Almost 60 million people worldwide were forcibly uprooted by conflict and persecution at the end of last year, the highest ever recorded number, the UN refugee agency said on Thursday, while warning that the situation could deteriorate further.
More than half the displaced from crises including Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia were children, The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) said in its annual Global Trends Report.
“I believe things will get worse before they eventually start to get better,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said at a news conference in Istanbul. UNHCR said that Syria, where conflict has raged since 2011, was the world’s biggest source of internally displaced people and refugees. ….
It has nothing to do with the “war on terror” or the neoliberal regime of death-squad-enforced debt servitude.
This is one of the most important articles I will write all year. The statists are coming for your kids, and the conditioning has already begun.
Last night, I came across one of the most horrifying articles I have ever read, which is saying a lot. Before I get into it, take a look at the title and the tagline:
How to Defeat ISIS with Millennial Spirit and Service
If you think the title is bad, wait until you read the article. What becomes evident is that this grotesque concept of forced “national service” is being actively discussed at the highest levels of government. What Ron Fournier is doing in his National Journal article is conditioning the public to accept something that is completely unacceptable.
Before we get to that, who is Ron Fournier? National Journal provides a bio:
Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to joining NJ, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as Washington Bureau Chief. A Detroit native, Fournier began his career in Arkansas, first with the Hot Springs Sentinel-Record and then with the Arkansas Democrat and the AP, where he covered the state legislature and Gov. Bill Clinton. In January 1993, Fournier moved to Washington, where he covered the White House and presidential campaigns for the AP.
So basically, this guy covered Bill Clinton in Arkansas, moved to the District of Criminals after he was elected President, and now wants to convince you to subject your innocent children into mandatory service to a nation provably run by corrupt criminals and oligarchs. [most likely a media mole for the CIA to keep Mena under cover. I’m sure Clinton had a whole industry of people surrounding his bilderberg-driven and cocaine-financed annointment as a “statesmen”. -rw]
It sure is some twisted notion of “shared sacrifice,” when those who had nothing to do with the disastrous choices made by the oligarchy are the ones who have to suffer the consequences.
Let’s now take this piece of Nazi-esque propaganda apart piece by piece. From the National Journal:
I know a better way to fight ISIS. It starts with an idea that should appeal the better angels of both hawks and doves: National service for all 18- to 28-year-olds.
Require virtually every young American—the civic-minded millennial generation—to complete a year of service through programs such as Teach for America, AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or the U.S. military, and two things will happen:
First of all, he confidently proclaims that this scheme will appeal to both hawks and doves. Based on what evidence? Let me provide some evidence against his argument based on a recent Rasmussen poll that 45% of U.S. Voters Concerned Government Will Use Military Training Exercises for Power Grab. Here’s an excerpt from the findings:
Just 20% of voters now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty. Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead. Only 19% trust the federal government to do the right thing all or most of the time.
So the American public has no confidence in government, but somehow they are going to gladly line up to serve the corrupt oligarchy? Of course not, which is why people like Ron Fornier want to make it mandatory. Now back to the piece…
1. Virtually every American family will become intimately invested in the nation’s biggest challenges, including poverty, education, income inequality, and America’s place in a world afire.
2. Military recruiting will rise to meet threats posed by ISIS and other terrorist networks, giving more people skin in a very dangerous game.
This may seem like a radical plan until you compare it with two alternatives: the status quo, which clearly isn’t working, or a military draft, which might be the boldest and fairest way to wage the long war against Islamic extremists.
Notice how he offers us only three options, as if that is all the imaginative well of humanity is capable of coming up with. Forced national service, the status quo or a draft. Nowhere does he offer the logical alternative of say: stop preemptively invading and destroying countries for no reason (Iraq, Libya to name a few). Perhaps then idiotic foreign policy decisions won’t create ISIS in the first place. ….
Absolutely orwellian. This is the price of denial. It’s been almost 15 years since the big lie took over the american narrative. The “left” has been utterly worthless in pointing out the emperors’ nakedness, while the right shuffles us into the same ideological cul-de-sac that kept us neutralized during the “cold war”. The same sheep-like parents that refuse to believe that the medical establishment could be targeting children on behalf of the state (circumcision, obstetrical abuse, hyper-vaccination, emotional oppression with drugs, which has done so much to wreck american families) are now being shepherded into outright abandonment of their kids to the powers that be. This is pre-nazi germany (actually not pre-nazi, the rulers have been nazis for decades).
We’ve been down this road before. They are traitors to the country and to humanity itself. They mean to harm us. Get used to it.
The House will vote Thursday on a stand-alone measure to grant President Obama fast-track trade authority.
The decision follows a flurry of activity at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, as the White House and congressional Republicans rally around a strategy for moving forward with the trade package.
Under the plan, the House and Senate would vote for a second time on passing fast-track, which would make it easier for Obama to negotiate a sweeping Pacific trade deal.
Separately, Congress would approve legislation granting aid to workers displaced by trade, a program known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
The problem for Obama and Republicans is that they must first convince Senate Democrats to vote for fast-track on the promise the TAA bill would be finished later.
Obama met at the White House on Wednesday with a group pro-trade Democrats from the House and Senate as he sought to make the case.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Wednesday signaled Obama is open to Congress sending him the two measures separately.
Earnest said both measures must be delivered to Obama’s desk.
“The only legislative strategy the president can support is one that will result in both pieces of legislation arriving at his desk,” he said. ….
We’re supposed to believe anything president betrayal says? I don’t think so. Call congress! We stopped it once, we can do it again!
The Whip List: Congressional Representatives and their positions on TPA: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/241114-whip-list-dems-bucking-obama-on-trade
Phone numbers and web sites of house of representatives: http://www.house.gov/representatives/
U.S. President Barack Obama has for years been negotiating with European and Asian nations — but excluding Russia and China, since he is aiming to defeat them in his war to extend the American empire (i.e, to extend the global control by America’s aristocracy) — three international ‘trade’ deals (TTP, TTIP, & TISA), each one of which contains a section (called ISDS) that would end important aspects of the sovereignty of each signatory nation, by setting up an international panel composed solely of corporate lawyers to serve as ‘arbitrators’ deciding cases brought before this panel to hear lawsuits by international corporations accusing a given signatory nation of violating that corporation’s ‘rights’ by its trying to legislate regulations that are prohibited under the ’trade’ agreement, such as by increasing the given nation’s penalties for fraud, or by lowering the amount of a given toxic substance that the nation allows in its foods, or by increasing the percentage of the nation’s energy that comes from renewable sources, or by penalizing corporations for hiring people to kill labor union organizers — i.e., by any regulatory change that benefits the public at the expense of the given corporations’ profits. (No similar and countervailing power for nations to sue international corporations is included in this: the ‘rights’ of ‘investors’ — but really of only the top stockholders in international corporations — are placed higher than the rights of any signatory nation.)
This provision, whose full name is “Investor State Dispute Resolution” grants a one-sided benefit to the controlling stockholders in international corporations, by enabling them to bring these lawsuits to this panel of lawyers, whose careers will consist of their serving international corporations, sometimes as ‘arbitrators’ in these panels, and sometimes as lawyers who more-overtly represent one or more of those corporations, but also serving these corporations in other capacities, such as via being appointed by them to head a tax-exempt foundation to which international corporations ‘donate’ and so to turn what would otherwise be PR expenses into corporate tax-deductions. In other words: to be an ‘arbitrator’ on these panels can produce an extremely lucrative career.
These are in no way democratic legal proceedings; they’re the exact opposite, an international conquest of democracy, by international corporations. This “ISDS” sounds deceptively non-partisan, but it’s really a grant to the controlling international investors giving them a ‘right’ against the taxpayers in each of the signatory nations, a ‘right’ to sue, essentially, those taxpayers; and ISDS includes no countervailing ‘right’ to those taxpayers, to sue those international corporations; it’s an entirely one-sided provision, and it even removes the authority of the democratically elected national government to adjudicate the matter. It even removes the appeals-court system: once a decision is reached by the ‘arbitrating’ panel, it is final, it cannot be appealed. And no nation may present a challenge to the constitutionality of the ‘arbitrators’ decision. These treaties, if signed, will override the signatory nation’s constitution, on those matters.
This idea started after World War II and the defeat of the fascist nations on the military battlefields, and it moved this great fascist-v.-democratic war to a different type of battlefield. It’s round 2 of WW II.
Unlike many wars, WW II was an ideological war. On the one side stood the Allies; on the other, the fascist powers. The first fascist leader, Italy’s Benito Mussolini, said in November 1933 that his ideal was “corporatism” or “corporationism,” in which the state, or the national government, serves its corporations (see page 426 there):
“The corporation plays on the economic terrain just as the Grand Council and the militia play on the political terrain. Corporationism is disciplined economy, and from that comes control, because one cannot imagine a discipline without a director.
Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. It is a symptomatic fact that the decadence of capitalism coincides with the decadence of socialism. All the Socialist parties of Europe are in fragments.
Evidently the two phenomena—I will not say conditions—present a point of view which is strictly logical: there is between them a historical parallel. Corporative economy arises at the historic moment when both the militant phenomena, capitalism and socialism, have already given all that they could give. From one and from the other we inherit what they have of vitality. …
There is no doubt that, given the general crisis of capitalism, corporative solutions can be applied anywhere.”
After World War II, the ‘former’ Nazi, Prince Bernhard, took up the fascist (lower-case f, indicating the ideology, instead of Mussolini’s Fascist political party; Bernhard had belonged instead to Hitler’s Nazi Party) cudgel, when he created in 1954 his then-secret (and still secretive today) Bilderberg group, which brings together the leaders, and the advisers to the leaders, of international corporations, meeting annually or bi-annually, near the places where major national leaders or potential future leaders have pre-scheduled to congregate, such as this year’s G-7 meeting in Bavaria, so that even heads-of-state (and/or their aides) can quietly slip away unofficially to join nearby the Bilderbergs and communicate privately with them, to coordinate their collective international fascist endeavor (and decide which presidential candidates to fund), to institute a fascist world government that will possess a legal control higher than what’s possessed by any merely national government. Just as the anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, G-7 conference ended on 8 June 2015, the Bilderberg conference opened 15 miles away three days later (after a few days of vacation in the Bavarian Alps), and Britain’s Telegraph (as it does every year with extraordinary boldness for the Western press) issued the list of attendees, which included top advisors to many heads-of-state, plus major investors in ‘defense’ stocks, plus top propagandists against Russia (such as Anne Applebaum).
Bilderbergers have always been opposed to the old ideal of an emerging global federalism of democracies to constitute an ultimate world government; they instead favor a dictatorial world government, imposed by (the controlling owners of) international corporations. The major international corporations are controlled by perhaps fewer than a hundred people around the world; and, the other billions of people, the mere citizens, will, in this plan, as realized under Obama’s ‘trade’ deals, be fined if a three-person panel of servants (the ‘arbitrators’) to that perhaps fewer than 100 people, rule to say that the given nation has violated the ‘rights’ of those ‘investors,’ and assesses the ‘fine’ against those taxpayers.
The first Bilderberg meeting was called together by Bernhard in a personal invitation which proposed that, “I think that a ‘partnership for growth’ is a fine idea. A good deal has been said but very little has been done about trade policy, and this would be a good place to start the partnership.” (Note the ‘Partnership’ in “Trans Pacific Partnership,” and in “Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership”; but TISA doesn’t use that term.)
Among the leading Americans at the first (and perhaps each of the subsequent) Bilderberg meetings, were Wall Streeters David Rockefeller and George Ball, both of whom subsequently lobbied the U.S. Congress heavily to replace national standards with international standards, something that would be an improvement if done within a democratic framework (which would thus have electoral accountability to the public, and be appealable and amendable), but they didn’t even mention any proposed framework, and virtually everyone at that time was simply assuming that nobody in ’the West’ would have any dictatorial framework in mind; everybody assumed that, after the defeat of the fascist nations, any emerging world government could only be democratic. This isn’t what Bilderbergers actually had in mind, however.
Matt Stoller, on 20 February 2014, bannered, “NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations,” and he reported, from his study of the Congressional Record, that:
After the Kennedy round [international-trade talks] ended [in 1967], liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. Ball was an architect of 1960s U.S. trade policy — he helped write the Trade Act of 1962, which set the stage for what eventually became the World Trade Organization.
But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. …
In the opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind.
As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in the 1 February 1999 Newsweek an essay “Looking for New Leadership,” in which he stated (p. 41) the widely quoted (though the rest of the article is ignored): “In recent years, there’s been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favor of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.” He meant there that international corporations should have supreme sovereignty, above that of any nation. He always emphasized what he proudly called “internationalism.” To him, like to Ball, governments — that is, national governments — were the problem, and democracy is not the solution. The solution is, to exact the contrary: provide supreme sovereignty to international corporations, as an international authority higher than any democracy, or than any nation….
