NATO’s Losing Proxy War in Ukraine

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Ron Unz
THE UNZ REVIEW

Please give this page some time to load its video assets

Since late February 2022 Russia’s war with Ukraine has dominated the global headlines, but what may have been the most important incident in that conflict has received only a sliver of coverage in the Western mainstream media. 

One year ago tomorrow a series of massive underwater explosions destroyed most of the $30 billion Russian-German Nord Stream Pipelines, probably Europe’s most important civilian energy infrastructure. All observers soon agreed that the blasts had been deliberate, likely constituting the greatest case of industrial terrorism in world history and an obvious act of war against Germany, NATO’s leading European member. And then in lock-step, nearly all Western media outlets declared that the Russians had destroyed their own pipelines, an action further demonstrating the dangerous insanity of President Vladimir Putin, our diabolical Moscow adversary. Only a handful of voices on the dissident fringe suggested otherwise.

But five months later the issue was suddenly resurrected. Across his half-century career, Seymour Hersh had established himself as America’s most renowned investigative journalist, and he now published one of his greatest exposes, a meticulously detailed account of how a team of American military divers had destroyed the pipelines, acting under the orders of the Biden Administration.

Despite Hersh’s towering reputation, virtually all our mainstream journalists scrupulously avoided mentioning those revelations. But many millions around the world read his article or watched his interviews, and the UN Security Council soon held hearings on the issue, with Prof. Jeffrey Sachs and former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern strongly endorsing Hersh’s conclusions.

Given these developments, the previous claim that Putin had destroyed his own pipelines began looking a little threadbare, so Western intelligence services soon circulated a new cover story, claiming that the gigantic attacks had actually been mounted by a shadowy handful of pro-Ukrainian activists operating from a rented sailboat. Once again, nearly all our pundits eagerly nodded their heads.

We live in an age of grotesque falsehoods that might rival those portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984, and I think Putin had a point when he condemned America as “an empire of lies.”

Last winter was an unusually mild one, somewhat mitigating the full impact of Europe’s total loss of cheap Russian energy. But even so, a recent front-page storyin the Wall Street Journal described the severe economic crisis facing Germany, Europe’s industrial engine. If Hersh’s account were confirmed, NATO would legally be at war with the U.S.

Although such a bizarre outcome is hardly likely, the future of the alliance does seem very doubtful.  Lawrence Wilkerson has had a distinguished mainstream career, serving as the longtime chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and in a lengthy interview a couple of days ago he foresaw the loss of America’s German ally and the dissolution of NATO. If that 76 year alliance does disintegrate, future historians will surely point to the Nord Stream pipeline attacks as the crucial triggering event. Western media possesses an awesome power of illusion, but Reality usually has the final say.

The Ultimate Dissolution of NATO | Col. Larry Wilkerson

Dialogue works

Sep 23, 2023 Interviews

Col. (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired in 1997 and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs at the George Washington University and is currently working on a book about the first George W. Bush administration.

Hersh had originally intended his current column to focus on the anniversary of the pipeline attacks, but important developments in the larger Ukraine war pushed that aside. As he reported, one of his trusted sources with access to current intelligence explained the disastrous state of the military situation:

“

It’s all lies,” the official said, speaking of the Ukrainian claims of incremental progress in the offensive that has suffered staggering losses, while gaining ground in a few scattered areas that the Ukrainian military measures in meters per week.

The American intelligence official I spoke with spent the early years of his career working against Soviet aggression and spying has respect for Putin’s intellect but contempt for his decision to go to war with Ukraine and to initiate the death and destruction that war brings. But, as he told me, “The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going.


Hersh’s informant also described the way that Western intelligence had been manipulating our mainstream media and using it to deceive our own citizens:

“

Yes,” the official said, “Putin did something stupid, no matter how provoked, by violating the UN charter and so did we”—meaning President Biden’s decision to wage a proxy war with Russia by funding Zelensky and his military. “And so now we have to paint him black, with the help of the media, in order to justify our mistake.” He was referring to a secret disinformation operation that was aimed at diminishing Putin, undertaken by the CIA in coordination with elements of British intelligence. The successful operation led major media outlets here and in London to report that the Russian president was suffering from varied illnesses that included blood disorders and a serious cancer. One oft-quoted story had Putin being treated by heavy doses of steroids. Not all were fooled. The Guardian skeptically reported in May of 2022 that the rumors “spanned the gamut: Vladimir Putin is suffering from cancer or Parkinson’s disease, say unconfirmed and unverified reports.” But many major news organizations took the bait. In June 2022, Newsweek splashed what it billed a major scoop, citing unnamed sources saying that Putin had undergone treatment two months earlier for advanced cancer: “Putin’s grip is strong but no longer absolute. The jockeying inside the Kremlin has never been more intense. . . . everyone sensing that the end is near.”
 

Public events seemed to quickly confirm the accuracy of the grim Ukraine war prognosis reported by Hersh. Poland has always been intensely hostile to Russia, so from the beginning of the fighting, the Warsaw government had been the strongest and most enthusiastic backer of Ukraine’s military effort, by some accounts even secretly sending many thousands of its own troops into combat. But Poland’s President Andrzej Duda has now declared that his country would provide no additional military aid, underscoring his position with remarkably undiplomatic language:

Ukraine is behaving like a drowning person clinging to everything he can… but we have the right to defend ourselves against harm being done to us. A drowning person is extremely dangerous, he can pull you down to the depths… simply drown the rescuer. We must act to protect ourselves from the harm being done to us, because if the drowning person… drowns us, he will not get help. So we have to take care of our interests and we will do it effectively and decisively.

And Poland’s dramatic public break with Ukraine is hardly alone, coming after signs that various other European leaders are strongly reevaluating their involvement. As I’d highlighted earlier this month, a front-page story in the New York Times by its longtime European columnist described how numerous leading European figures have shifted their position, opening with these striking paragraphs:

PARIS — Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French president, was once known as “Sarko the American” for his love of free markets, freewheeling debate and Elvis. Of late, however, he has appeared more like “Sarko the Russian,” even as President Vladimir V. Putin’s ruthlessness appears more evident than ever.

In interviews coinciding with the publication of a memoir, Mr. Sarkozy, who was president from 2007 to 2012, said that reversing Russia’s annexation of Crimea was “illusory,” ruled out Ukraine joining the European Union or NATO because it must remain “neutral,” and insisted that Russia and France “need each other.”

“People tell me Vladimir Putin isn’t the same man that I met. I don’t find that convincing. I’ve had tens of conversations with him. He is not irrational,” he told Le Figaro. “European interests aren’t aligned with American interests this time,” he added.

His statements, to the newspaper as well as the TF1 television network, were unusual for a former president in that they are profoundly at odds with official French policy. They provoked outrage from the Ukrainian ambassador to France and condemnation from several French politicians, including President Emmanuel Macron.


Meanwhile, our media outlets are finally beginning to reveal the true magnitude of the West’s military predicament. Just over a week ago, a major front-page story in the New York Times described the complete failure of our attempts to cripple Russian military production, which now dramatically exceeds the combined total of America and its NATO allies. Artillery has played a dominant role in the Ukraine war and Russia’s advantage in both quantity and cost is enormous:

Western officials also believe Russia is on track to manufacture two million artillery shells a year — double the amount Western intelligence services had initially estimated Russia could manufacture before the war.

As a result of the push, Russia is now producing more ammunition than the United States and Europe. Overall, Kusti Salm, a senior Estonian defense ministry official, estimated that Russia’s current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West.

Russia’s production costs are also far lower than the West’s, in part because Moscow is sacrificing safety and quality in its effort to build weapons more cheaply, Mr. Salm said. For instance, it costs a Western country $5,000 to $6,000 to make a 155-millimeter artillery round, whereas it costs Russia about $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter artillery shell, he said.

When I first saw that claim by a senior NATO Defense official that “Russia’s current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West,” I wondered whether some ridiculous misprint had slipped past the copy-editors of our national newspaper of record; but the figure seems absolutely correct. Just a couple of days ago, a Fox Business report quoted a top American procurement official:

“We’re going to be at 100,000 per month in 2025. We were at 14,000 per month 6 or 8 months ago, we are now at 28,000 a month today,” Bill LaPlante, the Pentagon’s weapons acquisition chief, said at a conference on Friday.

So Russia’s production is currently around 170,000 shells per month and ours is merely 15% of that, while we’re hoping to reach 60% within a couple of years, at which point Russian production will surely have also dramatically increased. For months now, honest military and intelligence analysts such as Douglas Macgregor, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, and Scott Ritter have emphasized that NATO is rapidly running out of both weapons and ammunition, and the Pentagon seems to have now confirmed that reality.

