Category: Opinion

The ECB holding Europe hostage

The European Central Bank – ECB – invented yet another tool to hold Europe hostage vis-à-vis Russia

The ECB has just launched – effective 4 November 2014 – a new watchdog to control and regulate the European banking system. It is called the Single Supervisory Mechanism – SSM. It is supposed to monitor and reign in European banks that do not ‘behave’ in terms of overstretching their investment and risk lending as compared to their capital base.

In fact, the SSM is one pillar of the three pillar ‘security’ system put in place by the ECB and the European Commission – EC.

The Single Resolution Mechanism – SRM – is ECB’s strong arm to save or liquidate ‘troubled’ banks. In other words, it will administer ‘bail-ins’ to ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks in distress; meaning – over-indebted banks will rescue themselves from depositors’ money, or from shareholders. This practice was tested in Cyprus in 2013. As reported by Reuters on 30 July 2013 – According to Cyprus’s central bank, “47.5 percent of deposits exceeding 100,000 euros in Bank of Cyprus would be converted into equity to recapitalize the troubled lender as part of an international financial bailout for the island”.

This confiscating or stealing of depositors’ funds, also called the ‘haircut’ in the denigrating jargon of the Occident, is better known as a ‘bail-in’ – since it avoids the taxpayer, those who have been bearing the brunt in previous US and European ‘bail-outs’.

This atrocious predatory and outright criminal imposition by the infamous troika (ECB, EC, IMF), with no legal backing whatsoever, went largely without protests in the rest of Europe, it was shortly thereafter accepted by the EC as the new ‘norm’.

In one of his last proud statements before handing his job as European Commissioner to Jean-Claude Juncker, Manuel Barroso exclaimed – “The European Union intends to break the vicious link between sovereigns and their banks. In the future bankers’ losses should no longer become the people’s debt, putting into doubt the financial stability of whole countries.”

There it is. The ratification of the new ‘bail-in’ rule. It is surprising that there is no run of the European banks, as many of them are less stable than they were in 2008, at the onset of the man-made ‘crisis’. Bail-ins might be imminent.

The third pillar will be the Single Resolution Fund – SRF – a stabilization and rescue mechanism for banks facing bankruptcy. It is planned to become effective on 1 January 2016 – if – and that is a big IF – the necessary funding will be put in place by the member countries.

Pillars one and two are compulsory for the Eurozone countries and banks, some 6000 – which is a lot to supervise. The ECB has quickly declared that it – i.e. SSM – will directly monitor the 150 most important ones. The others will continue to be controlled by national mechanisms, whatever these are. They will be given strict regulations to follow by SSM with sanctions or fines if the rules are not followed – to make sure they will not stray.

Membership for non-Eurozone countries is voluntary. Remarkably, the UK has not (yet) volunteered for membership.

This is the biggest boost in ECB’s power since its creation some 16 years ago. ECB now sets all banking standards throughout Europe, according to which a bank may fall or rise. This is a clear infringement on the Eurozone countries sovereignty – one of the key principles to be maintained according to the Lisbon Treaty. There is no covenant in ECB’s regulations that would give it this power leverage. It is all self-serving – and the neoliberal leaders of the Eurozone countries go along with it –to the detriment of their constituency.

And let’s not forget, ECB is intimately linked to Wall Street, the FED and the IMF – Mario Draghi, the ECB President, is a former Goldman Sachs executive.

The SSM is a flagrant conflict of interest – and it looks like the financial czars of this western greed economy are getting away with it. For now.

An independent audit of all European banks, especially those 100 or 150 considered “too big to fail” – and including the ECB itself – would indeed be in order. – Independent means – the auditors would report to a special council of Eurozone countries – but independent of the European Commission. The special council would include representation from member countries parliaments, the banking, industry and service sectors, as well as civil society.

Of course – this is unlikely to happen, equally unlikely as an independent audit of the FED. That would mean transferring power to the people, to those whose money is at play, those who are really interested in a well-functioning banking system – not a predatory one as we know it today.

According to The Guardian, a recent stress test carried out by the ECB on some 100 of the largest European banks, 24, or one of five, failed (including 9 Italian and 3 Greek banks), leaving a hole of 25 billion euros in banking capital – which eventually may need to be bailed-in — if there are no bail-outs and the SRF is not yet functional.

Implementation of the SSM will be a point of no return for European banks, including for individual countries sovereign central banks. Until now, they were nominally free to print their own money. For example, Greece could have rescued them-selves by printing its own euros, instead of submitting to the draconian, literally killer conditions, imposed by the troika. But it didn’t, since the ruling elite in Greece was and is part of the scheme. As of now, there is no ECB rule that forbids a local central bank to print its own money – which in the Eurozone is the euro.

Europeans will be at the mercy of the ECB and through it, of Wall Street and the FED – the defunct greedy dollar based monetary system.

And why do the people not react? – Because they are on purpose misinformed, kept in the dark by the media. The new SSM is presented as a system that would protect them from future crises – when the contrary is true.

However, at least equally important and highly suspicious, is the timing of this new delegation of power for the ECB. The abrogation of Eurozone countries and their banks sovereignty is not coincidental. It comes at a time when a new west-east conflict, a new Cold War with Russia is being instigated by Washington and its European vassals.

ECB’s new strong arm, the Single Supervisory Mechanism, with its transboundary powers and disregard for national sovereignty is intent to hold the Euro system and its countries hostage against Russia, or the new Russia-China alliance. The new watchdog watches that none of them will stray – perhaps into the eastern camp of honest trading, into a new realm of economic prosperity and equality, where banking may serve the peoples development, instead of the accumulation of wealth for a few.

Remember, Mr. Xi Jinping, President of China, visited Germany in March 2014, to offer Madame Merkel participation in the New Silk Road – a new trading alliance from Germany, the western most borders, all the way to Shanghai, covering Russia, the former Soviet Republics, north-western and central China. An incredible potential for trade and development that can hardly be ignored. If Germany accepts, the strongest nation of the Eurozone, the rest of Europe will follow – follow a path of more security and independence than the current alliance with threats and sanctions from a warmongering White House will offer.

Washington is aware of this. They will hold no barrels to sow unrest and destabilize Europe to eventually justify a US intervention, more NATO, more CIA surveillance, more profit-yielding armament – and moving ever a step closer to Moscow. The new banking control mechanism is just an additional – but extremely powerful tool in this direction.

An alternative monetary system, detached from the predatory dollar scheme, will be a welcome means to peacefully counter this latest financial aggression.

Peter Koenig is an economist and former World Bank staff. He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

President Putin welcomes collective human rights

By Wayne Madsen

Russian President Vladimir Putin has redefined the cause of international human rights to include the concept of «collective human rights». Putin rightly argues that in addition to individual human rights, which are being used by various special interests to advance such «boutique causes» as rights got lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, pedophiles [as seen recently by the German Green Party’s defense of members of Green Party-run pedophile communes], groups of people have the right to protect their social, religious, linguistic, and cultural identities against forces that seek to undermine such distinctions.

In recent years, the interventionists of the U.S. State Department, backed by George Soros and his ilk, have sought to destroy the character of various aspirant nations and ethnically- and linguistically-based regions that have striven for cultural and social independence. Putin has recognized such besieged peoples and that him to recognize the independence of the Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the CIA- and Soros-infested Republic of Georgia; the autonomy of and referendum in Crimea that saw it reunite with Russia; and the right of Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and Novorossiya to determine their own futures without oppression and violence directed from Azerbaijan, Moldova/Romania; and Ukraine, respectively.

Putin has international law on his side in his argument that collective human rights do, in fact, exist. Such rights were outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1989 Convention of the International Labor Organization, and the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In June of this year, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted in favor of a resolution that recognized group human rights. The global homosexual lobby, as represented by the U.S. State Department, Soros-funded NGOs, and such media outlets as The Daily Beast, cried foul. They claim there are no collective human rights, only individual human rights with an overarching focus on gay rights. The U.S. position that there are no «traditional values» associated with human rights was rejected in a council vote of 26 for, 14 against, with 6 abstentions.

