Soros Goes All In Against Mark Zuckerberg With Trump-Facebook Conspiracy Theory

Billionaire George Soros is blaming Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg for helping President Trump win the 2016 election - completely ignoring that Trump's 2016 digital director (and 2020 campaign manager) Brad Parscale simply outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton's team when it came to social media.

"Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020," Soros writes in a Friday New York Times Op-Ed, recounting a private conversation he says he had last week at Davos in which he argued "here is a longstanding law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims. Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them."

Soros then claims that there appears to be "an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook" in which "Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media."

The 89-year-old Hungarian-born billionaire then argues that Parscale's statement that Facebook 'helped Mr. Trump' constitutes "the beginning of a special relationship."

Parscale, of course, was talking about the Trump campaign's use of Facebook - not the misleading conspiracy theory Soros is peddling. A quote from Soros's linked 'evidence' reveals just that:

Parscale said the Trump campaign used Facebook to reach clusters of rural voters, such as “15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for”.

“I started making ads that showed the bridge crumbling,” he said. “I can find the 1,500 people in one town that care about infrastructure. Now, that might be a voter that normally votes Democrat.” -The Guardian

Soros then points to Zuckerberg's September, 2019 Oval Office meeting with Trump, and subsequent comments made by the president, as more evidence of collusion.

He then writes:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/soros-goes-all-against-mark-zuckerberg-misleading-op-ed

US Policy of Confronting Both Russia and China Has Backfired, the Solution Is to Repair Relations With Russia

Almost exactly 116 years ago, in January 1904, Sir Halford Mackinder gave a lecture at the Royal Geographical Society. His paper, The Geographical Pivot of History, caused a sensation and marked the birth of geopolitics as an autonomous discipline. According to Mackinder, control over the Eurasian “World-Island” is the key to global hegemony. At its core is the “pivot area,” the Heartland, which extends from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic.

In 1919, in the immediate aftermath of the Great War, deeply concerned with what he saw as the need for an effective barrier of nations between Germany and Russia, Mackinder updated and summarized his theory as follows:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island controls the world.

Sir Halford’s Heartland model is a grand-theoretical concept par excellence. It is influential to this day, modifications notwithstanding. A notable early revisionist was Nicholas Spykman, whose 1942 book, America’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, sought to “develop a grand strategy for both war and peace based on the implications of its geographic location in the world.” In the Great Game of the late 19th century, Spykman wrote, Russian pressure from the Heartland was countered by British naval power, and it was America’s destiny to take over that role once World War II was over. Some months before the Battle of Stalingrad he thus wrote that a “Russian state from the Urals to the North Sea can be no great improvement over a German state from the North Sea to the Urals.”

For Spykman, the key to world politics was the coastal region bordering the Heartland which he called rimland. He changed Mackinder’s formula accordingly: “Who controls the rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”

Spykman died in 1943, but his ideas were reflected four years later in President Harry Truman’s “doctrine,” which George Kennan subsequently developed into the strategy of containment. Holding on to the western rimland from Norway across central Europe to Greece and Turkey, and to the Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian and Far Eastern segments of the Asian rimland, was the mainstay of America’s Cold War strategy in general, and the rationale behind the creation of NATO in 1949 in particular.

To a geopolitically attuned mind, this looked like a grand-scale reenactment of the anaconda strategy employed by the Union during the U.S. Civil War to slowly strangle the Confederacy. In the end, the U.S. duly strangled the Soviet beast, but containment turned into a massive rollback when the USSR disintegrated in 1991.

Just five years later, in 1996, NATO reached Russia’s Czarist borders. In 2004 it expanded almost to St. Petersburg. All along Ukraine had remained the glittering prize, the key to limiting Russia’s access to the Black Sea, and a potential geostrategic knife in southern Russia’s soft underbelly.

During the same period China was beginning to emerge as a major global power, and over the past decade as a peer rival of the United States. Its growing strength has world-historical implications. A key question of our time—thequestion, in fact—is whether the U.S. and China can manage their relations, in the years and decades to come, without a war.

An optimist would say that the challenge is manageable because it is not inherently insoluble, in the manner of Athens vs. Sparta, Rome vs. Carthage, or Hitler vs. Russia. China is expanding into the Asian Mediterranean because it is natural thing to do in geopolitical terms, regardless of the PRC regime’s party-political credentials.

A realist, on the other hand, may note that major wars almost invariably result from the confrontation between a status-quo power and a rising challenger. Graham Allison, for example, explored the potential of a replay of this scenario in his 2017 book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

https://russia-insider.com/en/us-policy-confronting-both-russia-and-china-has-backfired-solution-repair-relations-russia/ri28232

1/2

>>7994479

As for Central Asia, it seems that Russian policymakers consider the current balance of forces mutually advantageous. Chinese capital and technology boost the region’s economic prosperity and therefore political stability, which Russia can no longer provide by herself. Chinese politicians do not want to foment political unrest, and both sides seem content to work together in building a Chinese-Russian condominium between the Chinese-Tajik and Chinese-Kyrgyz borders in the east and the Caspian Sea in the west.

Russian decision-makers see no alternative to the Chinese bond. Bilateral relations have been accompanied by the development of a multilateral institutional framework, starting with the Shanghai Five (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan) in 1996, and the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation five years later. It is possible that a billion and a half Chinese will find Russia’s vast, de facto unpopulated, resource rich spaces between the Urals and the Pacific irresistibly alluring at some future date. That possibility will not influence either side’s grand-strategic calculus, however, for decades to come.

Implications for the U.S.

The Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy, presented almost exactly two years ago, envisages aggressive measures to counter Russia and China and instructs the military to refocus on Cold-War-style competition with them. It reflected the National Security Strategy unveiled in December 2017, which asserted that, “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.”

In reality, away from the groupthink inside the Beltway, America’s confrontation with China and Russia, which would entail the risk of war, is both unnecessary and avoidable. The “challenge” America faces from them is entirely dependent on the definition of her interests. In other words, it is in the eye of the beholder. The challenge of China and Russia to the U.S. is routinely misrepresented as far graver than it is. This is primarily due to the tendency of the foreign policy community and its corporate abettors to reject any traditionally structured hierarchy of U.S. interests.

2/2

The Coming Collapse of the House of Windsor and the Clash of ‘Two Christianities’

The last months have seen the most remarkable fissures breaking in the foundation of the House of Windsor whose austere image of duty and Christian morality have entirely broken down under a firestorm of scandals showcasing the culture of crime and degeneracy prevalent across the upper ranks of the empire. Scandal for royals by itself is nothing astounding. Hell, an entire tabloid industry has been built around it. What is exceptional is the amount of morally repugnant scandal breaking all at once and the systemic shock effect it has had on the institutions of the monarchy.

Earlier last year an international pedophilia ring patronized by royalty with tentacles across the elite of the western world came to light in extreme detail with the effect that Royal Prince Andrew has found himself “fired” from all positions of authority in order to live in a state of early retirement. To the horror of the royals, Andrew’s connection to Epstein has renewed interest in the earlier Jimmy Saville scandal which blew up after the TV show host’s death in 2011. At that moment hundreds pedophilia (and necrophilia) cases spanning decades was made public. The fact that Saville was a lifelong friend of both Princes Charles and Andrew alike was even more detrimental a fact than the Epstein connection.

For thinking people, these scandals have awakened a renewed interest in the truth of another crime arranged by the royal family over 20 years ago: The assassination of Princess Diana on August 31, 1997. The best exposition of the truth of this murder was presented in the 2011 documentary Unlawful Killing directed by Keith Allan and funded by Mohammed al Fayed (father of Dodi al Fayed). If you have not yet watched this film, I couldn’t recommend it more highly. Seriously… do it.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/02/01/the-coming-collapse-of-the-house-of-windsor-and-the-clash-of-two-christianities/