Posts Tagged ‘headlines’

 

The geopolitical reality in the Middle East is changing dramatically.

The impact of the Arab Spring, the retraction of the U.S. military, and diminishing economic influence on the Arab world – as displayed during the Obama Administration – are facts.

The emergence of a Russian-Iranian-Turkish triangle is the new reality. The Western hegemony in the MENA region has ended, and not in a shy way, but with a long list of military conflicts and destabilization.

The first visit of a Saudi king to Russia shows the growing power of Russia in the Middle East. It also shows that not only Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also Egypt and Libya, are more likely to consider Moscow as a strategic ally.

King Salman’s visit to Moscow could herald not only several multibillion business deals, but could be the first real step towards a new regional geopolitical and military alliance between OPEC leader Saudi Arabia and Russia.

This cooperation will not only have severe consequences for Western interests but also could partly undermine or reshape the position of OPEC at the same time.

Russian president Vladimir Putin is currently hosting a large Saudi delegation, led by King Salman and supported by Saudi minister of energy Khalid Al Falih.

Moscow’s open attitude to Saudi Arabia—a lifetime Washington ally and strong opponent of the growing Iran power projections in the Arab world—show that Putin understands the current pivotal changes in the Middle East.

U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and even the UAE, have shown an increased eagerness to develop military and economic relations with Moscow, even if this means dealing with a global power currently supporting their archenemy Iran. Analysts wonder where the current visit of King Salman will really lead to, but all signs are on green for a straightforward Arab-Saudi support for a bigger Russian role in the region, and more in-depth cooperation in oil and gas markets.

In stark contrast to the difficult relationship of the West with the Arab world, Moscow seems to be playing the regional power game at a higher level. It can become an ally or friend to regional adversaries, such as Iran, Turkey, Egypt and now Saudi Arabia. Arab regimes are also willing to discuss cooperation with Russia, even though the country is supporting adversaries in the Syrian and Yemen conflicts and continues to supply arms to the Shi’a regime in Iran.

Investors can expect Russia and Saudi Arabia to sign a multitude of business deals, some of which have already been presented. Moscow and Riyadh will also discuss the still fledgling oil and gas markets, as both nations still heavily depend on hydrocarbon revenues. Arab analysts expect both sides to choose a bilateral strategy to keep oil prices from falling lower. Riyadh and Moscow have the same end goal: a stable oil and gas market, in which demand and supply keep each other in check to push price levels up, but without leaving enough breathing space for new market entrants such as U.S. shale.

Putin and Salman will also discuss the security situation in the Middle East, especially the ongoing Syrian civil war, Iran’s emerging power, and the Libya situation. Until now, the two have supported opposite sides, but Riyadh has realized that its ultimate goal, the removal of Syrian president Assad, is out of reach. To prevent a full-scale Shi’a triangle (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon), other options are now being sought to quell Tehran’s power surge. Moscow is key in this.

Putin’s unconditional support of the Iranian military onslaught in Iraq and Syria, combined with its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon or Houthis in Yemen, will be discussed and maybe tweaked to give Riyadh room to maneuver into the Russian influence sphere. The verdict on this isn’t yet out, but Riyadh’s move must be seen

in light of ongoing Moscow discussions with Egypt, Libya, Jordan and the UAE.

A growing positive Putin vibe in the Arab world is now clear. The strong leadership of Russia’s new Tsar has become a main point of interest for the (former pro-Western) Arab regimes. The U.S. and its European allies have only shown a diffuse political-military approach to the threats in the MENA region, while even destabilizing historically pro-Western Arab royalties and presidents. Putin’s friendship, however, is being presented as unconditional and long lasting.

Even though geopolitics and military operations in the Middle East now are making up most headlines, the Saudi-Russian rapprochement will also have economic consequences. Riyadh’s leadership of OPEC is still undisputed, as it has shown over the last several years. Saudi Arabia’s eagerness to counter the free-fall of oil prices has been successful, but a much bigger effort is required to bring prices back to a level of between $60-75 per barrel. Russia’s role—as the largest of non-OPEC producers—has been substantial, bringing in not only several emerging producers, but also by putting pressure on its allies Iran, Venezuela and Algeria.

The historically important Moscow-Riyadh cooperation in oil and gas is unprecedented. Without Russia’s support, overall compliance to the OPEC production cut agreement would have been very low, leading to even lower oil prices.

The Saudi-Russian rapprochement could, however, be seen as a threat by the West and OPEC itself. Western influence in the region has waned since the end of the 1990s, not only due to the peace dividend of NATO, but especially because OECD countries are moving away from oil. Saudi Arabia had to find new markets, which happened with China and India. The Saudi future is no longer based on Western customers or support, but lies in Asia and other emerging regions. The FSU region has also popped up on Saudi screens. Investment opportunities, combined with geopolitical support and military interests, are readily available in Russia and its satellite states.

For OPEC, the Moscow-Riyadh love affair could also mean a threat. Throughout OPEC’s history, Riyadh has been the main power broker in the oil cartel, pushing forward price and production strategies; most of the time this was done in close cooperation with all the other members, most of them Arab allies. This changed dramatically after Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to cooperate in global oil markets. Through the emergence of this OPEC/ non-OPEC cooperation, Moscow and Riyadh have grown closer than expected. The two countries now decide the future of global oil markets before they discuss it with some of the other main players like UAE, Iran, Algeria and Nigeria. King Salman’s visit is seen as another step toward a more in-depth cooperation in oil and gas related issues.

Besides global oil market cooperation, Saudi Arabia is and will become more interested to invest in natural gas development, not only to have an interest in Russia’s gas future but also to bring in Russian technology, investment and LNG to the Kingdom.

At the same time, media sources are stating that Saudi Arabia is NOT asking Russia to take part in the long-awaited Aramco IPO in 2018. Russian individual investors and financial institutions, however, are expected to take an interest.

Putin understands not only Russian chess tactics but also the Arab “Tawila” approach. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman already will prepare his Tawila strategy, putting enough stones on the table to ensure his successful end game. MBS, currently de-facto ruler of the Kingdom, is targeting a full house—Russian cooperation in energy, defense and investments—while softening Moscow’s 100% percent support of the Shi’a archenemy Iran.

For both sides, Moscow and Riyadh, the current constellation presents a win-win situation. Moscow can reach its ultimate goal in the Middle East: to become the main power broker and knock the US from the pedestal. For Riyadh, the option to counter the Iranian threat, while also bolstering its own economy and hydrocarbon future, is now within reach.

King Salman’s trip could go down in history as the point of no return for the West. Pictures of Russian President Vladimir Putin and King Salman of Saudi Arabia could replace historic pictures of King Saud and U.S. President Roosevelt (Bitter Lake, 1945). In a few years, King-to-be Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman might tell his children that this was one of the pillars that changed not only the Middle East but also supported his Vision 2030 plan of becoming a bridge between the old (West) and the new (Russia-Asia).

