War with Russia? I don’t think so

War with Russia? I don’t think so

 

by Don Hank

I am not convinced that the West wants war with Russia. Nuclear war could end civilization or even life on earth and even the power-blinded elites know that.

Those who think the Establishment wants a real war are forgetting the Brexit – Britain’s exit from the EU. It succeeded beyond anyone’s – including its organizers’ – wildest dreams. Just a few days ago, Merkel, Renzi and Hollande, the “leaders” of the 3 most powerful nations in Europe, met on the island of Ventotene, where Altiero Spinelli, a founding father of the EU, was imprisoned by Mussolini (aficionados of the EU, founded with the blessings of the occultist Freemasons, like symbolism). It was called a “trilateral summit” in the press and its participants pretended it was a meeting to discuss issues ranging from security to a project (called Erasmus) to boost youth employment.
But the root cause of the summit was Brexit and there was even talk of a post-Brexit “restart” of the EU. Italian Prime Minister Renzi ventured to opine recently that Brexit shows that the EU is in trouble. That’s a no-brainer but national leaders in Europe had never dared to say anything that audacious. These three, perhaps more than anyone, sense that the EU is doomed and they wishfully think that by getting the “leaders” together, perhaps they can prevent it from collapsing.

Further meetings with 12 impotent heads of member states and Donald Tusk, the impotent head of the impotent European Council, is scheduled for this week, according to this Italian news site.

But Western leaders have little influence on the disgruntled little folks like you and me. For instance, Obama’s rush to Europe to urge Brits not to vote to leave the EU is believed by some to have prompted some fence sitters to vote to leave.
Thus Brexit was an object lesson in who really controls Europe, namely, the peoples of the continent. The recent silly resurgence of Russophobia throughout the West, epitomized by the absurd ban on Russian participation in the para-Olympics, but also manifested in the exaggerated media attention to a Syrian boy whose home was apparently destroyed by Russian bombs, are designed to make the West afraid that Russia, and not ISIS, is the most formidable enemy of civilization. They do this in the vain hopes that they can once more terrorize their own peoples into joining with them in a campaign for “more Europe” (code for more central control over once-sovereign nation states) and a renewed rallying around NATO and around its most influential supporter, the senile Hillary Clinton. But all signs suggest that it is too late and that the Western people are awakening. Freedom is up ahead waiting for the real people to shuck off the blinders.
Our biggest fear should not be a war with Russia but a restart of the EU and popular support for US hegemony. Those who see through the charade must try to spread the word so that we are not lured back into serfdom by the elites. It is time for a West-wide exit, not just from the EU but from the Atlanticist Establishment.

 

References:

https://laroucheirishbrigade.com/2012/03/02/accusations-of-eus-occult-finance-are-spot-on/

 

 

Elitists shocked: Same identical experiment fails again

Global elites shocked: Same identical experiment fails again

 

by Don Hank

I am hearing from a number of people who say that the elites are allowing terror acts in order to have an excuse to declare martial law. In other words, the elitists are omnipotent and all-wise and everything that happens these days is a result of elitist machinations. While it is true that Belgium was in lockdown for a few days after the Paris attacks and transport was shut down for a short time after the recent Brussels attacks, these were necessary measures and not necessarily a sign that the elites wanted martial law.

The real truth of the matter is that the global elites do not believe in controlling their subjects by physical force. Like the early communist theorists, they believe that once the people are conditioned properly under the tutelage of superior beings like themselves, the state will melt away and the populace will not longer require external control. But now these elites are being blindsided thanks to their naïve belief in an unworkable ideology, which includes the notion that a non-Muslim or Christian country can accommodate unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants, and all of them will learn to get along fine as long as certain elitist principles are followed — ie,  once their superior education system and media have completely eliminated any undesirable thoughts from among the populace and successfully implanted correct thoughts in their charges, thoughts that will reproduce themselves from here to eternity in the Utopia of their creation. Here is a typical example reflecting this notion:

QUOTE from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-24/jihad-brussels

“Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The terminally naive Angela Merkel had said almost the exact same words: Islam belongs in Germany – before, that is, scores of German women were assaulted sexually in Cologne last New Year’s eve by the beneficiaries of Merkel’s invitation to the tired and poor of the Muslim world. Merkel’s subsequent attitude and statements were classic deer in the headlights reactions. She could not think of anything coherent enough to say to stave off a catastrophic loss by her party in the regional elections. Things had clearly spun out of her control, at variance with the popular narrative that the elites control everything. In fact, the consequences of their actions are more often unintended and that is just the opposite of control.

It is clear that these people naively believed that if they applied “European principles” and stuck to their “European values” (including a Pollyanna view that everyone, even devout Muslims, would automatically accept the Western concept of “democracy” and “freedom” (two words that globalist GW Bush used ad nauseam referring to the Iraq fiasco), once they had seen these superior concepts in action in real life.

The reaction of these Western “leaders” to the hard fact that Muslims will never accept “Western values” – with many preferring instead to massacre their naïve liberal hosts – shows that these elitists were not just pretending in order to usher in martial law. They actually believed in their hearts that their “values” (which, as I pointed out here, are not values at all) would be universally accepted, even by Muslims, once they were displayed vividly enough for all to see in action. But in every venue in which this experiment has been tried, “Western values” (called “European values” in Europe) have in fact failed to attract the general public. This is because of something called culture, whose existence the global elites refuse to acknowledge (because they despise the very concept, as I showed here), let alone accommodate it in their public policies. A fatal flaw for them and an opportunity for We the People.

Following the Brussels attacks, the same Mogherini mentioned above broke into tears and could not give a scheduled news conference, as shown in this video. What does this prove? It proves that the naïve Italian girl who had swallowed the elitist notion that everyone would assimilate in Europe and accept European values once exposed to them, was not only wrong, but she was in fact stunned by the failure of her ideology. She was totally unprepared for reality because, like all elitists, she did not believe even in the existence of culture as a political force and could not believe that the Muslim culture would make Muslims behave differently from Europeans once they had been exposed to the far superior European culture (did you catch the racism?).

A similar phenomenon was observed when the US elitists were unable to throw enough money and propaganda at the Jeb Bush campaign to sweep their pathetically incompetent candidate into the presidency.

This refusal to accept reality does not give the elitists power, as many of you believe. It robs them of their power by setting them up for a string of unpleasant surprise upsets, which include the rise to power of anti-Establishment politicians throughout the West:

Donald Trump in the US

Nigel Farage in the UK

Marine LePen in France

Geert Wilders in Holland

Viktor Orban in Hungary

and a host of lesser but rising political figures throughout Europe.

The Islamic jihadists are the catalyst in a rapidly evolving unstoppable but unintended vicious cycle:

The more naively and blindly the elitists behave, for example, by inviting hordes of “refugees” into Western countries, the more terror occurs throughout the West. The more terror occurs, the more powerful the anti-Establishment movement becomes.

If the terror seems unstoppable, the growth of opposition to the elites is also becoming unstoppable at the same time, creating the conditions for a perfect storm of civil unrest and perhaps war.

The reactions of the elitists, as described above, clearly show that things are not going according to plan for them.

The fact of the matter is that WE are in control if we can acquire the essential ingredients for freeing ourselves of slavery, namely, wisdom and knowledge.

To acquire these, we all need to study harder to learn the skills of proper personal and individual analysis, and to rely less on the herd instinct that betrays us in our quest for freedom.

Merkel down for the count

Merkel down for the count

 

by Don Hank

 

You see what is happening all over the Western world as a result of incontinent immigration and perpetual war policies?

Last year the French regional elections propelled the anti-Establishment and anti-immigration Front National to victory in the majority of regions.

Further, anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders is now the most popular man in Holland.

And of course, anti-Establishment Trump is poised to win the GOP nomination over the soon-to-be dead body of the old party chieftains.

Now the Madwoman of Berlin, Angela Merkel, is being brutally thrown to the mat in German elections.

All of these parties and candidates have shot to success for the same reason. They have called out the establishment and shown it for the phony it is.

The reaction to this mass movement everywhere — in France, in Germany and in the US — is being called racist and fascist.

But self defense is self defense. It has nothing to do with race or even politics.

And the naked truth of the matter is that the Establishment itself is blatantly fascist. It is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Here is another phenomenon:

FAR FAR leftists who oppose the eternal wars of Washington are actually turning to Trump, even though their writings express anguish at his politics. Take William Blum, for instance, owner of the blog Anti-Empire Report. Obviously, the guy is anti-conservative and atheistic, but he can’t help but praise Trump as the only candidate who seems NOT to want nuclear war:

http://williamblum.org/aer/read/142

This coming election will NOT be a race between left and right. It will be a race against sane vs. insane, to save nothing less than the planet we live on.

