Let's start a real Ukrainian debate / Divide and Conquer / Farage: There's No Consent for a 'United States of Europe' / J’accuse l’oligarchie / Betrayal by Leaders / When Conservatives Go Wrong / Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too / Further War Preparations? / Ukraine: Unraveling the Planned Chaos / Righteous and Unrighteous Power
April 22, 2014
Commentary for 21 April 2014
I recently asked a Polish journalist friend his ideas regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. He gave me a five point answer: (1) The Ukrainians are fighting against Russia’s corrupt version of so-called capitalism; (2) Russia is trying to portray Ukraine as a non-state; (3) Putin is rebuilding the former Soviet Union’s empire, extending Moscow’s influence over specific economic sectors; (4) Moscow’s ultimate goal is to completely push the United States out of Europe, using a new anti-American ideology; (5) Meanwhile, Moscow relies heavily on the West’s readiness to compromise on everything and anything to preserve their access to Russian markets.
There is truth in what my Polish friend says. The key point, above all, is the intention to push the United States out of Europe. This was a Soviet goal prior to 1991, and it remains unchanged to this day. In part, the threat of war in Ukraine is being used to produce a split in Europe. Talk of economic sanctions also has the same effect. While some politicians may wish to support Ukrainian sovereignty, as the United States and Britain are obligated to do in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum, other politicians think it ridiculous to sacrifice their own constituents’ economic interests for a country that has been under Russia’s thumb for centuries. Furthermore, a case is being made that Washington is responsible for stirring up trouble in Ukraine, and that Europe’s interests are more closely aligned with Russia’s. Arguably, this is the immediate objective of Moscow’s push into Crimea: To split Europe, split NATO, isolate America from Europe; and to demonstrate Europe’s need for what Russian officials call – “a new security architecture.”
April 17, 2014
• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 15 April 2014
• Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Co-President of the 'Europe of Freedom and Democracy' (EFD) Group in the European Parliament.
• Debate: 100 years on from the First World War: lessons to learn and future of Europe
Council and Commission statements
April 15, 2014
« J’accuse l’oligarchie occidentale de comploter tous les jours contre la paix, contre l’identité et contre le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes. »
♦ J’accuse l’oligarchie de provoquer des crises pour mettre en tutelle les peuples, d’encourager tout ce qui favorise l’implosion des sociétés, de programmer la destruction des cultures et des savoirs, de détruire la démocratie, de conduire à la guerre. Un texte fort de Michel Geoffroy. Les oligarques de l’hyperclasse mondiale, voilà l’ennemi ! Polémia
1) J’accuse l’oligarchie occidentale de provoquer les crises pour mieux mettre en tutelle les peuples afin d’ouvrir la voie à un gouvernement mondial.
L’oligarchie n’échoue pas à trouver des solutions aux différentes « crises », qu’il s’agisse du chômage, de l’immigration, de la natalité ou de l’insécurité. Ces « échecs » constituent en réalité pour elle autant de succès car le choc et le chaos font partie intégrante de sa stratégie.
J’accuse l’oligarchie d’avoir systématisé la pratique du choc théorisée par les néo-libéraux de l’Ecole de Chicago dans les années 1970, comme moyen d’imposer des réformes économiques et sociales contre la volonté des peuples.
April 14, 2014
In his 2008 book, The Failure Factory, Bill Gertz detailed the nuclear apostasy of Air Force general George Lee Butler, former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command. Incredibly, Gen. Butler subverted U.S. deterrence policy vis-à-vis Russia and bragged about it later. When Gen. Butler retired in 1994 he confessed to being a nuclear pacifist. Rather than seeking to uphold America’s nuclear deterrent, Gen. Butler hated the “self-serving profit interests of the military-industrial complex.” As he put it, the United States had been “in a messianic pursuit of a demonized enemy.” He was not alone in this opinion. Many politicians and pundits, especially from the Left, have expressed a similar view. However, Butler was in a special position. He could weaken U.S. nuclear capabilities and – in his own words – “end the madness” of nuclear deterrence. This carries with it a belief that Russia’s leaders were not seeking global dominion, even though high-level defectors from the East Bloc said that Russia’s leaders were seeking exactly this. Gen. Butler, believing in the benevolent intentions of Russia’s leaders, confessed to the following actions: “…I did what I could to cancel all of the strategic nuclear modernization programs in my jurisdiction, which totaled $40 billion. I canceled every single one of them.” As it turns out, America’s nuclear lion was a blind kitten. “If I’d had my way and I’d been there a while longer,” said Butler, “I would have worked to reduce [our nuclear arsenal] to zero.” (Read in full Butler’s Speech and joint statement with Gen. Goodpaster.) Forget the stereotype of the cigar-chomping Strategic Air Command warmonger from the sixties who wants to nuke Moscow. The stereotype is a lie. There are no such American generals. There never were. According to Gertz, “Butler is typical of a U.S. officer corps that has remained disdainful of the concepts of patriotism, love of country, and the idea that liberty and freedom and the American way of life are worth fighting for and ultimately worth dying for.” [p. 160]
Is Gertz insulting our valiant officer corps? Or is his assessment realistic?
