April 12, 2014
Reports out of Moscow indicate that Russia is on the verge of signing the “holy grail” of gas deals with China. The deal between Russian state-owned gas firm Gazprom and Beijing would see as much as 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year flowing through the first proposed Russia-China pipeline by 2018. The agreement has apparently been in the works for years, but recent events on Moscow’s western flank (read: the Ukrainian situation) has moved the timetable on the plan up dramatically, with the last sticking point being the price. If the deal is signed next month during Putin’s state visit to China, as many analysts are speculating will happen, it will be a significant event not only economically, but geopolitically.
Given the fact that Russia, the world’s largest gas producer, and China, the world’s largest gas consumer, are neighbors it would be logical to assume that a gas pipeline between the two countries already exists. But logic and geopolitics seldom mix, and tensions between the two formerly communist countries (however one characterizes China’s current political and economic system) have remained ever since border disputes brought Moscow and Beijing to the brink of war in the 1960s. Establishing a gas link would thus be a very powerful signal of the growing understanding between the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon that their future lies more with each other than it does with a NATO-backed alliance that is increasingly encircling and isolating them.
Speaking of logic, this latest deal, if it is signed after all, [ it was — rw ]would only be the logical extension of all of the moves toward cooperation between Russia, China and their ex-Soviet satellites that we’ve been seeing in recent years.
There’s the rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The “SCO” encompasses China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan waiting in the wings as observer nations, and Belarus, Sri Lanka and Turkey as “dialogue partners.” Originally the “Shanghai Five” of signatories to the 1996 Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions, the group has gone on to deepen their military, intelligence and security ties, staging joint military exercises since 2003 and China-Russia war games since 2005. They are also coordinating on security matters, including a 2004 agreement on a Regional Antiterrorism Structure and the 2006 cooperation agreement with CSTO, the NATO counterbalance in the region.
There’s the rise of the BRICS. From a theoretical construct in an economic paper in 2001 to a very real political association with annual summits and ministers meetings today, the rise of the BRICS grouping in the past decade has been undeniable. Although the days of double digit growth and “taking over the world” reports are now a thing of the past, the association remains important for its ability to fuse developing economies as diverse as those of Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa into an economic and political counterbalance to the so-called “Washington consensus” of the World Bank / IMF regime. While China is undeniably in the BRICS driver’s seat, the access that the five-nation grouping gives each other’s member nations to far-flung parts of the globe, and the ways that the members’ economies can find surprisingly symbiotic notes (like that of the relation between Brazil and China) have made it into more than the sum of its parts, and it is now looking to expand its regional influence with the creation of the BRICS development bank.
There’s the rise of the Eurasian Union. Set to come into existence on New Year’s Day 2015, the proposed economic union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia has been modeled on the European Union, complete with a “Eurasian Economic Commission” based on the European Commission. The Commission will coordinate integration on customs issues, macroeconomics, energy and financial policy, labour migration and other key issues, with the end goal being a European Union-style supra-national organization very much like the EU. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are already waiting in the wings to get on board with the union, with Kyrgyzstan shutting down the U.S. Manas air base (allegedly used to ship drugs out of Afghanistan) and expanding the Russian air base that it currently hosts as a goodwill gesture.
Once again, the idea that Russia would seek closer economic, political and military cooperation with its regional neighbours is a perfectly logical and predictable outcome of the pressure that is building on Russia’s western flank from the US and NATO, not just the recent sanctions, but the years-long build-up of “ballistic missile defense” in Eastern Europe and NATO’s steady progress in swallowing up Eastern European nations. For those who are still locked in the mindset that moves on the geopolitical chessboard are essentially random, with countries scattering this way and that like billiard balls at the break, this poses a puzzling question: why would the NATO allies be backing Russia into a corner to the point that it starts engaging in these alliances? After all, the more Russia turns to its regional allies the more it weans itself and its economy off of the very system that could provide diplomatic and political pressure points for NATO to press upon when needed. In other words, why is NATO helping to push their geopolitical rivals into a closer union? Are they trying to build up their own enemy?
For those who like their answers up front, that answer is “yes.” …
Who controls NATO? Who controls the US government? Do they even exist as “self-interested” entities? The short answer is “no”. There are interests orchestrating both of them.
Or put another way: death by traitors in the US government. A decades-long bipartisan effort organized by the wall street TBTF banking monopolies, who have puppeteered the chinese just as effectively as they have us. See the Corbett video “China and the New World Order” below.
The underlying problem today…
A hundred fifty years ago, at least some Americans recognized that all serious discourse depended on the use of the faculty called Reason.
Formal debate, science, and law all flowed from that source. The source could be bent, twisted, and deployed in devious ways—but then people would know that. They would be able to point out where the arguer had gone wrong.
A common bond existed in some schools of the day. The student was expected to learn how Reason operates, and for that he was taught the only subject which could lay out, as on a long table, the visible principles: Logic.
This was accepted.
But now, this bond is gone.
The independence engendered by the disciplined study of logic is no longer a desired quality in students.
The classroom, at best, has taken on the appearance of a fact-memorization factory; and we should express grave doubts about the relevance and truth of many of those facts.
A mind trained no farther than rote parroting—regardless of how neat and precise it may look—is a listless mind with no center. It reaches out for vagaries and abrupt spectacular lies, hoping to find what it is missing. But the search produces nothing of value, because to discover logic, one must learn the whole subject as a branch of knowledge, not as a flicker of common sense sparking here and there in the landscape.
A society filled with people who float in the drift of non-logic is a society that declines. And in its decline, it accepts preposterous leaders and bizarre, self-sabotaging programs.
Ideologies that deny individual freedom and independence are welcomed with open arms, because they mirror a muddled people’s desire to confirm that failure is the inevitable fate of all of us.
When education becomes so degraded that young students are no longer taught to reason clearly, private citizens have the obligation rebuild that system so that the great contribution to Western civilization—logic—is reinstated in its rightful place.
Logic, the key by which true political discourse, science, and law were, in fact, originally developed, must be unearthed.
Logic and reasoning, the capacity to think, the ability to analyze ideas—an ability which has been forgotten, which has been a surpassing virtue in every shadow of a free civilization—must be restored.
Read much more at Independent Education: the crisis and the crossroad « Jon Rappoport's Blog.
Links to mainstream sources are at http://www.corbettreport.com/china-and-the-new-world-order-video/
We have an idea: we’ll steal whatever we want from you on whatever time scale we want (a midnight raid or a lifetime of fake debt servitude), impose whatever surgical mutilations and injections we want, brainwash, drug and push fake food on your kids, put you in prison if you resist, and call it freedom. We are a large group of similarly treated people that some call “The State”. We have many ancestors, ethnicities, religions, “scientific” dogmas, appeals to tradition and white collar fraud schemes. We even have fictitious persona’s like the Borg in Star Trek. But our underlying structure is that whatever worked for us in our lives has to work for you and your children or you’re a dangerous subversive. This is the ideology of totalitarianism. And when you add financial incentives and invisible networks of mutual blackmail from criminal activity, it becomes a business model. So do what you’re told, keep your head down and maybe we’ll spare you for a little while longer while we continue to recruit more predator drones into the system. You see, sheep in wolves’ clothing are far more dangerous than wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Why is raw milk illegal to buy or sell, but not to consume? How are pharmaceutical drugs classified as safe by the FDA without any independent testing? And why is the government so eager to bail out some failing companies?
This film outlines how our croni-capitalist system has led to excessive and sometimes absurd laws which limit our freedom of choice.
A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.
If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of "overdiagnosis" and "overtreatment" in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.
This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’
There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening…
Read much more at Millions Wrongly Treated for 'Cancer,' National Cancer Institute.
“Why must such a ‘wonderful product’ be forced on people?”
“Inventors of vaccines have chosen a belief system whereby infants are all born with inadequate immune systems (and therefore need to be “saved” from diseases by vaccines).”
Dr Suzanne Humphries provides a powerful and compelling explanation of what’s wrong with vaccines…
Dr Suzanne Humphries, a practicing nephrologist (kidney physician) says the vaccine industry isn’t giving people both sides of the story, and parents need to get informed before subjecting their children to vaccines that can potentially cause serious harm or even death.
Read more at Dr Suzanne Humphries: The Problems with Vaccines.