Although our hagiographic history books have generally ascribed our successful wars of the last century to the heroism of American troops, the true facts were otherwise. Our country’s military victories in World War II and afterward were almost entirely due to our enormous advantages in productive capability, which allowed us to swamp our foes with vast quantities of equipment. Henry Ford may have been strongly opposed to American involvement in World War II, but the world-beating efficiency of the factory system that he pioneered was probably more important to our victory than any of our famous generals or admirals.

Such advantages were obviously far greater in the other wars that followed, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all conflicts that we failed to win despite possessing overwhelming superiority in materiel, and since the Second World War, we have never had to face anything like a peer-competitor. Our arrogant and complacent political leadership class has therefore allowed our defense industry to shift its focus from production to profiteering, and as a result Russia is vastly outproducing us at just a fraction of our cost. Meanwhile, as I emphasized earlier this year, Russia’s Chinese ally has a real productive economy three times the size of our own, and could easily swamp our output if that were to prove necessary.

 

Artillery shells may have become the primary expendable munitions of the Ukraine war, but they hardly represent cutting-edge technology, and many Americans might comfort themselves that decades of our enormous annual defense budgets, running more than ten times that of Russia, have surely given us unmatched superiority in high-tech weaponry. But the reality is rather different.

In early 2018, we published an article by Andrei Martyanov, a Soviet immigrant with strong military expertise, in which he discussed the revolutionary suite of hypersonic missile systems that Putin had just announced, with our publication being one of the first in the West to emphasize the importance of this technological breakthrough.

At the time, the mainstream reaction was mostly a mixture of skepticism that hypersonics would actually work and be significant, together with reassuring claims that we would quickly be able to match any such Russian systems. But more than five years have now passed, and Russian hypersonics have regularly been used with great effectiveness in Ukraine, demonstrating that they cannot be stopped by any Western defensive system. Then last week a front-page story in the Wall Street Journalsummed up our current predicament:

The weapon Beijing launched over the South China Sea traveled at speeds of more than 15,000 miles an hour as it circled the globe.

Flying at least 20 times the speed of sound, it could reach anywhere on earth in less than an hour.

The summer 2021 test flight ended with the missile striking near a target in China, but it sent shock waves through Washington. National security officials concluded Beijing had launched a hypersonic weapon—a projectile capable of traveling at least five times the speed of sound.

The weapons can attack with extreme speed, be launched from great distances and evade most air defenses. They can carry conventional explosives or nuclear warheads. China and Russia have them ready to use. The U.S. doesn’t.

For more than 60 years, the U.S. has invested billions of dollars in dozens of programs to develop its own version of the technology. Those efforts have either ended in failure or been canceled before having a chance to succeed.

For nearly a decade, Prof. John Mearsheimer and other top scholars have emphasized that Russia’s entire political leadership regarded a NATO military presence on Russia’s own border as an existential national security threat. Russia not only possesses the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, but its suite of hypersonic delivery systems have now provided it with a considerable degree of strategic superiority, rendering our massive involvement in the Ukraine war an act of colossal recklessness.

A few days ago, a Ukrainian missile strike damaged the Crimea headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, an operation that almost certainly required NATO reconnaissance and intelligence support, legally making the alliance a co-belligerent in the conflict. The Russians could announce tomorrow that they will retaliate by using a conventionally-armed hypersonic missile to demolish the NATO headquarters in Brussels, even providing the exact hour and minute of the planned attack so as to minimize any resulting loss of life, and from what I’ve read none of our lavishly-funded missile defenses could save the doomed building from its fate.

But even aside from the risk of a direct military clash, our leaders seem not to consider that Russia might take horizontal retaliatory steps in other theaters that could gravely endanger our own national security.

One such Russian counter-move may have already occurred. Last month, CSIS published a report by MIT Prof. Ted Postol, a top arms control expert, arguing that the sudden appearance of new, solid-fueled North Korean ICBMs was probably the result of a direct technology-transfer from Russia. He explained: “This missile is equipped to penetrate existing U.S. ballistic missile defenses with countermeasures and deliver multiple thermonuclear weapons to targets in the continental United States.” As a result, many tens of millions of American lives are now at the mercy of a young and sometimes erratic foreign dictator deeply hostile to us, thereby obviously giving North Korea much greater leverage in any future military confrontation involving South Korea or Japan.

Postol’s case is hardly air-tight and some other arms control experts have disputedhis conclusions. However, North Korea displayed their the new ICBMs around the same time that the country received its first visit from a Russian Defense Minister in more than three decades, and this milestone was quickly followed by the unprecedented personal visit by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to Russia for meetings with Putin. These highly unusual developments tend to support Postol’s analysis, and with leading national security experts such as Ray McGovern, Larry Wilkerson, and Douglas Macgregor all endorsing his conclusions.

Is CIA Seeing Any Light? Intel Round Table w/Larry Johnson & Ray McGovern

In a recent interview, Macgregor argued that China had long regarded North Korea as a dangerous regional trouble-maker and had therefore vetoed any transfer of Russian ICBM systems to that country. But America’s endless provocations in Ukraine and Taiwan finally persuaded the Chinese to let the Russians play their North Korean card. Macgregor further suggested that the Russians might eventually decide to retaliate against our continuing support for Ukraine by similarly transferring advanced weapons systems or missile technology to Western Hemisphere countries such as Cuba and Venezuela that have long been the targets of our hostility. So our irrational Ukraine policy might trigger another Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Moreover, the extent of America’s ongoing strategic defeat stretches far beyond narrow military issues. A couple of years ago, America had launched an outrageous attempt to strangle the expanding Chinese technology sector by suddenly banning all shipments of Western microchips and related design products, with our highest-priority target being Huawei, China’s global tech champion and the world’s leading producer of networking equipment. America’s economic Pearl Harbor attack led to the quick destruction of Huawei’s once rapidly-growing mobile phone division, with jingoistic Americans crowing about that victory.

But Huawei and its government patrons quietly redoubled their efforts, focusing upon developing home-grown microchip substitutes. As a result, the company recently released a powerful new mobile phone built entirely upon domestic components, and did so in just a fraction of the time American analysts had believed possible. A week ago Prof. Jeffrey Sachs discussed the implications of this additional failure in America’s senseless drive for global hegemony.


US efforts to strangle China & reassert hegemony - Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Soon afterward, Michael Brenner, a professor of international affairs, pondered how America might react to its looming military defeat in Ukraine. He argued that over the decades our country’s very well-oiled media-propaganda organs had proven themselves extremely skilled in flushing away memories of our past failures and defeats, but then suggested that the likely outcome in Ukraine might be much more difficult to conceal.

The United States is being defeated in Ukraine.

One could say that it is facing defeat — or, more starkly, that it is staring defeat in the face. Neither formulation is appropriate, though. The U.S. doesn’t look reality squarely in the eye. It prefers to look at the world through the distorted lenses of its fantasies. It plunges forward on whatever path it’s chosen while averting its eyes from the topography it is trying to traverse. Its sole guiding light is the glow of a distant mirage. That is its lodestone.

The focal shift from Russia in Europe to China in Asia is less a mechanism for coping with defeat than the pathological reaction of a country that, feeling a gnawing sense of diminishing prowess, can manage to do nothing more than try one final fling at proving to itself that it still has the right stuff — since living without that exalted sense of self is intolerable.

What is deemed heterodox, and daring, in Washington these days is to argue that it should wrap up the Ukraine affair one way or another so it might gird its loins for the truly historic contest with Beijing. The disconcerting truth that nobody of consequence in the country’s foreign policy establishment has denounced this hazardous turn toward war supports the proposition that deep emotions rather than reasoned thought are propelling the U.S. toward an avoidable, potentially catastrophic conflict.

A society represented by an entire political class that is not sobered by that prospect rightly can be judged as providing prime facie evidence of being collectively unhinged.

Amnesia may serve the purpose of sparing our political elites, and the American populace at large, the acute discomfort of acknowledging mistakes and defeat. However, that success is not matched by an analogous process of memory erasure in other places.

The U.S. was fortunate, in the case of Vietnam, that the United States’ dominant position in the world outside of the Soviet Bloc and the PRC allowed it to maintain respect, status and influence.

Things have now changed, though. The U.S. relative strength in all domains is weaker, strong centrifugal forces around the globe are producing a dispersion of power, will and outlook among other states. The BRICs phenomenon is the concrete embodiment of that reality.

Hence, the prerogatives of the United States are narrowing, its ability to shape the global system in conformity with its ideas and interests are under mounting challenge, and premiums are being placed on diplomacy of an order that seems beyond its present aptitudes.