Advertisements

Is the city of Chicago about to see a wave of unprecedented chaos and violence? The facts that I am about to share with you may seem fantastical at first glance, but they come from the Chicago police and they are being reported by the mainstream media. According to authorities, at a recent gathering of major gangs in the city it was agreed that they would use automatic weapons against the police, and at least one of the gangs already has “a sniper in place” but officials do not know where that sniper is located. As I have warned before, a spirit of violence and civil unrest is rising in America, and the number of police officers that were shot and killed during the first half of 2016 was 78 percent higher than during the first half of 2015.

Anyone that does not understand that we have a major problem on our hands has simply not been paying attention.

This meeting of major gangs in Chicago was described as a “summit” by ABC Chicago, and an alert about the security threat that this poses was sent out to every police officer in the city on Friday…

 Chicago police officers are being warned about a security threat involving possible attacks by gangs on the city’s West Side.

ABC7 has obtained a warning that the department sent out to every police officer on Friday.

The warning described a summit between senior West Side gang members in which they “agreed to use automatic weapons against Chicago police officers.” The alert also said one gang provided guns and placed a sniper at an unknown location.

An article published by the Chicago Sun-Times went into even greater detail about this story. Apparently the three gangs involved in the summit were the Vice Lords, the Black Disciples and the Four Corner Hustlers, and reportedly it is the Four Corner Hustlers that will be providing automatic weapons to members of the other two gangs…

 The meeting took place Thursday between higher-ups from the Vice Lords, Black Disciples and Four Corner Hustlers, according to an alert issued to department members the day after the meeting.

The Four Corner Hustlers “provided guns” and have “a sniper in place” though authorities do not know where, according to the alert. The Four Corner Hustlers also are supplying the other two gangs with automatic weapons, which all three factions also have agreed to use against police, the alert states.

It appears that what precipitated this “summit” of major gangs was the shooting death of 18-year-old Paul O’Neal. That incident made headlines all over the nation and resulted in very large protests in downtown Chicago

 Tensions remain high in America’s third-largest city just days after video footage emerged of the moments leading up to the fatal shooting of Paul O’Neal, an 18-year-old African-American teen.

O’Neal was gunned down by officers back in July after he stole a car and got into a chase with cops which ended in the city’s South Shore neighborhood.

Last week, demonstrators in downtown Chicago blocked streets and traffic while protesting the shooting.

If you don’t live in the Chicago area, you may not be aware of the massive gang problem in the city.

Four years ago, the Chicago Crime Commission estimated that there were 150,000 gang members currently living in the city. That was the highest number in the entire nation, and since then that number has certainly only gone up.

Meanwhile, there are just 13,318 law enforcement officers of all descriptions in the city of Chicago.

So essentially the police are outnumbered by a more than 10 to 1 margin, and now the gangs are planning to use automatic weapons?

These are ominous times for the Windy City.

Meanwhile, the threat of violence from Islamic terrorists continues to grow. We all saw what happened not too long ago at a small church in France, and there are a lot of people that are concerned that we could soon see similar scenarios play out all over this country.

For a moment, I would like for you to consider one incident that happened earlier this year at a church in Riverside, California

 As Father Josiah Trenham prepared to read the Gospel, several parishioners discreetly scooped up their babies, retreated up the aisles of St. Andrew Orthodox Church and out into the spring air, so as not to allow the crying of little ones to disturb the divine liturgy.

The time-honored tradition was shattered when a car passed by the Riverside, Calif., church, slowing down as the front passenger leaned out of his window and bellowed menacingly through a bullhorn, according to witnesses.

“Allahu Akbar!” the unidentified man repeated several times as the unnerved parents drew their infants close and exchanged worried glances.

Fortunately that unidentified man only had a bullhorn.

But what if he had been holding a gun or had thrown a grenade?

We do know that ISIS has been warning that there will be more attacks on churches, and in one recent article I described how an entire church in this country ended up on an ISIS kill list.

20 years ago, I couldn’t have imagined writing articles about gangs using automatic weapons in Chicago or about Islamic terrorists potentially attacking churches in America.

But times have changed, and we need to deal with the new realities that are confronting us… chaos and violence are coming to America, and what we have seen so far is just the very small tip of a very large iceberg.

Just remember what happened in Orlando. It was the largest mass shooting in American history, but moments before it happened most of the people in that club would have never even imagined that an Islamic terrorist was about to start shooting at them.

On Monday night, that terrorist’s father made a very surprising appearance at a very unexpected location

 As they were covering Hillary Clinton’s campaign rally in Kissimmee, Florida on Monday, a crew from Florida television station WPTV noticed the father of the Orlando nightclub shooter sitting in the audience, directly behind Hillary Clinton.

Apparently Seddique Mateen actually is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, which somehow seems oddly appropriate.

But could you ever imagine Osama Bin Laden’s father sitting behind George W. Bush at a campaign rally?

I couldn’t either.

These are very, very strange times that we are living in, and they are about to get a whole lot stranger.

So hold on tight and buckle your seat belts, because it is going to be a very bumpy ride.

In the 1992 presidential election, the campaign team of Bill Clinton had the remarkable insight to simplify the choice before the American electorate in November, encapsulating the whole thought process in the phrase “it’s the economy, stupid.”  Following this advice, voters ignored the foreign policy triumphs of President George W. Bush’s administration, including the recently won war against Iraq to liberate occupied Kuwait, and the slightly more remote “victory” in the Cold War, which Bush recalled to the nation in the forlorn hope of eliciting gratitude. Indeed, going into the elections, the economy was anemic, for cyclical reasons, and it was not to the incumbent’s advantage that this fact be highlighted.

Today, as another Clinton faces off with an unconventional and widely demonized Republican candidate, the economy is once again anemic, though this time under the stewardship of a Democratic administration, and again for cyclical reasons, but the economy and the domestic welfare programs that are so dependent on vibrant performance are not what the election is all about.

Voters will not confront a typical Right-Left choice, although supporters of Hillary Clinton would like to play it that way. It will not be about who gets more of the economic pie and who gets less, who is more equal than others and who is less equal.

Charges that Hillary is in the pocket of Wall Street and big business, who have generously financed her campaign, were first brought against her very effectively and persistently by her opponent in the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders, who embodied the Left by his persona and points in his platform. He lost to Hillary, the Centrist. Meanwhile, across the court, notwithstanding the support he has consistently received from Tea Party Republicans for his anti-establishment rhetoric, Trump is in many ways more of a Nelson Rockefeller Republican on domestic economic issues, that is to say a Centrist, who, unlike that quintessential Tea Party campaigner, Ron Paul, has no desire to tear down the Federal Reserve and deconstruct the federal government.

 In matters of substance as opposed to character assassination that both parties’ candidates have engaged in freely, what separates the candidates and makes it worthwhile to register and vote on November 8th is the domain of international relations. This, as a general rule, is the only area where a president has free hands anyway, whatever position his party holds in the Congress.  Here the choice facing voters is stark, I would say existential:  do we want War or Peace?

Do we want to pursue our path of global hegemony, which is bringing us into growing confrontation with Russia, meaning a high probability of war, (the policy of Hillary Clinton), or do we want a harmonious international order in which the U.S. plays its role at the board of governors, just like other major world powers (the policy of Donald Trump).

