Crisis of Misinformation: Too much government breeds distrust

Crisis of Misinformation: Too much government breeds distrust

By Daily Bell Staff

The Misinformation Mess ... As Americans approach Election Year 2016, the crisis of misinformation is growing more and more dangerous. On issues from foreign policy to the economy, almost none of the candidates in the race appear to be addressing the real world, writes Robert Parry.

Dominant Social Theme: False flags? Nothing to see here. Let's move along.

Free-Market Analysis: Who is Robert Parry? He is editor of Consortiumnews.com, an online independent investigative journalism magazine founded in 1995, and an investigative reporter. We learn from his bio he "broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s." His latest book is America's Stolen Narrative.

This article was picked up from Consortium news, like many of Parry's articles, by Common Dreams, a well-known left-leaning site that publishes often about "the misinformation mess."

Our position has always been that the Internet Reformation (our term) was unstoppable in the short- and medium-term. We expected when exposed regarding perfervid implementations of directed history that the elites in some sense would take a "step back."

Instead, they have forged ahead like Ronda Rousey when she lost her title. Toward the end of the fight, she was leading with her face to get it over with.

In fact, the elites we cover regularly seem kinda, well ... punch-drunk. We've suggested that the growing mass of Internet exposés would reach a critical point eventually and that seems to be happening.

Robert Parry's article adds significantly to the accumulation of material leading readers on both left and right ends of the spectrum to question the official narrative. Bear in mind Parry comes from AP. Given what he's been through professionally, this article is remarkable.

Let's examine some excerpts.

Is it really possible to expect that the American people (as propagandized and misinformed as they are) could affect significant change through the electoral process, which is itself deeply compromised by vast sums of dark money from American oligarchs, while other super-rich Americans own the major media companies?

Good point about the current oligarchical structure.

As part of all this reassessment, there needs to be a coming-clean with the American people regarding what U.S. intelligence knows about a variety of key events, including but not limited to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack outside Damascus, Syria; the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper attack in Kiev, Ukraine, which set the stage for the coup; and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine.

The fact that such events have been exploited for propaganda reasons – to blame U.S. "adversaries" – while the detailed knowledge of the U.S. intelligence agencies is hidden from the American people has deprived the public of an ability to make rational assessments about the larger policies. U.S. positions are driven by false or faulty perceptions, not reality.

These two gafs above are perhaps the most remarkable. When intelligence agency narratives are confronted to this extent, something is changing. The last time this happened was in the mid-20th century, and it provoked some convulsive changes.

One more astonishing statement: "Along with bringing rationality and reason back to U.S. foreign policy, a similar process of truth-telling could take place domestically."

He makes economic points, too, writing that the "core problem" of the US's shrinking middle class has to do with super profits from the new digital economy that should have been disbursed to everyone but have only gone to the "super rich."

This is where Parry begins to go wrong. Like most reporters, he doesn't seem to know enough about central banking or the dollar reserve currency to appreciate the US's true monetary manipulation.

It is easy to blame Wall Street but the real problem in the US and abroad is monopoly money printing and the judicial decisions that have created corporate bigness. He can't mention this because it will conflict with his less well-considered narrative about government activism.

By the end, Parry has gone off the rails completely. Here's his conclusion:

What prevents us from making the sensible move – i.e., dramatically increase taxes on the rich and put that money to use putting people to work on worthy projects – is Ronald Reagan's propaganda message that "government is the problem."

Such articles as Parry's, even if they get the solution wrong, are evidence of an evolving, Internet-related conversation. There are those in the libertarian and patriot community that doubt the efficacy of "talk."

We've never accepted this point of view. Enough "talk" can sink a culture's formative narrative. That's why David Cameron is currently trying to censor the Internet. China is trying to do the same thing. The operative word is "trying."

Hollow out the culture and the society itself collapses. That's why top Eurocrats are encouraging Islamic migration. Cultures change when narratives change.

The trouble our leaders are having today is overexposure. Already, too many people understand the manipulations that billions are subject to. Rather than bleed to death, some elites have decided to implement their longed-for internationalism rapidly now rather than slowly.

But what do you make of this, originally from Pakistani Samaa TV?

Pakistan TV Exposes Osama bin Laden Killing Hoax (Video) Posted on December 28, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in Middle East, News ... Mohammad Bashir, an Abbottabad resident and neighbour to the bin Laden "compound", gives an extraordinary eyewitness account of what he says happened on 2 May 2011, when – according to the official story – US Navy SEALs assassinated Osama bin Laden.

In this rare interview, a Pakistan TV station talks to Bashir who gives an explosive account of what actually happened which completely contradicts the official story. This interview offers compelling evidence that the Obama administration's story about killing Osama is a complete hoax.

We wrote about this eyewitness testimony years ago, and while our report was consigned to the memory hole, here it is again.

Is it true? You decide. The larger point is that it is problematic. How much of this can the mainstream narrative stand? Russia claims forcefully that the US helped create and support ISIS, and those reports have circulated widely. It is well known that under the second Bush presidency, the US attacked Iraq for no reason, and there's so much more. And it never goes away. Not really.

It is, of course, possible that given current narrative difficulties, elites intend to induce maximum chaos. If you destroy one social narrative without letting another take its place, you can certainly make it more difficult for people to emerge from the morass of misinformation. They begin to mistrust everything.

Conclusion: 

But there are solutions. Contrary to Parry, we would argue those solutions begin with LESS government – not more. 

Immorality & contempt for liberty at root of U.S. woes: Myth of Democratic Socialism

Immorality & contempt for liberty at root of U.S. woes: Myth of Democratic Socialism

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

American immorality and contempt for liberty lie at the root of most of the political economic problems our nation faces.

They explain the fiscal problems we face, such as growing national debt and budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government.

Our immorality and contempt for liberty are reflected most in our widespread belief that government ought to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. Let’s examine it.

Suppose there is an elderly widow in your neighborhood. She does not have the strength to mow her lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks. Plus she does not have the financial means to hire someone to perform them. Here is my question: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the widow’s lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as a fine, property confiscation or imprisonment? I believe and hope that most of my fellow Americans would find such a mandate repulsive.

They would rightfully condemn it as a form of slavery, which can also be described as the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of forcing one of your neighbors to actually perform the household tasks, your neighbor were forced to fork over $50 of his weekly earnings to the widow? That way, she could hire someone to perform the tasks that she is unable to do. Would that mandate differ from one under which your neighbor is forced to actually perform the household tasks? I’d answer no. Just the mechanism differs for forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

Most Americans would want to help this widow, but they would find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive.

They would have a clearer conscience if government would use its taxing authority; say an income tax or property tax. A government agency could then send the widow a $50 check to hire someone to mow her lawn and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism would make the servitude invisible, but it wouldn’t change the fact that people are being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally repulsive.

Some might misleadingly argue that we are a democracy, in which the majority rules. But a majority consensus does not make acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral moral.

In other words, if the neighbors got a majority vote to force one of their number, under pain of punishment, to perform household tasks for the elderly widow, it would still be immoral. People like to give immoral acts an aura of moral legitimacy by noble sounding expressions, such as “spreading the wealth,” “income redistribution,” “caring for the less fortunate” and “the will of the majority.”

If one American can use government to force another to serve his purpose, what is the basis for denying another American the right to do the same thing? For example, if farmers are able to use Congress to give them cash for crop subsidies, why should toymakers be denied the right for Congress to give them cash subsidies when their sales slump?

Congress has completely succumbed to the pressure to use one American to serve the purposes of another. As a result, spending grows.

Today’s federal budget is about $3.8 trillion. At least two-thirds of it can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another.

I personally believe in helping one’s fellow man in need. Doing so by reaching into one’s own pockets is laudable and praiseworthy. Doing so by reaching into another’s pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation.

Democrats false claim of the “Republican War on Women”, while supporting Islam & Sharia Law.

Democrats false claim of the “Republican War on Women”, while supporting Islam & Sharia Law.

Women's Rights Under Sharia Law

Overview

Sharia law is an Islamic legal system which provides an Islamic alternative to secular models of governance. Women in societies governed by sharia have far fewer rights than women in the West.

Muslim-majority societies have varying degrees of sharia integrated into their law codes, but almost all use sharia to govern family affairs. Sharia courts also exist in a number of Western countries, particularly to adjudicate family law for Muslim citizens.

Marital Rights

• A man is entitled to up to four wives, but a woman may only have one husband. In Western societies, a man typically only takes one wife.
• The husband (or his family) pays a “bride price” or "dower" (mahr, which is money or property paid to the bride) which she is entitled to keep. This “mahr” is in exchange for sexual submission (tamkin). Sexual submission is traditionally regarded as unconditional consent for the remainder of the marriage.
• A man can divorce his wife by making a declaration (talaq) in front of an Islamic judge irrespective of the woman's consent. Even her presence is not required. For a woman to divorce a man (khula), his consent is required.
• The husband is responsible for the financial upkeep of home (nafaqa).
• Wife beating permitted according to some scholars.
• There is no joint property; the man owns all property, (except for what the woman owned before the marriage).
• There is no specific minimum age for marriage, but most agree a woman must have reached puberty. Marriage as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries, "Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls [are] married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18."
• Muslim Feminists such as Dr. Elham Manea argue that the interpretation of sharia in the area of marriage amounts to discrimination, the type of which is prohibited under Western legal systems.

Public Rights

Most Muslim-majority countries are not democracies, so issues of who can vote do not apply. Nevertheless, women still have a significantly reduced role in the public sphere in these countries compared to men.

Conservative ideas of gender roles are taken very seriously in Islamic societies. Even in the West, where Muslim women have the same legal rights as men, they have been prevented from exercising those rights by their male relatives.

Under sharia, women have:

• Lesser inheritance rights compared to men
• Lesser status as witnesses

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive.

Modesty Laws

Many Muslim women respect the requirement to dress modestly and choose to do so. However, in Muslim-majority countries, women do not necessarily have the choice not to do so. Failure to comply with modesty laws has been known to elicit extreme violence from police in places like Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan.

Garments women are required to wear range from a hijab (a scarf covering the hair and neck), an abaya (a cloak-like, loose-fitting overgarment), a niqab (a face veil worn in addition to the hijab and abaya) to a burqa (a full-body and head cloak which includes a netted rectangle over the eyes).

Violations of modesty laws are frequently met with violence in Muslim countries. Western women visiting Muslim-majority countries – for example, Saudi Arabia -- are advised to dress modestly and not to travel unaccompanied by a man.

Male Guardianship

Male Guardianship applies to all women whether married or not according to strict interpretations of sharia. In the event of the deaths of male relatives, it can result in mothers being legally subservient to their sons. Under sharia:

• A woman becomes subservient to her husband and needs his permission to: "leave the house, take up employment, or to engage in fasting or forms of worship other than what is obligatory."
• An unmarried woman is under the guardianship of her nearest male relative.

Human Rights Watch has issued a 50-page report condemning the situation of women in Saudi Arabia alone.

Who Is Affected by Sharia?

Any Muslim woman who undertakes to be married under Islam is bound to a greater or lesser extent by sharia, depending on where they live. Muslim women living in Western countries are bound by the laws of the countries in which they live as well, whereas women living in countries such as Saudi Arabia are bound by sharia alone. In case where sharia and the law of the land conflict, a woman is bound by sharia law.

Glossary of Terms Used in Sharia Law

Ghairah – Male sexual honor and jealousy.

Hayah – Female sexual modesty and shyness.

Khula – Female Initiated divorce. This is very difficult to obtain, and requires the consent of the husband. Technically a woman can appeal to an Islamic court to force the husband into a divorce, but in practice this rarely ever happens.

Mahr – Bride-price paid by the groom's family to the bride. This money becomes legally her property.

Nafaqa – Maintenance, the woman's right to be financially supported by her husband.

Nushuz – A legal state of disobedience if a wife does not obey her husband.

Talaq – 'Repudiation of the wife.' Male initiated divorce. This is extremely easy to obtain. The husband's declaration of talaq causes the divorce to come into effect.

Tamkin – Sexual submission of the wife to her husband. 

The malice of Lucifer joining FOX

The malice of Lucifer is such that he has always wanted to be not only known, but worshiped as God is worshiped, by angels and men. He even tempted Our Lord to worship him!

     Our words and efforts should echo the response of Christ Himself: "Be gone, Satan: the Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him alone shalt thou serve!" (Matt. 4:10)

     Now, see how Fox TV seems to plan to help Lucifer appeal to weak modern humanity in their scheduled series "Lucifer" for January, 2016.

• Fox's online "About The Show" presents the devil as "charming, charismatic and devilishly handsome."
• In the show - Lucifer refers to God like this: "Hey, he's my father, not yours. I can say whatever I want about the guy. I quit Hell because I was sick and tired of playing a part in Dad's plan. I believe in free will, not the tyranny of all his predestination hoo-ha."
• Lucifer continues: "Thank you! But I've been doing a fair amount of thinking. Do you think I'm the devil because I'm inherently evil or simply because dear ol' Dad decided I was? Is this a classic case of labeling? What do you think?"
• The film is quite demonic in its subtlety. In a nightclub, clips show plenty of gyrating, scantily clad dancers, sexual innuendos, glorify a party lifestyle, and portray Lucifer as a fun loving young man while God and his angel Amenadiel are no fun at all and don't relate to modern man.

         Like St. Michael, make no compromises with evil.  PROTEST To FOX NOW


 We must not allow Fox TV or anyone to get our children used to Lucifer.

God and Man Made Global Warming

God and Man Made Global Warming

The Cultural Mandate

By Gary North

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Gen. 1:28).

Inescapably, the first chapter of Genesis involves us in the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. God, as the creator of all things, must be honored by the entire creation as Lord over all (Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10). But honoring God as creator obviously requires a full acknowledgment of His law-order. Should any Christian deny his responsibility and position in God's plan of creation and history, he stands as a rebel.

There are at least three fundamental economic issues contained in Gen. 1:28: the calling, the question of natural law, and the concept of development.

The Calling

Adam was given tasks to perform in the garden even before Eve was provided as his helper (2:15, 19, 20). Man is therefore not to be defined apart from his calling before God. Even as God "labored" to create the universe, and "rested" the seventh day (obviously, He was not exhausted), so is man, as God's image-bearer, to labor and to rest. God, as self-contained and self-defined, can be defined apart from His creation, but man, as a created being who must serve God in all his affairs, is not self-existent and self-defined. Man is God's vice-regent on earth, a subordinate official, a worker who is to implement God's sovereign rule on earth and in time. Labor is not something added to man as an afterthought; only the curse on labor, as a result of man's rebellion, is a new factor (3:17-19).

Natural Law

Present-day ecological romantics, like Rousseau and nineteenth-century Romantics before them, long for a world which is free from the effects of man the destroyer. In this they are agreed with Christians, for, we assert that the whole creation groans to be delivered from "the bondage of corruption" (Romans 8:21). But Christians "are saved by hope" (Romans 8:24), a hope in God's redemption, not in hope of some return to a "natural" paradise. Man is indeed a destroyer, an ethical rebel who seeks release from God's created law-order. But "man the destroyer" is not the result of "man the controller"; he is the product of "man the ethical rebel." It is not man's dominion over the earth that is illegitimate, but rather man's attempt to dominate the earth apart from God's control over man. Yet the only foundation of man's claim of limited, derivative sovereignty is an acknowledgment of God's ultimate sovereignty. Captains who rebel against generals can expect their corporals to be insubordinate. Our polluted world is rebelling against our lawless, rebellious rulership, not against rulership as such.

The assumption of the ecological romantics is that nature is guided by its own autonomous laws. Man must conform to these hypothetically impersonal laws of nature. Man is therefore to be under nature, dominated by nature, the servant of nature. Nature--the creation--is sovereign in this scheme, not God's decree, a decree which involves personal responsibility of men before God to rule over His creation. This is why the call for a "return to the laws of nature" is ultimately secular and satanic. It is a denial of man's legitimate subordinate sovereignty and hence a denial of God's legitimate absolute sovereignty.

Development

The language of growth is an obscenity inside many ecological circles. If growth is seen as unlimited and costless, it is illegitimate, since the creation was clearly limited even before the fall of man. But this is not to argue that nature is static or was ever meant to be static. Nature as it existed on the fifth day of creation was incomplete; it was "good" as far as it went, but God was yet to add His vice-regent, man, to the order of creation. God created man to subdue nature, develop its full potentialities, and bring forth its fruits more abundantly. Adam was to dress the garden and name (classify) the animals. Such classification was no antiquarian exercise; it was presumably the first step in his overall task of dominion. Selective pruning of the garden and careful selective breeding of the animals were involved. Man is to be an ecologist, but one enforcing God's laws over nature, some of them revealed by God to men by special revelation (such as resting the land every seventh year).

The language of the status quo in nature is ridiculous. Neither man nor nature can escape God's historical decree. History is linear, not circular. The so-called "balance of nature" is not one of eternal repetition, but of development and change. The pruning, calculating dresser of the garden is basic to God's decree. Man is to direct the development of nature, not sit idly on the sidelines, letting it degenerate. Nature is not autonomous; without man it is incomplete. To deny development under man's rule is to affirm the laws of impersonal, autonomous evolution, the rule of "tooth and claw."

Ultimately, it is never a question of development or no development. It is a question of which kind of development. There is no escape from linear history. Either we affirm the cultural mandate, with godly men directing the creation as obedient servants of God, or else a hypothetically autonomous, godless nature controls man's development, thereby thwarting the historical decrees of God. Deny the cultural mandate and you will find yourself clinging to the cosmology of Charles Darwin.

There Are Limits to National Security Preventing Jihadi Terror

There Are Limits to National Security Preventing Jihadi Terror

Some put their trust in government programs. Others put their trust in super computers and their metadata. But there is only so much security the U.S. government can provide. During a hearing before the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Department of Homeland Security John Wagner said if Islamic State terrorists tried to enter the United States by crossing the border like jihadists did before the Paris attacks, only "some of them would have" been stopped by law enforcement. "Some of them would have been prevented from traveling here to begin with," Wagner said. "It's been reported some of them were identified to governments as being a national security risk already. There's information we would have received from their travel details that we're confidence we would have identified had they traveled to the U.S."

This assessment comes on the heels of a Senate report that declared the U.S. borders were no hindrance to a violent jihadist who wants to do this country harm. But a jihadist doesn't need to cross the border in order to attack America. On Wednesday, a Muslim 20-year-old man living in Minnesota was charged for trying to recruit dozens of people to support terrorist groups, one of them being the Islamic State. And despite countless calls of help from government officials to root out extremism, leaders in several Muslim communities are unwilling to do so. Contrary to what the Left may claim, the Second Amendment most definitely isn't obsolete.

Hanukkah holds hidden secrets to end-time prophecy

Hanukkah holds hidden secrets to end-time prophecy Eight-day festival began Sunday at sundown

Most Christians think of Hanukkah as "that nice little Jewish holiday," but they miss the deeper meaning, says best-selling author and Messianic Jewish Rabbi Jonathan Cahn. They picture Jewish families spinning dreidels, lighting menorahs and eating fried potato pancakes. But there's more to this eight-day holiday, which begins at sundown Sunday. "It actually holds a big, prophetic end-time revelation," Cahn said. "It's a heavy holiday." And it keeps getting heavier as time progresses and biblical prophecies about the end times inch closer to being fulfilled. "If anything, over the course of the last year, America and much of the West has moved closer to the scenario foreshadowed in the days of the Maccabees" and the Hanukkah end-time events, said Cahn. He believes Hanukkah presents a preview of the end times events, the spirit that will envelop the world, and the strategies for Christian endurance more than any other biblical holiday. "It foreshadows the Antichrist, the abomination that causes desolation, the calling of evil good and good evil, the removing of God from the public square, the banning of God's Word, sexual immorality, and the persecution of God's people," he told WND. "It also reveals the strategy that end-time believers need to know that might overcome all these things. "We are fast approaching a day when believers can be thrown in jail and the majority of Americans applaud it," he continued. "It is all the more crucial that we be prepared, vigilant, wise, and prepared that we might live victoriously for such a time as this." Jesus celebrated Hanukkah as described in John 10:22-23, when He "walked in the temple in Solomon's porch" during the "Feast of Dedication." A revolutionary act The word Hanukkah means "dedication" and revolves around a historic and improbable revolution, Cahn explains in his documentary film, "The Hanukkah EndTime Mystery." The holiday celebrates the story of the Maccabean revolt against Greek oppression in the period between the Old and New Testaments. This revolt was predicted by Daniel more than 300 years before it occurred, and the miraculous success of that revolution was still being celebrated during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. If it had not been successful, the Jewish religion and culture would have been wiped out, and the Messiah could not have been born into a devout Jewish family as predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Daniel 12 speaks of a period when "there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, and at that time your people shall be delivered. … But you Daniel close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end." "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" Daniel asks. The angel answers saying his prophecies would be sealed until the end of the age, but when the time comes, "the wise will understand." Cahn believes Hanukkah and the Maccabees are best understood in light of prophecies by Daniel and the apostle John in Revelation. "You could not know salvation. You could not have Christmas (the birth of Christ). You would not have the New Testament, without Hanukkah," he said. The Syrian Greek dictator, Antiochus Epiphanes, was hell bent on destroying Jewish culture and faith. Without the revolt, without Hanukkah, there would have been no Virgin Mary, no Joseph, to hear and humbly obey the voice of God. Daniel prophesied about Antiochus Epiphanes or "God manifest" arising from the north and invading the Holy Land. Much like the Islamic State has declared war on Jews and Christians today, Antiochus set out to erase every trace, every memory that could lead anyone to the one true God or the history of his people. Families circumcised their sons secretly. They observed Sabbath secretly. To be caught meant certain death. "And he comes into the temple with a mission to defile it, slaughters a pig, sets up an idol in the temple, and launches an all-out war on the Bible," Cahn said. The Jews had a choice. Offer sacrifices to the idols or die. In today's Western culture, the preferred god is no longer Zeus. It's secularism. Every teaching is tolerated, even blessed by the state, except one. The world's major religions are taught to children in public schools as being equal. Cahn sees the seeds of Christian persecution already planted in America, and likely to grow in the coming years. Christians, he said, will find answers on how to deal with persecution in the Hanukkah story. Cahn believes Daniel's prophecies carry a dual meaning for the period of Antiochus in 167 B.C. and the period when the antichrist will arise in the end times. "It looks like Antiochus is going to wipe out the faith of (the one true) God in the world and it looked like it would be the end of this biblical faith," Cahn said. "If he had succeeded, you would not have the New Testament. God had other plans, though." Foreshadow of Antichrist Christians in the last days will be overcomers, like the Maccabees, Cahn believes. In fact, the Hanukkah story contains a blueprint for how to prevail against the overwhelming odds of the world and its anti-Christ system. "You have God's people but then you have apostasy breaking out all around them. You see evil overtaking the land, you see a new morality that seeks to eradicate faith in God," Cahn said. "It's imposed but also many are going along with it freely. Antiochus makes this law that everyone is to abandon their faith. He proclaims himself god. Man proclaiming himself God; He is a foreshadow of the Antichrist." Just as Revelation speaks of a temple in Jerusalem being defiled, so there is an idol set up in the temple in the Hanukkah story. In each story, a man proclaims himself as god, sitting in the holy place. All the people of Antiochus' empire were to become one people culturally, mixed into one multicultural cesspool of paganism. This can be seen today with the migration of peoples from one region of the world to another, with Muslims flooding into once-Christian Europe and America. Politicians like Barack Obama and Angela Merkel invite them and preach that everyone should be "welcoming" of an antagonistic culture. The policies of Obama and Merkel are encouraged by the United Nations and financed by atheist billionaires like George Soros. The God of the Bible in the Maccabees' time would be replaced with Zeus. Today, he is replaced with Allah or the god of the secular state and humanism. "The gentiles immediately said OK and even some in Israel said 'yes we must go along with this.' Not the Maccabees," Cahn said. Likewise, in Revelation, the Antichrist begins to oppress the saints of God and tries to change the set times and laws. "We are living in such times," Cahn said. "Believers, if you are a true believer, you're going to be a thorn in the side of the world. We are already witnessing it. There is a spirit of Antichrist in the world."

As the West finally awakens to all-out Islamic invasion, President Obama remains in denial – or worse

America enters World War III

As the West finally awakens to all-out Islamic invasion,
President Obama remains in denial – or worse

It's been an era of strange, otherworldly warnings. 

Pope Francis, referring to the growing barbarism and genocidal fury of Islamic jihadists and specifically ISIS, eerily predicted months ago that a "piecemeal World War III" was emerging, evidenced by ever-mounting "crimes, massacres, destruction."

World leaders agreed – from Jordan's King Abdullah, who called the fight against ISIS a "Third World War" and urged all nations to help neutralize the threat posed by the metastasizing terror army, to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, to former Ukrainian ambassador Yuri Shcherbak – all warning that we are literally staring World War III in the face.

In the U.S., clear-headed pundits echoed the warnings: "World War III has begun," opined top-rated radio talker Mark Levin. "I sincerely believe it. ... It hasn't begun like any other war, but it's begun. ... and I believe we're going to be attacked." Newt Gingrich added, "The real war is worldwide and the real enemy is Islamic supremacy in all its forms. The center of gravity," added the former House Speaker, "is not Syria. The center of gravity is the Internet." Glenn Beck agreed we're looking at World War III, but warned that that "Nobody will recognize it yet. ... Just like we were at the beginning of World War II when they invaded Poland. We are entering those times – we just don’t know it yet."

Date which will live in infamy’ will be commemorated online, across the country

Date which will live in infamy’ will be commemorated online, across the country

The 74th anniversary of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor will be commemorated Monday with ceremonies, a parade and a host of other events from Washington, D.C., to the site of the attack in Hawaii that drew the United States into World War II.

Pearl Harbor Day honors the 2,400 people who died when the Japanese attacked the base in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941, which brought a war being fought largely in Europe to U.S. soil. Flags will be flown at half-staff at government locations to honor those who died, and many homes across the USA will display the American flag.

A ceremony will be held Monday afternoon in Washington at the National World War II Memorial. In Honolulu, the annual Pearl Harbor Memorial Parade will extend a mile through the city Monday evening.

Many of the events of the day from Pearl Harbor can be viewed via livestreaming at pearlharbor events.com. Participants will be able to ask questions about the attack of National Park Service experts.

In addition, the live-stream will show a commemoration of the sinking of the USS Oklahoma, which lost 429 crew, and observe interment in the hull of the USS Arizona of an urn containing the ashes of Joseph Langdell, a former ensign on the ship. The events are sponsored by the park service, the U.S. Navy and the Pacific Historic Parks.

On Tuesday, a dive to the wreck of the Arizona by a Pacific National Monuments cultural resources chief will be broadcast live, and people can ask questions through Facebook.

 “We pay tribute to the men, women and children — military and civilian — who lost their lives on Dec. 7, 1941, ... and recognize the sacrifices today’s service members make to carry forward the inextinguishable torch of liberty for generations to come.”

Make sure your children and grandchildren know this and participate!

Directed History? Hey, We Told You So

Directed History? Hey, We Told You So

By Anthony Wile

The news is catching up to us. The Daily Bell was founded on the idea that Western culture was invaded by elite memes that shaped public opinion. Today that doesn't seem so radical but even a decade ago when The Daily Bell's approach was being formulated; most of the alternative media was apt to comment on the effects of such memes rather than on their production.

But we've always focused on the theoretical aspects of elite misinformation because from our point of view this was a fundamental issue of modern times. And now comes Dr. Udo Ulfakatte "a top German journalist and editor" to post a video that is beginning to function like a modern version of the famous missive "J'accuse!"

"I accuse!" was a letter written by writer Émile Zola and published on January 13, 1898 in the newspaper L'Aurore. It was addressed to French President Félix Faure and stated clearly that the jailing of Alfred Dreyfus was wrong. Dreyfus was then serving a life sentence for supposedly spying on France on behalf of Germany. It was Zola's correct contention that corruption and anti-Semitism was behind Dreyfus's banishment to the infamous penal colony at Devil's Island.

The Dreyfus affair convulsed France for much of a decade and like much else in received history, there is more to the story than what is taught in modern textbooks. One can make the case that the Dreyfus affair was itself part of a larger "Jewish question" with which France was grappling and one that would eventually be answered by the formation of the Jewish state of Israel.

But that is a separate issue and Udo Ulfakatte's confession is compelling all on its own. When I saw his video, I was impressed by his candor as well as his credentials. He has been a top writer in Germany for more than two decades and his confession had for me the unmistakable ring of truth.

Unlike as with the Dreyfus affair, I don't sense any further complexity or ulterior motives, though of course there is always that possibility in this weary world. Out of the video has now come an article written by Ulfakatte entitled "World Class Journalist Spills The Beans & Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake" posted at Collective Evolution and then reposted at LewRockwell.com. Ulfakatte's "confession" has received a good amount of publicity elsewhere in the blogosphere as well.

The article condenses what Ulfakatte said in his RT video and begins as follows:

Dr. Udo Ulfakatte is a top German journalist and editor and has been for more than two decades, so you can bet he knows a thing or two about mainstream media and what really happens behind the scenes. Recently, Dr. Ulfakatte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. He recently made an appearance on RT news to share these facts:

"I've been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I'm going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe."

None of this will surprise regular readers of The Daily Bell because Ulfakatte's confession highlights the obvious difficulties of truth-telling in the 21st century. What Ulfakatte clearly states is that Western news is an artificial concoction that perpetuates necessary foundational elements of what might be described as a global military-industrial complex. We have called this development "directed history" and have suggested that its prevalence has vastly increased in the modern era.

In fact, most people don't understand that the current condition of the world is only about 100 years old. It has come about because of the gargantuan funding that has been made available by the installation of central bank economies.

Monopoly money printing privileges have allowed international elites to erect a matrix of untruths that have now thoroughly penetrated modern institutions in the West and far beyond. Universities, military, religious and government institutions are all compromised from the top down.

Of course, to write about such things is to risk the inevitable reply that such a postulate is nothing more than "conspiracy theory." But leaving aside what seems to be compelling evidence that the "conspiracy theory" construct was specially developed by the CIA, Ulfakatte's self-described confession provides us with a detailed look at how a matrix of deceit can spread around the world and involve millions of actors without much leakage.

In the 20th century as we have reported, the matrix was fully erected and activated. Those who participated had every reason not to talk about their actions for three reasons. First, they would suffer terrible consequences if they made an Ulfakatte-style confession. Second, the larger public was predisposed not to believe them and their credibility would be endlessly attacked. Thirdly, there were few avenues that would support such a confession, as the mainstream media was part of the larger matrix.

But the 21st century is not the 20th. And those who erected the matrix in the 20th century are having a terrible time controlling its details. All that is left to its creators is the control that they have achieved over the world's institutions. But this control was predicated on a secrecy that does not exist anymore.

In France, the government is trying to make "conspiracy theories" illegal. China has just announced new regulations that make criticizing the government subject to criminal penalties. The European Union, as Drudge has reported, wants to ban the use of links as copyright violations – presumably to slow the spread of information inimical to EU bureaucratic interests.

Well ... good luck with that. Those behind these actions might as well be "spitting in the wind."

Human beings are curious creatures and there is not a single device or invention that has not been utilized fully and into exhaustion before history moves on to its next phase. Before the current communications technology runs its course, the edifice built on the modern secret conspiracy will be nothing but a smoldering ruin. History shows us this.

Here is another obvious fact we've long advanced: The more that those interested in perpetuating yesterday's secrecy push against the modern trend, the more bad publicity they will receive on the Internet. And the Internet is not by any means fully controllable.

Modern communications technology militates against the secrecy employed by controlling elites. That is yesterday's model. And more importantly, it is the wrong way to operate in society. Much better to present arguments openly, at least generally, and allow a public debate. This is historically how elites have ruled, with a modicum of support from an informed public no matter the paradigm employed (royal, democratic, republican, etc.)

Sooner or later this sort of paradigm will reemerge. The contemptuous secrecy adopted by elites in the past century – supported by torrential tides of central bank money – will be seen even by those who adopted it as a tremendous mistake. I would hypothesize that some level of modesty will finally invade the gaudy meeting places of the rich and powerful – if it has not already happened. Some level of insight will eventually penetrate even the thickest skulls as 21st century realities become more insistent.

Ulfakatte's Zola-esque video marks yet another stage in this larger unraveling. The concept elaborated on in the 20th century was never truly workable. In the 21st those responsible are going to have to take a "step back" as we have long predicted. That won't be a bad thing.

Sooner or later, there will be better days. The trick, of course, is getting from here to there. The current paradigm is not going to die easily, though it certainly deserves a quick death. And that is why we often close our articles and editorial by advising you to "protect yourself." There are simple enough ways to do it.

San Bernardino Shooting Update

#SanBernardinoShooting

Dear Friends,

Well, that didn't take long! Knowing nothing about the causes of the ‪San Bernardino shooting, Obama responded by issuing his mindless chant for more gun control the same day that bodies were still being removed from the scene. Can Obama show that states with more restrictive gun laws like California have fewer mass shootings? Oops, I guess not... http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/cnn-obama-calls-for-gun-reforms-in-wake-of-san-bernardino-shooting/

What we really need is not gun control, but GUNMAN control. It's already hard to buy guns in California, but that doesn't seem to have prevented this shooting. As it turns out, two Muslims perpetrated this act of terror (darn, the left was so hoping it was radical Christians going after the local Planned Parenthood). The two shooters dropped their infant off before launching the massacre—this is a signature of Islamic fanatics.

We need a president dedicated to defeating radical Islam. Maybe Obama should be telling us what "common sense" steps we can take to prevent the radicalization of Muslims in America instead of taking away the means by which Americans protect themselves from radical Islam. Now we know why the Islamic group CAIR got in front of this so early—they wanted to do damage control since this was a Muslim operation!

Obama, in an apparent effort to politicize the latest shooting events as much as possible this week, fell back on his old talking point that mass shootings are unique to America. As Breitbart points out, the only problem with that statement is that he was standing in Paris, where a mass shooting conducted by Islamic State terrorists had just taken place, killing over 100 people. Whoops!

Obama wasn't the only leftist who put his foot in his mouth this week. Hillary's odd new rape ad is ironically funny: she says that victims of sexual harassment should be supported and believed. I guess she's forgetting about all her husband's victims that she has helped harass! Hillary's hypocrisy knows no bounds, and clearly she expects Democrats to acquiesce in her shamelessness.

Watch: https://youtu.be/le1XRSQDBiE

Sincerely,

Dinesh D'Souza