The U.S. is confounded

 

All of these esteemed academic scholars and influential public intellectuals have made a very strong and substantive case for the disastrous military and political failure of America’s Ukraine policy. But a perfect example of the sheer madness of our effort came in a short post by Andrew Anglin, the deliberately provocative alt-right activist who has inherited the social mantle of the outrageous Yippies of the late 1960s and as a result become the world’s most censored writer.

A few days ago he mentioned that the Ukrainian military had just fired one of its leading spokespersons, Michael “Sarah” Ashton-Cirillo, an American transsexual who had publicly called for the assassinations of foreign journalists critical of the Ukrainian regime.

https://twitter.com/vladis_shadow/status/1700580503315718300?s=61&t=hqIZqfQA8Y3_kRaYix-URA

This seems to demonstrate that the Ukraine propaganda agenda is on the backfoot.

After the murder of Alexander Dugin’s daughter, and the bombing of a journalist, Vladlen Tatarsky, at a coffee shop in Saint Petersburg, the Ukraine state made these exact same threats, saying they were going to kill more and more journalists and writers who say things against them.

Obviously, the goal of murdering journalists is to create a chilling effect, where people are scared to criticize you. When I was on Twitter, a lot of people were saying they were going to hunt me down and kill me for criticizing the war. I’m like “lol, ok.” But I could see even that situation – just internet death threats – causing a lot of people to stop speaking out against the war.

It’s really gross behavior, and not the mark of a winner. But it’s something Ukraine has done consistently, so the fact that they are punishing this tranny and doing damage control shows that they’re feeling the heat.

One of Anglin’s commenters calling himself “Robertson” summed up the situation in a single sentence:

If in 2015 you would have told me the US would have given over 100 Billion in aid to a military “ally” in a hot war with Russia that had an American transsexual wearing an obvious wig as its spokesperson issuing death threats to journalists covering the war for not lying about it, all with our approval, I’d have told you that you are drinking way too much, but now it’s hard to imagine things being any other way.

Related Reading:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Ron Unz is publisher and editor in chief of the Unz Review.

SELECTED COMMENTS
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
September 25, 2023 at 4:28 am GMT • 18.2 hours ago • 100 Words   ↑

Allow me to toss two interesting facts into the debate:

1. Nordstream 2 was completed in September 2021. The Americans pressured their German puppets to not allow it to open for “regulatory” reasons. It remained closed for over a year until the Russian invasion of the Donbass.

“German agency suspends certification for Nord Stream 2”; DW; November 11, 2021; https://www.dw.com/en/german-agency-suspends-certification-for-nord-stream-2-pipeline/a-59833502

2. Hungarian leader Orban blurted out plans for an American power shift in Europe earlier this year.


Video Link
One-off says:
September 25, 2023 at 4:52 am GMT • 17.8 hours ago • 200 Words   ↑

He argued that over the decades our country’s very well-oiled media-propaganda organs had proven themselves extremely skilled in flushing away memories of our past failures and defeats, but then suggested that the likely outcome in Ukraine might be much more difficult to conceal.

Nailed it. Hence the reason we should be terrified that a nuclear war may be unavoidable. Our lame elites will be laid bare and the usual obfuscation and misdirection may prove ineffective. These people are equal portions unhinged and arrogant, and may prefer to go full Rev. Jim Jones rather than allowing the faithful to be disabused of the illusion of their omnipotence. It has been terrifying since the war started precisely because those running this show are lunatics who suffer neither humility nor proportionality. My primary fear has been they would make a false or stupid move that would provoke a first strike, but a suicidal resolution also is a strong possibility.

As an aside, thanks for the link to the Brenner piece. Wow.

• Replies: @Poupon Marx

Dumbo says:
September 25, 2023 at 6:17 am GMT • 16.3 hours ago • 100 Words   ↑

But the real objective of this war is not reconquering Crimea or the Donbass, just as the real objective of Afghanistan was not “turning it into a flourishing democracy”, but controlling poppy fields.

The real objectives are:

– Wear down Russia and keep it busy for years or decades
– Destroy Europe and in particular Germany, keeping them as eternal vassals
– Make money selling and reselling weapons
– Make money buying the whole of Ukraine on the cheap through Blackrock, etc
– Kill a lot of Slavs
– Reduce even more native European birth rate
– Use the war as cover to increase the “camp of the saints” refugee flow
– Etc, etc.

In this sense, they are succeeding. When all you want is destruction, it becomes easier to attain your objectives.

• Agree: son of a jedi, michael888
• Thanks: emerging majority, Sarah
• Replies: @marylou

BlackFlag says:
September 25, 2023 at 6:40 am GMT • 16.0 hours ago • 100 Words   ↑

@Carlton Meyer

This is what Unz and Mearsheimer ignore. America has successfully severed Europe from Russia in both economic and political terms. Therefore, Europe remains dependent on America and therefore remains its vassal. America has won the war.

To ensure Europe’s subjugation, EU is kept weak. The apparent friction in the EU, e.g. Poland blaming Germany for pressuring it to accept Ukrainian grain and refusing to comply with EU diktats, is probably engineered or at least encouraged by America.

Even if Russia gains 8 oblasts and moves closer to China, America’s primary objective has been met. The Chinese-led coalition, BRICS++, is a bigger threat but probably would have happened anwyay due to China’s rise and America’s necessary economic war against it.

• Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @YetAnotherAnon, @Hulkamania

Tom Welsh says:
September 25, 2023 at 7:15 am GMT • 15.4 hours ago • 200 Words   ↑

“As a result, many tens of millions of American lives are now at the mercy of a young and sometimes erratic foreign dictator deeply hostile to us…”

Maybe he is influenced by the US government’s spirited attempt to exterminate the North Korean people just 70 years ago – a mere two generations – after which US generals boasted of having dropped so many bombs that no substantial building in the country was left intact.

Before WW2 there was only one country called “Korea”. Just like China and Japan, it was a distinct nation with a long history and a very well-defined identity.

Then American bureaucrats decided that there was a risk that the Korean people would elect a communist government – in a free and fair election, mind you – so they chose to cut Korea in half. South Korea, the part they controlled, was given over to cynical, murderous rulers who had cheerfully collaborated with the Japanese occupation in WW2. At the first opportunity, making full use of its newly-created tool the UN, Washington launched an all-out attack on North Korea which was fought to a standstill only when China came to the rescue.

You can assert without fear of contradiction that every single person now living in North Korea remembers ancestors who were murdered by the American invaders. So it’s not surprising that they are not enthusiastically friendly to the USA, and very keen to acquire sufficient means of self-defence against it.

• Agree: annacat, Kevin Barrett, Sarah
• Thanks: emerging majority
• Replies: @Che Guava

Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW

 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS



US is Waging a Hybrid War on India. Solution? China!

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

SL Kanthan
FACILITATED BY BILLY BOB

The Western media mafia is already at work demonising India

Recent events this year indicate that the US is waging a hybrid war on India. It started with a BBC documentary that recycled Hindu-Muslim conflicts from 20+ years ago; then, allegations against Indian billionaire Adani by an American company; followed by calls for better democracy by Soros; and now the latest bombshell accusations from Canada against the Indian government regarding the murder of Sikh separatists.

   EDITOR'S NOTE: The 5 Eyes are clearly ganging up on India.

As a dutiful puppet, Trudeau is following the script provided to him by his masters in London and Washington. In their effort to demonise India, the whore media are comparing the Sikh activist's death to the sordid Skripals' case (a poisoning cum abduction and probable murder by British agents blamed on Russia), and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi (Saudi agents) without much credible evidence, so far. Observe how CBS (a major US network, and part of the Globalist Neoliberal Blue Cult) shamelessly insinuates precisely those crimes. 

By the way, the word “allies” is just a euphemism for vassals. Modern wars are hybrid in nature — they include hot wars, economic wars, tech wars, trade wars, propaganda wars, spy wars, political wars and so on. The US wages hybrid wars on its vassals to make sure that the vassals don’t collude or start making independent decisions. Thus, the US spies on its European allies, stages soft coups in allied countries, wrecks their economies when they get too strong [vide Germany, currently in economic implosion due to Nordstream sabotage by the US], and even forces them into proxy wars. This is standard procedure, and India is now getting a taste of it. With Soros’ involvement, there might even be a color revolution.

To counteract America’s hybrid war, India should re-embrace China! Yes, bring back Huawei 5G, TikTok, Alibaba etc., and the US will back off quickly. That’s smart, “Chanakya” geopolitics.

In this article, we will discuss one of the powerful modern tools for regime change — use of NGOs by the US foreign policy establishment. Then we will discuss why India is under attack and how India can fight back to protect its sovereignty and focus on rapid growth.

