We lead Europe in having gonorrhoea and taking cocaine. Isn’t it about time our self-perception caught up with our truth?
By Joel Golby
(Illustration: Dan Evans)
This article originally appeared on VICE UK.
I think if you stare at data long enough you will see the shape of the universe, the meaning of it all. If you look between numbers, rather than at them, you’ll access some deeper truth: about life, about love, about the world and the space we occupy in it.
Anyway, everyone in the UK is bang into chop and the clap:
Cocaine consumption: number one in Europe! Burny piss: number one in Europe! Numero uno! Nummer eins! Numéro uns! RULE BRITANNIA. BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES. EUROPE CAN SUCK OUR SLIGHTLY STINGING DICK.
This is from the OECD/European Commission study “Health at a Glance: 2016”, which I am proud to declare I skim-read. We are talking about 204 primo pages of pure European data, here; I am not actually going to read all that. But we are also talking hospital care and alcohol abuse. Life expectancy and avoidable mortality. Death, truly, looks so small and so surmountable when presented cleanly to you in so many graphs and charts, read at speed while occasionally checking Black Friday listicles:
I have been boring my colleagues with what I have learned from half-reading this, and now I am going to bore you. Look! Look at these facts! Tell me again data isn’t cool!
DID U KNOW… the United Kingdom is way below the average for smoking teens, but high for drunk teens (33 percent of boys and 28 percent of 15-year-old girls had been drunk at least twice in their life). Europe-wide, alcohol consumption is dipping (and has been for about the past decade), but is still a public health concern: on average, a UK adult will consume a little under 10 litres of pure alcohol this year.
DID U KNOW… according to the data, having a heavy drinking habit is more likely to impact negatively on your career. There’s a correlation between heavy drinking and unemployment rates, but the causation isn’t explained, i.e. do people become unemployed because they drink, or drink because they become unemployed? The data did not say. I actually did read that bit, as well.
DID U KNOW… but drinking isn’t totally bad for your career: moderate drinkers, i.e. those who can take the boss for the odd pint, are more likely to progress in their career than abstainers, because drinking = networking, and networking is low-key the only way to get ahead these days. And what I am saying is: put a pre-mixed can of G&T on your boss’s desk tomorrow and very slowly wink and see if next week you don’t get a promotion.
DID U KNOW… 30 percent of people in the UK regularly binge drink, so truly we are pushing the term “binge drink” to breaking point really, now. I mean, I think it’s safe to say we are taking the piss a bit here. Maybe just call it “how we drink”.
DID U KNOW… mental health problems have been cited as the leading cause of early retirement in Germany since 1996. 1996! That’s 20 years! And we’re only just starting to talk about it properly in the UK!
DID U KNOW… it is estimated that alcohol led to €59 billion (£50 billion) worth of lost productivity in the EU last year, either through time spent out of work, jobs lost or early death. Woah! I do kind of still want a beer though!
DID U KNOW… are you bored yet? You can skip to the bit where I stop saying “DID U KNOW” if you want.
DID U KNOW… smokers are statistically less productive and earn less than those who don’t smoke – they’re more likely to take sick days off work each year (eight to 10 extra days off, in some countries) and also take smoking breaks more and tend to die way earlier. But then, what do you want: to work your entire life, nose against the coalface, your job is all you have, sucking at the dick and the teat of your employer, prostrating yourself on the floor for a modicum of a raise this year? Or a cool refreshing tab? Hard to know.
DID U KNOW… the UK is below average for deaths from strokes and heart disease; it is above average in every metric that rates first point of contact medical interactions across Europe, so we like talking to our doctors. Health!
DID U KNOW… over a quarter of adults in the EU have used illicit drugs in their lifetimes, with 13 percent of 15-to-24-year-olds using cannabis in the past year alone. Second on the list is cocaine, then amphetamines. Then a bit of ecstasy, then all the other drugs. In the past five years they have identified 380 new legal highs, although there’s no data on how many of them actually work.
But the main takeaways in all this are that Britain is bang into cocaine and sex diseases now. I’ll translate it out into data, my new favourite thing: 4.2 percent of UK 15-to-34-year-olds used cocaine in 2014, the last available data year, far higher than the closest cocaine competitor, Spain, at 3.3 percent. And on the gonorrhoea side of things we’re streets ahead again: 59.7 people per 100,000 of the population reported having it in 2014, compared to closest competitor, Ireland, on 28.3. We’re also top five in Europe for having chlamydia (367.6 per 100,000) and top six for retro STI syphilis, too, with 7.2 per 100,000.
What’s the reason for this? Well, unsure. Spain has always traditionally been way better at having sex infections than us, but we just flipped that on its head. Is it possible that, in this new belt-tightened world, Brits are no longer flying to Shagaluf to get their gonorrhoea, instead doing their unsafe sex in the frigid grey embrace of home? Don’t know. I am just speculating because I am bang into data now.
Now, critics – cynics, perhaps, or Conservatives, or your local vicar – would say: it is bad that we all have gonorrhoea and love gak now. But I am choosing to see the cheery side of this. Because isn’t it time we eschewed the traditional British stereotype and embraced the truth: Britons are actually a debased, dark-cored, flawed group of people, and it’s time we dropped the pretence that we’re not.
There are two British stereotypes, and both come from a place of wonky self-perception. The original is the highfalutin idea of ourselves as bowler-wearing, umbrella-toting posh-lords who spend our time politely tutting at the weather, saluting the Queen, being into imperialism and writing strongly-worded letters to the editor of The Times. The other stereotype is 1997 made flesh: fizzy lager and England shirts; 18-34 holidays and being arrested on aeroplanes; saying “garçon” to literally any nationality of waiter; thinking Liam Gallagher is good. There are only two personalities within the British stereotype vector: Mr Benn or Gazza. There is nothing in between.
It’s fair to say that 2016 has been a very lively year, and with that the British mindset has undergone a shift like a continent across a sea bed: slowly, rumblingly, subtly but massively. This year will always go down as historical, but maybe this is where a social change comes in, too: naked right-wing opinions are OK now; being really stupid and uninformed is part of our DNA, our emotions and opinions are ruled by extremes of right and left, and we are also gak-using, condom-shunning dickheads. The “Health at a Glance” study depicts a UK populace that is far away from our perception of ourselves – so maybe it’s time we all printed out a big 204-page PDF, sat down and read most if not all of it, and caught up with who we are.
More stuff about Modern Britain:
Brussels has opened a modern-day Inquisition against Russian media, specifically RT and Sputnik, at precisely that moment in history when the need for alternative voices on the media stage has never been more urgent.
The crux of the problem is that the West is simply nostalgic for the ‘golden days’ of journalism when it enjoyed an ironclad monopoly on the dissemination of news and information. And who could blame them? What state or corporate entity would not relish the ability – feudalistic as it may sound – to disseminate a one-sided, homogenous view of global events to a captive domestic audience that lacks the means for consulting an alternative news source?
Nov 25, 2016
The EU Parliament, which apparently has nothing better to do these days than draft draconian laws, passed a resolution this week that seeks “to counter disinformation campaigns and propaganda from countries, such as Russia, and non-state actors, like Daesh, Al-Qaeda and other violent jihadi terrorist groups.”
First, let’s put aside, if we can, the recklessness of dropping Russia into the same category as Islamic State, the very group the Russian military has been working to eradicate in Syria – with absolutely zero assistance from the US-led coalition, we should add. Instead, let’s keep our eye on the bouncing ball, which is Europe’s aversion to having an alternative media voice on the continent that does not fall in lock-step with their meticulously scripted drum beat on current affairs.
The freedom-loving MEPs, not to be outdone by the US State Department’s recent outburst against an RT reporter, warned that “the Russian government is employing a wide range of tools and instruments, such as think tanks…, multilingual TV stations (e.g. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies and multimedia services (e.g. Sputnik)… to challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood”.
Now that’s certainly an impressive list of accomplishments for a media organization that just yesterday was being ridiculed for “exaggerating its audience and impact.” It would be really nice if these people could get their story straight. Is RT an insignificant player on the media landscape, or is it punching far above its weight?
Whatever the case may be, the EU lawmakers failed to acknowledge another aspect about these Russian media organizations, that have somehow become hugely popular despite spewing nothing, we are told, but conspiracy theories, falsehoods and propaganda. Although they rightly labeled RT and Sputnik “multilingual,” I think it would have been even more accurate to call them “multicultural.” After all, these media organizations do not mindlessly recite scripted Kremlin reports round the clock, conveniently translated into the English language for their English-speaking audiences. If that were the case, perhaps these MEPs would have a case.
In reality, these multicultural media offer an international platform to a wide variety of individuals from many different professional backgrounds. Turn on RT any time of the day, or peruse the Op-Edge section, and you will find a multitude of individuals who have not the slightest connection to Russia providing their expert commentary on a vast array of global events.
Furthermore, in many cases these individuals are Westerners who, for a variety of conflicting reasons, find it difficult, if not impossible, to have their views aired in the West. And since nature abhors a vacuum, many of the numerous people who condemn the EU Parliament’s anti-Russia resolution were forced to express their views on RT and Sputnik since the Western media apparently wants no debate on the issue.
The crux of the problem is that the West is simply nostalgic for the ‘golden days’ of journalism when it enjoyed an ironclad monopoly on the dissemination of news and information. And who could blame them? What state or corporate entity would not relish the ability – feudalistic as it may sound – to disseminate a one-sided, homogenous view of global events to a captive domestic audience that lacks the means for consulting an alternative news source? Let’s be honest, is there a pizza shop owner anywhere in the world who would not be displeased to discover that a competitor – offering more toppings and better service – was opening a franchise just down the street? But of course we are not just talking about merely catering to the tastes of consumers. We are talking about providing people from all political and cultural backgrounds with as much information as possible on the crucial stories of our day in order to arrive at some sort of consensus on action.
The best example of this is the 2003 Iraq War. At that time, Western media still enjoyed an iron curtain, if you will, that circumnavigated the Western world’s stunted perception of events. With the Internet still in its relative infancy and media alternatives practically non-existent, the US Neocons in the Bush administration were able to push without resistance the false narrative that Iraq was hording weapons of mass destruction. To seal the deal, the Bush administration got Secretary of State Colin Powell, together with a vial of ‘anthrax’ to lend theatrical effect, to peddle the plot in the UN General Assembly. Even UN weapon inspectors on the ground in Iraq could not persuade Washington that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was squeaky clean.
Thirteen years later, Iraq is still struggling to come to grips with the death of over 1 million of its civilians, its economy remains in ruins, while the terrorist group Islamic State threatens to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes to establish a caliphate. Meanwhile, the US media, in a teary-eyed apology mode that lasted for about a day, admitted that it “fell short” of it responsibilities while covering the lead-up to the Iraq War. Well, that’s one way of putting it.
Michael Massing, writing in the ‘New York Review of Books,’ summed up the media’s lengthy and ultimately futile exercise in soul-searching post-Iraq War: “Iraq’s Arsenal Was Only on Paper,” declared a recent headline in The Washington Post. “Pressure Rises for Probe of Prewar-Intelligence,” said The Wall Street Journal. “So, What Went Wrong?” asked Time. In The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh described how the Pentagon set up its own intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, to sift for data to support the administration’s claims about Iraq. And on “Truth, War and Consequences,” a Frontline documentary that aired last October, a procession of intelligence analysts testified to the administration’s use of what one of them called “faith-based intelligence.”
The ugly experience of that past disaster, and certainly others, begs the question: Had RT and Sputnik been available in 2003 as alternative media sources would that disastrous war have happened at all? It may sound like a stretch, but, after all, millions of people around the planet were fiercely opposed to that reckless rush to war, which overnight made the United States resemble a rogue state hellbent on war, opportunism and greed. Had there existed a global platform for the protesters to publicly express their disdain, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that war could have been averted.
I think it fair to say that the European Union’s crackdown on “Russia media” is not what it seems. It is in reality a crackdown on those people – many of them citizens of the West – who desperately seek an alternative news source for both accessing and disseminating opinions and research that does not doggedly tow the Western line.
Now with the Western coalition of the killing perched on the edge of Syria like a vulture, waiting for the slightest opportunity to swoop down and tear yet another sovereign state to pieces, it is more critical than ever that the people of the Western democracies have free access to myriad sources of information. Instead, groundless accusations being hurled at these media organizations, which have contributed considerably to the great quest for truth. Ans therein lies the rub.
The European Union, if it were truly devoted to the principles of democracy as it regularly declares from the rooftops, it would welcome as many different voices as possible in the ongoing quest for truth on a matter of pressing issues. The fact that it does not speaks volumes about the real state of democracy across the Western world.
Truth, as the saying goes, lies somewhere in the middle. But that holy grail of places will never be discovered with just one media entity allowed to search for it – and report on it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Economists believe in full employment. Americans think that work builds character. But what if jobs aren’t working anymore?
Pprofessor of history at Rutgers University in New York. He is the author of many books, the latest being No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea (2016). He lives in New York.
Work means everything to us Americans. For centuries – since, say, 1650 – we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline, and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labour, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve believed that, even if it sucks, a job gives meaning, purpose and structure to our everyday lives – at any rate, we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible, and keeps us away from daytime TV.
These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills – unless of course you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way.
These days, everybody from Left to Right – from the economist Dean Baker to the social scientist Arthur C Brooks, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump – addresses this breakdown of the labour market by advocating ‘full employment’, as if having a job is self-evidently a good thing, no matter how dangerous, demanding or demeaning it is. But ‘full employment’ is not the way to restore our faith in hard work, or in playing by the rules, or in whatever else sounds good. The official unemployment rate in the United States is already below 6 per cent, which is pretty close to what economists used to call ‘full employment’, but income inequality hasn’t changed a bit. Shitty jobs for everyone won’t solve any social problems we now face.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the numbers. Already a fourth of the adults actually employed in the US are paid wages lower than would lift them above the official poverty line – and so a fifth of American children live in poverty. Almost half of employed adults in this country are eligible for food stamps (most of those who are eligible don’t apply). The market in labour has broken down, along with most others.
Those jobs that disappeared in the Great Recession just aren’t coming back, regardless of what the unemployment rate tells you – the net gain in jobs since 2000 still stands at zero – and if they do return from the dead, they’ll be zombies, those contingent, part-time or minimum-wage jobs where the bosses shuffle your shift from week to week: welcome to Wal-Mart, where food stamps are a benefit.
And don’t tell me that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour solves the problem. No one can doubt the moral significance of the movement. But at this rate of pay, you pass the official poverty line only after working 29 hours a week. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. Working a 40-hour week, you would have to make $10 an hour to reach the official poverty line. What, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage, except to prove that you have a work ethic?
But, wait, isn’t our present dilemma just a passing phase of the business cycle? What about the job market of the future? Haven’t the doomsayers, those damn Malthusians, always been proved wrong by rising productivity, new fields of enterprise, new economic opportunities? Well, yeah – until now, these times. The measurable trends of the past half-century, and the plausible projections for the next half-century, are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as dismal science or ideological hokum. They look like the data on climate change – you can deny them if you like, but you’ll sound like a moron when you do.
For example, the Oxford economists who study employment trends tell us that almost half of existing jobs, including those involving ‘non-routine cognitive tasks’ – you know, like thinking – are at risk of death by computerisation within 20 years. They’re elaborating on conclusions reached by two MIT economists in the book Race Against the Machine (2011). Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley types who give TED talks have started speaking of ‘surplus humans’ as a result of the same process – cybernated production. Rise of the Robots, a new book that cites these very sources, is social science, not science fiction.
So this Great Recession of ours – don’t kid yourself, it ain’t over – is a moral crisis as well as an economic catastrophe. You might even say it’s a spiritual impasse, because it makes us ask what social scaffolding other than work will permit the construction of character – or whether character itself is something we must aspire to. But that is why it’s also an intellectual opportunity: it forces us to imagine a world in which the job no longer builds our character, determines our incomes or dominates our daily lives.
What would you do if you didn’t have to work to receive an income?
In short, it lets us say: enough already. Fuck work.
Certainly this crisis makes us ask: what comes after work? What would you do without your job as the external discipline that organises your waking life – as the social imperative that gets you up and on your way to the factory, the office, the store, the warehouse, the restaurant, wherever you work and, no matter how much you hate it, keeps you coming back? What would you do if you didn’t have to work to receive an income?
And what would society and civilisation be like if we didn’t have to ‘earn’ a living – if leisure was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or volunteer to teach children in less-developed places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and watch reality TV all day?
I’m not proposing a fancy thought experiment here. By now these are practical questions because there aren’t enough jobs. So it’s time we asked even more practical questions. How do you make a living without a job – can you receive income without working for it? Is it possible, to begin with and then, the hard part, is it ethical? If you were raised to believe that work is the index of your value to society – as most of us were – would it feel like cheating to get something for nothing?
We already have some provisional answers because we’re all on the dole, more or less. The fastest growing component of household income since 1959 has been ‘transfer payments’ from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 per cent of all household income came from this source – from what is otherwise known as welfare or ‘entitlements’. Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.
But are these transfer payments and ‘entitlements’ affordable, in either economic or moral terms? By continuing and enlarging them, do we subsidise sloth, or do we enrich a debate on the rudiments of the good life?
Transfer payments or ‘entitlements’, not to mention Wall Street bonuses (talk about getting something for nothing) have taught us how to detach the receipt of income from the production of goods, but now, in plain view of the end of work, the lesson needs rethinking. No matter how you calculate the federal budget, we can afford to be our brother’s keeper. The real question is not whether but how we choose to be.
I know what you’re thinking – we can’t afford this! But yeah, we can, very easily. We raise the arbitrary lid on the Social Security contribution, which now stands at $127,200, and we raise taxes on corporate income, reversing the Reagan Revolution. These two steps solve a fake fiscal problem and create an economic surplus where we now can measure a moral deficit.
Of course, you will say – along with every economist from Dean Baker to Greg Mankiw, Left to Right – that raising taxes on corporate income is a disincentive to investment and thus job creation. Or that it will drive corporations overseas, where taxes are lower.
But in fact raising taxes on corporate income can’t have these effects.
Behold the power of weed.
(ANTIMEDIA) Cut, the creator of “Grandmas Smoking Weed for the First Time,” recently attempted to show America that political differences are only skin-deep. The YouTube producers made their new video in the hopes of inspiring voters from different political backgrounds to discuss their disagreements in a civilized, unifying manner.
Bringing together three voters — a Hillary Clinton supporter, a President-elect Donald Trump supporter, and a Green Party candidate Jill Stein supporter — Cut asked them to smoke weed together, giving them an opportunity to talk about their differences and what they have in common.
At first, participants discussed their backgrounds and why they voted for each candidate early in November.
To the Stein supporter, a small business owner who isn’t happy about Obama’s performance, voting for Stein was the obvious choice after Clinton defeated Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee.
The Clinton and Stein voters agreed as far as the Sanders factor was concerned. According to the full-time activist, voting for Clinton was the best option after Sanders lost the bid. “Hillary is exponentially better than Trump,” she added.
The Trump supporter, an African American man who early in the video claimed to have been threatened by friends who voted differently from him, said, “As far as the hand that we were dealt,” choosing a president this year felt a lot like choosing between “a polished shit, or a polished shit with sprinkles on top.” With that in mind, the man said before smoking weed for the first time, he went “with the second one.”
After going over the rationale behind their votes, the three took hits from a bong. They also smoked a joint. A few minutes later, they continued to discuss politics.
As the conversation evolved, participants “discovered” they all had the same aversion to what the Clinton supporter called “hate groups.” But when the Trump supporter was asked to talk about his candidate’s alleged racism, he contended to know that “[Trump] just flat-out said things that I don’t know how he didn’t get kicked out of the race,” but argued that at times, we must look at the context. He agreed America needs better security but also added that we should make it easier for people to come to this country, not the opposite.
Moments after sharing some snacks, the three found out they all like Game of Thrones, oral sex, getting consent before sex, Zac Efron, Sanders, and The Rock — but they all disagreed on Beyoncé’s music and the approach of the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
The richest and poorest Americans differ in life expectancy by more than a decade. Glaring health inequalities across the socioeconomic spectrum are often attributed to access to medical care and differences in habits such as smoking, exercise and diet.
But a new study in rhesus monkeys shows that the chronic stress of life at the bottom can alter the immune system even in the absence of other risk factors.
The research confirms previous animal studies suggesting that social status affects the way genes turn on and off within immune cells. The new study, appearing Friday, Nov. 25 in the journal Science, goes further by showing that the effects are reversible.
The team studied adult female rhesus monkeys housed at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University. They found that infection sends immune cells of low-ranking monkeys into overdrive, leading to unwanted inflammation, but improvements in social status or social support can turn things back around.
In the first part of the study, Yerkes scientists put 45 unrelated females that had never met each other one by one into new social groups. Then they watched how the monkeys treated each other to see, for every interaction, who did the bullying and who cowered.
Captive female rhesus macaques in these newly created groups formed a pecking order in order of seniority. The females that were introduced to their groups earlier tended to rank higher than those that came later.
To find out how rank affected their health, the researchers took immune cells from the monkeys and measured the activity of roughly 9,000 genes. More than 1,600 of them were expressed differently in lower-ranking than in higher-ranking females, particularly within a type of white blood cell called natural killer cells, the first line of defense against infection.
In the second part of the study, the researchers rearranged the females into nine new social groups. Once again, the females sorted themselves in order of arrival. The first females to join the newly-formed groups ranked higher than latecomers.
In the re-sorting, the researchers made females that were previously high on the dominance ladder move down one or more rungs, and those that were low were moved up.
The President-elect shares an update on the Presidential Transition, an outline of some of his policy plans for the first 100 days, and his day one executive actions.
With permission from
By SAM KESTENBAUM
Sourced from forward.com
When president-elect Donald Trump named Steve Bannon, the controversial media figure behind the alt-right website Breitbart News Network, as his “senior strategist” — major Jewish groups raised the alarm.
The Anti-Defamation League condemned the move, saying Bannon’s website was home to racists and fostered hatred against Jews. But to his Jewish defenders — which include Breitbart’s CEO and senior editors for the site — he is an ally and proud Zionist.
“I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader,” Joel Pollak, an Orthodox Jew and a senior editor for Breitbart News, wrote on Monday.
Indeed, Breitbart’s origin story has its roots in Israel, according to Larry Solov, Breitbart’s CEO and president, another close Jewish colleague of Bannon.
In a November 2015 post on Breitbart News, Solov describes the conception of the news site in 2007. It happened, Solov writes, during a trip to Israel with Andrew Breitbart, the Jewish founder and namesake of the website.
The site was born to defend the Jewish state.
“One thing we specifically discussed that night was our desire to start a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel,” Solov wrote. “We were sick of the anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media.”
Solov and Breitbart were “blown away by the spirit, tenacity and resourcefulness of the Israeli people on that trip,” Solov wrote.
Breitbart died in 2012 and Bannon became editor of the site.
Under Bannon’s leadership, the site became one of the best known platforms and gateways for the alt-right, a diverse group that traffics in white nationalism and racism. Richard Spencer, a founder of the political movement who advocates for the creation of a “white ethno-state,” called Breitbart a “gateway” to alt-right ideas and writers.
During Trump’s campaign, the site became particularly enamored with the Republican candidate and lampooned and attacked his opponents.
For Ben Shapiro, a former writer at Breitbart News, Bannon betrayed the original vision of the site’s founder.
“Andrew Breitbart despised racism,” Shapiro wrote on Monday. “With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website … pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.”
But even as the site may have appealed to anti-Semites, it retained its Zionist bona fides under Bannon.
In 2015, Bannon launched a Jerusalem branch of Breitbart News, which covers events in Israel. It is edited by Israel-based American reporter Aaron Klein, another Bannon advocate. Klein, a Yeshiva University graduate, is also a columnist for the Jewish Press, a weekly newspaper with a conservative bent.
Klein recently called the anti-Trump protests across the country a product of “professional agitators” who are seeking the “downfall of the U.S. capitalist system.”
The activist Pamela Geller, known for her anti-Islamic campaigning, also counts herself among Bannon’s Jewish allies. On Twitter, Geller defended Bannon recently, dismissing those who were characterizing Bannon as an anti-Semite.
“He partnered [with] Breitbart — a Jew,” she wrote. “He partnered [with] Larry Solov (after Breitbart died) a Jew. He worked [with] me — a Jew.” Then she added: #Zionist.
David Horowitz, founder of the conservative think tank David Horowitz Freedom Center also came to Bannon’s defense, saying Bannon does not have an “anti-Semitic bone in his body.”
“As a Jew who has worked for years with Steve Bannon,” Horowitz wrote in an email to the Forward, “I can tell you he is not an anti-Semite or a white nationalist.”
With permission from
Nov 24, 2016
Note: This article is based on police investigatory reports… personal documented testimony of enraged policemen and women. The story itself has major credibility; and the facts presented here have been corroborated by hundreds of investigators, LE and private in the USA, UK and other nations.
Australian 60 Minutes published a story that 60 Minutes (America) would never dare touch.
In America and the UK, the Pedophile Network controls high ranking Pedophile politicians, the Major Mass Media, FBI, the CIA and top Law Enforcement.
This has made it almost impossible to get the truth out to the populace about the presence and penetration of this worldwide Satanic Pedophile Network.
Those editors of the major mass media and elected or appointed officials that are not part of it or compromised by it realize that to try and expose it results in an immediate loss of their job, their retirement, and they will be blacklisted and perhaps even have their lives threatened.
Notwithstanding all these strong suppression forces in the past, not only was the CIA’s Franklin Credit Union pedophile scandal exposed by the Washington Times, but the finders scandal was exposed by US News and World Report.
And, despite those highly public exposures, the Major Mass Media failed to promote those important stories; and the stories died out, with no corrective actions by federal LE, which we now know is dirty to the core, because its own leaders are fully compromised by this Pedophile Network.
Satanic Pedophilia Network Exposed in Australia: It Starts at the TOP, Just Like in the USA and UK
Bombshell: Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Soros, Epstein, Alefantis — All Connected to Pedophilia Claims by ‘Podesta Emails’
Banned Discovery Channel Documentary Exposes: Highest US Government Officials are Part of Pedophilia Ring
Pedophilia Lawsuit: Slave Children Forced to Have Sex With ‘Royalty, Politicians, Academicians’ — Bill Clinton & Donald Trump Also Visited the Villa
Reference: Veterans Today; YouTube
Russian television has broadcast Oliver Stone’s controversial documentary film “Ukraine on Fire,” in which he argues that Ukraine’s “Maidan” uprisings of 2004 and 2014 were the result of political maneuvering by the United States.
November 23, 2016
Stone, an award-winning director who is a staunch critic of Washington’s foreign policy, is no stranger to controversy and has a long history of making political films. He also directed 2015’s Snowden, a biopic of the fugitive former NSA agent turned whistleblower.
Directed by Ukrainian American Igor Lopatenyuk, the film has been criticized for its one-sided portrayal of events in Kiev, with a Ukrainian citizen named Andrei Nezvany posting an online petition two days before the film’s online premiere asking for the picture to be banned because it “falsifies facts” and could “provoke mass protests in Ukraine.”
Ukraine on Fire was made by the Los Angeles company Another Way Productions though the source of the project’s financing is not clear.
The film reports that the CIA closely collaborated with Ukrainian nationalistic organizations against the USSR as far back as 1946, using them as counterintelligence sources. Recently declassified CIA documents apparently bear witness to this.
According to the film, “by the end of 1941 alone the nationalists killed between 150,000 and 200,000 Jews on German-occupied territory in Ukraine,” and the following “strong alliance” allowed them to escape after WWII to Europe, where the CIA helped them hide.For example, the film points out that Mykola Lebed, a Ukrainian nationalist and activist who was responsible for mass killings of Poles in Ukraine’s Volyn region under Nazi occupation in WWII, was later transferred to the U.S., where he died in 1998 without ever facing trial for his war crimes.
But American collaboration with the Ukrainian nationalists did not end there, claims the film.
In 2004 Ukraine became a battlefield between Russia and the West. The pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych won the presidential election, though the process was tainted by widespread allegations of intimidation and massive vote-rigging, as well as the poisoning of the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.
In the end, Yushchenko, whose wife had been an employee of the U.S. State Department during the Reagan administration) gained the presidency thanks to a peaceful protest that the film claims was inspired from outside the country, resulting in a revote.
Subsequently, the off-screen voice narrates, the Yushchenko government failed to carry out the promised reforms and the “democracy” project, and mired itself in dishonest activities.
Viktor Yanukovych became the next Ukrainian president, but his talks with the EU did not go well.
“We had been counting on the International Monetary Fund [IMF]… But for a whole year we were offered unacceptable options… Russia was the last resort. Russia told us: ‘We are ready to work with you as partners, if you take our interests into consideration,'” says Yanukovych in the film.
Commenting on Russia’s introduction of restrictions to trade with Ukraine, Vladimir Putin says that the Kremlin did so only because in the event of integration with the EU “the European Union would basically be entering our territory with all its goods without any negotiations.”
“We said, sure, if Ukraine has decided to do this, this is its choice and we will respect it, but we are not going to pay for this choice,” says Putin in the film.
In the film, Zakharchenko tells Stone that the Ukrainian authorities knew that protests were being prepared for 2015. But the sudden halt to integration with the EU (after Russia made Ukraine a counter-offer shortly before Yanukovych was due to sign the agreement at an EU Eastern Partnership summit in Lithuania in late November 2013) accelerated the process. Public organizations financed by NED, journalists receiving U.S. grants and the TV channels created on the eve of the Maidan uprising played an important role, argues the film.
The order to drive away the protesters with force was given by head of the presidential administration Serhiy Lyovochkin, under the pretext of putting a Christmas tree on the square.
“It is an amazing coincidence but Mr. Lyovochkin is a friend of many American politicians,” the documentary reports, showing a photo of Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland. When Stone asks Yanukovych if “he felt America’s hand” in the uprising, the former president says that many delegations came to Ukraine but took sides with the protesters, something that only exacerbated the conflict.
“When protesters seize government buildings, is this acceptable? Would it be acceptable if the Ukrainian ambassador had come to the protestors in Ferguson and handed out cookies or accused American policemen? Why was Ukraine treated in this manner?”
Could you survive on just $2.50 a day? According to Compassion International, approximately half of the population of the entire planet currently lives on $2.50 a day or less. Meanwhile, those hoarding wealth at the very top of the global pyramid are rapidly becoming a lot wealthier. Don’t get me wrong – I am a very big believer in working hard and contributing something of value to society, and those that work the hardest and contribute the most should be able to reap the rewards. In this article I am in no way, shape or form criticizing true capitalism, because if true capitalism were actually being practiced all over the planet we would have far, far less poverty today. Instead, our planet is dominated by a heavily socialized debt-based central banking system that systematically transfers wealth from hard working ordinary citizens to the global elite. Those at the very top of the pyramid know that they are impoverishing everyone else, and they very much intend to keep it that way.
Let’s start with some of the hard numbers. According to Zero Hedge, Credit Suisse had just released their yearly report on global wealth, and it shows that 45.6 percent of all the wealth in the world is controlled by just 0.7 percent of the people…
As Credit Suisse tantalizingly shows year after year, the number of people who control just shy of a majority of global net worth, or 45.6% of the roughly $255 trillion in household wealth, is declining progressively relative to the total population of the world, and in 2016 the number of people who are worth more than $1 million was just 33 million, roughly 0.7% of the world’s population of adults. On the other end of the pyramid, some 3.5 billion adults had a net worth of less than $10,000, accounting for just about $6 trillion in household wealth.
And since this is a yearly report, we can go back and see how things have changed over time. When Zero Hedge did this, it was discovered that the wealth of those at the very top “has nearly doubled” over the past six years, and meanwhile the poor have gotten even poorer…
Incidentally, we tracked down the first Credit Suisse report we found in this series from 2010, where the total wealth of the top “layer” in the pyramid was a modest $69.2 trillion for the world’s millionaires. It has nearly doubled in the 6 years since then. Meanwhile, the world’s poorest have gotten, you got it, poorer, as those adults who were worth less than $10,000 in 2010 had a combined net worth of $8.2 trillion, a number which has since declined to $6.1 trillion in 2016 despite a half a billion increase in the sample size.
If these trends continue at this pace, it won’t be too long before the global elite have virtually all of the wealth and the rest of us have virtually nothing.
Perhaps you are fortunate enough to still have a good job, and you live in a large home and you will sleep in a warm bed tonight.
Well, you should consider yourself to be very blessed, because that is definitely not the case for most of the rest of the world. The following 11 facts about global poverty come from dosomething.com, and I want you to really let these numbers sink in for a moment…
So how did we get here?
Debt is the primary mechanism that takes wealth from ordinary people like you and me and puts it into the hands of the global elite.
In my recent article entitled “Why Donald Trump Must Shut Down The Federal Reserve And Start Issuing Debt-Free Money“, I discussed how the Federal Reserve was designed to entrap the U.S. government in an endless debt spiral from which it could never possibly escape. And that is precisely what has happened, as the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
In that very same year, the federal income tax was instituted, and that is a key part of the program for the global elite. You see, the income tax is how wealth is transferred from us to the government. And then a continuously growing national debt is how that wealth is transferred from the government to the elite.
It is a very complicated system, but at the end of the day it is all about taking money from us and getting it into their pockets.
And at this point more than 99.9 percent of the population of the world lives in a country with a central bank, and almost every nation on the planet has some form of income tax.
It is a global system that is designed to create as much debt as possible, and I recently shared with my readers that the total amount of debt in the world has hit a staggering all-time record high of 152 trillion dollars.
Interestingly, the Bible actually foretells of a time when rich men would hoard wealth in the last days. The following are the first five verses of the Book of James in the Modern English Version…
Come now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2 Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have stored up treasures for the last days. 4 Indeed the wages that you kept back by fraud from the laborers who harvested your fields are crying, and the cries of those who harvested have entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. 5 You have lived in pleasure on the earth and have been wayward. You have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter.
So much of the time we focus on the other great sins that we see all around us, but the truth is that one of the greatest sins of all in our world today is the sin of greed.
The borrower is the servant of the lender, and the global elite have used various forms of debt to turn the rest of the planet into their debt slaves.
As debt levels race higher and higher all over the planet, the elite are using the magic of compound interest to grab a bigger and bigger share of the pie.
Given enough time, those at the very top would have virtually everything and the rest of us would have virtually nothing. The middle class is shrinking all over the globe, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow at an astounding pace.
But the vast majority of people out there have no idea how money, debt, taxes and central banks really work, and so they have no idea that this is purposely being done to them.
So please share this article with as many people as you can. The truth is that we don’t have to have this much global poverty, and if we correctly identify the root causes of this poverty we can start working on some real solutions.
With permission from
Paul Craig Roberts
Nov 23, 2016
Did Donald Trump win the election because he is a racist and misogynist and so are the American people?
No. That’s BS from the Oligarchs’ well-paid whores in the media, “liberal progressive” activist groups, think tanks and universities.
Did Trump win because he stole the election?
More BS. The Oligarchs controlled the voting machines. They failed to steal the election, because the people outsmarted them and told the pollsters that they were voting for Hillary. This led to the presstitutes’ propaganda that Hillary was the certain winner, and the Oligarchs believed their own propaganda and didn’t believe it necessary to make certain of their victory.
Trump won the presidency because he spoke directly and truthfully to the American people, telling them what what they knew to be true and had never before heard from any politician:
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people. The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. Those who control the levers of power in Washington and the global special interests they partner with, don’t have your good in mind. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.
“It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The only force strong enough to save our country is us. The only people brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment is you, the American people.”
Trump did not promise voters a bunch of handouts. He didn’t say he would fix this and that. He said that only the American people could fix our broken country and identified himself as an agent of the people.
The people won the election, but the Oligarchy is still there, as powerful as ever. They have already launched their attack using their whores in the media and liberal progressive groups in attempts to delegitimize Trump with protests, petitions, and endlessly false news reports. George Soros, using the money he made by his attack on the British currency, will pay thousands of protesters to attempt to disrupt the inauguration.
What about Trump’s government? As Trump discovered, finding appointees who are not part of the Oligarchy’s economic and foreign policy establishment is very difficult.
Washington is not a home for critics and dissidents. Consider Pat Buchanan, for example. As a White House official in two administrations and a two-time presidential candidate, he is experienced, but Washington has marginalized him.
Moreover, even if there were a stable of outsiders, they would be eaten alive by the insiders. Trump will have to take insiders. But he has to pick insiders who are to some extent their own person. General Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser is not a bad pick. Flynn is the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who advised the Obama regime against employing ISIS against Syria. Flynn has publicly stated on television that the appearance of ISIS in Syria was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime. In other words, ISIS is Washington’s agent, which is why the Obama regime has protected ISIS.
Trump’s chief of staff (Priebus) and chief strategist (Bannon) are reasonable choices.
Sessions (Attorney General) and Pompeo (CIA) are disturbing appointments based on their media-created reputations. But in the US where there is no honest media, we don’t know the truth of the reputations. Nevertheless, if Sessions does support torture, he is disqualified as attorney general, because the Constitution prohibits torture. The US cannot afford yet another attorney general who does not support the US Constitution.
If Pompeo actually is so poorly informed that he opposed the Iran settlement, he is not fit to be CIA director. The CIA itself said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, and with Russia’s help the matter was resolved. Does Trump want a CIA director who neoconservatives could use to restart the conflict?
The views of Sessions and Pompeo could be products of the time and not visceral. Regardless, Trump is a strong and willful person. If Trump wants peace with the Russians and Chinese, appointees who get in the way will be fired. So let’s see what a Trump government does before we damn it.
Presstitute reports of extreme neoconservative John Bolton and former US attorney and NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani being candidates for Secretary of State do not seem credible. If Trump intends to get along with Putin, how can he do that if his Secretary of State wants war with Russia? Trump should find an experienced diplomat who negotiated with the Soviets. Richard Burt, who had a major role in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, is the sort of person it would make sense to consider. Another sensible candidate would be Jack Matlock, Reagan’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
If Trump wants peace with Russia, the Secretary of State is the important appointment.
If Trump wants to stop the Oligarchy’s rip off of the American people, the Secretary of the Treasury is the important appointment.
Under the last three presidents, treasury secretaries have been agents for the banks-too-big-to-fail and for Wall Street. It is now a tradition for the financial gangsters to own the Treasury. It remains to be seen if the tradition is too strong for Trump to break.
The Oligarchy is trying to discredit the Trump Presidency before it exists. This effort is discrediting liberal and progressive groups by identifying them with nonenforcement of the immigration laws and with homosexual and transgender rights, issues not on the agenda of an electorate whose economic fortunes have been declining and who are tired of 15 years of war that serves only the hegemony agenda of the neoconservatives and the profits and power of the military/security complex.
According to The Saker, Putin has begun removing the Atlanticist Integrationists, Russia’s Fifth Column, from influence. Let’s see if Trump can remove our fifth columnists—neoconservatives and neoliberal economists—who have sold out the American people and America’s integrity.
If Trump fails, the only solution is for the American people to become more radical.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
The United States has a long and sordid history of staging coups to facilitate regime changes and install US-controlled puppets in positions of power in nations the world over.
Nov 23, 2016
Not that this should really surprise anyone at this point, but now the ex-president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych has officially gone on record to say that he believes the United States was actively involved in planning and orchestrating the protests in Ukraine that led to the coup to overthrow him.
TASS quoted Yanukovych:
“I signed the protocol (an Agreement on the Settlement of Political Crisis in Ukraine – TASS). However, sometime later I realized that no matter what protocol we signed, the scenario to seize the power and stage a coup was planned and imminent. That is, it actually did not depend on our actions,” the former president said in an interview with the US film director Oliver Stone for his documentary entitled Ukraine on Fire aired by the REN TV channel.
The former Ukrainian president specifically called out Vice President Joe Biden, whose son Hunter not-so-coincidentally went on after the coup to join the Board of Directors at Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer:
“We were constantly in touch with Biden, I had frequent telephone conversations with him. However, the fact is that Mr. Biden said one thing, while something entirely different was done in Ukraine,” he said. “The US Ambassador to Ukraine constantly received representatives of the ‘Maidan’ at the embassy. We knew that very well, we kept a close watch on this. One got the impression that the whole process was orchestrated by the headquarters in the US Embassy.”
According to Yanukovych, US representatives’ actions in Ukraine during the “Maidan” developments were inadmissible. “Tell me, will it be acceptable in any other country, if Ukraine’s ambassador comes to the protesters in Ferguson, distributes cakes there and accuses the US police. I believe this is inadmissible in any country. Why then was there such an attitude towards Ukraine?”
Although it was on George Soros’ bucket list for years, Ukraine isn’t special in this regard. The United States has a long and sordid history of staging coups to facilitate regime changes and install US-controlled puppets in positions of power in nations the world over. After decades of it, by the time they got to Ukraine, it was just business as usual.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Melissa Dykes of The Daily Sheeple.
Melissa Dykes is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa and Aaron also recently launched Revolution of the Method and Informed Dissent. Wake the flock up!