You are viewing clothcap

14 July 2014 @ 10:21 am
This article presented by NEO summarises what is happening in the conflict between the permanent gov'ts' frontispiece, Bilderberg and the Russian gov't. In effect there is a corporations' war in progress that began in earnest with the destruction of Iraq. Expect the unexpected from Russia. Nationalisation of financial institutions and heavy financial impositions on globalist corp'ns are just two of the weapons that could be employed if Bilderberg causes sanctions to be imposed that are more than flea bites.
By Tony Cartalucci

When the special interests who created and direct the agenda of the European Union disagree with member states, the true nature of this supranational enterprise becomes painfully apparent – one of dictatorial special interests pursing regional policy that benefits none of its individual member states. No example of this can be clearer than the dispute that has emerged over the construction of Russia’s South Stream natural gas pipeline set to run through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, and Italy.

The pipeline produces a large number of benefits for each of the nations it passes through, as well as for energy markets on either end of the pipeline. For the people and governments of these nations set to benefit most from the pipeline, the deal is an attractive, long-term investment. For the special interests that have created and currently direct the EU – on the other hand – it poses as a direct threat to their designs of continued expansion and corporate-financier hegemony beyond the collective borders of today’s EU.

For the hegemon, coexistence and collaboration are not options – thus the benefits of the South Stream pipeline escape them. Instead, these hegemonic special interests seek to control their own pipeline and energy markets on either side of it, and this can be seen developing along several fronts including the Southern Corridor Project, beginning in Azerbaijan along the Caspian Sea.

Energy and foreign policy expert Sinan Ulgen of the US government and corporate-financier funded Carnegie Europe think-tank complained about the disparity between the EU Commission’s stance, and that of individual EU member states in an Anadolu Agency (AA) article titled, “Russian South Stream gas pipeline divides EU,” stating:

“…the EU’s main concern about South Stream is that the project would increase its dependence on Russian gas. Last year a third of its consumed gas was supplied by Russia.

Additionally the AA article would state:
While the European Commission opposes Russia’s South Stream gas pipeline project, certain EU countries like Austria and Italy continue to openly support the world’s most expensive pipeline project, which aims to transport Russian gas by bypassing Ukraine.
For the last two years, Russia has signed bilateral agreements with Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, Austria and Croatia for the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, which is estimated to cost nearly US$40 billion according to the Moscow Times. Gazprom recently announced however that it was abandoning construction of the Italian portion of the pipeline.
These agreements were deemed a breach of EU anti-trust law by the European Commission in December. And, in April, following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia, the European Parliament voted for the South Stream project to be stopped.

AA would also cite another corporate-financier funded think tank, Chatham House – also complaining about EU members pursuing their own interests in contradiction to the EU Commission’s dictates. The unelected EU Commission appears to be pursing its own extraterritorial geopolitical pursuits ahead of those of the individual member states and their respective populations. That corporate-financier funded “think tanks” are focused on this “divide” and championing the EU Commission’s agenda over that of the individual EU members it allegedly represents fully exposes the EU for what it truly is, a dysfunctional supranational dictatorship.

And what is done in the name of the EU by its institutions like the EU Commission, which admittedly does not represent the best interests or desires of those it claims to represent, unfortunately and perhaps unfairly reflects on the EU as a whole. For example, and as part of the energy debate, the current EU support of the regime occupying Kiev, Ukraine, taints all of Europe, even as many EU member states attempt to move cautiously or even in opposition to the greater agenda the EU Commission and others are pursuing.

While the EU promotes itself as a bastion of freedom, stability, and prosperity, it appears increasingly more like a hegemonic bloc, dictating to, rather than acting as a representative of, the European people. The slogan “Toward a Europe Whole and Free” rings hollow when the EU Commission begins dictating policy to individual states, and curtailing progress that benefits both individual nations and their people.

The EU, in this light, appears more of an autocratic oligarchical consolidation of regional power and resources, not a democratic collaboration between nations. A slogan like “Toward a Europe Whole and Free” appears then to represent Europe, but only from the perspective of special interests seeking to loot the region collectively, rather than nation-by-nation. The dysfunction and dictatorial nature of the EU Commission and other apparatuses within the supranational bloc serve as a cautionary example for other nations seeking to construct their own alliances – from Asia’s ASEAN-AEC (Asian Economic Community), to regional alliances between Russia, China and with nations along their peripheries.