The complete speech starts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Qv7lbVw9s
The Monsanto Protection Act is Back, and Worse Than Ever
June 15, 2015 (Washington, D.C.) – Center for Food Safety (CFS) today expressed strong opposition to Representative Pompeo’s newly revisedgenetically engineered (GE) food labeling preemption bill (H.R. 1599), which now has been greatly expanded to not only prohibit all labeling of GE foods, but also to make it unlawful for states or local governments to restrict GE crops in any way. These new provisions would not only prohibit any future state and local laws, but also undemocratically nullify GE crop regulations that have existed in numerous counties across the country for over a decade. The bill would also further weaken already weak federal regulation of GE crops, while at the same time forbidding local communities from opting to protect their citizens, their farmers, and their environments. The bill draft will be discussed at a House hearing on Thursday.
“The Monsanto Protection Act is back, and it’s even worse than before. This bill would strip away a state or local government’s basic rights of local control, and hands the biotech industry everything it wants on a silver platter. No Member of Congress that cares about the rights and concerns of his or her constituents should support this bill,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety…..
The logical endpoint of this planned implosion is the shock doctrine. The “3rd world” is coming to the USA, unless we stop it.
RUSSIA AND CHINA JUST PUT ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE BRETTON WOODS PETRODOLLAR SYSTEM
Dollar collapse will result in war and police state fascism at home
Sanctions imposed on Russia have little to do with Ukraine or the supposed aggressive behavior of Vladimir Putin.
They are a direct response to a Russian move out of the petrodollar system that has ruled since the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference that established the US Dollar as the global world currency and created the World Bank and the IMF as the institutions upholding its hegemonic rule.
On Tuesday it was announced that Russia and China are expected to use the ruble and yuan in payments for gas supplied using the western Altai pipeline. The proposed pipeline will export 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year from Russia’s Western Siberia to North-Western China.
“As a sales contract is not signed, then, of course, the currency of payment has not yet been determined,” said Gazprom Export CEO Elena Burmistrova. “However, the Chinese side and the Russian side are discussing today and are in intricate negotiations on the possibility of paying in yuan and rubles.”
The announced plan followed an October 2014 deal signed between Beijing and Moscow that will strengthen the yuan and ruble and reduce dollar and euro dependency.
Prior to this, the Russian oil company Gazprom Neft agreed to export 80,000 tons of oil from the Novoportovskoye field in the Arctic via the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline and will only accept payment in Chinese yuan, according to the Russian business daily Kommersant.
“The Chinese and Russians are working together against the Americans, and there are many countries that would be happy to join them in dethroning the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. This historic gas deal between Russia and China is very bad news for the petrodollar,” Marin Katusa wrote for Forbes last May.
Another woe is an alternative development bank announced by BRICs, the governments of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
“It’s long been obvious the BRICs are coming,” Liam Halligan wrote for the Telegraph last August. “The total annual output of these four economies has spiraled in recent years, to an astonishing $29.6 trillion (£17.3 trillion) last year on a PPP-basis adjusted for living costs. That’s within spitting distance of the $34.2 trillion generated by the US and European Union combined.”
A move by Russia and China out of the dollar will ultimately undermine the the Treasury market in the United States and result in the collapse of the global elite’s astronomical and continually spiraling $17.5 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, an imposed obligation that translates into $53,000 for every person in the United States.
“In retrospect it will be very fitting that the crowning legacy of Obama’s disastrous reign, both domestically and certainly internationally, will be to force the world’s key ascendent superpowers (we certainly don’t envision broke, insolvent Europe among them) to drop the Petrodollar and end the reserve status of the US currency,” notes Zero Hedge.
The response by the global elite to the threat is playing out in sanctions and increased military aggressiveness on the periphery of Russia. The threat of war between the nuclear superpowers has not been this bad since the Cold War.
Domestically, severe measures are likely to be imposed after the dollar system collapses.
“I believe Washington will become sufficiently desperate to enforce the radical measures that governments throughout world history have always implemented when their currencies were threatened—overt capital controls, wealth confiscation, people controls, price and wage controls, pension nationalizations, etc.,” writes Nick Giambruno of Casey Research.
“And there’s more,” Giambruno adds. “The destruction of the dollar will wipe out most people’s wealth, leading to political and social consequences that will likely be worse than the financial consequences.”