I hear a lot of talk lately in the alternative media (and even the mainstream media) of the potential for World War III. The general assumption when one hears that term is that “nuclear conflict” is imminent. But a world war does not necessarily have to be fought with nukes. For example, we are perhaps already witnessing the first shots fired in a global economic war as the Trump administration gets ready to implement far-reaching trade tariffs. This action might provide cover (or justification) for destructive attacks on the U.S. fiscal system by China, Japan, Russia, the EU, OPEC nations, etc. The ultimate attack being a dumping of their U.S. debt holdings and the death of the dollar’s world reserve status.
Of course, an economic “world war” between nations would in itself be a smokescreen for and an even more insidious internal war being waged against the global economy by central banks.
There is a longstanding misconception that central banks always manipulate economic conditions to make them appear “healthy” and that the main concern of central bankers is to “defend the golden goose.” This is false. According to the evidence at hand as well as open admissions by central bankers, these private institutions have throughout history also deliberately created financial crises and collapses.
The question I always get from people new to the field of alternative economics is — “Why would central bankers crash a system they benefit from?” This question is drawn from a flawed understanding of the situation.
First, there is the assumption that economic systems are static rather than fluid. In reality, vast sums of wealth can be transferred into and out of any notion on a whim and at the speed of light. The collapse of one economy or multiple economies does not necessarily include the destruction of banker wealth. Even if wealth was their top goal (which it is not), global banks and central banks do not see any particular economy as a “cash cow” or a “golden goose.” From their behavior and tactics in the past, it is more likely that they see national economies as mere storage containers.
Banks can pour their wealth, which they create from thin air, into one or more of these many available containers. They can circulate that wealth within the container for a time and then pour all their wealth out at a moment’s notice. One container is no more valuable to them than any other container, and sometimes sacrificing a container can be beneficial.
The perceived destruction of a national economy can often be exploited as a means to a greater end. Usually this “greater end” means exploiting the crisis to justify centralization of power or the transfer of power from the public into the hands of an elitist class.
I have outlined the history of such transfers on numerous occasions, including the liquidity crisis of 1914 (just after the establishment of the Federal Reserve) leading into World War I and the subsequent hoarding of financial power by banks as well as the creation of the League of Nations.
Or how about the artificial bubble in multiple asset classes created by the Federal Reserve in the 1920s through low interest rates? A bubble which was then burst through the aggressive raising of interest rates at the onset of the Great Depression. This crash coincided with other fabricated economic disasters in Europe and Asia, leading to social despair, the rise of communism and fascism and World War II. This crisis benefited the banking establishment greatly as thousands of smaller independent banks were crushed and a handful of major banks devoured all assets. And, let’s not forget that WWII led to the creation of globalist edifices like the United Nations, the IMF, World Bank, the beginning roots of the European Union, etc.
Every new economic calamity seems to consolidate property and bureaucratic control into the hands of the same class of technocrats. And each calamity is linked to a very important economic factor — massive debt dependency.
So, let’s fast forward to today’s era of burgeoning crisis and how central banks like the Fed are feeding the fire of disaster. I would like to focus most of all on our debt situation to illustrate how the Fed can and will trigger an explosion, a controlled demolition of our financial system. What is our debt situation in the U.S. today?….
As the Free Thought Project reported earlier this month, a jaw-dropping independent investigation has revealed that hundreds of children, some as young as 11-years-old, are estimated to have been drugged, beaten, and raped over the last several decades in a single town. According to the investigation, the abuse was allowed and is continued to be allowed because authorities look the other way. Now, TFTP has confirmed that this is indeed the case.
The investigation claims that allegations dating back to the 1980s were mishandled by authorities, who repeatedly failed to punish a network of abusers, according to the Telegraph.
According to a new report, it appears police were told from within their own department—via an internal memo—claiming that “in most cases the sex is consensual.”
Countless victims and former victims have come forward detailing their abuse and the current abuse taking place in the British town of Telford. Despite hundreds of testimonies and graphic details, police have failed to act as they hide behind the like that a child can somehow consent to sex with an adult.