Let me go one step further and explain what “war” means, since it is not something that gets much attention in our media, whereas it is at the top of the news each day in Russia.

“War” does not mean Cold War-II, a kind of scab you can pick to indulge a pleasure in pain that is not life threatening. War means what our military like to call “kinetics” to mask the horror of it all. It means live ammunition, ranging from conventional to thermonuclear devices that can devastate large swathes of the United States if we play our hand badly, as would likely be the case for reasons I explain below should Hillary and her flock of Neocon armchair strategists take the reins of power in January 2017.

Let us consider the following:

1.  Where we are presently in relations with the world’s only other nuclear superpower, Russia, which, I remind you, together with the United States, has 50:50 ownership of 95% of all nuclear warheads on earth.

Briefly, we are in an escalating confrontation with the Russians, who have said openly and clearly that they view our ongoing build-up of NATO forces at their borders in the Baltics and Poland as posing an unacceptable threat to their security. They have also said openly and clearly that our completion this spring of what is called an anti-missile defense base in Romania and construction of a similar base in Poland, due for completion in 2017, threatens to upset the strategic nuclear balance by giving the United States a first strike capability. Whether they are right or wrong in their assessment of our words and deeds is beside the point. They are laying down their response based on their view of us, not our view of us.

For the past year or more, the Kremlin has said vaguely that host countries of the missile defense bases would be in their “crosshairs.”  Russian positions have become more specific and more threatening following the NATO summit in Warsaw in early July that approved an American led program of provocative military exercises near Russia’s borders and stationing in the Baltic States of 4 brigades with mixed NATO Member State contingents. This has forced the Russian military to move to the previously ‘safe’ and undefended Western frontier region near St Petersburg large masses of troops and equipment from the center of their country, east of Moscow. By their public statements, the Russians have made no secret of their intention to act preemptively, as necessary, to wipe out the US bases in Romania and Poland and restore what they see as strategic parity.

Just a couple of weeks ago, on a widely watched Russian state television run political talk show, Duma deputy and leader of the nationalist LDPR party Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that Germans risked utter destruction if they continued on their present track of operating Bundeswehr forces in the Baltics. Zhirinovsky would never make such threats without tacit Kremlin backing.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky explaining that NATO’s current course will result in war

For his part, in a recent press conference, President Vladimir Putin asked rhetorically why Western leaders “don’t get it” – why they are not heeding Russia’s warnings on its determination to protect vital security interests, including by means of preemptive strikes.

In this press conference from June 2016, Putin explains in detail why Russia sees NATO’s behavior as threatening, and why Russia will be forced to react unless NATO changes course.  Strongly recommended!

Indeed, why are we tone deaf when our very survival is at risk?

2.  Why is it that the American political Establishment, of which Hillary Clinton is the standard bearer in this presidential election, does not take the Russians seriously?

Back in the 1960s and 70s, when the bard Tom Lehrer was touring college campuses with his irreverent song devoted to the nuclear Armageddon “We’ll all go together when we go,”  Americans feared and even respected the USSR for what its military arsenal signified.

Our sense that we had “won” the Cold War when the USSR collapsed in 1992 was followed by our witnessing the economic collapse of Russia as it struggled to make a transition from directed to market economy in the 1990s. Meanwhile Russia’s national wealth was siphoned off by newly emerged “oligarchs.” The vast majority of the population was pauperized in that period, as we plainly understood when our religious communities sent assistance packages to the Russian people.

And Russia’s political infrastructure fell apart, replaced by regional satrapies and would- be successor states from among minority nationalities. The net result is that the United States Establishment’s respect for Russia degraded into open mockery. The fact that Russia was led in the 1990s by a confirmed alcoholic with multiple health problems that took him away from his desk for weeks at a time, only contributed to the sense that Russia had become the “Sick Man of Europe” both literally and figuratively.

This image of Russia has persisted in the thinking of our Establishment, when it is not jostled by images of a tin-pot dictator named Vladimir Putin who holds onto power by making frightening poses against foreign powers, in particular, against the United States. For our establishment, Russia remains, as Barack Obama said a couple of years ago, “just a regional power,” “ a bully” in its neighborhood who has to be put in his place, and also a country that produces nothing that anyone wants, to which no one willingly emigrates (all patently false statements). In sharing all of these views, Hillary is no different from the rest of our political Establishment.

It is Donald Trump and his questioning the wisdom of poking the Russian bear in the eye who is the odd man out. What makes Hillary different from her Establishment peers is the opportunity she has had in the Obama administration to act on her beliefs with all the powers of Secretary of State.

We should have given our view of Russian capabilities a serious rethink following their military action in Crimea in March 2014, when they engineered a bloodless takeover of the peninsula notwithstanding the local presence of nearly the same number of Ukrainian armed forces (20,000) as their own. Another jolt back to present reality could have emerged from Russian military action in Syria as from October 2015, which they used as a proving ground for their most up-to-date military gear and troops.

However, the U.S. response, with Hillary as cheerleader, has been to double down, ignore the potential risks of conflict, and continue to drive the Russians to the wall, so as to “negotiate from a position of strength” if indeed we have any intention of negotiating with the Russians at all.

3.  Why do I say that Hillary Clinton is the War Party candidate?

The record of  Hillary Clinton on foreign policy issues has been very well documented in a recent article that appeared in Consortium News, entitled, The Fear Of Hillary’s Foreign Policy, and was republished in Russia Insider. The author, James Carden, is a former State Department employee with concentration in Russia who left the service in the George Bush Jr. years to become a journalist and now is a regular contributor to The Nation.

I will not repeat blow for blow Carden’s chronology of Hillary’s terrible foreign policy baggage, going back to the decisions taken in Bill’s second term that brought us more US military interventions abroad than any other similar period in the country’s history while also setting up the dangerous confrontation with Russia, the New Cold War, that dominates headlines today. As James Carden shows, the baggage carries through to Hillary’s consistent behavior as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, where she was always among the most hawkish, pro-military action voices, working hard to overcome the passive resistance of Obama to anything resembling policy decisions.

Here I will focus on one non-Russian issue, for the sake of simplification and clarification:  Libya.  No, not the Libya of the Benghazi catastrophe and the killing of our US consul. That has been discussed endlessly in our media, but misses the point entirely regarding Hillary’s culpability and why she will be a disastrous president.

The Libyan intervention to remove Colonel Gaddafi had the full support of Hillary within the Administration. She was a cheerleader in this exercise of American global (mis)management and regime change leading to chaos.  It was fully in line with her basic instincts, call it all-American hubris or arrogance.  And the most revealing proof of her unfitness to be Commander in Chief is the now widely publicized video sequence of Hillary, face distorted in glee, celebrating (!) the savage murder of Gaddafi following his being sodomized and grievously wounded:  “we came, we saw, he died.”

It is not for nothing that the Neocon vultures that took control of US foreign and military policy under Bush-Cheney are now avid supporters of Hillary’s candidacy.