Alliances that include obligations that usurp national sovereignty are not alliances at all, they are hegemonic infiltration by special interests who would rather see a village place their valuables in a single safe for them to crack and loot, rather than take the time and trouble to rob each individual home. Europe must decide whether it will continue along a path of internal conflict with its alleged EU representatives tainting their collective populations, cultures, and histories, or reform the EU into an institution that allows collaboration and national sovereignty to exist in tandem.


New Eastern Outlook

07 July 2014 @ 01:34 am
By Tony Cartalucci
After a brief ceasefire, Kiev has resumed the bombardment of populated centers in the eastern breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, both bordering with neighboring Russia. Kiev and its Western backers face a confounding dilemma – continue military operations in eastern Ukraine and create a heavily militarized opposition while racking up a troubling human rights record, or commit to a ceasefire and for all intents and purposes forfeit Donetsk and Lugansk just as Kiev has done regarding Crimea.
Ceasefire Over, Kiev’s Savagery Resumes
While the United Nations has in recent weeks reported disturbing figures regarding the civilian toll fighting in Ukraine’s east is taking, it has failed to report on or condemn Kiev’s use of military aircraft, artillery, and heavy armor that are being used on cities and towns across the region. Pictures and video emanating from eastern Ukraine depict the devastation of air raids and artillery barrages, yet the West and its various “international institutions” have categorically failed to issue the same warnings and declarations made against other governments using military force within their borders such as Libya in 2011, and Syria from 2011 onward.
While Russia’s RT is accused of “propaganda” by the West, it appears to be the only news outlet with international reach covering the fighting in eastern Ukraine. In its article, “Thanks, Ukraine Air Force’: Bombarded villagers accuse Kiev of killing civilians,” the savagery of Kiev’s renewed offensive is portrayed in horrifying detail. The West’s decision to ignore altogether the fighting, only to issue vague, spun narratives blaming all violence on Russia does little to counter or discredit RT’s reportage – in many ways, the West’s silence vindicates RT’s coverage.
As the fighting continues, Kiev will continue tallying up a reputation as a grotesque human rights offender, both within Ukraine, and beyond.
Read more...Collapse )
Tags: ,
As the US gets poorer its (Bilderberg's) military options for hijacking and plundering countries reduces, placing increasing dependence on thinly stretched and underfunded NATO, the public funded non-accountable state terrorism gang. So what is a poor, incompetent and criminal world gov't wannabe mafia to do about the growing trade and military dominance threat of the China- Russia alliance to imperialistic ambitions?

Chinese Spring?
Roman Pogorelov

With the “Arab Spring” scenario unfolding in Ukraine, the USA is aiming at, among other things, driving a wedge between Russia and the EU, and we must recognize that they will succeed in doing this. It is no secret that Russia’s power rests on hydrocarbon exports. The primary consumer of Russian gas and oil is Europe, so the damage the Russian Federation would suffer from ruptured ties with Europeans can hardly be overestimated. The logical result of the current crisis in Western relations has been the formation of closer relations with China. It is believed that Russia requires approximately 3 to 4 years to reorient oil and gas flows to the East, and these is reason to believe that the USA will make every effort to prevent the consolidation of cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. It is very likely that in the near future the West will try to destabilize the situation in China, thereby weakening its two geopolitical rivals.

Read more...Collapse )
Matthew Crosston

The interplay between Ukraine and Russia when it comes to gas geopolitics goes far beyond economic negotiations and development. It lies at the heart of what has been fairly inaccurate or uninformed media reporting in the West. This aspect of the conflict has been so poorly documented in the West, while being exhaustively reported in Russia, that it is time to provide some English language background to this underappreciated aspect still powering the conflict in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia today.

Earlier this week the head of Russia’s Gazprom, Aleksei Miller, commented that the three-sided gas negotiations (Ukraine-EU-Russia) had broken down largely because Kievan authorities had staked out positions that were ‘absurd and not constructive, basically devolving into ultimatums.’ On the heels of this declaration the gas debt owed by Ukraine to Russia ballooned from 2 billion dollars up to nearly 4.5 billion. Kiev of course claims it is simply not wanting to acquiesce to Russia’s position, but the consequence of these negotiations breaking down could be the interruption and unstable provision of Russian gas through Ukrainian territory westward to the European Union. To understand how we arrived at this barrier means we must go back to 2009, far before the Maidan revolution was even a twinkle in Kiev’s eyes.

Read more...Collapse )
The man who trained more than 66 countries in open source methods calls for re-invention of intelligence to re-engineer Earth

A businessman tries to break through a line of Occupy Wall Street protesters who had blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange area in November 2011.

A businessman tries to break through a line of Occupy Wall Street protesters who had blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange area in November 2011. Photograph: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images

Robert David Steele, former Marine, CIA case officer, and US co-founder of the US Marine Corps intelligence activity, is a man on a mission. But it's a mission that frightens the US intelligence establishment to its core.
With 18 years experience working across the US intelligence community, followed by 20 more years in commercial intelligence and training, Steele's exemplary career has spanned almost all areas of both the clandestine world.
Steele started off as a Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. After four years on active duty, he joined the CIA for about a decade before co-founding the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, where he was deputy director. Widely recognised as the leader of the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) paradigm, Steele went on to write the handbooks on OSINT for NATO, the US Defense Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Forces. In passing, he personally trained 7,500 officers from over 66 countries.
In 1992, despite opposition from the CIA, he obtained Marine Corps permission to organise a landmark international conference on open source intelligence – the paradigm of deriving information to support policy decisions not through secret activities, but from open public sources available to all. The conference was such a success it brought in over 620 attendees from the intelligence world.
But the CIA wasn't happy, and ensured that Steele was prohibited from running a second conference. The clash prompted him to resign from his position as second-ranking civilian in Marine Corps intelligence, and pursue the open source paradigm elsewhere. He went on to found and head up the Open Source Solutions Network Inc. and later the non-profit Earth Intelligence Network which runs the Public Intelligence Blog.
Read more...Collapse )
15 June 2014 @ 04:18 pm
Excellent essay on Russia's alignment with China and by extension, Russia's backdoor to Europe, and the idiocy of the US hawks seeking to control EurAsia by violence and subversion on behalf of the zios and corporations.

In this post, professor Tatiana Yugay, of the Moscow State University of economics, reports  from Saint Petersburg about the recent Russia-China deal. See also a previous post on the subject.
By Tatiana Yugay

In my previous post at Ugo Bardi's blog, I suggested that “Russia but not the U.S. has been pivoting to Asia just now”. Since then several landmark events happened in the Asian arena, such as, Vladimir Putin's successful visit to China and the conclusion of a $400 billion gas mega-deal between Russia's Gazprom and China's CNPC along with other important 50 agreements, the Russian-Chinese navy drills in the East-China Sea and Obama's visit to East Asia in order to alert his Asian allies. Last but not least, signing the Treaty on the Foundation of the Eurasian Economic Union took place in Astana at the end of May.

On May 23-24, I had a chance to participate in the Forum of Russia's and China's Leading Economists which was hosted by the St. Petersburg State University of Economics.By a happy coincidence, the Forum took place right after the conclusion of the millennium gas deal between the two countries and, moreover, contemporaneously with the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Though our event was a much more modest one, all the participants felt their involvement with mainstream geopolitical developments. The atmosphere was very vibrant, friendly and a sort of triumphant. In fact, we felt ourselves as if we were participating in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum since the agenda of both forums were somehow overlapping, including a key topic of the Russian-Chinese strategic economic partnership.

It is needless to say that the gas deal was on everyone's lips. I was pleasantly surprised that the attitude of the Chinese speakers was very similar to my own vision. It is clear that the scientific communities of both countries are more free to express their views than the political leadership. Recently, Russian policymakers do not hesitate to express their opinions in strong and sarcastic terms and the general public enjoy this fact. On the other hand, the Chinese leadership is rather careful in its wording and expresses its position rather indirectly. On the contrary, the Chinese speakers at our Forum were even more tough while expressing their attitudes towards the U.S. policy than their Russian counterparts. They accused the U.S. of the “new regionalism” aimed at excluding China and Russia from shaping new international trade rules in the framework of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both Russian and Chinese participants agreed that the US domination destabilizes the world and exerts direct threats to national security of our countries.

In my presentation, I presumed that Russia and China should give asymmetric geoeconomic responses to the latest geopolitical threats, avoiding direct confrontation. Since the U.S. is still stronger economically, politically and militarily than China and Russia and, mainly, because all three countries are the members of the nuke club and the world is already dangerously balancing on the brink of the world war.
Read more...Collapse )
13 June 2014 @ 12:19 am
Ariel Paz ?@MateCosido
+ proof #Kiev using illegal #WhitePhosphorus bombs against eastern civ's w/full #US #NATO support RT @pavelredpride

Retweeted by Karol en Red
Despicable yet not surprising, HRW's @KenRoth white-washing ISIS & tweeting in their favor.