Voting with Russia and against the United States was South Africa, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, nations with religious majorities and minorities that are constitutionally protected from domestic or foreign dictates that they submit to the whims of the globalized special interests of Soros and his lackeys within the State Department. Other nations that voted with Russia included Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, and Venezuela. The Soros NGOs and The Daily Beast cried foul and suggested that these nations did not reflect the will of the international community.

Russia stood accused by the Soros types and their State Department facilitators of opposing «diversity». Yet, Russia’s support for the rights of indigenous rights of groups to their own language, religion, and cultural and social values is at the very essence of recognizing diversity, whether it is in Abkhazia, Donetsk, the Serbian districts of the contrivance called the «Republic of Kosovo,» or the Alawite and Kurdish towns of Syria.

All the minions of Soros and the global gay lobby could do was condemn the 26 countries that voted for the collective human rights resolution as nations having «appalling» human rights records. The gay rights lobby would gloss over the dismal records of individual human rights witnessed in such «gay rights» havens as the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand with their panoptic electronic surveillance societies, general acceptance of police brutality, harsh suppression of racial minorities (an issue that is ignored by many gays so long as it is racist and not homophobic-related oppression), and curtailment of free speech.

The Russia-promoted UN human rights resolution also protects children and women from sex slave trafficking. It is no surprise that The Daily Beast would condemn a resolution targeting a revolting global sexual slave trade that is largely centered in Israel. After all, The Daily Beast appears to take all of its editorial directions from the power centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, along with their subservient political and financial cells in New York, London, Miami Beach, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC.

The gay lobby and its supporters are flat out wrong when they reject Putin’s doctrine of collective human rights. Enshrined in international human rights law is the «communal right of privacy,» in addition to general collective human rights, especially as they relate to the rights of indigenous people to be free of wanton exploitation and abuse by neo-colonial or economic interests. In many oppressed regions, dubiously-collected national census information has been used to forcibly assimilate and transfer indigenous populations from their historic lands.

Western corporations and interests, including those of Soros, have eagerly backed Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi because they realize that with her in charge of Myanmar (Burma), western exploiters will be free to displace the ethnic Shan, Kachin, Karen, and other peoples from their resource-rich lands in northern and eastern Myanmar. The Democratic Republic of Congo serves as a case in point where Western corporations have disregarded collective human rights in order to pillage native lands of their precious natural resources. The rise of the «blood diamond» industry in central and western Africa is directly linked to the blatant disregard by the West for «collective» or «group» human rights.

In the early 1990s, before the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), an alternative «United Nations» for indigenous peoples lacking representation at the UN, was taken over by Soros-controlled NGO bureaucrats and «Eurocrats,» the organization based in The Hague conducted a survey of 32 of its then-47 members. The survey discovered that many of the UNPO peoples sat atop highly-coveted natural resources. After UNPO organization was subsumed by the global network of Soros NGOs, which saw to it that Karl von Habsburg of the Austro-Hungarian royal pretenders was appointed UNPO’s director-general, the organization no longer points out the dangers posed to indigenous peoples by unscrupulous corporations and hedge funds like those controlled by Mr. Soros and his Rothschild and Rockefeller colleagues. It was also no coincidence that Von Habsburg served in a senior executive position for the NGO World Vision, an organization with historical ties to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The Hapsburg family are influential promoters of a federalized Europe that stands opposed to the concept of collective human rights as most recently seen in the European Union’s sharp opposition to Scottish and Catalonian independence. The cause of collective human rights received a sharp body blow by the takeover of UNPO by the Soros and Habsburg interests and the collapse of the Scottish and Catalonian independence movements.

The very same promoters of individual human rights, which is nothing more than State Department and Soros code for «gay rights,» would deny collective rights to Kurds, native Americans, and Asian tribal peoples because their cultures and creeds may oppose the promotion of homosexual life styles. Therefore, in the eyes of the gay movement, it is better for such groups to remain suppressed if they refuse to accept the «foreign» life styles imposed from abroad. Putin, by advancing the concept of collective human rights, has seen through the Soros and gay liberation smoke screen as he has called out their main promoters for their abject hypocrisy.

Obama refuses travel ban on black ebola countries

Ann Coulter laments about Obama’s refusal to call a travel ban on black countries that export ebola:

There had never been a case of Ebola in the U.S. until a few months ago. Since then, thousands of people have died of the disease in Africa, and millions upon millions of dollars have been spent treating Ebola patients in the U.S. who acquired it there, one of whom has died.

But the Obama administration refuses to impose a travel ban.

This summer, the U.S. government imposed a travel ban on Israel simply to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire agreement. But we can’t put a travel restriction on countries where a contagious disease is raging.

It’s becoming increasingly clear this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world. The entire Ebola issue is being discussed — by our government, not the United Nations — as if Liberians are indistinguishable from Americans, and U.S. taxpayers should be willing to pay whatever it takes to save them.

Maybe we should give them the vote, too! If Ebola was concentrated in Finland and Norway — certainly Israel! — we’d have had a travel ban on Day One.

 

She also singles out the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Tom Frieden, who likes to joke about ebola and zombies:

Dr. Tom Frieden justifies Obama’s refusal to prohibit flights originating in Ebola-plagued countries, saying, “A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall — virtual or real — around a community, city or country.”

What is it with liberals living in gated communities always telling us that fences don’t work? THAT’S WHAT A QUARANTINE IS.

At the congressional hearing on Ebola last week, Republicans repeatedly pressed the CDC representative, Dr. Toby Merlin, to explain why Obama refuses to impose a travel ban.

In about 17 tries, Merlin came up with no plausible answer. Like Frieden, Merlin kept insisting that “the only way to protect Americans” is to end the epidemic in Africa.

Why, precisely, must we attack Ebola in Africa? Research on a cure doesn’t require cuddling victims in their huts. Scientists who discovered the AIDS cocktail didn’t spend their nights at Studio 54 in order to “fight the disease at its source.”

Until there’s a treatment, we can’t put out the disease there, or here. The only thing Americans will be doing in Liberia is changing the bedpans of victims, getting infected and bringing Ebola back to America. When there’s a vaccine, we can mail it.

 

Coulter believes American troops sent to Liberia are also in grave danger:

Naturally, Obama is sending troops from the 101st Airborne, the pride of our Army, to Liberia. Their general should resign in protest.

Merlin further explained the travel ban, saying that if West Africans can’t fly to America, “that would cause the disease to grow in that area and spill over into other countries.” So instead of infecting people in surrounding countries, our CDC wants them to come here and infect Americans.

But that won’t happen because the government assures us there’s nothing to worry about with Ebola. They’ve got it under control.

Unfortunately, everything the government says about this disease keeps being proved untrue — usually within a matter of days.

They told us that you’d basically have to roll in an infected person’s vomit to catch the disease. Then, nurses at two first-world hospitals in Spain and the U.S. contracted Ebola from patients.

With no evidence, the CDC simply announced that the nurses were not following proper “protocol.” The disease didn’t operate the way CDC said it would, so the hospitals must be lying.

The government told us that national quarantines won’t work, but then they quarantine everyone with Ebola — or who has been near someone with Ebola, such as an entire NBC crew. To me, this suggests that there’s some value in keeping people who have been near Ebola away from people who have not.

Quite obviously, the only way to protect Americans is to prevent Ebola from coming here in the first place. The problem isn’t that Ebola will leap across oceans to infect Americans; it’s that Obama doesn’t want to protect Americans.

At least he’s only putting expendable Americans on the frontlines of the Ebola epidemic — doctors, nurses, members of the 101st Airborne.

At the moment, more than 13,000 West Africans have travel visas to come to the U.S. Having just seen an Ebola-infected Liberian get $500,000 worth of free medical treatment in the U.S., the first thing any African who might have Ebola should do is get himself to America.

