Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

Image: © Bob Moran / Bob Moran Art

"The white man, him speak with forked tongue." – Anon.

March 1, 2025: As [Minister of Foreign Affairs] Espen Barth Eide said on nrk.no: "The West is criticized for having double standards in the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. We must take active steps to avoid this perception." But there are two standards out there—one for Russia and one for the US.

A murder and an attempted murder

Sergei Skripal—In March 2018, an attempt was made on Sergei Skripal's life in England. The Russians were suspected but did not admit to the crime. The condemnation from the West was harsh and massive, the language was coarse, and as many as 153 Russian diplomats were sent home, one of them from Norway. In addition, various sanctions were introduced.

Jamal Khashoggi—In October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi was allegedly brutally executed and dismembered in Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul. The murder was carried out by a commando group of five men from Saudi Arabia, probably ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. There was no reaction from Western countries, no diplomats were expelled, no sanctions were imposed and arms exports from the USA continued as usual. The language used here was mild or completely absent.

Conclusion: An anti-Russia campaign—There is little doubt that the Skripal incident served to discredit Russia to such an extent that there is reason to believe it was designed and carried out by MI6 and the CIA for this purpose. Below we will take a closer look at the background to the war in Ukraine, and show that there is "a rule for them" and "a rule for us". The duality is not due to incompetent politicians. It is because an "Anti-Russia campaign" is still going on, many years after the end of the Cold War. The US and the UK are leading the campaign, and Norwegian politicians are participating uncritically.

Julian Assange

It has been revealed today, thanks to Edward Snowden, that Google and other US tech companies received millions of dollars from the NSA for their compliance with the PRISM mass surveillance system.

So just how close is Google to the US securitocracy? Back in 2011 I had a meeting with Eric Schmidt, the then Chairman of Google, who came out to see me with three other people while I was under house arrest. You might suppose that coming to see me was gesture that he and the other big boys at Google were secretly on our side: that they support what we at WikiLeaks are struggling for: justice, government transparency, and privacy for individuals. But that would be a false supposition. Their agenda was much more complex, and as we found out, was inextricable from that of the US State Department. The full transcript of our meeting is available online through the WikiLeaks website.

The pretext for their visit was that Schmidt was then researching a new book, a banal tome which has since come out as The New Digital Age. My less than enthusiastic review of this book was published in the New York Times in late May of this year. On the back of that book are a series of pre-publication endorsements: Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Michael Hayden (former head of the CIA and NSA) and Tony Blair. Inside the book Henry Kissinger appears once again, this time given pride of place in the acknowledgements.

Schmidt’s book is not about communicating with the public. He is worth $6.1 billion and does not need to sell books. Rather, this book is a mechanism by which Google seeks to project itself into Washington. It shows Washington that Google can be its partner, its geopolitical visionary, who will help Washington see further about America’s interests. And by tying itself to the US state, Google thereby cements its own security, at the expense of all competitors.

John Pilger

It is in popular culture that the fraudulent “ideal” of America as morally superior, a “leader of the free world”, has been most effective.

In his book, 'Propaganda', published in 1928, Edward Bernays wrote: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

The American nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays invented the term "public relations" as a euphemism for state propaganda. He warned that an enduring threat to the invisible government was the truth-teller and an enlightened public.

In 1971, whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg leaked US government files known as The Pentagon Papers, revealing that the invasion of Vietnam was based on systematic lying. Four years later, Frank Church conducted sensational hearings in the US Senate: one of the last flickers of American democracy. These laid bare the full extent of the invisible government: the domestic spying and subversion and warmongering by intelligence and "security" agencies and the backing they received from big business and the media, both conservative and liberal.

Speaking about the National Security Agency (NSA), Senator Church said: "I know that the capacity that there is to make tyranny in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law... so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

Andrew Gavin Marshall
The Hampton Institute

The following is my first original piece for The Hampton Institute, “a working class think tank,” at which I chair the Geopolitics Division. This essay is meant as an introduction to modern American geopolitics, and a reference piece for future research and published material through The Hampton Institute’s Geopolitics Division.

Educating yourself about empire can be a challenging endeavor, especially since so much of the educational system is dedicated to avoiding the topic or justifying the actions of imperialism in the modern era. If one studies political science or economics, the subject might be discussed in a historical context, but rarely as a modern reality; media and government voices rarely speak on the subject, and even more rarely speak of it with direct and honest language. Instead, we exist in a society where institutions and individuals of power speak in coded language, using deceptive rhetoric with abstract meaning. We hear about 'democracy' and 'freedom' and 'security,' but so rarely about imperialism, domination, and exploitation.

The objective of this report is to provide an introduction to the institutional and social structure of American imperialism. The material is detailed, but should not be considered complete or even comprehensive; its purpose is to function as a resource or reference for those seeking to educate themselves about the modern imperial system. It's not an analysis of state policies or the effects of those policies, but rather, it is an examination of the institutions and individuals who advocate and implement imperial policies. What is revealed is a highly integrated and interconnected network of institutions and individuals - the foreign policy establishment - consisting of academics (so-called "experts" and "policy-oriented intellectuals") and prominent think tanks.

Stephen Lendman

Senate confirmation on both is required. Expect little opposition to Brennan. More on him below.

Republicans will challenge Hagel. At issue is political opportunism more than who serves. Questions about Obama's nominee are exaggerated. More on that below.

Rarely ever are presidential nominations rejected. Expect nothing different this time. Candidates are carefully vetted. Selection depends on full support for US policies.

Hagel is a reliable imperial supporter. His Senatorial voting record offers proof. The Peace Majority Report rated him highly. The lower the score, the higher the rating. He scored 5%. John McCain got 4%, Joe Lieberman 26%, and Bill Clinton 74%.

The American Conservative Union called him solidly Republican. It gave him a lifetime 84% rating.

In 1996, Hagel suspiciously defeated Nebraska's popular Democrat governor Ben Nelson. At stake was a US Senate seat. Polls suggested a close race. Hagel won by 15 points. Few Nebraskans knew about Hagel's ties. He was part owner, chairman and CEO of Election Systems & Software (ES&S). It's an electronic voting machine company. At the time, it was called American Information Systems. AIS' parent company founder, Michael McCarthy, was Hagel's campaign treasurer. His easy victory made winning suspect. He never disclosed his business ties. A Senate Ethics Committee investigation was requested. It was rejected. Nothing followed. Expect little or nothing said now.

Stephen Lendman

Nasrallah, Assad and Ahmadinejad in Damascus

Slowed but not derailed by Russia and China vetoing its Security Council resolution, America's regime change/war plans remain on track.

In 1999, Washington circumvented the Security Council, UN Charter, and US Constitution to wage aggressive war against nonbelligerent Serbia/Kosovo.

According to former Nuremberg prosecutor Walter Rockler, it "constitute(d) the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent (nonexistent) 'Polish atrocities' against Germans."

"The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok."

In 1999, Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called America's aggression "barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe."

It replicated the same process against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, as well as indirectly against other MENA (Middle East/North African) countries. More aggression's planned against Syria and Iran, mostly likely in 2012.

Run-up tactics include sanctions, hardening existing ones, imposing new ones, isolation, and closing Washington’s Damascus embassy among other steps. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said:

"The United States has suspended operations of our embassy in Damascus as of Feb. 6. Ambassador (Robert) Ford and all American personnel have now departed the country (allegedly because) the regime failed to respond adequately" to US security concerns.

Hawkish UK Foreign Minister William Hague barely stopped short of declaring war, saying Assad must surrender power. "This is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime. There is no way it can get its credibility back either internationally or with its own people."

Furious about the Russian/Chinese veto, he added: "There is no way to mince words about this. Such vetos are a betrayal of the Syrian people."

Like Washington and other rogue NATO partners, he also didn't "rule out" recognizing opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) legitimacy, much like Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) won backing against Gaddafi.

In fact, international law prohibits it, but no matter. It doesn't deter Washington/UK/French efforts to circumvent legal standards to advance their joint imperium.

Tony Cartalucci

Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table.

October 22, 2011 - For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the "Arab Spring," a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011. The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of first, denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria's militants. These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran's doorstep serve a singular agenda -that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as containing the rise of China.

Stephen Lendman

Promising change after eight Republican dominated years, Obama betrayed the public trust by special favors given business at the expense of essential growing needs.

Spurning them, in fact, he shows contempt for the things he rhetorically supports, proving he's no different from the worst of the bipartisan criminal class, serving wealth and power interests only.

As a result, he backed Wall Street's financial coup d'etat, looted the nation's wealth for them, institutionalized speculation and corporate racketeering, wrecked the economy, and consigned millions to impoverishment without jobs, homes, savings, social services, or futures.

Now more is planned, first announced in a January 18, 2011 Executive Order, (EO) titled, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" to benefit business, no matter the public cost.

On February 7, Obama elaborated in a Chamber of Commerce speech, promising to "remove outdated, unnecessary regulations" to free business more than ever since the roaring twenties to do whatever they damn well please, saying:

"I understand the challenges you face. I understand you are under incredible pressure to cut costs and keep your margins up. I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders and the pressures that are created by quarterly reports. I get it."

What he doesn't "get" or give a damn about is growing human need. Instead, he focuses solely corporate bottom line concerns no leader should prioritize over greater ones affecting millions of troubled households during the nation's gravest economic crisis in decades, one he's worsening, not alleviating.

In fact, acting more like one of them than one of us, he discussed various special favors he had in mind, including lowering corporate taxes and "breaking down some of the barriers that stand in the way of your success," eliminating "outdated and unnecessary regulations" to save billions of dollars annually, no matter the incalculable public cost. Dismissively he said:

I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them....I've also ordered agencies to find ways to make regulations more flexible for small business," promising to make government as accommodative as possible, giving away the store if there's anything left from the wreckage he already caused.

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

Dr. Fredrick Töben is a unique man. You can find a certain tranquility and serenity in his words and actions which make him an unparalleled academician, author and political analyst. While talking to him, you can make sure that you enjoy a fruitful, comprehensive and informative conversation. He always speaks as if he is in a university classroom and wants to teach something to his students. This is the prominent aspect of his personality. He wants to teach and to learn, as well. He loves sharing new experiences with you, and this is another feature of his personality. He has scientifically denied Holocaust and paid the cost: five times in prison in five countries.

He was born on 2 June 1944, Jaderberg, north Germany, into a farming family, which immigrated to Australia in 1954. His father and mother farmed in Australia. His father died in 2003 and his mother passed away in 2008 while he was serving a three-month prison term for 'contempt of court'. His parents were married for 63 years.

Töben received his tertiary education in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Rhodesia-Zimbabwe and he taught secondary and tertiary level German, English, sociology and philosophy in all these countries and Nigeria, as well.

He had a major policy difference with the Victorian Education Department in Melbourne, Australia, which dismissed him from his teaching post on grounds if incompetence and disobedience, and for almost ten years he fought the case and had his dismissal declared invalid.

In 1994, Fredrick Töben founded the Adelaide Institute and became its director. The aim was to research matters relating to 'Holocaust-Shoah' and other related 'taboo topics' that mainstream research institutes did not dare investigate for fear of financial and social sanction. In 1998 Adelaide Institute held the first-ever Revisionist Symposium in Australia. In 1997 and 1999 he went on a world revisionist fact-finding tour that took him to Eastern Europe in particular to Auschwitz where allegedly millions of Jews were gassed. He found that the technicality of the gassing assertion could not be sustained.

Since 1999, Töben made visits to Iran on a regular basis to attend scientific congresses and news conferences on various social and political issues.

Fredrick Töben joined me in an exclusive interview and talked to me about his viewpoints regarding Iran, the Persian culture, the Islamic solidarity, the impacts of Iran's Islamic Revolution on the global order and the current position of Iran in the international community.

Dennis Avery
CFACT

A new paper affirms the earth’s long, moderate, natural climate cycle. Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India’s Space Research Organization, says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming.

It’s nice when people validate your work. Fred Singer and I—co-authors of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years —are currently basking in the glow of a new paper that affirms the earth’s long, moderate, natural climate cycle. The study is by Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India’s Space Research Organization. He says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming.

Dr. Rao says the data between 1960 and 2005 show lots fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth, due to a periodic expansion of the sun’s magnetic field. The bigger solar magnetic field blocked many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise have hit earth. Fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth meant fewer water droplets shattering in our atmosphere, and thus fewer of the low, wet clouds that deflect solar heat back into space. So the earth warmed.

Fred and I tried to tell the world in 2007 that the moderate 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle was the cause of the warming since 1850, based on historic and paleoclimatic evidence. The cosmic ray linkage was put forth in 2008 by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. The UN’s panel on climate change dismissed that whole approach, claiming the variations in the sun’s irradiance were far too small to account for the rapid warming from 1976–98.