Friday, April 29, 2016
"Geneticist Reveals The Invention of the "Jewish" People"
Originally shared by H George Tavakoli
"Geneticist Reveals The Invention of the "Jewish" People"
They are not the chosen one that simple
"Eastern and Central European Jews comprise the largest group of contemporary Jews, accounting for approximately
90% of over 13 million worldwide Jews. Eastern European Jews made up over 90% of European Jews before World War II."
"Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. very largely destroyed prevailing genetic theory concerning the origin of eastern European “Ashkenazi” Jews -- roughly three quarters of Jews in the world today. In his groundbreaking article “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses,” published in the prestigious scientific journal Genome Biology and Evolution, Elhaik reported the results of his first major study of Ashkenazim genetics. He said the genetic evidence indicates the roots of most “Jews” today are to be found in the east, in the ancient kingdom of Khazaria, converted to Judaism in the 8th century AD. So compelling is Elhaik’s research that the scientific community remains stunned."
"This is explosive in its potential. Indeed, he is able to determine through genetic tests that DNA within ancient Khazar bones generally corresponds to DNA within modern eastern European Jews, settling with finality that most "Jews" today are descended from an 8th century A.D. Eurasian nation of traders and warriors, not Abraham.
The prevailing “Rhineland Hypothesis” of Ashkenazim origins, led by geneticist Dr. Harry Ostrer of New York’s Yeshivah University, asserts that the large Ashkenazim populations of Poland and Russia got there primarily from Germany in the west beginning in about the 16th century A.D. Ostrer claims that genetic evidence indicates a Middle Eastern origin for Ashkenazi Jews. Elhaik has requested the genetic data upon which Ostrer makes this claim but says Ostrer will not share it with him. Such non-cooperation lends even more credibility to Elhaik’s thesis, which agrees with Arthur Koestler’s book, The Thirteenth Tribe, that a million Khazarians, fleeing the invading Mongols, migrated west from their home in the Caucasus to Poland beginning in the 13th century A.D. There, these Gentile converts to Judaism created what most people think of as “Jews” today."
"It confirms the Old Testament prediction that because of the continuing sin of the Hebrews God would curse them to be a very small nation (Deut. 28:62) that would come under the rulership of “aliens” (Deut. 28:33). This has been fulfilled by the Khazar infusion, which has very largely taken over Judaism, shrinking authentic Jews to a minority. In Israel these have been historically discriminated against by the "alien" Khazar ruling majority."
"Zionism and the state of Israel came into being because of energies of Khazar/Ashkenazim Jews of Germany, Poland and Russia. Convincing the world in 1948 that they were descendants of Abraham, they intended to drive out not just 800,000 Palestinians but all of them. The intervention of the Arab legions and the 1948 war prevented it.
However, to this hour the prevailing Khazar ruling majority and their Ultra-Orthodox settlers in the West Bank cling to the conviction that all of the Promised Land from Egypt to the Euphrates belongs to them. This mentality is not only a perennial cause of arbitrary land seizure and restriction of Palestinian rights but effectively stifles the peace process. The government of Israel simply cannot give up its dream of entire control of Palestine, which they believe is theirs by divine right."
"Conclusions
We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian–European–Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogates to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis depicting a large Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions. We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga."
Oxford Journal | Eran Elhaik
"Contemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, ac- counting for approximately 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide (Ostrer 2001). Speculated to have emerged from a small Central European founder group and thought to have maintained high endogamy, Eastern European Jews are con- sidered a “population isolate” and invaluable subjects in dis- ease studies (Carmeli 2004), although their ancestry remains debatable between geneticists, historians, and linguists (Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Sand 2009; Behar et al. 2010). Recently, several large-scale studies have attempted to chart the genetic diversity of Jewish populations by genotyping Eurasian Jewish and non-Jewish populations (Conrad et al. 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Behar et al. 2010). Interestingly, some of these studies linked Caucasus
populations with Eastern European Jews, at odds with the narrative of a Central European founder group. Because cor- recting for population structure and using suitable controls are critical in medical studies, it is vital to examine the hypotheses purporting to explain the ancestry of Eastern and Central European Jews. One of the major challenges for any hypothesis is to explain the massive presence of Jews in Eastern Europe, estimated at eight million people at the beginning of the 20th century. We investigate the genetic structure of European Jews, by applying a wide range of analyses— including three population test, principal component, biogeo- graphical origin, admixture, identity by descent (IBD), allele sharing distance, and uniparental analyses—and test their veracity in light of the two dominant hypotheses depicting either a sole Middle Eastern ancestry or a mixed Middle Eastern–Caucasus–European ancestry to explain the ancestry of Eastern European Jews.
The “Rhineland hypothesis” envisions modern European Jews to be the descendents of the Judeans—an assortment of Israelite–Canaanite tribes of Semitic origin. It proposes two mass migratory waves: the first occurred over the 200 years following the Muslim conquest of Palestine (638CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe (Dinur 1961). Whether these migrants joined the existing Judaized Greco–Roman communities is un- clear, as is the extent of their contribution to the Southern European gene pool. The second wave occurred at the begin- ning of the 15th century by a group of 50,000 German Jews who migrated eastward and ushered an apparent hyper- baby-boom era for half a millennium (Atzmon et al. 2010). The Rhineland hypothesis predicts a Middle Eastern ancestry to European Jews and high genetic similarity among European Jews (Ostrer 2001; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010).