April 7, 2014
Commentary for 7 April 2014
April 5, 2014
Unfortunately, even the most vigilant of Americans can sometimes be led astray by a clever ruse, and I believe this is taking place today in the Liberty Movement’s perception of the rising “tensions” between Russia and the West.
In my article Ukraine Crisis: Just Another Globalist-Engineered Powder Keg, I outlined the history of false paradigms and engineered conflicts between numerous nations, including how these conflicts are exploited by global money interests to consolidate and centralize social and political power. The birth of communist Russia, in particular, was directly funded by Western banks and supported with arms and military aid from the U.S. government itself. These sorts of startling facts are not taught in schools and universities exactly because the continued dominance of the money elite relies on continued misrepresentations of legitimate history.
April 1, 2014
Commentary for 1 April 2014
On 26 March the Daily Mail reported the following headline: “Kim Jong-Un has told his military chiefs to prepare for war with South Korea in 2015, claims Seoul media.” Of course, the North Korean dictator is always threatening war. This is the first report, however, which alleges a definite timetable (in terms of a specified year for attack). What is noteworthy about this date is how it agrees with Chinese authorities. In an August 2005 speech by former Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, titled The War Is Approaching Us, we read, “…only with the power that is capable of totally extinguishing Japan and crippling the United States can we win peace; otherwise the Taiwan problem cannot be prolonged for more than 10 years, and there will be war within 10 years!” Gen. Chi delivered an even more terrifying speech before elite Party cadres titled, War Is Not Far from US and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century. Chi concluded this particular speech with the following note: “The central committee [of the Chinese Communist Party] believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparations appear to aim at Taiwan, but in fact [are] aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.”
March 28, 2014
“In a perverse way, the more aggressive the posturing by Russia, the more likely it is that the West will stump up the cash needed to prevent Ukraine’s economy from spiraling into a crisis,” observed Neil Shearing, chief emerging-markets economist for the London-based consultancy Capital Economics. “Essentially,” Shearing continued, “if the geopolitical tug of war becomes more polarized — and Putin becomes more bellicose — the more likely it is that the West will answer by coming to the rescue of Ukraine.”
March 24, 2014
Commentary for 24 March 2014India in 1962 offers a distant mirror of the present time. Think of Crimea today as if it were Tibet in 1959. A conflict arises after the invasion and annexation of territory. The aggressor’s position is subjected to active subversion, yet the aggressor’s ongoing military buildup is not taken seriously. His aggression is not matched with equal force. A military clash follows in which the aggressor defeats and punishes the interference of democracy.
The recently revealed “TOP SECRET” Indian Defense Review of the 1962 Chinese military attack on India begins, appropriately, with a quote from Sun Tzu about knowing yourself and knowing your enemy. The review describes preliminary signs of a Chinese push towards India in terms of “aggressive Chinese action at LONGJU in NEFA in August, 1959, and at KONGKALA in LADAKH in October, 1959.” The Indian generals recognized that “these two incidents vividly heralded that the might of CHINA had arrived in TIBET….” Truth be told, India was giving aid and comfort to the oppressed Tibetan people. China could not tolerate this situation for long, and was determined to teach India a lesson.
March 23, 2014
By Benjamin Fricke
For seven years now the European elite has been occupied with saving banks, indebted states and the Euro, yet nothing seems to have changed.
I have begun to ponder why political efforts have been unable to solve these problems and hold the responsible actors accountable for their mismanagement of banks, and states or to change their economic policy in Europe.
History once again must teach us a lesson of why nothing has worked to solve the problem. The three crises are to some extent independent from another but yet have amplified their impacts on each other. The real estate bubble in the U.S. has been a trigger for Europe’s dysfunctional system to become apparent. Yet, to blame speculating banks and U.S. housing policy solely for the economic disaster in Europe and the Euro crisis is incorrect.
When the Euro was officially announced, the interest rates for loans dropped for southern European countries to de facto German levels. This period between 1995 -1998 was called the “convergence period.” During that time cheap credit was made possible for countries, such as Greece, Italy and Spain. Prior to 1995 Greece, Spain and Italy paid double digit interest rates for their loans and were far away from a debt problem. That changed dramatically after 1995 because standards of living were boosted with cheap credit. The loans primarily served consumers and not investors. The debt burden did not have an equivalent rise in productivity to pay off the debt. A functioning economy is always based on investment, innovation and productivity.