Of all the reasons people have for coming here — welfare, drug-dealing, Medicare scams — “I have Ebola and I’m going to die, otherwise” is surely one of the strongest. The entire continent of Africa now knows that this is a country that will happily spend half a million dollars on treating someone who just arrived — and then berate itself for not doing enough.

Thomas Eric Duncan’s family may be upset with his treatment, but they have to admit, the price was right. Medical bill: $0.00. Your next statement will arrive in 30 days.

And now we’re going to have to let in entire families with Ebola, because the important thing is — actually, I don’t know why. It’s some technical, scientific point about fences not working.

 

Coulter urges Republicans, as well as all Americans, to demand Frieden’s resignation.

 

Black-white racial gap in USA now bigger than in 1970 South Africa

Whites, on average, believe that anti-white racism is a bigger problem than anti-black racism.

Many white Americans say they are fed up with the coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. A plurality of whites in a recent Pew survey said that the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News reflected that weariness, saying: “All you hear is grievance, grievance, grievance, money, money, money.”

Indeed, a 2011 study by scholars at Harvard and Tufts found that whites, on average, believed that anti-white racism was a bigger problem than anti-black racism.

Yes, you read that right!

So let me push back at what I see as smug white delusion. Here are a few reasons race relations deserve more attention, not less:

  • The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)
  • The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.
  • A black boy born today in the United States has a life expectancy five years shorter than that of a white boy.
  • Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students. They are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, setting them up for educational failure.
  • Because of the catastrophic experiment in mass incarceration, black men in their 20s without a high school diploma are more likely to be incarcerated today than employed, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nearly 70 percent of middle-aged black men who never graduated from high school have been imprisoned.

All these constitute not a black problem or a white problem, but an American problem. When so much talent is underemployed and overincarcerated, the entire country suffers.

Some straight people have gradually changed their attitudes toward gays after realizing that their friends — or children — were gay. Researchers have found that male judges are more sympathetic to women’s rights when they have daughters. Yet because of the de facto segregation of America, whites are unlikely to have many black friends: A study from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that in a network of 100 friends, a white person, on average, has one black friend.

That’s unfortunate, because friends open our eyes. I was shaken after a well-known black woman told me about looking out her front window and seeing that police officers had her teenage son down on the ground after he had stepped out of their upscale house because they thought he was a prowler. “Thank God he didn’t run,” she said.

One black friend tells me that he freaked out when his white fiancée purchased an item in a store and promptly threw the receipt away. “What are you doing?” he protested to her. He is a highly successful and well-educated professional but would never dream of tossing a receipt for fear of being accused of shoplifting.

Some readers will protest that the stereotype is rooted in reality: Young black men are disproportionately likely to be criminals.

That’s true — and complicated. “There’s nothing more painful to me,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

All this should be part of the national conversation on race, as well, and prompt a drive to help young black men end up in jobs and stable families rather than in crime or jail. We have policies with a robust record of creating opportunity: home visitation programs like Nurse-Family Partnership; early education initiatives like Educare and Head Start; programs for troubled adolescents like Youth Villages; anti-gang and anti-crime initiatives like Becoming a Man; efforts to prevent teen pregnancies like the Carrera curriculum; job training like Career Academies; and job incentives like the earned-income tax credit.

The best escalator to opportunity may be education, but that escalator is broken for black boys growing up in neighborhoods with broken schools. We fail those boys before they fail us.

So a starting point is for those of us in white America to wipe away any self-satisfaction about racial progress. Yes, the progress is real, but so are the challenges. The gaps demand a wrenching, soul-searching excavation of our national soul, and the first step is to acknowledge that the central race challenge in America today is not the suffering of whites.

– Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist

‘92% of South African whites are racist’

I read the previous column by Jonny Steinberg on Oscar Pistorius. In my view that article was too general and gave an incorrect view on the opinions of blacks.

Though I now stay in an upmarket suburb, I spend lots of my time in the townships. In those circles, the majority of people I have spoken to are not really concerned about Oscar but are concerned about the judgment itself. It really confused them. It created more doubts than certainty about the legal system in our country and the interpretation of laws. In a nutshell, most middle-class and informed Africans were embarrassed by it. They are even reluctant to talk about it. However, the most fortunate part of our judicial system is its corrective mechanisms. To err is human.

On the current article I wish to remind Mr Steinberg that not all whites still live in the past. Maybe, about 92% of them still do. It is expecting too much from the 92% (this figure is an estimate) of white people to embrace reconciliation and not be racist. Why would they now do that? They have failed to do so in the past 600 years of the history of mankind. During those years most white people have enforced and supported slavery, racism, colonialism, apartheid and other forms of prejudices against blacks, and Africans in particular.

In my view reconciliation is too abstract a concept to embrace or even attempt to “enforce”. The best way would be for government to, among other things, enforce and implement laws that would make economic growth possible, make equitable economic redistribution possible, expedite cultural emancipation for Africans and outlaw any form of racism and/or prejudice in this country.

It is unfortunate that most of my fellow countrymen cannot define what racism is ( or other forms of prejudices such as tribalism, sexism ). It has become the most abused term; especially by the majority of white South Africans. Maybe it’s because they have never experienced racism. – Thulani Ngcobo Midrand (Originally published as a letter in Business Day)

US Senate torture report vanishes

By Philip Giraldi

The crisis involving the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a Godsend to politicians, which is probably why the threat actually posed by the group is being hyped as it is while the White House and Pentagon continue to change the meaning of commonly used English expressions to enable the attacking of just about anyone anywhere. We are told that the United States will have a free hand in bombing Syria, an independent nation with which Washington is not at war. The Administration has warned that if Damascus attempts to defend itself from the air armada there will be consequences in the form of “retaliation,” suggesting that the US would be striking back after being attacked. Oddly enough, my dictionary suggests that it would be the Syrians who would be retaliating, but one supposes that in the Emerald City everything is not as it seems and certain words have little or no meaning.

The welcome distraction afforded by ISIS means that the issue of Gaza, which was recently devastated by the Israelis, has largely disappeared from the mainstream media, enabling Benjamin Netanyahu to steal still more land on the West Bank for new settlements. And remember MH-17? Still a whodunit and nobody cares anymore.

Back here at home, the dispute over the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture, a hot button issue earlier this year, has also benefited, largely disappearing from sight. The meticulously researched Senate report, covering 6000 pages and including 35,000 footnotes, apparently concluded that torturing terrorist suspects was not only illegal under the United Nations Convention on Torture, to which Washington is a signatory, it was also ineffective, producing no intelligence that was otherwise unobtainable.

Since a “forgive and forget” forward-looking White House has already indicated that no one will ever be punished for illegal actions undertaken in the wake of 9/11, why is the torture issue important beyond the prima facie case that a war crime that was authorized by the highest levels of the federal government? It is important because of its constitutional implications and its impact on rule of law in the United States, which is again being flouted by the Administration in its rush to “destroy” ISIS, which is little more than a terrorist group du jour being exploited to terrify the American public. The constitutional issue, in its simplest terms, is that the CIA works for the president and when it operates without legally mandated oversight by the legislative branch and judiciary it does so in defiance of separation of powers, making the Agency little better than a secret army run by POTUS.

The inability of the Senate Committee to compel the Agency and White House to come up with an acceptable draft of its report and agreement over what parts of it can be made public is also important because it reveals that the best the US Congress can do to oversee the country’s intelligence agencies is not very good at all. The past 22 months of delay in the report’s release have demonstrated that the intel community, with the support of the White House, can stonewall any issue until the cows come home.

The latest account of the head butting between the Agency and Congress reveals a bad working relationship between the Senate and CIA while also suggesting that Langley is again closing ranks against its critics. At a top secret behind closed doors meeting on September 9 th Agency Director John Brennan refused to divulge who at CIA authorized the actual intrusion into the computers being used by Senate staffers to compile their report. Brennan would also not address what the presumed legal authority to do so was. A shouting match with several Senators, all Democrats, ensued with several Senators demanding to know how Brennan could refuse to answer their questions.

The Agency had initially contended in its defense that the computer search was motivated by the alleged accessing and removal of restricted CIA reports by the Senate staffers, but it is no longer making that claim. Brennan reportedly refused to answer the two questions posed by the Senators because he did not want to “compromise” the ongoing investigations by the Justice Department and the CIA Inspector General into the computer hacking, but the committee felt he was stonewalling over questions that invited a relatively simple response. If he did not know the answers he could have said so. It might also be noted in passing that the two investigations are hardly independent, one being conducted in house by CIA and the other by a highly politicized Attorney General who will be inclined to protect the president.

CIA has also been working on its own rebuttal of the Senate report which is intended to demonstrate that torture actually worked and that no one at the Agency broke any laws. It is also reportedly seeking to redact major sections of the sixty page summary, which is the part most likely to see the light of day, an effort, which, if successful, will likely make the end product largely unreadable. It would probably also avoid including any blame or suggestion of “mission failure” which would be damaging to broader Agency political interests.

There also has been some speculation that the CIA would like to drag out the process in hopes that the Republicans will take control of the Senate in November, making any release of any part of the report unlikely. The White House has been brokering the review process between the intelligence community and Senate but has been largely mum about its preferences. It would likely want the report to remain classified or in limbo as its release might increase pressure on President Barack Obama to do something about criminal activity that might be revealed, which would be politically dangerous ground.

CIA has also welcomed back former Director George Tenet to help in crafting its own rebuttal report that it hopes will exonerate it from any blame, or at least point the finger elsewhere. Tenet was in charge of the Agency when the torture took place, so on one hand he would be a logical choice to craft a defense though on the other hand he would be keen to conceal any direct role on the part of himself and his accomplices, if only to preserve what remains of their reputations since there is no chance that any of them will be going to jail.

Let’s review who George Tenet is. He is a Greek American from Queens who never was an actual spy or analyst but made his way upwards in the intelligence community through a series of staff positions in Congress. As senior staffer for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence he got to know many important politicians. George could talk the talk in an affable way with Bill Clinton, who eventually named him Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, and then went on to discuss baseball minutiae with George W Bush, cementing his tenure with the new Republican administration. Tenet also presided over 9/11, which was a bit of an embarrassment for the Agency. He later utterly destroyed his own credibility when he declared that making a case for war with Iraq was a “slam dunk” before misleading both the United Nations and Secretary of State Colin Powell about the threat posed by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Tenet later retired into some well remunerated directorships before writing a book called At the Center of the Storm which reportedly earned him an advance of $4 million while demonstrating clearly that he is a great American hero.

So George will be reviewing what George did when he was good ol’ George DCI. When I was with the government I once served in a foreign city where a new United States Consul General’s residence was being built. It was so poorly constructed that there were holes in the ceilings and water running down inside the walls but the State Department Admin officer who was responsible left post before the project was completed. He came back a year later, after complaints, as the inspector to review the project. He determined that everything was just fine. That is sort of like putting George in charge of investigating George, but if the ISIS thing continues to pick up steam everyone in the media and among the public will in any event forget that there was ever a Senate torture report. In intelligence slang, it will “be disappeared.”

Lesotho and other African countries look comical

Journalists have been having a field day ridiculing the recent “coup” in Lesotho.

For African journalists, it turns out to be a joke on themselves — especially the notion that Lesotho should be SA’s 10th province.

Unlike SA, which was decided by the colonisers — the Boer republics and the areas annexed by the British Empire — the King of Lesotho was significant in the founding of his country. King Moshoeshoe 1 got on a ship to England to negotiate that the Queen of England should refrain from any attempt to annex his land.

The result was an undertaking by the British Empire not to do so and further to protect Lesotho from other colonisers — hence Lesotho was a British protectorate, not a colony.

The tragedy is not whether Lesotho exists on its own, but the fact that there is minimal development of its citizens to be sufficiently creative to buttress poverty and want in their land. Africans seem obsessed only with power. Occupying positions of power is seen as the only means by which they think one can secure income, status and prosperity.

Had Lesotho been in Europe, it would have publicised its history. King Moshoeshoe would be right up there in the consciousness of the world as one of the greatest diplomats of his time. With fewer than 2-million citizens, it would have unleashed the creative potential among themselves through proper education, and poverty would be minimal.

Conflict, if any, would have been about incorporation of the area dubbed the Free State as their ancestral land. Similarly, Botswana would be reclaiming what is called North West. AmaZulu would be fighting the “war” Scotland is engaged in.

The desire for nations to own and control their own land is not for any other reason than to engage in self-development, entrench their language, their culture and their history, which they would “sell” to the world.

The incorporation of Lesotho into the white-created and black “managed” SA will not bring its citizens any improvement in their lives as leadership in SA is still about hogging power and not human development.

If African countries concentrated on their own development and strove for excellence, they would not look so comical.

– Dr Kenosi Mosalakae, Houghton

Everything is racist now, even bras

Something’s changed, subtly but swiftly, over the past couple of months. Suddenly there are charges of racism absolutely everywhere, from seemingly everyone, irrespective of whether those accusations are grounded in reality. This isn’t entirely new, obviously, but it has intensified as of late.

by Mande WilkesWikes

And I’m tired of it.

While I can concede that some people are racist, and some systemic racism lingers, it’s hardly rampant or pervasive. On the whole, black Americans and white carry on together just fine.

To claim otherwise, actually, is to hurt children — black children, specifically. How must it feel to be a kid and to be told, over and over again from the get-go, that the world is out to get you? While it’s not causative, it isn’t hard to understand, then, why black youth suffer from high rates of incarceration, poverty, drug use and teen pregnancy. Honestly, had I grown up with the world at my ear, telling me I’m despised, I can’t be sure I wouldn’t have had a rockier time of it.

There are consequences, is what I’m saying, when you convince a whole segment of America that they’re hated. Not for nothing, one of those consequences could be that a black teen, having been brought up to believe that racism is everywhere, might behave defensively when approached by a white cop. In that instance, we can’t discern whether the issue was racism itself or, as likely, the mistaken and unwarranted fear of racism where it doesn’t exist.

I’ll keep it real, for a moment, and confess that I’m not saying anything new on the subject. So much has been said about racism that it’s hardly possible, at this point, to deliver any large insights.

But I reached my breaking point a few days ago, upon hearing news of the editorial board of a college newspaper charging that bra manufacturers are racist. Why are they racist? Because “nude” is a common bra-color designation, and black women’s skin isn’t actually “nude.” Or something.

Anyway, interestingly, this recent ratcheting-up and battening-down of hysteria coincides with genuine and growing racist sentiment — but it has nothing to do with the black population.

In recent weeks, a number of Americans have convinced themselves that Islam is a race and a religion to be feared, and, more than that, annihilated. You might imagine that to a Jewish person like me, Islamophobia would be comforting — a measure of commiseration about the ongoing Mideast unrest. But in fact it bewilders me that unofficial American policy seems to be that an entire population must be either converted or killed.

Which is all to say that right now it’s safer and sounder to be black in America than to be Muslim anywhere. Perhaps that’s progress of sorts, but it feels like more of the same.

Mande Wilkes is a wife, mother, businesswoman, author, etc. residing on the South Carolina coast with her family. Read more of her columns.

Project Fear pays off

The British establishment is breathing a collective sigh of relief. The people of Scotland have chosen Westminster rule over political sovereignty, and the Union remains intact.

Scotland’s pro-independence campaigners, bent on separatism and self-determination, claimed they had the momentum to realize an independent Scottish state. But they were mistaken.

The No campaign’s marginal victory has devastated thousands of Scots who had hoped Thursday’s referendum would pave the way for radical political transformation. It has also undercut the notion that vibrant grassroots movements can cultivate peaceful change in a seasoned democracy.

Many argue the passion, motivation and determination harbored by the Yes camp failed to appease fears roused by its rival ‘Better Together.’ The No campaign’s unyielding forecasts of economic peril, dwindling national security, an EU membership in jeopardy, and ruptured NATO relations ultimately eclipsed the pro-independence movement’s messages of positivity, hope and empowerment. And all the while ‘project fear’, as it was dubbed by budding Scottish secessionists, was bolstered and backed by the wider British establishment.

In the run up to September 18, unprecedented collaboration across Westminster’s divisive political terrain was apparent. It was interpreted by many as a frenetic effort to salvage a Union in jeopardy, and preserve a set of political and economic interests pertinent to the status quo.

While collective pleas and ominous warnings have secured a marginal victory for Better Together, Scotland’s independence referendum has rattled the very foundations of the UK’s socio-political design. As Scots’ hopes for a sovereign state evaporate, Salmond’s government must forge an alternate path for Scotland and prepare to negotiate the prospect of devolution.

Whose victory march?
In the run up to the referendum, Westminster pledged to enhance Scotland’s powers if a No vote reigned supreme. Following the No campaign’s victory, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg’s recent promise is foremost in Scots’ minds. All three parties pledged to deliver new powers to the Scottish parliament in accordance with a concrete timetable. But whether they will now act fully upon their pre-referendum rhetoric remains to be seen.

Commenting on the prospect of devolution, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander told the BBC such a move would pave the way for “a stronger Scottish parliament but with the strength, stability and security of the United Kingdom.”

But Scotland’s deputy first minister, SNP MSP Nicola Sturgeon, has expressed serious doubt over Westminster’s conciliatory overtures, emphasizing specific and explicit details were absent from the tentative pledge.

At present, the fate of Scotland appears to hinge on a set of ambiguous, ill-defined, assurances by an array of establishment figures unable to agree on the details of their collective vow.

And because Cameron, Miliband and Clegg battled stringently to keep the option of devolution off the referendum ballot paper, cynicism and doubt over the long term benefits of their proposition hang heavy over Scotland today. Ed Miliband stressed prior to the referendum that a No vote was a vote for change. But whether this change will rupture the foundations of the status quo many Scots fought so hard to overturn is debatable.

Prior to the referendum, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg warned Britain’s political establishment required a fundamental overhaul should Scotland acquire further devolution. The deputy prime minister cautioned it made little sense for Scottish MPs to garner the same degree of leverage over solely British matters if their devolved powers increased.

Clegg’s consideration of the matter relates directly to the so-called West Lothian question, a concern that English MPs should hold more sway over English legislation in the event of Scottish devolution. Should Clegg’s suggestion come to pass, Scottish MPs could lose the right to vote on vital issues such as the budget.

But dissatisfaction with devolution is unlikely to remain confined to Scottish borders. Such a legislative change could undercut Labour’s political leverage in Britain, which draws a considerable degree of support from Scottish MPs. And many argue Westminster has given little consideration to how such a power shift will affect the wider United Kingdom.

Although the coalition has attempted to appease widespread fears that devolution would reap a democratic deficit for the English, their actions have had little impact. Despite having conducted a special report which examined its potential ramifications entitled the McKay commission, the coalition subsequently shelved it for 18 months. As a result, many Conservative backbenchers have expressed deep concern. Former cabinet minister John Redwood has called for a separate English parliament, while MP Andrew Percy has urged voting rights be addressed.

Conservative rumblings
Cameron refused to define his position on devolution in the run up to September 18. But in a live address on radio, Clegg recently emphasized that once the legislation is passed to grant significant new powers on borrowing, welfare, and taxes to Scotland, decisive action must follow on how votes are organized in Westminster.

Clegg backs the McKay commission, which stipulates Scottish MPs should continue to vote on new legislation in the wake of devolution. The commission also emphasizes, however, such a shift in the Union’s political and social fabric should be accompanied by the allocation of greater powers to English MPs over matters relating to their immediate jurisdiction.

David Cameron will likely expect some very tough questions in coming weeks, following Scotland’s independence referendum. As the ballots were counted on Thursday night, many MPs began to break their silence on further devolution for the Scottish Parliament. Caustic and disgruntled rumblings from Conservative backbenches gathered pace, as Tory MPs warned of the dangers of handing too much power to the Scots.

Before the results were out, Conservative MP Claire Perry warned calm, measured analysis was required in negotiating devolution. The last minute pledge, tentatively offered by Westminster’s three party leaders, entailed a vow to devolve tax-raising powers to the Scottish parliament. But Perry has denounced such a policy shift as “hardly equitable.” Her perspective was recently echoed by Conservative MP for the City of London, Mark Field, who claimed his constituents will strongly oppose devo-max, many of whom are driven by financial and business interests.

On October 16, Gordon Brown is expected to reveal his plans for devolution in Britain’s parliament, with a view realizing the power shift by January 2015. Should Tory MPs attempt to block devo-max proposals to offer more political autonomy to Scotland, a heated leadership battle is expected to infiltrate the Conservative’s stronghold.

Changing political horizons
Headed by First Scottish Minister Alex Salmond, Scotland’s pro-independence campaign politically engaged tens of thousands of Scots, many of whom reportedly felt marginalized and disenfranchised by Westminster rule. It succeeded in mobilizing the young, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, progressives, nationalists and idealists who had grown weary of the status quo. Although it failed to secure independence, it succeeded in highlighting a potent appetite for political change in Scotland.

The recent Scottish campaign for self-determination illustrates how mounting frustration with a far-removed centralized government can build over time into a forceful drive for political sovereignty. The Yes campaign’s near-victory occurred primarily because the politics that characterize the Union had changed in recent decades. Westminster rule appeared increasingly removed from, and out of kilter with, Scotland’s interests, prompting socio-political space for nationalist ideals to develop in Scotland’s public consciousness. Many critics and commentators suggest that an aversion to Tory conservatism and Labour’s broken promises provided a fertile fulcrum for the SNP’s pro-independence campaign.

Following Better Together’s narrow victory, Alex Salmond conceded defeat in an emotional public address on Friday morning, emphasizing he accepted “the democratic verdict of the people.” But the SNP leader also cautioned that Britain’s three primary pro-union parties had to “live up” to their devolution promises.

PM David Cameron intimated that while the Scots will garner more power over their affairs in the future, so too will English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens. In what was a deliberately ambiguous reference to plans for devolution, Cameron insisted the interests and rights of all UK citizens must be “preserved and enhanced.” Inherent to these words, was a veiled promise to the City of London and the wider British establishment that while the status quo would be subject to a few cosmetic changes, it will ultimately remain steadfast.

In the wake of a referendum that almost terminated a 307-year-old political union, Westminister faces many challenges. Thursday’s poll results marked a watershed moment both in British and Scottish politics, the legacy of which will play out for decades.

As the UK coalition and Salmond’s government embark on discussions regarding the tentative process of devolution, the stakes remain high. The negotiations mark a significant remodeling of the UK’s political landscape. The Yes campaign’s vision of Scotland as a revised Scandinavian-style state characterized by inclusiveness, egalitarianism, clean energy, and global peace has been denounced by critics as utopian.

But against a backdrop of devolution, Scotland’s future remains unwritten and everything including the very fabric of Westminster itself is still on the table.

Sarah Jane Brennan, RT

St. Andrew’s flag flies over Scotland and Donetsk

By Dmirti Minin.

That’s the way the history goes. The St. Andrew’s flag is flown in two places in Europe situated at great distance from each other. Scotland and Novorossia are struggling for their national identity under the same colors. The two peoples divided by different history and cultures are addressing the issue of independence. They are going different ways; a peaceful referendum is to take place in Scotland while Novorossia is going through the horrors of civil war. But they are united by the same goal and its symbol – the St. Andrew flag.

The New Testament states that Andrew the Apostle was born in the village of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee. He was a fisherman by trade to become the first disciple to follow Jesus. The church history says Andrew preached in Scythia, along the Black Sea, including Crimea and the Dnieper River as far as Kiev and from there he traveled to Novgorod. Hence, he became a patron saint of Ukraine, Romania and Russia. According to tradition, he founded the See of Byzantium (Constantinople) in AD 38. Since then Andrew was recognized as Russia’s patron saint. Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, on the northern coast of the Peloponnese.

The St. Andrew flag was the ensign of the Navy of the Russian Empire from 1712 to 1918. It was first hoisted in 1712 to be formally adopted as Navy Ensign in 1720. From 1692 to 1712 Peter I personally drew eight flags projects that have consistently been taken into the Navy. Here is the description of the flag’s final version by Peter I: «The flag is white, across it there is a blue St. Andrew’s cross, whom he baptized Russia». After the Russian Revolution, the Russian Navy Ensign was changed to be reintroduced in the Russian Navy in 1992, and is still used today. Novorossia made St. Andrew its flag in May 2014 adding some red field to it. It emphasized the important role of the Navy in adding these lands to Russia and the association with the Great Victory Banner. It also symbolizes the unity of Russian people. The current flag of the Federal State of Novorossia was adopted on August 13, 2014. It resembles the Romanov flag, the national flag of the Russian Empire from 1858 to 1883. Formally the St. Andrew flag now is a symbol of Novorossia’s self-defence forces. But the changes have not taken root. The people of Novorossia, civilians and fighters, maintain their allegiance to the St. Andrew’s flag.

First the Saint Andrew’s Cross or the Saltire, the flag of Scotland, also known as the national flag of the country. But then it was the white cross on a blue field. According to legend, Saint Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, was crucified on an X-shaped cross at Patras (Patrae), in Achaea. According to legend, in 832 A.D. Óengus II led an army of Picts and Scots into battle against the Angles, led by Athelstan, near modern-day Athelstaneford, East Lothian. The legend states that whilst engaged in prayer on the eve of battle, Óengus vowed that if granted victory he would appoint Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland; Andrew then appeared to Óengus that night in a dream and assured him of victory. On the morning of battle white clouds forming the shape of an X were said to have appeared in the sky. Óengus and his combined force, emboldened by this apparent divine intervention, took to the field and despite being inferior in terms of numbers were victorious. Having interpreted the cloud phenomenon as representing the crux decussata upon which Saint Andrew was crucified, Óengus honoured his pre-battle pledge and duly appointed Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland. The white saltire set against a celestial blue background is said to have been adopted as the design of the flag of Scotland on the basis of this legend. The St. Andrew’s flag has been a symbol of opposing the aggressive Anglo-Saxon civilization in the lands stretching from the North Sea shore to the Black Sea region.

By signing the Acts of Union in 1707 Scotland ultimately lost its independence but preserved its soul. On September 18 an independence referendum is held and people may say «Yes». London makes a lot of promises to cozy up to Scottish voters. It goes to any length just to make them remain part of the United Kingdom. But even if the majority says ‘No» at the referendum, the time is on the side of those who advocate Scotland’s independence.

Saying «Yes» by the voters will inspire the people of Donetsk and Lugansk. They will welcome the outcome and ask – why should we be refused the rights that other peoples have, are we different, do our children cry in some other way?

When London agreed to the referendum, the idea of independence was supported by no more than 30%. The changes in public sentiments were neither expected, nor predicted. If it were different, perhaps the English would have done their best to prevent the event. What made influence the public opinion in such a short period of time? Has the drama of other European people making sacrifices for the ideas symbolized by the St. Andrew’s flag impacted their mindset? The link between the events in Scotland and Novorossia is only symbolic. Backed up by powerful Washington London is directly involved in activities aimed at quelling the expression of people’s free will in Novorossia. By doing so it kind of lets the Scots know that, if not the circumstances, they could be treated the same way. It only spurs the pro-independence feelings. Actually there is no difference between the happenings in Scotland and Novorossia from a legal point of view.

In fact, the only formal argument against the self-determination of Novorossia is that the referendum is held in agreement with London while the referendum in Novorossia took place without Kiev’s consent. The Spanish diplomacy tries to take advantage of this fact as the referendum on Catalonia’s independence is slated for November 9. The Spanish government never gave its agreement on organizing the event and never said it would recognize its results. In Madrid they say the Catalonian vote should be treated the same way as the plebiscites in Crimea and Novorossia with no recognition of referendum results to follow. But if Scotland votes for independence nothing will stop the Catalonians on the way to self-determination. The stubbornness of Madrid may lead to the repetition of the events in Ukraine. The attempt to substitute the rights of people with the rights of governments challenges the international law and may lead to new conflicts.

The energy of the collapse that hit the USSR and East Europe in the late 1980s – early 1990 was, to large extent, stimulated by London to backlash today. The West started to talk about the boomerang effect of re-Balkanization. Scotland is just a start. Wales and Northern Ireland may follow. It’s an irony of fate that Donetsk was founded by John James Hughes, a Welsh engineer and businessman. This is one more historic event linking Donetsk with Great Britain and its people.

The chain reaction is to move far beyond the UK’s borders. In Europe the leaders of political movements struggling for autonomy status or independence are closely watching the event. Perhaps Catalonia in Spain and Flandria in Belgium are next. The support of Western capitals for the Kiev repressions does not scare them; to the contrary it makes them more adamant on achieving the aspired goal. The logic is simple: the national issue should be tackled before they are treated the same way as in Ukraine.

The European Union will not avoid the crisis of identity. George Robertson, former NATO Secretary General (1999-2003) who is a Scot by origin, said, «A dangerous historic event might soon be upon us — with few people outside the U.K. even noticing». According to him, if the separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September 18, the 300-year-old union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland — the United States’ oldest and closest ally — will be on the road to disintegration. The rest of the country will hold a referendum on the European Union membership. There is a great chance the advocates of leaving the Union will win as Scotland is largely pro-EU. The Eurosceptics will strengthen their position in all countries. The window of opportunity for the states striving for the European Union membership to save their feeble economies will probably be closed. And the Ukraine’s prospects for European integration, which are dim enough anyway, will vanish in the hays.

The Zionist-Anglo-Saxon caliphate vs BRICS

By Peter Koenig

Ever since the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) expressed their unison through the formation of a joint Development Bank – Durban, South Africa on 27 March 2013 – the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon caliphate attempted to divide them. The BRICS constitute some 45% of the world population and close to 30% of global GDP. The BRICS idea is to issue a joint alternative currency, fully detached from the US dollar and its greed economy.

In the meantime a number of other countries would like to join the BRICS, including Argentina, Venezuela, Iran, Mongolia, Malaysia and others, which would result in about one third of the world’s economic output and half of the global inhabitants.

This gives the BRICS a profile of strength surpassing that of the United States and Europe together. China alone is not only already the world’s largest economy, China is also dominating the Asian market of some 4.2 billion people, 60% of the world populations and a combined GDP of about US$ 20 trillion, equivalent to about US$ 25 trillion, when comparing purchasing power with the dollar based US economy of about US$ 17 trillion. Asia registered an average growth rate of almost 8% over the past few years, compared to that of the western world, hovering around 1%.

There is no need for the BRICS to fear US interference – divide to rein – if they are able to solidify their union with solidarity – political and monetary solidarity, as well as common trade policies – and if they have the political will to decouple their economies from the dollar – which is key for the BRICS success.

Sir Obama – here also called the western caliphate – has multiple self-assumed capacities. He creates new caliphates at his service, like the ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Syria); then he bombs them making the world believe they are enemies, condones their beheading of western journalists and clandestinely funds their Middle East crusade for energy and world dominance, a crusade the ISIS are carrying out for the supreme caliphate in the White House.

Washington’s caliphate also has a small army of ‘martyr nations’ fighting (and suffering) for him, like the 28 members of the European Union, led (sic) by a like-minded group of Washington-submissive neoliberal Zionist- Christian puppets. They do what Washington says. Most of them are also pro-forma members of the White House caliphate-driven worldwide war machine, called NATO, and ape the war cries of (the) Fogh (of war) Rasmussen, who is Obama’s master puppet in Europe.

Of course, the caliphate is always ready with sanctions for those who don’t behave, especially sanctions which backfire on others. The latest sanctions on Russia follow a series of billion dollar propaganda of lies and outright falsehoods, demonizing Vladimir Putin and Russia. Interestingly the ‘sanctions’ imposed on Russia by Washington’s supreme warrior – and submissively carried out by his European minions, have been retaliated by Russia by blocking most of agro-trading with Europe, leaving European farmers with rotting vegetables and fruit – billion dollar losses, estimated at a multiple of the ‘sanctions’ costs to Russia.

Neoliberals are short-sighted. They are overwhelmed by greed, instant gratification, and a dream of Full Spectrum Dominance, meaning controlling the world’s resources, money and people. But their caliphate empire is doomed, since lies and deceptions work some of the time with some of the people, but not all the time with all of the people. In fact, the tide is shifting – which is the silver lining of the dark cloud shed by the monstrous, murderous western war machine. The larger of the European minions, Germany and France, and some of the newer ones, Poland, Hungary the Czech Republic, to name but a few, become doubting and hesitating on the way of sanctions. They start feeling the hurt.

The Zionist Anglo-Saxon caliphate needs conflicts and wars in order to survive. Its economy is based on producing weapons and on destruction. World peace would make it collapse.

To attain their objective, the western caliphate is using a thousands-of-year-old wisdom – dividing to rein. By a multi-billion dollar driven worldwide propaganda and lie campaign, Obama and his European bootlickers first confuse the people of nations and continents, distort their common sense, then they drive a wedge between them, between allies, neighbors, common cultures, families – turning friends into foes.

Remember, the dollar is fiat money, not worth the paper it’s printed on. It is produced at will and is called Quantitative Easing (QE), a conveniently confusing euphemism for creating debt held as monetary reserves by nations’ treasuries around the globe.

The same happens with funding of the eternal war machine. Printing money at will has become a pastime justifying wars, mass killings for conquering the world’s resources and people. It will last as long as the rest of the world permits it. It’s already a fading phenomenon. Ten to fifteen years ago close to 90% of the world’s reserves were denominated in US dollars. Today that figure has shrunk to about 60%.

Dividing to rein is precisely what the western caliphate intends to do with the BRICS. Starting with Brazil, Washington attempts through an ugly smear campaign to slander Brazil’s leader, Dilma Rousseff and to defame Brazil’s economy. The former is accused of corruption and nepotism and Brazil’s economy is admonished for runaway private debt that supposedly stands at 80% of GDP. However, the smear-campaigners do not explain that thanks to the increase in private debt Brazil’s GDP has grown by 30% in the last decade. They don’t explain either that Brazil’s foreign debt to GDP ratio stands at less than 57%, compared with that of the US of almost 101.5% and of Germany’s, 82%.

In short, Brazil is doing well. But the presstitute media propaganda masters have managed to lower President Rousseff’s popularity to the point where her re-election in the forthcoming ballot is questionable. Precisely what the Washington caliphate wants.

Imagine an economy-based real contest between the western caliphate and the BRICS. With a GDP of about 30% of the world’s economic output, covering almost 50% of the globe’s population, the BRICS have an average debt to GDP ratio of less than 45 % (2014 estimates) – Brazil (56.8%), Russia (13.4%) India (67.7%), China (22.4%), South Africa (46.1%) – compared to that of the US (101.5%) and of the Eurozone (92.6%).

It is clear that the BRICS have nothing to fear from the western caliphate – and its possible slew of sanctions. However – and this is key – the western Zionist-Anglo-Saxon empire controls the current western monetary system. The FED, Wall Street, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the IMF, an extension of the US Treasury and the FED, as well as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank of central banks, the privately owned chief manipulator of gold and currencies – hold the western economies hostage. They finance the US/NATO war machine. The western Zionist-Anglo-Saxon controlled financial system has the same objective of Full Spectrum Dominance, as does the supreme caliphate and assassin-in-chief, Obama, who currently serves the western arms manufacturing and banking oligarchy.

It is therefore high time that the BRICS proceed to reality with their intended alternative currency, completely detached from the dollar and the Wall Street clearing system. The economic viability of such an alternative system stands about 2 to 3 times higher than that of the UD dollar.

An interim measure to stop the western bulldozer may be necessary. Russia and China and a number of other countries have already agreed to trade in their respective currencies and, in particular, to trade hydrocarbons in non-dollar denominated moneys, a measure that will considerably lower demand for the dollar, hence, further lower the dollars viability as a reserve currency. Russia and China are poised to issue a common currency, a basket of currencies that may be joined by other countries willing to detach themselves from the fangs of the western abusive monetary caliphate.

On 3 and 4 September, NATO, the military arm of the western caliphate met in Wales, UK – to discuss its raison d’être. By NATO’s own admission, this was the most important meeting since the collapse of the Soviet Union, attended by 60 heads of state, including the 28 NATO members. As expected the focus of the meeting was to demonize Russia, a key member of the BRICS, with lies and slanders that know hardly any competition in the world of deception. The final briefing report is so full of nonsense and unproven accusations – similar to those continuously aped by Fogh Rasmussen – that Russia doesn’t even need to counter them. The NATO declarations drown in their own lies and deceptions.

It is clear, after 65 years of existence and chaotic disasters all over the world, NATO needs a new identity, a new Cold War, or, better even, a new direct war with Russia – for ‘the security’ of Europe. Therefore, the caliphate Obama, in hopefully one of his last unabashed moves, is requesting that Europe ups its ante – that the European members contribute at least 2% of their GDP to NATO – and let the military industrial complex move more weapons into the European NATO bases. In other words, making Europe more vulnerable to Russian defense attacks, putting the peoples of Europe once again in the firing line. The European leaders (sic) seem to be oblivious to such dangers.

However, there is hope. As said by Pepe Escobar, “The real deal this September is not NATO. It’s the SCO’s summit. Expect the proverbial tectonic shifts of geopolitical plaques in the upcoming meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – a shift as far-reaching as when the Ottoman Empire failed at the gates of Vienna in 1683. On the initiative of Russia and China, at the SCO summit, India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia will be invited to become permanent members.”

The SCO summit could be the first step towards a new world order – not the notorious “One World Order” proclaimed by the empire of the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon caliphate – but a new direction of the world, away from an usurious, abusive financial and monetary system, away from Washington’s objective of Full Spectrum Dominance – towards a new world of sovereign states.

Peter Koenig is an economist and former World Bank staff. He worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.

Good luck to the little people fighting for NATO

Demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, an Anglo-American pastime, seems even more childish when one considers that any president of the Russian Federation would act in exactly the same manner to protect the interests of his country in the face of NATO aggression.

When Putin attended the Bucharest summit in 2008 to sign an agreement that there would be no invitations extended by NATO to Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance, little did he know that promises signed in English do not mean much.

The former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s salesman for neo-conservative invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, finds no task set by his Atlanticist masters too daunting. Implementing a scorched earth policy in both countries, Rasmussen has now scrapped the Bucharest agreement to create tension in Eastern Europe, inflaming the region with hostile rhetoric and permanent military bases.

As NATO expands eastward in order to surround Russia on all borders, Rasmussen has come across yet another obstacle that might be worth his while to ignore: Article 10 of the NATO Charter.

Article 10 stipulates that NATO membership is only open to European States: “The Parties [NATO Treaty signatories] may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America.”

The US does not consider the Russian Federation as “European”. Kiev, Tbilisi, Sofia certainly qualified as “North Atlantic” back in the Cold War era as little as they qualify today. Calls for NATO to ignore Article 10 and expand far beyond the North Atlantic and Europe, are abundant however.

NATO meanwhile has invented new ways of getting around this obstacle. “Membership Action Plan” and “Intensified Dialogue” are NATO-speak for fast-track membership into the military alliance.

One of the first moves in Georgia after the Soros-initiated Rose Revolution of 2003, was to sign up for NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP). However, Georgia claims ownership of two independent republics, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Fearful of the latest attempt by NATO to absorb Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia recently announced the creation of a “Unified Defense Space” to counter Georgia’s and NATO’s total onslaught.

Similarly, after President Viktor Yushchenko and his Soros and American allies prevented the elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych from being sworn in as president after the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2004, one of Yushchenko’s first actions as president was to sign Ukraine up for NATO’s “Intensified Dialogue” program.

After Yanukovych was ousted in the so-called “Euromaidan” revolution earlier this year, the new Kiev coalition of World Bank technocrats and neo-fascists called for fast track membership for Ukraine in NATO.

The wounded Kiev regime is fumbling along towards NATO membership even though a 2009 poll revealed that 57 percent of Ukrainians opposed NATO membership for their country. In Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, which has declared independence from Kiev, a poll showed 74 percent opposed to NATO membership.

Yet NATO seems reluctant to accept a very existential problem with regards to its expansionist strategy. NATO planners, working with neocon clones in Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, and Malta remain deaf to sound warnings of their constituents. And while these countries are all “European”, their voters are not interested in membership of the War Club.

President Obama said in Estonia that NATO is an alliance of “democracies” even though most of these “democracies” are opposed to joining the alliance. Obama clearly believes that his definition of democracy does not include abiding by the wishes expressed by majorities.

Recent polls show 50 percent of Swedes opposed to NATO membership. Although Finland and NATO signed a Memorandum of Understanding in April 2014 that many believe permit NATO pre-positioning of military equipment near the Russian border, polls show 52 percent of Finns also opposed to NATO membership.

Former Finnish Presidents Tarja Halonen and Mauno Koivisto have warned that Finnish membership in NATO would irrevocably harm Finland’s relations with Russia. Switzerland, where opposition to NATO runs high in the historically neutral nation, former Swiss President Adolf Ogi has called for Switzerland’s membership of NATO.

NATO has also been trying to wean Ireland away from its traditional neutrality. Many observers believe that NATO has a secret agreement with Ireland to use Shannon Airport as a cargo and personnel transit hub. An Irish Defense Policy Green Paper released by Ireland’s Defense Minister Alan Shatter, released earlier this year however, calls for Ireland to pursue NATO membership.

NATO’s gambit has been to use the terrorist threat to lure Ireland into the alliance, warning that Ireland would be “safer from terrorism” inside NATO. David Cameron, British premier, has just tried the the same trick to stem the yes-tide in Scotland’s up-coming referendum on independence.

In May of this year, Austria inched closer to NATO membership when it became the first non-NATO country to join NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence in Estonia, while polls clearly show a majority of Austrians being opposed to NATO membership.

Malta renewed its membership in NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 2008 without parliamentary approval, and in contravention of the neutrality article in Malta’s constitution.

A confidential NATO paper recently leaked to Der Spiegel calls for enhanced “interoperability” of the military forces of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Moldova, with NATO, and proposes “smart defense” operations between the three nations and NATO. Moldova’s constitution prohibits the country from joining any military alliance, but that inconvenient fact has not deterred Moldovan Defense Minister Vitalie Marinuţa, another Soros clone, from calling for Moldova to join NATO.

NATO’s Long March east is a far cry from the agreement made between the George H W Bush administration and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Moscow’s agreement on German reunification, NATO would not inch any further east. That agreement was scrapped by Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who eagerly welcomed her native Czech Republic, as well as Poland and Hungary as NATO members in 1997. Albright’s promises that NATO would not further expand came to naught.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004 after membership negotiations began under Albright’s tutelage in 2000. Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania also joined NATO in 2004. Croatia and Albania followed in 2009.

Recent statements by NATO and the Obama administration represent an immense escalation of US and NATO military threats against Russia. Without any public discussion, and entirely over the heads of the little people in all these countries, the Obama administration has committed them to a war with the second largest nuclear power in the world.

“Article 5 is crystal clear. An attack on one is an attack on all. So if, in such a moment, you ever ask again, ‘who will come to help,’ you’ll know the answer — the NATO Alliance, including the Armed Forces of the United States of America, ‘right here, present, now!’ We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania… Here in the Baltics… it would mean more US forces—including American boots on the ground continuously rotating through Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania,” Obama boomed.

The signatories will be sad fodder for the War Club. The willful recklessness of American foreign policy is obvious, as there will not be enough American “boots on the ground”. The dying will have to be done by the parties who signed on with NATO. Good luck to them.

NATO, an idea whose time has gone

By Craig Murray.

In the past dozen years, the armed forces of NATO countries, whether operating under the NATO banner or in related ad-hoc coalitions, have killed many hundreds of thousands of people. Of those hundreds of thousands of people, only a few hundred at most ever had any connection to any attack on a NATO country.

Whatever modern NATO has become, a defensive alliance it is not; that fact is beyond rational dispute.

It is also the case that the situation in countries where NATO has been most active in killing people, including Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan, has deteriorated. It has deteriorated politically, economically, militarily and socially. The notion that NATO member states could bomb the world into good was only ever believed by crazed and fanatical people like Tony Blair and Jim Murphy of the Henry Jackson Society. It really should not have needed empirical investigation to prove it was wrong, but it has been tried, and has been proved wrong.

The NATO states as a group have also embarked on remarkably similar reductions in the civil liberties of their own populations during this period. NATO to me is symbolised by the fact that its Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as Danish Prime Minister blatantly lied to the Danish parliament about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Major Frank Grevil released material that proved Rasmussen was lying, it was Grevil who was jailed for three years.

NATO’s attempt to be global arbiter and enforcer has been disastrous at all levels. Its plan to redeem itself by bombing the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria is a further sign of madness. Except of course that it will guarantee some blowback against Western targets, and that will “justify” further bombings, and yet more profit for the arms manufacturers. On that level, it is very clever and cynical. NATO provides power to the elite and money to the wealthy.

NATO is by far the largest danger to world peace. It should be dissolved as a matter of urgency.

Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. – http://www.craigmurray.org.uk

Mugabe got a knighthood and honorary doctorates from Britain!

by Monocular

If I was a white Zimbabwean with a vote in that country’s (sham) elections, I would definitely vote for Mugabe. Which African leader has done more to show Western governments the true colours of black African leadership?

Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of the erstwhile Rhodesia, was reviled as an evil white racist when he made his dire predictions of what that country would become under black majority rule. The British, having stabbed their own kith and kin in the back, went into fits of black-worship when Mugabe ascended to power under agreements they brokered. While pumping in billions of pounds to support the economy of Zimbabwe, after having tried in vain for 15 years to destroy it with economic sanctions against the economy of Rhodesia, the Pommies were going to show, then Apartheid South Africa, that blacks could rule a country as well as, if not better than, any white man! Thanks to Mugabe, all the British can do now is propagate revisionist history in which the abomination of Zimbabwe is supposedly not of their making!

Robert Mugabe receiving the honorary Knight Grand Cross in the Civil Division of The Most Honorable Order of Bath (knighthood) from Queen Elizabeth II of Britain.
Robert Mugabe receiving the honorary Knight Grand Cross in the Civil Division of The Most Honorable Order of Bath (knighthood) from Queen Elizabeth II of Britain.

Let’s not forget that the British Queen knighted Robert Mugabe and leading British universities, such as the University of Edinburgh, showered him with honorary doctorates (now quietly and unceremoniously revoked)!

Mugabe is a great man who has done more to rub the noses of white liberals worldwide, in the realities of black Africa, than any white leader on this continent has ever succeeded in doing.

All I can say is, ‘Thank you Bob!”