The competing “Khazarian hypothesis” considers Eastern
European Jews to be the descendants of Khazars (supplementary note S1, Supplementary Material online). The Khazars were a confederation of Slavic, Scythian, Hunnic–Bulgar, Iranian, Alans, and Turkish tribes who formed in the central– northern Caucasus one of most powerful empires during the late Iron Age and converted to Judaism in the 8th century CE
The Khazarian, Armenian, and Georgian populations forged from this amalgamation of tribes (Polak 1951) were followed by relative isolation, differentiation, and genetic drift in situ (Balanovsky et al. 2011). Biblical and archeological records allude to active trade relationships between Proto-Judeans and Armenians in the late centuries BCE (Polak 1951; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002), that likely resulted in a small scale admixture between these populations and a Judean presence in the Caucasus. After their conversion to Judaism, the population structure of the Judeo–Khazars was further reshaped by multiple migrations of Jews from the Byzantine Empire and Caliphate to the Khazarian Empire. Following the collapse of their empire and the Black Death (1347–1348) the Judeo–Khazars fled westward (Baron 1993), settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and Hungary (Polak 1951) and eventually spreading to Central and Western Europe. The Khazarian hypothesis posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries. Moreover, European Jewish communities are expected to be different from one another both in ancestry and genetic heterogeneity.
The Khazarian hypothesis also offers two explanations for the genetic diversity in Caucasus groups first by the multiple migration waves to Khazaria during the 6th–10th centuries and second by the Judeo–Khazars who remained in the Caucasus.
Genetic studies attempting to infer the ancestry of European Jews yielded inconsistent results. Some studies pointed to the genetic similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations like Adygei (Behar et al. 2003; Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al. 2009), whereas some pointed to the similarity to Middle Eastern populations such as Palestinians (Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2000), and others pointed to the similarity to Southern European popu- lations like Italians (Atzmon et al. 2010; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010). Most of these studies were done in the pregenome- wide era using uniparental markers and including different reference populations, which makes it difficult to compare their results. More recent studies employing whole genome data reported high genetic similarity of European Jews to Druze, Italian, and Middle Eastern populations (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010).
Although both the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses
depict a Judean ancestry and are not mutually exclusive, they are well distinguished, as Caucasus and Semitic popula- tions are considered ethnically and linguistically distinct (Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Balanovsky et al. 2011). Jews, according to either hypothesis, are an assortment of tribes who accepted Judaism, migrated elsewhere, and maintained their religion up to this date and are, therefore, expected to exhibit certain differences from their neighboring populations. Because both hypotheses posit that Eastern European Jews arrived at Eastern Europe roughly at the same time (13th and 15th centuries), we assumed that they experienced similar low and fixed admixture rates with the neighboring populations, estimated at 0.5% per generation over the past 50 generations (Ostrer 2001). These relatively recent ad- mixtures have likely reshaped the population structure of all European Jews and increased the genetic distances from the Caucasus or Middle Eastern populations. Therefore, we do not expect to achieve perfect matching with the surrogate Khazarian and Judean populations but rather to estimate their relatedness.
Choice of Surrogate Populations
As the ancient Judeans and Khazars have been vanquished and their remains have yet to be sequenced, in accordance with previous studies (Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al.
2009; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010), contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasus populations were used as surrogates. Palestinians were considered proto-Judeans be- cause they are assumed to share a similar linguistic, ethnic, and geographic background with the Judeans and were shown to share common ancestry with European Jews (Bonne´ -Tamir and Adam 1992; Nebel et al. 2000; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010). Similarly, Caucasus Georgians and Armenians were considered proto-Khazars because they are believed to have emerged from the same genetic cohort as the Khazars (Polak 1951; Dvornik 1962; Brook 2006).
Eastern and Central European Jews comprise the largest group of contemporary Jews, accounting for approximately
90% of over 13 million worldwide Jews. Eastern European Jews made up over 90% of European Jews before World War II. Despite their controversial ancestry, European Jews are an attractive group for genetic and medical studies due to their presumed genetic history (Ostrer 2001). Correcting for population structure and using suitable con- trols are critical in medical studies, thus it is vital to deter- mine whether European Jews are of Semitic, Caucasus, or other ancestry.
Though Judaism was born encased in theological–historical
myth, no Jewish historiography was produced from the time of Josephus Flavius (1st century CE) to the 19th century (Sand
2009). Early historians bridged the historical gap simply by linking modern Jews directly to the ancient Judeans, a paradigm that was later embedded in medical science and crystallized as a narrative. Many have challenged this narrative (Koestler 1976; Straten 2007), mainly by showing that a sole Judean ancestry cannot account for the vast population of Eastern European Jews in the beginning of the 20th century without the major contribution of Judaized Khazars and by demonstrating that it is in conflict with anthropological, his- torical, and genetic evidence (Patai and Patai 1975; Baron
1993; Sand 2009).
With uniparental and whole genome analyses providing ambiguous answers (Levy-Coffman 2005; Atzmon et al.