How the Attacks are Unfolding

The BBC documentary was not a coincidence as evidenced by the Hindenburg report that came a couple of days later in a one-two punch fashion. The allegations of fraud have eviscerated $100 billion of (corrupt?) Indian oligarch Gautam Adani’s wealth. He quickly fell from the 2nd wealthiest man to #25 in the Bloomberg Index.

Then came George Soros, the king of color revolutions, who linked these two incidents, attacked Modi, and called for a “democratic revival” in India. This was the final confirmation of America’s war on India.

The latest attack is from Canada, a member of the Anglo-American Empire and Five Eyes. Don’t mistake me — it’s very likely that the Indian government on some level was involved in the shooting of the Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The media is now reporting that there are incriminating recordings of Indian diplomats in Canada. Not surprised at all.

The whole thing was an entrapment. Just like how the US ambassador in Iraq told Saddam Hussein that if he invaded Kuwait, the US wouldn’t do anything.

In India’s case, it’s likely that someone from the CIA (or even the Mossad) gave the green light for the assassination, while other groups collected the evidence.

What is America’s goal? Either regime change or forcing Modi government to change some of its domestic and foreign policies.

Another sign of the escalating hostility is the sudden change in the tone of the Western media. Look what the influential journal Economist says:

“India is invariably weaker than its leaders publicly proclaim”

“If the investigation confirms Indian involvement in this crime, it is time for a tougher line.”

“On its own turf, India has muzzled the press, cowed the courts and persecuted minorities”

Understanding America’s Overt Regime-Change Ops

A quick history lesson here is important. During the Cold War, the CIA blatantly assassinated many leaders of sovereign nations all over the world to “stop the spread of communism.” The real reason was, of course, to extend American hegemony globally and ensure cheap supplies of raw materials as well as open markets for American products.

However, by the 1970s, a lot of allies started to complain, since murdering political leaders was a bit too much even for the co-conspirators and obedient puppets of imperialism. Thus, in the 1980s, the US polished its regime change operations and came up with the idea of revolutions through propaganda and soft power. This was the result of people like George Soros and a myriad of organizations like NED and NDI.

Thus, the US shifted many of its operations from covert to overt. Rather than knife-and-dagger, try to overthrow leaders openly!

In 1991, Allen Weinstein, the founder of NED, admitted that, “ A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The goal was to spend billions of dollars in “NGOs” in developing countries, especially those that are resistant to American influence. In an Orwellian fashion, these “non-governmental” organizations are funded and directed by the US government! The term “NGO” just means that they are free from the governments of the countries where the NGOs are located.

These NGOs create a vast array of groups including those that promote “journalism,” “free speech,” “women’s rights,” “environmentalism” etc. Plus, to give some legitimacy, they also include groups that allegedly help fight poverty or illiteracy. However, all their actions are focused on promoting pro-American sentiments and Western corporate interests. The leaders of these groups can make a lot of money and enjoy celebrity status. They can attend workshops in Europe, get to testify before the US Congress, write articles for the NY Times, appear on CNN etc. If they are really good, like that North Korean defector Yeonmi Park, they can make $10,000 a speech, making up absurd stories.

You can see these US/EU-funded fake NGO groups now, in 2023, in Myanmar, Thailand, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc. For more than two decades, they were busy in Hong Kong, until they were completely dismantled by China two years ago. The separatist movement in the Xinjiang-Uyghur region is also fueled by the same people. Other places that were recent victims of US-led protests include Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Cuba and even the so-called Arab Spring.

In Ukraine, they started in the early 1990s and lasted until 2014, when the Nazi-led and US-orchestrated Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader. Since then, the Ukrainian NGO groups have shifted their energy to 100% anti-Russian propaganda.

George Soros, the General of Color Revolutions

While the US government funds groups like NED and NDI to create chaos in not-so-subservient nations around the world, these groups still had direct links to the US government, which was embarrassing at times. Thus, the US deep state picked George Soros as its henchman or general. He was a Jewish immigrant from Hungary, had strong anti-Russian and anti-communist feelings, and was the perfect pick.

Soros: a perfect CIA vermin. Unprincipled to the marrow, with strong anti-Russian and anti-communist feelings.

And Soros has been extraordinarily successful. In an interview, he boasted, “After the fall of the Soviet Empire, I picked up the pieces and created the Soros Empire.”

With Wall Street’s help, the CIA made him a billionaire. With insider information, Soros made his first billion by shorting the British Pound in 1992. Then, subsequently, he made more billions during the Asian financial crisis, Russian crisis, and Mexican crisis during the late 1990s. Get rich by destroying others!

He started his grassroots movements in the late 1980s — first in Hungary, then expanded to Poland and even mainland China.

Soros and his groups play the long game. For example, his “Open Society” group brags about how it has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine since the 1990s.

A characteristic of his movement is the use of colors — like:

  • “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in 2003
  • “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004
  • “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in 2005

In each of the above cases, when a pro-Russia leader won the election, Soros turned on his useful idiots and provocateurs, who started large protests. Then, the US/EU governments would cry crocodile tears about human rights, freedom, and democracy. US/UK media operating in those countries would carry out intense propaganda campaigns about corruption. Then the governments were forced to hold another election, in which the pro-US leader won by a small margin.

The interesting and obvious phenomenon is that when a pro-US government is established, Soros quietly shuts down all his “grassroots” organizations. All those protesters and influencers quietly vanish in thin air. Thus, the people are left with the same corrupt system but with different or worse rulers.

Take Ukraine, for example.

  • In 2014, Ukraine became a total American puppet.

What did the Ukrainian people gain? Nothing but poverty and destruction.

In 2021, before the war started, the average pension in Ukraine was just $150 a month. Ukraine was still the poorest country in Europe. Worse, the Ukrainians got a comedian president, rule by the same oligarchy, Nazism, civil war, Russian invasion, millions of people turned into refugees, and utter destruction of the entire country.

While the US has groups like the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), people like Soros are even more effective. Why? It gives US deep state “plausible deniability” — “Hey, he’s just an individual, not the US government.”

For Soros, he enjoys immense power — to manipulate millions of people and overthrow governments. Of course, the new puppets installed in these countries will let Soros and his financial buddies in New York and London make enormous amount of money through various “reforms” such as privatization. So, for example, Soros’ hedge fund would be able to buy a natural gas field, a bank or an airline for pennies on the dollar. The investment money belongs to other oligarchs and financial institutions in the US/Europe, and Soros gets a juicy commission. This strategy of OPM — Other People’s Money — is more discrete and smarter than Soros himself becoming the owner of a new bank or an airline — then, even the average useful idiot of the color revolution will be able to connect the dots.

For example, after the fall of the USSR, vampires like Soros descended upon Moscow, handpicked Russian oligarchs and politicians- based on their loyalty to US/EU, and looted hundreds of billions of dollars.

What India Needs to Realize

Indian leaders should understand the complexity of this network. Indian FM Jaishankar only attacked Soros personally, which gives the wrong impression. George Soros is part of the US/EU Deep State — a group of elites from the foreign policy establishment, Wall Street, military, spy agencies, and the media.

Similarly, Canada is not a tiny country acting alone. Whatever Trudeau says or does is a reflection of the collective decisions made by the Five Eyes — US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course, the US is the boss.

Canada is a key designated member of the Five Eyes to attract separatists from all over the world — Sikh separatists from India, Uyghur and Hong Kong separatists from China, Islamists from Syria and so on. These groups are geopolitical pawns for the Western countries to harass developing nations, rivals, or simply any country not being “cooperative” — a.k.a. obedient.

Thus, it’s not just BBC or Hindenburg or Soros or Trudeau attacking India. The entire Western establishment is targeting India.

And the attacks are not going to stop, unless the Modi government gives into the US demands. And what does the US want? I am not sure, but here are my guesses:

  • Stop buying weapons from Russia. Instead, buy US weapons.
  • Allow US military bases in India.
  • Stop helping the expansion of BRICS, especially with the addition of Saudi Arabia and Iran. (This threatens the petrodollar hegemony).
  • Be more anti-China. (Recently, the Indian government has been trying to downplay the tensions with China. When there were some border conflicts, it was the British media that leaked the news. Also, India-China trade has been booming. It looks like the Modi government realizes its mistake of over-hyping anti-China sentiments).
  • Allow privatization of India’s financial sector — let US giants buy shares in Indian banks, insurance companies, stock market exchange etc.

America is a Brutal Empire

Many Indians have no clue about the real nature of the U.S. partly because of immigration and partly because of the abysmal job of the Indian mainstream media. For example, how many Indians know that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? It’s pure terrorism, like a 9/11 on Germany, America’s “ally.”

Whatever it takes to maintain the American primacy.

Now, think for a moment what the U.S. would do to create more tensions between India and China. For example, could the U.S. have rigged the GPS system of Indian soldiers in Ladakh in 2020?

India’s Solution: Strategic Ambiguity

I have already written that India has been getting colonized by the US — India, the Crown Jewel of American Empire. The US elites must have concluded that they now have sufficient control over India that they could blatantly engineer a regime change.

By the way, the U.S. has done this twice in Australia — once in 1975 when Australian Prime Minister Whitlam was removed from his office by the CIA. In Brazil, the NSA leaked an audio tape to remove President Dilma Rousseff, when she wasn’t acting like an obedient puppet.

Consider that India’s 5G is all 100% foreign and from US and its close puppet allies. Plus, Indian leaders all probably use Gmail, Outlook etc., which are all spy tools for the US deep state. Thus, all forms of communications — phone calls, text messages, emails — in India are under American surveillance.

Don’t be fooled by the Indian CEO faces in some US hi-tech companies.

Finally, imagine if the US sanctions India. It will ruin the Indian economy. Imagine if Google Pay, Whatsapp, Amazon, Flipkart etc. get turned off at the snap of a finger! Thus, India becomes very vulnerable when it depends on US technology so much.

The current American chutzpah in attacking India can only be explained by India’s distancing itself from China. Without any powerful ally other than the US, India is hapless. India must rectify this immediately with a shot across the bow: Seek detente with China! It will absolutely blow the American mind.

Bring back TikTok and watch Facebook and Google cry! Bring back Alibaba or AliExpress and watch Amazon shake in its boots! Approve Huawei 5G for India’s networks and watch the CIA weep about how it can’t spy on Indian elites! Let China build some massive infrastructure projects in India — from clean coal power plants and solar farms to airports and highways. Create joint ventures with Chinese firms to create massive manufacturing ecosystems.

India’s strategic ambiguity will get it better deals from China (including technology transfer in some areas) and force the U.S. to curtail its imperialist actions.

If you’re worried about the border disputes, see my blog on some ideas on resolving them.

Conclusion

India is at a critical inflection point. The next two decades will determine India’s 21st century. Thus, it’s a geopolitical imperative that India navigate this exigent period carefully and wisely. This is the time to focus on growth and prosperity, while making sovereign decisions. India’s focus and goal should be:

  • Maintaining Strategic ambiguity while balancing China and the West
  • Stopping any nefarious regime change operations… and
  • Resisting being a geopolitical pawn of the American Empire

If you enjoy my writings, feel free to “buy me a beer” by clicking on the image below to make a payment through Stripe. 

Related Blogs:
India — The Crown Jewel of American Empire?
Four Ways to Resolve India-China Border Disputes
India Should Hedge its Bets in US v. China Race
Good But Not Enough — India’s Economic Growth


ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
SL Kanthan

Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW

 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS



Google’s Selfish Ledger is an unsettling vision of Silicon Valley social engineering

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

By Vlad Savov
the verge
First run on May 17, 2018

FOR FURTHER CONTEXT, PLEASE SEE ALSO:
How Google Shifted 6 MILLION Votes To Joe Biden! w/ Dr. Robert Epstein

This internal video from 2016 shows a Google concept for how total data collection could reshape society

By Vlad Savov

Share this story

Google has built a multibillion-dollar business out of knowing everything about its users. Now, a video produced within Google and obtained by The Verge offers a stunningly ambitious and unsettling look at how some at the company envision using that information in the future.

The video was made in late 2016 by Nick Foster, the head of design at X (formerly Google X) and a co-founder of the Near Future Laboratory. The video, shared internally within Google, imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.

When reached for comment on the video, an X spokesperson provided the following statement to The Verge:

“We understand if this is disturbing -- it is designed to be. This is a thought-experiment by the Design team from years ago that uses a technique known as ‘speculative design’ to explore uncomfortable ideas and concepts in order to provoke discussion and debate. It’s not related to any current or future products.”

All the data collected by your devices, the so-called ledger, is presented as a bundle of information that can be passed on to other users for the betterment of society.

Titled The Selfish Ledger, the 9-minute film starts off with a history of Lamarckian epigenetics, which are broadly concerned with the passing on of traits acquired during an organism’s lifetime. Narrating the video, Foster acknowledges that the theory may have been discredited when it comes to genetics but says it provides a useful metaphor for user data. (The title is an homage to Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene.) The way we use our phones creates “a constantly evolving representation of who we are,” which Foster terms a “ledger,” positing that these data profiles could be built up, used to modify behaviors, and transferred from one user to another:

 

“User-centered design principles have dominated the world of computing for many decades, but what if we looked at things a little differently? What if the ledger could be given a volition or purpose rather than simply acting as a historical reference? What if we focused on creating a richer ledger by introducing more sources of information? What if we thought of ourselves not as the owners of this information, but as custodians, transient carriers, or caretakers?”

The so-called ledger of our device use — the data on our “actions, decisions, preferences, movement, and relationships” — is something that could conceivably be passed on to other users much as genetic information is passed on through the generations, Foster says.

Resolutions by Google, the concept for a system-wide setting that lets users pick a broad goal and then directs their everyday actions toward it.

Building on the ledger idea, the middle section of the video presents a conceptual Resolutions by Google system, in which Google prompts users to select a life goal and then guides them toward it in every interaction they have with their phone. The examples, which would “reflect Google’s values as an organization,” include urging you to try a more environmentally friendly option when hailing an Uber or directing you to buy locally grown produce from Safeway.

An example of a Google Resolution superimposing itself atop a grocery store’s shopping app, suggesting a choice that aligns with the user’s expressed goal.



An example of a Google Resolution superimposing itself atop a grocery store’s shopping app, suggesting a choice that aligns with the user’s expressed goal.

How can we believe a rabidly capitalist corporation like Google to wish for a world without poverty? Capitalism, inequality and poverty are inseparable.

Of course, the concept is premised on Google having access to a huge amount of user data and decisions. Privacy concerns or potential negative externalities are never mentioned in the video. The ledger’s demand for ever more data might be the most unnerving aspect of the presentation.

Foster envisions a future where “the notion of a goal-driven ledger becomes more palatable” and “suggestions may be converted not by the user but by the ledger itself.” This is where the Black Mirror undertones come to the fore, with the ledger actively seeking to fill gaps in its knowledge and even selecting data-harvesting products to buy that it thinks may appeal to the user. The example given in the video is a bathroom scale because the ledger doesn’t yet know how much its user weighs. The video then takes a further turn toward anxiety-inducing sci-fi, imagining that the ledger may become so astute as to propose and 3D-print its own designs. Welcome home, Dave, I built you a scale.

A conceptual cloud processing node that is analyzing user information and determining the absence of a relevant data point; in this case, user weight.

Foster’s vision of the ledger goes beyond a tool for self-improvement. The system would be able to “plug gaps in its knowledge and refine its model of human behavior” — not just your particular behavior or mine, but that of the entire human species. “By thinking of user data as multigenerational,” explains Foster, “it becomes possible for emerging users to benefit from the preceding generation’s behaviors and decisions.” Foster imagines mining the database of human behavior for patterns, “sequencing” it like the human genome, and making “increasingly accurate predictions about decisions and future behaviours.”

“As cycles of collection and comparison extend,” concludes Foster, “it may be possible to develop a species-level understanding of complex issues such as depression, health, and poverty.”

A central tenet of the ledger is the accumulation of as much data as possible, with the hope that at some point, it will yield insights about major global problems.

Granted, Foster’s job is to lead design at X, Google’s “moonshot factory” with inherently futuristic goals, and the ledger concept borders on science fiction — but it aligns almost perfectly with attitudes expressed in Google’s existing products. Google Photos already presumes to know what you’ll consider life highlights, proposing entire albums on the basis of its AI interpretations. Google Maps and the Google Assistant both make suggestions based on information they have about your usual location and habits. The trend with all of these services has been toward greater inquisitiveness and assertiveness on Google’s part. Even email compositions are being automated in Gmail.

At a time when the ethics of new technology and AI are entering the broader public discourse, Google continues to be caught unawares by the potential ethical implications and downsides of its products, as seen most recently with its demonstration of the Duplex voice-calling AI at I/O. The outcry over Duplex’s potential to deceive prompted Google to add the promise that its AI will always self-identify as such when calling unsuspecting service workers.

The Selfish Ledger positions Google as the solver of the world’s most intractable problems, fueled by a distressingly intimate degree of personal information from every user and an ease with guiding the behavior of entire populations. There’s nothing to suggest that this is anything more than a thought exercise inside Google, initiated by an influential executive. But it does provide an illuminating insight into the types of conversations going on within the company that is already the world’s most prolific personal data collector.

Update: Nick Foster’s title has been updated to include the Near Future Laboratory and X’s response has been moved.

0 COMMENTS0 NEW

Print this article

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP... 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.



Elon Musk and the True History of the ADL

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

by Ron Unz and Mike Whitney

On Sept 11, 2023, The New York Times came out with this broadside against Musk. It's clear the establishment is enraged by Musk's defiance, and is closing ranks to bring him to his knees. Smears is one of their favorite tools.

 

 Mike Whitney Interview with Ron Unz

Question 1: The Nature of the ADL

Let’s talk about the ADL. Some of your readers may not know that you have written extensively on the ADL and that your analysis prompted Paul Craig Roberts to call you “the bravest man I know.” What Roberts was referring to, I think, is your riveting 2018 account of the ADL’s shadowy history as well as its controversial activities and methods. Here’s a short excerpt from a piece you wrote in 2018 that helps to illustrate what I’m talking about:

 In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.”

This is shocking information that perhaps only a handful of Americans know anything about. The recent dust-up with Elon Musk has put the ADL’s methods under a microscope particularly their alleged role in censoring people on the Internet. So, my question to you is this: What is the ADL? Is it really a civil rights organization that “combats extremism and antisemitism” or is it something else altogether?

 
 
Sep 9, 2023 #TheJimmyDoreShow

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization founded to combat prejudice against Jews, has set its sights on Elon Musk, accusing the Twitter-now-X CEO of allowing and encouraging rampant antisemitism on the site. In return Musk has threatened to sue the ADL for defamation after he alleges the group scared off 60% of the site’s advertisers. Jimmy and Craig “Pasta” Jardula, along with special guest comedian Chrissie Mayr, discuss whether the ADL is interested in fighting antisemitism so much as enforcing speech codes and protecting the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/ChrissieMayr

https://linktr.ee/chrissiemayr

https://twitter.com/yopasta

Ron Unz—Founded in 1913, the ADL—the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—is a very formidable Jewish activist organization that has great influence over the media and other important elements of American society, and therefore is widely feared in elite circles. As I explained in my 2018 article:

In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.

Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career, and he eventually donated millions of dollars to Jewish groups in desperate hopes of regaining some of his public standing. When the ADL criticized a cartoon that had appeared in one of his newspapers, media titan Rupert Murdoch provided his personal apology to that organization, and the editors of The Economist quickly retracted a different cartoon once it came under ADL fire. Billionaire Tom Perkins, a famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was forced to issue a heartfelt apology after coming under ADL criticism for his choice of words in a Wall Street Journal column. These were all proud, powerful individuals, and they must have deeply resented being forced to seek such abject public forgiveness, but they did so nonetheless. The total list of ADL supplicants over the years is a very long one.

Because of its media influence, the ADL’s coverage has almost always been extremely favorable, portraying it as one of America’s leading watchdogs against dangerous extremism, especially anti-Semitism or racism. Given this powerful, positive image, the ADL successfully gained the role of content gatekeeper at some of America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on such important platforms as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. Indeed, a few years ago Silicon Valley’s San Jose Mercury News profiled the ADL Director who was responsible for policing “hate speech” across the American-dominated global Internet.

Meanwhile, that same media influence has ensured that only very few people have ever become aware of the organization’s long history of illegal spying upon enormous numbers of Americans, including such notable figures as Martin Luther King. Jr. I discussed this in my 2018 article:

The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is actually a sordid and disreputable tale.

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.

Not long afterward, an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. For many years Hoover had been furiously denounced in the national media headlines for his use of tapes and other secret information on King’s activities, but when a local San Francisco newspaper revealed that an ADL spying operation had actually been the source of all that sordid material, the bombshell revelation was totally ignored in the national media and only reported by fringe organizations, so that today almost no Americans are aware of that fact.

I know of no other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—left, right, and center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in the ADL’s possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.

Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as a privatized version of our country’s secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s ” Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

In his 1981 memoirs, the far right Classics scholar Revilo P. Oliver characterized the ADL as “the formidable organization of Jewish cowboys who ride herd on their American cattle” and this seems a reasonably apt description to me.

https://twitter.com/umyaznemo/status/1700763328501387691

Question 2: The Origins of the ADL

Could you give us a thumbnail sketch of the origins of the ADL so that readers have a more informed view of the organization’s history?

Ron Unz—Earlier this year, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal gave considerable space to the coverage of “Parade,” the revival of a 1998 Broadway musical on the 1915 killing of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager in Atlanta, Georgia, arguably the most famous lynching in American history.

Frank had been convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl in his employ and the ADL was founded in an effort to save his life. After numerous legal appeals failed, the state’s governor eventually commuted Frank’s sentence and a group of outraged citizens responded by hanging Frank. The incident was portrayed in both the musical and past decades of media coverage as a particularly horrifying example of American anti-Semitism.

According to this near-universal media narrative, despite this initial failure the ADL then spent the next one hundred years leading the struggle against both anti-Semitism and racism. However, the true facts of the Leo Frank case were very different from what has been presented, and understanding the real history provides important insights into the actual nature of the ADL and its activities. Moreover, the ADL’s long success in concealing those facts demonstrates the power the organization exercises over the media and the academic community. The ADL is inseparable from the Leo Frank case that inspired its creation, and earlier this year I explained those circumstances.

The basic outline of events is not disputed. In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck, while her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank eventually arrested for the crime. As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defense, but after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.

The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.

The police initially suspected the black night watchman who found the girl’s body, and he was quickly arrested and harshly interrogated. Soon afterward, a bloody shirt was found at his home, and Frank made several statements that seemed to implicate his employee in the crime. At one point, this black suspect may have come close to being summarily lynched by a mob, which would have closed the case. But he stuck to his story of innocence with remarkable composure, in sharp contrast to Frank’s extremely nervous and suspicious behavior, and the police soon shifted their scrutiny toward the latter, culminating in his arrest. All researchers now recognize that the night watchman was entirely innocent, and the evidence against him planted.

The case against Frank steadily mounted. He was the last man known to have seen the young victim and he repeatedly changed important aspects of his story. Numerous former female employees reported his long history of sexually aggressive behavior toward them, especially directed towards the murdered girl herself. At the time of the murder, Frank claimed to have been working alone in his office, but a witness who went there reported he had been nowhere to be found. A vast amount of circumstantial evidence implicated Frank.

A black Frank family servant soon came forward with sworn testimony that Frank had confessed the murder to his wife on the morning after the killing, and this claim seemed supported by the latter’s strange refusal to visit her husband in jail for the first two weeks after the day of his arrest.

Two separate firms of experienced private detectives were hired by Frank’s lavishly-funded partisans, and the agents of both eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that Frank was guilty as charged.

As the investigation moved forward, a major break occurred as a certain Jim Conley, Frank’s black janitor, came forward and confessed to having been Frank’s accomplice in concealing the crime. At the trial he testified that Frank had regularly enlisted him as a lookout during his numerous sexual liaisons with his female employees, and after murdering Phagan, Frank had then offered him a huge sum of money to help remove and hide the body in the basement so that the crime could be pinned upon someone else. But with the legal noose tightening around Frank, Conley had begun to fear that he might be made the new scapegoat, and went to the authorities in order to save his own neck. Despite Conley’s damning accusations, Frank repeatedly refused to confront him in the presence of the police, which was widely seen as further proof of Frank’s guilt.

By the time of the trial itself, all sides were agreed that the murderer was either Frank, the wealthy Jewish businessman, or Conley, the semi-literate black janitor with a first-grade education and a long history of public drunkenness and petty crime. Frank’s lawyers exploited this comparison to the fullest, emphasizing Frank’s Jewish background as evidence for his innocence and indulging in the crudest sort of racial invective against his black accuser, whom they claimed was obviously the true rapist and murderer due to his bestial nature.

Those attorneys were the best that money could buy and the lead counsel was known as the one of the most skilled courtroom interrogators in the South. But although he subjected Conley to a grueling sixteen hours of intense cross-examination over three days, the latter never wavered in the major details of his extremely vivid story, which deeply impressed the local media and the jury. Meanwhile, Frank refused to take the stand at his own trial, thereby avoiding any public cross-examination of his often changing account.

Two notes written in crude black English had been discovered alongside Phagan’s body, and everyone soon agreed that these were written by the murderer in hopes of misdirecting suspicion. So they were either written by a semi-literate black such as Conley or by an educated white attempting to imitate that style, and to my mind, the spelling and choice of words strongly suggests the latter, thereby implicating Frank.

