A lesson from Syria: it’s crucial not to fuel far-right conspiracy theories
The way discredited stories spread after a
chemical weapons massacre in Syria should be a matter of serious concern
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/lesson-from-syria-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-theories-alt-right
@GeorgeMonbiot Wednesday 15 November 2017 06.00
GMT Last modified on Wednesday 15 November 2017 07.54 GMT
What do we believe? This is the crucial
democratic question. Without informed choice,
democracy is meaningless. This is why dictators
and billionaires invest so heavily in fake news.
Our only defence is constant vigilance, rigour
and scepticism. But when some of the world’s most
famous crusaders against propaganda appear to
give credence to conspiracy theories, you wonder
where to turn..............................
George's complete article is at the bottom where,
I hope you'll agree, it belongs
First, from Robert Parry though, Gary Webb's
friend, who exposed the Iran Contra scandal
Did Al Qaeda Dupe Trump on Syrian Attack?
November 9, 2017 By Robert Parry
Special Report: Buried deep inside a new U.N.
report is evidence that could exonerate the
Syrian government in the April 4 sarin atrocity
and make President Trump look like an Al Qaeda dupe, reports Robert Parry.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/09/did-al-qaeda-dupe-trump-on-syrian-attack/
A new United Nations-sponsored
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLPNZ-eSjJdcGZUb0hqalFOa0hhdEZ3WlBvZmRnajFRV3pr/view>report
on the April 4 sarin incident in an Al
Qaeda-controlled town in Syria blames Bashar
al-Assad’s government for the atrocity, but the
report contains evidence deep inside its “Annex
II” that would prove Assad’s innocence.
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer
USS Ross fires a tomahawk land attack missile
from the Mediterranean Sea at Syria, April 7,
2017. (Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Robert S. Price)
If you read that far, you would find that more
than 100 victims of sarin exposure were taken to
several area hospitals before the alleged Syrian
warplane could have struck the town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Still, the Joint Investigative Mechanism [JIM], a
joint project of the U.N. and the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW],
brushed aside this startling evidence and
delivered the Assad guilty verdict that the
United States and its allies wanted.
The JIM consigned the evidence of a staged
atrocity, in which Al Qaeda operatives would have
used sarin to kill innocent civilians and pin the
blame on Assad, to a spot 14 pages into the
report’s Annex II. The sensitivity of this
evidence of a staged “attack” is heightened by
the fact that President Trump rushed to judgment
and ordered a “retaliatory” strike with 59
Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian airbase on the
night of April 6-7. That U.S. attack reportedly
killed several soldiers at the base and nine
civilians, including four children, in nearby neighborhoods.
So, if it becomes clear that Al Qaeda tricked
President Trump not only would he be responsible
for violating international law and killing
innocent people, but he and virtually the entire
Western political establishment along with the
major news media would look like Al Qaeda’s “useful idiots.”
Currently, the West and its mainstream media are
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/world/middleeast/mulet-syria-chemical-russia-interview.html>lambasting
the Russians for not accepting the JIM’s
“assessment,” which blames Assad for the sarin
attack. Russia is also taking flak for
questioning continuation of the JIM’s mandate.
There has been virtually no mainstream skepticism
about the JIM’s report and almost no mention in
the mainstream of the hospital-timing discrepancy.
Timing Troubles
To establish when the supposed sarin attack
occurred on April 4, the JIM report relied on
witnesses in the Al Qaeda-controlled town and a
curious video showing three plumes of smoke but
no airplanes. Based on the video’s metadata, the
JIM said the scene was recorded between 0642 and
0652 hours. The JIM thus puts the timing of the
sarin release at between 0630 and 0700 hours.
The photograph released by the White House of
President Trump meeting with his advisers at his
estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, regarding
his decision to launch missile strikes against Syria.
But the first admissions of victims to area
hospitals began as early as 0600 hours, the JIM
found, meaning that these victims could not have
been poisoned by the alleged aerial bombing (even
if the airstrike really did occur).
According to the report’s Annex II, “The
admission times of the records range between 0600
and 1600 hours.” And these early cases – arriving
before the alleged airstrike – were not isolated ones.
“Analysis of the … medical records revealed that
in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five
hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun,” Annex II said.
Plus, this timing discrepancy was not limited to
a few hospitals in and around Khan Sheikhoun, but
was recorded as well at hospitals that were
scattered across the area and included one
hospital that would have taken an hour or so to reach.
Annex II stated: “In 10 such cases, patients
appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km
away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while
another 42 patients appear to have been admitted
to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours.”
In other words, more than 100 patients would
appear to have been exposed to sarin before the
alleged Syrian warplane could have dropped the
alleged bomb and the victims could be evacuated,
a finding that alone would have destroyed the
JIM’s case against the Syrian government.
But the JIM seemed more interested in burying
this evidence of Al Qaeda staging the incident
and killing some expendable civilians than in
following up this timing problem.
“The [JIM] did not investigate these
discrepancies and cannot determine whether they
are linked to any possible staging scenario, or
to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions,”
the report said. But the proffered excuse about
poor record-keeping would have to apply to
multiple hospitals over a wide area all falsely
recording the arrival time of more than 100 patients.
The video of the plumes of smoke also has come
under
<https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/07/nyts-new-syria-sarin-report-challenged/>skepticism
from Theodore Postol, a weapons expert at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who noted
that none of the three plumes matched up with
damage to buildings (as viewed from satellite
images) that would have resulted from aerial bombs of that power.
Postol’s finding suggests that the smoke could
have been another part of a staging event rather
than debris kicked up by aerial bombs.
The JIM also could find no conclusive evidence
that a Syrian warplane was over Khan Sheikhoun at
the time of the video although the report claims
that a plane could have come within about 5 kilometers of the town.
A History of Deception
Perhaps even more significantly, the JIM report
ignored the context of the April 4 case and the
past history of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front staging
chemical weapons attacks with the goal of
foisting blame on the Syrian government and
tricking the U.S. military into an intervention
on the side of Nusra and its Islamic-militant allies.
Photograph of men in Khan Sheikdoun in Syria,
allegedly inside a crater where a sarin-gas bomb landed.
On April 4, there was a strong motive for Al
Qaeda and its regional allies to mount a staged
event. Just days earlier, President Trump’s
administration had shocked the Syrian rebels and
their backers by declaring “regime change” was no
longer the U.S. goal in Syria.
So, Al Qaeda and its regional enablers were
frantic to reverse Trump’s decision, which was
accomplished by his emotional reaction to videos
on cable news showing children and other
civilians suffering and dying in Khan Sheikhoun.
On the night of April 6-7, before any thorough
investigation could be conducted, Trump ordered
59 Tomahawk missiles fired at the Syrian air base
that supposedly had launched the sarin attack.
At the time, I was told by an intelligence source
that at least some CIA analysts believed that the
sarin incident indeed had been staged with sarin
possibly flown in by drone from a Saudi-Israeli
special operations base in Jordan.
This source said the on-the-ground staging for
the incident had been hasty because of the
surprise announcement that the Trump
administration was no longer seeking regime
change in Damascus. The haste led to some
sloppiness in tying down all the necessary
details to pin the atrocity on Assad, the source said.
But the few slip-ups, such as the apparent
failure to coordinate the timing of the hospital
admissions to after the purported airstrike,
didn’t deter the JIM investigators from backing
the West’s desire to blame Assad and also create
another attack line against the Russians.
Similarly, other U.N.-connected investigators
downplayed earlier evidence that Al Qaeda’s Nusra
was staging chemical weapons incidents after
President Obama laid down his “red line” on
chemical weapons. The militants apparently hoped
that the U.S. military would take out the Syrian
military and pave the way for an Al Qaeda victory.
For instance, U.N. investigators
<https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/08/un-team-heard-claims-of-staged-chemical-attacks/>learned
from a number of townspeople of Al-Tamanah about
how the rebels and allied “activists” staged a
chlorine gas attack on the night of April 29-30,
2014, and then sold the false story to a
credulous Western media and, initially, to a U.N. investigative team.
“Seven witnesses stated that frequent alerts
[about an imminent chlorine weapons attack by the
government] had been issued, but in fact no
incidents with chemicals took place,” the U.N.
report said. “While people sought safety after
the warnings, their homes were looted and rumours
spread that the events were being staged. …
[T]hey [these witnesses] had come forward to
contest the wide-spread false media reports.”
Dubious Evidence
Other people, who did allege that there had been
a government chemical attack on Al-Tamanah,
provided suspect evidence, including data from
questionable sources, according to the report.
Nikki Haley, United States Permanent
Representative to the UN, addresses the Security
Council’s meeting on the situation in Syria on
April 27, 2017 (UN Photo)
The report said, “Three witnesses, who did not
give any description of the incident on 29-30
April 2014, provided material of unknown source.
One witness had second-hand knowledge of two of
the five incidents in Al-Tamanah, but did not
remember the exact dates. Later that witness
provided a USB-stick with information of unknown
origin, which was saved in separate folders
according to the dates of all the five incidents
mentioned by the FFM [the U.N.’s Fact-Finding Mission].
“Another witness provided the dates of all five
incidents reading it from a piece of paper, but
did not provide any testimony on the incident on
29-30 April 2014. The latter also provided a
video titled ‘site where second barrel containing
toxic chlorine gas was dropped tamanaa 30 April 14’”
Some other witnesses alleging a Syrian government
attack offered curious claims about detecting the
chlorine-infused “barrel bombs” based on how the device sounded in its descent.
The U.N. report said, “The eyewitness, who stated
to have been on the roof, said to have heard a
helicopter and the ‘very loud’ sound of a falling
barrel. Some interviewees had referred to a
distinct whistling sound of barrels that contain
chlorine as they fall. The witness statement
could not be corroborated with any further information.”
However, the claim itself is absurd since it is
inconceivable that anyone could detect a chlorine
canister inside a “barrel bomb” by “a distinct whistling sound.”
The larger point, however, is that the jihadist
rebels in Al-Tamanah and their propaganda teams,
including relief workers and activists, appear to
have organized a coordinated effort at deception
complete with a fake video supplied to U.N.
investigators and Western media outlets.
For instance, the Telegraph in London
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10798575/Footage-emerges-of-new-chlorine-attack-in-Syria.html>reported
that “Videos allegedly taken in Al-Tamanah …
purport to show the impact sites of two chemical
bombs. Activists said that one person had been killed and another 70 injured.”
The Telegraph quoted supposed weapons expert
Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat and a
senior fellow at the fiercely anti-Russian
Atlantic Council, as endorsing the Al-Tamanah claims.
“Witnesses have consistently reported the use of
helicopters to drop the chemical barrel bombs
used,” said Higgins. “As it stands, around a
dozen chemical barrel bomb attacks have been
alleged in that region in the last three weeks.”
The Al-Tamanah debunking in the U.N. report
received no mainstream media attention when the
U.N. findings were issued in September 2016
because the U.N. report relied on rebel
information to blame two other alleged chlorine
attacks on the government and that got all the
coverage. But the case should have raised red
flags given the extent of the apparent deception.
If the seven townspeople were telling the truth,
that would mean that the rebels and their allies
issued fake attack warnings, produced propaganda
videos to fool the West, and prepped “witnesses”
with “evidence” to deceive investigators. Yet, no
alarms went off about other rebel claims.
The Ghouta Incident
A more famous attack – with sarin gas on the
Damascus suburb of Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013,
killing hundreds – was also eagerly blamed on the
Assad regime, as The New York Times, Human Rights
Watch, Higgins’s Bellingcat and many other
Western outlets jumped to that conclusion despite
the unlikely circumstances. Assad had just
welcomed U.N. investigators to Damascus to
examine chemical attacks that he was blaming on the rebels.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
(right) talks with President Barack Obama in the
Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national
security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of
Director of National Intelligence)
Assad also was facing the “red line” threat from
President Obama warning him of possible U.S.
military intervention if the Syrian government
deployed chemical weapons. Why Assad and his
military would choose such a moment to launch a
deadly sarin attack outside Damascus, killing
mostly civilians, made little sense.
But this became another rush to judgment in the
West that brought the Obama administration to the
verge of launching a devastating air attack on
the Syrian military that might have helped Al
Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and/or the Islamic State win the war.
Eventually, however, the case blaming Assad for
the 2013 sarin attack
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/07/the-collapsing-syria-sarin-case/>collapsed.
An analysis by genuine weapons experts – such as
Theodore Postol, an MIT professor of science,
technology and national security policy, and
Richard M. Lloyd, an analyst at the military
contractor Tesla Laboratories – found that the
missile that delivered the sarin had a very short
range placing its likely firing position in rebel territory.
Later, reporting by journalist Seymour Hersh
<https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/16/was-turkey-behind-syria-sarin-attack-2/>implicated
Turkish intelligence working with jihadist rebels
as the likely source of the sarin.
We also learned in 2016 that
<https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/10/neocons-red-faced-over-red-line/>a
message from the U.S. intelligence community had
warned Obama how weak the evidence against Assad
was. There was no “slam-dunk” proof, said
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
And Obama cited his rejection of the Washington
militaristic “playbook” to bomb Syria as one of
his proudest moments as President.
With this background, there should have been
extreme skepticism when jihadists and their
allies made new claims about the Syrian
government engaging in chemical weapons attacks. But there wasn’t.
The broader context for these biased
investigations is that U.N. and OPCW
investigators have been under
<https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/08/u-n-enablers-of-aggressive-war/>intense
pressure to confirm accusations against Syria and other targeted states.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney receive an Oval Office briefing from CIA
Director George Tenet. Also present is Chief of
Staff Andy Card (on right). (White House photo)
Right now, the West is blaming Russia for the
collapsing consensus behind U.N. investigations,
but the problem really comes from Washington’s
longtime strategy of coercing U.N. organizations
into becoming propaganda arms for U.S. geopolitical strategies.
The U.N.’s relative independence in its
investigative efforts was decisively broken early
this century when President George W. Bush’s
administration purged U.N. agencies that were not
onboard with U.S. hegemony, especially on interventions in the Middle East.
Through manipulation of funding and selection of
key staff members, the Bush administration
engineered the takeover or at least the
neutralizing of one U.N.-affiliated organization after another.
For instance, in 2002, Bush’s Deputy
Under-Secretary of State John Bolton spearheaded
the takeover of the OPCW as Bush planned to cite
chemical weapons as a principal excuse for invading Iraq.
OPCW Director General Jose Mauricio Bustani was
viewed as an obstacle because he was pressing
Iraq to accept OPCW’s conventions for eliminating
chemical weapons, which could have undermined Bush’s WMD rationale for war.
Though Bustani was just reelected to a new term,
the Brazilian diplomat was forced out, to be
followed in that job by more pliable bureaucrats,
including the current Director General Ahmet
Uzumcu of Turkey, who not only comes from a NATO
country but served as Turkey’s ambassador to NATO
and to Israel. [For details, see
Consortiumnews.com’s
“<https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/08/u-n-enablers-of-aggressive-war/>U.N.
Enablers of ‘Aggressive War.’”]
Since those days of the Iraq invasion, the game
hasn’t changed. U.S. and other Western officials
expect the U.N. and related agencies to accept or
at least not object to Washington’s geopolitical interventions.
The only difference now is that Russia, one of
the five veto-wielding members of the Security
Council, is saying enough is enough – and
Russia’s opposition to these biased inquiries is
emerging as one more dangerous hot spot in the New Cold War.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of
the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in
<https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=1037>print
here or as an e-book (from
<http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Stolen-Narrative-Washington-ebook/dp/B009RXXOIG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350755575&sr=8-1&keywords=americas+stolen+narrative>Amazon
and
<http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/americas-stolen-narrative?keyword=americas+stolen+narrative&store=ebook&iehack=%E2%98%A0>barnesandnoble.com).
A lesson from Syria: it’s crucial not to fuel far-right conspiracy theories
George Monbiot
The way discredited stories spread after a
chemical weapons massacre in Syria should be a matter of serious concern
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/lesson-from-syria-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-theories-alt-right
@GeorgeMonbiot
Wednesday 15 November 2017 06.00 GMT Last
modified on Wednesday 15 November 2017 07.54 GMT
What do we believe? This is the crucial
democratic question. Without informed choice,
democracy is meaningless. This is why dictators
and billionaires invest so heavily in fake news.
Our only defence is constant vigilance, rigour
and scepticism. But when some of the world’s most
famous crusaders against propaganda appear to
give credence to conspiracy theories, you wonder where to turn.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) last month published its
investigation into the chemical weapons attack on
the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun, which killed
almost 100 people on 4 April and injured around
200. After examining the competing theories and
conducting wide-ranging interviews, laboratory
tests and forensic analysis of videos and photos,
it concluded that the atrocity was caused by a
bomb filled with sarin, dropped by the government of Syria.
There is nothing surprising about this. The
Syrian government has a long history of chemical
weapons use, and the OPCW’s conclusions concur
with a wealth of witness testimony. But a major
propaganda effort has sought to discredit such
testimony, and characterise the atrocity as a “false-flag attack”.
This effort began with an article published on
the website Al-Masdar news, run by the Syrian
government loyalist Leith Abou Fadel. It
suggested that either the attack had been staged
by “terrorist forces”, or chemicals stored in a
missile factory had inadvertently been released
when the Syrian government bombed it.
The story was then embellished on Infowars – the
notorious far-right conspiracy forum. The
Infowars article claimed that the attack was
staged by the Syrian first responder group, the
White Helmets. This is a reiteration of a
repeatedly discredited conspiracy theory, casting
these rescuers in the role of perpetrators. It
suggested that the victims were people who had
been kidnapped by al-Qaida from a nearby city,
brought to Khan Shaykhun and murdered, perhaps
with the help of the UK and French governments,
“to lay blame on the Syrian government”. The
author of this article was Mimi Al-Laham, also
known as Maram Susli, PartisanGirl, Syrian Girl
and Syrian Sister. She is a loyalist of the Assad
government who has appeared on podcasts hosted by
David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan. She has another role: as an “expert”
used by a retired professor from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology called
Theodore Postol. He has produced a wide range of
claims casting doubt on the Syrian government’s
complicity in chemical weapons attacks.
In correspondence with the chemical weapons
expert Dan Kaszeta, Postol revealed that the
“solid scientific source” he used to support his
theory about the origin of sarin used in Syria
was “Syrian Sister”. When Postol and Susli both
appeared on a podcast run by the Holocaust
“revisionist” Ryan Dawson, Postol explained why
he had chosen to work with her: “I was watching
her on Twitter. I could see from her voice … that
she was a trained chemist.” First, Postol claimed
that the crater from which the sarin in Khan
Shaykhun had emanated was most probably caused
not by a bomb dropped from the air but by an
explosive device laid on the ground (a hypothesis
examined and thoroughly debunked by the OPCW
report). Then he claimed that there was “no
evidence to support” the notion that sarin had
been released from the air, and proposed there
was strong evidence to suggest that the mass
poisoning had been caused by a bomb that hit a rebel weapons depot.
He further claimed that a French intelligence
report contradicted the story that sarin had been
dropped from a plane, as it suggested that sarin
had been dropped by helicopters in a different
place. (In reality, he had confused the attack in
April 2017 with one in April 2013). Each of these
contradictory hypotheses was patiently explored
and demolished at the time by bloggers and analysts.
The Guardian visited Khan Shaykhun (also known as
Khan Sheikhun) in the aftermath of the attack –
the only news organisation in the world to do so.
It established that there had been no weapons
depot near the scene of the contamination.
Surrounding warehouses were abandoned. Birdseed
and a volleyball net were all that existed
inside. None had been attacked in recent months.
The contamination came from a hole in the road
from where the remains of a projectile protruded.
But eight days after the Khan Shaykhun attack
John Pilger, famous for exposing propaganda and
lies, was interviewed on the website Consortium
News. He praised Postol as “the distinguished MIT
professor”, suggested that the Syrian government
could not have carried out the attack – as he
claimed it had destroyed its chemical arsenal in
2014 – and maintained that jihadists in Khan
Shaykhun “have been playing with nerve gases and
sarin … for some years now. There’s no doubt
about that.” Despite many claims to the contrary,
I have found no credible evidence that Syrian jihadists have access to sarin.
On 26 April Noam Chomsky, interviewed on
Democracy Now, claimed that Postol, whom Chomsky
called “a highly regarded strategic analyst and
intelligence analyst”, had produced a “pretty
devastating critique” of a White House report
that maintained the Syrian government was
responsible. Although Chomsky accepted that a
chemical attack had taken place and said it was
plausible that the Syrian government could have
carried it out, this interview helped trigger a
frenzy of online commentary endorsing Postol’s
hypotheses and dismissing the possibility that
the Assad government could have been responsible.
The atmosphere became toxic: when I challenged
Postol’s claims, people accused me of being an
Isis sympathiser, a paedophile being blackmailed
by the government, and a Mossad agent. But the madness had only just begun.
People accused me of being an Isis sympathiser, a
paedophile being blackmailed by the government, and a Mossad agent
In June the investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh published an article in the German paper
Die Welt, based on information from a “senior
adviser to the US intelligence community” who
maintained that there had been no sarin strike on
Khan Shaykhun. Instead, a meeting of jihadist
leaders in “a two-storey cinder-block building”
had been bombed by the Syrian air force with the
support of the Russians and with Washington’s
full knowledge. Fertilisers and disinfectants in
the basement, Hersh claimed, could have caused
the mass poisoning. (Again, this possibility was
examined and discredited by the OPCW).
So which building was he talking about? I asked
Hersh to give me its coordinates: the most basic
evidence you would expect to support a claim of
this nature. The Terraserver website provides
satellite imagery that makes it possible to check
for any changes to the buildings in Khan
Shaykhun, from one day to the next. But when I
challenged him to provide them, first he sent me
links to claims made by Postol, then he told me
that the images are not sufficiently “precise and
reliable”. As every building is clearly visible,
I find this claim is hard to understand.
Scepticism of all official claims is essential,
especially when they involve weapons of mass
destruction, and especially when they are used as
a pretext for military action – in this case
Tomahawk missiles fired on the orders of Donald
Trump from a US destroyer on 7 April. We know
from Iraq not to take any such claims on trust.
But I also believe there is a difference between
scepticism and denial. While in the fog of war,
there will always be some doubt, as the OPCW’s
report acknowledges, there is no evidence to
support the competing theories of what happened
at Khan Shaykhun. Propaganda by one side does not
justify propaganda by another.
In Vox earlier this month, the writer David
Roberts suggested that America is facing “an
epistemic crisis” caused by the conservative
rejection of all forms of expertise and
knowledge. Politics in the US and elsewhere is
now dominated by wild conspiracy theories and
paranoia – the narrative platform from which
fascism arises. This, as Roberts proposes,
presents an urgent threat to democracy. If the
scourges of establishment propaganda promote,
even unwittingly, groundless stories developed by
the “alt right”, we are in deeper trouble than he suggests.
From South America, where payment must be made
with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made
a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of
the brightest Jewish businessmen into a
participatory role in the development of many of
its corporations, and many of these Jews share
their prosperity most generously with Israel. If
their proposals are sound, they are even provided
with a specially dispensed venture capital fund.
I spoke with one Jewish businessmen in Hartford,
Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown
several years before our conversation, but with
Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more
than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the
community with a certain share of his profits
earmarked as always for his venture capital
benefactors. This has taken place in many other
instances across America and demonstrates how
Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary
commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful
nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much “literature.”
So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish
participation in Bormann companies that when
Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv
to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the
Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires.
Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities
in no uncertain terms that this must never happen
again because a repetition would permanently
rupture relations with the Germans of Latin
America, as well as with the Bormann
organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish
money to Israel. It never happened again, and the
pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of
these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an
Argentinian safe haven, protected by the most
efficient German infrastructure in history as
well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being.
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>http<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>://spitfirelist.com/books/martin-bormann-nazi-in-exile/
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