2010; Behar et al. 2010), the question of European Jewish ancestry remained debated mainly between the supporters of the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses. Although both theories oversimplify complex historical processes they are at- tractive due to their distinct predictions and testable
hypotheses. We showed that the hypotheses are also genet- ically distinct and that the miniscule Semitic ancestry in Caucasus populations cannot account for the similarity be- tween European Jews and Caucasus populations. The recent availability of genomic data from Caucasus populations allowed testing the Khazarian hypothesis for the first time and prompted us to contrast it with the Rhineland hypothesis. To evaluate the two hypotheses, we carried out a series of comparative analyses between European Jews and surrogate Khazarian and Judean populations posing the same question each time: are Eastern and Central European Jews genetically closer to Khazarian or Judean populations? Under the Rhineland hypothesis, European Jews are also expected to exhibit high endogamy, particularly across their Eurasian com- munities, and be more similar to Middle Eastern populations compared with their neighboring non-Jewish populations, whereas the Khazarian hypothesis predicts the opposite scen- ario. We emphasize that these hypotheses are not exclusive and that some European Jews may have other ancestries.
Our PC, biogeographical estimation, admixture, IBD, ASD, and uniparental analyses were consistent in depicting a Caucasus ancestry for European Jews. Our first analyses re- vealed tight genetic relationship of European Jews and Caucasus populations and pinpointed the biogeographical origin of European Jews to the south of Khazaria. Our later analyses yielded a complex ancestry with a slightly dominant Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry, large Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestries, and a minor Eastern European contribution; the latter two differ- entiated Central and Eastern European Jews. Although the Middle Eastern ancestry faded in the ASD and uniparental analyses, the Southern European ancestry was upheld, probably attesting to its later time period.
We show that the Khazarian hypothesis offers a compre- hensive explanation for the results, including the reported Southern European (Atzmon et al. 2010; Zoossmann-Diskin
2010) and Middle Eastern ancestries (Nebel et al. 2000; Behar et al. 2010). By contrast, the Rhineland hypothesis could not explain the large Caucasus component in European Jews, which is rare in non-Caucasus populations, and the large IBD regions shared between European Jews and Caucasus populations attesting to their common and recent origins. Our findings thus reject the Rhineland hypothesis and uphold the thesis that Eastern European Jews are Judeo– Khazars in origin. Consequently, we can conclude that the conceptualization of European Jews as a “population isolate,” which is derived from the Rhineland hypothesis, is incorrect and most likely reflects sampling bias in the lack of Caucasus non-Jewish populations in comparative analyses.
A major difficulty with the Rhineland hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multimigration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten
2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from fifty thousand (15th century) to eight million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7–2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th–17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007). This growth could not possibly be the product of natural popula- tion expansion, particularly one subjected to severe economic restrictions, slavery, assimilation, the Black Death and other plagues, forced and voluntary conversions, persecutions, kid- nappings, rapes, exiles, wars, massacres, and pogroms (Koestler 1976; Straten 2003; Sand 2009). Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennium and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible—it is ex- plained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem—it is not science. The question of how the Rhineland hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernat- ural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (Sand 2009).
The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo–Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus and later Khazaria was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road, the decline of Judah (1st–7th centuries), and the uprise of Christianity and Islam (Polak 1951). Greco–Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were intensified following the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism (Polak 1951; Brook 2006; Sand 2009). The eastward male-driven migrations from Europe to Khazaria solidified the exotic Southern European ancestry in the Khazarian gene pool, and increased the genetic heterogeneity of the Judeo–Khazars. The religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed most of the empire’s citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years (Polak 1951; Baron 1993) until the invasion of the Mongols (Polak 1951; Dinur 1961; Brook 2006). At the final collapse of their empire (13th century), many of the Judeo–Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the neighboring populations.
Historical and archeological findings shed light on the demographic events following the Khazars’ conversion. During the half millennium of their existence (740–1250 CE), the Judeo–Khazars sent offshoots into the Slavic lands, such as Romania and Hungary (Baron 1993), planting the seeds of a great Jewish community to later rise in the Khazarian diaspora. We hypothesize that the settlement of Judeo–Khazars in Eastern Europe was achieved by serial founding events, whereby populations expanded from the Caucasus into Eastern and Central Europe by successive splits, with daughter populations expanding to new territories following changes in socio-political conditions (Gilbert 1993). These events may have contributed to the higher homogeneity observed in Jewish communities outside Khazaria’s borders.
After the decline of their empire, the Judeo–Khazars refu- gees sought shelter in the emerging Polish kingdom and other Eastern European communities where their expertise in economics, finances, and politics was valued. Prior to their exodus, the Judeo–Khazar population was estimated to be half a million in size, the same as the number of Jews in the
Polish–Lithuanian kingdom four centuries later (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976). Some Judeo–Khazars were left behind, mainly in the Crimea and the Caucasus, where they formed Jewish enclaves surviving into modern times. One of the dynasties of Jewish princes ruled in the 15th century under the tutelage of the Genovese Republic and later of the Crimean Tartars. Another vestige of the Khazar nation is the “Mountain Jews” in the North Eastern Caucasus (Koestler 1976).