As regards Russia, Hillary has been pouring oil on the flames of potential conflict for years now.  She has publicly likened Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, an insult that no one dared to apply to Russian (Soviet) leaders during the 50 years of the Cold War.  That coming from our nation’s senior diplomat virtually closes the door on diplomacy and reason, leaving us with brute force to settle our differences. She has called repeatedly for providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, which, if implemented would put us on a direct collision course with Russia.  She has called for establishing a no-flight zone in Syria well after the Russians introduced their air force assets, including a highly advanced air defense system covering all of Syrian air space/ The result of implementing her recommendations in Syria would be direct armed conflict with the Russian forces in the region if we attempted to enforce an interdiction. And de jure, we  would be in the wrong, because Russian presence has the express support of the Syrian government, whereas ours does not.

Hillary’s public statements on Russia are highly irresponsible and make sense only if we were prepared to launch a war on that country here and now.  I doubt that is the case.  Meanwhile, the asymmetrical structures of political decision making in the USA and Russia, whereby the Russian President can act with full authority far more quickly than his American counterpart, render this kind of US bluffing and posturing extremely dangerous. Russia is not Iraq. Russia is not Libya. The Russian leadership is tough, experienced and…brave.

For reasons of Hillary’s past record of ill-considered adventurism abroad and for reasons of the mad advisers from the Neocon camp whom she has in her inner circle today, it could be a fatal mistake to vote Hillary Clinton on November 8th.  

About Trump’s past record in power, there is not much to say.  About his present promises on foreign policy, one may have doubts.  However, the bad blood between him and the Neocons ensures us that a Trump presidency would finally put them out on the curb, where they belong. And if we step back from our present policies on Russia, Moscow will surely reciprocate and seek accommodation. After all, even as late as 2008 Vladimir Putin harbored hopes of his country joining NATO.

Territorial disputes are a delicate thing… and potentially deadly as well.

That’s why the U.S. is backing up its positions with an ever-increasing presence of warships  in the South China Sea.

China is very touchy about these territories, and unwilling to give up what they perceive as their waters, even as a UN tribunal just denied their claims and strengthened the U.S. hand.

Indeed, the entire situation is combustible and very dangerous.

As James Holbrooks of the Underground Reporter noted:

 In a congressional hearing on Wednesday, former Director of National Intelligence and retired Navy admiral Dennis Blair told the panel that the United States should be prepared to use military force to oppose Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

“I think we need to have some specific lines and then encourage China to compromise on some of its objectives,” Blair, who headed the U.S. Pacific Command while in the Navy, said at the hearing.

The admiral’s recommendation came the day after a United Nations tribunal invalidated China’s claim of territorial rights to nearly all of the waters in the South China Sea.

The U.S., citing the territorial dispute and security concerns raised by its allies in the region, have for months been sending warships into the South China Sea as a check against Chinese hostility.

Beijing, acutely aware of the military buildup off its coast, has publicly warned the U.S. it’s more than ready to defend against provocations. “China hopes disputes can be resolved by talks… but it must be prepared for any military confrontation.”

It seems that the situation is being deliberately stoked into conflict, and that tensions are programmed to reach a boiling over point. If true, there is no indication of where the point of no return would be.

The U.S. has the excuse of protecting its ally, and former territory, the Philippines, and thus has a pretext to play policeman in the region.

But in turn, that is only a thinly-veiled ruse to amplify the military pressure, and let bloated speech and menacing saber-rattling episodes set the tone for ‘diplomacy’ with the Red Dragon.

Now, there is not only an escalation, but an acknowledgement on both sides of the Pacific that things are headed towards war – and it is being openly discussed in those stark terms:

  “If our security is being threatened, of course we have the right to demarcate a zone,” Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said Wednesday at a briefing in Beijing. “We hope that other countries will not take this opportunity to threaten China and work with China to protect the peace and stability of the South China Sea, and not let it become the origin of a war.”

And war, it appears, is becoming increasingly likely by the day — with other countries in Southeast Asia beginning to take sides.

[…]

So, with the U.S. demanding compromise from a China who refuses to bow down — and forcing local powers to choose sides in the process — it seems the stage is being set for a potential military conflict in the South China Sea that could engulf the entire region.

Are we really to expect a looming world war from China, who has played the parts of villain, ally, trade partner and rival all at the same time?

No one can say, but there is plenty of worry that war could really happen. Even billionaire George Soros warned that the potential danger of WWIII breaking out with China was ‘not an exaggeration’:

 The US government has little to gain and much to lose by treating the relationship with China as a zero-sum game. In other words it has little bargaining power. It could, of course, obstruct China’s progress, but that would be very dangerous. President Xi Jinping has taken personal responsibility for the economy and national security. If his market-oriented reforms fail, he may foster some external conflicts to keep the country united and maintain himself in power. This could lead China to align itself with Russia not only financially but also politically and militarily. In that case, should the external conflict escalate into a military confrontation with an ally of the United States such as Japan, it is not an exaggeration to say that we would be on the threshold of a third world war.

And yet, President Obama and numerous other U.S. officials have been deliberately stoking the tension and adding fuel to the fire with provocation in the disputed waters.

As Michael Snyder wrote several months ago:

 Barack Obama sent a guided missile destroyer into disputed waters in the South China Sea to see if the Chinese would start shooting at it. Yes, this is what he actually did. Fortunately for us, the Chinese backed down and did not follow through on their threats to take military action. Instead, the Chinese have chosen to respond with very angry words. The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, says that what Obama did was “a very serious provocation, politically and militarily.” And as you will see below, a state-run newspaper stated that China “is not frightened to fight a war with the US in the region”. So why in the world would Obama provoke the Chinese like this? Yes, the Chinese claims in the South China Sea are questionable. But there are other ways to resolve things like this.

Most Americans assume that an actual shooting war between the United States and China is not even within the realm of possibility, but many of our leaders see things very differently. For instance, just check out what CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell thinks…

The current posturing in the area has led to heightened tensions between the world’s preeminent military powers, and in May Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN that the confrontation indicates there is “absolutely” a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future.

Not long ago, the U.S. also demonstrated ballistic missiles – armed with nuclear warheads – over the coast of California in an apparent demonstration towards China regarding the readiness and seriousness of their clash.

Though it isn’t on the front burner right now amid other sensational headlines, keep an eye to the fact that World War III is slowly being brewed on the back burner. Someday, it could ignite into a full blown nightmare. Stay vigilant. Hope for peace, prepare for war.

In the wake of all of the Brexit vote furore, a chilling blurb made headlines and it went largely unnoticed and uncommented upon.  The line was couched within comments made by Boris Titov, an economic policy maker for Russia’s Kremlin.  Actually all of the following merits attention, but one line stands out.  The source for this excerpt is a Facebook post by Titov.  Here it is:

 “…it seems it has happened — UK out!!!  In my opinion, the most important long-term consequence of all this is that the exit will take Europe away from the anglo-saxons, meaning from the USA. It’s not the independence of Britain from Europe, but the independence of Europe from the USA.  And it’s not long until a united Eurasia — about 10 years.”

This is a very revealing post to show how unfavorably the past 50 years of post-World War II American imperialism has been viewed.  The tipping point, as mentioned in a previous article was the outright 180-degree that George H.W. Bush pulled on Mikhail Gorbachev: the promise of NATO membership upon reunification of the two Germany’s and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and then not fulfilling that promise.

The American corporate interests inserted themselves, as the communist government shattered, leaving in its wake oligarchs, the Russian mafia, and a “Wild West” environment within Russia proper and the ex-SSR’s, the former Soviet satellite nations.  A tremendous amount of chaos occurred for a decade that was both enabled and further fostered by the United States.  The perception in Russia even before the Soviet Union came into being was that Russians were in an economic war with Great Britain, and the United States was looked upon as an “extension” of Britain: a country with language, law, and cultural parallels,especially in terms of expansion.

As of the past several years, the United States has been encroaching upon Russian territory and economic interests.  That encroachment has intensified into a U.S.-created “Cold War Resurrection” stance with the bolstering of NATO forces in the Baltic states.  The U.S. is virtually thumbing its nose at Russia with the distribution of the “anti-ballistic missile systems” emplaced in places such as Moldova.  As Putin pointed out, it takes not even a sneeze and a couple of hours to convert those platforms into use for Tomahawks with nuclear capability.  The Russians did not exercise “en passant” with such an opener, and are placing missiles of their own to face the U.S. assets.

 The U.S. and Russia are fighting one another indirectly.  Two weeks ago we were treated to the U.S. aircraft attempting to throw Russian bombers off of their mark in bombing forces hostile to Assad, and the Russians were blocking our planes from bombing their intended targets as well.  The Russians support Assad’s defense against insurgents that wish to topple his government, and the U.S. supports the “freedom-fighting rebels” determined to overthrow Assad.  Syria, Ukraine, and the entire western border of Russia are the flash points that can be transformed into a conflagration with the tip of a hat.

The true hat tip needs to be given to Eric Blair (or George Orwell, if you prefer): he gauged it right and was completely spot-on We are seeing the novel “1984” solidifying into the actual breakdown into zones of influence – one of them even now being named by Titov.  The three zones: Oceania (to include the United States/North America, and Britain), Eastasia (the Oriental nations), and Eurasia, just as mentioned in Titov’s quote.

The spheres of influence are forming.  Vladimir Putin met with the Chinese Prime Minister last week.  Make no bones about it: the Chinese and Russians have been enemies for a long time.  In this vein, however, both recognize the United States actions and have committed to aid one another militarily if the necessity arose.  The United States (with NAFTA and the Chinese Free-Trade, as well as the aforementioned attempt to turn Russia into a third-world vassal when the USSR dissolved) expected Russia to knuckle under, and China to follow suit for big daddy Warburg’s New World Order waltz.

The music didn’t play in that manner, however, because strong cultural ties and nationalism cannot be eradicated as quickly as they wished.  Brexit is a clear proof of this.

It seems to have become one of the most popular ways of ridiculing somebody’s argument or position, calling into question someone’s sanity or even somebody’s right to their very own existence in recent years are “You’re a conspiracy theorist!”, “That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me!”  We hear such accusations let fly in TV and radio debates all too often as soon as anyone begins to question a perceived, generally excepted “truth”.  The accuser always seems supremely confident that this accusation is enough to immediately put the accused beyond the pale of all human reason and that all participants and viewers of the debate should be expecting men in white coats to arrive at any moment and the accused to be led away in the interests of all for “corrective treatment”.

The definition of conspiracy of the on-line dictionaries insists on the “evil, harmful, bad” side of things.  In other words; in the English language, it is impossible to conspire to do good.  This is one of the reasons why the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist remains an effective put down as it implies that the accused believes that their government, company bosses and colleagues, military or police commanders, friends and acquaintances or even members of their own family and partaking in secret, evil deeds and plots for harmful ends which have happened or are going to happen and hence at best implies lack of good faith and paranoia and at worst, extreme negativity, treachery; being a fifth columnist.  All labels with which most of us would wish not to be tarnished.

Here however are some alternative definitions of “conspiracy theorist”:

  • someone who has seen through the bullshit (David Icke);
  • someone who questions the statement of known liars (unknown).

It is clearly not possible to see these definitions as morally negative unless we are creators of bullshit or known liars.

Could it be that the time has come for a reappraisal of the definition of the word conspiracy ecause the following is palpably undeniable.  Every development in politics and affairs of state, every war, every campaign within a war, every attack and counter attack, every putsch, every terrorist act, every revolution and even every democratic election manifesto and campaign, every new bill passed, every budget or construction project proposed on a national or local level ad infinitum, throughout human history has been born of human planning, plotting or conspiracy depending upon which side we were or are on or how you view the proposals!  Effected to a lesser or greater extent by chance undoubtedly and maybe borne on a current of destiny as well!  The latter I will not discuss further here.  Not because I dismiss it. Heaven forbid.  Simply it is not important for the points I want to make.  One of the most important of which is this, in short: our history is littered with and shaped from, not conspiracy theories but conspiracy facts!  One of the earliest and most famous that springs to mind is that of The Trojan Horse.   A very cunning plot by the Greeks which broke the stalemate of the long siege of Troy and enabled them to conquer and ransack the city but by the current English definition, a conspiracy only from the point of view of the Trojans as for them it was “bad and harmful” but not for the Greeks.  But who amongst us now really sees one side or the other as the “evil” one?  So was it a conspiracy or not?

A Nazi soldier gets ready to murder two Soviet Slavic women during Operation Barbarossa, summer 1941. This incident probably took place in the Ukraine or Belarus.

A Nazi soldier gets ready to murder two Soviet Slavic women during Operation Barbarossa, summer 1941. This incident probably took place in the Ukraine or Belarus.

There are times in history, usually more recent history, (examine and discuss) when there seems to have clearly been a good and evil side.  One such example I would posit is Operation Barbarossa.  Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union!  While this was of course a life saving event for Great Britain, even the most diehard anti communist must surely see that the invasion of Nazi forces into the USSR was unequivocally bad and harmful for the peoples of that empire as it promised no liberation at all;  only abject slavery or total oblivion whatever their position in Soviet society. It was clearly planned or plotted in advance but according to the English language, it was only a conspiracy from the point of view of the peoples of the USSR and the Soviet government, not from the point of view of Nazi Germany and her allies as they perceived that attack as beneficial to them at the time which, of course, is why they contrived and went ahead with it.

What about Operation Overlord- The Normandy landings or D-Day?  This massive military undertaking was literally years in the planning or plotting.  Was it a conspiracy?  According to the current English definition, only for the rulers of Nazi Germany as it can be argued that it was actually beneficial even for most Germans not actively involved in the Nazi hierarchy as it lead to their liberation as well as to that of the other nations of western Europe.  In spite of this, the German army fought like tigers on the western front to the bitter end but I digress.  I will however be returning to the D Day landings a little later for reasons that will become clear.

Surely therefore, it is obviously undeniable that the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist is in fact totally subjective and because of that, totally spurious from an objective, truth seeking point of view concerning any, as yet, unsolved or disputed events in human history or actuality and hence it follows that those using this accusation to discredit the ideas or theories of others have an agenda for doing so.  This agenda maybe conscious or subconscious but it is always there.