@KenRoth's tweet isnt very surprising given HRW's blatant flirting w/the head-cutting death squads in #Syria. US imperialist mouth piece.

RT ?@RT_com
BREAKING: Unity of #Iraq state now under question, developments very worrying – Lavrov

MORE: #Iraq developments show total failure of American-British 'adventure' - Lavrov

Option of using peacekeeping forces in #Ukraine out of the question, situation hasn’t gone that far yet – Lavrov

#LAVROV: Events in #Iraq are result of actions carried out by US, UK, situation out of control

Radical Raid: Iraqi troops, civilians flee as militants take control of cities (VIDEO) #Iraq

Press TV ?@PressTV
Tribesmen retake #Mosul area from #ISIL #Daesh #al-Qaeda
Read more...Collapse )
Well put together and written article. Dots connected.
The Real Story of Benghazi and the Arab Spring
by William Michael
In late April, the State Department issued a report on terrorism in 2013.  The conclusions were startling, and, in regular fashion, understated by the American media.  According to the study, terrorist attacks rose by 43% in 2013, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.  Although the report singled out (Russia-allied) Iran the state sponsor of terrorism, it also conceded that, despite a concerted effort by the international community to crack down on al Qaeda, the multi-headed terrorist organization had proliferated across the Maghreb (i.e. North Africa) and Middle East.  As one article, summarizing the report, put it:
"The most lethal attacks in 2013 were conducted by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban, Nigeria’s Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, according to the report."
Note to the State Department: all of these – ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and the others – are under the al Qaeda umbrella.  They’re like different McDonald’s franchises, each ultimately answering to the same corporate headquarters.  And they’re all encouraged in their violence and other dirty dealings by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose main state sponsors are Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan.  And yet, for some seemingly inexplicable reason, the State Department still singled out Iran.
A very curious ranking of priorities by the US Department of State, seeing as how it was al Qaeda, not Iranian-proxies such as Hezbollah or the Quds Force, who carried out the most lethal attacks.  Then again, the Obama administration did not even bother to define al Qaeda before declaring them all but defeated. Not to mention that the State Department was instrumental in training Egyptian Islamists political parties in 2011, prior to the election.
As explained in a previous article, The Manipulation of the American Military by the Muslim Brotherhood, the three most significant state sponsors of al Qaeda-tied terrorism are Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan. Each of these countries is a significant US ally, and as a result have many important ties with the American military, diplomatic, and business establishments.  Qatar is the host to two of the largest American military bases in the entire world, as well as the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation; Turkey is a full-fledged NATO ally; Pakistan has a long history of “cooperation” with the American military and intelligence, and indeed is a subcontractor for NATO in the form of the National Logistics Cell – who are also heroin smugglers for the Taliban.
The Latest in a Long Line of Terror Groups
Read more...Collapse )
14 May 2014 @ 08:04 am
Global Capitalism Remains in Deep Crisis. Is War the Unspoken “Solution”?
The Financial Crisis is Still With Us With No End In Sight. "It May be Time to Give War A Chance Once Again"
By Danny Schechter
Every month, rise or shine, the Federal Reserve Bank, an institution that most Americans believe is a branch of government, or a federally run Central Bank has one of its computers add $55 billion—that’s dollars with a B—to its ledger and balance sheet.
In actual fact, the FED, as its known is actually a private institution in government trappings,  owned by,  and run by,  the very banks it is thought to regulate.  It actually has kept the economy afloat since August 2007 when the financial crisis began (not 2008 as most media outlets have it with a printing press with an infusion of $3.4 TRILLION.
At first, the Fed’s Economics Professor turned Bank president,  Ben Bernanke was called “Helicopter Ben” in an allusion to all the money he was bombing the economy with His term ended, but the practice, now barely questioned, goes on.
And why is that? To put it simply, the financial crisis is still with us, whatever talk there is of “recovery” because of structural realities that haven’t changed. A weak “labor market, depressed housing market, and little economic growth keep unemployment up and misery high for our shining middle class and growing poverty class.
The folks in charge know how bad things are,  but they are committed to a monetary magic elixir of constant intervention by keeping interest rates low and purchasing mortgage backed securities in the so-called free market, Capitalism remains in deep crisis but you never hear officials use the “C word.”
Of course not: that would suggest a problem with the system.

