actually mean, see “On the Orwellian use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right,’ and on the dangers therein to Israeli politics.” –




“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”


“Nazi Financier Francois Genoud Bankrolled French Lawyer Jacques Verges. Who is Genoud?”


“It was at the Nuremberg trials in 1946 that Genoud befriended Maj. Gen. Herman Bernhard Ramcke and obtained Bormann’s account of Hitler’s conversations from Ramcke’s subordinate, former SS Capt. Hans Reichenberg. In the preface to the Bormann document, Hitler’s Table talk, Genoud wrote that Hitler wanted the people of the Third World to carry on the work of the Thousand Year Reich.”


“The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War”



A Muddy Pond called Australia (The Election Story Which Woke Australians to Their Common Law Rights and Responsibilities)

September 2, 2013

Once upon a time the Muddy Pond called Australia was pristine & pure, it gave the Green Frogs,

<">”regardless of race or creed, a happy life with RIGHTS & FREEDOM.

To protect these RIGHTS & FREEDOM a group of Green Frogs under spiritual guidance, wrote the Constitution to protect the Green Frogs from the Giant Black Cane Toad, who pretended to be a Green Frog so he could own the world plus 10% and make Green Frogs his slaves without them realising it.

The Green Frogs Constitution said that the Power was theirs. But sadly the Giant Black Cane Toad was able to bribe the Green Frogs in the Parliament into becoming Toads, they constantly tricked the Green Frogs into giving up some of their Rights & Freedom by making promises and offering bribes, but failed to get them all, because the majority of Green Frogs woke up for a moment, they rejected the idea of a Republic as they saw this would remove the Constitution and all their rights.

One day the INTERNET came to the Muddy Pond called Australia. Suddenly the Young Green Frogs who always asked questions of each other because MUM & DAD were too busy to listen, were now able to talk to each other all over the country. They now demanded that Mum & Dad tell them what happened to the pristine & pure pond, now known as “A Muddy Pond called Australia”.

The Mums & Dads of the young Green Frogs could only cry and say they were sorry, they were too busy working, watching TV, Sports and allowing themselves to be told what to think & do and so they never saw the loss of the Pristine and Pure Pond.

In shock, all the young Green Frogs via the Internet decided they would fix the Muddy Pond called Australia.

The Young Green Frogs did a Google search and found that some old Green frogs have been trying to save the Muddy Pond called Australia, so they carefully read all that was on They found it contained a book written by a Green Frog who refused to become a Toad, His name was Arthur Chresby and the book is called “Your Will be Done” it showed the Young Green frogs what to do.

The Young Green Frogs told their Parents and friends that in an election if they put a line through all the names on the ballot paper and wrote on it “None of these candidates meet my requirements” and initial it, using an ink pen/texta (so the Toads can’t rub it out) they were signifying that they wanted none of the toads on the paper and wanted a new election with new Green Frogs as the sacked Toads cannot apply again for the job. If 41% or more do this then the Governor General has to call a new election with all new candidates as the previous had been well and truly sacked.

The Green frogs also found its important to note that you do not require ID when you get your name crossed of the roll, one must wonder why this is so? Therefore to prevent fraudulent use of your name at other booths, they recommended that you initial your name when it’s crossed off. After the election you can then ask to check all electoral rolls for your electorate to see if your name has been used by others if so then you have a case of fraud being committed and this makes the election Null and Void.

The New Green Frogs would fix the Muddy Pond called Australia and fervently promise in writing to never become a Toad, or do the bidding of the Great Black Cane Toad. They would only abide by the Will of the Green Frogs, because they saw all the Green Frogs had learnt how to exercise their power under the Constitution and to think for themselves.

Overnight A Muddy Pond called Australia was transformed back into the country it use to be and the Toads were desperately trying to become Green Frogs again in order to survive.

Can be reproduced and distributed on the proviso that the content is not altered or part used in any way without the Authors written permission.

PressTV, Veterans Today and Lasha Darkmoon – The Axis of Weevils in The Syndicate’s Syrian Propaganda Matrix

August 31, 2013

I’m not sure that the Counter-Intelligence (IE: pro-stupidity) functionaries behind the following email-spread dis-info on current events in Syria really deserve that much credit. Certainly, the kind of dis-info which I’ll shortly dispose of appears to be somewhat effective. That is, a certain set of target audiences have become convinced that the recent chemical attack in Syria (for the purposes of this article, I will assume that there actually was a chemical attack, though given the nature of the age of deception we live in, One has every right to be sceptical about that given the lack of clear evidence) was perpetrated by forces attacking the regime of Bashar Assad in order to frame his regime in order to give the US an excuse to attack Syria more directly, if not with open military intervention.
However, the fact that someone’s work happens to be effective is not automatic grounds for praise. The following dis-info stream shouldn’t be convincing. The fact that some have been nevertheless convinced by it is a serious issue which speaks to the the credulity of the so-called “Truth Movement” and other movements which purport to oppose the agendas of The Syndicate.

The person who sent this prop-agenda to me on an email list certainly expressed strong emotions to his readership:-

“The filthy scum responsible for this atrocity against innocent children and adults deserve to be hunted down and executed with extreme prejudice. That includes warmongering psychopath Obama, his cabinet and every member of Congress who supported this mass murder of innocents.

The same U.S. government scum are responsible for mass murdering, maiming and crippling close to a million innocent children and adults in Iraq and Afghanistan under war criminal psychopaths: George H. W. Bush Snr. and his degenerate son, George Bush Jnr.”

Hmmm. OK. If emoting got it done, he’d be a serious threat to the Globalist Criminal Syndicate with that outburst! While not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment expressed, I’ve long realised that such outbursts are of little value beyond cathartic release and that when strong emotions are triggered, rational thinking takes a back seat if it doesn’t leave the room altogether. What triggered this outburst? Apparently, the following rather horrific though unreferenced, unsourced and unverified photograph which may or may not be evidence of a chemical weapons attack on Syrian children, along with “supporting narrative commentary” from a variety of sources of questionable credibility and integrity.
To put it mildly.


The email can be traced backed to “Free State Voice” [1] which links to an article on a blog run by someone who calls herself “Lasha Darkmoon”, entitled “Gordon Duff Interview with PressTV: Is America about to attack Syria on fabricated evidence?” [2], which links to the PressTV website article “UN Syria team may fabricate evidence: Gordon Duff” [3] – Gordon Duff being the editor of that embarrassingly brazen purveyor of counter-intelligence “Veterans Today” [4].


I’m not going to expend any energy refuting what Duff says in that interview for the very simple reason that he says nothing of any substance to refute. The way Duff works here is to engage in sophistry, name dropping, ipse dixit, and various other tactics which give the impression that he’s a sophisticated Geopolitical and Intelligence analyst who knows what he’s talking about. Anyone who wishes to substantiate what Duff’s saying or at least demonstrate that his assertions are at least plausible is of course welcome to do so. I can guarantee that anyone making such an attempt will find themselves quagmired in absurdity.

Instead, I will just make some observations and provide questions as food-for-thought, which will not merely demonstrate one example of disinfo on Syria but will hopefully encourage readers to start to think in new and more discerning ways about this kind of propaganda and those who generate it.
For a start:- What do Free State Voice, Lasha Darkmoon, PressTV and Veterans Today have in common? The most obvious answer is that they all attack the Jews and Israel [5]. Not sincere and evidence based criticisms, but attacks designed to incite hatred towards the Jewish people and the World’s only Jewish state [6]. This should be a warning flag to any sincere political analyst. While time doesn’t permit a detailed explanation for why this is, anti-zionism and outright antisemitism are signatures of disinformers [7]. Another common denominator is they frequently adopt the “spy novel” style to Geopolitical analysis. That is, they utilise a marketing strategy which emphasises the “exciting cloak and dagger” form over the evidence based substance. As a general rule, propaganda mills of this type produce very little output which is actually useful in assisting One to understand Geopolitical mechanisms and dynamics. Hence, the archives of such mills are usually littered with articles which loudly and shamelessly predicted some event which never ended up happening. The fact that such obviously flawed articles remain in public view with no apology, retraction or explanation attached to them is indicative of the utter contempt these propagandists have for their readership.

Why would anyone who is even somewhat learned about Geopolitics consider Gordon Duff to be a credible source of analysis and insight? His Veterans Today bills itself as “The True Voice of the World’s Clandestine Community” – in other words, it’s the “true voice” of professional liars, deceivers and tricksters. Hardly a credible source for seekers of truth.
Then there’s Duff’s bio, which says in part [8]:-

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, surveillance technologies, intelligence analysis,defense technologies or acting as a UN diplomat and “special consultant.”

Duff currently serves on the boards of the Adamus Group, one of the world’s largest energy technology firms and of a private financial institution participating in the Federal Reserve Banking group.

His most recent project adapts advanced military technologies to wildlife and land management in cooperation with the UN, USAID and International Wildlife Federation. [Emphases mine]

I have not at this juncture found any independent sources which back up his rather grandiose claims about himself (what the hell is the “Adamus Group”?), however that is of no moment – the fact is he apparently considers that associating his name with the institutions of Globalist Criminality provides a boost to his credibility. [9] The discerning researcher need only view the list of Veterans Today’s Editorial Board [10] to realise that it’s a COINTELPRO-esque operation – that is, its function is to induce [even more] stupidity in its target audience [11]. A thorough expose of Veterans Today will need to be done. In the meantime however, interested readers are encouraged to read a recent article by investigative journalist Barbara Hartwell which exposes Gordon Duff, among others. [12]

PressTV is another Counter-Intelligence operation which needs to be thoroughly analysed and exposed some time. It purports to provide an “Iranian perspective” to the World. [13] However, it appears to have very few Iranians appearing on its programs and curiously, many of the perspectives promoted by it are in synch with US/Globalist Counter-Intelligence propaganda and are promoted by Western Counter-Intelligence functionaries – Gordon Duff being but one example.
This apparent paradox is at least partially resolved when it is understood – contrary to “conventional wisdom” – that the animosity One often sees displayed in public interactions between Western (particularly American) and Iranian leaders is a charade, and that the Iranian Islamist regime is an extremely important puppet of the US Establishment. [14]

While the hypothesis that the US/EU/NATO and Iranian Establishments are covertly allied may not get much coverage in most media where the Western-Iranian relationship is discussed, it has the advantage of explaining why it is that most US policy regarding Iran since 1979 has strengthened the hand of its Islamist Establishment, without entertaining the mind-bendingly absurd notion that these results have as their cause the gross incompetence and idiocy of the US Establishment. It also provides the basis of the following tentative hypothesis which I will work to develop, test and appropriately modify in the near future:- that US policy towards Syria is designed to discipline and maintain the Assad regime and enhance its and its allies’ prestige while simultaneously making Western powers seem weak, indecisive and incompetent. [15]

Which brings us back to the original propaganda from Duff/PressTV with additional bits added on by Darkmoon. [16] Is it possible that Western backed forces carried out a chemical attack on Syrian civilians with the intention of framing the Assad regime in order to create a pretext for a more open attack on Syria? Yes, it is possible. Unlikely, but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Having said that, there is no substantial evidence provided or cogent argument made in any of the Duff Darkmoon pieces which should convince anyone of the likelihood of that possibility. Indeed, their propaganda is designed to trigger the confirmation biases of those who have been somewhat predictively programmed into believing that Iran and Syria (and perhaps Russia and China) are “standing up to the New World Order” and other similar disempowering notions. While some are waiting for overt divine intervention, others for rescue by benevolent extraterrestrials, these poor sods are externalising their power to Middle Eastern dictatorships which are mere puppets of the “New World Order” they wail against.




[1] The propaganda email doesn’t appear to be reproduced at however the sender’s email was and it is consistent with the antisemitic nature of many of the articles on the website.

[2] “Gordon Duff Interview with PressTV: Is America about to attack Syria on fabricated evidence?” –

[3] “UN Syria team may fabricate evidence: Gordon Duff” –


[5] One merely has to glance at the articles at those sites to see that nearly all of them are focussed on attacking the Jewish people and Israel, though PressTV – presumably because it purports to be a quasi-mainstream channel – is somewhat more moderated in its approach than the others.

[6] Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) – – provides much research and analysis into this issue. Particularly “What is a genocide, to the social scientist?” at and “The modern “Protocols of Zion”How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII” at

[7] Apart from serving specific political agendas at times, antisemitism and its kissing cousin anti-zionism also serve a more general counter-intelligence function which is summed up by Dr. Francisco Gil-White thusly:- “Antisemitism is a way of looking at the world, a perspective, and it impairs reasoning by insisting on the following sequence: first, suspend in the air the anti-Jewish conclusion; then build in a helter skelter rush to the ground a scaffolding of ‘premises’; finally, never heed how ridiculous the crookedly resulting, upside-down staircase becomes.”


[9] While it is not unreasonable to assume that Duff seeks to boost his credibility with his audience, it must be pointed out that frequently COINTELPRO functionaries discredit each other and themselves. This dynamic has been documented and analysed by Dr. Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane –


[11] “COINTELPRO operates globally, generating or securing virtually all fears and misdirected faiths. COINTELPRO is the preeminent mechanism that directs or annihilates competition, so that the only dominant CULTure is that which is presented through the mass-media based on fraud, misrepresentations, and omissions.
What results is Spiritual darkness over the face of the Earth that shames every human for ignorantly tolerating their enslavement as sovereigns. This is the epitome of naivety.
As a result of COINTELPRO and Controlled Opposition, We The People are educated/indoctrinated into ignorance, and choose to remain victims of this compound-crime until a forthcoming critical mass of us learn the freeing truth after it becomes painfully obvious.”
There is also much analysis of COINTELPRO, similar operations and their anti-Sovereignty agendas at

[12] “Agenda Politics & Media Whores: Selling Out America” –


[14] There is more than an abundance of evidence available via articles at and which support that hypothesis. Indeed, it is virtually irrefutable.

[15] This hypothesis may seem counter-intuitive at first, however we’ve seen this dynamic before. See “The Iranian Hostage Crisis – Again Is this hostage crisis different from the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis?” at
It also seems unlikely, if the US wished to topple Assad, that they would allow their Iranian and Iraqi puppets to aid Assad – and “Iraq sides with Assad, attacks FSA positions in Syria” at
It must also be highlighted that already the US and Britain are “backing down” – see “And now the climb down” at

[16] Darkmoon adds some evidence-less speculation to PressTV’s/Duff’s piece, such as speculating that “First they aim to destroy Syria. Then they plan to destroy Iran and take possession of its oil wells.”; claiming that there is information which “…comes from a valued source who reveals that a hacker has obtained definite evidence that Britain could be behind the chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people.”; and playing into the “They’re gonna start WW3” neurosis by asking the rhetorical question “The trillion dollar question is: will Russia and China stand by and let them get away with this monstrous war crime — a crime which not only threatens their own vital interests but is, in fact, no more than a proxy war against them?”
Astute Geopolitical observers will note that Russia and China have not yet stopped a single NATO action.

Alan Sabrosky : Clearing the Info Decks of Pesky Opposition to the Syndicate’s Pro-Iranian Islamic Regime Agendas

May 23, 2013

I recently (well – about April 28th, but who’s counting days?) received a post sourced from    via an email list I’m on.

Like many posts which do the email rounds, it’s basically a lot of BS disinfo designed to serve a particular set of agendas. I replied with the following on that particular email list. I’ve now decided to get into the habit of making my replies more publicly available – with identities of list members and senders removed, of course – hence this blog post, my first in many years.


This is one of those strange combinations of high farce and tragedy. It’s difficult to know whether to laugh or cry, so I choose neither and instead choose to provide some brief observations as food for thought for those with the ability and inclination to do their own research.

For a start, for *years* the media – both mainstream and ostensibly alternative – has been regularly making noises that “They’re gonna attack Iran!”, but yet it never seems to happen. Instead of stopping to ask themselves why they’re being repeatedly suckered, consumers of this kind of propaganda seem to be addicted to spreading it. It’s almost as though they privately *hope* that Iran is attacked so they can declare “See! We told you so!”, or similar. But enough of such unsavoury speculation…..

That the US war against Iraq was designed – in large part – with the goal of strengthening Iran’s regime, is not something which is regularly considered. Which would seem a little strange considering that this hypothesis has been around since at least 2002/2003 and that’s exactly what’s now happened – the US-installed Iraqi government is essentially a puppet of Tehran, and Iraq is now basically Iran’s western-most province.
Extensive analyses of the Geopolitricks of the US-Iran relationship are available at and

I’d never heard of Dr. Alan Sabrosky before today. However, apart from the fact – given the analyses provided above – that he’s spinning a yarn, the most blatant red flag was his saying “the US Defense Secretary of whom so many of us hoped so much” about Chuck Hagel. Hmmm – hoping “so much” from the US Minister of War.

Then there’s Sabrosky’s bio [Annotated] – “Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs [Euphemism for Geopolitical shenanigans] . In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College [!!!] as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO’S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy[!!], the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) [Whoah! See below], Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs [Euphemism for imperialism] in the United States and abroad.”

Ah CSIS – what a peaceful antiwar crowd they are (not!). From – “The current president and CEO of CSIS is John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense. He has held the position since April 2000. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Sam Nunn, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia and longtime chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Its board of trustees includes many former senior government officials including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros and Brent Scowcroft. ”

There are names of more well known “peace activists” at
The article “Reader Asks: “Doesn’t Israel Fund Hamas?” Francisco Gil-White Replies: “No. This is an unfounded allegation made by the CIA.” ” provides a detailed analysis of the role CSIS/CIA played in spreading this media rumour –

This may come as a shock to those who believe that the US is somehow a friend of Israel’s, or even  that somehow Israel runs the US. It shouldn’t be shocking though. As this chronology clearly demonstrates, US policy towards Israel has been hardly that of an ally –

The kind of questions which it would seem prudent to ask are:- Why is it that demonstrably false propaganda, often written by people who don’t even really bother hiding who they work for and what their agenda is, repeatedly finds its way onto websites and email lists which purport to be about “peace”, “sovereignty”, “anti-NWO”, etc?
Why is it that this kind of propaganda is, not only tolerated but actively promoted by, people who consider themselves to be well informed and who often refer disparagingly to “the sheeple”?
How is it that so few ostensibly enlightened people can see the effect this propaganda has on them and the movements they purportedly support?


ps: There is a possible (probably unlikely) Geopolitical scenario in which the US, using its puppets in the Israeli government, uses Israel to launch a futile attack on Iran. But that’s an analysis for another day.

%d bloggers like this: