Jews DO control the media

By Manny Friedman, July 1, 2012

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.
We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which  was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.
But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good. (photo credit: CC BY-SA Angela George/Wikimedia Commons)

Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good. (photo credit: CC BY-SA Angela George/Wikimedia Commons)
But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.
And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.
Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.
Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.
But let’s look at it a bit deeper.
Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?
I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.
First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?
The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great articleabout the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.
The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.
This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.
Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.

And clearly, that whole thing about big Jewish noses was totally blown out of proportion. (illustrative photo: Abir Sultan/Flash 90)

And clearly, that whole thing about big Jewish noses was totally blown out of proportion. (illustrative photo: Abir Sultan/Flash 90)
Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.
I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”
Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.
The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.
But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.
Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.
The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.
Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.
*      *      *
This article was written under an assumed name.


How Moscow and Ankara are forging plans for a post-IS Syria

By Neil Hauer

The cold war between Russia and Turkey is well and truly over as they prepare to enforce a de-escalation zone in Idlib
Islamic State has been reduced to its final strongholds in Syria, but a clear end game for the country’s wider conflict remains uncertain.
With the US focused overwhelmingly on the battle for Raqqa, the initiative for the rest of Syria has been seized by a seemingly unlikely trio: regime backers Russia and Iran alongside erstwhile Assad opponent Turkey.
With the next round of international talks in Astana, Kazakhstan underway this week, there has been growing common ground between Russia and Turkey, who have proposed an ambitious plan for the northern rebel enclave of Idlib province.
Moscow and Ankara initially agreed to four “de-escalation zones”, covering the major fronts of rebel-regime conflict in Syria, following an earlier round of talks in Astana in early May.
Now they are moving closer to establishing ground forces to safeguard these areas.
Recent Russian-Turkish discussions have focused upon Idlib, the largest and, until now, most contentious of the four zones. The two countries announced on 22 June that they plan to send Russian and Turkish military personnel to enforce its sanctity.
Turkish forces have been observed gathering along the country’s southern border, with some units already crossing over into the towns of Azaz and Marea in northern Aleppo province on 21 June.
This has provoked severe consternation from both Syrian Kurds in the northwestern Afrin canton, who fear a direct Turkish military operation against them; and the al-Qaeda-aligned Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham in Idlib, another likely opponent of Ankara’s forces.
No concrete indication has emerged as to the target for the Turkish buildup, but the military groundwork is in place for a potential Idlib deployment.

Enter Russian military police

Russia’s ground forces deployed to the area would likely take a different form to regular army units.
Since December, Russia has made use of so-called “military police”, drawn from its Sunni Muslim territories of Chechnya and Ingushetia.
These units, which have received elite counter-terrorism training, have been deployed surgically to ensure the completion of sensitive missions across Syria, including supervising evacuations in Aleppo and preventing Turkish-Kurdish clashes in Manbij.
Moscow has so far been pleased with the performance of these military police, according to Russian daily Kommersant. Russian officials have recently suggested greater numbers could be sent to secure Idlib.
A unit of 250 Chechen military police recently completed their three-month rotation in Syria and returned home, soon to be replaced with another unit.
The timing is auspicious for a fresh battalion (or even several) of Chechen spetsnaz to acquaint themselves with Idlib province.

Central Asian involvement

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Russian-Turkish negotiations was the suggestion that the Idlib zone could be safeguarded by peacekeeping troops from two unlikely sources: Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
A pair of announcements on 22 June raised this possibility. The first was from the Russian side. Then Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin expanded on these remarks by citing a possible figure of “300 or 500 soldiers” from the Central Asian republics.
These suggestions were almost immediately denied by Astana and Bishkek, with Kazakh Foreign Minister Kairat Abdurakhmanov stating that there were “no kind of negotiations” on the proposal.
Kyrgyzstan’s remarks left more room for interpretation: Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev denied that he had discussed a deployment in his 20 June meeting with Putin, but State Security Council head Temur Jumakadyrov mentioned that the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance including Russia, Belarus, and the five countries of post-Soviet Central Asia, had recently talked about the de-escalation zones.
Reactions from local activists were also deeply negative, with one well-known Kyrgyz commentator stating that involvement in Syria could end in civil war in Kyrgyzstan. Adil Turdukulov, the Kyrgyz activist in question, raised fears that Bishkek’s participation in Syria could lead to Kyrgyz troops fighting Kyrgyz jihadists in a development that could spill over into the Central Asian country itself.
For its part, Moscow clarified that “no one is being forced” to send troops, and that talks were ongoing under the framework of the CSTO.

Relations turnaround

The recent rapprochement between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed unthinkable after Turkey downed a Russian jet in Syria in November 2015.
The turnaround has come as Turkey reworks its foreign policy priorities during the past 18 months.
Russia’s intervention in support of Assad showed Turkey that its primary aim of overthrowing the Syrian president was now unrealistic.
Since then, Ankara has worked at what it views as a more existential problem: undermining the nascent Syrian Kurdish state aligned with the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) on its southern border.
Erdogan and the Turkish elite believe they cannot trust the United States to aid them in this goal. The US backing for Syrian Kurds has been interpreted by Ankara as negligence of Turkish concerns at best and actively antagonistic at worst.
Turkey and Russia would also like to see the Syrian conflict largely resolved. The former is still carrying a massive refugee burden, while the latter is unwilling to support open-ended regime offensives for outlying territory that mean nothing to Moscow’s interests.

Factors to watch

This week’s round of talks in Astana is crucial to further Russian-Turkish cooperation on all these issues, including further details on plans for peacekeepers in Idlib.
Russian military sources suggested that Russia could seek to draw in additional CSTO countries to send peacekeepers to Syria, probably from other Central Asian members including Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Several thousand citizens from the former Soviet Central Asia have travelled to fight with extremist groups in Syria. It’s possible that their home states could seek to eliminate them on the battlefield and prevent them returning home, as Franceand the UK are doing in Iraq.
Another crucial question is the rumoured Turkish offensives on Syrian Kurdish territories in northern Syria.

Russia green light to Turkey?

Kurdish sources have suggested that Russia is withdrawing its small military presence in Afrin to give Turkey a free hand in exchange for Idlib cooperation.
While this remains disputed, with some sources in Afrin claiming the Russians will remain, Turkish experts continue to posit that Moscow will give a green light to any operation by Ankara against the Syrian Kurdish canton.
Moscow has also been working hard to secure US and Jordanian agreement on the de-escalation zone in southern Syria, and has made significant headway with Amman.
There still exist many potential obstacles for Moscow’s best-laid plans: recent US-Iranian clashes in southeast Syria and fighting between regime and Kurdish forces serve as a reminder that the Kremlin has had difficulties restraining its allies.
It also remains unclear what exactly will happen in Idlib itself, or to the tens of thousands of rebel fighters based there.
Nevertheless, Moscow, with Turkish support, appears to have seized the initiative on determining Syria’s immediate future.
While Washington seemingly flounders with its Syria strategy, Russia is forging ahead with its newfound Nato ally to establish its own vision of a resolution for some of Syria’s most deeply rooted conflict zones.


Political Correctness in Science

By Henry Bauer, 6th March 2017:

Supposedly, science investigates via the scientific method: testing the validity of hunches (hypotheses) against reality and allowing reality to establish beliefs, thereby discarding disproved pre-judgments, hunches, prejudices, biases. Scientific theories. are determined by facts, evidence.   Science is empirical, pragmatic; it does not accept beliefs on authority or from tradition.
Historians, philosophers, sociologists, scholars of Science & Technology Studies have long recognized that this view of science is mythical (i), but it continues to be taught in schools and in social-science texts and it is the conventional wisdom found in the media and in public discourse generally. A corollary of the misconception that scientific theories have been successfully tested against reality is the widespread belief that what science says, what the contemporary scientific consensus is, can safely be accepted as truth for all practical purposes.
So it seems incongruous, paradoxical, that large numbers of scientists should disagree violently, on any given issue, over what science really says. Yet that is the case on a seemingly increasing range of topics (ii), some of them of great public import, for instance whether HIV causes AIDS (iii) or whether human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change. On those latter matters as well as some others, the difference of opinion within the scientific community parallels political views: left-leaning (“liberal”) opinion regards it as unquestionably true that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change, whereas right-leaning (“conservative”) opinion denies that those assertions constitute “settled science” or have been proved beyond doubt. Those who harbor these “conservative” views are often labeled “denialists”; it is not to be countenanced that politically liberal individuals should be global warming skeptics (iv).
In other words, it is politically incorrect to doubt that HIV causes AIDS or that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. It requires no more than cursory observation of public discourse to recognize this pervasive phenomenon. Governments and Nobel-Prize committees illustrate that those beliefs are officially acted on as though they were established truths. One cadre of mainstream scientists even wants criminal charges laid (v) against those who question that global warming is caused primarily by human-generated carbon dioxide. So political correctness is present within the scientific community in the USA.
I’m of a sufficient age to be able to testify that half a century ago it would not have occurred to any researchers in a democratic society to urge the government to prosecute for criminal conspiracy other researchers who disagreed with them. Declaring certain scientific research programs as politically incorrect and therefore substantively without merit, and persecuting those who perpetrated such research, characterized totalitarian regimes, not free societies. Stalin’s Soviet Union declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of genetics and imprisoned exponents of it; it also declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of chemical bonding and quantum mechanics. Nazism’s Deutsche Physik banned relativity and other “Jewish” science.
Political correctness holds that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. Those beliefs also characterize left-leaning opinion. Why is political correctness a left-wing phenomenon?
In contemporary usage, political correctness means “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology” (vi) or “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated” (vii), evidently “progressive” or “liberal” or Left-ish views. But those descriptions fail to capture the degree of fanatical dogmatism that can lead practicing scientists to urge that those of differing views be criminally prosecuted; political correctness includes the wish to control what everyone believes.
Thus political correctness has been appropriately called “liberal fascism”, which also reveals why it is a phenomenon of the ultra-extreme Left. Attempted control of beliefs and corresponding behavior is openly proclaimed, unashamedly, by the extreme Right; it is called, and calls itself, fascism, Nazism, and needs no other name. But the Left, the “liberals”, claim to stand for and to support individual freedom of belief and speech; so a name is needed for the phenomenon by which proclamations of liberal ideals are coupled with attempts to enforce adherence to particular beliefs and social norms. Political correctness is the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed liberals functioning as authoritarian fascists.
That hypocrisy pervades political correctness, I was able to observe at first hand during my years in academic administration. People say things they don’t mean, and that they know everyone knows they don’t mean, and no one dares point to the absence of the Emperor’s clothes. For instance, the Pooh-Bahs assert that affirmative action means goals and not quotas, even as hiring practices and incentives demonstrate that they are quotas. For innumerable examples gathered over the years, see the newsletter I edited from 1993 until my retirement at the end of 1999 (viii).
Science had represented for a long time the virtues associated with honest study of reality. Around the 1930s and 1940s, sociologist Robert Merton could describe the norms evidently governing scientific activity as communal sharing of universally valid observations and conclusions obtained by disinterested people deploying organized skepticism. That description does not accommodate researchers urging criminal prosecution of peers who disagree with them about evidence or conclusions. It does not accommodate researchers lobbying publishers to withdraw articles accepted for publication following normal review; and those norms do not describe the now prevalent circumstances in which one viewpoint suppresses others through refusal to allow publication or participation in scientific meetings (ix).
Science, in other words, is not at all what it used to be, and it is not what the popular view of it is, that common view having been based on what scientific activity used to be. It has not yet been widely recognized, how drastically science has changed since about the middle of the 20th century (x). Among the clues indicative of those changes are the spate of books since the 1980s that describe intense self-interested competition in science (xi) and the increasing frequency of fraud, again beginning about in the 1980s, that led to establishment of the federal Office of Research Integrity. That political correctness has surfaced within the scientific community is another illustration of how radically different are the circumstances of scientific activity now compared to a century ago and by contrast to the outdated conventional wisdom about science.
Political correctness began to pervade society as a whole during the same years as science was undergoing drastic change. The roots of political correctness in society at large may be traceable to the rebellious students of the 1960s, but the hegemony of their ideals in the form of political correctness became obvious only in the 1980s, when the term “political correctness” came into common usage:

The origin of the phrase in modern times is generally credited to gallows humor among Communists in the Stalin era (xii):
“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”
That political correctness is in contemporary times a Left-ish phenomenon is therefore true to its modern origin.
How seriously political correctness corrupts science should be obvious, since it more than breaks all the traditional norms. Those norms are often summarized as universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, skepticism — taking for granted as well simple honesty and absence of hypocrisy. Nowadays what was taken for granted no longer applies. It is simply dishonest to assert that something has been proven beyond doubt when strong contrary evidence exists that is taken seriously by competent researchers. One cannot, of course, look into the minds of those who assert certainty where there is none (xiii), but among possible explanations, hypocrisy may be the least culpable.
Science cannot be isolated from the rest of society, so the incursion of political correctness into science is understandable. Moreover, what used to be the supposedly isolated ivory tower of academe is nowadays the very epicenter where political correctness breeds and from where it spreads. Whatever the causes may be, however, it is important to recognize how science has changed and that it can be corrupted by the same influences as the rest of society.
i        Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press 1992;
ii       Henry H. Bauer, Dogmatism   in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012.
iii      Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007.
iv      Henry H. Bauer, “A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?”, 2012/11/25;
v       Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, 1 September 2015;
The original pdf posted in 2003 at is no longer there. The Wayback Machine says, “The letter that was inadvertently posted on this web site has been removed. It was decided more than two years ago that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) would be dissolved when the projects then undertaken by IGES would be completed. All research projects by IGES were completed in July 2015, and the IGES web site is in the process of being decommissioned”.
As of March 2017, however, a Google search for “Institute of Global Environment and Society” led to a website with that header, albeit augmented by “COLA”: accessed 4 March 2017. Right-leaning Internet sources offer insight into this seeming mystery: and, both accessed 4 March 2017.
vi (accessed 4 March 2017).
vii (accessed 4 March 2017).
ix      Ref. ii, especially chapter 3.
x       Henry H. Bauer, “Three stages of modern science”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27 (2013) 505-13;
xi      Natalie Angier, Natural Obsessions: The Search for the Oncogene, Houghton Mifflin 1987; David H. Clark, The Quest for SS433, Viking 1985; Sheldon Glashow with Ben Bova, Interactions: A Journey through the Mind of a Particle Physicist and the Matter of the World, Warner 1988; Jeff Goldberg Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery, Bantam 1988; Stephen S. Hall, Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene, Atlantic Monthly Press 1987; Robert M. Hazen, The Breakthrough: The Race for the Superconductor, Summit 1988; David L. Hull, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press 1988; Robert Kanigel, Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty, Macmillan 1986; Charles E. Levinthal,. Messengers of Paradise: Opiates and the Brain, Anchor/Doubleday 1988; Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, Simon and Schuster 1987; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein’s Office: Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study, Addison-Wesley 1987; Bruce Schechter, The Path of No Resistance: The Story of the Revolution in Superconductivity, Touchstone (Simon and Schuster) 1990; Solomon H. Snyder, Brainstorming: The Science and Politics of Opiate Research, Harvard University Press 1989; Gary Taubes, Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, Random House 1986; Robert Teitelman, Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia, and the Rise of Biotechnology, Basic Books 1989; Nicholas Wade, The Nobel Duel: Two Scientists’ 21-Year Race to Win the World’s Most Coveted Research Prize, Doubleday 1981.
xii     Jon Miltimore, “The historical origin of ‘political correctness’”, 5 December 2016,; Angelo M. Codevilla, “The rise of political correctness”, Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2016, pp. 37-43;
xiii    Henry H. Bauer , “Shamans of Scientism: Conjuring certainty where there is none”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 491-504.


Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

By Chris McGreal, 24 May 2010

Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons

The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres and P W Botha

The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P W Botha of South Africa. Photograph: Guardian
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.
The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were “never any negotiations” between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials “formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal”.
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: “In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available.” The document then records: “Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.” The “three sizes” are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel’s prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with “special warheads”. Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: “It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement… shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party”.
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. “The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date,” he said. “The South Africans didn’t seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime’s old allies.”


David Cameron’s Secret Nuclear Weapons Deal Raised £17.8m For Conservative Party Funds – Sets Pretext for War

David Cameron's Secret Nuclear Weapons Deal Raised £17.8m For Conservative Party Funds - Sets Pretext for War

By Robert Woodward TruePublica Columnist, 26th May 2017: Sometimes you come across a story that seems so unbelievable that you simply can’t absorb and process the information properly. It doesn’t compute or make much sense – until an investigation produces evidence.
The allegation is this. David Cameron sold three nuclear weapons of a foreign state, put them in unsafe hands and the Conservative party banks nearly £19 million which then sets the pretext for a conflict that kills a million people. Conspiracy theory? Fake news? Read on.

South Africa – A nuclear state armed by Israel

From Wikispooks [1]: Although UN Security Council Resolution 418 of 4 November 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, requiring all states to refrain from “any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons”, it was with the help of the Israelis that the apartheid regime designed and built a total of 10 fully operational nuclear weapons. One device was successfully tested in 1979, which left 9 nuclear weapons in South Africa’s stockpile.[2][3] In August 1988, foreign minister Pik Botha announced that South Africa had “the capability to make one [a nuclear weapon]” should it want to do so. A month later, in September 1988, South Africa sent a letter to IAEA Director-General Hans Blix expressing willingness to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if certain conditions were met, primarily that South Africa be allowed to market its uranium subject to IAEA safeguards.
In summary, South Africa operated a covert nuclear ballistic missile program. The United Nations introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in the development and manufacture of such weapons. Israel assisted anyway. The result was that nine nuclear weapons were left after testing. The purpose was to prove to international markets it had that capability and was willing to sell that capability to willing buyers.

David Cameron’s Sanction Busting Trip

Peter Eyre is a documentary film maker who specialises in Middle-Eastern wars, weapons technology, terrorism and human rights abuses. He wrote a series on the subject of the UK’s involvement in the selling of South Africa’s nuclear weapons.
Eyre writes that David Cameron visited South Africa in 1989 accompanied by Conservative MP, Sir Kenneth Warren, and nuclear weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly. Kelly had made a number of earlier visits having been given access to the covert nuclear weapons research facility at Pelindaba, near Pretoria.
An excerpt from part two of his documentation [4]: “I find it amazing that David Cameron and others travelled to South Africa during the embargo period and not only violated international law but also violated international law in dealing with nuclear weapons that were not known to the UN. In 1989 David Cameron and others went down to South Africa to carry out some sinister plan that resulted in only 6 operational nuclear weapons going back to the US for de commissioning.The other three were to be purchased by the British Government as a standby mechanism against Saddam. Remember this is all under the radar of the United Nations!”
Eyre stated that David Cameron’s trip, although officially ‘a fact-finding mission,’ [5] which was heavily criticised at the time, was to arrange for three of South Africa’s nuclear weapons to be shipped to the Arabian peninsular, where they would be stored in case they were required in Iraq. This fact alone is alarming. These weapons were not only stored unsafely but they were stored in a volatile region and subsequently went missing.

Thatcher’s illegal nuclear weapons deal

More from Wikispooks: The remaining six nukes were destined to travel from South Africa to Chicago in the US. The next phase of the operation was that, once the weapons had left South African soil, the British Government would reimburse the South African firm Armscor [6] and the British firm Astra through the middle man John Bredenkamp [7] At Government level it would be dealt with primarily by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) using Ministry of Defence money. In order to keep this out of Parliament and out of the public domain, Margaret Thatcher was asked to sign off these weapons in late 1990 under a special Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) describing them as metal cylinders rather than nuclear bombs.
Excerpts from part 4 of Peter Eyre’s documents: “These weapons were then shipped in standard 20 foot containers and manifested as metal cylinders and not nuclear weapons. This would have been in violation of international regulations regarding the shipment of dangerous goods. The weapons were then placed into private storage and left for Dr.David Kelly to carry out an inspection in order to accept the consignment prior to final payment. Dr David Kelly was the only person in mainstream UK MOD tasked with being in the loop for that covert offshore procurement of battlefield nukes from Apartheid South Africa.”
Eyre’s documents show that the final inspection was then carried out, the final payment made by the British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) using money from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and it was subsequently revealed that £17.8 million was siphoned from this secret nuclear deal into Conservative Party funds. Eyre is unequivocal about this:
“It should also be pointed out that David Cameron managed to siphon off £17.8 million pounds of tax payer´s money into the Conservative Party Election Fund.”

Nuclear weapons go missing?

Veterans Today claim [8] they actually had personnel there for the trip from South Africa with the three nuclear weapons disguised in cylinders:
There, the bombs were loaded onto Blatchford cradles and moved into blue 20 foot containers.  VT personnel were along for the ride to Durham where they were put on a ship, a ship arranged for by John Bradenkamp, a Rhodesian/Zimbabwean arms trader only recently off the terrorist lists. This represented David Cameron’s “blooding” as a real “insider.”
VT then makes a really big statement: “What was the nature of that deal?  Britain was to simply unload the weapons, leave them unguarded and walk away.  They never mentioned them again, never looked for them and never asked questions even when one of the bombs supposedly belonging to Britain was exploded by North Korea on May 25, 2009.” [9]
Analysts have generally agreed that North Korea’s nuclear test was successful and despite uncertainty of the exact yield, Russia placed the yield of the test at 10 to 20 kilotons. The Defence Minister of South Korea confirmed similar findings. The description of these weapons were: 3 x Pelindaba Pretorea, Battlefield Ready 20kt Nuclear Bombs.
The VT article goes on to say that Britain and the US invaded Iraq to seize these weapons back stating: “There are 3 nuclear weapons in Iraq, only 45 minutes from assembly and use.

Tony Blair – Weapons of Mass Destruction and 45 minutes

The damning document that led to war is described as the “September Dossier” [10] which says: “However, two sections later became the centre of fierce debate: the allegation that Iraq had sought “significant quantities of uranium from Africa”, and the claim in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that “The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
The dossier also alleged that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme. Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false, as shown by the Iraq Survey Group. No nuclear weapons were subsequently found, leaving open-ended questions of their whereabouts.
On 8 February 2015, it was revealed that the Chilcot Inquiry had been tasked specifically with tracking down those responsible for “misplacing” three nuclear weapons obtained from apartheid South Africa 25 years ago. Both David Cameron and Dr David Kelly are understood to have been involved in the diversion of these WMD which eventually became the pretext for the Iraq War [11].
Dr David Kelly was found dead in controversial circumstances in July 2003. A group of doctors later published reports that stated the cause of death was unsound and illogical.
In the meantime the documents displayed on the VT website appear to back up the selling of a nuclear weapon to North Korea:



(The documents above are expanded below to make them readable)
Recorded in Parliament
HANSARD JUNE 22 1993 starting from Column 197
Statements regarding these facts entered  and recorded by LORD DOUG HOYLE and Derby South MP MARGARET BECKETT.
I make record in this legal communication, that these Conservative Government Corruption Facts were disclosed and exposed in “Classified” Document form to the then Labour Party leadership by a senior civil servant, Ms TARA ANDREA DAVISON then an ARMS to IRAQ Investigator who went on to be Senior INTELLIGENCE ADVISOR to the Select Committee of the Department of Trade and Industry under Kenneth Warren and MP Peter Lilley.
From my research:
Ms TARA ANDREA DAVISON ex Sister-in-Law of MP Peter Lille and one of Four Daughters of Senior Conservative SIR JOHN BIGGS-DAVISON
That you have further used your respected official position as Attorney General to protect those involved, by covering up the official involvement of DR DAVID KELLY, who was ordered by the then Conservative Government to oversee this covert Nuclear WMD operation that turned into a CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL disaster when John Bredenkamp and his ex SAS Group stole the Nuclear Weapons in OMAN and sold at least One Nuclear Bomb to North Korea.
To use your Office to further protect the expose of those MP’s, Grandees and VIP’s involved in the Criminal Covert government / Private finance purchase in 1991 of 3 x Pelindaba Pretorea, Battlefield Ready 20kt Nuclear Bombs.
 I include as an attachment the one page article disclosure and accusations of Conservative Government Corruption by:
This document supports the allegation that £17.8 million of taxpayers money was illegally laundered into Conservative party funds to fight the election of 1992:
One page of over 400 “Classified” I recovered without copyright from the personal web blog of Ms TARA ANDREA DAVISON on the Internet before they were removed.
 I make record:
Given Ms TARA ANDREA DAVISON gives clear statement in the attachment, that the Derbyshire Police have acted beyond their official remit and acted as a Conservative Political Party agent, to seize and withhold vital criminal evidence required by the “PUBLIC” CHILCOTT IRAQ Inquiry.
I also understand, that you replaced MP Tim Smith in the Constituency of Beaconsfield
I am also informed, it was Tim Smith who had inside information regarding the LAUNDERING of the deliberate criminal overcharge to the Treasury of £17.8 Million (A theft of TAX PAYERS assets)  via a front Company of John Arnold Bredenkamp into the “EMPTY” 1991 Tory accounts to fight the 1992 General Election: HANSARD JUNE 22  1993 from Column 197
I await your official reply.
Mr Gordon Bowden
As further evidence, old Labour Oxford Economist Martin Summers talks about what he believes was the secret and highly illegal nuclear arms deal involving a young and ambitious David Cameron as well as Doctor David Kelly. Done behind the back of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, designed to raise £17.8m Tory funding for the 1992 General Election Campaign in this VIDEO entitled:

1 wikispooks: David Cameron 1998 South Africa Trip
States should refrain from co-operation with South Africa in the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons
South Africa’s covert ballistic missile programme
US/UK Lose nuclear weapons
David Cameron’s Freebie to Apartheid South Africa
6 Armscor – Armaments Corporation of South Africa
7 John Bredenkamp – Trader/arms dealer
Veteran’s Today: If Cameron was “dirty” at age 25, could he be filthy now?
9 North Korean nuclear test May 25th 2009
10 The September Dossier – 45 minutes WMD and Nuclear Warheads
11 Chilcot Report: Damning conclusions


Nestle Buys Cocoa from Farmers They Know Buy Children for $30

Nestle has been using enslaved children to harvest cheap cocoa in Ivory Coast, Africa.

Nestle has been using enslaved children to harvest cheap cocoa in Ivory Coast, Africa. | Photo: 10Campaign
Despite massive denunciations, child slavery increased by 51 percent to 1.4 million in 2014.
Nestle is once again in the spotlight as they are being sued for using children as slaves to harvest cocoa in the Ivory Coast, where they don’t pay them and instead whip them if they do not perform their work satisfactorily. But this is not new, as the food giant was accused turning a blind eye to children being smuggled into the Ivory Coast from Mali since at least the beginning of this century, according to various NGOs.
In fact, a study carried out by the Payson Center for International Development of Tulane University in the U.S. found the number of children working in the cocoa industry in 2013-14 increased 51 percent to 1.4 million, compared to the last report in 2008-09.
This clearly reveals that far from taking steps to reduce child slavery, Nestle has aided the exploitation of boys and girls as young as six-years-old to obtain inexpensive cocoa from the Ivory Coast in return for higher profits, the Payson Center said.
“I have seen small children, six-years-old, being trafficked from Mali to Ivory Coast,” said renowned filmmaker Miki Mistrati, who released a movie on the subject in 2014, “Shady Chocolate,” which takes direct aim at the industry. “But the companies have not had the will to end it for many years. Only empty words and expensive advertising instead of using money to pay back to the children on the ground in West Africa.”
Reports have revealed that many of the children abducted in Mali are sold into slavery for less than US$30. Other children are tricked into thinking it is a legitimate job, only to be threatened, caged and beaten, The Free Thought Project recently denounced.
“These children are forced to work between 80-100 hours per week in grueling conditions with no pay. Often, the children are beaten or killed if they attempt to escape,” they added.
​For now, it’s good news that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Nestle, one of the world’s biggest food producers, and from Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill asking the court to throw out a lawsuit accusing them in a massive child slavery case.
​The three global food companies are accused of aiding and abetting gross human rights violations by buying cocoa from Ivory Coast in spite of being fully aware of the child slavery problem in the African nation.

In 2005, three people filed a class action, stating they were trafficked from Mali as children and forced to harvest cocoa beans as slaves without pay.
The three plaintiffs said they were forced to work up to 14 hours a day and that they were victims of physical abuse including whipping. If they attempted to escape, guards would slice open their feet as punishment.
​They also said they were locked up in rooms when not working and that they were fed only scraps of food.
@Nestle Shouldn’t child slavery be against all work ethics? Then why are these underaged children being forced into making chocolate for you
Nestle was given an F because child slavery and much more so use this information as you please 
Nestle has long been criticized for their policies involving children, which goes back to the 1970s with reports such as “The Baby Killer” and “Nestle Kills Babies,” in which the food giant is accused of deliberately contributing to the malnutrition and deaths of infants by discouraging breastfeeding in the name of their brand of formula.
Nestle was also recently accused of unethically bottling California water during droughts, destroying rain forests and orangutans in pursuit of palm oil, and failing to keep lead out of noodles in India, RT said.
Cargill, which controls much of the global grain trade, has been accused of unethical palm oil extraction, while agribusiness giant ADM was caught breaking antitrust laws and price fixing in 1996 as well as causing air pollution in Iowa and wastewater discharge in Missouri.