Debunking the Economic Myth that “War Is Good for Business”
Washington's Blog
Repairing the “Broken Window” Fallacy
Extremely influential economists like Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein promote the myth that war is good for the economy.
Talking heads like senior Washington Post political columnist David Broder parrot this idea.
Their ideas are based on the main economic myth encouraging war … the “broken window” fallacy.
David R. Henderson – associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and previously a senior economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers -  writes:
Is military conflict really good for the economy of the country that engages in it? Basic economics answers a resounding “no.”***
Money not spent on the military could be spent elsewhere.
This also applies to human resources. The more than 200,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan could be doing something valuable at home.
Why is this hard to understand? The first reason is a point 19th-century French economic journalist Frederic Bastiat made in his essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” Everyone can see that soldiers are employed. But we cannot see the jobs and the other creative pursuits they could be engaged in were they not in the military.
The second reason is that when economic times are tough and unemployment is high, it’s easy to assume that other jobs could not exist. But they can. This gets to an argument Bastiat made in discussing demobilization of French soldiers after Napoleon’s downfall. He pointed out that when government cuts the size of the military, it frees up not only manpower but also money. The money that would have gone to pay soldiers can instead be used to hire them as civilian workers. That can happen in three ways, either individually or in combination: (1) a tax cut; (2) a reduction in the deficit; or (3) an increase in other government spending.
Most people still believe that World War II ended the Great Depression …. But look deeper.
The government-spending component of GNP went for guns, trucks, airplanes, tanks, gasoline, ships, uniforms, parachutes, and labor. What do these things have in common? Almost all of them were destroyed. Not just these goods but also the military’s billions of labor hours were used up without creating value to consumers. Much of the capital and labor used to make the hundreds of thousands of trucks and jeeps and the tens of thousands of tanks and airplanes would otherwise have been producing cars and trucks for the domestic economy. The assembly lines in Detroit, which had churned out 3.6 million cars in 1941, were retooled to produce the vehicles of war. From late 1942 to 1945, production of civilian cars was essentially shut down.
And that’s just one example. Women went without nylon stockings so that factories could produce parachutes. Civilians faced tight rationing of gasoline so that U.S. bombers could fly over Germany. People went without meat so that U.S. soldiers could be fed. And so on.
These resources helped win the war—no small issue. But the war was not a stimulus program, either in its intentions or in its effects, and it was not necessary for pulling the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Had World War II never taken place, millions of cars would have been produced; people would have been able to travel much more widely; and there would have been no rationing. In short, by the standard measures, Americans would have been much more prosperous.
Today, the vast majority of us are richer than even the most affluent people back then. But despite this prosperity, one thing has not changed: war is bad for our economy. The $150 billion that the government spends annually on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, increasingly, Pakistan) could instead be used to cut taxes or cut the deficit. By ending its ongoing wars … the U.S. government … would be developing a more prosperous economy.
Whatever other reasons there may be for war, strengthening the economy is never one of them.
Indeed, we have thoroughly documented that war makes us poor.
Postscript: While war is bad for us, it is very good for a handful of defense contractors and banksters who make huge sums from fighting or financing unnecessary war.
Videos and Photos of the Odessan Massacre, and Why It Was Done
Posted on May 8, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
By Eric Zuesse:
For the first time in history, an organized massacre of civilians has been filmed by many people from many different angles and perspectives while it was happening, and is documented in extraordinary detail in “real time,” the perpetrators having no fear of any negative consequences from their endeavor, and even cheering and celebrating the tortures and deaths as they were being imposed upon the helpless victims. The perpetrators were unconcerned, because what they were doing was what the government (which the U.S. had imposed upon their country and which U.S. taxpayers had spent more than 5 billion dollars to bring about there) had wanted them to do, and had helped to organize them to carry out. These people were just having fun, like a party to them, nothing really serious at all. Sort of like Stanley Kubrick’s movie A Clockwork Orange, more than, say Auschwitz (such a bore!). But, if so, a hundredfold more. And none of these people (tragically including the victims) were actors!
Background: On May 2nd, the Ukrainian Government in Kiev, located in the west, ordered local governments in the country’s east to take over the buildings that were being occupied by Russian-speaking Ukrainians who didn’t recognize the legitimacy of that newly installed and U.S.-supported Ukrainian government. There was violence in many cities, one being Odessa, where Russian-speaking Ukrainians were taken into the Trade Unions Building (viewed as leftist by the conservative political parties) and were massacred by burning, gunshots, and other means.Read more...Collapse )