Lebanon vs Wonder Woman and Normalization with israel

The Lebanese government apparently is working on banning the hit movie “Wonder Woman” because the movie stars an israeli actress called Gal Gadot, who was also Miss israel 2004 and served in the israeli defense forces.

gal g

(She wrote that on FB during the israeli war on innocent civilians in Gaza)

According to the Daily Star:

“Highly anticipated DC Comics American superhero film ‘Wonder Woman’ will be banned in Lebanon, the state-run National News Agency reported Monday.

The movie’s casting, with the superhero played by Israeli actress Gal Gadot, prompted the Ministry of Economy and Commerce “to take necessary measures” to prevent the film’s screening in the country.

The ban is in alignment with Lebanon’s attempts to boycott supporters of Israel and Israeli-affiliated businesses”

This issue was also raised back then when the blockbuster movie “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice” – in which Gadot also plays the character of Wonder Woman – was showing in Lebanese theatres. Activists and advocates of the boycott of israel complained, and the Lebanese Ministry of Economy issued a statement (source in Arabic) in May 29, 2017 containing the following :

“the Ministry of Economy and Trade has already taken the necessary measures to ban the screening of Batman V Superman…by sending a letter to the General Directorate of Public Security on 13/3/2016 to take the necessary measures to prevent the screening of this film.”

But the screening did take place, the movie was shown in cinemas and I’ve watched it myself there (I had no idea there’s an israeli actress in it).


As for the Wonder Woman movie, the same statement issued by the Ministry states that

“The Ministry of Economy and Trade confirms that it has taken the necessary action to ban the screening of Wonder Woman… On 29/5/2017, a decree was prepared for the General Directorate of Public Security to take the necessary measures to prevent the screening of this film”.


Apparently, the Ministry took that decision after demands from the “Campaign To Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon” (who coordinate with BDS, according to their own website). According to a local newspaper (also in Arabic), this campaign sent a letter to the Bureau of Boycott of Israel (which is a part of the Ministry), urging it “to give this serious issue the attention it deserves”.

Let’s get some things straight. I’m not one of those who are screaming “omg censorship!!!!! 111”. Normalization with israel is a real problem that should be properly addressed and dealt with, and if the so-called “censorship” is the only way to prevent it, then I’m all for it. Some liberal youth in this country are going mad over the idea of banning Wonder Woman, for reasons like “i just wanna have fun and they wanna deprive me of it!!111”. They act as if Lebanon has turned into a Goddamn Nazi Germany where a “Big Brother-ish” government forbids artistic freedom. This youth apathy in this country is disgraceful, and if this was really about the fun and the movie, they could watch the movie online, the government can’t ban it from there now, can it? No, this isn’t about “fun” and “living life”, this is about looking liberal and hip and cool. While I do NOT oppose the ban like the liberal youth, my objection is to the contradictory way the problem of normalization in movies is being approached (apart from the issues I have with BDS, who have George Soros and the European Union behind them, infiltrating the support for Palestine).

In Wonder Woman, there’s an israeli actress, but the movie itself isn’t Zionist propaganda and has nothing to do with israel ! israel isn’t mentioned in the plot and there’s no Zionist brainwash or propaganda in the story whatsoever. Perhaps most people wouldn’t have known that the actress is israeli unless they google the actors, had no one made a fuss about her being an israeli.

Of course it is a mild form of normalization with israel when you watch Wonder Woman and look up to the badass empowering feminist character played by an israeli actress, who learned all this “badassery” and training in martial arts during her time in the IDF. However, there are other movies that have actual Zionist propaganda in their plot, they glorify israel directly, straight into the viewer’s face. They are pure brainwash. The movie World War Z is one of them. It would take another article to explain the pro israeli propaganda in it, check out the synopsis if you’re interested and see for yourself how this kind of propaganda is a part of the storyline and plot. Was it banned from the cinemas in Lebanon? No. However, some parts in it that are related to israel, not all, were censored during the screening in all the theaters. This left the viewers confused because, well, they missed a part of the story.


Why wasn’t this movie banned altogether? Why didn’t anyone consider banning it like they do with Wonder Woman? How come they want to ban a movie just because of an israeli actress with no mention of israel whatsoever in the story, while they let World War Z pass and consider it enough to cut out some of the israel parts? If they end up banning Wonder Woman from screening in cinemas here, I hope they take the same measure if a movie like World War Z comes out in the future.


An article was criticizing the government’s decision regarding Wonder Woman, asking

“What’s next, though? Banning every single movie that dares to be associated in any way with Israel? Banning every actor or actress who’s set foot in Israel? Deciding not to show any feature film that has any entity that remotely agrees with anything Israel does? Why don’t we just ban ourselves from everything commercial in the world and be done with it?

Natalie Portman was born in Israel. No one has a problem with her movies. I’m willing to be those same people calling for Wonder Woman’s ban were more than excited to see Portman in the Star Wars reboot, way back when.”

My answer to this is that Natalie Portman has a dual American/israeli citizenship and did not serve in the IDF. Gal Gadot did, on the other hand, as well as blatantly supported the israeli war against innocent Palestinian women and children in Gaza. That’s why they want to ban a movie in which she acts, and do not ban Black Swan or V For Vendetta for example for having Natalie Portman in them. I agree that we should not reduce our fight against normalization with israel to a matter of looking into the CV of every single actor and actress in a movie and then decide based on that, whether to ban the movie or not. It just makes no sense to ban a movie BECAUSE there’s an israeli actress (whether she served in the IDF or not) while the story has nothing to do with Zionism or israel, and not to ban a movie like World War Z which shoves israel right down your throat.

The solution is to set and clarify an actual standard by which to tell what movie fits exactly into the category of “normalization with israel”, and take action based on such a standard. This should be done by local initiatives, not BDS or interventions from “non-governmental organizations” with a foreign suspicious agenda. Of course, all this while keeping in mind that banning or censoring this or that movie limits normalization, but it won’t solve the Palestinian issue and rid the Palestinian people of the israeli occupation – the only way to achieve that is armed resistance.

UPDATE: They ended up officially banning the movie, based on a “Memorandum issued by the General Secretariat of the Arab League on 12/4/2016 on ‘Preventing the display of works of art in which Gadot is involved’ “, according to al-akhbar newspaper (Arabic). This is a BDS victory and I don’t support BDS. However, at least the IDF criminal won’t appear on our screens. So I won’t complain.

If you were so desperate to watch the film, watch it online and stop whining.

Feminists won’t spare this controversial event and will spill their poison at any chance. When they are not complaining about Wonder Woman’s armpits, they will scream that this isn’t about israel, this is about patriarchy, the movie was banned because it has a strong woman protagonist and the evil patriarchal government doesn’t want Lebanese women to get this empowering message, blah blah blah… Really? So basically Lebanese women can’t empower themselves by themselves, they need an idol wearing a cape to descend upon them from the sky and who is played by a Zionist IDF soldier and teach them empowerment? Give me a break.

Liberal youth: raging about this won’t make you à la mode. It makes you pathetic. Just. Stop.


Dear teenage girls, Hollywood celebs and liberals in general: keep crying over Obama.


Do you guys even understand politics ? Are you even interested in what’s going on with the world ? Or do you just stay in your small little bubble ? Keep crying over the Obama’s farewell. Keep fangirling over his photos with his wife and kids. Keep picturing him and Lady Obama as the “power couple” who fight for “social justice”. Why? Because he’s black, because he accepted gay marriage, because he’s “anti racist”.

Let’s face it, you are just like Jon Snow: you know nothing. While you kids say “goodbye Obama, goodbye justice, goodbye equality, goodbye sanity”, what would Syrian kids say? What would Libyan kids say? What would Yemeni kids say? What would Iraqi kids say? The answer is “goodbye bombs”.


I’m from Lebanon, and partly Syrian, I consider Syria as my second country. I can’t go there anymore because of the war. Syrian refugees came to Lebanon because of the war, and Lebanon doesn’t even have enough to sustain it’s own population, so how about other populations ?

Do you even watch the news ? Do you actually care about the third world or all this “anti racist” mumbo jumbo is just theatrics ? I’m not saying Trump would be any better. I’m just saying that when you mourn the Obama era, you tell the Syrian kids, the Libyan kids, and all the innocent people who are dying because of his wars that their lives do not matter.

But who cares ? Just go swoon over his photos with his wife.

Ecuadorian Politician/Activist Talks about Yasuni

Yes, I’m back. I know I’ve been neglecting this blog, unfortunately. So this is a follow up to this post.

To sum it all up (in case you don’t want to check the link), radical environmentalists have been accusing Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, of polluting the environment. Why? There’s an area in Ecuador called Yasuni, it is famous for having quiet a biodiversity of several rare species of fauna and flora, as well as its Native American inhabitants.

It happened that there’s also oil under it, and there was the dilemma facing the Ecuadorian government: preserve nature, or extract oil to boost the country’s economy (that basically relies on oil for its income)?

Then, president Correa came up with this plan called Yasuni ITT Initiative, in which the UN funds the country by half the estimated value of the oil under the Yasuni park (around $3.6 billion), by 2020 as a deadline, and in return, Ecuador “leaves the oil in the soil”. But this initiative failed, because governments of other countries weren’t cooperative. The Yasuni ITT Initiative was thus cancelled (in 2013) and oil drilling in that national park started, and environmentalists complained.

Now this Ecuadorian politician addressed this issue in an interview with an Arab channel, responding to the environmentalist claims about pollution in the drilling process.


Her name is Ivonne Abdel Baki (and yes she’s of Lebanese origin), and here are some background info about her to make sure that she’s more credible than those who call themselves”environmental activists” to address this topic:

  • Activist/environmentalist/former ambassador of Ecuador in USA
  • Former president of the Andean Parliament
  • UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for the Dialogue of Civilizations
  • Former minister of Foreign Trade Industry, Fisheries and Competitiveness
  • Primary negotiator and presidential envoy in the Yasuni ITT Initiative in 2007, appointed by Correa himself.

So she is an environmentalist, and also a practicing politician with experience, not some random tree-hugging vegan whining on the internet. Anyone with common sense would rather believe her in this matter.

This is the interview (in English with Arabic subtitles). In case you don’t want to watch all of it, at 9:35 she talks about Yasuni as follows:

“They are taking it (oil) but they are doing it in a very conscientious way, which I’m really very pleased to hear, that they are doing it in the way it should be done, with the latest technologies, with a lot of considerations (to the environment). The Yasuni will never die, it will always be there… They are doing it in a very unique way that it’s the latest technologies that will not effect the biodiversity that is in the park… The place is going to be staying, open for visitors, for tourism, but what we’re doing, what the government is doing now, which is very good, is that biodiversity that is over the ground…”

Q: “can we say now that Yasuni is in the clutches of oil companies?”

A: “No, we are getting the right people to do it and it’s the Ecuadorian government that is taking care of it, and we’re bringing, as I said, the technologies for doing it in the right way, instead of opening different places to drill the oil out. It would be done in one place, opening only one place, this is the technology that is being done now, newly, and then they will take the oil out and they will not pass it except for outside, from the river, take it to a place, instead of creating new roads, no roads”.

She also mentions that Ecuador is the only country in the world that gives priority to preserving nature in its constitution, in the very first chapter, which stresses on living in harmony with the environment, the indigenous people, and protecting “Pachamama” (Mother Earth in indigenous beliefs). So next time, before you scream “omg stop killing my Mother!!!1111”, take into consideration what actual environmental experts have to say, find out if the damage actually exists, before issuing judgement.

So this is the last post in 2016, see you next year!

An Answer to Emma Watson’s #HeForShe UN Speech

The full speech is here , and if you don’t feel like watching another western feminist backed by globalist NGOs, I will quote the most important points.

HeForShe Campaign Launch
Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

“This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN. We want to try to mobilize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for change. And, we don’t just want to talk about it. We want to try and make sure that it’s tangible.”

This, if anything, sounds sexist. As if men can’t be involved in any change and they need YOU and your UN to make them involved. Anyway, no human (whether man or woman) in his/her right mind would get themselves involved in modern feminism.

“I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago. And, the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”

Ah definitely it has to stop because modern feminism is a failure with all those brainwashed women who didn’t achieve anything in their life and resorted thus to blaming men for their own problems. So now this campaign of yours is to “update” feminism so that it involves brainwashed men as well, self-hating men, men who are made to feel guilty and blame themselves for the failure of those women.

“For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

*yawn* anyone can use google. We all know the literal definition of feminism. It sounds pretty nice in theory but in practice it turned to a bunch of man bashers and now it will involve a bunch of self-hating men as well thanks to Emma Watson and the UN.

“When I was 8, I was confused for being called bossy because I wanted to direct the plays that we would put on for our parents, but the boys were not.”

Ah you probably made up that story but let’s assume it’s true, it doesn’t make you “oppressed”.  If you were oppressed you wouldn’t be speaking at the UN, they only give voice to attention seeking rich celebrities like yourself to distract the people from the true problems the world is facing right now (see this to know about the agenda of celebrities who involve themselves in politics) . Being a woman doesn’t automatically place you among the oppressed people except in the identity politics nonsense, then Hillary Clinton would be oppressed as well and criticizing her would make one “sexist”(hello political correctness).

Now some white supremacist will come and say “she should see how women are oppressed in the Middle East, then she would shut up about oppression”. I’m a Middle Eastern woman and I’m not oppressed and if I were I’d solve my problems by myself. No, we don’t need your NGOs, your drones, or feminism, or liberalism or whatever poisonous ideology the west is willing to export to our countries. And what country in the Middle East oppresses women, Iran? Here is what you don’t hear in the (western) media about the situation of Iranian women.

“I decided that I was a feminist, and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists.”

…and that makes them traitors to the cause, right? Or they have, what is it called…”internalized misogyny”.

“Apparently, I’m among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, and anti-men. Unattractive, even.”

Too strong, no. Too aggressive, no. Attention seeking, yes.

“Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain, and I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts.”

I was about to give a lecture on how the wage gap is a myth because most of the times women simply choose jobs that do not get as much salary as the ones men usually choose but no, probably because Emma Watson knows the truth but truth doesn’t serve the feminist propaganda, so …

“I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body.”

When feminists says this, they mean abortion, probably. Even though in that issue it’s not just the woman’s body concerned, it’s also the body inside her, but who cares anyway when there’s the ego of a feminist involved.

Funny how many (right-wingers usually) blame socialism/communism over this feminist mumbo jumbo, because all I see in it is an egoistic liberal mentality of private property, selfishness, individualism and “MY body…MY choice…MY life…MY MY MY…ME ME ME…”

“I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect my life.”

And who says women aren’t involved in decision-making concerning their issues and all issues? I mean they do vote nowadays right?

“My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter…”

Finally, she admitted that she’s privileged not oppressed…

“…My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influences were the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists that are changing the world today. We need more of those.”

Um, nope. They aren’t feminists, they are just decent human beings with common sense, which you lack. Why do you like to label people and classify them as “feminist” and “non-feminist”. Feminism is an IDEOLOGY, following it doesn’t make one a decent person, and NOT following it doesn’t make one a bad person… And being a decent person doesn’t make one a feminist, and being a bad person doesn’t make one a non-feminist. Those feminists consider their ideology as religious extremism, if one doesn’t follow it (especially if she’s a woman) they scream “TRAITOR!”,”INFIDEL!”, etc… and they exactly act as a religious cult with ex-communication and so on.

“And if you still hate the word, it is not the word that is important. It’s the idea and the ambition behind it, because not all women have received the same rights I have. In fact, statistically, very few have.”

No, we don’t hate the word, because it sounds good in theory, but we do hate the idea and ambition behind it, which is seeking attention, spreading propaganda, intervening in foreign countries, destroying societies, destroying morals, encouraging promiscuity, promoting moral degeneracy, encouraging murder (abortion), hating men and also women who do not agree with you. Go back to Harry Potter.


“In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly, many of the things that she wanted to change are still true today.”

Hillary Clinton cares very much about women she even bombs them with drones…

“But what stood out for me the most was that less than thirty percent of the audience were male. How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?”

Well, let me tell you dear Emma Watson that maybe, just maybe, these women who attended felt OBLIGED to attend so that feminists like yourself won’t bash them and call them traitors. Men do not feel it as their “duty” to attend which if they do not do, they get “ex communicated”. But now you want to make it the duty of men as well… you want to expand the tyranny of the feminist cult to involve men as well.

“Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation.”

There you go.

“Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.”

Ok you do acknowledge that men are also oppressed but why do you call the campaign #HeForShe if so, if you claim that it is supposed to help both men and women? Why not #HeForSheAndSheForHe or just #EveryoneForEveryone? You try to lure men by addressing their problems but the name of the campaign says it all, you want men to hand women everything on a silver plate, I wouldn’t call this empowering for women at all. I’d call it sexist against both men and women and reassigning of gender roles instead of destroying them.

On the campaign’s official FB page the description is “UN Women’s Solidarity Movement for Gender Equality bringing together one half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity, for the benefit of all.”


It does NOT say the two halves should support each other. Instead, ONE (men) should support the other (women).

“We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.”

So according to you, men will only be free if they submit to servitude for women and join your campaign of “white knights“. So from what I understand, your ultimate goal is to free women, and freeing men from gender stereotypes is a mean not an end?

“If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”

Thus men should become controlled by self-absorbed women like yourself…

“I want men to take up this mantle so that their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free from prejudice, but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too, reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned, and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves.”

If it’s also for their sons, then, again, why did you call it HE for SHE?

“You might be thinking, “Who is this Harry Potter girl, and what is she doing speaking at the UN?” And, it’s a really good question. I’ve been asking myself the same thing.”

I’ll give you the answer – you’re spreading propaganda and promoting the UN.

“Because the reality is that if we do nothing, it will take seventy-five years, or for me to be nearly 100, before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work.”

*repeats herself* wage gap is a myth

“15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates, it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls can have a secondary education.”

Don’t pretend now that you care about African girls. The government of your country and all those of big western countries and the UN as well are the ones who oppressed Africans, men and women. You remind me of an Arabic poem verse which says “cure me with the disease itself”…

“If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists that I spoke of earlier, and for this, I applaud you.”

If you believe men should treat women like helpless children and damsels in distress, you might be some brainwashed simpleton, and for this, I applaud you…

“We are struggling for a uniting word, but the good news is, we have a uniting movement. It is called HeForShe. I invite you to step forward, to be seen and to ask yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?””

When people stop buying into this useless feminist crap, hopefully.


We can safely call Emma Watson the white Beyoncé. The latter pretends to empower women of color while investing in sweatshops, and Emma Watson is supposed to be an idol for white women.



Whether male or female, black or white, we can empower ourselves by ourselves, we don’t need a superwoman or a superman or an idol wearing a cape to descend on us from the sky and empower us, especially if they are a part of the Hollywood elite. Now if a leader comes from within the people and their aspirations I would gladly follow him/her, but not someone shoved down our throats by the UN, the ruling establishment and their media outlets.


Don’t follow leaders/activists whom the media and NGOs love, look for those who are defamed and hated, who knows, you might find the inspiration and empowerment you’re looking for in them.

Black Lives Do NOT Matter to Soros!

To begin with, some would get sensitive now and say “you’re not black so you have no right to criticize Black Lives Matter, otherwise you’re racist and you hate black people”. Well, yes, I’m not black or African American, but if telling the truth is racist then there’s no hope for the world we live in. Don’t think that there are only two sides: either pro-Black Lives Matter or a white supremacist.

APTOPIX Million Man March Anniversary
credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Show me a movement of black liberation from the black people, by the black people and for the black people (not from elite activists and liberal billionaires) then I would be the first one to support it.

So in the light of the recent events, there are suspicions that the “Black Lives Matter” movement is infiltrated, or the word that is often used is “co-opted”. To be clear, infiltrating or co-opting a movement means that the movement was originally genuine and grassroot, then it got hijacked by an outside factor which intervened and directed it to a different direction.


So is BLM co-opted / infiltrated or was it suspicious from the very beginning, since the days it was founded ? This movement, which started as supposedly a protest, a response, to the violence against African Americans, was founded by few black women. Let’s take a look at the background of some of these women, as well as that of other prominent BLM activists.

1. Alicia Garza: BLM co-founder. Activist and writer. Her writings were featured in The Guardian, Rolling Stone, and Huffington Post. She was awarded twice by the Harvey Milk Democratic Club (affiliated to the Democratic Party).

2. Opal Tometi: of Nigerian origin. BLM co-founder. Like Alicia Garza, her work was published in mainstream media outlets such as Time Magazine and Huffington Post. She participated with the UN’s “Global Forum on Migration” and “Commission on the Status of Women”. In 2013, she was invited to the White House to meet Heather Foster, Obama’s liaison on African American community. She runs “Black Alliance for Just Immigration”, which received $100,000 from the one and only one, George Soros, through his Open Society Foundations, in 2011.

Soros is the billionaire who is famous for for funding activists, NGOs and civil society organizations that caused protests and unrest in countries all over the world. He funded several BLM organizations such as “Organisation for Black Struggle” and “Dream Defenders”. Moreover, “Colorlines“, an online magazine which highly promoted BLM through social media, received from Soros $200,000 . Colorlines is issued by a research center called Race Foward (formerly known as Applied Research Center), which one of its board members was awarded by Soros’ “Open Society Foundations”.


3. Patrisse Cullors: Another BLM co-founder and activist. Works for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (on its list of donors you find Soros’ “Open Society Foundations”) as a “Director of Special Projects“. She and the other two BLM co-founders (Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi) were runners-up in 2015 for “The Person of the Year” of a magazine called “The Advocate” (an evil witch is on the mag cover on WikiPic) along with other elite celebrity figures involved with LGBT activism such as Miley Cyrus and Caitlyn Jenner.

From left to right: Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi

4. Johnetta Elzie: BLM activist, and Amnesty International field organizer. Yep, the same Soros-backed Amnesty International. She also co-edits the protest newsletter called “This Is The Movement” along with fellow BLM activist Deray McKesson.

5. Deray McKesson: BLM activist. He met Bernie Sanders and went to a Hillary Clinton rally. Not judging anyone here, but a supposed revolutionary would be aware enough that Hillary Clinton has nothing good to offer neither to the African American community nor to anyone except her elite friends. Back to Deray; Yale invited him as a guest lecturer on “Transformational Leadership”. The name of the course itself is suspicious. Recruiting NGO activists usually takes place at universities, as well as training them to be “leaders” and active in civil society. “Fabricating” and training student activists in such “laboratories” is typical nowadays, so instead of having leaders, or activists who emerge out of the aspirations of their own local community, we have faux-leaders and faux-activists emerging out of establishment NGOs aspirations. McKesson worked for “Teach For America“, an organization which basically recruits graduates to become teachers. If you skim through its list of donors you’ll come across some jaw-dropping names of big capitalist corporations and elite foundations such as Chevron, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Monsanto Fund, and… Goldman Sachs.

6. Shaun King: another BLM activist. Like Deray McKesson, he’s also a big fan of the Democratic Party. He launched “Justice Together” in 2015, whose board includes Deray McKesson as well as people from the Rockfeller Foundation.

So, we basically have BLM founders and activists invited to the White House, participated in UN programs, promoted by elite media such as The Guardian, Rolling Stone etc, worked for “non-profit” organizations financed by the big corporations and/or by Soros, praised by university corporates as “transformational leaders”, promoting and promoted by the Democratic Party, as well as BLM organizations and media outlets themselves receiving funds from Soros. Such a movement that has dubious connections could not be much of the radical anti-establishment group we wished for.

The famous African American activist Assata Shakur, who BLM consider as an idol (or claim to do so), is wanted by the US government and accused by it of murder. She is NOT promoted in mainstream media, she’s denounced instead. She’s NOT invited to meet officials or presidential candidates; those see her as a criminal, and even a terrorist. Rulers and their media hate and defame true radicals, not promote them!

One of those women is Aurielle Lucier (BLM activist). The other is a witch whose name I don’t remember. Also the “fist” sign makes one look rebellious and cool 

“Radical leftists” not so radical, after all. In short, controlled opposition. Black Lives Matter? More like Soros’ Dollars Matter. Not exactly saying that there are no good people whatsoever in this movement with good intentions. I’m sure there are, and they’re there because they got their hopes up about the movement not knowing who is behind it. So no, BLM is not “infiltrated”, however, it infiltrates.

What’s more shocking is that an israeli version of BLM, in israel, protested, in opposition to police brutality there against Jewish black people, at the same time when BLM protests erupted in Baltimore, USA.


Definitely black people in israel aren’t as privileged as white Ashkenazi Jews, but they’re both occupying the land of the Palestinians to which they have no right! So what about Palestinian lives? Don’t they matter? Even let’s not forget that African Americans as well are on a land which is not theirs, just like white Americans, the land is for the natives, the difference is that the ancestors of African Americans came there against their own will, as slaves.

So why did Soros and his globalist friends make such a movement emerge? Does Soros actually have compassion for black people and wants to help them get out of their suffering? Definitely no. Soros & Co do not care about African Americans. Black lives do not matter for them, and will never matter! Soros has an agenda which he wants to achieve through BLM. What is this agenda?

Probably US government is afraid. Afraid that a true movement for black liberation would come out and challenge them. So they and Soros created a movement which claims the cause and at the same time is supported by mainstream liberals. They want to infiltrate the black community, and their struggle for liberation, with movements and organizations similar to those who caused the “Arab Spring”.


And BLM aren’t really clear about their goals. Like, if their goal is to end police brutality, then let’s face it, police brutality is not only a problem of black people, white people also suffer from it especially if they are poor or homeless, also other ethnicities like Hispanics. So why only oppose police brutality against blacks, why not oppose police brutality against EVERYONE? And why not focus on other aspects in which black people are oppressed? Definitely they have other problems that are as important as police brutality (which isn’t the problem of them alone).


Moreover, one of the BLM organizations created the slogan “hands up, don’t shoot”. I do have issues with the BDS-ish “nonviolent resistance” and “civil disobedience”, however, if BLM claim to follow such a norm then why do they promote the thug life and gangster culture? This kind of culture is NOT revolutionary armed resistance, it is a stereotype created by the media to brand black people, so why embrace the stereotype, why not fight it? Malcolm X must be turning in his grave right now.


And sometimes the movement goes into extremes and turns to hating white people altogether. It could be a reaction to the racism existing in the US society, but blind reactions lead the cause nowhere. How would you solve racism with more racism? Especially, as mentioned before, that there are white people who are also oppressed, by the police. Instead of people of all races uniting against the government, they fight because of their skin color. Well done Soros, with the divide-and-conquer method.


So I’ll address this issue because I noticed that only right-wing and alt-right websites are complaining about it (for example here), and anyone who reads this blog would know that it supports neither right-wing nor alt-right, and someone other than them should talk about this. Basically, Soros Dollars Matter decided to antagonize the so-called “Western-prescribed nuclear family”.  In the “Guiding Principles” section of their official website, in the “Black Villages” part, they consider their goal as follows:

“We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”

Yes, the nuclear family living alone is a western thing, a tribe living together is the African thing, but this tribe * is * formed of a bunch of nuclear families, with mother, father and kids, so you can’t revive the tribal system if you dismantle the nuclear family and form some hippie-dippie communes. It’s really difficult to revive it and you solve nothing by “disrupting the western nuclear family structure”. The white and black elite in the US already stereotype poor black people and then enforce those stereotypes on them in their lives: thug life, drugs, gangs, family disintegration, moral degeneracy… and BLM is doing the same, promoting all this, but they do it under the pretext of “liberation”, because BLM ARE from the elite, by the elite and for the elite, and if you think otherwise then – sorry to break it to you – you’re brainwashed by the elite.


BDS are infiltrators to the Palestinian cause!

For those who don’t know what BDS is (though it’s hard not to know, they’re quite popular among activists), it’s an acronym for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”. It is a campaign formed of several groups, NGOs, civil society organizations, who claim that they support the Palestinian cause by the way of “non-violent resistance”. What does that mean? Probably the idea comes from Gandhi, or the civil disobedience of Henry David Thoreau, or Gene Sharp (whose writings on “peaceful protesting” are considered as holy scripture for Otpor/CANVAS Institute which trains activists in “nonviolent protesting” from all over the world). In this case, concerning BDS, it means pressuring israel to end its “racist apartheid policies against Palestinians” by peaceful means, such as imposing economic sanctions, asking companies to withdraw their investments in israel, asking bands/singers to cancel their concerts in israel, asking academics not to lecture in israel, boycotting israeli products, boycotting brands/corporations that support israel, etc…


According to BDS, this method was followed against the apartheid regime in South Africa and it succeeded in pressuring it to end the apartheid system, so it should be applied to israel now. So what’s the problem with BDS and why are they infiltrators? It’s enough to say that its groups are funded by the businessman George Soros (who is famous for funding “activists” who caused destabilization in several countries where the governments stand in the way of US spreading its neo-liberalism everywhere) and by the EU as well. Proof on all that? Here, in a previous post :

AVAAZ partnered with one of the groups of the BDS (Jewish Voice For Peace) on a $100000 campaign… Electronic Intifada; another member of the BDS network, is also financed by Soros and by the European Union.
The Institute For Middle East Understanding (also financed by Soros) supports and promotes BDS and its website designer, Nigel Parry, is one of the founders of the Electronic Intifada website.

Info found on NGO Monitor

I know the source I used is far-right israeli, but why doesn’t BDS deny the info there if it isn’t true? Why don’t they disclose their financiers and be transparent? And as a movement, BDS basically contradicts itself several times.


First, they consider that the “racist apartheid regime” in israel should end and then the whole issue of the Palestinian-israeli conflict would be solved. What is wrong with this is that what is happening to Palestinians is not “racism” or “apartheid” from the state of israel, it’s much worse than that – it’s genocide. By calling it apartheid, BDS trivializes all what the Palestinians are suffering from; all the occupation, genocide and crimes against humanity, and reducing them to a simple problem of apartheid and racial discrimination. So how about “end genocide” or “end occupation” instead of “end apartheid”? But no, this way the Soros and EU funding would stop and many faux-leftist activists would stop supporting BDS.

Also, post-apartheid South Africa isn’t really what we should want Palestine to become: South Africa still has a lot of security problems and racial conflicts as well – so if you think it’s the socialist utopia of equality, think again. Also, BDS is actually implying that the conflict in Palestine is between two groups of people (white people and people of color, or Jews and Muslims) which is not true. Palestinians are NOT an oppressed group or minority within a society like women or LGBTs or ethnic/religious minorities, they are the original citizens who got expelled from their homes and their country, and subjected to genocide. Applying the “identity politics” mess to the Palestinian cause makes no sense since it’s a humanitarian cause, neither an ethnic nor religious conflict.

“Identity Politics” should not be applied to anything; it is poison, fanaticism and racism, but BDS adopts it. Here is the BDS founder saying he “won’t take lecture from a white person” and that whites are the most violent race because of colonialism and World Wars… It may be a surprise to him but whites have also been subjected to genocide (The Irish? The Armenians?); not everything is about race and identity politics… Didn’t he mention the Holocaust as an example of white violence as well? Its victims were also white. And I know white people who are more genuine supporters of Palestine than him. And him not being lectured by a white person is a lie; Soros and the EU are all white people you know…

BDS activists also take pride in “teaching” Palestinians about resistance through boycotting. For example, BDS activists here in Lebanon go to Palestinian refugee camps and teach kids there about boycott. Boycott what, I have no idea… No israeli goods in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and definitely no Starbucks, no McDonald’s, or any of those corporations that support israel…


So let’s get this straight – a European/American activist, or an Arab from the intellectual elite of educated faux-leftist activists, comes to educate the Palestinians about their own cause? The Palestinian people live their cause everyday! Whether they’re in the occupied territories, or Gaza, or West Bank, or abroad in refugee camps, their daily struggle for life is resistance. Their strong will to overcome the challenge is resistance. Their keeping of the keys of their original homes in Palestine so that they might return to them one day is resistance. They resist everyday by all means available to them. With a paper and a pen, with a stone, with a weapon, with whatever their hands can reach. So it’s not for you, hipster coffee-shop activist, to lecture them about resistance. Instead, the right thing to do is to sit with them, listen to them and learn from them.

Do I sound hypocritical? I criticized above the BDS founder for saying he “won’t get lectured by a white person” and then I myself say that European/American activists should not lecture Palestinians… what I meant is that those activists (and also Arab intellectual activists, not just foreigners) should not lecture (about boycott and “peaceful resistance” and all those buzzwords) Palestinians who suffer from the israeli occupation of their country and struggle everyday in their life: Palestinians who got kicked out of their homes, Palestinians who had their families murdered in cold blood right in front of their eyes, Palestinians who live in refugee camps abroad with horrible life conditions, Palestinians who live under siege in Gaza…Now tell me how is the BDS founder himself suffering from israeli occupation like the rest of the Palestinians? He gets money from foreign funders, belongs to the Arab intellectual elite, probably sits in air-conditioned rooms along with other salon-revolutionaries and coffee-shop leftists and they all discuss pseudo-Marxist mumbo jumbo. He was being racist and he doesn’t represent the Palestinian people in any way. And if you’re a “white person” who is wholeheartedly a supporter of Palestine (because it’s a humanitarian cause, not because it brings you foreign funding) then you have the floor to lecture him or any other Arab/Palestinian activist of this kind.

And now this is where BDS contradict themselves and do not clarify their priorities. They don’t support the two-state solution, they support the one state solution. And no, this “one state” is not a free Palestine, but a multicultural israel where Arabs have “equal rights” as Jews (as if “equal rights” could compensate for all the stolen lands and all the innocent people who were victims of the genocide).

Also, BDS state on their official website that they want israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied in 1976.


But if they’re in favor of the one state solution (which is israel, where Palestinians have equal rights as the rest of citizens) then what happens to the lands occupied in 1967 after israel withdraws as BDS wants? Since BDS doesn’t consider that those lands should become a Palestinian state on their own (BDS say no to two-state solution), should those lands have a kind of a local autonomy within the state of israel? Would Jordan annex them? BDS are not clear about that.

What is even more shocking is that the co-founder of Electronic Intifada (one of the biggest and most important BDS groups) suggested here that Israel should fully annex the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967:

“Given these realities, “The worst solution … is apparently the right one: a binational state, full annexation, full citizenship” in the words of settler activist and former Netanyahu aide Uri Elitzur.

This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government’s effort to “solve” the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands — bantustans — had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider “reform” proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress’ demands for a universal franchise — one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa. The reforms began with the 1984 introduction of a tricameral parliament with separate chambers for whites, coloreds and Indians (none for blacks), with whites retaining overall control.

Until almost the end of the apartheid system, polls showed the vast majority of whites rejected a universal franchise, but were prepared to concede some form of power-sharing with the black majority as long as whites retained a veto over key decisions. The important point, as I have argued previously, is that one could not predict the final outcome of the negotiations that eventually brought about a fully democratic South Africa in 1994, based on what the white public and elites said they were prepared to accept.”

One gets lost this way – what do BDSers want? israel withdrawing from 1967 territories or annexing them? You can’t have both at the same time, BDS.

And in that same article he seems to be giving israel instructions which help it gain legitimacy:

“Of course Israeli Jews still retain an enormous power advantage over Palestinians which, while eroding, is likely to last for some time. Israel’s main advantage is a near monopoly on the means of violence, guaranteed by the United States. But legitimacy and stability cannot be gained by reliance on brute force — this is the lesson that is starting to sink in among some Israelis as the country is increasingly isolated after its attacks on Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Legitimacy can only come from a just and equitable political settlement.”

Meanwhile, the official FB page of BDS says something totally different than what is written on their website (about demanding israel to end occupation of lands occupied in 1967)…


Let’s get this straight – on their website, they say israel should end occupation only in 1967 lands, but on FB, in ALL Arab lands… I know what you would think now, that it might just be a simple mistake and no need to make a big deal out of it. It could be either unintentional or intentional. If unintentional, then organizations which do not have their goals clear and unified are definitely ineffective and useless. If intentional then I’m sorry to say they are fooling people into supporting them based on their FB statement that all Arab lands should be freed, while their real purpose is that israel remains where it is but only withdraws from 1967 lands (and one of their activists contradicts this and says israel should “annex” those lands). This way BDS attracts and gains genuine supporters of a free Palestine who read only its FB page and are blind to its true intentions and think it supports a free Palestine, while at the same time it keeps its faux-leftist, faux-Marxist supporters who scream Identity Politics postmodern-ish gibberish and who want israel to stay and give “equal rights” to Palestinians and only end occupation in 1967 lands. If I remember well, this thing (gathering genuine well intentioned activists together with false ones) has a name: it’s called INFILTRATION.

And on the basis of cultural boycott of israel, they are so busy shunning foreign bands and singers who play in israel (such as herehere and here) and who most probably have no idea about what’s happening in the region; who don’t do anything political in israel, just go play a show there then leave… BDS should shun and denounce those instead:

  • Western governments who support israel politically or financially or of any kind and thus take part in the crime
  • Arab governments who denounce the resistance against israel and label it as “terrorism” and have diplomatic ties with israel

And the latest BDS campaign is targeting the hit movie “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice”… why? Because there’s an israeli actress in it who played the character of Wonder Woman. This actress was Miss Israel 2004 and served in both the israeli defense forces and the israeli army. BDSers objected to showing a movie in which there’s an israeli actress who openly supported the israeli war on Gaza .

But while BDS is busy calling for a ban on a movie with an israeli actress, do they know what movie is showing in theaters in Lebanon now? Son of Saul. It’s about an Auschwitz prisoner. Now this movie has an agenda, to show the Jews as victims so that people would think since Jews were oppressed in the past, they (Jews) are entitled the right to occupy Palestine and inflict genocide on Palestinians. This is why the media’s favorite thing is to show the horrors of Nazi Germany and the suffering of the Jews in it. When people sympathize with Jews, they would excuse israel’s horrible occupation and label anyone against it as “anti-semitic”. In short, this movie is propaganda (and it’s not the only movie like that, I can list many movies with similar messages). This movie is blatant brainwash straight in your face. It is not like “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice”; the latter is a movie with an israeli actress and many viewers wouldn’t even know there’s an israeli actress unless they google the cast; no propaganda or brainwash (all Hollywood is propaganda if you ask me, but the topic here is the Palestinian-israeli conflict and the hit movie itself has no propaganda of that kind) while Son of Saul is what should really worry BDS if they actually believe in all the boycott mumbo jumbo which they call for. But tell them that Son of Saul is propaganda; they’ll label you as an “anti-semitic”.

There is nothing wrong with boycott as a concept. If you boycott israeli products or don’t go to McDonald’s or don’t go to a show of a band who played in israel, it’s your choice, as long as you know that all this would help you more than help the Palestinians… If you don’t buy israeli dates or oranges from a supermarket this won’t put “pressure on israel to end racist policies”… remember, israel gets tons of aid and material and financial support from your own government, so “economic sanctions” and “cultural boycott” won’t matter to the zionist state and won’t pressure it. What might help the Palestinians is that you protest against your government’s support of israel and when the election comes, you do not vote for politicians who are pro-israel (this is hard in the US because all candidates are, but whenever it is possible…)


Solidarity with Dilma Rousseff and Lula Da Silva against a “Brazilian Spring”



Let’s face it, European left (and even the Lebanese left) sold out to rich businessmen and corporate NGOs – but not the Latin American left. However, those NGOs, rich businessmen and whoever controls them are NOT pleased that the leftist movement in Latin America is a genuine grassroot movement that opposes US government’s domination over the countries’ resources, economy and policies.

That’s why the operations started to undermine the “Pink Tide“. Huge propaganda from the opposition-controlled media in Venezuela against the ruling left-wing party PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) lead to the victory of the opposition in the latest parliamentary election in December 2015. That was the first time in 16 years in which the Venezuelan opposition wins over the leftist ruling party in the parliamentary elections.

In Bolivia, the majority voted (in a recent referendum) against the current leftist president Evo Morales running for re-election in 2019. In Argentina, after 8 years of the leftist rule of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a right-wing president was elected in December 2015. Is all this to show that the end of the “Pink Tide” begun?


The answer to this question remains open. However, it seems that the turn of the largest country in the continent finally came. It appears that the Brazilian opposition won’t even let the president Dilma Rousseff (of the Workers’ Party) continue her presidential term, same as the Venezuelan right-wing not wanting to let the president Nicolas Maduro continue his term in the presidential office (having a majority in the parliament is not enough for them).


The opposition, as usual, uses its most strategic weapon: the media. The Brazilian right-wing media has been linking Rousseff, as well as the ex-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (also from the ruling Workers’ Party) to a corruption scandal. Both of them have been demonized without any proof against them. Despite that some other politicians of the opposition are also suspected to be involved in that scandal, the media only focuses on Rousseff, da Silva and the Workers’ Party.

Then, president Rousseff appointed da Silva as chief of staff, and opponents suspected that she did this so that he can get away with impunity, though he could still be subjected to the authority of the Brazilian Supreme Court.

anti-government protests in Brazil (image source)

Protests erupted against the ruling party, with coverage from mainstream and western media of course. If those protests were really anti-corruption they would have held ALL those who are suspected to be involved in the scandal as accountable, instead of accusing the president without a proof. Those protests are clearly politically-motivated and have nothing to do with fighting corruption. This won’t be the first time in which the fight against corruption is used for dubious political purposes. Corruption is something which exists in many countries and should be combated by the people within the country, and by reforms, not through protests (stirred by a suspicious agenda from the media) which might turn into a military coup, to bring a government of dictatorship to power which contributes to transform the Latin continent into a “backyard” of the USA as it used to be in the past.

Having opposition parties is necessary for any democratic country. But sometimes there is “opposition” that is not aiming for the benefit of the country but for serving US agenda, and if it is allowed to carry out its activities (that are funded by multi-millionaires and backed by foreign NGOs and think tanks), it might lead the country to end up like Syria or Libya. Brazilians definitely don’t want their country to end up like that.

What is going on in Brazil is a part of a planned attack against the spread of leftist governments in that area. The remaining left-wing governments there must be able to withstand the challenge so that Latin America would remain anti-imperialist.

Say NO to an “Arab Spring” in Brazil! Say no to “regime change” because that change won’t be to the better!