Taking a broader overview, the theory advanced by Frank’s legion of posthumous advocates seems to defy rationality. These journalists and scholars uniformly argue that Conley, a semi-literate black menial, had brutally raped and murdered a young white girl, and the legal authorities soon became aware of this fact, but conspired to set him free by supporting a complex and risky scheme to instead frame an innocent white businessman. Can we really believe that the police officials and prosecutors of a city in the Old South would have violated their oath of office in order to knowingly protect a black rapist and killer from legal punishment and thereby turn him loose upon their city streets, presumably to prey on future young white girls? This implausible reconstruction is particularly bizarre in that nearly all its advocates across the decades have been the staunchest of Jewish liberals, who have endlessly condemned the horrific racism of the Southern authorities of that era, but then unaccountably chose to make a special exception in this one particular case.

In many respects, the more important part of the Frank case began after his conviction and death sentence when many of America’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish leaders began mobilizing to save him from the hangman. They soon established the ADL as a new vehicle for that purpose and succeeded in making the Frank murder case one of the most famous in American history to that date.

Although his role was largely concealed at the time, the most important new backer whom Frank attracted was Albert Lasker of Chicago, the unchallenged monarch of American consumer advertising, which constituted the life’s blood of all of our mainstream newspapers and magazines. Not only did he ultimately provide the lion’s share of the funds for Frank’s defense, but he focused his energies upon shaping the media coverage surrounding the case. Given his dominant business influence in that sector, we should not be surprised that a huge wave of unremitting pro-Frank propaganda soon began appearing across the country in both local and national publications, extending to most of America’s most popular and highly-regarded media outlets, with scarcely a single word told on the other side of the story. This even included all of Atlanta’s own leading newspapers, which suddenly reversed their previous positions and became convinced of Frank’s innocence.

Lasker also enlisted other powerful Jewish figures in the Frank cause, including New York Times owner Adolph Ochs, American Jewish Committee president Louis Marshall, and leading Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff. The Times, in particular, began devoting enormous coverage to this previously-obscure Georgia murder case, and many of its articles were widely republished elsewhere. The NOI authors highlight this extraordinary national media attention: “The Black janitor whose testimony became central to Leo Frank’s conviction became the most quoted Black person in American history up to that time. More of his words appeared in print in the New York Times than those of W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. Washington—combined.”

Back a century ago just as today, our media creates our reality, and with Frank’s innocence being proclaimed nationwide in near-unanimous fashion, a long list of prominent public figures were soon persuaded to demand a new trial for the convicted murderer, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Jane Addams.

Ironically enough, Lasker himself plunged into this crusade despite apparently having very mixed personal feelings about the man whose cause he was championing. His later biography reveals that upon his first personal meeting with Frank, he perceived him as “a pervert” and a “disgusting” individual, so much so that he even hoped that after he managed to free Frank, the latter would quickly perish in some accident. Furthermore, in his private correspondence he freely admitted that a large fraction of the massive funding that he and numerous other wealthy Jews from across the country were providing had been spent on perjured testimony and there are also strong hints that he explored bribing various judges. Given these facts, Lasker and Frank’s other major backers were clearly guilty of serious felonies, and could have received lengthy prison terms for their illegal conduct.

With the New York Times and the rest of the liberal Northern media now providing such heavy coverage of the case, Frank’s defense team was forced to abandon the racially-inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his black accuser which had previously been the centerpiece of their trial strategy. Instead, they began concocting a tale of rampant local anti-Semitism, previously unnoticed by all observers, and adopted it as a major grounds for their appeal of the verdict.

The unprincipled legal methods pursued by Frank’s backers is illustrated by a single example. Georgia law normally required that a defendant be present in court to hear the reading of the verdict, but given the popular emotions in the case, the judge suggested that this provision be waived, and the prosecution assented only if the defense lawyers promised not to use this small irregularity as grounds for appeal. But after Frank was convicted, AJC President Marshall and his other backers orchestrated numerous unsuccessful state and federal appeals on exactly this minor technicality, merely hiring other lawyers to file the motions.

For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system.

One of the very few journalists willing to oppose Frank’s position was Georgia publisher Tom Watson, a populist firebrand, and in an editorial he reasonably declared “We cannot have…one law for the Jew, and another for the Gentile” while he also later lamented that “It is a bad state of affairs when the idea gets abroad that the law is too weak to punish a man who has plenty of money.” A former Georgia governor indignantly inquired “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime.” The clear facts indicate that there was indeed a massive miscarriage of justice in Frank’s case, but virtually all of it occurred in Frank’s favor.

All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the business partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. Given the enormous funds that Frank’s national supporters had been deploying on his behalf and the widespread past admissions of bribery in the case, there are obviously dark suspicions about what had prompted such a remarkably unpopular decision, which soon forced the former governor to exile himself from the state. A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.

Naturally, Frank’s killing was roundly denounced in the national media that had long promoted his cause. But even in those quarters, there may have been a significant difference between public and private sentiments. No newspaper in the country had more strongly championed Frank’s innocence than the New York Times of Adolph Ochs. Yet according to the personal diary of one of the Times editors, Ochs privately despised Frank, and perhaps even greeted his lynching with a sense of relief. No effort was ever made by Frank’s wealthy supporters to bring any of the lynching party to justice.

https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1699595933678223817

Question 3: The Implications of the Leo Frank Case

What is the real importance of the Leo Frank case, which led to the founding of the ADL?

Ron Unz—Once we discover the true history of the Leo Frank case and the origins of the ADL, I think the broader implications are profound.

For more than one hundred years, the ADL has successfully portrayed itself as an anti-racist organization dedicated to safeguarding the rights of all Americans, including American blacks, but the truth is exactly the opposite. And when we recognize that the ADL has managed to conceal that reality for more than four generations, we better understand the sort of control the organization has long exercised over both the media and the academic community.

Seen in its proper light, the Leo Frank case marked a huge milestone in the history of black-white relations in America, but that significance has deliberately been kept hidden. I discussed the importance of the case in 2018:

The NOI authors devote nearly all of their lengthy book to a careful analysis of the Frank case provided in suitably dispassionate form, but a sense of their justifiable outrage does occasionally poke through. In the years prior to Frank’s killing, many thousands of black men throughout the South had been lynched, often based on a slender thread of suspicion, with few of these incidents receiving more than a few sentences of coverage in a local newspaper, and large numbers of whites had also perished under similar circumstances. Meanwhile, Frank had received benefit of the longest trial in modern Southern history, backed by the finest trial lawyers that money could buy, and based on overwhelming evidence had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. But when Frank’s legal verdict was carried out by extra-judicial means, he immediately became the most famous lynching victim in American history, perhaps even attracting more media attention than all those thousands of other cases combined. Jewish money and Jewish media established him as a Jewish martyr who thereby effectively usurped the victimhood of the enormous number of innocent blacks who were killed both before and after him, none of whom were ever even recognized as individuals.

As Prof. Shahak has effectively demonstrated, traditional Talmudic Judaism regarded all non-Jews as being sub-human, with their lives possessing no value. Given that Frank’s backers were followers of Reform Judaism, it seems quite unlikely that they accepted this doctrine or were even aware of its existence. But religious traditions of a thousand years standing can easily become embedded within a culture, and such unrecognized cultural sentiments may have easily shaped their reaction to Frank’s legal predicament.

In their introduction, the NOI authors make the fascinating point that the larger historical meaning of the Frank case in American racial history has been entirely lost. Prior to that trial, it was unprecedented for Southern courts to allow black testimony against a white man, let alone against a wealthy man being tried on serious charges; but the horrific nature of the crime and Conley’s role as the sole witness required a break from that longstanding tradition. Thus, the authors not unreasonably argued that the Frank case may have been as important to the history of black progress in America as such landmark legal verdicts as Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board. But since almost the entire historical narrative has been produced by fervent Jewish advocates, these facts have been completely obscured and the case willfully misrepresented as an example of anti-Semitic persecution and public murder.

Let us summarize what seems to be the solidly established factual history of the Frank case, quite different than the traditional narrative. There is not the slightest evidence that Frank’s Jewish background was a factor behind his arrest and conviction, nor the death sentence he received. The case set a remarkable precedent in Southern courtroom history with the testimony of a black man playing a central role in a white man’s conviction. From the earliest stages of the murder investigation, Frank and his allies continually attempted to implicate a series of different innocent blacks by planting false evidence and using bribes to solicit perjured testimony, while the exceptionally harsh racial rhetoric that Frank and his attorneys directed towards those blacks was presumably intended to provoke their public lynching. Yet despite all these attempts by the Frank forces to play upon the notorious racial sentiments of the white Southerners of that era, the latter saw through these schemes and Frank was the one sentenced to hang for his rape and murder of that young girl.