The purpose of this article is neither to prove or disprove any famous conspiracy theories and, although I, like anybody else, have my own ideas and suspicions, I am not putting them forward here.   What I am putting forward here is the fact that if you hear someone publicly dismissing somebody else’s ideas as conspiracy theories and especially if the “dismisser” is a western journalist, government spokesperson or a politician they are trying to prevent you thinking about something by ridiculing you into not delving further..  The unconscious agenda of such accusers I mentioned earlier is the cognitive dissonance caused when presented with information that contradicts long held and emotionally charged beliefs. The conscious agenda is of course blatant lying in order to cover up the truth.

Kasparov

Let us look at a concrete example.  In Toronto Canada there is a high profile televised political discussion called the Munk Debate. Here is the link to the particular episode I’m going to concentrate on.

The motion proposed on this occasion was “Be it resolved, The West should engage, not isolate Russia”.  As you can see this motion assumes that Russia is somehow wrong and the only question is how best to deal with Russia’s wrongness.  Given this obvious slant from the beginning the pro team of Vladimir Pozner and Stephen F. Cohen did a reasonable job but were unable to fend off the barrage of 100% truth inversions (all of which conforming to the strictly controlled and censored Canadian mass media slant) from the rabid, foaming at the mouth, jumping up & down, Jihadi anti- Putin and Russia team of Anne Applebaum and Garry Kasparov.  At around the 16th minute Applebaum starts to speak about the Kremlin’s “massive” investment in their multi-language media “disinformation machine” including RT television.  At around 17.12 minutes in this recording she then states that “When Malaysian airliner MH17 was shot down by a “Russian missile” over Ukraine this media machine immediately came up with all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories such as planes taking off already full of dead people” and explains that this is done deliberately by Russia and only by Russia  in order to cloud people’s minds until “they” don’t know what to think any more.  Well!  Sure!  Planes taking off full of dead people does sound pretty crazy doesn’t it.  I couldn’t believe my ears when I first heard that one actually but let’s look more closely at what she said before coming back to that.  How many conspiracy theories does she mention?  One?  Well, I count three and a half.  The above mentioned plus two and a half  more.  The statement that Russian media is disinformation is also a conspiracy theory as is the position that they alone came up with all these conspiracy theories.  Many of them are proposed and published  by westerners.  The accusation that MH17 was shot down by a Russian missile is also a conspiracy theory as well as propaganda because all weapons at that time on both sides were either Russian made or Soviet made.  Who is using them, how and why is the pertinent question which the western media always seeks to obfuscate. And yes, well, okay, true. I admit that the last sentence I’ve just written is another conspiracy theory at least for some of you.  Are you beginning to see how deep the rabbit hole goes and how ridiculous the allegation of conspiracy theorist is under any circumstances?

Fact.  The “official” version of 9/11 is every bit as much a conspiracy theory as all the others!

Especially as it has proved impossible to prove over the years and seems indeed, ever easier to disprove.  When governments and the mainstream media tell us a version of events after a terrorist act or invasion or murder etc they then accuse anybody who voices doubts or proposes another version of events of being conspiracy theorists but the governments and main stream media are themselves conspiracy theorists until, I repeat, there emerges incontrovertible proof and evidence to confirm one of the conspiracy theories as the conspiracy fact.

BsxtOCMCEAAWqK6

Back to Applebaum’s “planes taking off full of dead people”. When I first heard that one I was literally seething at the sheer stupidity of such an insane theory being voiced almost immediately after the disaster.  At the time I was still only just emerging from an umbilically wet, comforting “womb warmth” world where our western governments were working for our best interests but were just rather incompetent at doing it.   In the immediate aftermath of that tragedy I reluctantly assumed that the self defense forces had mistaken it for a US backed Kiev bomber or that a guided missile had locked on to the airliner by error or evil destiny.  After all at the time, they were being attacked by the air-force of the US installed Kiev government everyday and, in spite of having no aircraft themselves had been increasingly successful in downing their attackers.  Then came the immediate barrage of western press headlines.   From Britain for example: The Sun:  PUTIN’S MISSILE  and PUTIN’S LOOTERS ROB BRIT VICTIM  The Daily Mail:  PUTIN’S KILLED MY SON    The Daily Mirror:  PUTIN’S VICTIMS to name but a few.   US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the US had proof of exactly what kind of missile was used and where it was fired from.  He stated, as reported by The Guardian, that “all the evidence surrounding the downed Malaysian airlines flight MH17 points towards pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine being to blame.”    Well.  All those newspaper headlines are simply conspiracy theories and as it turns out, more insane than the dead-bodies-taking-off idea.  While Kerry’s accusations could have seemed feasible at the time, the fact that not one jot of “all that evidence” has been made public twenty two months later reduces his words to a conspiracy theory too.  The headlines are totally insane because of the lack of motive.  The fact is, after taking into account the ill fated crew and passengers of MH17 and their families, loved ones and friends there is simply not one human being on earth out of all seven billion of us who had less motive to get involved in shooting down a passenger plane anywhere in the world, let alone over Eastern Ukraine than Russian president Vladimir Putin and his government followed by The Donetsk Republic’s armed forces who were and are fighting at home, on their own land for their very existence.  In the shock of the immediate aftermath, European governments some of whom had been resisting US pressure to impose sanctions on Russia as punishment for having saved Crimea, at the behest of Crimeans, from invasion by ultra racist Ukrainian US backed rebels bent on their eradication one way or another, caved in and sanctions were imposed.  Anyone placing themselves in the position of detective would see straight away, that the new Ukrainian government had massive motive for and massive profit to gain from MH17’s downing if it could be pinned on Russia, followed by those governments who had plotted and helped the coup in Kiev -the US, UK, Dutch, Polish, Swedish and EU baron’s to name the main players.  That in itself is of course not proof that they were complicit but it would be one of the areas where any real investigation would concentrate a lot of effort and inquiry.

 

applebaum

 

 

 

 

 

In the Munk Debate, broadcast on the 11th April 2015, more than eight months after the tragedy, Applebaum is careful to avoid pointing the blame specifically at Putin personally while using language that generally insinuates instead.  Could it just be that legal advice has something to do with that.  Another video, which judging by its title indicates that she “apparently” knew all the details of what happened, seems to have disappeared completely from the net:    “Anne Applebaum: MH17 attack | what happened. How it happened and who was responsible.”  If anybody saw it or has a transcript it would be great to know what she actually said here.

Meanwhile as more and more theories as to how this tragedy occurred were coming forth , spurred on by the lack of any evidence being made public, including the content of the black boxes, some aspects of the plane full of already dead people theory were beginning to seem, well, just slightly less insane.  On March 8th 2014 Malaysian airlines flight MH370 disappeared on route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.  It’s fate remains a mystery to this day.   Such a story is the very oxygen of conspiracy theorists, some well intentioned and some undoubtedly less so and the internet and You Tube is not lacking in explanations.  Many posit the idea that the plane was hi-jacked to the closed US military island base of Diago Garcia and many, made and published before the downing of MH17 and all those I saw, none of which were made by Russians or the Russian media, predict that this missing plane would turn up being used in a future false flag event.  After the downing of MH17, it didn’t take long for the idea to gain circulation that it was in fact the missing MH370 and that it had been transported to Donbass and blown up on the ground maybe with the preserved bodies of the ill fated passengers of MH370 inside or that it had even taken off from Amsterdam with the bodies inside etc!  Well dear reader, maybe you, like me find all these theories pretty far fetched if not ridiculous or maybe in very bad taste.  The fact however is that neither you nor I can absolutely rule them out no matter how far fetched they seem because there is a small window of possibility.  The US and her allies have the means to pull off such an operation and the motive.  We would do well to remember the film of an explosion on the horizon that was broadcast by all the world’s mainstream media, including Russian, as the explosion of MH17 hitting the ground.  As many quickly pointed out, a plane, still over half full of fuel, blown up at high altitude by a ground to air or air to air missile would have left smoke trails in the sky as it fell.  That seems beyond all scientific doubt but absolutely no traces in the sky appear in that video so that would seem to suggest that either it does not show the impact of MH17 but something else (more likely in my opinion) or, well yes, the plane was in fact blown up on the ground. There has also been a historical precedent for such an idea albeit on a much smaller scale physically but, nonetheless of great historical significance.

Operation Mincemeat which was made famous as a book and a film called The Man Who Never Was.  This was a plan executed in April 1943 to fool the Germans into thinking that the allied invasion of Sicily would in fact happen in Greece.  A dead body was procured, dressed up in a British officer’s uniform, given a false identity and a briefcase chained to his wrist containing “top secret” documents about the allied invasion of Greece not Sicily.  The dead body was made to look like the victim of a plane crash of the coast of nominally neutral but in fact pro German Spain.  In reality however his body was delivered to the area by a submarine.    The plan worked so well that when the actual allied invasion of Sicily began the German’s thought it was just a diversion and didn’t respond having transferred the majority of their forces to Greece.  When, the following year, just after the D Day landings, the Nazis found genuine top secret plans in an abandoned landing craft, they refused to believe them being sure it was another such ruse as operation Mincemeat.  Here’s a link (now promise not to laugh) to a Daily Mail article on the whole subject.  It does just suggest that the idea of already dead bodies in planes might have a certain feasibility after all which is something Anne Applebaum, among many others, doesn’t want you to think about.

I repeat that I am not supporting or debunking any conspiracy theories here.  I cannot prove, or disprove just as you cannot prove or disprove any of the above mentioned theories or, for example, that Aliens exist or that they don’t exist therefore we cannot dismiss or confirm one hundred percent those theories involving aliens either.  It really is that simple.

26_02

As for the conscious or unconscious agendas I talked about earlier, I would, in spite of his virulence, put Garry Kasparov in the unconscious camp.  He so often loses control of his emotions and his discourse which is clearly out of all reality.  I wonder if he has ever asked himself why he thinks and feels that which he does, I very much doubt it.  Berezovsky was someone with a very similar mind set in my opinion.  Anne Applebaum on the other hand seems to be squarely in the conscious camp.  In other words, she is deliberately lying in order to, not distort the truth but totally reverse it in true Orwellian style.  I don’t claim to know exactly what her motive is.  Due to the fact that her husband was the Polish foreign secretary (he was one of the EU politicians who brokered and signed the ill fated deal with the Yanukovych government in Kiev that didn’t even last twenty four hours), her finances had to be made public and, as many pointed out, she benefited from a huge spike in earnings as soon as the Ukrainian crisis began in 2013 followed by an ongoing scandal concerning the disclosure of their earnings in subsequent years but I find it hard to believe somehow that her motive is solely financial.  Maybe simply anti-Russian racism and/or a commitment, ideological and self interested, to financial world takeover of the US, western debt based fractional reserve banking system.  Whatever the reason is, it has to be admitted that she is a very effective propagandist who’s discourse remains coherent, controlled, pointed but utterly premeditated and false.  In fact her tirade in the Munk Debate against Russia since Putin became president is in reality one of the most concise and accurate descriptions of today’s USA and also post putsch Ukraine that I’ve ever heard.  Her total insistence that the western media is truthful and objective is also a 100% truth inversion.   Russian media has become infinitely more truthful and objective than its western counterpart which has descended into out and out double speak.   I have never seen or heard her lose her temper or be overtaken by emotions of any kind.  It must be said however that I’ve never seen her in debate against someone who actually takes her apart as it would be eminently possible to do.  That, of course, is anything but coincidence.

“Truth is by nature self-evident. 
As soon as you remove the cobwebs
of ignorance that surround it,
it shines clear”  – Mahatma Gandhi.

 As many of us have already noticed it is not a comfortable experience when our emotionally charged, often, long held beliefs are challenged by adverse, contradictory information which we are unable to ignore.  It takes the kind of courage not given to all to accept and analyse the cognitive dissonance that comes in such situations and to ask why it is happening and many people, including plenty that I know personally, simply refuse to believe anything that contradicts the, invariably “cozy” world  which they have allowed to be constructed for themselves.  Such people often become defensive and sometimes down right aggressive when pressed.  This is because they can’t ignore the information, only smother it or block it from their conscious mind.  The reason that some information is impossible to ignore is a very important phenomenon as basically this means that it is fundamental truth or at the very least the grain of truth that can lead us out of the pit of lies.   If, for example, somebody tells you or I that the Earth is flat, we are not going to feel any surge of panic or cognitive dissonance of any kind for obvious reasons but try telling an American who comes from a staunch, traditionally Democrat family and has a deeply entrenched – indoctrinated belief that the Democrats are “the good guys”, the ones who care about other people and the poor at home and abroad and are anti-war etc, that, in fact, Obama and Clinton are among the most dangerous warmongers in history, responsible for illegal invasions and that they are just puppets of the military, industrial complex, Wall Street and “some people” called the Illuminati and sparks will certainly fly.   There is an excellent video on-line called “Confronting Cognitive Dissonance – The Eyeopener”:

At 5.11 an American lady begins to describe her physical reaction when she understood that she was receiving very uncomfortable information about 9-11 which, much as she wanted to, she just could not ignore.  Her reaction is courageous and very moving and anyone who dismisses her as a conspiracy theorist can only be mal-intentioned or seized by cognitive dissonance themselves.  It is our intuition or as some like to say “our gut”; in truth, our connection to universal intelligence, that tells us whether such information is real or not.  This is the same phenomenon as the moment of inspiration that artists and scientists have when a new scientific understanding or invention, poem, novel, song, symphony is born.  First the moment of inspiration and insight; then starts the hard work of creation, building, experiment, investigation, trial and error and bringing forth.  Every single human being is connected to universal intelligence, not just an elite few, but intuition, just like any other human faculty, becomes stronger the more we use it.  The vital fact here is that we all know the truth when we here or see it whether we like it or not.  Again, “Truth is by nature self-evident.  As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear”.

We live in a time of massive change where the world seems to have been turned upside down at such lightning speed that many of us feel that we can’t keep up which is of course disturbing.  I use words like “seems” and “feels” because this is an illusion.  In fact this situation has been growing for a long time.  Centuries in fact and some would say millennia.  This particular moment in history started, was started (examine & discuss) at the beginning of the 1990s.  I would liken it to a wave that as it comes in slowly to shore, grows and swells inexorably until it finally crashes leaving that which was on the top, on the bottom.  That which seemed democratic and free, undemocratic and tyrannical, that which seemed to be built on solid foundations, built on quicksand, that which seemed good, evil and vice versa.  Above all, there are no ideologies left although for those with the aforementioned long held emotional attachment to this or that ideology = products of Man’s ego, this is pretty hard to accept.  What’s left on the shore as the wave recedes is simply right or wrong, good or evil, truth or falsehood.   In fact a world of fundamental polar opposites.  Many.  Especially in the western world lulled by the media bubble of unreality are seemingly, on the surface, unaware of these massive shifts.   My own awakening only came with the Ukrainian crisis as I have already documented in “NATO Through the Looking Glass”.  I now live in a totally different world and it is much more frightening than the one I was living in up to three years ago but I’m getting used to it and in no way want to return to unconsciousness.  I now question everything and am exercising my intuition and faith, in the true sense of the word, every day.  What this reveals is infinitely more terrifying than the cozy “womb warmth” I used to live in but the payback is that things line up and actually make sense and I feel much healthier for it.  The many layered onion skins that were enveloping my perception are falling away one after another and I’m very aware that this process is very far from over but the idea of crawling back into my former mind set is impossible for me.  It would be akin to committing suicide.  I’m also very aware that, thank God, I am very far from being the only one undergoing this process.

Of course, like so many others during these times, I’ve got used to being called a conspiracy theorist which is probably why I was moved to write this article. I am proud to be in the camp  inhabited and moved by people such as the lady in the “Confronting Cognitive Dissonance” video who states that she felt physically sick when she understood that her government, which she had more or less trusted up until that moment might have been behind 9-11. Such people are searching for truth and discovering themselves.  The other kind of conspiracy theorists are those who invent or propagate conspiracy theories for money and power and, or because they want to convince us that their particular prejudice is the one and only true prejudice whoever it be directed against.  “It’s all the fault of the people I’ve learned to hate and you must agree with me.”  Perennially popular targets remain: The blacks, the Jews, Monarchs, business people, immigrants and Russians to name but a few and these conspiracy theorists are of course the 100% polar opposite of the former.  One looking for the truth and the other, deliberately trying to destroy it. The American Lady reluctantly facing up to her realization that the official government conspiracy theory about 9-11 doesn’t hold water and the fear of looking into what seems to be at first glance, the darkness of the abyss or:   Anne Applebaum’s constantly and professionally reiterated conspiracy theories about Putin being a tyrannical dictator and mafiosi obsessed with world domination who has to be stopped by the “free, democratic” West before he, followed by his “brainwashed” millions in Russia will march in “good old” WWII style to enslave us all.  I leave you to contemplate these two examples.  These two absolute, polar opposites.  The seeker for truth and the bald faced liar for gain!

 

Having been forced to remove herself from the Hillary Clinton email probe, Loretta Lynch admitted that her shockingly ill-advised private meeting with Bill Clinton has “cast a shadow” over the investigations and questions on the meeting are “fair.” Her magnanimity was further expressed “I wouldn’t do it again,” while claiming that she had made the decision to ‘recuse’ herself days before her Bubba meeting.

Highlights – “No Comment” on the system being rigged…

The headlines of what she said:

  • *LYNCH ON BILL CLINTON SAYS QUESTIONS ON CLINTON MEETING FAIR
  • *LYNCH SAYS HER BILL CLINTON MTG RAISED QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
  • *LYNCH SAYS HILLARY CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION INDEPENDENT
  • *LYNCH SAYS `FULLY EXPECT’ TO ACCEPT INVESTIGATOR RECOMMENDATION
  • *LYNCH SAYS SHE’LL BE BRIEFED, `WILL BE’ ACCEPTING FINDINGS
  • *LYNCH SAYS DECISION ON HANDLING CLINTON PROBE MADE BEFORE MTG
  • *LYNCH SAYS SHE, BILL CLINTON TALKED GRANDKIDS, TRAVEL ON PLANE
  • *LYNCH SAYS MEETING `CAST A SHADOW’ OVER PROBE OF CLINTON E-MAIL

 As we detailed earlier, on Monday evening US Attorney General Loretta Lynch conveniently just happened to meet up with Bill Clinton for a private meeting on her plane on a Phoenix airport tarmac.

Despite Lynch promising everyone that the only things that were discussed were Bill’s golf game and grandchildren, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch requested that the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General investigate the meeting. As  As The Hill reports, pressure is intensifying on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to hand off oversight of the federal investigation connected to Hillary Clinton’s private email server…

 Calls for Lynch to step aside — which had already been simmering for months — appeared primed to boil over Thursday following the attorney general’s unscheduled, private meeting with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“Considering the ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, this secret meeting between the Attorney General and Bill Clinton shows an astounding lack of judgment by Loretta Lynch,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a statement on Thursday calling for Lynch to recuse herself.

“Given the culture of unaccountability in the Obama Administration, it is unlikely that Attorney General Lynch will heed the growing calls for her resignation,” he said. “But at a minimum, Lynch should immediately recuse herself from the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unlawful activities, and appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case, so the American people can know the truth about this secret meeting and finally rest assured the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is being conducted fully and impartially, without even the appearance of corruption.”

And, now, as AP reports, a Justice Department official said that Loretta Lynch intends to accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and federal agents make in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

 “The Attorney General expects to receive and accept the determinations and findings of the Department’s career prosecutors and investigators, as well as the FBI Director,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing probe.

Lynch was expected to discuss the matter further at a summit Friday in Aspen, Colorado.

This revelation comes amid a controversy surrounding an impromptu private discussion that Lynch had aboard her plane on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport on Monday with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. That get-together has been criticized as inappropriate by Republicans and some Democrats at a time when the Justice Department has been investigating whether classified information was mishandled through Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Lynch told reporters that she did and Bill Clinton did not discuss the email investigation during the encounter.

The announcement also appeared intended to assuage concerns, particularly among Republicans, that Lynch — a Democratic appointee — might overrule recommendations from the agents and prosecutors who have worked on the case. Disputes on charging decisions between the FBI and the Justice Department are not uncommon, particularly in national security cases, though many legal experts see any criminal prosecution in this matter as exceedingly unlikely.

Decisions on whether to charge anyone in the case will be made by “career prosecutors and investigators who have been handling this matter since its inception” and reviewed by senior lawyers at the department and the FBI director, and Lynch will then accept whatever recommendation comes, the official said.

* * *

So by releasing this statement does that mean that Lynch routinely overrides other case recommendations from the FBI and DOJ staff? Also, based on the fact that the FBI may very well leak the facts of the case if the DOJ doesn’t follow its recommendation, we will be able to learn whether or not Lynch is telling the truth. We won’t hold our breath.

“I did not have email-probe-relations with that man”