The report found that West Mercia Police sent the memo out a year after the ostensible “investigation” into the ongoing child sexual exploitation in Telford. The memo determined that the children, who were being severely abuse were working as prostitutes.
Commenting on the revelations, UKIP London Assembly Member David Kurten, blasted police, saying, “Telford Police memo on children consenting to abuse is despicable. The UK age of consent is 16….
If you think this isn’t happening in the USA you’re dreaming. It’s a business model for organized crime:
Last April, in one of the Trump administration’s first “diplomatic” ventures, the US fired 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syria, in stated retaliation for the latest alleged chemical attack by the Assad regime, the same “false flag” excuse which was used by the US to officially enter the conflict back in 2013 when military tensions between the US and Russia nearly resulted in a regional war.
Well, it appears that Assad is a relentless glutton for punishment, because not even a year later, the WaPo reported two weeks ago that the US is considering a new military action against Syria for – what else – retaliation against Assad’s latest chemical attack, which took place several weeks earlier.
How do we know Assad (and apparently, Russia) was behind the attack? We don’t: in fact, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a moment of bizarre honesty, admitted that he really doesn’t know much at all about “whoever conducted the attacks.” But hey: just like it is “highly likely” that Russia poisoned the former Russian double agent in the UK – with no proof yet – so it is “highly likely” that a clearly irrational Assad was once again behind an attack which he knew would provoke violent and aggressive retaliation by the US, and once again destabilize his regime.
And so we now wait for that flashing, red headline saying that US ships in the Mediterranean have launched a missile attack on Syria, just like a year ago. Only this time Russia – which is allied with the Assad regime – is not planning to be on the defensive, and according to Russia’s Defense Ministry, “US instructors” are currently training militants to stage false flag chemical attacks in south Syria, i.e., the catalyst that will be used to justify the US attack on Assad. The incidents, the ministry said, will be used a pretext for airstrikes on Syrian government troops and infrastructure.
“We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria,” Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy said at a news briefing on Saturday….
March 19 marks 15 years since the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the American people have no idea of the enormity of the calamity the invasion unleashed. The U.S. military has refused to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths. General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the initial invasion, bluntly told reporters, “We don’t do body counts.” One survey found that most Americans thought Iraqi deaths were in the tens of thousands. But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion.
The number of Iraqi casualties is not just a historical dispute because the killing is still going on today. Since several major cities in Iraq and Syria fell to Islamic State in 2014, the U.S. has led the heaviest bombing campaign since the American War in Vietnam, dropping 105,000 bombs and missiles and reducing most of Mosul and other contested Iraqi and Syrian cities to rubble.
An Iraqi Kurdish intelligence report estimated that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in the bombardment of Mosul alone, with many more bodies still buried in the rubble. A recent project to remove rubble and recover bodies in just one neighborhood found 3,353 more bodies, of whom only 20% were identified as ISIS fighters and 80% as civilians. Another 11,000 people in Mosul are still reported missing by their families.
Of the countries where the U.S. and its allies have been waging war since 2001, Iraq is the only one where epidemiologists have actually conducted comprehensive mortality studies based on the best practices that they have developed in war zones such as Angola, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda. In all these countries, as in Iraq, the results of comprehensive epidemiological studies revealed 5 to 20 times more deaths than previously published figures based on “passive” reporting by journalists, NGOs or governments.
Two such reports on Iraq came out in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, first in 2004 and then in 2006. The 2006 study estimated that about 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 40 months of war and occupation in Iraq, along with 54,000 non-violent but still war-related deaths….
Oh what the hell. I don’t know any of them personally. They’re just numbers to me. And the rationale for killing them and genetically poisoning their offspring for many many generations seemed plausible at the time. Something about … what was it? I forget. Something to do with evildoers and my crush on Rachel Maddow. And so what if it was all based on lies? I didn’t affect me personally. As long as our luciferian overlords are distracted elsewhere maybe they’ll leave me alone for awhile longer. They’ve already killed my foreskin. I’ve learned my lesson.
First they came for the children and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a child
Then they came for the human beings and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t human
The history of Wall Street and Anglo-American finance in China is one that is rarely discussed in western media or even academia, whereas knowing it would explain much about both China’s stunning economic rise over the past 70 years, as well as certainly seemingly rising tensions between China and the US today. It’s hard to tell if there is genuine tension and enmity because of credible rivalry status between the US and China, or if everything is proceeding according to wider, deeper, much longer-term planning based on desired, durable and thus political coordination. Large US, UK and EU investment banks are new entrants into China’s nascent bond sector, yet also retain longstanding presences pertaining to China’s financial and economic development. Such factors should be weighed alongside other historical details in evaluating China’s recent threats to ‘dump US Treasury bonds’, as well as to ultimately view any sense of symbiosis which the US and China are serving, and why. Are banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Standard Chartered, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and others necessarily against a ‘bond run’ and wider trashing of US debt? Or not so much? Who benefits? More specifically, who profits?
In this episode of Money & Fear, we’ll review some monetary and political history involving Wall Street and Beijing in order to weigh the mentioned factors. Details not shared, let alone analyzed, by mainstream corporate business press supposedly reporting on US-China trade, tariffs and/or currency wars, even.
If you’re not a Newsbud member yet, please join and tell others. It costs practically nothing, yet gives you information you’re not supposed to know, thus empowering you to stay ahead of the herd and think like Establishment planners think.
What drives the behavior of Great Powers? Why are some states successful while others fail? What factors can sustain an empire? What are the challenges of the emerging multi-polar world in the 21st century? All these questions and many more can be answered with a proper theoretical framework. In this one-of-a-kind course, Professor Filip Kovacevic argues that geopolitics provides precisely such a framework.
In a series of information-packed lectures, professor Kovacevic presents the foundational texts and concepts of geopolitics. He distills the main ideas of the British geographer and politician Halford Mackinder, the American admiral and professor Alfred Thayer Mahan, the Dutch-American scholar Nicholas Spykman, and their contemporary advocate Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Professor Kovacevic also looks in detail at the opposing geopolitical vision of the Russian scholars and military officers Nikolai Danilevski and Peter Savitsky, and their contemporary advocates Yevgeny Primakov and Alexander Dugin. Most of this material has never been presented in English before and is largely unknown to the U.S. audience. In relation to Russian geopolitics, professor Kovacevic also discusses certain ideas of the German geopolitics professor Karl Haushofer and the French-Romanian writer Jean Parvulesco.
The aim of the course is to provide conceptual tools to understand, explain, and predict political events which are shaking to the core the political status quo all across the world, especially in Europe and Asia.
As the Ghouta campaign continues to unfold, we should expect that both politicians and mainstream media will give us – in the words of philosopher and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr – “necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications” intended to shape our perceptions of events.
It goes without saying that such “emotionally potent oversimplifications” on Syria have formed the dominant paradigm through which the American public has received its information over the past seven years of war. From the State Department officials to think tank “experts” to the Graham/McCain axis to CNN panelists to the neocon twitterati and all the usual interventionistas who cast everything in terms of Manichean good vs. evil, darkness vs. light, bloodthirsty tyrants vs. noble populace – we’ve had to endure and fight seven years of a constant stream of propaganda on Syria.
This worldview is what BBC filmmaker Adam Curtis accurately characterized as a ‘goodies and baddies’ dualistic vision of global events which keeps the Western public under the illusion that its own political leaders are perpetually driven by concern over human rights, defending the weak and oppressed, and spreading democracy over and against the unenlightened megalomaniac dictators of the world who are simply bent on brutalizing their own people.
The BBC’s Curtis concluded of the “humanitarian” wars that followed in the wake of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ (especially Libya and Syria) :
The question at the heart of this whole story is – Who was the ventriloquist? And who was the dummy? Maybe we were the dummy? By allowing perception management with its simplifications, falsehoods and exaggerations to create a simplified vision of the world – we fell into a fake universe of certainty when really we were just watching a pantomime.
And now as the Arab Spring unfolds and reveals the true chaos and messiness of the real world – above all the horror of what is happening in Syria – we find ourselves completely unable to understand it or even know what to do. So those stories get ignored while we follow others with clearer and more simplified dramas which have what seem to be obvious goodies and baddies – thank god for Iran, North Korea and Jimmy Savile.
Although the Syrian war is almost over, many Americans still don’t understand what transpired over the last seven years, because the mainstream narrative has been an embarrassing mix of propaganda, half-truths and lies.
Below are three versions of the conflict as presented by Chris Kanthan via Sott.net.
Once upon a time, a country called Syria was ruled by a ruthless dictator named Bashar Al-Assad. He was a cruel man who gassed his own people. His actions caused a civil war in Syria. America and Europe tried their best to stop the devastating civil war, and even generously accepted many Syrian refugees. Eventually America went to Syria, defeated ISIS, and is now trying to restore stability.
This above version is quite popular among many Americans and Europeans and the Western mainstream media.
* * *
High School Version
Oppressed by Assad’s brutal regime, the Syrian people longed for freedom and democracy. One day, people started protesting in a small city. In response, Assad killed many peaceful protesters. However, this backfired and the entire country was engulfed in protests. Soon a civil war broke out, which led to millions of refugees fleeing Syria.
America was appalled and, for humanitarian reasons, decided to help the Syrians who were fighting Assad. When Assad gassed his own people, America intervened and removed all his chemical weapons. Unfortunately, Assad managed to gas innocent civilians again after a few years. Then, America went to Syria, defeated ISIS, and is now trying to restore stability.
The above version is presented in most of the global mainstream media.
* * *
Simply put, the Syrian “civil war” is an illegal, proxy war waged against Syria. In defiance of international laws, many countries have been sending weapons and terrorist mercenaries into Syria for the last seven years (to gain a deeper understanding of who wants to topple Assad and why, please read: Chaos in Syria: Part 1 – Three Motives and Seven Countries)……
March 16, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – As the West rallies around recent allegations by the UK against Russia regarding the alleged poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer-turned British spy – Sergei Skripal – it is crucial to point out the alarming lack of actual evidence involved.
It is also important to point out the history of the accusers predicating entire wars on allegations now confirmed to have been intentional lies.
The Skripal Incident
The alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, UK on March 4 led to a lighting-fast escalation with Russia. Not even two weeks after the attack, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared a deadline for Russia to provide an “explanation” for the incident the UK had squarely blamed on Moscow.
The Kremlin’s explanation was simple – it had nothing to do with the attack. Russia also offered to aid in the investigation, requesting samples of the poison used in the alleged attack.
However, the UK failed to produce any samples of the alleged poison – a Soviet-era nerve agent known as Novichok – either to the Russians to examine or to relevant international organizations as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The UK also failed to explain why Russia would have carried out such an attack – or how the UK could have confirmed the use of Novichok agents without first possessing samples of the agents themselves. If the UK possessed Novichok agents to compare samples taken from the attack with, the entire rationale of accusing Russia because it is supposedly the only nation in possession of the agents is revealed as entirely false.
US, UK Certainly Have “Novichoks”
The Daily Beast in its article, “Soviet Scientist Who Developed Novichok Poison Used on Sergei Skripal: ‘I’m Sorry’,” would admit:
For the prime minister to be able to publicly accuse the Russians of using a nerve agent like a novichok, British authorities at least must have had access to novichok’s unique chemical signature—which it legally could have had despite the Chemical Weapons Convention, due to the clause of countries being able to hold samples for testing in these incidences.
Testing for novichoks, even based on a formula published by Mirzayanov in a memoir based on his work in the 1980s, is a potential sign that the British have potential access to newer variants of the nerve agent.
The Guardian too would admit in an article titled, “Novichok nerve agents – what are they?,” that:
The fact that so little is known about the novichoks may explain why Porton Down scientists took several days to identify the compound used in the attack against the Skripals. And while the agents were invented in the Soviet Union, other labs with access to the chemical structures would be able to manufacture them too.
The fact that the alleged creator of Novichok agents – Vil Mirzayanov – fled to and currently lives in the United States suggests the West has both knowledge of and the means to create Novichok agents themselves….
March 16, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)
Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry
Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.
The world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:
[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)
OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013
Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks” but doubts he succeeded.
Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of “Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.
Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW….