Is US Bellicosity Backfiring?

by Patrick J Buchanan (May 25 2018)

US threats to crush Iran and North Korea may yet work, but as of now neither Tehran nor Pyongyang appears to be intimidated.

Repeated references by National Security Council adviser John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence to the “Libya model” for denuclearization of North Korea just helped sink the Singapore summit of President Trump and Kim Jong Un. To North Korea, the Libya model means the overthrow and murder of Libya strongman Colonel Gadhafi, after he surrendered his weapons of mass destruction (“WMD“).

Wednesday, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui exploded at Pence’s invocation of Libya:



Vice-President Pence has made unbridled and impudent remarks that North Korea might end like Libya … I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks.

Whether the US will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States.


Yesterday, Trump canceled the Singapore summit.

Earlier this week at the Heritage Foundation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out our Plan B for Iran in a speech that called to mind Prussian Field Marshal Karl Von Moltke.

Among Pompeo’s demands: Iran must end all support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, withdraw all forces under Iranian command in Syria, and disarm its Shiite militia in Iraq.

Iran must confess its past lies about a nuclear weapons program, and account publicly for all such activity back into the twentieth century.

Iran must halt all enrichment of uranium, swear never to produce plutonium, shut down its heavy water reactor, open up its military bases to inspection to prove it has no secret nuclear program, and stop testing ballistic missiles.

And unless Iran submits, she will be strangled economically.

What Pompeo delivered was an ultimatum: Iran is to abandon all its allies in all Mideast wars, or face ruin and possible war with the USA.

It is hard to recall a secretary of state using the language Pompeo deployed:



We will track down Iranian operatives and their Hezbollah proxies operating around the world and crush them. Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East.


But how can Iran “dominate” a Mideast that is home to Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt, as well as US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and Syria?

To Iran’s east is a nuclear-armed Pakistan. To its west is a nuclear-armed US Fifth Fleet and a nuclear-armed Israel. Iran has no nukes, no warships to rival ours, and a 1970s air force.

Yet, this US-Iran confrontation, triggered by Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal and Pompeo’s ultimatum, is likely to end one of three ways:

First, Tehran capitulates, which is unlikely, as President Hassan Rouhani retorted to Pompeo:



Who are you to decide for Iran and the world? We will continue our path with the support of our nation.


Added Ayatollah Khamenei,



Iran’s presence in the region is our strategic depth.


Second, Iran defies US sanctions and continues to support its allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen. This would seem likely to lead to collisions and war.

Third, the US could back off its maximalist demands, as Trump backed off Bolton’s demand that Kim Jong Un accept the Libyan model of total and verifiable disarmament before any sanctions are lifted.

Where, then, are we headed?

While our Nato allies are incensed by Trump’s threat to impose secondary sanctions if they do not re-impose sanctions on Tehran, the Europeans are likely to cave in to America’s demands. For Europe to choose Iran over a US that has protected Europe since the Cold War began and is an indispensable market for Europe’s goods would be madness.

Vladimir Putin appears to want no part of an Iran-Israel or US-Iran war and has told Bashar Assad that Russia will not be selling Damascus his S-300 air defense system. Putin has secured his bases in Syria and wants to keep them.

As for the Chinese, she will take advantage of the West’s ostracism of Iran by drawing Iran closer to her own orbit.

Is there a compromise to be had?

Perhaps, for some of Pompeo’s demands accord with the interests of Iran, which cannot want a war with the United States, or with Israel, which would likely lead to war with the United States.

Iran could agree to release Western prisoners, move Shiite militia in Syria away from the Golan Heights, accept verifiable restrictions on tests of longer-range missiles and establish deconfliction rules for US and Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf.

Reward: Aid from the West and renewed diplomatic relations with the United States.

Surely, a partial, verifiable nuclear disarmament of North Korea is preferable to war on the peninsula. And, surely, a new nuclear deal with Iran with restrictions on missiles is preferable to war in the Gulf.

Again, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good.


Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
Let us know how we are doing.
Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

The MH17 False Flag

One of Many

by Gordon Duff

New Eastern Outlook (May 27 2018)

It was July 17 2014 and a war was raging in Ukraine between American backed extremists who had taken Kiev in a bloody coup and purge. A Malaysian Airlines passenger jet with 298 onboard was directed by air traffic controllers themselves controlled by the same bloody regime that had just taken power, toward closed airspace.

Kiev was using its Russian supplied modern air force on its own citizens. The airliner was being directed on the same path used by SU-25 and SU-27 jets hitting the cities in the Donbass and Lugansk pockets.

The date now is May 25 2018. BBC and Reuters have just announced that Russia is “liable” for the events of July 17 2014, based on an investigation no one understands.

Malaysia had asked for an independent investigation but was warned off by the United States, told to keep quiet. I was part of the team Malaysia had sought to investigate the downing of MH17, along with Veterans Today editor, Washington attorney Thomas Mattingly and a group of former FBI agents under ISI Corp.

Instead, the investigation was done by a Dutch group. It is clear, more than clear, that the United States was aware Kiev had downed the plane and was leading a coverup, protecting Kiev, and planning to use the incident to blame Russia.

Recent events make this abundantly clear.

Blaming Russia is a way of life in Washington. Let’s look at Ukraine and try to understand what was going on at the time.

You see, when Kiev fell to the neo-Nazi coup, Eastern Ukraine held out, loyal to the pro-Russian elected government.

Calling this a “color revolution”, particularly after the slaughter in Odessa in May 2014, is unsupportable. This was a foreign-financed coup using armed and trained terror groups.

Let’s compare Ukraine with Syria, something journalists and academics have avoided doing.

In Kiev, the capital fell to Western-backed terrorists. In Syria, the capital of Damascus wasn’t taken and Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, have aided Syria in fighting off al Qaeda and ISIS, organizations the world is now realizing are “fake terror groups” hired and funded by the West.

If all of this seems confusing, it should. The difference between terrorists and “freedom fighters” is entirely subjective based on who controls the media. Those who back Kiev not only control the media, but they can guarantee a predetermined outcome to any investigations with “no questions asked”.

By that, of course, we are referring to the controlled press and they as no questions whatsoever.


War Between Free and Controlled Press


Four years ago, an investigative group from Russia Today and Veterans Today looked for solutions to the issue of MH17. We looked at how, but never why or who. Those things are and always have been clear, the issues of motive, the issues of who gains.

The Dutch now claim that Russia had “infiltrated” air defense groups into Ukraine and chose to shoot down a Malaysian airliner for no imaginable reason. That motive, “no imaginable reason”, should be a problem for both governments and the media, not that I use the term “should”.

However, there is evidence, considerable evidence, that MH17 was downed by aircraft. We are going to examine this hypothesis and the reaction to it when it was brought up back in 2014.




The recurrent idea of a ground-launched missile, a story originating as propaganda from Kiev, has been a story the mainstream media and Western governments have held to in spite of the total lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence, except for “alternative facts”, backed up by “fake news”, particularly when dealing with false flag terrorism on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, has never been a problem. Selling propaganda while controlling all media is easy.

It also emboldens perpetrators to acts of extreme cruelty and insanity. Calling it anything but that is mincing words. Who shoots down airliners for amusement? I can think of one nation, the United States, ask Iran.


Ukraine’s War and MH17


The media in the West reports nothing of Ukraine. So, when villages are shelled daily and the Kiev regime moves against Donbass and Luhansk, the breakaway republics, there is no reporting. Thus, when recent “findings” accuse Russia, we note two issues:

1. Ukraine is preparing for an invasion of the breakaway regions despite being a signatory to the Minsk peace accords.

2. The US is in political turmoil with a weakened president turning to “wag the dog” game playing, even to the point of risking global conflict.

The media in the West does report on Ukraine, but the reports are of the Dutch investigation into MH17. The Dutch are now saying that it was Russian forces that used a surface to air missile, operating from inside “rebel territory”, that shot down the airliner.

Russia not only denies this but states that the missiles that the Dutch claim were used had been out of service for years. Russia also asserts that they never stationed air defenses inside the breakaway republics and that the Dutch story is part of a propaganda offensive.

Thus, we question why this “edited and expanded” report from “the Dutch”, wrought with wild conspiracy theories and propaganda, why now?




It is vital to look at MH17 in light of newly accepted norms. In 2014, it was considered “conspiracy theory” to assert that a government, be it the US or nations such as Israel, might purposefully kill civilians or stage imaginary terror attacks to justify acts of military aggression as “self-defense” or “retaliation”.

Today it is generally accepted that not only is false flag terrorism, state-sponsored, used but that is the “go to” strategy used by the US, Israel, Britain, France, and Saudi Arabia.

In this light, particularly after the controversy over a series of incidents, the Skripal “poisoning” in Britain and the “White Helmets” role in staging Syrian gas attacks, MH17 must be revisited taking into account that shooting down a civilian airliner is something factions within Ukraine or even the US are not only capable of but more than willing to do as well.


The SU-25 Dilemma


On July 17 2017, a Malaysian Airlines plane crashed with 298 on board in Eastern Ukraine. It had been rerouted over a combat region by air traffic controllers in Kiev, according to a Spanish air traffic controller named “Carlos”.

Soon afterward, a media smear campaign against this individual began, claiming Russia paid him to lie. Part of his story was that two SU-25 aircraft operated by the Kiev regime had trailed the Malaysian Airlines Boeing.

Quashing this story, the SU-25 account, and anyone who examines or reports on it, has, as we will see, become a mission of utmost importance.


Radar Evidence Withheld


The US, operating an onshore AEGIS radar system that went “live” in 2013 (which the US now denies as well) could have confirmed or disproven any claims. The US has chosen not to release any information, not from AEGIS ships, including the USS Donald Cook, which was on station at the time, and their onshore system, which had previously been stationed in New Jersey after 9/11 to protect the American capitol from cruise missile attacks.

The US felt the AEGIS system and its Raytheon built partner system on two giant aerostat balloons was no longer needed to protect the US. This decision, in itself, is minimally bizarre at best.

With “Carlos” smeared and running for his life from Western intelligence agencies, Google Corporation began scrubbing all data on the SU-25 aircraft from the Internet. New articles were put up claiming the SU-25 couldn’t have flown high enough to shoot down an airliner. Those articles were fake and based on a configuration for the SU-25 that had no pilot oxygen system, something they failed to mention.

Lack of sufficient oxygen made high altitude flight impossible, of course, but the real issue of MH17 being downed in air combat is much more complicated.

This has been the major controversy, one suppressed, one censored, and one that opens doors to wider controversy.


Radar Spoofing and Terrorism


The following excerpt is taken from a Russia Today investigation featuring this author along with Russian pilots who flew the SU-25 in combat.

“Electronic countermeasure pods are no longer reliable source of information, so anyone who says the radar has identified a SU-25 aircraft in the MH17 tragedy is trying to mislead people, Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today newspaper, told RT:



RT: Though the preliminary results of the investigation into the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine won’t be known until July new theories of what happened appear every day. One claim is that the Boeing was brought down by an SU-25 fighter jet. But its chief designer has now told German media that’s impossible because it can’t fly high enough. What do you make of that?

Gordon Duff: The claim that it was an SU-25 is unsupportable. Since 2010, Nato has begun using electronic countermeasure pods. They are designed by Raytheon and BAE Systems. When attached to an aircraft, an SU-27, an SU-29 maybe even an F-15, these allow the backscattering – that is when you use radar, and this is what was said the radar identified as two SU-25 aircraft. Well, these pods that attach to any plane can make a plane look like an SU-25 when it’s not an SU-25 or a flock of birds or anything else. It’s a new version of poor man’s stealth … It’s called radar spoofing, so with radar spoofing, anyone who says they have identified an aircraft by radar is trying to mislead people because that’s no longer a reliable way of dealing with things.

If I could go on with the SU-25, the claimed service ceiling is based on the oxygen’s supply in the aircraft. Now there is a claim that this plane will only work to 22,000 feet. At the end of the World War Two, a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet. A P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack plane. The planes have almost identical performance except that the SU-25 is faster and more powerful. The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a different term, of the SU-25. And we don’t know whether the SU-25 was involved at all, we are only taking people’s word and people we don’t trust. But the absolute ceiling for the plane is 52,000 feet.

READ MORE: Could SU-25 fighter jet down a Boeing? Former pilots speak out on MH17 claims {1}

RT: Do you agree with the statement that “many more factors indicate that the Boeing 777 was hit by a ground-to-air missile that was launched from a Buk missile system”? How much technical expertise would it take to fire a Buk launcher?

GD: We’ve looked at this. I had an investigating team, examiners, which included aircraft investigation experts from the US including from the FAA, the FBI, and from the Airline Pilots Association. I also had one of our air traffic and air operational officers … with the Central Intelligence Agency look at this. And one of the things we settled is that in the middle of the day if this were a Buk missile the contrail would have been seen for fifty miles. The contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people; it would have been on Instagram, Twitter, all over YouTube. And no one saw it. You can’t fire a missile and on a flat area in a middle of the day leaving a smoke trail into the air and having everyone not see it. There is no reliable information supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by anyone. And then additionally we have a limited amount of information that Nato and the Dutch investigators have released, forensic information, and that is contradicted by other experts that have looked at things. We don’t have reliable information to deal with but the least possible thing, the one thing we can write off immediately – it wasn’t a ground-to-air missile because you simply can’t fire a missile in the middle of the day without thousands and thousands of people seeing it and filming it with camera phones.




Killing this Story


This interview alone, which included statements from Russian pilots, caused a major backlash, including a fake investigation {2} by “Prison Planet Investigation Services”, paid for, we learned, by the Bronfman organization, a Canadian based liquor conglomerate with ties to organized crime and Israeli intelligence. “Prison Planet” is also known, we learned, as “Stratfor”, called the “shadow CIA”, and is part of the InfoWars organization.

Prison Planet and InfoWars, for years, continually claimed Russia was operating military training camps inside the US and, at one time, claimed Russia had 20,000 troops planning to overthrow the US. Then, out of nowhere, they changed sides. From the Los Angeles Times, March 21 2017: “FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at Breitbart, InfoWars news sites” (McClatchy) {3}

But this report focuses on the FBI looking into right-wing websites like Breitbart and InfoWars to see if they played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories that favored Trump’s presidential bid.

The investigation accused Veterans Today of being owned by a Panama based crime cartel and laundering millions in Russian financing. A subsequent FBI and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS“) investigation, based on these assertions, found them fraudulent.


Where the Evidence Really Leads


One thing is totally clear, MH17 is a false flag operation planned by Western intelligence agencies to block Russian aid to the areas of Ukraine that have continued to hold out after what we may now freely call a Nato “military takeover”.

Ukraine had been doing poorly on the ground, with high losses and low military morale. The false flag attack was intended to justify Nato military aid to the, well let’s use the term, “breakaway region”. After all, it is Kiev that left Ukraine. This was not an acceptable transition of power, it was a military takeover. That much is clear today.

One direction was ignored, more than that quashed, evidence seized and suppressed. Josef Resch is a private investigator who has asserted he has had evidence that MH17 is a false flag. From Sputnik News 2016 {4}:



German and Swiss authorities have confiscated documents from private detective Josef Resch, who has been conducting his own investigation of the 2014 crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Dutch officials and media said Tuesday.

Investigators believe that some of the documents seized after last week’s raid on the detective’s home in Bad Schwartau, northern Germany, may shed light on the circumstances of the tragedy. Some of the papers are said to be “explosive” and could help determine the culprits.

According to De Telegraaf daily, the German detective began his own probe two months after the catastrophe, and has received some $19 million for his investigations. His generous clients remain unknown.

“We are hoping to get some information about this. That’s why the raids at his home were carried out”, the spokesman for the prosecution service, Wim De Bruin, told AFP.

The contents of Resch’s safe-deposit box in a bank in Zurich, Switzerland, were also inspected.

“We don’t actually know what was in the box. The Swiss judge must now decide if its contents can be handed over to Dutch officials”, the spokesman said.

He added that it is possible that the detective may have been in contact with the culprits.


Much more was suppressed than the contents of Resch’s files. There was another private German investigation that found evidence of both air-to-air missiles and air to air cannon fire on the wreckage of MH17. Their published evidence was compelling and, of course, ignored and scrubbed from the Internet.

Additional evidence presented by a Canadian aircraft “watcher” group that tracked a high-performance aircraft from Azerbaijan to the area of the MH17 crash, vectoring directly to “incident” site, has been suppressed also. It has been known for years that Azerbaijan allows Israeli drones and, according to defectors from the Azeri military, Israeli F-15s as well, to operate from their bases. From Veterans Today 2015 {5}:



Saturday, August 23, Colonel James Hanke appeared on Iranian television to discuss the downing of the drone and to answer questions. During that interview, Hanke, editor for Veterans Today and former Attache to Israel, highest ranking American operational intelligence officer ever to address an Iranian audience, denied US involvement in the attack.

“The US simply doesn’t have the ability to launch drones from ships in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean or from bases in the region. Everything is seen, observed and tracked, everything accountable and, at this moment in time, American and Israeli interests are far from in alignment. I suggest you ‘look to the north’ for the party responsible.”

Of course, Hanke, as he later explained to me, meant Azerbaijan. It was Hanke who helped identify two former Soviet fighter bases in Azerbaijan, as early as 2010, as a clandestine Israeli air base. In 2012, two Azerbaijani officers, defecting to Iran, reported of Israeli operations there including a drone base to be used against Iran.

Azerbaijan issued a formal apology but as reported by Republican Guard air defense command, the recent provocation did, as first reported by Hanke, originate from Azerbaijan.


An F-15 is capable of acting as air control and mission planning, based on its advance long-range radar. Israel has been a major supporter of the Kiev regime and has sent IDF forces to Ukraine to train militias and even participate in combat in support of Kiev.




MH17 is simply another false flag operation, this one aimed at Russia as have so many recently. Russia’s foreign ministry has begun addressing false flag terrorism and the US policy of staging terror attacks to blame on others after years of standing by silently.

This, of course, is a byproduct of Trump’s “wide open mouth” policy of attacking fake news and opening up possibilities that now seem to have turned against him. Trump not only has followed Obama’s policies against Russia, he has ramped them up notch after notch, using fake news, fake accusations and acts of real fake terrorism.

Now Trump is arming Ukraine to war on its own people, something that will draw Russia in to stop the slaughter. MH17 and the fake Dutch report is a ploy to frighten Russia off.

I don’t think it takes a genius to figure this out.








Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.

Wikipedia as Propaganda Not History

MH17 as an Example

by Eric Zuesse (July 08 2015)

Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.

On 15 August 2007, the BBC headlined “Wikipedia Shows CIA Page Edits” {1}, and Jonathan Fildes reported that, “An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organizations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries”. That is: What the CIA doesn’t like, they can (and do) eliminate or change.

More recently, on 25 June 2015, an anonymous Reddit poster, “moose”, listed and linked directly to eighteen different news reports {2}, in such media as New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek, reporting about Wikipedia edits that were supplied not only by the CIA but by other US Government offices, and by large corporations. That person opened with a news report which implicated Wikipedia itself, “Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits”, in which Wikipedia’s own corruption was discussed. Most of the other news reports there concerned unpaid edits by employees at CIA, congressional and British parliamentary offices, the DCRI (French equivalent of the US CIA), large corporations, self-interested individuals, and others. One article even concerned a report that “All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (“VGTRK“) changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that ‘The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers’ “.

Basically, Wikipedia has been revealed to be a river of “information” that’s polluted by so many self-interested sources as to be no more reliable than, say, New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek.

And that’s not reliable at all. For example, everybody knew in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction (“WMD“), because they had read it in such “news” sources. Consequently, even when Wikipedia links to those sorts of articles, it can be propagating lies. After all, The New York Times and Washington Post were stenographically “reporting” the lies from the White House as if those lies were truths (not challenging them at all); so, the fame of a publisher has nothing to do with the honesty (the integrity and carefulness) of its “news” reporting. Stenographic “news” reporting isn’t news-reporting; it is propaganda, no matter how famous and respected the “news” medium happens (unfortunately) to be. Some of the most unreliable “news” media have top prestige.