Now suppose that all the facts of this famous case were exactly unchanged except that Frank had been a white Gentile. Surely the trial would be ranked as one of the greatest racial turning points in American history, perhaps even overshadowing Brown v. Board because of the extent of popular sentiment, and it would have been given a central place in all our modern textbooks. Meanwhile, Frank, his lawyers, and his heavy financial backers would probably be cast as among the vilest racial villains in all of American history for their repeated attempts to foment the lynching of various innocent blacks so that a wealthy white rapist and murderer could walk free. But because Frank was Jewish rather than Christian, this remarkable history has been completely inverted for over one hundred years by our Jewish-dominated media and historiography.

These are the important consequences that derive from control of the narrative and the flow of information, which allows murderers to be transmuted into martyrs and villains into heroes. The ADL was founded just over a century ago with the central goal of preventing a Jewish rapist and killer from being held legally accountable for his crimes, and over the decades, it eventually metastasized into a secret political police force not entirely dissimilar from the widely despised East German Stasi, but with its central goal seeming to be the maintenance of overwhelming Jewish control in a society that is 98% non-Jewish.

We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for an organization with such origins and such recent history to be granted enormous influence over the distribution of information across our Internet.

https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1698314608392487099

Question 4: The Influence of the ADL

Here’s a short quote from one of your articles that questions whether the ADL has the moral standing to act as the Internet’s de facto “thought police”:

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as a privatized version of our country’s secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

This is the most scathing indictment of the ADL I’ve ever read. If you’re right, then we must assume that “combating extremism and hate” is merely a fig leaf concealing the organization’s real objective which is to censor anyone whose views do not align with those of the ADL. Is that how you see it? Is the real purpose of the ADL to silence anyone with whom it disagrees?

Ron Unz—Yes, the ADL has maintained its power by the extremely effective censorship blockade it maintains on all contrary information.

Once I began investigating the origins of the ADL and the Leo Frank case, I discovered that the only account challenging the established mainstream narrative came from a totally unexpected source. As I explained in late 2018:

Mainstream publishers may often reject books that too sharply conflict with reigning dogma and sales of such works are unlikely to justify the extensive research required to produce the manuscript. Furthermore, both authors and publishers may face widespread vilification from a hostile media for taking such positions. For these reasons, those who publish such controversial material will often be acting from deep ideological motives rather than merely seeking professional advancement or monetary gain. As an example, it took a zealous Trotskyite leftist such as Lenni Brenner to brave the risk of ferocious attacks and invest the time and effort to produce his remarkable study of the crucial Nazi-Zionist partnership of the 1930s. And for similar reasons, we should not be totally surprised that the leading book arguing for the guilt of Leo Frank appeared as a volume in the series on the pernicious aspects of Jewish-Black historical relations produced by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), nor that the text lacked any identified author.

Anonymous works published by heavily-demonized religious-political movements naturally engender considerable caution, but once I began reading the 500 pages of The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the historical analysis. I think I have only very rarely encountered a research monograph on a controversial historical event that provided such an enormous wealth of carefully-argued analysis backed by such copious evidence. The authors seemed to display complete mastery of the major secondary literature of the last one hundred years while drawing very heavily upon the various primary sources, including court records, personal correspondence, and contemporaneous publications, with the overwhelming majority of the 1200 footnotes referencing newspaper and magazine articles of that era. The case they made for Frank’s guilt seemed absolutely overwhelming.

The weighty historical text that so impressed me had been published a couple of years earlier and received relatively little attention. But my article highlighting its importance soon attracted a great deal of readership and interest, and as I later explained, this may have prompted the ADL into having it banned from Amazon:

But for me, the most remarkable ADL revelation came in a book I purchased last year on Amazon, a book Amazon has now banned from sale. It seems that the ADL’s very origin story of one hundred years ago, frequently mentioned in my introductory history textbooks and which I had never previously questioned, actually represented an absolute inversion of historical reality.

Prior to the creation of the Internet and the establishment of Amazon’s book-selling operation, this fascinating history would have remained completely unknown to me. Given its influential political role in our society, the ADL would certainly be concerned if it became widely known that the organization was founded with the central mission of ensuring that no wealthy and powerful Jew ever suffered punishment for the rape and murder of a young Christian girl, nor for trying to orchestrate the lynching of innocent black men in order to cover his own guilt.

When I published my original article in October, I naturally encouraged readers to order the remarkable book in question and decide for themselves. But Amazon has now chosen to ban that book of outstanding black historical scholarship at the height of Black History Month, a step taken just a few days after the ADL President made his annual glowing tribute to that national celebration of black pride. Those interested can still read my lengthy analysis of that book and the important historical event it describes.

The ADL usually launches ferocious public attacks against any individuals or publications that challenge its authority. But if such tactics of intimidation fail, the ADL then apparently reverts to a fallback strategy of “blackout” and censorship, working to absolutely minimize the visibility and reach of its antagonists, such as by having their books banned by Amazon.

In my own case, after the initial attacks failed, the organization seems to have prohibited any mention of our website or my writings from all those publications under its strong influence. Eventually both Facebook and Google, the two leading gatekeepers of the global Internet, banned or deranked all of our pages, making it very difficult for people to discover our website. I’ve described the very bizarre aspects of this media blackout, which I call “the Lord Voldemort Effect.”

This hypothesis was strongly supported by a second incident later that same month. We had previously published an article by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, and I read in my morning Times that he had suddenly become embroiled in a major Internet controversy, with a chorus of angry critics seeking to have him removed. According to the article, he had apparently promoted the “vile and stupid” views of some anti-feminist website in one of his Tweets, which had come to the attention of an enraged activist. The resulting firestorm of denunciations on Twitter had been viewed 2.5 million times, provoking a major academic controversy in the national media.

Being curious about what had happened, I contacted Rasmusen to see whether he might want to submit a piece regarding the controversy, which he did. But to my utter astonishment, I discovered that the website involved had actually been our own, a fact that I never would have suspected from the extremely vague and circuitous discussion provided in the newspaper. Apparently, the old-fashioned Who-What-Where provisions of the Times style manual had been quietly amended to prohibit providing any hint of our existence even when we were at the absolute center of one of their thousand word news stories.

https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1698524756662730890

Question 5: How to Cope with the ADL?

What suggestions would you give Elon Musk for handling the ADL in his current confrontation?

Ron Unz—I think the power of the ADL comes from the influence it exerts over the media and other information choke-points of our society.

But that influence is almost entirely based upon a compelling set of falsehoods regarding the origins of the ADL and its activities over the decades since its founding. As I’ve said, suppose

it became widely known that the organization was founded with the central mission of ensuring that no wealthy and powerful Jew ever suffered punishment for the rape and murder of a young Christian girl, nor for trying to orchestrate the lynching of innocent black men in order to cover his own guilt.

Or if the public discovered that

an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Under these circumstances, I think that much of the power and influence of the ADL would quickly evaporate under the strong sunlight of such public scrutiny.

Perhaps the organization itself might suffer severe internal stress. I doubt if more than a tiny sliver of the American public is aware of the true history of the ADL, but exactly that same condition of ignorance may also exist among the ADL employees, activists, and donors. Almost all of those individuals probably derive their knowledge of their own organization’s history and activities from the same biased media publications and sanitized accounts as does the general public. Even a large majority of the ADL leadership may be completely shocked by the facts I have provided in this interview, and they might grow fearful of the consequences if this information became public knowledge. Some of them might consider resigning out of such concerns.

After the ADL posted their rather milquetoast criticism of my activities produced by an anonymous staffer, I responded by publishing a lengthy history of their own organization. As a result, they immediately abandoned the battle and avoided any further engagement.

Unlike myself or my publication, Elon Musk controls one of the world’s most powerful media megaphones. If he chose to do so, he could easily ensure that tens of millions of Americans learned the true origins and history of the ADL, an organization that today controls much of what our citizens are allowed to read or see.

Such a bold stroke might completely break the power the ADL possesses over him and the rest of our society.

https://twitter.com/Kahlissee/status/1697998839255375960 

About the author
Ron Unz is the founding editor of the UNZ Review.

Print this article

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP... 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.



Lee Camp & Chris Hedges EXPOSE Sellout Comedians (clip)

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Sabby Sabs

Lee Camp & Chris Hedges EXPOSE Sellout Comedians (clip)

Sabby Sabs
Sept. 12, 2023

Sabby Sabs focuses on the decadence of American culture, as measured by the decline of anti-establishment comedians. All mainstream comedians are now sellouts, affirm Sabby, Chris Hedges, and Lee Camp. The days of George Carlin are gone. Corporate criticism is now rarely if ever seen on the MSM, and even on social media, few voices speak against the liberal fascist regime.  Cowardice and careerism—a form of self-censorship—rule the culture.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Sabby Sabs is a leading anti-imperialist talk show host and member of the Revolutionary Blackout Network.

Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW

 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS