500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

Sign Up to Receive Alerts and Newsletters from Laigle's Forum

Latest Posts:

How the petrodollar perpetuates Islamic terror

May 10th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

March 14, 2015

How the petrodollar perpetuates Islamic terror

By Donald Hank

Casey Research has done an outstanding job of explaining the origin and workings of the petrodollar.

To summarize their analysis, In 1971, Richard Nixon killed the gold standard, unconstitutionally circumventing congress. This deed is far more egregious than Watergate in the harm it did to the US people.

To keep the dollar’s value propped up without gold, Nixon, at Kissinger’s instigation, struck an ingenious deal with Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal. The US would protect Saudi oil fields and protect them from enemies (Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union, etc.) in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding payment in US dollars for their oil.

This meant that the US could print essentially unlimited numbers of dollars and the value would never drop. This explains why the Fed could launch quantitative easing (QEs 1, 2, etc.) and not trigger another Weimar type inflation cycle.

But several countries are fouling up the works. Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the BRICS countries are deliberately dedollarizing world trade by using currencies other than the dollar in their purchase of oil and other commodities. European countries are going along with this.

I had dealt with dedollarization here, and specifically the role the China’s yuan (RMB) plays in that process here.

We are being assured by both the msm and the conservative press that the reason the US is sanctioning Iran is that that country is allegedly developing a nuclear weapon. Yet Pakistan, another Muslim country, has nukes and the same politicians and media wringing their hands over Iran are blithely ignoring them. Just as they are ignoring N. Korea, which is run by a certified nut. In fact, according to none other than Israeli news outlet Haaretz, Israel, which is squealing the loudest about Iran’s nukes (of which neither hide nor hair is yet to materialize) has at least 80 nukes of its own. Likewise, we are told that the reason Russia is a rogue is that it has annexed Crimea and aided the pro-Russians in Eastern Ukraine (which are being bombed by the US-backed Kiev junta). Yet Crimea held a referendum and over 90% said they wanted to leave Ukraine. Now when Scotland held a referendum to do likewise and end its relationship with the UK, this was regarded as perfectly acceptable by the Western powers. One referendum was illegal but the other was perfectly acceptable. No explanation given.

Now, returning our eyes to the ball, recall that when a group of Saudis attacked the Twin Towers and Pentagon in 2001, GW Bush stood with a group of firemen at ground zero and declared on national TV “The people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.” Since 15 of the 19 people who knocked down the buildings were Saudis, the other 3 were close allies of that country and all were sponsored by the Saudi royal family, one would have expected the US military to hold Saudi Arabia accountable.

Instead, Bush first waged a campaign in Afghanistan and then one in Iraq, and when Baghdad fell and Saddam Hussein was captured, Americans, in a fog of bewilderment, managed to mentally conflate the losers of these wars with the “people who knocked down these buildings.” That piece of theater was a work of deceptive genius.

What had Bush accomplished?

He had cleverly given the Saudis tacit – or was it express? – permission to terrorize the Christian West as the first step in the Islamization of our region, all under the petrodollar agreement. The Saudis owned us. If they backed out of the petrodollar agreement, our economy was toast.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the refugee waves generated by the Iraqi conflict, coupled with the anti-Christian EU leadership, contributed mightily to the Islamization of Europe, which is now a work in progress that is well underway and is sowing terror on that continent. (Notice that the Saudis were not present in the Charlie Hebdo march in Paris).

The US, ie, US 2 (the shadow government, or deep state, which is sharply antagonistic to US 1, We the People – I have outlined this dichotomy here) was still propping up the petrodollar in perfect harmony with the Sunni Saudi government and, to solidify relations, was throwing in a handsome bonus for the Sunni radicals supported by them, namely, permission to wage terror. (Another juicy bonus is the opposition of US 2 and partner Israel, to Shia Iran, the nemesis of the Sunnis in Riyadh).

Today, the same process is underway and has advanced greatly.

But how do the US shadow government and its allies expect to win this desperate gamble that they put into motion in the early 70s?

It appears as if they have run through their repertoire, from abandonment of the gold standard to the petrodollar and all the costly wars and placating of the Saudis by tacitly supporting Islamization via wars and other subterfuge, to the sanctions against the dedollarizing countries.

None of these sanctions is really working and will predictably fail in the long run. Worse, sanctions and wars will be useless against the player of last resort, China, which can and almost certainly will use the RMB as the weapon of choice against the dollar (as I pointed out here, of all the world powers, China has the only currency backed up by real economics, not debt – ie, reprobate Keynesianism, which I dissected here).

And if there is an American Kim Jong-un loose somewhere in the State Department or Defense Department, he will be no match for the full arsenal of both Russia and China, which the Chinese believe can wipe out the US in an instant, as shown by my translation here.

So who will bail out US 1 – you and me – when the dollar falls?

China, of course. There is no way they will let their biggest trading partner fail.

Of course, they will dictate the terms. Including sanctions for bad behavior. It is doubtful that regimes sponsoring Islamic terror – like the US/Saudi tag team – will get off lightly following this changing of the global guard.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

What is wrong with Russian studies in the US?

May 7th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

This article is long and may be a bit specialized for many, but if I may sum it up, it shows that US universities offering Russian studies are stuck in a cold war mind set that hardly captures the essence of today’s Russia. In other words, Russian area “specialists” don’t generally know beans about today’s Russia and are the ones behind US foreign policy in this area. Sound good to you? It is a set up for disaster and the disaster is happening in the Ukraine.

I got a glimpse of this attitude, a kind of low-key Russophobia in academe, when I was looking around for a college to study Russian on the Master’s level. Astoundingly, while undergraduate Russian courses were of course, offered in the Russian language, I found that the biggest name colleges in the US did not offer any of these “Russian” courses in the Russian language. The courses were given in English and many of the profs had only a rudimentary command of the Russian language.

Yuri Grinberg, a prof I met while studying Russian at Colby College in Maine, took me aside one evening over Russian pastries at his on campus cottage and told me that he had once met the head of the Yale Russian department. Yuri was a native Russian and had a glass eye. He looked me in the eye with his biological eye and said to me in his native tongue “you may find this hard to believe but you speak Russian better than the head of the Yale Russian department. His Russian was terrible.” At the time I didn’t know whether to believe it. I had never completed an undergraduate course in Russian, although I had read extensively in the language on my own.

Years later as I was casting about for a suitable graduate school for Russian, I called Harvard, Yale and other big schools and asked them point blank whether they taught their Russian courses on the graduate level in Russian and they told me no. A friend of mine who was working on a Master’s in Russian at Yale had told me that he was forgetting his Russian while there!

I later met a young lady who was taking a graduate course in Russian at Bryn Mawr and she urged me to take the grad course in Russian there. She said they were eager to give away scholarships.

So I drove there to meet with the department head.

I decided to be sneaky and as we were seated in her office I expressed fear that my Russian may not be good enough for her class. My only real fear was that the course would be in English.

She “reassured” me saying that all the courses were given in English and that we would be required only to read English translations of the Russian classics.

I turned on her angrily and said “how can you call these Russian courses if they are in English?”

Now let me add here that I had discovered years earlier that the graduate courses in other European languages on most campuses were given in the respective languages so that Russian was a standout. Even then I took this as a sign of Russophobia. Considering the virulent Neocon hatred of Russia pervading US politics, I am now convinced that I was right in my assessment.

So I wound up taking the course at a small no-name college near my home offered by an eccentric prof named Dr. Richard Fortune, who turned out to be brilliant.

Anyway, here is the story for those who are interested in why so many US “Russia area specialists” seem to hate Russia:

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/732

Don Hank

 

 

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

GOOD NEWS: Austria files criminal complaint over alleged NSA snooping

May 5th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

by Don Hank on May 5, 2015

Why is this good news? Germany is one of the few countries in Europe that still wants sanction against Russia, not because Russia has harmed Germany in any way but because the Neocons in Washington told her she must. They can’t articulate their reasons any better than Merkel but she sees her partner across the pond as a means of staying in power so she is hedging her bets. Thus she is a lapdog of the Neocons who sound like they want war with a nuclear superpower, which comes in a package with another superpower. Feel safe yet? You betcha you don’t!
Several other countries in Europe and also a lot of German citizens are sick and tired of Merkel groveling at the feet of Washington every time she is told to heel. A lot of Americans are also sick of the war games, which are held mostly to appease the Saudis in exchange for the perpetuation of the petrodollar.
European media are saying that Merkel has so far insulated herself from these spying charges, and scapegoats are being found to preserve her Hintern intact.
But this news that Austria is seeking criminal charges for this unprofessional behavior could be a game changer. Charges are only charges. But the stench of a conviction would be wafted all the way to the top of the hierarchy.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=RN1gxgPd (from @AP)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

US foreign policy a lot worse than libertarians think

May 4th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

US foreign policy a lot worse than libertarians think

by Don Hank  May 4, 2015

The blog Americans for a Free Republic recently ran an informative article relating to the origin and nature of Neoconservatism, showing that these people are anything but conservative and are in fact statists who advocate a strong central government and US hegemony in the world. Every American needs this information.
However, the article introduces the usual misconception about the wars that Neocons advocate. Thus they write of Neocon Frank Gaffney:

“Gaffney has been a longtime advocate of interventionist U.S. foreign policies, ever-increasing military budgets, and aggressive attacks upon the Islamic world.” [my emphasis]

This wording makes it seem as if the Neocons are anti-Muslim when they are really quite friendly toward the most violent Muslims. Since 1973, when Nixon-Kissinger entered into the petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia, all US military conflicts have been conducted almost exclusively to support Saudi foreign policy in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding payment for oil in US dollars. This propped up the dollar artificially but, shamefully, made mercenaries of the US military, unbeknownst to the American people. The most vital point that we all miss is that US attacks were selective upon the Shiite world and secularist regimes in the Middle East, not upon the Sunni world and hence, not upon the Muslim world per se, as is habitually repeated. (Even though Saddam was a Sunni, he was first and foremost a secularist, which rankled the Saudis).
The Saudis are mainly Sunni Wahhabis, the most violent and intolerant sect (anti-Christian, for example) in the world. This notion that the Neocons are anti-Muslim is simplistic and will lead to tragic mistakes in foreign policy if translated into practice. In fact it already has.
You are aware that the Neocons, including most Democrats and Republicans (notably John McCain and Lindsay Graham) seem to harbor a visceral hatred of Syria and Iran.
Syria is in the hands of a Shiite (specifically Alawite, a Shiite subsect), Bashar al-Assad, while Iran is Shiite majority. For the sake of reference, there are 600 Christian churches in Iran vs none in Saudi Arabia. The Neocons do not attack the Saudis or other Sunni non-secular regimes. They attack Shiites and secular regimes as stated above, which is why they are intent on ousting Assad and bombing Iran. After centuries of dhimmitude, Israel also feels obliged to follow the Saudis’ lead, in order to gain a certain immunity from terror attacks, and you will have noted that ISIS has so far pursued a hands-off policy toward Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, with US Neocons’ blessings, that will give them points with the Saudis.
In the case of Kosovo, Neocon-led US forces attacked a Christian (Russian orthodox, or Pravoslavny) regime and carved out a Muslim state from it, and the Saudis funneled money into this new state, showing that here again, there was zero American interest in this war but considerable Saudi interest. Again, as incredible as it seems, the US was acting purely as mercenaries. There is no other plausible explanation. In fact, a Spanish forensic team sent by the UN to Kosovo after the war found that the “genocide” on which the war was justified had never happened.
Thus the US elites are not attacking Islam. They are attacking Saudi Arabia’s enemies and thereby supporting Sunni Wahhabism — in exchange not for oil but for petrodollar support. This is far worse than simply attacking the Muslim world, as theorized by most critics of Neocon policies. The theory that US attacks are anti-Muslim is widely held by libertarians but is a tragic misconception because it leads to policies that pander to and apologize to Muslims at large – which includes (Sunni, ie, Wahhabi) ISIS – when we should be apologizing primarily to the Shiites and to the victims of countries like Iraq and Libya, who lost their leaders, their political stability, security and infrastructure as a result of US mercenary intervention on the Saudis’ behalf – both US political parties are equally culpable.
Alternatively, this lumping together of all Muslims leads to a mindset toward Muslims as expressed by the conservative mantra: Kill them all and let Allah sort it out. This too supports the Neocons, who are thereby given tacit permission by conservatives to attack any Muslim country and hence to continue killing Saudi enemies as the sheeple doze in tacit acquiescence.
In summary, the US oligarchs support the most dangerous Muslims against the less violent and more tolerant ones.

Further reading
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150309
http://inquiringminds.cc/here-we-go-again-bibi-pulls-a-dubbya-don-hank
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/marlboroughgroup/dzfA3Irrhh0
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150411

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Fox News pretends unconfirmed report is confirmed

May 3rd, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Fox News pretends unconfirmed report is confirmed

Posted by Don Hank  May 2, 2015

A friend just sent me the below linked report

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/02/2-russian-nuclear-bombers-entered-alaska-airspace-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews
which says

“Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for NORAD, declined to confirm the incursion to The Times, but said that no jets were dispatched to intercept intruding aircraft.” [other reports have maintained that jets were dispatched–Don]

Then after admitting that the report is unconfirmed, they cheekily continue

“The incident was the first Russian bomber incursion of a U.S. or Canadian air defense zone this year.”

Now wait, if it is unconfirmed, you can’t call it an “incident” or a “Russian bomber incursion” because you have admitted no one knows if it really happened or not. Honest reporters (back when they existed) would, in such a case, say “the alleged incident.” But now an allegation by an unnamed source is considered a verified fact.
So why do you think Fox News would bother to issue an unconfirmed report and pretend it is a fact? Hint: Their reports tend to support the Neocons and their source is a Neocon rag.
Yet the average American will read this unconfirmed non-report of a Russian incursion and assume it is all true and that Russia is about to nuke us so we had better nuke them first.
BTW, the cited source, the Washington Free Beacon, is itself a Neocon rag. One of its editors is married to the daughter of Bill Kristol, a RINO supporting Neocon, while the other is reported to have served as McCain’s communications director.
Yeah they can be trusted. NOOOOT.
I recommend you give reports from the Washington Free Beacon and Fox News a pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

AddThis Social Bookmark Button