By Jay Syrmopoulos

An investigation by a New York Times affiliate has revealed that billionaire globalist financier, George Soros, who recently called Donald Trump a “would-be dictator” during an interview at Davos, and whose Open Society Foundation works to finance and forward progressive causes across the world, and is intimately connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and various other political uprisings across the globe, has been revealed to be connected to more than 50 of the groups that organized the nationwide “Women’s Marches” that saw millions of Americans take to the streets across the country.

The march’s official website says, “We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.” Many people turned out to be a manifestation of that ideal, but it’s important to understand the reality of what is happening on a strategic political level as an inorganic politically contrived and funded event. This, in no way, takes away from the validity of standing up for women’s issues but is important to note that women are being used as pawns in a larger ideological political game that has international overtones of power politics.

These marches were largely billed as “spontaneous” and “grassroots” actions, by publications likeThe Guardian and Vox. However, the reality exposed by an investigation by self-described liberal feminist, Asra Q. Nomani, writing for New York Times affiliate Women in the World, revealed that after studying the “funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are ‘partners’ of the march,” contrary to the non-partisan rhetoric used in these marches, they were not really “women’s march” but were rather “for women who are anti-Trump.”

Nomani reveals that the “Women’s Marches” were actually organized as political tools to be used to strategically forward a progressive political agenda against President Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down driven political operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

According to Nomani’s Women in the World/New York Times report:

Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up forcrowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment…

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The way Soros operates is as an “ideological philanthropist,” whose Open Society Foundation provides funding for organizations whose interests align with his own, and which blurs the line between political advocacy and social justice – thus being able to leverage selected/funded social justice organizations to affect political discourse.

This method is confirmed in a memo released by WikiLeaks, which was sent to Soros by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Clinton campaign reveals the political motives behind using grassroots organizations to “control political discourse.” Podesta wrote to Soros that he wanted to “better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong echo chamber.”

Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere—we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.

Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth, according to the New Eastern Outlook.

A report in New Eastern Outlook revealed exactly how Sores-affiliated organizations across the world operate:

The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions, who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:

Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine.

Additionally, during the 2016 presidential cycle, Soros committed $25 million dollars to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton. Per the standard Clinton operating procedure, this was indicative of the symbiotic relationship of favors between the billionaire and his array of political puppets across the globe.

Soros has often been accused of using his wealth to attempt to socially engineer the national domestic politics of entire states. He was accused of being connected to organizations that organized and funded the nationwide protests after the election of Donald Trump — a claim that Soros denies.

“There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports,” said a spokewoman from Soros’s Open Society Foundations in a statement, adding, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Make no mistake that the events you’re seeing transpire nationwide are largely being coordinated, in part, by a billionaire political elite class that is looking to strategically forward a political agenda. Soros has used the same formula to foment domestic unrest to affect political goals in numerous nations –and it certainly looks as if he now has the United States in his sights. It’s clear that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is being employed by the left in an effort to destabilize and undermine political discourse in the U.S.

Women’s rights are unquestionably a human rights issues, not a political issue, which makes it disappointing that we, as free individuals, don’t organically create manifestations like these large-scale marches, without oligarchs and their vested political interests essentially making it happen as a means of forwarding their particular ideologically driven political agenda.

Jay Syrmopoulos writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

(activistpost.com)

By Brandon Turbeville

Only minutes after being sworn in to office, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will develop a “state of the art” missile defense system to protect Americans against attacks from North Korea and Iran.

The announcement was posted minutes after the inauguration on the White House website. The announcement did not provide details as to how the new weapons “defense system” would be different from the systems already being developed, their cost, or how and when they would be deployed.

While ensuring that Americans are protected from any and all threats is the legitimate duty of a President, protections against non-existent threats are questionable at best and provocations are incredibly worrisome. Remember, both Bush and Obama’s “missile defense system,” allegedly designed to protect Americans from Iranian missile attacks were actually designed to surround Russia and act as an elimination of the ability to retaliate. These missile systems have long been a concern for Russia and a source of tension in U.S. – Russian relations.

While the North Korean missile defense system is more logically justified and possibly even warranted, considering the American interests and presence in South Korea, the Iranian defense shield is aimed at a non-existent threat. The Iranians have not shown any desire to act aggressively toward the United States and have actually led the fight against international terrorism along with Russia and Syria. The Iranians do not have a nuclear weapon nor do they even have the capability to produce one.

Trump’s rhetoric regarding Iran on the campaign trail was hawkish to say the least. He has been highly critical of the Iran-nuclear deal (which Iran should never have had to sign to begin with) and suggested that he would “re-negotiate” a better deal. Trump’s close connections with Israel are also highly concerning, particularly when the issue involves foreign policy in the Middle East.

After playing softball with Obama’s war policies for eight years, the Huffington Post has saw fit to post an article by Ryan Costello of the National Iranian American Council, entitled “Could Trump Stumble Into An Iran War?” Indeed, it is quite telling that, after eight years of supporting war, imperialism, and the march toward a third world war under the Obama administration, much of the “leftist” press (Huffington Post, Salon, etc.) have suddenly launched into editorials panicking over the possibility of war with Iran only hours into a Trump Presidency. Regardless, in this article, Costello questions the wisdom of “renegotiating” the Iran deal and the possibility for a Trump administration to provide us with yet another military conflict. Costello writes,

Trump could stay true to his anti-interventionist rhetoric from the campaign and simply police the accord. Several individuals who appear to have the President’s ear on national security matters – including incoming Defense Secretary James Mattis and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker – have warned against withdrawing from the nuclear accord, which is positive. They appear to recognize that killing the deal outright would risk freeing Iran’s nuclear program from international constraints and monitoring, distance us from our allies and leave few options short of warfare to resolve concerns of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Of course, Trump’s anti-interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail did not extend to support for the nuclear accord with Iran. He railed against it as a bad deal, including at a Tea Party rally outside the U.S. Capitol during the Congressional review period for the nuclear accord in September 2015. While Trump at times indicated that he would not scrap it, but rather renegotiate it (a premise not supported by the other negotiating parties), his animus toward Iran has also extended outside the nuclear sphere. His promises to sink Iranian ships that frequently harry U.S. naval vessels in the Persian Gulf would risk sparking a war with Iran even without revisiting the nuclear accord.

Ultimately, Costello seemed more hopeful, apparently suggesting that the war decision could go either way. Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report, however, is much less optimistic. In his article, “Syria’s War Was Only Ever The Beginning,” he writes,

Look Who’s in Office, Just in Time for War with Iran…

President-elect Donald Trump has surrounded himself with not only pro-Israeli hardliners like David Friedman, but also a circle who have – for years – advocated war with Iran including Breitbart News’ Stephen Bannon and retired US Marine Corps General James Mattis.

A similar circle of policymakers would undoubtedly have accompanied 2016 US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton into office as well had she won the election – her time as US Secretary of State being consumed with the destruction of Libya and Syria, prerequisites for this very conflict.

In essence, Washington is positioning itself for a wider confrontation with Iran just as its proxy war in Syria appears to have run its full course – and it would have begun positioning itself for this coming war regardless of who won the 2016 US presidential election.

In all likelihood, US policymakers envisioned Syria falling much faster and for a lesser cost. With Russia basing a significant military presence in the nation, and with Syria’s military distilled down to a highly effective, experienced fighting force, and with Iranian and Hezbollah forces having gained experience fighting a regional conflict, moving the conflict into Iran will be no easy task.

It is perhaps because of this, that President-elect Trump has been presented as a potential “ally” of Russia, and accusations of Russia “hacking” American elections are being used to chill the alternative media under the guise of combating “fake news.” With the alternative media muzzled, would it be difficult for US policymakers to once again engineer a large provocation – as Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report recommended – to justify expanding Syria’s conflict and America’s involvement in it, into Iranian territory?

It should also be noted that systematically – throughout the Syrian conflict – Israel has attacked Hezbollah infrastructure throughout Lebanon and Syria. Israeli policymakers are likely attempting to maintain a buffer zone between themselves and those who would retaliate in the wake of US-backed Israeli attack on Iran – just as Brookings proposed in 2009.

Cartalucci writes also about the long-established plan to destroy Iran written about by the Brookings Institution and revealed by General Wesley Clark after having discussed the agenda with neocons and individuals in the Pentagon in 1991 and again in 2001. Clearly, the ruling establishment in the West has Iran on the chopping block for destabilization. The question is whether or not Trump will go along with it.

At this point, because there is a typical lack of specifics to Trump’s new plan, we will have to wait and see what it entails. If the plan is merely legitimate self-defense and security for the American people, then yes, America First. If, however, such a missile defense system is more of a danger by existing than not, then we call for cooler heads to prevail and for such a system to be abandoned. Indeed, what threat actually exists from Iran?

We hope that Trump abandons his hawkish policy towards Iran. Indeed, we are calling for greater cooperation with Iran as well as with Russia and Syria in the name of peace and development.

If the new defense plan is merely a continuation of an imperialist policy now aiming its sights on Iran, then we must immediately begin to fight this new policy. At this point, only time will tell.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit: TheAntiMedia.org

(activistpost.com)

By Paul A. Philips

Since time immemorial, under the ruling thumb of the world’s dark overlords, humanity has been hacked, stymied, suppressed and coerced into submission through mind-controlling, soul-destroying atrocities. Those unable to see that just about every subject under the sun is a deception and how their family and friends are affected don’t yet realize the extent to which the dark overlords have us snugly stitched up.

However, alternative media sources tell us that people are awakening exponentially to the realization that they’re being stitched up and in the swathe of these awakened souls, more and more are playing their dutiful part in enlightening others.

So, here are 10 signs of our global mass awakening.

1. The fall and further fall of the mainstream media

Trust in the mainstream media has fallen to an all-time low and continues to plummet. Much of this has to do with an increasingly aware and disgruntled public: More and more people are able to discern a mainstream media totally lacking in integrity, thanks to the rising popularity of the independent/alternative media exposing the dishonesty.

Unlike the alternative/independent sources, the servile corporate-controlled mainstream media has been a highly effective tool used to manipulate the consensus reality of the masses for a number of powerful individuals having political and financial self-interests. A number of us know we have seen attempts by these elitist individuals controlling the mainstream media to thwart the rising popularity of the independent/alternative media through false, baseless accusations of ‘fake news.’ Indeed, it’s an attempt to discredit because it exposes the truth about the elite and reveals their hidden agendas….

Essentially, the unjust ‘fake news’ labelling of the independent/alternative media has backfired on the manipulators: Instead of achieving censorship it has given rise to further increasing support for the alternative/independent media, while the mainstream media has taken an even bigger fall. As many of us know, the real fake news exists in the mainstream media with its propaganda and mind control…

Given that these 2 paradigms cannot live side by side each other, which one will win the information war?

Besides the mainstream media, worldwide, an increasingly aware public show a growing distrust for Big Government and Big Business institutions from multiple polls.

The distrust and unpopularity implicitly expressed by the public on these crooked institutions with their resident crooks mainly come from the truth revelations put out by the alternative/independent media.

Further, this is what happens when Big Government and Big Business not only ignores the people’s voice in decision making, but also demonizes their dissension and public opinion, which only serves to fuel the public’s uprising.

3. Marches against Monsanto have intensified

There couldn’t be a better example of the public’s growing distrust in Big Business than Monsanto. As the years roll by marches against Monsanto from people of many different backgrounds all over the world have risen significantly and don’t look to be cooling down….

Although there are signs of Monsanto clawing back, in recent yearsearnings have plummeted. The earnings drop for the biotech company suggests a growing public disdain for their GM seeds as more and more people realize the dangers of GMO and its glyphosate herbicide.

More and more realize that Monsanto are out to patent, own and control every seed in the world. This threatens the destruction and diversity of every natural God-given seed….

4. Increasing health awareness

Although still very popular, people’s awareness of the dangers of fast food has increased, as indicated by recent erratic share prices in some of the major fast food corporations who’ve had to pull out all marketing stops to claw back on fallen share prices.

Reports indicate that last year people have shown more interest than ever in organic non-GMO healthier food options. Besides how these choices affect health, people’s increased interest and awareness has extended into concerns over the environment, animals and the workers involved in food production.