At the same time, it will be campaign to stop the New World Order and the elitist oligarchs who want to dissolve all national borders.

It has ALWAYS been about that, but most of us couldn’t see it.

Trump has helped open our eyes.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3489936/Angela-Merkel-set-punished-voters-open-door-refugee-policy-Germany-s-Super-Sunday-state-elections.html

 

Mrs Merkel described AfD as a ‘party that does not bring cohesion in society and offers no appropriate solutions to problems, but only stokes prejudices and divisions’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3489936/Angela-Merkel-set-punished-voters-open-door-refugee-policy-Germany-s-Super-Sunday-state-elections.html#ixzz42sWU5QnJ

Even after Paris, Libertarians want open borders

 

Even after Paris, Libertarians endorse open borders

 

by Don Hank

 

The libertarian think tank Mises Institute just published an article titled ISIS May Be Our Ally Some Day. (My thanks to our friend Peter in the UK for this tip).

Expressed in the following sentence from the piece is perhaps the most dangerous error of ideological Libertarianism:

 

“In the West, since the nineteenth century, nationalism has largely filled the role of manufacturing consent to government domination, by drawing arbitrarily the contours of a fantasized historical and cultural community.”

Libertarians make the same mistake as radical leftists in that they ignore cultural identity and pretend it does not exist. I discussed this and its disastrous effects here.

Their attitude is: 50 million people share the same likes and dislikes, the same customs, the same religion and the same cultural identity? So what? It’s up to us to erase this identity to protect the world from war and enslavement.

Liberals, including Libertarians, think that it was nationalism that gave the world the Third Reich and WW II. Quite the opposite is true. It was indeed the supranational idea of a united Europe that inspired Hitler, and the idea was carried on by his former officials after the war to create the EU dictatorship, as disclosed  here and here and in this video by Edward Spalton and Rodney Atkinson, respectively.

By attempting to erase all cultural differences, Libertarianism and Leftism both seek to dominate while hypocritically endorsing “liberty.”  Instead of divide and conquer, they seek to artificially unite and conquer.

The author mentions the 19th Century as a turning point, alluding to the Treaty of Westphalia which enshrined in international law the concept of respecting the sovereignties of nations. Today’s utter disregard for national sovereignties gave us, for example, the hideous grotesquery of a shattered Libya where the US hegemon decided arbitrarily to take out Ghadaffi, a progressive and beloved secular leader who brought unprecedented prosperity by refusing to allow Islamic radicalism to get the upper hand. The author is, perhaps unwittingly, supporting this lawlessness.

The contours of a historical and cultural community they speak of are anything but arbitrary. Calling them arbitrary is indeed arbitrary in itself. The author is referring to national groupings whose constituent populations identify with each other sentimentally and intellectually. Nor is this community in any way a fantasy.

Go tell an Italian that the Italian identity is a fantasy. Be prepared to run.

But especially, do not tell a Russian that there is no such thing as a Russian identity. It’s all in his head (BTW, the Russians’ strong sense of identity is one of the main reason for the utterly irrational hatred of all things Russian that permeates the West, particularly the upper strata, who cleave to the dangerous notion of supranationality endorsed by the Mises Institute author). False modesty aside, I am particularly alert to cultural differences because of my intimate exposure to many cultures and languages over about 55 years. My analysis is not only from intuition or from a study of other people’s ideas, eg, from having read books or heard lectures, but primarily from years of experience in total-immersion experiences in the field. Why listen to an armchair philosopher when you can get it from the horse’s mouth? Listen to me: Culture is real, more real than anything libertarians or their soul mates the liberal leftists have ever written. They, along with the liberal leftists, are in fact the reality-denying fantasists who promote the dangerous fantasy of a one-world world government that has wrecked swaths of our world both under the communists of the 20th Century and under the EU.

The lie that statehood and national identity do not exist is what is bringing down Europe before our eyes, flooding it with unvetted “refugees” from terror-nurturing countries and foisting a failed monetary system and military program on its constituent states, all subservient to the US government. It has enabled a small deceitful cabal to bring an entire continent to virtual economic and social ruin.

