Bilderberg Insider’s Shocking Admission

Club of Rome founder admitted that “global warming” is a hoax cooked up to scare the public.

By Mark Anderson

In the early 1980s, Justin Walker was an idealistic, hard-working member of the British Green Party when, upon being invited to lunch by an apparent fellow “idealist” who also was a well-connected Fiat Motors executive, he heard firsthand that dire claims of impending environmental doom were being fabricated to deliberately instill widespread insecurity, so the overall population could be goaded into world government.

Walker’s uncle by marriage was Sir Harry Pilkington, a participant at the very first Bilderberg meeting in Holland in 1954, representing the Federation of British Industries. Pilkington “in 1955 became a director of the Bank of England, a position he held until 1972,” Walker told AFP, in an interview just after Bilderberg’s 67th meeting this year in Switzerland.

“My own personal experience has shown me that the Green movement is now totally corrupt and totally without any real solutions or meaning for the human race,” Walker added. He recalled that, when he joined the Green movement in 1978, most of the party members tried to be “an antiparty party,” to distance themselves from conventional party politics, in the belief they actually stood for something and would not let the world’s corporate power brokers push them around.

JWLabs.com

Pilkington, described as a devoted environmental conservationist, in 1980 gave Walker his personal copy of a book called The World Conservation Strategy.

“I was very impressed by that because I was in the Green Party, and I felt this is the real way forward for politics,” Walker recalled. “And then I read another book called One Hundred Pages for the Future by a man named Aurelio Peccei, who was a senior executive at Fiat Motor Company in Italy, but he also co-founded the Club of Rome— the organization that’s behind most of the elite interests in the environment, including, of course, man-made global warming.”

Citing the pivotal experience with the Fiat industrialist, Walker continued: “In 1982 I wrote to Aurelio Peccei, and he said, ‘Come and see me, have lunch with me.’ Unknown to me, my uncle had also approached him because he knew my uncle. Well, I was having lunch with Peccei and he suddenly offered me a job to go and work as one of his researchers for the Club of Rome. He then said to me—and these were his exact words that I remember so clearly—‘You’ll be joining us at a very exciting time. We are creating a global environmental problem that’s going to frighten people into wanting global government.’ ”

“At the time,” Walker said, “being a Green politician, I thought this was wonderful. I didn’t know the facts about Bilderberg, because this was before [British conspiracy researcher] David Icke [also a former Green Party member] started doing his research and other people started doing their research, to show that there’s a hidden tier of government above our elected governments.”

Walker added that, up until 1982, “Nobody mentioned manmade global warming. If anything, they were talking about a mini ice-age. And they were talking about acid rain. This was obviously when they started to get the idea that they could latch onto ‘global warming.’ ”

Walker confessed: “I considered going to work for Peccei for about a week. But I worked for my father at the time, and I was in the Territorial Army and had just been [promoted] to captain. I had a new girlfriend. And I was in the Green Party and thought I was going to get elected to Parliament.”

Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary
The Bilderberg Hound … On sale now at the AFP Online Store!

Pilkington died the next year in 1983, and Peccei died in 1984. Pilkington, late in his life, would tell Walker not to believe the press because “we control it,” referring to the Bilderberg clique. And soon the independent researchers who found increasing evidence of a hidden tier of government that regulated the political process convinced Walker that declining the job was the right decision.

Nowadays, Walker leads the New Chartist Movement to mainly focus on denying the banking power its illicit control of the medium of exchange.

“My main interest is the money supply and the fact that how much money the world has to spend is dependent on a handful of private individuals and dynastic families, stemming to this one organization, the Bank for International Settlements” [the central bank of the central banks in Basel, Switzerland, thought to be the ultimate banking nerve center].

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected].




People Revolt Against NWO

Mass immigration and the failure of globalism are behind Europe’s recent nationalist resurgence.

By John Friend

Nationalists and populists across Europe made tremendous gains in the recent European Union (EU) elections, demonstrating the appeal of these highly demonized political ideologies in an era of economic and political globalization, massive Third World immigration to the continent, and an increasingly out-of-touch elite political class ruling in Brussels determined to push European integration at all costs.

Even traditionally leftwing parties, such as the Social Democrats in Denmark, have taken a more populist approach on issues like immigration. Mette Frederiksen, the 41-year-old leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats whose party recently won 25.9% of the vote in Danish elections, has increasingly pushed her party to the right on the key issue of massive Third World migration into Europe, a top issue for many Danish voters. Frederiksen has addressed the issue in more traditionally leftwing terms, arguing that globalization and massive immigration have harmed the middle and working classes of Denmark and other European nations.

Faraday Twins ad

“For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalization, mass immigration, and the free movement of labor is paid for by the lower classes,” Frederiksen stated in a recent biography.

Frederiksen’s Social Democrats have long played a key role in Danish politics, working with more right-leaning parties, including the Danish People’s Party—which is seen by many as the most far-right party in the country—on key issues such as immigration. The Social Democrats in Denmark have supported policies that crack down on refugee resettlement and unchecked migration, positions the traditionally left-leaning party formerly opposed. Frederiksen has argued that SD parties in other European countries must adopt a more hardline stance on immigration, which poses a major threat to their traditional voter base: middle- and working-class Europeans.

“For years, we have underestimated the challenges of mass immigration,” Frederiksen argued at a meeting of Social Democrat parties around Europe late last year. “Economic policy and foreign policy in Europe have been too liberal. We have failed when it comes to maintaining the social contract, which is the very foundation of the social-democratic social model.”

The positions on immigration taken by Frederiksen and other populists across Europe stand in stark contrast to the elites in Brussels, who view massive immigration and spreading “diversity” as moral imperatives that must be championed and implemented across the continent.

Outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, epitomizing the mindset of the nation-wrecking globalist elites that have largely dominated the European Union and broader project of European integration, harshly criticized the various populist and nationalist movements and leaders that have come to the fore of European politics, particularly in recent years as Euroskepticism has risen across the continent.

“These populists, nationalists—stupid nationalists—they are in love with their own country, and they don’t like the others,” Juncker arrogantly and dismissively stated in an interview with CNN shortly before the recent European elections. “In some countries of the European Union, the government, parliament, major parts of society, don’t like those coming from far away. I do like those coming from far away, because the main guiding principle of the European Union should be solidarity. We have to act in solidarity with those who are in worse situations than we are.”

