Freedom of the Press Is Dying — Assange Sentenced to 50 Weeks; Facebook Admits It Will Block Certain People Using Link Filter System; Poynter Ministry Of Truth

By Aaron Kesel | Activist Post

Freedom of the press is dying as the most hated are being targeted by the establishment, opening up a door for censorship and control of information like the world has never seen, undoubtedly in preparation for the 2020 U.S. elections.

This week Julian Assange was sentenced in a Kangaroo Court in London for “skipping bail” for 50 weeks of a defunct bail warrant and fraudulent rape case, as well as having his first hearing on his extradition trial. Which, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expressed, “it is not just a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press.” It is a sentiment shared and echoed by historic antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department analyst who worked for the RAND Corporation and leaked the Pentagon Papers, this is possible “The beginning of the end of Press Freedom.”

It’s not only Julian Assange — the U.S. has recently been added to the list of most dangerous countries for journalists.

At least 63 professional journalists were killed doing their jobs in 2018, a 15 percent increase over last year, according to a Reporters Without Borders annual report.

That’s just statistics for 2018. A journalist ignored by the mainstream press, Serena Shim, also uncovered the smuggling of ISIS soldiers through the Turkish and Syrian border using NGO trucks. The Turkish MIT accused her of spying and 2 days later she was killed in a suspicious accident with a cement truck.

Further, Shim was banned from Turkey by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself, only to be allowed back in and then murdered.

The U.S. has also failed to address the Saudis for the issue of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman who is accused of being behind the death of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was accused by the CIA of brutally dismembering Khashoggi last year. Now, Trump’s son in law and senior White House advisor Jared Kushner has just admitted that he believes Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis and they should be transparent. However, he doesn’t think that the deals he organized should be walked back while stating Saudi Arabia should be held accountable.

“The advice I gave was, be as transparent as possible,” Kushner said. “We have to make sure there is accountability for what happened.”

Now the U.S. is going after Julian Assange’s extradition for claims of hacking under the CFAA, as a starting point for the charges they no doubt intend to pile on if they can get him to the United States. This sends a very clear message to nations like Saudi Arabia and others that “it’s okay to punish truth-tellers and muckrakers for doing their jobs even if that means death.”

That’s not all. At the same time that arguably one of the most influential journalists was told he will spend 50 weeks in Britain’s Belmarsh prison — a move that has drawn a request for visitation from Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire — Facebook decided to remove users who it deemed deplorable. Facebook also stated that it would use a new censorship link filter to block users from talking about certain sources unless it’s in a negative light; these sources need to be clearly condemned, and if you talk about them you will get banned, too — their words not mine.

Via The Atlantic:

Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)

What everyone is missing is the power that Facebook is now openly displaying with a riveting message that should shock those who even hate the aforementioned individuals — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, white supremacist Paul Nehlen, Infowars hosts Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer.

Now, with a system in place or admitted to the public eye, Facebook can openly remove anyone they see fit for violating their rules about certain ideas.

At the same time, the Poynter Institute — a partner in Facebook’s war against false claims and fake news — decided to release a list of 515 “unreliable” news websites” Unnews,”  including 29 conservative websites, NewsBusters reported.

That list included several popular news sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

The article was written by a Southern Poverty Law Center producer, Barrett Golding, even though the SPLC has been exposed for its own hate in recent months. Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.”

Poynter further recommended that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list. It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete. Golding wrote that “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”

So the agenda here is clear censorship of information and the death of opposition and competition.

It’s incredibly interesting that Poynter would allow the SPLC to write such a smear job since it has been dropped by Twitter from its Trust and Safety Council and slammed by the mainstream media after multiple scandals have rocked the organization, as ZeroHedge reported.

After the smear job was published, Poynter tried to rewind its actions and apologize for the release, but the damage has already been done.

“Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology,” Poynter’s managing editor Barbara Allen said in a statement on their website. “We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.”

Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, liberal billionaire George Soros’ massive foundations, as well as the Omidyar Network. The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.”

Defending the right to Freedom Of Press means that you may have to stand up for those human beings whose speech is so vile and grotesque. Why? Because once one person’s rights are violated then the rest of us can soon follow.

This is a corporate social media giant telling its users that it will take action against them if they see fit and don’t meet their criteria. For the big giants like Alex Jones, it can be absorbed; but for newer and less-established people, this means Facebook now decides whether you succeed or fail in your venture. This easily could be used as a means to silence independent journalism and not just the above-mentioned people.

Ultimately, the list and the agenda show how far Poynter has fallen from its role as “the world’s most influential school for journalists,” to now attempting to censor those they disagree with, which coincidentally included mostly conservative news websites.

Do some of the sites listed produce propaganda without naming names? Sure, but so do those on the left as well as corporate media giants, which were conveniently left off the list. So this is entirely biased to fit an agenda.

Activist Post has previously written about another fact checker “NewsGuard” which was found to be connected to intelligence and think tank organizations.

As Kurt Nimmo (formerly of Infowars) recently stated, the rise of an increasing number of “fact checkers” is part of a larger operation to destroy alternative media:

While doing research for a Newsbud video, I came across the Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) website. This is one of a growing number of “fact checking” websites designed to discredit news websites not following official narratives closely enough.

Here’s what the site has to say about Newsbud and my participation:

Newsbud (NB) is a right-wing, conspiracy and anti-government site founded by, among others, Kurt Nimmo, the former lead editor, and writer for Infowars. What sets NB apart from other sites of this type is that the stories are, for the most part, well written and contain numerous sources. The bias of the writing is also more subtle than sites such as Infowars, but just as prevalent. Both as an overtone to all the stories as well as the sometimes questionable sources and/or the conclusions drawn from the source material. Additionally, many of their sources are other NB stories or work the author and editors have done elsewhere.

MBFC imparts misinformation in the first sentence. If it had done appropriate research, its ideologically driven checkers would have discovered Newsbud was established by Sibel Edmonds. I was invited to participate after the website was established and I am not a founder, as MBFC claims.

This error—more accurately described as shoddy and careless research—reveals the liberal bias of the site and its proprietor, Dave Van Zandt.

With all that stated, it’s worth mentioning that 90% of U.S. media was owned by 6 different companies in 2012 including GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner, CBS. Which, as a fun fact, the CFR owns major media holdings as Julian Assange pointed out. As former Army Major Todd Pierce described, the CFR acts as “primary provocateurs” using “psychological suggestiveness’ to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.” We don’t see any of these being censored by fact-checking organizations, yet all major media companies pushed a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Russians hacked the election and there was collusion with the Trump administration, without any single proof of evidence.

And all of this is still far from the only efforts to try and suppress the free flow of information online. In 2017 Activist Post reported that Full Fact foundation, backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and our favorite billionaire tycoon George Soros, the same men behind $1.3 million dollars in the funding of Poynter Institute were also planning to fight the efforts of “fake news” with their AI-powered “bull shit detector.”

Again, as this writer has expressed before, it’s not up to shady individuals or organizations to decide what is and isn’t news — that’s the Ministry of Truth which George Orwell warned us all about and a nightmare that seems to be becoming our immediate reality. We don’t need arbiters of truth; what we need are smarter readers who research and dig deeper themselves, instead of blindly believing what they are told or hand fed in all forms of media as Edward Snowden said – “we need critical thinking.” If we punish those who give transparency we are only asking for tyranny, and Facebook and others need to realize suppressing something or someone or idea only has the opposite effect.

“The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting very popular,” Edward Snowden.

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on MindsSteemitSoMeeBitChuteFacebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

Image credit: Truthstream Media

Read more great articles at Activist Post.

Why Julian Assange’s Extradition Must Be Opposed at All Costs

“Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional.”

By Nozomi Hayase | Common Dreams

On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by the UK police inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he was granted political asylum in 2012. This termination of asylum by Ecuador in violation of international law comes a week after WikiLeaks warned the public it had received information from two high level Ecuadorian government sources about a US-backed plan for the Ecuadorian government to expel Assange from its embassy.

Assange’s lawyer confirmed he has been arrested under a US extradition warrant for conspiracy to publish classified information with whistleblower Chelsea Manning revealing government war crimes in 2010. Specifically, this relates to WikiLeaks’ publication of the collateral murder video, documents concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the US Diplomatic Cables.

In making a statement outside Westminster Magistrate’s Court in London, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson told reporters that Assange’s arrest marks a “dark day for journalism”. This prosecution of Assange is recognized by experts on free speech rights as an attack on freedom of the media everywhere.

James Goodale, First Amendment lawyer and former general counsel of the New York Times, said this about the US government’s efforts to charge a journalist who is not American and did not publish in the US, possibly with espionage: “If the prosecution of Julian Assange succeeds, investigative reporting based on classified information will be given a near death blow.” David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression stated that “prosecuting Assange would be dangerously problematic from the perspective of press freedom”.

Responding to this latest development on the WikiLeaks founder, American Civil Liberties Union commented, “any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.” Freedom of Press Foundation also issued a statement, alerting that the charge against Assange is a serious threat to press freedom” and noted that it “should be vigorously protested by all those who care about the First Amendment.”

Just a day before his arrest, WikiLeaks held a press conference with the attorney representing Assange. They exposed the Ecuadorian government’s spying operation against Assange, whose asylum and citizenship rights the country has an obligation to protect.

Ecuador’s surveillance inside the London embassy, conducted in cooperation with the US had constituted a total invasion of privacy, and included the recording of Assange’s meetings with his lawyers and doctor. Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson described this as a severe breach of lawyer-client privilege, which had undermined the ability of his legal team to properly defend their client.

The seriousness of Ecuador’s treatment of its own citizen and asylee was recognized by the UN. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joe Cannataci and Independent UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nils Melzer, who warned last Friday that Assange’s arrest may be a “serious human rights violation,” had planned to meet Assange on 25 April to investigate these rights violations in the embassy.

Assange’s arrest and possible extradition to the US is much bigger than an individual issue. This goes right to the heart of freedom of expression, basic human rights and due process. Our failure to resist the US government’s assault on this Western journalist could empower authoritarian state to do the same.

If the US can prosecute a non-US journalist for revealing its secrets, why can’t Russia prosecute an American journalist in Washington revealing secrets about Moscow? Why can’t Saudi Arabia prosecute a journalist for revealing secrets about the murder of a Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi?

WikiLeaks has published material given to it by whistleblowers. Many media organizations have published that material. What about The New York Times and The Washington Post? Are they going to face charges too? In fact, the Trump administration has already threatened prosecution of journalists publishing classified material.

Should a publisher who released truthful information about government corruption and illegal wars be condemned? When did telling the truth become a crime? The act of publishing information that is verified to be authentic in the public interest must not be punished. Exposing government war crimes, human rights violations and murder of civilians including journalists is not a crime. This is the very function of a free press, as a vanguard of our democracy.

The prosecution of Assange sets a very dangerous precedent. This is a prosecution of our democracy that stifles freedom of expression of anyone in the world. This is not a political issue, defined as left vs. right or one ideology against another. This is the issue that concerns our fundamental human rights. It is about a question of whether or not we would have a civil society, governed by the rule of law.

Now is the time to take action. We must urge the UK government to oppose the extradition of this persecuted journalist to the US. And mobilize to demand the Trump administration to drop criminal charges against Assange and WikiLeaks. We must fight to defend Assange, not for his sake, but for our own and for our democracy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

‘Dark Moment for Press Freedom’: Snowden Leads Global Chorus in Condemning Assange Arrest as Grave Assault on Journalism

“Assange did not leave of his own free will and could be heard shouting ‘U.K. must resist, you can resist!’ as he was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy,” Gizmodo reported. (Photo: Screengrab)

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

Edward Snowden joined the chorus of advocacy groups, reporters, and critics as the NSA whistleblower described the arrest of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange Thursday morning as a “dark moment for press freedom” that could have grave implications for journalism across the globe.

“Images of Ecuador’s ambassador inviting the U.K.’s secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of—like it or not—award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books,” Snowden tweeted.

Assange’s arrest comes amid concerns that British authorities could be planning to extradite him to the United States.

The U.K. police confirmed that Assange was arrested in part due to “an extradition warrant on behalf of the United States authorities.”

“If you’re cheering Assange’s arrest based on a U.S. extradition request, your allies in your celebration are the most extremist elements of the Trump administration, whose primary and explicit goal is to criminalize reporting on classified docs and punish [WikiLeaks] for exposing war crimes,” tweeted The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald.

“All of us in the press should read the charges made against Assange very carefully,” wrote Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi, “as this case has enormous potential ramifications for journalists everywhere.”

Greenwald’s colleague at The Intercept, investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill, called the arrest “an extremely dangerous crossing of the rubicon” when it comes to press freedoms. “All journalists,” he said, “should stand in fierce opposition.”

As Common Dreams reported last November, the Trump Justice Department accidentally revealed in an unrelated court filing that it has secretly charged Assange.

“Wikileaks material from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere has become a unique, invaluable resource for investigative journalists and scholars around the world,” the U.K.-based Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) said in a statement Thursday.

“Whatever your view of its philosophy of radical transparency, Wikileaks is a publisher,” CIJ added. “Any charges now brought in connection with that material, or any attempt to extradite Mr. Assange to the United States for prosecution under the deeply flawed cudgel of the Espionage Act 1917, is an attack on all of us. Mr. Assange deserves the solidarity of the community of investigative journalists. The world is now watching.”

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, warned in a statement that “prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”

“Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest,” Wizner added.

Journalists were quick to point out that major establishment newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post frequently publish classified information. Prosecuting Assange for doing the same, critics argued, would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent.

In an editorial just two days ago, the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper made clear that while Assange may have some charges to answer for there is simply no defensible reason for the British government to extradite him to the U.S. to face a sealed indictment over his work as a journalist and publisher:

From first to last, the Assange case is a morally tangled web. He believes in publishing things that should not always be published—this has long been a difficult divide between the Guardian and him. But he has also shone a light on things that should never have been hidden. When he first entered the Ecuadorian embassy he was trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape and molestation. That was wrong. But those cases have now been closed. He still faces the English courts for skipping bail. If he leaves the embassy, and is arrested, he should answer for that, perhaps in ways that might result in deportation to his own country, Australia. Nothing about this is easy, least of all Mr. Assange himself. But when the call comes from Washington, it requires a firm and principled no. It would neither be safe nor right for the U.K. to extradite Mr. Assange to Mr Trump’s America.

Assange is reportedly set to appear in court as early as Thursday afternoon, according to WikiLeaks.

As he was being carried to a police van by British authorities Thursday morning, Assange shouted, “Resist this attempt by the Trump administration.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

‘Solitary Confinement Is Torture’: Ocasio-Cortez Calls for Chelsea Manning’s Release

“We have a unique responsibility to protect those that have the courage to come out and say when something is wrong, regardless of the administration,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).  (Photo: Screenshot)

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday demanded the release of U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning and called for a ban on extended solitary confinement.

“Chelsea Manning has been trapped in solitary confinement for refusing to answer questions before a Grand Jury,” tweeted the congresswoman from New York. “Solitary confinement is torture. Chelsea is being tortured for whistleblowing, she should be released on bail, and we should ban extended solitary in the U.S.”


Chelsea Resists, Manning’s support committee, thanked Ocasio-Cortez for calling attention to Manning’s situation:


Manning—who served seven years in prison for releasing a trove of classified documents to Wikileaks—has been detained in solitary confinement in a Virginia jailfor nearly four weeks for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury.

On Monday, Manning’s lawyers filed a motion with a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, demanding her release on bail.

“Ms. Manning’s conditions of confinement must either be modified so as not to constitute punishment or she must be released,” said Manning’s attorneys. “Since the jail cannot turn back the clock on punishment that has already occurred, her confinement in [administrative segregation] in excess of 15 days already constitutes an incurable due process violation. She must therefore be released.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet demanding Manning’s release came after the congresswoman delivered a broad defense of whistleblowers during a House Oversight Committee hearing on Tuesday—just a day after a White House whistleblower accused the Trump administration of overturning more than two dozen security clearance denials.

“We have a unique responsibility to protect those that have the courage to come out and say when something is wrong, regardless of the administration,” the congresswoman said. “It doesn’t matter the party. When something is going wrong in government—when there is overreach, when there’s an abuse, or a misconduct of process—we have an obligation to see and investigate it.”


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

‘Nowhere to Hide’: Billboard to Target Kyrsten Sinema as Only Senate Democrat Standing Against Net Neutrality

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

When Senate Democrats unveiled legislation to fully restore net neutrality last week, every member of the party’s caucus signed on to the bill—except one.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the lone Democratic holdout, is now the target of a grassroots campaign by internet advocacy group Fight for the Future, which is crowdfunding a billboard that accuses her of “siding with corporate donors to kill net neutrality.”

“There’s no excuse for not supporting this bill,” Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. “Voters from across the political spectrum are outraged and overwhelmingly want their elected officials to support real net neutrality protections.”

According to Fight for the Future, the Sinema billboard will be displayed at “one of the busiest intersections in Phoenix, Arizona.”

“Senator Sinema needs to decide right now whether the corporate donations she’s getting from Comcast and AT&T are really worth the cost of being seen as a telecom shill and one of the most corrupt members of her party,” Greer said. “We’re crowdfunding this billboard so she knows that there’s nowhere to hide—she can do the right thing or be sure that the entire internet will know she sold them out.”

Fight for the Future said Sinema received more than $130,000 in campaign donations from the telecom industry when she served in the House of Representatives.

When it was introduced last week, the Save the Internet Act was hailed as a “bold and vital” plan to overturn the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) deeply unpopular net neutrality repeal plan, which went into effect last year.

“Whether in the halls of Congress or the halls of the courts, we will not stop fighting until net neutrality is fully restored,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said in a statement. “I thank my colleagues in the Senate and House for their partnership in this fight.”

The House version of the Save the Internet Act, led by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), has over 130 co-sponsors. Here are all of the members of Congress who have not co-sponsored the bill.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar May Be Shaping Up to Be One of the Most Courageous New Faces of Her Party

By We Are Change | We Are Change

Editor’s Comment: It is not often that a politician will speak truth to their own party. It is even more rare to hear a politician call out the bad policies of a former president of his or her same party. It is even more rare that a politician will challenge war policies, in the face of the reality that there is so much money available, from the military-industrial complex, to politicians who will do whatever they ask. It could reasonably be said that most politicians fall into this latter category.

Ilhan Omar is one politician who has pierced the illusions of the polished veneer of former President Obama. Certainly, we can celebrate the presidency of the first person of color, and can even grant that he brought forward certain good policies. However, it is important to acknowledge that he was in numerous ways a heartless hawk on foreign policy issues. And, for a constitutional law professor, he certainly showed a lack of understanding of, and commitment to, the U.S. Constitution at times.

As with Trump, he was willing to use executive orders to circumvent the hard work of gaining consensus with which to pass laws. He also, shockingly, had no problem with murdering U.S. citizens who allegedly were involved in terrorism, and he seemed to have no problem with the killing of many innocents, in collateral damage, from drone strikes. Nor did he fight against indeterminate incarceration under the NDAA bill, then law. And, he did not stop and even seems to have ordered the murder of a head of state – the former head of Lybia.

In their diatribes against former President Obama, Republicans seize upon many of his policies, but do not often speak ill of Obama’s policies and actions mentioned above. One could reasonably suggest that this is because many Republicans eagerly stand at the spigot of military spending as much as many Democrats do.

The video below speaks about this congressperson’s recent comments. We shall see how she does as she continues in her first term. Her positions thus far take courage, and she does not seem to shrink from controversy. Even if you cannot agree with all of her policies, Congresswoman Omar’s courage seems an admirable trait – one not often seen in Washington, D.C. Please check out the video below and let us know what you think of it, in our comments section.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.


David Icke: Stop This Humourless Psychopath Driving The World To War


Source: David Icke

David Icke talks about how John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to Trump, is the front man pushing for more warring (more regime change) by the U.S., while the vast majority of Americans do not want it.

‘Call It the Oppression of the Supermajority’: Americans Eager for Bold Change, So Why Can’t They Get It?

“The defining political fact of our time is not polarization. It’s the inability of even large bipartisan majorities to get what they want on issues like these,” argued Wu. (Photo: 123rf.com)

By Jake Johnson | Common Dreams

Most Americans support Medicare for All, higher taxes on the rich, a Green New Deal, and other major items on the progressive agenda—so why has Congress failed to enact them?

The reason, Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu argued in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday, is that the influence of corporations and the donor class on the American political system has drowned out the policy desires of the public.

“In our era, it is primarily Congress that prevents popular laws from being passed or getting serious consideration. (Holding an occasional hearing does not count as ‘doing something’),” Wu wrote. “Entire categories of public policy options are effectively off-limits because of the combined influence of industry groups and donor interests.”

To bolster his argument, Wu rattled off a number of policies that—despite polling extremely well among large, bipartisan swaths of the American public—have not garnered enough support among lawmakers to pass Congress.

“About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes for the ultra-wealthy. The idea of a federal law that would guarantee paid maternity leave attracts 67 percent support,” Wu noted. “Eighty-three percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws. Seventy-one percent think we should be able to buy drugs imported from Canada, and 92 percent want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices. The list goes on.”

Since the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, Congress has in many cases done the opposite of what most Americans want by slashing taxes on the richfailing to restore net neutrality rules, and attempting to strip healthcare from millions of Americans.

“The defining political fact of our time is not polarization. It’s the inability of even large bipartisan majorities to get what they want on issues like these,” argued Wu. “Call it the oppression of the supermajority. Ignoring what most of the country wants—as much as demagogy and political divisiveness—is what is making the public so angry.”

Wu’s contention that the “combined influence” of the donor class and big business is significantly responsible for Congress’ refusal to enact popular policies matches the conclusion of a 2014 study (pdf) by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who found that in the United States, “the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.”

“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose,” Gilens and Page wrote. “Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

With the 2020 elections rapidly approaching, Wu concluded that “we need to talk more openly about which candidates are most likely to deliver the economic policies that the supermajority wants.”

Though many popular and bold progressive ideas have previously been—and still are—dismissed as fringe and impractical by pundits and members of Congress, major Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have each expressed support for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

Several presidential candidates have also vowed to reject corporate PAC money—though some have reportedly put out calls to Wall Street donors to gauge support.

But no 2020 contenders have committed to killing the Senate filibuster, which critics have characterized as an anti-democratic relic that—if left in place—would make big-ticket progressive agenda items virtually impossible to pass.

“Many are talking about big progressive plans. All are empty promises while the filibuster lives,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the progressive advocacy group Indivisible.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

QAnon DESTROYED By David Icke – EXPOSING Faceless Movements & Distractions!


Source: World Alternative News

Josh Sigurdson sits down with David Icke, world famous researcher and theorist to talk about the absurdity of QAnon, an obvious psyop meant to distract people and keep them apathetic to Trump regardless of what he does. David Icke also talks about the history of movements meant to distract, divide and destroy.

The idea is that everyone should “trust the plan” and lay back. No one should take action because some so-called “white hats” are working behind the scenes to save them.

Now we know here at WAM that we won’t win any points by making this video, but this is about consistency and not allowing the populace to be distracted by faceless movements there to confuse people and misdirect millions of people.

David Icke also breaks down his thoughts on the recent coup in Venezuela as Trump declares Juan Guaido the “legitimate” president of the country as Maduro ends whatever relationship remained with the United States.

David Wilcock: Alliance vs Deep State: The Final Showdown! Best Interview Ever!


Source: Edge of Wonder

The Deep State vs the Alliance: What is happening with the sealed indictments? All questions are answered by David Wilcock on this episode on Edge of Wonder in part 3 of the series. [Probably the best one yet]

Below are parts 1 and 2:



Unraveling the QAnon Hoax

By Makia Freeman | The Freedom Articles

The QAnon, Q-Anon or Q phenomenon which started around October 2017 managed to attract a large amount of die-hard followers who hung on Q’s every word. However, 1.5 years later, we have enough clues to see who was really behind the whole thing, which now appears to be over. There were many clues that QAnon was a psy-op, including his blatant support of regime change in Iran (right in line with the Zionist NWO agenda), his insistence that rabid warmonger and neocon John Bolton was cleaning up Washington, and his praise for current US President Donald Trump who has dropped more bombs and fired more missiles than Obama.

QAnon Praises Neocon Warmongers

Whitney Webb wrote in this June 2018 MintPressNews article:

“The reality constructed by QAnon has ultimately unfolded much like a fictitious spy novel, one that details a “secret” counter-coup by the Trump administration against the so-called “Deep State” that Trump – in reality — has dutifully served ever since winning the 2016 election. Despite QAnon’s having been proven wrong repeatedly, its following remains large and the phenomenon itself remains influential.

Robert Martin, a documentary filmmaker whose series “A Very Heavy Agenda” delves into the nefarious political influence of the neoconservatives, told MintPress that QAnon is the “perfect wish-fulfillment conspiracy snowball” aimed at conservatives, adding that it has worked to “rehabilitate some of the most tarnished and scary neocons to all of a sudden be heroic figures.””

Jason Bermas’ Interview with Defango and Dreamcatcher

In this January 2019 interview, Jason Bermas (producer of documentaries such as Fabled Enemies) interviews 2 men who go by “Defango” and “Dreamcatcher.” They claim they started Q as a LARP (Live Action Role Playing) game which sprung from Cicada 3301, a group that constructs very difficult-to-solve puzzles. Dreamcatcher admits that, at the start, he was “shitposting” just to see what would stick and, to his surprise, the QAnon phenomenon took off like no other LARP before it had. Both Defango and Dreamcatcher refer to another person who posted as Q known as “Microchip” who they say took trips to Israel. They speculate that he may be connected with the notorious Israeli spy agency, the Mossad.

What About the Sealed Indictments?

QAnon supporters will point to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the US nationwide database of court records for Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts) as proof that not all of Q’s posts were without substance. However, the presence of an increase of sealed files itself is not evidence. We don’t know what’s in these sealed files. They may be arrest warrants or they may be something far less serious. As this article states:

“Essentially, the number #QAnon is using is factually correct, but leaves out vital context that explains that relatively few of the 1,077 are actual criminal indictments. Most are routine court matters …A random sampling of these files showed 83 percent of sealed magistrate cases to be warrant applications or tracking devices. They are NOT indictments, but #QAnon’s number includes them anyway.”

QAnon Phenomenon Explained: Cryptic Clues, Cult Following, Gamification

This Corbett Report podcast explains how society is being gamified as a way to lure us into surveilling ourselves and giving over our data to the Corporatocracy and Big Gov. Examples are the Pokemon app a few years back and the Chinese Sesame Credit system. Look how QAnon worked. It consisted of dropping some real info to build credibility and attract a cult following, all the while propagating cryptic clues (as is Cicada 3301’s specialty) rather than just spelling out the facts (and proving it with documents) as genuine whistleblowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden do. This led to countless hours being wasted on a game and puzzle of no importance when more pressing matters that require activist attention went unnoticed.

Who Endorsed QAnon?

Early on, Alex Jones jumped aboard the QAnon bandwagon by devoting a lot of attention and airtime (and employing Jerome Corsi) in analyzing Q’s cryptic threads. However, Jones’ credibility has been in question for a very long time now over his failure to grasp the issue of Zionism (whether deliberately or not), plus the way he has gone off the rails and has devoted his headlines to how Trump and Republicans are good, and how Democrats, Muslims and immigrants are bad, no matter what, end of story. Many people have used Alex Jones and InfoWars to start their awakening process, only to quickly move beyond his very limited and partisan perspectives. Anyone who simplistically believes that one political party is “good” and the other “bad” has fallen very deeply for the fake left-right paradigm.

David Wilcock’s Damaged Street Cred

In this recent interview, David Wilcock stated he believed that there was something to the QAnon phenomenon. For his part, Wilcock has over the years also lost a lot of street credibility with his staunch support for Obama, who turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing (read about the top 10 lowlights of the Obama legacy here). Wilcock has thrown his weight behind Corey Goode and his stories of the Blue Avian ETs, a phenomenon which remains to be corroborated, since of the tens or hundreds of thousands of other ET abductees and contactees around the world, no one else to my knowledge has ever spoken of “blue avian” aliens apart from Goode (some other SPP [Secret Space Program] whistleblowers like Tony Rodrigues believe him however). Wilcock also foolishly led a lot of people up the garden path on a road to nowhere by teaming up with Benjamin Fulford (and a mysterious, anonymous “Drake” character) around 2011-2012 to propagate the idea that “mass arrests of the Illuminati are imminent” and that there’s nothing we have to do other sit back and watch it happen. We’re all going to be saved. Hmm-hmm. Nothing of the sort ever happened.

Does the QAnon phenomenon contain the same sort of embedded psychology when it advocates that we just need to sit back and “trust the plan” that mass arrests or incarcerations will occur due to the “sealed indictments”?

Save Me! Save Me!

This idea that we can all be lazy and complacent while some white hat, good guy group comes out of nowhere to take down the bad guys is absurd. A study of history shows us that it is extremely rare for one group to overthrow another and then to voluntarily relinquish the reins of power to hand it back to the masses. It happens occasionally, but it is not the norm. We have to be vigilant when we come across movements that promise such a thing, for it could very well be a trick to exploit the part of human psychology that wants to hope, to believe and to be saved without doing any of the grunt work that it takes to be free.

QAnon is Over

The QAnon phenomenon appears to be over for now. So what lessons can be learned from it? QAnon was a distraction and a puzzle that kept people entertained and engaged in digging for clues or solving mysteries of no importance while real injustices deserving of attention were ignored. As Whitney Webb wrote, “trust the plan” was just the sequel to “hope and change” to suck us into a hope-rollercoaster that goes nowhere. How can Trump really be fighting the “Deep State” (Shadow Government/NWO) when the NWO is nonpartisan? How can Trump be fighting the Deep State or “draining the swamp” when he has surrounded himself with swamp-dwellers and swamp-critters, such as Goldman Sachs and Rothschild-affiliated agents, Zionists and generals?

The QAnon phenomenon has shown that many people still lack the discernment to be able to separate truth, hoax, psy-op and other forms of disinfo from each other. It’s difficult because truth is never just served up on a silver platter and there are times when you have to follow your intuition in the absence of hard evidence. Swinging to one extreme and demanding hard, material proof for everything will limit your perspective, as will swinging to the other extreme by believing any fairy tale that comes along.

Hopefully this will act us a wake-up call to those who fell for it. Ultimately, the truth is out there and I believe we all the capacity to resonate with it and see through the lies … but it requires hard work, wide reading, critical thought, measuring different perspectives in your mind and an ability to see general patterns amidst all the detail.


Want insight, commentary and analysis on Conspiracy, Geopolitics, Natural Health, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up for free blog updates!

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. Makia is on Steemit and FB.












This article was republished with permission.

Image credit: 123rf.com

Why the United States Wants to Overthrow the Government of Venezuela

A look at what drives the US to persist in its interventions—diplomatic, economic and military—against the Venezuelan government

By Vijay Prashad | Common Dreams

Since 1998, the United States of America has tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela. What threatened the government of the United States since then was the Bolivarian dynamic set in motion by the election of Hugo Chávez as president of Venezuela that year. Chávez won the elections with a mandate from Venezuela’s workers and poor to overhaul the country to tend to their long-neglected needs.

Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, had enriched the U.S.-based oil companies and its own oligarchy. Venezuela’s key oil minister in the early 1960s (and architect of OPEC—the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso rightly called oil the “devil’s excrement.” It promised so much and delivered so little. Chávez arrived as the embodiment of popular hope. He threatened the oil companies and the oligarchy, which is why the United States tried to overthrow him.

The first attempt at a coup came in 2002, when the United States egged on the military and the oligarchy to overthrow Chávez. They failed. He was supremely popular, the Chavista base eager for change that would improve their lives. They had no faith in the United States or the oligarchy, both of whom had suffocated them for the past century.

Never has the Monroe Doctrine—which the United States invoked to control the American hemisphere—done much good for the millions of people from the southern tip of Argentina to the northern reaches of Canada. It has helped along the big corporations and the oligarchs, but not the ordinary people—the base of the Chavistas.

The residue of that base lined up this Sunday to sign a pledge in public against a new U.S. diplomatic and military intervention, against economic war.

What drives the United States to persist in its interventions—diplomatic, economic and military—against the Venezuelan government?

1. Humanitarian Concerns

Is the United States of America motivated by humanitarian concerns? If it were so, why did the United States attempt to overthrow Chávez’s government in 2002, when there was no problem with Venezuela’s finances? Why has the United States tried to push policies for all of Latin America—such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)—that have been clearly shown to increase suffering for the people?

A logical person would look at these U.S. initiatives—the attempted U.S. coup in 2002 and the FTAA—and conclude that the U.S. government has more concern for corporate interests than for the interests of the poor. After all, what bothered the United States with Chávez was that he demanded that oil companies pay higher royalties for the oil that they sucked out of Venezuela. Such audacity has to be repaid with a coup attempt.

It is what happened in 1953 to Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran and in 1954 to Jacobo Árbenz of Guatemala and in 1971 to Salvador Allende of Chile. You cross U.S. multinational corporations, and you get overthrown.

Here’s a quick way to end the humanitarian crisis: stop trying to destabilize Venezuela, end the economic war and allow Venezuela to manage its external revenues. If all this is done, Venezuela’s government should be able to import goods and use its resources to continue the process of diversifying its economy. But this is not what the United States wants.

2. Democracy

Evidence from the past century of U.S. interventions overseas suggests that the United States likes to use the word “democracy” to push its own agenda. Chávez was elected several times, his policies ratified by the people in several referenda. Nicolás Maduro asked the United Nations and external monitors to come to Venezuela and observe last year’s election. The United States pressured these agencies not to go. The right-wing opposition lost the election because they could not come together around a credible candidate—and they have no platform to go to the people.

Even with the chaos in the camp of the right, the right won 33 percent of the vote. Rather than try to appeal to more people on a political basis—the path of democratic politics, in other words—the right has taken cover behind the United States Treasury Department and the U.S. military, with the Canadians in the wings. This is hardly a good way to move a democratic agenda.

What does the United States mean by the promotion of democracy? It is worthwhile to allow U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield to explain the process himself. In November 2006, Brownfield sent a cable to Washington with this five-point strategy (which had been worked out in August 2004):

  1. Strengthening Democratic Institutions
  2. Penetrating Chávez’ Political Base
  3. Dividing Chavismo
  4. Protecting Vital US Business
  5. Isolating Chavez internationally

This is blatant U.S. interference in Venezuelan politics. The first point—strengthening democratic institutions—is the most Orwellian of them all. The U.S. government—via its agencies such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy as well as the CIA—has been funding a series of “civil society” groups to challenge the legitimacy of the Venezuelan electoral process.

A vote monitoring group—Súmate—was used to challenge each election, while groups were funded to take to the streets. In 2009, unrest of the streets—the U.S. State Department admitted—was funded by its agencies. Eduardo Fernandez of Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI) said that “the streets are hot” and that “all these people” who have organized the protest “are our grantees.” So much for democracy promotion.

3. Steal the Oil

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. No question that the oil companies have long wanted to return to the days when they called the shots in Caracas. When Chávez increased Venezuela’s share of the profits, he threatened a broader challenge to the oil firms. They have long wanted to punish the Bolivarian experiment for its audacity.

But there is no immediate need to take the oil. The world currently faces a glut of oil production, with Saudi Arabia running its wells at full tilt and the United States able to produce more oil than previously.

Low oil prices combined with currency problems within Venezuela has provided the United States with a unique opportunity to challenge Maduro’s government. The atmosphere for regime change was improved when Jair Bolsonaro came to power in Brazil, and when Canada and the dozen Latin American leaders were willing to create the Lima Group to push to overthrow the Maduro government.

Low oil prices and the rise of the Latin American right provided the opportunity for the United States, Canada and the Latin American oligarchies to go for regime change. This is about oil, but not only about oil.

4. Crush the Alternative

After the fall of the USSR, the United States and its oligarchic allies hoped that no alternative to their dominance would arise. Any challenge to the United States and its world order had to be crushed. To understand the approach of the U.S. government toward the world, the best document to consult is the National Security Strategy (2002).

That document opens with a declaration of U.S. power—“The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequalled—strength and influence in the world.” No question that the United States has the largest and most powerful military, “strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hopes of surpassing, or equally, the power of the United States.”

Key here is the idea that the United States must be the most powerful country in the world and that no one will be allowed to threaten this power militarily or with an alternative economic agenda. Chávez attempted an alternative in Venezuela and, worse for the United States, through the Bolivarian project across Latin America. The Bolivarians understood that there was no hope for their revolution if they remained within their borders. They had to build bridges with their neighbors on a new foundation.

The U.S.-attempted coup in 2002 came to break the political alternative posed by Chávez. Once more, the National Security Strategy is useful. “The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security,” the U.S. government wrote. “The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves. …To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.” Coups are pre-emptive. So is economic warfare.

Greece, under Syriza, offered a mild alternative. It had to be shut down. Coups come these days, said the former Greek finance minister, by banks as much as tanks.

Venezuela, under the Bolivarians, offered a stronger alternative. It has to be shut down. Humanitarian concerns? Democracy? Not so important to the United States. Far more important is to deliver the planet into the hands of the billionaires, to extend the dictatorship of the billionaires over every square inch of the planet.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Deep State Arrests 2019: Predictions and Major Data Dump with DAVID WILCOCK [Part 1/5!]


Source: Edge of Wonder

In this interview with #DavidWilcock, Edge of Wonder hosts Ben Chasteen and Rob Counts go over the inevitable fate of the #DeepState and what some insiders such as Kim Dotcom are saying about the 1000’s of sealed indictments. Has the government already begun act on it?

They also discuss what is really going on at Guantánamo bay and was the government shutdown just a ruse to start the tribunals?

Get ready for some #Predictions to be made for 2019 on this first episode on Edge of Wonder of a part 5 series with David Wilcock.


David Wilcock: The Deep State Tribunals Are Underway, Tree-Fall Synchronicity

Source: David Wilcock | Divine Cosmos

The Deep State Tribunals have now begun in several locations, according to various insider accounts. David and Elizabeth Wilcock had a huge tree fall in their yard as they were both writing about this civilization-defining change in their own way.

David gives mission-critical updates about the in-process defeat of the Deep State and the energetic process that goes along with it — regarding the Fall of Kings. Right as these articles were being prepared, two huge trees fell into their yard, destroying the fence and nearly breaking the windows. David sees this as a powerful synchronicity and affirmation that we are indeed in “the time of times!”

War Criminals at Large

Dr. Daniel Ganser | Nexus News

From left: Former Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, former President George W. Bush, and former Vice President Dick Cheney with their hands over their hearts. (Photo: File/Public Domain)

It is a common misconception that democracies do not start wars of aggression or carry out terrorist attacks. The historical facts for the period from 1945 to today show a completely different reality: time and again, democratic states in Europe and North America have participated in wars of aggression and terrorist attacks in the past 70 years.

There are so many cases that I am not able to list all of them here. As examples, I have selected three events from different decades:

  • the illegal attack by the European democracies Britain and France on Egypt in 1956;
  • the terrorist attack by the democracy France on Rainbow Warrior, a ship operated by the environmental organization Greenpeace in 1985;
  • and the illegal attack by US President Donald Trump on Syria on April 7, 2017.

Because mass media, neither in the European nor the American democracies, openly address and criticize these crimes and because so far the responsible politicians have not been convicted by a court, a stubborn misconception persists in the populations of these aggressor states that democracies never start wars and also never use terror as a political instrument.

But the three examples mentioned show clearly:

Democracies, members of the NATO military alliance and with a veto power in the UN Security Council to protect themselves from condemnation, have repeatedly attacked other countries.

This is illegal. For the UN Charter of 1945, Article 2 (4), clearly states:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force..[..]

The Charter only allows the use of force if an attacked state defends itself or if the United Nations Security Council has approved the military strike. In all other cases, the UN prohibits war. Terrorist attacks are always prohibited.

The attack on Egypt in 1956

Egypt is a strategically important country because of the 160 kilometer long Suez Canal, opened in 1869. It plays a central role in supplying Europe with crude oil. The canal connects the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and saves ships from the Persian Gulf to Europe the detour around Africa. Today, the canal is plied daily by tankers bringing oil and liquefied natural gas to the European market.

For Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt as president in the 1950s, the Suez Canal was a hated symbol of European colonialism, because the long and narrow water-way through the Egyptian desert had been built by the French and thereafter became the private Suez Canal Company, jointly owned by France and the colonial power Great Britain.

Nasser pursued a nationalist policy of neutrality in the Cold War and cultivated cooperation with India and Yugoslavia, whose non-alignment he admired. In order to prevent Egypt from falling into the sphere of influence of the communist Soviet Union, the Americans and British, together with the World Bank, in 1955 promised Egypt a loan for the construction of a massive dam on the Nile near Aswan. The dam would allow Nasser to regulate the water masses of the Nile during the annual floods, for agricultural purposes and production of renewable hydropower for the industrialization of Egypt.

But in July 1956, US President Dwight Eisenhower changed his mind. After consulting with London and the World Bank, he said that Egypt was not creditworthy because Nasser recognized the People’s Republic of China and publicly had stated that he wanted to destroy Israel. Nasser became enraged and decided that the oil transit fees from the Suez Canal now needed to finance the construction of the planned Aswan High Dam. Therefore, on July 26, 1956 he nationalized the Suez Canal Company, to the horror of France and Britain.

British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was shocked, and feared that the Soviets would extend their sphere of influence. In April 1956, shortly before the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Eden had warned the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with clear words:

“As far as oil is concerned, I have to bluntly tell you – we would fight for it … we could not live without oil and … we do not intend to be strangled.”

After nationalization, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles also insisted to the British and French foreign ministers that “a way had to be found to make Nasser disgorge” the canal (1).

Britain decided to use military resources to fight for the canal and access to Middle East oil. “The truth is that we are caught in a terrible dilemma,” noted British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in his diary:

“If we take strong action against Egypt, and as a result the canal is closed, the pipelines to the Levant are cut, the Persian Gulf revolts and oil production is stopped, then the U.K. and Western Europe have ‘had it’.”

But “if we suffer a diplomatic defeat; if Nasser gets away with it” – and the Middle East countries, in a ferment, ‘nationalize oil’ … we have equally ‘had it’. What then are we to do? It seems clear to me that we should take the only chance we have – to take strong action, and hope that thereby our friends in the Middle East will stand, our enemies fall, and the oil be saved – but it is a tremendous decision”(2).

As part of a conspiracy – by definition, a secret agreement between two or more people to reach a common goal – high-ranking representatives of Britain, France and Israel met in a villa in Sèvres, near Paris between October 22-24, 1956 to plan the top-secret Operation Musketeer.

Israeli soldiers waving at a French Air Force aircraft (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The British delegation was led by Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd, the French by Prime Minister Guy Mollet and the Israelis by Prime Minister Ben Gurion. The conspirators decided that Israel should attack Egypt and advance militarily through the sparsely populated Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal. France and Britain would then give Nasser an unacceptable ultimatum, creating an excuse to militarily occupy the Suez Canal. The goal of the action was to gain control of the Suez Canal and, Israel hoped, overthrow Nasser.

Of course, the planned war was illegal, because it contradicted the prohibition of violence in the UN Charter, but the conspirators did not care about international law. On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army attacked Egypt right on schedule and occupied the Sinai Peninsula. Thereby Israel made itself guilty of the crime of aggression.

The US quickly realized that this was an illegal war of aggression, and on October 30th summoned the Security Council to a special session. US Ambassador Henry Lodge called for the “the immediate cessation of the military action of Israel in Egypt”. The Egyptian ambassador, Omar Loutfi, condemned the Israeli attack on his country with very sharp words. “Israeli troops have invaded Egyptian territory in various places,” this is an “extremely dangerous act of aggression” (3).

Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban did not deny that the Israeli army had attacked Egypt, but stressed that it was an act of self-defense. The French UN ambassador, as agreed, stood on the Israeli side. “Egyptian imperialism” is trying to control the area from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and aims at “the destruction of Israel”. Contrary to all legal obligations, Egypt also had seized a “water-way which is essential to the life of the nations.” (4)

Then, as agreed, France and Britain presented their unacceptable ultimatum, demanding that Egyptian and Israeli forces retreat to a distance of ten miles from the water-way and allow British and French troops to control strategic positions on the Suez Canal. Waiting only twelve hours for an answer, British Ambassador Sir Pierson Dixon warned that “British and French forces will intervene in whatever strength may be necessary to secure compliance” (4).

Of course, this ultimatum was unacceptable to Egypt. It served the European democracies France and Britain as an excuse to attack Egypt. This was of course illegal, because they did not have a mandate from the Security Council. The conspiracy that existed before the attack between the three countries remained a secret at that time and was exposed by historians only years later.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.