The Malaysian Airliner Over Ukraine

As an example: Wikipedia’s English-language article about the 17 July 2014 shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner is a shameless propaganda-piece by the US Government and its agents. Its (at present) 320 footnote-sources don’t include any of the many reports (virtually all in the foreign press) that present evidence the Ukrainian government shot down this airliner. Among the important issues that aren’t even raised, are: why was the Ukrainian government given veto-power over any final report which will be issued by the official four-nation MH17 investigating team: Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine? Why was Ukraine even included in this team to investigate a crime in which one of the two main suspects is the Ukrainian government itself?

Why was the presence of thirty-millimeter bullet-holes in the side-panel next to the pilot {3} not mentioned in this lengthy Wikipedia article? (If this plane had been brought down by only a missile, such as Wikipedia assumes, there wouldn’t be any bullet-holes – much less, hundreds of them, as there are.) Why was the first analysis of that side-panel {4} – which is the best and most reliable piece of evidence that exists about how this disaster actually happened – ignored altogether in the Wikipedia article? After all, that analysis of the side-panel has subsequently been further confirmed by other reliable evidence, all of which the article also ignores.

I have edited some Wikipedia articles, but I won’t edit the one on MH17: it’s too thoroughly rotten with speculative and other bad sources, so that it would need to be entirely rewritten – and bogus “evidence” removed from it – in order for the article to present an account that’s based upon the best evidence regarding each of its particulars. Wikipedia’s article is thoroughly based on anti-Russian propaganda; it might as well have been written by the CIA (like the case that was presented about “Saddam’s WMD” was).

Here {5} is the Wikipedia article, so that you can see what US propaganda says about the downing of MH17.

Here {6} is my latest article about the downing of the MH17.

Here {7} is my most comprehensive article reconstructing, on a best-evidence basis, how and why and who shot down this airliner.

The core of my case there is the same item of evidence to which Haisenko first called the public’s attention: that side-panel. I basically accept his reconstruction of how the plane came down, but I supplement it with additional evidence. Please click onto any link in the article, to see the evidence more fully analyzed, in the given linked-to source, wherever you have further questions that aren’t directly addressed in the article.

My articles present far fewer items of “evidence” than does the Wikipedia article because I exclude all but the most reliable evidence about any given detail. There is so much speculation that’s published, and so much bogus “evidence”; my guiding principle is, therefore, to rely only upon the least-speculative argument that refers to only the most-reliable, assuredly untampered-with, items of evidence. This is what one is supposed to do in a court of law; it’s the reason why judges are authorized to exclude from being presented to jurors any “evidence” that fails to meet modern legal/forensic standards of authenticity and reliability. It’s the only way that an unprejudiced verdict can even become possible. It’s the prerequisite to history, as opposed to mere myth.

That’s the contrast between my articles about the MH17 disaster and the 320 articles from which the Wikipedia article about MH17 is constructed. And it also separates my articles from Wikipedia’s article itself about the subject, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 17”. {8}

What’s especially wrong about the Wikipedia account is that it doesn’t even refer to the thirty-millimeter bullet holes in that side panel – evidence that is inconsistent with the US-Ukrainian account (Wikipedia’s account) of how this airliner was shot down. (Wikipedia’s article is instead obsessed with “a Buk missile launcher” – the theory of the case that’s pumped by America’s and Ukraine’s governments, and which is entirely inconsistent with such bullet-holes. You don’t get bullet-holes from 33,000+ feet away.) And the Wikipedia article also doesn’t refer to Peter Haisenko, the brilliant former Lufthansa pilot who first pointed out those bullet holes in the side-panel, and who noted that there wouldn’t be any, much less hundreds of, bullet-holes firing directly into the pilot’s body, if the only thing that had brought down this airliner was shrapnel from some missile fired from 33,000 feet below. You simply can’t target the pilot’s belly and pump perhaps a thousand bullets into it from 33,000 feet down. This side-panel decimates the American-Ukrainian theory of the case – and so decimates Wikipedia’s propagandistic article.

And why wasn’t the autopsy on the pilot {9} made public? Everyone needs to know what was inside that corpse. But Wikipedia and the “news” media show no interest in that crucial question, either.

We don’t live in a democracy. This is a dictatorship. The “news” media cannot be trusted by any intelligent and open-minded person. To find the truth, one (unfortunately) needs to investigate on one’s own and take the attitude that only the most solid evidence and the least speculative argument constitutes authentic history, on anything. All else – any casual trusting of the “news” media – is merely accepting lies and myths, which are designed to manipulate people (like when we invaded Iraq), instead of to inform them. There is more than ample reason to distrust the “news” media. And Wikipedia is just as manipulated as the rest.

We live now in a culture where lies and myths drown out truth {10}. In other words: we live in a dictatorship. That’s today’s USA. This is the reality, in which we live. And the Big Lie is: it’s not so. But the evidence sadly proves: it’s so; it clearly {11} is the case.














Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity.

Philip Cross Madness

Part Four

by Craig Murray – Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist (May 22 2018)

Mike Barson, keyboard player of the great ska group Madness, had his Wikipedia entry amended by “Philip Cross” to delete his membership of Momentum and interview with The Canary.

This apparently trivial incident raises an important question. How does the “Philip Cross” Wikipedia monitoring operation work? “Cross” ‘s systematic attack on Momentum and The Canary is a matter of record, and his twitter feed proves it is motivated by a visceral hatred of the anti-war movement. But how would “Cross” discover that a reference to Momentum had turned up somewhere as improbable as the page of a member of Madness?

To get this by Google just would not work – try it yourself if you don’t know it relates to Barson, to Madness, or anything about them. To do a daily Wikipedia site-specific Google search for the word Momentum might get you there after hours of effort. Are there tools within Wikipedia itself that could alert “Cross” to this sort of reference being added anywhere on Wikipedia, and if so are they available to the general public?

A number of people have opined in reply to my posts that the time spent to make all of Cross’s daily edits, as per the number of keystrokes, is not great. That ignores the colossal effort that goes into research and above all monitoring of Wikipedia by the “Philip Cross” operation.

Finally, this is an excellent example of the bias of Wikipedia. The information about Barson is totally true. He is a proud member of Momentum. It is also quite interesting and an important bit of his life. But according to Wikipedia’s pro-mainstream media (“MSM“) rules, “Philip Cross” can indeed delete it because the information is not from an MSM source. In the unlikely event of The Times or Telegraph ever writing about Barson’s Momentum membership, it would, of course, be in a hostile attack to which “Philip Cross” could then link.

I hope you are understanding the Jimmy Wales methodology by now.

So, to add to the mysteries of how “Philip Cross” works every waking hour never takes a single day off, and is followed on Twitter by few people but including half of Fleet Street, we can add the mystery of how he has omniscience of left-wing references appearing in unlikely places on Wikipedia. Go figure.

The “Philip Cross” MSM Promotion Operation

Part Three

by Craig Murray – Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist (May 21 2018)

“Philip Cross” has just 200 Twitter followers, but has more mainstream media (“MSM“) journalists following him than are to be found among my 42,300 twitter followers. Despite the fact a large majority of “Philip Cross’s” tweets are mere retweets, with Oliver Kamm and Nick Cohen most frequently retweeted. “Philip Cross” has never broken a news story and the few tweets which are not retweets contain no gems of expression or shrewd observation. In short, his twitter feed is extremely banal; there is literally nothing in it that might interest a journalist in particular. Do not take my word for it, judge for yourself.

Why then does James LeMesurier, founder of the “White Helmets”, follow Philip Cross on twitter? Why does ex-minister Tristram Hunt follow Philip Cross on Twitter? Why does Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon, follow Philip Cross on twitter?

Why then do so the following corporate and state journalists follow “Philip Cross” on twitter?

Oliver Kamm, Leader Writer The Times
Nick Cohen, Columnist The Guardian/Observer
Joan Smith, Columnist The Independent
Leslie Felperin, Film Columnist The Guardian
Kate Connolly, Foreign Correspondent The Guardian/Observer
Lisa O’Carroll, Brexit Correspondent The Guardian
James Bloodworth, Columnist The Independent
Cristina Criddle, BBC Radio 4 Today Programme
Sarah Baxter, Deputy Editor, The Sunday Times
Iain Watson, Political Correspondent, The BBC
Caroline Wheeler, Deputy Political Editor, The Sunday Times
Jennifer Chevalier, CBC ex-BBC
Dani Garavelli, Scotland on Sunday

Prominent Freelancers

Bonnie Greer (frequently in The Guardian)
Mason Boycott-Owen (The Guardian, New Statesman)
Marko Attila Hoare (The Guardian)
Kirsty Hughes
Guy Walters (BBC)
Paul Canning

Let me recap, The official story is that “Philip Cross” is an obscure and dedicated Wikipedia editor who edits every single day for five years. His twitter feed has never contained any “news”. Yet among the 160 followers he had last week before the media spotlight was turned upon him, were all these MSM journalists, many more than follow anyone but the most prominent individuals, more than follow an activist like me. Plus big figures like Sarah Brown, Tristram Hunt, and James Le Mesurier. What does this tell us about who Philip Cross is.

The largest single category of Philip Cross’s historic 160 followers is anti-left and anti-Corbyn twitter accounts, especially those that specialise in making accusations of antisemitism against left-wing or anti-war figures. These include:

UK Media Watch “promoting accurate coverage of Israel”; ALT Putin’s Capitalist Wealth “@medialenswipe”; Antinat; Jeremy Corbin Prime Minister; Jewish News; Anti-Nazis Utd [which thinks I am a Nazi]; Labour Against Anti-Semitism; Jews Against Jeremy Corbyn. A very much larger number of individual followers of “Philip Cross” have Twitter streams which predominantly consist of attacks on Jeremy Corbyn or the anti-war left in general, and of vociferous support for Israel. Of personal interest to me, there are at least seventeen of Philip Cross’s supporters who have made utterly unprovoked attacks on me on social media over the last twelve months.

So let us recap what we know. “Philip Cross” spends a quite astonishing amount of time on Wikipedia making malicious edits to the entries of anti-war or anti-corporate media figures, while at the same time polishing and protecting the Wikipedia profiles of corporate and state media figures. “Philip Cross” had done this obsessively for thirteen years and not had a single day off, even at Christmas, for five years.

“Philip Cross” is not very active on Twitter, mostly just retweeting, and as you would expect has therefore not had many followers. But an extraordinary percentage of that very limited number of followers are MSM journalists or senior Establishment figures. There is absolutely no reason on the face of his Twitter stream why Philip Cross would attract this particular type of following. His retweets are mostly of Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm, and his followership is concentrated in The Guardian and The Times, which nowadays have very similar neo-con agendas.

“Philip Cross”‘s own twitter stream makes no effort at all to hide the fact that he has the strongest of neo-conservative biases, hates the Left and anti-war movement, and strongly supports Israel. “He” is part of an active social media network trolling these views. The purpose of “his” continual Wikipedia editing could not be clearer. I suspect strongly that this particular Philip Cross twitter follower gives us a clue:

That is a twitter account founded by a collective of Guardian writers to attack MediaLens, whose Wikipedia entry “Philip Cross” has edited over 800 times. I suspect “Philip Cross” is a similar collective effort, which may hide behind the persona of a real-life individual called Philip Cross. The intention of this effort to denigrate and demean alternative media and anti-war figures through their Wikipedia entries, and at the same time to burnish the Wikipedia entries of mainstream media figures, is proven without doubt, as is the continued complicity of Wikipedia in enabling and defending the long-term operation.

Analysis of “Philip Cross” tweets:

Footnote: Since Philip Cross’s activity was brought into prominence throughout social media a few days ago, his Twitter followers have increased, mostly by people who dislike his activity wishing to keep an eye on him. I have disregarded these new followers, and it in no way diminishes my argument for trolls to point out that he now has left-wing followers as well.

Emma Barnett

A Classic “Philip Cross” Wikipedia Operation

by Craig Murray – Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist (May 21 2018)

High Tory, ex-Daily¬†Telegraph and Murdoch, expensive private school, Emma Barnett is BBC Politics’ rising star and stood in as host of the BBC flagship Marr programme on Sunday. She was there rude and aggressive to Labour’s Barry Gardiner. The “highlight” of her career so far was during the general election when on Radio 4 Women’s Hour she demanded instant top of the head recall of complicated figures from Jeremy Corbyn, a ploy the BBC never turns on the Tories.

The most interesting fact about Emma Barnett is that her exclusive private education was funded by her parents who were pimps and brothel keepers on a large scale, for which both were convicted {1}.

I know of no compelling evidence as to whether Barnett was, or was not, complicit in her parents’ activities, which financed her education into adulthood. But that this background is interesting and unusual is not in doubt. However the mainstream media’s image protector, “Philip Cross”, has been assiduous in, again and again, deleting the information about Barnett’s parents from Wikipedia {2}. Not only has Cross deleted the referenced information of her parents being brothel-keepers, he has repeatedly inserted the ludicrous euphemisms that her father was a “businessman” and her mother a “housewife”.

Cross has also deleted references to Barnett – who wrote for the Telegraph and then for Murdoch’s Times, being “right wing”. He has instead inserted claims that criticisms of Emma Barnett following her aggressive Corbyn interview were “anti-semitic”, in a classic Cross move to undermine any left-wing point. Naturally, he had references {3} from the Times and the Guardian – evidence-free articles – to back up these claims – and naturally from journalists whose Wikipedia pages Cross curates. You get the circle?

On 21 June 2017 editor Alfonz-kiki complained that Cross’s continual whitewashing of Barnett’s entry was by “paid PR”. He pointed out that he had references on her parents’ brothels from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. Alfonz-kiki is one of scores to have separately noticed and complained of Cross’s activities over years, but Cross has been defended by Wikipedia again and again and again.

Barnett is demonstrably right wing from her Murdoch and Telegraph columns. Her expensive private education – which got her where she is – was undeniably paid for by the proceeds of prostitution and by the trafficking in persons that led to the operation being closed down. But Philip Cross makes sure you can see none of that on Wikipedia.

In case you are saying that Cross is justified, Barnett’s parents’ activities were not her fault and ought not be on her Wikipedia page, let me remind you of one thing. The same “Philip Cross” edited my own Wikipedia page to state that my wife Nadira used to be a stripper, sourced to the Mail. Cross abuses family information, as all other information, to defame dissidents or to burnish Establishment defenders, not according to a moral code.





How Wikipedia Lies

by Eric Zuesse (April 20 2018)

Did you know that Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that on 11 September 2001 he, as President George W Bush’s brief stand-in during the 9/11 attacks that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, issued an order (and it was carried out) to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 while it was in the air near Pittsburgh? If what he said at the time was true, then the standard “historical” account of the plane’s having been brought down as a result of action by the passengers, would be concocted, not history at all.

Here is the video-clip of Vice President Cheney on 9/11, making this claim and explaining why he gave that order:

The Wikipedia article on Flight 93 {1} provides the standard account and fails even so much as just to mention the Vice President’s assertion and explanation that he provided on national TV at the time of the 9/11 events.

So, I edited the Wikipedia article by adding a sentence at the end of its opening paragraph, and by following that sentence with a brief second paragraph, and here is that entire two-sentence addition:


Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93, and explained why when asked about it by Chris Wallace of Fox News as shown in this film-clip:

Consequently, the account given below of what brought the plane down – an account inconsistent with what Cheney said – could be entirely false.


On the web browser that I was using, the addition showed as having been successfully made in the Wikipedia article. However, to be sure, I opened the URL in a different browser, and this time my addition was absent. I then went back to the “Edit” page” and this time to the “View history” page, and clicked there on “(talk)” and found this message, which I saw virtually immediately after I had thought that I had inserted the new information:


Hello, I’m Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions – specifically this edit to United Airlines Flight 93 – because it did not appear constructive.


No other explanation for blocking my addition was provided. “Shellwood” was there saying that mentioning, and linking to the video of Cheney saying, that allegation, which Cheney made on 9/11 about how Flight 93 came down, is not “constructive” to Wikipedia readers who want information about Flight 93.

Previously, even the BBC published the fact that Wikipedia is edited by the CIA {2}.

Anyone who reads the present article is hereby welcomed to try making the same addition to that Wikipedia article, and I hope that one of the readers here will be able to get it accepted by the editors of that site, so that Wikipedia can be made at least moderately trustworthy, on at least that one article. Perhaps if enough people try, then Wikipedia will come to recognize that Wikipedia’s modus operandum isn’t merely a very successful system of propaganda, but that it’s also something of a PR problem for Wikipedia, which they’ll need to do something about, if they’re to be able to survive (or at least retain their credibility) at all. Blocking inclusion in an article, of a fact that disproves part of the ‘history’ (and here the most important part) which is told in that article, is unacceptable in anyone’s eyes.

As of today, April 20th, the Wikipedia article on Flight 93 does make one, and only one, mention of Cheney:


Vice President Dick Cheney, in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center deep under the White House, upon learning of the premature crash, is reported to have said, “I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane” {3}.


The link there goes to a CNN article {4}, likewise published on 11 September 2001, which likewise presents Cheney as saying that he ordered the shoot-down of Flight 93:


After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.

“The vice president said yes again”, remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. “And the aide then asked a third time. He said, ‘Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?’ And the vice president – his voice got a little annoyed then – said, ‘I said yes’ “.


The phrase that Wikipedia is quoting from Cheney, “I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane”, appears later in that CNN article, out of context, when one of Cheney’s aides attributes the statement to Cheney, but, since CNN provided no context for it, no reader can intelligently interpret what it had been referring to, if, in fact, the aide did say that Cheney did say it.

Wikipedia grabbed that out-of-context, possibly apocryphal, Cheney-statement, and constructed their “history” of the plane’s crash, upon it, despite the fact that Cheney, on 9/11, clearly stated that he had ordered Flight 93 to be shot down, and that the order was executed – in other words: despite the fact that Wikipedia’s account of what brought that plane down is incontrovertibly false, even on the basis of the most reliable evidence that Wikipedia itself links to on that matter. Such a “history”x is fiction.

So: any reader at the Wikipedia article who clicks onto its sources, can easily know that though the Wikipedia article presents a “history” in which actions by passengers onboard Flight 93 caused the plane to crash there, that “history” is fake, not at all real (though some allegations in that Wikipedia article might happen to be true).

This means that only readers who click through to sources can even possibly come anywhere near to knowing anything that’s at all reliable about the history of our time. And, of course, the longer that any event recedes into history, the more immovably fixed the lies become as being “history”. We live actually in a world of lies. If modern “history” is fake, then ancient “history” is even more so. What about the Bible? What about even recently written “history” books?

If Wikipedia is the best that “the market” can come up with for “a free press” in a “democracy”, then democracy isn’t at all possible. Something vastly better than this is definitely needed. What’s displayed here isn’t democracy at all: it’s merely “democracy”. This means that all of the military invasions by “democratic” countries (such as America), against other countries, are the actions by dictatorships, not actions against dictatorships (as is always claimed).

The problem here, shown by Wikipedia’s hiding that the US Government shot down Flight 93, isn’t that the CIA edits Wikipedia, but that the Deep State, in effect, publishes Wikipedia. Readers of Wikipedia who, like I was, edit Wikipedia, are editing Wikipedia; but, “Shellwood” was Wikipedia. The censor who removed my addition of the key fact wasn’t “editing” Wikipedia, but represented Wikipedia itself. This is far grimmer than merely if the CIA edits Wikipedia. It’s more like the CIA is Wikipedia.

For more on the rot in Wikipedia, see {5}.

So, it’s actually rather easy to document that 1984 – the reality, and not merely the novel – has, indeed, arrived, in our time.

However, at least in our time, we possess – for the very first time in all of history – the ability to access, merely a click away, an allegation’s actual source, at least in articles such as the present one (since all sources here are linked). The people living in ancient times who were not themselves aristocrats (the people making the key governmental decisions) were unalterably 100% vulnerable to being deceived by aristocrats’ and clergies’ lies, deceived into doing whatever those decision-makers wanted to manipulate them into doing – such as “fighting for God and country!” Unfortunately, the percentage of today’s people who care enough to be skeptical of whatever other people are trying to sell, and to dig deeper than the mere assertions, even just to click onto a link, is too tiny for democracy to be able to function. Unless they become the majority, “democracy” will remain merely a word, not yet even near to being the reality, anywhere.

That, for example, explains why, despite common realities such as this {6}, “74% [of Americans] view Israel favorably, vs. 21% for Palestinian Authority” {7}. In order for the national aristocracy to control its mass of voters, it must first deceive its mass of voters; and, in America, they’re deceived, and have been so, for decades, at least {8}.











Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 {30}, and of Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity {31}.