Many Europeans are beginning to view the suicidal mindset of Juncker and other EU elites as entirely contrary to the interests of their respective nation-states, which have seen massive Third World immigration, rising crime and instability, and a total failure on the part of European Union institutions and governments in actually integrating the various newcomers into the EU. Many European nations, such as France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have seen a tremendous influx of so-called refugees, asylum seekers, and other Third World immigrants, resulting in protracted cultural, social, and economic problems across the continent.

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
‘The History They Didn’t Teach You In School’ from Ron Jeffries, with Foreword by Ron Paul

The so-called “new Europeans” have largely failed to successfully integrate into European society, preferring instead to cling to their national and ethnic identities, which has contributed to the polarization of society, a fact political leaders like Frederiksen have long recognized.

“In my eyes, it is neither heroic nor humane to bring so many people here that the problems become huge in our own country,” the leader of Denmark’s Social Democrats declared before the 2015 election, “because we’re not very good at integrating in Denmark, and there’s nothing to indicate that we’re going to get better.”

In Italy, the small town of Riace in the southern province of Calabria recently elected a rightwing government after having been dominated by radical leftists for years. The town, long known as a “global village” whose former political leadership openly welcomed migrants, took in hundreds of refugees and other Third World migrants in recent years, sparking a backlash following reported allegations of corruption, fraud, and unrest among the migrant population.

“The problem is that we had too many migrants and we lost the spirit of openness there was initially,” Antonio Trifoli, the newly elected mayor and former town policeman, stated in a recent interview. Trifoli is affiliated with Italian populist Matteo Salvini and his Lega Nord Party, which has seen a dramatic increase in popularity and political clout in recent elections.

“A whole economic system developed with the migrants, but without making the village dynamic again,” Trifoli said. “The model destroyed itself.”

The clash between globalism and populism continues on the European continent, and at this point, it’s safe to say populism is on the rise, largely because of the disastrous effects of globalism.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Brexit Supporters Ridiculed by Globalist Fake News Media

In light of big wins by Nigel Farage’s “Brexit Party” in the UK last week, it appears ridiculing Brexit supporters was not a particularly prescient move on the part of globalists and their lapdog media.  

By S.T. Patrick

With another Brexit deadline extended, moving from April 12 to Oct. 31, British politicians, the European Union (EU), and the global media now have more time to pressure Brits into either staying in the EU (thus cancelling Brexit or re-voting) or brokering a Brexit agreement favorable to the globalist interests that control the EU. One step below predicting the biblical apocalypse, the British and U.S. media have both prophesied the most dire gloom-and-doom situations imaginable for those still supporting a “Hard Brexit,” leaving the European Union with no entangling agreements or alliances.

Within the anti-Brexit press, the terminology has also become more divisive. Those supporting British sovereignty were once innocuously called “Brexiters” or “Brexiteers.” That devolved into “Leavers.” Having to paint supporters of the “Leave” campaign as dangerous enemies of the state, they are now referred to widely as “Brextremists,” a combination of Brexit and extremist.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Surveying hundreds of recent headlines regarding Brexit, the most used descriptions are “catastrophe,” “catastrophic,” and “disaster.” The EU parliament chief warned of a Brexit catastrophe. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for the UK. The BBC begged UK leaders to extend the deadline to avoid a no-deal Brexit catastrophe. One news analysis site warned that Brexit was not just UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s disaster. The Week magazine went as far as to proclaim that “the Brexit disaster could destroy the United Kingdom.”

Brexit supporters are being portrayed as mindless zombies chasing the ideas of jingoistic simpletons. Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Paul Nurse stated that the UK is “sleepwalking into Brexit.”

The term “gammon” has been hurled at Brexit supporters who, according to the website of London’s Daily and Sunday Express, are “white, puffy, pink-cheeked, angry, middle-aged Brexit voters.” The former spokesperson for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn defined “gammon” as “an older man who, despite having all the opportunities that baby boomers enjoyed, is confused and angry at the modern world.”

Few publications supporting the “Remain” perspective have considered the problems plaguing the UK and forcing its citizens to consider detaching from the European Union.

According to exit polling taken at the time of the Brexit vote, 49% of respondents said they cast their ballot to regain sovereignty for the UK. They want decisions affecting Brits to be made in Great Britain not in Brussels. Many decisions within the EU are made not by mass voting, but by regulatory agencies with appointments determined by unelected leaders within the EU. Even the pretense of democracy no longer exists within the EU’s most powerful hierarchies.

Exit polling also showed that 33% of UK voters supported Brexit as a means by which to gain control over immigration, to regain the ability to control their own borders.

British author Leo McKinstry wrote: “The metropolitan elite likes to claim that mass immigration is an engine of social progress, bringing vibrancy to our culture and prosperity to our economy. In reality, the vast annual foreign influx achieves the opposite. Profoundly reactionary in its consequences, this demographic revolution has weakened solidarity, worsened living standards, and intensified pressure on our public services. As cohesion frays, our once gentle, well-ordered society is awash with violent crime and poisonous identity politics.”

The inaugural issue of Deep Truth Journal is now at the AFP Store.

Many Brits have also favored Brexit because the EU, they claim, is a system set up for global elites. British journalist Paul Mason wrote that the EU “provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites, and organized crime.”

The global recession of 2008 convinced many Brexit supporters that over-reliance on the euro as a currency can produce difficult results. They point to Greece and Spain, both of whom suffered severe economic crises after the global recession and both of whom still suffer unemployment rates over 20%. While the UK decided not to join the common currency, it has still found itself economically responsible for the downfalls of other euro-backed economies within the EU.

Currently, the UK sends approximately $19 billion to the EU on an annual basis. That averages out to $300 per person that is spent on EU programs rather than British ones.

The unbreakable globalist tie that has kept the EU together may now be broken by the United Kingdom. The great irony is that, 243 years after 1776, it is now Great Britain that is attempting to break the bonds of economic slavery, foreign hierarchies, and globalist agendas in order to form a more perfect union.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]. He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication now carried by the AFP Online Store.




NWO Goes Local to Circumvent Trump

Global warming fanatics are trying to reverse the president’s 2017 dismissal of the Paris climate agreement by engaging local governments to impact international issues—regardless of the U.S. Constitution.

By Mark Anderson

The Global Climate Action Summit taking place Sept. 12-14 is the most blatant example to date of the reorientation of governance in the 21st century. New constituencies are being formed to try and overturn President Donald Trump’s mid-2017 decision to back the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But beyond rebuffing Trump, the summiteers are charting a new course that generally demotes, and appears bent on eventually replacing, national decision-making in the U.S. and abroad. “Climate action” is merely the battering ram with which to force things through.

Led by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D)—to whom national sovereignty under the Constitution is a doormat on which well-connected internationalist change agents wipe their feet—the summit, taking place in San Francisco, “will celebrate the extraordinary climate action of states, regions, cities, companies, investors, and citizens from around the world. It will be a moment for these climate leaders to come together to inspire deeper commitments from each other as well as national governments, in support of the Paris Agreement,” explains a summit press release.

The U.S. Constitution assigns the formation of and ascent to international treaties and pacts to the federal government, and there’s been no constitutional convention to change that. Yet summiteers boast that investors, states, Canadian provinces, and even “regions” are now among the “leaders” who’ve been knighted by the UN-connected transnational elitists organizing the summit to “inspire” policy, including U.S policy, on a worldwide scale.

We’ll be told that these groupings, which seem designed to re-federate the world, are merely advisory in nature. However, the San Francisco summit’s strategy is to rework world-governance by using an imprecise issue like “climate change” to move things along, since that issue can largely be addressed along emotional and ideological lines, with often questionable data sprinkled in to keep up appearances.

This is not to say that summit-supported ideas like transitioning to electric cars, more mass transit (e.g., more and better high-speed trains), and other supposedly cleaner “green” energy options are necessarily bad, depending on comparative costs, marketability, new environmental problems, real or perceived, versus old ones etc.

But given the coordination between this summit and the broader “global cities” movement, which is designed to further advance world government from the bottom up not just the top down, this overall movement is mainly about forging a revolution in policy-making through manufactured consent.

Of course, the shifty phrase “climate change” at some point in the last few years suddenly replaced the more precise “global warming” so that any example of erratic weather could be blamed on everything from human respiration and livestock flatulence to backyard grills, automotive and industrial emissions, and so on. Imprecision is key to duping the masses.

A main organization heading up the summit is the Under2 Coalition, named after the stated goal of limiting worldwide temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius or less—based on the premise that virtually all worldly warming is chiefly caused by humanity’s industrial emissions.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The Under2 Coalition is “driven by a group of ambitious state and regional governments” representing “more than 200 governments . . . spanning six continents and 43 countries . . . who represent over 1.3 billion people and nearly 40% of the global economy,” summit promoters boast, while specifying that these governments are mainly cities, states, and regions below the threshold of national authority. Thus, the adjective “sub-national” is frequently used to soft-sell this end-run around national authority.

“The Under2 Coalition provides a global forum for sub-national governments to work together to get on a trajectory consistent with 2050 carbon neutrality,” the group’s website explains, and “sets the tone for bold climate leadership and provides an effective global partnership model for parties to the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. We are sending a clear signal that net-zero by 2050 is achievable, desirable, and leads to faster results.”

Thus, the Rockefeller-founded UN is the authority for the sub-nationals to plug into, not the individual nations.

New World Order Exposed, Thorn
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

A closer look at this coalition shows that in the U.S., so far, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, along with at least 12 cities—San Francisco, Oakland, New York City, Austin, Atlanta, Orlando, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Boulder—are to some degree endorsing these policy-oriented climate schemes.

Without any act of Congress, those cities and states are networking with cities across Latin America and with various regions or European provinces: Lower Austria, Lower Saxony, and seven other German areas as well as Wallonia in Belgium. Also included are eight French regions, seven Italian regions, four Dutch regions, two Portuguese regions, four Spanish regions, and four UK regions, along with two in Switzerland, and one each in Sweden, Greece, and Hungary.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. 




‘Toronto First,’ Says Goldy

Another nationalist candidate is making headlines, this time in Toronto, Canada where Faith Goldy is running for mayor. She wants to make her city safer and “put Toronto first” and is critical of Canada’s open borders. In response, she “has been hysterically denounced by the fake news media and political establishment in Canada, who have portrayed the populist and outspoken young Canadian as a far-right extremist.” Sound familiar?

By John Friend

A young and increasingly popular independent political commentator and alternative media personality is running for mayor of Toronto, the largest city in Canada and home to an increasingly diverse population. She is vowing to “Make Toronto Safe Again” while pledging to “Put Toronto First,” borrowing popular catch phrases from President Donald Trump’s populist talking points and political campaign.

Faith Goldy, who boasts close to 100,000 followers on Twitter and well over 65,000 subscribers on YouTube, is a former reporter for “TheRebel.Media,” one of Canada’s largest and most influential independent media outlets. She has also contributed to a number of other mostly Canadian-based media outlets, sparking controversy for her populist views and straightforward reporting on a variety of contentious issues, including mass Third World immigration to the West, political correctness, and related issues. Ms. Goldy attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. last year, covering the event for “The Rebel.Media.” She has since ventured out on her own as an independent journalist and reporter, covering Canada’s immigration crisis and the radical antifa movement, among other topics.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

In a recent interview with this newspaper, Goldy explained her decision to run for mayor in her hometown of Toronto.

“I don’t recognize our city anymore. Every day, there’s a new headline about a stabbing, shooting, or mass shooting on our streets,” Ms. Goldy told this reporter. “To boot, millennials my age are working two or three jobs and are still barely able to make rent. Meantime, our commutes to get between jobs have become worse than ever. Toronto needs a strong voice that’s tough on crime and easy on taxpayers—I am that voice.”

Ms. Goldy’s mayoral platform outlined on her website focuses on four key issues: making Toronto safe again, putting Toronto and its legal residents first, ensuring affordable housing for Toronto residents, and fixing and improving Toronto’s roads and infrastructure.

“I will reinstate Toronto’s Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy and bring back the invaluable policy of carding so our officers have the tools they need to make sure our city is welcoming to everyone except criminals,” Goldy told this reporter. “I will bring back the School Resource Program committing twice the number of officers in twice as many schools. I will turn TCHC [Toronto Community Housing Corp.] complexes into gated communities with officers monitoring ID and license plates of people going in and out, so to protect the most vulnerable in our city. And, I will bring job fairs and training to the most violent neighborhoods in our city to help keep our kids away from guns and gangs.”

Ms. Goldy has also been highly critical of Canada’s open borders policies, which have welcomed illegal immigrants and purported refugees at the expense of Canadian citizens. She has vowed to put Toronto first and prioritize the interests of all Toronto residents.

“I want every homeless person in our city to have a warm bed this winter,” Goldy proclaimed, “but right now, they’re being crowded out of our strained shelter system by an invasion of illegal migrants monopolizing our resources. As mayor, I will evacuate every illegal migrant from our public housing and bus them to the front steps of the prime minister’s official residence. Not a single Toronto taxpayer was asked if they wanted to erase our southern border, and we won’t be burdened with the exponential costs of the federal government’s decision to do so.”

On Sale at the AFP Store!

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Goldy has been hysterically denounced by the fake news media and political establishment in Canada, who have portrayed the populist and outspoken young Canadian as a far-right extremist.

“Since announcing my bid to become mayor, our city’s press has taken to the airwaves, defaming me,” she explained. “These fake news claims are nothing more than a diversion tactic, plain and simple. Toronto’s establishment media wants to distract taxpayers in this town from hearing my message because they know it will resonate.”

Various political lobbies and subversive activist organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, for example, have lamented the rise of populist and nationalist political candidates such as Ms. Goldy in both the United States and Canada.

Thankfully, more and more citizens are ignoring the smears from dishonest organizations working overtime to prevent populists and patriots such as Ms. Goldy from becoming elected representatives.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.




Are Globalists Plotting a Counter-Revolution?

Today, writes Buchanan, “as tribalism and nationalism are making a comeback, it looks more like the transnational ‘New World Order’ may be headed for the dumpster. As long as Trump is in the White House and the party base is so viscerally behind him and his America-first agenda, a renunciation of tariffs or a return to globalism is dead.” But, he asks, what happens after Trump?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On meeting with the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker last month, Donald Trump tweeted: “Both the U.S. and the EU drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be Free Market and Fair Trade.”

Did Larry Kudlow somehow get access to Trump’s phone?

We know not. But, on hearing this, Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore, and Arthur Laffer broke into the “Hallelujah” chorus of Handel’s “Messiah.”

“Amen,” they thundered in The New York Times.

Trump should declare “total trade disarmament” to be national policy and make free trade his “legacy” to America. Such a proclamation, they wrote, would assure Trump the “moral high ground” in the global debate and transform him from “evil disrupter of international commerce to potential savior.”

For free trade is always and ever a “win-win for trading partners.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

To read the Times op-ed is to appreciate that what we are dealing with here is an ideology, a political religion, a creed, a cult.

For consider the fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years: the frozen wages of U.S. workers, $12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S. in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.

To maintain a belief in the superiority of free trade to economic patriotism, in the face of such results, is to recognize that this belief system is impervious to contradictory proof.

Still, the enduring enthusiasm of free trade zealots is not the only sign that GOP globalists, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, are looking to a post-Trump era to resurrect their repudiated dogmas.

In USA Today, Jeffrey Miron, director of economic studies at the libertarian flagship think tank Cato Institute, wrote last week:

“The solution to America’s immigrant problems is open borders. . . . Open borders means no walls, fences, screenings at airports, ICE . . . deportations, detention centers or immigration courts.”

And what would happen after we declare open borders?

“Immigrants will not flood into America. . . . Crime will not skyrocket. . . . Even if values and culture change, so what? . . . Who says America’s current values—some of them deeply evil—are the right ones?”

Bottom line for Cato’s Miron: If we throw open America’s borders and invite the world to come in and to remake who we are as a nation, “Think about the money we could save and make.”

This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.

Other open borders and free trade true believers have begun speaking out. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, a megadonor to the GOP, has just lashed out at Trump as “divisive” and denounced the “rise in protectionism.”

Nations, organizations, and individuals, said Koch, “are doing whatever they can to close themselves off from the new, hold onto the past, and prevent change.”

He added, “This is a natural tendency, but it is a destructive one.”

In a pair of tweets, Trump fired back:

“The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. I made them richer.

“Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First and the American Worker—a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!”

The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, are threatening to have their network, Americans for Prosperity, withhold funding from GOP candidates who echo Trump on immigration and trade.

The open borders, free trade ideology of the Kochs, the Cato Institute, and such supply-siders as Moore, Forbes, and Laffer, have deep roots in the Republican Party establishment.

Milton Friedman was of this school, as was the longtime editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Bob Bartley, who for years pushed for a constitutional amendment declaring, “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley, somewhat prematurely, predicted that the nation-state was “finished” in the New World Order. Yet, today, as tribalism and nationalism are making a comeback, it looks more like the transnational “New World Order” may be headed for the dumpster.

As long as Trump is in the White House and the party base is so viscerally behind him and his America-first agenda, a renunciation of tariffs or a return to globalism is dead.

But what happens after Trump? Who and what comes next?

Republican recidivism—a return to the rejected open borders, free trade agenda of the Bush Republicans—would ignite a firestorm of protest that would tear the party of Trump apart.

Yet, while these ideas have lost Middle America, they are alive and well among the establishment elites of both parties, who have also not given up on a foreign policy of using America’s economic and military power to attempt to convert mankind to democracy.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

While the global elites continue to argue we must become “one happy global family” for the good of the planet, people everywhere are choosing nationalism instead. Examples from the winter Olympic games, Putin’s popularity, the Brexit vote, and our own “America-first” focus suggest the NWO is not winning this argument.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3.

But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem.

One recalls the scene in “Casablanca,” where French patrons of Rick’s saloon stood and loudly sang the “La Marseillaise” to drown out the “Die Wacht am Rhein” being sung by a table of German officers.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team.

America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity.

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front (NF) Party that won 35% of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be “Let France Be France!” The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

New World Order In Action, Vol. 1, by Takis Fotopolous
“Globalization, the Brexit Revolution and the ‘Left’ ” – Order now from AFP Online Store while this book is on sale!

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?

In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the UN, EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a “universal nation” of all races, tribes, cultures, and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grandparents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists?

Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries?

The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world.

When Smith was forced to yield power, “Comrade Bob” Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to “majority rule,” are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone.

Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade, and global custody of mankind’s destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution.

Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on Earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on Earth.

Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India.

Here, today, it is “America-first” nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush’s crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit’s Children’s Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Globalists Seek to Scuttle Brexit

The New World Order elite just won’t let the British put Britain first. 

By Mark Anderson

The British “Brexit” vote, cast June 23, 2016, provided a clear indication of the populist revolt that’s been simmering for several years. But as the European Union (EU) tightens its despotic grip even more on the economic and political destinies of Europe’s peoples, the British exit from the EU could get delayed or even scuttled.

Brexit refers to the national referendum that passed in the United Kingdom (UK) that calls on the country to leave the EU.

A key factor is that the Bilderberg-nurtured EU superstate, which had 28 members at the time of the Brexit vote, is completing long-planned fiscal and banking unions to centralize its powers. Bilderberg is the shadowy group of global elites who gather every year behind locked and guarded doors in five-star resorts to discuss, debate, and ultimately influence the most pressing issues of the day.

European Council President Donald Tusk—whose cooperation is indispensable if British voters ever want a real chance at getting out of the EU—recently addressed European Parliament members about a recent EU summit, telling the MEPs: “It is in fact up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.”

As quoted by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Tusk rather cryptically added: “We have managed to build and maintain unity . . . but ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the [Brexit] negotiations will end in our defeat,” speaking in a manner that suggested a sense of rivalry with Britain’s wishes as expressed by Brexit. “We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks.”

On a somewhat more upbeat note, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker did say: “Those who don’t want a deal, the no-dealers, they do not have friends in the commission. We want a . . . fair deal with Britain. The no-deal is not our working assumption.”

However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier told a European newspaper group that the EU wants a deal “but could not exclude the no-deal option.” And other voices see a darker tinge to these developments, suggesting that Brexit could very well be imperiled.

David Ellis, an analyst with Strategic Defence Initiatives, said on the Oct. 24 edition of UK “Column News” online that, due to the EU’s intent to issue a European Monetary Fund plan by June 2018, it appears the EU’s pending banking and fiscal unifications will result in “a single-point control of all money.” That includes doing away with allowing EU member nations to control their internal budgets.

This, he said, will bring with it the EU’s military unification—into which the British armed forces are heavily involved as they’re downsized to where they’re not sufficient for effective national defense, but the right size to be a contributing force to an EU military union. This could effectively keep the UK in the EU.

“Brexit,” Ellis said, “has just been an umbrella” to bring about “a tyranny like we’ve never seen on the continent.” And when the Guardian quotes Tusk as simply saying that he may slow or halt Brexit, that establishment paper “is missing the point,” Ellis continued.

In a separate online column, Ellis, mirroring conversations he has had with this AFP writer, wrote: “The issue of the European Union desperately requiring control of the military and budgets of EU member states is moving very fast now . . . . We feel strongly that it is not being voiced with the correct level of importance as the UK (apparently) prepares for Brexit.”

IRS Loses Cases

He added, “There will be no Brexit unless Britain extricates itself as a matter of urgency from the amalgamation of EU militaries, which will inevitably prompt an EU treasury taking over the member states’ budgets.”

Ellis continued, “In [the UK] Parliament, no party is even mentioning EU military union, popularly but inaccurately referred to as ‘an EU army.’ ”

This military arrangement, he added, “does not replace but rather subsumes the nation states’ militaries and military budgets. In other words, the nominal armies, navies, and air forces of the EU member states . . . will remain in place, but sapped of their ability to operate or purchase independently of EU command.”

In the U.S., speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Oct. 2, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s minister of state for Europe and the Americas, sounded the alarm for fellow elites about the populist revolt as expressed through Brexit. However, he shrugged off Brexit’s significance while expounding on his “global Britain” speech topic—suggesting that the British state’s status and operations will largely remain the same as they have been under the EU: free trade, open borders, and so on.

“Brexit was only about Brits expressing how they want their country to work, not to step back from its role in the world,” Duncan opined, while also claiming, “The importance of the UK’s global role was one place where the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ [voters wanting to leave or remain in EU] converged.”

So, besides speaking as if he can somehow assess the attitudes of all voters in greater Britain about the UK’s global role, he’s saying that the Brexit vote, no matter what the ultimate outcome, may not be allowed to change UK policies enough to matter.

“No one in the UK believes that it makes sense to turn inwards.” Duncan presumptuously added. He stressed the melodramatic mantra that even the slightest retreat from worldwide Western hegemony is an intolerable slap in the face to the post-World War II “rules-based international order,” formed in 1944 at Bretton Woods, N.H., at a conference that spawned the World Bank, IMF, and today’s world-trade infrastructure.

The Bretton Woods agreement is the world elite’s modern-era touchstone, largely serving the super-rich while having formed the bedrock of modern transnationalist empires like the EU, the U.S. etc.

Duncan made it clear that while “leaving the EU” may be the wish of a majority of UK voters, at the end of the day, the “global values” undergirding that “rulesbased order” help cement a marriage whose vows are not easily dissolved.

“We’re leaving the EU,” he claimed, “but we [the UK and EU] . . . believe deeply in the same values—peace, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.”

Further suggesting Brexit is being deflated, he announced that the EU and UK have rolled out “our Future Partnership Paper on foreign policy, defense, security, and development”—an ambitious “new framework for future security, law enforcement, and criminal justice cooperation between the EU and the UK.”

Duncan labeled Russia as “more aggressive, more authoritarian, and more nationalist” than the world community cares to tolerate—as if internationalism cannot possibly be authoritarian or aggressive.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at [email protected]




Phil Giraldi Speaks Candidly With AFP

Former Army intelligence and CIA agent Philip Giraldi confirmed recently there is indeed a limit to free speech in America—even amongst “conservatives.” When it comes to criticizing neoconservatives’ Israel-first policy, repercussions are swift.

By Dave Gahary

George Orwell once said, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

That ominous warning was clearly on display last month when Philip Giraldi—one of the heavyweights who has been able to cross the line between the alternative media and the established media—was banned from writing for The American Conservative magazine, where he had been a contributor since its inception, because they didn’t like an article he wrote—not for them, but for another publication.

AFP Podcast

Giraldi, born in New Jersey and educated at the University of Chicago and the University of London, served in U.S. Army intelligence during the Vietnam War and was a CIA operations officer, i.e., agent, for 17 years. Since his time with “the Agency,” Giraldi has been writing for several websites and magazines about national security issues and most particularly about the war on terror.

He has also been the executive director for the past seven years of the 30-year-old Council for the National Interest (CNI), founded by former U.S. diplomats “outraged by the U.S. policy in the Middle East, which was favoring Israel very heavily and damaging our other interests in the region,” explained Giraldi in an exclusive interview with American Free Press.

CNI’s objective is to change “U.S. policy to make it more aligned with U.S. interests and less with Israeli interests,” he added.

The hullaballoo over some words started Sept. 19 when Giraldi penned a 1,483-word piece entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars: Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?” The story may have been relegated to appealing to the choir, if not for a chance event.

 

Giraldi explained what happened.

“Valerie Plame is a former CIA officer like myself,” he began. “She’s best known for involvement with her husband, Joe Wilson, who was in Niger to see if Iraq was buying uranium. This was before the war against Iraq. [Wilson] came back and said, ‘No way, this had never happened.’ And when he did that he was punished, but his wife was punished worse. She was a serving CIA officer, undercover, and Scooter Libby, who was an advisor to Vice President Cheney—and an ardent Zionist, I might add—was so angered by this that he leaked her name and identity to the media, The Washington Post, which picked up on it.”

He continued: “She has been punished again, because she made the mistake of seeing my article online and reading it and then making a comment that it was interesting material. She got jumped on by all and sundry of the Jewish oligarchy in the media and she apologized repeatedly, but they didn’t let up on her for a whole week. I suspect that the fact that she got into the story, and the story then made national news, was what made the story have the kind of currency that it got. I think if she had not been involved, my story would’ve been like other articles that I’ve written where people will say, ‘He’s just another crackpot; he’s an anti-Israeli crackpot.’ ”

Ms. Plame sent the article out to her followers on the social media platform Twitter, and “the Jewish oligarchy in the media” used the “anti-Semitic trick” to get her to grovel and genuflect.

The upside of Ms. Plame’s tweet was the exposure Giraldi’s article received, as well as a follow-up piece he wrote on Oct. 3, entitled “How I Got Fired: Exposing Jewish power in America has real consequences.”

“The original article’s been viewed about 150,000 times,” Giraldi said, “and the comments [responding to the online article] are up to about 1,500. The second article has had about 60,000 views and I think it just broke 1,000 in terms of comments. And some of my older articles also found a new readership as a result and are approaching 50,000 views. So it certainly had a dramatic impact in terms of getting the message out.”

Considering all the exposure his articles had received, AFP asked if the mainstream media reached out to him for comment, as they were relentlessly skewering him.

“The short answer is, ‘No,’ ” he said. “No established mainstream-type outlets have gotten in touch with me, even though the story has been all over the place. It was in The Washington Post, it was in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times; it was everywhere. It was on MSNBC, CNN. But nobody has gotten in touch with me to talk about this. However, from the alternative media, I’ve been run off my feet, in terms of doing interviews, in terms of talking about what this all means.”

Giraldi continued: “Unfortunately, we are seeing the classic exploitation of the heavy Jewish presence over-representation in the media and entertainment industries, to make sure these kinds of stories don’t get out. How long they’re going to be able to do that, I don’t know. I’ve long felt that what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians and also to all of their neighbors is totally indefensible. So how long do you keep this fiction going? I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that.”

IRS Loses Cases

 

Giraldi explained to this newspaper what he wrote about and why it caused a stir.

“The article was about what I was describing as Jewish power, the ability of Jewish groups and individuals to distort our foreign policy in the Middle East to benefit Israel and to the damage of the United States,” he said. “And I think what set these people off was the fact that I didn’t use a euphemism about who these people were: I said that they were Jewish. And very often you’ll see people writing about Middle East policies and they’ll use expressions like ‘the Israel lobby’ or ‘Zionist’ or ‘neoconservatives.’ But [they are] fudging the basic issue. The basic issue is that this is Jewish money, this is Jewish people with access to the political class and with lots of money, and creating these foundations and organizations that only exist to benefit the Jewish state.”

Giraldi was emphatic that he was not talking about all Jews. He said he was only referring to a select few.

“Not all Jews by any means,” he said, “but I was indicting these people by name. I mentioned who they were and what the organizations were. These organizations are, as far as I’m concerned, committing treason.”

The article made a few recommendations as well, in order to return this once-great nation to the people it was created to serve.

“Actually, I made two proposals,” he explained. “I said, ‘Look, if you’ve got a guy like Bill Kristol—a leading neoconservative and great lover of Israel—on television, and he’s talking about the Middle East and Middle East policy, it might be nice to have a label underneath to tell people who are listening that don’t know about him, that this is a guy who’s partisan.’ And it was kind of a lighthearted comment, because I knew this was never going to happen, but I immediately got jumped on by the usual crowd—like Alan Dershowitz—for this ‘outrageous, anti-Semitic slur.’

“And the other proposal I made was that for Jewish officials in the government who are involved with policymaking, I said, ‘Well, look, if you’re Jewish and you have strong feelings about Israel, when the issue of what the policy should be in Syria or in Iran or indeed in Israel, you should recuse yourself, just like a judge would do in a trial in which he had a personal interest.’ It seemed to make extremely good sense to me to suggest that, and, of course, I got bombed for that one, too.”

Shortly after the article appeared online, Giraldi got a call. “I received a call from the editor [at The American Conservative] about two days after it came out,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that it was completely unacceptable by their standards, and as a result they were terminating their relationship with me.”

AFP asked if his firing sets a dangerous precedent.

“Yeah, we’re in danger,” he said, “because I think the example of what happened to me will keep anyone else from crossing that line and using what I refer to as the ‘J’ word. And I think a lot of people have already figured that out.”

One of the founders of The American Conservative was Pat Buchanan, and his 2003 article, “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest,” about Jewish political power, set the stage for the anti-war magazine.

“That’s the irony about this whole thing,” Giraldi said. “Pat Buchanan became famous—or infamous, depending on how you want to look at it—when he wrote [that] article denouncing the war in Iraq. And he basically said the same thing that I did. And so here we have the irony of the guy who founded the magazine 15 years ago, and here I’m continuing this tradition of asking the same questions he was asking, and I get fired for it.”

AFP asked what he felt has transpired between the time Buchanan wrote his article and now.

“I think what has happened is that everybody in the publishing industry, which has changed dramatically in the past 15, 20 years, is scrambling for the same dollars, looking for money to survive,” he said. “I suspect what’s happened with The American Conservative, like many other publications, is that they have to basically triangulate where their money is coming from and they move toward what they think is the center. And that means that views that are even quite legitimate—which I feel my viewpoint was—are considered to be too dangerous and too risky. In this case it was too dangerous and too risky even to have me around.”

One of the bright spots of this rather sad affair is the support Giraldi has received.

“I’ve had a lot of calls from friends and people whom actually I didn’t even know,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that, ‘Look, it’s about time that we change the way we think and talk about this issue because there clearly is a superbly well-organized and funded cabal out there which is doing a lot of damage to the United States, and we have to talk clearly about what this means.’ ”

Giraldi next addressed another glaring example of Jewish control over America’s political institutions most painfully illustrated through Senate Bill 720, Sen. Benjamin Cardin’s (D-Md.) Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which “would make it a felony for U.S. citizens to support boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements, punishable by at least a $250,000 fine, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1 million and 20 years in prison.”

AFP covered this topic in the Oct. 9 & 16 issue on page 15. In the Senate, there are 49 cosponsors—36 Republican and 13 Democrat—and 261 in the House, where it was introduced by Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), from both sides of the aisle. Naturally, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has made the anti-First Amendment measure’s passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities for the year.

“I had lunch yesterday with a university professor and he told me his tale,” Giraldi said. “He teaches a course in international relations, and as part of the syllabus he had an article that was talking about the Middle East and the author of the article—this was not him, it was the author of the article—had a comment about Israel and its neighbors. The comment was essentially that Israel has very strict immigration laws, but Jewish Americans who support Israel want open immigration in the United States. The article was basically [pointing out that] there’s a contradiction in the way Jewish supporters of Israel see the world.  And this professor was admonished for being an anti-Semite and was almost fired as a result.”

Giraldi concluded the interview by alluding to the obvious.

“When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point: The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation, and through fear,” he said. “If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran, fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu, many people might begin to ask ‘Why?’ But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences but something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to congressional attempts to criminalize such activity. We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country, and some who are perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only superpower. Unfortunately, at that point it will be too late to do anything about.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

 

Who Really Drives America’s Wars?

• Columnist for American Conservative canned for voicing taboo opinions

By Philip Giraldi Ispoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the 600-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.

Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?” It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: Any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep-pocketed individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.

They are particularly sensitive on the issue of socalled “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel. Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran.

To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself.

But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in The New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation of “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq.

The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and Bret Stephens. Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of The New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above-cited hawks by name before describing them as “. . . a who’s who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking.

If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last 20 years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names: Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen, and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neoconservatives.

I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military— David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying. So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews.

Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress regarding Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility, as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task.

The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish. One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan administration, and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby.

Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East—except for Israel, of course. [9/11 Commission executive director] Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel. Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish, and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust.

This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by Congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy-making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise First Amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation.

But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage. For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g., Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind of like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison—translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.




Company Wants Employees ‘Chipped’

Joining a high-technology office complex in Sweden, a Wisconsin company now says bio-chips can replace swipe cards, log in to computers, and order food. Distressingly, employees are lining up for the “convenient” implanted chip. 

By Dave Gahary

Five years ago this week, when American Free Press was the first national newspaper to break the story on a San Antonio, Texas school attempting to force all 4,200 students “to wear radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips embedded in the student IDs worn around their necks,” it may have seemed to most readers the stuff of science fiction. Not only is the technology more advanced today, however, it’s gaining acceptance as well.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Although the teenage heroine in AFP roving editor Mark Anderson’s 2012 report—Andrea Hernandez—eventually won her battle based on religious beliefs that opposed being “chipped,” having microchips voluntarily injected subcutaneously is now a growing fad.

Around two years after AFP’s report, the BBC reported on a company that’s perfecting the art of chipping. In Sweden, a high-technology office complex—Epicenter—is offering chipping to any employee who wants it, and many are jumping at the chance. Even BBC reporter Rory Cellan-Jones—who wrote the Jan. 29, 2015 article entitled “Office puts chips under staff’s skin”—volunteered to have the device, about the size of a grain of rice, implanted in his hand, between his thumb and index finger. He explained the process in the article.

First, he massaged the skin between my thumb and index finger and rubbed in some disinfectant. The[n] he told me to take a deep breath while he inserted the chip. There was a moment of pain—not much worse than any injection—and then he stuck a plaster [an adhesive bandage] over my hand.

Liberty Stickers

Eventually, all 700 employees working in the complex were to be offered the “opportunity” to be chipped.

The man implanting the chips—Hannes Sjoblad, who works for the Swedish “biohacking” company BioNyfiken—told the reporter:

We already interact with technology all the time. Today it’s a bit messy—we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn’t it be easy to just touch with your hand? That’s really intuitive. We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped—the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip.

An Associated Press (AP) article updating Epicenter’s “progress,” reported that of the “more than 100 companies and some 2,000 workers . . . about 150 workers have them.” The report notes a company in Belgium “also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world where tech enthusiasts have tried this out in recent years.”

“The implants have become so popular,” reports AP, “that Epicenter workers stage monthly events where attendees have the option of being ‘chipped’ for free.”

Now the chipping craze has crossed the pond. As reported in the pages of USA Today on July 24, a “Wisconsin technology firm has begun offering employees microchip implants so they can [enter the company building without a swipe card] and purchase food at work.” The company, Three Square Market (32M)—which is partnering with BioNyfiken—“has over 50 employees who plan to have the devices implanted.”

According to a company press release, 32M “is offering implanted chip technology to all of their employees. Employees will be chipped at the 32M inaugural ‘chip party’ hosted at their headquarters in River Falls, Wisc. on Aug. 1, 2017. Employees will be implanted with a RFID chip allowing them to make purchases in their break room micro market, open doors, log in to computers, use the copy machine etc.”

CEO Todd Westby states: “We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities etc.”

Vice President of International Sales Tony Danna added, “We see chip technology as the next evolution in payment systems.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Fortunately for those neo-luddites among us, not everyone is as eager to step into this brave, new world. State lawmakers in Nevada heard testimony earlier this year regarding chipping.

Legislation introduced by state Sen. Becky Harris “would bar forcefully implanted tracking microchips,” reported the Reno Gazette-Journal on Feb. 13. Sen. Harris believes “the chips pose serious ethical concerns, such as who owns the information stored on the chip and who owns the chip itself.”

She’s also concerned that the chips could be “hacked,” allowing someone unauthorized access to the chip for an illegal purpose.

“There’s no cryptology or protection measures that we’re aware of that are placed on these chips, so it’s possible to hack the information contained within the chips,” she said. “It is possible that you could harass or stalk chipped individuals with the right type of reader.”

Sen. Harris also claims “the chips also pose a potential health problem, citing studies that found fibrosarcoma and sarcoma, a malignant cancerous tumor, at injection sites in animal testing.”

Humans morphing into cancerous cyborgs may have come to pass, but it’s not fazing certain portions of the younger generation. A 25-year-old employee who works for a company in the Epicenter complex, Sandra Haglof, is ready for the transformation.

Laughing, she told AP, “I want to be part of the future.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.




New World Order to Meet in Chantilly in Early June

Will the recent deaths of longtime Bilderbergers David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski and the rise of the new Technorati, including Google executive Eric Schmidt, change the course of this infamous gathering of the world’s elite? Meeting in the U.S. for the first time in five years, AFP will be on hand in Chantilly, Va. to document—as extensively as possible, given the no-media cloak of secrecy—the secretive gathering.

By Mark Anderson

The 65th annual gathering of the shadowy Bilderberg group will take place June 1-4 at the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Va. Already, 131 participants from 21 countries have confirmed their attendance. This marks Bilderberg’s first North American meeting in five years, and AFP will be on the scene since the confab is being held only 25 miles from Washington, D.C. Last year, the group gathered in Dresden, Germany.

President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is listed as an attendee for this year’s Bilderberg meeting. Other U.S. officials attending, who are currently serving in public office, are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). While Graham jetted to last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Germany, Cotton evidently is attending his first-ever Bilderberg meeting. McMaster, Graham, and Cotton all share a neoconservative ideology of aggressively patrolling the world to push American “democracy” and monopoly capitalism, while fostering hostility toward Iran, Russia, and Syria. This fits the Bilderberg credo of using U.S. power to control the natural resources and economic machinery of as many nations as possible, while co-opting or overthrowing those nations that stand firm with their own sovereignty.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to Bilderberg’s own anonymous press office, the 13 “key” topics “for discussion” this year include: “The Trump Administration—A Progress Report; Trans-Atlantic Relations—Options and Scenarios; The Trans-Atlantic Defense Alliance: Bullets, Bytes, and Bucks; The Direction of the EU; Can Globalization Be Slowed Down?; Jobs, Income, and Unrealized Expectations; The War on Information; Why is Populism Growing?; Russia in the International Order; The Near East; Nuclear Proliferation; Current Events; and China.”

Bilderberg consists of 140 mainly North American and European corporate moguls (including select big media), government ministers, treasury officials, parliament members, high-technology leaders, certain royalty (including Bilderberg co-founder Prince Bernhard’s daughter, Netherlands Queen Beatrix), and central bankers who annually skulk into the world’s top hotels in order to cross-pollinate to pursue One World Ltd. and related financial and political dealings.

Gideon Elite book cover

The group has an American arm, the American Friends of Bilderberg, which files annual 990 tax returns as a so-called charity and is registered in the state of New York under that amusing pretense.

The danger-ridden, tyrannical goal of creating an all-consuming, corporate-ruled world super-state dubbed the New World Order has been incrementally advanced since Bilderberg first met in Holland in 1954 under the auspices of Jesuit-trained European consolidator Joseph Retinger and his agent, Netherlands Prince Bernhard. This explains why Bilderberg goes to such lengths to keep the details of its inner-workings so secret, while functioning as an off-the-grid world networking and planning forum for private governance benefitting the banking and corporate classes. A core tactic is to parallel but eventually supersede the nation-state itself, eventually canceling effective, genuine nationhood altogether.

Bilderberg still maintains that it goes to all the trouble and expense of meeting just to chat off the record, allegedly without detailed minutes kept, with the reporting press disallowed only so attendees can relax and speak freely. Supposedly, no decisions are made or consensus is sought. Attendees, they say, must not reveal afterwards what was discussed, under Chatham House rules, though they apparently are free to use some of the ideas from the meetings without attribution.

NWO in Action cover

However, this is also a way of rigging the game so everything stays secret, even while topics that include the word “strategy” contradict Bilderberg’s position that it’s just a forum for intellectual banter about megatrends in the world.

An important question to ponder going into Bilderberg’s 2017 meeting is how the March 2017 death of longtime Bilderberger David Rockefeller and the May 26 death of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the Carter administration’s national security advisor, will affect the status and agenda of Bilderberg—especially since the Trilateral group, which formed in 1973 and by its own admission put Carter in the White House, has for decades been a key “spoke” in the Bilderberg central “hub,” much like the Brookings Institution.

With the passing of key members of Bilderberg’s “old guard” and Rockefeller-Brzezinski associate and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger not long for this world due to his advanced age, will the younger Bilderbergers—especially Google executive Eric Schmidt and other young attendees mainly representing high technology in the “deep state” areas of surveillance, artificial intelligence, and even trans-humanism—take Bilderberg in a sharply new direction?