Who Are The Illuminati?

Who Are The Illuminati?

By Richard Stone 

“A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires” (Paul Simon).
“The world is governed by far different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes” (Benjamin Disraeli).
“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes the laws” (Mayer Rothschild).

Conspiracy theory is the theory that most of the world is secretly governed by a small group of men who operate behind the scenes. Conspiracy theory is now an accepted turn of phrase but sometimes one hears the expression, sometimes whispered rather than spoken. “The Illuminati”.

What does this mean? Who are the Illuminati? They are, in essence, a cartel of international bankers and industrialists based in Western Europe and North America. The names of certain families persist over long periods of time. Some of the most important names are Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Lazard, Warburg, Schroder and Schiff.

The pivotal family is probably the house of Rothschild, the descendants of Mayer Rothschild (1743 – 1812) of Frankfurt. The male descendants of this family, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. The family established banking institutions in Vienna, London, Naples and Paris as well as Frankfurt. Ever since the middle ages, these families have been building their power by lending money at rates of interest to the monarchies and governments of Europe who were forever in debt, particularly in times of war. Sooner than tax the population to raise funds, always an unpopular measure, they usually preferred to borrow money from the money-lenders. This was the birth of the concept “the national debt.” The countries of the world are forever in debt but where there is a debtor there is a creditor – who is this money owed to? It is owed to this coterie of international bankers.

By the nineteenth century the power of the Rothschild family was immense. They increased their wealth with great cunning and cleverness, while maintaining a low public profile. A notable example of their methods was their exploitation of the battle of Waterloo. The Rothschilds had spies watching the course of the battle and as soon as became evident that Wellington had won, a Rothschild agent traveled at maximum speed to London, arriving hours before Wellington’s own messenger. Rothschild received the messenger and began conspicuously selling his stocks. The whole stock exchange assumed that Wellington had lost and Napoleon had won so everybody started selling, at this point, other Rothschild agents bought up huge stocks at give-away prices. Thus an already massive fortune was massively increased.

The Rockefeller family may be equally important. The pivotal figure in this family was J.D.Rockefeller, who made his fortune out of Standard Oil or Esso in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He also controlled the railroads. When rival road transport systems were established he attempted to block them by parking his trains across the roads at level crossings. His basic business technique was the elimination of competitors at all costs, followed by the establishment of a monopoly, followed by profit taking. He rapidly gained a name for huge wealth, secrecy and hard and dirty business practice. In his later years he had a harsh and gaunt appearance, so to counter his bad “public image” JD more or less invented the PR industry. He had short films of himself made, calculated to charm the public, himself playing golf with a pretty little child for instance. This film was shown on TV recently. It has a rather false and amateurish air but was very effective with the public of the day.

The Rockerfellers currently have controlling interests in Exxon (the world’s biggest company) and the Chase Manhattan Bank, which turns over trillions of dollars a week. With so many billions in their hands already, what does more money mean? Obviously it means more power and more control over other human beings, but to what end and in whose name?

Apparently in the name of Lucifer, the fallen angel also known as the bringer of light, hence the name “Illuminati”, which means “the enlightened ones”. Lucifer is also known for the characteristics of pride, deception and impermanence. The illuminati were apparently founded in Bavaria in 1770 by one Adam Weisshaupt, a student of the Jewish philosopher Mendelsohn, and backed by the Rothschild family. The society has always been based on the lodges of Freemasonry, which was taken over at the highest levels during the course of the eighteenth century by agents of the Illuminati. Freemasonry is a very secretive institution, to the extent that members at one level do not know what members at another level are doing. Hence it is an organisation which is full of bonhomie and good deeds at the lower and middle levels, while its motives and deeds at the highest levels veer towards the dark side.

Both Freemasonry and Judaism have strong roots in the ancient Egyptian systems of religious belief, and it was this very similarity which attracted the illuminati to Freemasonry, for most of them were Jewish. It is a source of controversy today to speculate whether or not they are still predominantly Jewish. No unfair racism intended – they either are or they aren’t. Certainly there is much evidence to suggest that they are not, George Bush for instance, a prominent illuminati figure and obviously not Jewish.

The all seeing eye on the U.S. Dollar Bill

The United States of America is more or less a creation of Freemasonry. The symbol of Freemasonry was placed on the cornerstone of the Whitehouse, while the assembled Freemasons lodges stood and watched the ceremony. The famous all-seeing eye in the pyramid appears on the one dollar bill. It is one of the main symbols of Freemasonry. This bill also bears the inscription, in Latin, “1776, the year of inception of a new world order”. If one joins the dots formed by the stars of the thirteen original states one obtains an exact Star of David.

The goal of the IlIuminati is total control of the world. The only nations, which are holding out against their power, are some Islamic nations and China but this resistance is limited because the Illuminati have crushing economic power.

There are certain methods of subjugation and control which are indispensable to this power. The first is, of course, complete control over all financial systems, all borrowing and lending. All banks, all building societies, all insurance companies have to be under their control. At the lowest level even the smallest bank will be forced to toe the line. At the highest level the World Bank decides the fate of countries. It is an interesting and amazing fact that both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England are controlled by these Illuminati dynasties, in spite of the names of these banks, which suggest that they are run for public benefit. It is said that both Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy wanted to change this system.

The second essential component is control of the media. It is controlled through business fashion. If the board meeting, or the management meeting, or the sales meeting, or the training meeting suggests that facts should be presented in a certain way, who is going to present them differently? There is an implied threat to one’s job and one’s career. Few people would gladly face demotion, retrenchment or the dole and most people are so ambitious they will do nearly anything “reasonable” to court favour with their superiors. This is how business is controlled and the media is the most important part of business, for it controls people’s minds. People are very suggestible and often lend more credence to what they see on “the box” than to what happens on their own street. The Illuminati know this and use this suggestibility factor to the full. Lenin’s key move during the Russian revolution was the capture of the radio station.

The third factor in the control system is the universities, and through them the whole education system. Particular effort is put into the schools of sociology, politics, economics and education, hence “liberal” systems of education which are often degenerate and even violent. Their men are inserted into the universities through the power of funding by big business. They then spread their influence downwards through tertiary to secondary and primary education.

The fourth factor is the enormous influence wielded by two similar organisations, The Council of Foreign Relations in the USA and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England. These institutions are schools for statesmen, Illuminati statesmen. They are the stamping grounds of men such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Lord Carrington. These two “think tanks” have a crucial influence on all US and British governments, no matter which party is “in power”. The statesmen produced by these institutions can and do decide the fate of nations.The tax-exempt foundations are also instruments of Illuminati power. The Ford foundation and the Rockefeller foundation are two prominent examples of this type of “charitable” institution. They were heavily involved in supporting various communist powers when the cold war was at its height. Communism versus capitalism arms race = more money and power for the Illuminati. So these are some of the structures through which the Illuminati work but what methods do they use?

Pitting one side against the other, using a theory devised by Hegel, which is: Thesis versus antitheses – synthesis.

Every force tends to have an opposite counterforce. The conflict between the two results in a new situation, the synthesis. The illuminati make it their business to be the synthesis. Thus no problem situation is ever “nipped in the bud” it is rather fostered and used, just as the Soviet Union was fostered and used.

The insertion of immigrant groups into countries is a variation of this divide and rule process. Each group can be played off against the other.

“Double talk” and “double think”. George Orwell knew instinctively what was going on when he invented these two expressions:
I categorically deny = it will happen a bit later.
Peace = war by another means.

To say one thing and do another is fundamental to Illuminati practice. They believe that the public will accept these lies through laziness and wishful thinking. Unfortunately they are usually correct.

“Keep them busy busy busy, back on the farm with the other animals.” We are kept so busy with business (or busyness) that we do not understand or participate in the decisions and events that will crucially affect our future.

When a real power move is made it is usually done secretly and suddenly often with the pretence that nothing has happened. There is preparation for opposition, but conflict is often not necessary as most people have been trained to be so passive that they will probably not create an effective opposition.

Use of front men in important positions. These front men have the characteristic of “servile obedience”, probably because of a blot or blots on their character which they are anxious to conceal. Most of the Presidents of the USA fall into this category. The current situation springs to mind. Behind the opponent stands the man with real power, who has long been groomed for this position. Men like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Bush are in this category.

The assassination of opposing leaders as quietly and as secretly as possible, so as to simulate a natural death. If this is not possible due to time constraints or other limited circumstances, surrogates are used and the lines of suspicion are covered by deception, false accusation and if necessary, multiple assassinations. Induced heart attacks, fake motor accidents and apparent suicides are also favoured methods of assassination.

Social engineering. An easily manipulated rabble is what is required. Mixed population groups with weak morals, weak traditions, low educational standards and weak group willpower are the aim. Those with special aptitudes can be taken out and trained to serve the illuminati for technical purposes, security purposes or as part of the propaganda apparatus. The middle class will become surplus to requirements and will be reduced to relative poverty.

Mockery and submission of the manners and morals of societies which show any resistance. Control of the media, the fashion industries and the education systems are essential components in this strategy. “Free love”, the cult of youth, mockery of the Christian and Muslim faiths also fall into this category. “I don’t give a rats ass about Jesus Christ” is one recent masterpiece from one of Hollywood’s biggest starts. He probably didn’t realise what he was saying, which makes him a “useful idiot’. A “useful idiot” is much more effective than a conscious supporter. By these means of subversion societies and nations are conquered from within and open battle is usually not necessary.

The conduct of unrelenting economic warfare. This is the real war and continues even while the bombs are falling and the bullets are flying. The important part is the control of the enemy’s economy after the conflict. The recent economic crash in the far-eastern countries is in reality an assertion of the Illuminati’s economic power, an expression of economic dominance. The Illuminati now control 10-15% of the Japanese economy. This is public knowledge, that is what has been bought at bargain prices. In reality they probably control much more.

Control and exploitation of the standards of public health. The sale of prescription drugs is a huge business generating mega profits. Medical operations and treatments can also be very profitable to big business. These extreme treatments have their place but are over-used for the sake of profit.

In fact big business, particularly the big drug companies, have a vested interest in the ill health of the population. These companies, working through the US Food and Drug Administration, have tried to suppress the health food industry. In this they have largely failed but now the game is to own it and control it so that health foods can only be afforded by the elite.

Argument through defamation of character. The factual debate is ignored while characters are defamed. This is usually a very effective technique as many human beings are very suggestible and seem reluctant to use their reasoning abilities. Thus a “smear campaign” can easily draw attention away from the facts.

To conclude, it is growing increasingly evident that a world government is developing, and many would say that it is probably no bad thing, but few have asked for what purpose this “new world order” is created. Nor have they asked themselves what the consequences will be. These consequences (or some of them) will probably be as follows:

• Increasing profits for big business, increasing poverty for the middle class (who they despise). A rapid decline in moral standards and the promotion of social decay.

• Transience. Jobs that don’t last; neighbourhoods that don’t last.

• Increasing levels of crime and violence.

• Decline and demise of public services; replacement by private enterprise – good service for the few who can afford it.

• Ongoing ill health for the bulk of the population because of stress; poor quality foods; food additives; genetic engineering; pollution and drugs. There may be good health for those who can afford it – only the rich and well informed.

• The gradual phasing out of national governments, which will have powers more like the regional governments of today.

• The formation of several conglomerations like the United States.

In time a world leader will be announced, a real one this time. A pity he will have a cynical contempt for the most of humanity. Do we deserve it?

Psychic and Astrology World Predictions for 2017

Craig Hamilton-Parker — psychics.co.uk Sept 9, 2016

Craig Hamilton-Parker in India. Click to enlarge

Craig Hamilton-Parker in India. Click to enlarge

2017 will be a year of economic troubles and great social unrest with violent rioting and great suffering for the poorest in society. I believe that many of the following predictions will happen during 2017 but some of what I am seeing may be further ahead – possibly within 2 to 3 years.

I am making these predictions in September 2016 at the behest of my editor at Fate and Fortune magazine for 2017 I will leave them permanently in place on my website as I feel many of these predictions will eventually come to pass. The massive earthquake in India and Pakistan that I wrongly predicted for 2016 may also be still yet to happen. (See previous predictions further down the page)

The picture shows me in India where I have worked with the yogis and astrologers and have consulted a secret lost oracle about the future. In India they call me Parameswaram – This is  my spiritual name that is revealed to me in the oracle. If you would like to know more about my investigations then read my latest books. The first in this series is titled Messages from the Universe.

My 2017 insights Now on YouTube:

.

New 2017 Predictions (Posted 9 September 2016)

  • Hillary Clinton will resign from politics because of the release of documents that reveal financial corruption and falsification of government documents. (Correct? See Hillary Clinton recent comments by her friend in the Independent on 10th Jan 2017 about running for office. I made and posted this prediction September 2016. No comment yet about release of more documents.)
  • Added on the video (see above) on the 5th Jan 2017 at 23:06 mark point I said: “It could happen in 2017. My feeling is volcanic problems around Italy, around the area of Vesuvius and maybe the Island of Ischia and Naples itself. There’s problems there.” (Correct/Happening? Could the earthquake on 19 Jan 2017 may be the start of this?)
  • Denmark and Italy pull out of EU as Euro crashes. 2017 sees Italy in serious economic problems.
  • Economic chaos in Europe (and America for a short while) with riots in many European capital and big cities (Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Paris and Prague) In these places many people are suffering serious poverty and food shortages due to the failure of the EU. (UPDATE – added 20 Jan 2017 Just want to clarify that although I see these world economic problems with lots of steep falls, America and the UK will bounce back quickly and prosper. See my video and also the Trump videos for the details. )
  • Famous building in flames as right-wing riots in Germany spark memories of the burning of the Reichstag.
  • Britain escapes the worst of the international economic troubles and is seen as a safe economic haven. Britain, India and Australia form an economic alliance.
  • America becomes politically divided between East and West. Riots and gun fights in America over election results (Correct 10/10  10 Nov 2016 Riots) and turmoil throughout 2017. Friendly, neutral troops from Canada are called in to quell unrest.
  • USA experiences a serious drought during the summer of 2017 while Europe has floods.
  • Large fire at the UK Houses of Parliament
  • New War spills into Afghanistan as revolution erupts in Uzbekistan
  • Ancient Giant Squid makes the news – found frozen in ice.
  • Volcanic eruption in Iceland causes toxic gas cloud over Norway
  • Conflicts between China and USA as satellite computers are hacked.
  • Japan initiates an arms race in the Far East after provocation from China and North Korea.
  • Kim Jong-un will be fall from power later in the year – maybe December 2017 or January 2018
  • Serious threat of escalating conflict between China and India over northern border of Kashmir.
  • Sample of Shakespeare’s bones exhumed and show that he was poisoned. Clues to a new play found in his grave.
  • Terrorists make toxic or biological attack on school in Europe.
  • Alliance between Russia and USA partitions Syria. Syria is left like a wasteland.
  • August 21, 2017 eclipse over America coincides with huge stock market fall and long-term inflation.
  • December 2017 – possibly into mid 2018 – there will be a world-wide flu like epidemic from a strange disease that attacks the immune system and will kill many in the third world.
  • Assassination and kidnap attempt on the pope at the Vatican. Swiss guards killed.
  • 2017 sees the launch of new virtual reality games and cinema. This is hailed as a great cultural leap forward and takes off on a massive scale in the coming years. Its downside is that, just like immersive video games, it saps the inspiration from people and further enslaves the mind to materialism.

Other Long Term Predictions for the world

Many of the above predictions are pretty gloomy but I feel that there will be a simultaneous growth in spirituality for the people of the world that will now start to lead us into a Golden Age. Conflict and hardship plus growing environmental problems will bring good people together and ignite a desire to seek the true purpose of human life. I feel that 2017 and 2018 are the years when miraculous spiritual things will be revealed to the world as it finally breaks the yoke of the Age of Materialism. At first just a few will witness the revelation of the divine but eventually people will experience the world in a completely new way and directly know higher consciousness.

Many of the traditional religions, that are dependent on blind belief, will fail and more people will seek direct experience of the spiritual realms. By 2025 millions of people would have forsaken Islam. By this time Christianity too would have undergone a spiritual metamorphosis that will encourage people to seek direct personal experience of spirituality through prayer and meditation. The years ahead will be a tremendous time to be living on earth for I believe that great things are soon to be revealed to the world. By 2050 the world will have entered the Golden Age when higher consciousness and miraculous living are possible. The time will come when all people will come to  realize that our personal future and the collective future of the world can be changed for the better by our good thoughts and actions.

(Now lock me up and throw away the key for I’m sounding like a religious maniac!)

Craig’s World Psychic Predictions made for 2016

Continues ….

The Trump Speech That No One Heard

Mike Whitney — The Unz Review Jan 19, 2017

05 Jan 2016, Claremont, New Hampshire, USA --- Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump appears at a rally in Claremont, NH --- Image by © Brooks Kraft/Corbis

Donald Trump wants to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. The President-elect wants to abandon the destabilizing wars and regime change operations that have characterized US policy in the past and work collaboratively with countries like Russia that have a mutual interest in fighting terrorism and establishing regional security. Here’s an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump’s views on the topic:

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”

Trump’s approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. (According to author William Blum) This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it’s because they don’t want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn’t understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington’s iron grip on global power. The bottom line is that “violence works” and any deviation from the present policy represents a direct threat to the people whose continued power and prosperity depend on that violence.

This is why none of the major media published Trump’s comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as ‘enemies of the state’, like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media’s agenda?

It doesn’t, which is why they’d rather the public remain in the dark about what Trump actually said.

But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump’s credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That’s the plan, regime change in the USA.

This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. The CIA’s involvement in the coups in Ukraine and Honduras, as well as the agency’s funding, arming and training of Sunni militants in Libya and Syria, attest to the fact that Brennan does not see peace and reconciliation as compatible with US foreign policy objectives. Like his elitist paymasters, Brennan is committed to perpetual war, regime change, and mass annihilation. Trump offers some relief from this 70 year-long nightmare policy. Check out this quote from Vice President-elect, Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday:

“I think the president elect has made it very clear that we have a terrible relationship with Russia right now. And that’s not all our own doing, but really is a failure of American diplomacy in successive administrations. And what the president elect has determined to do is to explore the possibility of better relations. We have a common enemy in ISIS, and the ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration. But what the American people like about Donald Trump is that he’s someone who can sit down, roll his sleeves up and make a deal. And what you’re hearing in his reflections whether it be with Russia, or China or other countries in the world, is that we’re going to reengage. We’re going to put America first, we’re going to reengage in a way that advances America’s interests in the world and that advances peace.”

Vice President-elect Mike Pence, FOX News Sunday

“Better relations” with Russia?

Not on your life. US elites and their think tank lackeys would never allow it, not in a million years. Even now, after six years of death and destruction in Syria, elites at the Council on Foreign Relations are still resolved to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Re: “Aleppo’s Sobering Lessons,” Project Syndicate, by Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations) The same is true at the Brookings Institute where chief strategist Michael O’ Hanlon leads the charge for splitting up the battered country so Washington can control vital pipeline corridors, establish military bases in the east, and eliminate a potential threat to Israeli expansion. Here’s a clip from a recent piece by O’ Hanlon that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The author admits that the US goal is to splinter to country into multiple parts transforming it into a failed state:

“To achieve peace, Syria will need self-governance within a number of autonomous zones. One option is a confederal system by which the whole country is divided into such zones. A less desirable but minimally acceptable alternative could be several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state—similar to how Iraqi Kurdistan has functioned for a quarter-century….

Many Syrians will not like the idea of a confederal nation, or even of a central government controlling half the country with the other half divided into three or four autonomous zones. … But the broad vision should be developed soon.” (Wall Street Journal)

“Autonomous zones” in a “confederal system” is a sobriquet for a broken, Balkanized failed state run by tribal elders, disparate warlords and bloodthirsty jihadists. O’ Hanlon’s vision for Syria is a savage dysfunctional dystopia run by homicidal fanatics who rule with an iron fist. Is it any wonder why the Syrian people have fought tooth and nail to fend off the terrorist onslaught?

The United States is entirely responsible for the bloody decimation of Syria. It is absurd to think that either the Saudis, the Qataris or the Turks would have launched a war on a strategically-critical nation like Syria without a green light from Washington. The conflict is just the latest hotspot in Washington’s 15 year-long war of terror. The ultimate goal is to remove all secular Arab leaders who may pose a threat to US imperial ambitions, open up the region to US-dominated extractive industries, and foment enough extremism to legitimize a permanent military presence.

Russia’s intervention into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, has cast doubt on Washington’s ability to prevail in the six year-long war. The election of Donald Trump has further complicated matters by affecting a seismic shift in policy that could end the fighting and lead to improved relations between the US and Russia. Naturally, that is not in the interests of the vicious neocons or their liberal interventionist counterparts who see the proxy war in Syria as a pivotal part of their plan to clip Russia’s wings, discredit Putin in the eyes of the international community, and lay the groundwork for regime change in Moscow. Washington’s ultimate plan for Russia hews closely to that of Zbigniew Brzezinski who– in an titled “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”– had this to say:

“Given (Russia’s) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

Nice, eh? In other words, Washington’s plan for Russia is no different than its plan for Syria. Both countries will be chopped up into smaller bite-size chunks eliminating the possibility of a strong nationalist government rising up and resisting Washington’s relentless exploitation and repression. It’s divide and conquer writ large.

“A loosely confederated Russia” also fits perfectly with Washington’s top priority to spread military bases across Asia, control crucial energy supplies, open up financial markets, impose Washington’s neoliberal economic policies, and maintain a stranglehold on China’s explosive growth. It’s the Great Game all over again, and Washington is “In it to win it.”

Here’s an excerpt from a speech Hillary Clinton gave in 2011 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. The speech underscores the importance that elites attach to the “rebalancing” plan contained in the term “pivot to Asia”. The strategy relies on the opening up of new markets to US corporations and Wall Street, controlling critical resources, and “forging a broad-based military presence” across the continent. Washington intends to be the main player in the world’s most prosperous region. Here’s Clinton:

“The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action…. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia.”

(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Onward, to Asia, the next great US battlefield! The killing never ends.

As we noted earlier, the pivot to Asia is Washington’s top priority. Clinton merely confirms what geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out in his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Here’s a short excerpt from the book:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible. The State Department’s coup in Kiev as well as aggressive efforts to restrict the flow of Russian gas to the EU via Nord Stream and South Stream, have temporarily succeeded in undermining Moscow’s plan for accelerated economic integration. Had Hillary won the election, the US would have stepped up its provocations, its sanctions, its military buildup on Russia’s borders, its gas war, its attacks on Russia’s markets and currency, and its proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine. But now that Trump has been thrown into the mix, anything is possible. Even a fundamental change in the policy.

The question is whether the deep state powerbrokers –who have already launched a number of attacks on Trump in the media — will throw in the towel and allow Trump to develop his own independent foreign policy or take steps to have him removed from office.

Early indications suggest that a coup is already underway.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

Source

If This Doesn’t Prove CNN Is The Fake News Dynasty…I don’t Know what else will

CIA planned to hand Falklands to Argentina & airlift islanders to Scotland

Russia Today — Jan 22, 2017

HMS Dauntless off the Falkland's capitol, Port Stanley, in 2012. Click to enlarge

HMS Dauntless off the Falkland’s capitol, Port Stanley, in 2012. Click to enlarge

Secret CIA documents show the US had plans to either give the Falkland Islands to Argentina and repatriate the islanders to Scotland or allow them become Argentine citizens because the spy agency thought the UK would lose the 1982 war.

The papers, called ‘Solution to the Falkland Islands crisis,’ appear to the show the intelligence agency felt the UK had seriously underestimated the capabilities of the Argentine military when the two countries fought a short but savage war over the South Atlantic archipelago.

The documents comprise just a few pages of 12 million formerly-classified internal papers published by the CIA this week.

The Falklands plan was written by Henry Rowen, then head of the National Intelligence Council.

For a period of three years the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands will be given a chance to consider whether they wish to remain on the Falkland Islands or whether they wish to relocate to an area of British jurisdiction, either in the UK or elsewhere under British sovereignty, with a relocation grant of $100,000 per person,” he said.

He said it was probable “that many residents will find this sufficient inducement to relocate to some other area, perhaps in Scotland or elsewhere where conditions may be similar to the Falkland Islands.

Rowen said that any citizen who did not wish to leave “will be free to remain and become Argentinian citizens at the end of three years.

The cost of the relocation grants to be paid to any residents of the Falkland Islands wishing to relocate elsewhere will be borne fifty/fifty by the Argentinian and British governments,” he added.

In the end the British won the Islands back at a combined cost of 907 British, Argentine and Falklands Islander lives.

Source

Womens March and New World Order Social Engineers

Windows on the World

.

Source

Western Women Have Lost the Power to Love

henrymakow.com — Nov 22, 2017

Sheila Jeffreys, 68, is best known as a lesbian feminist scholar and political activist. Click to enlarge

Sheila Jeffreys, 68, is best known as a lesbian feminist scholar and political activist. Click to enlarge

Western women have been tricked into pursuing power instead of love.  Paradoxically, they never have been so powerless.
“Any girl who grows to womanhood without knowing that love is her supreme value has been spiritually raped. Feminine spirituality expresses an attitude of spiritual waiting, and tending, and readiness for the meeting with its opposite which is a prerequisite for inner wholeness. Without this she becomes a prey to the masculine within herself, a raging spirit of intellectual or physical activity to which no man can be related, and to which she can in no way relate herself. She is a woman possessed.”  Irene Claremont de Castillejo, Knowing Woman: a Feminine Psychology.

by Henry Makow Ph.D. — Jan 22, 2017

Feminism is an occult hit job well on its way to neutering and destroying Western women, and Western society with it.
Cabalist Jews and Freemasons are Satanists. They control by degrading and corrupting. Like termites they eat away at the supporting beams of society. Nothing is more important to the survival of society than the family. The family provides us with our roles and identity, as well as necessary emotional and material support. It ensures the young are born, loved and raised properly, and the aged are taken care of. Our family is our link in the chain of eternity.
So the Illuminati went after the women, who they deemed frivolous and feebleminded. It convinced them that marriage and family were “oppressive.” Men toiled in mines and factories and died in war, but somehow women were the ones oppressed.
Satanists needed to interfere in the natural affection and attraction males and females have for each other and for their offspring. Satanists exist to banish love.
A woman’s essence is love, the power to generate love, by loving and being loved in return.  This is the source of her power. A woman’s love for her husband and children is the most precious thing in the world. For a man, this love is his greatest treasure. 
By allowing herself to be snookered, by pursuing material instead of spiritual power, she has essentially lost the power to love. She can have power or love. She can’t have both.
SLUTThe handmaiden of feminism, promiscuity, has pretty well finished women off as something the Western man would want to marry. She can’t dedicate herself to a man. She has nothing but her youth and that won’t last.
After she has squandered the 15 years of her peak fertility, she will be left with nothing but a cutthroat 9-5 job. The feminist utopia is strewn with this roadkill.

HOW WOMEN LOVE 

 

Continues …

Russia set to move closer to decriminalize domestic violence

Nataliya Vasilyeva — Associated Press Jan 22, 2017

In Russia, giving one’s spouse a slap is nothing extraordinary for many people. This week, the Russian parliament is expected to take a step closer toward decriminalizing it altogether.

Battery is a criminal offence in Russia, but nearly 20 per cent of Russians openly say they think it is sometimes OK to hit a spouse or a child. In a bid to accommodate conservative voters, deputies in the lower house of parliament have given initial approval to a bill eliminating criminal liability for domestic violence that stops short of serious bodily harm or rape.

If the measure passes its second reading in the Duma on Wednesday, when the draft can be changed, approval in the third and final reading would be a foregone conclusion. From the Duma, it would proceed to the upper house, largely a rubber-stamp body, and then to President Vladimir Putin’s desk.

Data on domestic violence in Russia are obscure, but Interior Ministry statistics show that 40 per cent of all violent crimes in that country are committed in family surroundings. In 2013, more than 9,000 women were reported to have been killed in incidents of domestic violence.

The bill stems from a Supreme Court ruling last summer to decriminalize battery that doesn’t inflict bodily harm, but to retain criminal charges for those accused of battery against family members. Conservative activists objected, saying the ruling meant a parent spanking a child could be punished more harshly than a non-relative striking the child.

Ultra-conservative lawmaker Yelena Mizulina, who also authored Russia’s “gay propaganda” ban, then introduced the bill to decriminalize domestic violence. It initially was shelved after a disapproving review from the government.

Tables turned at the end of the year when a journalist from a conservative publication pressed Putin about it at his annual news conference.

“If the father spanks his child for a good reason as a means of education, a traditional Russian one, he will be sentenced to two years in prison — and if a neighbour does this, he will get away with a fine,” the journalist told Putin.

Putin replied that “it’s better not to spank children and refer to some traditions,” but then said, “We should not go overboard with it (punishment for battery). It’s not good; it harms families.”

Continues …

Psychic who predicted Brexit, Trump and Nice attack gives his 2017 forecast

Alison Malony — The Sun Jan 20, 2017

nice truck compilation

Craig Hamilton-Parker foresaw the Nice attack

A PSYCHIC who predicted Donald Trump’s election win, Brexit and the Nice attack has unveiled his predictions for 2017.

Craig Hamilton-Parker has forecast a deadly flu epidemic, a fire in the House of Commons and a volcanic eruption in Iceland.

He also predicted a biological terrorist attack on a school, a drought in the US and floods in Europe. And he believes an ancient squid-like creature will be discovered in Egypt.

The Southampton-born prophet, 62, releases his forecast on his website, psychics.co.uk, every year and in 2016 he predicted Trump’s win, Britain leaving the EU and David Cameron resigning.

He also forecast terrorist attacks at shopping malls and a luxury resort and a gun attack in an art gallery.

This year his predictions include:

  • A crash in the Euro and Denmark and Italy leaving the EU.
  • Hillary Clinton’s resignation from politics after a release of documents.
  • A toxic or biological attack on a school in Europe.
  • North and South Korea becoming one country as Kim Jung-un is overthrown
  • A worldwide flu epidemic.
  • A political divide in America between east and west with riots and gun crimes soaring.
  • A large fire at the Houses of Parliament caused by “bad maintenance” not a terrorist attack .
  • Ancient Giant Squid making the news – found frozen in ice.
  • Assassination and kidnap attempt on the pope at the Vatican. Swiss guards killed.

He added: “I feel that 2017 and 2018 are the years when miraculous spiritual things will be revealed to the world as it finally breaks the yoke of the Age of Materialism.”

Source

New White House Press Secretary SLAMS News Media For Coverage Of The Inauguration

Jan 21, 2017

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

Asra Q. Nomani — nytlive.nytimes.com Jan 20, 2017

anti trump protesters

In the pre-dawn darkness of today’s presidential inauguration day, I faced a choice, as a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president: lace up my pink Nike sneakers to step forward and take the DC Metro into the nation’s capital for the inauguration of America’s new president, or wait and go tomorrow to the after-party, dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington”?

The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as a grassroots effort with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcomenixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda.

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

anti trump march

Anti-Trump protesters in Washington D.C. Click to enlarge

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UnitedWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an anti-Muslim extremist in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a would-be dictator.”

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations, said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.” She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not  “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to include a statement from the Open Society Foundations.

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter. She can be reached at asra@asranomani.com or on Twitter.

Source

Soros-Funded Groups Back Anti-Trump Women’s March

Aaron Klein — Briebart.com Jan 12, 2017

The Women’s March on Washington, a celebrity-endorsed event planned for the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, is backed by a who’s who of far-left organizations, including scores of groups financed by billionaire George Soros.

The march has been described by the news media as a female protest against Trump, with reports that hundreds of thousands might attend.

Celebrities who have confirmed attendance include:

Chelsea Handler, America Ferrera, Unzo Aduba, Scarlett Johnansson, Debra Messing, Padma Lakshmi, Julianne Moore, Hari Nef, Yara Shahidi, Constance Wu, Olivia Wilde, Monica Ramen, Katy Perry, Cher, Danielle Brooks, Patricia Arquette and Zendaya.

The mission statement for the march claims that the gathering is meant to send a message “that women’s rights are human rights.”

The statement reads:

The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice who have come before us, we join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world, that women’s rights are human rights. We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.

Activists Gloria Steinem and Harry Belafonte are serving as honorary co-chairs.

In 2005, Belafonte founded the Gathering for Justice group, which has since been the recipient of numerous grants from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

The Open Society also supported the New York production of a play starring Belafonte titled “The Exonerated” about wrongly convicted death row inmates. Soros’ foundation sponsored a series of “talk back” conversions after the play “where justice advocates and death penalty experts from across the country will speak and field questions from the theater audience.”

Belafonte serves on the board of the Advancement Project, which was one of four primary recipients of money from a group created in 2008 called the Election Administration Fund. The Fund reportedly raised between $5.1 million–$1 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Meanwhile, the official partner’s list for the Women’s March on Washington reads like a who’s who of the far-left, including groups such as CODEPINK, the Southern Poverty Law Center and 350.org.

Many of the march “partners” are financed by Soros, including: Sierra Club, Amnesty International, MoveOn.org, NAACP, Green For All, Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice, People for the American Way, and Planned Parenthood.

The march is led by the following four co-chairs:

  • Tamika D. Mallory, whose bio says she “has worked closely with the Obama Administration as an advocate for civil rights issues, equal rights for women, health care, gun violence, and police misconduct.” She also served on the transition committee of NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.
  • Carmen Perez, who served as the executive director of Belafonte’s Soros-financed The Gathering for Justice.
  • Linda Sarsour, a self-described “Brooklyn-born Palestinian-American-Muslim racial justice and civil rights activist,” who serves as “the Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York, co-founder of Muslims for Ferguson, and a member of Justice League NYC,” her march bio relates.
  • Bob Bland, the CEO and founder of Manufacture New York (MNY), which his bio describes as “a social enterprise that is rethinking the fashion ecosystem (design, development, distribution) and creating a new, vertically-integrated business model that will transform apparel & textile production for the 21st century.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

Source

A metre of snow falls in the Sahara desert

Hugh Morris — The Telegraph Jan 20, 2017

Children sledge down snow covered dunes in the Algerian town Aïn Séfra. Click to enlarge

Children sledge down snow covered dunes in the Algerian town Aïn Séfra. Click to enlarge

The most snow to fall in living memory is currently coating the desert sands of the Sahara.

A month after the largest hot desert on the planet experienced the first snowfall in nearly 40 years, the white powder has returned, and in greater volume.

Residents of Aïn Séfra, Algeria, were greeted this morning by a metre of snow, twice as much as has fallen in most ski resorts in the French Alps over the last week.

The snow has caused chaos in the town known as the Gateway to the Desert, with buses stranded on icy roads, while children have taken advantage of the flurry, building snowman and sledging down dunes.

Before last December it was in 1979 that Aïn Séfra, where the Atlas Mountains meet the desert, last saw snow.

Though the town is in the Sahara, its average January temperature is about 6C degrees, while in July the mercury regularly reaches 38C degrees.

Temperatures elsewhere in “the Greatest Desert”, which stretches across Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali and Morocco, have previously passed 47C degrees.

A metre of snow fell in some parts of the desert. Click to enlarge

A metre of snow fell in some parts of the desert. Click to enlarge

Source

Trump will try to smash the China-Russia-Iran triangle … Here why he’ll fail

Pepe Escobar — South Morning China Post Jan 22, 2017

China's DF-21 missile, reportedly capable of sinking US aircraft carriers. Click to enlarge

China’s DF-21 missiles. The ‘carrier killer’ missile is one of the reasons the U.S. cannot afford a war in the South China Sea. Click to enlarge

China, Russia and Iran are the three key players in what promises to be the Eurasian Century.

Donald Trump may be The Joker; The Fool; The Ace of Spades; the ultimate trickster. What nobody can tell for sure is how this shifty chameleon will seduce, cajole, divide and threaten these three countries in his bid to “Make America Great Again”.

Considering the composition of his cabinet, as well as his motormouth twittering, the world according to Trump sees radical Islam as the No 1 threat, followed by Iran, China and Russia.

The strategy of Henry Kissinger, Trump’s unofficial foreign policy guru, is a mix of “balance of power” and “divide and rule”. It will consist of seducing Russia away from its strategic partner China; keeping China constantly on a sort of red alert; and targeting Islamic State while continuing to harass Iran.

.

All this has the potential to backfire splendidly. Even a real “reset” with Russia, of the non-Hillary Clinton kind, is not exactly assured.

Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, may in fact be a cipher, a privileged ExxonMobil dealmaker, or a Trojan Horse for Kissinger’s views. Tillerson is a trustee of the hardline Centre for Strategic and International Studies think tank, along with Kissinger.

So let’s see how Kissinger’s shadowplay might develop on the new geopolitical chessboard.

tillerson

Rex Tillerson. Click to enlarge

Trump starts out already pitted against America’s vast and powerful intelligence apparatus. The American “deep state” – the military-industrial complex that survives regardless of what political party is in power – requires an existential threat to operate. And that threat, according to the Pentagon, is Russia.

The ever-shifting “war on terror” is dead. The new normal, as demonstrated by the Obama administration, is the second cold war.

It all hinges on how – and if – Trump will be able to inflict pain on the US deep state, and how this might affect its “humanitarian” imperialist leanings.

Kissinger’s strategy implies having closer relations with Russia, whilst cajoling Moscow to betray its Eurasian ally Iran. Moscow is unlikely to betray Iran, and pursuing that strategy will only exacerbate Trump’s conflict with the deep state.

A Trumpian trade-off though is already on the cards; no more US sanctions on Russia if Moscow and Washington manage a common mechanism to smash Islamic State, as well as a new framework on nuclear disarmament.

There’s guarded optimism in Moscow that Trump’s business acumen will eventually lead him to discard counterproductive containment of Russia, freeing it to profit from the real deal across Eurasia: economic integration, via the Beijing-backed One Belt, One Road trade initiative to link economies into a China-centred trading network, and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Sensing a credible opening, Moscow has invited the Trump administration – represented by national security adviser Michael Flynn – to join the Syrian peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, alongside Iran, Turkey and the regime of Bashar al-Assad, due to start on Monday, only three days after Trump’s inauguration.

Russia and Iran are working as one in Syria. Russia has actively campaigned to bring Iran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the regional security group. Bilateral trade – from energy to railways, mining and agriculture – is booming. Russia and Iran are set to ditch the US dollar and use rials and rubles for trade. This means bypassing the usual US weapon of choice: sanctions. Thus, betraying Tehran is out of the question for Moscow.

Trump, for all his rhetoric, cannot renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal signed by the members of the UN Security Council plus Germany in 2015. Tehran has met all its obligations. Trump also cannot fulfil his campaign promise to smash Islamic State, without Iran. Instead of his army of Iranophobic generals, he would do better to listen to the National Iranian American Council in Washington, which really understands Tehran’s stakes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and the volatile Iran-Saudi cold war.

And Trump “getting tough” on China will hit a BRICS wall. The next summit between those five leading emerging market economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is in Xiamen (廈門), southeast China, next autumn, and the hosts will press for further integration.

Trump’s generals will also have to inform him that America cannot afford a war in the South China Sea or the western Pacific, wars it would have no guarantee of winning.

Trump’s advisers – even the Sinophobes – must have told him that Taiwan and the South China Sea are Beijing’s top priorities.

As Beijing’s foreign ministry put it: “The one-China principle… is non-negotiable.”

Then there’s the 45 per cent tariff that might be slapped on Chinese products, and possible import quotas. Chinese scholars have concluded it is the United States that has most to lose in a trade war.

After Xi Jinping’s (習近平) masterclass at Davos, is that all there is? Kissinger, 93, had better get back to the drawing board. ■

Source

CBC: An Exquisitely Canadian Form of Torture

henrymakow.com — Jan 21, 2017

cbc-newsI don’t want to give my future jailers any tips but the worst torture I can imagine is not waterboarding but being forced to listen to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news and public affairs non-stop. 
As Mick explains below, every second item caters to minorities. The majority of European origin doesn’t count; they are being dispossessed. Also, almost invariably, these stories are a depressing litany of hard times or sickness or sex abuse. The focus is on losers; never effective, happy people.
Furthermore, equality means that three out of four announcers/reporters are either women and/or minorities. This government network is run by and for feminists, homosexuals, socialists and minorities. 
Our taxes are paying for our indoctrination and social engineering. No wonder that at least one candidate for the Conservative leadership is calling for the dismantling of the CBC. Canada needs to get on the Trump train before it is too late.
Disclaimer – I believe everyone should be treated equally and fairly on the basis of merit. I resent having a globalist political agenda shoved down my throat.

CBC/Canada NWO News — by Mick (henrymakow.com) 

There are a couple of topics that absolutely dominate the CBC radio program and other Canadian news agencies on a daily basis:
Indians or First Nation – the residential schools, the shame that the White man has to carry for the rest of his life for the colonial past. “High time to recognize” their history and tradition, which is, by the way, usually written by the white Liberals here in Canada. Every day, one is forced to listen to the point of ad nauseam about their proud past and “culture” (like what, tomahawks, buffalos and waging wars against each other?), how they live in shameful conditions on the reserves where Canadian taxpayers have been squandering their money for decades, building them homes and cutting them pay cheques  for NO work done.
All in all, blame the white man for their drinking habits, blame the white man for the absolute lack of hygiene and dilapidating infrastructure in their communities, and blame the white man for the fact that the Indian population has the highest crime rate among any other ethnic group in Canada. They already have the Aboriginal Television Network. Now they have two.

 

Continues …

The Hate Group That Tracks Down ‘Hate Groups’

John Perazzo — Front Page Mag Jan 9, 2017

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was founded in 1971 by two Alabama attorneys, Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. The latter served as the Center’s legal director from 1971-76, but it was Dees, who views the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation, who would emerge as the long-term “face” of the organization.

Identifying itself as a “nonprofit civil rights organization” committed to “fighting hate and bigotry” while “seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society,” SPLC describes the United States as a country “seething with racial violence” and “intolerance against those who are different.” “Hate in America is a dreadful, daily constant,” says the Center, and violent crimes against members of minority groups like blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, and Arabs/Muslims “are not ‘isolated incidents,’” but rather, commonplace. To combat this ugly state of affairs, SPLC dedicates itself to “tracking and exposing the activities of “hate groups and other domestic extremists” throughout the United States. Specifically, the Center’s “Hate & Extremism” initiative publishes its findings in SPLC’s Hatewatch Blog and in its quarterly journal, the Intelligence Report.

SPLC adSPLC first gained widespread national recognition in 1987, when it won a $7 million verdict in a high-profile civil lawsuit against the United Klans of America (UKA). By the time that lawsuit was filed, UKA was already a destitute, impotent, disintegrating entity that virtually all white Americans emphatically rejected; the SPLC lawsuit merely drove the final nail into the UKA coffin. SPLC boasts that it has likewise won “crushing jury verdicts” that effectively shut down groups like the White Aryan Resistance, the White Patriot Party militia, and the Aryan Nations.

This has been SPLC’s modus operandi since its inception: to initiate lawsuits against prominent hate groups for crimes that their individual members commit. In these suits, declares Morris Dees proudly: “We absolutely take no prisoners. When we get into a legal fight we go all the way.” The leftist writer Ken Silverstein, who in 2000 wrote a penetrating exposé of SPLC for Harper’s magazine, has noted that the targets of these lawsuits tend to be “mediagenic villains” who are “eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras.” As Dees and SPLC well understand, such figures stand the best chance of triggering an emotional public response that translates, in turn, into financial contributions from donors eager to combat the perceived threat.

SPLC claims that there are currently 892 active “hate groups” in the U.S. Asserting that the vast majority of such organizations are “right wing,” the Center says they include “the Ku Klux Klan,” “the neo-Nazi movement,” “neo-Confederates,” “racist skinheads,” “antigovernment militias,” “Christian Identity adherents,” and a variety of “anti-immigrant,” “anti-LGBT,” “anti-Muslim,” and “alternative Right” organizations. While also identifying a tiny smattering of black separatist entities as hate groups, SPLC takes pains to point out that black organizations must be judged by a different standard than their white counterparts, because “much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism.”

SPLC contends that from 2000 to 2012, the number of hate groups in the U.S. increased by 67%—a surge allegedly “fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president” (Barack Obama). And America’s racists, by SPLC’s calculus, are almost all conservatives—as evidenced by the caption featured in the “Hatewatch” section of SPLC’s website: “Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.” The radical left gets no mention at all.

SPLC’s “hate group” counts have been shown to be devoid of legitimacy a number of times. Laird Wilcox—a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements—reports that many SPLC-designated “hate groups” are untraceable, due either to their inactivity or nonexistence. After analyzing the SPLC Klanwatch Project’s list of 346 “white supremacist groups” in 1992, for instance, Wilcox concluded that in fact there were only “about 50” such groups “that are objectively significant, are actually functioning and have more than a handful of real numbers—not post office box ‘groups’ or two-man local chapters.”[1] In 2005, Wilcox reported: “Several years ago with minimal effort I went through a list of 800-plus ‘hate groups’ published by the SPLC and determined that over half of them were either non-existent, existed in name only, or were inactive.”

JoAnn Wypijewski, who writes for the far-left Nation magazine, once said: “No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of [hate] groups than [SPLC’s] millionaire huckster, Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging [i.e., fundraising] letter [by stating that] ‘the danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’” To put Dees’s claim in perspective, the Ku Klux Klan at that time consisted of no more than 3,000 people nationwide—a far cry from the 4 million members it had boasted in the 1920s. Nonetheless, noted Wypijewski, “Dees would have his donors believe” that cadres of “militia nuts” are “lurking around every corner.”

In a similar vein, the late left-wing journalist Alexander Cockburn in 2009 called Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering,” a man who profited by “selling the notion there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters, ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” “Ever since 1971,” added Cockburn, “U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with [Dees’s] fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.”

Regardless of how dramatically SPLC overstates their numbers, white racists like neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and skinheads indisputably deserve to be categorized as “hate groups.” But the Center irresponsibly extends that designation also to numerous conservative and libertarian organizations that harbor no ill will against any demographic group, but merely hold political positions contrary to those of SPLC. As syndicated columnist Don Feder writes: “What makes [SPLC] particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there’s a logical relationship between, say, opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants.”

For instance, one noteworthy organization that SPLC has placed in its cross hairs is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which the Center, in a 2003 report authored by researcher/writer Chip Berlet, identified as part of “an array of right-wing foundations and think tanks [that] support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Especially objectionable to SPLC was AEI fellow Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian-born scholar (and former Reagan Administration adviser) “whose views,” according to Berlet, “are seen by many as bigoted or even racist.” Specifically, D’Souza has written that affirmative action is an unjust, counterproductive policy; that “many liberals have been peculiarly blind about black racism”; that “virtually all contemporary liberal assumptions about the origin of racism … and what to do about it are wrong”; and that “the civil-rights industry … now has a vested interest in the persistence of the ghetto, because the miseries of poor blacks are the best advertisement for continuing programs of racial preference and set-asides.” “D’Souza has suggested,” wrote Berlet incredulously, “that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States.” Such sentiments as D’Souza’s are—notwithstanding the repeatedly divisive rhetoric and actions of racial arsonists like Al SharptonJesse JacksonLouis Farrakhan, and the late Julian Bond—anathema to an organization whose income stream is largely dependent upon an ability to perpetuate public angst over black suffering.

Berlet’s 2003 report likewise denounced another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray—a Bradley Foundation research fellow who in 1994 co-authored The Bell Curve, which SPLC described as “a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result.” Addressing unfounded critiques such as this, Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell wrote that widespread “demonization” by “demagogues” who were interested only in hearing “what they want to hear,” had rendered The Bell Curve “one of the most misrepresented books of our time.”

In SPLC’s 2003 report as well, Berlet charged that conservative author David Horowitz “has blamed slavery on ‘black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs’—a selective rewriting of history.” To this, Horowitz replied:

“I never in my life blamed slavery on black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs.’ What idiot would not know that white Europeans conducted the Atlantic Slave Trade, which trafficked in 11 million black African chattel? The sentence Berlet mangles is not a historical statement about slavery but a polemical response to the proponents of reparations who are demanding that only whites pay blacks for an institution—slavery—that has been eradicated in the western world (but not Arab and black Africa) for more than 100 years. It is intended to remind people that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers—not to blame Africans and Arabs for sole responsibility for slavery.”

Berlet also took issue with what he called Horowitz’s “false” claim that “there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians—Englishmen and Americans—created one.” “Critics note,” Berlet added, “that Horowitz is ignoring everything from the slave revolt led by Spartacus against the Romans and Moses’ rebellion against the Pharaoh to the role of American blacks in the abolition movement.” And yet, Horowitz had already anticipated and discredited these very charges two years earlier, in his 2001 book Uncivil Wars: The Controversy About Slavery, wherein he wrote:

“For thousands of years, until the end of the Eighteenth Century, slavery had been considered a normal institution of human societies. In all that time, no group had arisen to challenge its legitimacy. Of course, there were many slave revolts from the times of Moses and Spartacus, in which those who had been enslaved sought to gain their freedom. But that was not the point. The freedom they had sought was their own. They did not revolt against the institution of slavery as such. What had happened in the English-speaking countries at the dawn of the American Republican was entirely unique. Before then, no one had thought to form a movement dedicated to the belief that the institution of slavery was itself immoral. What was important in this historical fact was that it showed that white Europeans who were the target of the reparations indictment had played a pivotal role in the emancipation from slavery.”

Berlet’s gross misrepresentations of Horowitz’s work can only be understood in the context of Berlet’s own political and ideological track record. For instance, in the mid-1970s he volunteered to work on Counterspy magazine, an anti-CIA periodical founded by Philip Agee, the onetime intelligence officer who subsequently turned against the agency and spent years exposing the identity of undercover American spies who were stationed overseas. During the Cold War, Berlet was a supporter of Communist police states—most notably Albania, one of the most backward and repressive. Indeed, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the Chicago Area Friends of Albania, a Communist front group that supported the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania and the repressive political rule of the Marxist-Leninist dictator Enver Hoxha. And for the past 35 years Berlet has been a paralegal member of the National Lawyers Guild, which throughout the Cold War embraced pro-Soviet agendas while systematically opposing the foreign policies of the United States, and which continues to depict America as the principal wellspring of evil on earth.

In 2010 SPLC denounced the Tea Party, which advocated reductions in government spending and taxes, as a movement that was “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories, and racism.”

Another of SPLC’s bedrock beliefs is its conviction that the U.S., in addition to being inherently racist, is also a homophobic nation that countenances all manner of injustice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people—who, according to the Center, are “far more likely to be victims of a violent hate crime than any other minority group in the United States.” SPLC tars anyone objecting to transformative cultural changes involving homosexuals—such as gay marriage—as a “hate” monger whose opinions have no more legitimacy than those of an Aryan militia. Thus did the Center once list the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group, chiefly because of its opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that homosexuality is an “unnatural” condition “associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.” It should be noted that FRC expresses no malice at all toward homosexuals, as demonstrated not only by its professed “sympathy” for “those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions,” but also by its call for “every effort … to assist such persons to overcome those attractions.”

SPLC’s list of hate groups and extremist groups also includes the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative organization that opposes homosexuality on religious grounds and rejects the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would designate transgendered people (cross-dressers) as a “protected class” whom employers would not be free to eliminate from job-applicant pools on that basis.

SPLC sees “Islamophobia”—hatred and fear based on religious faith—as yet another major defect in the American character. The June 2012 edition of Intelligence Report, for instance, featured a hit-piece titled “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right,” which claimed that “an anti-Muslim movement, almost entirely ginned up by political opportunists and hard-line Islamophobes, has grown enormously since taking off in 2010, when reported anti-Muslim hate crimes went up by 50%.”

That seemingly ominous statistic seems less foreboding, however, when one considers that according to FBI data, the number of “reported anti-Muslim hate crimes” nationwide increased from 107 in 2009 to 160 in 2010—technically a 50% increase, but hardly what could be characterized as an epidemic in a nation of more than 300 million people. Further, SPLC’s report gives no indication that the anti-Muslim hate-crime count of 2010 was in fact consistent with the normal, slightly fluctuating incidence of such events in other years—e.g., 155 in 2002, 149 in 2003, and 156 in 2004. Equally noteworthy is the fact that when the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes had dropped from 156 in 2006 to 115 in 2007—and from 481 in 2001 (the year of the 9/11 attacks) to 155 in 2002—the Center never thought to suggest that bigotry against Muslims was steeply declining.

SPLC’s “30 New Activists” report dismisses, as purveyors of hate, a number of scholars, researchers, and journalists who have examined and discussed, in a thoughtful and responsible manner, the teachings, values, history, and objectives of militant Islamists. Among those smeared in the report are World Net Daily publisher Joseph Farah, American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, blogger/activist Pamela Geller, and Accuracy in Media director Cliff Kincaid. In an effort to marginalize these individuals, SPLC lumps them together with Klansmen and neo-Nazis.

In October 2016, SPLC published a report titled Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, a blacklist profiling 15 “Islam-bashing activists” whose “propaganda” was allegedly responsible for “fueling” acts of public “hatred” against “American Muslims,” who purportedly “have been under attack” in the U.S. “ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001.” The subjects of these profiles included:

  • Ann Corcoran, founder of the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch
  • Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT for America
  • Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy
  • Pamela Geller, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (and Stop Islamization of America)
  • John Guandolo, founder of the consultation and training group, Understanding the Threat
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born activist and author
  • David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
  • Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Project
  • Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center
  • Maajid Nawaz, a self-identified “proud Muslim” who opposes the radicalization of his faith
  • Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum
  • Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian American activist who converted from Islam to Christianity
  • Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch
  • David Yerushalmi, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center

Each of these individuals seeks, in writings and speeches that are firmly rooted in factual information, to inform the American public about the beliefs, values, agendas, and activities of Islamic jihadists, and about the potential consequences of widespread Muslim immigration to the United States. But SPLC—rather than simply asserting that it views the arguments or conclusions of these authors as flawed—instead smears them as wild-eyed Islamophobes who, as in the case of Gaffney, are “gripped by paranoid fantasies about Muslims destroying the West from within.” Consider, for instance, some of the easily verifiable—or at least arguable—statements that SPLC has cited as evidence of unhinged bigotry:

  • Corcoran’s assertion that “we have made a grievous error in taking the Muslim refugees, Somalis in particular, who have no intention of becoming Americans”;
  • Emerson’s assertion that the Obama administration “extensively collaborates” with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Europe has numerous “no-go zones” which non-Muslims cannot enter without great peril to their own safety;
  • Gabriel’s assertion that any “practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah” and embraces Sharia Law “cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States,” and that Islamists’ “ideology … forbids them to assimilate” to Western culture;
  • Gaffney’s assertion that “we’re witnessing not just the violent kind of jihad that these Islamists believe God compels them to engage in, but also, where they must for tactical reasons, a more stealthy kind, or civilizational jihad as the Muslim Brotherhood calls it”;
  • Geller’s assertion that Islam is “the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth”;
  • Hirsi Ali’s assertion that Islamic schools in the West should be shut down, and that “violence is inherent in Islam”;
  • Horowitz’s 2008 ad campaign stating that the Muslim Students Association was “founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of Al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring jihad into the heart of American higher education” (SPLC had once dubbed Horowitz himself as “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement”);
  • Muise’s assertion that “stealth jihadists … covertly seek to perpetuate sharia into American society,” and that “80% of the mosques in the United States distribute literature that promotes violence against nonbelievers”;
  • Pipes’s assertion that the infamous terrorist organization ISIS is “100 percent Islamic” and “profoundly Islamic”;
  • Spencer’s assertion that “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful,” and “is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers”; and
  • Yerushalmi’s assertion that “our greatest enemy today is Islam,” and that “the only Islam appearing in any formal way around the world is one that seeks a world Caliphate through murder, terror and fear.”

In a 2016 interview with the Tablet, the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz stated that the SPLC staffers who had collaborated on writing the Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists were “a bunch of first-world, comfortable liberal Americans who are not Muslims [and] have decided from their comfortable perch to label me, an activist who is working within his Muslim community to push back against extremism, an anti-Muslim extremist.” Emphasizing that because SPLC’s blacklist had “put a target on my head,” Nawaz said he believed that his own life was now in danger: “This is what putting people on lists does. When Theo Van Gogh was killed in the Netherlands, a list was stuck to his body that included Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s name. It was a hit list. When Bangladeshi reformers were hacked to death by jihadist terrorists, they were working off lists.” “The left is no longer about advancing progressive values,” Nawaz added. “For them, it’s now about tribal identities, and any internal critique is seen as treachery.”

It is worth noting the serious ramifications that had previously occurred when SPLC in 2012 listed the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group. On the morning of August 15, 2012, a domestic terrorist named Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington, DC headquarters carrying a pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition with the intention of “kill[ing] people in the building.” His plan was thwarted by an operations manager who physically tackled him to the ground. When an FBI agent subsequently asked Corkins why he had chosen to target FRC, the would-be killer replied: “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website. Stuff like that.”

Adhering to the theme of a profoundly hateful United States, SPLC charges that Latin American immigrants, who “perform some of the hardest, most dangerous jobs in our economy—for the least amount of pay,” are routinely “cheated out of their wages”; “denied basic protections in the workplace”; “subjected to racial profiling and harassment by law enforcement”; and “targeted for violent hate crimes.” These trends, says SPLC, have been “encouraged” by “politicians and media figures” guilty of spreading “false propaganda that scapegoats immigrants for our nation’s problems and foments resentment and hate against them.” The growth of this “civil rights crisis,” as SPLC calls it, “has been driven almost entirely by the immigration debate.” Conspicuously absent from the foregoing assertions is any acknowledgment that it is illegal immigration that sits at the heart of that debate.

SPLC derides the American Legion’s opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty as “Legionnaires’ Disease”—even though the Legion fully supports opportunities for legal immigration. The Center similarly denounces the Minuteman Project—a nonviolent, volunteer effort initiated by private American citizens seeking to restrict the flow of illegal border-crossers—as an organization whose ideals and tactics are rooted in racism. The Arizona-based American Border Patrol, which monitors traffic across Southeastern Arizona’s border with Mexico—the heart of a major smuggling corridor—is classified by SPLC as a “hate group” dominated by “anti-immigrant ideologues.” And Americans for Immigration Control, which contends that illegal immigration is a “lawless” phenomenon that “puts the future of our country in jeopardy,” is branded an “anti-immigrant” hate group.

As is typical of organizations on the left, SPLC is ever-prepared to label its political and ideological adversaries as purveyors of “hate” and “intolerance.” But in reality, that is nothing more than psychological projection. Hatred and intolerance for the opinions and values of others are prime components in the very lifeblood of SPLC.

Yet another major component of that lifeblood is money. Although SPLC possesses reserve assets valued at more than a quarter of a billion dollars, it spends, in comparison to other nonprofit organizations, an unusually small percentage of its revenues on actual program services—and a great deal on salaries, overhead, and fundraising. As The Weekly Standard reports: “CharityWatch, an independent organization that monitors and rates leading nonprofits for their fundraising efficiency, has consistently given the SPLC its lowest grade of ‘F’ (i.e., ‘poor’) for its stockpiling of assets far beyond what CharityWatch deems a reasonable reserve … to tide it over during donation-lean years.”

More than any other organization in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center has turned hate-based identity politics and grievance mongering into a highly profitable scam.

NOTE:

[1] Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs (Olathe, KS: Editorial Research Service, 1998), p. 55.

 

Source

Rothschild Family Wealth is Five Times that of World’s Top 8 Billionaires Combined

Isaac Davies — Waking Times Jan 20, 2017

Jacob Rothschild. Click to enlarge

Jacob Rothschild. Click to enlarge

A recent report by Oxfam International highlights the dramatic rise in income equality by noting that the combined wealth of the world’s top 8 individual billionaires is more than the lower half of the world’s population, some 3.6 billion people. The intention of the report was to bring awareness to the unfairness and injustice inherent in our global economic system.

“It calls for a fundamental change in the way we manage our economies so that they work for all people, and not just a fortunate few.” [Oxfam]

Listed below are the 8 billionaires along with their estimated wealth, which combined equals $426.2 billion.

Bill Gates – $75 b
Amancio Ortega – $67 b
Warren Buffett – $60.8 b
Carlos Slim Helu – $50 b
Jeff Bezos – $45.2 b
Mark Zuckerberg – $44.6 b
Larry Ellison – $43.6 b
Michael Bloomberg – $40 b

Oxfam’s assertion is that world economies are mismanaged in favor of the wealthy, which is largely true, however, the report failed to hit the mark on this serious issue by not acknowledging the greatest problem with the world’s economy, which is the global central banking model of privately owned debt-based fiat currencies.

The current banking model is the product of hundreds of years of planned development, structuring, manipulation, force and trickery which began in earnest with Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who first established banking and finance houses in Germany in the 18th century.

The careful cultivation of his wealth with the assistance of his five sons allowed Rothschild to profit immensely during the French Revolution by providing financing and war materials to Austria, which in turn allowed the budding family empire to evolve into a multi-national organization, henceforth becoming a major financier of industry and war.

“Around that time, Rothschild sent his five sons to live in the capital cities of various European countries. His goal was to have each of his children establish a banking business in Frankfurt, Naples, Vienna, Paris, and London, and throughout the 1800s, they did. With Mayer Rothschild’s children spread across Europe, the Rothschilds became the first bank to transcend borders. Lending to governments to finance war operations for the past several centuries provided ample opportunity to accumulate bonds and shore up additional wealth in a range of different industries.” [Source]

Fast forward to 2016, the Rothschild family is a dynasty of unimaginable wealth which manages to somehow conceal it for the most part, never quite being publicly credited as the richest and most influential family in the world. By dividing their capital and holdings up amongst the many members of the family, including numerous descendants and heirs, occasionally a single member of the family will appear on a list of the world’s top individuals, however, the family as a whole represents the largest fortune ever known.

“Traditionally, the Rothschild fortune is invested in closely held corporations. Most family members are employed by these corporations directly or invested in operations that generate family wealth. The remarkable success of the family has largely been due to a strong interest in cooperation, being entrepreneurs and the practice of shrewd business principles.” [Source]

Investopedia estimates the family’s total wealth at over $2 trillion in assets and holdings, including some of the world’s oldest living corporations:

“…their holdings span a number of diverse industries, including financial services, real estate, mining, energy and even charitable work.There are a few Rothschild-owned financial institutions still operating in Europe, including N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd in the United Kingdom, and Edmond de Rothschild Group in Switzerland. The family also owns more than a dozen wineries in North America, Europe, South America, South Africa and Australia.” [Source]

At $2 trillion plus, the family’s reported wealth is closing in on five times as much as the combined wealth of the world’s top 8 individual billionaires, meaning that the Rothschild family alone controls more wealth than perhaps three-fourths or more of the world’s total population.

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here

Source

Trump’s Declaration of War

Paul Craig Roberts — paulcraigroberts.org Jan 20, 2017

Trump inauguration speech

President Trump’s brief inaugural speech was a declaration of war against the entirety of the American Ruling Establishment. All of it.

Trump made it abundantly clear that Americans’ enemies are right here at home: globalists, neoliberal economists, neoconservatives and other unilateralists accustomed to imposing the US on the world and involving us in endless and expensive wars, politicians who serve the Ruling Establishment rather than the American people, indeed, the entire canopy of private interests that have run America into the ground while getting rich in the process.

If truth can be said, President Trump has declared a war far more dangerous to himself than if he had declared war against Russia or China.

The interest groups designated by Trump as The Enemy are well entrenched and accustomed to being in charge. Their powerful networks are still in place. Although there are Republican majorities in the House and Senate, most of those in Congress are answerable to the ruling interest groups that provide their campaign funds and not to the American people or to the President. The military/security complex, offshoring corporations, Wall Street and the banks are not going to roll over for Trump. And neither is the presstitute media, which is owned by the interest groups whose power Trump challenges.

Trump made it clear that he stands for every American, black, brown, and white. Little doubt his declaration of inclusiveness will be ignored by the haters on the left who will continue to call him a racist just as the $50 per hour paid protesters are doing as I write.

Indeed, black leadership, for example, is enculturated into the victimization role from which it would be hard for them to escape. How do you pull together people who all their lives have been taught that whites are racists and that they are the victims of racists?

Can it be done? I was just on a program briefly with Press TV in which we were supposed to provide analysis of Trump’s inaugural speech. The other commentator was a black American in Washington, DC. Trump’s inclusiveness speech made no impression on him, and the show host was only interested in showing the hired protesters as a way of discrediting America. So many people have an economic interest in speaking in behalf of victims that inclusiveness puts them out of jobs and causes.

So along with the globalists, the CIA, the offshoring corporations, the armaments industries, the NATO establishment in Europe, and foreign politicians accustomed to being well paid for supporting Washington’s interventionist foreign policy, Trump will have arrayed against him the leaders of the victimized peoples, the blacks, the hispanics, the feminists, the illegals, the homosexuals and transgendered. This long list, of course, includes the white liberals as well, as they are convinced that flyover America is the habitat of white racists, misogynists, homophobes, and gun nuts. As far as they are concerned, this 84% of geographical US should be quarantined or interred.

In other words, does enough good will remain in the population to enable a President to unite the 16% America haters with the 84% America lovers? http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

Consider the forces that Trump has against him:

Black and hispanic leaders need victimization, because it is what elevates them to power and income. They will turn a jaundiced eye toward Trump’s inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is good for blacks and hispanics, but not for their leaders.

The executives and shareholders of global corporations are enriched by the offshored jobs that Trump says he will bring home. If the jobs come home, their profits, performance bonuses, and capital gains will go away. But the economic security of the American population will return.

The military/security complex has a 1,000 billion annual budget dependent on “the Russian threat” that Trump says he is going to replace with normalized relations. Trump’s assassination cannot be ruled out.

Many Europeans owe their prestige, power, and incomes to the NATO that Trump has called into question.

The financial sector’s profits almost entirely flow from putting Americans into debt bondage and from looting their private and public pensions. The financial sector with their agent, the Federal Reserve, can overwhelm Trump with financial crisis. The New York Federal Reserve Bank has a complete trading desk. It can send any market into turmoil. Or support any market, because there is no limit on its ability to create US dollars.

The entire political edifice in the US has insulated itself from the will, desires, and needs of the people. Now Trump says the politicians will be accountable to the people. This, of course, would mean a big drop in their security in office and in their income and wealth.

There are a large number of groups, funded by we-know-not-who. For example, RootsAction has responded today to Trump’s forceful commitment to stand for all of the people against the Ruling Establishment with a request to “ask Congress to direct the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation” and to send money for Trump’s impeachment.

Another hate group, human rights first, attacks Trump’s defense of our borders as closing “a refuge of hope for those fleeing persecution.” Think about this for a minute. According to the liberal-progressive-left and the racial interest group organizations, the US is a racist society and President Trump is a racist. Yet, people subject to American racism are fleeing from persecution to America where they will be racially persecuted? It doesn’t make sense. The illegals come here for work. Ask the construction companies. Ask the chicken and animal slaughter houses. Ask the vacation area cleaning services.

This list of those on whom Trump has declared war is long enough, although there are more that can be added.

We should ask ourselves why a 70 year old billionaire with flourishing businesses, a beautiful wife, and intelligent children is willing to give his final years to the extraordinary stress of being President with the stressful agenda of putting the government back in the hands of the American people. There is no doubt that Trump has made himself a target of assassination. The CIA is not going to give up and go away. Why would a person take on the grand restoration of America that Trump has declared when he could instead spend his remaining years enjoying himself immensely?

Whatever the reason, we should be grateful for it, and if he is sincere we must support him. If he is assassinated, we need to take up our weapons, burn Langley to the ground and kill every one of them.

If he succeeds, he deserves the designation: Trump the Great!

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and any other country on the CIA’s hit list should undersand that Trump’s rise is insufficient protection. The CIA is a worldwide organization. Its profitable businesses provide income independent of the US budget. The organization is capable of undertaking operations independently of the President or even of its own Director.

The CIA has had about 70 years to entrench itself. It has not gone away.

Source

Facebook Screams ‘Jawohl!’, Will Help Censor News for German Dictator Merkel

Tyler Durden — Zero Hedge Jan 17, 2017

Soros Merkel

Because the rise in popularity of alternative and populist candidates in Germany and elsewhere around the world can’t possibly by a legitimate rejection of politicians who simply skewed policies too far to the left over the past decade, Germany and Facebook have announced an accelerated effort to crack down on “Fake News” (i.e. anything that is deemed critical of Angela Merkel) ahead the country’s elections in September.   Just like in the U.S., Facebook’s crackdown in Germany will enlist the support of 3rd-party “fact checkers” who will flag stories as “disputed” if they’re found to include “fake” or “misleading” content.  The Financial Times:

German users of the social network will now be able to report a story as fake and it will be sent to Correctiv, a third-party fact checker. If the fact checker discovers it is fake, the story will be flagged as “disputed”, with an explanation. Disputed stories will not be prioritised by the news feed algorithm and people will receive a warning if they decide to share it.

Facebook said it had been in discussions with German media and publishing groups and was working to get more partners on board. “Our focus is on Germany right now but we’re certainly thinking through what countries will unveil next,” he said.

Of course, as we pointed out a few weeks ago, similar efforts to enlist the help a third-party, “independent” fact checker in the U.S., Poynter, drew some scrutiny after a quick google search revealed that they are funded by none other than George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which can be accused of many things, but political impartiality is not one of them.  From our previous post:

A quick review of Poynter’s website reveals that the organization is funded by the who’s who of leftist billionaires including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network.  Well that seem fairly bipartisan, right? 

Poynter

As we pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Germany is actively considering a number of laws that could impose fines of up to €500,000 and 5 years in jail for the distribution of “fake news” with justice minister Heiko Maas saying that “social networks have a duty” to censor “lies and hate campaigns.”

The German government announced last month it was planning a law that would impose fines of up to €500,000 on Facebook for distributing fake news. Angela Merkel, chancellor, has warned there are signs that online attacks and misinformation coming from Russia could “play a role in the election campaign”.

In an interview with Welt Am Sonntag on Sunday, Heiko Maas, Germany’s justice minister, warned that fake news posed a “danger to our culture of debate”, and added that, in extreme cases, those responsible could face up to five years in jail.

“But social networks also have a duty,” he said. “It can’t be in Facebook’s interest that its platform is misused in order to spread lies and hate campaigns. Criminal content should be deleted immediately once it has been reported. And it must be easier for users to report fake news.”

Germany’s Justice Ministry will draft a bill that will include a “catalog of fines” for violations, Volker Kauder, Merkel’s top lieutenant in parliament, told reporters Saturday. Thomas Oppermann, his counterpart in the Social Democratic Party, Merkel’s coalition partner, last month told Der Spiegel that the penalties could reach 500,000 euros ($532,000), and that sites like Facebook should also be required to publish corrections after removing criminal posts.

The fines “have to hurt, otherwise they won’t work,” Kauder said.

And while many would say this is yet another unprecedented attempt of the left to collude with the mainstream media in an effort to censor their political opposition, Merkel’s CDU party would like for you to rest assured that their “fake news” crusade is simply intended to “protect Germany’s democratic process against manipulation.”

“Social networks take too long to remove insults before they spiral out of control,” said Stephan Harbarth, a senior lawmaker of Merkel’s CDU party. “There are clear limits to freedom of speech in the real world that aren’t yet applied online and that needs to change. This is about hate posts as well as fake news.”

Harbarth said he would like to see the law enacted before this year’s national election, expected to be held in September. He insists it’s not intended to boost the CDU’s chances in the ballot, but rather to protect Germany’s democratic process against manipulation.

But, if the last year has taught us anything, it’s that Putin and his army of hackers will not be stopped.  If they can single-handedly topple the Clinton dynasty then Merkel doesn’t stand a chance.

Source

Is Politically Correct or Jingoistic Reporting Fake News?

Phillip Giraldi — The Unz Review Jan 17, 2017

russia hackers graphic

When the Washington Post reports about violent crime online or in its print Metro Section it generally does not include descriptions of the alleged perpetrator even when that individual is still on the loose and continuing to pose a threat to the general public. This omission is conspicuous, particularly when the story itself makes it very clear that the presumed victim got a very good look at his or her assailant and would be able to provide a detailed physical description together with an account of what the attacker was wearing. One might even suggest that the Post is doing the general public no favor when it censors its account, making anyone who might cross the path of the miscreant more vulnerable to also becoming a victim.

The Post edits its coverage because it clearly does not want to associate violent crime with any particular race even though, as every Washingtonian knows full well, nearly all violent crime in the city is carried out by young black males. Rather than providing a public service by identifying the perpetrator the Post chooses to say nothing to avoid having to identify the assailant as black. But the reader, aware of that reticence, consequently automatically assumes that the perpetrator is black anyway, making the paper’s attempt to avoid any identification of criminals by race instead create the presumption in the reader’s mind that every single one of the violent acts that occur in the District of Columbia is done by people of color. What is intended to shield blacks hardly does them any favors, quite the contrary.

Partially reporting straightforward stories for politically correct reasons is in my mind equivalent to the fake news that everyone has been lamenting. The general perception that the news is slanted or manipulated has fed the lack of trust in the veracity of what is being reported and is a major contributor to the decline in newspaper readership. The Post, which also recently featured largely phony major stories about alternative news sites being tools of Russia as well as a wildly inflated tale about Russian hacking a utility in Vermont, is particularly much given to making up its coverage as it goes along. Every page in the news section is in reality an editorial as the paper assiduously mixes fact with fiction together with a heavy dose of opinion. It is Orwellian newspeak at its finest.

Inured to the Post’s p.c. coverage of racial issues, I was nevertheless shocked by some of the recent reporting on an incident in Chicago in which four teenagers videoed themselves and broadcast what they were doing live on Facebook as they beat a mentally impaired man. An early media account of the incident appeared on Reuters but is no longer available. It was written by Timothy McLaughlin and had, as its second paragraph, “At least one of the attackers on the video mentioned president elect Donald Trump as he taunted the man but police stopped short of calling the beating politically motivated and said they are still investigating.”

From that, I assumed that the journalist was implying that the attackers were Trump supporters since there has been so much reporting lately of incidents at schools where white bullies allegedly cite Trump as they torment their black or brown classmates. Many of those stories would themselves appear to be extremely improbable fake news since the schools in question frequently appear to have highly vulnerable white minorities in the student bodies, but white-on-black violence is not intrinsically unthinkable so the story appeared to be at least credible.

But reading on, the article seemingly reluctantly produced some additional information. The victim, who was tied, gagged and beaten, “appeared to be white” while one of the assailants “appeared to be African-American” and was heard making comments about “white people.” The story did not link to the Facebook video, but BBC, among other sites, showed the video and was unambiguous in its labelling the four assailants as black and the victim as white, which anyone viewing the recording would have clearly appreciated. Subsequent news stories made clear that the expressions that were being shouted by the attackers included “F**k Trump” and “F**k white people.” The victim was reportedly beaten for six hours, cursed at, cut and otherwise abused. The live broadcast of the beating went viral before Facebook deleted it.

The media and Chicago police both struggled with whether or not the abduction and beating constituted a hate crime. In fact, they seemed eager to mitigate and even explain the impact of what everyone who watched the video could clearly see. One cop explained “Kids make stupid mistakes, I shouldn’t call them kids, they are legally adults, but they are young adults and the make stupid decisions… That certainly will be part of whether or not we seek a hate crime, determine whether or not this is sincere or stupid ranting and raving.” Another cop said “I think part of it is just stupidity. People ranting about something they think might make a headline.”

The New York Times dodged the bullet on what kind of crime it might be by describing it as an attack on disabled people without any racial or political overtones at all. So it was maybe just kids having fun and since it was black on white Wolf Blitzer won’t be flying in tomorrow morning to pontificate on what is wrong with Donald Trump’s America.

From my point of view, quite frankly who cares if the incident is or was motivated by hate as kidnapping and torture should be enough and the designation hate crime is essentially phony anyway. If an assailant hates his victim does that make the brutality worse? If you kill me because you are bored and are looking for something to do should you spend less time in prison than if you do so because you hate me?

Once the story was essentially agreed upon by the media and police, comments posted on the beating universally expressed outrage over what had occurred. Many of those posting their observations were themselves black, some expressing their desire that the perpetrators be imprisoned “forever” for having carried out such a horrific crime.

Reading my way through the comments, it occurred to me that the media and police department’s apparent reticence to report black on white crime with the same horror that it reports white on black serves no one, as it creates the impression that black criminals are somehow being protected or coddled even when it is clear that that is not the case. Decent, law abiding African-Americans, the vast majority, know that the end result of the politically correct news coverage of black crime is to make many white Americans even more suspicious of black behavior. So is it both fake news and highly damaging when the Washington Post and Reuters refuse to report a crime story honestly? It almost certainly is.

I grin daily upon rising when I hear the CBS Morning News proclaiming that it is providing “real news.” Charlie Rose and company are prime examples of America’s enslaved corporate media and wouldn’t know real news if it hit them in the ass. The news team has been leading off each day, for example, with a series of uncritical recaps of the various half-truths being promoted by the White House to indict Donald Trump’s relationship with Moscow, the biggest fake news story currently making the rounds. Professor Michael Brenner of the University of Pittsburgh has called the Russian hack the “most surreal and passionate work of fiction of the 21st century.” In the stories featured in the mainstream media there is a consistent presumption that the United States is somehow the victim and Russia the perpetrator of a horrific crime, meaning that the media has considerable difficulty in dealing with real situations that challenge the Establishment consensus. It finds considering the viewpoints of other countries objectively as problematical as it does in dealing with the issue of black crime.

What Russia’s crime consisted of, by the most damaging interpretation, was hacking into a private server belonging to a political party and possibly allowing the admittedly factual but embarrassing material obtained to make its way into the media. Excuse me, but that is what intelligence agencies do routinely to justify their multiple billion dollar budgets. The United States is the world leader in such activity as revealed by Jim Bamford’s books on the subject and also through the revelations obtained in the Snowden papers. Now Russia is being condemned for possibly doing some of the same, though no evidence is being provided, and the story is being framed as if we are by definition the good guys and Vladimir Putin is the devil incarnate.

What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.

Source

Here’s how the Trump presidency will play out

Pepe Escobar — The Saker Jan 19, 2017

The Trump era starts now – with geopolitics and geoeconomics set for a series of imminent, unpredictable cliffhangers.

I have argued that Trump’s foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger’s strategy to deal with the formidable Eurasia integration trio – Russia, China and Iran – is a remixed Divide and Rule; seduce Russia away from its strategic partnership with China, while keep harassing the weakest link, Iran.

In fact that’s how it’s already playing out – as in the outbursts of selected members of Trump’s cabinet during their US Senate hearings. Factions of US Think Tankland, referring to Nixon’s China policy, which was designed by Kissinger, are also excited with the possibilities of containment regarding at least one of those powers “potentially arrayed against America”.

Kissinger and Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski are the two foremost, self-described Western dalangs – puppet masters – in the geopolitical arena. In opposition to Kissinger, Obama’s foreign policy mentor Brzezinski, true to his Russophobia, proposes a Divide and Rule centered on seducing China.

Yet an influential New York business source, very close to the real, discreet Masters of the Universe, who correctly predicted Trump’s victory weeks before the fact, after examining my argument offered not only a scathing appraisal of those cherished dalangs; he volunteered to detail how the new normal was laid out by the Masters directly to Trump. Let’s call him “X”.

The non-stop China watch

“X” starts by doing something US deep state-connected regulars, who revere their idols, never dare to, at least in public; “It is important not to attribute too much importance to either Kissinger or Brzezinski as they are merely fronts for those who make the decisions and it is their job to cloak the decisions with a patina of intellectuality. Their input means relatively nothing. I use their names on occasion as I cannot use the names of those who actually make the decisions.”

That’s the cue for “X” to detail the new normal; “Trump was elected with the support of the Masters to tilt towards Russia. The Masters have their tools in the media and Congress maintaining a vilification campaign against Russia, and have their puppet Brzezinski also come out against Russia, stating ‘America’s global influence depends on cooperation with China’. The purpose is to threaten Russia to cooperate and place these chips on the negotiating table for Trump. In a traditional good cop-bad cop approach, Donald is portrayed as the good cop wanting good relations with Russia, and Congress, media, Brzezinski are the bad cops. This is to aid Trump in the negotiations with Russia as Putin sees the ‘precarious’ position of his friend and should be willing to make major concessions as the line goes.”

And that brings us to how Taiwan – and Japan – got into the mix;

“Donald shows the Russian tilt by talking to the Taiwanese, demonstrating that the shift is serious. But it was decided to throw Japan into the mix as a predator against US industry, with an attack on Toyota, thoroughly deserved. That moderated the position as the Masters became afraid that the perception of our building up Japan against China would be too much of a provocation.”

So expect China – as “not too much importance” Kissinger prescribed – to be under non-stop scrutiny; “The Masters have decided to reindustrialize the United States and want to take jobs back from China. This is advisable from the Chinese viewpoint; for why should they sell their work to the US for a dollar that has no intrinsic value and get really nothing back for the work. China should have a car in every Chinese worker’s garage and they will become a larger producer of cars than the EU, US and Japan combined, and their own nation will keep their wealth in their own country.”

And why China over Russia? “Russia in this sense being a natural resource country with a gigantic military industrial complex (the latter being the only reason she is secretly respected) is exempt from any tough trade talk as they hardly export anything but natural resources and military equipment. The Masters want jobs back from Mexico and Asia including Japan, Taiwan, etc., and you see this in Trump’s attack on Japan. The main underlying reason is that the US has lost control of the seas and cannot secure its military components during a major war. This is all that matters now and this is the giant story behind the scenes.”

In only a few words “X” details the reversal of an economic cycle; “The Masters made money out of transfer of industry to Asia (Bain Capital specialized in this), and Wall Street made money from the lower interest rates on the recycled dollars from the trade deficits. But now, the issue is strategic; and they will make money on the return of industries scaling down their investments in Asia and returning them to the United States as we rebuild production here.”

“X” remains quite fond of Henry Ford’s business strategy; and that is the cue for him to address the crucial theme: national defense. According to “X”, “Ford doubled the wages he paid and made more money than any other manufacturer. The reason was that a living wage where the mother can have many children on her husband’s wage was psychologically good for productivity in his car plants, and that his workers could then afford his cars. He thus recognized that in a society there must be a just distribution of wealth that his admirer Steve Jobs could not. Henry’s mass productivity was the wonder of the world and that was what won World War Two for the United States. Amazon does not contribute anything to national defense, being merely an internet marketing service based on computer programs, nor Google which merely organizes data better. None of this builds a better missile or submarine except in a marginal way.”

It’s the Pentagon, stupid

So yes; this all has to do with reorganizing the US military. “X” made a point to refer to a CNAS report I quoted in my initial column; “It is very important for what is visible between the lines. And that is we are in deep trouble being technologically behind Russia by generations in weapons, which is a follow-up on the Brzezinski quote that we are no longer a global power.”

This is a thorough, wide-ranging analysis of how Russia has managed to organize the best armed forces in the world. And that does not even take into account the S-500 missile defense system, which is now being rolled out and arguably seals the entirety of Russian airspace. And the next generation – S-600? – will be even more powerful.

“X” does venture into deep state taboo territory, as in how Russia, over the past decade, has managed to leap far ahead of the US, “eclipsing it as the strongest military power”. But the game may be far from over – wishful thinking or otherwise; “We hope Secretary of Defense James Mattis will understand this and that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has advanced technological skills, organizational ability and the foresight to understand that the weapons of World War Three are offensive and defensive missiles, and submarines, and not air power, tanks and aircraft carriers.”

A realist, “X” admits that the warmongering neocon/neoliberalcon status quo – represented by most US deep state factions – will never abandon the default posture of unremitting hostility towards Russia. But he prefers to focus on change; “Let Tillerson reorganize the State Department along Exxon efficiencies. He may be worth something in that.  He and Mattis may be gutless but if you tell the truth to the Senate you may not be confirmed. So what they say means nothing. But notice this about Libya. The CIA had a goal of driving China out of Africa and so does AFRICOM. That was one of the secrets to our Libyan intervention.”

Not that it worked; NATO/AFRICOM turned Libya into a wasteland run by militias, and still China was not driven away from the rest of Africa.

“X” also admits, “Syria and Iran are red lines for Russia. So is the eastern Ukraine from the Dnieper.” He is fully aware Moscow will not allow any regime change gambit on Tehran. And he’s also aware that “China’s investments in Iranian oil and gas imply that China also will not permit Washington’s overthrow of the Iranian government.”

The going really gets tough when it comes to NATO; “X” is convinced Russia “will invade Romania and Poland if those missiles are not taken out of Romania and the missile commitment to Poland rescinded. The issue is not the worthless defensive missiles of the United States but the substitutability of offensive nuclear missiles in these silos. Russia will not tolerate this risk.  These are not subject to negotiation.”

In contrast to the “perpetual threat” perpetual propaganda by the US War Party, Moscow focuses on actual facts on the ground since the 1990s; the break up of historic Slavic ally Serbia; Warsaw Pact nations and even former USSR republics annexed by NATO, not to mention attempts to also include Georgia and Ukraine; US deployment of color revolutions; the “Assad must go “ fiasco, as in regime change forced on Syria even including the weaponizing of Salafi-jihadis; economic sanctions, an oil price war and raids on the ruble; and non-stop NATO harassment.

“X”, fully aware of the facts, adds, “Russia has always wanted peace. But they are not going to play a game with the Masters of the Universe that has Trump as the good guy and the Congress, CIA, etc. as the bad guy as a negotiating ploy. That is how they see it. They do not regard this circus as real.”

The circus may be just an illusion. Or wayang – Balinese puppet theatre – as I suggested. “X” advances a crisp interpretation of the shadow play ahead from Moscow’s point of view, allowing “several months to see if Putin can work out a detente with Trump that essentially creates an autonomous eastern Ukraine, a peace treaty in Syria with Assad in place, and a withdrawal of NATO forces back to their line of defense under Ronald Reagan.”

Who will prevail; the Masters, or the deep state? Brace for impact.

Source