The remarkable close proximity of European Jews and populations residing on the opposite ends of ancient Khazaria, such as Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, and Druze, supports a common Near Eastern– Caucasus ancestry. These findings are not explained by the Rhineland hypothesis and are staggering due to the uneven demographic processes these populations have experienced in the past eight centuries. The slightly higher observed gen- etic similarity between European Jews and Armenians com- pared with Georgians is particularly bewildering because Armenians and Georgians are very simi- lar populations that share a similar genetic background (Schonberg et al. 2011) and long history of cultural relations (Payaslian 2007). We speculate that there is a small Middle Eastern ancestry in Armenians that does not exist in Geor- gians and is likely responsible for the high genetic similarity between Armenians and European Jews (supplementary fig. S6, Supplementary Material online). Because the Khazars blocked the Arab approach to the Caucasus, we suspect that this ancestry was introduced by the Judeans arriving at a very early date to Armenia and was absorbed into the popu- lations, whereas Judeans arriving to Georgia avoided assimi- lation (Shapira 2007). The relatedness between European Jews and Druze reported here and in the literature (Behar et al. 2010) is explained by Druze Turkish–Southern Caucasus origins. Druze migrated to Syria, Lebanon, and eventually to Palestine between the 11th and 13th centuries during the Crusades, a time when the Jewish population in Palestine was at a minimum. The genetic similarity between European Jews and Druze therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin. We emphasize that testing the Middle Eastern origin of European Jews can only be done with indigenous Middle Eastern groups. Overall, the similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations underscores the genetic continuity that exists among Eurasian Jewish and non-Jewish Caucasus populations.
This genetic continuity is not surprising. The Caucasus gene pool proliferated from the Near Eastern pool due to an Upper Paleolithic (or Neolithic) migration and was shaped by significant genetic drift, due to relative isolation in the extremely mountainous landscape (Balanovsky et al. 2011; Pagani et al. 2011). Caucasus populations are therefore expected to be genetically distinct from Southern European and Middle Eastern populations but to share certain genetic similarity with Near Eastern populations such as Turks, Iranians, and Druze. In all our analyses, Middle Eastern samples clus- tered together or exhibited high similarity along a geograph- ical gradient and were distinguished from Arabian Peninsula Arab samples on one hand and from Near Eastern–Caucasus samples on the other hand.
Our study attempts to shed light on the forgotten Khazars and elucidate some of the most fascinating questions of their history. Although the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism is not in dispute, there are questions as to how widespread and established the new religion became. Despite the limited sample size of European Jews, they represent members from the major residential Jewish countries (i.e., Poland and Germany) and exhibit very similar trends. Our findings support a large- scale migration from South–Central Europe and Mesopotamia to Khazaria that reshaped the genetic structure of the Khazars and other Caucasus populations in the central and upper Caucasus. Our findings also support a large-scale conversion followed by admixture of the newcomers with the Judeo– Khazars. Another intriguing question touches upon the origins of the Khazars, speculated to be Turk, Tartar, or Mongol (Brook 2006). As expected from their common origin, Caucasus populations exhibit high genetic similarity to Iranian and Turks with mild Eastern Asian ancestry. However, we found a weak patrilineal Turkic contribution compared with Caucasus and Eastern European contributions. Our findings thus support the identification of Turks as the Khazars’ ancestors but not necessarily the predominant ancestors. Given their geographical position, it is likely the Khazarian gene pool was also influenced by Eastern European populations that are not represented in our data set.
Our results fit with evidence from a wide range of fields. Linguistic findings depict Eastern European Jews as descended from a minority of Israelite–Palestinian Jewish emigrants who intermarried with a larger heterogeneous population of con- verts to Judaism from the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Germano–Sorb lands (Wexler 1993). Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, began as a Slavic language that was relexified to High German at an early date (Wexler 1993). Our findings are also in agreement with archeological, historical, linguistic, and anthropological studies (Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Sand 2009) and reconcile contradicting genetic findings observed in uniparental and biparental genome data. The conclusions of the latest genome-wide studies (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010) that European Jews had a single Middle Eastern origin are incomplete as neither study tested the Khazarian hypothesis, to the extent done here. Finally, our findings confirm both oral narratives and the canonical Jewish literature describing the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism (e.g., “Sefer haKabbalah” by Abraham ben Daud [1161 CE], and “The Khazars” by Rabbi Jehudah Halevi [1140 CE]) (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976).
Although medical studies were not conducted using Caucasus and Near Eastern populations to the same extent as with European Jews, many diseases found in European Jews are also found in their ancestral groups in the Caucasus (e.g., cystic fibrosis and athalassemia), the Near East (e.g., factor XI deficiency, type II), and Southern Europe (e.g., nonsyn- dromic recessive deafness) (Ostrer 2001), attesting to their complex multiorigins.
Because our study is the first to directly contrast the
Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses, a caution is warranted in interpreting some of our results due to small sample sizes and availability of surrogate populations. To test the Khazarian hypothesis, we used a crude model for the Khazars’ popula- tion structure. Our admixture analysis suggests that certain ancestral elements in the Caucasus genetic pool may have been unique to the Khazars. Therefore, using few contempor- ary Caucasus populations as surrogates may capture only cer- tain shades of the Khazarian genetic spectrum. Further studies are necessary to test the magnitude of the Judeo–Khazar demographic contribution to the presence of Jews in Europe (Polak 1951; Dinur 1961; Koestler 1976; Baron 1993; Brook
2006). These studies may yield a more complex demographic model than the one tested here and illuminate the complex population structure of Caucasus populations. Irrespective of these limitations, our results were robust across diverse types of analyses, and we hope that they will provide new perspectives for genetic, disease, medical, and anthropological studies.
Conclusions
We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian–European–Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogates to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis depicting a large Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions. We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga."
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.abstract
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQSeR0lM8jg&list=PLo9UqsInOYam2KUAigIsU051tOcD3g6Tv
Monday, April 25, 2016
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/
Originally shared by Renee Pittman Books
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted
CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation
Originally shared by Ortaiηe Ðeviaη
CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation
6.15.15 • The Guardian
Exclusive: Watchdogs shocked at ‘disconnect’ between doctors who oversaw interrogation and guidelines that gave CIA director power over medical ethics
Read the document: ‘Human experimentation’ and the CIA
The Central Intelligence Agency had explicit guidelines for “human experimentation” before, during and after its post-9/11 torture of terrorism detainees, the Guardian has learned, which raise new questions about the limits on internal oversight over the agency’s in-house and contracted medical research.
Sections of a previously classified CIA document, made public by the Guardian on Monday, empower the agency’s director to “approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research”. The leeway provides the director, who has never in the agency’s history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people.
CIA director George Tenet approved abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, designed by CIA contractor psychologists. He further instructed the agency’s health personnel to oversee the brutal interrogations – the beginning of years of controversy, still ongoing, about US torture as a violation of medical ethics.
But the revelation of the guidelines has prompted critics of CIA torture to question how the agency could have ever implemented what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” – despite apparently having rules against “research on human subjects” without their informed consent.
Indeed, despite the lurid name, doctors, human-rights workers and intelligence experts consulted by the Guardian said the agency’s human-experimentation rules were consistent with responsible medical practices. The CIA, however, redacted one of the four subsections on human experimentation.
“The more words you have, the more you can twist them, but it’s not a bad definition,” said Scott Allen, an internist and medical adviser to Physicians for Human Rights.
The agency confirmed to the Guardian that the document was still in effect during the lifespan of the controversial rendition, detention and interrogation program.
After reviewing the document, one watchdog said the timeline suggested the CIA manipulated basic definitions of human experimentation to ensure the torture program proceeded.
“Crime one was torture. The second crime was research without consent in order to say it wasn’t torture,” said Nathaniel Raymond, a former war-crimes investigator with Physicians for Human Rights and now a researcher with Harvard University’s Humanitarian Initiative.
Informed consent, the director and his ‘human subject research’ panel
The document containing the guidelines, dated 1987 but updated over the years and still in effect at the CIA, was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU and shared with the Guardian, which is publishing it for the first time.
The relevant section of the CIA document, “Law and Policy Governing the Conduct of Intelligence Agencies”, instructs that the agency “shall not sponsor, contract for, or conduct research on human subjects” outside of instructions on responsible and humane medical practices set for the entire US government by its Department of Health and Human Services.
A keystone of those instructions, the document notes, is the “subject’s informed consent”.
That language echoes the public, if obscure, language of Executive Order 12333 – the seminal, Reagan-era document spelling out the powers and limitations of the intelligence agencies, including rules governing surveillance by the National Security Agency. But the discretion given to the CIA director to “approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research” has not previously been public.
The entire 41-page CIA document exists to instruct the agency on what Executive Order 12333 permits and prohibits, after legislative action in the 1970s curbed intelligence powers in response to perceived abuses – including the CIA’s old practice of experimenting on human beings through programs like the infamous MK-Ultra project, which, among other things, dosed unwitting participants with LSD as an experiment.
The previously unknown section of the guidelines empower the CIA director and an advisory board on “human subject research” to “evaluate all documentation and certifications pertaining to human research sponsored by, contracted for, or conducted by the CIA”.
Experts assessing the document for the Guardian said the human-experimentation guidelines were critical to understanding the CIA’s baseline view of the limits of its medical research – limits they said the agency and its medical personnel violated during its interrogations, detentions and renditions program after 9/11.
The presence of medical personnel during brutal interrogations of men like Abu Zubaydah, they said, was difficult to reconcile with both the CIA’s internal requirement of “informed consent” on human experimentation subjects and responsible medical practices.
When Zubaydah, the first detainee known to be waterboarded in CIA custody, “became completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth”, he was revived by CIA medical personnel – known as the Office of Medical Services (OMS) – according to a CIA account in the Senate intelligence committee’s landmark torture report.
The OMS doctors were heavily involved in the torture of detainees in CIA custody. They advised interrogators on the physical and psychological administration of what the agency called “enhanced interrogation techniques”. After observation, the doctors offered perspectives on calibrating them to specific detainees’ resilience.
OMS staff assigned to the agency’s black sites wrote emails with subject lines like: “Re: acceptable lower ambient temperatures”.
The CIA, which does not formally concede that it tortured people, insists that the presence of medical personnel ensured its torture techniques were conducted according to medical rigor. Several instances in the Senate torture report, partially declassified six months ago, record unease among OMS staff with their role in interrogations.
Doctors take oaths to guarantee they inflict no harm on their patients.
Zubaydah “seems very resistant to the water board”, an OMS official emailed in August 2002. “No useful information so far ... He did vomit a couple of times during the water board with some beans and rice. It’s been 10 hours since he ate so this is surprising and disturbing. We plan to only feed Ensure for a while now. I’m head[ing] back for another water board session.”
Doctors and intelligence experts said they could imagine legitimate, non-abusive CIA uses for human experimentation.
Steven Aftergood, a scholar of the intelligence agencies with the Federation of American Scientists, suggested that the agency might need to study polygraph effects on its agents; evaluate their performance under conditions of stress; or study physiological indicators of deception.
But other physicians and human rights experts who have long criticized the role of medical staff in torture said the extensive notes from CIA doctors on the interrogations – as they unfolded – brought OMS into the realm of human experimentation, particularly as they helped blur the lines between providing medical aid to detainees and keeping them capable of enduring further abusive interrogations.
But all said that such examples of human experimentation would require something that the CIA never had during the interrogation program: the informed consent of its subjects.
Months after Zubaydah’s interrogation, Tenet issued formal guidance approving brutal interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. Tenet explicitly ordered medical staff to be present – a decision carrying the effect of having them extensively document and evaluate the torture sessions.
“[A]ppropriate medical or psychological personnel must be on site during all detainee interrogations employing Enhanced Techniques,” Tenet wrote in January 2003. “In each case, the medical and psychological staff shall suspend the interrogation if they determine that significant and prolonged physical or mental injury, pain or suffering is likely to result if the interrogation is not suspended.”
In response to the Guardian’s questions about the newly disclosed document and its implications for the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program, CIA spokesperson Ryan Trapani provided the following statement:
“CIA has had internal guidelines interpreting Executive Order 1233 in place continuously from 1987 to present. While some provisions in these guidelines have been amended since September 11, 2001, none of those amendments changed provisions governing human experimentation or were made in response to the detention and interrogation program.”
Ironically, the only part of the CIA’s torture program in which agency officials claimed they were hamstrung by prohibitions on human experimentation is when they were asked by John Helgerson, their internal inspector general, if torture was effective.
Their response was framed as an example of the agency respecting its own prohibition on human experimentation. In more recent days, the CIA has used it as a cudgel against the Senate report’s extensive conclusions that the torture was ultimately worthless.
“[S]ystematic study over time of the effectiveness of the techniques would have been encumbered by a number of factors,” reads a CIA response given to Helgerson in June 2003, a point the agency reiterated in its formal response to the Senate intelligence committee. Among them: “Federal policy on the protection of human subjects.”
Harvard’s Raymond, using the agency’s acronym for its “enhanced interrogation technique” euphemism, said the CIA must have known its guidelines on human experimentation ruled out its psychologist-designed brutal interrogations.
“If they were abiding by this policy when EIT came up, they wouldn’t have been allowed to do it,” Raymond said. “Anyone in good faith would have known that was human subject research.”
“There is a disconnect between the requirement of this regulation and the conduct of the interrogation program,” said Aftergood. “They do not represent consistent policy.”
A director’s decision, oversight and an evolving rulebook
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/15/cia-torture-human-experimentation-doctors?CMP=ema_565
CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation
6.15.15 • The Guardian
Exclusive: Watchdogs shocked at ‘disconnect’ between doctors who oversaw interrogation and guidelines that gave CIA director power over medical ethics
Read the document: ‘Human experimentation’ and the CIA
The Central Intelligence Agency had explicit guidelines for “human experimentation” before, during and after its post-9/11 torture of terrorism detainees, the Guardian has learned, which raise new questions about the limits on internal oversight over the agency’s in-house and contracted medical research.
Sections of a previously classified CIA document, made public by the Guardian on Monday, empower the agency’s director to “approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research”. The leeway provides the director, who has never in the agency’s history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people.
CIA director George Tenet approved abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, designed by CIA contractor psychologists. He further instructed the agency’s health personnel to oversee the brutal interrogations – the beginning of years of controversy, still ongoing, about US torture as a violation of medical ethics.
But the revelation of the guidelines has prompted critics of CIA torture to question how the agency could have ever implemented what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” – despite apparently having rules against “research on human subjects” without their informed consent.
Indeed, despite the lurid name, doctors, human-rights workers and intelligence experts consulted by the Guardian said the agency’s human-experimentation rules were consistent with responsible medical practices. The CIA, however, redacted one of the four subsections on human experimentation.
“The more words you have, the more you can twist them, but it’s not a bad definition,” said Scott Allen, an internist and medical adviser to Physicians for Human Rights.
The agency confirmed to the Guardian that the document was still in effect during the lifespan of the controversial rendition, detention and interrogation program.
After reviewing the document, one watchdog said the timeline suggested the CIA manipulated basic definitions of human experimentation to ensure the torture program proceeded.
“Crime one was torture. The second crime was research without consent in order to say it wasn’t torture,” said Nathaniel Raymond, a former war-crimes investigator with Physicians for Human Rights and now a researcher with Harvard University’s Humanitarian Initiative.
Informed consent, the director and his ‘human subject research’ panel
The document containing the guidelines, dated 1987 but updated over the years and still in effect at the CIA, was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU and shared with the Guardian, which is publishing it for the first time.
The relevant section of the CIA document, “Law and Policy Governing the Conduct of Intelligence Agencies”, instructs that the agency “shall not sponsor, contract for, or conduct research on human subjects” outside of instructions on responsible and humane medical practices set for the entire US government by its Department of Health and Human Services.
A keystone of those instructions, the document notes, is the “subject’s informed consent”.
That language echoes the public, if obscure, language of Executive Order 12333 – the seminal, Reagan-era document spelling out the powers and limitations of the intelligence agencies, including rules governing surveillance by the National Security Agency. But the discretion given to the CIA director to “approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research” has not previously been public.
The entire 41-page CIA document exists to instruct the agency on what Executive Order 12333 permits and prohibits, after legislative action in the 1970s curbed intelligence powers in response to perceived abuses – including the CIA’s old practice of experimenting on human beings through programs like the infamous MK-Ultra project, which, among other things, dosed unwitting participants with LSD as an experiment.
The previously unknown section of the guidelines empower the CIA director and an advisory board on “human subject research” to “evaluate all documentation and certifications pertaining to human research sponsored by, contracted for, or conducted by the CIA”.
Experts assessing the document for the Guardian said the human-experimentation guidelines were critical to understanding the CIA’s baseline view of the limits of its medical research – limits they said the agency and its medical personnel violated during its interrogations, detentions and renditions program after 9/11.
The presence of medical personnel during brutal interrogations of men like Abu Zubaydah, they said, was difficult to reconcile with both the CIA’s internal requirement of “informed consent” on human experimentation subjects and responsible medical practices.
When Zubaydah, the first detainee known to be waterboarded in CIA custody, “became completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth”, he was revived by CIA medical personnel – known as the Office of Medical Services (OMS) – according to a CIA account in the Senate intelligence committee’s landmark torture report.
The OMS doctors were heavily involved in the torture of detainees in CIA custody. They advised interrogators on the physical and psychological administration of what the agency called “enhanced interrogation techniques”. After observation, the doctors offered perspectives on calibrating them to specific detainees’ resilience.
OMS staff assigned to the agency’s black sites wrote emails with subject lines like: “Re: acceptable lower ambient temperatures”.
The CIA, which does not formally concede that it tortured people, insists that the presence of medical personnel ensured its torture techniques were conducted according to medical rigor. Several instances in the Senate torture report, partially declassified six months ago, record unease among OMS staff with their role in interrogations.
Doctors take oaths to guarantee they inflict no harm on their patients.
Zubaydah “seems very resistant to the water board”, an OMS official emailed in August 2002. “No useful information so far ... He did vomit a couple of times during the water board with some beans and rice. It’s been 10 hours since he ate so this is surprising and disturbing. We plan to only feed Ensure for a while now. I’m head[ing] back for another water board session.”
Doctors and intelligence experts said they could imagine legitimate, non-abusive CIA uses for human experimentation.
Steven Aftergood, a scholar of the intelligence agencies with the Federation of American Scientists, suggested that the agency might need to study polygraph effects on its agents; evaluate their performance under conditions of stress; or study physiological indicators of deception.
But other physicians and human rights experts who have long criticized the role of medical staff in torture said the extensive notes from CIA doctors on the interrogations – as they unfolded – brought OMS into the realm of human experimentation, particularly as they helped blur the lines between providing medical aid to detainees and keeping them capable of enduring further abusive interrogations.
But all said that such examples of human experimentation would require something that the CIA never had during the interrogation program: the informed consent of its subjects.
Months after Zubaydah’s interrogation, Tenet issued formal guidance approving brutal interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. Tenet explicitly ordered medical staff to be present – a decision carrying the effect of having them extensively document and evaluate the torture sessions.
“[A]ppropriate medical or psychological personnel must be on site during all detainee interrogations employing Enhanced Techniques,” Tenet wrote in January 2003. “In each case, the medical and psychological staff shall suspend the interrogation if they determine that significant and prolonged physical or mental injury, pain or suffering is likely to result if the interrogation is not suspended.”
In response to the Guardian’s questions about the newly disclosed document and its implications for the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program, CIA spokesperson Ryan Trapani provided the following statement:
“CIA has had internal guidelines interpreting Executive Order 1233 in place continuously from 1987 to present. While some provisions in these guidelines have been amended since September 11, 2001, none of those amendments changed provisions governing human experimentation or were made in response to the detention and interrogation program.”
Ironically, the only part of the CIA’s torture program in which agency officials claimed they were hamstrung by prohibitions on human experimentation is when they were asked by John Helgerson, their internal inspector general, if torture was effective.
Their response was framed as an example of the agency respecting its own prohibition on human experimentation. In more recent days, the CIA has used it as a cudgel against the Senate report’s extensive conclusions that the torture was ultimately worthless.
“[S]ystematic study over time of the effectiveness of the techniques would have been encumbered by a number of factors,” reads a CIA response given to Helgerson in June 2003, a point the agency reiterated in its formal response to the Senate intelligence committee. Among them: “Federal policy on the protection of human subjects.”
Harvard’s Raymond, using the agency’s acronym for its “enhanced interrogation technique” euphemism, said the CIA must have known its guidelines on human experimentation ruled out its psychologist-designed brutal interrogations.
“If they were abiding by this policy when EIT came up, they wouldn’t have been allowed to do it,” Raymond said. “Anyone in good faith would have known that was human subject research.”
“There is a disconnect between the requirement of this regulation and the conduct of the interrogation program,” said Aftergood. “They do not represent consistent policy.”
A director’s decision, oversight and an evolving rulebook
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/15/cia-torture-human-experimentation-doctors?CMP=ema_565
As usual, we're being told 'there's nothing to see here,' but how many times have we heard that about a product...
As usual, we're being told 'there's nothing to see here,' but how many times have we heard that about a product ultimately found to be dangerous? http://bit.ly/1NM0a4O
http://www.naturalnews.com/053783_Smart_Meters_carcinogenic_mysterious_health_problems.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/053783_Smart_Meters_carcinogenic_mysterious_health_problems.html
Saturday, April 23, 2016
NEWS ANCHOR COMPLETELY LOSES IT FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE REASON EVER
Originally shared by H George Tavakoli
NEWS ANCHOR COMPLETELY LOSES IT FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE REASON EVER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BHujm3cpY
NEWS ANCHOR COMPLETELY LOSES IT FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE REASON EVER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BHujm3cpY
PRINCE was helping with CHEMTRAIL and GEOENGINEERING exposure. Thank you and RIP.
Originally shared by Cardio Activist
PRINCE was helping with CHEMTRAIL and GEOENGINEERING exposure. Thank you and RIP.
https://youtu.be/MBzx_3eOyZA
PRINCE was helping with CHEMTRAIL and GEOENGINEERING exposure. Thank you and RIP.
https://youtu.be/MBzx_3eOyZA
Thursday, April 14, 2016
SKYNET — The Killing Machine.
Originally shared by The Hacker News
SKYNET — The Killing Machine.
http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/nsa-skynet-drone-attack.html
SKYNET — The Killing Machine.
http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/nsa-skynet-drone-attack.html
Half of published scientific studies are fake: http://bit.ly/1SO3CNM
Half of published scientific studies are fake: http://bit.ly/1SO3CNM
http://www.naturalnews.com/053663_scientific_literature_fabricated_studies_Big_Pharma.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/053663_scientific_literature_fabricated_studies_Big_Pharma.html
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
Thursday, April 7, 2016
This Is Why False Flag Shootings Are Off The Charts --- Purpose and Pattern Behind Obama Black Ops Exposed |...
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Monday, April 4, 2016
George W.
Originally shared by H George Tavakoli
George W. Bush & Brother Jeb Bush, Caught on Videotape “PICKING UP KILIOS OF COCAINE” In 1985 - See more at: http://realitieswatch.com/george-w-bush-brother-jeb-bush-caught-on-videotape-picking-up-kilios-of-cocaine-in-1985/#sthash.Y2wY4LHQ.dpuf
http://realitieswatch.com/george-w-bush-brother-jeb-bush-caught-on-videotape-picking-up-kilios-of-cocaine-in-1985/
George W. Bush & Brother Jeb Bush, Caught on Videotape “PICKING UP KILIOS OF COCAINE” In 1985 - See more at: http://realitieswatch.com/george-w-bush-brother-jeb-bush-caught-on-videotape-picking-up-kilios-of-cocaine-in-1985/#sthash.Y2wY4LHQ.dpuf
http://realitieswatch.com/george-w-bush-brother-jeb-bush-caught-on-videotape-picking-up-kilios-of-cocaine-in-1985/
An unprecedented leak of more than 11 million documents. This is massive. ~ Era of Wisdom
Originally shared by H George Tavakoli
An unprecedented leak of more than 11 million documents. This is massive. ~ Era of Wisdom
http://www.eraofwisdom.org/unprecedented-leak-exposes-the-criminal-financial-dealings-of-some-of-the-worlds-wealthiest-people/
An unprecedented leak of more than 11 million documents. This is massive. ~ Era of Wisdom
http://www.eraofwisdom.org/unprecedented-leak-exposes-the-criminal-financial-dealings-of-some-of-the-worlds-wealthiest-people/
Sunday, April 3, 2016
lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g02Csv99M0w/Vv5ZZnTClUI/AAAAAAAABEI/vhO7z111hvsvD-di0nQjncipSJX-uxwxQ/w506-h579/2016%2B-%2...
Originally shared by Dont Threaten Me
Why are some people so stupid to think Jews /Mossad does not infiltrate organisations such as ISIS, which is vile Jew creation for Christ sake- its been admitted to
No one knows terror better than the jews.
The hell you say
https://youtu.be/TaH9LyYGjbk
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiO9oer6fLLAhWmHKYKHZ0mBbsQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthseeker.co.uk%2F%3Fp%3D126730&usg=AFQjCNGWpCs3ahg0o_yYQGaIDibcBwsc7A&sig2=QqVturac7W-G3bbHx8AKnQ
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g02Csv99M0w/Vv5ZZnTClUI/AAAAAAAABEI/vhO7z111hvsvD-di0nQjncipSJX-uxwxQ/w506-h579/2016%2B-%2B1
Why are some people so stupid to think Jews /Mossad does not infiltrate organisations such as ISIS, which is vile Jew creation for Christ sake- its been admitted to
No one knows terror better than the jews.
The hell you say
https://youtu.be/TaH9LyYGjbk
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiO9oer6fLLAhWmHKYKHZ0mBbsQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetruthseeker.co.uk%2F%3Fp%3D126730&usg=AFQjCNGWpCs3ahg0o_yYQGaIDibcBwsc7A&sig2=QqVturac7W-G3bbHx8AKnQ
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g02Csv99M0w/Vv5ZZnTClUI/AAAAAAAABEI/vhO7z111hvsvD-di0nQjncipSJX-uxwxQ/w506-h579/2016%2B-%2B1
Dick says another 911 is imminent. He should know.
Originally shared by H George Tavakoli
Dick says another 911 is imminent. He should know.
https://www.intellihub.com/red-alert-cheney-warns-another-911-style-attack/
Αν δεν βαριέστε ...... διαβάστε το !!!!!!!!!!
Originally shared by Giorgos Konstantinidis
Αν δεν βαριέστε ...... διαβάστε το !!!!!!!!!!
ΞΥΠΝΗΣΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ !!!!!!!!!
http://pitsirikidotnet.gr/2015/10/%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%BA-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AE-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BD/
http://pitsirikidotnet.gr/2015/10/%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%BA-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AE-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BD
Αν δεν βαριέστε ...... διαβάστε το !!!!!!!!!!
ΞΥΠΝΗΣΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ !!!!!!!!!
http://pitsirikidotnet.gr/2015/10/%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%BA-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AE-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BD/
http://pitsirikidotnet.gr/2015/10/%CF%83%CE%BF%CE%BA-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AE-%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)