By John Vibes | TheFreeThoughtProject | April 17, 2018

During a solo concert this week in Barcelona, Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters took a moment to address the audience about the recent bombing of Syria. Waters said he was approached by someone before the concert who wanted to get onstage and speak on behalf of the White Helmets about the alleged chemical attacks in Douma.

Instead of bringing the anonymous man onstage, Waters addressed the crowd on the issue himself, saying that he believes the White Helmets are a propaganda organization on a mission to justify western intervention in the region. Waters said he believes that the person who wanted to make a statement was well-intentioned, but misled, and then offered his opinion to the audience.

The White Helmets is a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadists and terrorists,” Waters said. “That’s my belief. We have opposing beliefs. If we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would be encouraged to encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings.”

What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people. And certainly not until we have done all the research that is necessary so that we would have a clear idea of what is really going on. Because we live in the world where propaganda seems to be more important than the reality of what is really going on,” he added.

The White Helmets have been known to work with terrorists to achieve regime change in Syria. The white helmets were also caught staging videos of atrocities in an attempt to bait western powers into war and were later forced to apologize.

The group also came under fire last June when video surfaced that showed members assisting in disposing of the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. The US-backed “aid workers” were seen celebrating their kill whilst holding the heads of the dead.

As it stands, the White Helmets are heavily funded by the U.S. and the UK, as well as many other international entities. That may be the reason they always worked in rebel-held areas of the greater Syrian conflict. The WH serve as a de facto propaganda wing of the West to sway public opinion into supporting regime change in Syria.

As proof, one only has to look to the story of Omran Daqneesh, a Syrian boy reportedly pulled from the rubble of a bombed out building. Daqneesh’s image was broadcast around the world and used as a propaganda tool against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The truth was later revealed by The Free Thought Project and others that it is highly likely the opposition itself destroyed the very building in which Daqneesh was residing, then used his image to promote the myth that he was attacked by Syrian forces.

According to The New York Times, Mr. Daqneesh told the real story of what happened immediately following the bombing. He never supported the opposition and appeared on Syrian state-run media to proclaim his support for Assad. He described how the White Helmets used his son as a propaganda tool without his permission.

”They took Omran, got him to the ambulance, where they filmed him. It was against my will. I was still upstairs in the house,” Mr. Daqneesh said, adding that he was pressured, and even offered money to use his son as a pawn in propaganda against the Assad regime.

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters has been consistently anti-war throughout his entire career and is no stranger to controversy. As The Free Thought Project reported in 2016, Waters made some bold statements about the war crimes of Israel in an interview with The Independent. He explained how artists are discouraged from speaking out about the atrocities taking place at the hands of the Israeli military.

“The only response to BDS is that it is anti-Semitic, I know this because I have been accused of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite for the past 10 years. My industry has been particularly recalcitrant in even raising a voice [against Israel]. There’s me and Elvis Costello, Brian Eno, Manic Street Preachers, one or two others, but there’s nobody in the United States where I live. I’ve talked to a lot of them, and they are scared s***less….” he said.

“If they say something in public they will no longer have a career. They will be destroyed. I’m hoping to encourage some of them to stop being frightened and to stand up and be counted because we need them. We need them desperately in this conversation in the same way we needed musicians to join protesters over Vietnam,” Waters added.

If propaganda is what the establishment uses to create a culture of war, then art is what the average person can use to create a culture of peace.

In times of oppression, it is very difficult for people to speak out against the constant tyranny, and when they do it can be even more difficult to get others to listen. Art is a subtle way of getting the message out to the masses. This is useful because a lot of times people are so entrenched in the mainstream culture that they will become defensive when they come face to face with facts that call their worldview into question. However, if these same ideas are presented in the form of art, people are much less defensive and are more willing to approach the information with an open mind. Art is also used by activists who want to send a message but still remain under the radar.

If you really examine some of the greatest works of art in history, you will find that the vast majority of the time, the artist was motivated by some kind of social cause. The art that really moves people and leaves a lasting impression is rarely made with the thought of making a buck or climbing the social ladder. In today’s culture, massive advertising schemes and flashy graphics are enough to catch most people’s attention long enough to make a purchase, but you’ll find that the works of art with real staying power are typically sending some kind of social message.


Contributed by John Vibes of TheFreeThoughtProject.com where this article was originally published.

John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. John just won a 3-year-long battle with cancer, and will be working to help others through his experience, if you wish to contribute to his treatments consider subscribing to his podcast to support .


SHARE:

By Jayson Veley | Natural News | April 17, 2018

(Natural News) Earlier this month, electronic pop music star Moby made an argument that has the liberals absolutely outraged. What was the argument, you might ask? That food stamps shouldn’t pay for junk food – because God forbid somebody insists that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used on welfare recipients looking to stock up on Twinkies and Ho-Hos (sarcasm intended).

“Right now, a congressional arm-wrestling match is pitting those who want to preserve funding for SNAP against those who want to gut it,” Moby wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, adding that while SNAP really does help people in need, “it also puts a lot of unhealthful food on America’s plate.” The music star continued, “Its costs are huge, as are the added costs of treating diabetes, hypertension and other illnesses that poor eating habits cause.”

Truthfully, this argument seems like a rational solution to both health problems in the United States and wasteful spending within our welfare system. If welfare recipients are going to be getting money from the federal government (aka the American taxpayers), then it only makes sense that the money should be solely for healthy food instead of candy bars and chocolate cake. But like with most other rational solutions that have been proposed to solve the problems America faces, the liberals are standing in the way.

Indeed, Moby faced a substantial amount of backlash after writing his piece for the Wall Street Journal. Liberal feminist and senior staff writer at Upworthy.com Parker Molloy took to Twitter and wrote, “Things Moby’s op-ed doesn’t address: 1, food deserts, 2, the fact that healthy food can be expensive, 3, the fact that some families on SNAP might not have the time/equipment to prepare healthy foods.” Another liberal blogger with the Twitter username “jes skolnik / texas calboy” wrote, “dear moby this is a bad and classist opinion other people’s bodies are none of yr business.”

Regarding Parker Molloy’s comment that healthy food can be expensive and that some families might not have time to prepare healthy food, here’s an idea that could enrage leftists even more than Moby’s comments in the Wall Street Journal: How about some of these welfare recipients find work so that they can more easily afford healthier foods? The idea that the American taxpayers have to subsidize bad eating habits just because buying healthy food would be mildly inconvenient to welfare recipients is absurd. (Related: In a shocking interview, a welfare recipient admitted to sitting at home, smoking weed and waiting for government money.)

Past research has shown that an enormous amount of welfare money is being spent on sweets and non-essential food products. According to a report published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Americans use food stamps to buy over $600 million worth of “sweetened beverages,” in addition to hundreds of millions more of sugary snacks and unhealthy foods.

Specifically, food stamps worth roughly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about one-fifth of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in the year 2011, according to the report. (Related: Children of welfare recipients are more likely to become dependent on government handouts.)

The main problem with this is that, obviously, the excessive consumption of sugary foods and drinks leads to poor health, and when welfare recipients experience a decline in health, then they rely on the American taxpayers again for medical expenses. Contrary to what the liberals tend to believe, our country’s welfare system should strive to make people more self-sufficient in the long run, not less. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to reform the entire welfare system, but a good starting point would be to require that welfare money is used solely for healthy food products.


Contributed by Jayson Veley of NaturalNews.com where this article was originally published.


SHARE:

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | April 17, 2017

Elevating fears of a third world war even higher, an ex-Soviet general has come forward declaring a nuclear war between the United States and Russia is unavoidable and “inevitable.” Evgeny Buzhinskiy, a former Lieutenant-General under the Soviet Union says that Russia will never accept “any kind of defeat.”

Because Russia is “lagging behind” the US in terms of military power, Putin would rather order a nuclear strike than accept defeat on the battlefield, Buzhinskiy said. Buzhinskiy, who joined the USSR’s armed forces in 1968, said the increasingly acrimonious standoff between Russia and the US is “worse than the Cold War.”

“Russia will not accept any kind of defeat, so the involvement of nuclear weapons is inevitable,” he told Channel 4 News. 

US President Donald Trump ordered his military to launch almost 100 missiles at alleged chemical weapons facilities across Syria in response to the “toxic” attack.   Britain and France also took part in the “perfectly executed strike” that Trump declared “could not have had a better result”, tweeting: “Mission accomplished.” But the strike against Bashar al-Assad, whose government has the backing of Putin, has plunged Russian-US relations to new lows, with both sides exchanging fierce rhetoric.

“I think it’s worse than the Cold War, which we have been waging for 40 years after the Second World War,” he said, speaking to presenter Matt Frei, according to The Daily Star. “In the Cold War time I was in the armed forces and I was quite comfortable I’d say. There were definite duels and definite red lines – everybody knew what to do. There were no threats, no sanctions, no isolation, no cornering, no nothing. There was just ideological confrontation, but people on both sides knew how far they could go.”

Former Russian general: Use of nuclear weapons is inevitable

Play

0:36

/

2:00

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

Captions

Fullscreen

Facebook

Twitter

Share

Buzhinskiy admits, that as a grandfather, he’s scared of what could happen as this conflict with Russia escalates driven by false flags.

When asked if the US and Russia might “face off against each other” with nuclear weapons, he replied: “Of course. I repeat: you cannot control military confrontation between Russia and the United States.”

Last week Buzhinskiy warned that Putin would respond in kind if “Russian blood is spilled” during the US-led Syria strike.   “We have several thousand advisers in all military installation in all military units,” he said. “If Russian blood is shed then Russia will retaliate.”

Sleep tight, everyone.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com where this article was originally published.


SHARE:

By Dawn Luger | The Daily Sheeple | April 16, 2018

Police have used a photo sent through the app “WhatsApp” to get a fingerprint and used that fingerprint to secure drug convictions against eleven people. If part of your finger is showing, cops can now use that small bit as fingerprint evidence.

This new and  “groundbreaking” technique of matching fingerprints found in photos “is the future” of how cops will catch “criminals.” It’s changing how law enforcement looks at social media images for potential evidence.

According to CSO Online, police have long used fingerprints in criminal investigations, in a new twist, cops used one photo sent via WhatsApp and a “pioneering fingerprint technique” to ultimately secure drug convictions against 11 people.

It all started with a drug bust.  The bust resulted in the police getting hold of a phone that had a WhatsApp message and image of ecstasy pills in a person’s palm. The message read: “For sale – Skype and Ikea-branded ecstasy pills…are you interested?”

The phone was sent to South Wales Police where the photo showing the middle and bottom portion of a pinky was enhanced. As for fingerprint identification, the BBC reported that “a search of the national database did not bring a match” as “when offenders give fingerprints, it is just the top part taken — with the middle and bottom part only occasionally left.” A different BBC article stated that “other evidence meant officers had an idea who they believed was behind the drugs operation.”

Dave Thomas of the South Wales Police’s scientific support unit told the BBC, “While the scale and quality of the photograph proved a challenge, the small bits were enough to prove he was the dealer.” But how did they determine who they were looking for, to begin with?  It’s all a little confusing, and cops don’t come out and tell us they are violating our rights, even though, for all intents and purposes, that’s exactly what happened here.

According to the South Wales Police press release, “A boastful drug dealer” was “caught red-handed after a pioneering technique was used to identify his fingerprints in a photograph he sent showing off his supply.”

Detective Inspector Dean Taylor told the BBC, “We knew Elliott was handling drugs of a similar type, but we didn’t know who was holding the bags in the photograph. He was linked by his fingerprint which also linked him to the messages and showed he was sending the supply.” But as mentioned earlier, Elliott’s prints were not on file, so he was assumed to be the dealer.

Staff from the unit’s specialist imaging team were able to enhance a picture of a hand holding a number of tablets, which was taken from a mobile phone before fingerprint experts were able to positively identify that the hand was that of Elliott Morris.

This is all just a little too Orwellian and Big Brother for our taste.  It certainly seems like, in order to make sure that that hand was Morris’, police would have to have had him in custody.  “Despite being provided with only a very small section of the fingerprint which was visible in the photograph, the team were able to successfully identify the individual,” said Dave Thomas, forensic operations manager at the Scientific Support Unit.

Thomas pointed out that 80% of people have mobile phones and use them to snap photos that the cops can “download and enhance.” Other cops are now looking through social media images, as well as images in seized phones, for potential fingerprinting identification evidence.


Contributed by Dawn Luger of TheDailySheeple.com

Dawn Luger is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple.


SHARE:

By Richard Eskow | People’s Action | April 16, 2018

Mission accomplished,” says the President. What, exactly, was the mission? And what exactly was accomplished?

Donald Trump is being mocked for using this phrase in a tweet to praise what he claims was a “perfectly executed” airstrike against chemical weapons facilities in Syria. This recalls George W. Bush’s egregious evocation of the phrase in 2003 to claim an early end to the U.S. entanglement in Iraq, which is still ongoing fifteen years later.

History made a fool of Bush for that proclamation, which was printed on a banner behind the President as he delivered his speech proclaiming an end to the Iraqi conflict on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But Bush’s foolish and lethal incursion to Iraq had the backing of virtually the entire national-security establishment. So did Donald Trump’s bombing attack on Syria, as did the bombing attack he ordered last year.

The Costs of Intervention

U.S. media, for the most part, reinforce the idea that intervention by our military is the preferred solution to global conflicts. Some of the same reporters who now mock Trump for saying “Mission Accomplished” cheered on Bush’s invasion of Iraq. They remember Bush’s errors, but not their own.

The media’s job, we are told, is to ask skeptical questions about the people in power. That didn’t happen much in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and it’s not happening now. Here are the questions that should be asked – not just on the eve of a bombing attack, but every day we continue our disastrous and drifting military intervention in the Middle East.

1 Why couldn’t the military wait for inspectors to do their jobs?

Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international non-proliferation organization, were scheduled to arrive in Douma, Syria on Saturday, April 15 to begin investigating the reported chemical attack on civilians there. The airstrikes took place on Friday, April 14.

This is a disturbing echo of the 2003 Iraq invasion. There, too, the United States was unwilling to wait for international inspectors to discover the facts before beginning the attack. Fifteen years on, we know that didn’t work out very well. Why couldn’t the bombing of Syria wait for inspectors to do their work?

2 How do we know we’re being told the truth?

“We are confident that we have crippled Syria’s chemical weapons program,” said U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. That statement was echoed by military leaders. But a report from Agence France Presse suggests that one destroyed building, described by attacking forces as a chemical-weapons facility, was actually a pharmaceutical and research facility specializing in food testing and antivenoms for scorpion and snake bites.

“If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here,” said someone who identified himself as an engineer who worked at the facility.

Given our country’s long history of public deception from military and civilian officials, why aren’t we demanding independent confirmation of the airstrikes’ effectiveness?

3 Have strikes like these ever really “punished” a country’s leader – or “sent them a message,” for that matter?

We keep hearing the cliché that airstrikes like these are meant to “punish” leaders like Assad. This time was no different. And yet, it’s unlikely that Assad personally suffered as a result of this attack.

So who, really, are we punishing?

Then there’s this comment, from Defense Secretary James Mattis: “Together we have sent a clear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack.”

That was also the presumed purpose of Trump’s last missile attack on Syria, less than a year ago. Trump supporters claimed that attack sent a forceful “message,” too – to Assad, to Putin, the Chinese, and others. “With just one strike that message was sent to all these people,” claimed former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka.

The situation in Syria did not perceptibly change after that attack. And the day after this latest airstrike, Assad launched a new round of airstrikes of his own.

These airstrikes seem more performative than tactical – warfare as theater, but with real lives at stake. There must be better ways to send a message.

4 Why isn’t the full range of U.S. activity in Syria getting more coverage?

Thanks to widespread under-reporting of U.S. involvement in Syria, commentators can complain about “years of unmasterly inactivity by the democracies” with a straight face, wrongly blaming that nation’s disasters on a failure to intervene.

In a paragraph that was subsequently deleted from its website, the Washington Post wrote that the latest airstrikes “capped nearly a week of debate in which Pentagon leaders voiced concerns that an attack could pull the United States into Syria’s civil war.” As of this writing, that language can still be found in syndicated versions of the article.

We were pulled into that civil war a long time ago.  The United States has more than 2,000 troops in Syria, a fact that was not immediately revealed to the American people. That figure is understated, although the Pentagon will not say by how much, since it excludes troops on classified missions and some Special Forces personnel.

Before Trump raised the troop count, the CIA was spending $1 billion per year supporting anti-government militias under President Obama.  That hasn’t prevented a rash of commentary complaining about U.S. “inaction” in Syria before Trump took office. It didn’t prevent additional chaos and death, either – and probably made the situation worse.

5 Where are the advocates for a smarter national security policy?

There’s been very little real debate inside the national security establishment about the wisdom of these strikes, and what debate there has been has focused on the margins. Anne-Marie Slaughter, a senior State Department official under Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Obama administration, tweeted:

I believe that the U.S., U.K, & France did the right thing by striking Syria over chemical weapons. It will not stop the war nor save the Syrian people from many other horrors. It is illegal under international law. But it at least draws a line somewhere & says enough.

In other words: This attack will not achieve any tactical goals or save any lives. And it is illegal – just as chemical weapons attacks are illegal – under international law. It’s illegal under U.S. law, too, which is the primary focus of Democratic criticism.

But, says Slaughter, the amorphous goals of “drawing a line” and “saying enough” make it worthwhile, for reasons that are never articulated.

Michèle Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense under President Obama and was considered a leading Defense Secretary prospect in a Hillary Clinton Administration, said:

What Trump got right: upheld the international norm against [chemical weapon] use, built international support for and participation in the strikes, sought to minimize collateral damage — Syrian, Russian, Iranian.

What Trump got wrong: continuing to use taunting, name-calling tweets as his primary form of (un)presidential communication; failing to seriously consult Congress before deciding to launch the strikes; after more than a year in office, still no coherent Syria strategy.

How can a country uphold international norms by violating international law?

If Trump lacks a coherent Syria policy, he has company. Obama’s policy toward Syria shifted and drifted. Hillary Clinton backed Trump’s last round of airstrikes and proposed a “no-fly” policy for Syria that could have quickly escalated into open confrontation with Russia.

The country deserves a rational alternative to Trump’s impulsivity and John Bolton’s extreme bellicosity and bigotry. When it comes to foreign policy, we need a real opposition party. What will it take to develop one?

6 “Take On” Russia? Really?

Commentators have been pushing Trump to take aggressive military action in Syria, despite the potential for military conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. MSNBC’s Dana Bash accused Trump of “an inexplicable lack of resolve regarding Russia” – leaving the audience to make its own inferences – adding, “We have not been willing to take them on.”

In the same segment, reported by FAIR’s Adam Johnson, Bash complained that “the U.S. hasn’t done “a very good job pushing Russia out of the way,” adding that “we’ve let Russia have too free a hand, in my view, in the skies over Syria.”  Her colleague Andrea Mitchell responded that “the criticism is that the president is reluctant to go after Russia.”

The Drum Beats On

“Mission accomplished.”

This drumbeat of political pressure has forced Trump’s hand. He has now directed missiles against Syria, twice. Both attacks carried the risk of military confrontation with the world’s other nuclear superpower.

That risk is greater than most people realize, as historian and military strategist Maj. Danny Sjursen explained in our recent conversation.

Trump has now adopted a more aggressive military posture against Russia than Barack Obama. Whatever his personal involvement with the Russian government turns out to have been, it is in nobody’s best interests to heighten tensions between two nuclear superpowers.

The national security establishment has been promoting a confrontational approach, but they’ve been unable to explain how that would lead to a better outcome for the US or the world – just as they’ve been unable to explain how unilateral military intervention can lead to a good outcome in Syria.

7 Did the airstrikes make Trump “presidential”?

“Amid distraction and dysfunction,” wrote Mike Allen and Jonathan Swan for Axios, “Trump looked and acted like a traditional commander-in-chief last night.”

The constitutional phrase, “Commander in Chief,” was originally understood to underscore the fact that the military is under civilian control. It has devolved into a title that confers a quasi-military rank on the president.  That’s getting it backwards. The fetishization of all things military is one of the reasons we can’t have a balanced debate about military intervention.

Besides, saying that an act of war makes Trump “presidential” – that’s so 2017!

Here’s a suggestion: In 1963, John F. Kennedy rejected his generals’ advice to strike Soviet installations during the Cuban missile crisis.

Rejecting reckless calls to military action: Now that’s a “presidential” act worth bringing back.


Contributed by Richard Eskow of OurFuture.org

Richard (RJ) Eskow is Senior Advisor for Health and Economic Justice at Social Security Works and the host of The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow on Free Speech TV.


SHARE: