All this pearl-clutching about the existence of sex-tape/sex-tapes of Donald Trump in Russia led me to this piece on the kinkiest US presidents. As you can see, Trump, even if guilty as smeared, fits right in.
And they didn’t even get to the sleaziest stuff.
From India Today, comes news that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Panel has contradicted the statement of its chairman that Modi can be called before it to explain demonetization.
The contradiction comes following a strong protest lodged by a BJP member of the PAC with the Lok Sabha (Lower House) speaker:
“The PAC statement says that under the rules, “officials may be called to give evidence in connection with the examination of the estimates and accounts in a particular Ministry, Ministers shall not be called before the Committee either to give evidence or consultation:
QUOTE
END QUOTE
An interesting factoid:
The infamous alleged fetish video involving Donald Trump and a Russian hotel bed in which the Obamas slept (details delicately withheld on our chaste blog) turns out to have been given to US intelligence officials by none other than Senator John McCain, whose own record is so dodgy it muddies the story even more.
We think the much bigger question than Obama’s bed is Trump’s. Who’s in it? How much in hock is he to Russia?
McCain, an alleged war-hero but documented fink, was once a POW in Vietnam and, since I just watched “The Manchurian Candidate,” that raises all sorts of questions for me about his own motivations and agenda.
Second, the file on Trump was compiled by a 20 year veteran of MI6 (the British foreign intelligence service), Christopher Steele, who from 1990 until 2009 was also a spy in Russia.
2009 was the year a lot of intel operations, including that of Wikileaks, began operating.
So what did Mr. Steele do in 2009? He opened Orbis Business Intelligence, which compiled the video. Apparently, he was funded by Republican anti-Trump operatives.
Where is Orbis located?
At the commercial site of 9-11 Grosvenor Gardens in London.
Is this another Rothschild/NWO wink or merely coincidence?
If the former, into which realm of reality, falsity, or some mixture of both, do we consign the video?
And who is behind it?
Insane McCain, Trump himself, his handlers, the Russians, the financial cabal, the CIA, Mossad, the FSB? Or some combination of these?
And if this is an X-rated rerun of the Manchurian Candidate, with McCain as the brain-washed trigger-man, is it Mike Pence or Hillary Clinton, who is the intended beneficiary?
My bet is the latter.
There were some big whoppers in Modi’s propaganda blast on New Year’s Eve, which I sat through so that you, dear reader, would not have to subject yourself to the tedium:
MODI-SPIN:
$500 and $1000 rupees notes (the old notes that were banned) were mainstays of the black economy.
FACT:
That would make the vegetable vendor, fish-monger, housewife, pensioner, and local shop-keeper all “black,” according to monetary moron Modi.
Of course, they are not. What with inflation, those notes are practically staples of normal day-to-day cash transactions: payment of daily wage workers, repairmen, and vendors.
The TV repairman takes Rs. 750 for an hour of repair on the antenna. It would be normal to use a 500 and a couple of 100s for him. TV’s are not signs of great wealth, but widely owned by lower-middle-class and even working-class people. A visit to the hospital, shopping at the vegetable or fish market, repairing a leaky ceiling – all of these would routinely be done with the banned notes.
MODI-MYTH
Demonetization has helped the Income Tax Department uncover more tax-evasion and money-laundering rings.
FACT
The Income Tax Department does not need demonetization to conduct raids on suspected tax-evaders. They do that in the course of their normal routine. In fact, demonetization has added NEW rings of money-laundering and enabled corrupt bank officials to make a buck changing black to white. That explains the huge stashes (hundreds of thousands to millions) of the new Rs. 2000 notes being busted all over the country.
MODI-MYTH:
The hard part is over. Corruption, drugs, trafficking, porn, and all other evils are based on black money held in cash and they have all suffered a permanent blow. Ramrajya is here.
FACT:
The largest part of black-money is digitally circulated in and out of India through market avenues such as round-tripping and participatory notes, neither of which was even mentioned in the Modi speech. Black money is parked mostly in foreign bank accounts, in real estate, and in gold and diamonds. Far from helping eradicate corruption, cash bans and digitilization make it much easier for large players (like the government, large corporate entities and criminals) to manipulate and steal money from the ordinary man.
The aam admi’s troubles have only begun. He is being ruthlessly herded, through bribes and threats, into digital platforms for which he and the Indian infrastructure are ill-prepared.
MODI-MYTH:
More cash deposited at the banks will bring down inflation.
FACT:
One of the biggest problems with targeting black-money, is the inflationary consequences of sucking money out of hard assets and foreign accounts. Once in the country, they are bound to increase the supply of money in the country and pump up inflation.
Demonetization just changes the part of the economy where cash circulates.
It moves cash from the informal sector and small businesses to the formal economy and big businesses and government (banks lending to developers and companies).
It penalizes the winners in the free markets (the small businesses) and rewards the losers (developers-government-banks-large corporations) .
It reverses the decision of the market and replaces it with a mandate from the center.
More deposits in banks means more money available against which banks can make loans.
Indeed, recapitalization of banks with huge non-performing assets (bad loans to big industrialists and developers) is one of the real reasons for demonetization, not eradicating corruption – a story put out to hoodwink the public.
One example. Is Modi going after Vijay Mallya of Kingfisher for non-payment of loans? Why, on the other hand, is he unable to waive loans that hard-working farmers have been unable to repay for reasons they cannot control – like the failure of rains?
And why is only Vijay Mallya mentioned in Indian media reports? Mallya is only a front for Rothschild interests….
in the same way that Khodorkovsky was a front for Rothschild interests.
What about the vast public sector loans made to the scion of the Tata drug-running fortune, Ratan Tata, a Rothschild cohort, to purchase over-priced Corus steel (at $12.1 billion) on the advice of N. M. Rothschild, the merchant banker?
The purchase was made at the height of the commodity boom, only 6 years after Corus was a penny-stock.
Tata is another friend of the Rothschilds, getting low-priced loans from Indian public sector banks to help out Corus, and selling his cars in India at twice the price they fetch in the international market.
Corus, originally British steel, foundered on the demands of highly paid unionized British workers, with their plush pensions.
MODI-MYTH:
The main problem in India is corruption and dishonesty, a problem of culture, to be addressed forcibly by the government.
FACT:
Corruption or graft in India, as elsewhere, is a symptom, not a cause of India’s woes.
Behind the symptom is the real cause, which is is not cultural, but political: the replacement of a healthily functioning economy by a system of political patronage run from the center.
In a patronage system, WHO you are and WHOM you know are more important that WHAT you do.
Instead of competing honestly for money, through providing better services, businesses are forced to compete for favor from the political class.
This necessity has dribbled down into the lowest-class from the highest.
Call it trickle-down graft.
Why is the center so influential?
Ultimately, it’s because of the life-blood of the economy – money – is controlled from the bank at the center – the RBI.
Furthermore, behind the RBI is a more remote but far more powerful center – the BIS.
Behind the BIS stands the great central controller, the globalist Rothschild cabal.
The prevalence of corruption in a society thus has little to do with the innate honesty or lack of honesty among people.
In a famous 2013 survey of major cities all over the world, the Reader’s Digest ((not known to be unfriendly to the West) actually found that when money-laden wallets were dropped on the road, the two cities where they were most often returned with the money intact and the reward refused, were Helsinki and Mumbai.
Notably, Helsinki is in Finland, which is ranked at the top of corruption-indices. Mumbai is in India, which is ranked toward the lower end of most corruption indices.
That says a great deal about such indices. It says even more about the divergence between the POLITICAL category of “corruption” and the MORAL category of honesty.
By deliberately confusing the two, practiced RSS propagandist Modi has dressed up a thoroughly political project, a black operation hatched by the Anglo-Zionists, in the swadeshi (home-made) and swachha (white) robes of national health and morality.
A fascinating and insightful look at the imagery and numerals on the new currency notes:
Reserve Bank of India has put up the designs of the new 500 and 2000 notes on its website. They confirm what many feared – that this design overhaul will be used to push certain iconographies that suit the incumbent BJP government. The difference between the old design and the new seem to be centered on three things: Hindi, Delhi and Narendra Modi.
The new currency notes introduce numerals in Devanagri script, the present script of Hindi. This was not the case in earlier version of the currency notes. Is it the case that the government thinks that only Hindi people should be able to read the numerals in a script they are familiar with while the rest of us, the non-Hindi majority, would not need to read numerals in our languages? Was there any complaint from any quarter than the stand-alone Arabic (or Hindu-Arabic as it is sometimes called) numerals in English script were not being able to do the job? Why was there no Hindi-Devanagri numeral before this? May be because it is actually unconstitutional and in contravention of a Presidential order. Article 343 of the Constitution of the Indian union states in no uncertain terms that, ““[t]he form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the union shall be the international form of Indian numerals”. The only modification to this comes in the form of the 1960 Presidential order, which allows for “the use of Devanagari numerals, in addition to the international numerals, in the Hindi publications of the Central Ministries depending upon the public intended to be addressed and the subject-matter of the publication. For scientific, technical and statistical publications… the international numerals should be adopted uniformly in all publications”.
×
The present Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India should explain how all-India currency bank-notes fall within the category of “Hindi publications of the Central Ministries” and how does the choice of Devanagari satisfy the clause of “depending upon the public intended to be addressed”. Does the Government of India, and RBI exist to serve only Hindi speakers? They might believe so. But non-Hindi linguistic groups are bound to Hindi people and to each other, only by the compact of the constitution and not by the Hindi imperialist whims or ideologies of the union government and its agencies. …..
A proportion of the currency notes could have had numerals in Devanagari, a proportion could have had Bangla, a proportion could have had Tamil and so on, based on population proportion of citizens using those languages. This is the model of the Euro, where it is a single currency, but there are specific variants to accommodate the diverse stake-holders. But doing that or even the present usage of Devanagari would need a constitutional amendment. The BJP, in its efforts to impose Hindi, is reopening the wounds of 1965 anti-Hindi imposition struggles that have not been forgotten by non-Hindi peoples. In this regard, the British had done a much better job, where numerals all many South Asian languages were given equal footing in font size, vis-à-vis English. Thus English, Hindi, Urdu, Bangla, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, etc all had same font size numerals on bank notes as evidenced in the 10-rupee currency note of 1910.
The new notes also have the new Indian currency sign. That sign, derived from the “R” letter in Devanagari, was not chosen with the consent of the people. In my language Bangla and also in Assamese, the word for the currency unit is Taka or Toka. That starts with “T”. How can then the “R” sound be a general stand-in for all of us? And how did this get into the new currency note? How would have “R” people felt if a symbol for “T” sound were used instead? How is the sound of the currency name for Hindi people more important than the sound for Bengali or Assamese people? One might argue that it is called Rupees in English and that has R. That too is without consent of non-Hindi people and is a term handed down by the British. In Bengal, almost everyone grows up calling their currency as Taka, same as what they call it in Bangladesh.
Such words are not categories of nationalism but words of everyday use. By downplaying them, a whole people are classified as second class. While English is a foreign language for all, Hindi is also a foreign language for all non-Hindi people……. In a diverse, federal Union of States, like the Indian Union, the legendary Tamil Nadu leader and Chief Minister had laid down a principle that every citizen must share advantages and disadvantages equally. The usage of Hindi/Devanagari violates this fundamental principle of peaceful coexistence and cooperation as it is not equidistant from all stake-holders and give undue advantage to those for whom this is the mother-tongue and standard script. English provides that equal distance. The Indian union itself is the product of coordination and cross-linking of disparate ethno-linguistic nationalities mediated by English knowing elites of their respective groups. Most trans-linguistic discussions on political issues in the Indian union happen in English.
Thirdly, the actual proportion of area or real-estate on the currency note that is given to Devanagari vis-à-vis other language scripts has gone up. This is a very serious affair. The relative space and size of Devanagari-Hindi things vis-a-vis our non-Hindi mother tongues reflects exactly what New Delhi thinks of the rest of us vis-a-vis Hindi. And there is a temporal pattern to it that has gone from equality to inequality…… This marginalisation of non-Hindi languages has continued unabashed. The equal proportion to all South Asian languages in the 1917 bank note as well as the 1940 bank note was replaced by a currency series that continued for the longest time after the 1947 transfer of power that privileged Hindi over everything else. 1947 sadly marks the watershed year for the loss of status for non-Hindi languages. … The pace of that has visibly quickened with a militant edge under the present BJP regime in New Delhi.
Thus, in RBI issued currency notes, Hindi-Devanagari words are big and are supposed to carry information. Non-Hindi language scripts are progressively smaller and are basically decoration with no practical use except for non-Hindi citizens to console themselves that “diversity” is alive, though certainly not kicking. …..Hindi mother tongue people form about 25 percent of the Indian population – that number too is arrived at after counting various linguistically non-Hindi languages as Hindi, because New Delhi orders so according to its political agenda.
Fourthly, the new currency notes do not have all the scripts of all the languages recognised in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution. Santhali is an example of an VIII Schedule language with its own Olchiki script that remains unrepresented in the currency note. Sanskrit with less than 20000 self-reported speakers is represented while Santhali with nearly 70 lakh speakers is not. The same goes for Meiteilon (Manipuri), which is an VIII Schedule language with its own script. The new currency note was an opportunity to include Santhali and Meiteilon but clearly Hindi and its expansion is the only driving force in the linguistic changes. People should know that the Indian union government considers languages to be a security issue! Which is why language groups and their scripts have to have their official stamp of recognition and approval from the Union Home Ministry.
…..As we speak, the union government is forcing small linguistic groups to adopt Devanagari as their official script and withholding recognition if they don’t agree. Thus, we find the absurd situation where speakers of Bodo, whose territorial homelands are not connected to any Hindi region, have been forced to adopt Devanagari. Thus, Hindi majority bureaucrats in the union government are killing the autonomous choice of a linguistic group in deciding their own future. And the government is shameless enough to celebrate International Mother Language Day.
The old currency notes tried to avoid location-based political symbolism except for the Parliament House in the denomination of 50 that arguably is for all. However, the Red Fort of Delhi in the new 500 denomination touches a raw nerve for many. The Red Fort was the political headquarters of the Mughal Empire for a long time.
[Lila: To me, this is more proof that Modi is actually posturing when he engages in sabre-rattling about Islam. One notices that he is quite obsequious to the Saudi ruling class…..the NWO uses Islam as a proxy for its own goals, witness the use of Islamic migrants to spearhead a movement to deconstruct European culture.]
Indian union came into existence in 1947. It is not a successor state to the Mughal Empire. The Red Fort is a sign of pre-British Delhi-based imperialism, signifying the power of imperial invaders who attacked the countries of Bengalis, Marathis, Axomiya, Odiyas and many others. Our ancestors resisted such invasions but Delhi won by brute power. Imperial Delhi ruled by posting mostly Hindi/Urdu speaking military people in our homelands…….
The use of the “Swachh Bharat Abhiyan” (Clean India expedition) logo accompanied byits Hindi slogan in Devanagari script crosses all limits of propriety. Never before has a government put one of its own schemes on something as non-partisan and common as a currency note. This mischief would basically result in an advertisement of the present government for all times to come, till these currency notes are withdrawn. This is certainly not illegal but not all shameless things aren’t illegal. This starts a very unhealthy precedent. Now, nothing stops any later day union government to use currency notes as their pet scheme advertising billboards. The abuse started earlier during the Congress regime with the use of the face of MK Gandhi, who was associated with a particular party that is still in business and were opposed by other parties who are also still in business.
Narendra Modi announced the new currency notes after the 500-1000 demonetisation announcement. His address was in Hindi, without any subtitles and then in English, with Hindi subtitles. So, the union government does care whether Hindi speakers comprehend the English speech but doesn’t care whether the majority of the citizens, that is, non-Hindi-English speakers understand anything at all. This imperial attitude, that treats a majority of the citizens as second class, was furthered by all PSU (that is New Delhi controlled) banks that mostly did not care to print any information for the public in their mother tongues. Last heard, the new currency notes do not match the structural specifications of the ATM machines all over. Since the top-down imposition of currency notes by New Delhi is sacred, all the ATM machines have to be structurally changed to match and fit what New Delhi has produced. “
Many of us in Tamil Nadu have been wondering about the death of former Chief Minister, the hugely popular but autocratic ex-film star and dancer, Jayalalitha.
Known as Amma, the charismatic leader had been arrested on “disproportionate assets” charges at the time she was admitted to hospital for dehydration.
She seemed to have got better but was suddenly sent back to ICU for a cardiac arrest, to which she eventually succumbed.
The unexpected relapse and the secrecy around her end have fueled speculation about foul play only aggravated by the BJP government’s shockingly militarized tax raid on the TN chief secretary whom she had directly appointed. Now, cases have been filed to open an inquiry into her death:
The former Tamil Nadu chief minister died on December 5 and not satisfied with the authorities view about the cause of death, a petition was filed in Chennai High Court by AIADMK cadre seeking 3 member bench to investigate Jayalalithaa’s death. The petition is to be heard tomorrow. Jayalalithaa, popularly known as “Amma” among her supporters, breathed her last at Chennai’s Apollo Hospitals on December 5 where she was admitted on September 22 with fever and dehydration. Last week too, Chennai-based NGO, filed a Public interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court that raised doubt over the circumstances in which Jayalalithaa died.”
Ucnews.in references Steve Forbes’ scathing denunciation of the immorality of demonetization, one of the few pieces in the media that gets to the nub of the matter: this is not about poor implementation or lack of foresight; this is about a fundamental violation of basic rights:
Steve Forbes, in a no-holds-barred column, has said: “What India has done to its money is sickening and immoral.” Well that’s just the title of the column.
Forbes has written, and it must be quoted: “India’s government perpetrated an unprecedented act that is not only damaging its economy and threatening destitution to countless millions of its already poor citizens but also breathtaking in its immorality.”
Further: “Not since India’s short-lived forced-sterilization program in the 1970s – this bout of Nazi-like eugenics was instituted to deal with the country’s ‘overpopulation’ – has the government engaged in something so immoral. It claims the move will fight corruption and tax evasion by allegedly flushing out illegal cash, crippling criminal enterprises and terrorists and force-marching India into a digitized credit system.”
“India is the most extreme and destructive example of the anti-cash fad currently sweeping governments and the economics profession. Countries are moving to ban high-denomination bills, citing the rationales trotted out by New Delhi. But there’s no misunderstanding what this is truly about: attacking your privacy and inflicting more government control over your life.”
“What India has done is commit a massive theft of people’s property without even the pretense of due process – a shocking move for a democratically elected government.”
Steve Forbes has not held back. He has said that by “further impoverishing the least fortunate among its population and undermining social trust, thereby poisoning politics and hurting future investment, India has immorally and unnecessarily harmed its people, while setting a dreadful example for the rest of the world”.
In other words, Forbes is saying that India has just demonstrated how it feels to commit a financial genocide with élan, turning the entire country into a laboratory of extremely unethical fiscal eugenics experiments, turning citizens to guinea pigs of monetary mayhem.
However, the cheerleaders of the prime minister are busy positing this as a global conspiracy against India, a concerted attempt to write off a move that is morally superior because ostensibly it would purge the country of wrongdoers such as black money hoarders and terrorists using counterfeit notes. Those claims have been razed to dust already.
Bloomberg: DoneReuters : DoneForbes: DoneWSJ: DoneFT: DoneAnyone left in International Financial Media who is NOT anti-demonetization??
— Yashwant Deshmukh (@YRDeshmukh) December 23, 2016
But what is terrifying is the meekness expected of citizens en masse at present. Any Indian echoing Forbes, and there are many, would be branded as an anti-national.”
In this interview on Iranian TV, Dieudonne describes how he and his wife and children have been physically assaulted by Zionists for his satire.
None of that harassment has been reported widely. While the world has been forced to listen to endless nonsense about the faux-martyrdoms of operatives like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, someone who really gets beaten up for his political views gets no sympathy.
The comedian also explains why breaking the taboo against criticizing Zionism is indispensable to releasing the West from the psychic prison in which it lives.
He explains the difference between mocking the political and commercial manipulation of the Holocaust (which he admits to doing)
and mocking the Holocaust itself (which he denies doing).
He points out that in France, in recent years, the Crucifixion has been forcibly and intentionally displaced by the Holocaust as a symbol deserving public veneration.
[See my post on Pope Francis and the Marc Chagall painting of Christ.]
Indeed, the increasing proliferation of laws supporting the inviolability of Holocaust history in France and elsewhere coincides with the increasing denigration and displacement of Christian symbols.
That displacement is nothing less than cultural imperialism.
Is one human race to replace divinity itself in the public consciousness of another?
If so, by whose will? At whose expense?
In another post I will explain why I still wonder if Dieudonne is yet another face of controlled opposition, but, in regard to the question of whether he is guilty of incitement, the answer is no.
One last point. He was convicted not of “inciting violence,” which is at least a crime, even if he didn’t commit it.
No, he was charged with something quite different, nebulous, and trumped up – “inciting hate.”
Quite apart from the astounding hypocrisy of such a statement from the West – always boiling over with barbaric ‘two-minute-hates’ (here and here for instance) directed at this or that unfortunate people who get in the way of its imperial ambitions – what does inciting hate even mean?
Really, what does it mean?
Earlier this month, German grandmother, 87-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Hamburg for denying that the holocaust took place, as usually understood.
From Mask of Zion:
So when the ostensibly “Christian” British state, known and hated the world over for its “Christian” missionary activities that cloaked so many if not all of its genocidal invasions, chucks its “Christian” identity to the wayside and castigates a man like Dieudonné, who identifies himself as an “Islamic-Christian (23)”, while welcoming filth-peddlers and desecrationists like Sarah Silverman and Larry David, it is betraying an upsetting truth that many Brits may not be able to accept: Their country is not the great power that they’ve been brainwashed into believing it is since birth. Their country is a subcontractor for a far more powerful, far more sinister force. Their country is not Christian. Their country has no love or respect for Jesus Christ The Messiah. Their country is not sovereign. Their country is on its knees, its forehead at the feet of the Rothschilds and other “chosenite” overlords. Their country is subservient to Jewish supremacy.
As is America. The US and UK regimes are empires and imperialists only in name, for they do not serve their own interests but the interests of Organized Jewry, which sends its Christ-hating spokespersons into the public eye to bash and humiliate what they allegedly hold most dear while they remain deafeningly silent. But when opponents of Zionist-subverted Western policy criticize the parasitic, plutocratic elite running the West into the ground, they are not greeted with the same silence. They are not even greeted with accusations of “anti-Westernism”. No, they are bombarded with the gobbledegook of “anti-Semitism”. Pounded with the sheer irrationalness of “Jew-hatred”. Browbeaten for spitting on the “memory” of the “Holocaust”. This is not just an exercise in hypocrisy alone. Hypocrisy represents the mere obviousness of the matter. This is proof, the kind comprised of unbreakable stone embedded in unshakeable ground, that imperialism, while a terribly real threat that must be combated and stopped, is only vice president in the hegemonic power structure; its agents are “shabbos goyim” and its boss is Zionism. “