America is on the way to such a union. GW Bush tried to foist the North American Union on us years ago. Fortunately, Americans – most of whom think of ourselves as a nation despite the ill-intentioned propaganda of the kind so cheekily represented by the Libertarians above – protested vigorously and the project was apparently scrapped. But in reality, even after the elites stopped naming its name, they stealthily pursued its goals as vigorously as before, with Bush opening our borders ever wider, allowing more and more illegal aliens into our country and even refusing to repatriate violent criminals who had entered the US illegally, as I showed here long before Donald Trump raised the issue. Obama is carrying Bush’s torch. You don’t have to name it to create a supranational union. The unnamed ones are the most dangerous.

Like all ideologies, Libertarianism must deny reality to survive and receive donations. One clue as to why we ignore Putin to our peril is that he has stated publicly that he has no ideology at all. Recently he was named the most powerful man in the world. Realism is power. Ideology is doomed to failure.

 

 

 

 

 

We are being played: French strikes confirm my warning

by Don Hank

In this commentary, written the day after the recent terror attacks in Paris, I warned that French president Hollande may use the Paris terror attacks to overthrow Assad. I based this in part on the aftermath of the 911 attacks, reminding:

… GW Bush used the 911 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which had not aided the 911 perpetrators in any known way. He stood on ground zero in NY and said “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us,” thereby setting the stage for a false connection in the minds of Americans, most of whom unthinkingly supported the ensuing non-sequitur and disastrous wars, which led, incidentally, to the creation of ISIS. The 911 perpetrators had been mostly Saudi terrorists, supported by Saudi money, but the Saudis did not “hear from us” at all, did they? The State Department did not so much as breathe a hint of caution in their direction. The Saudi conspirators and perpetrators were in fact fully absolved of all blame, which was heaped instead on scapegoats, at a tragic cost of American blood, treasure and prestige.

I saw an analogy with the Paris attacks, where the Saudis, the true perpetrators in the 911 attacks, represent ISIS, the true perpetrators in the French attacks, and the war on Iraq, falsely purporting to be revenge for those attacks (even though Iraq had nothing to do with them), representing the attack on Syria with the full intent of destroying the government of President of Assad, one of the last truly secular regimes in the Middle East that is not aligned with the US government.

Meanwhile, European cable TV stations like the French channel TV5, German Deutsche Welle, BBC, Italy’s RAI and US media outlets are constantly showing how nations all over the world are showing their solidarity with France, illuminating their monuments with the colors of the tricolore and of course, in the midst of this international blend of grief, solidarity and hysteria, no one anywhere (except me) dares to point out that the EU’s open borders and quotas for refugees from the Muslim world are some of the main reasons for terror attacks of the kind the world saw playing out in Paris.

Last night France did indeed execute 150 air strikes against the supposed ISIS stronghold Raqqa. They did so illegally, without the permission of the Syrian people, as I had suggested they would in my article.

Meanwhile ISIS spokespeople have said that the the targets were no longer occupied by ISIS.

The uninitiated would expect ISIS to be lying. So how can we check on this? I decided to do a web search and find out whether Russia had already struck in Raqqa. Indeed, Russian planes, acting legally at the invitation of the Syrian people, had struck Raqqa in early October and again on Oct. 15, as reported here. Reuters reports on Nov 6 of further Russian strikes in Raqqa.

This report from Oct. 5 shows that Russia had already knocked out an ammo dump in Raqqa. Yet the French claim that last night’s strikes knocked out an ISIS munitions dump in the same town.

Since I was able to find reports of at least 3 raids by Russia on ISIS targets in Raqqa, it seems odd that France would need to strike again. Certainly, Russia’s strikes would have left few targets for the French, and that would seem to corroborate ISIS’ claim that the French hit empty targets. Why would they do that? No doubt to claim those areas for the “rebels” fighting Assad. If the rebels reach those areas first, would the legitimate Syrian army dare to challenge them – even with Russia backing them up?

Whereas at that time of Russia’s strikes, the US insisted that the Russian strike only hit “moderates,” the Russians said they had hit ISIS targets. One side was lying. Surely our own State Department would never lie to We the People, would they?

This site promptly showed the State Department was indeed lying:

“The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said at least 12 ISIS jihadists from the Islamic State group were killed in the Raqqa attack.”

Now it had been reported earlier that Syrian “rebels” (“moderates” supported by US but operating illegally under international law) intended to attack ISIS in Raqqa.

Now that France has struck again, perhaps striking no actual ISIS members (which the Russians may have routed completely in its October and November strikes in Raqqa), the “rebels.” supported by Washington and Europe, will have the propaganda advantage because the perpetually lying and treacherously deceitful Western media can claim that anyone opposing these US-backed Syrian terrorists are besmirching the memory of the dead in Paris.

You see what a despicable game is being played to gain power in Syria illegally and against the will of the Syrian people? You see how the French are preparing the ground to claim that it was they and not the Russians who liberated Raqqa – despite the fact that Russia had repeatedly struck ISIS in Raqqa throughout October and again in November and destroyed most of the targets France claimed to strike last night? We are being played just as we were in Iraq and in the Arab Spring, eg, Libya, Egypt, Syria….

If we the people again fail to see through the ruse, we will get what we deserve. That is, if indeed the Western powers are only pretending to fight ISIS, as Obama did in Syria by dragging his feet and even “accidentally” air dropping arms to ISIS, and as Hollande is obviously doing in France, by pretending to attack ISIS when in fact his actual target is Assad, the protector of Christians and minorities in Syria, ISIS will continue to grow unopposed and the Western world will be in thrall to these people whom Donald Trump aptly calls “cockroaches.”

Did the French choose to bomb Raqqa so that the anti-Assad rebels could get there first and claim it as theirs? The evidence is piling up to confirm this thesis.

I believe the Paris attacks were indeed used as a pretext to attack Syria without permission from the Syrian legitimate government for the purpose of claiming the very important city of Raqqa for the rebels. This is an indirect attack on Assad, exactly as I had foreseen in yestereday’s commentary.

 

President Hollande finally notices ISIS war

President Hollande finally notices ISIS’ war on civilization

 

By Don Hank

 

French President Hollande said after last night’s terror attacks in Paris:

“C’est un acte de guerre” commis par une “armée terroriste, Daech” — This is an act of war committed by a terrorist army, Daesh (ISIS)

Another report says: Francois Hollande [whose government, by the way, fully supports the EU’s open borders and the introduction of thousands of unvetted “refugees” from various Muslim countries that is threatening the integrity of Europe — my comment], accused ISIS of orchestrating the worst attacks in France for more than 70 years, declaring it an ‘act of war’ and vowing to ‘mercilessly’ strike back.

This is how it starts. Recall that GW Bush used the 911 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which had not aided the perpetrators in any known way. He stood on ground zero in NY and said “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us,” thereby setting the stage for a false connection in the minds of Americans, most of whom unthinkingly supported the ensuing non-sequitur and disastrous wars, which led, incidentally, to the creation of ISIS. The 911 perpetrators had been mostly Saudi terrorists, supported by Saudi money, but the Saudis did not “hear from us” at all, did they? The State Department did not so much as breathe a hint of caution in their direction. The Saudi conspirators and perpetrators were in fact fully absolved of all blame, which was heaped instead on scapegoats, at a tragic cost of American blood, treasure and prestige.

A slick documentary was aired on French cable TV station TV5 about a month ago showing a typical work day of President François Hollande, during which he said on the phone, apparently to a cabinet member, that he still wants to remove President Bashar Assad. This was a hint for the French people and a red flag for the world.

Thus when Hollande said he would “mercilessly strike back,” we need to ask ourselves: did he mean he would strike at Assad or at the real perpetrators? We can hope that he will join the coalition of Russia and Syria to effectively strike ISIS, but his past statements and actions suggest the opposite.

Think about what Hollande said in the above-referenced documentary. There were definitely ISIS sleeper cells in France at that time, some of which later perpetrated the Paris attacks, but Hollande was blithely ignoring them in his obsession with removing Bashar al-Assad, the only man in the world who had been fighting ISIS since its inception. Instead of focusing on the obvious real enemy, Hollande was hatching plots to remove Assad, the only man truly engaging the enemy. One can assume that Hollande’s aims have not changed since then. After all, Hollande had to know all along that Daesh (ISIS) was the enemy of France and all of civilization, so last night’s statement that this is war was out of place because he had to know before the attack that every murder that Daesh had committed in Syria and Iraq for years was in fact an act of war on France and on every other country purporting to be civilized  – particularly since 100s of French fighters were mingled among ISIS fighters at the time.

Let’s put this in plain English, shall we?

By focusing on removing Assad and his loyal forces – the only effective resistance against ISIS – and by refusing to ally with Assad (despite the latter’s blemishes), Hollande  – like all Western “leaders” –  was in fact assisting ISIS from the start. So now when he says the Paris attacks are an acte de guerre – effectively declaring war on ISIS, this sounds hollow. Indeed, in view of Hollande’s past neglect of ISIS’s warlike behavior and his focus on eliminating the most effective opponents of ISIS (including Russia), François Hollande has been a de facto ally of ISIS.

Now on the US side, my wife and I were watching Fox News this morning (I never watch that channel voluntarily but wanted to be sociable) where various commentators spoke about the Paris attacks and on ISIS in Syria. One “expert” said it would now be necessary for the US to get involved because otherwise, ISIS would never be defeated. I could hardly believe it. It was as if Russia had never accomplished a thing in Syria, and yet, the Russian accomplishments were astonishing, as evidenced here, here, here and by a host of news outlets easily found by a quick search using the search terms “russian accomplishments syria isis.” By the way, as evidence of the West’s crass duplicity, while the entire Western establishment had initially insisted that Russia was only attacking the “moderates,” the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt was graphic evidence that the entire West had been lying in unison.

As shown in the last-linked commentary above, Putin did more in one month than the entire West had done in years to defeat ISIS. Thus, the entire West, including Hollande, clearly had never once intended to effectively answer ISIS’s call to war. So why the fuss now?

Despite the mountain of proof that Russia and the Syrian army have been the only effective resistance to ISIS, not one commentator on Fox this morning gave any credit whatsoever to the forces in Syria that have been shedding their blood to stop ISIS. No one mentioned Russia and their highly effective attacks which now have routed ISIS in various places (places invaded as the US government twiddled its thumbs), and of course, no one mentioned the brave Syrian army which lost a huge percentage of its troops to ISIS over the years.

No, they absurdly insisted that the demonstrably unwilling and ineffective US military leaders are the only chance we have to stop ISIS. In contrast, when my wife switched to CNN, we heard Christiane Amanpour reminding her audience that Russia had also suffered an attack by ISIS on its airliner in Egypt and had received threats of domestic attacks on its soil. So who’s fair and balanced?

All in all, it would appear as if the world is being brainwashed by the Neocons to support another military adventure in the Middle East that is doomed to fail because it is focused on eliminating the only effective forces against ISIS rather than on defeating them once and for all.

Look, let’s make it easy: If you want to eliminate a plague of rabbits, do you start out by killing all the foxes?

Based on Hollande’s clear desire to take out Assad and based on the US position on Assad, there is little hope that the world will ever see an end to Islamic terror as long as “leaders” like him are in power. Sadly, most Western leaders are clones of Hollande.

 

Game over for Obama power in the world?

I don’t know how to make people realize how significant just that first sentence in the QUOTE OF THE CENTURY below. Suffice to say it signals the end of Obama’s power in the world arena.

Merkel broke the ice about a week before Putin’s blockbusting speech at the UN debate, saying that Assad needs to be included in any negotiations over Syria. http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-says-assad-must-have-role-in-syria-talks/a-18736427

Other European leaders seemed to – reluctanctly — agree.

Hollande is the biggest holdout, but no one can seriously doubt that he will bow to Junker on this.

Obama can huff and bluff all he wants now but it is over. This is reminiscent of how he “warned” his partners not to join the AIIB (Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), on the flimsy excuse that it lacked “safeguards.” If you wonder what he meant by “safeguards,” the story is here http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319.

I had said then that it looked like the rest of the world was turning its back on the US government. My first inkling of that was something a Chinese monetary expert had said: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219 in a press conference given only in Chinese.

Those were the big signs that America (not Russia as many air heads have said) was being isolated as a result of its insensitivity and outright bullying.

4 major signs so far that the US is losing its place on the world stage:

1—surge of the RMB as part of dedollarization

2—The accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB, a direct competitor of the World Bank/IMF

3—Merkel’s signaling that Assad is an indispensable partner in the war on terror

4—Now, today’s news that Jean-Claude Junker is shucking off the Washington yoke and making a significant overture to Russia.

Alone, Washington can no longer support terror in the Middle East. A sad and disgraceful chapter in US and world history seems to be coming to an end.

This loss of prestige will in turn change American minds like nothing has ever done and will influence our politics. Warmongers like Fiorina are already finished. Obama seems poised to exit the stage with his tail between his legs. Likewise, the Neocons, who also supported the anti-Christian terror in the Middle East, will see much of their prestige and credibility vaporize.

There is only one alternative to that for the Neocons: WW III and the end of life on this planet. Will they risk it?

Only if YOU let them.

 

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY by no less than the head of the EU Commission:

“We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.”

Jean-Claude Junker

 

Junker Throws in the Towel

This article originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated from the German by Boris Jaruselski

Huge reversal: the EU seeks a normal relationship with Russia. It seems that the EU is being greatly affected by the actions of Vladimir Putin in Syria: suddenly the EU President Jean-Claude Junker is saying that the EU must not let the US dictate their relationship with Russia. He has demanded a normalization of relations – and indirectly, the end of sancitons.

The EU Commission President advocated a relaxation in the conflict with Russia. “We have to achieve a sustainable relationship with Russia. It’s not sexy, but has to be done. We can’t go on like this anymore”, he said on Thursday in Passau. It isn’t necessary to achieve overall understanding, but a sensible conversational basis. “The Russians are a proud people”, the country has “a role to play”, said Junker: “One must not remove them from the bigger picture, otherwise they’ll call again, very quickly, as we seen already.” He critisized US Presidnet Barack Obama, for having downgraded Russia as “regional power”. “Russia needs to be treated correctly”, the Luxemburgian explained. “We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.

This statement is particularly noteworthy. Until now, the EU always placed emphasis on having complete accord with the Americans, with the placement of the Russian sanctions. Some time ago, the US Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the US had urged the EU to impose the sacntions. Junkers’ big back flip is confirming the statement made by Biden. It’s hard to discern what’s really going on Junker’s mind: as late as March, Junker was demanding the establishment of a EU army, which was expressly directed against Russia: such a European army would “give Russia the impression, that we are seriously intending to defend European Union’s values”, Junker said word for word, back then.

 

Normandy Four snub Obama

Normandy Four snub Obama

 

by Don Hank

The fact that Ukraine, Germany and France have agreed to meet with Russia in Paris on Oct 2 (see story linked below) without any kibitzing from Obama (not invited) is clear evidence that

1-Obama – not Putin (per the Neocon fable) is the one who is isolating himself with his uncompromising rigidity.

2-Putin scored points and changed minds at the UN debate on Monday.

3-Europe, while perhaps still wary of Russia, still considers it a negotiating partner, either despite of or – more likely – because of Putin’s bold military initiative in Syria – standing as it does in bold contrast to Obama’s inertness.

After all, as I have seen on European talk shows (Deutsche Welle, RAI Italia, TV 5 from France) since the Syrian air strikes, the Europeans – unlike the US – are more immediately concerned about the immigration crisis than any other aspect of the Syrian issue. No one — particularly not the US — has made any progress in stopping the terror that the refugees are escaping (and as Putin rightly suggested without naming names, ISIS is a US invention). Germany, which initially put on a show of compassion for the refugees, has seen violence (eg, against women, Shiites and Christians) and chicanery (false passports) among these refugees. Worse, their refugee welcome centers are overwhelmed and so are many public schools, unable to keep up with the demand for German language classes, etc.

American Neocons can sit down and moralize about Syria, pretending that the duly elected Assad is a “dictator” (while pretending that the Saudis and their unelected king are somehow democratic and more civilized – even as they bomb poor little Yemen to smithereens).

But Europe’s institutions are under siege and individual EU countries cannot reach an agreement even over whether to accept ANY refugees, let alone 10,000 a day. This is causing a rift that threatens the integrity of the Union.

Europe’s “leaders” are panicked and, Like him or hate him, they know that Putin is the one who has stepped into the gag and is helping to solve their problem (despite silly statements by Obama to the contrary). His prestige in Europe has undoubtedly gone up since the UN debates and the Syria initiative.

And our hapless White House resident said Putin needs to “become a little smarter”? LOL!

http://rbth.com/news/2015/09/30/normandy_four_meeting_in_paris_is_joint_initiative_of_france_germany_rus_49671.html

 

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank